National Sojourners appreciates this opportunity of appearing before this committee to present its views concerning the serious matters now being considered; concerning how best to achieve peace, international understanding, and world cooperation in the best interests of our country as a sovereign nation.

II. PURPOSES OF NATIONAL SOJOURNERS

Organized with the primary purposes of developing true patriotism, and composed of members who have had international experience through travel and duty on behalf of our country, National Sojourners favors these foregoing essential objectives. It supports all efforts within our constitutional processes to achieve them. A further purpose of National Sojourners is to oppose any influence whatsoever which would tend to weaken our national security. Under these standards, in recent conventions, National Sojourners has adopted resolutions opposing and reaffirming its opposition to the establishment of a world government or other type of supergovernment. National Sojourners opposes any attempt to extend additional power to the United Nations organization, however sincere the purposes might be, at the expense of weakening the security of the United States. National Sojourners, opposes any plan or proposal which would restrict or reduce in any way the sovereignty and independence of the United States. It is deeply convinced that many of the current plans and proposals would, if adopted, have that result and that they would retard rather than advance the very objectives sought to be accomplished by their proponents.

III. WORLD GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS

Proponents of plans for establishment of a world government recommend, among other things, that such a supergovernment be based upon the following principles: (1) That membership be open to all nations without the right of secession; (2) that world law should be enforceable directly upon individuals; and (3) that such a government should have direct taxing power independent of national taxation. They advocate that one of its powers should be a provision prohibiting the possession by any nation of armaments and forces beyond an approved level required for national policing.

These same advocates of world government have always attempted to achieve national approval of their plan in various State legislatures. Their approach at "grassroots" was their right under the Constitution, as one of the methods openly to accomplish the constitutional amendment necessary for their purpose. Their efforts quickly resulted in the adoption, by a large number of States of resolutions supporting this proposal, some of them requesting Congress to call a national convention to consider constitutional revision to permit world government. Since that time nearly all of these States have rescinded their resolutions, while other States have rejected proposals to adopt resolutions. This reversal has resulted from the opposition of the people when they became conscious of what was being developed, contrary to their will and detrimental to their best interests. As a consequence of this, the strategy of proponents of world government has now been revised, and among many of them there is the belief that their purpose can gradually be accomplished through revision of the United Nations Charter, without the necessity for amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

IV. PROPOSALS TO REVISE THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER

National Sojourners believes that at the time of the next conference of the General Assembly, our political leaders will be urged to stand for: (1) An elimination of, or restriction, upon the veto power; (2) the admission to membership in the United Nations of all nations, regardless of the principles under which they are governed; (3) the establishment of so-called world law, enforceable directly upon individuals; (4) to vest in a world organization power to tax; (5) the power to establish, maintain, and use military forces to enforce world law with a prohibition against the maintenance of such forces by sovereign nations, except for national policing purposes; and (6) the adoption of a convention of human rights.

In discussion of the veto power we must recognize it as the keystone of the arch of sovereign independence of the various nations of the United Nations. If exercised wisely and with justice, it is an aid rather than a detriment, to international progress. Any elimination or restriction of its proper use in the national interest would cause a relinquishment of the rights of our citizens guaranteed

by the Constitution. It would vest authority in the United Nations organization, under certain circumstances to subjugate our country to determinations in governmental matters by foreign nations, many of which are now unable to govern themselves under democratic principles comparable to our own.

National Sojourners believes that the United States should not be willing to give up the veto power, since it would allow use of American armed forces without our consent.

National Sojourners believes that the United States should not relinquish the veto power with respect to the admission of new members to the United Nations. National Sojourners believes that the United States should not be willing to give up the veto power with respect to the international control of atomic energy. National Sojourners believes that the veto power should be retained for all those occasions when the United States finds itself at variance with the views of the Council's majority, since the veto, whether used or not, offers a safeguard to the American position. Abolition of the veto would mean giving up the safeguard in matters which heretofore have been considered the exclusive concern of the Nation. The Security Council, for example, could order the armed forces of member nations into action provided the military agreements envisioned in article 43 were concluded. If the veto were abolished, United States troops might conceivably be called upon to support a United Nations decision which the United States opposed.

Concern regarding the veto power cannot reasonably result from dissatisfaction as to its existence, but can and should stem only from its improper use. We maintain that it is not evil, but that it is our most valuable sovereign right and the basis upon which our independence and security rests. Efforts to limit its abuse should be made through persuasion and no elimination or restriction can be countenanced.

National Sojourners assumes an unalterable position with regard to the veto power.

National Sojourners believes that nations of the world should not, merely because they have reasonably stable governments, be admitted into the United Nations organization regardless of the political principles under which they are governed.

It is of interest to note that the Soviet nations have vetoed the admission of some 14 prospective member nations, which might otherwise have been admitted to the United Nations, and that the United States and other nations have opposed the admission of the mainland government of China.

It is of further interest to note that in the consideration of applications of territories for admission to statehood in the United States, our Constitution requires that they have a republican form of government.

National Sojourners assumes position against the establishment of any world law enforceable upon individuals, since any such proposal presupposes the establishment of international courts with criminal jurisdiction; the enactment of a body of international laws defining new offenses; and the trial of alleged offenders under an international system which would differ from and deprive our citizens of the "due processes" guaranteed under our Bill of Rights. We oppose any such suggestion.

National Sojourners is unalterably opposed to any provision for the power to tax, by any world federal government.

National Sojourners is opposed to any proposal that the United Nations should be empowered to raise, maintain and use a world military force which might well be used against us or against our own national interests. We are further against any suggestion that sovereign nations be prohibited from maintaining independent national forces of their own except for police purposes. It is of interest to note that at present there are provisions for the contribution of military forces to the United Nations for "police" purposes. Under this present system, it has been demonstrated in the recent Korean conflict that the United States and the Republic of Korea (which was not a member nation) contributed. more than 95 percent of the total men and resources used in this "police" action. It would appear that this were not an equitable contribution of such when it is considered in the light of an effort by a United Nation's force and to attain United Nations objectives.

National Sojourners is opposed to the proposed convention on human rights, which purports to establish something comparable to our Bill of Rights, and which if adopted, it would supersede. It is particularly repugnant because it does not contain a protection against the taking of private property without "due process of law" which our 5th and 14th amendments guarantee. It is further repugnant in that it would create rights without recognition of obligations.

V. SUMMARY

It appears clear that there are those, many of whom have the best of intentions, who would involve the United States in a world government or other type of supergovernment.

In the main they are the same groups and individuals who oppose an amendment to our Constitution to protect our internal law against encroachment by treaty or Executive agreement. We support such an amendment.

Those who oppose it, since its purpose is solely to protect our domestic affairs, should be asked what it is they seek to regulate through international agreement which might even be beyond the powers of our own Federal Government as granted it by the Constitution.

VI. CONCLUSION

National Sojourners, consistent with its recognized patriotic purposes and its opposition to any form of world or other supergovernment, urges the rejection by our Government of the various proposals which would alter the United Nations Charter so as to abolish or restrict the sovereignty and independence of the United States, as being detrimental to the security of our country.

Such plans are, likewise, opposed by many organizations in this country, including the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Military Order of the World Wars, the Daughters of the American Revolution, and the Sons of the American Revolution, to mention a few, and we are convinced that they are opposed by the vast majority of our citizens.

Our leaders, and we as individuals, should be constantly aware of the dangers which beset us. We should be vigilant to guard against the entrapment of our country in the pursuit of elusive panaceas of false prophets, lest constitutional government become a mere memory in America.

Senator SPARKMAN. Mr. Edward V. Dunklee.

Mr. GOOD. After Mr. Dunklee, the next witness will be Mrs. Carol Ehrlich.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you, sir.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD V. DUNKLEE, PRESIDENT, UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE FOR COLORADO

Mr. DUNKLEE. My name is Edward V. Dunklee. I am an attorney and president of the United Nations Committee for Colorado and of the Colorado branch of the American Association of United Nations, with offices at 812 E and C Building, Denver, Colo. I wish to make three points before this committee which we so much appreciate coming to our fair city as our guests.

CHARTER REVIEW BACKED

First, as to a charter review, I believe it is a good thing to pause once in a while and evaluate any system that we may have, but I think such evaluation should be one that is fair and appreciative of what has actually been done and in a climate in this case, that understands the needs of humanity all over the world. I respectfully submit that a good American does not limit his thinking or interest to the boundaries of this country, but that he is appreciative enough of the privileges of opportunity and health and happiness in this country to want to share them with others. I submit that the United Nations does just this.

It is not a world government. No sovereignty is granted to the United Nations by any country.

If we are to proceed on the foundation of hatred, suspicion, and dislike of the other people of the world, I submit that this conference would not be worthwhile and could gain nothing.

The United Nations Charter very much resembles our own Constitution and has proved pliable and workable to a degree unexpected by its founders-the best example being that when united and collective action was needed in Korea that the power of decision was shifted within the framework of the charter from the Security Council to the General Assembly. Since that time the General Assembly has become the world town meeting in which every nation mayalmost too freely-express itself. Therefore, we are not dealing with a hidebound and straitjacketed charter, but one concerning which we can devote our talents to figuring out a way to act within the charter rather than to destroy it.

SUGGESTIONS SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTIVE

Second, this does not mean that the charter is perfect by any means. It must not be forgotten that the veto was primarily demanded by the United States and that although it has been a stumbling block, it has not prevented action, and the United Nations time after time has prevented war.

We do not want to throw out the baby with the bath water in seeking to cure, nor do we want to go back 10 years and destroy all the benefits of United Nations. That is why it is so important that suggestions should be constructive and ways and means found to bring them about within the framework of the charter if possible.

As to the specific suggestions as to how to proceed on three of the main questions which will arise. I am instructed to report that our organizations conclude as follows:

(a) Greater universality of membership which will include small nations which have made application. Our conclusion on this matter is that we regret that they have not been admitted to date, but that we should make a greater effort toward their admission within the framework of the charter, which provides that the General Assembly could pass upon these applications, if from countries willing to assume the obligations of the United Nations.

(b) The second point that will be raised is that matter of the veto and on this subject our groups deplore the misuse of the veto by Russia. We, however, recognize that the veto is not the main cause of world unrest, but rather the differences of ideologies between the East and the West. If some field of agreement can be found here, we believe that the veto difficulty can be solved within the framework of the charter. We recommend particularly the abolition of the veto on admission of new members and peaceful settlements of international disputes.

(c) The third suggestion consists of an enthusiastic approval of the "atoms for peace" program and the work of the combined commission in handling this activity. We would approve a new agency if necessary to handle the whole subject of atomic energy and to recognize it along with the 17 other agencies of the United Nations. And incidentally, we are against the Bricker amendment 100 percent.

I have just returned from a third trip on technical assistance, others being through the Caribbean, Europe, and the Middle East, and now from Central America to visit the projects under that agency. I found that this work alone, to say nothing of the other agencies, is

42435-55-pt. 11—7

well worth retaining the United Nations for. The spirit of gratitude and appreciation among these other countries is unquestionable, and for the sake of those who worry about the money spent, I might call their attention to the fact that about all the United Nations furnishes is the know-how, and teaching the people to stand on their own feet. We must remember that the nations so helped, petition for those and pay one-half of the cost of the work before it begins. And this type of work covers disease control, great irrigation dams, agricultural projects, new fisheries, educational projects, and public administration, all of which breed international good will and prosperity. When the projects are finished, arrangements are made for the payment of the

other half.

Let us save for our posterity the greatest promise we have gained during our generation.

Senator SPARKMAN. Senator Knowland?
Senator KNOWLAND. Yes.

UNIVERSAL MEMBERSHIP

Mr. Dunklee, as the head of the United Nations Committee for Colorado, you have testified that you believe in universal membership. Do you believe that a nation admitted to membership should have an obligation to conform with the charter?

Mr. DUNKLEE. I certainly do. I mean a greater universality of membership among nations which have applied and which will assume the obligations of responsibilities of the United Nations, that is, in favor of the free world.

Senator KNOWLAND. Has your association taken any position relative to the admission of Communist China?

Mr. DUNKLEE. Their answer to that is this: It is not the question, in our opinion, of the admission of China. She is already a member. But rather it is a question of the credentials, whether we should accept the credentials of Red China or the credentials of the Nationalists.

Senator KNOWLAND. Has it taken any position in regard to that? Mr. DUNKLEE. They have not, except to say that they would accept, as far as advised, the credentials up to date of nationalistic China, the nationalist China, Chiang Kai-shek, for the reasons that Red China has so flouted the ideals and purposes of the United Nations.

Senator KNOWLAND. Do you believe that a nation which has gained membership and has violated the charter should be subject to expulsion?

Mr. DUNKLEE. I think that there should be some rule in regard to that, but that can again be within the framework of the charter, and if the town meeting, that is, the General Assembly, so see fit to vote. that they should be allowed to vote; yes, sir.

EXPULSION OF CHARTER VIOLATORS DISCUSSED

Senator KNOWLAND. Do you understand that under the charter as it now stands, the Soviet Union could exercise a veto over explusion? Mr. DUNKLEE. Yes; I understand it.

Senator KNOWLAND. You are familiar with the fact, are you, that the Soviet Union admitted in the General Assembly meeting that they had supplied the MIG planes, the tanks, the guns, and the ammunition