The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. Bishop WALLS. As an American, whose peculiar people have always made their loyal contribution to the Nation's cause, I feel grateful for this privilege of citizenship accorded me by this august com mittee. COLONIAL POLICIES AND THE PACT Like others, we seek the peace of the world and security of our own beloved America. The North Atlantic Pact, in the judgment of many of us, contains seeds of very grave import, and none more so than its implication for colonials. The situation, bad as it is in the colonies, will be approved and involved in permanency among the colonial nations signatory to the pact agreement. For instance, if America pledges herself, as the pact provides, to engage in armed force without qualification on this issue, she will be bound to defend any pact nation against any group seeking release or redress of the usurping nation in colonial territory. Had that condition obtained in Palestine, the Jews would have been considered at war against America when they set up the Israeli Government and resisted England's occupation. What is more, our own American Colonies could not have been helped by France, as we were in the American Revolution, without involving other nations to go to war with us, which would have defeated our cause of freedom. It is evident that we intend, by the pact, to contain Russia against attack or invasion upon the nations of freedom. What answer can we, the greatest nation of freedom on earth, give to Russia and the world. when they hold up slavery, brutality, and even torture of colonials as a picture nestled in the so-called freedom compact, and say, "This is what your capitalist nations stand for." In Africa alone, 72,320,000 native people, inhabiting a territory of 4,033,858 square miles, live in bondage, made more terrible by centuries of British deception, exploitation, and terror. It is common knowledge that another of the signatories, the Netherlands, holds in bondage nearly 80,000,000 people in the East Indies and in South America. A third signatory to the pact, the French Government, continues its attacks on the people Viet Nam and exploits millions of people in its African and Asian colonies. A fourth signatory, Belgium, holds the people of the Congo in bondage; that is, Belgium and Congo are sufficient. A fifth signatory, Portugal, controls the destinies and arrests the development of some 9,000,000 Africans in Portugese Guinea, Congola, Mozambique, Cape Verde Islands, São Tome, and Principe. A sixth signatory, Italy, is currently struggling in the United Nations-with the support of the other signatories- to partition Ethiopia and reestablish its domain over Libya and Somaliland. A seventh signatory, our own Government of the United States. maintains a "gold and silver" double standard for its white and Negro employees in Panama and has recently acquired islands in the Pacific, and anticipates with satisfaction the profitable prospect of increasing investments in the exploitative enterprises of other colonial powers. Through the power of its wealth in a near-bankrupt world, our Government itself is fast being tempted to become a colonial power. It is a matter of historical record that all these colonial powers, all of them members of the so-called North Atlantic community of nations, subverted the mandate system of the League of Nations into an instrument which, far from effecting the gradual elimination of colonialism, actually provided a legalistic cloak for strengthening it. COLONIAL POLICIES OF SIGNATORIES It is a matter of record that these very governments have nullified in practice and-in the current debates regarding former Italian colonies in Africa wrested from Africans by the bloodthirsty vandals of our late enemy, Mussolini-seek to continue to nullify the trusteeship provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. One has only to remember that the expenditures of the Netherlands in their outrageous war against the Indonesians exactly equaled the amount of American taxpayers' money granted the Dutch under the Marshall plan, to realize what may eventuate under the pact. We face the dismaying prospect of American substance, American arms, and American boys being used to put down the democratic stirrings of peoples who seek today to accomplish the independence and freedom which our forebears could only win in a bloody revolution 173 years ago. Such a prospect of serving as instruments for holding back the march toward colonial freedom is not a pleasant one to Negro Americans. I realize it may be said that the terms of the pact limit its application to a territory one of whose boundaries is the Tropic of Cancer, and that the bulk of Africa of which I have made especial mention is excluded from this area. It is sufficient, however, to note that "By their deeds ye shall know them." The colonial powers which have signed the pact are notorious for their disregard of written commitments. For centuries their pledged word has meant nothing if it interfered with their profitable exploitation of helpless people. But the darker peoples of the world, living in the main in colonial slums, are no longer helpless. They are pressing their demands for equal status as world citizens. They are demanding the right of selfdetermination. They are insisting that the riches of their lands accrue to the security of their inhabitants and not to the profits of absentee overlords who despise their culture and abuse their hospitality. A truly democratic America must show by deeds to the colonial peoples throughout the world and to the Negro people and other minority groups in our land that our Nation understands that there can be no security for any nation or people unless there is freedom and security for all peoples everywhere. WORKING FOR PEACE UNDER THE UNITED NATIONS This we can demonstrate best by working and building for peace diligently through the United Nations, which we helped to found under the leadership of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I do not enter into the intricacies of that instrument, but I have the feeling that many others have, that it can be applied and adjusted to any sort of emergency that might arise. Because it is my firm belief that the North Atlantic Pact does not in fact do this, I join with those who call for the rejection of this instrument of our foreign policy. As a churchman, who loves his church, his Nation, and its people, I express to this committee my profound conviction that only a covenant that is suffused with the love of Christ's teaching, "Love thy neighbor as thyself"-I know how far this is from practical policy, but I bring this in as a standard that we must keep sight of can indeed bring to America and to the world the peace which all peoples everywhere work, struggle, and fight for so passionately. For these reasons, the United States Senate is called upon to reject the North Atlantic Pact, as an honored pledge of this Nation to resume the path to peace, phrased by another great American, Theodore Roosevelt, by "speaking softly and carrying a big stick." FREEDOM FOR COLONIAL PEOPLES We should do this also as a signal of our intention to promote the freedom of colonial peoples and extend civil liberties to American Negroes at home. As a Christian minister, I cannot do other than warn that the chief means for us, as a Christian nation, for defense is the practice of brotherhood, justice, and equality among citizens and nations. I believe it is possible to avoid war with any nation if we cease to think war and cultivate peaceful relationships in spite of the recalcitrance of any one of them. God has always aided us to victory, and I believe always will, without involving ourselves in dangerous international-league systems, which carried the ancient nations, from Egypt to Greece, down to their ruin. A pact is no stronger than its weakest nation; and we who join it inherit the weaknesses of the most offending nation. May the good Lord deliver us from dependence on compacts and save us to dependence on righteous acts. I may add there, if it becomes necessary in the judgment of the wisest of the nations who, from the inside, may know things that we on the outside do not know, to enter any sort of pact of the kind, may it not be in the wisdom of the Senate, and of this great committee, to do so with reservations protecting ourselves from defending the colonial system, and if possible it would not be necessary for us to be committed to an arms program that will tax our people to carry on warfare for other peoples in their capricious undertaking, such as the Balkans always practiced, and maybe always shall. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, very much, Bishop. It is a very fine statement. I want to say that I sympathize very deeply with the colonial peoples. However, would the rejection of this treaty be of any benefit or assistance to the colonial peoples? Bishop WALLS. I believe so. I believe if it were done so, with the understanding that the United States regards that as, one of the chief features for rejecting it, that it would cause them to mend their ways, the colonial nations, to become fit to be in a pact of this kind. The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything in the treaty which binds us to do anything internally for a signatory? Is it not all directed at armed attack by one nation upon another nation? Bishop WALLS. There is nothing in the treaty that binds us to interfere with the other nations' internal affairs. But, as I have intimated here, it is very dangerous to join up with nations that have weaknesses, to invite us to protect systems that are contrary to our great national tradition. AMERICAN ACTION TOWARD COLONIAL PEOPLE The CHAIRMAN. I do not agree with you there. I do not think the treaty does anything like that. You speak of the United States aiding the colonial system. Is it not true that at the end of the Spanish-American War that the United States, if it had desired, could easily have incorporated Cuba within our system; and did we not, on the other hand, free Cuba and give her assurance of protection for a long period of years? Bishop WALLS. That is very true, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Is it not also true that in the Philippines, which we acquired as a result of the Spanish-American War, that we have given them independence and freed them from any colonial control of the United States? Bishop WALLS. That is true. The CHAIRMAN. Does that not illustrate the American attitude toward these things, that we do not favor colonialism? Bishop WALLS. The American attitude now may not necessarily be bound by its former attitude that it seems to have had, just as we have changed on the Washingtonian advice of not being involved or entangled in foreign alliances, and on other such American differences from international situations. When we go out in these complexities, we may expect to be involved in things we did not anticipate, and we are suggesting here that we should enter it with caution, if we enter it at all, and with certain protection against being involved. The CHAIRMAN. Is it not true that the United States, in the case of the Philippines, since the war, has passed legislation giving them loans and paying their war losses and all that sort of business, even though it is free and independent of the United States? Bishop WALLS. I wish to be understood, Mr. Chairman, that I am not indicting the United States colonialism, or even imperialism. I say she is tempted. She has a strain of temptation in that direction. And if she enters these compacts, this compact with these other offending nations, that she will have more and more temptation and less and less defense to remain out. Do you not think so, Senator? The CHAIRMAN. I do not think there is any temptation, in the face of our record, and the temper of our people. We are not going to embrace these colonial policies of other nations at all. Bishop WALLS. Mr. Chairman, I think the main objection we have here is giving sympathy and maybe support-there is support; it involves support-to the colonial system; because we do not stand against it. The CHAIRMAN. I think this entire committee stands against it. As a matter of fact, however, you have already admitted, there is nothing in the treaty that obligates the United States to do anything within a country. It is only as a resistance to aggression or armed attack by one nation upon another. Thank you, very much, Bishop. Bishop WALLS. You will notice that I have said here, as a firm hope, that if we entered such a pact we would make reservations that would protect ourselves from seeming, even, to be in sympathy with colonialism. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Vandenberg? Senator VANDENBERG. No questions. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Donnell? Senator DONNELL. No questions, thank you. Bishop WALLS. Thank you, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Linfield, Young Progressives of America, New York City. How long is your statement, sir? STATEMENT OF SEYMOUR LINFIELD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, YOUNG PROGRESSIVES OF AMERICA Mr. LINFIELD. A few pages, sir. The CHAIRMAN. How many is that? Mr. LINFIELD. Seven. The CHAIRMAN. In view of the fact that we have heard quite a number of representatives of the Progressives, we hope you will not be too long, because we have their views. I do not suppose you want to conflict with any of the views that have gone before. Mr. LINFIELD. I shall try not to repeat. The CHAIRMAN. What is the Young Progressives? Is that a different organization? Mr. LINFIELD. Yes, sir. It is the independent young people's organization, independent of the Progressive Party, although subscribing generally to its principles and program. The CHAIRMAN. That is what I thought. You are alined with the Progressive Party. Mr. LINFIELD. We are organizationally independent of them. The CHAIRMAN. You elect your own officers but believe in their doctrine? Mr. LINFIELD. In their general program and policies; yes. The young people of this country who will be asked to underwrite the proposed North Atlantic Military Pact, even with their very lives, have not yet been heard by this committee. The CHAIRMAN. We are hearing them now. We are hearing them in you. Mr. LINFIELD. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. You represent all the young people of the United States, I assume, in your statement. Mr. LINFIELD. I speak, as you know, Senator, for the Young Progressives of America, and only for that organization. The CHAIRMAN. All right. |