Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

After all, we cannot sleep at night if we foreclose in advance any constructive change by refusing to say, "We will call a general session to sit down and talk it over."

We would thereby shut the door, assuming in advance that there is no hope for mankind.

Mr. JUDD. It is constantly held up that if we were to call a conference and it failed, that would be disastrous. Could it be any more disastrous than to continue the present course of allowing the world to go to pieces right before our eyes?

Mr. BISHOP. I cannot envision a worse disaster than I think we are traveling toward today.

I would like to point up here, in answer to that, some of the statements made by other gentlemen of the committee, about who is to take the initiative.

As a matter of fact, if our Executive were persently disposed to make this move, without being backed by some favorable expression from Congress, our delegation could not make the type of offer that is

necessary.

In other words, it is absolutely imperative that the Congress have expressed itself as favoring this, backing and giving substance to the call by the Executive.

Mr. JUDD. Is it your belief that if we allow things to continue as they have for 2 years, it is almost certain we will get into a war, and not just an ordinary war, but a war where even if we win, we lose?

Mr. BISHOP. If we continue to drift with a vacillating policy as we have done for the last several years, I see no alternative to an ultimate clash between these two opposing ideologies.

Mr. JUDD. So you think our present course offers no hope?

Mr. BISHOP. Correct.

Mr. JUDD. The other course offers some hope?

Mr. BISHOP. Right.

Mr. JUDD. And between a course with no hope and one with some hope there can be no alternative except to choose the course of action which gives some hope?

Mr. BISHOP. That is right.

Mr. JUDD. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, since I cannot be here tomorrow, I would like to have included in the record:

One, a resolution favoring action to strengthen the charter, signed by about 20 of the most prominent citizens of the State of Iowa, and the other, a statement and a resolution issued on April 12, 1948, by the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD (presiding). Without objection, it is so ordered. (The information is as follows:)

STATEMENT TO HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON WORLD GOVERNMENT AND HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS 59-68

We, the undersigned citizens of the State of Iowa, commend the House Foreign Affairs Committee for its decision to hold hearings on House Concurrent Resolutions 59-68.

International anarchy and the threat of war are growing worse in spite of the United Nations; the UN can succeed only if it is transformed into an effective federal world government. As America's founding fathers assembled in 1787 to form a united nation out of 13 disunited states, so a United Nations conference must be called now to write a constitution for a world federation. As the

world's most powerful nation, the United States must take the lead in proposing a world government which can enact, interpret, and enforce all laws necessary to maintain peace, and which can apply world laws directly to individual citizens.

The passage of House Concurrent Resolutions 59-68 would put the United States Congress on record for such a world federation. We are confident that if the submission and consideration of the matter at the hearings is thorough, the committee will report favorably on these resolutions. America has everything to gain and nothing to lose by making this proposal to the world. No nation can afford another war.

We call upon Congress to endorse a practical program for peace-federal world government.

Robert M. Blakely, editorial writer, Des Moines Register and Tribune; Robert Buckmaster, city attorney, Waterloo; Rev. Grant A. Butler, chairman, Iowa Civil Liberties Union, minister, First Unitarian Church, Des Moines; David Dentan, assistant managing editor, Waterloo Courier; Elmo Ferguson, mayor, city of Muscatine; Bishop Elwood Haines, bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Iowa; member National Council, Protestant Episcopal Church; Cecil E. Hinshaw, president, William Penn College, Oskaloosa; Don E. Hutchings, president, Des Moines Junior Chamber of Commerce; Robert H. Lind, president, Iowa City Chamber of Commerce; Iowa City district manager, Iowa-Illinois Gas & Electric Co.; Frank Miles, State education chairman, Veterans of Foreign Wars; World War II correspondent for national American Legion publications, Iowa Daily Press Association and radio station WHO; Harlan Miller, columnist, Des Moines Register and Tribune; Miss Alice Myers, president, Iowa Association for Adult Education; assistant to dean of Community College, Drake University; Frank T. Nye, president, Iowa Junior Chamber of Commerce; associate editor, Cedar Rapids Gazette; George Olmsted, chairman of board, Hawkeye Casualty Co., Des Moines, brigadier general, Officers' Reserve Corps; first national chairman, Young Republican Organization; past president, United States Junior Chamber of Commerce; J. C. Pryor, past president, Iowa State Bar Association; member of Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure in Federal Courts; vice president, Mississippi Valley Savings & Loan Association, Burlington; Mrs. James S. Schramm, citizenship chairman, Iowa League of Women Voters; chairman, City Planning and Zoning Commission, Burlington; Forrest W. Seymour, editor of editorial pages, Des Moines Register and Tribune; member of Iowa Committee on Resettlement of Displaced Persons; Forrest B. Spaulding, librarian, Des Moines Public Library; chairman, Midwest Institute of International Relations; C. M. Stanley, president, Home-O-Nize Co.; senior partner, Stanley Engineering Co., Muscatine; Mrs. C. M. Strawman, president, Second District Federation of Republican Women's Clubs; Rabbi Irving J. Weingart, rabbi, Tifereth Israel Synagogue, Des Moines; member of speakers panel, National Conference of Christians and Jews; Matthew Westrate, judge, Seventh Judicial District of Iowa.

EMERGENCY COMMITTEE OF ATOMIC SCIENTISTS,
Princeton, N. J., April 12, 1948.

A POLICY FOR SURVIVAL : "NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD
OF ACTION AT A TIME WHEN CIVILIZATION FACES ITS SUPREME TEST"

I. Two years ago this month the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission was in process of formation. Now the discussions on international control of atomic energy are about to be adjourned indefinitely, perhaps never again to be resumed. One of the most fateful events in history, has passed almost unnoticed. Its importance must be realized, its lesson for mankind must be made clear.

To clarify the importance of the collapse of these discussions, we reiterate here our six-point statement, published originally on November 17, 1946:

1. Atomic bombs can now be made cheaply and in large number. They will become more destructive.

2. There is no military defense against atomic bombs and none is to be expected.

3. Other nations can rediscover our secret processes by themselves.

4. Preparedness against atomic war is futile, and if attempted, will ruin the structure of our social order.

5. If war breaks out, atomic bombs will be used and they will surely destroy our civilization.

6. There is no solution to this problem except international control of atomic energy and the elimination of war.

Every scientific development in the intervening 17 months has supported the accuracy of this statement. Yet the negotiations by which international control of atomic energy was to be achieved have collapsed.

II. This is a time for taking stock of reality and facing up to the facts. The most salient fact confronting our civilization is that the hope of one world is frustrated. Today two hostile worlds are in full contest: The eastern bloc, headed by the Soviet Union, confronts the western democracies.

Three possible lines of policy are emerging in the west: 1. The first policy is that of the preventive war. It calls for an attack upon the potential enemy at a time and place of our own choosing while the United States retains the monopoly of the atomic bomb. Let us not delude ourselves that victory would be cheap and easy. At the outset the Russians must occupy all of Europe up to the Atlantic seaboard from which they could be dislodged only by large-scale bombardment of cities and communication centers. No military leader has suggested that we could force a Russian surrender without a costly ground-force invasion of Europe and Asia. Even if victory were finally achieved after colossal sacrifices in blood and treasure, we would find western Europe in a condition of ruin far worse than that which exists in Germany today, its population decimated and overrun with disease. We would have for generations the task of rebuilding western Europe and of policing the Soviet Union. This would be the result of the cheapest victory we could achieve. Few responsible persons believe in even so cheap a victory.

2. The second possible policy is maintenance of an armed peace in a twobloc world which, historically, has always led to war. This course would lead to rebuilding the strength of western Europe economically and militarily to a point where, allied with the United States, it would confront the Soviet bloc with overwhelming strength. This would entail tremendous and steadily accelerating armaments expenditures over an indefinite period, enforce a lower standard of living on the people, and might betray our moral position by propping up antidemocratic regimes as counterpoise to the Russians. But it could have no termination save in a war begun at a less advantageous moment than the preventive war and thus ending even less favorably.

3. A third possible policy is the drive for world government, which has little support among governments but has growing and powerful support among the peoples of the west. Stripped of the enthusiasm of its friends and the misapprehensions of its enemies, the world government movement looks toward a creation of supranational authority with power sufficient to maintain law among nations. Initially and at every step the door would be open to all nations to federate with the supranational authority and submit to its limited jurisdiction.

Is this a hopeless perspective? We think not. The American proposal for international control of atomic energy was accepted in its essentials by the nations outside the Soviet bloc. Through its abolition of the veto power in the field of atomic energy it would have had the effect of transferring sovereignty in this field to the international authority. In substance this was a world government in a limited sphere.

The first two suggested policies lead inevitably to a war which would end with the total collapse of our traditional civilization. The third indicated policy may bring about the acceptance by the Soviet bloc of the offer of federation. If they will not accept federation, we lose nothing not already lost. If, as seems probable, the world has a period of armed peace, time and events may bring about a change in their policy.

We have then the choice of acceptance, in the first two cases, of the inevi tability of war or, in the latter case, of the possibility of peace.

Confronted

by such alternatives, we believe that all constructive lines of action must be in keeping with the need of establishing a federal world government.

III. World government can be achieved, but cannot be achieved overnight. In the meantime statesmen must confront today's problems and attempt to solve them, lest there be no civilized world left to govern. The course of events has indicated a growing dependence on armaments, at a time when armaments cannot be adequate for purposes of national defense, and a decreasing use of the processes of negotiation and conciliation.

There are no serious negotiations going forward anywhere in the world between the two great powers, the United States and Soviet Russia. Almost everywhere the pattern is the same-total collapse of discussion on the most important problems-in the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, in Berlin, in Korea.

We hope for discussion and negotiation at the highest governmental level— if need be, in secrecy in the initial stages-keeping in mind at all time the ultimate goal of peace through world government. We understand and share the distaste among democratic people for secret negotiations. But we see no hope under present conditions for any settlement to come out of public negotiations in which each statesman is the prisoner of his national prestige.

This call to negotiation does not mean appeasement. Every member of this committee was opposed to Munich at the time of Munich, and we are equally committed today to the maintenance of the spiritual and physical bounds of freedom throughout the world. We are deeply disturbed by the conversion of Czechoslovakia into a police state.

IV. We make public our position in the belief that in a democracy it is the duty of every citizen to contribute to the clarification of issues and to the solution of the great problems which confront all of us. Scientists have a special position in the tragic situation in which mankind exists today. It is through the work of the scientific community that this great menace has come upon humanity and now threatens to destroy our civilization.

We are all citizens of a world community, sharing a common peril. Is it inevitable that because of our passions and our inherited customs we should be condemned to destroy ourselves? No one has the right to withdraw from the world of action at a time when civilization faces its supreme test. It is in this spirit that we call upon all peoples to work and to sacrifice to achieve a settlement which will bring peace.

Albert Einstein, chairman, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton,
N. J.; Harold C. Urey, vice chairman, University of Chicago;
Harrison Brown, University of Chicago; T. R. Hogness, Uni-
versity of Chicago; Joseph E. Mayer, University of Chicago;
Philip M. Morse, Brookhaven National Laboratory; H. J. Muller,
University of Indiana; Frederick Seitz, Carnegie Institute of
Technology.

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Chairman, since we do not have a full committee here, I do not wish to press this motion, but I wish to make this motion and leave it pending until the next session of our committee: That at the conclusion of our hearings tomorrow, we invite each of the witnesses who has testified to furnish us with a further statement of not to exceed a thousand words, expressing their views in brief form, in view of the testimony of other witnesses, and questions that have been asked.

As I say, I do not wish to press the motion but I thought that by making it, it could be considered possibly by our members and they could dispose of it at our meeting tomorrow.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. I would hope that you include in your motion specific suggestions for your committee to consider and not just general conclusions but what actually we should do.

Mr. VORYS. It would be my hope that without telling the witnesses what they should say, they would get on the target and address their thousand words to the specific problem which this committee faces, and suggestions as to precisely what action we should take.

75921-48-28

Mr. JUDD. Do you mean to include their answers to counterarguments or objections to their proposals which have been made by other witnesses?

Mr. VORYS. It would be my hope that they would answer points made by others and it would be my hope that while we could not tell these witnesses what we want them to suggest to us, that they would not spend so much time going over the problem with which we are so thoroughly familiar in this committee but address their thousand words to the solution of the problem which they recommend, in view of the testimony of other witnesses and the situation which we face at the present time.

Mr. JUDD. If they were able to do it in 300 words there would be no objection.

Mr. VORYS. I said not to exceed 1,000 words, and of it could be made shorter that would be a blessing.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. The chairman is in receipt of testimony from the Middletown Citizens Committee, and without objection it will be included in the record at this point.

(The testimony referred to follows:)

TESTIMONY OF MIDDLETOWN CITIZENS COMMITTEE, MIDDLETOWN, OHIO

Hon. CHARLES A. EATON,

Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee,

Washington, D. C.

MAY 13, 1948.

SIR: As requested by your telegram of May 12, 1948, the Middletown Citizens Committee is pleased to offer the following testimony in favor of House Concurrent Resolution No. 168 which is now before your committee. We are grateful of having the opportunity to present the feelings of the citizens of Middletown, Ohio, toward a strengthened United Nations.

The thoughts of Middletown, Ohio, citizens is best described in their actions for the past 2 years. The record speaks for itself.

Two years ago we were worried because peace had not come. Though the war was over, international suspicions and distrust remained. We felt that a third world war was inevitable unless courageous and immediate action was taken by the American people to guide our destiny down the road to peace.

We decided that if a democracy is to work, then all of us must do our share of the working, thinking, and persuading. To quote from our publication, Crossroads Middletown:

"We, the people, are the Government. We pay the taxes, make the laws, fight the wars. We mustered all the strength and determination at our command to fight for victory in World War II. We believe that we must fight now for peace with this same strength and determination. Then and only then will peace become a reality.

"For almost a year after VJ-day we in Middletown hoped that 'they' would find a solution to the problems of peace. Then we slowly began to realize that time was short, that we could not afford to sit on our front porches and watch the world go round. We awoke to the fact that we could no longer 'let George do it.' This was our problem. It was up to us to take concrete action to bring about this peace for which we had fought.

"After much study and discussion we agreed that the only hope for a workable and permanent peace lay in some type of world organization. That organization was already in existence-the United Nations.

"To date the UN has proved itself ineffective. But it was our belief that the surest, most immediate and practical solution to the problem lay in finding a way to make it work. We studied many theories and proposals and came upon a plan which we believe is the answer. It is practical, not theoretical. It presents a concrete and workable method of making the UN an effective organization capable of maintaining peace-it is the quota force plan."

The quota force plan decided upon by the citizens of Middletown is today basically the same plan for strengthening the United Nations that is before your

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »