Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

There is no provision for raising money by taxation. Indeed I found no provision for raising money at all. Perhaps everybody would give his services free!

If any nation refuses to contribute when requested, as I suppose must be the idea of the resolution, then the only way you can compel it to give money is to go to war against it.

The resolution relies on force exerted against the nations, not against individuals, and on national armies supposed to join with an international contingent, to threaten or fight other national armies, provided for and allowed expressly by this resolution. But the nations under the League of Nations, the old League of Nations, refused to send troops for fear it might mean war, and one does not know of any reason for assurance that the new League of Nations would not do the same thing.

It leaves all national rivalries undiminished, with the incentive to split up and take sides, since it leaves arms and armies in the hands of all the major nations, the ones most likely to start a world war, and expressly strips arms and armies from all of the small nations, whose enthusiasm for that provision I should hardly expect.

Russia is completely and automatically ruled out because of the evident unacceptability to her of provision after provision. I will rely on my memorandum to cover that in detail, sir.

Russia would be outvoted in a world of nations still armed, and the small nations would be stripped of all protection in the form of heavy armaments against other small nations, and would be given no protection by a law over them and by an adequate force, except the international contingent.

There is no protection against biological weapons.

Indeed, of course I assume that the committee would agree that the only protection against biological weapons is to prevent war itself, whereas this resolution, by preserving national armies, contemplates that there may be international war.

Aggression by a major nation against a small and unimportant one might be accomplished, while the Security Council debated.

You see, you cannot call out the national contingents under Resolution 163 until both the Security Council and the World Court have debated, argued and decided, if they ever do decide, to request the major nations to send their national armies. And then, each Nation's pledge to send troops is subject to its own constitutional processes.

The major nations might be divided or might well be reluctant to send their

troops to engage in a quarrel which their people would think was not their own; or their constitutional processes might result in refusal.

In other words, there is no obligation on the United States, as I understand this resolution, to send its contingent of troops anywhere at the behest of the United Nations created here, unless through its constituional processes it approves,

That means, of course, that under our Constitution, obviously we could not take away from Congress the power to declare war, nor would we. If Congress refused to declare war, the appeal of the United Nations for an American contingent would be void.

The Council itself might hesitate to devastate and destroy a country occupied by one of the major aggressor nations, for the sake of driving back the aggressor nation's troops into its own country. You would hesitate, if France were occupied by Russia, to bomb Paris and all the cities of France in order to drive the Russians back.

That is just a brief and very partial summary of a very few of the objections I have to 163, sir.

Mr. LODGE. Thank you very much.
Mr. Judd. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a “yes” or “no” question?
Chairman EATON. Proceed.

Mr. Judd. Dean Andrews, if we cannot get Russia to go along in provisions such as you advocate, do you favor our working for an association of like-minded nations for collective self-defense under Article 51 ?

Dr. ANDREWS. Do I have to answer"yes" or "no"?
Can I not ask, What are "like-minded nations"!

Mr. JUDD. Well, nations that are opposed to Russia, like-minded in at least that respect. They are afraid of Russian aggression.

Dr. ANDREWS. The answer is "yes,” but only as a last resort, and only with the confident hope that Russia would ultimately and perhaps soon come in.

Mr. Jump. Precisely, and that is what is contemplated in 163,

Chairman EATON. Thank you very much, and we will await with great anxiety your memorandum.

Dr. ANDREWS. Might I venture to recommend a little home reading for the committee, Peace or Anarchy, by Cord Meyer, Jr.?

Chairman EATON. I think that is very important. He will be here next week.

STATEMENT OF CHAT PATERSON, NATIONAL CHAIRMAN OF THE

AMERICAN VETERANS COMMITTEE

Mr. PATERSON. I would like to put in a plug for Mr. Meyer's book. Mr. Meyer was one of the founders of the American Veterans Committee and has been extremely active in our organization and has been frankly the leader on world government and I think a recognized leader throughout the United States.

Also, Charles Bolte, who was our previous chairman, .was a student of world government and worked with Mr. Meyer in the preparation of that book.

Any questions which I am unable to answer, I am sure Mr. Meyer will be able to answer beautifully when he comes before the committee on Tuesday.

The members of the American Veterans Committee recognize that the growing competition for arms, bases, and allies between the United States and the Soviet Union does not lead to peace but may eventually result in an utterly devastating war. Although no program of preparedness can guarantee the security of the United States, we recognize fully the fact that this Nation will not disarm itself until it is safe to do so. While we were the first national organization to specifically support the American proposals for international control of atomic energy, we recognize the futility of unilateral disarmament and believe that the United States must maintain its stock of atomic weapons until an effective system of international inspection and managerial control can be agreed to.

Disarmament will only be safe at such time as the United Nations has been given the power of law to prevent war. The only real security for the United States will lie in the elimination of war itself, as was so clearly stated in the report of the President's Air Policy Commission, headed by Thomas Finletter, himself an advocate of world government..

The American Veterans Committee supports the United Nations as the only existing means of international cooperation, but we realize that in its present form it is incapable of providing its members with protection against aggression. We therefore urge that the United States fulfill its responsibility as the sole possessor of atomic bombs by proposing such amendments to the Charter as are essential if the United Nations is to be capable of controlling effectively the new methods of destruction.

We believe that our Government should take the initiative in the United Nations in advocating an over-all security program for survival. We believe that our Government should assert aggressive world leadership and should use every means of friendly persuasion to obtain the voluntary agreement of all nations to conferring the following powers on the United Nations:

These recommendations are from our platform, adopted at our last convention.

1. The power to administer laws binding the individual citizens of every nation as their first duty. This legal authority of the United Nations must be limited to only those matters essential to security. They are (1) the prohibition of the national manufacture or ownership of all weapons of mass destruction; (2) the prohibition of the planning or initiation of war and the prohibition of national armed forces beyond the size required for the maintenance of domestic order; (3) the managerial control of those aspects of the peaceful development of atomic energy that can be diverted with dangerous ease to the secret manufacture of bombs.

2. The power to arrest and try in United Nations courts with compulsory jurisdiction those accused of violating the basic security laws whether they be private citizens or officials of national governments.

3. The power to conduct an international system of inspection, staffed with competent scientists recruited from the member nations. These inspectors must have the right of free access into every country and the right to all scientific information of military value. Through aerial and ground surveys and through investigation of industries, mines and underground structures, they must maintain a continuous search for all attempts to construct the prohibited armament.

4. The power to raise and support a world police force recruited from individuals of the United Nations and armed with the most effective modern weapons. Located in strategic areas throughout the world, this police force must be sufficiently powerful to insure swift and decisive preventive action against any government that defies the international inspectors.

If these basic security laws are to provide protection, no national government can be allowed to obstruct their operation by a single negative vote and protect its own citizens from the consequence of their guilt. The permanent members of the Security Council must agree to surrender their right to veto United Nations action to enforce the laws essential to security, while retaining the right of veto over all other matters.

We therefore support House Concurrent Resolution 59 as being a sense resolution of Congress which would call for the full consideration and discussion of these proposals by the member nations within the United Nations. No group realizes more thoroughly than we do that the above proposals represent tremendous changes in our attitudes and considerations of foreign policy. Too little public attention was given to the aspects of the Finletter report which touched upon what was called a "double-barreled" policy. On the one hand we prepare ourselves to live in a world of force, but at the same time we take the lead in calling for steps to avoid another war. As the report said:

Our national security can be secured only by the elimination of war itself

World peace and the security of the United States are now the same thing

We will not be rid of war until the nations arrive at a great agreement to live together in peace, and to this end give the United Nations organization the legal and physical power under a regime of law to keep the peace.

The Finletter report continually emphasizes that relying on the protection of our arms represents only relative security. It goes on to say:

To realize this double-barreled policy will be as difficult a task as this country has ever taken on.

It may be that we shall not go all out on either part of our double-barreled policy—that we shall compromise with both and achieve neither.

Many other countries in the world are officially on record as striving to achieve world government and from recent polls in America, the American people have expressed the hope that our Government will take the lead in finding some way of avoiding another disastrous modern war through devoting as much attention to the attainment of an adequate system of world law as to the building of our own military security. Figures are available to show that since 1915 approximately 85 percent of our total Federal budgets have been devoted to payments for wars and preparations for future wars. Should not we be spending at least the same proportion of our total budget, and of our thought and energy to develop an American policy which will lead the way to the establishment of world law?

So far no nation in the world has offered the peoples of the world a program of equal and total security. Two great powers stalk each other and profess to the world how each at some point may have to knock each other's block off. We offer the Russians and the world a program in which we will each fight if our interests are attacked.

The maintenance of peace is a tenuous job. As Raymond Swing so eloquently pointed outit will not be a peace based on justice in a world in which no nation is judge of its own cause; it will be peace based on power, and our power will keep the peace only as long as no other nation feels it cannot gain something by challenging us. In such a world it is a duty to be strong, but this duty weighs as a trifle in comparison with the duty to seek a world regime with the power to enact, interpret, and enforce law. It is no argument to say that such a regime cannot be achieved, that others are not ready for it. The time to worry about that is when the United States has taken the lead, has worked long and patiently and persuasively to bring such a regime into existence. So far the United States has not lifted a finger to promote the coming of such a regime. The time has come when it must throw its whole enthusiasm into it for otherwise we shall find ourselves financially strangled by our rising militarism, and our liberties strangled in the same process. And despite all we shall have paid in money and freedom for security, we shall have lost our safety along with our souls.

Chairman Eaton. Thank you very much, sir.
Are there any questions?

Mr. JONKMAN. Is there any great fundamental difference between your organization and Federal Union, Inc.?

Mr. PATERSON. There is no connection. I am not acquainted with that organization. It is different from the United World Federalists, is it not?

Mr. JONKMAN. Yes.

Mr. PATERSON. I understand there is a difference between our positions. I would feel that they went along with 163 but I may be wrong about that.

Mr. JUDD. Theirs is union of the democracies. That is, those who have reached a certain standard.

Mr. PATERSON. In that case we are not in the same position. Mr. JONKMAN. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Chairman EATON. Mrs. Bolton? Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Paterson, your second point: The power to arrest and try in Union Nations courts with compulsory jurisdiction those accused of violating the basic security laws whether they be private citizens or officials of national governments.

Who makes those laws?

Mr. PATERSON. First we must begin by calling the General Assembly into a meeting under 109, and then those security laws agreed upon would be binding.

Mrs. BOLTON. You feel that the calling of such a meeting would not destroy completely the United Nations!

Mr. PATERSON. There are ways and ways of calling and ways and ways of acting. For instance, if the general impression were given that we were in effect saying to Russia and those countries within her own orbit, “We are going in here to set this up without you," and if the general talk in the meeting was along that line, I think there would be no chance in the world of getting them to agree under 109, because they have a veto in effect on that in the Security Council, when they come up and have been voted on by two-thirds of the Assembly.

I think the intent in this is very important.

I believe the point I have tried to make, although I may have failed in one aspect is that the one dynamic force in the world, the United States, could take the initiative in, is a program of world government.

I think you must know that the people in the world are worried about being caught in the squeeze play between the two forces, each of which is building up its armaments and they are afraid they will be involved in a final Armageddon. I feel the United States could take the initiative and I realize this is a tremendous departure from our previous policies but I think the alternatives to this policy are so dangerous that if we do not, we may be one of the extinct civilizations of which we have talked.

There is one thing that bothers me about this total program. I mean the total present program—the lack of the using of this other barrel at this time, and the complete reliance on national armaments.

This is what bothers me, and I think Mr. Meyer will be able to bring this out much better than I will be able to because he has studied it much more thoroughly than I have.

[blocks in formation]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »