Изображения страниц



Mr. CHIPERFIELD (presiding). You have a statement? Mr. RIMANOCZY. Yes, I have a statement. I would like to say that this statement is a composite of the attitude of some 100 average men and women in the United States, businessmen, taxicab drivers, and others, on their attitude toward Resolution No. 163, when they understand the purport of that resolution.

Mr. JUDD. Mr. Chairman, may I ask, just what is the American Economic Foundation ?

Mr. RIMANOCZY. It is an organization that has for many years encouraged public debates and discussions of economic problems. On this matter we enter from the economic aspects of the thing. Mr. Judd. It is an organization of businessmen! Mr. RIMANOCZY. It is an educational foundation and is so chartered by the Government, for the purpose of adult discussion of economic affairs. Mr. JUDD. It is privately endowed ? Mr. RIMANOCZY. It is privately endowed. As I say, this is a composite of the average man's reactions. It is not on the level of the statesmen or the political scientists.

The events that have taken place since Russia was given control of eastern Europea control that was guaranteed by the decisions at Yalta—have made one stubborn fact increasingly clear.

America must either take leadership to conquer the world or take leadership to conquer war.

As matters now stand, we live in an atmosphere of war that, at any moment, may veto any and all plans for our day-to-day life. Under these conditions no long-range planning of domestic policy is possible, because without warning, the stern hand of war can clamp the controls of dictatorship upon us.

War is the greatest of all political dictators over a free people, because self-preservation requires blind obedience to military decisions, based on knowledge and logic which must be kept secret from the people.

War is the greatest fiscal dictator over a prosperous people. The ravenous appetite of modern armaments must be satisfied, regardless of the personal sacrifices involved.

War is the greatest labor dictator over free labor unions and over free trade associations because group interests must be brushed aside in the interests of victory.

Obviously America has no intention of conquering the world. Therefore, until we have a foreign policy that assures peace, or intelligently controls the risk of war, our day-to-day lives cannot be planned with any degree of confidence. We cannot dodge the facts.

America does not want war, but there are certain conditions under which America has always refused to remain at peace.

We always start wars at a disadvantage, however, because being instituted as we are, we always wait until the other fellow attacks z and he gets the jump on us.

Since the shooting stopped 3 years ago, we have not made a single aportant move toward the prevention of another war. For this reason I feel constrained to endorse the simple blueprint for peace

that has been developing for many years in America and is now under consideration by this body.

This is a plan conceived on the common sense requirements of law and order and nurtured with the collective wisdom of thousands of persons, and dozens of civic organizations.

The community of nations is like a community of people. Law and order in any free country are maintained by three devices known to all men:

A code of laws, a court of law, and a policeman to enforce the court's decisions.

The people in a free community do not give up their personal sovereignty except in one respect. They agree not to break the peace, and when accused of doing so, cannot veto their own indictment by the district attorney, or their own conviction by the courts.

Without the law, the court and the cop on the corner, there could be no civilization and the presence of the cop, the professional hunter of criminals, makes it unnecessary for the private citizen to join a squad of vigilantes and go out and get shot.

Now, this simple blueprint can be transferred to the problem facing the community of nations. They need the law, the court, and the cop on the corner.

The United Nations as it is now constituted is a hollow shell, because it lacks three things, and as long as it continues to lack them it will continue to be a hollow shell.

The proposal which is frequently referred to as the A B C plan, provides for the law, the court and the cop on the corner.

The only privilege of sovereignty that would have to be surrendered by individual nations is the privilege which every nation says it will never use, the privilege of waging aggressive war.

The government of every nation professes to hate war. Here is our chance to find out.

If we insist that the veto cannot be used in matters of aggression, we will then have a line-up of all peace-loving nations.

If Russia is not in that line-up, which is not at all certain, the organization can and must proceed without her.

Personally, I believe that Russia will be induced to come along, to check her guns at the door, and sit down in the peaceful. circle of nations. My chief reasons for believing this are two in number:

First, the people of Russia do not want war, and are kept in a psychological state of war only through unfounded rumors of aggression.

Second, no nation goes to war unless there is a mathematical balance in favor of victory and under this plan, the Russian General Staff would see 80 percent of the might of the world against them.

This proposed change in the United Nations is more than fair to Russia. It offers her more military parity with the nations which she claims are hostile, than she could ever achieve in an out-andout armament race. It offers her as much military strength as France and China combined.

It offers her enough military strength to effectively defend herself but does not offer her enough strength to attack anyone, because the balance of the military power, 20 percent of the world power, lies with the international police force that is at the disposal of the World Court and under the command of the United Nations General Staff.

This proposed international police force is a highly trained, wellequipped group of professional soldiers, supported by all UN members. It contains no American, French, British, Russian, or Chinese citizens, and its composition will be such that it could not possibly lose its neutrality as a professional policeman.

In case of aggression, this force, plus the home army of the nation being attacked, will always represent an overwhelming superiority of force.

Only in a dire and unforeseen combination of circumstances would any soldier of any big nation ever be called upon to fight except on his own soil and in defense of his own home.

This plan offers the best hope that I can see for relief from the back-breaking economic burden of the armament race.

It provides that the total annual output of heavy armaments shall be decided by the United Nations, and the tentative allocation provides that the production shall be split in six ways: 20 percent to the United States; 20 percent to Britain; 20 percent to Russia ; 20 percent to the international police force; and 10 percent each to France and China.

The production of armaments would cease to be a race and would undoubtedly be sharply reduced because, when the other fellow can have no bigger or more expensive stick than you can have, you are apt to vote for a small and cheaper one.

This plan can be of tremendous value to the regional plans now under consideration. It would give enormous significance to the Marshall plan, which is now largely an effort to buy the good will and stiffen the backbone of certain nations against Communist aggression.

When we ask Italy, France, and other nations to combat communism we are asking them to do a lot, because they are exposed to easy invasion and we are not now able to guarantee them police protection.

This plan would aid the political reorganization of western Europe.

When the western union of Europe is now discussed, the delegates cannot now forget that other alliances equally well conceived have collapsed in the age-old game of power politics.

We may as well face the fact that the atomic bomb of America is not going to force world peace as did the Roman legions and as did the British Navy. We are not gaited that way. We want to stay home and enjoy our families.

Being psychologically confined, as we are, to the law, the court, and the cop on the corner, we may as well get about the job of doing something about it, because time most definitely is not on our side.

The only mechanism available to us at this time is the United Nations. It is a better mechanism than the past performance would indicate. It is complete except for a simple train of three gears, without which it just threshes around in free wheeling.

We know what these three gears are—the law, the court, and the cop on the corner.

The first of these gears is the law, the law that no nation can attack another without bringing down upon itself the combined might of the world community, and that no nation can veto an investigation into its actions involving aggression or preparation for aggression.

The second gear is the Court. It already exists, but it, too, is futile in its present state.

We can and should empower this Court to review all charges of aggression properly presented to it by the Security Council that would correspond to a world district attorney.

The third gear is the cop on the corner. We can and should place at the disposal of the Court, a strong, tyranny-proof policeman in the world police force, composed entirely of citizens of small nations and under the direction of the General Staff of the Security Council.

When these three steps are taken, one of two things will happen : Russia will either come in or stay out.

Should Russia come in, the threat of war is ended. She can neither attack nor be attacked.

But suppose Russia stays out and sulks behind her iron curtain? There is still very little danger of war. The world community consists of about 2,300,000,000 people. On Russia's side, including all her satellites, would be only about 260,000,000, which is about 10 percent of the world's manpower.

The productive assets of the world, the things needed to produce for war, total about $812,000,000,000.

On Russia's side would be only about $110,000,000,000 of these assets, less than 20 percent.

This means that Russia's mathematical chances of eventual victoryregardless of how sweeping the first campaign might be—would be hopelessly against her. And nations seldom fight hopeless wars unless they are hopelessly deficient in national resources, a fact which is not true of Russia.

Another way of looking at this plan is to ask: What is against it?

I find little or nothing. It in no way weakens our defensive position. Should we desire we could have a million short-range attack and pursuit planes and a coastal gun every hundred feet of our coast line.

It does not involve increased expenditures. In fact it is the only plan I have seen that promises to lighten the burdensome cost of national defense. It does not involve the surrendering of national sovereignty except in one matter and that is one we have no use for.

It does not increase our need for a standing army. In fact, it removes much of this need.

It does not increase the risk of our boys fighting on foreign soil. In fact, it practically eliminates any such possibility.

In this plan I believe the world has found the answer to peace. It is not an impractical, idealistic answer, but a practical answer that appeals to the enlightened selfishness of all nations and guarantees crushing defeat for any nation or group of nations that would once more spread death and destruction and desolation across the face of the earth.

Now, there are two points, sir, that have been in the public press, on previous testimony. I have not seen them contradicted in the public press and they seriously affect this thing:

One was a statement by the Secretary of State which was quoted in the New York Times. Secretary Marshall said he is unwilling to see the United States lose the protection of the veto power, against having its men committed to military action.

There were three newspaper articles in New York on that speech and in each one the reporter went on to interpret that as meaning, ommitment without congressional action.

Of course, people never read anything carefully nowadays but in line 21 of Resolution 163, page 5, dealing with the armed forces of the five major powers, it says "subject to their constitutional processes."

I suggest that the committee have the public press correct this inference, which in the city of New York, at least, was general. Every article had that in it.

The second one is attributed also to the Secretary of State. He attributed the policy of the administration to the balance of military strength that so greatly declined in the western world against a rising strength in the eastern world.

From this, the average man in the street would assume a very substantial military strength on the part of Russia, and when you say two parts, you think of halves.

If I cut a finger off I would be in two parts but I would not be in two halves.

I think it is extremely important.

I have a study here, just completed by our research director. The documentation of this would fill, almost, this room, because we have had access to practically all of the records of every nation in the United Nations.

The World Assets Audit Corp. does the work for us. It is one of our affiliates.

It even has Russian sources, which rather surprised me.

I will leave this with the committee, because it is the final answer to this question of the dividing into two parts, and the rising strength of the East.

(The document referred to is as follows:)

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »