Изображения страниц

parently cannot understand that Congress might want to know their attitude before it moved. They also fear that an affirmative answer to questions asked them by Congressmen as regards union of the free might be construed as foreign interference in our affairs, to injure this proposal.

The reports I get indicate that western European opinion has been developing in our direction very fast, especially since the Kremlin's coup in Czechoslovakia. This makes it very hard to estimate our strength just now. I have no doubt that the great bulk of the world federal movement in all the other democracies, and the much more powerful movement for western European union would swing behind the idea of an Atlantic union of the free if the House adopted the resolution I have suggested.

Therefore, I can submit at this time only these indications to suggest the support our proposal would have abroad should the House adopt it:

1. Organizations.—Here are some of the federalist organizations in other democracies that could be counted on, I believe-even those that are now working for mere European union-to urge their governments to accept the proposed invitation to attend a federal convention of the free, if the United States issued it,

Britain: Federal Union, Ltd., London; New Commonwealth, London; London International Group, New Europe Group, London.

Eire: Federal Union, Newtown.

Union of South Africa : Federal Union, Johannesburg; Federal Union, Elizabethtown.

Australia : Federal Union, Sidney; Federal Union, Adelaide.
New Zealand : Federal Union, Auckland.
Canada : Federal Union, Toronto; Federal Government Association, Toronto.

France: Comite International pour la Federation Europeenne et Mondiale, Paris; Etats-Unis du Monde, Paris; La Federation, Paris; Union de Etudiants Federalistes, Paris; Union Economique et Federale Europeenne, Paris; Union Europeenne, Paris; Union federale mondiale, Paris.

Luxemburg : Union federale, Luxemburg.
Norway: Norsk Federalist Forbund, Olso.

Netherlands: Europeesche Actie voor Federale Unie, The Hague Universale Ligo (Esperanto), The Hague.

Sweden: Varldsfederalisterna, Stockholm.
Denmark : Een Verden, Copenhagen.

Switzerland: Centre d'action pour la federation europeenne, Geneva; Civitas Nova, Lugano; Institut Federaliste Europeen, Zurich; Europea Union, Basle ; Mouvement populaire suisse en faveur d'une federation mondiale, Geneva.

2. Leaders. Here are a few typical leaders who would, I have reason to believe, respond favorably if the House should adopt the resolution I suggest :



Prime Minister Attlee, who has publicly stated that'Europe must federate or perish.”

Foreign Secretary Bevin, who told me as early as 1939 that we could list him among the supporters of our policy, and who has stated in Parliament, as Foreign Secretary, that he was willing to sit down with delegates from other countries and try to work out a plan for federation.

Winston Churchill, who said in Parliament on August 20, 1940, commenting on the 99-year leases of certain bases to the U. S.: "Undoubtedly this process means that

the British Empire and the United States will have to be somewhat mixed up together in some of their affairs for mutual and general advantage. For my own part

I do not view the process with any misgivings.

No one can stop it. Like the Mississippi, it just keeps rolling along. Let it roll. Let it roll on full flood, inexorable, irresistible benignant, to broader lands and better days." Later he came out publicly for an Anglo-American citizenship. In his leadership toward a European union he has carefully kept the British position open for union with the United States, Canada, etc.

Ex-War Secretary Leslie Hore-Belisha, Ambassador Duff-Cooper, Lionel Curtis, one of the framers of the Constitution of the Union of South Africa ; Sir Norman Angell, Sir Clive Baillieu, president, Federation of British Industries; Sir Ernest Berker, W. B. Curry, C. E. M. Joad, Somerset Maugham, J. B. Priestley, Lord Beveridge, Vernon Bartlett, Wingfield Digby, Sir Ernest Graham-Little, and many other members of Parliament.



NOTE.—The press reported at the time of the marriage of Princess Elizabeth, the heir apparent, that one of her favorite books was Union Now. On May 14, 1948, the AP reported her as stating publicly: "We must work for the break-down of prejudices born of narrow-minded nationalism."


Louis St. Laurent, Minister of External Affairs, told the Canadian Parliament, according to a New York Times dispatch from Ottawa dated May 1, 1948; that, pending the strengthening of the United Nations, Canada should join whatever collective organization of free states that might be formed as an effective guaranty of peace.

Others known to favor the idea are:
Minister of Agriculture, J. G. Gardiner.

E. P. Taylor, industrialist, deputy Canadian member of Combined Production and Resources Board.

J. T. Thorson, ex-Minister of National War Services, Senator Bouchard, Wilson Southam of the Southam Newspaper chain, Wilson Woodside of "Saturday Night,” Columnist Elmore Philpott, etc.


W. J. F. Riordan, Minister for the Navy.

Leslie Haylen, M. P., who writes that he and many of his colleagues very strongly favor a union such as that propounded in Freedom and Union.

Hon. Ernest Anthony, M. L. C., Sir Robert Chapman, Kt. C. M. C.


Deputy Premier Walter Nash, Maj. C. F. Skinner, Minister of Rehabilitation, Col. F. Waite, and many other Members of Parliament, Archbishop West-Watson.


Jean Monnet, former cabinet member, now in charge of the Monnet plan for French reconstruction. (Mr. Monnet, who is exceptionally well informed about British and other western European official trends, told me last month that he had no doubt whatever that the French, British, and other western European governments would attend the proposed convention if the United States Government officially invited them.)

Ex-Premiers Reynaud and Blum; Lt. Gen. Matheneé, military attaché, Washington, D. C.; Firmin Roz, Mebre de l'Institut; Gouverneur Monick, Banque de France; Conseillers d'Etat Jean Morellet, Michiel Debro; Prof. Maurice Allais, Ecole des Mines; Maurice Schumann, secretary-general of the M. R. P. Party; Pertinax (André Geraud), André Maurois.

(NOTE.—The New French constitution contains a clause expressing France's willingness to limit its sovereignty in order to secure enduring peace.)


William Rappard, former delegate to the League of Nations.


Foreign Minister Spaak who, as early as March, 1944, wrote in Federal Union World that the future world organization “should consist only of democracies. I realize, of course, that there are objections to this * * but I believe that to be less dangerous than to introduce a wolf or wolves into the sheepfold. If an international organization is to be effective, those who take part in it must at least have the same conception of law and morality

The democracies are necessarily peace-loving.

But it is also necessary that they should be strong.

They cannot be strong unless they form a bloc in which the interests of each will be linked to the interests of all the others, and in which those who pursue other aims and practice other methods will not be allowed to play a dissolving and demoralizing role."

Ex-Premier Paul van Zeeland; Senateur Heri Rolin, delegate to the San Francisco UN Conference.







As early as 1943, the Dutch Ambassador to the United States, then Alexander Louden, told the DAR:

* Holland, though situated on the European continent, is, first and foremost, an Atlantic nation. The Dutch have never in the past linked their fate to the continent.

The lifelines which link the various parts of the kingdom are not land routes, but the sea routes and the skies. Our goal will be, therefore, to organize the security of the Atlantic to keep these lifelines open.

"One thing should be realized by every country which has interests in the Atlantic. In view of the development of air power, no single nation will be able to guard the Atlantic region effectively without the help and cooperation of like minded countries. “Should the Atlantic nations

come to the conclusion that peace in the Atlantic is an objective not inspired through any theoretical idealism, but required by and in conformity with their own self-interest, we might reasonably hope to witness the establishment of the Pax Atlantica.

For that very reason, I do not believe in any scheme

which tends to create a European federation.

The present ambassador, E. N. van Kleffens, said at Harvard March 17, 1948:

“Basically the dilemma is not economic in nature, but a question of civil rights and liberties.

The main problem is: Will western Europe preserve that attainment?

What chance of success has militant communism in western Europe? The next year or so will give the answer. And the answer does not depend on western Europe alone. It also, and in large measure, depends on the United States of America.

"It will, in other words, depend on what I should like to call the whole Atlantic--or at least the North Atlantic-community; all those countries around the North Atlantic Ocean, in America as well as in Europe

For it is the Atlantic which, shrunk to its present size in our aircraft age, is the link between all those countries which together have now to meet the challenge of communism.

“Around this sea are some of the principal countries where Christian concepts are the basis of our thinking and way of life, where the dignity of the individual is held dear, where freedom is the essence of our being, where the pursuit of happiness is everyone's birthright. What vibrates in us, western Europeans, vibrates in you Americans. Together, you and we, are the guardians of these sacred truths.

“The countries of Benelux saw the light first. In union lies greater strength. When the lights went out in Czechoslovakia, we, together with Britain and France, at once started making a solemn pact.

The peoples of western Europe take comfort from this new union. But it does ont completely dissipate their apprehension.



What, western Europe says, is America going to do in this emergency? Their future, they feel, may depend on the answer to that momentous question. Far be it from me to express an opinion on what you in this great country should—or should not-do. That is for you, and for you alone, to decide. But you will have to make a decision."

3. Polls and expert opinion.—So far as I know, no poll has yet been taken abroad of public opinion as regards our proposal. But since most Europeans who favor western European union would also favor trying to work out a federation with us, it is of interest to note the answers to the Roper survey reported (Time, April 12, 1948) to this question: "Generally speaking, are you in favor of the idea of a western European union or against the idea ?”

In favor






66 64 49 33


10 21 21 23

15 30

(When the Roper survey then asked Americans whether they would favor starting a United States of the World by federating with this union and other overseas democracies on a basis of representation proportionate to our population, the result was 43 percent in favor, 38 percent against, 19 percent undecided.)

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. Respectfully,


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.) STATEMENT OF PAUL SAUNIER, JR., FOR THE RICHMOND COMMITTEE FOR THE


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 peti ons 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 Parent: Teacher 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")

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. More over, 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

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »