Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

kept out many countries, such as Italy, Japan, Eire, Rumania, and so forth, which very probably should become members of the U. N.

REPRESENTATION

In the same spirit, it might prove valuable to consider means for determining what regime should represent a nation in instances, such as China, where the government has undergone radical changes and rival factions claim the right of representation.

FURTHER CODIFICATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

Yet another suitable question for discussion might be the further codification of international law, already provided for under the charter, with a view to wider use of the Court of International Justice in settlement of disputes.

ATOMIC ENERGY

It is also well to bear in mind that the U. N. Charter was drawn up before the atomic age. Possibly a charter review conference should consider the creation of a special organ of the U. N. to deal with atomic energy and its use, both for peaceful and military purposes.

U. N. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Another innovation since the charter was drawn up in 1945 has been the technical assistance program of the U. N. Some of the greatest accomplishments of the U. N. lie in this all-too-little-publicized field.

It may be that more efficient means can be evolved for coordinating the work of the specialized agencies and the U. N. in order to avoid rivalry and to make the best use of limited resources.

We believe that mankind wants the U. N. to succeed. We believe it is in the interest of the United States to help it succeed by making more effective use of the present organization, and to consider only changes which clearly would strengthen rather than undermine its objectives. Senator SPARK MAN. Senator Holland.

Senator HOLLAND. I think it is a fine statement.
Senator SPARKMAN. I surely agree with you.

Senator Smith?

Senator SMITH. I want to join the others in congratulating Mrs. Boyte on the statement.

I think you have presented a very fine approach of your organization. I am a great admirer of the League of Women Voters in my own State, and I am glad to compliment you on this presentation.

Senator HOLLAND. Before recessing for noon, I want to say something that has surely become evident to everyone of you.

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator HOLLAND. We will recess until 2 o'clock. We are on schedule and will be able to hear everyone who is on the agenda. (Whereupon at 12:20, a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the same

day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator HOLLAND. At this point in the record there will be inserted several statements which have been submitted in lieu of personal appearances.

42435-55-pt. 8- -6

The following-named persons are submitting such statements:

Mr. John W. Lewis, of Macon, Ga., Mr. Thomas Morgan of Atlanta, Mr. Gus B. Kaufman of Macon, Mrs. Nelda S. Cain of Columbus, and Mrs. Jessie W. Jenkins of Columbus, Mrs. Ruth McMillan of Atlanta, and Mrs. Mary A. Rambo of Atlanta.

Without objection, those statements will be inserted and become part of the record.

(The statements are as follows:)

Dr. PHILIP B. NARMORE,

NATIONAL PATRICK HENRY ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Jacksonville, Fla., March 14, 1955.

Executive Dean, Georgia Institute of Technology,

Atlanta, Ga.

DEAR DR. NARMORE: With reference to the forthcoming conference on the advisability of revising the U. N. Charter, this is to advise you that our entire membership of thirty-odd-thousand are unalterably opposed to any consideration of this charter that might prolong the life of an agency that should be allowed to die, so that its functions might again be assumed by our ambassadors without foreign pressure.

We sincerely believe that on the basis of evidence in hand, this United Nations is a bolshevik invention with sinister motives; that it has already proved its fraudulent nature in the Korean mass slaughter, and in its inability to secure the release of hundreds of our sons, now allegedly held in slave labor camps in violation of the truce terms, or even our 11 fliers, among its other significant failures.

On the other hand, powerful forces known to have been connected with the overthrow of the Russian Government, have already wangled through our subservient Congress a whole nest of treasonable treaties, in violation of our Constitution and the American way, with every indication of a determination to submerge our Government into some form of a world dictatorship, which also proposes that it shall be under a foreign head.

Therefore, we solemnly affirm that it has no place on our good soil, and that the only question to be resolved is a speedy withdrawal.

We further affirm that the surest road to peace lies in our duty to demand that Congress publicly label our internal enemies and to take immediate action to defend our own shores, leaving it up to others to do likewise, because we know if we can ever get them out of American pocketbooks they will have no money to feed communism, or to fight wars.

Respectfully submitted.

Dr. PHIL B. NARMORE,

Mrs. JESSIE W. JENKINS,
National Secretary-Treasurer.
A. C. SHULER,

National Chairman.

COLUMBUS, GA., March 14, 1955.

Georgia Institute of Technology,

Atlanta Ga.

DEAR SIR: Circumstances make it impossible for me to appear before the subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee meeting in Atlanta March 17. I am therefore submitting 12 copies of the statement I wish to make, which I am informed from the paper meets your requirement, and request that it be included in the record of the proceedings.

Very truly yours,

Mrs. NELDA S. CAIN.

STATEMENT OF MRS. NELDA S. CAIN

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the will to peace and plans to preserve it have been with us from a very early time-to mention a few-the Pax Romana-"The Peace of God," the proposals of Gerohus, the great design of Henry of Navarre, the plan of William Penn, and those of Rousseau, Jeremy Benthaw, and Immanuel Kant. It is perhaps worthy of note that many of these

envisioned a League of Nations backed by both military and moral force. Why did they fail?

The latest attempt in our time is the United Nations. The statement heard so many times that the United Nations is the last best hope of mankind would seem to be exaggerated in the face of its apparent failure. It is not necessarily true that something is better than nothing. The United Nations was set up to keep the peace, this it has not done nor does there seem to be any prospect of it; otherwise, we would not have had to resort to NATO and SEATO. In a so-called U. N. “police action," only approximately 16 of the 60 member nations contributed even as much as a token force although they all demanded the right to veto military plans and strategy. It was also a matter of common knowledge that one of the member nations was supplying the enemy. Who will ever forget Senator Austin's stirring speech with the proof? As a result, we have an uneasy truce in Korea where we have reliable reports that the enemy is building its forces in violation of the truce terms. It is because of this failure that we see the rise in importance of the Economic and Social Council so that something constructive might be salvaged. Its major accomplishments are the covenantsparticularly the covenant on human rights that has been well called a blueprint for socialism. One of our basic rights, the right to own private property, is a case in point. There is no provision for it in the covenant. Since the basic Soviet concept is that all human rights come from and are guaranteed by the state and we believe our rights are inalienable and come from God, it would appear to be an irreconcilable conflict. In addition, there is the fact that in the opinion of some of the best legal minds the ratification of this covenant would automatically supercede the Constitution of the United States and what American would give up the Constitution for these so-called rights? They would have everything to lose and nothing to gain. That is why it is necessary to have the Bricker amendment to place us in the same position as the other U. N. members in regard to treaties.

To show how hopeless the work of the Social and Economic Council is and how dangerous to us, I have only to quote its Chairman, Mr. Charles Malik of Lebanon (p. 12). The revolution referred to was the emphasis changed from freedom of religion, speech, discrimination, and arbitrary arrest to economic, social, and cultural rights-materialism. "Three not altogether unrelated causes have brought about this revolution. First, the increasing impact of Marx and the amazing persistence of the Soviet representatives in harping upon their views. Second, the rise of the economically and socially less developed, where, the accent is far more on the material and social than on the personal and inner. And third, the apparent unimaginative helplessness of the western world in the face of these two impacts."

This does not speak well for those who have represented the western world. To quote again, "The task is much harder than some people think but salvation is coming, and when it comes it will not be from the Commission or the U. N. but from the living institutions of the mind and spirit vigorously reaffirming their faith in truth, justice, and order." So much for the years of work of the Commission and who should know better than its Chairman.

Among the supporters of the U. N., UNESCO is an agency to which they point with pride. The spread of education through the world is certainly a laudable aim but some of the things done in its name violate certain basic principles and beliefs very dear to us. Aside from the fact that they planned to rewrite world history as they wished without regard for fact, its aim very plainly stated was to make world citizens. To do this they made a determined effort to undermine loyalty to this country which they called nationalism and which is abhorrent to them. I defy anyone to read the entire UNESCO series of booklets, Toward World Understanding, and not be shocked. I believe that they should be compulsory reading particularly for this committee, although I understand they are now difficult to obtain because of the unfavorable publicity they have received. It has been well said "Nationalism, with all its emotions, will continue as long as man inhabits this earth and will have to be embraced in any plan to preserve the peace." It might be well to remember the rise of nationalism and the demand for independence since the charter was adopted. Now the charter is up for revision and we hear much about "strengthening the U. N." If it means giving it more power or turning it into a world government, I am unalterably opposed to it. There are many reasons, but for me one is sufficient. I quote from Mr. Herbert Hoover and Mr. Hugh Gibson: "That being a minority in a supergovernment, the political, economic, and social control of our country would ultimately pass from our own hands and all the assurances of our funda

mental institutions would be lost." From a rather careful study for the past 10 years of the U. N., I believe that to be a true statement of the case.

I have been most interested recently in reading the report of the Subcommittee of the Judiciary to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws on the Korean War and Related Matters.. This is the testimony of Gen. Mark Clark, Lt. Gen. George E. Stratemeyer, Gen. James A. Van Fleet, Lt. Gen. Edmond M. Almond, and Adm. Turner Joy. Based upon official Government reports, particularly the McCarran and Jenner committees and this latest report, I would agree with General Clark when he said (p. 8), "I believe to permit the Soviet Union to have its large number of spies and saboteurs over here spawning in our country is wrong, and, I think the thing ought to be organized as a U. N. against the Soviet Union."

Should Red China be admitted to the U. N. as presently organized I would associate myself with General Van Fleet when he said (p. 15), “I would advocate that the United States resign and that the U. N. be moved out of this country.” His idea that the U. N. meet in Moscow for the next 10 years might be some indication of Russia's good faith or whether she is only interested in using it as a sounding board for propaganda.

The time has come when for the safety of this country we had better be realistic. The Russian attitude has never changed from the time Lenin said our two forms of government could not exist in the same world-the new coexistence propaganda to the contrary. The argument that as long as we can talk we will not fight is a fallacy. There were high-level conversations going on when Japan struck Pearl Harbor and it is pretty generally conceded Russia will strike exactly when she thinks she can win. The U. N. is a noble ideal but must be founded on mutual trust and good faith. That is why there is no hope for

success.

Mr. PHILIP B. NARMORE,

G. BERND CO.. Macon, Ga., March 14, 1955.

Executive Dean, Georgia Institute of Technology,

Atlanta, Ga.

DEAR MR. NARMORE: I enclose statement I should like presented to the Senatecommittee's hearing on the United Nations Charter revision to be held in Atlanta. I regret excessively my inability to attend.

My name is Gus B. Kaufman. I am a white male citizen of Bibb County.

I am a businessman, being the president of G. Bernd Co., the oldest corporation in Macon, and have interest in several other businesses in the Southeast. I am a member of the following organizations: NAACP, Kiwanis Club, Temple Beth Israel, B'nai B'rith.

I am a director of the Bibb County Nursery Schools, Booker T. Washington Center, Macon Little Theater, member of the executive council of Boy Scouts of America, State Cochairman of United Jewish Appeal.

While the opinions I give herewith are by not means the opinions of the groups of which I am a member, I think it important that you know there are people in each of the above groups that do share my views.

Yours very truly.

GUS B. KAUFMAN.

STATEMENT OF GUS B. KAUFMAN

Gentlemen, I present herewith my views in relations to the imminent revision of the United Nations Charter.

If we are to survive, we cannot have another war.

Attempts at balances of power and armament races have always ended in war. It would thus seem suicidal to presume that our present armament race can do otherwise than lead to war.

Only those bodies, states, nations, countries have peace where the governing body had the concentrations of power greater than the constituent groups. This seems so obvious as to be elementary.

It thus becomes obvious that we must concentrate enough power strength in the hands of our world-governing body, the United Nations, so that it can enforce peace.

Since this is self-evident, it must be done regardless of real or imagined bugaboos of sovereignty, representation, or other stumbling blocks.

Sampling and waiting on world opinion is but sidestepping and avoiding the issue and the obvious conclusion. In an issue as moral, as life-bearing as this, leadership must act, opinion must follow.

Forward-moving events in the world have always been made by the few in the face of the wrath of the many, this case is no exception. Rather this will be easier, you will have only to contend with the apathy of the many plus the wrath of a few. Slothfulness is perhaps a better word than apathy, for like the sloth, we see the danger over us but blindly do nothing.

It seems to me that this may well be our last chance for action.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS MORGAN, ATLANTA, GA., PRESIDENT, THOMAS MORGAN CORP., ON UNITED NATIONS CHARTER

For a layman to comment with accurate appraisal is short of possible. He must rely on impressions and these are often mistaken, perhaps foolhardy. However, I believe that the United Nations does represent a noble ventureas such it continues to serve as a beacon everywhere toward man's upward aims, his hopes. In this way it has value of great and permanent force-despite the fact it too is not perfect.

It is said that diplomacy is the first line of defense. In such a manner, the United Nations implies and should further conform to be the State Department, the Foreign Office of mankind and its peaceful growth.

The charter should be so maintained to preserve the common thought, the common will as represented by the majority of members-not imperiled by the fear of rebellion of the few nor forestalled by circumvention through procedures. The charter should be so written to boldly enforce this majority will. It should serve as the instrument of highest propaganda for all men. Then the recalcitrant would become the object of the United Nations, of mankind's searching scorn. This, I believe, through defective instruments of the charter is not largely true today.

DR. PHIL B. NARMORE,

MACON, GA., March 11, 1955.

Executive Dean, Georgia Institute of Technology,

Atlanta, Ga.

DEAR DR. NARMORE: I am delighted to learn that the Foreign Relations Subcommittee is meeting in Atlanta next week for the purpose of sounding out the public mind on matters of an international character. I shall be unable to attend the hearing, but I am enclosing a letter to Senator George which is no more than my personal evaluation and reaction to the problems that are international in scope and range. I am asking that you give the letter to Senator George for his consideration.

I want to thank you for the time and effort which you are devoting to make this a successful venture both for the committee and for our State and Nation. Very cordially yours,

Senator WALTER F. GEORGE,

JOHN W. LEWIS.

MACON, GA., March 11, 1955.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR GEORGE: I am gratified to learn that the Foreign Relations Committee under your chairmanship has selected Atlanta, Ga., as one of the focal points for your inquiry into the public mind as it is working on the matter of our relations with our neighbors. National sovereignty as we have known it in the past can no longer be accepted as a vital element in the life of national groups today. The economic and cultural interdependence which has come about through the industrialism of the past century and a half tends to minimize national boundaries and authorities as they were once understood. The most we can hope for is a limited sovereignty intimately identified with the sovereignty of all other nations. The exchange of goods and services, the interbreeding of cultures made possible through our transportation and communications systems have virtually erased all boundaries save those of a political nature. It is precisely at this point that our difficulty arises. We continue to insist upon the political institutions and boundaries born of the preindustrial civilization; but if we are to survive, we must modify our political institutions to meet the conditions inherent in the

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »