American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security |
Previous | 1 of 4 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
(Not printed at Government expense) United States of America Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION American Foreign Policy—International Organization for World Security SPEECH OF HON. J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT OF ARKANSAS IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 28, 1945 Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, myths are one of the greatest obstacles in the formulation of national policy. A myth of some plausibility is being currently revived at the expenses of this Senate. The Senate is being held solely responsible for the failure of the United States to join the League of Nations. This myth is a half-truth, and a very dangerous half-truth. At home it is being used to disparage our system of government. Abroad it is being used to explain any hesitation we may show in joining a system of world security. The Senate of the United States, it is said, cannot be relied upon. As I see it, the responsibility for the rejection of the League of Nations does not belong solely to the Senate. The American people must share that responsibility. The perfectionists among the liberals, quite as much as the reactionaries, contributed to our failure. One has merely to read again what was said a generation ago by our liberal press. Few people were against a league. But they did not like this league, nor did they like the other fellow's league. All of them seemed to want a league which suited them. The Senate of the United States has, I believe, been unjustly maligned. The responsibility that I would attach to this body is that, in rejecting the League of Nations, it did not suggest some alternative method of establishing and maintaining order in the world. Negation is not enough for this aggressive and restless world. As the poet says, a world is dying and another world is struggling to be born, and the job of creating that new world belongs as much to the Senate as to any other agency in the entire world. We shall be negative again at our own peril, and we shall in¬vite the same travail and tribulation which has kept all mankind in agony for 5 long and terrible years. In peace, as well as in war, victory will not come to the negative, defensive strategy. A certain boldness, a positive resourcefulness, is essential to win any battle in war or peace. General Patton, General Eisenhower, General Hodges, and Admiral Nimitz are proving that today. Under our Constitution this body has the right, and the duty, to advise the Executive on matters of foreign policy. If it cannot consent to the measures presented by the Executive it seems to me imperative that it offer our Nation and the world an alternative. If it feels inadequate to this task, then certainly it should proceed immediately to accede to the rising demand of the people, that the House of Representatives be given a part in this responsibility. It is very unbecoming of the Senate to act the part of the dog in the manger. I am sure that some will say that we must rely upon the State Department to formulate our foreign policy. I do not think we can afford to entrust this function exclusively to the State Department. In the first place, it is no longer possible to separate foreign from domestic policy. The two are much too closely intertwined, too interdependent, to be regarded as unrelated and separate problems. I know that the welfare of the cotton farmers in Arkansas is directly, and inevitably, dependent upon the maintenance of a free flow of international commerce. When that flow is interrupted by war, as at present, or by a short-sighted tariff like the Smoot- Hawley measure, then we become involved with huge, unmanageable surpluses and such makeshifts as subsidies and loans to cotton producers. No; I do not think a few polished and cultured gentlemen, in the dark and dignified recesses of the State Department should be entrusted, exclusively, with the formulation of our foreign policy. I hasten to add that I am encouraged by the recent infusion of new blood into the Department and by the favorable reports of the work of Assistant Secretaries Rockefeller and Clayton at Mexico City. Improvement has been made, but much remains to be done. Our long-range policy, if we are to have one, must be based upon a sound appraisal of the true interests of this Nation as a whole. There is a tendency, on the part of professional diplomats, to become ultracynical and to reduce all human interests and desires to the single element of material power. Being detached from the everyday life of our citizens, they forget that many people, in fact, I think the majority, would prefer to live in peace with their children, at home, than to have all the money, power, and glory in the world. I am confident that the representatives of the people in this body, and in the House of Representatives, can much more accurately evaluate the true desires and interests of our people than can the traditional diplomat who, in the nature of things, is isolated from the common man. I intend no reflection upon the character of any man in our executive department; but it is inherent in their background and their position, that they be ultra conservative and reluctant to commit our people to any change in the status quo or to the assumption of any new responsibilities. Only recently we have had an example where the participation of the distinguished senior Senator from Texas [Mr. CONNALLY] and the distinguished senior Senator from Vermont [Mr. AUSTIN] added backbone and courage to the decisions of our representatives at Mexico City. I should like to read at this point from an editorial in the Washington Post of March 6, describing the part played by these gentlemen: SENATORIAL COOPERATION MEXICO CITY, Monday, March 5.—The Job of advising and consenting, which Is the Senate's prerogative in our treaty relations with the world, has been given a new definition at Mexico City. Hitherto the initiative in treaty making has been retained by the Executive. All Presidents have been jealous of it. But at Mexico City Senator AUSTIN took the ball as soon as he arrived here, and we were treated to the spectacle of a Senator determining the administration's approach to the continental security pact, and an opposition Senator at that. It was the earnest and disinterested Vermonter who framed the formula on which action was taken Saturday at Mexico City. Senator CONNALLY made senatorial Intervention complete by adding to the declaration what might be called the Connally reservation. Not the slightest resentment has been caused by this senatorial intervention; indeed, it has been welcomed, for, as Assistant Secretary Rockefeller says, "The administration wants to know what it can deliver to our Latin-American friends." Senator AUSTIN'S work Is especially the object of comprehensive compliments. Senators with the experience and confidence in their understanding of their people, such as these Senators undoubtedly have, naturally tend to be courageous and bold in their approach to matters of vital interest to their people. To them diplomacy is not merely a game of chess to be played by skillful maneuvers and double talk. They know the very lives of their people are involved, and they are not afraid to take risks to protect them.
Object Description
Title | American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security |
Abstract | Fulbright speech arguing for United States support of the treaty negotiated at Dumbarton Oaks, which served as the basis for the creation of the United Nations. |
Creator | Fulbright, J. William |
Date | March 28, 1945 |
Audience of Speech | United States Senate |
Institution Where Speech Was Given | United States Senate |
City and State | Washington, D.C. |
Subject |
Foreign Relations International Relations International Cooperation United Nations Isolationism |
Item Location | J. William Fulbright Papers (MS F956 144, Series 71, Box 1, File 4) |
Rights | Please contact Special Collections for information on copyright. |
Digital Publisher | University of Arkansas Libraries |
Series Title | A Calm Voice in a Strident World: Senator J.W. Fulbright Speaks |
Description
Title | American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security |
Abstract | Fulbright speech arguing for United States support of the treaty negotiated at Dumbarton Oaks, which served as the basis for the creation of the United Nations. |
Creator | Fulbright, J. William |
Date | March 28, 1945 |
Audience of Speech | United States Senate |
Institution Where Speech Was Given | United States Senate |
City and State | Washington, D.C. |
Subject |
Foreign Relations International Relations International Cooperation United Nations Isolationism |
Transcript | (Not printed at Government expense) United States of America Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION American Foreign Policy—International Organization for World Security SPEECH OF HON. J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT OF ARKANSAS IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 28, 1945 Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, myths are one of the greatest obstacles in the formulation of national policy. A myth of some plausibility is being currently revived at the expenses of this Senate. The Senate is being held solely responsible for the failure of the United States to join the League of Nations. This myth is a half-truth, and a very dangerous half-truth. At home it is being used to disparage our system of government. Abroad it is being used to explain any hesitation we may show in joining a system of world security. The Senate of the United States, it is said, cannot be relied upon. As I see it, the responsibility for the rejection of the League of Nations does not belong solely to the Senate. The American people must share that responsibility. The perfectionists among the liberals, quite as much as the reactionaries, contributed to our failure. One has merely to read again what was said a generation ago by our liberal press. Few people were against a league. But they did not like this league, nor did they like the other fellow's league. All of them seemed to want a league which suited them. The Senate of the United States has, I believe, been unjustly maligned. The responsibility that I would attach to this body is that, in rejecting the League of Nations, it did not suggest some alternative method of establishing and maintaining order in the world. Negation is not enough for this aggressive and restless world. As the poet says, a world is dying and another world is struggling to be born, and the job of creating that new world belongs as much to the Senate as to any other agency in the entire world. We shall be negative again at our own peril, and we shall in¬vite the same travail and tribulation which has kept all mankind in agony for 5 long and terrible years. In peace, as well as in war, victory will not come to the negative, defensive strategy. A certain boldness, a positive resourcefulness, is essential to win any battle in war or peace. General Patton, General Eisenhower, General Hodges, and Admiral Nimitz are proving that today. Under our Constitution this body has the right, and the duty, to advise the Executive on matters of foreign policy. If it cannot consent to the measures presented by the Executive it seems to me imperative that it offer our Nation and the world an alternative. If it feels inadequate to this task, then certainly it should proceed immediately to accede to the rising demand of the people, that the House of Representatives be given a part in this responsibility. It is very unbecoming of the Senate to act the part of the dog in the manger. I am sure that some will say that we must rely upon the State Department to formulate our foreign policy. I do not think we can afford to entrust this function exclusively to the State Department. In the first place, it is no longer possible to separate foreign from domestic policy. The two are much too closely intertwined, too interdependent, to be regarded as unrelated and separate problems. I know that the welfare of the cotton farmers in Arkansas is directly, and inevitably, dependent upon the maintenance of a free flow of international commerce. When that flow is interrupted by war, as at present, or by a short-sighted tariff like the Smoot- Hawley measure, then we become involved with huge, unmanageable surpluses and such makeshifts as subsidies and loans to cotton producers. No; I do not think a few polished and cultured gentlemen, in the dark and dignified recesses of the State Department should be entrusted, exclusively, with the formulation of our foreign policy. I hasten to add that I am encouraged by the recent infusion of new blood into the Department and by the favorable reports of the work of Assistant Secretaries Rockefeller and Clayton at Mexico City. Improvement has been made, but much remains to be done. Our long-range policy, if we are to have one, must be based upon a sound appraisal of the true interests of this Nation as a whole. There is a tendency, on the part of professional diplomats, to become ultracynical and to reduce all human interests and desires to the single element of material power. Being detached from the everyday life of our citizens, they forget that many people, in fact, I think the majority, would prefer to live in peace with their children, at home, than to have all the money, power, and glory in the world. I am confident that the representatives of the people in this body, and in the House of Representatives, can much more accurately evaluate the true desires and interests of our people than can the traditional diplomat who, in the nature of things, is isolated from the common man. I intend no reflection upon the character of any man in our executive department; but it is inherent in their background and their position, that they be ultra conservative and reluctant to commit our people to any change in the status quo or to the assumption of any new responsibilities. Only recently we have had an example where the participation of the distinguished senior Senator from Texas [Mr. CONNALLY] and the distinguished senior Senator from Vermont [Mr. AUSTIN] added backbone and courage to the decisions of our representatives at Mexico City. I should like to read at this point from an editorial in the Washington Post of March 6, describing the part played by these gentlemen: SENATORIAL COOPERATION MEXICO CITY, Monday, March 5.—The Job of advising and consenting, which Is the Senate's prerogative in our treaty relations with the world, has been given a new definition at Mexico City. Hitherto the initiative in treaty making has been retained by the Executive. All Presidents have been jealous of it. But at Mexico City Senator AUSTIN took the ball as soon as he arrived here, and we were treated to the spectacle of a Senator determining the administration's approach to the continental security pact, and an opposition Senator at that. It was the earnest and disinterested Vermonter who framed the formula on which action was taken Saturday at Mexico City. Senator CONNALLY made senatorial Intervention complete by adding to the declaration what might be called the Connally reservation. Not the slightest resentment has been caused by this senatorial intervention; indeed, it has been welcomed, for, as Assistant Secretary Rockefeller says, "The administration wants to know what it can deliver to our Latin-American friends." Senator AUSTIN'S work Is especially the object of comprehensive compliments. Senators with the experience and confidence in their understanding of their people, such as these Senators undoubtedly have, naturally tend to be courageous and bold in their approach to matters of vital interest to their people. To them diplomacy is not merely a game of chess to be played by skillful maneuvers and double talk. They know the very lives of their people are involved, and they are not afraid to take risks to protect them. |
Item Location | J. William Fulbright Papers (MS F956 144, Series 71, Box 1, File 4) |
Rights | Please contact Special Collections for information on copyright. |
Digital Publisher | University of Arkansas Libraries |
Series Title | A Calm Voice in a Strident World: Senator J.W. Fulbright Speaks |
Tags
Add tags for American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security
American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security
American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security
Comments
Post a Comment for American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security
American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security
American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security