*

allies. But regardless of any change, we shall be committed to enter future wars on the side of our present allies without the consent of Congress. We are too easily drawn into future wars, for the plan voids the constitutional right of Congress to declare war. No one man has either the constitutional or the moral right to lead this country to war against its will. Moreover, no Congress has the right to abrogate the constitutional authority of a future Congress. But in this plan when once our President's representative on the Security Council along with other members of the Council vote for war "on its call * * armed forces, assistance and facilities necessary" in amounts previously agreed upon are made available, so that the Council can then draft men and supplies from our Nation in a war in which the people through their Congress have had no voice. According to this plan, Congress can no longer be trusted to represent rightly this Nation, but authority must be given to one man. This single man can be trusted, but not the collective judgment of those whom the people have elected. No matter how small a fraction of our troops is granted to the new league, our Nation, as at Pearl Harbor, is at war whenever our forces are fired upon. This plan, therefore, will put us into war without the consent of Congress. It is hard to take a man in his prime and tell him, "Here you must go and kill your fellow men and risk being killed." It is harder still to tell a man that when Congress has not even voted such a war.

That this league is just a military alliance is shown not only by the new "United Nations", but by the fact that the Big Five have all the power and the phrase, "sovereign equality," is to the little nations. a sham and a mockery. The entire assembly of nations has not even a veto right, while any one of the great powers alone can have a full veto. The Assembly could be just a debating society, without the power even of making a recommendation in a dispute, if the Council is then considering the issue, as usually would be the case. Liberals. in this country are deceived into thinking we are getting a United States of the World, but nothing of the kind is to happen. In our own Senate the smallest State has the same voting power as the largest-two Senators. In our United States of America an individual State like California, New York, or Pennsylvania does not have the power to veto the decisions of all the rest of the country, but in the new league, a single nation like Russia can veto the decisions of all the rest of the world. This veto power is not only upon those decisions involving an act of war, but ordinary peaceful recommendations as well, even the admission of members.

Some compare the United States of America policing itself with the new league policing the world, but this is a false comparison. It rests upon the doctrine of "Might makes right" which is quite alien to the tradition of our Nation. Here we have a government of the people in which every citizen has the right to vote and be represented in his government. The laws are made to protect the people, so each one has every incentive to want to keep the law. If the people really wanted to break the laws, no amount of policemen could stop them. It is the sense of justice, the feeling that he is being fairly represented, that makes for law and order in this country. But when we turn to the new league we find it is only the strong holding the weak down by force.

75608-45- -24

It is everywhere frankly stated that these Big Five nations have no moral qualifications to govern the world except that they are strong nations. Certainly it is not because they are especially peace loving. As was stated in the Christian Century (March 7, 1945, from Prof. Quincy Wright's book, A Study of War) between the years 1480 and 1941 Great Britain had 78 wars; France, 71; Russia, 61; while Germany had 23 wars, and Japan 9. It should be understood that this new league, with all its fine-sounding phrases, is simply a military alliance based upon power politics and spheres of influence, not upon justice and genuine law.

Some emphasize that the Assembly can elect six members of the Security Council, and so can have a majority; but this is nullified by the veto power of any one of the Big Five. Further, there is required a two-thirds majority in the Assemoly to elect a member of the Security Council or to pass any recommendation. It is quite probable now that the Big Five could veto any important action in the Assembly also. The British Empire will have 6 votes, including the puppet government of India. Russia at present controls 3 votes. But as the Chicago Tribune points out,

there are 13 other Soviet Republics with as good a claim to independent representation in the League as the 3 now admitted. Then there are Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, which the Soviet Union has swallowed up but intends to give nominal independence, at least for eventual voting purposes in the League. So Russia would have a total of

19 votes in the League in addition to the Soviet satellite countries-Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, and eventually Poland, Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, and Austria, in which the Soviets have set up Russian controlled Communist governments. So, the Tribune concluded

Under the two-thirds rule governing important decisions, Russia might have eventually more than the 23 votes which could veto action in the League Assembly. (May 9, 1945.)

Contrary to British propaganda, it cannot be repeated too often that our Nation was not responsible for World War II by our failure to join the League of Nations. Woodrow Wilson hoped that this Lengue could correct the severities of the Treaty of Versailles and so prevent another war. But in this he did not realize that the veto power of the inner council of nations could enable any one of these to prevent any forward step from being taken.

So the old League became only a means for the victor nations to hold down the vanquished by unjust treaties made in the heat of war. So these leagues become just a means to try to enforce injustice. Instead of removing these causes of war by peaceable change, the new League prevents any possible change in the status quo by the power of veto. I had hoped that at San Francisco the Assembly would have been given the power to revise unjust peace treatiesThe CHAIRMAN. You have 1 minute remaining.

Mr. Corrox. But all that was won was the right of this body to issue a pious recommendation to the Security Council which could guarantee no action.

By the veto no aggression of powers most able and likely to prove aggressor nations can be prevented. When any decision is made on a dispute in which one of the Big Five is engaged, that party can sit on the jury and declare, "Not guilty," and so be absolved of guilt

before the world. Now I am familiar with the great propaganda made about the big compromise Russia had made on this issue in which the party to a dispute in some cases would give up its veto rights. But here are the facts: The Security Council in one case may call upon parties to settle their disputes by peaceable means and may recommend procedures such as referring parties to the International Court of Justice. But Russia doesn't need veto in that case. Soviet Union can do as it likes anyway. And when all parties to a dispute so request, the Security Council may make recommendations to parties with a view to a peaceful settlement of the dispute. But here again Russia can exercise its own veto power before the Council makes a recommendation.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry, but your time has expired.

The

Mr. COTTON. I am very sorry. This is an infringement on the right of free speech, and I ask for more time.

The CHAIRMAN. You can file your statement in the record.

Mr. COTTON. I shall file the complete statement in the record, but under protest that I am not allowed to finish because of the undue haste given.

(The remainder of the statement of the witness is as follows:)

Again the Security Council may refer a dispute to regional arrangements for peaceful settlement, and Russia cannot veto that. But Russia would not need to, for Russia controls its own regional sphere of influence with an iron hand. 1 herefore, I repeat, when any decision is made on a dispute in which one of the Big Five is engaged, that party can sit on the jury and declare "not guilty," and be absolved of guilt before the world. Any smaller nation also can commit aggression with impunity provided it can obtain the veto cooperation of one of the Big Five. The Christian Century reports, "John B. Reston, the New York Times correspondent who revealed to the world all about what it knows as to what went on at Dumbarton Oaks, categorically stated recently that the Charter 'ends, for the present, the hope that the new league would have authority to punish any aggressor, large or small"" (May 2, 1945).

Further, can any aggressor nation, such as Russia, Great Britain, and France honestly condemn the aggression of any other nation? Madame Pandit in Town Meeting of the Air, recently quoted the explanation of a British official as to why they did not stop Japan's aggression of Manchuria, "If we condemn Japan, our whole policy in Egypt and India stands condemned.'

But some say that although the new league has an imperfect charter at present, as the years go by it will be amended and improved, just as the Constitution of the United States. But in our United States of America a single State like New York cannot veto an amendment as in the league of the Big Five. These big powers who are granted so much authority over the world would be the last to give up one iota of it. They would be the last to give up the spoils of war they have won. A single one of these vested powers can veto any change. This unfair arrangement will then be forever frozen as it is, and will stand in the way of a just federation being established. We can accomplish no good by joining, for the other powers can veto any step forward.

Some there are who say that these are big powers and we must recognize that they in fact control the world. But who made them great powers? It was American lend-lease, made without a single stipulation of justice, but which rescued these nations from the pit of disaster. In the case of Russia, this amounted to $9,000,000,000. Need we sit passively by and let these powers wreck the Atlantic Charter and every ideal of justice we stand for? This is the true isolationist-the one who accepted the new league under any terms the other big powers are willing to give.

But the true interventionist is one who says, "Wait, we shall not fall over ourselves accepting the first plan of world federation offered." The other powers want us in badly. Let us refuse to accept this counterfeit until the genuine article is produced. When once we are inside this new league, we can do nothing to change it, for others can always veto us. But outside the big powers will want us in so badly they will hasten to make the necessary changes.

Until a better league is produced it is better to preserve the gains we have already made-real gains in the Western Hemisphere. Here each nation has pledged itself to resist aggression in the Americas. All are united in a democratie way. Here there are no vetoes. But the new league arrogates to itself the power, by any one of the Big Five, to veto this united front against aggression, saying, "No enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements without the authorization of the Security Council." So under the new Charter Great Britain or Russia could violate our Monroe Doctrine and make an aggression in the Americas, and by the power of veto our hands would be tied.

Those who argue for the new league spend much of their time extolling the advantages of the World Court. But we already have this World Court, and we can join it any time we want to. There is also much to be said for an economic and social council that shall probe the economic causes of war and bring to light needed improvements that shall enrich the economic condition of all the nations, large and small. But it would be much better, if this Economic Council were independent and not hampered by submission to the new league, so that it might make its recommendations to the whole world without fear or favor.

Since it is a military alliance we are being invited to enter, we should inquire concerning the character of those who will be our partners. Since it is a plan to enforce the peace, we should ask what kind of a peace is to be enforced. We need to remember that it was only a few years ago that Russia was expelled from the League of Nations for its aggressions, and the late President Roosevelt was saying that Finland was a "liberal, forward-looking democracy," while the Soviet Union was a "dictatorship as absolute as any in the world." Syria and Lebanon during the war were declared by the Allies to be free and independent. although they were at war with the Axis, they were not invited to the San Francisco Conference, and right while the Conference was being held, the ugly head of imperialism was raising itself anew in France sending forth its troops to massacre the natives of these lands who presumed they were free.

But

And certainly no British leader is going to "preside over the liquidation of the British Empire." The scandal of India, kept backward and exploited, remains a blot upon the civilization of mankind. It is these nations who have the power to veto the decisions of all the world. It is an established tradition in Great Britain to practice aggression and to accept the aggression of friends. When toward the end of the last century the Japanese launched an invasion of Korea and China, according to Harry Paxton Howard, "their victories were jubilantly hailed by the London Times as fully establishing the Japanese claim to recognition as a 'civilized power'" (The Christian Century, May 2, 1945).

One of the Senators, the Hon. Harland J. Bushfield, this year quoted in the Senate from a secret treaty of the British with Japan in the last war, giving the Japanese the right to Chinese Shantung (March 6, 1945). These are the powers who are supposed to stop aggression.

What kind of a peace is being written? If the Treaty of Versailles produced the power of Hitler, what will the new treaty produce? Divided into three parts, with parts of Germany ruled over by Poles, parts ruled over by the French, and parts by Russia, with chaos everywhere, faced on all sides by the spirit of hatred and revenge-the very antithesis of Christianity--are we not giving Germany every incentive to want another Hitler and another war? Is this the peace we will be asked to enforce with the blood of our sons?

The betrayal of Poland is only part of the betrayal of whole groups of nations. Whereas Great Britain declared war upon Germany for taking the western half of Poland, Russia is to get the eastern half of it that Hitler agreed was to be Stalin's share of the loot. And all of western Poland is, under the Yalta agreement, to be betrayed into the hands of a Russian-controlled puppet government of which one leader had been sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment for accepting bribes. True, a few Polish Quislings have been found, Russian sympathizers, who will assist the new regime, but its control is still from Moscow. The Yalta declaration did use some fine words, "The three governments will jointly assist the people to form interim governmental authorities, broadly representative of all democratic elements in the population and pledged to the earliest possible establishment through free elections of governments responsive to the will of the people."

* * *

But as the Cleveland Press (April Press (April 30, 1945) rightly points out, "This pledge has not been carried out in Poland, where Moscow's puppet dictatorship is in absolute control. It has not been carried out in Rumania, where Moscow has made and unmade and remade so-called governments, again without allowing the requested joint action by the Big Three. It has not been carried out in Czechoslovakia, where even British and American diplomats are barred

from the country! It has not been carried out in Bulgaria, where Russia rules and her Allies are given no voice. It has not been carried out in Hungary, where another Moscow-made regime rules. And Russia is failing to honor her pledge

in Austria."

The promise of free elections has no value whatever. For if Russia never has free elections in her own land, how can she be expected to hold them in the puppet governments she rules? Senator Wheeler rightly pointed out in the Senate (March 1, 1945), "What is a free election without free speech, free press, a free radio-just a mockery."

The Yalta declaration provides a qualification in these elections that they shall apply only in those nations "where in their judgment (the Big Three's) conditions require" (The Progressive, February 26, 1945). So again Russia can veto free elections.

In Poland, for example, Americans are barred from the country, even those who were supposed to distribute food to relieve the starvation there. There has been a reign of terror. Reports have come to William Philip Simms that tell of "trainload after trainload to Polish inhabitants taken eastward" (Cleveand Press, June 19, 1945).

As related in the American Mercury, an American journalist, Leon Dennen, recently returned from the Balkans, and writing in the New Leader, declared, "The people of the United States are not being told the truth. They were never informed of the fact that Soviet Russia ruthlessly suppressed a genuine democratic revolution in Bulgaria, that American tanks and bayonets and American lend-lease materials have imposed on Bulgaria a Fascist-Communist government. * * * In Poland, the Russians have now organized a concentration camp for thousands of pro-Allied Poles, Socialists, and labor leaders."

In Poland, Erlich and Alter, labor leaders in Jewish trade unions, and antiNazi to the core, were imprisoned by the Russians and shot, despite the protests of distinguished Americans such as the late Wendell Willkie and William Green. Bertram D. Wolfe, writing in Common Sense, March 1945, relates, "The Russians who had determined to Russianize the half of Poland which they had gotten from the pact with Hitler, had been engaged in wholesale arrests, deportations, and even executions. Their aim had been nothing less than to eliminate all possible leadership of resistance and nationhood. The first batch of exiles were Army officers. The next were members of the Polish intelligentsia, state and local government officials, teachers, judges, lawyers, and the professional classes generally. Then deportation was extended to Polish and Jewish labor leaders, and leaders of Polish parties, democratic as well as reactionary."

Altogether, Wolfe estimates that à million and a half of the Poles have been deported. During the war as the Russians approached Warsaw, they encouraged the Poles to revolt against the Nazis. Then for some strange reason during Warsaw's 63-day uprising against the Germans, the Russian armies halted. Moscow refused to allow planes to drop food and munitions, and as Mr. Wolfe relates "underground forces of the Polish Home Army that were going to its relief" were arrested and disarmed by Communist leadership, thus helping to wipe out the Polish nation.

The arrest, trial, and imprisonment of 15 Polish underground leaders is simply a part of the Russian reign of terror. At least three of these leaders had been assigned the task of conferring with the Russian representatives in the effort to find a solution to the dispute. They were representing the Polish Government in exile located in London. British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden anxiously inquired as to their faith, but could get no reply for some time, then at last came the trumped-up charge that they were saboteurs. But British Minister of State Richard Law told the Commons, "I have seen the report of the Tass Agency and I can only say that the information at the disposal of the Government does not conform with what is contained in that report" (Cleveland News, May 9, 1945). But after this happened to Polish leaders, does anyone think there can be freedom of speech in Poland sufficient to guarantee a free election? Polish underground leaders who fought so valiantly to save their country from Hitler now find themselves men without a country. The Atlantic Charter declared that there should be "no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned." But now we find that Charter only "scraps of paper." (For more information, read the article by W. H. Chamberlain in the American Mercury, February 1945.)

According to Eleanor Packard, United Press correspondent, who was expelled from Russian-occupied territory, "In Belgrade alone Tito has arrested 40,000 followers of Mihailovitch and has already executed several hundreds. At the