Изображения страниц

Ministerial Association.

Talk of the Month Club. N. A. L. C. Branch No. 188 (Postal Trades and Labor Council (AFL). Employees).

Veterans of Foreign Wars, Miami ValNew Hope Baptist Church.

ley Post. Poasttown Grange.

Veterans of Foreign Wars, Hunter Real Estate Board,

Clark Post. Red Cross.

Armco Employees Independent Union. Retail Merchants Association.

Greenfield Ohio Rotary Club. Rotary Club.

Blanchester Ohio Rotary Club. Round Table.

Middletown Teachers Association. Spanish American War Veterans. N. A. A. C. P., Middletown chapter. St. Johns Lutheran Church Brother- Women's Club. hood.

Young Businessmen's Club. Sulphite Paper Workers Unions (AFL). Homemakers' Club, Middletown, Ohio.


Fourth district of the Ohio department Ohio State Ancient Order of Hibernians. of the American Legion.

Butler County Bar Association. Ohio district AHEPA.

Clergy of the diocese of southern Ohio. Eleventh district of the Ohio depart- American War Mothers—State of Ohio. ment of the American Legion.

Butler County Democratic executive One hundred and fifty-ninth district of committee.

Rotary Clubs (38 counties of southern Executive board, Federation of WomOhio).

en's Clubs of Ohio. 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.

National Association of Foremen. The Kansas department of the Ameri

can Legion.

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,


WILLIAM VERITY, Middletown Citizens Committee.


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 puț 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.


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:

(1) Primary reliance for enforcement of decisions should be changed from enforcement on nations by war to enforcement on individuals by police.

(2) Assembly representation should be changed from one-nation-one-vote to weighted representation.

(3) The area in which the United Nations will have compulsory jurisdiction should be carefully defined, and limited initially to the control of armaments and certain strategic areas, and to other matters directly concerned with maintenance of peace.

(4) The veto should be eliminated when enforcement is upon individuals, when there is general disarmament, and when there is a more equitable representation in the Assembly.

(5) The structure of the United Nations should be changed to make the Assembly a real legislative body, and the World Court a world judicial system with compulsory jurisdiction in cases involving nations and individual violators of world law.

We hope that rapid progress toward bringing armaments under world law will be viewed by Congress and the American people as a matter of great urgency, and that Congress will encourage the Executive to proceed in that direction with expedition and high resolve, through negotiations with other nations, through Charter revision under article 109 with universal participation, or by other methods.



As stated in my testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on May 7, 1948, the American Veterans Committee (AVC) wholeheartedly endorses the principle set forth in House Concurrent Resolution 59, calling for a world conven. tion to amend the Charter of the United Nations to enable it to enact, enforce and interpret world law to prevent war.

The American Veterans Committee supports the United Nations as the only existing means of international cooperation, but we realize that in its presen form it is incapable of providing its members with protection against aggression We urge that our Government, in fulfillment of its responsibilities as a worli leader, take the initiative in the United Nations in advocating an over-all secu rity program and that it use every means of friendly persuasion to obtain th voluntary agreement of all nations to conferring the following powers on th United Nations :

1. The power to administer laws binding the individual citizens of ever; nation as their first duty. This legal authority of the United Nations must b limited to only those matters essential to security. They are (1) the prohibitio. of the national manufacture or ownership of all weapons of mass destruction (2) the prohibition of the planning or initiation of war and the prohibition o national armed forces beyond the size required for the maintenance of domesti order; (3) the managerial control of those aspects of the peaceful developmen of atomic energy that can be diverted with dangerous ease to the secret man facture of bombs.

2. The power to arrest and try in United Nations courts with compulsor jurisdiction those accused of violating the basic security laws whether they k private citizens or officials of national governments.

3. The power to conduct an international system of inspection, staffed wit competent scientists recruited from the member nations. These inspectors mus have the right of free access into every country and the right to all scientif information of military value. Through aerial and ground surveys and throug investigation of industries, mines, and underground structures, they must mais tain a continuous search for all attempts to construct the prohibited armamen

4. The power to raise and support a world police force recruited from ind viduals of the United Nations and armed with the most effective modern weapon Located in strategic areas throughout the world, this police force must be suf ciently powerful to insure swift and decisive preventive action against ar government that defies the international inspectors.

If these basic security laws are to provide protection, no national governmei can be allowed to obstruct their operation by a single negative vote and prote its own citizens from the consequence of their guilt. The permanent membe: of the Security Council must agree to surrounder their right to veto Unite Nations action to enforce the laws essential to security, while retaining the right of veto over all other matters.

We therefore support House Congressional Resolution 59 in principle as being a sense resolution of Congress which would call for the full consideration and discussion of these proposals by the member nations within the United Nations,

The calling of such a conference would require certain preliminary action by the United States. We suggest therefore that House Concurrent Resolution 59 might be revised to include certain other specific recommendations as to the procedure to be followed by the President in the calling of a conference under Article 109 of the United Nations Charter. These suggested changes were outlined in the testimony of Mr. Cord Meyer, president of the United World Federalists and a leading member of AVC. They are

1. The declaration by the United States Government in a clearly defined policy pronouncement that it is our intention to seek the quickest possible development of the United Nations into an effective federation.

2. The immediate initiation of negotiations by our Government with other nations on the highest level, as a preliminary step to the calling of general conference.

3. And finally the calling of a general conference for United Nations revision under the provisions of Article 109 of the Charter. No group realizes more thoroughly than we do that the above proposals represent tremendous changes in our attitudes and considerations of foreign policy. Too little public attention has been given to the aspects of the report of the President's Air Policy Commission, which touched upon what was called a "double barrelled" policy. On the one hand we prepare ourselves to live in a world of force, but at the same time we take the lead in calling for steps to avoid another war. As the report said, “Our national security can be secured only by the elimination of war itsself. * * * World peace and the security of the United States are now the same thing. * * * We will not be rid of war until the nations arrive at a great agreement to live together in peace, and to this end give the United Nations organization the legal and physical power under a regime of law to keep the peace."



The following are my personal views only.

Conditions in the world today—the possibility of the end of civilization itselfare bad enough so that the pressure to take necessary steps to organize peace is great and growing in all countries. This is the crisis of recorded history. The final culmination of our civilization of material things is that we have acquired the power to destroy cvilization overnight.

Time and again in history, groups, races, civilizations, finding themselves in a new environment to which they were ill-adapted, have been the victims of a form of political or economic natural selection and have disappeared. Some 19 or 20 civilizations have existed in the world's history; 14 have disappeared, 4 or 5 are decadent, according to Arnold Toynbee, and, as to ours, we have no assurance that it will survive. John Buchan, Lord Tweedsmuir, said that leadership in the enterprise of organizing the nations for peace is the predestined task of the United States as the depositary of “the spiritual testament of democracy.'

Treaties and promises between sovereign nations have never in history prevented wars.

The only way to compel nations to refrain from going to war is to go to war against them or else to put one law, with power to enforce it, over all the nations. National sovereignty, unlimited by law, is not liberty but international anarchy.

The pressure of events toward strengthening the United Nations into a world federal government with limited powers adequate to prevent war-not just another league or alliance—is becoming enormous in many countries. In the United States : Official referendum, 1947, in Massachusettes, 75 percent of eligible voters participated, 90.2 percent voted in favor. Gallup poll, September 15, 1947, 83 percent for a world congress to strengthen the United Nations, 85 percent for world federal government; 17 States have passed resolutions favoring an international conference to strengthen the United Nations into a world government.

In England, Churchill on May 14, 1947, advocated world federal government;

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »