« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
and antiforeign prejudices. The inflammable statements of the opponents will doubtless make most of the headlines. The task of the advocates of ratification both in the Senate and out will be to speak up loudly and clearly, explaining the need for a United Nations Organization and the alternatives if the United States fails to become a member.
We must remember also that the opposition may not actually try to change the Charter itself but wait and try to limit the effectiveness of American participation in the Organization by restricting the powers of the American delegate on the Security Council, or the members of the military forces to be available at the call of the Security Council. Future opposition could also take the form of opposing American membersbip in the cooperating organizations of the Economic and Social Council.
Discussion.--For 8 months the Dumbarton Oaks proposals for a United Nations Organization were before the country for discussion. There was every opportunity for any citizen, or organization, or any Member of Congress to suggest any change in the plans being made for such an organization or to express his opinion about it. Many thousands did so. In addition, both Houses of Congress and both major political parties were represented on the -American delegation at San Francisco: Consultants to the American delegation represented a cross section of public opinion. The radio and press kept the people informed of every stage of the negotiations. By the process of give and take, 50 nations worked out the provisions of a Charter which they could accept. The United States, which initiated the Dumbarton Oaks Conference and was one of the sponsoring powers at San Francisco, had a larger voice than most nations in this process. We have had ample opportunity to influence the shaping of this Charter. Both the House and Senate, through their Fulbright and Connally resolutions, have been on record in favor of American membership in a general international organization since 1943. Now, after so much preliminary work, there appears no reason for prolonged Senate debate on the Charter: The specific legislative steps to be taken are: A. Toward ratification of the Charter:
1. Submission of the Charter to the Senate.
5. Signature by the President. B, Legislation needed following ratification to get the Organization into operation.
1. Definition of the powers of United States delegate on the Security
Council. 2. Arrangements concerning United States forces to be placed at the dis
posal of the Security Council. 3. Appropriations for our share of the United Nations Organization
expenses. C. Longer-range legislation connected with the Organization.
1. l'nited States membership in the subsidiary organizations of the
Economic and Social Council. 2. Acceptance by the United States of the optional clause giving com
pulsory jurisdiction to the World Court. 1. The peace treaty ending the war in Europe and in Asia will be subject to
Senate ratification, and its provisions will indirectly affect the future of the l'nited Nations Organization.
EVALUATION Is the Charter on / mi pro mentorer Dumbarton Oaks? Orer the League of Nations!
Can it prettent Ware There is general opinion that the United Nations Charter is a stronger document than expected and represents a detinite improvement over both the Dumbarton Onåsyroposals and the Covens!'* of the League of Nations. The United Nations Organisation is a league crew.ition of sever'ign nations. The members agree to abide by train general principes and isns of international conduct; they assume spheral bigations to operate in schieving the expressed aims of the Organizathen; und they asme' dette medies to ser jointly in a system of collecthe druri te maintain or nsten the peace. The Organization is in no sense a wuri gilirementara 3€. 1: his ne pener to iegislate, but it represents a conerini sitempt tid esiisastew interraterai onder based on law. The members are to work together fe give eauneme and social problems and not
to use their armed forces except as parts of international policing action to prevent war. The principle that force is an illegal method of settling disputes, and that security is a collective responsibility was already embodied in the League of Nations' Covenant. Now, after 25 years and a Second World War, the principle is reestablished in the United Nation's Charter. The new Charter goes farther and sets up methods of enforcement. It places the responsibility for enforcement on the five great powers which together have the economic and military power to act effectively. It is true that the five great powers have to be unanimous to take action and that there is therefore no way to coerce a great power, but in the League of Nations, all members had to be unanimous.
The duties of the various organs of the United Nations Organization are more clearly defined than in the League of Nations' structure. For example, it is a step forward that membership in the United Nations Organization includes membership in the World Court, and that the numerous semiautonomous special agencies, like the International Bank and Fund, and the International Labor Office, are all to be coordinated under the Economic and Social Council. The trusteeship provisions mark an advance over the League of Nations mandate system. The task of maintaining peace is now to be a full-time job, with the Security Council, Economic and Social Council, and the World Court in year-round session.
Much was accomplished at San Francisco in reconciling the viewpoints of the big powers with those of the smaller nations. The Dumbarton Oaks proposals were written by the great powers and adequately protected their interests. The problem at San Francisco was therefore to perfect the Dumbarton Oaks proposals so as to assure the smaller “45” that their interests were also protected; and to devise a system to offer protection to the various interests of the world's different peoples. Numerous additions to the Charter made it a more acceptable and balanced document from the standpoint of the small and intermediate powers. For example, the rights and duties of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council were extended; and the sections defining purposes and principles were elaborated in order to reassure the small powers that the Big Five would exercise their authority under justice and law. The provisions on human rights were strengthened, and a dangerous trend toward regionalism was subordinated to the need for a strong world organization. Outstanding small-power leaders were a strong liberal influence in the negotiations. The wonder is not that there were serious disagreements but that such a wide area of final agreement was achieved.
The United Nations Charter is admittedly the result of compromise between widely divergent political, economic, and social systems. There has been much criticism on the ground that under the unanimity rule, the five great powers still retain complete control of their own military forces and even their diplomatic actions, and that all
nations retain complete sovereignty over their respective economic systems. This is true, but the reason that more authority is not delegated to the United Nations Organization is that public opinion throughout the world, and particularly in the United States and Russia, has not developed to the point where the peoples are willing to join a powerful organization. The weaknesses of the United Nations Organization can easily be corrected when a larger share of the world's peoples want to delegate more authority to it.
In the meantime, is the present organization strong enough to prevent wars? Obviously no machinery alone can prevent war. The proposed machinery is adequate to achieve conditions conducive to peace and to settle disputes peacefull in the nations, large and small, stand together and make use of it, supported by strong public opinion. The chances that the organization will be effective are directly proportionate to the amount of use which is made of its facilities.
In establishing the United Nations Organization the world will be making a vital and constructive move toward an international order, where with presistent effort it can hope to attain justice, prosperity, and freedom from war.
The United Nations Organization holds vast potentialities for a better future for the United States and the world. The contribution which the Organization will make toward peace and human well-being will depend on the leadership of the member nations. This leadership in turn depends on the will of the peoples of those nations. If the world peoples are to give adequate backing to the new Organization, they must be convinced that it offers them a valuable method of working with other nations, and that this cooperation is their best chance for a higher standard of living and a peaceful life. The United Nations Organization must become a living reality to the masses of the world.
The world is in the midst of a social revolution from which no military vietory can shield us. Victory only gives us the chance to face these problems and to work together to solve them. Now that military restraints have been relaxed, the tensions are already reappearing in Europe and later will do so in Asia. The best possible antidote to future war will be continuing cooperation within the framework of the United Nations Organization in order to find solutions to the problems which cause these tensions. Cooperation does not consist of just talking about what to do, or even agreeing to it. The real test comes in doing it. For the United States this will mean adjusting our military, political, and economic habits so that a new pattern based on international consultation, negotiation, and action can take the place of the old war-breeding pattern of every nation for itself. The United States with its history of leadership in political democracy and its present vast financial, industrial, and military power is in a key position to take leadership in the United Nations Organization.
DISCUSSION QUIZ 1. By whom was the United Nations Charter written?
2. What opportunities have the people of the United States and the Senate had to influence and revise the provisions of the Charter?
3. What are the four primary bodies through which the Organization will operate?
4. Is the General Assembly comparable to (a) our House of Representatives, (b) Town Meeting of the Air, (c) a Congressional standing committee?
5. Who are the members of the Assembly?
7. Is the Economic and Social comparable to, (a) the Interstate Commerce Commission. (b) the National Resources Planning. Board, (c) the Social Security Board, (d) the Postwar Economic Policy and Planning Committees of the House and Senate?
8. Can the Economic and Social Council make international economic rules without the consent of the member nations involved?
9. What is the relative importance of the Economic and Social Council in the United Nations Organization?
10. Is the Security Council comparable to (a) the President's Cabinet, (b) a grand jury, (c) the United States Congress, (d) the sheriff's office?
11. How are the members of the Security Council chosen?
12. Can any international dispute which threatens the peace be discussed by the Security Council?
13. Can one of the permanent members veto a peaceful solution of a dispute?
14. Does enforcement action by the Security Council require unanimous agreement? 15. What is the function of the World Court? 16. Are all members of the United Nations also members of the Court? 17. Is there a body of international law on which the Court can base decisions?
18. Are all nations forced to use the Court to settle all disputes which can be judged by law?
19. What is the Secretariat?
21. Is the proposed United Nations an improvement over the League of Nations?
22. Will the United Nations insure peace?
23. What specific legislative steps must be taken to make the United States & member of the United Nations?
24. What are some of the arguments of those opposed to ratifying the Charter? What steps can be taken, short of refusing to ratify, to limit the usefulness of the Organization?
25. In the interest of world peace, what kind of a foreign policy must we have in the postwar world?
26. What can we, as citizens, do to influence such a policy?
The United Nations Charter, text, free, Department of State, Washington 25 D. C.
Fifty Questions on the United Nations Charter, Woodrow Wilson Foundation, 45 East Sixty-fifth Street, New York 21, N. Y., 20 copies free, additional copies, 5 cents.
The Congressional Record, June 12, 1945, speech by Senator Harold A. Burton.
Hartley, Livingston, It's up to the Senate, American Association for the United Nations, 45 East Sixty-fifth Street, New York 21, N. Y., 10 cents.
The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Florence Cafferata. (No response.
The committee has already exceeded the speed limit which it set and I know of nobody else that we can hear at this time.
Mrs. Johnson. I would like to be heard, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Please state your name, residence, and whom you represent.
STATEMENT OF HELENE JOHNSON, CHICAGO, ILL., ASSOCIATE
CHAIRMAN, CITIZENS' FORUM, THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DIS-
Mrs. JOHNSON. My name is Mrs. Helene E. Johnson, 2324 West One Hundred and Éleventh Street, Chicago, Ill. I am associate chairman, Citizens Forum, Third Congressional District, and a representative of the Women's League for Political Education.
The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear your statement.
Mrs. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, when President Truman in presenting the Charter to the Senate said that he would not go into the provisions of the Charter as he was sure that the Senate was thoroughly familiar with them and that the people of the Nation would have a complete expression of views from the discussion on the Senate floor, his statement was greeted with laughter--why? Was it because the Charter is being rushed through this committee in the Senate with such speed that any informative discussion will be impossible? Or was it because the agencies that present the news to the public have all been set to propagandize the people along the lines prescribed by the backers of this Charter? This suppression of free, informative discussion should create apprehension, not laughter.
The Charter in the beginning was designated as a general international organization based upon the principle of the sovereignty and equality of all peace-loving states, but when Switzerland, Sweden, and other neutral nations were denied representation at the San Francisco Conference, and Argentina had to declare war in order to seat her delegation, the farcical misnomer was changed to read, "to maintain international peace and security''; and a condition which did not exist at the time the Charter was written nor does it exist now. We have not as yet ourselves achieved the peace and security which this Charter proposes to maintain.
In order to minimize the threat behind the world police force necessary to maintain this so-called peace, its proponents say that peace cannot be preserved in a local community without a police force. But the policeman is hired to enforce the law and apprehend evildoers. He does not indiscriminately shoot down all the inhabitants of his precinct just because a crime has been committed. In war the innocent suffer instead of the guilty and destruction encompasses civilians as well as soldiers.
The dictionary defines peace as the absence of force; so peace and force cannot be maintained at the same time. But now after centuries of war, after many fruitless attempts to outlaw war, these supermen, Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin, envisioned world peace in the midst of world war by a plan so comprehensive that they could ignore the causes of war completely. In about 3 months they have accomplished what centuries of effort have failed to do. This triumvirate who could not keep the peace when we were at peace now rushes to fasten this so-called cloak of peace upon the peoples of the world without giving them an opportunity to examine its fabric to determine whether it is fashioned as a protection or as a shroud in which to bury their liberty. Are we to believe that the same forces which created this hell of war will now create the shrine of peace?
This Charter begins with the same words as the preamble to the Constitution of the United States; it is also replete with the familiar phraseology of the Declaration of Independence. By the use of "United Nations," "United States," continuously reiterated and combined with excerpts from our Bill of Rights, the interationalists are attempting to inveigle our people into the belief that this is just such another protection for the so-called common man.
Are we to accept these mouthings of peace and a new world order that the cinema, the controlled radio and press would propagandize us into? How can a Congress that cannot control the OPA, the fabulous lend-lease expenditures, the reckless squandering of the Nation's wealth and the bureaucratic control of our Government, suddenly feel itself capable of assisting in the control of the world?
Wars are not the result of unforeseen happenings, as our warmongers would have us believe, they are planned and executed with malice aforethought; they are the deliberate connivings of power politics and the control of wealth, and the common people are poor dupes who in the guise and frenzy of propagandized patriotism pay in blood and tears for the accumulation of power and wealth for the few.
What are we getting out of this war to compensate for the loss of our youth, not to speak of our resources, but the bumed bodies of our sons and a Charter for a world organization that would place the remainder of the people in perpetual bondage, and destroy the progress · and development of a hundred years-international planned jobs, regimentation by ratio, and registration cards.
When President Truman presented the Charter of the United Nations to the Senate he stated: