DRAFTERS OF CHARTER Senator SMITH. General, there is one thing in your letter that I must take exception to because I happen to know personally the men who dedicated themselves to the work of writing the United Nations Charter. I must take exception to this statement of yours. I am sorry you have it in here. You state: Now we come to the charter of U. N. written by a group of individuals who then had in mind the crippling of our Republic in the interest of others beyond the seas. I can't accept that for one minute. I am sorry; I can't do it. Senator HOLLAND. I am sure that no one who knows the persons who represented the United States in the leading position at San Francisco, could for a moment accept that statement without challenge, either. General MOSELEY. Senator, I am not mentioning those who were our high representatives there. They were fine men, but they often did not know what was being done secretly and behind the scenes, that is what I refer to. I am not attacking any of the Secretaries of State. Senator HOLLAND. I think you may want to reword your statement, then, General, if you look at it. What you say is Now we come to the charter of U. N. written by a group of individuals who then had in mind the crippling of our Republic in the interest of others beyond the seas and that would look like you are charging those who wrote the charter with representing others and with being adverse to our own interests. I don't believe you mean that. General MOSELEY. No, my fear was, Senator, they did not know what was going on and what was being written and the purpose of it at that time. That has all come out in history since. Senator HOLLAND. Thank you very much, General. (General Moseley's prepared statement is as follows:) Hon. WALTER F. GEORGE, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. ATLANTA, GA., March 12, 1955. MY DEAR SENATOR: The local press carries a notice of a meeting of a subcommittee to hear recommendations in reference to a possible revision of the U. N. Charter. If the influence of the one worlders is to shape the revision in the slightest degree, there should be no revision at all. If, on the other hand, the opinion and wishes of honest-to-God Americans are to govern, then there are a number of changes which should be made in the charter in the interest of the future wellbeing of our Republic and the rights and freedom of all our citizens. Senator, your State of Georgia has already spoken on this subject, in no uncertain terms. Mrs. Roosevelt has said repeatedly that the U. N. was the incubator of one-world government. A number of organizations are in existence now to accomplish just that. In furtherance of that idea, several years ago the one worlders approached the legislatures of the several States quietly and rather secretly, urging them to approve a plan for a national conference to consider oneworld government. Georgia, as you will recall, and some 30 States, approved the plan, and the one worlders felt elated. But the truth leaked out gradually. The American people became informed. The legislature of Georgia reversed its stand, withdrawing its approval, and Georgia then led the way across the Nation as approximately 30 States followed the action of Georgia. This showed the one worlders very definitely that an informed American citizenry would not stand by silently and permit Uncle Sam to commit suicide. Did these one worlders stop there? No, they have since been working from the top down. These schemers who would destroy our Republic, now realize they must brew their vile stuff in the U. N. in the hope of it being rammed down our throats in treaty form. No one saw this danger more clearly than you did. Probably no one pointed it out so clearly, and in such a few words, as did Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, when he said: Under "Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land. They are indeed more supreme than ordinary law, for congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty laws can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from the Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the State and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body, and they can cut across the rights given the people by the Constitutional Bill of Rights." The danger goes much further than a mere treaty that might be widely discussed before being approved by the Senate. It goes to agreements entered into by the President and the head of a foreign state. The legislature of the State of Georgia recently renewed its former action approving the Bricker amendment. Now we come to the Charter of United Nations, written by a group of individuals who then had in mind the crippling of our Republic in the interest of others beyond the seas. The most important provision in the United Nations Charter is section VII article 2, of chapter I, which reads as follows: "Nothing contained in the present charter shall authorize the United Nations to interfere in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state; or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under chapter VII." (Chaper VII, as you know, deals with the strictly international question of peace and war.) I have always hoped that the above quoted provision meant what it said; but in fact, little attention has been paid to it in the administration of U. N. As a Nation and as a people, we are deeply interested in world peace and in all honest efforts to accomplish it. We will always cooperate with the rest of the world in that effort, but we should insist that our internal affairs be left strictly alone. This does not mean that we will not cooperate in a proposal for disarmament. We always will, provided it is honestly advanced, and that the proposal includes positive means for its accomplishment. Thus, Senator, I believe that section VII, article 2, chapter I, should be made more positive. All our legislators should realize that the greatest influence throughout the world today is nationalism-the desire of peoples everywhere to run their own affairs in their own way. Rightly we believe in States rights. Nationalism is simply States rights on the top level of sovereign nations. Those interested in the success of the U. N. should realize that it can survive only if it limits itself to international problems and scores success in that field. It will destroy itself if it permits its officials and its committees to interfere, or to attempt to interfere, with the internal affairs of member nations. Just where the U. N. scored a victory? Certainly not in Korea-not in Indochina-not in China proper. When it does get a proposal through, it is generally by compromise and too often an insult to the United States goes with it. As a soldier of many years' service (10 years overseas) I am not afraid that we will be destroyed by war or battle, but we are slowly being destroyed by law as we permit our Constitution to be destroyed piecemeal. Please permit me to make a further suggestion-that a reorganized U. N. be limited to the Assembly. It is interesting to study the vote of the Assembly, always in the interest of the world at large. Its majority vote can be depended upon especially if that vote can be freed from all control by some powerful nation overlord. In this day of the radio, and the airplane going 500 miles an hour, the Assembly could be brought together promptly in any emergency involving world peace or war; or for the purpose of localizing war. That is all we need in a U. N.-a forum where world problems can be frankly discussed without control by a security council. It is so often stated that the high speed liner and airplane as well as the radio, have changed conditions throughout the world in that they have brought nations closer together. My duties once took me to the Near East where I saw closely most of those nations that had been living together as neighbors for centuries. Do they love each other? No, they hate each other much as they did three or four thousand years ago. Permit me, Senator, to summarize my recommendations briefly as follows: 1. A short redrafted charter limiting the U. N. to an Assembly to be called in an emergency when the peace of the world is threatened. 2. A more positive restatement of the prohibition contained in the first part of section VII, article 2, chapter I, so that there may be no interference with the internal affairs of member nations. If this is not done U. N. will destroy itself. 3. The promulgation of an international policy of national rights on the top level of sovereign nations, corresponding in spirit and principle to our States rights, 4. The requirement that officials detailed to the U. N. by any member nation, owe their first loyalty and allegiance to the nation they represent and that that loyalty cannot be taken over in any degree by the U. N. itself. 5. That, as far as the United States is concerned, consideration be given to the problem of finding outstanding Americans to represent us in the UN, not lame ducks, or discredited individuals, and certainly not by individuals representing organizations having un-American international plans. 6. The United States would be greatly benefited if the headquarters of U. N. could be moved physically out of our country. The cost involved would be considerable, but it would be of great benefit to the United States, even if we Americans had to foot the bill involved in the transfer. Very respectfully, GEORGE VAN HORN MOSELEY, Major General United States Army, Retired. Dean NARMORE. Mrs. Kate B. Oliver, Atlanta, representing the Business and Professional Women's Club. STATEMENT OF MRS. KATE B. OLIVER, PRESIDENT, BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL WOMEN'S CLUB, ATLANTA, GA. Mrs. OLIVER. Senators Sparkman, Holland and Smith, I am Kate B. Oliver, president of the Professional Business Women's Club of Atlanta. I have not forgotten your nice speech to us at our national convention, Senator Sparkman. Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you. Senator HOLLAND. Senator Sparkman always makes good speeches. Senator SPARKMAN. Look what experience I had with all these ladies. Mr. OLIVER. The Business and Professional Women's Clubs have supported the United Nations from the very beginning, representatives from the organization having served as consultants when the charter was drafted in San Francisco. Business and Professional Women's Clubs continue to study proposals for strengthening the charter. Realizing the success of the U. N. depends on the support of the public and its member nations, Business and Professional Women's Clubs endeavor to strengthen the work of the U. N. through individual members who use their influence in creating an informed public opinion. NEW INTERPRETATIONS AND USAGE OF PRESENT CHARTER The present charter, despite its inadequacies, could be an instrument toward peace, security and justice, if new interpretations and usage of the present charter were made to meet the needs not envisioned in the charter when it was drafted. The political prestige of U. N. could be increased if member nations would assign to it topnotch diplomats. If a review of the charter is made, it should be made for the strengthening of it, rather than making a change in it. With the international situation as it is at this time, a complete revision at this time might be disastrous. A change in policies of member nations, rather than in the charter itself, would promote the establishment of better world relationships. Senator HOLLAND. Senator Sparkman. Senator SPARKMAN. No questions, thank you. I think it is a very fine statement. Mrs. OLIVER. Thank you, Senator. Dean Narmore. Mrs. M. W. Rozar. Senator HOLLAND. Now we are getting pretty close down to the deadline and instead of getting through I have been given additional names not on the typewritten list. I ask that the witnesses be brief. STATEMENT OF MRS. M. W. ROZAR, MACON, GA. Mrs. ROZAR. I do want to tell a story to you, Senator Holland. I am going to take time out for that, I do not know whether you heard the latest story coming from ex-Governor Talmadge, talking to a Floridian saying, "What do you think about all these Georgians who come down to Florida to live?" Ex-Governor Talmadge thinks and I think the standard of intelligence of both States has been aided. I am now a resident of Florida, Senator Holland; that applies to me too. Senator HOLLAND. As my father was a Georgian, I won't take issuo with you. Mr. ROZAR. My name is Malora S. Rozar of Macon. I worked too on the United States Council for Celebration of U. N. Day and was status of woman chairman of the Christian Services of the Methodist Church, worked with the League of Women Voters and also am with the Macon Council of World Affairs and Legislative Chairman of United Council of Church Women of Macon. I am not speaking only for myself but mostly for my husband who was very interested in coming today but could not come on account of business. I wish very much he could be here instead of me. U. N. ONLY HOPE FOR PEACE With all of its faults, the United Nations is our last and only genuine hope for peace. Today it seems a forlorn hope. Even if we must face a third world war, it cannot be said that war came from the reason that the United Nations does not work. The United Nations has never been instituted as it was designed and has never been given a chance to work. WORLD ORDER UNDER WORLD LAW With the experience of 10 years on which to base our future plans and policy, it should be possible to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the original charter itself and make a revision of the charter which will give a fair trial to the idea of world order under world law. All of the arguments that have been advanced against the United Nations were, in one guise or another, also advanced against the idea of the Federal Union on which our United States of America is founded. The answers to most of the arguments are the same. When we look at the very frequent instances of quarreling and friction and fighting over inexcusable issues between the several states in Central and South America and in other parts of the world and contrast such a state of affairs with the peaceful coexistence of the several States of the United States of North America or of Brazil or of the Provinces of Canada and similar unions who settle all such issues in the courts, there seems little left to strive for but a means whereby an analogous situation may be brought about between nation states by implementing the United Nations to a position sufficient to make it effective. It is recognized that we have one complication in the truculence of Russia and her allies, but the prospective charter revision of the United Nations, itself, offers an opportunity to establish that "standard to which all men of good will may repair," while making clear to all the world that the will and the means to peace do there exist but for the obstructionism of the Soviet bloc. The world has been told that disarmament is not possible, without the consent of Russia in good faith to submit to genuinely effective inspection. Now a charter of the United Nations drawn up in such a spirit and application by all of that part of the world of good will and peaceful intention would effectively put the masters of the Kremlin in a still less defensible position if they dared to reject such a charter. There is not time to give details nor answers to anticipated objections, however, a revision of the charter should, in some form, include at least the following: PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 1. Proportional representation. A minimum of 1 vote should be given each state and possibly the 5 largest nations should be given an equal maximum number of votes large enough not to penalize the smallest of the 5 on a proportional basis, or else the proportional representation should be factored by tests of the population for literacy percentage or by gross national product or other means designed to prevent a large mass of ignorance exercising greater power than a smaller mass of ignorance exercising greater power than a smaller mass or responsible intelligence. VETO POWER 2. Revise the veto power. Since Russia already has a veto power which possibly can wreck any sensible proposition, it might be advantageous to hold a supplementary preconvention for agreement by all nations of peaceful intentions, so that unanimous support could be given in the charter revision conference to force the hand of the Soviet bloc. |