« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
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 numberThey 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 ruid 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 pollcy 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 levelif 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;
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.
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
MAY 13, 1948 Hon. CHARLES A. EATON, Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee,
Washington, D. C. 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 & 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
committee in the form of House Concurrent Resolution No. 168. The citizens of Middletown still believe that this plan provides the promptest and soundest road to peace. We believe that if House Concurrent Resolution No. 168 is adopted, the United Nations will become the instrument for peace which has been the hope of all Americans since the Charter was first signed in 1945. We are equally convinced that if the Charter is not amended and strengthened soon, the people of America will lose faith in its ability to settle any problem, let alone stop aggressive warfare.
We have felt so keenly about this problem that we have done all in our power to bring the proposals of the Middletown plan (H. Con. Res. No. 168) before America and the world.
From the start we considered four alternatives. First, we can continue to drift into war by remaining unprepared in mind or in armaments. Second, we can play power politics which will lead, as in the past, to a world armament race. Third, we can use our atomic bombs to force an American peace of the world; and fourth, we can strengthen the United Nations and thereby make it an effective organization capable of keeping the peace.
Finding that the fourth alternative was unanimously adopted by our group, we decided to hold a town meeting in Middleton to see how the citizens of Middletown felt about it.
At our first town meeting on June 13, 1946, we offered the four alternatives to the people of Middletown. As a body, the 500 people present chose a strengthened United Nations.
But more important, the people attending this first town meeting showed such tremendous interest in international affairs and the United Nations, that a committee was appointed, on the spot, to study proposals for strengthening the United Nations and to report back at an early date to the citizens of Middletown.
For another 6 weeks we studied many proposals. But none were sound or complete or so immune to attack as the quota force plan.
On July 11, 1946, we held our second town meeting. Over 1,500 people crowded into a hall with a capacity of 1,200 to debate the pros and cons of our committee's proposals.
After 3 hours devoted to talking and of questions and answers, the vote was taken. The citizens of Middletown wholeheartedly and enthusiastically endorsed the Middletown plan. Not only did they vote, they stayed on to sign resolutions endorsing the plan. These resolutions with over 1,000 signatures were sent to Congress.
But Middletown did not stop there. We realized that before Congress would or could act, thousands of Middletowns would have to be heard from. The very night of our second town meeting our committee dedicated itself to the task of spreading our plan throughout America.
Reader's Digest picked up our story. From letters from their article on the Middletown movement we obtained a mailing list in the thousands. Our first publication, Crossroads Middletown, was sent to 25,000 people.
Soon we were so busy on the Middletown movement that all of our jobs suffered. Our chairman at that time, George V. Hook, took a year's leave of absence from his work so that he could guide the movement properly. All of Middletown cooperated in every way.
Our committee organized town meetings all over Ohio and Kentucky. We made speeches whenever possible. We accepted all requests for radio appearances.
And, strangely enough, we found that wherever we went we found the same conditions. People were worried, scared. They were afraid of another war and of atom bombs. When they heard our plan they were usually just lukewarm to it. But when they would argue about its provisions they would become convinced of its soundness, effectiveness, and practicability. Everywhere we went we gathered more and more support.
Soon the citizens of Greensville, Ohio, adopted the Middletown plan, then Xenia, Ohio, and Glendale, Ohio.
Organizations of all types became interested, then enthusiastic, then eager to become a part of this movement.
Today 53 local organizations have adopted the plan. They have convinced their State and National affiliations to adopt this plan as part of their foreign relations or international program.
You might be interested in some of these State groups. The Ohio and Kansas department of the American Legion; the Ohio Rotary Clubs; the Ohio State Legislaturę; the Ohio Kiwanis Clubs; the Kentucky and Ohio State Federation of Labor (AFL); the Clergy of Diocese of Southern Ohio; the executive board, Federation of Women's Clubs of Ohio.
On the national level : The American Legion; the National Order of AHEPA (American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association); National Association of Fire Fighters (AFL) ; National Association of Foremen.
The Middletown Citizens Committee corresponds with 1,600 people in com. munities in all of the 48 States. We are doing all we can to help these people organize town meetings in their communities.
Our committee corresponds with individuals in 18 different foreign countries, such as Austria, Argentina, Belgium, Germany, Italy, France, New Zealand, Mexico, etc. All these people indicate that their prayers are dedicated to the adoption of the Middletown plan.
Members of our speaker's bureau have given over 300 speeches—all of these at their own expense. The citizens of Middletown have contributed all the money collected which has been needed to carry on the activities of the Middletown committee.
The Middletown plan has received much national acceptance and acclaim. Some of these includes articles in the Commonweal, June 1946; the Christian Science Monitor, October 5, 1946; Readers' Digest, November 1946; Ohio Magazine, November 1946; the Civitan, January 1947; N. E. A. (Journal of National Education Association), April 1947; Magazine Digest, September 1947; Inside U. S. A., by John Gunther; the Kiwanis Magazine, November 1947; and syndicated articles by Thomas L. Stokes, Dorothy Thompson, Peter Edson, and Jack Ramey.
Important radio appearances have included: The Herald Tribune Forum, World Front, In My Opinion, Canal Days, and all four of our town meetings.
All of these things are merely testimony of our activity. The important thing is that at each of our town meetings the people adopted the Middletown plan and urged Congress to adopt its principles.
We are naturally very gratified to feel that perhaps our committee has helped to bring to the attention of the American people the importance of immediately strengthening the United Nations. We are grateful to the 14 Representatives and 16 Senators who introduced into Congress House Concurrent Resolution No. 168 and Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 50.
We believe that all our work will not have been in vain if these resolutions now receive favorable action by your committee.
We believe just as strongly today—as ever—that the future of America, the acceptance of the United Nations by the American people, the prevention of world war III, depend upon the immediate strengthening of the United Nations as provided in House Concurrent Resolution No. 168.
These provisions provide the Christian approach to peace for it is a fair plan to all nations. It gives the smaller nations of the world for the first time, a strong united voice.
By limiting the veto only in matters of aggression or preparation for aggression, there is established an effective limited world authority able to act by majority vote to prevent aggression or preparation for aggression, Aggression is well defined as is preparation for aggression. It means that trouble can be detected and stopped at its earliest stages.
Such veto limitation also means that the veto, for the time being, will be retained in all other matters, such as tariffs or immigration laws.
The second provision sets up armament quotas which divide satisfactorily the armed power of the world. These quotas will be set by the Security Council. They will be just as satisfactory in times of disarmament as they would be now, if only the plan were in action.
The United States proposal for an Atomic Development Authority would alle viate the terrible strain of atomic war which now bangs over the scalps of all peoples.
The establishment of an effective world police force as outlined in House Concurrent Resolution No. 168 would eliminate the terrible strains in present diplomatic relations between the United States and Russia. Think also of how effective such a force would be in Greece or Palestine or Berlin.
We have tested American public opinion. We know that the great majority favor such a plan to strengthen the United Nations. Most people wish that such proposals could have been effected earlier. But these same people do not cry over the past. They look to the future. And they want for their future a strong