passing the point where the nations can escape from a war that through mutual preparation for war they will have made inevitable.

Mr. LODGE. If these several points of yours are satisfied, the meeting is called and Soviet Russia vetoes any changes-which it can do under the Charter-you do not suggest going ahead without them; you simply suggest trying to federate, which is exactly what is being attempted in Europe.

Mr. MEYER. I would suggest we leave the UN for what it is worth at that point, as a forum of discussion, keeping all the members within it and not trying to break it up but use the provisions of the Charter to achieve a partial federation of those nations willing to go ahead, with the condition that the door remain open and an attempt be made to get those others to come in later, and that the military, political and economic structure of that organization be built up until such a time as it is a universal structure.

Mr. LODGE. Is that not what Mr. Churchill has recommended at the Hague?

Mr. MEYER. I was concerned about Mr. Austin's statement that the other nations showed no interest in changing the United Nations into a federation because most of their political leaders have expressed themselves in favor of such a change.

Mr. LODGE. You would leave the United Nations intact and achieve what Mr. Churchill calls the three great pillars: (1) the Soviet Union; (2) the new European federation and (3) the Western Hemisphere community?

Mr. MEYER. I would differ in one essential respect, and that is that I think that first, before any attempt to fall back on a partial federation is made, that first we attempt to arrive at an over-all universal structure that is strong enough to end the arms race, and that falling back on a partial federation is a second-best bet.,

We may face the necessity for doing it, but it is not the solution, and we must keep open continually the possibility of a universal structure in which all nations are members.

Mr. LODGE. Thank you.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Meyer, in listening to your very brilliant, comprehensive statement there is a question raised in my mind which has disturbed me somewhat.

In your view, the new organization will take cognizance of, and authority over, the individual as well as the governments of the nations. If that is true, I pictured the ordinary American at this present moment having first of all a municipal police, or a municipal authority; he has a county policeman with a county court; he has a State policeman with a State court; he has a national policeman with a national court. Now you are proposing to give him an international policeman with an international court. What chance has he left?

Mr. MEYER. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that he would have a much better chance than he now has.

I would like to point out that under the necessity of a continued and effective protection against atomic and biological attack we are going to have to impose upon the citizens of this country a type of regimentation of total control of the entire economic and social life of a nation that we have never before even faced up to, and under those conditions this area of restricted freedom of movement and of

restricted individual freedom will be such that it will be the same as life under the most complete dictatorships.

We must eliminate the need for national preparation for modern

war.

Chairman EATON. Thank you. That saves the American citizen. We are grateful to you for your illuminating discussion.

Are there any further questions to be asked?

Mr. JUDD. I would like to ask a couple more questions, Mr. Chairif no one else cares to.

man,

The first, Mr. Meyer, is this: You were at the San Francisco conference, working closely with a distinguished friend of ours from Minnesota. We were told here the other day that none of the other powers was in favor of this. Is it not true that China at the conference at San Francisco made recommendations on limitations of sovereignty, criticizing the proposed UN charter as being ineffective and unworkable because it did not attempt to limit complete and absolute sovereignty?

Mr. MEYER. That is correct. The Chinese delegate opened his original speech with a request that the Charter go very far in the direction of a federation.

I might point out that nearly all of the representatives of the small countries there, particularly the prime minister of New Zealand and the representative of Belgium-that country after country, in committee after committee, got up and stated that we would have to go considerably farther than the existing United Nations Charter if we were to have any security.

The existing great powers-Russia and Great Britain-were the ones that insisted that the veto powers be included, and that was rammed down the throats of the small nations, saying that either they accepted that or they had no Charter at all.

Mr. JUDD. Is it not true that even some of the men who were opposed to the action then, have now expressed themselves in favor of it? Mr. MEYER. That is right.

Mr. JUDD. If we will not work for and go into an international organization which is worked out on the basis of a bill of rights to guarantee dissential freedoms, then we will be brought under another international organization without any freedoms.

The Communist Party has an international organization, and it is imposing its will on plenty of communities whether they like it or not. We will have to get together voluntarily and stay free, or we will be gotten together involuntarily and be enslaved. Do you agree with that?

Mr. MEYER. I think that each nation will become a militarygarrison state without any freedom, no matter what slogans are written on the respective national banners.

Mr. LODGE. May I ask one question?

Chairman EATON. Yes.

Mr. LODGE. Do you believe that the smaller nations will be willing to change the system of representation?

Mr. MEYER. I have evidence that, in view of the fact that the representative of the Philippines arose and said he was willing to accept a considerable modification of a one-nation-one-vote rule if there were power given to the organization to protect it, they were willing

to accept a different representation if it had real power. He was heartily applauded by most of the small nations present at that meeting.

Mr. LODGE. That is an extremely interesting thing.

As I see it, if we call this meeting under 109 and we reach an impasse, then the only difference between your suggestion and that of Mr. Churchill is that you want it to be a federation of every nation in the world, except for Russia and her satellites-because at that moment they will have excluded themselves-whereas Mr. Churchill is content to start with Europe and let the matter grow.

Mr. MEYER. I think part of Mr. Churchill's decision in that respect is because of the Europeans deciding to do only what they can do, and the other decision is one that we in the United States must make. Mr. Churchill recently said that a European federation was not a real solution and unless we have a world governing authority within the next 5 years we are finished.

Chairman EATON. Thank you, sir.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS K. FINLETTER, VICE PRESIDENT OF UNITED WORLD FEDERALISTS

Mr. FINLETTER. My name is Thomas K. Finletter. I am a lawyer, of New York City. I am vice president of United World Federalists. I have recently served as Chairman of the President's Air Policy Commission which reported to the President on January 1 of this year. The following statement, however, represents only my per

sonal views.

