« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
the veto provision which in 23 or 24 different instances has been utilized by member nations and in 22 occasions, I believe by Russia, for the purpose of stalemating or objecting to an international deci sion on problems between nations or between a nation and the United Nations Organization.
I am convinced that while it was necessary to include that provision in the original United Nations Charter that the experiences of the past 3 years have shown that unless it is modified to some extent that we have a form of international organization without the vital power necessary to make it effective. In
my resolution I provided that we should proceed as the Charter calls for in the establishment of an International Court for the purposes of adjudicating problems between nations. It also provided that we immediately proceed toward the formation of an International Police Force which is also, as you know, provided in the Charter but which has not yet been effected. It is my opinion that if this particular point had been complied with, or if the International Police Force, in other words, had been established, that the stalemate in Korea and in Palestine might not have occurred.
The so-called Judd-Hays bill goes further than my resolutions and I am in accord with the general purposes set forth in that legislation. I certainly believe that the subject of limitation of armaments in the different nations is a subject which should be immediately taken up by the United Nations. The crushing burden of armaments throughout the world, which amounts to about two-thirds of our present budget
, is indicative of the need of the studying of this problem and it can only be studied on an international basis. I am, therefore, in full accord with the extension of the subject of inquiry, as contained in the Judd and Hays bills.
I join gladly with the nonpartisan and forward-looking group of Representatives and Senators who are sponsoring identical resolutions to amend and improve the United Nations Charter.
In July 1947 I introduced two resolutions, H. R. 116 and H. R. 117, the
purposes of which were similar to those of the present resolution. However, the present resolution goes further into the subject than my resolutions, and deals with additional factors pertaining to the difficult job of establishing international accord. I am, therefore, happy to join with my colleagues on this additional attempt to move toward universal peace.
I firmly believe that the most important problem facing our Nation and the world, is the establishing of an international organization which will be a vital functioning vehicle for world peace. Our present United Nations is a noble beginning, but 3 years of experience has disclosed basic organizational faults which must be eliminated. It is the mark of wisdom to recognize defects and move constructively to im. prove. Those who point out the faults and criticize are morally and spiritually obligated to formulate constructive improvements in the function of the United Nations.
To criticize and condemn is the mark of defeatism. To criticize and improve is the obligation of every honest and sincere public official.
I shall join with every group in our Nation who are loyal, conscienticus, and dedicated to the fight against a third world war. That fight must be made intelligently, with sober evaluation of the realities of the present world situation. It is not enough to cry: peace ! peace! It is not enough to decry and condemn war.
We must; if we live up to the challenge of our times, move constructively and in a practical way toward constructing a vehicle for obtaining peace. We must eliminate' war for the benefit of suffering mankind and we must realize that war can be eliminated only on the international level. National security can no longer be obtained within national boundaries or through dependence on national strength alone.
It is for these reasons that I gladly join with my colleagues in their nonpartisan sponsorship of a resolution for United Nations revision.
Chairman EATON. You referred to the aid for the establishment of a court. We have in the Charter here, the statute on the International Court of Justice. Is it that Court?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes; I consider that a court. My words were directed to the fact that the purpose of the Charter has not yet been achieved, and toward expediting the setting up of that Court of Justice.
Chairman Eaton. This is to be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I am fully in accord with that, and my only complaint, if it is a complaint at the present time, is that it has not advanced to the place where it can function in matters of international dispute.
Chairman EATON. Are here any questions!
Mr. Fulton. How would you implement the enforcement of the decisions of the United Nations?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I believe that can be done only through the estahlishment of an international police force as called for in the Charter. I recognize the fact that there have been many conferences for that purpose which have been fruitless up to the present time.
Mr. FULTON. Even if we should change the Charter as is suggested by any one of these resolutions, would it amount to anything if the decisions of even that amended United Nations cannot be enforced ?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. In my opinion, unless we have an international police force, we are in the same position that the League of Nations was in 25 years aro when we invoked sanctions against Mussolini, and against the Japanese on their invasion into Manchuria and Ethiopia. We a e absolutely in a position of helplessness. We are in a position where, as has been evidenced recently, a few disorganized Arab tribesmen can defy the will of the majority of the nations of the world on a particular subject.
Mr. FULTON. Does your form of procedure envisage the possible set-up of a police force with those countries who would cooperate?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes; with those who would cooperate in a functioning United Nations which would not be obstructed by an absolutely single-nation veto.
Mr. Fulton. Do you think that might be misinterpreted as an alliance against the others who did not join?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think that it might be, but my sense of urgency in proceeding along this line comes partly from the knowledge which I have as a member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. The testimony before our committee has been that we have probably—and this is a matter of dispute-5 years to 8 years sole ownership of the
atomic bomb. In other words, our best scientists have testified before that committee and have made public statements so I am not revealing anything of a confidential nature, that it is possible for any foreign nation to develop machinery for the conversion of atomic energy into atomic war missiles within a period of time from now to 1952 or 1953. I therefore feel we have from 5 to 7 years in which to more nearly perfect an international organization which will seek to settle disputes on the basis of international law and multilateral agreement, and not on the sole basis of national military strength. It is my sense of urgency on the time limitation, where we are the sole owners of atomic energy, and it is my theory that if another nation has atomic energy, that we will not be in a position to sit across the table and bargain as easily as we can now. It is my judgment that we would not be able under those conditions to possibly obtain a majority of the nations of the world who see international values as we see them and who would line up with us at the present time, but who through fear might not line
with us under circumstances which I have indicated. That is why I think it is so urgent that a United Nations Organization be put on an effective and functioning basis just as quickly as possible. I cannot stress too strongly my feelings on that measure. I think the sands in the atomic hourglass are running out and I think we must do something
I am aware of the testimony given by our great Secretary of State, General Marshall, yesterday. I know of only the newspaper account of it. I can see the value in what he has to say. I cannot be the judge of the timing of proposed changes in the international organization, but in the over-all timing, I believe I am capable of saying we must do something between now and 1952 or 1953.
Mr. FULTON. Thank you.
Mr. Judd. It has been said by some that for the United States to try to get all the nations who are willing to come along into a real organization under law and with a police force, might be regarded as unfriendly to Russia, for example, or threaten the United Nations and perhaps destroy it, as both the Secretary of State and Ambassador Austin repeatedly said yesterday,
If that is true, do you not think that getting together a western union in Europe, five or six nations into a military alliance with the United States, which those same gentlemen are promoting, would be a threat to Russia and be regarded as somewhat unfriendly and therefore jeopardize the United Nations and perhaps destroy it!
How do you explain the thesis that getting all the nations together in an agreement that Russia cannot challenge would be dangerous, but that getting a little handful together which Russia can challenge would not be dangerous ?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. The logic of the gentleman's remark, I agree with completely. Anything we do, I believe will be looked upon by those nations that do not agree with the multilateral approach to world solutions as a threat.
I say then in all sincerity, that we who believe in the principles of multilateral, international solutions by international law must go forward without fear of criticism, from those nations who wish to return to the jungle of national sovereignty. I believe this is no
time to draw back. We do not have the time to waste and if it is looked upon as a military alliance, in my opinion that is not to be feared too much.
In going into the atomic world of the future, I would rather go into that world with 35 nations or 40 nations lined up in an effective, functioning international organization, than to go into it in a disorganized condition as we are at the present time, not knowing who our friends and allies will be, and if it comes to the point of military alliance and of cleavage on a military plane, we should follow the ideal logical cleavage which does exist, I would feel safer if 35 or 40 nations were with us, on the principles which we believe to be fair and just and which we keep open for other nations to cooperate with us on this basis, than for us to proceed alone with a functionless organization to confuse and deceive the people.
Mr. Judd. If it is not justified to build an organization for collective self-defense with 40 nations within the UN, how can we go out and challenge them with 5? If we are going to take on a bull, we should not do it with a pea shooter. We want to be as strong as possible. Certainly for us to tell the Russians in public hearings that as long as they stall or refuse to agree, we will not do anything, makes it practically certain that we will not get agreement. Under those circumstances they would be foolish to agree.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I recognize the alliance arrangement permitted under the Charter and I look upon that as a stopgap remedy in which I am heartily in favor.
I would like to see all 16 nations form an economic and military alliance for the protection of each nation and for the protection of the whole world.
I would also like to see our own Western Hemisphere join with the western European alliance, which might be the practical way of forming a functional group in the world organization.
However, I think you have to go further than that and attack this not altogether on a regional basis but on an approach through the United Nations, excluding no nation that will cooperate with the principles we believe in.
Mr. JUDD. I agree with you 100 percent. We must make perfectly clear in advance that only if we are not able to get agreement, with full recognition that it cannot be perfected in one jump-only if it proves impossible to get the whole world together into a workable organization, will we go ahead with these arrangements for collective self-defense under article 51.
Mr. LODGE. I apologize to my colleague for not having arrived in time to hear his statement.
Do you favor resolution No. 163? That is the resolution containing three specific recommendations with respect to changes.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. What was your question, please?
Mr. LODGE. Let us assume that the Soviet Union and her satellites do not agree to those changes. How do you suggest that we proceed at that point ?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I have come reluctantly to the point that we must proceed informing a functioning, international organization with or without Russia.
Mr. LODGE. What happens to the United Nations in that case?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. The United Nations as an organization in my opinion would at that point cease.
Mr. LODGE. Under what provisions of the charter would it cease! Mr. HOLIFIFLD. It would cease as far as effectiveness is concerned.
Mr. LODGE. How will action be taken to make the United Nations cease functioning?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I do not think formal action would be necessary. I think if 35 or 40 nations were drawn into a parallel organization in which they would subscribe to certain principles which are not now in the United Nations Charter, that by the very formation of a parallel organization, the original United Nations would automatically cease to be effective.
Mr. LODGE. Supposing the Russians said, “We are going to abide by the United Nations Charter even if you do not, we will stay with our satellites, we will stay at Lake Success, and you fellows can do what ever you want to do.'
What would you do then?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think they could meet with their six or seven satellites.
You are assuming on a technicality.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. You have blind allegiance to an organization which has proven by 3 years of experience that it cannot function; on 24 different occasions, as I recall it, the absolute single nation veto has obstructed international solutions of troubles between nations or troubles between nations and the United Nations, and therefore, allegiance to that functionless organization will get us nowhere. We must have a functioning organization, regardless of the provisions of the Charter.
You must proceed to form a parallel organization and make it work.
Mr. LODGE. You would agree, I assume that the main reason the veto has not worked is because of the manner in which the Soviet Union has used it, would you not?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes; I certainly would.
Mr. LODGE. Then why abolish the veto if the Soviet Union is out of the United Nations? In other words, when we form our own international organization, why do we have to adopt this amendment No. 1? Why do we not leave the veto in ?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Because, by leaving the veto in, we have had an organization which has proven itself unable to solve international disputes.
Nr. LODGE. Only because of the abuse of the veto by the Soviet Union.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I am not interested in why; the fact remains that it has been a stumbling block.
Mr. LODGE. I do not see how you can remedy a situation until you have ascertained the reason. Now the reason the United Nations has failed in these instances has been because of the use of the veto by Soviet Union.