« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Mr. JUD. I will modify it and say it is telling them we won't make any effort to strengthen the United Nations so as to organize the free nations against their further aggression until they agree.
Mr. JONKMAN. I think that is subject to the same fallacy. I do not think we should use words to describe a situation that is not true at all. The United Nations has taken serious note of the abuse of the veto and other things. If you say, because of that, you are letting the world go to hell, it would not be fair, or we would not be sitting in that organization.
Mr. JUDD. I was not speaking of the organization as such, I was speaking of the attitude of United States officials in saying we shouldn't do anything until we are sure the Soviets will agree.
Mr. JONKMAN. You say they wouldn't do anything. You say you shouldn't do this.
Mr. Judd. Shouldn't do anything about reforming, revising, changing, modifying, improving the procedures in the United Nations.
Mr. JONKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that in this inquiry we should resort to propaganda ourselves.
Mr. JUDD. When ask a question, to get the agreement or disagreement of the distinguished witness on a point of view which has been repeatedly expressed, I do not think that is propagandizing. He might say, "No."
Mr. JONKMAN. The probability is that he would say, “Yes.” It is a leading question.
Mr. Judd. Do you mean to tell me, as a lawyer, that lawyers do not ask leading questions?
Mr. JONKMAN. Yes, sir, they do, for one purpose; they know that the answer is going to be almost automatically “Yes,” or “No," as the case may be.
Mr. JUD. Don't you think it is important, for the future of the world-and it includes the future of my three children-don't you think we have a right and a duty to mobilize opinion in the direction of insuring the world a future?
Mr. JONKMAN. Not by misleading questions.
Mr. JONKMAN. You are making a premise that is not justified when you say that the United States representatives take that attitude, and thereby they just let the world go to hell. That is not fair. I criticize those officials almost as much as you do, but I do not think we should go too far.
Mr. JUDD. It was only in that one respect of their advising against action to strengthen the United Nations until Russia will agree. Such advice I believe makes certain Russia will not agree.
You know I have worked for ERP and for every single one of the economic and military measures proposed and I will continue, but my point is, unless we go ahead with mobilizing into a joint force the strength of all people striving to be free, then the other measures will not succeed. We are assuming a burden we can carry this
year, maybe until 1952, but it is an impossible burden as a longterm policy, and Mr. Stalin can just sit there and wait until the free world goes to pieces, because we will break down, in my judgment, if we try to carry the load alone.
Mr. Chairman, may I ask permission that the word “hell” be expunged from the record.”
Chairman EATON. I was going to suggest that the gentleman let the American people stop just this side of hell.
Mr. Judd. Thank you very much, Mr. Eastman. Your testimony has been of enormous value. It is not a matter of theory with you. You are aware of the facts of life.
Mr. EASTMAN. Thank you.
Chairman EATON. We are deeply grateful to you because this has been one of the most interesting, informing, and suggesting presentations of testimony we have had. We wish you further success in your program. I do not know how rapid it will be, but I hope you will continue in well-doing.
Mr. EASTMAN. Thank you very much.
Chairman Eaton. The committee will adjourn at this time. We will meet again Tuesday, May 11, in the Foreign Affairs Committee room.
(Whereupon, at 3:45, the committee adjourned, to reconvene Tuesday, May 11, 1948, at 10 a. m.)
(The following communications have been submitted for inclusion in the record :) STATEMENT BY THE WOMEN'S ACTION COMMITTEE FOR LASTING PEACE, EAST FIFTY
SEVENTH STREET, NEW YORK CITY, CONCERNING THE FUNCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
The stated objective of the Women's Action Committee is “to unite American women to work for full participation of the United States in the United Nations and in those international measures necessary to build a world of peace and justice under law.” It is an organization composed of many thousands of individual members. There are also 14 large national women's groups affiliated with us as member organizations with representation on our general committee, which is our policy-forming body. At our recent annual convention attended by delegates from all parts of the United States, a large majority of the delegates voted to “postpone indefinitely" action on a resolution supporting the current measures before Congress favoring amendments to the United Nations Charter. The following resolution was passed unanimously by our convention :
RESOLUTION ON THE STRENGTHENING OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Whereas the United Nations has been established for safeguarding world peace, and
Whereas the effective functioning of the United Nations should be a major concern of all peoples, everywhere in the world, and
Whereas the position of world leadership which the United States åt present enjoys carries with it the responsibility of strengthening the United Nations; therefore be it
Resolved, That the Women's Action Committee for Lasting Peace, in annual convention assembled, considers the United Nations can best be strengthened at this time through affirmative interpretation of the present Chapter and strongly urges that the United States make every effort to:
1. Act whenever possible through and with the machinery of the United Nations,
2. Assist in further developing the machinery of the United Nations and of the specialized agencies into effective instruments of international cooperation and of international law and er,
3. Continue to recognize its responsibility for leadership in the United Nations and all of its specialized agencies in order that the confidence of the peoples of the world in the efficiency of the United Nations may be sustained during these critical times.
The Women's Action Committee is not opposed to world government. The ideal of world government appeals to all workers for lasting peace as an ultimate goal to strive toward. Our organization differs, however, with the immediate
revisionists as to timing and as to strategy in view of present world conditions.
The United Nations as the established international organization is accepted by most groups at least as a starting point. The fact that an organization of 58 nations is functioning must be accepted by all but the most irreconcilable pessimists or the most starry-eyed idealists. While there have been delays at a time when delays can bring us to the precarious brink of disaster, thus far the majority of the United Nations, in spite of the delaying tactics of the minority, have devised ways carrying on and slowly achie results.
The present Charter of the United Nations provides for a review of the Charter at the end of 10 years. It would seem likely that efforts to amend the Charter could be given more judicious consideration and receive more unified support in 1955 than they could possibly receive under present international tensions.
The Women's Action Committee for Lasting Peace is convinced that a third world war must and can be avoided. We feel that war can best be avoided by a firm program of action—not through a magic formula of words. It would be pleasant to return to pre-San Francisco days and speculate as to the ideal international organization. The fact is that the present Charter is the best that could be agreed upon after months of intensive discussion and negotiation. We consider that attempts to revise the Charter now would not only fall short of the aim to produce a more effective United Nations, but that they might well lead to an intensification of international misunderstanding.
As any revision of the Charter requires ratification by two-thirds of the member Dations, including all five permanent members of the Security Council, it is highly questionable whether two-thirds of the members would ratify amendments at this time. There is no question but what the ratification by all five great powers would not be obtained. If the United States were to lead a revisionist movement now, we would be faced by two alternatives—either we might have to weaken our position by accepting defeat, or we would have to risk walking out of the United Nations and setting up a new international organization with as many followers as we could muster.
There is, however, an alternative to amending the Charter; the alternative is the functional strengthening of the United Nations by developing the potentialities for action within the framework of the present Charter. Several moves have already been made along this line and still others have been suggested ; the full development of the powers of the General Assembly, the setting up of the Little Assembly, the development of new machinery for arbitration and peaceful settlement of disputes, continued effort to develop voting procedures in the Security Council that would be more in conformity with the interpretation of the Charter agreed to by the great powers at San Francisco, development of regional machinery under articles 52, 53, and 54 of the Charter, possible implementation of article 51 of the Charter, which provides for individual or collective self-defense in case of armed attack.
Current suggestions for revising the Charter touch upon the form but not the substance of the present difficulties of the United Nations. The world organization has been hampered not only by the Russian use of the veto but by the "slow veto" of noncooperation, the delays of international filibuster, hesistancy on the part of many nations to take forthright action in particular situations because of the uncertainties of general world conditions.
A mere revision of the Charter abrogating the veto will not meet these difficulties. The same holds true for other aspects of the revisionist movement. The ABC plan, for instance, calls not only for elimination of the veto, but for the limitation of armaments and for international forces under a quota plan. If international confidence were such that nations could reach agreement on the quota plan, they could also have reached agreement before now in the UN Commissions on Atomic Energy and Conventional Armaments, and the Big Five could have reached agreement in the UN Military Staff Committee on the armed forces and facilities to be put at the disposal the Security Council.
The large majority of the membership of the Women's Action Committee is convinced the best way for the United States to strengthen the UN is (1) to make full use of its machinery under the present Charter to cooperate fully in all of the specialized agencies, (2) to give hope and strength to freedom-loving peoples and to nations who wish to maintain their independence, (3) to pursue a firm policy toward Russia, while at the same time leaving open all possible channels of cooperation.
SUITLAND, MD., May 15, 1948. FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: It is my opinion that the attached peace plan presents the only. means by which war can positively be outmoded. It is not the people of any nation that starts a war, but their government, through power politics. If the power to declare war is once vested in the people of each nation, by majority vote, there will be no more wars. Also if such power is once obtained by the people of each nation, they would never surrender it back to their governments or dictators.
This arrangement once effected by the United Nations Organization, and the world would feel safe to proceed along friendly lines. A world disarmament agreement would soon follow in line and save billions of dollars in taxes which is now being spent to keep these nations prepared for war; the war jitters would be removed.
It is my opinion that the present Charter should be revised whereby these attached stipulations can be incorporated therein. Respectfully yours,
FRANK E. VANDERHOOF.
VANDERHOOF 13-POINT PEACE PLAN To ELIMINATE FUTURE WARS
[Copyright 1943 by Frank E. Vanderhoof]
1. An organization or association to be formed among the United Nations, and those others which will have been freed from the bondage of Germany, Japan, and Italy.
2. These nations large and small shall be permitted to set up their own forms of government, without influence or demand.
3. These nations shall set up a new code of international law.
4. Present enemy nations shall not be barred from membership in such organization or association.
5. Each nation in association, to be acceptable to membership must adopt or write a constitutional amendment, waiving all right by power of their government to declare war, unless attacked by forcible arms. The association to decide what constitutes forcible attack.
6. All power to so declare war must rest with the peoples of each respective nation, by popular vote.
7. The armament of each of these nations shall not be in excess to that which will be necessary to maintain internal order. Size of each respective army to be determined by the association or union.
8. An international chamber of commerce to be organized with equal representation among these united nations, to create markets and guide in the fair distribution of raw materials and manufactured goods. The main object of such chamber is to eliminate competition among nations as much as possible. Tariffs of each member nation to be regulated by the association,
9. The principal of freedom of religion must be a point of adoption among these nations. This to be the constitutional right of all the peoples of these respective nations.
10. The principal of freedom of trade, of the seas, and in the air must be adopted.
11. Any nations not joining this association or union, by adoption of agreement as set forth in paragraphs 5, 6, and 9, shall be cut off from international trade, postal exchange, and diplomatic relations with all nations of this association. Citizens of the outlawed nation will not be permitted to enter the boundary of any of the associated nations.
12. Each nation of these united nations, both large and small shall have only equal representation in this association. Territorial claims and boundary disputes to be settled by the association,
13. A sizable international police force or army to be maintained in readiness to occupy any aggressing nonmember nation. Also to see that the laws of this association are justly maintained.
This plan presented to Congress, by Hon. Wirt Courtney, from Tennessee, as it appears in the Congressional Record, of July 1, 1943, House of Representatives.
STRUCTURE OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE UNITED NATIONS
TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1948
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C. The committee convened at 10:25 a. m., in the Foreign Affairs Committee room, United States Capitol, Hon. Charles A. Eaton (chairman) presiding.
Chairman EATON. The committee will be in order. Our first witness this morning is Mr. Cord Meyer, Jr., of the United World Federalists.
STATEMENT OF CORD MEYER, JR., PRESIDENT, UNITED WORLD
FEDERALISTS Mr. MEYER. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Bolton, and gentlemen, my name is Cord Meyer, Jr., and I am president of the United World Federalists located at 31 East Seventy-fourth Street, New York City.
I appear before you as an official representative of the United World Federalists, an organization of American citizens working to obtain public support and governmental action toward giving the United Nations real power to keep the peace under binding and enforceable world laws. I wish to speak particularly in support of House Concurrent Resolution 59.
First. May I discuss the structure of the United Nations as it was agreed to in San Francisco in 1945. The United Nations was erected on the ruins of the Second World War in the hope that it would end the intolerable arms races and recurrent wars that this generation has endured. That hope has not yet been realized. And a close analysis of the United Nations reveals that the organization was not given in 1945 that legal authority and material power that it must have, if it is to be able to protect its members.
Criticism of the United Nations has concentrated on the veto provisions. Actually the defects of the Charter are more basic, and little or nothing would be gained by merely juggling the voting rules in the Security Council. For example, the United Nations was provided with no power to make, administer, and enforce laws binding both on individuals and national governments. Enforcement action by the Security Council can only be taken against an entire nation, its men, women, and children, the innocent and the guilty alike.
The only recourse against aggression under the United Nations is the collective destruction of entire peoples by war after aggression has