Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

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 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

ing-finally, a step which your chairman envisioned at the turn of the century. I quote from a book that was written by him.

A true world consciousness has at last been awakened. The earth has shrunk to a neighborhood. The sea no longer divides but rather units all lands. The viewpoint for the new century in politics and business is that of world citizenship. The Chinese puzzle is puzzling because it has revealed, as by a lightning flash at midnight, the solidarity of the race, the community of life, the complete oneness of all human interests and problems. No country or civilization is any longer isolated. Into the matrix of a common life all civilizations are flung and must give and take what they can. No one can forecast the nature of the new product, the universal man which will spring out of this combination. One thing is certain : all peoples will be modified in ideal, institution, and method.

The mighty hand of God is pressing the nations together. Henceforth no man can live or die unto himself.

At the time these words were written, there were but a handful of men who had the vision to see that the world must be one. But during the 47 years that have passed since, we have taken part in two world wars, we have seen the complete failure of one league of sovereign states to keep the peace. We are now witnessing the expenditure of untold billions in preparation for another war. At the same time, we are witnessing a loss of faith in the United Nations' ability to prevent war.

If this vision of one world were possible in 1901, is it so extraordinary that that vision has today taken the form of a vast movement to create order through the establishment of an international organization with authority? It does not seem so to me.

We cannot ignore what we read in the papers and magazines or what we hear on the radio. The people are hearing from many sources that this country and the other nations of the world must be willing to surrender a measure of their national sovereignty if they are to protect their own national traditions, customs, and freedoms from the tyranny which would be the inevitable result of another world war.

They realize that war must be made impossible, for there can be no victor in the next one. They realize that the first step in this direction is the creation of a world authority with the powers of government in the field of security. This realization is responsible for the phenomenal growth in the world federal movement.

We have already taken steps to revive the world economically. We are taking steps to again become a strong military force. Both these steps are essential. But they in themselves cannot guarantee a lasting peace.

We are therefore asking that you take the initiative in taking the political step without which all else will fail. In my opinion and in the opinion of many others, the first step should be a favorable report on Resolution 59 or an amended resolution along the same general lines. Failure to take such action can only be interpreted as a denial of these basic arguments you have already heard. I do not believe that today such a course is possible.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Thank you very much for your interesting and constructive statement. I believe every member of this committee is interested in doing everything it can to bring about world peace. There is a difference of opinion on this subject.

Thank you.

Take, for example, Senator Austin's appearing before us. He is a man who should know more about the United Nations than any other man perhaps in the United States. He informed the committee that if we adopt Resolution 59, we might destroy the United Nations. It makes ypu pause and wonder what is the right thing to do.

Mr. HOLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I believe-and I believe you would be surprised at the number of people who do believe—that a system of government must be created in the world under law, as Mr. Finletter and Mr. Meyer so ably pointed out this morning. I do not think that Mr. Austin would undertake to defend the United Nations unless it was that kind of an organization.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Jonkman

Mr. JONKMAN. I have no questions. You have given us a very interesting statement. I agree with your concepts. We must get to a higher spiritual level in order to accomplish a lot of these material improvements. Thank you very much.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. If there is nothing further, the committee will adjourn until 10 tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 4:50 p. m., the committee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a. m. Wednesday, May 12, 1948.)

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »