Изображения страниц

Herber Agar, former editor of the Louisville (Ky.) Courier-Journal, special assistant to Ambassador Winant in London during the war, wrote me May 1 from England:

"I believe we could soon get a union of the democracies, and I believe it is the only thing that will save this perishing world. Under the pressure of the present awful danger the climate of opinion has changed in England and I think in western Europe. The people who cried out against anything which even temporarily excluded Russia have ceased crying, and the people who belittled anything daringly new have ceased belittling.

"At home I spoke in 45 States this winter. The American people have never been in a better mood. They are not frightened but they are serious. They know that although inexperienced in many fields America is the most experienced Nation on earth in the problems of a vast federal empire. A great many of them would like to see America give the world a lead out of this long and fruitful experience."

While certain officials in other democracies may well oppose union for the reasons Mr. Vorys suggested, I think it highly unlikely many even of these would oppose accepting a United States invitation to a federal convention. Since attending it would not commit them to any constitution it framed, I cannot imagine them thus snubbing the house that holds the purse-least of all now when they fear what may happen to European recovery appropriations next year.

Surely it is not impossible for your committee so to draft the resolution as to make it very attractive to the people in Europe, and very hard for any officials but the Communists to oppose attending the convention. The more the resolution accents freedom, and experience in assuring freedom, the harder it will be even for the fellow travelers to reject the honor we do each democracy we invite. It will be much harder to refuse to attend this convention than any of the other conferences that you have been urged, in these hearings, to recommend.

How could Britain refuse if Canada or Australia came, or France and the Low Countries? How could either of the last two refuse if the other accepted? Those who fear we might be snubbed may be reassured by the fact that before the whole prestige of the United States is engaged there would be three preliminary steps: House action, Senate action, Executive action. The re action to the first step would show whether the fears of refusal were grounded. If by any chance that were the result of this trial balloon, the Senate might well balk. But if the response to House action were enthusiastic, the Senate would approve and the United States would risk no rebuff.

By the former hypothesis, the House would have done the American people the great service of proving that they were ready to explore federation with the free, and of relieving them of all responsibility for what resulted from others having opposed such exploration. By the latter hypothesis, the House would have won the historic honor of having initiated the greatest undertaking of the age.

Though I feel confident the response would be very favorable, I would agree that the test requires courage. But, I would repeat, we cannot hope to win without war this struggle for freedom if we seek to win it without courage, too.


CLARENCE K. STREIT, President, Federal Union. Inc.

Mr. VORYS. Thank you very much for this very interesting and stimulating discussion.

The committee is adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning in the caucus room.

(The following communications have been submitted for inclusion: in the record:)

(Whereupon, at 5: 35 p. m., the committee adjourned.)



In the month of March 1948 a group of 25 prominent citizens of the city of Richmond, Va., formed the Richmond Committee for the United Nations for the purpose of asking public support for House Concurrent Resolution 59.

During the weeks of March and early April this committee of citizens asked local organizations to hear volunteer speakers and to hold discussion meetings on this subject. Following such meetings, endorsing resolutions were passed by

over 50 organizations, including the Richmond Federation of Parent-Teacher Associations; the Third Virginia District Conference, American Legion; Junior Chamber of Commerce; Richmond Ministerial Union; City CIO Council; City A. F. of L. Council; and many men's clubs, women's clubs, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish religious groups. Costs of printing petitions was volunteered by the United World Federalists, Richmond chapter.

The mayor of Richmond declared the week of April 19 to be United Nations Week in the city, and printed petitions were circulated by volunteers. These petitions call on "the President and Congress of the United States to initiate and support the action necessary to empower the United Nations to enact, interpret, and enforce world law to prevent war."

In 1 week, with little publicity other than street conversation and hand-to-hand petition circulating, over 21,000 signatures were secured. The largest number of votes ever cast in the city of Richmond was 32,000 (1944). Signatures on the petitions were limited to persons of voting age, residing within the city limits. This figure of 21,000 does not yet include the tabulations of one of the largest individual circulating groups, the organized labor unions, which are conducting their own solicitations; and there are other thousands who have not yet had the opportunity to sign. Petition workers have estimated that, after reading the explanatory material on the back of the petition, 9 out of 10 persons sign it immediately and enthusiastically.

The local committee consists of men and women holding the following positions, to indicate the breadth of their interests: Presidents of the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad, Virginia Electric & Power Co., Richmond Chamber of Commerce, Junior Chamber of Commerce, and Bank of Virginia; presidents of the CIO and A. F. of L. labor councils; former presiding bishop, Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States; Catholic bishop of the diocese of Richmond; pastor, First Baptist Church; president, Baptist Ministers' Conference (Negro); the presidents of the League of Women Voters, Federation of ParentTeacher Associations, General Federation of Women's Clubs, University of Richmond, Medical College of Virginia, Union Theological Seminary, Virginia Union University, Interclub Council, and the Richmond Bar Association; the commander, third Virginia district, American Legion; rabbi, Beth Ahabah Synagogue; the immediate past president of the Richmond Citizens Association and a former mayor of the city of Richmond.

This report, therefore, is submitted to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives in the belief that it is strong proof of the following premise:

That the citizens of a typical diversified American city, such as Richmond, Va., when given the opportunity to express themselves as to United States policy with regard to the United Nations, overwhelmingly approve House Concurrent Resolution 59.


(By Emile Benoit-Smullyan 1)

Our first task is to stop Russian expansion, and stop it cold. This can be done without changing the UN. The Red Army can be kept from external aggression by a mutual defense-against-aggression pact under which the United States would guarantee military aid to any signatory nation subjected to armed aggression. Such a pact should, however, be integrated in the UN structure (not superficially but fundamentally) by a provision that it would become operative only when a majority of the Security Council, including a majority of its permanent members, votes that an act of external aggression has taken place.

By this one stroke the United Nations would be transformed from a prematurely moribund into a dynamic, functioning organization. Everything essential that could be accomplished by the obilition of the veto would be accomplished. Moreover, Russia would be powerless to obstruct such action by veto, since the initiative would be wholly with the United States. At the same time, the voting requirement would protect us against becoming involved in conflicts where the issues were confused and where no clear-cut aggression could be demonstrated. Moreover, if the Soviets complained that such a defense pact was aimed at Russia, they could be invited to join it.

1 Professor of economics and head of the departments of economics and sociology for the Associated Colleges of Upper New York

Internal aggression by the Communist Parties must also be checked. He e, the Marshall and Truman plans are indispensable. We must stand ready to rush all necessary diplomatic, financial, and military aid to any nation subjected to serious Communist pressure. But we should insist that the governments receiving our aid be genuinely democratic, and that they supply their peoples with a good and efficient brand of government. This is vital. Democracy, of course, is not incompatible with vigorous measures of internal defense. Ideological freedom need not be allowed to protect what are in effect treasonable activities.

Next, we must insist on a show-down and an over-all settlement. The Russians now have the scientific and technical information to build atomic bombs. There remain only a very few years of grace. Thereafter, in the absence of a satisfactory settlement, we will have no assurance of survival from one day to another. What kind of settlement shall we propose? Prior experience suggests that no agreement with Russia will be worth anything unless there is established an agency strong enough to assure that such agreements once made will really be enforced. In addition to settlement of all the chief substantive problems (boundaries, bases, economic cooperations, etc.) now dividing the eastern and western blocs, a final settlement will, therefore, have to include provisions for the establishment of a watertight security system under which nations will surrender the war-making power, and will delegate to a strengthened UN the right to enforce their agreements.


Such a system requires a fundamental agreement among the nations (1) to abstain henceforth from external or internal aggression; (2) to transfer to the UN certain major weapons and "dangerous" research; (3) to establish in the UN the judicial and executive organs needed to interpret, apply, and enforce this agreement. Note, however, that, since the basic law under which the system was to operate would be obtained by voluntary international agreement, no world legislature beyond the present General Assembly and Security Council would seem to be required.

The fundamental difficulty in the way of any such solution lies in the fact that the nations, and particularly the eastern and western blocs, do not trust one another. The only chance I can see of surmounting this difficulty is to select the world executive and judicial agencies on an entirely new principle. Their members must no longer represent national governments or peoples. They must instead be world citizens, who are willing to renounce their national citizenship and to assume an overriding loyalty to the world organization itself. They must be selected on the basis of their independence, freedom from national bias, devotion to the ideals of internationalism, and solid integrity. Most of them would undoubtedly be drawn from the small and traditionally neutral nations. All of them should ideally be subject in their selection to a veto by any of the great powers. If possible, no person should be selected who is thought by either the eastern or western blocs to be biased or untrustworthy. Obviously, there are very few people who would be acceptable on this basis. The ability to agree

According to the testimony of Secretary Forrestal on April 12.


Internal aggression, the subsidizing of revolution or treason, is difficult to define. It may be reached by a ban on the giving of any aid to a foreign national without his government's knowledge and consent.

The quota-force idea of a balance of power in armaments is based on strictly preatomic thinking. Mass-destruction weapons are of indeterminate potency. There is no way of balancing them. They can be controlled only if monopolized by the law-enforcement agency. And only a monopoly of certain major weapons of conventional type can assure that the monopoly of mass-destruction weapons will be maintained.

The complex and difficult problems of establishing these executive and judicial organs within the UN, and in particular of preventing abuses of power by them, cannot be discussed here for lack of space. I do believe, however, that reasonably satisfactory solutions are possible. Some preliminary suggestions may be found in the following articles by this author:

An American Foreign Policy for Survival, Ethics, vol. LVI. No. 4, July 1946, p. 290. Control of Atomic Energy by the United Nations, the Antioch Review, winter, 1946-47, p. 494.

Why Minimal World Government, Common Cause, June 1948.

The failure to find an acceptable governor for Trieste illustrates the difficulties that would be experienced just as our ability to agree on Trygve Lie as Secretary General of the UN illustrates that success is sometimes possible. It is important to realize that once there is a sincere willingness on both sides to renounce war and to establish an effective security system, the problem will become less political and much more a technical problem of personnel selection on the basis of mutually agreed upon criteria. It is important to add that the chief executive as well as the judiciary would in this case almost certainly be a board (operating on a majority vote) rather than an individual. There would, therefore, be some room for compromise and bargaining. If both sides were really eager to reach an agreement, there is nothing in the process which would make it impossible for them to do it.

on some set of candidates might then constitute the real test of the sincerity of both sides.'

In negotiating with the Kremlin, we must never forget that its most vital interest is the retention of its present dictatorship over the Russian people. We must clearly make up our minds whether we are really seeking to find a basis of agreement with it or a good excuse to undermine and attack it. Unless we intend war with it (and unfortunately this means with the Russian people as well), we must, it seems to me, lean over backward to offer it complete security against both external and internal aggression, bearing fully in mind the inevitable vulnerability and insecurity of every dictatorship.

Having done this, however, I feel that we will be morally justified in not taking "no" for an answer. In the atomic age the unwillingness to renounce dangerous research and the weapons of mass destruction, the refusal to accept the necessary inspection, and failure to cooperate in the establishment of an effective security system becomes itself a form of aggression, and, indeed, a most terrible form. This I believe we will have to recognize, and on this basis we will have to act.

The nations would not, of course, transfer real power to the amended UN until the first set of new officers had beer agreed upon. As for replacements, these could be chosen by the incumbent if the great powers were unable to agree upon their successors.


THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1948


Washington, D. C.

The committee convened at 10: 15 a. m. in the caucus room, House Office Building, Hon. John M. Vorys presiding. Mr. VORYS. The committee will come to order. The first witness will be Mr. Ely Culbertson.


Mr. CULBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, I will have two parts to my statement. Part 1, which I shall not read, but shall file with your committee, is an article entitled "The ABC Plan for World Peace," written in support of House Concurrent Resolution 163, that will appear in the coming June issue of the Reader's Digest.

Mr. VORYS. Without objection, the document referred to will appear in the record at this point.

(The document referred to is as follows:)

[From the Reader's Digest, June 1948]


By Ely Culbertson 2

New hope for a solution to the Russian problem is promised by a movement currently taking shape throughout the country. Its object is to make immediate revisions in the United Nations Charter, with Russia, if possible, without Russia

1 Following are the names of the Senators and Representatives who have supported the formula for revision of the UN advanced by Ely Culbertson in this article by introducing Congressional resolutions calling for implementatoin of the ABC plan: Senators: George D Aiken (R), Vermont; Raymond E. Baldwin (R), Connecticut; Joseph H. Ball (R), Minnesota; Harry F. Byrd (D), Virginia; Harry P. Cain (R), Washington; Homer E. Capehart (R), Indiana; Homer Ferguson (R), Michigan; Ralph E. Flanders (R), Vermont; Clyde R. Hoey (D), North Carolina: William E. Jenner (R), Indiana; Edwin C. Johnson (D), Colorado; Ernest W. McFarland (D), Arizona; Herbert R. O'Connor (D), Maryland; John Sparkman (D). Alabama; John C. Stennis (D), Mississippi; Charles W. Tobey (R), New Hampshire. Representatives: Raymond Burke (R), Ohio; William T. Byrne (D), New York; William M. Colmer (D). Mississippi; Ralph W. Gwinn (R), New York; Robert Halo (R), Maine; Brooks Hays (D), Arkansas; Pete Jarman (D), Alabama; Walter H. Judd (R), Minnesota; Estes Kefauver (D), Tennessee; Mike Mansfield (D), Montana; Frederick A. Muhlenberg (R), Pennsylvania; Karl E. Mundt (R), South Dakota; Richard M. Nixon (R), California; James P. Richards (D). South Carolina.

Ely Culbertson is eminently fitted by his American and Russian heritage to help bring peace between the two Nations. His father, an American mining engineer, developed the Grozny oil fields in the Caucasus; his mother was the daughter of a Cossack general. He once knew the inside of a Czarist prison in punishment for revolutionary activities and narrowly escaped with his life. (There, incidentally, he learned to play cards.) He studied systems of government and mass psychology at six universities in Europe and America, speaks eight languages. In 1940 he organized a group of political thi kers and dedicated himself to the task of creating a modern system for world organization, the results of which are reflected in the ABC plan. He is the author of World Federation Plan and Total Peace. Culbertson regards bridge as his hobby, a byproduct which finances his real lifework-the establishment of universal peace.


« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »