Изображения страниц

Mr. Judd. There are dangers either way, as you admit. Mr. ROBERTS. There is no doubt about it. Mr. Judd. The European recovery program was necessary merely to restore a balance of power.

Mr. ROBERTS. To hold something. Mr. JUD. It gives us no great preponderance in the balance between Russia and her satellites on one side and the 16 nations and ourselves and a few others on the other. The European recovery program if it succeeds merely restores a balance of power.

Which way the scale tips between those two systems may very well be determined by what happens in the minds and hearts of the billion and a quarter people who are in the so-called backward areas. They control the great undeveloped resources of the world. Which way they decide to go, with the democracies, or with the totalitarians, I think can be crucial. Yet, you feel that for us to exclude them would win them to us.

My belief is that for us to exclude them would drive them into the other camp. Soviet Russia would just come in and take over the organization of them, and then she would have a preponderance of power that would put us in a very difficult position.

Mr. ROBERTS. If you are going to take them all and nurse them along, Russia will have preponderance of power all by herself because you will drain your economic resources to such an extent you will get nowhere.

Mr. Judd. I do not think you will have to nurse them along. There are movements in those countries which cannot be repressed. Ideas are germinating and foment is working. Those peoples have great natural resources. Some are more nearly self-sufficient than the western nations are, partly because they have a lower standard of living to start from and can make progress more readily than we can because we start at such a high level.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think the example of a union such as I mentioned with which they could trade, and to which they could look to become members would be a great encouragement to them to come right along with you, form close ties with you, and hook up with you.

I could not think Russia in trade, or anything of that kind, could offer anything like the union of which I speak.

Mr. Judd. I believe you omitted Italy in the list of nations you were going to invite in?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes. Mr. JUDD. What do you think would happen in Italy if we invited France, Switzerland, and the others in, and left Italy out?

Mr. ROBERTS. I would invite Italy in. I do not know that I gave a complete catalog of all the nations. I would ask Italy in. I think it is very important. Nir. Judd. Take Greece. Would you invite her? Mr. ROBERTS. Not at the moment, because I do not think she has a democratic form of Government.

Mr. Judd. Would that not make certain, then, that the Communists would win out in Greece!

Mr. ROBERTS. I think your union would then speak with one voice in foreign affairs, and I think if that union spoke with respect to Greece, it would be better than it is now. It would conduct its foreign affairs in one way. We could not have the miserable division between nations in the United Nations that we have had over Palestine. At least the people coming into this federation would speak with one voice on the thing and not with a multiple of tongues.

Mr. JUDD. Thank you very much.
Mr. CHIPERFIELD (presiding). Mr. Colmer.

Mr. COLMER. I did not hear the learned judge's statement, and what I ask may

not be apropos of that statement. I would like to say I have a profound respect for Justice Roberts' ability, and the study he has made of this matter.

I would also like to observe that, even though you do not agree, as I gather from glancing over this statement, with the objective of these resolutions, would you not agree that it is better to attemp something like that than to just leave matters as they are?

Mr. ROBERTS. What I want to attempt, Mr. Congressman, is a unification, a federation of the more advanced democracies, to start with, within the United Nations. I would not have them go out of the United Nations, I would have them support it, and I would have them invite any other nations that could qualify to come in. I would have the congress or parliament of the union decide what nations could come in if they applied to come in. That is my step. I think the wrong step is to attempt to amend the Charter of the United Nations. You will not get a government out of it, and until you get government you will never have law and peace in the world.

Mr. COLMER. What I am trying to ask is this: Assuming you cannot have what you want, and I have found up here that that is a great difficulty any time, getting what you want up here, or what I want-I have had some ideas about what our policy should be too, and I have not gotten very far with them—but assuming you can get what you want, do you or do you not feel it would be better to attempt to amend the Charter than to do nothing? Would this amendment not be an improvement over the present situation where we are doing nothing!

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not think it would be an improvement. I think you would still face all the difficulties you face now.

I was perfectly amazed this morning to hear Mr. Dulles say that he was sorry that the Baruch plan for the control of atomic energy had not been adopted. The thing I have been afraid of is that Russia would come into that one. It is a treaty pure and simple, and she could assert her sovereignty as to the way its inspection should be enforced on her, and she could denounce it if she did not like the way it worked.

Mr. Judd. She had no veto under that. That was what she objected to. She could not veto inspection.

Mr. ROBERTS. Russia was frank enough to say she insisted on that veto. I was afraid she would say she agreed to that, and then try to circumvent the agency, and if that did not succeed, walk out on the treaty. After they got the secrets, they could denounce the treaty. It was their right to denounce it after they signed it just as it is the right of the United States to denounce a treaty we do not care for any longer.

They would let you inspect so far and then say you were doing something the treaty did not contemplate. They would then denounce the treaty. It was only because Russia has a peculiar psychology that she would not join. She would not give up that word “veto." I think she was acting against her own interests.

Mr. Judd. She could inspect our Oak Ridge and we could inspect her bare mountains?

Mr. ROBERTS. Exactly; if we tried to do anything else, that would be beyond what the treaty intended. Not only Russia, but other nations ive taken very small excuses to denounce treaties, as you know.

Mr. COLMER. If I may go a little further along that line—and I will say frankly that I am one of those who never had too much hope, and was never too optimistic about what we would get out of the United Nations, but do I understand you think we would be better off without any such organization? Would you go that far?

Mr. ROBERTS. I would not say that. I think the world is better off for having had the League of Nations, but the League of Nations could not keep the peace.

I think we will be working off steam in the United Nations, but we cannot get security out of the United Nations. That is one thing we cannot get.

Mr. COLMER. Do you not believe, sir, that it is possible to amend that organization so that we can get some security ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No; I do not believe so. In order to achieve that end, first of all you must take out this segment where the individual sovereignty is recognized. You must have the people elect representatives to their assembly and give the assembly the right to legislate.

Does anybody think you can get that kind of an amendment through against Russia's objection and the objection of her whole group? I think it is perfectly evident you cannot get that through.

Then what are you going to amend into, another treaty? That is what it will be. How can you make law that is binding on individuals under a treaty? You Congressmen make laws every day that bind me, because you act directly on me. You do not have to go through my State of Pennsylvania when I do wrong, you do not punish my State of Pennsylvania for it, you come and get me.

As Mr. Dulles said this morning, this is really government and the only kind of government in the world. He was perfectly frank about it. How can you amend the United Nations to get that kind of government in China, India, Central America, and the dictatorships? You cannot do it. What would you amend it to, Mr. Congressman, another treaty that says more words about naughty nations? Would it be practicable with an instrument that gives more sanctions and allows a majority of nations to vote other nations into positions? As I said before you came in, I think it would be folly for us to abandon the veto. I think we might want the veto for the very same purposes Russia is using it, if our national interests were threatened.

I do not see in a league like that how our Nation dare abandon the veto. What would you amend it to, is what I would like to know.

Mr. COLMER. If you maintain the veto, then from what little I know about it I would agree with you that you are not going to get very far with the United Nations.

Mr. ROBERTS. You will remember article 16 of the League of Nations Charter. It said that if any member went to war with any

other member she would be at war with all the other members. Mussolini


went to war with Ethiopia. Technically he was at war with all the rest of the countries. England and France did not care to make it stick.

That is what you got into in the League, and that is what you will get into in the United Nations.

Take the veto out. You cannot force a great country like Russia or the United States, veto or no veto. If they think their vital interests preclude their doing what they are ordered to do, they will stand up and fight. They will say, “Come on, see if you can enforce

Mr. COLMER. If you do not mind just a few of these elementary questions, I appreciate it. I will confess I do not know the answers, and I think I have given a little thought to it.

Along that line, what good purpose will the United Nations serve if it is not amended and cannot be amended? Will it be a sounding board, a forum!

