Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

However, the Senate does not need to do that merely because the Charter is the lesser of two evils. Actually, the document before you charts a path which we can pursue joyfully and without fear. Under it we remain the masters of our own destiny. The Charter does not subordinate us to any supergovernment. There is no right on the part of the United Nations Organization to intervene in our domestic affairs. There can be no use of force without our consent. If the joint adventure fails, we can withdraw.

There are some who express concern as to the power of the America representative on the Security Council. They forget that it is not our distinguished leader at San Francisco, Mr. Stettinius, who will be the member of the Security Council. It is no individual. The member of the Security Council is the United States of America. The United States will be the member of the Security Council. How the United States will act as a member of that Security Council is a matter of our own internal policy, just as the way the Soviet Union as a member of the Security Council will act in its capacity as a sovereign state is a matter of its internal procedure. Under our Constitution, the President, and the President alone, directs the current conduct of foreign affairs. But there can be no declaration of war except by the Congress. That is our internal procedure, it will remain our internal procedure, and all the world knows that fact.

It may or it may not hereafter become useful to decide by legislation whether or not the use of our military contingent to enforce peace is the equivalent of a declaration of war. But surely we can better. determine that when we know what it is that we are talking about. Today there is no military contingent. After the organization is established the organization may negotiate with the members for military contingents. That agreement for military contingents, so far as the United States is concerned, will be subject to the ratification and consent of the Senate. When the Congress knows what will be proposed concerning the size, the character, and the area of possible use of an American military contingent then we will know what we are talking about, and then it may be desirable by statute to fix the relative responsibility of the President and the Congress. On the other hand, it may not seem desirable. The President and the Congress have got along pretty well for 160 years without any statutory definition of their respective responsibilities in that area.

I have talked about the force used by the Security Council. But the United Nations Organization will depend only slightly on military force. The primary reliance is upon pacific methods for the settlement of disputes; and above all, reliance is placed on embarking upon great tasks of human betterment, which will hold the members together in fellowship and in friendship. That is the great hope of the future. Unity, such as that we want to preserve, is the reaction to a common peril and a common effort to overcome that peril. Germany and Japan have been the perils which drew us together. With the complete defeat of Germany and Japan, that peril will seem to disappear. Then our unity, too, will disappear unless we find new, compelling tasks to pursue in common. It is such tasks that the San Francisco Charter proposes to the United Nations. It brands intolerance, repression, injustice, and economic want as the common perils of the future, just as Nazi Germany and imperialist Japan are the common

perils of today. It proposes that we stay united to wage war against those evils.

That proposal responds to the hopes and the aspirations of the peoples of the world. To take an example from my personal knowledge, some 221⁄2 years ago the Federal Council of Churches, on the recommendation of a commission of which I was chairman, announced its six pillars of peace. The Charter which is now before you largely realizes the six basic proposals which were then formulated.

The Charter creates the "political framework for a continuing collaboration of the United Nations and, in due course, of neutral and enemy nations." They-the quoted words-were our first and basic pillar.

There is to be an Economic and Social Council, which will promote stability in the field of international trade and finance. That was our second pillar.

The General Assembly is to seek the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations. That was our third pillar.

The administration of non-self-governing peoples is made a sacred trust, to be used to develop self-government and free political institutions. That was our fourth pillar.

The Security Council will exercise a control over armament both positively, to put it behind law and order, and negatively, to prevent excessive military establishments. That was our fifth pillar.

The organization is to promote respect for human rights and for the fundamental freedoms of all and will establish a special Commission on Human Rights. That, in essence, was our sixth pillar.

It has long been a Christian thesis that peace is best sought by enlisting the nations in tasks that are curative and creative. That is the invitation of the present Charter. It is unthinkable that we should refuse that invitation. To accept it will not, of course, guarantee peace. Nothing that we can do will do that. But while we must take precautions against failure, we must at least take the best chance that prevents itself to avoid that failure. Why should we not take the chance that is presented by this Charter.

I have been listening here today to honest, sincere, and able opponents of the Charter. I have been unable to hear presented one single cogent reason why we should not accept this Charter.

It has been said that by this Charter we enter into a military alliance. That is not so-at least, in accordance with my conception of a military alliance. What is a military alliance? A military alliance is an agreement between two nations whereby they agree in advance that in the event of some future contingency, such as an attack by a third power, they will go to that nation's defense. In this Charter there is not a word which commits the United States in advance to use its armed forces. That decision will be made at the time in the light of the circumstances and in accordance with the judgment of the United States of America as a member of the Security Council.

It is said that by this Charter and by the Security Council the great nations will dominate the small. Well, you Senator Connally, who have been at San Francisco, know what the attitude at San Francisco was on the part of the small nations. There was one dominating fear

on the part of the small nations, and that was the fear that the Security Council would not act, rather than the fear that it would act. They fought to the last the veto power possessed in the Security Council, because they felt that there would not be action if it required the unanimous consent of the five permanent members. The small powers at San Francisco were not afraid that the Security Council would act; their only fear was that it would not act. They can speak better for themselves than some of the people here today who profess to speak on their behalf.

It is said that this Charter will perpetuate colonial imperialism. Well, I admit that the Charter does not at a single step terminate all colonial imperialism. But, I say that the greatest step in advance that has ever been made in modern times is the fact that by this Charter every colonial power, without exception, subscribed to the proposition that the administration of colonial peoples is a sacred trust to be administered with a view to their ultimate self-government and the establishment of their free institutions. There are those today who speak for the colonial peoples who seem to think that that declaration is meaningless and that the purpose and effect of this Charter are to perpetuate colonial domination.

Mr. Chairman, again I say that there were at San Francisco people who were battling for the rights of colonial peoples, with as good a right to speak on their behalf as anyone who has spoken here today, and those people who battled at San Francisco for the colonial peoples feel that, at least, this Charter is a great achievement which opens a door, such as the world has never before seen, to a liberation ultimately of the colonial dependent peoples of the world.

It is said that this Charter will commit us to perpetuate the provisions of an unjust peace. Of course, there is in the Charter no automatic protection against an unjust peace and no automatic way of at once undoing all the injustice in the world. But we do have the provision, which was so gallantly fought for, particularly by Senator Vandenberg, which gives the Assembly the right to look into any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems unjust or likely to impair the good relations between nations and to make recommendations as to the rectification of that situation.

I say that while that will not assure justice, certainly to tear up that provision, which was gained through gallant fighting on behalf of the American delegation, and to go back to a world where there is not even that opportunity to review any injustice, would certainly be a step in retrogression.

Well,

It is said that we cannot go into this Charter because it involves our collaboration with those who in the past have been aggressors. let him who is innocent throw the first stone. By any test that we can apply, the United States in days past has been an aggressor. Largely through force or the threat of force we expanded our domain from a small strip along the Atlantic seaboard to a great continental and, almost, world empire. There are some nations which think that we did it by aggression; and as I say, by the same tests that the speaker would apply to other nations, we, too, must stand condemned. Who, then, is to collaborate, and with whom are we to collaborate, and who is to collaborate with us, if no one is to collaborate with an aggressor? A collaboration which is limited to no collaboration between nations that have been aggressors is another way of saying that we must forever stand in isolation ourselves.

Then, it is said that we should retire into hemispheric isolation. That is the only constructive alternative, if you call it such, that I have heard put forward today by the opponents of this Charter. It was put forward by a gentleman who a few moments before had wept tears because he said we have lost our sympathy for Poland. Well, if we are going to retire into hemispheric isolation, we will have to lose our sympathy for more than Poland. As he portrays it, there is this great struggle going on in the world. Are we going to abandon everybody in Europe? It does not seem to me to make sense, on the one hand, to attack the Charter because it does not do enough for Poland, and then, on the other hand, to recommend as the only alternative that we retire to hemispheric isolation.

Finally, it is said that we cannot go into this Charter because of the huge public debt of the United States and the large sums that we have expended in aid to others by way of lend-lease. I would point out that the huge public debt which we have is a huge public debt which came about at a time when we avoided such association with other nations as is now proposed, and that the sums we have expended as an aid to lend-lease have not occurred under the association that is proposed. There is not a single word or line in this Charter which by affirmative implication commits the United States to any financial aid whatever, any more than it commits the other nations to financial aid to the United States. The question of policy in that respect is a policy which each nation will decide for itself, entirely independent of the undertakings of the Charter, which relate in no way whatsoever to the question of extending financial aid as between members of the United Nations.

Now, of course, I recognize that this Charter does not do what many people would like to guarantee at a single step perpetual peace. We would all like to see that done. But the world does not move at a single step from a condition of virtual anarchy to a condition of well-rounded political order. Those steps are made falteringly. There are missteps; there have been missteps. This, for all I know, may again turn out to be a misstep. But when the gentleman said, as he did say, that he did not himself know what to do, I say that here is, at least, a step which presents itself to us, which may be, or which has a good chance to be, a step forward onto new, firm, and higher ground. We cannot know that that is so, and because we cannot know that it is so, as I said earlier, we must take precautions accordingly. But because we cannot know that it is so is certainly no reason to take no action at all. It may be that permanent peace will be achieved only by trial and error; but it will never be achieved at all if we are afraid even to try.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to close with just one word as to the part which the Senate has played in the negotiation of this Treaty. I can say frankly that in the past I myself have had some doubts as to the wisdom of Senators participating in the negotiation of treaties. Those doubts, for me, were dispelled at San Francisco. The sudden death of President Roosevelt and the many problems with which President Truman had to cope all at once left a heavy burden of decision upon the American delegation. That burden was primarily borne by the Senate's two great Senators, Senator Connally and Senator Vandenberg. Within the councils of the American delegation, their views were the ones that carried finality and decision; and also in the committees and the commissions of the Conference,

[ocr errors]

it was the weight of their words and of their presence which time and again assured a Charter which would conform to what the United States Senate would want and would accept.

I recall occasions when I myself was asked to go to committee meetings to present the agreed American case. I accepted to do so on the understanding that one, at least, of two Senators would come with me. In each case, after I had finished speaking, the Senator present nodded his head to indicate support of what I had said. That senatorial nod carried far more potency than any words which I had been able to utter.

The San Francisco Conference made plain how greatly the United States Senate is honored and respected by other nations. Through the great ability, the wisdom, and the unremitting labor of Senators Connally and Vandenberg, that honor and respect have been enhanced. There has resulted a Charter which both engages our Nation to honorable cooperation for peace and justice and, at the same time, protects those precious American traditions of which the Senate is our principal custodian. That is why this Charter can be, and I hope will be, approved by the Senate without reservation and without dissent.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Dulles. I feel that I am authorized by Senator Vandenberg, who is unfortunately absent to say on his behalf and on my behalf that we thank you very deeply for the kind words spoken respecting our endeavors at San Francisco. Does any Senator desire to ask questions of Mr. Dulles? Senator MILLIKIN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? The CHAIRMAN. Senator Millikin.

Senator MILLIKIN. Mr. Dulles, there is in the Charter a provision whereby the Security Council may present plans for disarmament. Without going into detail on the thing, is it your opinion that the amount and nature of the armaments of the United States will remain, despite the Charter, under the complete control of this country? Mr. DULLES. I have no doubt about that whatsoever, Senator. At the most, all they can do is make a recommendation.

Senator MILLIKIN. Thank you. If I understood you correctly, Mr. Dulles, I thought you said that the Senate will have an opportunity to ratify the special agreement having to do with our contribution of force and material.

Mr. DULLES. Yes, sir.

Senator MILLIKIN. Is that your opinion?

Mr. DULLES. That is not only my opinion, but it is expressly stated in the Charter that the agreements are subject to ratification by the states in accordance with their constitutional processes.

Senator MILLIKIN. Then it is your opinion that to comply with our constitutional processes, that separate agreement would have to come to the Senate for ratification?

Mr. DULLES. It is, and that was the view of the American delegation. I think there is no doubt whatever about that.

Senator MILLIKIN. Is there any doubt about that, Mr. Dulles?
Mr. DULLES. No.

Senator MILLIKIN. And no disagreement of opinion on that?

Mr. DULLES. No.

Senator MILLIKIN. I take it that by ratification you mean ratification by the method of advising and consenting to a treaty?

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »