PROPOSAL OF CHAIRMAN OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE The General Assembly resolves : (Docu (a) That a tax contributions plan with effect from July 1948 be introduced in accordance with the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. ment A/396); (b) That all staff members of the organization should, under the plan, pay taxation from their salary to the United Nations; (c) That the total amount thus to be levied should at least equal any additional expenditure which may be incurred in converting salaries to a gross base; (d) That members who have not yet complied with the terms of Resolution 78 should, pending such compliance, be requested to grant to their nationals, staff members of the United Nations, relief from double taxation. ANNEX D. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY: SECOND SESSION, 1947 The General Assembly, Reaffirming the principles set forth in the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and in resolutions 13 and 78 adopted at the two parts of the first session of the General Assembly with respect to taxation; Considering that in order to achieve both equity among the member states and equality among the staff members of the organization, member states should exempt from national income taxation salaries and allowances paid by the United Nations, and Noting that certain members have not yet established this exemption, Resolves: 1. That members which have not acceded to the Convention on Privileges and Immunities are requested to take the necessary legislative action to do so in order to exempt their nationals employed by the United Nations from national income taxation; 2. That the Secretary-General is requested to prepare and submit to the next regular session of the General Assembly a staff contributions plan in accordance with the recommendations of the advisory committee (document A/396) ; 3. That, pending granting tax exemption, members are requested to grant relief from double taxation to their nationals employed by the United Nations; 4. That the Secretary-General is invited to omit from all future personnel contracts any clause which binds the organization to refund national income taxation in the absence of annual authorization by the General Assembly; 5. That, in order to achieve equality among staff members, the Secretary-General is authorized to reimburse staff members for national taxes paid on salaries and allowances received from the United Nations during the years 1946, 1947, and 1948, and 6. That the Secretary-General is requested to submit a report to the next regular session of the General Assembly on the action taken under this resolution. SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. BISHOP TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, RE HEARINGS ON STRUCTURE OF UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION Mr. Chairman, and members of the committtee, as suggested by Mr. Vorys, I submit herewith a supplemental statement to my original testimony before your body on May 13. My opinions, generally, were definitely strengthened by hearing the testimony of other witnesses. I sincerely believe that the presentation of Mr. Thomas K. Finletter was a most significant contribution. I am now convinced, more than ever, that article 109 must be used first. If Russia ultimately refuses to participate in an article 109 reorganization the onus of refusal to cooperate is then on her. However, it would be a great mistake to pessimistically assume in advance that she would refuse, and thereby foreclose the possibility of her cooperation. Use of 109 demonstrates our good faith toward all nations and all peoples, Whereas, by using article 51 in the first instance, we are taking the lead in initiating an anti-Russian combine. Our motives would be subject to question by nations large and small and many of them would very likely join us reluctantly, if at all. Another important consideration in first using 51, is that by initiating the anti-Russian combine we place in Russian hands a most effective propaganda weapon, for we will have thereby demonstrated our refusal to Russia of an opportunity to cooperate. It is easy to anticipate their screams that "The bour geois imperialists in the United States show again their refusal to cooperate in the name of peace and intensify their preparations for war against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." The testimony of other witnesses did convince me that by using 109 first we still have an "ace in the hole" in article 51. It should be considered as a second approach, to be used in the event of Russian refusal to participate in a 109 reorganization. Used as a second approach it does not subject us to any charge of bad faith. I have not mentioned more than fundamental principles. In so short a statement detailed discussion is not possible. I sincerely hope that committee will report favorably H. R. 59. If deemed necessary the word "immediate" could be changed. In any event, we should proceed as rapidly as possible, all factors of the situation being considered. Respectively submitted. ROBERT J. BISHOP, Vice President, United States Junior Chamber of Commerce. MIDDLETOWN CITIZENS COMMITTEE, Hon. CHARLES A. EATON, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CHAIRMAN EATON: Herewith the brief synopsis of the Middletown citizens testimony as suggested by Congressman Vorys of Ohio. The Middletown Citizens Committee would like to register three points with your committee: Point 1. Public opinion is impressively in favor of action now to strengthen the United Nations Charter in general accord with the A. B. C. plan presented in House Concurrent Resolutions, 163 submitted by Mr. Judd, and 168 submitted by Mr. Raymond Burke of Ohio. We know because for 2 years we have made it our business to find out. By corresponding regularly with 1,600 people in all 48 States and in 18 foreign countries we have learned that these people and their communities want an effective, strong United Nations. From 30 radio broadcasts and over 300 speeches given by our committeee members we are convinced that public opinion is behind any move by Congress to take the initiative now, to strengthen the United Nations by means of House Resolution 163. Additional and factual popular support is best demonstrated by the following list of community, county, state and national organizations which have formally approved the Middletown plan (i. e., the A. B. C. plan) and have expressed their approval by resolutions sent to Washington. LOCAL (MIDDLETOWN, OHIO) Altrusa Club (Hamilton, Ohio). Co-Operative Club. Alturian Club, Middletown, Ohio. Council of Churches. American Citizens Club. Current Events Club. gressive Association. American Hellenic Educational and Pro- Fabricating Foremen's Club-Armco. American Legion Post 218. Blythe-Williams American Legion Post. Club. Chamber of Commerce. City Commission. Civic Association. Civitan Club. Congress of Industrial Organizations, Federation of Women's Clubs. Independent Unions. Industrial Council. Insurance Underwriters Association. International Lyceum Association. Junior Board of Trade. Junior Chamber of Commerce. Kiwanis Club. Lincoln Community Center. Lions Club of Cambridge, Ohio. Ministerial Association. Talk of the Month Club. N. A. L. C. Branch No. 188 (Postal Trades and Labor Council (AFL). Sulphite Paper Workers Unions (AFL). Homemakers' Club, Middletown, Ohio. COUNTY AND STATE (OHIO) AND NATIONAL Fourth district of the Ohio department Eleventh district of the Ohio depart- One hundred and fifty-ninth district of Ohio State Ancient Order of Hibernians. Executive board, Federation of Wom- Tenth district of the Ohio department of Butler County Pomona Grange. the American Legion. Ohio State Legislature. The Ohio State Federation of Labor Kiwanis. (AFL). The National Order of AHEPA. The Kentucky State Federation of La- National Association of Fire Fighters bor (AFL). (AFL). The Ohio department of the American The American Legion. Legion. The Kansas department of the American Legion. National Association of Foremen. Point 2. This type of public opinion furnishes the necessary support to our national leaders in taking and holding the initiative in our struggle to maintain world peace against the attacks of Kremlin communism and its fifth-column Communist Parties throughout the world. It is eloquent evidence that they want America to continue the forward and aggressive policy begun by E. C. A. Point 3. The test of the effectiveness of any solution can be stated in one question, "Will it stop the Kremlin from making their A bomb?" The plan described in the above-mentioned resolutions will do that necessary thing by making the United Nations an effective agency for inspection and for policing. If one of those resolutions is adopted now when public opinion is behind it and if the A. B. C. plan is launched with manifest determination and skill, it will gain the support of peace-loving people and nations throughout the world. Its very development will dissolve obstacles now cited against it. If news of this working peace plan is carried behind the iron curtain with the ingenuity and imagination for which American publicity is known, it may activate potential opposition which now exists against the dictators in that area and it can shorten the delay with which a workable United Nations will be generally accepted. If you do not adopt Resolution 163 or 168 and press forward with the A. B. C. plan now, the Kremlin Communists will take the initiative, they will talk peace publicly while continuing to produce their bomb secretly. Public opinion here will again go soft, and complacent, and the worst disaster this Nation has ever known will be in the making. We earnestly urge your favorable action on Resolution 163 or 168. Do not throw away, or allow the Kremlin to dissolve, the immense interest and the present backing of the American people in assuming our rightful leadership in stopping world-wide Communist domination through a strong and effective world authority. Yours sincerely, E. A. EMERSON, WILLIAM VERITY, Middletown Citizens Committee. CONDENSED STATEMENT BY CLARENCE K. STREIT, PRESIDENT, FEDERAL UNION, INC. What is the main objective of United States policy? It is really equal individual freedom, rather than peace. It is essential to start with this fact. We have sacrificed our peace several times to preserve freedom, but never our freedom to secure peace. Twice our generation put peace first, and twice a war for freedom followed. We must put freedom first, and keep freedom first, if we want peace to follow. We should reassert our faith in freedom clearly now because freedom is the key to both (1) Greater production, without which dictatorship is bound to spread, and (2) Enduring peace, because free institutions force a government to move slowly and publicly and serve in many other ways to prevent its attacking another country by surprise, whereas dictatorship facilitates enormously such attack in peacetime. If we really put freedom first, then the problem of recovery and peace boils down to this: How to put more productive power behind freedom and have more of the world's military power governed by freedom? The answer is: Federate the freest fraction of mankind in a great union of the free, and thereafter extend this federal relationship to other nations as rapidly as this proves practicable until the whole world is thus governed by freedom. Every American generation has gone on applying this policy to more people and states-every one but ours, which fought twice for freedom without union, and is also the first American generation to admit that its dead died in vain. To avert a third world war we must return at once to the historic American policy of freedom through everexpanding free federation. Where to begin? It is so hard for people to provide equal individual freedom that I find only one-seventh of mankind has succeeded in doing this even fairly well for even 50 years, and we Americans furnish half this fraction. The other 140,000,000 are divided into 14 sovereign states: the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, Belgium-Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Eire, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa. Freedom is clearly in a very dangerous minority in this day of rapidly developing techniques in mass deception, mass subjugation, mass destruction. Yet such is the power freedom brings through union that these 15 need only federate in a great union to put the great bulk of world power behind their liberty. From the start their union would hold the ace of armed power (clubs), of productive power (spades), of raw material power (diamonds), of moral power (hearts), and the joker, for it would merely need to admit new states to increase its overwhelming power. Formation of this union would doubly guarantee peace by (a) giving freedom such crushing power that the Kremlin dare not attack, and (b) subjecting this power to so much freedom as to guarantee that it would not be used to attack others. Thus we can stabilize the situation for the long period mankind needs to evolve peacefully into that free world government the atomic age demands. I strongly agree with Secretary Marshall and Ambassador Austin in opposing the resolutions before you, or any attempt to revise the United Nations Charter at this time, and in favoring a policy of strengthening the United Nations without changing its structure or breaking its bridge with Russia. The union I urge requires no change in the Charter and no decision by the United Nations, since nothing in the Charter forbids any nations from freely uniting in an organic union. It strengthens the United Nations in all the major ways Ambassador Austin advocated. It differs from present State Department policy only in these two major ways: (1) It speeds recovery and strengthens us, our friends and the United Nations far more at less cost by federating instead of merely allying us with the other freest peoples. (2) It is a clean-cut, dynamic philosophy that makes freedom the key to peace and production, a faith that keeps freedom first by federating the free. The risks this policy involves are incomparability less than the risks to freedom other policies entail. To launch this policy you need only make your resolution one requesting the President to invite the nations I have listed, as most experienced in governing themselves in freedom, to send delegates to meet in a federal convention with our delegates to explore how best to advance individual freedom, and therefore world recovery and peace, by drafting a constitution to unite their people and ours in an organic federal union. I suggest the resolution specify that the proposed union shall guarantee all its citizens no less liberty than our Constitution guarantees us; shall remain open to membership by other nations willing and able to meet its standards of freedom; and shall uphold the United Nations. The issue is simply this: Shall we, or shall we not convoke this convention, begin this exploration now while we have time to explore carefully or defer it until another surprise, such as the Czech coup, forces us to act hastily? The other solutions before you have failed before, and take even more time than the free will need to draft a federal constitution. Convoking this convention involves no commitment to ratify the resulting constitution sight unseen, yet the mere calling of this convention, our mere readiness to explore the possibility of union of the free would give us a much greater phychological advantage immediately than any other decision we could take. This federal union policy applies concretely and carefully the following principles which John Foster Dulles asserted, in substance, in answering questions when he testified before your committee: Personal liberty, not peace, is our basic objective. The grave danger we face is the Soviet Government's attack on individual freedom. The nations with whom we can really federate are relatively few; they are only the free societies, those with long-established procedure for insuring individual freedom. We can organize the democracies and still keep the United Nations. It will take courage to call this federal convention now, but if we try to nibble and gnaw our way to it like mice we shall nibble and gnaw away its effect on the hearts of men. To overcome dictatorship by war some men have to be bold, move sooner and more powerfully than the foe expected. To win without war, as the American people rightly expect their political leaders to try to do, requires boldness even more, requires leadership to throw dictatorship off its balance by surprise, by calling in 1948 the federal convention that the Kremlin believes Congress will not have the courage to call until it is too late. SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY SAMUEL R. LEVERING, REPRESENTING THE FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION AND THE PEACE BOARD OF THE FIVE YEARS MEETING OF FRIENDS We support action by Congress advocating that the United States go on record that it seeks a world of just law through transforming the United Nations, and is willing to pool the requisite amount of sovereignty necessary to maintain peace. Experience increasingly indicates that the United Nations, in its present structure, is not fully adequate to build and preserve the peace of the world. Since all history testifies that the system of competing national armaments under unrestricted national sovereignty almost inevitably leads to conflict and war, we feel that general disarmament of nations under law, with inspection and enforcement on individual violators by an international civilian police, is an urgent necessity. Rapid establishment of the rule of just law in the international field should be, in our opinion, the core of American foreign policy. Such positive leadership for peace by the United States would unite the American people and raise a beacon of hope and unity for all mankind. War is threatened by Soviet-American tensions. We are especially concerned that every effort be made to resolve those conflicts under law and that the United Nations should be developed in an effort to assure a feeling of security to all people in a universal system, including both the Soviet Union and the United States. The basic work of the United Nations on economic problems, human rights, freedom of information, health, etc., should be fully supported as an important foundation for peace. Beyond that, however, we favor the patient, persistent development of the United Nations into real federal world government. An armed balance of power cannot insure peace. We believe that military alliances are not a genuine solution of the problem of security and should not be substituted for progress toward world federation. The following are among the changes which should be made in the United Nations Charter: |