We therefore support House Concurrent Resolution 59 as being a sense resolution of Congress which would call for the full considera. tion 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 out

it 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.

75921-48-11

On the one hand, you see the armed services requesting tremendous appropriations and understandably so.

At the same time the same leaders come up and say there is no defense, in effect, in this present day and age.

In other words, your only power is the power of retaliation.

If you take all the items that were in the President's report on universal training, for example, and a national security program, if you take each of those items, you will remember that one of them is the fact that in your power of retaliation your only power is if you have a decentralized industrial program in America.

Let us follow this out for a period of 5 years, and mind you, now, I think we have the chance to take the initiative. Perhaps 5 years later the die will be so set we will not be able to take the lead in a program of world government but if you follow the present program out for a 5-year period when Russia does have the atom bomb, and others may as well, we find ourselves having only the power to retaliate.

General Kenney has said 40,000,000 people could be destroyed. General Eisenhower said the decisive part of a war could be decided in 90 days.

In effect, that means your only power of retaliation is in a decentralized industrial set-up because you could have armies and everything else arranged but if those centers were knocked out you would have nothing else to supply.

Therefore, if you think in terms of a program of decentralization of industry that means in effect moving the automobile plants of Detroit down to Texas, and the steel plants of Pittsburgh, maybe, out to the Iowa cornfields.

In effect, you say that since we are all concerned with our own defense and our own security, the government must be able to say where everything is going to be located. In other words, no longer do you build certain important critical plants where rivers come together and other power and water power is available, but you have to build them from the point of view of the security defense program.

I do not know whether the people who are talking about this present program have in mind such an over-all defense program, which would in effect decentralize your industry. I think you will agree that that means completely the abolition of private enterprise, and I think once you get your factories in Iowa and your factories in Texas, perhaps people do not want to move there to work, so that you have the problem of conscripting people and having them go into those areas.

Then you have another problem, that when another country has the atom bomb, a group of people or an individual could go into a given area, set up a bomb, in a strategic area, and leave, and it could go off ultimately.

You could drop a certain biological weapon in a water supply so the next morning when everybody wakes up, everybody who drinks water that morning is dead. That is perfectly possible.

When you do decentralize, then you have the problem of how can you trust people in that area. Then you have to institute a program of control of the people, their movements, and what they have in their! bouses.

On the other hand, we say this is a tremendous departure, to work toward world government. However, let us look at the alternative 5 or 6 years from now.

Imagine what it will be like when other countries have the same weapons you do.

Mrs. BOLTON. In your decentralization program, you have in mind the decentralization of actual human habitation?

Mr. PATERSON. Obviously, I am thinking now not so much in terms of cities, but concentration of industry. Naturally, you must have people come to those areas and work.

When we say that the world-government approach seems rather far away and difficult to obtain, at the same time we should remember what the other consequences are in terms of the next 10 years.

Mrs. BOLTON. You feel optimistic, do you, in the matter of Russian cooperation in such a plan?

Mr. PATERSON. My feeling at this point is that the Soviet leaders are pretty much convinced that capitalism and communism cannot live together, but there are just as many convinced in the United States that they cannot, too.

This is where I think the United States can take the lead. We can take, for example, the program I just outlined, of what is going to take place in 5 or 10 years, and go to the world with it and say, "This is going to happen to every living human being in the world, and frankly we are going to take the initiative," and I think you could put Russia on the spot.

After all, they have to face the same realities of tremendous military budgets, tremendous lowering of the living standards at home, tremendous loss of all liberty of movement; they are faced with exactly the same problems.

Therefore, if we could take the initiative, I think at some future date it might well apply to them. I think above all we should be working in the new directions.

Mrs. BOLTON. You feel that the way to do it is not possible under the present set-up of the United Nations?

Mr. PATERSON. I think you have a system really of collective security, in which you each try to get another nation to come with you but until one authority has a greater power than any one of the individual groups, that balance can be overthrown at any given moment.

I do not say this is a simple problem but I say we have to start. I really do fear the next 10 or 15 years if we continue the present policy. Mrs. BOLTON. Thank you very much.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Judd.

Mr. JUDD. Mr. Paterson, thank you for your fine statement.

When ERP was before us, some people said, "It is costly, it is dangerous, it is taking grave chances with the solvency of the United States."

We were told by the administration we must do it because the alternative was even worse. We had to take the calculated risk.

Now, the same administration comes up and says, "We must not take the calculated risk of trying to get the UN strengthened. That is too dangerous. We must go on as we are."

Your calculation is this, I gather; that if there are dangers in trying to move in the proposed direction, there are infinitely greater ones in not moving. There are possible dangers if we follow your suggestions, but the dangers if we do not are certain and infinitely greater.

Therefore, to use the same ERP argument that the administration hit us over the head with here for so long, we must in this instance, too, take the calculated risk, because the alternative is worse.

We want the administration to take a relatively small calculated risk, as against the grave risk of drifting into atomic war. Is that your position?

Mr. PATERSON. Yes, I think if the Congress took a firm stand and said, we are for exploring methods, let us get it out in the open, which is in fact what you are saying in 59.

You have some of the finest minds in the world in this movement. In the United World Federalists are people like Thomas Finletter. I have written a letter to the President, trying to establish a President's Commission on Peace and the United Nations, similar to the ones on national security and on defense and on civil rights.

A lot of people are worried about where we are going, as to the United Nations. I feel it is important that you do something about this, and I realize the Congress does not have time to bring people from all over the country to lay out some kind of a program. The administration has been completely lacking in this other alternative. We supported the Marshall plan ever since Secretary Marshall made his speech. We hope it will provide a certain measure of stability in Europe. That is a calculated risk. However, I fear much more the 10-year period from now, when other countries have exactly the same weapons. Other countries are exactly as nationalistic because they see no power daring to start on a program that says, "Something is greater than all of us, and that is our survival."

I would certainly back what Dr. Andrews said with regard to Mr. Toynbee on that. He was pointed out very clearly, I think, in his book, what has happened to civilizations that have lacked foresight and that is what we lack now in regard to world government.

Mr. JUDD. Is it not true that Russia is stronger than any other nation in Europe and Asia today?

Mr. PATERSON. I think for those people who talk about dropping atom bombs on the Soviet Union, that that would immediately secure Russian control through a major part of the world.

Mr. JUDD. She can take them one by one if she desires, can she not? Mr. PATERSON. There is no reason to believe that the Soviet Union who is advanced in scientific and medicinal fields, cannot develop devastating biological and chemical weapons.

Mr. JUDD. Suppose the ERP succeeds even better than anyone anticipates. When we get through, at the end of 4 years, there will still be individual nations which can be picked off one by one, can they not?

Mr. PATERSON. Yes.

Mr. JUDD. Therefore, all that that program does, if it succeeds is to buy us time in which to get certain nations together in a collective grouping that can at least, match, if not outweigh, the power of

Russia.

Russia is not going to go to war if she cannot win. ERP buys us time to develop the collective strength of the non-Soviet nations.

Mr. PATERSON. There is another point here. I think that the United States and the Soviet Union, from all I can gather in our own pronouncements and the pronouncements of the Soviet Union, are vying for the support of the rest of the nations of the world.