Изображения страниц

Mr. LEVERING. I think that is right. You know we Quakers have had quite broad experiences with Communists all over the world in our relief work, and we have no illusions as to the motives which activate their minds. I think they are realists and if they come in, it will be because they think it is to their advantage.

Mr. Judd. We will not get them in by denunciations or persuasion. We will get them in if and when there is more to gain by their coming in than by staying out.

Mr. LEVERING. That would be my judgment, sir.
Mr. Judd. Thank you very much.
Mr. Vorys (presiding). Thank you very much, Mr. Levering.
Mr. LEVERING. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Vorys. Our next witness is Mr. Clarence K. Streit, the president of the Federal Union, Inc. STATEMENT OF CLARENCE K. STREIT, PRESIDENT OF FEDERAL

UNION, INC. Mr. STREIT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I wish to express my deep appreciation of your invitation to appear here and testify at your hearings on the structure of the United Nations and the relations of the United States to the United Nations. My approach to this problem, though shared by an impressive number of thinking people, differs so fundamentally from the prevailing one that I would like to begin by setting it forth in a statement. I shall try to crowd into it the results of both the experience I gained in covering diplomatic relations and the League of Nations for the New York Times and other papers for some 20 years, and the study of the underlying problem before you to which I have devoted most of my thought for the past 15 years. Not to tax your patience too much, I shall touch only the highlights in this statement. I shall be glad to develop any points which may raise questions in your minds.

THE EAGLE DOES NOT NIBBLE AND GNAW None of us would take the mouse as our national emblem. Why, then, do so many Americans tackle momentus matters as a mouse does a piece of cheese, beginning with a nibble, and when that proves too little, taking another nibble, and another—until the trap springs shut?

Cash-and-carry, selective service, 47 destroyers, lend-lease-never a measure bold enough to achieve the difficult feat of winning by measures short of war. Fulbright resolution, United Nations, British loan, Cabinet members testifying in January we must spend billions either on European recovery or on a restored draft, and already the draft is up for resurrection, and we are asked to double defense expenditure, prop up the Charter with amendments and alliances, prepare for military lend-lease. Again the policy of nibble and gnaw, when the only possible way to win without war is to be bold.

The American emblem, after all, is the eagle. The eagle sees from afar, lives by strokes that are bold. We are not mice; we are men. We have made ourselves jaws that grind mountains to powder; we measure our bites in tons. What we have done mechanically we can do morally, and by so doing add greater glory to the meaning of man. I propose that we rise to this occasion.

I trust I do not need to convince you that the American people are not getting the results they hoped for from the United Nations. One major reason, I believe, is that we were confused over what we really wanted when we built it. Let us begin at the beginning and see clearly-as the eagle sees—what our objective is.


At first glance, peace seems to be the main objective, but, I submit, this will not bear second thought. Peace we all desire, but we shall not get peace by deluding ourselves and the rest of the world into believing that peace is our main objective. There is something—as Mr. Dulles said earlier today in answering a question—that Americans desire more even than that and that is equal individual freedom. We have sacrificed peace more than once to advance toward our ideal of equal individual freedom. We have never yet sacrificed it to secure peace.

Twice already our generation, however, has left the world in doubt on this vital point. The result was to weaken those who were struggling toward our own ideal and to encourage the autocrats, the Kaisers, Hitlers, Mussolinis, war lords of Japan. The result was world warwith ourselves involved, twice, when the danger to freedom grew great enough to bring out our true values. Now we again confront dictatorship. Its power has but expanded while we made believe again that our chief aim was peace. Let us be confused no more about our main objective, and leave no doubt at all about it anywhere on earth. Let us again “proclaim liberty throughout all the land," and keep on not only proclaiming it but guiding our policies clearly and directly toward this beacon.

This was never more important than today. Confronted with the dangers of economic collapse and war, we strangely overlook the two best reasons for reasserting now our faith in freedom: (1) It is the strongest stimulus to production and prosperity, and (2) it is the foundation required for peace to endure.

Individual liberty is no mere heritage; it is the sine qua non of world recovery and world peace. In conditions requiring the utmost vigilance, liberty was born. It grew up in poverty and war, in mountains, marshes, at many a Valley Forge. Peace and plenty were not its parents; it raised them with it as it rose.

Prosperity and peace are highly desirable, but they have in them a danger we must guard against. They dull the vigilance we must have to keep the liberty that brought them. They make us forget that freedom does not root in peace and prosperity but rises from union of the free and produces peace and plenty. We must see this ourselves, and make all the world see it, if the world is to recover from War No. 2 and avert No.3.


One of our first assignments as a correspondent was to cover Mussolini's rise to power. He rose by calling liberty a luxury that only rich nations could afford. But the nations he found rich began with freedom, not with wealth. To the autocracies of the Continent, Eng. land was poor during the centuries when it developed representative government and the other institutions that made it the freest of the European monarchies. Its political revolution preceded and made possible its industrial revolution.

From Australia and America to Switzerland and Sweden, individual freedom began with nothing but deserts and wilderness, moun. tains and fjords. Yet everywhere, invariably, freedom has given the highest standards of living to the masses who believed in it, and put liberty above security, or life itself.

Where would humanity be now if the United States had practiced the principles of individual freedom no more than Russia ? no freer than the Latin-American Republics? The Fascists and Communists alike sloganeer: “You cannot eat freedom.” What is the world eating now, what stands between millions and starvation—what but the freedom of the United States of America, Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, a few other democracies the war left intact? Equal individual freedom is the best breadwinner man has ever found.


Freedom is also the best safeguard against aggressive use of national power. In this jet-atomic age it seems to me utter madness to keep saying that the way a great power governs itself concerns no one but itself. For the danger to peace lies not in the weapons a nation has, but in its will to attack with them in peacetime. How a nation's will is formed depends on its political system. The more powerful a nation becomes, the more all the world needs to study its political structure. Never was this so important as now, when power is divided as it is between the freest republic in history and the most totalitarian of dictatorships.

The institutions of individual freedom divide the national will into a myriad equal sovereign individual wills that can act only by majority agreement. Free press, free elections, opposition parties, budget control, independent courts and the other free institutions are designed to permit each citizen to keep tab on his government. They insure sharp division, slow decision. By forcing the national will to be formed ponderously and publicly, they give the strongest human guaranty against a nation attacking another by surprise.

The opposite is true of the institutions of dictatorship. They center the national will in the will of one man. They keep the people blindly obedient to the dictator, with secrecy maintained by constant terror. Dictatorship facilitates to the nth degree the kind of surprise in peacetime that atomic weapons have made so dangerous.

Always we Americans have put freedom first, and world recovery and world peace depend today on our clearly keeping freedom first.


If freedom is our chief objective, then the common-sense test for any policy must be: Does it keep freedom first?

If we really believe that freedom brings peace and prosperity, then the more freedom we develop in the world the more peaceful and prosperous we and the world will be. If we believe that civil liberty is the best guaranty against governmental military power being used ag.

gressively, then we must agree that the greater the share of world power that is governed by liberty, the safer we and the world will be.

If we have the courage of our convictions, our problems come down to this threefold how: (1) How to develop more freedom in the world? (2) How to make sure that the bulk of the world's armed power is governed by freedom? (3) How to put more power, particularly productive power, behind freedom? To each of these questions I find this one answer:

Federate the freest fraction of mankind in a great union of the free, and thereafter extend this federal relationship to other nations as rapidly as this proves practicable until the whole world is thus governed by freedom.

Individual freedom not only rises from the union of freemen, but grows stronger and develops through the extension of that principle to other free individuals. Certainly that is the history of freedom in our Republic. It began with freemen forming little unions of the free called Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and other Colonies. Then came a new birth of freedom when the 13 free and independent States united in the world's first Federal Union. Every previous generation of Americans has gone on extending the benefits of that Union's common citizenship, common-defense force, common currency, common free-trade market, common communication system and common free Federal Government to more men and more States, until the Union has grown freer, safer, and richer in the process, but all mankind has profited.

Every American generation has gone on extending the principle of "liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable"-every generation but ours. And ours is the first generation of Americans to say that their dead have died in vain. We have fought two world wars for freedom but for freedom without federation, not for liberty and union. Tavert a third world war, we must return to the true American line o freedom through ever-expanding free federation.

It is difficult for people to govern themselves with equal individual freedom that I find only about one-seventh of the human race has succeeded in doing this even fairly well for even as short a period as 50 years. We Americans provide half of these free people ourselves. The other 140,000,000 or 150,000,000 are divided into 14 sovereign nations: The United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, Belgium-Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Eire, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa. You may object that even some of these hardly meet the 50-year qualification, and if you can find any nation that meets it better, you can add it to your list. You must agree, however, that civil-liberty democracy is very young indeed; and that individual freedom is in a very dangerous minority in a mass long habituated to despotism. You must agree, too, that modern techniques in mass deception, mass subjugation, and mass destruction immensely increase the danger to the one-seventh of mankind whose governments have assured freedom the past 50 years.


Yet such is the power that freedom brings through union that these 15 unions of freemen need only federate in a great union to put behind their freedom overwhelming power-much more than half the power now available in all the world. Power can be divided like a deck of cards into four suits, and these 15 democracies need only federate, as our 48 States are, for their union to hold every ace.

The ace of clubs, or armed power: Not only would their soldiers, if united, number as many as Russia's, and be much more mobile and better equipped; this union would begin by having the bulk of the world's air power, 90 percent of its naval tonnage, advanced bases everywhere on earth, 100 percent atomic power.

The ace of spades, or productive power: Tangled up though they are with their tariffs and currencies, these democracies have long outproduced all the rest of the world—and how their production would soar to undreamed-of-heights if they had one currency and formed one free trade market as do our 48 States.

The ace of diamonds, or raw material power: This union of the free would not need to spend billions stock piling; its territory and possessions would contain nearly all the essentials it needed, and produce from 50 to 95 percent of the world's supply of most of them.

The ace of hearts, or moral power: This union would unite all the lands toward which the rest of humanity has long looked for refuge from oppression and leadership toward liberty, Nothing can appeal to men so deeply as can individual freedom, and to back it with every ace is to add irresistible authority to its appeal.

All four aces—and the joker, too—for the union would need merely to admit other nations to it as they proved their freedom to keep increasing its overwhelming power. The far west of this nuclear union—in the sense of a vast area of vaster potentialities from which many new states could be added to the union by mutual agreementwould lie to the south and cover more than two continents, South and Middle America, and Africa. The imagination is staggered as the picture of this great Atlantic union of the free merely starts to unfold.

It is enough for the moment to note that we need merely federate with another 140,000,000 men and women with whom we have the closest natural, political, economic, historical, cultural, social, and religious ties, who live in the lands from which most of our forebearers come, who have contributed as much to our freedom, perhaps, as we to theirs. We Americans need merely live in federal union with them as we already live with each other to give to world peace immediately a double guaranty, the strongest one possible.

For, on the one hand, we thereby put such crushing power behind freedom that the Kremlin dictatorship dare not attack it, or any nation to whom the union extends the protection of its own modernized Monroe Doctrine.

On the other hand, by forming this union of the freest people on earth we give the most effective guaranty that its gigantic power will not be used to attack others, for we subject it to the strongest of checks—federated individual freedom. Though the union of our 48 States has made the United States more powerful than all the LatinAmerican Republics put together, they have never formed a military alliance against it, for our free institutions so checked aggressive military use of our power that they had no incentive to ally against us. By the same token the freedom of this greater union of the free, which would have much the same position as regards the whole world that

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »