« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Chairman Eaton. I am sorry that the entire committee could not be here; but, owing to circumstances beyond their control, several have to be absent.
We want to thank you for one of the most brilliant and comprehensive statements that even you have ever made in our presence.
I wish to call attention to the one fundamental statement which you have made, which I hope will receive continuous attention; namely, thatthe Kremlin already has a world-wide organization, the Communist Party. It has a dozen countries under its complete control. Its world-wide 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.
In that statement it seems to me you have unveiled the very center of the problem confronting not only the United Nations but every freedom-loving people in the world.
Is it the will of the committee to question the various members as they testify or to hear their testimony and then question them?
Mr. Chiperfield, what is your view on the subject!
Chairman Eaton. What is the opinion of our distinguished former chairman, Mr. Bloom?
Mr. BLOOM. Mr. Chairman, I think we better wait and hear the witnesses, in case there is anything comes up upon which we want to question them. We should decide at the time on whether we want to question them or not.
Chairman EATON. On that suggestion, Mr. Judd, we will proceed. The next witness that you have named here is Mr. Mundt.
I may say to the committee, when these distinguished statesmen have finished, you will have an enormous intellectual mass to digest.
STATEMENT OF HON. KARL E. MUNDT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. Chairman, I want to pick up the ball of our colleagues and associates in these resolutions and possibly set out the goal of our committee action.
I think it should be emphasized over and over again that not only today is communism the only functioning international agency in the world, but that by permitting this functioning international agency to continue to block all peace activities on the part of the United Nations, we have placed this country in a hopelessly impotent and inadequate position.
Every civilized country in the world today has its segment of the Communist Party. All of those segments operate in unison. They operate cooperatively. They promote a coordinated program which is patterned and promoted from the Kremlin, in Moscow. As a consequence, the United States in these last few years, has become the great, single isolated nation of the world. It has been isolated not by action of this Congress; it has been isolated not because of any attitude on the part of any segment of the American public; it has been isolated by the march of events of recent history.
We stand today alone, as a great bulwark of freedom, in this socalled ideological or cold war. Against us is arrayed this interna
tionally organized, internationally functioning, internationally cooperating, Communist Party.
It is an old adage that an organized minority can defeat an unorganized majority in politics, and an organized minority can eventually defeat an unorganized majority in any contest of any kind in this world. We must meet this danger at its source.
On the Communist side, we have a great organized minority working as a team.
On the free side, we have the United States isolated and standing alone, attempting to lead the free side of the contest. We do not have any working papers with our British cousins, in Great Britain. We have no compact, or any treaty or any organizational status with any countries out of the Western Hemisphere. The closest thing we have on this side is the Act of Chapultepec, which is established for the purpose of joint defense of the Western Hemisphere and not for the purpose of recruiting a team to defend freedom against the organized attacks of this Communist minority.
The only binding relationship we have to the other free countries is the mucilage of our American currency which holds us to them and them to us. When the currency runs out, we will find ourselves facing the hazards of this internationally organized Communist attack with no organized, coordinated support on our side.
Mr. Chairman, since that is the danger, and since that is the crux of the problem that has compelled us to spend some $30,000,000,000 since the war, trying to keep freedom alive, and trying to ward off the vicious attacks of communism, I feel, as Dr. Judd and the other members of the Senate and the House who have joined with me in introducing this series of identical resolutions, that we should attack this danger at its source.
We do not attack it at its source when we vote $6,000,000,000 under the Economic Cooperation Act to help rehabilitate 16 countries of western Europe. As Dr. Judd pointed out in his statement, we do buy time. We think we have bought about 12 months of time, at $500,000,000 a month.
If we have bought that much time, we are fortunate. If we make that time work in the cause of peace, we are prudent and sound. But if we simply buy that time and wait for the expiration of the calendar year, to purchase an additional amount of time at an increased cost, we are improvident in our utilization of the taxpayers' funds.
I hope our committee will take the leadership in carrying out a prudent and a positive program.
This veto that the Russians have utilized in the United Nations some 23 times or 24 times, it seems to me, is carrying out a very simple and very basic football tactic which, as the greatest football-playing nation of the world, we should have been able to solve and counteract in the 30-odd months they have been following it through the United Nations: The tactic, as I see it, is simply this:
The Communists block the peace-loving nations of the world while they run around left end with the ball making a touchdown. They have blocked us, as I say, some two dozen times. They have made 11 touchdowns while blocking the peace-loving nations from doing anything to stop the aggressive march of communism, which, since the
last months of the last war, has amassed and acquired more real estate and subjected more people to domination than any other aggressive move in the history of the world in peace or in war, in like amount of time.
By vetoing an international police force; by vetoing international control on the inspection of the atomic bomb; by vetoing all efforts to establish border patrols and international settlements of disputes as to sovereignty of various areas-steadily, slowly, but surely, the Russians have made touchdowns in the cause of communism while blocking us with their persistent vetoes.
They have done it in Lithuania, Latvia, Esthonia, Albania, Jugoslavia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia.
They have the ball on the 2-yard line in Finland, ready to push it over for their eleventh consecutive touchdown, any time the quarterback in the Kremlin decides to call the touchdown signal.
I submit, that, Mr. Chairman, as a nation of football players, having seen this thing take place for 30 months, for 11 consecutive plays, we should by now be able to figure out some kind of signal to stop that very simple tactic of blocking our tacklers while they run with the ball
. especially inasmuch as it is being promoted by a country which would not know the difference between a football game and a bullfight because they have never seen either one of them in Russia.
We should not let them continue to befuddle us and before us by so simple a move.
To counteract that, we who have introduced this series of resolutions proposing that there be called a meeting of the member nations of the United Nations to consider all possible ways and means of bringing this tactic of blocking and running with the ball for a touchdown to an end. We suggest that through articles 109 and 51 of the Charter, we explore the means whereby the freedom-loving nations of the world may also have on our side an international organization, working in the interests of peace, to counteract this 30-month-old organization in which the Communists have operated internationally in the interests of aggression and in the interests of their control.
We do not believe that we should eliminate the veto entirely, because by so doing we pretty well eliminate our national sovereignty, but in those essential elements, such as matters of aggression, such as the control of weapons designed to destroy mass populations, the atomic bomb, and others, such as the establishment of an international police force, and such as the matter of the admission of memberships into the United Nations family, we think the veto should be eliminated.
Perhaps out of these discussions by the member nations of the United Nations, growing out of what this committee recomends if the Congress then passes legislation requesting the President to call such a meeting, there will come other valid and helpful suggestions for promoting the peace.
I do not think we should eliminate the veto, for example, from the standpoint of the right of Congress, the constitutional right of the Congress to declare war. That should be something to remain a part of the sovereign function of this Government and this Congress. But if we have an international police force, that police force should be ordered by the United Nations to move in and stop little wars from becoming big ones, without any country having the right to veto such a movement.
The question, Mr. Chairman, if we promote this kind of movement, if we approve this resolution and Congress adopts it and Congress acts in conformance with it and the conclave is held and the discussion eventuates the agenda is followed and agreement takes place on these four eliminations of the veto, the question then is what will Russia and her 11 satellites do, once we have called her hand, once this simple football tactic is stopped; once she is compelled to live under decent, understandable rules of the game.
Some people may say, "Russia may pull out, she may break up the United Nations, and she and her satellites may retire."
Nobody can predict actually, Mr. Chairman, what the Russians will do, once they have been stopped from this very successful career of aggression on which they have been engaging within the orbit of the United Nations.
I do, however, want to call attention to this fact: Today the predominance of power is on the side of the free countries of the world; that Russia and her 11 satellite countries are conspicuously weak from the standpoint of every essential factor required to wage successful
As a consequence, I think it follows very plausibly that once faced with the decision of the member nations of the United Nations, that this program of blocking peace-performing machinery is going to be stopped and the Russians are invited to sign a Charter of the United Nations which will work to protect the peace, they will ponder long and carefully before divorcing themselves from the family of nations and attempting to set up a little Red orbit of their own.
I predict after grumbling and grouching and complaining, after dragging their heels, they will come to the conference table and sign this new Charter, because I do not believe they dare run the risk of standing alone today in this world as it would then be constituted.
If worst comes to worst, and Russia and her 11 satellites did not sign, we then have exactly the status quo which we have today, except that we have unblanketed the features of the status quo for all people to see what most people now know to be the truth; that you have this cleavage between the Communist and non-Communist nations of the world; that in one section there are 12 countries, including Russia, and in the other section there are 46 countries, including the United States.
If the Russians come along and sign up, Mr. Chairman, we will then have a United Nations which will work. We will have stopped this drift toward war and we will have established a machinery which can perpetuate the peace.
Let us look at the eventuality if they do not sign up, if they pull out and form a bloc of their own.
Who will be then on the side of freedom? The Russian bloc will be comprised of 12 countries. It will have approximately 320,000,000 people in that bloc, if they take, as they probably will, the eastern provinces of Germany. Those 320,000,000 people in the 12 countries which they now have, plus the eastern provinces of Germany, will be offset by 46 countries of the world which are today willing to follow the leadership of positive action on the part of America and the free countries which belong to the United Nations.
From the standpoint of population, on the free side there will be 1,968,000,000 people as compared to the 320,000,000 people in the Soviet sphere.
Percentagewise, 87.5 percent of the world's population will be organized and led by the freedom-loving countries of the world, and 12.5 percent of the people will be under the coercive domination of the Soviet sphere.
Mr. Chairman, to wage war these days, there are certain essential factors that you must have. History does not reveal a single time when any aggressive power anywhere has gone out on a war career, attacking nations four times as powerful as the would-be aggressor. Aggressors have the habit of picking on somebody they can whip, nibbling them off one at a time, or waiting until they have perfected an organization which will give them at least an equality of power, plus the element of surprise, before initiating the attack.
Let us look at the products essential to fighting a war:
Crude oil is tremendously important in modern war. If we call for this modernization of the machinery of the United Nations, and the Russians are inclined to pull out and form a Soviet sphere of their own, they will be unable to endanger the peace, even though they try. The free countries of the world will have 92.6 percent of the crude oil production in the world today. The Soviet sphere will have 7.4 percent, and they cannot get any more without fighting for it, and they do not dare attempt to fight for it against countries which are organized and which contain 92.6 percent of the oil.
It takes copper to fight a war. It is an essential in modern warfare. Who has the copper!
The free countries of the world, the 46 countries outside the Soviet sphere, the 46 countries Dr. Judd and I and the other members of our committee who have introduced these concurrent resolutions, the countries we are urging you to urge the President to organize into a working team, that team of free countries has 91.5 percent of the world's copper, and the Soviet sphere has 8.5 percent of the world's copper and cannot get any more without fighting for it.
They do not dare to go to war for copper, because they are so completely overwhelmed by the predominance of power on the side of the free countries.
Coal is important in the fighting of a war. You have to have fuel to turn the machines that spit out the implements that kill the men who fight a war.
Who has the coal, Mr. Chairman? The Soviet sphere has 15.5 percent of the coal. The free countries of the world have 84.5 percent of the coal.
That in itself is a safeguard to peace, because without having the fuel with which to manufacture the elements required in the fighting of a war, the Soviet sphere, in spite of its desire, is unable to challenge the rest of the world, once the rest of the world ceases to be a group of isolated segments and becomes an organized team, working on the side of peace, operating under a charter, operating under an agreement, maintaining an international police force, providing for the coordination of its resources and cooperation of its people.
Pig-iron production is something which war strategists look to, to determine the strength that a country is going to have in wartime. In pig-iron production the free countries of the world have 82.5 percent of the pig-iron production and the Soviet sphere 17.5 percent.
Again it is well over four times the power and the production and the might being on the side of the free countries of the world which