'Peace March'

The following are excerpts from the policy statement of the Washington Project for a Turn Toward Peace. This reprinting does not constitute an endorsement of this policy on the part of the CRIMSON.

"For the last fifteen years a fundamental conflict of interest between this country and the Soviet Union has engendered an increasingly dangerous spiral of weapons development, threat and counter-threat, bluff and counter-bluff . . .

The Soviet Union has challenged the world with a dynamic ideology and an expansionist foreign policy. The United States has responded to this challenge by fighting a rearguard action around the world. It has merely opposed communism . . . Such a policy would seem to be required by the "logic" of the arms race . . . But it is hardly adequate to cope with the real danger of Soviet expansion . . .

The United States and the Soviet Union have come to rely on the threat of war rather than war itself as the means of defending their national interests . . . The strategy is perhaps a good one in the short run . . . But effective deterrence depends on maintaining a delicate balance of terror. Any faltering or any unbalanced advance by either side can topple the whole structure. . . .

Even if the United States continues the arms race and somehow avoids a war, its freedom is already threatened by the arms race itself . . . The freedoms and human values to which we are deeply committed are undermined by the suspicion, fear and frustration resulting from protracted tension. And the need for military and technical secrecy has fostered a growing alienation of the American citizen from the basic policy decisions which may determine whether we have peace or war. . . .

Our government is on the verge of taking two false steps, two steps toward an accelerated arms race which is likely to be without limits both in regard to the weapons developed and the nations participating. The first of these would be to resume atmospheric nuclear testing for the sake of dubious military gains and despite the probability of increased international tension and the danger of nuclear fall-out. The second would be to inaugurate and extensive civil defense program without weighing the doubtful effectiveness of civil defense against the inroads it might make into the structure of a democratic society and its implications for nuclear strategy and the probability of war. . . .

It is urgent that the United States act now to promote peace. The suspicion and tension created by the threat of nuclear destruction have nearly paralyzed our diplomacy, and have doomed attempts to negotiate agreement with the Soviet Union on arms control or on disarmament . . . The United States must act to create conditions in which attempts to settle the myriad issues where common interest overrules opposing interests can succeed.

We propose the following immediate actions: Public announcement by the United States that it will not resume atmospheric testing . . .

A formal commitment that the United States will not give nuclear weapons to any nation or alliance which does not now possess them . . .

We propose a vastly expanded United States program of economic, technical and educational aid abroad, channeled through the United Nations, and a challenge to the Soviet Union to initiate a similar program.

While we . . . appreciate the steps the present administration has taken to make a risky business somewhat safer . . . we are not satisfied that this government has done all it can do to reduce tensions and the immediate danger of war.

We insist that that government turn its energy and resources toward securing a just peace. We demand an end to this arms race which leads us toward a world in which, whether in war or peace, none of us will want to live; we demand that steps be taken to reverse this process and to renew the long and nobler struggle--now almost forgotten--for peace and freedom for all men.