Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

STATEMENT BY MRS. NORA STANTON BARNEY, COMMITTEE TO WIN WORLD PEACE THROUGH A PEOPLES' PARLIAMENT

The CHAIRMAN. Give your name and whom you represent to the reporter.

Mrs. BARNEY. Nora Stanton Barney, and I represent the Committee to Win World Peace Through a Peoples' Parliament, 144 East Twentyfourth Street, New York, N. Y.

I have here a letter from Eva Ingersoll Wakefield, chairman of the Committee To Win World Peace Through a Peoples' Parliament. (The letter referred to is as follows:)

Senator TOM CONNALLY,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

JULY 11, 1945.

MY DEAR MR. CONNALLY: I wish to express our appreciation to your committee for having accorded us time at your hearing tomorrow.

I take pleasure in introducing to you our spokesman, Mrs. Nora Stanton Barney, who will express the views of this committee.

Very truly yours,

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

EVA INGERSOLL WAKEFIELD, Chairman.

Mrs. BARNEY. I took up the morning paper and read this item which rather upset me about the United Nations Charter and the hearings, and it said that the Charter had the obvious approval by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I thought I was going to speak to completely open minds in the matter, and perhaps this is an erroneous impression that the public had gotten that you had already made up your minds.

The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps you can pry our minds open.
Mrs. BARNEY. That is what I was hoping.

The Committee for World Peace through a Peoples' Parliament which I represent today laid the following suggestions before the four participating powers at Dumbarton Oaks. We next laid them before every delegation and delegate at San Francisco. When we asked for a hearing before your committee which you have so graciously accorded us you telegraphed back to know whether we were for or against the Charter.

Our answer is that it is a beginning, but we are for reservations. The Charter starts with a magnificent preamble and the words, "We the peoples of the United Nations," but our main criticism is that it is not subject to the will of the people.

There is no mention in the Charter of how the delegates are to be chosen. Even ours were appointed and not elected, but at least they were appointed by a government recently elected. But in England there had been no election for 9 years, and in many countries there had been no election at all.

In some countries, as in Greece and India, the delegates had been chosen by a foreign power. Other governments were frankly interim governments waiting for their soldiers' return before they had free elections. These are the delegates that framed the Charter. The result of this undemocratic method of choosing delegates is that the conclusions reached by them do not reflect the wills of their peoples at all.

75608-45- 29

The first instance of this was the admission of the Argentine. I was there at that plenary session and my head hung in shame when I heard the words that she had fulfilled the specifications of being a peace-loving nation by having declared war on Germany. My heart was filled with foreboding of the future. She was admitted. It went through on greased skids with a vote of about 35 to 6. I have not yet met an American who did not deplore that action. The delegates surely did not reflect the will of the people of the world or of the American people.

Our committee urges you to make a reservation adding an article as to requirements for the election of delegates directly by the peoples. This is not interfering with the internal affairs of other nations. You are elected according to the United States Constitution. If our Constitution had allowed the governor of each State to appoint you at 10-, 15-, or 20-year intervals, how effectively would the Congress represent the peoples? Yet that was the situation at San Francisco. The second reservation we urge has been brought up many times; namely, that one man should not have in his hands the power to plunge a nation of 130,000,000 people into war. The history of fascism has been the delegation of power by democratic bodies to one man. We urge you as our representatives to retain the right of Congress to declare war or to veto it. The Security Council does not even have to call upon the parties in an "aggravated situation" to confer, but can rush right in with armed forces. We urge that "may" be changed to "shall" in paragraphs No. 40 and No. 41.

We wish to make a further suggestion which answers the objection. that delay in imposing force might be fatal. Usually situations are seen way in advance as coming events cast their shadows before them. Why not have a real world police completely international in character, with international uniform and flag and captains of all nations trained together to police the strategic waterways and airfields and mandates and islands seized from the enemy in this war. In other words, the Triests and Dardanelles of the world.

These trouble points are centers of dissention just because every nation feels she has a stake in them. So why not internationalize them once and for all? The international police in which all nationalities would be mixed, acting as they would under a council that would be responsive to the will of the peoples of the United Nations, would prevent unilateral action that is already endangering the peace of the the world in several quarters.

Let this year be the end of a long epoch of wars and the birth of a new international conscience. It matters not how small a body the international police are, they would be the emblem, the beacon of hope, for security to the peoples of the world for an international flag would fly here and there throughout the world to give welcome to all peace-loving wayfarers whether on land or water or in the air.

Many nations, but mainly the big ones, would continue for the present with great navies and armies but they would have to stay at home and in home waters. Joint the navy and stay at home, in other words, and gradually the feeling of security due to the international police would lead to disarmament.

The international police would act under the Security Council, but if trouble arose and large forces are called for by the Security Council then certainly the matter should be referred back to the Congress so

that the peoples' representatives can pass upon the necessity of shedding their lifeblood. Now, more than ever, is this necessary because if there is ever another war, it will indeed be a total war, with all men and women and even children mobilized and with all the world a battle front. The creation of huge armies will not stop it, a new spirit must prevent it.

There are many kinds of peace. There is peace in Sing Sing and under many dictatorships. There is peace in Spain. It is to be hoped the international organization will strive for a peace born in the contentment of the common man, but if it does not represent the people, it will simply bring about an armed peace. The kind of peace we want needs no greater force than we use within our country.

The importance of the decision arrived at by the Senate of the United States on this Charter is paramount. The whole spirit of San Francisco was haste. Haste in framing the Charter, haste in calling the Conference. Only eight days after the delegates arrived, namely Friday, midnight, was the deadline set by the steering committee for amendments to go on the agenda.

There was much criticism on the part of the delegates on this matter of haste. They saw no reason for it. There was haste again in letting in Argentina. Russia and Belgium urged a 3-day delay, but haste was again in the saddle and won.

In closing I can only say that out of 100 people whom I made a point of asking, and who said they were in favor of the Charter, only I had ever seen it and he had not read it-I will revise that, because last night I found the one hundred and first, and she said she had read it from cover to cover and was wholeheartedly for it. I said, "Do you think it is going to prevent war?" She said, "Oh, no; it was never meant to." I also inquired at random of 100 servicemen if they thought the new international Charter would prevent war. Not one thought that it would not one. The Committee for World Peace, through a peoples' parliament, feels that the Charter should not be adopted in haste and urges you to consider our suggestions. For in all sincerity, if we thought it would prevent war, as now constituted, we would be wholeheartedly for it.

We also advocate a second house in world government, for surely the one that is there now does not represent the world. We have 300,000 in the Duchy of Luxembourg with a delegate, and 400,000,000 in India without any, and France, with 45,000,000, with one. I mean, it is the most unbalanced affair.

There is much discussion as to whether Hitler is alive or dead. I don't think it matters. The important thing is, are his ideas alive or dead? They are alive, very much alive. They are full-fledged in some countries and they are lurking elsewhere. Is he going to have his fetish of militarism survive? Is he going to impose militarism and armament on the world? That was his thesis. Are we going to arm the youth of the world and fling them against each other?

I am representing today, gentlemen, not only the Committee for a World Peace through a peoples' parliament, but my son who is overseas. He had no vote in the last election, so he is sitting here beside me; in fact, he wrote me to come.

One of your committees, the Judiciary Committee, has voted that they would not consider any amendments to the Constitution of the United States until the soldiers can come back and express themselves.

How can you consistently do otherwise? You know the prohibition amendment was passed during the last war, and it could be rescinded, but if you adopt this we cannot get out, and it is practically unamendable. How can you gentlemen consistently on the one hand with members of the Senate saying that they won't consider amendments to the Constitution, and on the other hand you propose to put this through! We beseech you to wait until the soldiers come home.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Are there any questions from any Senators? [No response.]

The CHAIRMAN. Is Miss Van Hyning present? [No response.]

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Helen Dwight Reid, representing the American Association of University Women, and other organizations.

STATEMENT BY DR. HELEN DWIGHT REID, ASSOCIATE IN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION FOR THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN AND CONSULTANT TO THE UNITED STATES DELEGATION AT THE SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE

The CHAIRMAN. Give your name and whom you represent, for the benefit of the record, please.

Dr. REID. I am Dr. Helen Dwight Reid, of the American Association of University Women. Today I am authorized to speak on behalf not only of my own organization but of a large group of representative women's organizations of the country, including the American Association of University Women, Association for Childhood Education, General Federation of Women's Clubs, Girls' Friendly Society of the U. S. A., National Board of Young Women's Christian Association, National Congress of Parents and Teachers, National Council of Jewish Women, National Education Association, National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc., National Service Star Legion, National Women's Trade Union League of America, and United Council of Church Women.

Those organizations have approved this general statement. I believe they are going to give you also a supporting statement of their

own.

The CHAIRMAN. I hope the press will carry all these organizations.
Dr. REID. I have copies here for the members of the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Dr. REID. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, during the past several months our organizations have been studying the proposals drafted at Dumbarton Oaks and promoting their thoughtful consideration in local communities throughout the country. We can, therefore, assure the committee that the widespread support for the United Nations Charter is not the mere reflection of uninformed enthusiasm, but represents intelligent public opinion formulated after thorough discussion.

It is the reasoned conviction of these organizations that the Charter possesses great intrinsic merit, and includes far-reaching improvements over the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. We urge its immediate ratification without amendment or reservations. We wish to call attention to the following constructive developments embodied in the Charter.

1. The shift of emphasis represented by raising the Economic and Social Council to the position of a "principal organ" of the United Nations, and the expansion of its scope and functions. Realizing that the conflicts which lead to war are most often fostered and intensified by tensions arising from economic controversy, or misunderstandings growing out of distorted education, misinformation, and subversive propaganda, we approve the positive opportunity this Charter gives the United Nations for reducing such clashes before they can endanger the peace of the world.

2. The establishment of a general international organization capable of coordinating the manifold activities of separate specialized agencies created to serve the international needs of nations. Security remains inevitably an essential purpose, for the world has learned from hard experience that without it all the great constructive activities of a cooperative world society collapse. We believe this Charter provides a useful and well constructed mechanism for facilitating joint action in all those aspects of daily life wherein nations have come to recognize a common interest-such as health, education, finance, trade, and social welfare.

3. The new international status accorded the individual human being by including as one of the major purposes of the Charterto promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

The Charter is imbued with this concept of the dignity and worth of the human being, which recurs in the preamble; in the statement of purposes and principles in chapters I and IX; in the powers of the General Assembly in chapter IV; and again in the important trusteeship provisions in chapter XII.

4. Definition of principles of international trusteeship. This represents an important addition to the draft proposed at Dumbarton Oaks, and an achievement in reconciling the differing views of the 50 delegations. In this the Charter provides opportunity for the gradual evolution of new procedures for meeting the problems of dependent

areas.

5. Effective planning to mobilize the force of the world to stop aggression. The basic principle of Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta, that the obligation to enforce peace is correlative with the possession of military power, is embodied in the Security Council provisions with their emphasis on united action. On the other hand, the broadening of the power of the General Assembly constitutes an important victory for the principle of equality of states in world affairs.

6. The integration of regional and universal security measures. Chapter VIII represents a significant step toward utilizing regionalism as an aid in the maintenance of world peace without disrupting the unity of the over-all world organization, nor diminishing its authority and prestige.

7. The new emphasis on justice, which was not included in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. The Charter's insistence that without justice there can be no lasting peace is reinforced by the inclusion of a new statute for the International Court of Justice and by positive provisions encouraging the future development of international law. This is a dynamic Charter. Its future usefulness depends on the quality of our participation. The organizations for whom I speak

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »