Изображения страниц
[ocr errors]


Mr. ROBERTS. Suppose they ganged up against us?
Mr. Bloom. There is no question about it.

Mr. ROBERTS. Now, secondly, Russia will not consent. I do not know whether you will agree with that, but Russia says she entered the league on a solid covenant that the veto could not be abolished without her vote, and I think she is absolutely right in that position.

I do not think this Nation, which drew her into that covenant at San Francisco, can possibly repúdiate that, in the face of her opposition

I do not go along with the criticisms of Russia for exercise of the veto. If she has misconstrued the contract as to what she can veto, then that is wrong, but I am not sure she has misconstrued the contract. In other words, it is a nice kind of an association where I and you and you agree that in a certain instance you may, if you wish, take certain action, and after the contract is clear, I say, "Well, you have

I that right but you ought not to exercise it; you want to be a decent fellow, don't you?

That is not the way Russia construes agreements. She reads them with every comma and every semicolon in them, and she reads them favorably to herself if she can, and she stands on the letter of her bargain. I, for one, cannot blame her for that.

Now, I think that the United States ought not to attempt to force the abolishment of the veto over Russia's objection by any kind of skullduggery. It would be a breach of faith for us to do it.

However, assume that we are willing to cross that bridge, you are going to either force Russia and her friends, and some neutrals, out of the United Nations, or you are going to force us and our friends to walk out and form some other organization. I agree that the United Nations, as now set up, cannot keep the peace. I do think it is valuable and almost vital to keep Russia in it so that we can talk to her, so that we do not lose completely some method of getting a world forum for the discussion of what we think are world wrongs and world rights.

However, suppose we walk out or she walks out, because we insist on an amendment and insist that she go along or quit. The proposals seem to be, then, gentlemen, that if Russia and the other nations leave the United Nations, or if we are forced to leave it and form another organization, we are to have the forming of a reformed United Nations, thus dividing the world into two camps.

As Mr. Dulles said this morning, he knew of a number of people who would not be for going along with us in this. There will be a bloc. There will be two blocs.

Mr. JUDD. Of course part of your argument is directed toward defeating a proposal which, so far as I know, nobody has ever made. The same as Secretary Marshall and Mr. Austin spent most of their time shooting a strawman that we were trying to drive Russia out of the UN, or, on the other hand, were planning to get out ourselves. I do not know of anyone who has proposed either pushing her out or getting out ourselves.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Congressman, is that the result?
Mr. JUDD. I do not think so.

Mr. ROBERTS. You attempt to have a reformation of the Charter
under articles 108 or 109." Suppose Russia vetoes it. Then you go on.
You go on in the United Nations! ?
Mr. Judd. Yes, certainly, we stay in the United Nations.


Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, certainly, so would I stay on in the United Nations, and I would not try to force anything on her.

Mr. Judd. No, we should not try to force anything on her.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think if you succeed in qualifying the nature of the veto, even in the limited way you say, Russia will walk out of the United Nations.

Mr. JUDD. Why would she walk out? It is a bridge which is of enormous value to her because at the present time it has only a oneway stream of traffic in her favor. It is of much greater value to her than it is to us. I cannot see

what she would gain by walking out. We would still be in, as Mr. Dulles said this morning, on a loose federation basis. Then we would also have a tighter arrangement for a group of us within the United Nations, not outside that organization, as I envisage it.

Mr. ROBERTS. Now, I am working for the United Nations, because that is what I am for.

Mr. Judd. We do not want people interpreting our resolution as meaning something we insist on every occasion

it does not mean. Mr. ROBERTS. Suppose you either amend the United Nations Charter, or you do not, one or the other?

Mr. JUDD. I grant you that we probably would not succeed in amending it, and it could not be done if Russia would not agree. But it has been my thought that it is worth making the effort.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Congressman, do you envisage at all how long it would take to get that out of your system?

Mr. Judd. Certainly I have. I put this bill in the House of Representatives last July 9, and today is May 12. It has taken 10 months to get just to hearings.

Mr. ROBERTS. Suppose the United Nations starts on it. How long will it take within the United Nations even to get the question decided? All western Europe will need all the propping up you can do for 5 years before you get to the question of being successful along your lines, in my judgment.

Mr. Judd. While we are working at that we can also work on the more limited basis. I do not want to fail to exert every possible effort in that direction while we are working also under article 51.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would not work on the effort to change the covenant at all, sir.

Mr. JUDD. Because you think it is so hopeless?

Mr. ROBERTS. Not only is it hopeless, but I think there is a better way to accomplish what we need to accomplish, without wasting time, effort, and destroying more good feeling by another battle within the United Nations, and it will be a prime battle, do not make any mistake about that.

Now, if the United Nations fails, if it breaks up as a result of a futile or successful attempt to amend the charter, then what is the next program? As I understand the program of the federalists, it is then to form another United Nations without Russia. Well, that is just as hopeless, or worse, in my judgment than what we are in now. A new United Nations without the veto, or with a limited veto, again means either that we must create an American empire, and lead this bunch, or we must be at the dictation of them in many respects. I do not think we can sit in either position in another League of Nations, and another United Nations.


[ocr errors]

I think that we must face up to the bold thing that we must do if we want to save the free way of life. I think that the half measures that are suggested now are simply worthless. The European recovery program_alone, must not you gentlemen agree, cannot resuscitate western Europe when Europe has no hope of security. She has no assurance that when she builds up her industry that she will realize anything from it, and that it will be hers.

Now, what are being suggested are military programs for these 16 nations. I would be sorry to see the United States enter into a military alliance with 16, 15, 12, or 3 European nations. Such alliances are notoriously unstable, they are notoriously the subject of disputes as to how you integrate your defense forces, how you conduct your wars. We know what we have been through in two wars, in such alliances as we have had. Now, it will not do.

Now, I am just thinking, if we are going to try these half measures, ERP, the military alliance, and so forth, I am just wondering how long the economy of the United States is going to stand the strain of our internationally propping up European nations in the most wasteful way that it can be done, without the economies of a single defense force, without the economies of a single foreign policy, without the economies that come from over-all direction of industry, and what have you, doling out money to nations and attempting to control how they dole it out, propping up their military machines,

and then trying to direct them how they will integrate them with us. The troubles, disputes, and difficulties are simply enormous.

I think that we must discard these half measures, and get beyond them by a bold stroke at once, or lose possibly the whole game.

I do not know whether there has been much discussion before your committee on the federation of European democracies. It is a step in the right direction, of course. A federation of European democracies would be a fine gesture, but where would we be? We would have to prop it up, just as much as we are propping up the 16 nations. We would have to make an alliance with it, just as much as we have to ally with the 16 nations to give them security, and why decide to divide the freemen of the world into two camps when the ideology that is against us lives on division and thrives on division, just as did Hitler.

Now, I think that the way to promote economic recovery in western Europe, and the remainder of the world, is to form a union of peoples whose nations provide freedom under law. The nations who have held the brunt of spiritual, material progress for 100 years. Weld them into a common society, a society which as a federal unit carries some respect for their common defense, and promotes their common welfare. A society governed by peoples' law, a society that protects the individual liberty which is the essential of man's welfare, prosperity, and progress, if we know anything about the lessons of history.

As Mr. Dulles pointed out, there is a small group of people who could be united just that way. I was greatly heartened by the fact that though he was not for that program now, he did point out that there were people who practiced the free way of life who could unite in a very close form of union, and, as he put it, not stretch the rubber band, but allow it to remain a small rubber band that really binds them together in some real sense, and binds their potential into one.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Mr. BLOOM. Would that be under the Charter of the United Nations?

Mr. ROBERTS. There is nothing in the Charter I can find, Mr. Bloom, that forbids it.

Mr. Bloom. How about the preamble? I am interested in that because I had something to do with writing it.

Mr. ROBERTS. . The preamble?
Mr. BLOOM. The preamble of the United Nations, yes.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think there is nothing in the preamble concerning two nations wanting to form themselves into one.

Mr. BLOOM. I refer to the item of freedom.

Mr. ROBERTS. It says, “The 'peoples' of the United Nations are determined"-and so on. If you will permit me to say so, I will say that I think this was a mistatement. That was a treaty of nations and not people.

Mr. BLOOM. The preamble starts off the same as that of our Constitution, “We, the people.”

Mr. ROBERTS. That was a constitution ratified by people. This was not.

The United Nations is a great treaty, Mr. Bloom, you cannot deny that. If it was not a treaty, why was it ratified by the Senate as a treaty? It is a treaty. It preserves all sovereignty to every one of the nations in it. It says so in the charter. A union of people, like that under our own Constitution, is ratified by the people of the nations that go into it, and not otherwise.

Now, there are nations that can go into that kind of a union, and see what you get: The whole British Commonwealth can do it. The Low Countries can do it. The Scandinavian countries, Switzerland and France can do it, and I think the Philippines can do it because they have a constitution like our own at the moment.

You would take the Philippines in simply to show there is no question of race or color in this thing, or geographical location, but I would take those nations first because the crisis is in Europe today, and nowhere else. It is among those people. If you resuscitate and restore them, you have some chance of resuscitating and restoring the economy of the world. Without them, and we alone, I say, "No."

Mr. Bloom. How many nations did you figure on?

Mr. ROBERTS. If I were the Congress of the United States, I would adopt a resolution inviting the delegates from the members of the British Commonwealth—that is Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Great Britain, and Eire.

Mr. Bloom. Do you mean individually?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, and I would invite France, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, and Switzerland. I think I would invite the Philippines. There is the focus now of the economic area of the world. There is the focus now of the military deficiencies of the world. Let us get together and see if we can form a union, a union something on the pattern of the United States of America, then let us put in the fundamental law that the parliament of that union shall admit other nations as they find them fit to come in. That is what the Congress did with all but the Thirteen Original States. They applied for admission, and the Congress passed on it.

Mr. Bloom. That charter goes back to the people, and the people vote on that charter; is that your idea ?

[ocr errors]

80 on.

Mr. ROBERTS. If the delegates could devise something like the delegates in Philadelphia in 1787 did, and would refer it back to the Congress, the Congress would examine it, and then refer it to the people for a referendum; and the people of other nations would vote on it by popular vote. Then you get the individual units as the basis of your union, just as you do for the Federal Government of the United States.

Mr. JUDD. Was our Constitution ratified by popular vote, or was it by the legislatures? Mr. ROBERTS. The Constitution required that it be referred to conventions of the people of the States, and each of the States elected conventions.

Mr. Bloom. There was no specified number of delegates that you could have. Some States had 40 and some only 10. The delegates roted on it. Mr. ROBERTS. They were elected by popular elections. Mr. JUDD. They were called for that special purpose ? Mr. ROBERTS. The people voted for their representatives on the question of whether they would be for it or whether they would not be for it. Mr. Bloom. Your Bill of Rights was voted on the same way: Mr. ROBERTS. The Constitution required that. I do not think you can found any lasting government except on the will of the people. There is the idea of the United Nations, there is the idea of the League of Nations, there was the idea with the old Articles of Confederation. States were the constituent members. States had each one vote, and Mr. Bloom. Would you make that a unanimous vote? Mr. ROBERTS. No; by a majority vote. Mr. BLOOM. Of the States?

Mr. ROBERTS. No; I would refer it for majority decision, like everything is decided democratically in this country by a majority. Mr. Bloom. Do you mean of the States? Mr. ROBERTS. A majority of the States, and a majority of the people in the States that vote to ratify, certainly. No, it takes more than a majority of the States to ratify an amendment to our Constitution. Any country if it had a popular vote could conduct its referendum as it saw fit, to ratify this constitution. Mr. Bloom. How long did that take us, Mr. Roberts? Mr. ROBERTS. It took the delegates in Philadelphia, who were faced with a perfectly new thing, and who created a great invention, about 3 months. Mr. BLOOM. That is, to write the Constitution. Mr. ROBERTS. And send it back home for approval. Mr. Bloom. However, it took from September until June of the following year.

Mr. ROBERTS. It was provided that it should become effective when nine States ratified it. I think nine States ratified it within 8 months.

Mr. BLOOM. It was June 17 or 27 of 1788.
Mr. ROBERTS. Then they submitted it about September or October.
Mr. Bloom. It was September 21, 1787.

Mr. ROBERTS. It took less than 12 months for the nine States to ratify.

However, think of the hope, think of the uplift among all these people in these nations, if this were under way.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »