« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Suggestions that a loan might be secured either from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation or from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development have been discarded as neither feasible nor desirable.
After the most careful consideration, the Department of State, the Treasury Department, and the Bureau of the Budget recommended to the President, who approved, that an interest-free loan by the United States Treasury would be the best solution. Such a loan would be a loan by the United States Government to the United Nations, backed by the obligation of all member governments to contribute their proportionate shares of United Nations expenses. It would be repayable in installments from the annual budget of the United Nations.
The question of interest on such a loan has been very carefully considered. A pertinent factor is that special benefits accrue to the United States because the headquarters will be constructed in this country. Virtually the entire cost of consruction will be spent in the United States. For example, American labor will be used for the construction, the bulk of the materials will be purchased in the United States, and the existence of the building will constitute a permanent asset to the Nation. The annual saving to the United States in the expenses of participation, such as travel and communications, resulting from the location of the headquarters in New York rather than in Europe, is substantial, estimated to be at least $600,000. Finally, the location of the United Nations in the United States cannot but be a source of added prestige and influence for the United States in world affairs. In view of these special benefits, it has been decided that the proposed Treasury loan should be interest free.
It is recognized, of course, that no binding commitments can be made under any method of financing without prior congressional authorization. It is contemplated that Ambassador Austin, Chairman of the Headquarters Committee of the present Assembly, will at a very early date inform the Committee that the United States Government is prepared to enter into negotiations with the Secretary-General of the United Nations with a view to concluding an appropriate loan agreement. He will make it very clear, however, that such an agreement will be wholly conditional upon approval of the loan by the Congress.
SUMMARY OF VIEWS REGARDING RESOLUTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE UNITED NATIONS,
IN CONNECTION WITH HEARINGS OF THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, BY ELY CULBERTSON As a general background, I should like to make part of this summary a pertinent editorial, attached hereto, from the Cleveland Plain Dealer of May 23. I hope the committee will overlook the irrelevant and exaggerately flattering reference to me. Hence it does not seem that the objectives of the State Department and of the revisionists are necessarily incompatible at present. I believe that a proper formula could be worked out by the House Foreign Affairs Committee and embodied in a resolution that would avoid needless dissensions and satisfy all concerned. Such a resolution, in my opinion, should make it clear to the millions of Americans who have been following with increasing admiration the initiative of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that, while deferring to the wishes of the antirevisionists to allow more time for the State Department to proceed along its present lines in trying to make the UN work, the committee is determined, if such efforts continue to fail after a reasonable trial, to reopen the issue of a thorough and effective revision of the United Nations before it is too late.
Regarding specific suggestions for legislative action, the following considerations should be kept in mind :
1. The Congress and the public are at all times bound to listen respectfully to the advice of the State Department, especially when it is led by a great American such as Secretary Marshall.
2. Those favoring revision of the United Nations, both in Congress and outside, represent a very large part of public opinion-I believe it to be a majority-and their wishes must also be taken into serious account.
The two principal objectives of the antirevisionists, as set forth in the State Department approved resolution introduced by Senator Vandenberg, seem to be: (a) Preparation of the ground for United States backing of the western European bloc against aggression; and (b) adequate time in which to renew State Department efforts for strengthening the United Nations by voluntary agreements.
The two principal objectives of the revisionists seem to be: (a) An effort to revise the UN Charter by amending it in accordance with articles 108 or 109, so as to eliminate the crippling veto in matters of aggression, establish international control of atomic energy and enforced limitation of other important armament, and provide the UN with an adequate but tyranny-proof police force; and (0) If this proves impossible, to set up within the framework of the United Nations an iron-clad system of collective security for mutual defense of all States which wish to join, under article 51 of the Charter. It has not been expected by the revisionists that such a vital issue as the revision of the United Nations would be acted upon by the executive branch of our Government in the few remaining months before election. All that was intended was to bring the issue of revision before the public and before Congress, and to prepare the ground for its effective solution without needless delay.
[Editorial, Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 23, 1948]
Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg's working paper, designed to support the United Nations and give American aid to "regional and other collective arrangements for collective and individual self-defense,” should be considered carefully in the light of its origin as well as its aims.
Unanimously approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, this declaration of the Senate's views on policy would also pursue “voluntary agreement to remove the veto from all questions involving pacific settlements of internațional disputes and situations, and from the admission of new members.”
Two goals which appear related are sought by this declaration. We will assist the countries of western Europe with military help, pending executive and legislative approval, provided they help themselves. This gives substantial backing to the western European federation growing out of the Marshall plan, but particularly to the Brussels Conference countries, Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxemburg, which are working out a hard-and-fast military alliance,
The second goal of the declaration is obviously to head off the widespread public demand for revision of the United Nations Charter. This demand has found expression in a score of resolutions in the House of Representatives. Hearings on UN revision ended a week ago before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Secretary of State Marshall and Warren R. Austin, American Ambassador to the United Nations, testified against any revision at this time because, with the known objections of Russia, the world organization might be killed.
Vandenberg's working paper is the product of the conference held 3 weeks ago in the State Department by Secretary Marshall, John Foster Dulles, Republican foreign policy adviser, and the Michigan Senator.
The best assessment we have noted of this administration endeavor to circumvent public opinion was made by Ely Culbertson, interested as a conscientious citizen in world peace, in his testimony before the House committee 10 days ago.
Culbertson, who spoke in Cleveland Friday night before the International Affiliation of Sales and Advertising Clubs told the House group that Marshall and Austin were "men of the past” who "are apparently oblivious of the elementary fact that between the San Francisco Conference (establishment of the UN) and today there are not 3 years, but 3,000 years—there is a vast gulf, created by the Hiroshima bomb."
“What,” Culbertson asked, “has the present, impotent, veto-ridden United Nation accomplished to remove the atomic cloud now gathering over the homes of the world? It grieves me deeply to observe that in his testimony before this committee the Ambassador (Austin) had no place for the atomic bomb, although he did find room for exalting the present United Nations in its achievements for aiding Peru to establish refrigeration and storage facilities for its fishing industry'."
Culbertson called Vandenberg's working paper a "walking paper, leading exactly nowhere” because it depends on voluntary agreements to limit the veto, a method that has repeatedly failed. Then he posed the question that reveals the contradiction and the unreality of the Vandenberg-State Department document:
“How could the State Department attack the revision of the United Nations on the ground that it might wreck the UN by reason of Russia's opposition, and at the same time advocate a military defense alliance obviously directed against Russia ?"
The man who has done so much to crystallize public opinion on the great issue of collective security then expressed succinctly the feeling of millions of his fellow Americans:
"Our only hope of averting the third world war is through a revised United Nations. And the only formula which is both effective and acceptable for such a revision is a formula which provides specific methods for the elimination of three basic defects in the present structure of the United Nations—the elemination of the veto in matters of aggression, the elimination of the atomic and armament race, and the establishment of a tyranny-proof but powerful international police force."
These aims, unfortunately, may not be achieved at this session of Congress, but the ground work has been laid for early action at the next session. By attaching appropriation items to its resolution, the House has made sure that its views will be heard and that the Vandenberg working paper will not be passed, as was intended, without House concurrence merely as an expression of Senate opinion.
It is difficult to understand the attitude of the administration. Certainly defense of the western European nations is essential, but it is only a temporary stopgap until an effective United Nations is created as an instrument of international peace. One complements the other. If they do not, then the only answer is conflict.
HARTFORD 3, CONN., May 27, 1948. Hon. WALTER H. JUDD, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN JUDD: In response to your courteous letter of May 20, forwarded to me here, I am glad to enclose as suggested by you: (a) A supplemental written summary of my views and (6) specific suggestions for legislative action.
I gathered that you wished this letter to be in the form of a concurrent resolution; and therefore, although with much hesitation, drafted one.
For your convenience I have styled it “Resolution X” and accompanied it with a running commentary.
Let me, however, make it clear that I regard your House Concurrent Resolation 163 (with its companion resolutions) as a very satisfactory method of approach. My suggestion is offered with reluctance, and exclusively for the purpose of strengthening your handiwork. It embodies only two or three real departures although it omits a number of details, not because of any opposition to them but for the sake of greater elasticity.
House Concurrent Resolution 59 is brief and well drawn, and my only suggestion there is founded upon my belief that a General Conference of nations under article 109 should not be called unless and until amendment under article 108 has failed. I have included this as an alternative remedy.
I greatly appreciated the committee's courtesy in hearing me with such patience and assure you of my readiness to render any further assistance its members may desire, whether from here or in Washington. Sincerely yours,
ANSON T. MOCOOK, Chairman, Foreign Relations Commission, American Legion.
SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF ANSON T. McCook, CHAIRMAN, FOREIGN RELATIONS
COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION (AS REQUESTED MAY 20, 1948), WITA COMMENTS ON OTHER TESTIMONY (TRANSCRIPT NOT YET RECEIVED)
International law and order are essential to peace. Economic, social, and cultural considerations are of great importance likewise, but they can avail little without peace.
The first words of the Charter declare: "The purposes of the United Nations are: (1) To maintain international peace and security, and to that end : To take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression
The United Nations can be the greatest power for peace. But peace is imperiled, and the very life of the United Nations is imperiled, by its inability to prevent aggression and enforce peace. If it cannot function, it is bound to become valueless and go the way of the League of Nations. That would be a tragedy,
The American Legion believes firmly in the United Nations for the protection of liberty and happiness throughout the world. But we are convinced that it can fulfill its purpose only through the strengthening of its Charter by amendment.
We agree with those witnesses who counsel patience, but disagree with those who counsel inaction.
We thoroughly agree that, irrespective of the United Nations, the United States must maintain a firm, reliable, steady foreign policy. We are on record as urgently supporting the program for world recovery (formerly ERP) as necessary to peace and the preservation of democracy. We maintain, however, that along with this should come the strengthening of the United Nations. The two are not inconsistent but mutually necessary.
We recognize that the next months are critical, but we cannot agree that nothing shall be ventured during those months. On the contrary, an urgent situation requires more urgent remedy. The discovery of the atomic bomb cannot be undiscovered. It must be controlled, and that control will not wait. War will Dot wait.
We agree that the single veto, for most purposes, must be preserved to the five great powers. But we are convinced that the veto must be removed with respect to aggression and preparation for aggression. On other subjects, nations like individuals may honestly differ; but no right-minded nation can insist upon the veto in matters of aggression.
Enforcement is the key to law and order. We therefore recommend concentration upon means of enforcement, and particularly upon an amendment to relieve enforcement from the veto stoppage.
To the argument that the United States might itself wish to use the veto, we reply that a peace-loving people would never veto in matters of aggression. By surrendering this one prerogative we would gain infinitely more than we could lose, since uncontrolled international aggressors are a constant threat to American lives and happiness. In that narrow but vital sphere, all nations must sacrifice some of their rights if they wish to live. Together all of us must submit to atomic inspection, or else together face ultimate destruction.
It is argued that relinquishment of the veto could never be voted by other nations, instances being cited of refusal in minor matters. We reply that in minor matters refusal is justifiable and is no indication of refusal in such vital matters are aggressive.
Nothing which is inherently right is ever impossible. This amendment should be attempted with all earnestness. If reverses are met with at first, the attempt should be repeated. And no harm could result from failure, inasmuch as the basis is not one of national rivalry but of mutual benefit.
An honest attempt would clear the air. If any nation refused to relinquish the veto in the single case of aggression, it would condemn itself of aggressive intent. Few natjons would wish this.
We wholly agree that full national defense must be maintained meanwhile, and that any limitation of armaments must be concurrent. We disagree with those who would leave the Security Council or the International Court without an international police to enforce United Nations mandates.
It is our conviction that peace cannot be created by appeasement, nor preserved by bluster. Peace is impaired whenever vacillation or political methods enter into international affairs, whether within or without the United Nations. Peace is enhanced by firmness, steadiness, and fairness. As we have advocated these in our foreign policies, we advocate them in the United Nations. The American Legion repudiates the philosophy that wars are inevitable. But time is of the essence.
Although not the subject of official Legion action, the writer sees no objection to proceeding under the Charter to effect regional or other limited international organizations under articles 51, 52, etc. Indeed, they are expressly permitted by the Charter and no amendment is required for that purpose. It should be observed, however, that the Legion has never favored alliances, although it favors cooperation.
As to the method to be pursued, the writer earnestly advocates proceeding first under article 108 to the fullest extent. Then, if that should fail, calling a conference under article 109. In such a general conference, subjects of every possible nature would be bound to arise and create confusion; whereas specific amendment under article 108 would focus the attention of the world on the crucial question.
In reply to the question, What if all these means should fail? obviously we must then go outside the Charter in conjunction with like-minded nations. However, that bridge need not be crossed at this time, and we hope may never have to be crossed. A right program is stronger without an “if." We advocate strongly the concentration of all our energies upon strengthening the organization we have, rather than turning to the new and untried.
We believe that a definite pronouncement by the Congress at this time would encourage our own people, clarify the minds of other
nations, and make for world peace. This ought not to embarrass our State Department, since it would reenforce the announced policy of peace through the United Nations. Indeed, to official representatives who must be diplomatic in their expressions, this should come as a refreshing aid. At all events, the responsibility at this juncture rests with the Congress.
In conclusion, we accentuate the need of pressing for amendment with promptitude, confidence, and energy, in the faith that these efforts will not fail and that the United Nations will fulfill, under an amended Charter, its great purpose of international law and order.
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION X
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that
(1) The United Nations Charter shall be amended so that its existing defects, demonstrated by experience, shall be removed, and the United Nations Organization shall be able to fulfill its stated mission as the principal and most effective instrument for world peace.
(2) The amendment of the United Nations Charter shall preserve the full sovereignty of member states except for acts of aggression and preparation for aggression, to be specifically defined in the Charter.
(3) The amendment of the United Nations Charter shall be undertaken and supported by the United States Government without delay, concurrently with the measures for world economic recovery already undertaken.
(4) This amendment shall be so designed that the mutual suspicion and fear now driving the world into opposite military camps shall be replaced by mutual confidence in a United Nations strong enough to guarantee any member nation, however large or small or whatever its form of government, against armed violence by any other nation.
(5) Such amendment of the United Nations Charter shall be undertaken under article 108 of the Charter, and every effort shall be made under article 108 to effectuate the specific purposes hereinafter set forth. If such amendment under article 108 should not prove possible after successive attempts, such amendment shall be sought under article 109. In the event, however, that any state possessing the power of veto should veto such amendment, the United States shall take appropriate steps to join with other like-minded states to establish an effective international organization without the participation of the abstaining state or states for the purpose of maintaining that peace under law for which the United Nations was established; such organization, however, to remain open to any abstaining state, not then engaged in aggression or preparation for aggression, on the same conditions specified for participating states.
(6) Pending such amendment, the United States may proceed under articles 51 or 52 or other appropriate provisions of the present Charter to establish with other nations a more effective organization or organizations within the scope of the United Nations.
(7) The amendment of the United Nations Charter shall contain the following specific provisions as necessary to remove the atomic cloud now hanging over the world, relieve the back-breaking load of the armament rate and, by firm action, avert a third world war and establish that peace under law without which social or economic progress is impossible, namely:
(a) Elimination of the veto power by a permanent member of the Security Council in matters of aggression or preparation for aggression, but only in such matters. Aggression shall be prohibited and defined in the Charter as an armed attack by a state, or by the citizens of a state with its acquiescence, against the recognized territory of a member state, or illegal occupation by a state of terri. tory outside its own recognized and established borders. Preparation for aggression shall be prohibited and defined in the Charter to include the production