« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
the bereft of that great "silent legion” who lie in foreign lands over whom a monument a white cross—is erected.
We are much concerned that the world never have to experience the tragedy of war for we know what war means. We are much concerned that we use our civilization to settle our differences—whether they be on a local, state, national, or international level-over the conference table. This is one of the earmarks of civilization.
First of all may we say that we have been proud of the statesman. ship portrayed by our very capable delegates to the San Francisco Conference. Surely, if world maturity is but embryonic, we can at least feel proud of the fact that America has reached the top rungs of the ladder in statesmanship. The able leadership begun by the late President Roosevelt, assisted in the House and Senate by legislation and followed by the performance of Secretary Stettinius, so ably assisted by Senators Connally and Vandenberg, Congressman Bloom and Eaton, Commander Stassen, and Dean Gildersleeve has been such that all America has been proud. Even though we could not all be in San Francisco, we followed their activity and in our traditional manner we were on the side lines cheering them all along the way.
Another most admirable feature of the whole procedure on the Charter from beginning to end has been the manner in which negotiations have been handled up to this point. It is truly the product of America and the other 49 nations. The frankness with which it has been openly discussed; the State Department and the Foreign Relations Committee taking the leadership and saying, “This is what we have determined, and on the basis of the following reasons we present this to you, the public. We have done our best, but we are neither omniscient nor infallible. We invite your comment, your criticism, your suggestions, and your help.” Out of it all has come the best efforts of us all and is truly democracy at its best.
The leadership responsible for the way the United Nations Charter came into being is to be congratulated upon the very high level to which “representation of the people” has been carried; the statesmanship exhibited and the remarkable degree of democracy in the entire Charter proceedings.
It does not seem conceivable that anyone could fail to admire the tireless and indomitable spirit that led to the finished product which we discuss here today. One is so sympathetic with the apparent sincerity of purpose and devotion of the delegates of the 50 nations of the world to evolve a finished Charter that would bridge heretofore insurmountable obstacles, to keep the sovereignty of the nations, and yet to keep the peace, that, in deference, one feels reluctant to make even criticisms that are just or to mention the shortcomings. One also feels that after all the weeks spent in preparation most of the faults and weaknesses of the Charter are known and have been openly admitted. Yet there are problems that ,if they are not solved, eventually will bring only an absence of war.
We, like all other enlightened groups, as have even the persons who developed the Charter, believe that certainly the finished product that we discuss here today is not perfect, but that in an atmosphere of peace and the experience of working together we can come to trust each other and to have mutual respect for all the people of the world and will eventually evolve perfect machinery for not only keeping the peace that
is an absence of war but will evolve the process by which the causes of war will be eliminated. We believe that we all strive for world cooperation rather than power alliances which depend on the ability of the powers concerned to continue to agree among themselves.
One could hardly hope for this ideal at the outset, as has been pointed out before. At this stage there is not enough of world maturity and unity.
Gentlemen, we believe that the United Nations' Charter represents a major step in the right direction toward the realization of the
peace and security of the world. We believe that it opens a broad highway toward peace, security, human rights, and justice. How far we shall go on this road is up to us all. The Charter aims at peace. It does not fulfill it. The fulfillment is up to each of us. No document or treaty ever did. Armed might alone cannot guarantee security. There must be such treaties, but there must also be the foundation built on the human interests of the common man.
It is indeed gratifying to find that we have accepted the principle of the maintenance of peace and not merely its restoration, and that we recognize this as a world problemas declared at Moscow on October 30, 1943, when the United Nations declaredThat their united action, pledged for the prosecution of the war against their respective enemies, will be continued for the organization and maintenance of peace and security. That they recognize the necessity of establishing at the earliest practicable date a general international organization, based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving states, and open to memberships by all such states, large and smals, for the maintenance of international peace and security.
It establishes the channels through which 50 nations of the world, including 3 of the most powerful and 47 others of varying degrees of power, might cooperatively work together to eliminate the causes of war. In this field lies its greatest strength. We support the ratification of this Charter.
However, we believe that some points should be clarified so that our delegate, and the other representatives of our country,.might know what policies should be adopted that would be in keeping with the wishes of the American people whom they will represent.
We hope that you gentlemen will realize, as our very able President has said, that we "do not have a choice of ratifying this Charter or some other charter, but a choice of this Charter or no charter at all.” It has been said so many times that it has become truism that civilization cannot stand another war on the scale that mankind is now capable of waging it. It has become a problem of eliminating war or war will eliminate us individually and collectively.
We have been gratified that the Charter accepts among its responsibilities the promotion of certain basic principles without which peace would be impossible among which are those set forth in the preamble in the section stating that wereaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, and for these ends to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to insure by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all people.
One is forced to admit that the Charter is not too ambitious in what it attempts to do—namely, to mold together those nations or powers necessary to keep the peace; to provide for peaceful settlement of differences; by putting down aggression when it arises; plus machinery for studying world problems. This type of simplicity is to be es pected at the outset and is perhaps one of its virtues. It is a very necessary step in the development of world cooperation. No nation began as it is today, not even America. We have progressed as we have grown in years. So that amicable settlement of differences and the building of one world” must also go through certain stages.
Much has been said about the power of the veto and many persons have pointed out that it negates collective action. At present the world is run on forces set in motion by one or more nations and if this reasoning be followed to its logical conclusion we could never devise a plan of collective action. Further, if any one of the four nations—the United States, Russia, China, or Great Britain—wanted to start a war, there would be one anyway. Perhaps France could not start one so easily. China could not by virtue of power, but because of her geographical situation; the other three on power alone.
However, it does not seem quite clear as to what our position would be in the event that action might be vetoed by one of the five permanent members of the organization if action were desired by the other four members. What would happen if one or more of the big powers become convinced that military force is necessary? What would happen if force were used? No legal force may be used if one of the permanent members decided against it. Article 51 contains a reservation on resisting attack and action in self-defense, yet this can only be interpreted to include attack upon citizens or property within the borders of one country by another. What is to be done if citizens of country A--or their property owned in country A—are killed and destroyed on a wholesale scale within the borders of country B, which country refuses to protect them or their property, and country A decided that it is necessary to send forces into country B to protect its citizens? The question of whether or not action outside of the Charter is legal or not should be determined.
A word about the future of the World Court: The highest court in most civilized countries allows not only its constituent members and their political subdivisions, but also individuals, to present cases before it. One could not think in terms of our Supreme Court as only allowing states to present cases before it. Individual citizens have a great sense of security in knowing that they may also present their case there too. It does not seem possible that a court set up for the express purpose of interpreting international law could prohibit individuals from bringing cases before the court-citizenship, marital relations, adoptions, property settlement, and many other problems of an individual nature on an international scale are possible and should be permissible before the court.
Another aspect that is rather strange to those of us who are accustomed to the courts of our country: We allow a judge who might have an interest in one of the parties of a case to withdraw from the case.
The statute of the International Court of Justice not only allows such a judge to remain, but makes special provisions so that if one of the parties is not represented, special provisions are made to get a judge who does have a special interest for that particular case. Is this to be interpreted that he would be so soundly outvoted within a group of 15 that his presence would not mean much? There have been too many cases in our Supreme Court history where decisions were rendered by a one-vote majority to believe that this procedure is judicious or desirable.
We have been interested in all phases of the Charter, and our questions on most phases have been satisfactorily answered either by interpretation or by a logical explanation of why certain sections were written as they are.
However, we are gravely concerned about the section on trusteeships and the status of colonial people in general.
We are concerned for we know, as history has proved, that as long as any group of people in the world do not have government in which they have the right to participate, there will be no peace. There will only be an absence of war. “As for the Trusteeship Council in the Charter, the Christian Science Monitor has so succinctly pointed out
There is nothing left in the trusteeship plan to which the most ardent nationalist could object.
It is rather confusing, on the one hand, to read thatNothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter ; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under chapter VII, in chapter II, section 7— and then read the section on the international economic and social cooperation, IX and X.
Perhaps the greatest defect of the Charter is that it makes little or no provision for the 750,000,000 colonial peoples. The only provision made is that all nations now having colonial possessions are free to continue as they see fit. There is no provision for representation of the governed people on the Trusteeship Council. There are to be reports but there is no method to see that the country holding the colonial can enforce any recommendations.
The conflict between the French on one side and the Arabs and British on the other in Syria, and the Arab uprisings in Algeria, resulting in casualties running into the thousands, should make it clear to the world that imperialist rivalries and colonial oppression must be eradicated before world security and peace can be realized.
Grave dangers will result from any attempts to deal with such crisis as merely a question of local political consequence or as involving simply the safeguarding of supply routes to the East. The struggle for empire and the disgraceful deceptions practiced against the native people in this area ever since World War I form a pattern characteristic of colonial imperialism in general. That pattern must be changed if there is to be any peaceful solution of the claims of Arab, Indian, African, and other subject peoples.
The natives of South Africa, some 6,000,000 who are ruled by some 2,000,000 whites, want their freedom. Morocco wants the freedom that was taken from her. Algeria and Tunis, too, want freedom.
Agrument has been reached upon the principle that the imperial powers among the United Nations should stand morally committed io certain general objectives of economic, social, and political advancement for all colonial peoples, and more specifically for a small minority of subject peoples who may be brought within a trusteeship system
There is, however, no legal or compulsory obligation upon the states to adhere to these objectives. It is, indeed, purely voluntary for the governing powers to bring even the present mandates and future World War II mandates, not to mention other colonial territory, within the trusteeship system, which will have slightly stronger supervisory powers than did the Mandates Commission.
In addition to its limited scope, there are other shortcomings in the present formula. No provision is made for representation of the colonial peoples in the Trusteeship Council, or for consultation with them. Nothing is said of how long the trusteeship shall last; the goal of self-government is meaningless unless there is a definite time stipulated for its achievement.
And what about the old mandated territories? What about standards of colonial administration? What about the colonies of Portugal and Spain, which are not in the United Nations family!
We urge that these matters be considered and these problems solved at the earliest posisble date. It is also to be hoped that the Economic and Social Council
, which has such vast potential powers, will have the courage to mirror these problems before the world and that action will be taken to solve the colonial problem. Even as America found that she could not survive half slave and half free, neither can the world. The freedom, security, and peace of all are inextricably tied up with every group of people under the sun.
Anyone who believes that there will be peace without abolishing the colonial system is only deluding himself.
There must also be established a world "full of rights" or there will be no pence. Mankind is not so constituted that he will accept an inferior status to other men on a group basis.
It was rather interesting to note that there was reference in the deliberation to "territories inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world." This is but indicative of a type of thinking too prevalent. France was not able to stand by herself, and yet, she is now considered one of the Big Five. By what criteria is a nation to be so judged! Further, the conditions in most of the colonial countries are such that they have but one way to go and that is up-judged by the criteria of education, sanitation, standard of living, health facilities, roads, channels of communication, transportation, ownership of land, and all the other criteria for modern living, they are at the bottom. So that it might be deduced that, whatever way they governed themwolves, it is inconcible that they could be in more dire circumstances. Further, the fact that they are allegedly incapable of self-gorernment is an indictment of the type of rule they have been giren. Had they len en opportunity for self-government, they would have prepend for it. However, there are those who believe that no man is winterung?, nergy enough to rule anether.
Wer freiernierested in the development of the backwand nareset the world. It is to be hope that the Economic and Security