« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
not in any sense suggest that unless Russia agrees to the revisions proposed in 163—just as they are now—we should move out and set up a separate United Nations.
They are a starting point. I think they have great merit. My position is that if we cannot get agreement in a conference under article 109 on a modification of procedures so there is a better prospect than now of their being workable, then we should move ahead under article 51 to achieve a better arrangement-I will not call it a new world organization—under which the nations who want to would agree on the modifications which they thought under article 109 ought to be made, but which were blocked by Russia's veto: They could say, “For ourselves, we are going to operate on that basis. We are still in the United Nations. We are not pulling out, we are not destroying it, we are not driving Russia out, and we do not want her to go. But we are saying for ourselves, that we are going to adopt these revised procedures whereby we agree among ourselves as to allocations of armaments, as to a police force, as to giving up the veto among ourselves on matters of aggression. In no sense are we trying to destroy the United Nations; we are working within it. If we cannot get all nations to agree, we will get as many as we can."
We would have under article 51 a group of nations organized for collective self-defense on what we believe to be a workable basis.
In my judgment, if we have such a plan as an alternative when we go to the conference, then we will have a good chance of getting agreement under 109. I do not think we will get agreement under 109 unless we have some such alternative plan. That is why I say, “With Russia, if possible; without Russia, if necessary."
If after exploring every possible avenue we cannot get agreement, including Russia, then and then only do certain nations move under article 51 within the United Nations Charter into a more closely knit arrangement committing the nations therein to abide by the procedures, which all of them have agreed to accept.
Mr. LODGE. Then, as I understand it, what the gentleman wants is an agenda, when we proceed under article 109, and the question then is: “Does the gentleman feel that that agenda must include the amendments in 163 as they are there set forward?"
Mr. JUD. No; although I think they should be included. The gentleman knows that practically every bill that is introduced is worked over and modified by this committee. If either of these resolutions comes out, I will bet 999 to 1 that it will not be exactly in its present form. I want them improved wherever possible.
Mr. LODGE. Then, as I understand the gentleman, he realizes that if Russia does not agree, no revision of the present United Nations Charter is possible?
Mr. Judd. Certainly.
Mr. LODGE. You would not necessarily call upon the nations to proceed under 51 to organize another United Nations, so that under you interpretation of this legislation we may end up with the United Nations exactly as it is, and then with the other nations proceeding under 51, and not necessarily organizing another United Nations?
Mr. Judd. It certainly would not be called another United Nations and it would not even be called, I suppose, an international organi zation. It would be an arrangement for collective self-defense withir the United Nations under article 51 of the Charter.
Mr. LODGE. Presumably it would be similar to the western union, only it would be larger.
Mr. Judd. That is right. We cannot possibly get a revision of the Charter unless Russia agrees.
Mr. LODGE. It seems all you have, then, in 163 is 59, plus the expression of a desire to proceed under 51.
Mr. Judd. Yes; that is right; 163 reads: Revision of the United Nations Charter shall be carried out with the approval of all member states if possible, but in the event that any permanent member should veto the proposal for revision, the United States shall join with other like-minded States in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations Charter, or any other manner acceptable to the majority, establishing on the basis of the revised United Nations Charter
If we cannot get a revised United Nations Charter, we would have to go ahead on the revised procedure with as many as agree.
Mr. LODGE. The thing I am trying to suggest is that the resolution as now written suggests that if the Russians will not cooperate the 45 other nations will revise the United Nations Charter. Now, they cannot do that under the Charter; therefore, they have to breach the Charter to do it, and if they do that you have two United Nations organizations, and this is an entirely different situation than that set out in the statement you have just made.
Mr. JUDD. That is the reason I am grateful to the gentleman for bringing this up. I wanted to get this colloquy on the record. I think he has rendered a service in calling attention to the fact that the present language in 163 can conceivably be interpreted as meaning that, if
ussia does not agree, we are going to start another UN. No one conneced with the resolution has had any such thought. That would be rupturing the Charter. That was not my intention, but I recognize the language can be so construed, and I will personally do my best to see that it is changed.
Madam Chairman, I wanted this clarification in the record so no one will be shooting at straw men hereafter.
Mrs. BOLTON. The business of the committee being concluded for this morning, we will adjourn to meet tomorrow morning at this place at 10 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 12:40 p. m., the committee adjourned.)
(The following communication has been submitted for inclusion in the record :)
STATEMENT OF HON. KARL M. LECOMPTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF IOWA
Mr. Chairman, may I express my appreciation to the committee for the opportunity to be heard on House Concurrent Resolution 163, offered by our colleague, Mr. Judd, of Minnesota. Of course, we all know that the realm of foreign negotiations and foreign relations rests with the Chief Executive, and more especially with the State Department. I feel certain that no Member of Congress wants to do anything that will raise any obstacles in the way of the State Department maintaining friendly relations with all nations in the world. The United Nations is the greatest hope we have for future security and peace. I believe your concurrent resolution suggests certain changes, such as eliminating the veto, if this can be accomplished through friendly negotiations and with the approval of other nations. I am for the United Nations, but I am also in favor of improving it in any way that we can, and, as I read and study Dr. Judd's resolution, I come to the conclusion that this is his purpose.
STRUCTURE OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE UNITED NATIONS
FRIDAY, MAY 7, 1948
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C. The committee convened at 10 a, m, in the caucus room, House Office Building, Hon. Charles A. Eaton (chairman) presiding.
Chairman EATON. The committee will be in order.
I will ask Dr. Paul Shipman Andrews, dean, School of Law, Syracuse University, to take the stand.
STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL SHIPMAN ANDREWS, DEAN, SCHOOL OF
LAW, SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
Chairman Eaton. Dr. Andrews, we are very glad to welcome you to our midst.
Dr. ANDREWS. Thank you, sir.
I would like to tell you, if I may, sir, why I and men wiser than I believe in a federal world government as proposed in House Concurrent Resolution No. 59—not as proposed in No. 163.
I am speaking on behalf of the United World Federalists but not as an official representative in any way. Officially I speak for myself.
Charles P. Taft said one time, that in America, things often have to become very bad indeed before they can become very good indeed. He was referring, I think, to the moral pressure which exists when things do get very bad, the driving force which impels people to make them better.
Conditions in the world obviously are very bad indeed. I really do not need to review in this presence, the effect of the atomic bomb, the assurance of more powerful atomic bombs, the fact that atomic spray raised from a bomb in New York Harbor could destroy all life in that city, the biological warfare which scientists tell us makes possible now the atomization of virus which any competent chemist can make in a bathtub, enough to destroy the population of the United States.
I would like, if I may, to say this:
Some 200 years ago, the philosopher Rousseau, whom you have doubtless read, pointed out that things are not civilization, that a savage with a bow and an arrow can do a lot of damage before he is stopped, but not nearly so much as a man with a gun or a cannon.
Since then the progressive command of technology over material development and gadgets and bathtubs and electric lights and the
things with which the dictionary is bulging, have created a command over material development which was beyond what Rousseau contemplated but exactly in line with his thinking, and it is believed by many men wiser than I—it was believed even before the atomic bomb came, sir—that we were facing what James Truslow Adams called the greatest crisis in recorded history.
Now with the atom bomb we have obviously reached what the Greeks used to call the perapatea, the turning point in a drama, which marked a radical departure from what had gone before.
The growth of material civilization—there is a long speech which could be made about it, but there is no time for that. It seems to have resulted in a civilization, so-called, which is like one of those curious creatures that one sees in an insane asylum, with enormous physical power and intellectual acuity, and the moral and spiritual development of a backward and vicious child.
Such is the culmination of the material civilization at the present time, and its final triumph is that it has acquired the power to destroy itself overnight and commit suicide.
We have invented and made all possible things necessary to the welfare of the human race but we have not accompanied those inventions with the vision and the sense of unity and the generosity, the willingness to give up, which only can illuminate their use.
There is, as Mr. Arnold Toynbee, the greatest of modern historians once told me, there is a sort of natural selection, a survival of the fittest by natural selection which occurs in political life, as well as the one which takes place in biology. Just as in biology, when a change of environment means that certain races or groups of people or even civilizations find themselves less adapted to survive in the new environment, than certain others, the former are selected for destruction, the latter for domination.
Toynbee says that there have been some 21 civilizations in the world's history, of which 14 have disappeared completely, 5 are decadent—this is what he says in substance—and 2 more, ours being one of the 2—and as to them he raises a query. He has no definite assurance that ours is to be the last word and will survive.
A natural selection operates, then, in politics due to changes in the economic or political environment; but man and the machine, with man's consequent ever-increasing domination over material matter and technology, have in themselves grown to constitute man's own environment.
Perhaps it is the technologists, the scientists, who have created the world we know, and perhaps it is they whom we worship. If so, they have created a strange kind of creature. It is not their fault. God knows I do not blame them. They have only done their job; but material advance, unmatched by a corresponding advance in the realm of spiritual values, unmatched by generosity and vision and a sense or unity, is self-destructive.
I need not say in this presence, that there is a grave urgency foi Americans in the thought that the mantle of the world's leadership has fallen on the shoulders of this country. John Buchan, the Gov ernor General of Canada, who died some 10 years ago, said tha America, in his mind, was the greatest exponent of what he called th spiritual testament of democracy; that the American Constitutio was the conscious work of men's hands; that what had been done onc