« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
general staff in behalf of the parties to this treaty. The general staff shall organize and direct the forces provided by this treaty for the purpose of maintaining or restoring international peace and security, and shall appoint a high command for such forces while operating during such emergency in behalf of the parties to this treaty.
Article 7. In addition to taking the action called for in Articles 2, 3, 4, and 5, the parties to this treaty will cooperate in full with one another, with the United Nations, and with the general staff and high command of forces acting in their behalf in accord with Article 6 of this treaty to assure the restoration or maintenance of international peace and security in such an emergency. To facilitate such cooperation, they will meet in case the emergencies described in Articles 4 or 5 of this treaty should occur, and will establish such agencies as may be necessary during such emergency to fulfill the purpose described in those articles.
Article 8. The parties to this treaty shall, in accord with Article 51 of the Charter, immediately report to the Security Council of the United Nations any measures taken in accord with Articles 4, 5, 6, and 7 of this treaty, and should the Security Council decide what measures should be taken to maintain or restore international peace and security, the parties to this treaty will act in accord with such decisions.
Article 9. This treaty shall not in any way impair the inherent right of the parties to engage in self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, individually or through other collective arrangements consistent with their obligations under the United Nations Charter.
Article 10. This treaty shall be open to signature by Members of the United Nations and shall come into effect among the states which ratify it as soon as ratifications have been deposited by a majority of the Members of the United Nations, including three of the permanent members of the Security Council. Ratifications shall be deposited with the Secretariat of the United Nations.
In accord with Article 1 of this treaty, the parties agree to maintain in a condition of readiness for use by the United Nations the following forces and facilities:
Mr. EICHELBERGER. Other steps could be taken within the Charter to enhance world security. Our Association has for some time urged that the United States initiate a movement for the establishment of a United Nations constabulary. It would be composed of volunteers, wearing a United Nations uniform and marching under its flag, without loss of national citizenship. Such a constabulary, while not sufficient to stop large-scale aggression as would be the purpose of armed contingents, would be of invaluable police service in such situations as Palestine, Greece, and Kashmir.
We have long urged that the United States initiate a policy of placing strategic bases under United Nations trusteeship so that the bases which we and others hold would, in a sense, be United Nations police stations.
This number is only suggestive. Some members of the Commission favored a larger number, other members favored a smaller number of required signatures.
None of these steps involve revision of the Charter. They involve the performance by nations who have determined that the United Nations be the foundation of their foreign policy.
Too little effort is made to point out that the Security Council was successful in the evacuation of Soviet troops from Iran, or French and British troops from Syria and Lebanon; or that in dealing with Indonesia, Pakistan, and India, the Council is dealing with some success in situations involving one-fifth of the world's population.
Little has been said before this committee about the successful functioning of the Trusteeship Council, and the fact that colonial peoples everywhere may look forward to a better day because of provisions for the welfare and self-government of dependent peoples contained in the Charter, and the vigilance with which the Trusteeship Council is carrying out its mandate. Little has been said of the work of the Economic Commission for Europe, of the Food and Agriculture Organization, or of other bodies which are slowly and painfully weaving the fabric of a united world, with little publicity, because publicity is concentrated on the dramatic and the failures.
Some of the talk for revision of the Charter leads to escapism. It is easier to talk about revision than failure of governments to make full use of the Charter. It is easier to talk about the ideal settlement that can be made if world federation were established rather than to undertake the task of meeting present day problems through the United Nations. And while our Association has opposed an immediate effort for textual revision of the Charter, we have been one of the pioneers in the field of human rights, justice for Palestine, the Little Assembly, the implementation of article 51 and many other problems before the United Nations.
To repeat, we believe the United Nations can and must be strengthened by performance and implementation. Charter revision should not be attempted until success would be assured. The nations must make the United Nations the foundation of their foreign policy rather than an instrument of policy. This fundamental change in national attitudes involves a comprehensive program of education. And no escapism can take the place of this stern effort.
Chairman EATON. Thank you, Mr. Eichelberger. Are there any questions?
Mr. LODGE. I would like to say that Mr. Eichelberger has given us a very informative statement.
I take it, Mr. Eichelberger, that you are opposed to all the resolutions which are now before the committee, Resolution 59 as well as 163? Mr. EICHELBERGER. I am opposed to any resolution which would involve calling a constitutional convention under article 109 of the Charter at this time. When the time comes that a textual revision of the Charter can help rather than harm the United Nations, we shall have some proposals for revision of our own. We feel now that the way to strengthen the United Nations is by greater fulfillment of obligations by the members and by the implementation of the Charter. Mr. LODGE. With respect to the 23 vetoes used by Soviet Russia in the past, only 3 of those came with respect to actual aggression, whereas the bulk of the vetoes were with respect to matters coming under chapter 6, which is the chapter from which General Marshall once proposed the veto be eliminated; is that correct?
Mr. EICHELBERGER. With this slight modification. I think the greatest number were cast on the question of membership. While that is certainly a misuse of the veto, it does not involve either chapter 6 or chapter 7. I think one veto was cast in the case of Syria and Lebanon, because the Russians did not think the resolution was strong enough, but it was carried out anyway by the French and the British by withdrawing their troops.
Four were on the question of Spain, a situation which was not of immediate concern to peace and security.
Six were on the case of Greece, three of which I believe did involve chapter 7, the chapter to which the Culbertson suggestion would apply, but to which General Marshall's would not.
One was in the Corfu Channel case and 11 on the question of admission of new members.
You see, the vetoes have been cast in a surprisingly narrow range after all, and I think we have greatly exaggerated the importance of the veto. I do not like it, but I think the exaggeration of its importance has been overdone.
Chairman EATON. Thank you very much.
The chairman would like to announce that a motion is pending before the committee to have all witnesses send a digest of their testimony, up to 1,000 words, for printing in the record of the meetings, so we can have for our consideration and for the record a complete digest of all the views presented here today, and our position as to the views. The next witness is Mr. Emerson.
STATEMENT OF E. A. EMERSON, PRESIDENT, THE ARMCO
Mr. EMERSON. I am E. A. Emerson. I am addressing the committee in behalf of the Middletown Citizens' Committee, which was formed 2 years ago in an effort to find some way to develop public opinion in the interests of peace.
Chairman EATON. I notice you are representing the ARMCO International. Would you unravel those alphabetical monstrosities for us? Mr. EMERSON. I am president of the Armco International Corp., foreign subsidiary of the Armco Steel Corp., and in that capacity I have been engaged in foreign business for some 35 years; but it is as honorary president of the Middletown Citizen's Committee for the United Nations Charter amendment that I appear here. Chairman EATON. Proceed, Mr. Emerson.
Mr. EMERSON. Speaking for the Middletown Citizen's Committee, I wish to approach the critical problem your committee is facing from the angle of public opinion. In Middletown we have experienced what was to many of us a very thrilling demonstration of what public opinion can mean and can do, and of what American grass roots public opinion today is demanding.
Middletown, Ohio, is a typical small American community of approximately 35,000, with steel, paper, and tobacco industries in the city and fertile farm lands around it.
Just 2 years ago this month, in May 1946, boys were coming back from World War II and already we're being worried by talk of World War III. A group of World War I and World War II vets were
discussing the situation in the American Legion hall one night and we decided that complacently sitting our way into two World Wars was enough. This time we wanted to be on our feet doing something to prevent the next one before it started.
At that time America was complacent and apathetic and completing the utter folly of its premature demobilization.
The World War I vets realized that in the thirty's the Legion had a slogan, "Peace through preparedness," but no one had worked at it. We had not aroused public opinion enough to support it.
As we studied the subject we realized how vitally important to our American foreign affairs is public opinion. Molotov can bargain internationally as he wishes and then create whatever public opinion he wants. He can bargain for the moon and settle for a street lamp. Secretary Marshall must continually be thinking of public opinion and must be careful not even to suggest anything that public opinion may not support.
For 36 years I have been engaged in the foreign business of my company. During that time I have seen American businessmen and engineers with a steady stream of successes abroad. I have seen our armed forces do the same. During that same time I have seen our diplomats take defeat after defeat including the two worst ones that can come to statesmen, two World Wars.
The Americans in the winning brackets acted with initiative and decisiveness and were strongly supported from home. Our diplomats have been unable to act in that same manner because so often they had only an apathetic, uninformed public opinion at home which would not support them in the positive actions required.
We decided that we would do what one community could do to give our leaders in Washington an aroused and vocal public opinion. We started that May night.
You have had the problem stated to you probably too many times already, but I must briefly describe our future as it appeared to this typical group of grass-root American citizens in 1946 and as it still looks to us:
I. We are drifting into World War III. Not because we threaten or want to threaten anyone, but because the Soviet communistic leaders are convinced they must destroy our system to triumph with their own.
II. World War III will start with a surprise attack that will conceivably wipe out New York, Washington, and enough American centers to be catastrophic as soon as the Kremlin crowd has accumulated enough A bombs or equivalent.
III. The only way to stop that next war is to stop that one last small but dangerous group of aggressors from making those bombs. Most Russians, as we know, are just as peace loving as we, but that small group in the Kremlin, the last of the four aggressive groups of our time, are made up of ruthless fanatics with a Tartar mentality that holds life very cheap. They must be stopped on their bomb program. IV. It seemed unthinkable to us that we should let that Third World War come.
V. It seemed unthinkable to us that we should have to spend fantastic, crushing billions of our substance and interfere with the lives of millions of our young men in stopping that one small group of aggressors 14 men-in a country where much opposition must exist to their ruthless tactics of domination.
VI. There must be some simpler solution-there is. We have a United Nations set up to stop aggressors. Why not use it?
VII. We believe there are two ways to use the UN to stop the production of those bombs. Both ways channel through Resolution No. 168, which is before you for action. Both of them utilize the United Nations as strengthened by this plan proposed in No. 168. (This resolution was submitted by Congressman Burke, of our district, and is identical to No. 163, submitted by Mr. Judd.)
(a) The first way is through the use of world public opinion. Resolution No. 168 outlines a solution, a plan for keeping the peace of all nations on a basis that is so manifestly fair that it can be accepted by any man who is open-minded and wants peace. Some call it the ABC plan-some the Middletown plan-some the Legion plan-or the quota force plan-it doesn't matter. That plan resolutely and skillfully supported by the United States can gain the adherence of an overwhelming number of nations. It can arouse a great mass of public opinion in favor of it on both sides of the iron curtain. That mass of public opinion plus the international strength behind it will in our opinion convince the Kremlin crowd that they have gone as far as they can on the path of aggression and that they had best now join the cause for peace, help make the United Nations work, and benefit therefrom with the rest of us. I do not say this completely without experience because I have carried on many negotiations with Russians. They are the world's best poker players. They push implacably until they have determined to their own satisfaction that you will yield no more. Then and only then the atmosphere clears, amiability appears, and agreements are reached. If we are firm for the solution offered by No. 168 and we show we are firm and determined on it, the odds are very great they will stop pushing and we will have won the elements for peace.
(3) In the unlikely event that the Soviet group continues to stand out against the great mass of world opinion which can be mustered in favor of strentghening the United Nations so that it can accomplish its purpose-as subscribed to by the U. S. S. R.-then the UN needs most obviously to be strengthened, and as Resolution No. 168 indicates. When so strengthened it will constitute a potent authority with a court to determine its laws and a police force to prevent breaches of those laws. Policemen have always carried clubs, and in dangerous districts, sometimes revolvers, and we would not hesitate to make it clear that if the conditions which the bulk of the nations of the world feel are necessary to preserve the peace of all are threatened by anyone that then the police force would under the authority of the revised United Nations utilize whatever means are necessary to stop that aggressor before he brings destruction on the nations dedicated to peace. This is not an American police force-it answers to the revised Security Council and acts for all.
Action on either of the above will keep the initiative in the hands of the peaceful nations-and that is the essential.
The Middletown Citizen's Committee wanted action. It was only a study group long enough to test its solution on all the critics it could reach. Then it went out to rouse public opinion in favor of that solution and the success that followed was astonishing. We were amazed to find such tremendous interest in international affairs, such