« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
overwhelming majority of mankind do so agree. This, gentlemen, was the premise of Munich. The three Great Powers of Europe at that time, namely Britain, France, and Germany, decided to make peace themselves. For the sake of that peace by great power agreement, they agreed to the absorption of Austria and the disintegration of Czechoslovakia. That peace foundered on the unwillingness of the next small and helpless victim, Poland, to sacrifice herself for the peace of the powers, and ended in World War II.
That is the premise also of Tehran, and Yalta. There again, for the sake of peace of the great powers, in this case Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union, ancient states were disposed of; measures taken without even consultation with the governments of the states concerned; and, indeed, new governments had to be created—so-called friendly governments, being in fact, exactly the sort of friendly governments demanded by Hitler. Under this
Under this concept of great power peace—the duty of the weak to become booty for the sake of the peace of the strong-over 100,000,000 people have been deprived of every scrap of sovereignty and free choice. And under this concept of friendly government, it rapidly has become apparent that a government friendly to one great power, may not be friendly to any other great power.
This game of power politics which the present United Nations structure does nothing to mitigate has laws of its own. These laws were demonstrated after Munich and have been again demonstrated after World War II. They are implicit in the situation. As one great power expands by this device or that, the other is compelled to expand to keep the original balance in relations. As one takes satellites, the other must form satellites to offset it; if one develops new and terrible weapons, the other must move heaven and earth to find the secret or devise even worse and more terrible weapons; as one by propaganda and interference in the domestic affairs of states expands its influence, the other must take the same measures. And this process is, in its very nature, a process of elimination. Starting with five great powers, this number is gradually but effectively reduced as each of the minor three allies itself with one of the really great. Thus we have today not the big five but only the big two, Great Britain and France having entered the American orbit, while China remains a bone of contention.
That such a development can only have one conceivable outcome is taught by every lesson of history. Eventually two great powers, spending half of their substance on arms, glare at each other across a vacuum of power, offering every temptation to an aggressor. The state of tension thus developed inspires fear in every human heart. A perpetual eye-of-war psychosis is created. Now, gentlemen, it is possible for a people to sustain a long war, even a war of terrible destruction. But I submit it is quite impossible for any people to sustain a perpetual eve of war. Eventually there is a demand for show-down; anything seems better than the terrible suspense; and whoever first loses his nerves starts the war, under whatever claim of provocation or incidents may be chosen.
This is the state of the world at present, and in my opinion, this will remain the state of the world, regardless of whoever may come home from a conference waving a treaty and proclaiming peace for our time, unless and until the people of this world are given what they are
promised in the preamble to the San Francisco Charter. I would like to quote from that preamble:
We, the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to insure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest
do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
And if I may quote from the purposes, as expressed in article I: 1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: To take effertive collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.
3. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for the fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
Now, it seems to me we have a right to inquire whether the machinery of the United Nations, as it is presently constituted, is sufficient to implement these noble purposes, which do, indeed, represent the hopes and desires of the majority of all mankind. And if we do so inquire, we are compelled to answer that the implementation is entirely insufficient. A reference is made to "conformity with the principles of justice and international law," but not the slightest attempt is made clearly to define justice or establish a code governing the behavior of all nations, large or small, powerful or weak, toward each other. It is the purpose to "prevent and remove" threats to the peace, and to "suppress aggression,” but the so-called veto right and principle of unanimity” absolutely nullify any possible action to prevent threats to the or to suppress aggression if the offender is any one of the great powers. But from whom do "threats to the peace” come! From the Hollands and Belgiums and Switzerlands of this world? Not at all. They come from the great powers and their combined or unilateral actions. Actually, if there is to be a veto right at all, it would seem that the small states are the ones who would most need it for their protection. We have not heard of Czechoslovakia annexing Germany by force, or Poland annexing Russia by force or the threat of force.
The Charter specifically forbids aggression. But when you forbid something, you certainly start by defining it—that is the beginning of all law. "The Nuremberg trials made "preparation for aggression" a crime, and men were sent to be hanged by the neck until dead for breaking this "law" against the conscience of mankind.
Now, I have no objection to what is called retroactive law. Someone has said that law starts with the criminal; an offense is committed, and the conscience of the community is aroused, after which the commission of such offenses is outlawed and penalties are set up.
But I have said it before, and I say it again: If a community and a set of judges, summon persons of state before a bar of judgment, and condemn them with the most drastic penalties for crimes against mankind, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity, it is then incumbent upon the judges themselves to codify in law the principles upon which the accused have been sentenced, and so provide for the outlawry of such crimes, by whomever committed in the future. Otherwise no justice has been done, but a lynching has been performed.
It is obviously impossible to remove the veto until you have first defined the law. No one, however, can subscribe to a law and afterward invoke the veto to protect himself in case he is accused of a breach of it. It is therefore necessary to define and legally forbid, those things which the Charter is specifically charged to preventaggression and preparation for aggression.
It is not difficult to define aggression. In July 1932 growing militarism in Germany and the aggressive national spirit boding the coming into power of Hitler, greatly frightened the Soviet Union. Apprehending possible aggression from that quarter and feeling herself menaced, she concluded a series of treaties with the surrounding neighboring states, including Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. In these treaties both signatories pledged themselves to refrain from aggression against each other, and aggression was defined as follows, and I quote from the treaty between the Soviet Union and Poland:
1 Any act of violence attacking the integrity and inviolability of the territory or political independence of the other contracting party-even if such acts are committed without declaration of war and avoid all possible warlike manifestations-should one of the contracting parties be attacked by a third state or group of other states, not to give aid or assistance directly or indirectly, to the aggressor state during the whole period of the conflict; not to be party to any agreement openly hostile to the other party from the point of view of aggression.
Such a definition excludes not only attacks by violence, but nonviolent plots against the political independence of states, and forbids the use of the territory of one state for actions by a third party against another.
Again, the next year, in 1933, the Soviet Union, Rumania, Latvia, Estonia, Turkey, Iran, and Afghanistan mutually signed in London a Convention for the Definition of Aggression, which all agreed to renounce. In this another very clear and complete definition of aggression is formulated :
1. Declaration of war upon another state.
2. Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war of the territory of another state.
3. Attack by its armed forces with or without a declaration of war on the territory, vessels, or aircraft of another state.
4. Naval blockade of the ports of another state.
5. Provision of support to armed bands formed in the territory which have invaded the territory of another state, or refusal notwithstanding the request of another state to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive these bands of all assistance or protection.
And I would like to point out that this convention contains the following passage:
No political, military, economic, or other consideration may serve as an excuse for justification for the aggression referred to.
Now, it is true that the convention and the treaties were violated by the Soviet Union some years later. But what does this prove except the need for means of enforcement? And, of course, for a universal system of enforceable collective security ?
The prohibition of "preparation for aggression" clearly implies some system of controlled disarmament. It is doubtful whether ever any state will entrust itself to live entirely without home defenses. Even Switzerland, which is unique in the world, being prohibited by its constitution to make aggressive war or ally itself with any external power for the purpose of war, has not neglected its defenses, but, on the contrary, has, for its size, the most formidable fortress of defenses of probably any state in the world. But among great powers the theory that “the only defense is offense" is gaining ground, in view of the development of new weapons with which, in a single blow, lasting only a few hours, a whole civilization may theoretically be laid low. Atomic weapons, new bombs of vastly greater power than any used in the recent war, bacterial weapons that can be aimed against human and organic life of all varieties, jet-propelled V-weapons, robot-radiodirected planes—all these constitute a Jules Verne nightmare, terrifying the people of the world. It is plain that if the United Nations Charter means anything at all about human rights, civilization, and renunciation of war, steps must be taken to remove from the control of sovereign states such instruments of mass murder.
But experience has shown only too vividly that prohibition of aggressive weapons, and competition in weapons of increasingly horrendous power, cannot be stopped by Hague conventions and mere treaties of disarmament.
Incidentally, in this last war, every country broke practically every Hague convention. History is paved with such conventions and disarmament treaties, along with the bones of men who suffered and died when the treaties were broken. Unenforceable disarmament only penalizes the sincere and honest in favor of the insincere and dishonest. It is therefore impossible to halt preparation for aggression, and accomplish the outlawry of mass destruction weapons, without inspection and control. It is true that the difficulties are great, but not, in my opinion, as great as have been claimed. For it is quite impossible for the largest nation to arm for a great conflict in secret, and, as it were, underground, unless it practically closes its border
I am extremely sorry that the United States dropped so easily, almost, it seemed, with an expression of relief, its own proposal for controlled atomic disarmament. For that proposal was far and away the most radical and noble gesture ever made by a great power to a fearful world. It was, incidentally, the greatest project of international socialization ever proposed. I think we should stick to it, but embody it in a general code of prohibition of preparation for aggression.
It is on these matters only, at this time in the world's development, that the nations, once having defined their terms, should abandon the veto. The process would require international control machinery, an international supreme court before which infringements could be charged, and penalities for the responsible persons found guilty of infringement.
And all of that is implicit in the Nuremberg trials which Mr. Robert Jackson said should be the basis of a new international law.
The idea of an international peace force to supplement the armies of the associated law-abiding states follows naturally, though the likelihood of its ever having to be used were the previous steps taken is small.
We have been very loose in our use of terms. Our leaders have spoken repeatedly of "peace loving” nations. We have made some remarkable interpretations of "peace loving.” On the veto, for instance, of the Soviet Union, we have excluded Eire, from the fellowship of the "peace-loving" United Nations, apparently because Eire so loved peace that it refused to go into the last war.
However, gentlemen, the term is meaningless. We do not refer to "peace loving” citizens, but to "law abiding citizens. And correctly, for it is quite impossible to “enforce peace. The only thing that can be enforced is law. If our police were running around enforcing anything that any member of them, or the whole of the police force arbitrarily decided was peace, we would not have peace but a police state, with peace only for the police and no security whatever for the citizen. The United Nations to live up to its promises to the world's people must become a fellowship of law-abiding nations.
This, it seems to me, is precisely the aim of Resolution 163, which we are discussing today, and which has the support of a great many citizens' organizations in this country, among them the one which I speak for here, as well as for myself: Woman. The women of this world, gentlemen, are sick and tired of wars to end war; of leagues to enforce peace; of empty words about justice, the rights of peoples and nations. We want an organization of the world to prevent aggression and the repetition in every generation, or less than a generation, of wholesale mass murders.
We are not pacifists in the sense that we do not wish to offer ourselves as booty for the next aggressor. We wish security for ourselves on the exact terms we wish it for everyone else in the world and every
other state. We gave our sons in this war to defend the rights of human beings, and to found the world on enforceable law and justice, protective of the lives and liberties of all men and all nations. If there are any among you who have lost sons in this late war, you will know the bitterness that those of us feel, who look day by day upon a beloved face, smiling above the uniform of the United States, and think-not only that he died, in his unfulfilled youth, but that he died in all proba bility—as the picture of the world is today—in vain. That is the bitterness that fills my heart, as I look each day upon the face of my stepson, who lies in France, as noble a youth, as devoted to the cause of freedom and peace as any youth who ever went through hell for it. We owe those boys something, gentlemen. We owe it to American boys, Russian boys, British boys, and, yes, German and Japanese boys, whose idealism was exploited for their countries, even though they themselves hated war.
What are the arguments, gentlemen, against trying, at least, taking the leadership at least, toward strengthening the United Nations, and making it perform what it promised to perform?
Are the arguments that it is quite adequate as it is! I have followed the hearings here and have heard no such arguments. No; all we hear is the same old argument: We must not attempt to do anything, because if we do, we will sabotage the peace. I must ask :