(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.

SUPPLEMENT TO THE TESTIMONY OF CHAT PATERSON, NATIONAL CHAIRMAN OF THE AMERICAN VETERANS COMMITTEE (AVC)

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 convention 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 world 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 prohibition 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 mani 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 t 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 main 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 governme 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."

OUTLINE OF TESTIMONY BY DEAN PAUL SHIPMAN ANDREWS, COLLEGE OF LAW OF SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, CHAIRMAN, NEW YORK BRANCH, UNITED WORLD FEDERALISTS, INC., GIVEN MAY 7, 1948, BEFORE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

The following are my personal views only.

Conditions in the world today-the possibility of the end of civilization itself— are 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;

same, Attlee on November 13, 1946; same, Bevin on November 23, 1947, and later. same, Eden, same, Arnold J. Toynbee, the great historian.

France: Provision in new national constitution permitting adherence to world federal organization when formed. Italy: Same; Count Sforza stated to have committed himself in favor. Canada: Prime Minister Mackenzie King, John Bracken (leader of Progressive-Conservative Party), Angus MacInnis, of CCF Party, have come out in favor.

There are persuasive parallels with the formation of the American Constitution in 1787, in the bitternesses between the 13 Colony-Nation-States. (See John Fiske, Critical Period of American History, and The Great Rehearsal, by Carl Van Doren.) Most of the reasons for distrust and jealousy, which exist today can be duplicated in the history of the formation of the United States. The pressure for unity, for forming "a more perfect union," then lay in the fear of losing liberty. Today, not only liberty is at stake, but life and civilization itself.

As I see it, the irreducible minimum for an effective world government would include the following provisions:

(1) Membership open to all nations.

(2) Limited powers in federal world government-all other powers reserved to member nations.

(3) Enforcement of world law directly upon individuals.

(4) Balanced representation, based not only on population but on industrial, educational, and perhaps others factors.

(5) Eliminating all national military establishments except police forces. (6) World government army strong enough to resist aggression from nonmember nations, if any, and combined with inspections powers strong enough to prevent preparations for war by any member nation.

(7) World legislature with powers strictly limited by constitution.

(8) Power to raise money by taxation, limited in form and subject matter. (9) Complete control of dangerous aspects of atomic energy development. If Russia is to be induced to come in and in doing so to give up her military establishment, the United States must be willing to make great concessions. We must work constantly to bring Russia in. There are great concessions we could make in a world in which no nation then remained armed-such matters as conceding joint access and control of the Dardanelles and Near East oil, etc. Russia has as much to gain as we: Access to and a share in all the resources of the world; saving billions in military expenditures; a higher standard of living for her people; avoiding the chance of a reciprocally suicidal war.

I spoke of a law of natural selection. We, of this generation, are creating today the environment in which tomorrow we and our children will live. It is our task to see to it that that environment is one in which the peace-loving nations will be adapted to survive.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

I understand that in Italy there are more than 100,000 paying members of an organization for world federal government; 200,000 in Sweden; 200 members of the Italian Parliament as it existed before the recent election expressed their approval; 200 members of the French Parliament; 140 members of the British Parliament.

Reasons for objecting to House Concurrent Resolution 163 are given in separate memorandum already submitted. It provides for no true legislative body. for no preexisting law on which the international police force is to operate, no provision for raising money by any form of taxation or otherwise, relies solely on the exertion of force against nations, to be exerted by the international contingent plus national armies which might or might not be allowed to take part in the process contemplated under House Concurrent Resolution 163 of enforcing peace by making war. It leaves armies in the hands of the larger nations (the only aggressors) and strips the smaller nations of armaments. It automatically destroys any possibility of Russia joining, now or later. She would be hopelessly outvoted in a world of nations still remaining armed. Aggression by a major nation might be accomplished while the proposed new Security Council still debated. No nation could be compelled to send its troops. If it were decided to eject the aggressor nation from some other country which it had occupied, this could only be done by bombing and destroying the unfortunate victim, its cities, and its people.

OUTLINE OF TESTIMONY BY CORD MEYER, Jr., PRESIDENT, UNITED WORLD FEDERALISTS, NEW YORK, N. Y.

GIVEN MAY 11, 1948, BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

In accordance with the request of the committee, I am submitting this summary of the testimony I gave on May 11, 1948, in support of House Concurrent Resolution 59, and I have included additional material relating to questions raised during the hearings.

Resolution 59 is the result of widespread popular demand that our Government take constructive measures to end the world-wide rivalry for arms, allies, and strategic bases that now threatens a third world war even before the men who died in the last conflict have been decently buried. At present, almost half of our total annual budget is devoted to war preparations. The best scientific minds in many nations are at work on the development of weapons capable of annihilating the populations of entire cities. It is generally admitted that no effective defense is possible against a modern air attack with atomic bombs and biological agents. The only defense now possible for any nation is the abolition of war, because in another conflict both sides would lose their cities and a large proportion of their civilian population in the first moments of attack and counterattack.

