« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
* * *
Mr. HOLLIDAY. That is on the last step of ratification.
Mr. HOLLIDAY. Of course, that gets back to the question that was asked me, "What became of the Articles of Confederation?” The Articles of Confederation were never amended.
Mr. LODGE. Oh, you are suggesting, then, at this time that we set up a separate organization without the consent of Soviet Russia?
Mr. HOLLIDAY. That is what it would amount to under that procedure. Understand, I am not saying that that should be done, and certainly this Congress should not say that.
Mr. LODGE. The point I am trying to get at, Mr. Holliday, is that effectively you cannot amend the charter, whether you proceed on 108 or 109, without unanimity of opinion among the permanent members of the Security Council. I believe that is the fact.
That being so, and in view of Mr. Finletter's suggestion for amending Resolution 59, would you think—and I am simply asking for your opinion on this—that it would be advisable first to test out these amendments under article 108 before we proceed under article 109?
Mr. HOLLIDAY. That might be. I simply mentioned the different ways in which this might be done. I mentioned this procedure that was followed by our country, not meaning that that is what should be done. I have said there that that is up to the members of that constitutional review body to decide. We should not try to decide that now.
Mr. LODGE. The language in 108 is, I think, almost exactly the same in that connection as 109. In 108 it says:
ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two-thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.
That was the formula that was adopted at the San Francisco Conference and it was made applicable to both the sections.
In view of the qualification of Resolution 59 introduced this morning by Mr. Finletter, it seemed to me that in engaging in this preliminary stage, perhaps 108 might be the way to proceed.
Mr. HOLLIDAY. I think perhaps you have something there. If you follow Mr. Finletter's suggestion, he said we should not proceed under article 51, until we have had negotiations and have clearly determined that Russia will not come in.
Mr. LODGE. That is correct.
Mr. HOLLIDAY. You suggest a quicker way that 109. You suggest you throw that out in the open by trying to do it under 108, and then you have a public refusal of Russia to go along. I think you have something there, as a substitution for this negotiation.
Mr. LODGE. I suggest that that might satisfy Mr. Finletter's proposed amendment. Thank you very much.
Mr. CHIPERFIELD (presiding). Mr. Austin has informed this committee already that we have a public refusal by Russia on that very issue.
Mr. VORYS. And four out of five of the permanent members.
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Holliday, as I understand your position, we have had 2 years of this now, and we have gotten no place; we have been
continuously met with obstacles, hurdles, and obstructions, and that the United States should take some lead in trying to get something concretely done to bring about the objective that we fought the war for, and that we are aiming at as our goal, which is world peace.
Mr. HOLLIDAY. This is my own personal opinion: I think we should go boldly down the line under section 109 and put it right up under Russia's nose, and let her take it or leave it. I think you will get a very different reaction out of Russia if you approach them that way. Mr. COLMER. I feel that Russia is playing an obstructionist game. She does not want war any more than we want war, but she is taking alvantage of our known desire for peace and intends to obstruct everywhere she can. In other words, we are following the same old appeasement policy that we have followed all the way through, that we intimate every so often we are going to get away from, but we do not get far away from. As I understand your position—and I think it is my position, and those of us who are sponsoring these resolutions—that we ought to have a show-down on that question before it is too late. I think the record will bear out the statement that they have been playing a bluffing game; that every time we have called their hand they have backed up. It is true that Russia will take a new needling angle
, but she will back up from that also when her hand is called. That is indicative, of course, of what I have just tried to say: That they do not want a show-down and do not want any war.
Jr. HOLLIDAY. Personally, I feel that if we proceeded under 51 that that would be an anti-Russian coalition. You could never expect Russia to come in, and there would never be any hope of getting world order out of that. I think the courageous thing to do would be to go straight down the line under 109 and if Russia says that she will not come in, put in a ratification that you can put it into effect without her and say good-by to the old United Nations.
Mr. COLMER. If we have to face that issue further down the road, we might just as well face it now.
I want to emphasize what has been pointed out here: That we certainly cannot travel upon the assumption that Russia will not come in. On the contrary, it is my honest, candid opinion that she would come in, when that time came. Mr. Lodge. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. COLMER. Yes, I yield. Mr. Lodge. It seems to me, Mr. Holliday, you are going a great deal further than Mr. Finletter and Mr. Meyer and Mr. Culbertson. Mr. HOLLIDAY. I think I am. Mr. LODGE. They do not suggest abandoning the United Nations; they suggest operating within the United Nations under 51.
Mr. HOLLIDAY. I do not know. I have not had a chance to confer with them, but I rather suspect they have rather come over to this sl idea because of General Marshall's insistence that the United Nations ought to be retained as a talking place.
Mr. LODGE. As far as the Citizens Committee for United Nations Reform is concerned, they have had the idea of proceeding under article 51 for some time, as I understand it, and Mr. Finletter suggested this morning what he called an Article 51 Federation, but none of them suggested that we simply abandon the United Nations.
you very much, Mr. Colmer.
Mr. HOLLIDAY. Mr. Lodge, I think I will ask Mr. Finletter if he will not write you a letter about your suggestion for 108. I think he would be very much interested.
Mr. LODGE. That was in the form of a question purely, Mr. Holliday. I simply wanted to get your opinion on how that would fit into his amendment.
Mr. Holliday. You did not ask him that question. It would have been very interesting to have gotten his answer.
Mr. CHIPERFIELD (presiding). Mr. Colmer.
Mr. COLMER. I just wanted to observe that as far as I personally am concerned, I would like to see that issue squarely put up to Russia and see if they do desire to cooperate, if they will cooperate, and if they will not I think the sooner the rest of the world finds it out the better off the rest of the world will be.
Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Holliday, for a very constructive statement.
We have one more witness, Mr. Harry B. Hollins.
STATEMENT OF HARRY B. HOLLINS, OLDWICK, N. J. Mr. HOLLINS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Harry B. Hollins, of Oldwick, N. J. I am appearing before this committee as a private individual in support of House Concurrent Resolution 59.
I am honored to have been asked by your chairman to testify before this committee. I am sure the reason he gave me this honor was not because he considered me an expert on international organization or international affairs. I am neither. It is more. I suspect, that he hoped I could tell you something of a great change which is taking place among the people and possibly give you a clue as to why this is happening
We are witnessing today a ground swell of restlessness and uneasiness with our current role in international affairs. There is a deep feeling that we are lacking something essential in our approach. There is a vast groping for constructive leadership on the political front as well as on the economic and military fronts. This mass feeling is bound to turn in one direction or another with great force, for it feels no stability in the present situation. It knows it cannot last. It is seeking desperately, as you are, a satisfying answer to the crucial problems of today.
We are, I believe, at a critical point in history, not only in a material sense but also in the minds of vast millions of peoples. They have become unhinged from much of the past. They are seeking guidance and above all leadership along a road which holds a promise of not only restoring what was good in the old but in the creation of what will be necessary for the future.
I believe that your chairman has recognized this feeling on the part of his constituents and has asked me, as one who has recently been in close contact with many of them, to explain to you something of what it is that is happening and to add a little light as to why it is happening:
If in so doing I can make easier your task of formulating a foreign policy which can lead the world back from anarchy to cooperation
and progress, then, in that case, I will feel that your chairman's confidence in me was justified.
This change, for some reason, has taken place for the most part in the last 2 or 3 months. As an example, your chairman knows
2 that a statement recently was circulated among some 400 to 500 leading citizens in his district. The statement urged him to support resolution 59 as a practical first step toward a strengthened United Nations with powers adequate to prevent war. Those who were asked to sign the statement were selected for their leadership in various fieldspolitical, business, civic affairs, and so forth. Out of the total number asked to sign only seven refused. Many asked to take part in the program actively. Six months ago I am certain that we would have had great difficulty in obtaining signatures from 10 percent of these same people.
I believe this change has taken place because the tension and trend in world events has made many persons suddenly realize two things:
The first, which is the most obvious, is that war must be abolished. This means that eventually the production and control of mass destruction weapons must be taken away from sovereign nations. If we deprive the nations of these weapons on which they now must rely for their security, there must be substituted a system of security through a strong international organization.
There is a second reason, which as yet is not as well defined but which in the end may well be the most forceful. It is a deeper feeling and one which awaits your leadership. It is based on a sudden awakening to the fact that this country, as the strongest democracy in the world, has a great role and responsibility in the fashioning of a world structure, under which all of us as citizens, not only of this country but of the world, can live at peace and through common effort strive to solve the many problems which confront us. It is a sudden realization that we must dare to take these steps forward or we and the rest of the world will drift rapidly backward. This country is once again challenged and the people are demanding action to meet this challenge.
If we are to answer this challenge successfully, the answer must be built on a high principle to which the great majority of people in this country and free peoples in the rest of the world will rally and unite. Our answer must be large enough to counteract the forces of division and destruction. It may well be our most effective weapon against communism. Our ultimate aim can be no less than the promotion of cooperative effort on the part of all nations to build a world free of war and free to develop to higher standards of living. The first step toward the attainment of this objective must be the federation of the nations of the world under a common system of enforceable law. This must be made the core of our foreign policy toward which all other actions must contribute.
You will hear from others many reasons why the creation of a system of enforceable law is essential today. I would like to take a moment to explain why I and many others believe that a framework of enforceable law is a prerequisite to cooperative action; why we cannot agree with those who believe that a community of interests must first be built before you build a common system of law; why, on the contrary, we believe that a common system of enforceable law-in short,
government–is the first essential in building a lasting community of interests.
I do not want to intimate that all the world's ills will be cured by the single step of creating a world system of enforceable law. I do want to point out, however, that there is a growing realization that some form of world organization with power is essential first, if we are to have even half a chance at solving these other problems.
I will not dwell on our own history from the end of the Revolutionary War to the creation of our own Federal Government. This, of course, is one of many examples of how, following the war, the people, in spite of their common war experience and other interests in common, broke up into separate groups. The process of breaking up stopped at that point where there was an established system of enforceable law-namely, in the State governments. With the creation of the Federal Government, however, the deterioration in common interests reversed. Under the mantle of a common system of enforceable law, the people of this country developed common interests and purposes, resulting in our unequaled expansion and growth.
The citizens in any politcal unit that has real authority will develop broad communities of interest. These common interests tend to bind these citizens even closer together. However, with the removal of common authority over these people, new groups will be formed out of the one and new communities of interest on a smaller scale will develop. The original community of interest that included all will have disappeared.
We do not have to be great students of government or history to realize what would happen to any political unit if the essentials of government were removed ; that is, the law-making body, the system of courts, the Executive with the force to carry the laws out. If these essentials were removed from our Federal system, our State system, or our local towns and cities, chaos would soon follow. Likewise, if we wished to restore conditions under which a community of interest could develop, we would not have to be great students to realize that we first must restore order by setting up a government with authority.
In other words, if you remove authority, you destroy the essential basis for cooperation. If you create a framework of enforceable law, as we did in 1789, you take the first essential step toward cooperation and expanding communities of interest.
If this is so obvious to all when we think in terms of our towns, States, and National Governments, is it so extraordinary that it is becoming equally obvious to many millions that the same principles apply to the international field? Is it so extraordinary that with the knowledge that another war can only mean destruction for all these people are demanding action now before it is too late?
To project such a structure to the world level is only to take that inevitable final step in the world's political structure—that final step which is the first essential to cooperation among the nations that step without which peace can at best only be a temporary affair-that step which so many citizens of this country now feel must be made the core or all our efforts toward peace and cooperation-a step which you and I are favored in having an opportunity to take part in fashion