« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Gordon?
Mr. LODGE. Mr. Stockman, if Russia would not agree to these amendments, you think it would be far preferable to form another United Nations than simply to proceed under article 51 into a series of regional, multilateral, military pacts, do you?
Mr. STOCKMAN. I am in no way familiar with article 51, but in answer to the first part of your question, I think we would be just as well off with another league without Russia, because I do not think they are cooperating or helping out with the present league.
Mr. LODGE. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Bolton. Do you feel that a complete break with Russia is indicated at this point? Do you think we have reached a moment where the world would be better off if we severed all possible connections with Russia ?
Mr. STOCKMAN. Actually, I think that we probably would be better off. That is what I would term an entirely practical viewpoint. When I say that, I am thinking into the future, and I am of the opinion that that is what it will ultimately amount to in any event. Actually, I do not think possibly you should say that right now. It has not reached that stage, although I feel in my mind that it will. I am certain that Russia does not intend or propose to cooperate with the United States or any other part of the world. I would say that that is what it would come to and we might just as well realize that.
Mrs. Bolton. Would you feel that we had any responsibility toward those satellite countries that are under the Russian domination at the moment, but within the borders of which there are thousands upon thousands who want to be out from under the influence ?
Mr. STOCKMAN. Yes; I think we have a large responsibility to them. As to whether or not we can exercise any part of it, I think that is another question. With Russia dominating them, and overshadowing them as she does, I think it would be highly questionable whether we could do anything about it, but in answer to your question I think we have the responsibility.
Mrs. BOLTON. Then you would be reluctant to see us take any steps which would sever all possible communication with these countries. It would be quite impossible for us to hold out hope to them? Mr. STOCKMAN. Yes.
Mrs. BOLTON. If we make a new United Nations, and exclude Russia, is that not exactly what we do?
Mr. STOCKMAN. Yes, it is. On the other hand, to reiterate what I have already said, I think that is actually doing what is already going on now, but we are putting it on top of the table.
Mrs. Bolton. You think we would be better off if we abandoned many of these contacts we have in small committee meetings and discussion groups and so on, with Russia!
Mr. STOCKMAN. Madam Chairman, at all times I feel that to be en. tirely realistic about any matter is the best possible solution. Does that answer your question ?
Mrs. BOLTON. No; I think not. To me it resembles the recent descent into what is called Realism in Art which insists that we consider paintings of dirty little back yards works of art. I am not satisfied myself to say that to be realistic is to look at only the dark side of any matter. I think that your attitude toward what you term realism, and so forth, at that point is not one that I could agree to.
You feel that there is nothing else that we can do and therefore we should write them off ?
Mr. STOCKMAN. I likened the United Nations to a sort of business agreement, in which the participating nations sit around the table and discuss with one another their problems just exactly in the same manner as the same number of businessmen would sit around a table trying to work out a problem affecting all of them.
I think that the United Nations should be considered as a business proposition because, after all, it involves money, the future of the Nation, and the future of human lives and it really is a business deal.
If, for instance, 50 men are sitting around a table and one of the largest stockholders in the proposition refuses to counsel or refuses to go along or you do not know where he is or he will not say yes, or he will not say no, you never can reach a business agreement. I think that is the case somewhat with the United Nations.
From that viewpoint it seems to me that if you have one of the most important nations who will not counsel and who will not go along, and just gets what it can out of the United Nations without giving anything in return, with that sort of person, no patience should be granted. I probably am not in line with the thinking of the committee, but that does not mean that you are wrong.
Mrs. Bolton. May I suggest that to use the same case, the United Nations is probably the board of directors, but I question whether Russia is a stockholder, rather is she a member of the board. I think there may come a time when the stockholders, the people of the different nations, will assume the right to their own say.
Therefore, I would be very reluctant to have the stockholders of Czechoslovakia and Poland who are violently opposed to this thing which has been put upon them, I should be reluctant to find they had no voice. I would not call that a democratic procedure.
I was questioning the business proposition and I wonder if you might consider that?
Mr. STOCKMAN. I believe the example you have just made is the best one I have heard yet as to what is actually represented in the United Nations. I think that is a most admirable one and one that should be given a lot of consideration. I think you are exactly right in that, that the people of Russia more than likely are not being allowed to speak their mind, ar any part of their voice at all.
Mrs. BOLTON. Therefore, if we keep the board of directors going, there might not be so much trouble. Might there not come a time when the recalcitrant ones might be persuaded to move in for the benefit of their own stockholders?
Mr. STOCKMAN. I think that is quite right. Of course, in my mind, I question whether that will happen, but I think your point is extremely well taken.
Mrs. BOLTON. Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. FOLGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. FOLGER. Madam Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I think I should preface what I have to say by the observation that my anxiety as to the status of world affairs, rather than any assumption that I have any peculiar knowledge or ability to be helpful to this committee, moves me in requesting this time in appearing before you.
Of course, I am but one of probably 140,000,000 people who are uneasy and somewhat fearful.
We have been running along for more than 2 years. It is, of course, necessary that we admit that we had hoped for something and it has not been accomplished.
I was a little bit disturbed and possibly surprised to read that Secretary Marshall said that the United Nations is not supposed to make peace, but to preserve peace. I realize that in some of the record there is that thought that I thought was inadvertently expressed, that it was to preserve peace rather than to make peace.
I think the ability lies, if it lies anywhere, with the United Nations to at least help the United States and any other nations like-minded, to build a peace, and I would not have any observation I make interpreted as a willingness to forget the United Nations, or to fail to realize its possibilities in this effort we are in to build a just and lasting peace, which we indicated ourselves was proper and which we committed ourselves to at an earlier time in the Congress.
I think it is possible for the United Nations to help us build a peace and to be more instrumental in it. I am not here to advocate or even to suggest that the United Nations be crippled, but I do think that the line of thought as expressed in these resolutions-we have many of them; most of them I think are substantially to the same effect—that that is not an attack upon the United Nations but is, as we had to do in the framing of our own Constitution, a later recog. nized necessity. What I stress especially is the enlarging and defining of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
I do not know that it is necessary to disregard the fact that that court is set up, and go into what we call a "world court," or establish another court, but I am rather of the opinion that the jurisdiction which is contemplated in the resolutions which have been offeredthat by your own committeeman Mr. Judd and the Senate Resolution No. 50, and others which are practically the same import, and having the same purposes, that there be given to this International Court of Justice, jurisdiction to prevent war, to put it in plain language. Of course, there is carried with it the necessity of establishment of an enforcement agency.
At that point I think I am committed to the belief that that court should not only have national jurisdiction, but should have individual jurisdiction, as the United States courts have jurisdiction over people in my State and yours for the violation of laws and offenses directed toward the Nation. This would be for offenses that were directed toward all of the nations of the world.
With your indulgence I want to read you a few excerpts which I think will be very helpful and which are very well conceived. I noticed one from Mr. Grenville Clark who is one of the great lawyers of the United States. [Reading:]
With us it is too commonly assumed that it is Russian perversity alone which stands in the way of world order. I do not minimize their obduracy, born of many elements, including deep fears and suspicions.
At that point I believe the Secretary of State indicated there had been somewhat of a change in understanding in the Office of the Secretary of State, of the reason for the attitudes and the obstinacy of Russia in instances, first believing that it was born of fear and suspicion.
However, the conclusion probably substantially arrived at, that it is a determination along the lines of unyielding aggression, and to gather unto themselves many more nations.
I rather agree with Mr. Clark that we have not reached the point where we can say that that is true and abandon the idea that there is yielding on the part of Germany and on the part of Russia.
I thought and made a talk about it in July 1947, that possibly we might give consideration to the question of whether it is not possible that Russia was gathering these states about her because of what appeared to be an attitude of the United States to immediately rebuild Germany which would, however much we might deny it, result in rebuilding Germany militarily, and to make them not only the economic center of all activity in a great part of Europe, if not all of it, but they may have thought that it would result in Germany again, not many years from now, driving into the back door of Russia and repeating that which was done in World War II.
I cannot say who is correct about it, but I am not willing to disorganize the United Nations Organization and accept the idea that war and nothing else is inevitable in the adjustment of the affairs of the world on account of Russia's disposition.
I quote again from Mr. Clark (reading]: I do not even know—no one does—that the Russian rulers will not try for world domination. How foolish to deny that this may be so! But how foolish and also irresponsible to assert that it "must" be so and that the cause of peace is hopeless until after the atomic war!
In any case, however grimly we choose to view the Russian attitude, we ought to recognize that it is not merely the Russians but also ourselves whom we have to persuade.
While we somewhat deny it, and profess with probable sincerity that we are paramounting efforts toward peace, we must admit also that right now and for some time our action has been toward a high preparation for war. Sometimes people cannot understand differences of that sort.
I think we have done well to make ourselves strong militarily. I voted for ERP. I voted, against the opinion of some of the military people, for a 70-group air force. I think the matter of war hereafter, whether it comes in i month, 1 year, or 5 years, will be technical and mechanical to the largest degree, but while we are doing that we ought to quit talking about it, and boasting about it, and heralding to the world that we are very, very busy in that line, but, on the other hand, go ahead and do what is necessary, in our opinion, for our security, if the worst should come to the worst, but devote ourselves to the building
I feel these resolutions which have been offered are fine. They offer us an opportunity to direct ourselves toward a practical and, I think, a sensible effort to the accomplishment of peace in the world. I do not think there is any time for us to discuss and debate whether Russia will come in or will not come in. We hope Russia will come in. Many of these resolutions, conceding that her failure to come in is a possibility, leave the door open for any nation to come in at a later date.
I believe my own State hesitated a long time to come into the Union, demanding that the Bill of Rights be made a part of the Constitution.
I rather think that it was an error, and believe that they should have come in, believing and hoping that this Bill of Rights would be made sometime a part of the Constitution, which did occur.
Here is an excerpt from a book written by Fritz Sternberg. The name appears to be German. I do not know his nationality, but that is immaterial here [reading]:
The price of an American victory over the Soviet Union would be staggering losses, gigantic costs, barbarism in Europe and Asia.
One of the chief aims of war with the Soviet Union is allegedly to preserve the American economic and social system.
That is a right disturbing situation, that we might get into paramount disputes on ideologies. One side will insist that the whole world will accept a certain form of government.
Of course we believe that a democracy is that form of government which offers the greatest individual liberty to every man, and is one compared with which there is no ather.
But to undertake to order the life of every other country, whether we want them to be not Socialists or some other thing, is taking on a right smart burden. It comes pretty near being as fanatical as a religious war. [Continues reading :)
Actually war with the Soviet Union, while saving the world from Russian totalitarianism, would hurl it into barbarism. It would destroy the foundations on which the United States has built its economic system and democratic institutiors.
The Americans would be compelled to enforce law and order in a world of Hiroshimas in Europe and Asia. Everywhere outside of the United States the sternest despotism would be needed even to make reconstruction possible.
He is calling that to our attention if that sort of an attempt is made. al
I think, in all these resolutions, there is the necessity along with the enlarging--maybe not enlarging, but defining definitely the jurisdiction to be given this Court; that its jurisdiction against nations, and as to nations and individuals and in matters of aggression and the attempt to make war; that there is carried with it the elimination of the veto right by a permanent member in the Social Council, but only, in matters of aggression, armament for aggression, and admission to membership in the United Nations.
That, with the police force, must follow the defined jurisdiction of this International Court of Justice.
I want to read something else to you. I find myself compelled to go to other people for many thoughts and positions and have no apology for quotations from other sources. [Reading:]
In the interdependent world of today the drive for security has but two outlets: Law and conquest.