The oxford conference of non-aligned peace organizations
THE OXFORD CONFERENCE OF NON-ALIGNED PEACE ORGANIZATIONS
A Report by Donald Keys and Homer A. Jack (*)
(* Staff members of the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy. Both were delegates to the Oxford Conference and Mr. Jack was chairman of the American delegation.)
ABSTRACT: Between the 4th and the 7th of January 1963, a “conference of nonaligned organizations for disarmament” took place in Oxford (UK) in the premises offered by the University’s Somerville College. The conference was summoned by the “European Federation against Nuclear Arms” and was organized mostly by the British “Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament” (CND). The objective of the meeting was that of trying to seek an organizational solution enabling to tighten contacts and relations (also in operative terms) between the organizations of the various Western countries which struggled, at the time, against nuclear armament and more generally for peace. These organizations were extremely widespread and strong, especially in the Anglo Saxon area, but not only; in the socialist countries, the more or less official organizations which boosted and supported the World Council for Peace and the campaigns of the Partisans of Peace, both of communist profession, were also very active. In July 1962, the world congress
for peace and disarmament took place, which was characterized by a tense confrontation between Western and Eastern delegations, and which the Russian Premier Krushev addressed an appeal to. Obviously, only delegations of Western countries took part in the Oxford Conference, the most important of which was the U.S. one. Among the various delegations there was the Italian one, which was the expression of the “Conference of Peace”, presided at the time by Aldo Capitini: its members were Andrea Gaggero (Lenin Prize for Peace), Marco Pannella, Giuliano Rendi, etc. The following document, in the original English version, is a “detailed report of two participants, “staff members” of the SANE.
The document is divided into paragraphs and appendices: 1 - Historical foreword, 2 - Guests and delegations, 3 - The U.S. delegation, 4 - Proceedings, 5 - A new organization, 6 - Initiative proposal, 7 - The permanent committee, 8 - Organization of the Confederation, 8 - Developments of the Confederation, 9 - Observers of the World Peace Council, 10 - Implications and problems of the Oxford Conference. Appendices and documents, namely the Conference’s introductory Report, by Homer A. Jacl, secretary of the SANE (USA) and the motion introduced by the Italian delegation and accepted as minority document.
NOTE: The Oxford Conference was instrumental in the constitution, on an international basis, of an organizational “network”, but also served also as a theoretical harmonization of the controversial subject of pacifism. The word had become dangerously polluted and discredited, as a consequence of fears that it could be monopolized and misused by pro-Soviet pacifism, which was widely supported and financed to obtain maximum reduction of the U.S. and Western military (and nuclear) pressure on the U.S.S.R. and on its allies. Thanks to the Conference and to the initiatives taken, in particular by the English-speaking groups, a non-neutralist and independent pacifism was able to develop in the West, radical-oriented albeit spoiled by the antinuclear prejudice. At any rate, after the Conference, several far-reaching initiatives flourished throughout the world and especially in the United States and in Great Britain, and obtained noticeable results. In Italy, the support of the Western organizations strengthened, in
the Italian Peace Conference, the importance of non pro-Soviet factions. It is worth recalling the contribution of the radicals, who developed and important theory on the subject of “unilateral disarmament”, “nonviolence”, etc, which, while boosting the dialogue-confrontation with the Partisans of Peace, maintained the clear differences and oppositions with the latter, linking “pacifism” to an original political and cultural line (A.B.).
For many years the peace movement has been international. On a non-governmental level, there have been both international meetings of representatives from national peace and disarmament organization and international confrontations between the two sides in the cold war.
The international meeting have generally been for delegates of one common approach: United Nation associations, world government advocates, pacifists, etc. When the Communists established the World Council of Peace, the latter sponsored a succession of world congresses culminating in the Moscow Congress on Peace and Disarmament in July, 1962.
The East-West meetings have included those of scientists (the Pugwash series), those of american and Russian intellectuals (at Dartmouth, the Crimes, and Andover), and those of parliamentarians (the East-West Roundtables). Another in this series of East-West confrontations was the London Conference on Disarmament in September, 1961. Finally, the Accra Assembly held in Ghana in June, 1962, brought together representatives primarily from non-aligned organizations.
In January, 1963, the Oxford Conference was convened for representatives from non-aligned or independent peace and disarmament organizations. This led to the creation of the International Confederation for Disarmament and Peace.
Thls memorandum is a detailed report of the Oxford Conference and of the preliminary plans for the International Confederation. This is one of a series of memoranda written by staff members of the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy on various aspects of the international peace movement.
January 30, 1963
International Conference Memoranda Published by National SANE
1. The Moscow Congress. 29 pp. 1962. 25¢ postpaid.
2. The Accra Assembly. 8 pp. 1962. 25¢ postpaid.
3. The Oxford Conference. 18 pp. 1963. 25¢ postpaid.
4. The Seventh East-West Roundtable. 1963. 25¢ postpaid.
The origins of the Oxford Conference lay partly in the frustrations of observers and delegates from peace and disarmament organizations in the West and non-aligned world at the brief and often unsatisfactory encounters at world conferences since 1950. Even if some of these conferences have not been ideologically slanted, they have been too brief to establish meaningful and continuous liaison amongst national peace movements. At the London Conference on Disarmament in September, 1961, some delegates from the West met informally to discuss the possibility of forming a modest organization of non-aligned peace groups. Further informal meetings were held during the Accra Assembly in Ghana in June, 1962, and at the Moscow Congress in July, 1962.
As a result of these discussions, the European Federation Against Nuclear Arms agreed to convene a conference of non-aligned peace and disarmament organizations. It was set for Somerville College, Oxford, from January 4-7, 1963. Much of the work in preparing the conference was done by the British affiliate of the European Federation, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). The Federation indicated that the following topics would be considered: relationship between pacifists and non-pacifists and between anti-nuclear and general pacifist organizations; exchange of ideas, literature, and propaganda; coordination of activities; common or coordinated representation at world conferences, U.N., etc.; the stimulation of new independent organizations concerned with disarmament in countries where at present they do not exist; the promotion of international conferences aiming at the reduction of tensions between East and West and at agreements on disarmament and a test ban treaty; and the structure and framework r
equired for international cooperation and coordination.
A broad spectrum of peace and disarmament organizations were invited - all national and international peace organizations which had a record of independent activity. In the end, some 75 persons representing five internationnl organizations and 35 national organizations attended. They came from 18 nations in five continents. Among the well-known participants were Sean MacBride, former foreign minister of Ireland; Anthony Greenwood, a British Member of Parliament; Claude Bourdet, a Paris journalist; Canon L. John Collins of St. Paul’s Cathedral; Ritchie Calder, a British scientist; and Andrea Gaggero of Italy, a winner of the Lenin Peace Prize. A list of the delegates is given in Appendix I.
The U.S. Delegation
The International Liaison Committee of Turn Toward Peace was asked to assemble an American delegation of at least seven persons. This number was later expanded. The Committee met several times in the autumn of 1962 to obtain a balanced delegation. Several organizations declined to send observers, including the A.A.U.N. and U.W.F. The Council for Abolishing War agreed to be represented, but at the last moment its delegate was not able to attend. The Women Strike for Peace was invited to send representation. On the eve of the Conference, the American delegation consisted of representatives from the American Friends Service Committee, War Resisters League, Fellowship of Reconciliation, Committee for Non-Violent Action, Student Peace Union, Turn Toward Peace, and the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy. At a meetlng in New York, Homer A. Jack was elected chairman of the American delegation and Robert Gilmore secretary.
In London it appeared that the European Federation separately had invited Dr. and Mrs. Linus Pauling to be delegates to the Conference; Dr. Pauling representing the Society for the Social Responsibility of Science and Mrs. Pauling the Los Angeles Women Strike for peace. Ruth Gage Colby also appeared representing the Women Strike for Peace.
The American delegation held numerous caucuses during the Conference, sometimes together with the Canadian delegation.
The Work of the Conference
The Conference was held over a four-day weekend at Somerville College, Oxford. It was a working conference, with long sessions devoted to defining the role of the possible new organization and its structure.
The Conference itself was broken into several committees: coordination of activities (chaired by F. C. Hunnius), coordinated representation (chaired by Sean MacBride); stimulation of new independent organizations (chaired by Frank Boaten); promotion of international conferences aiming at reduction of East-West tensions (chaired by Homer A. Jack); exchange of ideas and literature (chaired by Robert Gilmore). In addition, there were three special committees on structure (chaired by F. C. Hunnius); the meaning of non-alignment (chaired by Robert Gilmore), and the aims and principles of the new organization (chaired by Heinrich Ruchbinder).
All of the committee chairmen constituted the Conference Steering Committee. This met at least once a day under the chairmanship of Ritchie Calder.
A New Organization
During group discussions at Oxford, and before and throughout the Conference, there was much soul-searching and public debate about the wisdom and function of a new international federation. This discussion inevitably touched on the function of the WCP (*) and the meaning of a non-aliganed peace organization - even in an aligned country.
There was hesitation in creating another organization if it would merely be an antidote to the WCP - as the two aligned world labor movements are antidotes to each other. Yet it was emphasized that while the WCP is aligned (to Moscow), the new organization would not be aligned to the West, but would be truly non-aligned.
Thus there was a continuing discussion of what non-alignment or independence meant for a national or international peace organization. One committee made this statement: “The Confederation is an association of peace organizations to provide an international instrument for consultations and common action. While retaining full autonomy to further their specific and varied objectives, the organizations are agreed on the following minimum conditions of membership: Member organizations of the Confederation should work for general and complete disarmement of all nations and for non-military solutions of all conflicts. As a first step, they should actively and consistently oppose the manufacture, testing, stock-piling, and use of nuclear weapons by all countries. They should actively oppose all nuclear bases including the use of their own territory for this purpose. They should also oppose their country’s membership in any nuclear alliances”.
This statement was approved by one committee, widely discussed, but was modified in another committee and appeared in another form.
Further efforts were made to delineate the scope of the organization and thus the kind of national or international organizations which would be eligible for membership. One test repeatedly advocated was that the organization show evidence that over a period of time it has criticized its government as well as commended its government on foreign policy issues. Another test was program. A minimum program was suggested which all affiliated groups should advocate. After the list was drawn up, it was realized that some potential affiliated organizations would have more minimal purposes than even those given in the minimum list. In the end, the report of the commission on aims and purposes was approved. This was slightly amended by the Continuing Committee and is found in Appendix V. This may be the statement to be used as the basis of organizational membership.
It has been asked if the WCP will join the new Confederation. It is unlikely that it will want to apply and it is hard to understand how it would presently qualify. However, it should not be excluded that the affiliates of the WCP may apply and be admitted. The Yugoslav League for Peace, Independence, and Equality attended the Oxford Conference and its representatives played a prominent part in its business. The Yugoslav League has in recent years had observer status with the WCP. It is conceivable that, within the next few years, such WCP affiliates as the British Peace Committee or even the Polish Peace Committee might qualify for membership in the International Confederation on the basis of its present aims and purposes. Certainly, the door is not permanently closed.
(*) World Council of Peace
A number of subcommittees met during the conference to consider the limits and fields of activity of the Confederation.
a. “Exchange of Ideas and Literature”: It was agreed that the Confederation should not attempt to set up a major international journal in its first year, but should develop a centrally-edited bulletin directed especially to leaders of peace organizations and editors of peace publications. The journal will contain information on existing peace newspapers and periodicals, lists of peace organizations and the services they perform, resumes of important articles appearing in other publications, listings of major peace action projects, an “information wanted” section, and information about the decisions and activities of the Confederation.
b. “Coordination of Activities”: The major role envisioned for the Confederation secretariat with regard to activities is to serve as a clearing house for information of the activities of the constituent organizations, wich will decide for themselves whether or not they wish to organize a similar activity. Secondarily, the secretariat or committees estabilished by it may at a later date undertake to propose activities to the member organizations, some of which might be internationally coordinated, such as Easter Marches, travelling exhibitions, crisis actions, etc. Easter Marches received individual treatment in a special group devoted to that purpose. No final actions were taken by the Conference on coordination of Easter marches, but suggestions such as border meetings of peace marchers, exchange of marchers between countries, exchange of speakers, joint agreement on banners and themes were eagerly discussed.
c. “Representation at the U.N. and International Conferences”: The possibilities of common or coordinated representation at world conferences at the U.N., and at the disarmament conferences in Geneva were explored. Stress was put on the necessity for proper and adequate preparation of delegations. Joint action with regard to the resumed Vatican Council and the disarmament conference will be explored further.
d. “Stimulation of New Independent Peace Organizations”: Considerable though was given by a committee of the Conference to the possibility of stimulating the development of non-aligned organizations in countries where they do not presently exist. It was recognized that the problem differed according to the political and economic situations of the countries concerned, and would be different for areas alignes with East or West, newly independent, or colonial. Stress was laid on the possibility of utilizing vocational contacts (teachers, students, religious workers) in stimulating new movements. Similarly, importance was given to the sending of large and well-informed delegations to East-West conferences, with clearly articulated non-aligned positions on disarmament. The possibility of projects such as Easter marches in new countries to stimulate new movements was considered. A number of specific suggestions were developed for stimulation of peace action in the newly independent and uncommitted countries.
e. “Promotion of International Conferences”: The committee considering the role of the Confederation in promoting international conferences suggested that the Confederation should take the initiative in being a channel for contacts between the two power blocs and with the non-aligned world. It urged the Confederation and its constituent organizations to promote bilateral or multilateral conferences in which people who otherwise would not be able to meet (such as the Americans and Chinese) could take part, and additional meetings such as the 1961 London Conference. Stress was laid on small conferences, and it was hoped that they might be designed to lead toward statements of common policy and common action. Specific topics for exploration included tension points such as Cuba and Berlin, ways of diminishing Cold War propaganda, and technical problems relating to the impasse in current disarmament negotiations. The Committee recommended encouragement of exchange activities such as works camps, seminars and cult
ural and scientific exchanges. (The full text of this Committee report, as approved by the plenary, is given in Appendix II).
The Continuing Committee
The Conference appointed a nominations committee chaired by F. C. Hunnius of Canada. The committee made an effort to achieve a balance with regard to geographical location, nationality, and general orientation. Their slate included the following persons: Kenneth Lee of the National Peace Council, U.K.; Tony Smythe of the War Resisters International; Sean MacBride of the Accra Assembly, Ireland; Dimitri Roussopoulos of the Combined Universities Capaign and the CCND of Canada; Alfred Hassler of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, U.S.A.; Homer A. Jack of the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, U.S.A.; Steffen Larsen, Kampagnen Mod Atomvaben, Denmark; Bertil Svahnstrom, Kampanjen Mot Atomvapen and Akionsgruppen Mot Svensk Atoombomb, Sweden; Anthony Greenwood, M.P., CND, U.K.; Professor Capitini, President, Italian Council of Peace; Jose Smole, Yugoslav League for Peace, Independence and Equality of Peoples; Abbe Paul Carrette, Fellowship of Reconciliation and War Resisters League, Belgium; Frank Boaten
, Accra Assembly Continuing Committee, Ghana; Dr. Andreas Buro, Ostermarsch der Atomwaffengegner, West Germany; Mrs. Sybil Oldfield, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, New Zealand (but living in England); Daniel Elwyn Jones, College and Universities CND, U.K.; Siddharaj Dhadda, Gandhi Peace Foundation, India.
Mr. Lee was, in addition, nominated as chairman. Nominations were also made from the floor. Canon L. John Collins of the European Federation and CND and Dr. Heinz Kloppenburg of the European Federation and from West Germany were suggested. (They were on the original slate of the Nominations Committee, but had been omitted when there was a question whether they woud accept nomination). The slate of the nominations committee plus Kloppenburg and Collins was accepted by a vote of 34 to 14, with 8 abstentions. An attempt to add Dr. Pauling, Mrs. Coby, and Claude Bourdet to the Continuations Committee was defeated when the group voted 26 to 22 not to reopen the slate.
Organization of Confederation
The Continuing Committee held two long meetings in London on January 5th an 6th. They edited and approved the statement of purpose of the Confederation. They agreed to set up temporary offices in London, with an administrative committee consisting of members of the Continuing Committee living in or near London. An approximate budget of 6,000 pounds was adopeted. Authority was given the chairman to hire an executive secretary and an office secretary and an editor of the newsletter. Machinery was devised for business to be conducted by the Committee by mail, with the possibility of a second meeting of the Committee in Europe in July.
At its first meeting, the Committee appointed a special subcommittee to meet with representatives of the WCP immediately in London to explore the possibility of convening a second London Conference for Disarmament. At the last minute, WCP sent a communication that they had no authority to meet without prior decision of their presidium which would not meet until February or March. At the second meeting of the Continuing Committee it was agreed to dissolve the subcommittee until such time as there appeared a possibility of resuming efforts to explore a second London Conference.
It was agreed that all groups sending delegates to the Oxford Conference would be invited formally to join the Confederation. When sufficient groups join, the Confederation will come into existence, although no substantial projects will be undertaken until the second international conference, tentativley scheduled for early 1964.
Next Steps for the International Confederation
A number of national and international peace and disarmament organizations will be invited to join the new Confederation. The requirements of membership, including a modest financial contribution, will be indicated. National and international organizations desiring affiliation and appearing to fall within the aims and purposes (Appendix V) are invited to correspond with the interim office of the International Confederation for Disarmament and Peace, c/o Friends House, Euston Road, London N. W. 1, England.
The Confederation will not be an individual membership organization. Concerned individuals can urge the appropriate peace organizations to which the belong to become affiliated.
World Council of Peace Observers
In mid-December, the U.S. and other delegations for the first time learned that the three presidents of the European Federation had invited observers to the Conference and acceptances had already been received from the World Council of Peace (WCP). This news created problems in several countries. In the U.S., there were several formal and informal meetings of some members of the American delegation in New York and many messages to the European Federation.
The problems of including WCP observers were multiple. First, several American delegates had secured mandates from their organzations to attend the Conference on the basis of its strict non-aligned nature. Some of these organizations maintain extensive international programs which could have been jeopardized without at least prior consultation with their appropriate committees or boards on this new element. Upon learning of possible WCP presence, these delegates found it too late to reconvene their policy committees to make the additional decision on whether or not to attend the Oxford Conference with WCP observers present. Second, there was agreement that it would be difficult and perhaps mutually embarrassing to have WCP observers looking over the shoulders of Conference delegates facing the major task of defining their relationship precisely to the WCP. Thirdly, the public image of a possible non-aligned organization would be blurred with the publicized presence of WCP observers at the initiating conferen
ce. Those who had these and other objections did not in principle oppose the invitation of WCP observers at subsequent conferences.
As a result of these objections, the U.S. delegation on December 28th sent the following cable to the European Federation: “American delegation remains opposed to World Council of Peace observers at Oxford as violation of purpose of Conference and inhibition of free discussion there. We propose instead longer meeting with World Council representatives in London following Oxford. We hope this suggestion can be accepted now. Representatives of U.S. delegation can confer about this matter on January third in London since we feel this problem should be clear prior Oxford”.
Upon arrival in London, the American delegation found that the matter of WCP observers had been unresolved. They met with Canon L. John Collins in London and suggested several compromises. By this time eleven WCP observers were also arriving in London. They included Proffessor J. D. Bernal, president of the presidium of the WCP and a distinguished British scientist; Ilya Ehrenburg of the Soviet Peace Committee; Romesh Candra of the Indian Peace Committee; Khaled Mohiedin of the U.A.R.; Li Chuwen and Liang Chi-hung of the Chinese Peace Union; Senator Velio Spano of Italy; and representatives from Hungary and Venezuela.
At Oxford, attempts were continued to find a solution to the problem of WCP observers. A number of compromises were suggested. Unable to reach a solution, the Steering Committee had no choice but present the issue to a plenary session of the Conference. After long discussion, Alfred Hassler of the U.S. delegation proposed a new compromise: that the Conference complete its business half a day early and, as the first order of business of the Continuing Committee of the International Confederation, it arrange a meeting for the WCP observers on Monday in Oxford. The Conference overwhelmingly approved this solution. It was communicated to the WCP observers who were still waiting in London. They found it unacceptable. They remained in London throughout. The Oxford Conference then continued to adhere to its original schedule and only barely completed its work on Monday afternoon when delegates left for London.
Adding greatly to the confusion and bitterness regarding the withdrawn invitation were articles in the British press. Primary among them was a headline in the January 6th issue of the “Daily Telegraph”: “Canon Collins Stops Russian Gatecrashers”. “The London Observer” story for the same day was entitled, “Ehrenburg in World C.N.D. Row”. The publicity given this incident, with large pictures showing Ilya Ehrenburg waiting in his London Hotel, increased the difficulties.
Heinz Kloppenburg, one of the Presidents of the European Federation, arranged for an informal meeting of representatives from the U.S. delegation with the WCP in London. This was especially urgent since it was alleged that the American delegation was particularly opposed to Russian observers. The U.S. caucus selected A. L. Muste, Bayard Rustin, Robert Gilmore, Linus Pauling, and Homer A. Jack to attend. Mrs. Ruth Gage Colby was also present. There was frank talk on both sides, with the U.S. delegation explaining the action of the Conference, but denying that it exerted an American veto as had been alleged.
On Tuesday, January 5th, in London, the WCP invited any members of the Oxford Conference who desired to attend an informal meeting in the Hotel Russell. (This invitation was earlier communicated to the Oxford Conference and it unanimously agreed to encourage all delegates who would be in London to attend). Senator Spano of Italy was chairman of the meeting. Kenneth Lee, chairman of the Continuing Committee, spoke as did a number of persons from both Oxford Conference and the WCP. (The two Chinese delegates were not present and they were also absent at the earlier meeting of the American delegation and the WCP).
Mr. Jack read a letter (see Appendix III) addressed to Mr. Ehrenburg and signed by most members of the American delegation. Mr. Ehrenburg had earlier had a long private conversation with Mr. Jack and also attended an impromptu birthday party for A. J. Muste. He had been shown, and approved, earlier that morning the text of the letter and his slight changes were incorporated into the final copy. However, at the meeting he publicly indicated that the letter should have been addressed from the Americans to the WCP.
Toward the close of the informal meeting, a drafting committee was appointed for a communique. This consisted of Kenneth Lee, A. J. Muste, Khaled Mohiedin, and Romesh Chandra. This indicated that views were exchanged in a “cordial and fiendly atmosphere” and that individual suggestions were made for common action on specific issues. Following the meeting, a press conference was held with Bernal, Collins, and Ehrenburg. However, Kenneth Lee, chairman of the Continuing Committee, was not invited to particpate. At the end of the press conference, Mr. Jack released the Ehrenburg letter to the press and it was widely printed in the London papers.
Implication of the Oxford Conference
The calling together of a large number of autonomous organizations working for peace and disarmament in many countries, using many techniques, and entertaining widely differing policies was bound to create obstacles and difficulties to positive accomplishment. This would have been amply true even without any incident over observers to the Conference. As it was, that incident was a shadow over all the proceedings, and gave rise to suspicions and misunderstandings which at times threatend to disrupt the Conference entirely. Considering the difficulties, it is surprising that much solid work was accomplished.
One of the factors expected to become a major item of discussion and clarification was never evene broached in formal discussion: the role of pacifist and non-pacifist organizations, their differences in technique and policy, and whether or not they could realistically work together in a common framework. The question of whether an international federation of CND - or SANE - type organizations is more viable than an international Turn Toward Peace - this was never really explored in depth. Due to the large aumont of time consumed by the WCP issue, the pacifist-non pacifist matter never broke into open discussion, and was dropped as an agenda item. It appeared, only obliquely, in discussion of a policy framework generally acceptable to both.
Again, the matter of “non-alignment” or of indpendence of government influence by peace groups was not considered with clarity or care. Some good discussion did take place and some good points were brought forward; but again, emotional involvement in the WCP incident fuzzed the discussion and prevented full exploration and understanding by the delegates of each others’ views.
There seems little doubt that the WCP looked with some misgivings on the possibility of a new peace federation at the world level which would break the illusion that it speaks for the peace forces throughout the world. The creation of a new international of independent groups, if effective, will sharply shift the center of gravity away from the WCP orbit and create a framework in which many hitherto uncommitted groups can work freely.
The confrontation of the Conference with a WCP delegation of observers gave the Conference non choice but to deal with the issue with some clarity since it was posed so sharply. This may, in the long run, prove to gave been a blessing in disguise. The Conference could hardly have allowed such an identification with the WCP as would have followed from the attendance even of their observers. It would gave prejudiced the image and effectiveness of the “non-aligned” Confederation from its inception and compromised the very reason for its creation.
The continuing Committee, to whom the issue of “non-alignment” is very clear, has been elected to guide setting up the new organization, and the latter’s usefulness will be dependent upon the degree to which it lives up to that image. The beginnings have been marred with mutual suspicions and a questioning of motives between the “aligned” and “non-aligned” bodies; but in the last analysis, the WCP will, no doubt, want to deal with the new Confederation in an amicable way. It will undoubtedly try to continue to ignore that there is any valid difference in viewpoint and to promote types of cooperative activity that will obscure and prejudice “independence”. For this reason, it will be important for the Confederetion to plan the points of contact and interchange carefully.
The diversity in the delegations to the Conference was of great interest. Some felt that negotiated disarmament was impossible. Some believed that multilateral negotiations were the only road to peace. Some thought that the establishment of peace could only follow substantial social, economic, and political change, and patently distrusted the motives of all governments. Some supported as a cardinal point the development of a U.N. that could enforce world law. Others were apprehensive and negative about the investment of authority and in particular armed force in the U.N. Some delegates called for a mass movement against governments to put an end to war, others regarded this as a naive thesis. Some thought the U.N. should not be given armed forces, and particularly not nuclear weapons, as this was an abridgment of a doctrine of non-violence. Others thought violence much more likely if the U.N. were not given arms, and wondered why hope should be pinned on the kind of moral revolution implied in worldwide adop
tion of non-violence.
Only a certain degree of consensus can be expected from such a diverse group. The board diversity also indicated the limitations imposed on the Confederation. It could not hope to achieve any or real organic unity, to speak with a single voice, or to act in a monolithic way. Therefore, its functions will be restricted to that level of informational exchange, idea pooling, and suggested joint action that will not jeopardize the independence or divergent policies of its members.
There was a rather clear recognition of these inherent limitations by the delegates at Oxford, and therefore the progtram for the first year is realistic and will not give rise to great hopes later to be disappointed.
The fact that the Conference led to such a positive conclusion in the face of the controversy that was created over the WCP observers can only be laid to the clear recognition and firm desire of the participating organizations to achieve an effective world-level framework. That desire can be expected to increase eache year, and it is therefore likely that there will be growing support and commitment to the tenuous beginning of the International Confederation for Disarmament and Peace.
Appendix I. The Oxford Conference Delegations and Delegates.
Appendix II. Report of Committee F on East-West Contacts.
Appendix III. The American Letter to Ilya Ehrenburg.
Appendix IV. “Something More Terribly Urgent”. The adress of Dr. Homer A. Jack to the opening plenary session.
Appendix V. The Principles and Aims.
Appendix I. Conference Delegates
A. “International Organizations”
1. European Federation Against Nuclear Arms: Henrich Buchbinder, Canon L. Hohn Collins, Peggy Duff, Dr. Heinz Kleppenberg.
2. International Fellowship of Reconciliation: Rev. Philip Eastman, Alfred Hassler, Max Parker.
3. International Liaison Committee of Organizations for Peace: Professor Dr. Ernest Wolf.
4. War Resisters International: Tony Smythe, Devi Prasad, Harold Bing.
5. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom: Mrs. Shackelton, Mrs. Weiss.
B. “National Delegations”
1. United States
American Friends Service Committee: James Bristol, Gilbert White.
Committee on Non-Violent Action: A. J. Muste, George Willoughby.
National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy: Dr. Homer A. Jack, Donald keys.
Society for Social Responsability in Science: Dr. Linus Pauling.
Student Peace Union: Barry Gordon, Gavin MacFadyen.
Turn Towards Peace: Robert Gilmore, Ann Stadler.
War Resisters League: Bayard Rustin.
Women’s Strike for Peace: Mrs. A. H. Pauling, Ruth Gage Colby.
Canadian Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament: F. C. Hunnius, Giles Richard.
Combined Universities Campaign: Dimitri Roussopoulos.
Voice of Women: Mrs. Helen Tucher.
Combined CND Groups and New South Wales and Queensland Peace Committee: Rev. A.D. Brand.
4. New Zealand
New Zealand CND: Mrs. Sybil Oldfield.
Gandhi Peace Foundation: Siddaharaj Dhadda.
Accra Assembly Continuing Committee: Frank Boaten.
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament: Professor Ritchie Calder, CBE; Anthony Greenwood, MP; Michael M. Howard; Dr. Antoinette Pirie.
Colleges and Universities CND: Daniel Elwyn Jones, Peter Latarche.
Committee of One Hundred: Pat Arrowsmith, Peter Cadogan.
Friends Peace Committee: Donald Groom, Philip Seed.
National Peace Council: Kenneth Lee.
Peace Pledge Union: Stuart Morris.
Fellowship of Reconciliation and War Resisters: Abbe Paul Carrette.
9. West Germany
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Friendensverbande: Hennelis Schulte, Herbert Stubenrauch.
Greek Peace Committee: Mr. Lambrakis, MF; Mr. Dragoumis.
Consulta della Pace: Angiolo Bandinelli, Andrea Gaggero, Marco Pannella, Aldo Putelli, Giuliano Rendi, Ida Sacchetti, Ernesto Treccano.
P.S.U.: Claude Bourdet.
Accra Assembly continuing Committee: Sean MacBride.
Irish CND: Captain John Dowling.
Kampanjen mot Atomvapen and the Aktionsgruppen Mot Svensk Atoombomb: Bertil Svahnstrom.
Kampagnen mod Atomvaben: Steffen Larsen.
Komiteen for Oplysning om Atomfaren: Villum and Hilde Hansen.
16. The Netherlands
Comite 1962 voor de Vrede: W. Mulder.
Schweizerische Bewegung Gegen Die Altomare Anfrustung: Alexander Euler, Willi Kobe.
Yugoslav League for Peace, Independence and Equality of Peoples: Jose Smole, Erich Kos.
Several persons who were expected at the last moment did not take part: Christian Mayer-Amery of Germany, Bernard Feld of the U.S., Robert Jungk and Gunther Anders of Austria.
Appendix II. Report of Committee F as Approved at Oxford
The promotion of international conferences aiming at the reduction of tensions between East and West.
Whilst not wishing to minimize the real differences of concept and practice which divide the world, we believe that one of the chief aims of this new Confederation must be to develop relationships between the exixting ideological, political and military blocs countering the Cold War, and emphasizing attempts to solve the problem of the threat of nuclear war. The Confederation should take the initiative in being a channel for contacts between the two power blocs and the non-alignes world. It is hoped that these contacts will result in useful joint projects and functional cooperation.
“Means of Implementation”:
1. (a) publicizing among the members of the peace organizations and the general public the many existing fruitful exchanges.
(b) encouraging the development of relevant activities, e.g. work camps, seminars, cultural and scientific exchanges.
(c) informing member organizations of existing official and unofficial exchanges so that they can make maximum use of all such contacts.
2. International conferences can play an important part in securing the objectives of the Confederation and are most helpful when directed to discussing specific issues.
(a) whilst there is a function for large international gatherings, face to face contact in smaller groups and conferences may be more profitable at this stage.
(b) we reccomend that at future confederation conferences and at conferences of our own member organizations, observers narmally be invited from aligned and non-aligned peace organizations, on a reciprocal basis whenever possibile.
(c) we recognize the usefulness of the First London Conference of September 1961, which, at a time of crisis, issued a joint policy statement signed by leaders of peace organizations from East, West and non-aligned countries and therefore, we recommend the appointment of a Special Committee to promote a second such conference of approximately 100 delegates, with the World Peace Council and other organizations in such a way as to ensure balanced representation. We suggest that a carefully prepared specific agenda with items contributed by all sides would help the works of the Conference.
(d) we urge the Confederation and/or its constituent organizations to promote small bilateral or multilateral conferences and consultations in order to (i) promote consultations of people who would not otherwise be abel to meet (e.g. Americans and Chinese); (ii) to frame statements of common policy; and (iii) to decide on common action.
Examples of specific problems which might be fruitfully dealt with in this way are: (i) world tension points such as Cuba an Berlin; (ii) ways of combatting and diminishing Cold War propaganda; (iii) technical problems causing an impasse in current disarmament negotiations.
Present: Homer Jack, Chairman; Dragoumis, Philip Seed; H. Bing; Mrs, Oldfield; H. Stubenrauch, E. Kos.
Appendix III: Letter to Mr. Ehrenburg
January 8, 1963
Dear Mr. Ehrenburg,
We, undersigned American delegates to the recent Oxford Conference of Non-Aligned Peace Organizations, regret the discourtesy which resulted when the invitation issued you, and your colleagues of the World Peace Council, by the convenors of the Oxford Conference to attend as observers was withdrawn by the Conference.
The delegates at Oxford were deeply involved in internal controversy and in working out the complicated problem of relationships among ourselves and with world peace movements such as yours. This made it impossible for us to include any observers at this Founding Conference. We want you to know that the action of the Conference in no way was the result of an attitude against the need for communication and cooperation among all organizations working for peace. Indeed, our American delegation took the initiative to propose specific steps to improve East-West contacts by the new Confederation of Independent Peace Organizations.
We deplore any attempt by those who would use the unfortunate incidents of the past few days to stimulate the cold war psychology. There are, however, basic differences which must not be obscurd and must be faced among national and international peace organizations.
We are all trapped in the arms race, and whatever the values of our regimes and cultures, they would all be wiped out by a nuclear war. We must together extricate ourselves to prevent world destruction.
We look forward to increased communication and carefully-prepared common efforts among our American peace organizations, the new Confederation, the World Peace Council, and the Soviet Peace Committee, to help set the world firmly on the road to a just and lasting peace.
Homer A. Jack, Chairman, American Delegation (SANE); Robert Gilmore, Secretary, American Delegation (Turn Toward Peace); James E. Bristol (American Friends Service Committee); Barry Gordon (Student Peace Union); Alfred Hassler (Fellowship of Reconciliation); Donald Keys (National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy); Gavin MacFadyen (Student Peace Union); A.J. Muste (Committee for Non-Violent Action); Bayard Rustin (War Resisters League); Ann Stadler (Turn Towards Peace); and George Willoughby (Committee for Non-Violent Action).
SOMETHING MORE TERRIBLY URGENT
by Homer A. Jack*
(* Mr. Jack is executive secretary of the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, 17 East 45th Street, New York 17, New York, U.S.A. He has been named chairman of the U.S. delegation to the Oxford Conference.)
(A statement to the opening plenary session of the Oxford Conference of Non-Aligned Peace Organizations, January 4, 1963)
In 1758 historian Edward Gibbon wrote that his 14 months at Oxford University proved “the most idle and unprofitable of my whole life”. Two centures have passed, Oxford has changed, and in any case I predict our brief stay here could prove to be a most hard-working and profitable weekend for those of us trying to build an independent world peace movement.
We have gathered because we are dissatisfied with our separate, national peace movements and peace efforts. We have gathered because we refuse to admit that there must be a third world war, a nuclear war. Despite all the odds, all the predictions, all the proliferation of nuclear weapons, all the vasted interests, we assert that world war need not occur. We assembled are not diplomats and therefore do not represent governments, but we feel we do represent people, the yearnings of people everywhere for peace through disarmament and for freedom and justice through non-violence and world law.
Therefore, let us this weekend be practical, but not minimal. Let us here at Oxford be angry, but not irresponsabile. Let us be revolutionary - if need be - but not anarchistic. Let us be impatient and urgent - and sometimes these are the hardest qualities of all to maintain, since some of us are so professionalized that we somehow feel that if only our little organizations continue their fund-raising and their petty projects that world peace will result. It will not. All of the activities of all the organizations now represented at this Conference did not prevent the Cuban crisis - and will not prevent another crisis and will not prevent a full-scale nuclear war. That is why something more - some new ideas, some new international organizations - is necessary. And this something more is terribly urgent.
Since this is a gathering of “non-aligned” peace and disarmament organizations, a visitor might wonder why representatives of “American” peace groups are full delegates. The policies of non-governmental organizations in a democracy, however, need have no relationship to the alignment of that country in the cold war. Indeed, many peace groups in non-aligned states are, in fact, aligned - such as the Indonesian and Indian Peace Committees which are very much tied to Soviet (or is it now Chinese)? foreign policy. But we of the majority of American peace organizations, certainly all of us Americans represented here, are truly non-aligned in that, if need be, we put world peeace above American patriotism. We Americans may commend American foreign policy when we can - and most of us can, for example, endorse whole-heartedly the U.S. Peace Corps - but we have no hesitation, and indeed much experience, in condemning American foreign policy when we must.
Our non-alignment does not mean that we condemn both sides equally in the cold war. Non-alignment does not have to be negative - a finely blanced neutrality. As Americans, we know how deeply the military-industrial-scientific complex in our democracy is involved in continuing the cold war. As world citizens, we have no illusions about Communism. But our non-alignment does not mean that we equate the values of democracy and Communism. Members of the U.S. delegation prefer what is called Western democracy and cherish freedom even if it is only imprefectly applied in our own society.
As non-aligned peace organizations, we maintain an independent judgment on the foreign policies of both our country and the Soviet Union. We judge policies by their merits, not their origins. For example, we as Americans may find much to favor in the present Soviet draft treaty on general and complete disarmament, although little to favor in the present Soviet evasiveness on minimum on-site inspection in the test-ban negotiations.
Non-alignment to us Americans present is a key to this Conference. If some news-magazines predict the decline and demise of non-alignment, what with the Chinese attack on India and the latter’s non-Gandhian reaction to it, we affirm the relevance of non-alignment as a valid and energizing frontier of the emerging world peace movement today.
As an American delegation we have two special concerns that we hope will be discussed freely and frankly at this Conference.
The firs is the relation of the non-aligned peace movement to two strands of national and international peace activity: nuclear pacifism and the movement which is varously called absolute pacifism or, better perhaps, non-violent direct action.
The Conference has three choices in this regard. First, the nuclear pacifists can dismiss the more absolutist pacifists as offering nothing germane in next steps to peace (or the absolute pacifists can dismiss the nuclear pacifists as superficial in their analysis and action on the problem of war). On the other hand, the Conference could itself become absolutist. A third choice is to find a formula whereby there can be real dialogue amidst differing points of view. A continuing confrontation could be enriching, including ways of non-violent resistance as one answer to the problem of Soviet - or American or any other expansionism. In any case, we of the American delegation affirm the relevance of non-violent direct action - of the so-called impractical ideal. In America, the absolute pacifists have made an important intellectual contribution and the total peace movement can only gain by including within it persons with more absolutist positions. However, it is also true that the prime need is for both the nat
ional and world peace movements to have policies broad enough to attract mass support. Too often in the past, non-violent demonstrations have not been geared to next-step positions and thus gave not been able to attract that widespread support necessary to change governmental policy.
A second special concern of the American delegation, one which we hope will also be discussed freely, is the relation of Communism to the non-aligned peace movement. Should the Conference eschew Communism as a totalitarian doctrine - and a liability to those of us living and working in the West? Or should the Conference try to understand the dynamics of Communism and the polycentrism of the Communist world and find some way of working with it?
Again, there appear three choices facing the Conference. First, we can try to encompass the Communists, trying not to be taken over by them. I think the history of such attempts both on an international and national scale have been uniformly unsuccessful. If one opens the door - it is wide open. We dare not duplicate the problems we have had with Communist participation in a multiplicity of peace and other organizations in the West. On the other hand, the Conference can immediately and by free choice become Communist - which is also unlikely. There is little possiblity that this Conference would vote at this time to join with the World Council of Peace, although the latter would non doubt be eager to promote such an eventuality. A third choice facing this Conference is to keep it organically clear of Communism, of sticking to our non-aligned position and not hitching our star to any ideology - Communist or Capitalist.
By building our own independent movement, some will criticize us for creating a competitor to the World Council of Peace or, as I have heard it said repeatedly, “injecting the cold war into the international peace movement”. The cold war is all about us, even in the peace movement, or why are we meeting at all? To the degree that we this weekend can create a constellation of non-aligned peace forces, to that degree we will be creating an entity which then can have meaningful relations with individual Communist peace organizations and especially the World Council of Peace. There are many ideas, many projects, most of us would like to explore with the peace movements in the Communist world. But we want to do so as equals, abovo-board, and not as pawns in the international game of intrigue and manipulations. If we can build a modest, non-aligned organizational center, then we can talk with the Communists, at least as organizational equals.
In candidly speaking our conviction about the relation of this Conference, and any continuing body, to peace organizations in the Communist world, we must make it plain that we Americans are not attempting to export a kind of McCarthyism beyond our shores into the non-aligned peace movement. The Communist world, or rather the Communist worlds, are a fact of 20th century politics and we Americans, all of us non-Communists, must deal with Communists and learn to live with them. Our American peace movement cherishes opportunities for meaningful dialogue with the Russians, indeed with the Chinese if we could manage it. Thus some of us Americans here particpated in organizing the First London Conference, with one-third Communist participation, in September, 1961. Some of us Americans here attended the Moscow Congress last June. I think I am free at this time to announce that we are about to embark on the most important project of all. A dozen leaders of the Soviet Peace Committee will be guests of eight or ten Am
erican peace organizations - many represented in this room - sometime this spring and then this summer a dozen leading executives of the American peace movement will go to the Soviet Union as guests of the Soviet Peace Committee. This is but another evidence that we Americans are not afraid of talking with the Russians. We are afraid not to talk, but we want the circumstances to be fruitful for meaningful discussion, for give and take, for growth on both sides. This can best take place if our Federation to come is truly non-aligned from Communism - except from our fiends, the non-aligned Yugoslavs.
My hardest task this afternoon is to describe, briefly, what is somtime if erroneously called the American peace movement. There is a wide range of peace ideas, peace organizations, peace hopes, peace strategies, and peace personalities in the U.S.
Let me describe the peace effort in the U.S. first by what groups are not represented at this Conference. The American Association for the United Nations (A.A.U.N.), like members of the World Federation of U.N. Associations everywhere, is trying to bring a deeper understanding about the United Nations and, to a degree, educating for disarmament and a world of law. The United World Federalists (U.W.F.), also with its own international (the World Federation for World Government), consists in the U.S. of a small but influential group of Americans who are working for world government. The Federation of American Scientists, and other professional and academic groups (united internationally at the continuing Pugwash conferences), are making positive contributions to thinking on disarmament, although many are disillusioned that the world did not give the makers of the bomb the opportunity to make a bombless world. The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) is represented here through its interna
tional office. This together with the Women Strike for Peace (WSP) consists of housewives who are using every trick except that used by Lysistrata to call for a world without war. Also not represented here are what I would call the private enterprisers of peace - individuals who have some special formula for peace. The appear in every country, but they are mushrooming all over America - each often with his own “national” organization. More important is the growing number of American researchers in arms control and disarmament hird by industry, government, foundations, and universities. Some 200 such American met recently for their first conference and tens of millions of dollars are now spent annually for this.
Of the elements of the U.S. peace movement represented here at this conference, I will describe them only in a phrase, for you can meet their delegates and observers personally and, no doubt, read their literature. There are the religious pacifists (Fellowship of Reconciliation: F.O.R.), the secular pacifists (War Resisters League: W.R.L.), and the non-violent activists (the newer Committee for Non-Violent Action: C.N.V.A.) - all three now having their own, if interlocking, internationals. Then there is the American Fiends Service Committee (AFSC), the Quakers, which is the most active of many religous groups in the U.S. today with imaginative peace education and action programs in Washington, at the U.N., and in the cities across America. The Student Peace Union (S.P.U.) is our most important peace group on the college and univesity campuses, and also in some high schools. The National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE) is roughly equivalent to CND, with however a multilateral disarmament policy for
all nations including the U.S. The Council for Abolishing War is the newest infant on the American peace scene, fathered by atomic scientist, Leo Szilard, but with a strong political action dimension. Turn Toward Peace (TTP) is the latest attempt in the U.S. today to find a means of approaching some cooperation if not coordination amid this diversity, with no common policy but with a common cause: finding new initiatives to break the present cold-war deadlock and uscher in a warless world.
All this activity does not add up yet to an American peace movement. Perhaps a million or two Americans have been touched, in one way or another, by these peace organizations, and many fewer Americans are actually members. Leadership is in very short supply. Someday, one can predict, the political situation in the U.S. and the world will thrust up the right American at the right political moment and then American will have its own peace movement. But we cannot wait for that day before joining you in this common effort to explore federation on an international level.
We hope that some portion of our time this weekend wil be spent on substance: not so much denouncing war or projecting organizational plans as evaluating the world situation and deciding what kinds of negotiations and initiatives are needed to arrest quickly the obvious drift toward World War III. Then only will we be in the position to decide best what new international, non-governmental machinery is needed to influence world public opinion and influnce the world power elite. We must carefully evaluate the dynamisms of the polycentrist Communist worlds. We must carfully evaluate the dynamisms of the military-industrial-scientific complex in the Capitalistic worlds. We must analyze the poverty, colonialism and neo-colonialism in the developing worlds. Then we can analyze the programs of the various national peace movements, such as CND’s new “Steps Toward Peace”, and fit them into an unprovincial whole. This total analysis will probably result in both an eclectic description of the political world and an e
clectic bundle of answers on how to maintain peace. We will find no panaceas. Were the world’s problems solved that easily! And in all we analyze and do, let us not be anti-Russian or anti-American, but anti-war, anti-totalitarian, anti-injustice.
Mark Twain once wrote about a Yankee in King Arthur’s Court and a fairly recent motion picture was entitled, “A Yank at Oxford”. There will be no such antics on the part of the American delegation here. Although the U.S. delegation is relatively large, at least for the distance we have come, we do not mean to be a powerful or arrogant delegation. Coming from a nation which is a major nuclear power, we know our prime job as American peace organizations is with public opinion and governmental policy at home, not in the world. But we know that we can perhaps stimulate the medium-sized powers, especially the non-nuclear powers, to assume a mediating role and thus a decisive influence in ways they may not yet perceive. Thus we of the American delegation will do our share of advocating and arguing - but it is “what” we say, not “who” we are or “where” we come from, which we want to be persuasive.
Matthew Arnold in 1865 wrote that Oxford was the “home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names, and impossible loyalties”. Today, almost a century later we are glad to accept the hospitality of Oxford, but war prevention is not a lost cause, disarmament is not a forsaken belief, peace is not a swear word - an unpopular name - and loyalty to world law is not impossible in a nuclear age.
Appendix V. Principles and Aims
The international conference for cooperation and coordination of the movements against atomic armaments and for general and complete disarmament brought together at Oxford representatives of non-aligned movements and organizations throughout the world, joined in the common struggle for peace. Cooperation between these organizations has grown rapidly during the past few years. The danger of nuclear catastrophe has made it imperative that these organisations should from an Internaional Confederation, which would respect the differences of method and emphasis and preserve their freedom of action, but help to develop popular action on an international scale.
The elimination of nuclear weapons, the policies based upon their use, the growth of military structures and of armaments, are mankind’s most urgent task. All human endeavour presupposes the continuation of life. But apart from the danger to survival itself, human dignity and the development of social, technical and civilising processes are jeopardised by the preparation for war. Co-existence of different ideologies is possible in a civilised society, but the co-existence of human beings and nuclear weapons is not. Not only do these weapons generate the tensions which may at any moment explode into thermonuclear war, they also threaten fundamental human rights.
Every human being has a responsability to act according to conscience to safeguard himself and others. This should take precedence ove any demands of governments which compel him to destroy life.
Without prejudice to the Charter rights of the United Nations to enforce its mandate, we believe that political problems can no longer be solved by resort to war. Although statesmen now admit that a general nuclear war is tantamount to annihilation, they continue policies whic threaten to make it inevitable. Thus nations arm for a conflict which they admit they cannot win.
The organizations within the new Confederation contend that fundamental new thinking on the problem of war is necessary, and that new forces and new methods must be interposed in the world situation, so that economic resources now used in the arms race may be diverted to the building of an international community based upon the active cooperation of all people in a disarmed world. Disarmament will mean fundamental social, economic and political change.
Therefore the creation of an international organization, including pacifists and anti-nuclear movements, responds to an historic necessity. In the two societies that appear radically and mortally opposed a common problem must now be face. The military structures in both societies constitute one of the principal foundations of the state. The Confederation intends to promote a constructive and dynamic effortt to eliminate the real causes of war, and the institutions and structures of the state adapted to this function. For example, scientific progress cannot be halted at the door of armies, as long as these exist: on the contrary, even new atomic research for peaceful uses is greatly influenced by the military. Human progress in any area of the world requires the progressive abandonment of vast military expenditure and the use of these resources for the fight against misery and hunger, for welfare and the realisation of an increasingly just society.
Some of the organizations at Oxford were primarily concerned with nuclear disarmament. Others held to the pacifist position against all weapons. Some adopt the methods of persuasion and political action. Others adopt the method of non-violent action. The Confederation respects these differences. But its component organizations are united in the determination to stimulate popular action, with the support of youth, labour, church, civic and other organizations, against the threat of war. The basis for this cooperation on an international scale is now established.
BASIC OBJECTIVES AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
Member organizations of the Confederation should work for:
1. A permanent test ban treaty.
2. General and complete disarmament of all nations.
3. The non-military solution of all conflicts.
4. The strengthening of the work of hte United Nations and its existing agencies, both in promoting disarmament and in increasing its responsability for inspection and in determining the direction of economic aid and the encouragement of the growth of a world community based on world law.
(5. The creation of zones of nuclear and conventional disengagement and demilitarization.)
(6. The progressive elimination of nuclear bases by the great powers, internally and on foreign soil.)
7. An active and developing cooperation among all peoples.
As a first step they sould actively oppose:
1. The testing, manufacture, stock-piling and use of nuclear weapons by every country, including their own.
2. All nuclear bases, including the use of their own territory for this purpose.
3. All countries’ membership in all nuclear alliances.
4. The spread of nuclear weapons to any new powers or blocs.
They must also provide evidence by consistent deeds and stated policies that they stand for these objectives.
The closer cooerdination of the non-aligned peace movements, within the Confederation will strengthen existing organizations by their mutual active, material and intellectual support. It will promote the development of new centres in countries where, at present, they do not exist. It will enable these movements to confer and, when deemed appropriate, to cooperate as a united body, with other peace movements. It will give, generally, to organizations, to peace workers and groups, the feeling of strength and hope which will greatly enhance their desire for action and their effectiveness to bring pressure to bear on governments, and to force them to take the greatest possible account of their aims and actions.
PROGRAMME OF ACTION
The Confederation resolves to coordinate internationally the activities of member organizations in pursuit of these objectives and such others as are added from time to time.
It seeks to encourage direct democratic initiatives and action of the people as a new dynamism for influencing national and international policies, and as a means of asserting the popular will on these and other issues.
Published as a public service by
National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy
17 East 45th Street, New York 17, New York
additional copies 25 ¢ each postpaid
GENERAL POLITICAL MOTION OF THE ITALIAN DELEGATION
The creation of ain international organization, including pacifist and anti-nuclear movements, responds to an historic necessity, that the most recent happenings and international tendencies have contributed to make more evident and urgent.
Eaving overcome the Cold War and overthrown the doctrinaire postions and the intrests that determined it, the two main world powers appear to unite in the attempt to negotiate peacefully and to conduct a common action to limit, as far as possibile, the spread of national atomic arms, and to isolate and suppress any extremism in the world, whatever its origin. It is our task to favour with all our strongth this policy and to help it against any danger of abandonment.
But peace cannot be only the product of contingent diplomatic argoments. The pacifist and anti-nuclear movements consider that a merely moral protest and action for peace are already anachronistic. The new international organization in which they are uniting intends to promote and conduct a constructive and dynamic battle so that the real causes of war, the institutions and structures of the state especially adapted to this function will be removed. Peace policy must win for itself in every country and in the world the character of an institution and the concreteness that onlgy precise structures have.
Before this task and this ideal, the two societies, that until yesterday appeared radically and mortally opposed - the communist and the bourgeois - must now face a common problem. We hope and wish that this problem will be faced with a common, fraternal consciousness of its fundamental elements. In both societies, in fact, the military structures constitute one of the principal foundations of the state. To convert these into structures of peace - the military service into a civilian service - is necessity for the progress of the individual nations and of the international community.
The new international organization of pacifists and anti-nuclear yet feels that to continue and to strengthen the anti-nuclear campaign on an international scale constitutes an essential basis for its action.
But, whereas often in the past this campaign has had to affirm its existence in contrast with the two main world powers, today it looks possibile to present it, also, as a parallel and independent support of their new policy, against the dogmatic and sectarian tendencies of opposition that manifest themselves in the two areas.
The anti-nuclear campaing, besides, cannot but explode the fundamental contradition of all those who, statesmen and politicians, try to substitute for atomic weapons a strengthening of conventional arms or, by some means, the maintenance and modernization of the national or integreated armies. Scientific progress, unfortunately, connot be stopped at the door of the armies, until these exist: on the contrary, often even the new atomic researches of a peaceful nature are under the administration of the armies.
Human progress, in any area of the world, requires the progressive abandonment of military expenditure, to use these resources for the fight against misery and hunger, for the welfare and towards the realization of an increasingly just society.
Pacifists and anti-nuclears that federate themselves in the new organization think that this must be open to the membership of all the movements that agree on the above-stated principles, are that practically, in their respective actions, will act to promote them. They think that the Oxford Conference cannot, yet, elaborate a definitive and complete programme of action. But the recommend to the individual movements that become members of the international federation (attending the next international congress, in which the ?? programatic basis will be approved) to pronounce and act in favour of the following points, in so far as compatible with their national situations:
(a) Nuclear and conventional disarmament through unilateral initiatives and multilateral agreement.
b) Peaceful co-existence: to support the forces that maintain it within any country and bloc.
(c) Conversion of national or bloc military services and structures into civilian services, both in the nuclear and in the conventional field.
(d) To oppose the manufacture, possession, use, even for experimental purposes, of the nuclear weapons, and the establishment or retention of missile bases in any country.
(e) Disengagement and demilitarization of Central Europe, and the solution of the German problem, recognizing the two Germanies, with free access to Berlin (East and West) guaranteed by the U.N.
(f) Regional initiatives in Scandinavia, the Balkans, the Middle East, Latin America, South-East Asia, the Southern Hemisphere, for the most complete denuclearisation, and the prohibition of any atomic tests, by the great powers not less than by other states.
(g) The admission of the Chinese People’s Republic, the two Germanies, and Formosa to the U.N.O.
(h) To increase the responsibilities of the U.N.O., both in the field of the utilisation of economic aid, and in the maintenence of order and peace violated by member countries against the explicit engagement subscribed to by them of peacefully resolving their conflicts.
This motion, proposed by the Italian Delegation, is not formal in its actual text: it can be voted by division, and must be integrated with another one following the work of the Structures