Изображения страниц

the United States now has in this hemisphere, protects it from dangerous coalitions being formed to oppose it, gives non-Communist states none of the incentive they would need to submit voluntarily to the yoke of the Kremlin.

If with this double guaranty we cannot stabilize the world situation and keep the peace long enough for the world to evolve without war into the free federal world government that this jet atomic age makes increasingly necessary, then nothing can save us.


Federal union of the free would do more than doubly guarantee world peace. It is the only policy that solves the most dangerous dilemma that faces us, and the freedom on which peace and prosperity depend. The dilemma is this:

If we do not decisely strengthen freedom's defenses, we risk seeing the Communist dictatorship, already the greatest land power in Eurasia, grow so powerful that war is inevitable. On the other hand, if we do not decisively speed world recovery we run the same risk through hunger, cold, and despair causing people to deliver themselves to dictatorship by revolutions and the democratic machinery of free speech and free elections.

I said “decisively strengthen freedom's defenses,” decisively speed world recovery, and I mean decisively, for there is no solving this dilemma by nibble and gnaw. Billions for air groups, with their bases left uncertain or feebly defended, will daunt a dictator no more than billions for Maginot Lines with a gap left in Belgium, guarded only by an alliance. Nor will he be discouraged by our putting Europe on a year-to-year dole, however many billions we vote in any one year.

A policy that assumes that American voters are children, a policy of "little steps for little feet,” invites the Kremlin to an armaments race, encourages it to hope that our recovery program will end by making discontent only stronger. We pay the most in the end by nibble and gnaw, but we never get the freedom and peace that we bargain for-haggle for.

And yet, the heart of our dilemma is that we do not have the means to do more than nibble and gnaw at rearming and recovery, so long as we democracies keep independent of the other democracies. We ourselves are already short, or facing shortages of various things. Our prices are already high. We are already running a practically full employment. We carry already a huge burden of debt, and taxes are so high that Congress has decided they must be cut.

To double our armaments expenditure, add some kind of draft, and arm the free in western Europe with military lend-lease, while spending $5,000,000,000 on European recovery will not free us from our dilemma. This is not enough to do the job but is more than enough to raise prices still higher. The higher they go, the less arms and goods we and our friends will get for our billions.

The more men we put in the armed forces, the fewer we have left for civilian production. And other men and materials must be diverted from civilian production to arm, freed, and clothe each new soldier, leaving that much less to thwart dictatorship on the recovery front.

thin soup.

Worse still, this also is true of the free in western Europe. France, for example, is now spending one third of its budget on defense while students at the Sorbonne, its intellectual leaders of tomorrow, live on

All this makes for worse inflation, here and in Europe, and inflation makes for dictatorship. Nothing would seem more calculated to aid communism now than the destruction of private capital, and inflation or devaluation wipes out the savings of the stablest element in any nation, the middle class. The middle class in Germany, after inflation robbed it of its savings, turned to Hitler's national socialism. Communism has risen as successive devaluations have been converting the French bourgeoisie into the proletariat. And now the British are threatened with this blow at their private capital. The higher prices are driven by rearmament, the more vulnerable the basis of free enterprise and middle-class stability becomes in Britain.

By arming European nations at the cost of their living standards, we risk seeking them, when it hurts us the most, deliver their arms, perhaps through an election, to some dictator who will use them against us-deliver their arms, their country, their bases.

Yet, to speed recovery in western Europe at the cost of defense is to risk seeing the Red Army one day take over the prize with no more of a battle than it had in Czechoslovakia, or the Nazis had in Denmark or Holland. And the road to recovery will be costly and slow so long as Europeans fear that all they rebuild will be destroyed by war or seized by dictatorship.

Neither course solves our dilemma. There is still less hope of solving it through the United Nations, or through calling a conference to revise its Charter. Nor can we escape it by merely seeking to create a security pact through article 51 of the Charter.

These proposals seem to me to pay too little attention to the recovery side of the dilemma. Moreover, they ignore the basic relation of freedom to recovery and peace, and place the freest nations on the same plane as the others, even the dictatorships. They further ignore these practical facts: (1) The armed power on which we and the UN must depend to meet the aggressor is overwhelmingly concentrated in the few democracies I have listed. (2) the economic power on which the world depends for recovery is also concentrated in these same democracies. All that the proposals before you would do, if carried out, would be to shift at least some of the control over this armed and economic power from the 15 democracies to 30 other nations none of whom have succeeded in assuring individual freedom for even 50 years. This means lessening the safeguards that freedom gives against aggression, while lessening, too, its stimulus to protection.


The only way we can solve our dilemma is by federating the free, forming the Great Union of the Atlantic. The experience of every one of the world's freed federal unions—the United States, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, the Union of South Africa-shows that free states immensely increase both their military and productive power by uniting organically in a political, military, economic, and monetary federal union.

Whatever power for recovery and defense the free can achieve as 15 separate nations, they can achieve far more economically and effectively by federal union. Every one of them, large or little, needs only federate with all the others to be infinitely better protected than it is now, or can be by alliance. Whatever power they can achieve as two separate unions-a United States of Europe and a United States of America—they can achieve far better by forming one union.

Whether divided into 15 soverign fractions or into two sovereign halves, experience teaches every free people to fear that it cannot depend on an ally, and encourages every dictator to hope that where the free are unfederated they can be taken one after another.

Merely by removing all uncertainty on this score, federal union of the free adds enormous power at no cost whatever. By leaving no doubt anywhere that all our industrial, sea, and air power is tightly united to the far-flung bases of the British and European democracies, the union could enjoy much more effective naval and air power at far less cost than we pay for these arms. By my estimates, this union could provide much more effective protection than we have now, at a saving of at least $5,000,000,000 a year-enough to finance the recovery of the European states of the union.

As for production, to quote Fortune magazine's editorial on my book, Union Now; which called it a vision of the greatest political and economic opportunity in history:

Gigantie opportunities would be opened up. A rise in the standard of living of millions of consumers would result from the expansion of markets and the consequent lowering of prices for mass-produced goods.

A genuine union of the democracies, then, opens up a vista of industrial growth to which the only enlightening parallel is the growth of the United States itself.


Now, how does this affect the structure of the United Nations and the relation of the United States to UNO

This policy of federal union is completely in accord with the policy urged by Secretary Marshall and Ambassador Austin, that the United States should avoid trying at this time to revise the Charter drastically or abolish the veto, and should seek to strengthen the United Nations without changing its structure. I strongly support their policy in these regards. I could add some more arguments, should you desire, to those they have given.

I agree with the proposers of the resolutions before you that the Charter is defective; indeed, I find it far more defective than the resolutions indicate. But even if I believe that they got to the heart of the trouble, I would deem them uswise for I believe it is impossible to remove the basic defects from the UN as a whole, at this stage in world development, and that the attempt to do so by revising the Charter would do far more harm than good.

With all its profound defects, the UN is at least a stronger organization than could be made tomorrow on so universal a basis. Though I believe that no organization on a universal basis, or composed of too divergent nations, can be strong enough to keep the peace, I agree it can do much secondary good, and the more universal it is the more secondary good it can do. I would keep the structure of the UN as it it for the present, if only to keep Russia in it.

The federal union policy I urge is also in full accord with State Department policy in seeking to strengthen the UN in all the major ways Ambassador Austin recommended by: (1) hastening European and world recovery, (2) strengthening our military posture and that of our friends, and (3) promoting associations of like-minded states within the framework of the UN.

This federal union policy requires no change in the structure of the United Nations—for there is nothing in the Charter to forbid any two or more nations from voluntarily forming an organic union. Like the Benelux customs union, it runs no risk of being delayed by a Soviet veto. It avoids a head-on collision with Soviet Russia at Lake Success when tempers are tense. Like the western European pact, and the project for real European union, it involves no secession from the United Nations. Like the United States itself, the union of the free could form a security pact with other nations under article 51 of the Charter.

Clearly the State Department sees no danger to the United Nations in a few European nations strengthening the power behind peace and production by forming an association together, backed by ourselves

. What danger then can there be in a few democracies, including our own, achieving this still better by federal union, and tying it tightly to freedom?


The main differences between the federal union policy and the official United States policy presented to you are merely these two:

1. By federating the freest men, instead of merely associating their governments, the policy of union of the free puts much more power

, decisive material and moral power, far more swiftly, effectively, safely and enduringly behind world recovery and peace, and does it at infinitely less cost in money, materials and men.

2. The policy of union of the free is not a confused mixture with little spiritual tone; it is a clean-cut, creative philosophy of freedom and union, a faith that holds and teaches that equal individual freedom leads to prosperity and peace, that puts freedom first, and keeps freedom first through federating the free. It is heart and soul in the American tradition. It is the American Revolution, the Revolution stained by no reign of terror, the Revolution that has brought more individuals more freedom, equality, fraternity, peace, and prosperity than any other in history. The policy of union of the free is the kindly, hard-headed American Revolution alive again, and marching peacefully, courageously on.

Surely none can object to federal union because it puts more power behind production and recovery, achieves the most armed power at the least cost. None can object because it puts the bulk of world power decisively behind the Charter without changing its structure. And who can object to federal union because it gives the best guaranty that this overwhelming power will be governed by all the safeguards of individual freedom? Who can object because it keeps freedom first, makes it again a living, articulate faith?


True, some fear that by putting freedom first, making it the test of federation, we may offend nations who are not invited to help found this union. But the more immature or partial democracies that you invite, the harder it will be to form any strong union, the less chance you will have to succeed, and the less you will be doing for freedom. The more you identify federation with freedom, the better your chances to federate firmly, and the more your success will give prestige to freedom.

Nothing, we know, succeeds like success. Think of how the success of our 13 little States in forming the first free federal union encouraged the Latin American colonies to revolt and model their governments on ours. Consider how many nations sought to copy the parliamentary institutions of Britain in the nineteenth century when Britain was the strongest of powers.

We must take our risks one way or another, risk temporarily hurting some feelings or risk fatally weakening freedom. We must put our faith primarily in one thing or another, in principles or in numbers, in a strong federal union of the world's freest people, or in another loose league of as many dictatorships and immature democracies as we can assemble.

The more we put our faith clearly in freedom, then the more clearly we can prove by the results that individual freedom is the best way to prosperity and peace, and the more rapidly other nations will seek not only freedom themselves, but union with us. clearly we demonstrate, not only here but, more important, in western Europe where doubt is most dangerous, that freedom works when coupled with federal union, then the more we shall find other nations imitating our institutions.

Identify freedom clearly with power for peace and production, prove it by the fruits of your union, promise to admit to the union, those who best practice freedom, and you irresistibly stimulate this human imitative instinct. Carry out this promise once the union is made and even the Kremlin cannot forever resist this peaceful pressure toward freedom and union.

The more


What do you need to do at this stage to launch the policy I advocate? You need only make your resolution one that requests the President to invite the nations most experienced in governing themselves on a basis of equal individual freedom to send delegates to meet in convention with our delegates to explore how best they can advance their freedom, and therefore world peace and prosperity, by framing a constitution to unite their people in an organic federal union. You already know the list that I would name as having the most experience in this field.

The resolution should, I think, specify that the union shall guarantee all its citizens no less individual liberty than the United States Constitution guarantees us, shall remain open to membership by other nations willing and able to meet its standards of freedom, and shall uphold the United Nations and its ideals. For the benefit of other peoples who are not as familiar with federal union as we Americans

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »