« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
We cannot endorse any movement which will drag the good people of the United States of America down to the level of, or in subjugation to, any country or countries of hate-infested Europe.
My husband, the late Charles Broy, died because of injuries received while serving in the foreign service of our Department of State in Europe. My three minor children were raised in Europe. One child was born over there. While living there, I made it my particular business to see to it that the true ideals of the United States were kept constantly before my children. I did not want them contaminated by the reactionary ideologies of those unfortunate countries whose peoples have hated one another for ages.
I sound a warning to this Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate to not allow yourselves to be held responsible for the horrible consequences which will be endured for many years by the American people as a result of the malfunctioning of this proposed Charter.
This proposed Charter provides for a treaty of offensive and defensive alliance. It provides for a system of empire rule. The history of empire rule for centuries shows all too clearly that it leads to the utter destruction of small self-government of any peoples, and the reduction of the people subjugated, to civic and economic slavery.
In order that you may see the dangers, I need only point out several examples.
The first is that of India. This is a clear example. Britain involved the Indian states in commercial agreements and treaties. She then subjugated them completely by force of arms.
The second example is that of the French Empire which covers the subjugation of French Africa, French Indochina, and French Cochen China. Thousands of French soldiers lie buried there in China. They perished in the subjugation of the Chinese peoples purely for purposes of commercial greed and power.
The last example, is that of ourselves. When the British landed 13,000 heavily armed British troops upon the shores of Boston, and attempted to subdue us to slavery, our answer was the American Revolution.
An offense and defensive alliance with foreign states is created in article 42 of chapter VII of this proposed world charter. Under this provision, we could be made to accept enforced universal military training. Such a course would provide for the further disruption of normal American family life, and would not be pleasing in the sight of God since it would interfere with his basic laws. Our men would be like hired mercenary soldiers going forth to protect the commercial interests of greed and power. Our men thus forced into foreign service would see little if any of their native soil again. We would be working on the principle of scattering the most virile of our men over the face of the globe. This would permit foreign forces to destroy our homeland in their absence. If this proposed Charter is adopted, our soldier citizens will remain away from home too long. It is entirely wrong that the adoption of this Charter should be considered while most of our men are still away from home and not here to exert their thought and influence regarding it. This proposed change which might completely destroy the basic principles of our American Government, and would completely change the lives of our men, is being
rushed through while our fighting men are still away from home on war duties. This is a most unfair procedure.
Every position in this proposed Charter is to be filled by appointment. It provides a method of ruling the world by a small group appointing its own members. They will have vast powers. vides a systematic procedure for further exploitation of the poor; for oppression and the swallowing up of the smaller nations. See article 107, chapter XVII.
In article 107, chapter XVII, Mr. Chairman, it says:
Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the governments having responsibility for such action.
Under that article, Mr. Chairman, Java, the Straits Settlements, Burma, and all those parts of the world would be the obligations which Mr. Churchill spoke of in discussing the Charter. Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, and those other countries would of course, under that article, remain forever under Russian control.
From the standpoint of our own American people, it will mean sending our men all over the earth as an international police force without the consent of Congress. It gives power to the Security Council to declare war, to arrange for the raising of armies, and for their support. See section 3 of article 43, chapter VII. This is unconstitutional. It sets up a body, namely, the Security Council, to prejudge a state of war and completely mobilize the forces of the United States. All of this is done in chapter VII.
Article 39 of chapter VII says:
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 41 says:
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42 says:
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of members of the United Nations.
I point out to the gentlemen of the committee that those operations are of course war measures, because it says “by air, sea, or land forces."
In Article 44 it says (reading):
When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfillment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.
It lcaves it all in the hands of the Security Council.
I point out to you that in the Constitution it says that Congressshall have power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces and so forth.
That is all in the hands of the Congress of the United States, according to our Constitution. But this would change it in one other matter. In addition to the fighting matter being taken out of the hands of the American Congress, our economic matters would be taken out of the hands of Congress. That is unconstitutional and, I think, most dangerous.
In the preamble of the World Charter it speaks of the promotion of the economic advancement of all peoples, and specifically in article 1 it says (reading]:
The purposes of the United Nations are:
To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character
Gentlemen, the Constitution says that the Congress of the United States is to regulaté commerce with foreign nations. I would rather trust the economics of this nation to the Congress than to any body made up of a preponderance of foreigners. If we give away our power to control our economics, we give away ourselves and our children, We could be used as slaves for any economic system that they would set upon us. They would solve our problems economically down to the level of their own.
I lived in London 8 years, and I have seen some of the people there near the starvation stage on their $2.50 a week dole. England believes in kings and nobility. They have a caste system.
In view of the large quantities of supplies that we have found it possible to give away in the last few years, logical reasoning would tell me that America's past resources and the unbounded energies of her people are always present in the minds of those foreign influences as they have labored zealously to sell the idea of this Charter to us.
We are opposed to the entrance of the United States into any world state organization that would assail our national sovereignty. America's influence for peace in the world must come from a strong, prosperous, peaceful, and independent United States, and from the exemplification of the principles on which this Nation was founded. Any other course is the broad way to destruction.
Long before the proposed Charter was agreed upon at San Francisco, there was a wide organized propaganda throughout the country to get public sentiment in favor of its passage. The Charter propaganda promoters talked peace, peace-asked the people if they didn't want peace. Of course, the people want peace.
What rightminded normal person doesn't want peace? But they did not tell the people at what price. They did not explain that it might be a price of liberty, and that there was a possibility that it might even
mean perpetual warfare if the weak and small countries of the earth refused to take its consequences.
This proposed Charter has in it the possibility of the subjection of the whole world by force of arms. That is not the kind of peace which the world is seeking. So let's not hastily jam this through until it has been thoroughly debated, and until the American people know what hidden meanings it contains.
The real purpose of this proposed Charter is gain and commercial profit.
The Chairman. You have 1 minute remaining.
We know that Britain, Holland, Belgium, and France have lived in the past at the expense of their colonies. As an American, I certainly would not like to see our great country joining up for such nefarious world-wide practices. This treaty promises security to all of its members, but five members are permitted to dominate all of the rest. Of the five, two are notorious offenders in the matter of the exploitation of human beings-France and Great Britain.
The freedom of the United States of America to have the unquestioned right to do what she thinks best at any time is the greatest force for good in the world today. Let us keep it that way.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you a question or two. You say you come here representing Americans United, Inc.?
Mrs. Broy. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. And that you have only 25 members? Mrs. Broy. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I have a memorandum here from a gentleman in Philadelphia who says that you do not represent Americans United for World Organization.
Mrs. BROY. Oh, no, indeed; I should say not. They took part of our name. We have been going 5 years. We are incorporated under District laws, and they have come into being since.
The CHAIRMAN. That organization is a Nation-wide organization; is it not?
Mrs. Broy. We believe just exactly opposite to that organization. Ours is a study organization, but, as I said, we have gone deeply into the question of money and economics.
The CHAIRMAN. The Bretton Woods matter will be taken up next Monday.
Mrs. Broy. I know; but economics run all through this. I might say in defense of our 25 that we have some experts in our organization; and in talking to some of the Senators last week about some of these things some of them very freely admitted that they knew very little or nothing about economics.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. Your time has expired.
The next witness is Mr. Frederick J. Libby. Is Mr. Libby here? [No response.) The next witness is Rev. J. Paul Cotton. Is Mr. Cotton here? Mr. COTTON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Come around, Mr. Cotton, and give your name.
STATEMENT OF REV. J. PAUL COTTON, PH. D., CLEVELAND,
Mr. Cotton. My name is J. Paul Cotton, Ph. D. My address is 1933 East Seventy-third Street, Cleveland, Ohio.
The CHAIRMAN. Whom do you represent?
Mr. Cotton. The Cleveland World Peace Forum, having an attendance of frequently 25 or so, but concentrating more largely on mailing lists, it recently developed to over a thousand.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed. Mr. Cotton. There is something sinister about the speed with which the new league is planned to be railroaded through the Senate. The American people have not had a chance to learn what it means. Many hoped that at San Francisco the Dumbarton defects would be remedied and so refrained from organizing opposition until that time. But immediately after the Conference is over comes the demand that it be passed at once. I have written to the State Department for & copy of the new Charter, but so far it has not come.
The CHAIRMAN. Here is a copy of it (handing document to the witness).
Mr. Cotton. After hunting in the Cleveland Library I managed to find one newspaper in the country that had published the final form of the new league. This which is the foremost issue of our time surely demands some thoughtful consideration on the part of the Nation. A Cleveland newspaper found recently in a reader response that less than 17 percent of the people were ready to say that the new Charter would work. Surely this unconstitutional piece of legislation that would plunge us into the next general war without the consent of Congress demands some careful scrutiny from the deliberative body of this Nation.
We should be grateful that the treaty-making power of the Senate requires two-thirds vote to pass.
After World War I we saw the Allied victors greedily grab off the spoils of war in accord with previously arranged secret treaties, making World War II possible. We saw the slaughter of our boys made à vain sacrifice and we heard them return saying, "Never again." Once again history is repeating itself. But before our boys get back to civilian life and normal thinking this new Charter must be rushed through. If the Senate minority only takes a resolute stand, it may yet defeat this new league, and find itself really representing the majority sentiment later on. For after all, treaties are not for this year or next year. They are not scraps of paper which we can tear up each time majority sentiment changes. I hope, therefore, that administration leadership will change its unwise demand, “You must pass this legislation before you get a summer recess." I hope, too, that Senators will vote their true convictions.
The CHAIRMAN. What right have you to intimate that they will not?
Mr. Cotton. We will let that pass. That is all right. The new league, called The United Nations, is just a continuance of the present military alliance to make sure the United States of America is drawn into World War III. We cannot possibly foretell what the situation will be 50 or even 25 years from now. At the close of World War I, Japan and Italy were among the "good" nations, our