« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Now, if we go fiddling around with these United Nations amendments, my belief is that these free nations are going to go under. You have been abroad. You talked to men in Denmark and France last year, did you not? These men are fearful. These men feel they need
, protection. Friends coming back from abroad tell me that this country or that country must yield to this demand of the Soviets, or that demand.
They said to these people, “The United States will stand behind you." They replied, “What has the United States in Europe now? You have no force or anything."
They cannot count on it. They have to make their peace. You will have pieces of this pie snapped off one after another while you are debating on what to do about the United Nations.
Just think, if, after the shooting had stopped, France, Britain, and the United States had formed a union. I will tell you those countries would be on the road to recovery today. The whole world picture would be different. The attitude of Russia would be different. Just those 3 nations alone.
The relief would have been in a different form. It would not have been $3,750,000,000 international loan, support, and lend-lease.
Mr. Vorys. Would the WPA be greatly preferable, do you think?
Mr. ROBERTS. No. What I mean is, what happened in this country would happen there, Mr. Vorys. There is capital and enterprise in this country with which we can go into those countries and show them how and create employment there, if the capital is secured by a common citizenship and a common charter.
When the New England cotton mills were about to be ruined by the South, what did they do? They went down there and built mills that competed. Why did they do it? Because their capital was just as sa fe in South Carolina as it was in Massachusetts.
Mr. Bloom. Mr. Justice, you used the word “spiritual." What did you mean by that, please?
Mr. ROBERTS. I mean that I think the French ,British, and American people have a different spiritual outlook than the people of Russia.
Mr. Bloom. You would not bring the spiritual issue into this calling of the Vorys convention, would you?
Mr. ROBERTS. No; but I say you classify the people you invite by where they stand in the scale.
Mr. BLCOM. I think you are right, but you never would have had a constitution had you done that, and, furthermore, in San Francisco you could not open the convention with a prayer when we were writing the Charter.
Mr. Vores. I think that was a mistake.
Mr. Bloom. You could not get the other people to go along with you. What kind of a prayer are you going to use?
Mr. ROBERTS. If you try to create an organization of all the 55 nations outside of Russia you would have to water down the same way.
Mr. BLOOM. There is no mention of Deity or Divine Providence or God in the Constitution, even including the oath of the President of the United States, and it is the only oath in the Constitution where the word "God” is not mentioned.
Mr. Vores. My convention will start with a prayer, and nations that cannot pray can stay away.
Mr. BLOOM. That is all right with me, and I am going to have that prayer translated into Yiddish.
Mr. JONKMAN. I would like to ask the gentleman from New York, Mr. Bloom, as an authority on those matters, did they not have some delay regarding the opening of the Constitutional Convention meetings with a prayer?
Mr. Bloom. No. The only thing that was used was the phrase preceding the signatures: “In the year of our Lord.”
When Hughes used the oath in swearing in Roosevelt, he had a terrible time trying to explain it when he finished his oath with “So help me God.” It has never been done.
Franklin said this, at a time when they were in a snarl and could get nowhere at all: “We better recess for a while, and go to our quarters, and just pray that we might be able to get together.” That is what Franklin said.
Mr. ROBERTS. I think he also suggested that the session be opened by a prayer for divine guidance.
Mr. Judd. He said something like, "Surely the Almighty has an interest and concern that this Convention will succeed, that this country does not die."
Mr. BLOOM. It was never in the Constitution.
Mr. Judd. What would be the effect on the so-called backward peoples who were not invited to such a convention? Would it force them into the arms of the other side?
Mr. ROBERTS. I think not at all. The potential of this sort of a union would be so enormous that those people would turn their eyes us for trade, and for the help we could give them. We would be in a better condition to help backward nations with a deal of that kind.
People say, “Do not hold an assembly, because you will offend Russia, and Russia will walk out. If you do this you will have a military alliance and you will offend Russia. Do not invite certain people or you will offend certain countries." I think there is the smallest amount of danger in the course I suggest.
Mr. JUDD. Apparently we do not agree on which course has the greater danger. The proposal some of us made tentatively was to call a conference of all; and if any were excluded they would be excluding themselves, we would not be excluding them. You say that would be splitting the world. Then you say that for us not even to give them a chance to come in will not split the world. I cannot follow that. It seems to me we would be taking upon ourselves the dividing of the sheep from the goats, whereas if we call a universal conference, and some countries want to separate themselves, then they are calling themselves the goats.
Mr. ROBERTS. Russia and her bloc might stay out but the rest will flock in and you will have a lot of excess baggage.
Mr. Judd. Mr. Justice, we are probably past our peak of strength at least in the possession of natural resources. There are a good many students of history who feel that the long-term future of the world will be determined by what ideas dominate in the development of the undeveloped areas of the world which you at one stroke exclude and do not give even a chance to participate.
Mr. ROBERTS. Do you mean I would not give them any chance because they cannot qualify? I would give them all the chance in the world if they would adopt a representative system of government.
Mr. Judd. There are dangers either way, as you admit. Mr. ROBERTS. There is no doubt about it. Mr. Judd. The European recovery program was necessary merely to restore a balance of power.
Mr. ROBERTS. To hold something. Mr. JUD. It gives us no great preponderance in the balance between Russia and her satellites on one side and the 16 nations and ourselves and a few others on the other. The European recovery program if it succeeds merely restores a balance of power.
Which way the scale tips between those two systems may very well be determined by what happens in the minds and hearts of the billion and a quarter people who are in the so-called backward areas. They control the great undeveloped resources of the world. Which way they decide to go, with the democracies, or with the totalitarians, I think can be crucial. Yet, you feel that for us to exclude them would win them to us.
My belief is that for us to exclude them would drive them into the other camp. Soviet Russia would just come in and take over the organization of them, and then she would have a preponderance of power that would put us in a very difficult position.
Mr. ROBERTS. If you are going to take them all and nurse them along, Russia will have preponderance of power all by herself because you will drain your economic resources to such an extent you will get nowhere.
Mr. Judd. I do not think you will have to nurse them along. There are movements in those countries which cannot be repressed. Ideas are germinating and foment is working. Those peoples have great natural resources. Some are more nearly self-sufficient than the western nations are, partly because they have a lower standard of living to start from and can make progress more readily than we can because we start at such a high level.
Mr. ROBERTS. I think the example of a union such as I mentioned with which they could trade, and to which they could look to become members would be a great encouragement to them to come right along with you, form close ties with you, and hook up with you.
I could not think Russia in trade, or anything of that kind, could offer anything like the union of which I speak.
Mr. Judd. I believe you omitted Italy in the list of nations you were going to invite in?
Mr. ROBERTS. Yes. Mr. JUDD. What do you think would happen in Italy if we invited France, Switzerland, and the others in, and left Italy out?
Mr. ROBERTS. I would invite Italy in. I do not know that I gave a complete catalog of all the nations. I would ask Italy in. I think it is very important. Nir. Judd. Take Greece. Would you invite her? Mr. ROBERTS. Not at the moment, because I do not think she has a democratic form of Government.
Mr. Judd. Would that not make certain, then, that the Communists would win out in Greece!
Mr. ROBERTS. I think your union would then speak with one voice in foreign affairs, and I think if that union spoke with respect to Greece, it would be better than it is now. It would conduct its foreign affairs in one way. We could not have the miserable division between nations in the United Nations that we have had over Palestine. At least the people coming into this federation would speak with one voice on the thing and not with a multiple of tongues.
Mr. JUDD. Thank you very much.
Mr. COLMER. I did not hear the learned judge's statement, and what I ask may not be apropos of that statement.
I would like to say I have a profound respect for Justice Roberts' ability, and the study he has made of this matter.
I would also like to observe that, even though you do not agree, as I gather from glancing over this statement, with the objective of these resolutions, would you not agree that it is better to attemp something like that than to just leave matters as they are?
Mr. ROBERTS. What I want to attempt, Mr. Congressman, is a unification, a federation of the more advanced democracies, to start with, within the United Nations. I would not have them go out of the United Nations, I would have them support it, and I would have them invite any other nations that could qualify to come in. I would have the congress or parliament of the union decide what nations could come in if they applied to come in. That is my step. I think the wrong step is to attempt to amend the Charter of the United Nations. You will not get a government out of it, and until you get government you will never have law and peace in the world.
Mr. COLMER. What I am trying to ask is this: Assuming you cannot have what you want, and I have found up here that that is a great dilliculty any time, getting what you want up here, or what I want—I have had some ideas about what our policy should be too, and I have not gotten very far with them—but assuming you can get what you want, do you or do you not feel it would be better to attempt to amend the Charter than to do nothing? Would this amendment not be an im. provement over the present situation where we are doing nothing?
Mr. ROBERTS. I do not think it would be an improvement. I think you would still face all the difficulties you face now.
I was perfectly amazed this morning to hear Mr. Dulles say that he was sorry that the Baruch plan for the control of atomic energy had not been adopted. The thing I have been afraid of is that Russia would come into that one. It is a treaty pure and simple, and she could assert her sovereignty as to the way its inspection should be enforced on her, and she could denounce it if she did not like the way it worked.
Mr. Jupp. She had no veto under that. That was what she objected to. She could not veto inspection.
Mr. ROBERTS. Russia was frank enough to say she insisted on that veto. I was afraid she would say she agreed to that, and then try to circumvent the agency, and if that did not succeed, walk out on the treaty. After they got the secrets, they could denounce the treaty. It was their right to denounce it after they signed it just as it is the right of the United States to denounce a treaty we do not care for any longer.
They would let you inspect so far and then say you were doing something the treaty did not contemplate. They would then denounce the treaty. It was only because Russia has à peculiar psychology
that she would not join. She would not give up that word “veto.” I think she was acting against her own interests.
Mr. Judd. She could inspect our Oak Ridge and we could inspect her bare mountains?
Mr. ROBERTS. Exactly; if we tried to do anything else, that would be beyond what the treaty intended. Not only Russia, but other nations have taken very small excuses to denounce treaties, as you know.
Mr. COLMER. If I may go a little further along that line—and I will say frankly that I am one of those who never had too much hope, and was never too optimistic about what we would get out of the United Nations, but do I understand you think we would be better off without any such organization? Would you go that far? ?
Mr. ROBERTS. I would not say that. I think the world is better off for having had the League of Nations, but the League of Nations could not keep the peace.
I think we will be working off steam in the United Nations, but we cannot get security out of the United Nations. That is one thing we cannot get.
Mr. COLMER. Do you not believe, sir, that it is possible to amend that organization so that we can get some security?
Mr. ROBERTS. No; I do not believe so. In order to achieve that end, first of all you must take out this segment where the individual sovereignty is recognized. You must have the people elect representatives to their assembly and give the assembly the right to legislate.
Does anybody think you can get that kind of an amendment through against Russia's objection and the objection of her whole group? I think it is perfectly evident you cannot get that through.
Then what are you going to amend into, another treaty? That is what it will be. How can you make law that is binding on individuals under a treaty? You Congressmen make laws every day that bind me, because you act directly on me. You do not have to go through my State of Pennsylvania when I do wrong, you do not punish my State of Pennsylvania for it, you come and get me.
As Mr. Dulles said this morning, this is really government and the only kind of government in the world. He was perfectly frank about it. How can you amend the United Nations to get that kind of government in China, India, Central America, and the dictatorships? You cannot do it. What would you amend' it to, Mr. Congressman, another treaty that says more words about naughty nations? Would it be practicable with an instrument that gives more sanctions and allows a majority of nations to vote other nations into positions? As I said before you came in, I think it would be folly for us to abandon the veto. I think we might want the veto for the very same purposes Russia is using it, if our national interests were threatened.
I do not see in a league like that how our Nation dare abandon the veto. What would you amend it to, is what I would like to know.
Mr. COLMER. If you maintain the veto, then from what little I know about it I would agree with you that you are not going to get very far with the United Nations.
Mr. ROBERTS. You will remember article 16 of the League of Nations Charter. It said that if any member went to war with any other member she would be at war with all the other members. Mussolini