« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Fifth, closely allied with my fourth reason for opposing this. Charter, is the further reason that its phrases ring with insincerity, and that it assumes as truths things that are not truths at all.
Two of the noblest statements in the English language are the Preambles to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Not only is there no untruth in either of them--there is not even the slightest exaggeration. Their authors were guilty, if anything, og understatement.
The preamble to the San Francisco Charter is, indeed, different. There is an attempt at high-sounding phrases, but, for the most part, it is nothing more than a display of glittering generalities, and part of it is downright untrue.
Thus the expression of determination to reaffirm faith in *** the equal rights of nations large and small
*" when all the world knows that Soviet Russia, one of the principal signatories, has been guilty of as ruthless disregard of the rights of nations, and of the "worth of the human person," both Russian and those of other nations, as any country in human history, implies so great an untruth as to be an insult to the supposedly free people of the United States.
As this Senate sits to consider this Charter, though we have been generous with Soviet Russia, our regularly appointed Ambassadors to various countries in eastern and central Europe are refused admission; the Polish delegates, traveling under safe conduct, are thrown into prison because apparently they have sought to keep communism out of Poland; and yet this Charter solemnly recites "faith
of nations large and small.";
Sixth, and lastly, I believe that the International Organization called for by this Charter will be staffed to a large extent by those of Marxist ideologies; that in fact it will be dominated by Communists.
If such an organization as our own OWI, completely controlled by the Government of the United States, can have so large a proportion of Marxists as has been shown in the testimony before congressional committees; and with the UNRRA likewise so well staffed with leftists; is it not a moral certainty that the Organization of the Uni Nations 'will be likewise staffed?
The philosophy of Soviet Russia is based theoretically on collective action, though it is widely known that the country is a complete dictatorship, its Government being carried on through some 5,000,000 party members who loyally support the dictator. For the remaining 165,000,000 people in Russia there is little liberty, and in all probability less happiness. But, in theory at least, the Russian Government is collectivistic: Nothing can be done except by all.
Our background and tradition are utterly opposite. We believe not only in the worth of the individual, but in giving the individual the opportunity to rise as far as his talents permit. We believe that the system that permits this is best, in the long run, for everybody.
Russia, in the 28 years since her revolution, seems to have made little headway. What little progress has been attained has come largely through copying America.
We, on the other hand, adhering to our conceptions of the worth of the individual, have shown we could in an incredibly short time turn out armies, navies, and air forces superior to any in the world, and we have done such marvels in production that we have furnished much of the equipment that has carried our allies, and especially Russia, to victory.
And just as we have proven our American individualism to be best for the country, we have, I believe, proven that by retaining our own ability as a nation to act independently, we have done best not only for our own people but for the whole world.
Yet the new policy proposed by this Charter is to abandon our individual national strength and adopt the Russian conception. And there is no meeting of the minds among Americans in doing this. The truth has been played down or suppressed. We are being propagandized into pooling our strength with other nations none of which possesses strength like ours-none of which has our exact philosophy; one of which, indeed, hates our philosophy and has been trying whereever possible to destroy it. We are being converted from what we are into something else. If the plan for forcing it upon us is completed, we are more likely to fail in the new role than to succeed, because it is not our natural role. We would not be our true selves. Americans are not collectivists.
To my mind there can be no greater force for peace than one great nation such as ours, determined to keep the peace. A small nation cannot keep the peace. A large nation can. The single example of the United States, for instance, fortified by our armed forces, could lead the world in peace.
Who most wants this world state? I make it my business to follow fairly closely, among others, such publications as the Daily Worker, PM, and the other Communist and fellow-traveler publications. They are the ones that most want this world state.
To be sure, under the force of propaganda, we find widespread favorable comment on it in newspapers and magazines all over the country. I believe an analysis of the writers of the news columns, the headlines, and, indeed, the editorials, would disclose that a large majority of them are alien-minded, or for some reason have concluded to go along with the alien-minded.
Here we have, then, a scheme which calls for a highly developed—highly integrated as our New Deal bureaucrats would say-plan for a world state, a plan in which we Americans would surrender a large part of our liberty. No longer would we look to those servants of ours, the State and Federal Governments, to guide us and to conduct our public affairs: Once this world state had been saddled upon us, we would have to look to it and its bureaus and bureaucrats, not for leadership, but for direction and control.
By the very terms of the Charter and of the international agreements this would be world-wide. All “peace-loving nations” would be a part of it; the definition of a "peace-loving nation” apparently excluding those like Switzerland that refused to enter the present war.
In connection with all this, we have the Soviet Union, conceived by imaginative, crafty, able men. We have its Communist International which, though it has been "disbanded" in name, is certainly not disbanded in fact. That International has effective Communist Parties in practically every country in the world, including our own. That International and its various sections, including the Communist Party of the United States of America (or, if you please, the American Communist Association-I recognize no difference) are unanimously in favor of this world state and all of its international agreements.
To my mind, the conclusion is inescapable. What this Senate and this Congress are passing on when they are passing on this San Francisco Charter, the Bretton Woods proposals and the other international agreements, is nothing less than the great question of whether the people of the United States are to surrender their sovereignty and join a Communist world state.
I recently read statements by leaders of the Senate and of this committee that while they want plenty of time for consideration by the Senate, yet they want to lose no time unnecessarily in adopting this Charter.
Gentlemen, what is the hurry? If it is good for the American that the Senate adopt this, it will set far better with him if very ample time is allowed for consideration. If it is as good as its proponents believe it is, then a delay of a month, or 3 months, or 6 months in its adoption will, in the long run, make little difference.
Why not lay the matter over until fall, thus giving the people time to consider and discuss it?
If, as I believe, it would be a tragic mistake for the United States to enter into these treaties and agreements, then to do it quickly, after 2 weeks of hearings, and possibly a week or two of debate in the Senate, would merely heighten the tragedy.
If we are going to sell America out; if we are going to betray those 12,000,000 servicemen who are not here and cannot have ideas or even express themselves; if we are to consent to destroy the American Republic and deliver ourselves to the tender mercies of a Communist-controlled world dictatorship, for God's sake let us take our time about doing it.
Maybe we would decide not to do it after all. Maybe that is why there is this demand for haste.
A REVOLUTIONARY IDEA FOR PEACE FOR SAN FRANCISCO
STATEN ISLAND 1, N. Y., April 30, 1945. DELEGATION OF San Francisco CONFERENCE.
DEAR DELEGATES: As never before in its history, the world is searching for some form of collective action to handle the problem of the aggressor nation. Although I fully realize that the world's intellectual giants of all ages have applied their abilities to the problem with the results that are familiar to all, yet I do not hestiate to announce with the God-inspired confidence of a David, an idea that can revolutionize the world's search for a practical peace formula to solve the aggressor-nation problem.
The idea or formula is to provide a provisions for unequivocally defining the term “peace loving” state as used in the Dumbarton Oảks plan, chapter III, which reads: "Membership of the organization should be open to all peaceloving states." The idea is as follows:
A peace-loving state is hereby defined as any nation which gives its people the right to vote in a referendum, for peace or war except in the case of direct invasion and except for the use of joint military power by this Organization. Any nation participating at the San Francisco Conference which does not comply with this definition within 5 years shall be automatically
dropped from membership. In giving serious consideration to any plan for dealing with the control of war it is well to remember that from the beginning of time it has always been the rulers or the ruling classes who decided the question of war or peace and that, moreover, the common people of all countries have always been opposed to war. The tremendous possibilities of the war-referendum principle must be conceded when it is seen that this idea is simply a practical method of harnessing, for the first time in the world's history, the almost universal opposition to war of the common people, the ones who are forced to pay for war with their lives, their money, their suffering, and so forth. Needless to say it will also harness the power of religion to prevent war. It will enable every person to be a direct and positive force for peace. Then every Christian could be satisfied that the unselfish consideration of all plus their understanding of good or God, would be equally weighed in the final result. It would encourage and strengthen the individual and collective growth of Christianity as never before.
To show that the war-referendum principle is in absolute harmony with the democratic idea is a simple proposition. Democracy in its fullest sense can be defined as "rule by the consent of the governed," a phrase used in the Declaration of Independence. The war-referendum principle is really a method of honestly and efficiently registering the will of the majority with respect to a question of peace or war. It is equivalent to balloting directly for an idea instead of voting for men who only promise to support that idea. It cannot be denied that a referendum on vital or supreme issues is democracy functioning at its best.
Up to the present time, no nation in the world has made provision to declare war by the referendum principle, although it is very gratifying to state that the United States has had such a proposal in the Congress since 1935. Democracies and dictatorships are exactly alike with respect to a declaration of war, the common people having no part in making the decision. All prospective member nations would be on an equal footing insofar that each would have to change its political structure by adopting the war-referendum principle as already defined.
The aggressor nations of today are first-class examples that selfishness and dictatorships breed war. Unselfishness and democracy are their opposites and 80 they must promote peace. And, needless to say, the war-referendum principle is a perfect channel for registering the power of unselfishness, a basic Christian quality.
While I recognize only too well that the causes of are many and complex, still I feel that an international organization of nations without provision for the war-referendum principle must be considered as simply an extension of the present system of international power politics with all its obstacles to a sound peace. A world organization should be a government of mandatory action in support of established principles, instead of a government of men with the usual political log rolling as exemplified by the League of Nations and apparently put back into circulation by the decisions made at Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta. The warreferendum idea can control, handle, or effectively discourage aggression between .nations. It will make the people, instead of their leaders, responsible for acts of
By scrapping“ peace and war making by the few," we the people will gain "peace making by the multitude.”
As a sincere worker and fighter for the cause of peace, I have offered the warreferendum formula as an idea that can constructively neutralize the many objections and weaknesses of the Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta proposals which are now being considered by the delegates to the San Francisco Conference. By adopting my requirement for defining a peace-loving state there could be no reasonable objection to giving our representative to the Security Council all the necessary powers to act as the case would require. It would liquidate in effect the very important charge that agression by the large powers is to all purposes left unchecked. Was not aggression by a large power the direct cause of World War II? How often would aggression by a small nation start a world war?
Just as Wilson's poorly conceived blueprint for a League of Nations (with its loose and ineffectual membership and expulsion standards) was a colossal failure and so blindly torpedoed the ship of peace, so the danger is present today. I fully agree that membership in the World Organization should be limited to peaceloving states. But let every nation (and I include my own beloved United States of America), show that it is really a peace-loving state, by adopting the referendum principle in its political structure, and so prove that it is ready and worthy of membership.
Let it not be said that the Delegates to San Francisco rubber-stamped the "Papa knows best" policy of Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin as conceived by Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta.
You delegates to the San Francisco Conference can revolutionize the world's search for a practical peace formula by adopting the war-referendum principle, which in effect proposes to effectively harness the peace-making efforts and desires of the masses instead of a comparatively few statesmen and the ruling classes.
It is a challenge that no intelligent believer in Christianity or democracy can afford to overlook.
It is with a very great sense of love for the cause of peace and for the efforts of you and all others (past and present) that I send this communication. I have purposely refrained from submitting a complete plan for dealing with the aggressor nation problem, as I feel that it is more realistic under present conditions to amend the Dumbarton Oaks plan in the manner I have previously recommended.
In the final analysis please remember that whatever you do at San Francisco, your plan should have the overwhelming and enthusiastic support of the people in order to succeed. By incorporating the war-referendum formula, you are sure to capture universal appeal for the most important part of the entire plan, that dealing with aggression.
Physical might can win wars, but only right ideas can win the peace.
CLIFFORD R. JOHNSON.
STATEMENT ON THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS (Presented by the Women's Action Committee for Victory and Lasting Peace to
the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, July 1945)
As 1 of the 42 national organizations invited by the Department of State to send consultants to San Francisco, the Women's Action Committee for Victory and Lasting Peace followed the United Nations Conference closely. Our organization representatives watched with confidence and respect the contribution made by each member of the United States Delegation,
The Women's Action Committee stands 100 percent behind the San Francisco Charter. The Charter was created in a spirit of cooperation. This country's delegation gave outstanding leadership in sustaining that spirit. We are confident that the American people are eager to accept the Charter, so that the United States may assume its responsibilities under the Charter promptly and with vision.
The Women's Action Committee supports this Charter not merely because we feel it is the one bulwark which exists between our civilization and annihilation by future wars but because we consider it to be an outstanding document, an instrument for peace and progress, forged through the united efforts of 50 nations. In the very process of producing the Charter, these nations have already begun to live the life of community cooperation which is at the heart of the Charter.
It is a Charter in the truest sense of the word. It does not set up a world government; it indicates patterns of international cooperation. The highest purposes of the United Nations will be achieved if these nations follow the letter of the Charter in the spirit in which it was written.
In accepting the Charter the United States will commit itself to the support of principles which we have long championed as a nation. The United States will also commit itself to using the instruments of international cooperation. However, as a member of the United Nations Organization, this country will not be compelled to pursue any policy, or take any action other than by its own free will and according to its own decisions. This country's decision, on the other hand, will have a very profound effect upon the United Nations Organization.
As one of the sponsors of the San Francisco Conference and as one of the powerful nations of the world, the United States has a grave responsibility to choose wisely. The Women's Action Committee urges, therefore, that this country's
first great decision for the future, the decision to join the international organization without reservations, be given prompt acceptance by the Senate of the United States.
THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONAL Women's CluBS, INC.,
New York 23, N. Y., July 6, 1945. Hon. Tom CONNALLY, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
United States Senate, Washington 25, D, C. DEAR SENATOR CONNALLY: On behalf of the membership of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc., representing 91,000 women, I request that the enclosed statement in support of ratification of the United Nations Charter be included as a part of the hearings on that Charter, Sincerely yours,
MARGARET A. HICKEY, President.
STATEMENT ON THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER
(By Margaret A. Hickey, National President) The National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc., adopted the following resolution:
“Support of participation by the United States of America in international organizations with adequate enforcement machinery for the maintenance of peace and security; and support of a foreign policy embracing international social development, economic and financial stability, and the peaceful settlement of international disputes."
Our federation favors prompt and favorable ratification of the United Nations Charter because we believe in the principle of international cooperation and because we believe that the Charter embodies an instrument through which we can work together to maintain peace. This Nation must not fail to take its rightful place now and in the future in this common cause.
This Plan PRESENTED TO CONGRESS, BY HON. WIRT COURTNEY, FROM TENNESSEE
AS IT APPEARS IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, OF JULY 1, 1943-HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES VANDERHOOF, 13-POINT PEACE PLAN TO ELIMINATE FUTURE WARS AFTER VICTORY
(1) An organization or association to be formed among the United Nations, and those others which will have been freed from the bondage of Germany, Japan, and Italy.
(2) These nations large and small shall be permitted to set up their own form of governments, without influence or demand.
(3) These nations shall set up a new code of international law.
(4) Present enemy nations shall not be barred from membership in such organization or association,
(5) Each nation in association, to be acceptable to membership must adopt or write a constitutional amendment, waiving all right by power of their government to declare war, unless attacked by forcible arms. The association to decide what constitutes forcible attack.
(6) All power to so declare war must rest with the people of each respective nation, by popular vote.
(7) The armament of each of these nations shall not be in excess to that which will be necessary to maintain internal order. Size of each respective army to be determined by the association or union.
(8) An international chamber of commerce to be organized with equal representation among these United Nations, to create markets and guide in the fair distribution of raw materials and manufactured goods. The main object of such chamber is to eliminate competition among nations as much as possible. Tariffs of each member nation to be regulated by the association.