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes. The League of Nations did a lot of good through its bureaus, and I think the United Nations can do a lot of good educational work through its bureaus. It is not compulsion. It is just education and persuasion and gathering facts and statistics and laying them before the nations. Mr. COLMER. It is more or less of a debating society? Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, but it is not a security organization. Mr. COLMER. I agree with you on that, sir.

Mr. ROBERTS. But I think it is worth keeping all these nations in. I agree with Dr. Judd, we ought to keep Russia in. We ought not to let her out. If she goes out it ought to be her fault and not ours.

However, I see no reason in the charter, or anything else, why, if we think we can have greater prosperity, greater safety, and less expense to hook up with some other nation in a federation, I see no reason why the nations should say, “You should have asked us."

Look what we are doing in military affairs. You know what happened to the money you voted last December. You voted $300,000,000 to France. Ten days later she upped her military appropriation $266,000,000. Did your money go for relief? How can you control that in a league or even in a military alliance? The money that is spent for defense today by the democracies is being horribly wasted because France has one program for an army that is no good. Britain has a program for another army that is no good. We have another program for an enormous defense mechanism. They are not integrated. We are wasting the money. We could spend it all in one pot and under one purpose and under one legislature, and have a different picture.

Mr. COLMER. I am glad to have the opportunity to get an answer to some of these elementary questions that were on my mind.

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not think more difficult questions have ever faced human beings than those we are faced with now.

Mr. COLMER. I do not believe I am prepared to go along with you on some of these matters, but I am glad to have my own immature judgment confirmed, as far as I am concerned, on what the United Nations amounts to.

Mr. VORYS (presiding). Mr. Fulton.

Mr. FULTON. Mr. Justice, I am glad to see you here today, as a fellow Pennsylvanian, and I might say that were my senior partner Mr. George Alten alive and here today he would feel his junior was very much on the short end of the board.

I would like to clear up several questions. You said on page 1 of your statement that Russia will not consent. Actually, it does not make any difference whether she will consent or not, originally, because in her present temper and her present policy, she probably could not be depended later to follow it. Is that not correct?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think so. If the last 2 years of history, Mr. Fulton, mean anything, "Agreement” means something different to the Russians than what it does to you and me. I say that without heat or without intended criticism.

Mr. Fulton. With your comment that the United Nations is really a multipartite treaty, if that be the case strictly, what jurisdiction do you think this committee would have to look into any changes of the UN organization? Why should we in the House be concerned ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think you are concerned because this body is going to be called upon constantly for legislation, financial and otherwise, in suport of the United Nations, and I think that you are a body closer to the body of the voters than the Senate, who represents larger multiples States, and it seems to me that things of this kind, advice and expressions from any Member of Congress, are in order. I may be wrong, but that is my own personal view.

Mr. FULTON. While you may disagree and think that it is not worth while to pass any of the resolutions as are here in discussion, nevertheless do you rule out within the immediate future the possibility of a conference to discuss the questions? Would you oppose such a conference as may be had under section 109?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think so. I do not think it will get you anywhere, and I think it will only make your difficulties greater and cause delay. I say the house is afire now.

Mr. Fulton. Going further, you said, too, that the military alliance are not worth much because they can be abrogated immediately by any one of the powers in the alliance.


Mr. FULTON. Under section 51, as you know, there is provided the system for members getting together for mutual self-protection and defense.


Mr. Fulton. Would you then say that any proposed getting together in these regional units for self-protection and self-defense under 51, would be in the class of military alliance and therefore bad?

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, it would be bad, not because there was anything in the charter to forbid it, Mr. Fulton, but it is just an unworkable set-up

First of all, you would have the questions of the number of troops each sovereignty contributed, who would have the over-all command, whether you should have an advanced base in a city in France, or some other place. France would say, “You cannot have it there.” Our experts would say, "It is no good unless you do have it there." You know those arguments.

Mr. FULTON. There was a discussion of Benelux, and their customs union. That, of course, is a customs union for economic development and cooperation under section 55 and 57 of the UN Charter, and is


« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »