« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Now, what is an ideal method of getting our views across? What sort of program can incite at least some hope in the peoples of the world?
The Communists in effect have a form of world organization. My feeling is that it is the one remaining idea that can make sense-and mind you, I think in view of the resolutions that are available from a tremendous number of countries-Dr. Andrews listed many of them that they are feeling that way, too, I think as far as history is concerned it would be the one hope for survival of the United States.
This is a program that is absolutely essential to the survival of the United States.
Mr. JUDD. Our usual method in recent years has been not to act, but just to react. That is the least effective and most expensive way, probably.
What you want us to do is lead.
Mr. PATERSON. I think this is a time when the United States must take an aggressive role throughout the world in support of some program that will secure survival.
Chairman EATON. Mr. Lodge.
Mr. LODGE. Mr. Paterson, I have listened to your statement with great interest, and I am very sympathetic with the preoccupation which you express.
I take it that while you favor Resolution 59, you do not favor 163; is that correct?
Mr. PATERSON. No. I think if you carried out the basic program as outlined in 59—that is, you did call your general meeting-then you could bring up and discuss any points that are included in 163 as well as the other bills.
Frankly, I feel on 163, and I have not had a chance to study it as thoroughly as I would like, it is another juggling of votes in the Security Council instead of an over-all program of disarmament where there is some force greater than all other forces.
I believe it is a juggling of the votes and I do not think it fools anybody.
Mr. LODGE. Mr. Paterson, I would like to ask you this:
Let us assume such a conference is called, and it is impossible to reach agreement. We can assume that that will be the case, because there is at the moment machinery to amend the United Nations Charter without resorting to 109.
Mr. PATERSON. Do you mean the "Little Assembly" proposal? Mr. LODGE. That is not exactly what I had in mind. There have been changes made in the composition of certain organisms of the United Nations, according to the testimony of General Marshall the other day. The Charter can under Article 108, be amended.
Let us assume that a conference is called under 109 and that Russia will not agree to any of the changes which you consider are vital. What do you propose in that case?
Mr. PATERSON. It is a possibility which would have to be faced squarely, but it should not discourage attempts now. At this time I think there are peoples throughout the world who for a variety of reasons may distrust us as much as they distrust the Soviet Union. Mr. LODGE. In other words, you would not favor at that point, the
45 nations seceding from the United Nations and going ahead and forming another organization?
Mr. PATERSON. I think, frankly, it is somewhat like shadow-boxing at this point. You have to move back and forth and see those points where you can move in and pull back, in order to keep both of you standing up, so you do not both get knocked out.
I think you have to move very cautiously and I certainly would agree with General Marshall's real fears about having the Soviet Union pull out of the United Nations. I think that would devastating. Before we go to the meeting, we should have some sort of commission set up where we can get the views of the American people in abundance before it, to get some reaction of the thinking of the American people on this thing. I am convinced if the United States is really behind such a program, and really proposes it and makes sure it is not aimed at a particular country but is aimed at a proposal for the survival of all of us, that that can be conveyed to the rest of the world.
I am sure that the Communist International feels that they themselves are going to set up their own international system and I think they have to be shown that this program has really seized the imagination and hopes of the people of the world.
Then I do not think they can or will stand completely against it.
That may be a long time coming. However, I think we must be working in that direction.
At this point I think we are doing as Mr. Judd said, simply reacting at given points around the world, with no over-all security-survival
Mr. LODGE. Thank you very much.
Mr. JUDD. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LODGE. Surely.
Mr. JUDD. I may say that the statement by my esteemed colleague from Connecticut is certainly shadow-boxing, when he spoke as if we were proposing seceding from the United Nations. He consistently brings that to our minds.
Mr. LODGE. I have read the remarks of others that we should proceed with Russia if possible, and if Russia cannot agree, then we should proceed without her.
That is not a figment of my imagination, nor an assertion which 1 make. I place it in the form of a question, based on the assertion of a great many others.
Mr. JUDD. To proceed under article 51, without Russia, if necessary does not mean seceding from the United Nations.
Mr. LODGE. May I say to my distinguished friend from Minnesota that that has been expressed by a great many people as being the pur port of these resolutions.
Mr. JUDD. I am trying to correct such an idea on every possible occa sion.
Mr. LODGE. Some of the people who have favored it have stated it i that fashion.
Chairman EATON. Thank you very much, Mr. Paterson, for a ver illuminating statement.
The next witness is Mr. Rimanoczy, of the American Econom Foundation.
The Chair would like to say that this afternoon at 2 o'clock we wi meet here again to hear Mr. Max Eastman and Prof. David J. Dalli
STATEMENT OF RICHARD RIMANOCZY, EDUCATIONAL DIRECTOR, AMERICAN ECONOMIC FOUNDATION
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. 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 Europe-a 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 hich America has always refused to remain at peace.
We always start wars at a disadvantage, however, because being constituted as we are, we always wait until the other fellow attacks and he gets the jump on us.
Since the shooting stopped 3 years ago, we have not made a single mportant 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. 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.