-10

which are present in the international community can be felt

and considered by the students in the context of their own

experience while they are preparing for vocations.

Direct Experience

Another area to be considered is the question of whether the entire curriculum should be one of academic

classes alone, or whether direct involvement in agencies, organizations and tension areas should be studied by direct experience. I hold, Mr. Chairman, that for most students at least one term of internship, external research, or on-thejob training could have a very significant impact. The faculty would then need to devise structures for student-sharing and

evaluation of these experiences.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I should like to add my

voice to others here today in urging positive consideration of this proposal. Since World War II, for some very valid reasons, our nation has been conditioned toward war. The military plays a necessary role in America's leadership in the world community.

But many of us feel, Mr. Chairman,

that alongside our military power we need to develop the

other side of our national character

our concern for the

-11

peaceful resolution of potential conflicts.

There are positive

ways to work with potential enemies, either to neutralize

deep-seated differences or even, in the long-term, to modify

their attitudes so that cooperation and friendship can develop. There are also ways to restructure the basic patterns of international trade that will provide a greater measure of hope for large numbers of the world's dispossessed people without hurting the American standard of living in the longterm. Finally, there are techniques and methods to be learned and applied for conflict resolution which can, perhaps, make a difference between war and peace. In short, I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the establishment of the George Washington Peace Academy would provide an opportunity for young people to train systematically and then apply their learning in careers that emphasize the positive side of the American character. Stated differently, I do not believe that there needs to

be a competition between the military needs of the nation and the George Washington Peace Academy. Those who understand the requirements of statesmanship know that there is need for many approaches in diplomacy. We have been weak in the

post-World War II era, I believe, in this positive waging of

peace.

-12

In a world marked by high prospect and great peril,

such an academy can be a positive initiative and make a major contribution to world peace. It can increase our understanding of other people and cultures and produce

men and women who are committed to 'turning the dynamics of change into the stability of peace. '

Senator PELL. Thank you very much.

The next witness is Mr. Bryant Wedge, president of the Institute for the Study of International Behavior.

I am sorry. It is supposed to be Mr. Jerome Frank, who has to teach class, and if he would come forward now, vice chairman of the Federation of American Scientists, professor emeritus of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins.

STATEMENT OF JEROME D. FRANK, M.D., VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS AND PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF PSYCHIATRY AT JOHNS HOPKINS

Dr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman and Senator Hartke, let me say first of all that I have been authorized to speak for the Federation of American Scientists and SANE, a citizens committee for a sane world, both of whom have endorsed this bill.

I will be attending a board meeting of the Council for a Livable World on the 18th, and I hope I can get them to endorse it, too, but I cannot speak for them at this point.

Senator PELL. You say you are also speaking for the Council for a Livable World?

Dr. FRANK. No, I am not yet. I haven't had a chance to clear that with their board. I hope to do it on the 18th of May, when their board meets.

Senator PELL. I think the council is doing an excellent job, and I am always very interested in its view.

Dr. FRANK. Thank you.

I have submitted this statement and I will try just to read a few parts of it, and will be brief here.

Senator PELL. I think the whole statement will be put in the record. You will hold our attention more closely with spontaneous remarks. Dr. FRANK. I am not quite sure that I can do that yet. I am not comfortable enough in testifying.

Although, with the threat of destruction hanging over humanity, the need to develop a substitute for war deserves the most urgent priority, efforts to do so have been ridiculously small-at the most a few million dollars as compared with the trillions spent on weapons. The Government barely supports the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, which at best can only ameliorate the war system, and peace research in private universities is minuscule and fragmented among various academic disciplines.

The proposed George Washington Peace Academy would be a small but significant step toward rectifying this alarming state of affairs. Like the war colleges, it could devote itself to developing and perfecting the arts of nonviolent conflict resolution, unhampered by operational or policymaking responsibilities. It would supply a setting in which members of different disciplines could collaborate, an important consideration since maintaining peace, like waging war, as you already heard, involves all aspects of individual and group behavior. The study of peace-keeping, therefore, requires inputs from many fields of knowledge.

Although the Academy quite properly will not be able to exert direct political influence, the composition of its Board of Directors would assure that any significant results of its work would promptly reach the attention of national decisionmakers. Finally, it would promote research into the arts of peace and train practitioners to apply what is learned. The requirement that, in return for financial support, students spend 2 years in an appropriate agency or international organization assures that this application will occur.

The inclusion of students from other nations is, as has already been mentioned, I think a strong point of the bill. There is no problem of security; maybe that is the point that I can add to that, since the promulgation of knowledge about peacekeeping is to the advantage of all nations, and the presence of foreign students will speed dissemination. In this connection, whereas national security dictates that much knowledge about warmaking be kept secret, the opposite is true of knowledge about nonviolent resolution of conflicts. The more widely such knowledge is disseminated, the more it can be used by groups in conflict, thereby reducing the overall danger of resort to force.

The two points I did want to comment on where in paragraphs 6 and 11 it states the broad aims of the Academy, and my point is, I think the actual description of what the Academy will do is too narrow. It emphasizes simply negotiation, arbitration, conciliation and mediation. Now, this is very fine, but the trouble is that in today's world there are many conflicts in which the basis for negotiation and conciliation and so on is not yet present, because the problem here is that we have to have some kind of test of strength first before they are willing to sit down and negotiate, so I would like to see that the curriculum be expanded, as indicated in paragraph 6 in section 2. Expand it along the lines of developing effective forms of nonviolent power, which is something new which is possible in the world today that wasn't before. For example, the growing interdependence of nations and the immense strides in telecommunications raise hope that the peacekeeping potentials of economic and psychological forces can be greatly strengthened. The oil-producing nations have convincingly demonstrated the new effectiveness of skillfully used economic power. International radio and television, coupled with communication satellites and the transistor radios and TV monitors set up in public squares could make it for the first time literally possible to reach everybody on Earth at once with some message, and this will skip the literacy barrier, as well. This is the kind of area I think needs study. For the long range, of course, communication in itself won't do the job. The only ultimate means of bringing international violence under control lies in the creation of some sort of world government which maintains peacekeeping institutions with sanctions, analogous to systems of justice within societies. Such a world government could maintain itself only through the consent of the governed. Steps toward it would depend on the growth of consensus among nations that it would be preferable to the current system or nonsystem of international anarchy. Telecommunication can be a powerful tool for achieving such a consensus, if used to promote international tolerance and appreciation of differences rather than antagonisms.