Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

We, of course, would hope that that peace which would be lasting and just would evolve from good will on earth,

"Peace on earth and good will among men,” which essentially is the only thing that can bring a universal, lasting, and just peace, but we do not have time, and we may apologize for not having devoted ourselves to it a little more religiously heretofore, but we yet have not time to put that into effect. It will be all right, and I hope we will remember that that alone will bring peace to the world.

But as we stand today, and as our present circumstances demand our early action, I think the statement here is correct. It has two outlets and two only: Law and conquest.

Within the Nation-wide structure the only course is conquest. The two most important powerful bations of the world are already resorting to this measure of self-defense

That is in quotations. It might have a question mark, alsowhich have always led to materialism and conquest. The only hope for peace today lies in creating a higher legal order than the National State. It is utterly fallacious that the world is not yet ready for world sovereignty. The institution must be created before loyalty to it can be demanded.

Are we going to say we cannot do it and therefore we will not undertake it, and that we will go along with the United Nations as it is, without any amendment, the wisdom of which may have been impressed upon us by time, and I think has been to give this court ready jurisdiction and set up a machinery by which its edicts and powers may be enforced until we can reach that period of good will on earth. I think that is what he has reference to. (Continues reading:]

Sufficient experience has been had with Federal Government to draw up a detailed and workable Constitution in a short time. It is quite unnecessary that there should be uniformity of industrial ownership under a world rule of law. Each nation at present encompasses various forms of industrial leadership

Mrs. Bolton. I understand what you are reading is on the basis of a world government rather than on the change of United Nations Charter.

Mr. FOLGER. Keeping ourselves, Mrs. Bolton, if we can, within the United Nations Charter.

Mrs. Bouron. We are considering that Charter there rather than any world federation.

Mr. FOLGER. Yes. [Continues reading:] The mark of a world government would be its direct mandate from the people. Yet no advanced nation need fear political government, merely because it is less populous than some more backward states. Representation will be based on population masses. The national level of government need not disappear. Nations will always retain appropriate functions but not those responsibilities for peace which they cannot control. Freedom and welfare which they have so far failed to produce in the world community. That is, it is impossible for the nation to do the job itself.

I believe we could have had it all fixed ourselves within about a week, but it is not done that way.

Mrs. Chairman, I do not go into the mechanism of details, but here are several resolutions. Many of them are similar at least to each other and some of them identical. The responsibility in that, and it is a fearful one, in my opinion, is to work out from these resolutions and any other thoughts that may be given to this committee or that the committee may have, a plan by which the resolution may be adopted essentially as No. 50, and the Judd resolution, and others comparable to it. They call upon our President to undertake to implement the power and ability of the United Nations, through the amendment of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to make an effort, and a serious effort, and a determined effort, to bring about a world of law.

Mrs. BOLTON. Thank you, sir.
Are there any questions?

Mr. RICHARDS. I want to thank my colleague for that very informative statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. LEROY JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Johnson. My interest in this problem came about in this way: For 6 years I have been exposed to discussions and evidence on the matter of national security. Our national security and our freedom are tied up very closely with what we do in the international field. The particular phase of it that is presented by these resolutions came to my mind in 1946. A group of us went on a trip to the Orient and among other places we spent a week in Korea. When I saw what was going on in Korea I got thoroughly churned up over how we were going to make the United Nations work. The Russians were doing nothing in the way of cooperating with the Americans. They would not have joint administration of Korea. They would not cooperate even in little ways like permitting our troops to go into that area without a special permit We find out there, and I think it is public knowledge now, that a Soviet or a Communist paper near the capital of Korea was the one that printed a great deal of counterfeit money. Our intelligence traced that money right back to that press, conclusively.

It went through my mind, how can we have the collective security that we have to have?

I came to the conclusion after listening to the hearings in the atomic bomb control bill in our committee, that there was only one system of international security that was worth anything and that was one based on law, some way that you could adjudicate disputes through some mechanism, a board or court, or any other way and settle them, but to do that we had to have the power behind this court to enforce its decrees. In other words, the law had to have the respect it was entitled to by virtue of the fact that force was behind it.

Every one of you know that in the Charter of the League of Nations, President Wilson recommended a provision that provided for force. It was taken out of there and that is what made the thing impotent.

The League of Nations went along without the United States of America and it might have done a lot of good. We lost an opportunity to learn a lot had we been a member of it. I wish we now had that 26 years of international experience as a member of that particular organization. I went home and talked to my people, and I outlined to them what I had seen and what I had been exposed to in the way of information.

I said this: "It is apparent that one member of the United Nations, on which we hang our hope is trying its level best to make it impotent. They have the veto power and by that means, and other means that have come under my personal scrutiny in Berlin in 1945, in Korea in 1946, in Trieste in 1947, it is obvious that they are planning and are determined to make the United Nations a worthless piece of paper.'

"When that becomes conclusive in my mind," I said, “it seems to me we should organize the rest of the world for our security, holding the door open to any power to enter and become a member.

I want to make a comment here in response to a question that the chairman asked Mr. Stockman. That is that I agree with her that we should not sever relations with Russia, diplomatic relations or trade relations. In my humble judgment, those kinds of steps are the first steps toward war, and no matter how thin the thread, we ought to keep contact so we can perhaps finally understand the Russians' mind. We should try to understand the outlook of the Russians. Perhaps we can solve the imponderables between us.

Several days ago there was a very provoking editorial in the Washington Post by Mr. Lippmann, and he brought this point out, that there are a great many people today who think another war is inevitable. Why? Because they say that the Communist philosophy and the so-called democratic philosophy cannot exist in the world together. However, he made this point, with which I heartily agree, that it is the duty of the diplomats and statesmen to find a way to make irreconcilable things get reconciled and get along. I believe if we hold the door open and do all we can to show our good faith and create the mechanisms that are necessary, that we can find a way, perhaps, to make the United Nations work.

What I have to say about the resolution of Mr. Judd, and the others introduced, is only to discuss the idea. I cannot go into details. I am not an expert on foreign affairs, but I have thought about that a lot, as have all of you. We expect you people who hold the hearings on these things to make the refinements and get adjustments, and the like, so that it will dovetail with all our efforts for peace.

I do not think that we should pursue this policy until we have exhausted every effort to make the United Nations work. But there is a precedent, or a partial precedent, in my humble opinion, for a step of that kind.

The American Nation, when it got its freedom, sat down and wrote the Articles of Confederation. They tried them out for 5 or 6 years. They found they were impotent. They were futile. The States were warring. The States were exercising their jurisdiction contrary to the welfare of their neighbors. So the Americans, with audacity that has not been matched in any experience in the world that I Ảnow of, sat down and deliberately wrote themselves a new charter of government called the Constitution of the United States. Just think of it, how revolutionary that was. They sat down and said, “We will scrap what we have built and we will write a new plan of government; we will try to get our States to adopt it, and live under it.” They did exactly that.

We had a tempestuous career under that new document which we talked about as being the greatest that the world has ever known of its kind, because it took us 70 years and a bitter Civil War to finally get

[blocks in formation]

the American people to accept the doctrine that we were one indivisible Nation.

Now, in traveling around the world—these are more or less sentimental views—in traveling around the world like I have for 6 years, and having been in every continent, through the Pacific area, in through Europe, and in South and Central America, I tried to talk to people, about these things, who are out of the official group, if possible. We only get a very small sample. However, everywhere I have gone I have talked to these people in education, in farming, in business, laborers, and things of that kind, and I never found one, but what he wanted to find some way where his nation could live in a peaceful world. He says, “We want our representatives to compromise if they have to. We do not want to have these recurring wars in which all we get is tragedy, high taxes, and trouble."

So it is up to us, more than any other one group, to find a way to develop the mechanisms that can harness that universal desire.

As I say, my idea on these resolutions is this: If we can either strengthen the United Nations or improve it, it will be good. If we cannot strengthen the United Nations let us develop a new organization. You know the League of Nations is still in existence, legally. It is on a stand-by basis. We visited it last summer. There are a few people there. It is still legally in existence, but it is impotent because the United Nations has taken its place.

My idea is that if we could get rid of the veto that might be a big step. Whatever the original ideas were with reference to the veto, it is quite obvious that the veto is the barrier that we cannot surmount. Those who are willful and determined to block us can raise a barrier. If we have to form a new group then I say let us do it, because the gamble for peace, no matter what it is, is worth while.

I talked to my people along this line. They said, "How are you going to do it? I said, “We have a pan-American group. That could be the nucleus. We could take in those countries such as Norway that have our slant on social life, in the economic field and in government– Norway, Sweden, Denmark, France, and all the group. We could undoubtedly get the help of the Oriental group, including China China has maybe a backward government, according to our view, but it is the best they have, and we must work with the tools we have. We could take in the southern half of Korea. We could take in the Philippines, and so forth and so on." That is the way I looked at it at that time, and that is what I believed we should do.

It is certainly disappointing to those of us who have lived through two wars. We fought one war on the very basis that it would end all wars, and a good many people who fought the war believed that. We believed it for a long time. When we had the Disarmament Conference in 1922 I was one of those who was unsophisticated enough to think it was a wonderful thing, and frankly I am proud of the fact that we, the strongest of nations, were willing to scrap all those ships and tell the world, “We are willing to trim down our armaments and thereby eliminate one possibility toward war.”

It proved to be futile later on. However, it was a great gesture. It showed where the heart of America lay. We then came along and had the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which was a noble statement of principle, but there was no force behind it. We have to find a way, whether

through the thing we have now, which appears to be impotent, if not dying, or through some other means, to get a way to harness the nations of good will together to make the rules of the game, and put the power behind the rules to make them work when courts decide complicated and controversial matters that they bring about.

That is my general idea on this thing. I do not know whether I have contributed anything to your thinking. We look upon you as the ones who have to dovetail and mesh all these ideas into something that is workable. However, certainly it must be obvious to every one of you that the great mass of people that we represent are thoroughly disillusioned, thoroughly disappointed, and some are just hopeless as to the future. They say, "Why can you not do something? Why do you not do something?" We try to explain that we have tried; that we have done everything possible to negotiate, to compromise, to trade, to disarm, and to do everything that would minimize the chance of a war. Yet, we are blocked with that situation that one nation whose concurrence is required simply will not agree or compromise.

Just to recapitulate, my idea is that if we can modify the United Nations Charter so as to make it work, that would be the thing to do. If we cannot, let us then start on another road and see if we can harness the forces of good will in the world that will combine, holding the door open to any outsiders who want to join us. I think if we show a determined attitude, backed by force, that the policy of some of those who are obstructing us will radically change. They will see it is to their selfish advantage to join with us and try to get along with the world.

That is my very brief statement, and I want to thank you for the opportunity of making it.

Mrs. Bolton. We are happy indeed to have had you with us.
Mr. Chiperfield, have you a question?

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Johnson, I believe you have made a very constructive statement and also a very reasonable approach to this complicated subject. I believe everybody who was here yesterday afternoon and heard Senator Austin was convinced that the United Nations has not been a failure. I do not know whether the answer to the problem is Concurrent Resolution 59 or Concurrent Resolution 163, but my approach is similar to yours, which I believe is a reasonable one: There can be found an area of agreement between this committee, members of the United Nations, and the State Department, where we can sit down together and talk over this situation and probably get together a resolution which will strengthen the United Nations and not do harm to it or destroy it.

I think that is what you want us to do, is it not, Mr. Johnson?

Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir; I want you to try on that as hard as you can. If we cannot have that then let us start one of our own. The nucleus for it is already formed. The ERP bill that your committee put out that we all heartily supported, that is the nucleus. They are already talking about military collaboration. The group of western countries, that is the nucleus we can have. We could probably take some oriental countries with us.

We do not want to get into a sad situation where one group is developing a big armament program and there is part of the world that is on the other side doing likewise.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »