« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
One thing I would like to mention here, if I may, is somewhat in response to your question, and it is this: I am one of those who feels very badly that there is so much discussion about communism and Russia. Even the President came down and personally delivered a message and used the words of another form of ideology.
Here is my idea on that: We sat down and made certain agreements with Russia and the rest of the countries. What we want to emphasize is, not that we object to their ideology for their own country, but we want them to abide by their commitments to allow other countries to have what they want by a free election. In other words, she is breaking her contracts on which the sanctity of all law rests. It is that those who agree to things will abide by the agreement in spirit and in letter. She is not doing that. Let us put the heat on her for that, and not on her because of ideology.
I do not, of course, agree with any of their general ways of life or methods of government, but if that is what they want and they do not hinder their neighbors, let them have it. However, let her abide by her agreements, and in the case of Poland, when they saddled that country without a government not selected at a free election, we should have stepped in more vigorously, in my opinion. That opened the door for the penetration of 12 nations, or 13 nations.
Mr. CHIPERFIELD. I have one more suggestion : Mr. Johnson, I also feel there is too much talk and discussion to the effect that the United Nations is a complete failure. I do not think it is. I believe under the Charter of the United Nations there can be worked out further regional agreements, as you suggest, under article 51 and article 52, just as we have worked out agreements for the Western Hemisphere under the Act of Chapultepec. If we find we cannot make the changes necessary to successfully make the United Nations work, that is in the Charter itself, we can work out some regional arrangement that may do the job and build up the security of the world outside of the Russian orbit.
Mr. Johnson. I do think we have made some progress, but you know, of course, what gets headlines in the paper are the failures, and not constructive things that you do. When your committee puts out a bill you do not get very much publicity on the constructive part of your bill, you get notoriety, publicity, and criticism on the weak spots in your bill, and the criticisms of it. That might be well for us to emphasize.
I try to tell my people that we have made considerable progress. When you go to remake a world with all the diverse backgrounds, peoples, and traditions and history, you have a terribly complicated job and you cannot expect rapid progress.
Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. That is all. Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Richards.
Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Johnson, I do appreciate the common sense of your argument.
Now, as a matter of fact, the United States initiated the United Nations idea, and has been strongest in support of the United Nations designs.
Now, you have talked about your travels around the world, and conversing with the people. As a matter of fact, right now the people of the United States are losing faith in the United Nations, are they not?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I think some of them are. That would be my reaction to some of these I have talked to, and communications that I get.
Mr. RICHARDS. It would be tragic for the American people to lose faith in the UN as a world agency for peace, would it not? Mr. JOHNSON. I think it would be bad; yes. Mr. RICHARDS. I think we should try to do something about it. Mr. JOHNSON. I hope you can do something about it. I would like to help
if I could. Mr. RICHARDS. Then the surest way for the United Nations idea to die is for the people of the United States, too, to lose faith in the United Nations and become converted to the idea which some of the people in the Government have expressed, that you cannot improve the machinery of the organization now, and must wait until Russia is willing to go along, Mr. Johnson. I do not know that I exactly agree with that. Here is the problem as I see it: The average person does not know very much about the United Nations. I go out in my area and try to explain the problems to them. What the security problems are, what they hope to do, and explain that it is complicated.
I find that they are interested to hear about it and are anxious for us to succeed. They want to know the things we have learned in our travels and in Congress by collaboration with our colleagues in Congress.
I think there is a great latent group. Take the religious group. They are very strong for the United Nations. That is my impression. A good many women's groups are very strong for it. However, they cannot understand why we do not make more progress. Mr. RICHARDS. They want us to do something about it. Mr. JOHNSON. They want us to make progress and want us to succeed. If there is something wrong, they want us to correct it. Mr. RICHARDS. And, we are not making progress now? Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I do not know if we are or not. We have done some things that I think are very good, and we have made some wonderful offers, but we have not had acceptance of them by those that must accept them. Mr. RICHARDS. Thank you. Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Jonkman. Mr. JONKMAN. Mr. Johnson, I think you have made a very well organized and good statement. You said several times that if the United Nations organization with Russia does not work, then let us build one of our own.
However, you also said at another time that you believe in making the present organization work if it can be done, and you refer to the regional organizations that we are creating at the present time.
Do I understand from that that it is your idea that we should get along with the present organization, perfecting the regional organizations within the Charter, and your plan for building another one is only as a last resort?
Mr. Johnson. That is substantially correct; yes. In other words, we have something now that we created. We got the statesmen of thé world to sit down and work it out. I do not think we should just discard it unless we see it is impossible to make it effective.
Now, our progress has been very disappointing in some ways and our leadership has been ineffective. It is not because they did not offer something, but because there was one member of that group that could veto all of it, and did. If it becomes obvious to us that the United Nations is impotent, I say let us turn around and create something that will have more life and that incorporate the salient parts of the other one. That is as a last resort.
Mr. JONKMAN. In other words, I take it that your analogy is that what disturbs the American people is, here we have machinery for peace that is supposed to keep the peace—not to create a force to make peace, but to keep the peace. Yet we are facing a program of being armed to the teeth which next year may cost us $20,000,000,000 for our own armament, and perhaps another $10,000,000,000 for economic relief and perhaps military aid to other nations, and, in addition to that, we are threatened with the atomic bomb which we are told may materialize in the hands of others in 2 years. It is a terrible dilemma. Yet, if we were to disrupt the organizations, we might be better off or we might be worse off.
Mr. Johnson. I cannot answer that "yes" or "no." Here is the thing that goes through my mind: You can drift into a war quite easily, and some people think we are doing just that, that we are drifting into a war. However, you cannot drift into a peace. You have to take hold of the situation that confronts us and fashion that peace, and that is a lot more complicated and a lot more delicate than waging
If this machinery can help us to do that, then I want to see that done. However, if it is so impotent that we are just drifting, drifting, drifting, drifting, then we are liable to have the war that all of us are so afraid of, that will ruin everybody and everything.
Mr. JONKMAN. Does it require a great deal of imagination to realize that if we disrupt the United Nations' organization we will still have to arm to the teeth; we still will have to continue our foreign program, and we will not at least have the bridge which now does bring the East and West together to a certain extent?
Mr. JOHNSON. I agree with you.
Mr. JONKMAN. Would we eliminate anything that stares us in the face now by eliminating the United Nations?
Mr. JOHNSON. The other one would be created into full bloom before the United Nations was entirely dissipated or abandon
Mr. JONKMAN. You would have to do everything you are doing now in the nature of armament.
Mr. JOHNSON. That might be true.
Mr. JONKMAN. Would you not have the same fear of the Soviets getting the atomic bomb?
Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly, you would have the same fear of that one particular group.
I think I agree with you that we have to try to make what we have fashioned work. It is only as a last resort when we see that is utterly impossible and we are drifting into chaos, and possible a war, that we should organize something else that will work.
Mr. JONKMAN. That was what I got from your statement. Thank you very much.
Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Judd, have you anything? Mr. JUDD. I have nothing, except to thank Mr. Johnson for an excellent statement.
Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Lodge. Mr. LODGE. I want to extend greetings to my friend from California, and say I was very much interested in his statement. Mrs. Bolton. I would like to join in that. Mr. JOHNSON. May I revise my remarks? Mrs. BOLTON. Yes, indeed.
The next witness will be Mr. Chadwick, our colleague from Pennsylvania.
STATEMENT OF HON. E. WALLACE CHADWICK, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. CHADWICK. It is a great privilege to appear before your committee this morning, if only to give evidence of the deep and sincere feeling I have toward the problems before you, and express my great respect for your committee.
It might be interesting to tell you how I responded some months ago to an inquiry addressed to me by the League of Women Voters at a time when we were engaged in a primary campaign. I will say in passing that the League of Women Voters in our district makes à great contribution to our civic life. They have an intelligent and nonpartisan approach.
They suggested to me this question (reading]: Will you suggest ways the United States can contribute to strengthening the United Nations?
My reply to that was: Primarily by its citizens keeping alive in their hearts the hope that this effort at international collaboration can and will succeed; by more overt evidences that the administration shares such confidences and an intention to cooperate wherever opportunity offers; by a hardening conviction that this plan must become more of a Federation of Nations; and by some method of restricting or eliminating the veto power.
That brief statement contains most of my basic thoughts on this question.
However, I am reminded as I sit here today that my experience has been somewhat long. I remember the enthusiasm with which I shared the questions which were proposed to us with respect to the League of Nations, and my complete conviction at that time that the security of America, and all that we hold most precious, was in some way bound up with at least reservations against the purposes of the League of Nations. My feeling at that time was very sincere, and one of the principal psychological lessons of my life was to discover within 15 years that I had been completely wrong in that; that President Wilson had been, so far as it was possible for a human statesman to approach a question, fundamentally right; that the opportunity to have avoided the Second World War was there presented to us, and we turned aside from it. I was no enthusiast for President Wilson. I am a somewhat practicing Republican. However, I learn by my own mistakes.
When the proposal of the United Nations was made, I was reasonably well disposed to it. I thought that too many words were used in its composition and organization; because it is my observation that “the letter killeth, the Spirit maketh to live." I believe that the United Nations is the only machinery now hopefully offered to solve this problem. I tremble to see how shaky it is now, and how ineffective it is in solving these problems; but we have no other bridge to carry Us over.
The particular resolutions that have been proposed to you, it seems to me, comprise just the beginning of the thinking on the subject, and I share Mr. Johnson's view that we must look to you for something that will be constructive in the formation of opinion of the House of Representatives, in the first place, in the Congress, in the second place, and the Nation, in the third place. There is probably nothing that begins to measure in importance with this particular problem. We can make our economic errors and recover from them.
We can make our political errors, and recover from them, but I fear the world will not stand another great mistake in international problems, because it seems to me that the Dark Ages are again just around the corner, and it pays for us all to give primary attention to this problem.
I wanted to add that I have observed the work of this committee during my time in Congress, and I think that the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives is to be greatly congratulated on the success of their approaches.
I noticed that you decided to package foreign aid in one great package, and I thought you were wrong. I was able to observe within a few short weeks that you were exactly and monumentally right. It not only saved the time of the Nation and the Congress, but it made it possible to achieve a great contribution to the affairs of the world. As I learn mostly from my own mistakes, I feel that I ought to say that, about the decisions of this committee.
I will just add one thing that was suggested by the inquiry which was presented to the last speaker and suggested in part by what I tried to say to the voters in my district. It is my observation, for whatever it is worth—for heavens knows I cannot claim to be an expert witness on what Congress should or should not do, when I look back over the affairs of the last 2 weeks—but I am in agreement with my friend Clifford Case, of New Jersey, that a very great part of our responsibility is best served at home. The things we say and do down here are no doubt part of our duty and are no doubt tremendously important. However, I observe that in my county there was no great resistance to the idea that we would make a generous implementation of the foreign aid. I do not claim to have accomplished that, except that from the time we began at the last session, I took a strong position in that field with respect to all the bills that were presented. I reported to my people what I was doing, what I proposed to do, why I thought it was desirable to do it; and I am sure that an untimely fate that overtook me a few days ago was in no way due to the fact that I very frankly told the people what they should think on this subject rather than waiting for them to send me postal cards to guide me in what I should think.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chadwick, we deeply appreciate your coming to us, and I am particularly happy to have an opportunity to thank you in the name of the committee for your very stimulating, challenging, helpful attitude and talented words. We so often have the other kind of statement, that it is a very happy moment when one of your stature expresses confidence in the committee's judgment.