« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
approved by the International Trade Organization Convention -and Charter.
Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.
Mr. FULTON. On the other hand, Brussels, The Hague, and the Inter-American Conference are actually under section 51, which is different, so they are on a different level. One type is economic and the other is defensive.
Mr. ROBERTS. The other is military.
Mr. FULTON. In addition to that under section 52, you could have regional developments and unions. Of course, the objection to that is that they would have to be approved by the Security Council. Then you could not do that because Russia would veto, would you say?
Mr. ROBERTS. I am afraid so; yes.
Mr. FULTON. It therefore leaves you certain things that can be pursued, such as the International Labor Organization, International Trade Organization, International Refugee Organization, and other organizations under section 55, which you do not object to, do you?
Mr. ROBERTS. No.
Mr. FULTON. You do believe that under 52 action is not possible because Russia will veto it when it comes before the Security Council!
Mr. ROBERTS. I would think so, and I do not think 52 would do what I want to do anyway, because I think 52 envisages agreements between sovereigns or arrangements between sovereigns. I think 51 and 52 apply to sovereign nations getting together by treaty and agreement.
Mr. Fulton. You would have the same objection to 51 as 52, and also the objection to 51 that it would be a mere military alliance !
Mr. ROBERTS. That is right.
Mr. FULTON. That causes you to oppose any action under the present set-up under the Charter, except for the formation of a real state?
Mr. ROBERTS. That is it exactly, Mr. Fulton, and I find nothing in the charter that remotely prevents that.
Mr. VORYS (presiding). Mr. Lodge.
Mr. LODGE. I regret I was not able to be here earlier to hear your statement.
Since there is no provision in the Charter which either allows or prevents the formation of the union, which is, as I understand it, what you
have in mind, then in that case the important thing to establish, it seems to me, is just what the powers of this union are going to be.
I take it, in the first place, it will have the power to declare a foreign policy?
Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir; it would have all the foreign relations of the member nations, just as the United States embraces the foreign relations of the States today.
Mr. LODGE. That foreign policy would be administered by a cabinet ? Mr. ROBERTS. By an executive.
I have no ideas on the form of government. The British will say it should be a parliamentary government, and the Foreign Secretary cught to be under the control of the Parliament. To that I would not object.
Mr. LODGE. It would be a Government responsible to the will of the people.
Mr. ROBERTS. That is my idea of a Government, sir, and nothing else. Nothing else, to my mind, is a government.
Mr. LODGE. There is no question that in the union you envisage the American people would be outnumbered by the others, would they not?
Mr. ROBERTS. They might or they might not. Mr. LODGE. You would at least envisage that possibility? You would at least hope that that would be true?
Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, by counting noses, if you counted noses. Mr. LODGE. Foreign policy has in recent times particularly become to a considerable extent a question of money, and it has been the money of the American people. This money is going to the 16 participating nations recently.
Would you suggest in the conduct of the foreign policy, that the outnumbered American people should be called upon to provide funds to implement this foreign policy upon the vote of people who were not Americans?
Mr. ROBERTS. Not the American people, the people of the federation.
Mr. LODGE. But they have nothing, as we know. We are the ones who are providing the wherewithal.
Mr. ROBERTS. I know of no principle that permits the Congress of the United States to vote the money of the people of California for any purpose. If this union has no money in its treasury from taxation that is evenly imposed on people, it would not function. It would not vote your money; it would vote its money.
Mr. LODGE. I am attempting to test the results which will flow from the application of the principle. That is, I realize, a mundane consideration.
Mr. ROBERTS. There were poor and rich States that went into our union.
Mr. LODGE. I make no comment as to the desirability of this principle. But from the application of this principle would there not flow the fact that since these other nations have not enough for themselves, and, secondly, since the United States has been called upon and is still being called upon to provide funds for these nations, in effect, in order to implement a foreign policy which is in large part supported by the American taxpayer, this would put the American taxpayer in the position of having taxes imposed upon him by other people to implement the foreign policy of this union, would it not? Mr. ROBERTS. I would say he would pay taxes just as they do, yes. Mr. LODGE. But you cannot get blood from a stone, Mr. Justice.
Mr. ROBERTS. No; but Virginia and New York did not want to go into our union because they said they would be bled for the benefit of the poor States. It has not worked out that way at all.
Mr. LODGE. I am asking you if that is not the fact.
Mr. ROBERTS. I think it is not the fact that the American people's money would be voted to implement the foreign policy of this union.
Mr. LODGE. It would not rest upon economic considerations at all; is that correct?
Mr. ROBERTS. I do not know. That would be for the parliament to determine.
Mr. JONKMAN. Would the gentleman yield ?
Mr. JONKMAN. However, after 140 years, it did become a reality in the form of income tax?
Mr. ROBERTS. Well, I know the easterners complained about paying for roads in Arizona, but they are paying it, and are pretty proud to be. Americans, anyway.
Mr. JONKMAN. You would undergo that risk?
Mr. ROBERTS. Those are things the delegations from the countries should discuss. I believe, personally, that the immigration should be left where it is in the constituent states for a long period. Then if this union is any good, you will have then equated the scale of living to a great extent, and then I think you can pass the question of immigration of citizens over to your parliament. I think you will need some protection at the start against great bulges of immigration.
Mrs. BOLTON. You are simply calling this group together to devise something?
Mr. ROBERTS. Yes; to see if they can devise something. The great thing about my proposition is it commits nobody to anything. It does just what the States did in 1787. They said, “Let us choose wise men.” I would, for example, choose four from the House, four from the Senate, eight from the community at large for our delegates, to meet with similar delegates from other nations to explore if this thing is practical and can be done, and report back what they find.
Mrs. BOLTON. To whom would they report back?
Mr. ROBERTS. To the Congress; and then the Congress would submit it to the people for ratification,
Mrs. BOLTON. Thank you.
Mr. LODGE. Will you agree with this, that the American people have paid for, and are paying for, the various economic burdens which fall upon them because of the implementation of American foreign policy? Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lodge. You would also agree that that burden falls more or less heavily upon the several States, depending upon their ability as taxpayers to support that burden?
Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.
Mr. LODGE. You would agree that that burden, in the case of the union, would fall more or less heavily upon the various members of that union, in accordance with their ability to pay!
Mr. ROBERTS. That depends upon your form of taxation, but "yes," in general.
In other words, you are paying now the whole sock, are you not? You would continue to pay a lot of this until some of these other countries would have funds and could pay it.
Mr. LODGE. You would pay it not upon the vote of the American people, but upon the vote of all the people of that union?
Mr. ROBERTS. Certainly, a vote of their representatives.
Mr. LODGE. That might be a union in which the American people would be outnumbered?
Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.
Mr. LODGE. Therefore, it would be possible for them to place a large burden on the American faxpayer in that connection?
Mr. ROPERTS. Yes, in the sense that the non-New Yorkers place a large burden of taxation on the people of New York today.
Mr. LODGE. My second question is this: As these nations consolidate into one nation, then they only have one vote, I assume, in the General Assembly, and on the United Nations Security Council?
Mr. ROBERTS. I should think not. Russia has three because she says she has three separate nations represented there. Britain has five. Mr. LODGE. The union would be a union like the Russian union? Mr. RCBERTS. I should think so. Mr. LODGE. They call it a federation, of course. Mr. ROBERTS. Yes. Mr. LODGE. You would call this a federation, too? Mr. ROBERTS. Yes. Mr. LODGE. In what sense would your federation differ from the federation proposed by the World Federalists?
Mr. ROBERTS. The World Federalists want to federate central Africa and China, and the people who do not understand representative process, and could not exercise it.
Mr. LODGE. Then the only difference between your idea of the world federation and the idea of the World Federalists, is a question of what nations you would include?
Mr. RCBERTS. It is a question of where you start.
Mr. ROBERTS. Yes; I think there would be, because in order to federate the kind of nations they want to federate, they would have to water down their government until it would not look like a federation at all. They feel that if there is a dictator, let him send his representatives to the parliament. That is all right with them. I do not see how you can put a dictatorship and a democracy together. They just do not work together. The autocracy, first of all, will vote all its representatives in a bloc, which we hope would not be true in the union. It has not been true in this union or any union I know, South Africa, Switzerland, or any of them.
Secondly, if the laws do not suit the dictator, he will put the national wall up again when you come to enforce them. Mr. LODGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Justice. Mr. Vorys. Thank you very much, Mr. Roberts. We will next hear from Samuel R. Levering.
STATEMENT OF SAMUEL LEVERING Mr. LEVERING. My name is Samuel R. Levering, of Ararat, Va. I am an orchardist. I am chairman of the Peace Board of the Five Years of Meeting of Friends and a vice chairman of the Friends Commitee on National Legislation.
I was in Germany in the summer of 1930, and decided that peace was the largest issue in my lifetime and I have spend most of my time on it ever since.
I appear before you in behalf of these and other Friends organizations to support House Concurrent Resolution 59, or similar resolutions, and to oppose House Concurrent Resolution 163.
We congratulate your committee for the constructive leadership shown in holding these hearings and honestly seeking the best way to build a world of peace under just law. Your efforts offer much greater long-run promise of durable peace than preparation for war, universal military training, and selective service.
I agree with Secretary Marshall's statement of May 5 that [reading]:
It is a misconception to suppose that domination of the world by a single system is inevitable.
We agree also that every effort should be made to unite the world for peace, including the Soviet Union, not to divide the world, and that the United States should not attempt to revise the United Nations as an anti-Russian policy. The United Nations should be supported in all its constructive efforts for a peaceful world. Efforts already in progress to strengthen the United Nations through developing its functional agencies, limiting the scope of the veto, and broadening the activities of the Assembly should be supported.
Yet the proposals made by Secretary Marshall appear inadequate to prevent war. He envisioned maintenance of peace through restoring “the balance of power relationships required for international security.” Durable peace has not been, and cannot be, built on such a military power balance. This is emphasized now that new scientific discoveries can quickly upset the balance. Nor is drifting along, hoping that something will happen to improve the United States-Soviet relations a realistic policy, in the face of mounting tensions as both nations quicken their preparations for atomic war. United States foreign policy should be positive, constructive, directed toward effective world government.
The United Nations, as now constituted, is not adequate to build or maintain peace. Fundamental changes are needed to give the United Nations real powers of government, of enforceable
law, to control armaments.
What are the basic principles of successful government over diverse areas? There are three Federal principles, first developed at Philadelphia in 1787 and since used successfully in federations over the world, which should now be applied to the control of armament through the United Nations:
1. Division of powers: One level of government has real authority, real sovereignty, in some fields, leaving all other sovereigns to other levels of government. The United Nations should be given real authority to control armaments, leaving authority in other areas, initially at leart, to the nations.
2. Both levels of Government make laws applying to, and enforced on individuals: Laws, either as agreed in conventions setting up armainent control, or as passed by the United Nations, should apply to individuals. Primary reliance for enforcement should be upon
individuals by a United Nations international civilian police rather than on enforcement upon nations by war.
3. Both levels of Government have dependable revenue, including the power to raise revenue directly if necessary: The United Nations should have the power to raise revenue for control of armaments directly if necessary, for example through collecting customs and keeping the needed percentage. The rates, of course, would be set by the nations.
Effective world disarmament, under law, will require other changes in the United Nations. The veto must be eliminated, but three problems must be dealt with simultaneously. Primary reliance for enforcement of all decisions should be changed from enforcement on