« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
actually begun, since the United Nations lacks the authority under law to hold individual citizens and government officials within a country responsible for their acts. Moreover, no enforcement action of any kind can be taken under the Charter except against a small nation that is without the support of any one of the five permanent members. This means that small and weak nations are to be punished if they commit aggression, while the strong enjoy unfettered license, protected by their voting privileges.
In addition, the International Court of Justice established by the Charter is a wholly inadequate instrument for the judicial settlement of disputes or for the trial of those accused of initiating aggression. Only governments in their collective capacity can appear before this Court and they are free to ignore its recommendations if they see fit to do so.
Most significantly, the United Nations lacks any real international police force of its own. It relies on the willingness of the member governments to make available their national armies. Under the Charter, each nation is free to arm to the limit, and the final decision as to whether these armies will be used to support or oppose a recommendation of the United Nations rests with the separate national governments. This means that under the Charter each government can accumulate the modern weapons of mass destruction, and an attack with these weapons by one nation can only be met through a desperate counterattack by the victims relying on their own resources.
These considerations should make it clear that the United Nations does not now possess the power to defend its members. In 1945, the larger nations, including our own, were unwilling to shift the responsibility for national defense to a common authority. Therefore, each sovereign government has been condemned to seek its own security in national armaments and in the extension of strategic bases.
However, armed force is no protection to any nation unless it has more power than any other single nation or possible group of opponents. An ever more explosive competition for every element of military power is the inevitable consequence of this situation, as our Government and others seek protection from attack in the overwhelming strength of their national armies. That arms race and struggle for strategic position began shortly after the end of the Second World War and now causes fear, hysteria, and hatred throughout the world.
The Secretary of State warned before this committee on May 5 that the problems of peace are not solvable merely by new forms of organization.” All members of the United World Federalists would substantially agree with that judgment. Certainly Mr. Marshall was correct in calling for "a widespread improvement in the material and social well-being of the peoples of the world.” We have warmly supported the European recovery plan and we hope for its success.
But dollars and goods by themselves give no assurance of peace, while growing fear leads the sovereign governments to devote an ever larger proportion of their national wealth to war preparations. Even now more than 20,000,000 men are under arms throughout the world and can perform no productive labor. Upward of 60 billion dollars is now being spent on the manufacture of totally destructive weapons, This fantastic waste and mutual suspicion must be ended, if economic recovery is to be more than a pious wish. And it is only by new forms of organization, by the transformation of the United Nations into a federation with effective power to keep the peace, that cooperation can replace the present rivalry for the methods of collective suicide.
We of the United World Federalists would agree with the Secretary of State and with Mr. Austin that our country should not now destroy its weapons or weaken its military position in the hope that other nations would later follow our example. The policy of unilateral disarmament and appeasement is both futile and dangerous. It must be rejected. So long as every nation is free to prepare for and wage war, our Government must be prepared to defend its people as best it can. On the other hand, we respectfully but firmly differ with Mr. Marshall's suggestion that international security can now be maintained by restoring "the balance of power relationship,” by staying ahead in the arms race.
National military preparations are necessary at the present time, but they no longer offer any real protection to us or to any nation. Even the most thorough preparations cannot defend our cities and their people against a modern attack with atomic and biological weapons, nor is it likely that these preparations can prevent war. As we construct an arsenal with which we can annihilate the cities and citizens of our competitors, other governments are also taking the same steps. As we regiment our citizens, disperse our war industries underground, and transform this country into a military garrison state armed to retaliate even after our urban centers lie in radioactive ruins, other nations will attempt to defend themselves by similar methods.
Already these preparations and counterpreparations have set in motion a chain reaction of mutual terror and hate. Our national armament program is one part of the currrent policy of containment, which also includes the economic measures undertaken through the European recovery program and various political moves, such as military aid to Greece and Turkey, and our actions with respect to the Italian elections. This policy of containment is apparently predicated on the assumption that a contained and thwarted Russia will eventually suffer such internal stress as to cause the regime to collapse or at least to modify its basic policy.
If, however, we rely exclusively on containment and make no considered effort now to find a sounder basis for international security, I believe that the weight of military competition is very likely to force the Soviet Union and the United States into open conflict. To suggest that the negative processes of containment alone can be expected to effect a basic change in Soviet policy and thus to preserve world peace seems to me to be speculative in the extreme. Even now a minor incident or a mistake in judgment by a statesman could light the fires of the third world war. Civilization as we know it could not survive that war. There would be no victors, only starving and maimed survivors condemned for generations to a primitive and brutal existence.
A program of national preparedness cannot be an end in itself. It is only a stop-gap measure through which we can gain time, while We are seeking to give the United Nations real and effective power. Our Government has not yet defined what it considers to be the structure of an international security system capable of relieving us and
others of the necessity of war preparations. While we, of necessity, prepare for a war which we know would be mutually devastating, reason demands that we bend every effort to supplant international anarchy and the explosively competitive arms race with a world organization capable of enacting and enforcing world law. I believe that the most serious hazard which now confronts the American people is that our leaders will become so engrossed with the preparation for a war no responsible American wants that they will have no time or energy or imagination to devote to the organization of a stable peace. While there is still time, we must propose the changes that are necessary in the United Nations and demonstrate our willingness to accept the restrictions on sovereign independence essential to the common security.
The broad outline of the required transformation of the United Nations is clear. The details of structure are subject to compromise among the member governments once a convention to consider re· vision has been called.
The United Nations must be given the constitutional authority to administer and enforce world laws binding both on individuals and national givernments. This law-making authority must be clearly limited and defined in the revised Charter, so that only those matters found essential to the preservation of peace come within the jurisdiction of the world law. Each nation would reserve the right to maintain its own domestic institutions without interference. At a mini. mum, the United Nations would have to be given the power to regulate and control by law national armament production and the maintenance of national armed forces, so that no nation is permitted to retain more military power than it needs for the maintenance of order within its own borders. A criminal code is required under which acts of aggression and preparation for aggression are clearly defined and made punishable as individual crimes. The United Nations would have to be granted the power to control by law the potentially dangerous aspects of atomic energy production, as the Lilienthal report pointed out, and of other scientific developments that are easily diverted secretly to the manufacture of the means of mass destruction. A certain direct taxing power would have to be conferred, so that the United Nations would not be dependent on the occasional generosity of its members in order to carry out its functions. Just how far the law-making authority should extend into the economic sphere is open to debate. Certainly world agencies to meet the problems of mass starvation and poverty will have to be developed as Mr. Marshall has suggested, if the peace is to be kept.
A system of United Nations courts will have to be established operating under a bill of rights to insure a fair trial to those accused of violating the laws. The basis of representation in the General Assembly will have to be changed if any legislative authority is to be granted that organ. The one-nation one-vote rule that now prevails gives equal voting power to every nation regardless of its size. A weighted system of representation taking into account such factors as population, literacy. and level of industrial development provides the ground for reasonab'e compromise. The Security Council would have to be reconstituted as an executive cabinet responsible for the administration of the laws, with the veto eliminated.
Equally necessary is the creation of a United Nations police force and inspection system. Competent scientists are in agreement that international inspectors could discover in its early stages any attempt to produce the illegal armament, provided the inspectors were given free access into every country.
The United Nations police force would have to be recruited on an individual basis and be responsible to the United Nations alone. It would have to be more powerful than the forces retained by any member nation or group of nations. There can be no peace within or between nations unless there are both established laws, and the certain knowledge that these laws can be promptly and decisively enforced.
If such an offer were made by our Government and accepted by all members of the United Nations, universal and multilateral disarmment could safely be undertaken by each nation under a step-by-step agreement with each successive stage verified by inspection, so that as each nation gave up its arms it would be assured that others were doing likewise.
The first step toward these objectives is one that we must take for ourselves. A thorough debate on these measures must be begun in the Congress and accompanied by full public discussion of the issues. It would be a grave mistake to call a general conference of the nations before there was substantial majority support and understanding of the proposals to be put forward by our own Government. This debate would result, we can hope, in a clearly defined and major policy pronouncement by the United States that it was our intention to seek the quickest possible development of the United Nations into an effective federation. The next step would be for our Government to open negotiations with the other nations on the highest level. We can then proceed under article 109 of the Charter to propose the calling of a General Conference for United Nations revision.
This proposal by our Government must be made to all nations. Only under a universal structure of law extending throughout the world can the arms race be ended. We of United World Federalists are under no illusions concerning the character of the Soviet regime, and it is true that the Russian leaders are at present on record in opposition to the creation of enforceable world law. However, the Soviet Government is capable of sudden and sharp shifts in its policy. There is a chance that the Soviet Union might accept a definite and bona fide offer of common security under laws binding them and us alike. They stand to lose as much as we in a continued arms race and suicidal war. We must be willing to explore continuously every chance of obtaining their voluntary consent to the necessary world regulations and controls.
If the Soviet Union should reject this proposal and if other nations proved willing to proceed, we should not withdraw from the United Nations and attempt to establish a competing organization. Rather the United Nations should be preserved for what it is worth as a forum for discussion. Those nations willing to join with us could then proceed with a partial federation, while remaining active members of the United Nations. This partial federation must not be formed as a mere military alliance against any government and it should only be created on condition that a continuing effort is made to gain the participation of those governments that first choose to remain outside. Such a partial structure would not be in itself a means of ending the arms race, because so long as any powerful government rejected membership and continued to arm, the partial federation would have to develop a program of common defense. However, two things would have been accomplished.
First, we would have done all that lies within our power to insure the peace and in time we could hope that the political stability and common military strength of such a partial federation would invite eventual partcipation rather than attack. If the Soviet Union first refuses to join, we must wait out a change in Russian policy or leadership, while using every available means to inform the Russian people and convince the Russian Government that a fair opportunity to end the arms race is open to them.
Secondly, we would have actually strengthened our military defenses in the interim, as later expert testimony will help to demonstrate in detail.
In closing, let me remind the commttee of the gathering wave of public sentiment that is rising in every State of the Union and in many other nations in support of world federation.
I believe that the people today are ahead of their representatives in being willing to make some sacrifice of national sovereignty in return for the freedom from fear that only enforceable law can assure. Already 17 State legislatures have memorialized Congress asking that these steps be taken. In town after town, petitions demanding such a policy have been signed by a substantial majority of the voting citizens. In other nations, responsible political leaders have for a long time been advocates of federation in England, both Bevin and Churchill; in Belgium, Spaak; in Free India, Nehru; in Canada, Prime Minister King. In addition, the constitutions of both France and Italy specifically provide for "limitations of sovereignty” necessary for an international organization which shall insure peace.
It is no longer a question as to whether the world will be politically organized as one unit. The discovery of the new weapons has made it inevitable that within the next few years some kind of world government will be created. We are only free to decide what kind of government it will be and how it is to be established.
There are two clear choices. On the one hand, we can join with other peoples in forming by rational and peaceful consent a federation for our common protection, under which the vast resources of modern science can be shifted from destruction to the means of sustaining life. If we have the foresight to choose this road, there lies before use a more generous existence than men have ever before dared to hope for.
On the other hand, we can cling to the shadowy abstraction of absolute sovereignty and follow the arms race through to its inevitable end in an atomic and biological war eliminating, as Eeinstein has warned, a third to a half the human population of the planet. The victors, if they can be called such, will be forced to establish a naked tyranny and a long night of primitive barbarism will descend upon our ingenious species.
You as the elected representatives of the American people have a large share of the responsibility for this decision. I hope that House Concurrent Resolution 59 will be reported out so that the House as a whole will have an opportunity to debate the issue.