« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Is that the way the gentleman from Michigan feels!
Mr. JONKMAN. Yes. I am trying to find out if there is a reasonable opportunity to attain the objectives you are seeking by any machinery that is at hand.
Mr. Judd. Will the gentleman yield!
Mr. JUDD. Article 52 begins : Nothing under the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangement.
Russia now has a "regional arrangement" of herself and 11 satellites. It has been suggested by some that there is nothing to prevent all the other 40 or so nations from getting together in a “regional arrangement” within the United Nations, adopting for themselves the revised rules provided in 163; not secede from the United Nations, not set up another organization, but get together on a firmly organized basis within the United Nations, either for collective self-defense under article 51 or as a regional arrangement under 52.
Mr. Mundt. It is not another United Nations, but it is just within the present United Nations; the Russians are operating their team, the Communist team, within the present United Nations. We propose to operate a freedom team within the same framework of the United Nations which will have over 80 percent of the strength of the world behind it.
Mr. Bloom. Is it not the same thing we have done at Rio? It does not affect the United Nations at all. The United Nations provides and says you should do that. We did the same thing at Rio. We formed a regional agreement between the nations of this hemisphere.
Mr. Mundt. The Act of Chapultepec is perfectly within the framework of the United Nations.
Mr. Bloom. It does not weaken the United Nations but strengthens it, just the same as they have been doing all over the world.
Mr. JONKMAN. That is in reality a regional organization, within the meaning of the United Nations Charter.
You are proposing to create a regional organization that is worldwide, and that covers the same territory as the United Nations Charter, but leaves out the Communist-inclined nations; is that right?
Mr. Mundr. It is a region defined ideologically instead of geographically.
Mr. JUDD. We do not exclude them; they exclude themselves.
Mr. LODGE. Under that, it seems to me that we have the right now without any resolution to go ahead without any reference to article 51.
As I understand it, it is in further implementation of resolution 59. I wonder if we should not consider whether it would be advisable to restrict ourselves to 59 and allow our representatives full freedom to attempt to negotiate changes in the United Nations?
This resolution 163 talks about 51 on the one hand and "Provisions of the United Nations Charter” on the other. Therefore, it is not simply a resolution which calls for going ahead under 51. It is also a resolution which calls for the further implementation of resolution 59, in order to revise the Charter.
I think that ought to be made very clear.
Mr. JUDD. It is in paragraph 5 on page 2 of the resolution.
Mr. LODGE. Yes, but in paragraph 7 on page 3 it talks about the revision of the United Nations Charter. On page 2, paragraph 6, it talks more about the revised International Organization, which I take it refers to the present International Organization, or else you would not call it revised.
Mr. JUDD. It says "a more effective international organization," and that is intended to mean we want the UN to be a more effective international organization.
These are the things we would like to have in the revision. We are not committing ourselves but suggesting these as changes to make it workable. It would not be an outside organization, but an organization within an organization.
Mr. LODGE. Under those circumstances you would keep an unrevised United Nations going.
Mr. JUDD. Certainly. Mr. LODGE. That was not clear to me from the resolution. I am glad to have that explanation.
Mr. Mundt. This resolution coming from our committee, I might say to the gentleman from Connecticut, should be broad enough to mandate the President to call this conclave of member nations of the United Nations to study the whole purview of the Charter.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I would prefer to insert my statement at this point in the record, and allow these gentlemen to testify.
(The statement referred to is as follows:)
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE MANSFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF MONTANA ON HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 173
Mr. Chairman, along with a number of my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican, I introduced House Concurrent Resolution 173, which has for its purpose a recommendation that the Charter of the United Nations be revised. I am delighted to have this opportunity to appear before this distinguished committee and to ask that you consider this and other similar resolutions and to report out a resolution which will have for its purpose, a revision of the very unsatisfactory conditions which exist in the United Nations at the present time.
May I say at the offset that I fervently believe in the purpose of the United Nations and that I think that if it can be made more workable, it will be a possible so tion to the evils of war which have plagued humanity over the centuries. There are four factors which I think need revision if the United Nations is to become the kind of an agency that we wish it to be.
(1) The power of the veto should be eliminated in the Security Council whenever it is dealing with "matters of aggression" or "armament for aggression" or admission of new members. The elimination of the veto in these respects will, I believe, overcome the fundamental weaknesses which the use of that weapon have indicated to date and will allow, on either a straight majority, two-thirds majority, or three-fourths majority, an opportunity to consider questions along these vital lines without any one nation having the power to block a decision.
(2) These concurrent resolutions now provide to prevent any power to arm for agression by the adoption of the American proposal for a UN atomic development authority and by laying down a world-wide quota limitation upon any nation's production of heavy armament.
(3) The World Court would be strengthened and given the authority to interpret any disputed point in the revised Charter and hand down a forceable decision thereon.
(4) There would be established a world police force to consist of one international contingent, as the active force, and five national contingents operating as reserves. The international contingent would be under the direct control of the Security Council and would consist of volunteers recruited exclusively from the smaller nations. The armed forces of the five major powers would be the national contingents. The United States, Russia, and Britain would be limited to 20 percent each of the fixed world total; France and China to 10 percent each. The collective quota of remaining member States would be 20 percent. Insofar as the national contingent of the United States would be concerned, it would be recommended that the United States Marine Corps be designated for that particular duty. I make this suggestion because of my great faith in the ability of the Marine Corps because of the high type of its personnel and because it is the one such force which has received the necessary type of air, sea, and land training which would make it a highly mobile and adaptable unit. The history of the Marine Corps since its inception is of course actual evidence of its ability to undertake such a mission as might be assigned to it if it became the national contingent of the United States operating on the basis of this proposel under
the United Nations. In addition to what has already been said, it is safe to assume that through the creation of the international monetary fund a start, at least, has been made toward setting up the United Nations on a sound financial basis. I realize that much more needs to be done in this respect but at least the ground work has been laid and as the UN becomes stronger and is able to assume more in the way of responsibility, the international economic aspects will at the same time be strengthened considerably.
In conclusion I should like to call to your attention the fact that none of these resolutions are considered perfect. The purpose of all of us who participated in introducing these measures in both the House and Senate is to publicize what we think are the weaknesses of the UN and to offer possible solutions as to how these weaknesses may be overcome. There will be many suggestions, I am sure, that will be better than those we are bringing to your attention and I want to assure the committee that there is no pride in authorship as such among any of us but only a desire to set the wheels in motion to bring about a revision of the UN Charter so that it can become a stronger organization in the creating and maintaining of a lasting peace throughout the world. I believe strongly in the UN and I think it is the one hope of man in the difficult and trying days ahead. I should like to also state that these resolutions are not the result of any ideas on the part of any one party but that they represent a definite attempt on the part of Democrats and Republicans alike to do a job on a bipartisan level with the only hope that the UN can be made to function successfully to the end that peace will come to all peoples all over the world.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT HALE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE
Mr. HALE. It has been a great privilege for me to sit here this morning and hear the very able discussion of these concurrent resolutions, one of which I introduced last summer; I think it was House Concurrent Resolution 66, one of a series which was more or less superseded by the resolutions which were introduced in March.
However, House Concurrent Resolution 66 and that series of concurrent resolutions is, as I understand it, still before the committee, and the committee could appropriately act thereon if it desired so to do.
I did not know until yesterday about this hearing today, and accordingly I now have no prepared statement as I would have preferred to have. I think, however, I can express the opinions that seem to me most relevant in connection with this concurrent resolution, and perhaps the committee will subsequently permit me to file a prepared statement on some of the more technical points.
Chairman EATON. We will be glad to do that, sir.
Mr. Hale. I am by no means the oldest member of the House of Representatives, but in my life which I still like to think of as having been comparatively brief, I witnessed the rise and fall of the League of Nations. I sat about the Hotel Crillon in Paris in 1919, while the League was in the process of gestation.
I followed with great concern the Senate fight on the Treaty of Versailles and the League.
I saw the League impotent to prevent aggression by Japan in Manchuria, impotent to do anything about Italian aggression in Ethiopia, impotent to do anything about the civil war in Spain which was assisted, if it was not actually fomented by various international intrigues. In the summer of 1939 I saw the League helpless over the onset of the Second World War.
The trouble with the League of Nations was that it lacked the power which an international organization must have; and the United Nations is in danger of falling into the same situation. It will fall into the same situation unless it is given greater power and a police force.
I think there is no use in my enlarging on the situation which exists in the world today. All the gentlemen who preceded me described it with eloquence and I think with perfect accuracy.
I myself am very much opposed to anything which even remotely savors of appeasing Communist aggression in the world and I have absolute confidence that this committee will protect the country from anything so hideous and so wrong morally.
At the same time I deplore the view that war with Russia is inevitable, or peace with Russia impossible.
Yesterday morning there was laid on my desk a Positive Program for Peace by the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, and I suppose that council represents millions of as high-minded people as there are in this country.
I do not intend to discuss in detail their proposals. They have seven main propositions. They say that our people should not tolerate any complacency about war which would engulf all in misery; that our people should combat a mood of hysteria or blind hatred; that they should reject fatalism about war which is not inevitable; that they should not rely primarily on military strategy to meet Communist aggression; that they should press for positive programs that have immediate possibilities for peace and justice; that our people ought each one of them, to contribute to a change of mood so as to increase the chance of averting war without compromise of basic convictions, and that our churches ought to testify with renewed vigor to God's righteous love.
Now, these concurrent resolutions are not mentioned by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America but it seems to me they afford the best vehicle for the mobilization of that kind of opinion.
The concurrent resolution proposes strengthening the Charter in three definite ways:
First, by the elimination of the veto as to aggression, and threatened aggression;
Second, by inspection with respect to atomic and other superdeadly weapons; and
Third, by the international police force.
There has been some discussion about the effect of articles 51, 52, 59, and 109 of the United Nations Charter. If I prepare a memorandum, I may be able to illuminate those technical points somewhat.
The theory of amendment which is advanced in these concurrent resolutions, I think is a sound theory. These are the powers which the United Nations Organization must have if the Organization is to function, if it is to be an effective agency of collective security.
None of us, of course, has very much faith that Russia will come along in anything. Still, if Russia does genuinely fear aggression, some amendment to the Charter of the United Nations would afford Russia a security which no amount of Communist penetration and infiltration will give her.
Of course, those amendments to the Charter of the United Nations will give this country additional security.
I cannot believe, Mr. Chairman, that this country can go on indefinitely with a budget of something like $20,000,000,000 a year for national defense. At some time, sooner or latter, there must be a resolution of this difficulty. You must either have war with Russia, which would largely destroy both countries and will destroy the defeated nation almost completely, or you must come sometime to some kind of settlement. I think the best hope of reaching a settlement is through the United Nations,
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you and your fellow members gei the same kind of mail I do, imploring me to prevent a new world war. They implore me to vote against selective service; they implore me to vote against universal military training.
To the extent that my constituents want me to make America weak for the sake of preserving peace, I have not a particle of patience with them. There is, however, in the world, a desire to avoid a third world war, which is significant, which is certainly not ignoble, and which I think we must harken to. I know of no better way of approaching the problem than through these resolutions and the effectuation of the objectives which these resolutions have in mind.
I hope very much, Mr. Chairman, that the resolutions will be favorably reported.
Chairman Eaton. Thank you, Mr. Hale.
STATEMENT OF HON. FREDERICK A. MUHLENBERG, A MEMBER OF
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. MUHLENBERG. I appreciate very much the honor and privilege of appearing before you.
Briefly, my testimony is not to repeat but to supplement what has already been said by my distinguished colleagues and therefore I believe that I should confine my testimony to a general discussion of background of the various proposals that have been presented so far for possible amendments to the Charter.
I have been sold on the idea of a League of Nations or a United Nations ever since the winter in France of 1919 when as a wounded soldier I was in Paris when President Wilson first arrived there. When I saw the worship and the hope with which he was greeted, it seemed to me that it was necessary that some international organization be effectuated in order to forward the cause of world
and I have believed it ever since.
It is true that in the days immediately after that, the United States was not prepared either mentally or politically to enter into a worldwide organization, but I do believe that this committee should seriously consider the effect on our national attitude of the thinking that has gone on in the United States ever since that day in 1919.