I appear in support of the proposal that the United States take the initiative in calling a general conference of the United Nations_pursuant to article 109 of the Charter. I support House Concurrent Resolution 59 with the exception that I recommend that the resolving clause read as follows:

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the President of the United States should initiate conversations with the other members of the United Nations and particularly with the permanent members of the Security Council to explore the possibility of a successful General Conference under Article 109 of the United Nations Charter for the purpose of making the United Nations capable of enforcing a world law prohibiting war or other use of force in international relations.

I believe that in the conversations referred to, the United States should put forward a proposal, the purpose of which, would be to give to the United Nations the minimum physical and legal powers to enable it to enforce world law against aggression and against armaments intended for international war.

If this proposal is not adopted by a two-thirds vote of the Conference, or is not ratified as required by article 109, section 2, I believe that the United States should of course accept the decision, should continue with its full support of the United Nations in exactly its present form, and should take the initiative in establishing, as an interim measure, a federation for collective self-defense of those states willing to join pursuant to the authority of article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

The purpose of this federation under article 51 should be; first, to fortify the political and military strength of its members by unifying

that strength; and second, to create a wider basis of law which, it would be hoped, would soon extend to the whole world by the adherence of the states which might originally abstain.

I suggest that the proposal which the United States should make at this general conference under article 109 should be along the following lines:

1. The transfer of military forces to the United Nations by its members as authorized by article 43 of the United Nations Charter, to the end that the United Nations shall have a preponderant military policing force in the world.

2. The elimination of the so-called veto right of the permanent members of the Security Council.

3. The amendment of the statute of the International Court of Justice so that the force of the United Nations will be applied through and be controlled by the standards and processes of a code of law applicable to individuals as well as governments and specifying the prohibited armaments and acts of aggression and the forms of law by which the Security Council shall enforce these substantive prohibitions.

My reasons for supporting this proposal are: I believe that the American people want urgently to eliminate war as a human institution. The crescendo of the destructiveness of war has increased since 1870 to a point where either war must be conquered or our civilization will be destroyed. The scientific revolution in the weapons of destruction and the means of delivering them will, I fear, compel us to maintain a Military Establishment in time of peace costing substantially more even than the present high expenditures—a Military Establishment which will seriously impair our economy, our civil liberties, and our way of life. And if war with these modern weapons takes place it seems probable that neither side will survive no matter who wins.

War cannot be eliminated except under a rule of law enforced by an organization to which the nations of the world will delegate the authority necessary to keep the peace-an organization operating under a code which will prohibit aggression and the possession of the armaments which make aggression possible and possessing the legal and physical powers, under this code of law, to enforce obedience by individuals and governments to the code. The legal powers of such an organization would thus be extremely limited, with every other attribute of sovereignty reserved to the member states. But in the fields of controlling armaments and prohibiting war an international organization would have to be supreme.

This institutional arrangement is the essential ingredient of a world of peace. It is not the only ingredient. Institutions of themselves will not create peace. There must be a constant bettering of the economic and social levels of the peoples of the world and a deepening and widening of the world community by tolerance and interchange of persons and ideas. But it is a fallacy to think that peace can be accomplished without the institutions of peace. It is no argument against the institutions to say that they cannot accomplish peace alone. They and the underlying factors of community both are necessary if war is not to destroy mankind.

What about the time element? How does one meet the argument that we must work now to establish this community basis, and particularly a community basis between the Soviet Government and the Government of the United States, before we try to build world institutions?

Certainly the community between the Soviet Government and the United States is not now firm, and it will be a hard task to build it up. But I believe that the time to start building it is now. Time is against us. The community between the Russian Government and the United States has gone steadily downhill since the San Francisco Conference. It will continue to go downhill unless it is pulled up short now. The Marshall plan and our armaments program will not alone better the community between us and the Soviets nor will they force the Soviets, through this display of our power, to agree to a peaceful way of life. Indeed, these measures and especially the armaments program may have just the opposite effect. On the other hand, a policy of peace backed by specific proposals, by a search for common institutions of peace, will tend to restore the community of purpose which existed among the great powers at the time of the San Francisco Conference.

History also warns that time is against us. We must profit from and be guided by the story of the League of Nations. That story shows thre clear phases of the League's life, which phases are being followed with dismal faithfulness by the course of the United Nations. The first phase was that of big-power solidarity-the time when it was vainly hoped that the solidarity created by the common war-time danger would survive in time of peace. The second phase was that of the attempt to restore that solidarity through international arrangements for the control of armaments. This phase collapsed, in the case of the League, when the Geneva protocol was rejected and the Locarno pact substituted for it; and I fear that this second phase has ended in the case of the United Nations with the present stalemate in the disarmament discussions, of which the abandonment of all efforts toward the control of atomic energy announced last Friday in the Atomic Energy Commission is the latest step. The third phase, with both the League and the United Nations, is that of the bypassing of the international crganization—of almost exclusive reliance on measures outside it taken by direct government-to-government action. That phase for the League of Nations spelled the end. The lesson of the League is that when we reach this third phase and we are in it now in the United Nations something drastic must be done to halt the downhill course and to restore the high hopes with which the international organization was originally built, or else the cause of peace is irretrievably lost.

A second factor shows that time is against us and that the time to act is now. Russia is still exhausted from the effects of the war, and she is still behind us in the race for new weapons and the aircraft to carry them. But she is hard at work. She is no doubt diverting a great share of her wealth and effort to the building of new jet fighters and long-range inhabited and uninhabited aircraft, and, of course, to the building of atomic and bacteriological weapons. The date is not far away when she will have these things. I believe that we cannot safely assume that she will not have them by the end of 1952,