Изображения страниц

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 ;3 (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 hy 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.

6 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. Vores. 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 ? 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 2. Aiken (R), Vermont; Raymord E. Baldwin

(R), Connecticut; Joseph H. Ball (R), Minnesota ; Harry F. Byrd (D), Virginia ; Harry P. Cain

(R), Washington; Homer E. Cape hart (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. Juda (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 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.

if need be—but not necessarily against Russia. Already 30 Senators and Representatives have introduced in Congress a resolution calling for this reorganization by means of a concrete formula known as the ABC plan.

Heretofore Americans have been divided into three groups of opinion on the vital question of our policy toward the U. S. S. R. There are those who feel we should appease Russia. The second group sees no other solution than to “bomb her with the atomic bomb now." The third, at present directing our foreign policy, puts its faith in half measures designed to "contain" further Soviet expansion. Careful scrutiny of these "solutions" can show only that each is bound to fail.

Appeasement might succeed if the issue were only between the Russian and American peoples; their hands might have been clasped in lasting friendship long ago. But the enslaved Russian people do not make their own decisions as to war or peace. The only ones who count politically in Russia today are the 14 members of the Politburo, whose avowed purpose is a Communist world-state and who have proclaimed the United States their Enemy Number One. We cannot risk the destiny of our country on the forlorn hope that these 14 ideological fanatics may lose their absolute power or abandon their announced goal.

A war of aggression by the United States is practically impossible. We are a Christian people who will fight heroically to defend our country against aggression; indeed, our moral strength comes from the conviction that aggression is evil. But a sneak attack on Russia, an American-engineered Pearl Harbor, is simply out of the question. We don't do business that way.

Our present half-measure policy of "containment” is proving equally futile. It does not remove the threat of atomic war now hanging over the world, relieve the backbreaking load of the armament race, or stop aggression. In a world of power politics the United States cannot buy peace on the installment plan.

The only way out of this impasse, the only way that is certain to be supported by the great majority of the American people, is via the United Nations. Not the present impotent, veto-ridden organization, but the promised United Nations, so designed that no nation may rearm for aggression with impunity or attack a divided world with any chance of success. This promise can be fulfilled by the ABC plan.

The plan consists of three proposals to solve the three basic problems which must be solved in order to make the United Nations work—the problem of the veto; the problem of the armament race, particularly the atomic race; and the problem of establishing a powerful but tyranny-proof world police force. These proposals may be summarized as follows: A. Elimination of the Unrestricted Veto

In the present Security Council, the right of veto applies even when a major state is accused of aggression, so that the Council is like a perpetually hung jury on which the criminal himself sits and has the right to vote in his own case “not guilty.” This tragic farce has been played before the peoples of the world ever since the United Nations was founded. Accordingly, revision A provides that in matters specifically concerning aggression and preparation for aggression the right of veto by any single state will be abolished.

In all other matters involvings national sovereignty, however-such as selfdefense, taxation or immigration—the veto right will be retained. The right to veto is the right to be sovereign, and the right to be sovereign is the right to be free. The only sovereign right that the United States would give up in revision A is the "right” to arm for, or wage, a war of aggression. This "right" the American Nation may be expected to surrender if the other nations do likewise.

With the veto thus abolished in matters of aggression, the representation in the present 11-member Security Council must be changed so that the 6 smaller states cannot outvote the five permanent members. Accordingly, the Council is to be reorganized to include two members each from Russia, the British Com. monwealth and the United States; one each from France and China ; and two selected collectively by the smaller member states. This makes a new Council of 10 members to be ruled, in vetoless matters, by a majority of 6.

Next, an impartial World Court must be created. The present International Court of Justice has only picayune powers—it is actually forbidden to judge any case of international gangsterism unless the international gangster himself consents to be so judged! The new World Court provided by revision A will in terpret the revised United Nations Charter and judge governments and individuals.

Thus the ABC plan solves the first basic problem of international organization : How to give the Security Council enough power to prevent or stop aggression, and yet preserve the essential sovereignty and freedom of member states. As a result, the United Nations is liberated from the strait jacket of the veto, and a true world authority is established. B. Abolition of the Atomic Threat and the Armament Race

In the midst of an unparalleled armament race, and after nearly 3 years of existence, the United Nations has accomplished exactly nothing to remove the atomic threat or initiate world disarmament. To prevent aggressive war we must first of all prevent armament for aggressive war. Revision B provides for this as follows:

In the case of atomic weapons the revised Security Council will establish an Atomic Development Authority for international control of atomic energy, along the general lines of the official United States proposal of June 14, 1946.

In the case of heavy armament-armored ships of land, sea, and air—the revised Security Council will establish a world-wide limitation on its production in accordance with a new technique, called the quota force method. First, the rerised Security Council will fix annually the total amount of heavy armament of each kind that may be produced throughout the world in any year. A quota equal to 20 percent of this world limit will be produced by the Security Council itself in the territories of the smaller member-states. The remaining 80 percent-enough for defense, not enough for aggression—will be produced by the five major member-states in their territories and subject only to their own governments (except for inspection), in accordance with these individual quotas: the United States, the British Commonwealth and Russia, 20 percent each; and France and China, 10 percent each.

This creates a new kind of international cartel, where the scarcity created is the scarcity of the merchandise of death.

If any major state, such as Russia, refuses to participate in this world quota limitation, then the Security Council will decree an extra quota of production to be distributed among the member-states in proportion to their resources, and of such size that the nonparticipating state will be faced with the hopeless task of competing against the overwhelming productive capacity of the rest of the world.

But what if Soviet Russia remains outside and, refusing any inspection, starts piling up atomic weapons in defiance of the revised United Nations? In that event, there will come into effect a special clause of the revised Charter under which the remaining permanent Security Council members—the United States, the British Commonwealth, France and China-may declare Russia a threat to the peace of the world and an aggressor. Russia then will be given an ultimatum: either to stop atomic armament, by submitting to the reasonable international control and inspection prevailing for all other states, or to evacuate her industrial centers in expectation of immediate atomic coercion. At the same time, the door will be left wide open for Russia to rejoin the UN as a permanent member.

The ABC plan thus solves the second basic problem of international organization : how to disarm the world and yet preserve the unimpaired sovereignty of member-states and their capacity for armed self-defense. C. A new kind of world police force

The UN does not now have, even on paper, what it needs to keep the peacea powerful world police force of its own, unaffected by selfish interests of its member-states, strong enough to suppress aggression by any state, yet so designed that it cannot become an instrument of world tyranny.

Revision C provides a special international contingent as the active force of the world police ; the armed forces of the five major states, called the National Contingents, will serve as reserves when needed. The international contingent, under direct control of the Security Council, will consist of volunteers recruited exclusively from the citizens of the smaller member-states. It will be a highly paid, highly trained professional army, equipped with the heavy armament produced by the Security Council, and automatically limited to 20 percent of the world's effective armed strength-as strong as any major state. If the international contingent alone is not able to cope with an aggressor or combination of aggressors, the governments of major states are pledged, subject to their constitutional processes, to make their national armed forces available against the aggressor.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »