« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
This new police force is powerful enough to stop aggression because the armed forces of the major states are also automatically limited in strength by their quotąs of armament production. It is important to remember that the effective strength of modern armed forces is largely based on their amount of heavy armament rather than on the number of soldiers equipped with light weapons. It is this fundan:ental fact that makes revisions B and C possible.
In the event that a major state refuses to participate, the establishment of the international contingent shall proceed at once anyhow. And the memberstates will be pledged to collective defense with all their resources, in case of aggression upon a member by the outside state.
Thus revision C solves the third and most important problem of international organization: It creates a self-balancing system of national armed forces, with an international contingent as a balance wheel so designed that no aggressor can overcome the system; and yet each major state retains its own military capacity to defend itself. The sixty-odd smaller sovereign states seek to survive, not to conquer. Individually they are impotent, but collectively they become a new world power of 400,000,000 population-a perpetual ally of the United States and all other peace-seeking nations. In any attempted war of aggression, even the strongest state would automatically be facing a 4-to-1 superiority.
For the United States, a revised UN simplifies the problem of how to save western Europe from communism. Whether Russia joins or not, she will no longer be able to use the threat of military force to back up her Communist Parties abroad. There would then be no need for the United States to give a blank check to the western European bloc in the form of a military guaranty, for the revised UN in itself is a military guaranty for all member states-a mutual, reciprocal guaranty and not a one-sided affair. A United States of Europe, impossible in the present atmosphere of power politics, could then evolve.
Above all, the ABC formula will bring a showdown with Soviet Russia and, by firm action now, avert the third world war later. It is hard to believe that Russia would choose to stay out of the revised UN for the ABC plan is even more favorable to her than it is to the United States. To Russia the ABC plan offers complete immunity from atomic aggression; permanent military strength equal to that of the United States; the additional protection of the International Contingent; and, above all, a guaranty against future aggression by the capitalistic powers. We Americans have no choice-we must either conquer the world or conquer
We prefer to conquer war. The ABC plan, the basic elements of which were formulated as far back as 1943, is a carefully thought-out product of the collective wisdom of hundreds of the best minds in the country. One Presidential candidate, Senator Taft, bas declared himself in favor of the ABC plan; two others—Harold Stassen and Governor Warren-support revision of the UN. Dorothy Thompson, head of a world organization of women, is for the ABC plan. The American Legion has officially adopted a virtually identical plan. Norman Thomas supports the idea. (When Norman Thomas and the American Legion agree, it is a minor miracleand indisputable proof of the unifying power of the ABC formula.)
Reprints of this article are available postpaid at nominal cost : 10 reprints.10) reprints. 1,000 reprints--
Address: Reprint Desk, the Reader's Digest, Pleasantville, N. Y.
The demand from all parts of the country which resulted in the introduction in Congress of resolutions calling for implementation of the ABC plan was the result of a widespread grass-roots movement. I have delivered more than 500 lectures on this plan, in almost every State in the Union. In the reaction of my audiences, and in the thousands of letters I have received following radio broadcasts and published articles, a new note is dominant-a note of hope. Endorsements of the plan by various branches of the General Federation of Women's
8 See A System to Win This War and the Peace to Come, by Ely Culbertson, the Reader's Digest, February 1943.
Clubs, member unions of the American Federation of Labor, and many church and educational organizations convince me that a large majority of the Americanpeople favor a solution which is not appeasement of Russia or war against her, but a revised UN to protect all members equally.
The time we have left in which to act is, however, tragically short. We have frittered away three precious years since Hiroshima. We have accomplished virtually nothing to disperse the atomic cloud now gathering over every Russian and American home. And if we continue drifting confusedly we shall reach eventually that fateful hour when no American will go to bed at night with the assurance that he will not be annihilated before morning by an atomic blast.
We might win that atomic war; but victory would be tragic comfort to those who survived the holocaust, for they would have to answer this ominous question : What did you do to avoid atomic disaster during the years when the United States held the destiny of the world in the palm of her hand?
Yet if we act now, there is hope. We still can win the great peace. We still have the active friendship of most of the world. The power of the United States in relation to Russia is still overwhelming. Above all, we still have the monopoly of atomic energy. History, however, has imposed a fateful atomic time table upon us. The time limit of our unquestioned superiority and immunity is probably only a few years.
During these few years the decision must be made. I submit that the ABC plan is the one answer to the world emergency. It deserves the support of all men and women of good will.
Mr. CULBERTSON. In part 2, my spoken testimony, I will deal largely with some of the fundamental questions raised during these hearings, which I have followed with passionate interest and, I hope, some degree of objectivity.
I think it was Congressman Lodge who, when speaking about my dear friends and first cousins, the Federalists, said that they were the men of the future. Indeed they are men of a noble ideal, the ideal of a world government of men good and true—an ideal which we all share, even though some of us believe that it can best and quickest be reached by the way of more limited objectives. At these hearings we also listened to men of the past--distinguished men like Ambassador Austin and Secretary Marshall-men are apparently oblivious of the elementary fact that between the San Francisco Conference and today there are not 3 years, but 3,000 years—there is a vast gulf, created by the Hiroshima bomb. It is fantastic but true that in a total of over 6,000 words of their prepared testimony before this committee, I could find not a single reference by either Secretary Marshall or Ambassador Austin to history's most momentous issue now before the world—the atomic bomb.
My testimony will deal with the present, and by the present, I mean not only today, but the few years immediately ahead of us, which belong to the stream of today.
In my opinion, the most important issue of today, the most important issue in this committee, in the Congress, in the Nation, in the world—the most important issue in history-is the issue of how to stop 14 Godless fanatics in control of an enslaved Russian giant from building atomic bombs.
At this very moment, while I am speaking to you, these Moscow. rulers are feverishly engaged in the depths of Russia in building atomic plants out of which will come, if they have not come already, the atomic bombs. The question is, how soon.
According to the estimates of Mr. Churchill while still the Prime Minister in August 1945 (reading]: there are perhaps 3 or 4 years before the great progress of the United States: can be overtaken.
This means that Soviet Russia will probably have some atomic bombs this year or next.
The United States, starting from scratch and groping in the dark, took only 3 years from August 1942 to 1945 to experiment, devise, test, and produce atomic bombs. It stands to reason that Soviet Russia, especially with the help of thousands of German scientists and in possession of the blueprints and know-how brought through their world-wide spy ring, will produce enough atomic bombs by 1950— which is 5 years after Hiroshima-to threaten the destruction of scores of American cities, from skies or cellars.
In his Potsdam speech, Prime Minister Churchill also wrote: “There is not an hour to be wasted; there is not a day to be lost."
Our President, our successive secretaries of State, virtually all of our leading physicists, reiterated this solemn admonition. Today, nearly 3 years have passed since Hiroshima. I ask Ambassador Austin: What has the present, impotent, veto-ridden United Nations accomplished to remove this atomic cloud now gathering over the homes of the world? It grieves me deeply to observe that in his testimony before this committee the Ambassador had no place for the atomic bomb, although he did find room for exalting the present United Nations in its achievement of aiding Peru to establish refrigeration and storage facilities for its fishing industry.”
As recently as September 17, 1947, Secretary Marshall stated at the opening of the United Nations General Assembly [reading]:
The control of atomic and other weapons of mass destruction has perhaps the highest priority if we are to remove the specter of war of annihilation.
I regret to say that at no place in his testimony last week was there a hint of a step, or even a half step, to remove the specter of annihilation.
Instead, Secretary Marshall announced [reading]: A fundamental task of the United Nations and of our foreign policy is to dispel the misconceptions of the Soviet leaders and to bring about a more realistic view of what is possible and what is impossible in the relationship between the Soviet Union and the world at large.
And in order to discover realistically what is possible and what is impossible with the Soviet leaders, Ambassador Smith, the day before the Secretary's appearance here, was dispatched on a trip to Cannossa, Russia, only to discover that the Soviet leaders did not want to have their misconceptions dispelled.
In his testimony before your committee Secretary Marshall said, in opposition to the resolutions for the revision of the United Nations [reading]:
Under the auspices of the United Nations we are meeting with the U. S. S. R. in hundreds of meetings each year. It would be unfortunate to break off this relationship.
Unfortunate, indeed, and even tragic. Two days after Secretary Marshall spoke these words the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, established 2 years ago to save the world from the atomic threat, ceased to exist. It confessed to the world that after 240 meetings it could not control a single atom. These 2 years of tragic futility for the American and western world were of immense value to the 14 men of the Politburo.
The Russian military strategists, unlike some of our own military experts, realize thoroughly that the primary obstacle that stands between their hundreds of divisions and the conquest of Europe and Asia is the American atomic bomb. And while they relentlessly seek to remedy this deficiency, our State Department, with equal fervor seeks peace in our time.
I must confess to an overwhelming feeling of fantastic unreality that envelops our foreign policy. For here are leaders who are among the most respected and, in their fields, the most intelligent Americans. The whole world owes a profound debt of gratitude to General Marshall, one of the two great organizers of victory. And yet these leaders, and many others, are not only permitting the Moscow dictators to build their atomic bombs with impunity, but are also defending an impotent United Nations so that these men in the Kremlin may attack a divided world with chances of success.
Soon, in a year or two-a little more or less matters not—50,000,000 Americans living in our larger cities will discover that they can no longer go to bed at night with the assurance that they and their dear ones will not be annihilated by atomic blasts. Then the people of America will turn to their leaders—their local leaders and the national leaders—they will ask of all of us, in Congress and outside, this fateful question: What did you do to avert this terrible atomic threat during these all-precious years, from 1945, on, when the United States held the destiny of the world in the palm of her hand ?
As I consider this momentous question, as I think that every month we lose to the Soviet rulers may be paid by generations of American tears, all others questions raised by the antirevisionists in defense of the veto, in justification for the absence of a world law and an international police force, not to speak of the many and sundry lagal technicalities advanced-all such objections become not only irrelevant but irreverent. For, are we and our children to perish from atomic blasts because of the legalistic scrupulosities of the architects of the veto whose pride of authorship is greater than their fear of the onrushing catastrophe?
Yesterday, the committee heard one authority who is one of the authors of the San Francisco Charter, Mr. John Foster Dulles. But, pride of authorship did not blind him to the reality of the atomic and Communist bombs. He did not cling stubbornly to the absolute defense of the Charter as it is—a defense which is no longer tenable in view of the profoundly changed conditions. As a result, without losing his old friends, he has gained many new ones.
It is to be hoped that another and most distinguished foreign policy leader, Senator Vandenberg, will not only follow the road of openmindedness taken by Mr. Dulles, but will overcome some of Mr. Dulles' needless reservations. Certainly Senator Vandenberg could not be accused of excessive pride of authorship. His defect is the defect of his virtue-excessive collaboration with the State Department.
As evidence of this I cite a remarkable resolution introduced day before yesterday by Senator Vandenberg in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 'It not only bore the stamp of approval by the State Department, but to me had all the earmarks of its handiwork, and few, if any, of the deft and brilliant touches of Senator Vandenberg. It was called a "working paper," but it could better be called a walk
ing paper, leading exactly nowhere. It was not a concurrent resolution, although there has never been a greater need for unity within Congress and outside, than today. It was obviously rushed as reinforcements for the weakening defense of the State Department against the rising tide of public opinion, and was released at the exaetly inopportune time of this committee's hearings.
The basic article of this resolution is so written that it seems to promise vast reforms of the United Nations; but only a Philadelphia lawyer, an international expert, or perhaps a bridge expert, could unravel its real meaning, or lack of meaning. I quote: voluntary agreement to remove the veto from all questions involving pacific settlements of international disputes and situations, and from the admission of new members.
The words “voluntary agreement” mean of course, that if Russia refuses “to remove the veto,” America passes as usual. The grandiloquent phrase, “pacific settlement of international disputes, and so forth," does not refer to the fundamental problem of aggression or any other substantive matter, but principally to matters of etiquette, grouped in chapter VI of the Charter.
This more or less tells the members how to eat with a knife and fork but if they begin to use the knife to cut each others' throats they can do nothing about it.
The State Department advertises 31 such picayune proposals for the “modification” of the veto, with the intent of conveying to the public the impression of a bold and valiant struggle against the curse of the veto.
In reality, these 31 proposals, even if adopted, would not postpone the third world war by 1 day. They are concerned with such piffling matters as, I quote the last but not the least, No. 31: Determination of the date of election of judges of the International Court of Justice,
The only paragraph in this resolution that contains good meat is No. 4, which proposes to make clear the Senate's— determination to exercise the right of individual or collective self-defense under article 51, should any armed attack occur affecting its national security.
The purpose of the State Department here is to commit the Senate to an eventual military alliance of the United States with military blocs in Europe, directed against Soviet Russia. How could the State Department attack the revision of the United Nations on the grounds that it might wreck the United Nations by reason of Russia's opposition, and at the same time advocate a military defensive alliance obviously directed against Russia ? The American people will reason that if article 51 is good enough for a military alliance that can only result in world war III, it is certainly infinitely better suited for a mutual defense pact of all the peaceful nations of the world, directed not against Russia but against any aggressor; and managed not by power politicians, but by a world judge and a world policeman, in the name of a world law against aggression.
I am sure that Senator Vandenberg, in whom so many Americans have such confidence—and justly so—will not permit this resolution to go beyond the stage of a trial balloon without remolding it and