To meet this crisis, our Government is now relying exclusively on a policy of increased military expenditures, expansion of strategic bases, and economic assistance to potential allies. These measures are necessary so long as war or the threat of force are accepted methods of resolving disputes between nations. While each nation is free to arm and declare war, our Government must attempt to deter possible aggression by effective military preparations. But preparedness cannot indefinitely prevent war nor protect our people when war comes. As we seek our protection in superior military force, other nations are compelled to seek the same defense, and the resulting power struggle is generating such fears and hatreds that the mutual annihilation of a third world war may soon be unavoidable. Obsessed by the short-term necessities of preparedness, our Government has so far failed to evolve a constructive and positive policy that provides any hope for peace. It is this failure that the passage of Resolution 59 would help to remedy.

Resolution 59 recognizes first that the United Nations under its present structure is incapable of providing that security without which its members must arm against each other. Under the Charter, each nation is free to compete with others for ever more destructive weapons, and aggression can only be met after it has occurred by a counterattack on the part of the victims. The United Nations has no authority to make laws through which aggression and preparation for aggression can be defined and prohibited as individual crimes. It has no courts, police, or inspection forces. Under its present Charter, the United Nations is a loose association or league of armed sovereign states that have commited themselves only to having their diplomatic representatives meet at stated intervals.

Resolution 59 proposes that our Government take the initiative in changing and strengthening the United Nations so that it may become a reliable instrument of international security. It proposes to substitute law for power politics in the relations between nations. It calls for the establishment within the United Nations of executive, judicial, and legislative agencies through which the use of force can be effectively outlawed in the settlement of international disputes, and enforcement action when necessary can be taken directly against the responsible individuals whether they be private citizens or national officials. It recognizes the need for a preponderantly powerful world police and the universal disarmament of the nations. This is the minimum price of peace. It is time that the United States should offer to join with other nations in paying that price, even though it means some limitation on national sovereignty.

During the hearings, objections were raised by some members of the committee that passage of Resolution 59 in its present form would commit our Government to the calling of a general conference before our own national policy had been defined and before careful negotiations with other governments had prepared the ground. This criticism could be met by changing the language of the resolution to make it clear that a general declaration of American policy toward the United Nations and prior negotiation with other governments should preced any attempt to call a revision conference under article 109.

Objections were also made during the hearings by those who felt that the resolution did not state what should be done in the event that the Soviet Union prevented by veto any amendment of the Charter. I feel myself that this speculation is premature. The United States has never yet indicated its own willingness to accept the responsibilities of membership in a world federation with the power to outlaw war. When the Charter was drafted in 1945 we joined the Soviet Union in demanding the veto power. Since then, we have condemned others for using it but insisted on retaining the right to use it ourselves. Let us first demonstrate our own willingness to join with others in giving up the right to prepare for and wage war before we assume that other governments will not accept the offer. If eventually we are faced with the refusal of a major power to take this step, we may be compelled to fall back on the provisions of article 51 of the Charter and form a partial federation. But this problem can be met when it arises and we need not anticipate such a refusal.

Some members of the committee were concerned with the question of timing, feeling that the objectives of the resolution were sound but that it was perhaps premature to press for fundamental revision of the Charter at this time. I feel myself that delay would only increase the difficulties and dangers. Each day that the arms race continues adds to the technical problems of initially establishing a reliable system of international inspection. In the near future, other nations will have produced their own atomic bombs, and an atmosphere of growing suspicion and mutual fear will result that may then make any constructive solution impossible. As the nations search for security in competing programs of national preparedness and propaganda, they may soon go so far that there will be no turning back. While there is still time, I urge you to act favorably on this resolution and give new hope to the American people whom you represent.

SUMMARY BY W. T. HOLLIDAY OF HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN ITS HEARING IN REGARD TO JOINT RESOLUTION 59 ON MAY 11, 1948

Your committee has asked me to submit a brief summary of my testimony, direct and on cross-examination, in regard to Joint Resolution 59.

The purpose of resolution 59 is to state what should be the fundamental objective of our foreign policy, to wit the strengthening of the United Nations into an organization "capable of enacting, interpreting, and enforcing world law to prevent war." As clearly as words can express it, that calls for limited world government. It calls for a placing of our own Government on record for an intelligent and courageous effort to bring about enduring peace through the only medium which ever has, or ever can prevent the decision of disputes by force.

In contrast to that principle, the United States has so far written a sorry record on the pages of history. In spite of our massive righteousness, we have never yet indicated a real desire for peace, because we have studiously ignored the only possible road to peace. To date our Government's objective has been the outworn philosophy of maintenance of peace by power. General Marshall's statement to your committee simply reaffirmed that policy—a policy which has always led to war.

The original concept of the United Nations was the maintenance of peace by power, enforced through a mere league by the unanimous agreement of the three great powers.

In 1787 the Federalist Papers disposed of that theory in these words:

"To look for a continuance of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of the ages."

General Marshall expressed the policy of our Government when he said to you: "The problems today presented to those who desire peace are not questions of structure."

That statement belies the decision of our founding fathers to abandon the Articles of Confederation and set up a new structure, a limited Federal Government. It shows that our fundamental foreign policy is to follow the ages-old path that leads to war. To say that the problems of peace "are not questions of structure" is to ignore the historical fact that all law and order rests upon the mechanism or structure of government.