Изображения страниц

nations by war to enforcement on individuals by police. Representation should be weighted, instead of the present one nation-one vote basis. The area in which the United Nations will have the power

of law should be defined. Only then will the great nations seriously consider giving up the veto.

And that would take into consideration, not only population and education, but economic development. I might add at this point, the necessity of defining the area in which power operates is one that Mr. Robert Taft has been making with very great effect in his speeches in the last few months and I agree with him.

These changes in principle imply changes in the United Nations structure. The Assembly should become a real legislative body. The Security Council should become an executive board, responsible to the Assembly. The World Court should be given compulsory jurisdiction in cases involving nations and individual violators of world law, and should be supplemented by district world courts.

Supporting such changes in the United Nations constitutes a morally valid and practically workable United States policy for peace, offering all nations, including the Soviet Union, security and justice under law. I believe that the Soviet Union might very likely participate. This policy is possible under House Concurrent Resolution 59, and should be supported.

House Concurrent Resolution 163, however, is much more likely to prove a war policy. It differs both in spirit and content. In my opinion, it is unworkable. Some major reasons follow:

1. Heavy armament remains national: By leaving 80 percent of heavy armament in five national armed forces dominant military power would remain in these few nations with smaller nations having no heavy weapons.

These might well prove only another balance of national power, as unreliable for the United Nations as national armed forces proved for the League of Nations. The national quotas also might be hopelessly upset by new scientific discoveries. Instead of such national quotas of heavy weapons, nations should disarm to approved minimum levels required for internal policing.

2. Enforcing against nations by war: Resolution 163 calls an international armed force “police," does not provide for an international civilian inspection and police force, does not stress enforcement against individual violators, and contemplates enforcement against nations by war as normal procedure.

Experts from Hamilton to Walter Lippmann, I also might add Mr. Dulles, have pointed out that enforcement, if it is to be carried out at all, must be primarily against individuals. Enforcement against nations is so suicidal, so brutal, so unjust that in practice it will be postponed until too late, and then not used. Therefore, it is little or no deterrent.

3. Representation : Resolution 163 reduces small nation representation on the Security Council from six to two, raising the “Big Five" from five to eight. It ignores the Assembly.

This plan could hardly be acceptable to smaller nations. It is no real solution to the problem of representation.

4. Revenue: Resolution 163 makes no provision for dependable revenue for the United Nations to finance the control of armaments. De

[blocks in formation]

tain peace.

pendence would still be placed in voluntary payments by national governments.

This system bankrupted the Continental Congress, contributed to the weakness of the League of Nations, and keeps the general budget of the United Nations at about the same level as that of the street cleaning department of New York City.

If you did not have the money, you could not do the job

5. Inflexibility: Resolution 163 provides for no legislative body to adapt laws for armament control to new conditions. It makes no provision for amendment. It leaves the veto in effect in peaceful settlement of disputes, amendments, and so forth.

It is extremely unlikely that such inflexibility could long main

The proposals contained in Resolution 163, in my opinion, would not prove workable nor maintain peace. War still would be possible, since the United Nations would still lack necessary governmental powers, even to control armaments. The Soviet Union almost certainly would refuse to participate, also many other nations, even outside Soviet control.

The United States should sponsor our time-tested successful principles of Federal Government for world control of armaments through the United Nations. And by that I mean the three itemized earlier.

We should not again attempt an experiment based on balance of power and enforcement against nations by war.

I travel widely among Quakers and church people generally. For example, in March of this year I made 61 speeches in 7 States. Everywhere I find a realization that nations must pool a small part of their sovereignty to maintain peace.

Indicative of the growing interest in this subject among Friends, or Quakers, are actions taken this year by three widely representative groups of Friends—the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the United Society of Friends Women, and the Peace Board of the Five Years Meeting of Friends. Statements from these groups and from a recent meeting of churchmen are here. I will request to have them included in the record.

Mr. Vores (presiding). The documents referred to will be included in the record at this point.

(The documents referred to are as follows:)


The Friends Committee on National Legislation in February 1948 adopted the following statement on the United Nations and federal world government, as part of its 1948 legislative policy:

“We believe that the United States should support the United Nations in all its constructive efforts for a peaceful world. The United States should unfalteringly and consistently support the fullest possible use of the United Nations for social, economic, and political cooperation among nations. However, we recognize that the United Nations, as now constituted, is not adequate to build or maintain peace. Therefore, we urge that the United States take the lead in strengthening the United Nations either by calling a conference to revise the Charter as provided for under article 109 of the Charter, or by other methods.

"We believe the United Nations should be developed progressively toward the establishment of genuine world government based on law enforceable upon individuals. Among the major questions requiring study and action are provisions for representation, methods of enforcement, and disarmament.

"The Charter of the United Nations now provides for a system of collective security inherent in which is the threat of war against nations. We should strive for the development of a new body of international law with enforcement upon individuals, When enforcement is upon individuals rather than nations and where there is weighted representation in the Assembly, then the veto can be eliminated. Effective control of disarmament is the first area in which international law should be established with responsibility of states defined, but with inspection and enforcement upon individual violators.

"Building these sound principles of federal world government into the United Nations would help to make possible effective internationally controlled disarmament, would constitute the beginning of just, enforceable world law, and would assist in broadening the powers of the United Nations to promote justice and to bring about changes peacefully. Such action would not automatically solve the problems of human need, differences between peoples, and the will to power, but it would make the United Nations a much more effective instrument for solving them peacefully.

"We call upon the schools of America to encourage the study and appreciation of the Charter of the United Nations and its activities, as recommended in a recent United Nations Assembly Resolution.”

Only last week, Wednesday, May 5, the United Society of Friends Women passed the following resolution:

"(1) We reiterate our determined opposition to universal military training, and/or the draft, to the military control of scientific research, to the military domination of American foreign policy, to the militarization of the schools, and to the ever-increasing Federal military expenditures.

“(2) For security we urge instead, the passage of Senate Concurrent Resolution 24 and House Concurrent Resolution 59. This would initiate steps for changing the United Nations into limited federal government, and make laws regulating ariament, enforceable upon individual violators.

“(3) We urge that the United States strengthen the UN through more active participation in its valuable agencies such as UNESCO and the International Trade Organziation. We call upon Congress immediately to join the World Health Organization."

The Peace Board of The Five Years Meeting of Friends at Richmond, Ind., on April 23 adopted a resolution that “nations must give up their 'sovereign rights' to arm, and to threaten, to intimidate, and to destroy other nations. This means disarmament under law, federal world government."

A representative churchmen's conference attended by individuals from 12 Protestant denominations and 20 States, which met in Washington April 6 and 7, asked for “patient, persistent developinent of the United Nations in the direction of some form of world government.'

Here are two paragraphs from their statement, which was mailed by the eminent radio preacher, Dr. Ralph W. Sockman, to every Member of Congress:


"We believe the foreign policy of the United States should be based upon the determination to achieve peace through developing the United Nations rather than upon unilateral diplomacy based upon national military might. World peace demands that nations limit national sovereignty in a world system under law. We believe, therefore, that American policy should have as its objective the patient, persistent development of the United Nations in the direction of some form of world government."


“We call for the bold leadership of the United States in promoting plans for world disarmament through strengthening the United Nations, including the world-wide abolition of peacetime compulsory military training. Nations must transfer sovereign control of arinaments to the United Nations, including inspection, enforcement on individuals, and adequate funds for control.”

Mr. SEVERING. Here are some examples of the rapidly swelling tide of opinion among church people. In my home town of Mount Airy, N. Č.—7,000 population—an education program led by Methodist Church people resulted in 8,725 signatures on petitions calling for strengthening the United Nations. More people from outside the town signed in stores, and so forth, than those underage in the town. In Richmond, Va., a Committee of the United Nations, under the chairmanship of Harry St. George Tucker, former president bishop of the Episcopal Church and chairman of the Federal Council of Churches, has just obtained 21,000 signatures of adult residents in a week, or 9 out of 10 persons contacted. This compares with the highest number of votes ever cast in an election in Richmond-32,000. In Cleveland, over 200,000 have signed a world government petition sponsored by church leaders and others, such as Governor Herbert and exGovernor Lausche.

I might say that I have recently been in Mrs. Bolton's bailiwick and also Mrs. Vorys' and found very great interest in both of these places.

Quick action to bring disarmament of nations under enforceable world law is urgently needed. Yet this should be accomplished by education and voluntary agreement. The Congress and the executive branch should determine the general principles under which world law should operate. Negotiations should follow with other nations. When substantial support is assured, a review conference under article 109 should be held. Patient, persistent effort should follow until universal participation is achieved.

I might add that that was written before I heard Mr. Dulles' statement this morning. It happens to be exactly on the order he suggested in connection with 109. I happen to be also on the Federal Council of Churches commission of which he is chairman, so I have known him many years.

Just law, enforceable on individuals, is the only way durable peace has proved possible. Peace under just law is the heritage of our Judeo-Christian faith. Rapid establishment of such just law on a world-wide basis should be the core of American foreign policy. Such positive leadership for peace by the United States would unite the American people and raise a beacon of hope and unity for all mankind.

Mr. Vorys. Thank you very much for your statement, Mr. Levering, and if you wish, we will have these statements by others incorporated in the record.

Mr. LEVERING. I will appreciate that.
Mr. Vorys ( presiding). Mr. Jonkman.

Mr. JONKMAN. You do not propose a remedy such as proposed by the Federal Union, Inc., and the World Federalists, in case your proposed amendment to the Charter fails, do you? Mr. LEVERING. I think we would feel that we must


ahead if worst comes to worst, with a partial federation under article 51. I think so. I do not believe it would be necessary, if this is a valid, fair, and just proposal and establishes real security for Russia as well as ourselves. I think if that is true, we can rally the people of the world behind us to the point where Russia cannot afford to stay out. That would be the last resort.

I would not favor the Federal Union proposal because it seems to me that it means war because it splits the world right down the middle and it does not give us even the satisfaction in our consciences of having made an all-out effort to prevent the war.

In other words, I think we should bring everyone who will come in on the basis of enforceable law in the narrow field of control of arma

ment inside. We then are going toward peace. I believe the other way makes war certain.

Mr. JONKMAN. I want to compliment you on a very sound and realistic statement.

Mr. LEVERING. Thank you.

Mr. JUDD. Thank you very much for coming and testifying before us, Mr. Levering.

What would you say is the first thing we should do?

Mr. LEVERING. I would say a statement by your committee of the principles and goals which the United States wants and it seems it would have to be in more detail than Resolution 59.

I would agree with Mr. Dulles that the immediate calling of this convention in 59 should be knocked out and we should define the areas in which we would be willing to pool our sovereignty for the prevention of war. I think that would have tremendous moral effect, it would crystallize opinion in this country.

Mr. Judd. You do not think the time is yet ripe for the calling of this convention?

Mr. LEVERING. I believe this is a matter of negotiation. In other words, if the goals are clear then it is a question of negotiation to find out when is the best time to do it.

Mr. Judd. You believe some reasonably firm agreements should be reached on certain basic issues, before we call the full-fledged conference?

Mr. LEVERING. I think so. I think that is the part of wisdom.

Mr. Judd. Now, during this period, you do not think that we ought to go ahead under 51 ?

Mr. LEVERING. No; I do not.
Mr. Judd. In that respect you disagree with Mr. Dulles ?

I would agree with Justice Roberts there, that 51 is basically an establishment of military alliance which will prove as unreliable, unstable, ineffective as military alliances have in the past.

Mr. Judd. Would you object to trying to proceed toward partial federations under 51, which would be more than military alliances, while waiting for the opportune time for a general conference! I mean while trying to prepare for the day when a general council would be advisable.

Mr. LEVERING. I think we might very well work simultaneously in both directions, recognizing that what we want is a universal federation, but laying the groundwork for the other, if it should prove in fact we could not get the universal federation.

Mr. Judd. Do you believe that if a degree of success is attained in working under 51 on the second objective, it would help the prospects of success under 109?

Mr. LEVERING. Not if the 51 project is carried through to completion. If it is just preliminary discussion, yes, I think it might.

Mr. Judd. That is, assuming that in a conference under 109 Russia should refuse to agree to what was overwhelmingly wanted by the other members or wanted by the overwhelming majority of the other members, you think it might encourage her to come along, if she knew her refusal would mean more rapid movement by us under 51 ?

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »