Изображения страниц

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.


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 tlie 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.





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.



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.

What about Russia ? That is not the first question to be answered. The first question is, What about the United States? We ourselves are the crux of the present situation. We ourselves must offer to lead the way. It is futile for us to wait for someone else to take the lead. Only when we, the strongest nation, make the offer, will Russia have the first chance to make a choice.

Suppose when the issue were squarely raised, Russia refused to go along. Should we abandon the effort to strengthen the United Nations and, perhaps, proceed under article 51

Resolution 59 does not attempt to answer that question. It simply recommends that we make the start to establish a limited world juridical order. It seems to me that that is wise. It would be premature at this time to even suggest the possibility that Russia would refuse.

Procedings under article 51, however, before the fullest effort had been made to strengthen the United Nations, would simply be a hostile coalition and the continuance of the outworn policy of alliances and power politics.

The character of war has been revolutionized, and we must change our habits of thinking about war and peace, if our civilization is to survive.

In the immediate future we must keep ourselves the strongest Nation in the world, economically, politically, and militarily. We must help to strengthen western Europe. But those are negative things, a shield behind which to gain time for accomplishment of an ethical and effective objective. We must do two things at once: work on both the short-run and the long-run problems.

But what is our objective? So far as any expressions of our statesmen indicate, our Nation's objective is the indefinite continuance of the same.

In contrast, the leading statesmen of England of both parties, including Mr. Churchill, have clearly stated that the only solution is world law and order. Leading statesmen of Belgium and France have said the same. The constitutions of France and Italy authorize the joining into a world government.

What says the United States ?

If the world is to take the only road to peace, the American people themselves must take the lead through their elected representatives. The Executive Department can hardly be expected to make the offer to substitute an international system of security for the war-making power unless it clearly will be supported by the legislative branch. Resolution 59 is not "back-seat driving”; it is a removal of the ghost of Senate ratification and an effort to give assurance and encouragement to the Executive Department to adopt the only objective that offers hope of enduring peace.


I agree with those who think it important to preserve and perpetuate the United Nations. I agree that for at least this fiscal year European recovery program is essential to bridge the economic gap in western Europe. But I believe that neither the United Nations nor European recovery program can preserve the system of individual freedom and democratic institutions either in western Europe or the United States. The proposals now before your committee stem from a similar belief; but I feel that they, in turn, will prove inadequate to save the free way of life in the world.

The proposal to attempt a reform of the United Nations by abolishing the veto is impractical both in method and in results. Experience shows that any move to this end within the United Nations will involve a delay of years. Witness the discussion of the atomic energy plan, of the United Nations armed forces, etc. The crisis is too great to permit this delay. Abolition of the veto cannot be accomplished without the consent of Russia and the United States. Russia will not consent. The United States should not consent if the United Nations remains a league of sovereign nations. Russia says she entered the league only under a solemn covenant that the veto could not be abolished without her vote; and she is right in this position. The United States ought not to attempt to force abolishment of the veto over Russia's objection, because —

(a) This will force Russian and her friends and some neutrals out of the United Nations. While I agree that the United Nations, as presently set up, cannot keep the peace, I think it valuable as an international forum, as a force for voluntary progress in many fields, as was the League of Nations.

75921448 -35

(0) The proposal seems to be that if Russia and other nations leave the United Nations, we are to lead in the formation of a reformed United Nations, thus dividing the world into two camps.

(c) If we break the United Nations by a great moral drive to abolish the veto in matters of aggression, then we would seem morally bound to stand by that principle in organizing our new league, with the divergent group of

states that, for good reasons or bad, stand with us in the show-down. The new league must then be set up on the basis of no veto on matters of aggression. If states can be forced into war over their negative votes, no state, large or small, ought to have a veto on the conduct of the war. So we shall start on a road whereon we must face putting up most of the men, material, and money, while other states control them and the ultimate peace treaty; or we must buy our way out of this position by loan or lend-lease to this or that nation; or we must reverse our nonveto policy after we have broken up the United Nations. That would hurt us morally worse than the reversal of policy as to Palestine. The new league, recognizing national sovereignty, will be as far from international government as the United Nations. If we seek a closer form of union with all the backward nations of the world, we shall have to limit the electoral repre sentation of their people, or face the certainty of another break-down. The alternative to that may well be the crass assertion of our national power.

Many persons, in official life and in private capacity, put their trust in certain half measures to prop up the free peoples.

First, the European recovery program: It has already become clear that this alone is not enough. All the money and goods we pour into Europe will go down the drain if the people of Europe doubt their own security against aggression; if each nation builds its own defense force; if there is no assurance that we will see the thing through economically and militarily. So the European-recovery-program legislation is no sooner passed than we have proposals for lend-lease or military alliance with the European-recovery-program nations. We ought to know how weak a reed a military alliance is. We have seen enough work badly or go on the rocks. Worse still, they are terminable at the will of any of the sovereign allies. A United States of Europe is urged. Can such a federation, standing alone, and without our aid and support, bring recovery? I firmly believe it cannot. Then why divide the free into two camps? In any of these alternatives how long can we bleed our economy for vast independent military preparation and for the economic support of 16 nations, each of which will maintain its own military establishment?

The way to promote economic recovery in western Europe and the remainder of the world is to form a union of the peoples whose nations practice individual freedom under law—the nations who have held the front in spiritual and material progress; to weld them into a common society; a society which as a federal unit cares for the common defense and promotes the common welfare of its citizens; a society governed by the peoples' law; a society that protects that individual lib erty which is the essential of man's welfare, progress, and prosperity.

Such a federal union of free men will solve the great rearmament-recovery dilemma we now face: We must strengthen freedom's defenses, and at the same time speed European recovery. For this we are already running short of re sources. If we arm ourselves and our European friends at the cost of their living standards, we risk the winning of these countries by communism. If we speed European recovery at the cost of defense, we risk the taking over of these countries by the Red Army with hardly battle--as Holland was taken by the Nazis.

We must find a way to enormously increase the defensive power of freedom, while saving enough in men, materials, and money to hasten recovery. Amending the United Nations Charter or making alliances will not solve the dilemma. Union of the free alone can solve it. Merely by thus ending all doubt that Europe's bases are tied inseparably by organic union, we can gain far more effective sea and air protection at a saving of at least $5,000,000,000 a year,

Nothing in the Charter of the United Nations precludes such a union. It or its members should remain in the United Nations. It should invite and encourage other nations to join, as they are able to qualify. It will be the nucleus of a free self-governing world. No other proposal meets the urgent need of the times. Instead of the resolutions before you, I hope the committee will frame one calling for a convention of delegates of the democracies of the world to explore this proposal, and report to the people of their nations a plan or constitution for such a union,

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »