Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Thank you very much.
Are there any questions?

Mr. JUDD. I would like to associate myself wholeheartedly with the remarks of the chairman, and to say that while I do not know who your successor is, he will have to be a mighty good man to win so important a place and achieve as much influence in the Congress in 2 years as you have. We are sorry to lose you; you can be sure of that.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Lodge. Mr. LODGE. I would like to say that it is a matter of very deep personal regret to me that such a learned successful and high-minded public servant as yourself will not be in this body next year. I think you have made a very distinguished contribution to the deliberations of this Congress.

Mr. CHADWICK. Thank you, Mr. Lodge.
Mrs. BOLTON. Thank you again, Mr. Chadwick.

The next witness will be Mr. Gwinn, a colleague from the State of New York.

STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH W. GWINN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Gwinn. My name is Ralph W. Gwinn, Twenty-seventh District, New York.

I appear for Resolution 167 and have submitted myself a concurrent resolution of the same character.

Madam Chairman, I would like to bring to the committee a little history of the metropolitan police of the city of New York and the experience of that organization. It may have a parallel bearing upon the present organization of an international police.

Less than 100 years ago New York City was divided into separate wards. There were good wards, and there were very tough wards. Each ward was self-sufficient. It had its own police force, its own marshals, its own judges. The police and the marshals from one ward could not go to the other ward. They could not even go across the line to chase a criminal. Lawlessness developed. Raids came out of the bad wards. Men with guns and bombs and mobs of people attacked the law-abiding wards.

Finally, the metropolitan police force, which now consists of 18,000 police, were inaugurated for the city as a whole. Ammunition was destroyed in the wards finally. Guns and all manner of instruments for carrying on violence were taken away. Only those who showed a reason for having a gun could be licensed to carry a gun. Order quite generally prevailed. No mass movements of lawless men now ever appear on the scene; their mass movements of instruments of attack, such as bombs and guns, no longer appear.

Now, it seems to me that that same situation faces us in the world. We must limit the carrying of bombs or guns or bacteria, or other instruments for mass destruction. They must be cleaned up.

Such manufacturing centers or such harboring centers must not even be allowed to accumulate or get started. If they are started they must be destroyed.

It is not conceivable that we as reasonable people can go on one more day on the assumption that we must prepare for the defense or the waging of a traditional type of war. We have not even started to bear the agony and pay the cost of this Second World War. We are still in the perfectly childlike attitude that somehow or other wars create prosperity. We are enjoying a kind of artificial price prosperity that still deceives us and makes us labor under a false illusion. To contemplate, therefore, a third world war is utterly mad. The distressing thing about our deliberations in the United Nations and in our Halls of Congress and in our press seems to indicate that we are proceeding along traditional lines. We must proceed, of course, to do whatever we have to do, waiting upon a better course, or waiting upon the organization of those forces on which we may rely, such as this resolution proposes; namely, an international police that will enable us to rest at night, as the New York metropolitan police enables us to sleep at night, to assure us that no lawless ward will attack the other wards during the night.

Now, this will not necessarily interfere with all of the satellite departments or functions of the United Nations. It will make the one department, which is the international police department, function. That department of the United Nations has been dwarfed and sloughed off up to the present. This is an effort to bring it into being. All of the nations are invited to come into the international police department of the United Nations, if they will. If any will not, as some even now fail to cooperate very willingly or effectively in international trade, in labor organizations, in the food organizations, and in other departments of the world, but this one most important department must not be delayed any longer. For us to sit by another day, while behind the iron curtain the jet planes—maybe seven or eight different varieties—are actually being produced in quantity, seems to be the worst kind of foolishness as well as appeasement.

Now, the international police force will not interfere with any nation, except in the matter of inspection, and in necessary legal steps for the destruction of the mass manufacture or accumulation of instruments for aggressive mass destruction of people. I suppose if they want to fight among themselves with fists and their own revolversand they have plenty of internal troubles of their own—the international police could not be called upon. But whenever there is evidence that they are manufacturing such instruments as must be intended for mass aggressive warfare against other nations, then the international police would function.

Now, in one sense this international police is more solidly conceived than the metropolitan police of the great city of New York. There the police are recruited from all areas, of course. There they did have in many places set-ups for law and order. In the world, however, there is no set-up of any police having to do with international policing matters. In New York the police are drawn from all ranks and all segments of the city.

There is a unique suggestion in this resolution to avoid the suspicion of the two great nations, organizing a police to be used for their advantage, or for the disadvantage of others. This resolution contemplates the recruiting of high-class police from the very cream of the crop of Europe, the little nations, such as Holland, Belgium, the Norwegian countries, Switzerland, South America, and from all nations where there is no conceivable entertainment of ambitions for conquest of the world. These people have a sole desire for peace and coordination in a world whose existence depends upon it. There would be no police drawn from the United States or Russia.

That concludes my statement.
Mrs. Bolton. Thank you very much for appearing before us.
Are there any questions?

Mr. Judd. Thank you very much for coming before us and making this statement on the practical issues of bringing peace to the world with a police force under public control and not under any private agency able to use it unilaterally and arbitrarily for its private ends.

Thank you.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Lodge.

Mr. LODGE. I will say I always listen with great interest to the remarks of my colleague from New York, and he has made some illuminating remarks on this subject. Thank you.

Mr. GWINN. I appreciate that particularly, because the gentleman and I look over each other's lines, and we must be friendly to each other. Thank you.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Judd.

Mr. Judd. Madam Chairman, I would like permission to make a short statement here because I had to leave yesterday before Senator Austin completed his testimony and had no opportunity to question him.

I think it ought to be said for the record that a great deal of the testimony we heard yesterday morning from Secretary Marshall and yesterday afternoon from Mr. Austin was directed at a strawman. They attacked proposals which so far as I know no one has made. I say this because I am one of the persons who introduced these resolutions after working on the question for many months. It was portrayed that these resolutions would threaten or would destroy the United Nations; even that their purpose was to wreck the United Nations. I can give categorical assurance that that is not their purpose. The exact opopsite is their purpose, and they say so plainly. We see that the United Nations is already being destroyed. Every thoughtful American sees the steady deterioration in certain crucial fields. We see the growing lack of confidence in it, which has been referred to earlier, confidence on the part of our own people. We see that many people abroad have already written it off as an effective agency. To allow things to drift along is to assure its failure.

It is primarily to prevent the destruction of the United Nations and of mankind's hope for world organization for order and peace that we are trying to do whatever proves to be the most reasonable thing, or to adopt whatever is the most reasonable procedure, the one that gives the greatest hope of success, after examining what are the reasons for failures in those areas where there are failures, and trying to correct them.

When a patient is slowly dying of cancer of the lung or of heart failure it does not answer the problem to say that he is all right in his eyes, ears, stomach, legs, and all other parts. Many a patient is 98 percent all right, and still dies from the 2 percent that is wrong.

A great deal of good has been done by the United Nations and thank God for it, but in the crucial question of the control of military power and of preventing aggression, it simply is not succeeding, and all the other gains will go by the board if it is not possible to prevent the unleashing of an atomic war.

Recognizing that Russia is not going to cooperate voluntarily, then it is our own drift and indecision and failure to try to organize the other nations that will cooperate, that are leading to the destruction of the United Nations. I reject the argument that we must not do anything about the UN machinery at this time lest it offend Russia and lead to a rupture in the United Nations; that we must wait until we get Russia to come along. Is a rupture in name any worse than a rupture in fact?

I am convinced that as long as we tell her in advance that we will not do anything because we are afraid of a rupture, she will of course always threaten a rupture and we can never get agreement. To do nothing about UN reform is the surest way to its destruction.

As Secretary Marshall said yesterday, the organization was set up on certain assumptions, one of which was that the big powers would continue to work together. Those assumptions have not been fulfilled. My contention is, and I think it is the viewpoint of those who introduced these resolutions, that inasmuch as the situation is not as we hoped it would be, we must adjust the organiaztion to the situation and not sit around until perchance the situation can be adjusted to the organization. We must modify or correct our remedy to deal with the disease that exists, not imagine we can persuade the disease to change so it fits our remedy.

None of us is contending that the proposals in the resolution are the final word. They represent what we believe are basic suggestions on which to begin discussion, points of departure.

Now, in conclusion let me read some comments by Winston Churchill in his article in Life 2 weeks ago. He records that in January 1938 Mr. Sumner Welles approached the British Ambassador here with a message from the President to Mr. Chamberlain. [Reading:]

The President was deeply anxious at the deterioration of the international situation and proposed to take the initiative by inviting the representatives of certain governments to Washington to discuss the underlying causes of present differences.

Then he says on the next page: Mr. Chamberlain's reply was to the effect that he appreciated the confidence of President Roosevelt in consulting him in this fashion upon this proposed plan to alleviate the existing tension in Europe, but he wished to explain the position of his own efforts to reach agreement with Germany and Italy, particularly in the case of the latter. Would it not therefore be wiser to postpone the launching of the American plan?

Mr. Churchill says this was the last chance to prevent war by getting together in unity the nations that did not want war. Instead, Mr. Chamberlain disastrously insisted on continuing to try to get agreement with Hitler and Mussolini.

Similarly now, we are told that the peaceful nations of the world must not go ahead but instead try to get agreement with today's dictator, Mr. Stalin. I predict the results of such limited action will be as disastrous.

Mr. Churchill speaks of later communications (reading] : The substance of these replies was that the Prime Minister warmly welcomed the President's initiative, but was not anxious to bear any responsibility for its failure if American overtures were badly received.

He would not take the responsibility for failure of an attempt to organize for peace, but before God and history he must take the responsibility for the ghastly, tragic failure of doing nothing to unite the peaceful nations, which led to the worst possible results. [Reading:]

Mr. Chamberlain wished to point out that we did not accept in an unqualified manner the President's suggested procedure, which would clearly irritate both the dictators and Japan.

It is all right to walk out on the peaceful nations of the world, but we must not irritate the dictators!

Then he says: Thus it was that President Roosevelt's proposal to use American influence for the purpose of bringing together the leading European powers to discuss the chances of a general settlement, this of course involving, however tentatively, the mighty power of the United States, was rebuffed by Mr. Chamberlain.

* * Poor England : Leading her free, careless life from day to day, amid endless good-tempered parliamentary babble, she followed, wandering along the downward path which led to all she wanted to avoid. She was continually reassured by the leading articles of the most influential newspapers, with some honorable exceptions, and behaved as if all the world were as easy, uncalculating, and well meaning as herself.

I apologize for trying the patience of the committee, but it seemed to me that statement described so vividly in retrospect the kind of drift and indecision we ourselves are now engaged in. I am convinced that if we do not act vigorously, not trucculently, not arrogantly, not with a chip on our shoulder, not with the slightest intention of imposing our will upon anybody, if we do not mobilize the determination of the peaceful people of the world at this critical juncture of history to explore every possible avenue of making this organization work—not destroy it—we will march as blindly to war as did Chamberlain, thinking he was working for peace. On the other hand, if we take the lead, I believe we will find enormous support, and fewer obstacles than we anticipate. That is, instead of finding and propounding reasons for not taking such action, we must find means by which we can take it.

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Mr. LODGE. Will the gentleman yield ?
Mr. JUDD. I yield.

Mr. LODGE. I would like to say that as always I am tremendously interested in everything the gentleman has to say, and I agree with your postulates, and I agree with the desire you have to achieve certain results.

I have for some time been in favor of Judd Resolution 59, and I have an open mind on your resolution 163. The question I would like to ask you is, if a conference is called under 109 and Soviet Russia refuses to accept the suggested amendments contained in 163, do you then propose going ahead under 51, to set up another United Nations organization?

Mr. JUD. No; I do not think it is possible under article 51 to set up another United Nations organization. It is possible to set up an alliance or inner organization for collective self-defense. I would

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »