« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
We have a breathing spell. The Marshall plan is unfolding and I would like to interpolate, Mr. Chairman, thanks to the brilliant leadership of this committee and its work in the European recovery plan.
The success of democratic elements in Italy enables us to attack this problem of organizing for peace, but it must not be a half-hearted attack. It must be all-out, if we escape armament races, world bankruptcy, and all the other penalties of power politics.
Chairman Eaton. Thank you, Mr. Hays.
Chairman Eaton. I would like to have the attention of the press to this statement:
I wish to have it understood what these hearings are and what they are for.
We are meeting to have hearings, according to a vote in the Foreign Affairs Committee, on “the structure of the United Nations and the relations of the United States to the United Nations."
Because of the urgency of this great problem, we have taken up this first in our agenda, but as soon as we have finished the hearings and taken action thereon, we propose to have hearings on the equally difficult and far-reaching problem of the Palestinian situation, not only in relation to the United Nations, but in relation to the peace of the world.
I would like to have that statement in the press, as it clears the situation as to our program.
We had planned today to have with us the American Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Austin, but owing to problems over which he had no control, including an illness, it became necessary to have him here tomorow, so tomorrow morning, we will hear the Secretary of State and in the afternoon we will hear Ambassador Austin.
I have asked Mr. Judd, who is profoundly interested in all these matters, to bring the witnesses together from our membership in the House, many of whom are profoundly interested with him, and he will introduce them to us, the first witness being Mr. Judd himself.
Mr. Judd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER H. JUDD—Continued
Mr. Chairman, the Congress of the United States with the support of the country has already embarked on a great threefold program:
1. Resistance to any further spread of the glacier of tyranny and slavery moving from the Soviet Union over large parts of Europe and Asia;
2. Assistance to independent nations struggling to recover their economic stability against determined efforts to subjugate them either by organized minorities within, or aggressive pressures from without; and
3. Rebuilding enough of our scrapped military strength to enable us to fulfill our commitments overseas and to meet any probable emergencies or dangers.
These three are essential to the preservation of our own and the world's peace and freedom—but they are not enough. They merely buy time-give us a last chance to get the world organized on a better, sounder basis. They are three components of the comprehensive, over-all foreign policy and program which we must develop and carry out with skill and efficiency if we are to win the fierce political war now raging throughout the world before it degenerates into an atomic war with unforeseeable destruction, if not extermination.
There is a fourth component of that over-all program, equally important and perhaps the most fundamental of all. We must take immediate steps to get the United Nations structure and procedures revised or reformed, either under article 109 or article 51 of its Charter, so that it can take on the burden of resisting aggression, which we are compelled to assume in this emergency, but which we cannot long carry alone. We had to assume it last year when Greece and Turkey were threatened. We have to assume it now when Italy, Scandinavia, and others are threatened. We are at present the only force in the world with the resources and strength for that task, and concern for our own security requires that we take such a firm stand.
But we have neither the resources nor the wisdom to carry such a burden indefinitely. Furthermore, even if we were strong enough to perform this world policeman's job indefinitely, the world would come to hate us in the process.
I see no hope of establishing a just peace on a reasonably secure basis except through a world organization so revised and strengthened that it can effectively handle all threats to the peace from whatever source, on the basis of world law, and in the name and in the organized strength of freemen everywhere.
The common people of this world placed their faith in the United Nations as such an agency. It is clear from the experience of the last two and a half years that in its present form it cannot do the job. In fact, it is so constructed that any one of the Big Five, by its veto, can use the United Nations machinery to prevent the making of peace, to defeat the very things it was supposedly set up to promote, yes, to guarantee.
Mr. Chairman, when the United Nations Charter was adopted in June 1945, I was unhappy about some of the provisions, especially the veto, and said so. It seemed to me the veto arrangement was a monkey wrench carefully placed in the United Nations machinery in such a way
that it could block turning of the wheels, beyond discussion, if any one of the Big Five so desired. Nevertheless, I worked for the adoption of the Charter as the best it appeared we could get at the time. The machinery was workable for peaceful settlement of disputes, if there were the will and the good will to make it work. We earnestly hoped that all the nations would have the will and the good will to make it work.
Our own purpose in agreeing to the big power veto was to make all nations sure that the new organization would not be able to make war unjustifiably, or otherwise impose its will, on any member nation.
We were too naive to realize and too trustful to suspect that the Soviet rulers had a totally different idea. They were coldly planning to use the veto, not to block war but to block peace. They have not used it once to prevent war; they have used it repeatedly to defeat measures or decisions that were in the direction of peace.
At Tehran, Yalta, and elsewhere our leaders, in order to get Russia to come along into the United Nations, yielded to her on matters of principle and
on solemn pledges, including those in the Atlantic Charter, apparently assuming that if Russia joined it would be for the same reason we and others joined, namely, to help solve world problems. But it soon became clear that the Soviet Government came in, not to get solutions to problems but to block solutions; not to make the United Nations work but to be in the best possible position to make sure that it does not work.
President Truman at San Francisco had rightly said that the Charter was only a first step. But Russia has insisted on blocking the necessary next steps. Surely the part of wisdom now is to recognize frankly that as long as one Big Five nation obviously does not want the United Nations machinery to work, then the machinery, no matter how good it looks, is useless for such a crisis as we face today—until the monkey wrench is removed.
The Kremlin already has a world-wide organization—the Communist Party. It has a dozen countries under its complete control, plus trained, disciplined units in every other country. Its world organization is already functioning, efficiently and at full speed. It intends to win, and in order to do so it must keep any other world organization crippled and ineffective.
Mr. Chairman, that is an intolerable situation for those who really want peace and freedom.
There are three things we can do about it.
One is to scuttle the United Nations, abandon it entirely. That, at least, would be honest.
The second is to continue to give lip service to it and use its machinery for marginal, relatively unimportant matters; but when we face à really vital issue, find ourselves compelled to take direct action, bypassing the United Nations because it does not have the men, or the money, or the authority to act—in fact, is usually prevented by the veto from
The third course is to try to get its structure modified so that it can and will work-with Russia if possible but without her if necessary; not against Russia, but for world order under law.
The deep desire of the people of this country and of most of the rest of the world is not to abandon the United Nations, or to bypass it, but rather to fix it, to strengthen it. That is mankind's only hope of securing the things for which two World Wars were fought.
At least three-fourths of the peoples of the world would join us, I believe, in an effort to revise the United Nations to make it capable of functioning as an instrument to preserve peace and freedom. But they cannot move without our active initiative and leadership.
Last July 10 Members of the House of Representatives, of both political parties, and including 4 members of this committee, joined with a bipartisan group of Senators in introducing identical resolutions urging the President to take the initiative immediately in calling under article 109 of the Charter, a general conference of the United Nations for the purpose of improving its machinery so that it could move ahead in developing world order under world law and with world force organized to prevent aggression or other violations of such law. I regret that the administration did not see fit to take any action.
On March 16 of this year seven Republicans and seven Democrats of the House, including six members of this committee, introduced more specific resolutions to the same general effect. Sixteen Members of the Senate of both parties introduced essentially the same resolution in that body on April 12.
These resolutions call for revision of the Charter in three main respects as the probable minimum to enable the organization to be effective:
1. To eliminate the veto on matters of aggression and armament for aggression and to reorganize the Security Council so as to give representation more nearly approximating the actual strength of its members.
2. To provide for inspection and control of atomic and other important weapons.
3. To set up an international police force recruited from volunteers from the smaller member states and supported if necessary by the armed forces of the major states, which would be limited to agreed quotas.
If Russia's real objective is security, as some still maintain, then she should readily join in such changes, because such a United Nations would guarantee her security—as well as ours and that of every other country that is willing to live in peace and let its neighbors do likewise.
Should Russia refuse to cooperate, then at least the world will know that her real objective is not security, but conquest, and the other nations can go ahead under article 51 of the Charter, which authorizes members to unite for "collective self-defense."
It is now being proposed that we and the five nations of western Europe should organize for collective self-defense under article 51; and I approve. But if article 51 is good enough to permit five or six nations to get together firmly for collective self-defense, then it is good enough to enable 40 or 50 nations to get together-all who are willing to do so. Such a group would have preponderant power. No nation could posibly challenge it by embarking on aggression,
I may add in passing that some have suggested that all the nonCommunist nations who want to could get together under article 52 authorizing regional arrangements, with the door always open for Russia to join, too, if she desires.
It is not my view that we should at this time, in advance of the proposed general conference, commit ourselves to any particular amendment or revision, any paritcular specific remedy, even though probably each of us has his own ideas as to what changes are needed. Rather, we should jointly hold a sort of clinic on a very sick patient-examine, diagnose, and discuss the ailments, consider all the proposed remediesand they will be many and varied—and then see if we cannot come to a fairly common mind as to which are the wisest and best to adopt. It is my confident belief that with the experience of the last 3 years it will be possible in a conference held now to evolve more workable and effective machinery for peace than was possible at San Francisco.
This time we must get an organization based on justice, under world law, and with a policeman. The gun must be in the organization's hand against any aggressor, rather than in the aggressor's hands against the world organization and against humanity.
We must get an instrument that the peaceful nations of the world can use to make peace, and not one which a nonpeaceful nation—if one of the Big Five-can use to protect aggression and to block peace.
We must move as effectively to strengthen our moral and legal position as we are moving to strengthen our economic and military positions.
Stalin and the Politbureau apparently think that we think we cannot get along without Russia—and usually we have acted as if they were right. I am convinced that if we demonstrate to the Russians quickly that we and the other peoples of the world can if necessary get along without them, then there is a good chance we will soon find it possible to get along with them.
Whenever enough of the peaceful governments of the world get together on a basis that makes clear to the men in the Kremlin, first, that they do not need to go to war to get security or satisfaction of any legitimate grievances Russia may have; and second, that they cannot succeed even if they do go to war—at that point I believe there is a good chance they will come along. There would be nothing to gain by refusing.
Appeasement, exhortations, denunciations, bribes, or secret deals will not succeed. They have all been tried with disastrous results. Russia will agree only when we get a set of circumstances where agreement is more advantageous than attempted conquest.
To call such a general conference to revise the United Nations Charter is not a vote of nonconfidence, a condemnation of the United Nations idea. Rather, it is a reavowal of our faith in that idea and an expression of our determination to achieve it in practice.
The great majority of the people of the world wants peace and is willing to pay the price for it. It is betrayal of them and of our own dead not to exert every possible effort to correct the structure and improve the machinery of the United Nations so that it can effectively deal with whatever disputes arise to threaten the peace. .
While strengthening our own defenses, carrying out swiftly and efficiently the economic and military assistance programs to which we have set our hands in Europe and Asia, we must also exercise positive, vigorous, imaginative leadership to develop and improve the United Nations until, please God, it can be made capable of enacting, interpreting, and enforcing world law governing relations between the nations and peoples of the earth.
In what other way can we hope to revive our hopes and the world's hopes for a just and enduring peace?
Unless we succeed in establishing such a peace, quickly, we and our children are doomed.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of this great committee, I know full well the deep concern you and all the members feel regarding this, the most momentous question of our time. We are not alone in that concern. There are organized groups in at least 23 other lands wrestling with the same problem—the problem of survival. I am confident that after hearing and considering testimony from many of the most distinguished and thoughtful men and women of our time, the committee will feel impelled to report out a resolution urging that our country take the lead in forming a “more perfect union” that alone can secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.