« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
either to stop atomic armament, by submitting to the reasonable international control and inspection prevailing for all other states, or to evacuate her industrial centers in expectation of immediate atomic coercion.
Do you say that? Mr. CULBERTSON. If Russia stays out, if she defies the world, if she defies the properly organized world court, the properly organized nations, then I say if she threatens the destruction of cities of the world, then indeed the authority will probably take that line of action for their own survival.
Mr. Fulton. You say, “either consent with the way the other nations think, or we will bomb you out"?
Mr. CULBERTSON. No, Congressman; pardon me. I am saying that in every particular, in everything you wish to do-heavy armaments, tanks, planes-stay out and do what you like; we are not going to do any harm. But when it comes to atomic bombs, if you do not submit to the equal and reasonable proposals
Mr. FULTON. Which we want you to.
Mr. CULBERTSON. Which we and the rest of the world want you to, on the proper higher authority, then I say we will move against you with atomic coercion; yes.
Mr. FULTON. Is that new atomic coercion a peculiar approach to democratic consent and voting?
Mr. CULBERTSON. It is an old and fundamental approach to the problem of survival.
Mr. FULTON. It is hardly one for getting votes in the United States.
Mr. CULBERTSON. It is the only approach in any opinion, to preserve the cities of England, France, or America from being destroyed by 14 fanatics who are building these bombs now.
Remember, please, that had Stalin been in the same position we are now, had he possessed the absolute weapon, which is the atomic bomb, and we had not, there would never have been any "Baruchsky proposal.” They would have handled the matter more differently than we have.
Mr. VORYS (presiding). Mr. Javits.
Mr. Javits. Not to renew now our debate on the air but to clarify your testimony, I refer only to your own statement on page 9, where you say the following [reading]:
The American people do not understand the logic of power politics and you addThe overwhelming majority of American people are equally opposed to preventative war against Russia.
Do you desire us to take it that if we made this demand on Russia to be guaranteed by coercion, are we bluffing or do we intend to go through with it? In other words, if Russia does not come through will we drop atomic bombs on her industrial centers according to your plan or will we then quit and say, "This is just a bluff"?
Mr. CULBERTSON. Indeed, we will not drop any atomic bombs nor will we wage any war against Russia, except if Russia continues to produce the atomic bombs in defiance of the will of the rest of the world, as explained by higher authority.
Mr. Javits. Let us understand your proposition. Do you intend that we should proceed with this action now, or at some other time, I say,
some time in the future, of making the demand on Russia that she now submit herself to the Atomic Development Authority? Is this going to be now, or in the future? When do you want to do this?'
Mr. CULBERTSON. This will be when we organize with the higher authority, a proper world court and proper judicial procedure. We are a nation of deputy sheriffs. If there is a gang in this community, we could not get another gang to shoot that gang up.
However, if there is a proper authority when a nation threatens the destruction of the cities of the world, with atomic bombs—if Russia defies the proper judicial authority, if she refuses to join and builds atomic bombs for the destruction of the world, then if the court orders protective measures, then we should obey it.
Mr. JAVITS. Then you are for a world government, with that world government to have jurisdiction over us; are you not? You are not for your plan at all but for the Federalist plan?
Mr. CULBERTSON. I am for a world government to have jurisdiction over the atomic gangsters, whether they be in Russia or in America or in Sweden or anywhere else.
Mr. JAVITs. You say, “Indeed not.” And then you go on to add that you agree with me; you are for a world government and not for your own reorganization of the United Nations plan.
Mr. CULBERTSON. Excuse me, Congressman. You said previously I was for the world government of having jurisdiction over Russia.
"No"; not over Russia, but simply to have jurisdiction over the atomic gangsters to whatever nations they may belong.
That is a distinction there.
Mr. Javits. You want control of atomic weapons development in
nation to control atomic weapons, including the United States. We want proper international authority under proper judicial procedure to control the atomic energy-not the nations.
Mr. Javits. Mr. Culbertson, before my time is up I would like to say one thing in response to your statement. You say that Senator Vandenberg's resolution was obviously a creature of the State Department and was rushed in as reenforcements for the weakened defense for the State Department against the rising tide of public opinion.
I must respectfully differ with you completely. I think the rising tide of public opinion is catching up with the superficiality of these demands to reorganize the United Nations immediately at the point of the atomic gun, and is recognizing what I thinkyour testimony and your whole thesis implies: that we are going to be prepared to back it up with an immediate preventive war if Russia does not give in. I only say, let us lay it out on the table and look at it.
Mr. ČULBERTSON. May I also disagree with you, Mr. Congressman, as to the public opinion. All I can say is, I am a pretty good man at the odds, and outside of this testimony, I would like to meet you somewhere, and arrange a little bet for your benefit as to what the public opinion will be a year from now.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, may I just make one observation? Congressman Lodge and I have compared notes. The witness says on the first page of this statement [reading]:
I think it was Congressman Lodge who, when speaking about my dear friends and first cousins, the federalists, said that they were the men of the future.
I think that was my statement rather than Congressman Lodge's.
Now in the second sentence of your Reader's Digest article, you say (reading]: its object is to make immediate revisions in the United Nations Charter with Russia if possible, without Russia if need be, but not necessarily against Russia.
I take it that that means that under Resolution 163 a conference will be called under article 109 of the United Nations Charter and that then if Russia does not agree to the ABC plan, another United Nations Charter with these amendments, will be formed by the nations who choose to do so. Is that correct?
Mr. COLBERTSON. Not another United Nations Charter.
Mr. LOD E. You say revise the United Nations Charter without Russia. What does that mean?
Mr. CULBERTSON. It means exactly this: That in all other respects, except these three provisions, ABC dealing with veto, armament race, and police force, we would copy the original United Nations Charter, adopt that as our, say, constitution of our private club within the club, and that is what I meant by another United Nations Charter.
Mr. LODGE. You would have at that point two United Nations Charters in effect, no matter what you called them! ?
Mr. CULBERTSON. We would have one United Nations Charter which is in effect and we will have another piece of paper, called by whatever name you wish, for our club within the club.
Mr. LODGE. And that piece of paper would be the United Nations Charter, with these amendments, according to the ABC plan?
Mr. CULBERTSON. It would be similar to the articles and provisions of the original United Nations Charter, except that in these mattersABC—and perhaps some other minor relevant matters, it will be different.
Mr. LODGE. At that point you would have two charters, call them what you will; one would be the present United Nations Charter, unamended, and the other would be the new piece of paper with these amendments; is that correct?
Mr. CULBERTSON. The other would be this magnificent piece of paper;
that is correct. Mr. LODGE. Now, I would like to ask you this: It seems to me that the trouble with the United Nations has been not so much a defective Charter as the abuse of certain provisions of that Charter by Soviet Russia, and, therefore, if Soviet Russia is not a member of this new organization, what is the necessity for having any amendments at all? Why not, according to your own postulates," have one United Nations Charter, the one which exists now, and then have another one just like it but without Russia?
Mr. CULBERTSON. May I respectfully suggest that the trouble with the United Nations is not abuse by Russia.
Mr. LODGE. It is not?
Mr. LODGE. I think the American people have a contrary opinion on that, Mr. Culbertson.
Mr. CULBERTSON. They have different semantics, but I think they have the feeling.
Mr. LODGE. The feeling throughout the country, I believe, has been that the work of the United Nations has been held up by the attitude of Soviet Russia, rather than by defects in the Charter.
Mr. CULBERTSON. That is correct. Then it is up to us to go a little deeper and as we go a little deeper we will find that the trouble with the United Nations Charter is the same trouble that was in the League of Nations Covenant; that it has several defects in its structure that permit any nation, such as Russia, to abuse it. · Until you remove this fundamental cause of this disease, the cure of symptoms will not help it.
Mr. LODGE. In other words, your proposition is that when this new organization is formed—let us assume it is without Russia—at that point we eliminate the veto on all matters of aggression, when Russia is no longer a member of that particular organization, is that correct?
Mr. CULBERTSON. At that point we eliminate the veto in specifically defined matters of aggression and preparation for aggression; yes, we do.
Mr. LODGE. That elimination of the veto is, of course, not binding on Russia because Russia would not be a member of that particular organization.
Mr. CULBERTSON. It is not binding on Russia but it will be binding on her if she becomes an aggressor.
Mr. LODGE. Yes. Now let me ask you this, Mr. Culbertson: What, essentially, would be the difference between that proposition and the article 51 federation proposed by Mr. Finletter?
Mr. CULBERTSON. It is a different kind of federation. Mr. LODGE. There is a different structure? Mr. CULBERTSON. It has a different structure, in its ultimate goals. You see, Mr. Finletter is trying to establish a kind of federation which I believe under the present psychological conditions, in the present psychological climate, is not effective or acceptable, although it may become so in the next generation. We want something simple and specific that every Congressman and every Senator, to whatever party he belongs, would approve of. .
Mr. LODGE. Do you believe that the Scandinavian countries, for instance-Sweden, Denmark, and Norway-will be inclined to join this new organization if Russia is not in it?
Mr. CULBERTSON. They will rush into it, provided the United States guarantees them against the armed aggression by Russia. They will rush to it and celebrate that as the greatest day in their history,
Mr. LODGE. Doubtless you know that there is a large body of informed opinion which does not agree with you on that.
Mr. CULBERTSON. I respectfully disagree as to whether that body is large and particularly as to whether it is informed.
Mr. LODGE. Mr. Cúlbertson, my time is up. I have a great many other questions I would like to ask you. Thank you for being here with us and for making a significant contribution to the deliberations of this committee.
Mr. CULBERTSON. May I, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, clarify one point in this resolution which has been debated continually. Thanks particularly to Congressman Lodge, a certain ambiguity of language was found in Resolution 163.
I discussed the matter with Congressman Judd and others. I personally suggest that this ambiguity be removed. I specifically refer to line 19, page 2: After the word “establishing," I would suggest insertion of “within the United Nations."
After the insert, the text continues—I am still talking about line 19"on the basis of the”_"revised United Nations” to be crossed out, and instead put "goals and methods."
Coming down to line 20 "Charter a more effective International” to be crossed out and instead of that to be put this: "herein described, or similar methods and effective” and then the next two words to remain and the words, "collective and" to be inserted.
On page 3, line 3, instead of the revision of it, to insert "revised” "United Nations Charter," and another insertion "or the mutual defense pact of an organization established under Article 51 should."
The record will show that it will read much more clearly and remove the ambiguity there of the language. I am most grateful to Congressman Lodge for that. Mr. VORYS. The next witness will be Mr. Anson T. McCook, chairman, Foreign Relations Commission, of the American Legion.
He will be introduced by Gen. John Thomas Taylor, director, national legislative committee, of the American Legion.
STATEMENT OF ANSON T. McCOOK, CHAIRMAN, FOREIGN RELA
TIONS COMMISSION OF THE AMERICAN LEGION
General TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I just want to express to you the very sincere appreciation of the opportunity for the American Legion to appear before you this morning and present the point of view of the Legion on this very vital subject, and to do that, Anson McCook, the chairman of our Foreign Relations Commission.
I give you Mr. McCook. Mr. McCook. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, in 1945, the United Nations, in adopting their Charter, solemnly declared their determination "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," and "to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security.” This declaration is the very cornerstone of the structure and purpose of the United Nations. It is binding upon every signatory nation, the United States and the U. S. S. R. included. Any nation that violates or ignores this declaration must stand selfconvicted before the tribunal of world opinion.
Twenty-six years earlier, in 1919, the American Legion adopted its constitution, pledging it [reading]: to promote peace and good will on earth; to safeguard and transmit to posterity the principles of justice, freedom and democracy.
It is in the interests of peace that the American Legion appears before you today. Peace, by our definition, is much more than the absence of war. Otherwise it is no better than an armistice, a truce between wars. Peace, as defined by American Legion policy, is something positive and constructive. It means law and order among the nations. Peace as so defined can in time become permanent, as nothing else can.