« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
chiefs of state and their representatives have a certain diplomatic shyness about bringing it up. That should not be true among free peoples in these 15 countries. I do not want to delay the committee, but if the committee would consent I would be very happy if you could add a postscript or an adjunct to your statement here, for insertion, a statement that would show what support this proposal had in the 15 countries that you mentioned.
Mr. STREIT. I would be glad to do that. I would want to explain that the best information I have on that is the kind I could give you personally, but I would not feel free to state publicly. I know a man that we both know, for example, who I saw quite recently. I asked him that question because one of your fellow Congressmen had asked it of me. He answered it in the way I have just answered. He said, “Don't fool yourself. There is no question about it. As things now stand there is not a single one of these European countries that would hesitate for a moment to come to it, though some people in them might not like it.”
Mr. MALONEY. Will you yield?
Mr. MALONEY. I was wondering whether the union you are talking about in Europe is the type of union you are advocating here, or is it a looser proposition with a definite nationalist angle?
Mr. STREIT. That is one of the things that is not clear in Mr. Churchill's statement. There were various proposals that were put
before the recent meeting in Holland. Some of them were aiming at the kind of a federation I have in mind, though without the accent on freedom to the degree I give. They would invite everybody in Europe. Mr. Churchill has left it rather open as to whether he means a council of states or a real union, and whether the British are going to be in or out of that union. In his statement he spoke of the British and their close ties to Europe, and also of their close tiės to the United States. I think he is keeping a liquid position.
Mr. MALONEY. It is more of an economic union?
Mr. Judd. Both General Marshall and Mr. Dulles this morning spoke with consideable vigor of their apprehension about certain nations which neither of them cared to mention which allegedly would be put in a bad spot by this proposed action and would find it difficult to choose sides. Now you say all of them would come along. On what is your judgment based? Do you think they were talking about any of the same states that
include? Mr. STREIT. I should like to make a modification of what I said. The two states most doubtful in my list I believe would be Switzerland and Sweden. I mean their reception of the invitation would be doubtful. They might come. I do not know. They might come as observers. The Swiss have their background of neutrality to such a high degree. I asked a Swiss friend of mine, a newspaper correspondent. I brought out the proposal in general and then in a more concrete way. At first he said, "I think we would certainly send observers." When I asked him if we invited them in this way, this particular way that I have described, he said, “I think in that case we would send a full delegation."
I do not know about Sweden, but judging from their position being o close to Soviet Russia, that country might hesitate because of that.
Mr. Vòrys. I thought you might have such a list, and I did not want to burden the committee or detain them at this late time. A secret or confidential statement of statesmen would be a frail reason for us to lean on in suggesting official action which, as I say, I feel confident would meet not with enthusiasm but with resistance by those who are enamored of the diplomatic way of life in handling things in secret at the direction of the chief of state. Therefore, to have any chance at all it would have to have prompt support and response from many, many citizens unconnected with Government all over the place. If you had a list of persons or organizations I felt that might possibly be significant and helpful.
Mr. STREIT. I will do the best I can, Mr. Vorys, with the qualification I stated. Such a list would not be a major factor in my own calculations in judging the responsiveness of the people over there.
Mr. Vores. You could, of course, add any statement or estimate you wish, but something concrete like that would, I think, be helpful.
(The information referred to is as follows:)
ANNEX TO MR. STREIT'S TESTIMONY
WASHINGTON, D. C., May 17, 1948. To answer Mr. Vorys adequately would take much more time and more space than I understand the committee would wish. On reason is this: My 20 years' experience as a newspaper correspondent convinced me, before Union Now was pub ished, that (1) the United States was the key country for the success of this proposal; and (2) the people of the European democracies were so inclined to expect and to fear further United States isolationism that most of them would respond with alacrity to an invitation from the United States to meet with its delegates in the proposed constitutional convention; and (3) that they and the other democracies were in such need of the good will and support of the American people that their governments could not possibly afford to refuse to attend such a convention.
Consequently, since Union Now appeared in 1939, I have spent all my time seeking to educate American opinion on the need of thus extending our Federal principles to the other experienced democracies. Not having the means of doing nearly enough here at home, I have concentrated on the United States-with the exception of a few speaking trips to Canada at the invitation of Canadians—and have not kept in close and regular touch with the development of the idea abroad.
It seems to me significant that its great growth there has been so spontaneous and prompt, beginning with the publication of the British, French, and Swedish editions of Union Now in 1939, without our stimulating it financially or by sending speakers to promote it abroad. The response confirmed me in the view that if we did our part well enough, we could be sure that the other democracies would come to the convention. Consequently, I have concentrated on the home task, and it would take some time for us to ascertain adequately and accurately just what the situation is abroad.
I should point out, too, that leaders in the other democracies have often told me that, much as the preferred an Atlantic union with us, they felt increasingly since the war that their countries were in too weak a position vis-a-vis us for their governments to take the initiative in urging union. Consequently, pending United States leadership, they have tended to work for European union, or for world federal union, or for other ideas the thought would help swing their countries behind an Atlantic union of democracies whenever the United States proposed it. This also left them some alternative if, as many of them feared, the United States should fail to convoke a federal convention in good time.
European and particularly British statesmen have for many years leaned backward to avoid giving the impression that they were intervening in what we might consider a domestic issue. Our policy toward the League made them especially cautious in their direct contacts with Members of Congress or diplomatic representatives, lest by appearing to nudge our Government they defeat their own desires. I found this attitude prevalent at Geneva ; it is also at work regarding the federal union idea. Many British and European leaders apparently cannot understand that Congress might want to know their attitude before it moved. They also fear that an affirmative answer to questions asked them by Congressmen as regards union of the free might be construed as foreign interference in our affairs, to injure this proposal.
The reports I get indicate that western European opinion has been developing in our direction very fast, especially since the Kremlin's coup in Czechoslovakia. This makes it very hard to estimate our strength just now. I have no doubt that the great bulk of the world federal movement in all the other democracies, and the much more powerful movement for western European union would swing behind the idea of an Atlantic union of the free if the House adopted the resolution I have suggested.
Therefore, I can submit at this time only these indications to suggest the support our proposal would have abroad should the House adopt it:
1. Organizations.—Here are some of the federalist organizations in other democracies that could be counted on, I believe-even those that are now working for mere European union-to urge their governments to accept the proposed invitation to attend a federal convention of the free, if the United States issued it,
Britain: Federal Union, Ltd., London; New Commonwealth, London; London International Group, New Europe Group, London.
Eire: Federal Union, Newtown.
Union of South Africa : Federal Union, Johannesburg; Federal Union, Elizabethtown.
Australia : Federal Union, Sidney; Federal Union, Adelaide.
France: Comite International pour la Federation Europeenne et Mondiale, Paris; Etats-Unis du Monde, Paris; La Federation, Paris; Union de Etudiants Federalistes, Paris; Union Economique et Federale Europeenne, Paris; Union Europeenne, Paris; Union federale mondiale, Paris.
Luxemburg : Union federale, Luxemburg.
Netherlands: Europeesche Actie voor Federale Unie, The Hague Universale Ligo (Esperanto), The Hague.
Sweden: Varldsfederalisterna, Stockholm.
Switzerland: Centre d'action pour la federation europeenne, Geneva; Civitas Nova, Lugano; Institut Federaliste Europeen, Zurich; Europea Union, Basle ; Mouvement populaire suisse en faveur d'une federation mondiale, Geneva.
2. Leaders. Here are a few typical leaders who would, I have reason to believe, respond favorably if the House should adopt the resolution I suggest :
Prime Minister Attlee, who has publicly stated that'Europe must federate or perish.”
Foreign Secretary Bevin, who told me as early as 1939 that we could list him among the supporters of our policy, and who has stated in Parliament, as Foreign Secretary, that he was willing to sit down with delegates from other countries and try to work out a plan for federation.
Winston Churchill, who said in Parliament on August 20, 1940, commenting on the 99-year leases of certain bases to the U. S.: "Undoubtedly this process means that
the British Empire and the United States will have to be somewhat mixed up together in some of their affairs for mutual and general advantage. For my own part
I do not view the process with any misgivings.
No one can stop it. Like the Mississippi, it just keeps rolling along. Let it roll. Let it roll on full flood, inexorable, irresistible benignant, to broader lands and better days." Later he came out publicly for an Anglo-American citizenship. In his leadership toward a European union he has carefully kept the British position open for union with the United States, Canada, etc.
Ex-War Secretary Leslie Hore-Belisha, Ambassador Duff-Cooper, Lionel Curtis, one of the framers of the Constitution of the Union of South Africa ; Sir Norman Angell, Sir Clive Baillieu, president, Federation of British Industries; Sir Ernest Berker, W. B. Curry, C. E. M. Joad, Somerset Maugham, J. B. Priestley, Lord Beveridge, Vernon Bartlett, Wingfield Digby, Sir Ernest Graham-Little, and many other members of Parliament.
NOTE.—The press reported at the time of the marriage of Princess Elizabeth, the heir apparent, that one of her favorite books was Union Now. On May 14, 1948, the AP reported her as stating publicly: “We must work for the break-down of prejudices born of narrow-minded nationalism."
Louis St. Laurent, Minister of External Affairs, told the Canadian Parliament, according to a New York Times dispatch from Ottawa dated May 1, 1948, that, pending the strengthening of the United Nations, Canada should join whatever collective organization of free states that might be formed as an effective guaranty of peace.
Others known to favor the idea are:
E. P. Taylor, industrialist, deputy Canadian member of Combined Production and Resources Board.
J. T. Thorson, ex-Minister of National War Services, Senator Bouchard, Wilson Southam of the Southam Newspaper chain, Wilson Woodside of "Saturday Night," Columnist Elmore Philpott, etc.
W. J. F. Riordan, Minister for the Navy.
Leslie Haylen, M. P., who writes that he and many of his colleagues very strongly favor a union such as that propounded in Freedom and Union.
Hon. Ernest Anthony, M. L. C., Sir Robert Chapman, Kt. C. M. C.
Deputy Premier Walter Nash, Maj. C. F. Skinner, Minister of Rehabilitation, Col. F. Waite, and many other Members of Parliament, Archbishop West-Watson.
Jean Monnet, former cabinet member, now in charge of the Monnet plan for French reconstruction. (Mr. Monnet, who is exceptionally well informed about British and other western European Official trends, told me last month that he had no doubt whatever that the French, British, and other western European governments would attend the proposed convention if the United States Government officially invited them.)
Ex-Premiers Reynaud and Blum; Lt. Gen. Matheneé, military attaché, Washington, D. C.; Firmin Roz, Mebre de l'Institut; Gouverneur Mönick, Banque de France; Conseillers d'Etat Jean Morellet, Michiel Debro; Prof. Maurice Allais, Ecole des Mines; Maurice Schumann, secretary-general of the M. R. P. Party ; Pertinax (André Geraud), André Maurois.
(NOTE.—The New French constitution contains a clause expressing France's willingness to limit its sovereignty in order to secure enduring peace.)
William Rappard, former delegate to the League of Nations.
Foreign Minister Spaak who, as early as March, 1944, wrote in Federal Union World that the future world organization “should consist only of democracies. I realize, of course, that there are objections to this * but I believe that to be less dangerous than to introduce a wolf or wolves into the sheepfold. If an international organization is to be effective, those who take part in it must at least have the same conception of law and morality
The democracies are necessarily peace-loving.
But it is also necessary that they should be strong.
They cannot be strong unless they form a bloc in which the interests of each will be linked to the interests of all the others, and in which those who pursue other aims and practice other methods will not be allowed to play a dissolving and demoralizing role.”
Ex-Premier Paul van Zeeland; Senateur Heri Rolin, delegate to the San Francisco UN Conference.
As early as 1943, the Dutch Ambassador to the United States, then Alexander Louden, told the DAR:
Holland, though situated on the European continent, is, first and foremost, an Atlantic nation. The Dutch have never in the past linked their fate to the continent.
The lifelines which link the various parts of the kingdom are not land routes, but the sea routes and the skies. Our goal will be, therefore, to organize the security of the Atlantic to keep these lifelines open.
"One thing should be realized by every country which has interests in the Atlantic. In view of the development of air power, no single nation will be able to guard the Atlantic region effectively without the help and cooperation of like minded countries. “Should the Atlantic nations
come to the conclusion that peace in the Atlantic is an objective not inspired through any theoretical idealism, but required by and in conformity with their own self-interest, we might reason. ably hope to witness the establishment of the Pax Atlantica.
For that very reason, I do not believe in any scheme
which tends to create a European federation.
The present ambassador, E. N. van Kleffens, said at Harvard March 17, 1948:
“Basically the dilemma is not economic in nature, but a question of civil rights and liberties.
The main problem is: Will western Europe preserve that attainment?
What chance of success has militant communism in western Europe? The next year or so will give the answer. And the answer does not depend on western Europe alone. It also, and in large measure, depends on the United States of America.
“It will, in other words, depend on what I should like to call the whole Atlantic--or at least the North Atlantic-cominunity; all those countries around the North Atlantic Ocean, in America as well as in Europe
For it is the Atlantic which, shrunk to its present size in our aircraft age, is the link between all those countries which together have now to meet the challenge of communism.
“Around this sea are some of the principal countries where Christian concepts are the basis of our thinking and way of life, where the dignity of the individual is held dear, where freedom is the essence of our being, where the pursuit of happiness is everyone's birthright. What vibrates in us. western Europeans, vibrates in you Americans. Together, you and we, are the guardians of these sacred truths.
“The countries of Benelux saw the light first. In union lies greater strength. When the lights went out in Czechoslovakia, we, together with Britain and France, at once started making a solemn pact.
The peoples of western Europe take comfort from this new union. But it does ont completely dissipate their apprehension.
What, western Europe says, is America going to do in this emergency? Their future, they feel, may depend on the answer to that momentous question. Far be it from me to express an opinion on what you in this great country should-or should not-do. That is for you, and for you alone, to decide. But you will have to make a decision."
3. Polls and expert opinion.-So far as I know, no poll has yet been taken abroad of public opinion as regards our proposal. But since most Europeans who favor western European union would also favor trying to work out a federation with us, it is of interest to note the answers to the Roper survey reported (Time, April 12, 1948) to this question : “Generally speaking, are you in favor of the idea of a western European union or against the idea ?”
10 21 21 23
24 15 30
(When the Roper survey then asked Americans whether they would favor starting a United States of the World by federating with this union and other overseas democracies on a basis of representation proportionate to our population, the result was 43 percent in favor, 38 percent against, 19 percent undecided.)