« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Mr. JONKMAN. I am trying to explore this situation. As I say,
I would not be afraid of it if I had the assurance that it could do no harm, but what we must explore is whether it could do harm.
You are now going to have Russia and the other satellites, if they do not concur in a revision, you will have two organizations.
Mr. HOLLIDAY. We certainly would not have achieved our full goal if Russia stayed out of that organization. We would have partially failed, yes.
On the other hand, we have two worlds now, and with the procedure that has been suggested we would have two worlds with the issue out clear and in the open, one single issue, instead of the myriad of issues we have today. It would be between the part of the world desiring an organization for peace, and Russia, instead of this system of dog eat dog between the United States and Russia.
Mr. JONKMAN. I wonder whether you eliminate that or accentuate it. You assume now that Russia does not concur, and you establish that new organization. You have then two organizations, one of which is a secessionist organization without color of right.
Then take, for instance, the matter of article 51. Do you think the formation of another organization can be fully justified under article 51, which provides for such a step forward in the case of armed attack?
Mr. HOLLIDAY. I will rely on Mr. Finletter as my attorney for that. He said “yes."
Mr. JONKMAN. I would say it makes a world of difference whether you can have a judge make a technical decision as to whether it comes within that or whether a jury will agree with it as a matter of fact and the latter will be controlling, it seems to me.
Mr. HOLLIDAY. I do not think we should proceed upon the assumption that Russia is going to refuse to go along. I think you have to stop this thing of letting Russia take the lead, and then having us say “No, no.”
I think we should make our ethical page in history by going in and if you get down to the last stand there, I do not think anybody can say Russia will not go along. Russians are realists, and they can change their decisions very quickly.
Mr. JONKMAN. You are far more optimistic on that than am I. I do not think they will ever go along because of their ideologies. However, you have these two organizations. You have the secessionist organizations. The Russians will accuse them of violating article 51 by forming that organization. They will accuse them of violating the regional agreement; that they are not a regional organization under article 52, I think it is.
Are you not creating the very basis of discord that will give the advantage to the ones whom you are now seeking to curb?
Mr. HOLLIDAY. I do not think I can express this nearly as well as Mr. Finletter did this morning. I think he covered that very thoroughly. We would have missed our goal of a world organization for peace. We would still have a no man's land between the Russian world and the other world. However, then, our western world would have been effectively organized, and we would have a much better chance.
Mr. JONKMAN. You would have two worlds.
Mr. JONKMAN. And you would have to do everything you are doing now in the
of armament and selective service.
Mr. HOLLIDAY. I think there would be a tremendous saving in cost, in the elimination of the duplication of armament, and so on.
There would be a tremendous saving in cost.
Mr. JONKMAN. You think we would be better off creating that than we would to proceed for another year or two?
Mr. HOLLIDAY. Yes, I do.
Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Holliday, we appreciate your being here, and I appreciate your being here especially because you come from my own home town. We appreciate the very broad background you have given us. We can go back in practically all of our future discussions to some of the things you have said here. It will be most helpful to us.
I agree with you that it is imperative that we set up an organization for peace, and your emphasis on the fact that we want Russia to go along, that that is an imperative part of any action we take, is a very happy statement for me to agree with. I think I have no real questions to ask you.
Thank you very much for coming.
Mr. HOLLIDAY. Thank you very much, Mrs Bolton. We have all appreciated very deeply the sympathetic and most courteous hearing which your committee has given us.
Mrs. BOLTON. I think I can say for the committee that it is a very stimulating and challenging thing to have such men as yourselves, Mr. Finletter and Mr. Meyer here before us. I think we all have the sense that together we are trying to work out something that is of terrible importance to the world, that we do stand at a point where it may
be the destruction of civilization or a chance for peace. You have given us such a sense of helpfulness and the discussions I am sure have been of the greatest help to us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. JUDD. I believe I could be more appropriately termed a flea on the dog.
May I say in passing that apparently the fleas in this body have finally succeeded in getting over to the other body, causing it to move on this very issue, with the resolution issued today. I believe we are serving some useful purpose here in seeking to ventilate and crystallize public opinion.
Thank you, Mr. Holliday, for coming before us. I was particularly taken with some of the things you said. For example, your statement that the original concept of the United Nations appears to have been the maintenance of peace by power enforced through the unanimous agreement of the three strongest nations. That was confirmed by Secretary Marshall who said that the San Francisco Charter was organized on the basis of three major assumptions, and, of course, those assumptions did not all turn out to be the fact, one of them being that the five powers would be in agreement.
I take it that your feeling is that inasmuch as the organization we have was not set up for the situation that exists, we should then make an effort to adjust it accordingly. If it is not suited to the situation, we should adjust it to the situation rather than hope and pray that the situation will adjust itself to our organization.
Mr. HOLLIDAY. I think you also have to remember that the revolutionary change in war had not been realized at that time, the automatically directed rockets and the atomic bomb had not been used up to that time. It was a sudden revolution, you might say, right at that time.
War subsequent to the San Francisco conference reached a fourth dimension with time and space practically eliminated. I think there is that to be said.
Mr. Judd. Does that not increase the imperative necessity for us to modify our organization to the facts of life?
Mr. HOLLIDAY. Exactly. I should hope that if those events had developed before the San Francisco conference they certainly would have gone a lot further than they did in drawing up the United Nations.
Mr. Judd. Mr. Holliday, I am in agreement with your statement that you
do not believe it is wise to assume that Russia will, of course, disagree; and therefore we must proceed with the assumption and the hope that if we get workable amendments, she will agree to them.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that worst came to worst and she will not agree to changes. Would you then feel that it would be some progress toward peace to proceed under article 51 ?
Mr. HOLLIDAY. I certainly do.
I would like to say I was reminded of something by something you said there. We never know what Russia's decision will be until the decision is put right up to her. She has flopped backward again and again. She has said that world government is no good. I cannot remember the man's name—he was an Assistant Foreign Minister of Russia just before the San Francisco Conference—but he said it would be a waste of time to hold that conference if they were not prepared to set up a real world government.
Mr. JUDD. It has been suggested that such action would involve secession. Do you believe that the organization formed at Rio is a secessionist movement?
Mr. HOLLIDAY. It was nothing but a treaty. It really did not set up any form of government.
Mr. Judd. If the United States of Europe developed and went as far as adopting for itself a constitution or a charter, would you regard that as a secessionist movement?
Mr. HOLLIDAY. No.
Mr. Judd. How about one involving France, Britain, and the Low Countries, if they got together and formed a union, you would not regard that as a secessionist movement? Mr. HOLLIDAY. No.
Mr. Judd. If it is not a secessionist movement for 5 or 6 nations to get together, why would it be so if 40 got together?
Mr. HOLLIDAY. It would not.
Mr. JUDD. When our original States agreed on this bold forward step at Philadelphia, to set up a constitution and submit it to the States for ratification, did they abolish the Articles of Confederation? Did they take any legal action to abolish it or secede from it, or did they continue as members of the Articles of Confederation while working on and even after adopting the Federal Constitution? I would like that information from some expert on the subject.
Mr. HOLLIDAY. I think that technically perhaps the Articles of Confederation are still hanging up in the air on a hook, a sky hook, or something. It was a revolutionary act. That is, the Articles of Confederation were de facto repealed.
Mr. JUDD. Even that was not a secessionist movement. It was a setting up within the confederation of a separate form of government open to all when all came in. The confederation did not have to be abolished. It was soon superseded. Thank you very much. Chairman EATON. Mr. Fulton.
Mr. FULTON. You said that the nations are not able to deal with wars. Actually today wars are not fought individually, as we know. Do you not mean that it is the problem of preventing wars that they have not been able to encompass?
Mr. HOLLIDAY. I thought that preventing war was implied there. The problem of war is the problem of trying to avoid and prevent war.
Mr. FULTON. I think they are two separate jobs.
Mr. FULTON. We have tried on our Nuremberg trials to set up the laws for handling wars, have we not?
Mr. HOLLIDAY. We have set out that there are certain natural laws that constitute a criminal offense, the violation of which constitutes a criminal offense. In other words, on this matter of individual liability, we have already accepted the general principle of individual responsibility for fomenting war.
All that a Federal organization would do, as I said, would be to have your Nuremberg trials before the event instead of afterward.
Mr. FULTON. That is the point I was going to ask you to explain. How can you have, on page 15 of your statement: “Nuremberg trials before instead of after the event”? That is the whole point of my question. How can you have a trial before the event happens ?
Mr. HOLLIDAY. I meant by the "event" the actual starting of the
Mr. Fulton. Does that mean that anybody who speaks for a war would be subject to trial, under your theory?
Mr. HOLLIDAY. I do not know what the Federal law on that would be, or how far could you go on that. I do not think you carry it down to the ridiculous degree of some soap-box orator on the Boston Commons preaching war. I do not know whether they would reach down that far or not.
Mr. Fulton. We are trying to see how far you would in restricting, say, the liberties of an individual, either his activities or his speech." You do not mean speech, do you? Mr. HOLLIDAY. I do not suppose I do.
I Mr. Fulton. You offered Germany before World War I as an example of federalism. You, of course, did not offer it as a good example of federalism, did you, that operated correctly?
, Mr. HOLLIDAY. No; but as far as their internal organization was concerned, it operated very well. They were bad boys externally.
Mr. FULTON. Do you think you can have a federalism that encompasses in its individual members dictatorships. Do you think it is possible that these dictators will then operate on democratic principles in their relations with other members, while they will suppress democratic principles at home!
Mr. HOLLIDAY. I do not think it is necessary for all the constituents of this world organization to be democracies; if we have to wait for the whole world to become democratic in form of organization, we will all be dead long before that occurs. You know that Russia has a federal form of government.
Mr. FULTON. You said on page 3 of your statement that we, as the strongest nation in the world, must drive on the economic front to restore the economy and social structure in western Europe.
Mr. HOLLIDAY. That is the Marshall plan. Mr. FULTON. Now, let me ask you to divide that into two things: You said "restore the economy.” Do you mean restore the old feudalism? And when you say "restore the social structure," do you mean restore the old differences in classes and autocracy that there was?
Mr. HOLLIDAY. I was simply saying that we had to do these shortrun things like the Marshall plan. Now, how far the Marshall plan goes
I do not know. Mr. FULTON. Do you want to go back to feudalism? Mr. HOLLIDAY. No; I do not. The whole point I made was that E'urope should get on its feet, and we should do whatever is reasonable to help it.
Mr. FULTON. So even though our money goes, then, to help socialist industries in Europe, you want that done as a part of the economic restoration ?
Mr. HOLLIDAY. I think you are asking me to go too much into detail on the Marshall plan. I think we all agree that the general principles of the Marshall plan are sound.
Mr. FULTON. You are the one who said “restore." Do you mean restore these countries to a status as they were previous to World War I ?
Mr. HOLLIDAY. No; that is political.
Mr. FULTON. Do you mean to restore them, then, so that they can be in good economic condition, and possibly go further with their socialization of industires ?
Mr. HOLLIDAY. I question whether we should attempt to say what type of governments they are going to have over there, or something of hat sort. I think I have to hide behind the words “Marshall plan. I do not think we should attempt to use the Marshall plan as a leverage to say what kind of governments they are going to have over there.
Mr. FULTON. That is all. Thank you.
Mr. LODGE. Mr. Holliday, I found your statement extremely interesting and well expressed.
There is one aspect of your point of view upon which I would like to ask you a question. That is on pages 16 and 17, I believe, where you state that it does not seem to you to be necessary at this time to go into what should be done under article 51.
Do I gather from that that you would be inclined to favor Resolution 163, and that your only objection to it would be that this is not the time?
Mr. HOLLIDAY. I think that Resolution 59 goes further than 163. calls clearly for juridical order and law. It goes much beyond just a police force.
Mr. LODGE. Resolution 59, it seems to me, just calls for a conference or a convention under article 109 of the Charter. Resolution 163 con