What About Disarmament?
The Communists have created the illusion in free men’s minds that “the way to peace is through disarmament.” We must not forget that this originated as a Communist slogan. Now free men have adopted it as their own and are even setting up special commissions to explore ways and means to carry it out. In this action we are deliberately closing our eyes to everything we promised ourselves at the close of World War II and again at the end of the Korean War. Experts tell us that to disarm in the face of an obvious and present danger is an immoral act. It is an act of self-destruction.
Here are just a few fundamental facts on disarmament which the experts who know Communism are pleading with us to consider:
Disarmament means to depend upon agreements instead of strength.
Agreements are absolutely useless unless they can be enforced.
The fallacy of a disarmament agreement with Russia (a nation which has violated 51 out of 53 agreements already) is this: if Russia chose to secretly rearm we would have lost our capacity to enforce the agreement. Such an agreement gives a dishonest party a devastating advantage because of his capacity to “arm secretly.” In a vacuum of disarmament, a government with criminal intentions requires very few secret arms to overcome all opposition. This is what Hitler and Mussolini taught us.
On February 3, 1961, Dr. Arnold Wolfers told the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations: “A few easily concealed or clandestinely manufactured weapons would, in a totally disarmed world, give one nation decisive military power over others…. A totally disarmed world is also one in which Communists’ characteristics of secrecy and of a society organized along military lines would give them maximum advantage.”
But in all this talk about disarmament the thing to remember is that Khrushchev would not dare disarm. His armed forces of six million—including two million secret police—are not to fight the West but to maintain “domestic tranquility” behind the Iron Curtain. They are to suppress uprisings which have occurred in the satellites and in Russia. Furthermore, Khrushchev is continually haunted by the spectre of the Red Chinese who would like nothing better than to see the Russians disarm. So we repeat, Khrushchev would not dare disarm.
Finally, in answer to those who claim that an arms race will lead to war, let us point out the rather obvious fact that an arms race is not an underlying cause of war, but a symptom of political conflict. To disarm in the face of political conflict invites war. The United States was well on the way to disarming and demobilizing when the Korean War jolted us into the realization that vicious forces of conquest were still stalking up and down the earth. Because that predatory force has not relented, we have had to stay armed.
In view of all these facts, it should be clear to anyone that the cry for disarmament is not the message of peace and freedom. It is the message of the enemy.
What About Peaceful Coexistence?
The Communists have created another illusion with reference to peaceful coexistence. This is the idea that the West must be willing to coexist with Communism since the only alternative would be annihilation through atomic war.
The real alternative to co-EXistence is co-REsistance. Experts in the field have been saying for years that Communism does not have to be tolerated. It has no moral, economic or political excuse for existing. Furthermore, it is extremely vulnerable to many types of peaceful pressures which free men have not yet used. We will discuss these in a later section. At this point it is important simply to emphasize that Communism can be beaten—and it can be done without atomic war. Therefore the whole basis for arguing coexistence collapses. Coexistence is a contradiction of terms because it means trying to coexist with world conquest, which is impossible. One must resist or be conquered. It also means accepting the status quo of one-third of the human race in bondage as a permanent working arrangement. It means accepting Communism in spite of its deceit, subversion and broken covenants. It means tolerating Communism without resistance.
The United States Congress was right when it proclaimed in its Captive Nations Resolution of July, 1959:
“The enslavement of a substantial part of the world’s population by Communist imperialism makes a mockery of the idea of peaceful coexistence.”{120}
And the President sounded a note of awakening resistance when he said:
“It is appropriate and proper to manifest to the peoples of the captive nations the support of the Government and the people of the United States of America for their just aspirations for freedom and national independence.”{121}
What About the United Nations?
All over the world people demand that some type of international arena be created where disputes between nations can be arbitrated or settled without resorting to war. Two attempts have been made to create such an arena—the League of Nations and the United Nations. Both ran into difficulty and for the same reason. Both organizations started out as exclusive federations of “peace-loving” nations and then turned right around and tried to convert themselves into world parliaments where all nations could be represented including warlike or predatory nations. In both cases the predatory nations successfully seized power and almost completely nullified all the high-sounding phrases contained in their original statements of purpose.
As far as the United Nations is concerned, this weakness was emphasized by John Foster Dulles when he addressed the American Bar Association. He said the failures of the U.N. are due primarily to the fact that its “effective functioning depends upon cooperation with a nation which is dominated by an international party seeking world domination.”{122}
Henry Cabot Lodge pointed out the same thing: “In 1945 and 1946… the United States assumed that Russia was a peace-loving nation, and the whole United Nations was based on the assumption that the alliance between the United States and the Soviet Union would continue, which of course, was a very false, tragically false, assumption.”{123}
There are numerous provisions in the U.N. Charter which permit predatory powers such as the USSR or her satellites to bring the orderly processes of the U.N. to a dead halt. In the U.N.’s 15 years of existence, the USSR has used this organization for subversion behind the scenes and legal sabotage in her open councils. This has not only frustrated the peace-preserving powers of the U.N. but has almost completely paralyzed individual action by the other members because they have committed themselves to rely on the U.N. to settle disputes.
When one reflects upon the Soviet veto of the U.N. attempt to censure Russia following her invasion of Hungary and her veto of the U.N. attempt to have an investigation of the killing of four Americans on the RB-47 in 1960, it emphasizes the long list of atrocities which Soviet leaders have committed without punishment or censure even though every one of them violated Article 2 of the U.N. Charter. Consider these provisions:
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all members.
2. All Members… shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means….