« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Mr. McCook. Under 108.
Mr. LODGE. There is no conference provided for there. The conference is provided for under 109.
Mr. McCook. No; but it is not the conference I would advocate first. I advocate going at it under 108, and going at is more than once, if need be.
Mr. LODGE. Perhaps I do not make my question clear. My question was that if they go ahead under 108, and it appears clear that these amendments would not be adopted, would you suggest calling a conference under 109 just the same, in order to bring the matter into more public view?
Mr. McCOOK. I would, because it must be brought out into the open. If we are thinking at all in terms of democracy as we do hereand I hope the world will some day-certainly the public should know it. But I have more confidence of getting somewhere under 108 than does the Secretary.
For example, it was either Secretary Marshall or Mr. Austin who said he felt that it was impossible to get far, because when the matter of changing the veto in matters of settlement of specific dispute, that they could find no warmth to it.
I would not find any warmth for that either, on chapter 6. It is chapter 7 that has the root of it.
Mr. LODGE. You are inclined to feel that even if the situation does not look promising under 108, a conference under 109 could nevertheless be called.
Does that mean you favor Judd Resolution 59 ?
Mr. McCook. The one I have before me is 168. They are similar, are they not?
Mr. LODGE. 163 calls for proceeding under article 51 with the making of a separate arrangement. I understood you to say just now you were opposed to doing that at this time.
Mr. McCook. Yes.
Mr. LODGE. Therefore, I gather you would be opposed to Resolution 163.
Mr. McCook. If 163 calls for the calling of a conference right now, I would say that should be done, if it does not work under 108 but I believe 108 is the first thing to follow. That will crystallize it. You may get it on there if it is based on wiping out the veto on the matters of aggression. Let us say it is aggression because it is aggression that hits the conscience of the world and of the United States.
I am not much interested in whether we have unanimity required or three-quarters or one-half, on things that are less fundamental, but there are the seeds of world destruction.
Mr. Lodge. Mr. Finletter has proposed an amendment to 59 which could well be interpreted as requiring preliminary exploration under 108, so I take it with such an amendment you would favor Resolution 59.
Mr. McCook. As I understand it, I certainly would. That is, first try one way, then the second way, under the conference method. That is what you mean, is it not, sir?
Mr. LODGE. That is right. Well, of course, the amendment does not specifically mention 108 but it does mention preliminary exploration and conversation.
I gather, therefore, that while you would favor 59 under those circumstances, you do not favor a resolution which calls for proceeding separately under article 51 with the formation of another organization?
Mr. McCook. No; not by the Congress, or by ourselves.
Mr. McCook. Then I do not think that 163 calls for that. I cannot see that 168 calls for what you suggest.
Mr. LODGE. It calls for it on page 2, paragraph 5. Mr. McCook. At the end of paragraph 5 [reading]: In establishing on the basis of the revişed United NationsMr. LODGE (reading): In the event any permanent member should veto the provision, the United States should join with other like-minded states.
Mr. McCook. I have no objection to that. I remember reading it now-to this extent, if there was a period after the words "international organization.' It goes on, "for mutual defense."
"Mutual defense" is an incident.
If a conference is called under 109, after preliminary exploration under 108, and that conversation is abortive, you would go ahead under article 51?
Mr. McCook. I think that is perfectly all right as it is under any circumstances.
Mr. LODGE. Then I misunderstood you.
Mr. McCook. May I just say this: When you speak of explorations under 108, I would make it more than that. I would make it a definite attempt with this issue of world aggression and the atomic bomb in mind, and I think you would begin to get somewhere under 108.
Mr. LODGE. Thank you very much, Mr. McCook, for your interesting testimony.
Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. McCook, since several members have mentioned their connection with the American Legion, may I, as a fellow American Legion member, thank you for such a fine statement ?
Mr. McCook. You have been very kind, if I have been able to help. Mr. CHIPERFIELD (presiding). Mr. Batt.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM L. BATT, PRESIDENT, SKF INDUSTRIES,
INC., PHILADELPHIA, PA.
Mr. BATT. I am here today as a member of the United Nations Council of Philadelphia, but while I think I shall voice a cross section viewpoint of the Council it should be understood that I appear before you merely as one interested citizen. Having spent much of the last 8 years in Washington in one capacity or another, but to a very considerable extent in the international field, I have had some experience with the varied developments leading to today's uncertain situation.
Let me first state the conclusion to which I have come and then briefly develop the reasoning behind it.
This conclusion is that the United States immediately should take a position of leadership directed toward the creation of an additional unit of world organization which may have some more assured hope of preserving world peace. I shall advance no argument for one particular mechanism as against another, since it seems to be clear to me that the need for action is so impelling in its urgency as to make the means wholly subordinate to the end. The quite unparalleled statesmanship and vision shown by this Congress in its dealing with the complex matter of European aid, give me complete confidence in its ability to find the best method for a stronger world organization provided it sets its hand to that task. I urge that it do that now. The decisions which we Americans fail to make in the next weeks and months, quite as much as those we make, may well determine the very existence of this world as a home for freedom-loving people.
It was the initiative of the American people which created the United Nations. We placed great reliance in its ability to develop the kind of international atmosphere in which peace would be assured and we are accordingly deeply disappointed in the way it has developed. Secretary Marshall's explanation before your committee that this great body was only to preserve the peace, not make it, will come as a disillusioning surprise to most of us. It is painfully evident that the major powers, who reserved to themselves the prerogative of making the peace, have little to show for their efforts. We
therefore, faced with the present situation that not only is there no assurance of peace but that we see confronting us black clouds ominously threatening an increased risk of war.
With all the deep respect and admiration I hold for General Marshall, I, for one, am not ready to accept his apparent conclusion that reliance should continue to be placed in the present United Nations machinery. To be sure, he does not foreclose discussions looking toward modification, but he makes no recommendations to that end. This is a critical time for what he terms a change in substance” and I can see no such promise from the negative inaction of continuing to rest all our hopes for peace in an unchanged United Nations.
In my visits across the country in the last months, I have sensed a sharply growing conviction everywhere that some new approach to peace must now be tried and tried promptly. There is an awareness and an unrest among the people in their communities, that we have never had before. The attitude of men and women of both political parties in seeking for new vision and more courageous leadership from their candidates for high public office must arise, as I see it, from some deep and growing sense of urgency. More and more is heard the desperate question as to whether the United Nations is or is not a failure, but if it is, the demand that some new and more effective piece of machinery shall be provided. For the American people have had enough of war, and they will make every effort, consistent with national decency and honor, to avoid it.
Now we in the United Nations Council of Philadelphia do not write this body off as a complete failure at all, nor have we lost our keen interest in its preservation. It has served and should continue to serve as a useful platform on which the views of all its participating members may have the widest publicity. Its usefulness as a tom meeting in which the moral indignation of the world can be me against aggression and dictatorship must not be under
Most importantly, it serves today as the only existing medium for keeping Soviet Russia in contact with the rest of the world. Such a forum may already have served more usefully than we know in relieving situations that could otherwise have made trouble. Its authorized agencies are quietly and efficiently performing many valuable services for the welfare of mankind.
We are disappointed, certainly, in its inability to deal with most of the big issues of the day, but the proposals to scrap the United Nations or to take any steps that would surely bring that collapse about, seem to us gravely ill-advised.
At this point I shall read into the record the views of the United Nations Council of Philadelphia. Made up of men and women who represent different approaches toward a solution, they are unanimous in stating that their ultimate objective is toward some form of world government. But obviously any statement reasonably acceptable to energetic and differing views on detail, must paint in sweeping strokes only a broad picture. This is the statement of the Council [reading]:
To promote a just world order and the welfare of mankind, and as a step toward ultimate world government, the United Nations Council of Philadelphia shall work for the immediate establishment of a federal government composed of all those countries which will subscribe to and practice a fundamental law of civil liberties and representative government based upon free elections. The proposed union may be preceded by an initial union of the European democracies and by similar unions of democracies elsewhere located in proximity to one another.
This union shall be formed within the framework of the United Nations; its constituent states retaining their membership in that organization. The constitution of the union shall include a bill of civil and human rights, binding upon the union and upon all constituent states and the citizens thereof. There shall be a legislative body of which at least one house shall be representative of all the people and chosen by them in free elections. There shall be federal courts and a federal executive.
The union shall have the power to conduct foreign relations. It shall maintain and control all armed forces and means of mass destruction; and, as soon as practicable, grant citizenship, issue currency and regulate commerce and communication between the member states.
Nothing in the constitution shall prevent the adoption or maintenance, by any member state, of any type of economic and political system, not at variance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this statement, which may be approved and Supported by the people thereof through their freely and duly elected representatives.
The union shall encourage and assist all states desiring to become members to meet the requirements for admission.
The United Nations Council of Philadelphia wholeheartedly supports the work and purposes of the United Nations and all its constituent agencies. It advocates the union above proposed as an imperative step, in the face of modern atomic power, toward the realization of the political ends of world order for which the Cnited Nations was created.
It may be asked what purpose is served by such a resolution as this I have just read. Well, this is one way of letting you in Congress know how some of us at home feel about this overwhelming issue which you are debating. But otherwise there is not much we can do about it. That responsibility rests with you.
Only the Congress can take the initiative for the American people in advocating the need for better machinery for assuring peace and preserving freedom. Whether there can be built on the present United Nations foundation a structure which will assure this peace and freedom seems highly questionable. But we learn nothing by doing nothing. Certainly, any effective change in framework must deal
with the use of the veto power so that it shall not be used so obstructively as in the past.
As long as we are dealing with the representation of nations, as such, as against individuals, I suppose we ourselves will insist on some veto rights; but the area of abuse of this protection can be greatly reduced even with the present machinery. The regional grouping or union, of free states, suggested by the Philadelphia resolution would, of course, go far beyond this; it would create a central government to whom would be delegated the power of preserving freedom; it would eventually control all war-making potential through an “international police force” powerful enough to enforce peace and whose obligations would run only to that group of nations with such common democratic ideals and practices that to them could safely be delegated control of such combined strength.
As a practical matter, most of this military strength, of course, would have to be provided by a few of the nations, the bulk of it today by the United States, and until greater confidence exists around the world, the American people would undoubtedly be highly cautious as to which partners they delegated this supreme world power. There is no need to clutter up the picture of the forest with individual tree trunks; there are obviously a whole host of troublesome problems, immigration, tariffs, citizenship, currency, and the like for which some solutions must be hammered out. Our ancestors did it-we can, if we will.
At the outset it may not be found practicable to do more than group together “those countries which presently subscribe to and practice the fundamental laws of civil liberty and representative government based upon free elections." Time does not permit us to wait for the growth of international vision and the improved standard of living necessary to bring more of the countries of the world closer toward our concepts of freedom—and I shall be constantly trying to emphasize "freedom as distinct from the narrower problem of peace.
Something must be done soon, however, to mobilize for positive action toward peace, the powerful forces of democracy and freedom which already exist. The opening discussions at the peoples' Congress of Europe at The Hague are filled with the urge for these priceless possessions and must hearten all who listen to them.
Our far-reaching program for the economic reconstruction of western Europe and China is safely launched but one can hardly imagine its success without some measure of military assistance by the United States, to assure that the climate for its development shall be a peaceful
The provision by us of military equipment to strengthen European and Chinese armaments is thoroughly understandable but unhappily it repeats the timid pattern of 1941. It is a step which is highly inefficient as a military operation and if inadequate, can only lead in one direction and then maybe too late. To think that Soviet Russia will not understand our purposes and their direction in such military assurances, seems to me unrealistic. Why not then directly and unequivocably propose to merge our moral, our military and our economic strengths with these same nations whose purposes and objectives are much the same as ours? If this can be done under an article of the Charter, so much the better; the vital need is to move.
Senator Vandenberg's resolution providing for association of the United States, through constitutional process, with such regional