« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
If you feel that if Russia does not agree with these amendments, we should form our own United Nations without Russia, at that point what is the use of the amendment eliminating the veto?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Because, in my opinion, it would be a permanent obstruction in a parallel organization.
Mr. LODGE. Would you be willing to have the forces of this country committed by two-thirds of the members of that new United Nations?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. We have not gotten to the point of discussing whether it should be two-thirds or four-fifths of the organization in which the vetoes should be eliminated.
In my original statement I said I thought it should be modified.
Now, going into the subject of the type of veto is an entirely different proposition and I probably am not as well equipped as my questioners to outline the degree of modifications.
Mr. LODGE. I would like to have your opinion on this. The main reason for this impulse to change the United Nations is because of the actions of Soviet Russia. Now, if Russia will not go along with this, and if we go along with your plan and have our own United Nations Organization, why do we need the amendment? We would have achieved complete agreement in the United Nations all along had Soviet Russia not been a member.
If you are going to eliminate Soviet Russia, why do you need the amendment at all?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Because I believe that the theory of single nation veto is not a democratic theory. I believe it has never worked in the history of world associations. I believe that you must subscribe to the majority principle. I am not saying what percentage of majority, because that is a matter of debate, but I think in the last analysis you must subscribe to the majority principle which is outlined in our Federal Constitution, and until we and other nations of the world are willing to get together on that basis, I do not believe we can get togther except by that principle.
Mr. LODGE. Let us examine that principle, Mr. Holifield. The representative principle of government that we have in this country is representation according to population. There is no such representation under your plan.
Luxemburg would have a vote equal to us and Luxemburg has a population of probably 350,000 people.
Would you be willing to commit the forces of this country on account of the vote of nations the size of Luxemburg, Belgium, and Holland, and so on? Does that seem to be democratic on your appraisal of the meaning of that word ?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I certainly do not, and I say you are bringing in another subject—the subject of what type of proportional representation we should have in a functioning United Nations.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. That proportion of representation does not necessarily need to be confined to populations as it is so confined in our own Nation. It can be confined to or can include, along with population, industrial productiveness, natural resources, and other factors upon which we could arrange agreement.
Mr. LODGE. In other words, you would not be prepared to disagree with me as to the necessity for working out some other arrangement for voting and not necessarily representation by nation states.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I agree with you completely, I think, on that.
Mr. LODGE. Let me ask you this, Mr. Holifield: Under your resolution there is a 20-percent quota in heavy armaments. Do you realize that that is one field in which we have a particular predominance ?
Do you believe it is wise—assuming that the Soviet Union agreesto agree to a 20-percent parity with the Soviet Union on the items in which we have predominance and not to limit the Soviet Union on the elements of power in which she has predominance, to wit, mass armies?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think that is a matter that can be ironed out during these hearings, and in writing your bill, the exact formula could be arrived at. I would say that if Russia and the United States were put on the same heavy armament basis, the same ratio of population basis, that the United States would still have a tremendous advantage both from the standpoint of industrial productiveness and the standpoint of possession of atomic energy.
Mr. LODGE. The thought I have in mind is that even if the Soviet Union were not to join these amendments, they are subject to grave questioning
I would like to refer for a minute to this proposition: That under these amendments the armies of the small countries could be committed by a vote of the large countries.
That is not possible under the present arrangement in the United Nations.
Do you consider that to be a democratic procedure?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I believe that the new functioning organization must be set up on a basis of majority decision, with minority going along with the majority decisions.
Now if it happens to be a small or large nation, which in a vote on a certain matter should be in the minority, I think that they must go along with the majority in those decisions.
Mr. LODGE. Do you believe that a system whereby France has one vote and we have two is more democratic, to use your own words, than a system whereby France has one vote and we have one!
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I said before and I will repeat that I do not know exactly the basis for the establishment of the 2-to-1 formula, there.
Mr. LODGE. In other words, you are not prepared to back to the hilt every one of the amendments you proposed in your own resolution?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. No; I am not. I am prepared to support a basic formula in this resolution, which is to call together a conference for the discussion and establishment of certain principles. It will be possible that such a conference would achieve a different formula, but the points at issue are the points which I think must be discussed,
Mr. LODGE. That could be done under Resolution No. 59. You wonld not need Resolution 163 to call a conference together to discuss these matters.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. That might be, sir.
Mr. LODGE. What is the advantage of Resolution No. 163 over No 59, if you are not prepared to back up these amendments ?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think the advantage is that it brings into the fore ground of people's discussion and the people's knowledge certain
factors which have to be considered, and I think that out of the crucible of discussion there will be conclusions reached on these very vital principles which are outlined there.
Mr. LODGE. Thank you very much.
Mr. Judd. There is nothing in the resolution that would authorize the big powers to order the armed forces of little powers around. The international contingent is recruited exclusively from small powers, but it is under the direct control of the Security Council and not through governments. They serve in it as individuals, not as representatives from individual countries.
Mr. LODGE. Let me ask you this question : You have, as I recollectyou would have two votes for Britain, the United States, and Russia.
Mr. JUDD. Two for the British Commonwealth.
Mr. LODGE. You have two votes there for each one of them; that is six. One for France and one for China; that is eight; and two for the little ones. That is ten.
Now if the eight get together and decide to commit the forces of the two, they can do it; can they not ?
Mr. JUDD. The two probably would not have any forces except military. They would not need any.
Mr. LODGE. They would be contributing to the international contingent.
Mr. JUDD. Yes; their individual citizen might join.
Mr. LODGE. The eight can get together and commit the international contingent and these countries cannot do that under the present Security Council arrangement. You have 11 votes on the present Security Council, of which 6, I believe, are small nations and 5 are permanent members.
Mr. Judd. Do you not think the little nations would rather have security than have their own little individual armies that cannot possibly defend them against any big-power attack? Mrs. BOLTON (presiding). May I ask, who has the floor? Mr. JUD. I yield the floor if I have it. Thank you. Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Gordon, have you any questions? Mr. GORDON. I have no questions. Mrs. BOLTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Holifield. We will next hear from Congressman Stockman.
STATEMENT OF HON. LOWELL STOCKMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. STOCKMAN. I am Lowell Stockman, Member of Congress from the State of Oregon.
Madam Chairman and members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I am highly indebted to you for your consideration of my opinions this morning, and I want you to know I appreciate being given this opportunity to appear before this distinguished committee.
am appearing in support of the revision of the United Nations Charter in the capacity, as I like to refer to it, of a layman. I am not what I would term in any manner or sense an authority on our foreign-affairs situation or the international situation. I am, however, deeply concerned and vitally interested in the success of the United Nations Organization. I feel that if the United Nations does not succeed, the world will be plunged into one or more world wars in the not too far distant future, and I am certain in my mind that the United Nations is the only possible way by which we have at the present, or are likely to find, assistance to avert future world wars.
I think that the United Nations Charter must be revised on what is known as the ABC plan. This plan has been proposed by Mr. Ely Culbertson even though he denies authorship of it. I think he had a large hand in getting it together.
That plan calls for the elimination of the Security Council veto on all matters relating to aggression, armaments, or admission to the United Nations; secondly, control of atomic weapons as proposed by the United States and to limit heavy armament by a quota force plan, giving the United States, the United Kingdom, and Soviet Russia 20 percent apiece, China and France 10 percent each, and all others a total of 20 percent; thirdly to establish an effective world police force, made up of volunteers from small nations and their heavy arms backed by reserves of the five major powers.
Now it seems to me that the United Nations Council must be revised along those lines. Whether or nor Russia will cooperate, it still must be revised
I am very much afraid and I feel very strongly in my own heart that the United Nations Organization will fail in the purpose for which it was conceived and for which I hoped it would have every success in the world.
I believe that these three steps are the best methods of helping it achieve its purpose.
Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Judd.
Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Stockman, to get down to the fundamentals of this thing, the United Nations is not working now, is it?
Mr. STOCKMAN. That, in my opinion, is correct.
Mr. RICHARDS. Therefore, you believe that the basic Charter of this thing should be revised to make it work?
Mr. STOCKMAN. That is exactly right.
Mr. RICHARDS. In matters of aggression and preparation for aggression, you
think that the nations which want peace should be willing to surrender some of their sovereignty in that connection; is that right!
Mr. STOCKMAN. I believe that is vitally necessary.
Mr. RICHARDS. In regard to the question asked by Mr. Lodge just now I want to ask for your further opinion: He said that if we regroup this association and Russia would not join, there would be no need for the veto, then.
As a matter of fact if you did not have amendments abolishing the veto in certain particulars, some other nation might wreck the thing just as Russia is trying to wreck it now, is that not só?
Mr. STOCKMAN. Yes, sir; I think that is the way it would work out.
Mr. RICHARDS. Therefore, whether we keep the old Organization or form another organization composed of nations who wish to preserve the peace, the need will still remain for some changes in the original Charter ?
Mr. STOCKMAN. That is the way it appears to me.
Mr. FULTON. Actually, the veto was a device arranged to withdraw from the consideration of the Security Council any questions that were too big for the infant United Nations; is that not correct?
Mr. STOCKMAN. I think that is probably correct.
Mr. Fulton. Then if you try to have this lamb swallow more than it can digest by withdrawing that veto power, you put into the agenda of the United Nations for action things that the Organization at its present stage cannot handle. Do you not think you might kill the baby lamb!
Mr. STOCKMAN. On the face of it that sounds reasonable, but I really do not think that would happen, especially if the participating nations have a desire to want to make it work, and unless they do have that it could not succeed anyway.
Mr. FULTON. Therefore, unless you get the agreement of Russia, so that she, too, will go along, it would then be apparent that the United Nations would not be able to function on matters that she does not want it to function upon.
Mr. STOCKMAN. I think we have to be realistic on the matter of Russia and consider, her being out of the league to this point, and I believe we are going to have to bring ourselves to the realization that the way things are shaping up now, and have been for the past two and a half years, that this league and this world are going to have to get along without Russia being one of the participating nations, for the reason that she, so far, has shown no apparent thought of helping out with anything that will help out the world.
I reiterate, speaking as a layman and not in the manner of an authority on world-wide affairs, it seems to me that Russia has only stayed with the league just for the purpose of keeping her hand in on what is going on, and with no effort at all of helping the United Nations succeed,
or helping anyone else in the world except Russia. Mr. FULTON. Actually, the biggest problems under the United Nations are those in which Russia is involved?
Mr. STOCKMAN. I think that is right.
Mr. FULTON. Then if that is the case, if you set the organization up otherwise than with Russia's agreement, coming to Mr. Lodge's point, does that not make these proposed amendments futile?
Mr. STOCKMAN. It might. I really do not think so, because I do not think we have any cooperation from Russia at the present time, so I think we are going to have to go along on the basis of working without Russia anyway.
Mr. FULTON. Would that be very much a limitation on the United Nations as to the matters it will decide, so it would become more or less a small debating society?
Mr. STOCKMAN. I think that is one of the practical aspects we have to face. I think it could be that at the present time it is nothing but a debating society.
That is why I want to take whatever steps seem logical to help it.