Изображения страниц

I think that was my statement rather than Congressman Lodge's.
Mr. CULBERTSON. Congratulations, Congressman Javits.
Mr. Vores (presiding). Mr. Lodge.
Mr. LODGE. Mr. Culbertson you have given us much food for thought.

Now in the second sentence of your Reader's Digest article, you say [reading]: its object is to make immediate revisions in the United Nations Charter with Russia if possible, without Russia if need be, but not necessarily against Russia.

I take it that that means that under Resolution 163 a conference will be called under article 109 of the United Nations Charter and that then if Russia does not agree to the ABC plan, another United Nations Charter with these amendments, will be formed by the nations who choose to do so. Is that correct?

Mr. CULBERTSON. Not another United Nations Charter. Mr. LODE. You say revise the United Nations Charter without Russia. What does that mean?

Mr. CULBERTSON. It means exactly this: That in all other respects, except these three provisions, ABC dealing with veto, armament race, and police force, we would copy the original United Nations Charter, adopt that as our, say, constitution of our private club within the club, and that is what I meant by another United Nations Charter.

Mr. LODGE. You would have at that point two United Nations Charters in effect, no matter what you called them?

Mr. CULBERTSON. We would have one United Nations Charter which is in effect and we will have another piece of paper, called by whatever name you wish, for our club within the club.

Mr. LODGE. And that piece of paper would be the United Nations Charter, with these amendments, according to the ABC plan!

Mr. CULBERTSON. It would be similar to the articles and provisions of the original United Nations Charter, except that in these matters ABC-and perhaps some other minor relevant matters, it will be different.

Mr. LODGE. At that point you would have two charters, call them what you will; one would be the present United Nations Charter, unamended, and the other would be the new piece of paper with these amendments; is that correct!

Mr. CULBERTSON. The other would be this magnificent piece of paper; that is correct.

Mr. LODGE. Now, I would like to ask you this: It seems to me that the trouble with the United Nations has been not so much a defective Charter as the abuse of certain provisions of that Charter by Soviet Russia, and, therefore, if Soviet Russia is not a member of this new organization, what is the necessity for having any amendments at all? Why not, according to your own postulates," have one United Nations Charter, the one which exists now, and then have another one just like it but without Russia?

Mr. CULBERTSON. May I respectfully suggest that the trouble with the United Nations is not abuse by Russia.

Mr. LODGE. It is not?
Mr. CULBERTSON. No, sir.

Mr. LODGE. I think the American people have a contrary opinion on that, Mr. Culbertson.


Mr. CULBERTSON. They have different semantics, but I think they have the feeling.

Mr. LODGE. The feeling throughout the country, I believe, has been that the work of the United Nations has been held up by the attitude of Soviet Russia, rather than by defects in the Charter.

Mr. CULBERTSON. That is correct. Then it is up to us to go a little deeper and as we go a little deeper we will find that the trouble with the United Nations Charter is the same trouble that was in the League of Nations Covenant; that it has several defects in its structure that permit any nation, such as Russia, to abuse it. · Until you remove this fundamental cause of this uisease, the cure of symptoms will not help it.

Mr. LODGE. In other words, your proposition is that when this new organization is formed—let us assume it is without Russia—at that point we eliminate the veto on all matters of aggression, when Russia is no longer a member of that particular organization, is that correct?

Mr. CULBERTSON. At that point we eliminate the veto in specifically defined matters of aggression and preparation for aggression; yes, we do.

Mr. LODGE. That elimination of the veto is, of course, not binding on Russia because Russia would not be a member of that particular organization.

Mr. CULBERTSON. It is not binding on Russia but it will be binding on her if she becomes an aggressor.

Mr. LODGE. Yes. Now let me ask you this, Mr. Culbertson: What, essentially, would be the difference between that proposition and the article 51° federation proposed by Mr. Finletter!

Mr. CULBERTSON. It is a different kind of federation. Mr. LODGE. There is a different structure? Mr. CULBERTSON. It has a different structure, in its ultimate goals. You see, Mr. Finletter is trying to establish a kind of federation which I believe under the present psychological conditions, in the present psychological climate, is not effective or acceptable, although it may become so in the next generation. We want something simple and specific that every Congressman and every Senator, to whatever party he belongs, would approve of.

Mr. LODGE. Do you believe that the Scandinavian countries, for instance-Sweden, Denmark, and Norway--will be inclined to join this new organization if Russia is not in it?

Mr. CULBERTSON. They will rush into it, provided the United States guarantees them against the armed aggression by Russia. They will rush to it and celebrate that as the greatest day in their history,

Mr. LODGE. Doubtless you know that there is a large body of informed opinion which does not agree with you on that.

Mr. CULBERTSON. I respectfully disagree as to whether that body is large and particularly as to whether it is informed.

Mr. LODGE. Mr. Cúlbertson, my time is up. I have a great many other questions I would like to ask you. Thank you for being here with us and for making a significant contribution to the deliberations of this committee.

Mr. CULBERTSON. May I, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, clarify one point in this resolution which has been debated continually. Thanks particularly to Congressman Lodge, a certain ambiguity of language was found in Recolution 163.

I discussed the matter with Congressman Judd and others. I personally suggest that this ambiguity be removed. I specifically refer to line 19, page 2:

After the word “establishing," I would suggest insertion of "within the United Nations."

After the insert, the text continues—I am still talking about line 19—"on the basis of the”_“revised United Nations” to be crossed out, and instead put "goals and methods."

Coming down to line 20 “Charter a more effective International” to be crossed out and instead of that to be put this: "herein described, or similar methods and effective” and then the next two words to remain and the words, collective and” to be inserted.

On page 3, line 3, instead of the revision of it, to insert "revised” "United Nations Charter,” and another insertion “or the mutual defense pact of an organization established under Article 51 should.”

The record will show that it will read much more clearly and remove the ambiguity there of the language.

I am most grateful to Congressman Lodge for that.

Mr. VORYS. The next witness will be Mr. Anson T. McCook, chairman, Foreign Relations Commission, of the American Legion.

He will be introduced by Gen. John Thomas Taylor, director, national legislative committee, of the American Legion.


TIONS COMMISSION OF THE AMERICAN LEGION General TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I just want to express to you the very sincere appreciation of the opportunity for the American Legion to appear before you this morning and present the point of view of the Legion on this very vital subject, and to do that, Anson McCook, the chairman of our Foreign Relations Commission.

I give you Mr. McCook. Mr. McCook. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, in 1945, the United Nations, in adopting their Charter, solemnly declared their determination "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” and “to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security.” This declaration is the very cornerstone of the structure and purpose of the United Nations. It is binding upon every signatory nation, the United States and the U. S. S. R. included. Any nation that violates or ignores this declaration must stand selfconvicted before the tribunal of world opinion.

Twenty-six years earlier, in 1919, the American Legion adopted its constitution, pledging it [reading]: to promote peace and good will on earth; to safeguard and transmit to posterity the principles of justice, freedom and democracy.

It is in the interests of peace that the American Legion appears before you today.

Peace, by our definition, is much more than the absence of war. Otherwise it is no better than an armistice, a truce between wars. Peace, as defined by American Legion policy, is something positive and constructive. It means law and order among the nations. Peace as so defined can in time become permanent, as nothing else can.

Over and over again the American Legion has repudiated the philosophy that wars are inevitable. We have substituted for that philosophy a constructive planning for peace—not a peace built on the sand of wishful thinking but on the rock of self-reliance, good will, and international law internationally enforced. Three million Legionnaires are convinced that without an orderly world there can be no tranquility, no liberty worthy of the name, no lasting prosperity or happiness. Without order there is chaos; and out of chaos spring godlessness, oppression, and war.

Peace in the constructive sense has been the main objective of our foreign policy. This has been coupled with insistence upon national security and national independence, since international madmen or criminals will be a menace until international law enforcement is strong enugh to cope with them.

For such international law enforcement, the United Nations was created; but it is not functioning as it should. With this in mind, 10 days ago the Legion's national executive committee unanimously adopted as part of its foreign policy a resolution advocating amendment of the United Nations Charter.

The development of the Legion's policy relative to the United Nations is pertinent as the basis for what we recommend here. That policy was no mushroom growth, but the result of careful, constructive thinking. Indeed, it was only 9 months after Pearl Harbor that our Kansas City Convention of 1942, looking through the smoke of war into the future, issued this pronouncement [reading]:

The American Legion demands that when total victory has been won, this Nation assert its leadership in the establishment and maintenance of world-wide, enduring peace through association of free and sovereign nations.

The very next year, there was added an 11-word clause which we believe is the key to the problem under discussion today-namely, that that association of nations should be: implemented with whatever force may be necessary to maintain world peace. To which we later added:

When peace has been restored to the world, we must be ever vigilant to protect it.

Bitter experience of the past proves that peace cannot be preserved unless aggressor nations are promptly and sternly suppressed at the very beginning.

The American Legion took an active interest in organizing the United Nations. Then, only a short 5 months after the United Nations Charter had been signed, we sensed the existence of serious internal weaknesses which might threaten its very existence and, while reiterating our hearty support, voiced a warning which unhappily has proved to be prophetic [reading]:

We believe that the United Nations Organization, in its efforts to make an end of war, can succeed only through the utter good faith of all member nations.

Our hope of this good faith was shaken as vetoes multiplied. Almost parallel with those vetoes, the freedom of small nation after small nation was threatened. Naturally this brought the United Nations under serious attack. However, as we diagnosed the situation, the blame rested much less upon the United Nations than upon the attitude and acts of certain member nations, one in particular.

[ocr errors]

Stating the matter bluntly, we concluded that it was a case of deliberate sabotage. Therefore, when many of its erstwhile friends began to desert it, we not only stood firm in our fidelity to the United Nations but sought to apply a constructive remedy. We urged then, as we urge now, "that its Charter be strengthened in the immediate future.

Appreciating the complexity as well as the vital importance of the problem, our San Francisco Convention of 1946 referred three proposed Charter amendments to our standing commission on foreign relations. After hearing a group of Legionnaires from Middletown, Ohio, the majority of them veterans of World War II—and one of them is here today—the subject was studied intensively and debated vigorously. The result was a pruning down which strengthened the whole. This draft in turn was discussed with a special committee and further amended. In that form it met the acid test applied by the national executive committee, and in November of 1946 became part of the Legion's official policy.

I have here copies of that 1946 resolution, if you desire it. Subsequently this group of proposed amendments was printed, with explanatory matter, in a pamphlet issued by the Legion entitled “Twice is Too Often.” Certain of the House resolutions now before your honorable committee present an interesting comparison.

The purpose of these proposed amendments was to preserve the United Nations from deteriorating into a weak edition of the League of Nations, without power or substantial usefulness for peace. We realize that this young organization is undergoing the extraordinary stress of extraordinary world conditions; and, rather than cast aside the thought, effort and sacrifice which have gone into it, consider it good sense to do something to make it effective. We believe that the car has a good engine, but that its brakes are locked; and we have chosen, as a remedy, releasing the brakes rather than scrapping the car. Furthermore, being convinced that this great instrument for good is being veto-sabotaged, we are the more determined that the attempt shall not succeed and propose that the Charter be strengthened to that end.

As we have faced these problems, we have felt deeply our responsibility and the need of dependence upon a wisdom higher than our own. We freely concede that no method can by itself accomplish the results desired. We agree with those who lay emphasis upon the vital need of good faith and cooperation by the participants. But we cannot agree that nothing should be done to aid those who are ready to act in good faith or deter those who act in bad faith. Certainly the situation should not be allowed to drift from bad to worse. Patience is a virtue, but not inaction. The plain fact is that there exists a sitdown strike which the framers of the Charter never contemplated. Now if a log jam can be broken by normal means, very good. But if extraordinary means are essential to the survival of all

, then extraordinary means must be adopted. Fortunately, in the history of human log jams, a firm approach often brings results before more drastic methods need be applied.

Let me at this point make it emphatically clear that we are opposed to bluster, just as we are opposed to appeasement. Appeasement and bluster are equally ineffective and dangerous. Jingoism and pacifism have caused many wars. Firmness in the right is the surest road to

[blocks in formation]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »