A - Testimony of the Under Secretary of State John D. Hickerson Before the Committee on Foreign Relations in 1950
~
STATE DEPARTMENT CANNOT SUPPORT
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 56
But for the reasons given we cannot support this resolution.
Senator THOMAS of Utah. Senator Smith?
Senator SMITH of New Jersey. There was one question brought up in the discussion of this resolution which impressed, I think, all of us a great deal, and that had to do with the substitution of the rule of law for the rule of force in determining international difficulties. Now, the advocates of this approach argue that unless you look forward, at least, to some sort of a world organization and the development of some kind of world law, you will never get to the place where the rule of law will govern the affairs of men. You will still have the rule of contest and force. That is the main line that struck me as the most impressive argument advanced for this particular proposal.
Do you take the position today that we must postpone the immediate goal, at least, of world law in the place of force? Do you think it is so out of reach, that we ought not even think in terms of it in the future?
Mr. HICKERSON. By no means do I think that, Senator. I think we should debate these measures, we should promote the widest public understanding of these measures, and I think that of course we should work toward some kind of world law. We must feel our way very cautiously, Senator, in this thing. We must recognize that since the beginning of organized society the best thought in every community has tended to be in terms of some collective system of security and some system of world law. But we must recognize the difficulties in the way.
I feel very strongly that we should continue to study, to endeavor to understand the issues involved and to explore ways and means under the Charter of the United Nations of working toward that objective.
I do feel very strong that setting our sights on and setting forth the objective of world federation is not the way to achieve that.
WORLD FEDERATION OR ORDER
Senator SMITH of New Jersey. The suggestion was made by someone, I forget who it was, in the discussion of this resolution, that if the expression in this resolution were changed from "world federation" to "world order," it might be more acceptable as an expression of an over-all ultimate goal. What is your opinion?
Mr. HICKERSON. I personally think, sir, that it would. I would still have misgivings about the advisability of passing a resolution of this sort at this time. I repeat, I think that the issues raised by this should be debated. I think that there should be the widest understanding of them and discussion of them. But I have doubts as to the advisability of passing even the amended resolution which you suggested, sir, even though that to me is an improvement.
Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I wanted to make it clear that I did not suggest that. It was suggested by someone at the hearing, and I am just trying to be sure we explore all of the suggestions that have come to us.
NEED FOR CONTROL OF ATOMIC ENERGY
Of course, the thing that has precipitated this has been the terrible comprehension of people because of, first, the atomic bomb, and now the so-called H-bomb. They wonder whether we are going to have me to wait for anything. I realize that the world federation idea would be a long-drawn-out affair and it would not meet that immediate issue, but the people that are advocating this and all these other are concerned. I think Senator Thomas said a little earlier day they are concerned that something be done in the light of this critical situation.
How do you feel we can deal with the H-bomb proposition? Do you think we should go on pressing for the Baruch plan, for example, or the control of atomic energy, and how H-bomb energy, or how are we going to deal with that – just go on pressing that particular approach or trying something different?
Mr. HICKERSON. Senator Smith, I can understand, of course, that comprehension. All of us share it. We would like to do something. But we must bear in mind that if this subcommittee reported that particular resolution, or any particular resolution, let's say this one, and the Senate unanimously approved it and every country in the world agreed to join this world federation, and if by some magic it could be done in the next 3 weeks, we still would not have the solution to the bomb.
Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I agree with that.
Mr. HICKERSON. It would not solve that.
Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I agree with that. As I said, this world federation idea is too far ahead of us to deal with the immediate crisis. I was leaving that and trying to see how you are thinking in terms of the immediate crisis and what you can do.
Mr. HICKERSON. As to your question on the control of atomic energy, I can say to you, sir, that all of ·us who have done any work on the subject have reached the conclusion that the so-called Baruch plan-it should be called, I think, in fairness to the other countries who made their contribution, the United Nations plan of control-would work. Mr. Baruch made proposals of a United States plan. They, you will recall, were discussed for a period of 2 years in the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission. Numerous changes were made in those proposals. To the extent that they represented improvements, the representatives of the United States were happy to concur in the changes. And what came out of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission was indeed a United Nations plan of control. That plan was debated at the General Assembly meeting in Paris in 1948, and by a vote of 40 to 6 was approved. The Soviet Union and those countries voting with the Soviet Union alone opposed it.
It is a good plan, Senator. I repeat, all of us who worked on the subject of atomic energy are convinced that it would work.
In the discussions since Paris, the Russians have declined to accept it, and not only have done that but have themselves advanced no alternative proposals of their own. In the discussions during the General Assembly last year in New York, the General Assembly by a vote of 49 to 5, this time Yugoslavia deserting the Soviet Union and abstaining from voting, voted to reaffirm the principles of this. United Nations plan of control. They called upon the six permanent members of the Atomic Energy Commission, the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Canada, to continue the consultations which had been in process since last August in an effort to find a basis for agreement. They called upon the six permanent members of the Atomic Energy Commission to examine all concrete proposals that had been advanced during the General Assembly and elsewhere, to explore all avenues in an honest, sincere effort to find a basis for agreement.
Immediately after the ending of the General Assembly session the six permanent members of the Atomic Energy Commission resumed their consultations. On January 19, 1950, the Soviet representatives in those consultations, at the beginning of the meeting, stated that he could not sit in these consultations with the representative of the Nationalist Government of China. He thereupon walked out, and no meetings have been held since that time.
We think that in that action over a wholly extraneous and irrelevant issue that had nothing to do with atomic energy the Soviet Union showed scant respect for the will of the General Assembly, who called upon us to try to reach a solution of this problem. We have been discussing ways and means of bridging this gap and breaking this impasse. Our position, sir, as stated by the President and the Secretary of State, is that we think the United Nations plan of control of atomic energy and prohibition of atomic weapons would work. We support it and we will continue to support it unless and until a better or equally effective plan is achieved. We do not think that human ingenuity was necessarily exhausted in that plan, and we are prepared to consider any proposals designed or calculated to produce a better or equally effective plan.
The Russians say they won't take it. They have made no new proposals, and there we are, sir. In those circumstances, what do we do? We simply, so far as we are concerned, are prepared to continue in these consultations of the six permanent members of the Atomic Energy Commission, earnestly to continue, our efforts to find a basis for solution. We think it would betray ourselves and world security if we adopted proposals just for the sake of an agreement which our judgment tells us would be ineffective. And that is a description of the Soviet proposals to date. They fall far short of providing the necessary safeguards.
Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I am glad to get that in the record just as you have stated it and as you have analyzed it. I gather that the net result of your discussion is that so far as this atomic crisis is concerned, with the H-bomb and everything else concerned with it, these terrible weapons of destruction, there is nothing in any of the proposals that have come before this committee that would come as close to meeting it as the particular proposals you are considering in the UN, a so-called UN plan built on the original Baruch proposal.
Mr. HICKERSON. That is correct. The only place that agreement can be achieved on this problem is among the interested states. The interested states are sitting, or were sitting until the Soviets walked out on us, in those consultations. It is the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union alone, which is blocking the acceptance of an agreement on atomic energy.
During the last session of the General Assembly, the British representative, in the debate in the plenary session, I believe, made the statement: What a tragedy it was; had the Soviet Union been willing, after reasonable debate in the Atomic Energy Commission, to accept the plan acceptable to everybody else, the plan probably by now would be in force and there would not be an atomic weapon in existence.
Senator SMITH of New Jersey. That is assuming, of course-I do not want to get into debate about it-that we could be sure to have a method of inspection that would be watertight.
Mr. HICKERSON. That is correct, sir.
Senator SMITH of New Jersey. That is the $64 issue, as I see it, because even assuming Russia agreed to inspection, as a matter of fact she has violated some of her other agreements, and unless we had a pretty strong method of inspection we would not be sure that in some of those vast wastes of Siberia there might not be violations.
Mr. HICKERSON. That is a tough proposition.
Senator THOMAS of Utah. Before you leave, Mr. Hickerson, in defense of the authors of Senate Concurrent Resolution 56 and also in defense of the State Department's statement, I think we ought to stress, and question, one sentence. I am sure the sponsors of the resolution did not assume that the mere fact that they want to move into a world federation means that they are moving into a vacuum without law and without some semblance of order. But in your statement you seem to imply that that is the State Department's interpretation of the way in which the authors are thinking. "What law and what institutions would govern the world federation?" You could ask that question, of course, as to any type of government that has come into existence. When our own Government came into existence or the United Nations or the League of Nations came into existence, the structure of the Constitution itself could not in any way give respect to the law which was necessary for setting up such structures.
WORLD LAW
Now, I think there is definitely world-community law, whether we recognize it or not. There is definitely an understanding between all of the peoples of the world and all lawmakers of the world that the middle of the ocean is a place without certain jurisdictions. Land area is a place with certain jurisdictions. I think that we can make a case for a great amount of world community law that is existing.
I think the Connally resolution, which you have quoted, states one thing, and that is the fact that the world recognizes independent sovereign states. They have not made any declaration of that recognition, have they? Here you haven't any positive law on it, have you? But it is the basis of all international law. You seem to assume that first we have to get the nations of the world together and create a positive law before we can move into a discussion about a confederation. But your big point here, and I think you have not stressed it enough, is that immediately you move into a world federation status, you turn your back definitely upon the independent sovereign state idea, which is the law of the world as it exists today. You can go so far as to have an imperium and an imperio, if we may get that highbrow here, because we ourselves think that we have done that. When we had Mr. Justice Roberts before us he said that while he was on the highest Court of the land, the Court's greatest concern was to preserve the entity of the States, and we can see that we haven't destroyed independent states in moving into the United Nations. But when once you move into a federation you limit independent actions in the sphere where you delegate authority to the representative government of that federation to act. That is fundamental political science. These things which you said we haven't got, are here and we have got them.
Consciously, if we decide to have a world federation, consciously if we decide that we will change to a degree-it may be just the degree of half an inch, or it may be a degree of a whole mile, the fundamental law of the world, the notion of independence, of absolute sovereignty o:f the states of the world, is encroached upon.
Now, as a representative of the State Department, and we as representatives of the United States Government in the Senate, and all of us as representatives of our Government in some way or other, our first allegiance is and must be to the Government of the United States always, or else we destroy what definitely is-it has not been stated, but what definitely is-the law of the community of nations and the world today. If that were understood by all of us we would not call so many of us the bad names that we do, because I myself realize that when we accept the obligation of being an officer or a representative, or one who takes an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, he enters into a rather serious obligation which must be given consideration at all times.
When I say that, I do not imply that a suggestion made by anyone sponsoring these resolutions is a suggestion which is looking to the destruction of something. It is looking to the building up of something, but at the same time that does not remove the problem.
Mr. HICKERSON. Senator Thomas, I completely agree with what you have said, sir, and I want to assure you that it was far from our intention to criticize the motives of anybody in connection with this or any other of the resolutions. As to the particular question that you singled out, all we are trying to do there is to say we want further information about the law and institutions-some of these things are spelled out-so that we can agree, so the American people can agree, that this is the goal to which we can aspire.
Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Hickerson just one more question. There is a Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 66 which was introduced by Senator Taylor, and which is the resolution supporting the so-called Chicago Hutchins plan for a draft of a world constitution. Do I understand that your opposition to Resolution 56, which you have just been discussing, would apply to 66 also, which is just a further extension and elaboration of the world federation idea?
Mr. HICKERSON. That is correct, sir. I have a separate statement on that.
B—Pros and Cons of the World Federalist Resolution
2. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 56 (THE TOBEY OR "WORLD FEDERALIST" RESOLUTION)
A. Essentials of resolution
This resolution declares the sense of Congress that a fundamental objective of United States foreign policy should be (1) "to support and strengthen the United Nations" and (2) "to seek its development into a world federation open to all nations with defined and limited powers adequate to preserve peace and prevent aggression through the enactment, interpretation, and enforcement of world law. This is either a relatively simple proposal with limited implications or one with vast implications. Whether it is one or the other depends upon the meaning given the words.
In the words of Senator Tobey: "It is a policy statement * * * it is a general statement of purpose * * *"
The details of implementation are left "to the wisdom of the minds of Congress and the United Nations." In answer to a question as to whether the resolution expresses a specific program, Senator Pepper answered that he was committed only to the exact words of the resolution. Senator Magnuson in a statement inserted in the record wrote that the World Federalist proposal—
contemplates a very limited deposit of sovereignty in the United Nations * * * it means that the internal functions of member states would remain untouched (hearings, p. 100).
Senator Morse in testifying in support of the resolution remarked that the resolution—
will at least give assurance that the American people are in favor of the United Nations proceeding in the direction of seeking to enact international law that will be fair and just and usable * * * (hearings, p. 103).
While this resolution was supported by the United World Federalists, Senators testifying in support of the resolution made it clear that they were supporting the resolution as drafted and not the total World Federalist program as set forth in publications of that organization. Mr. Cord Meyer, chairman of the national executive committee of the United World Federalists, gave the following views to the committee. By passing this resolution—
we in the United States would be declaring our willingness to join with other nations in transferring to the UN constitutional authority to administer and enforce law that was binding on national governments and their individual citizens (hearings, p. 121).
A specific definition of the extent of the lawmaking powers would have to wait for thorough consideration of the problem by the Congress and the executive branch of the Government. Mr. Meyer did suggest, however, that the United Nations would need to be given legal authority to prevent the use of force, to control atomic-energy development, to regulate the size and character of national armed forces, to raise revenue, and to maintain such international police forces as required to enforce this body of law. Subsequently, Mr. Philip W. Amram speaking for the United World Federalists, made it clear that the United Nations should not be given powers, for example, in the "fields of trade, commerce, tariffs, 'currency, immigration, and so forth" (hearings, p. 134).
Mr. Alan Cranston, president of United World Federalists, submitted a statement to the committee pointing out that "there can be no withdrawal" from a strengthened United Nations. He observed, however, that the Senators and Congressmen sponsoring this resolution—
are not committed to any particular formula. This resolution lays down no precise blueprint. It demands no immediate action by our Government, nor does it present any timetable. Tactics and strategy implementation are not even suggested in the resolution. It simply declares a great purpose (hearings, p. 525).
The important thing to bear in mind in considering this resolution is that if it is adopted as a declaration of policy it will presumably require implementation. The committee is aware, of course, that the United World Federalists do leave a fairly concrete program covering such matters as representation in a legislative body, an executive body responsible to the legislative, a judiciary with jurisdiction over individuals as well as states, etc. The committee did not feel that this program was a part of the pending resolution so did not examine in detail the way the UFW would propose the resolution be implemented if passed.
B. Principal arguments in support of resolution
(See hearings, p. 73 and following.)
1. The world situation "calls upon us to propose a policy of an affirmative and courageous nature, that is capable of changing the tide of world opinion from desperate despair, to renewed hope and faith." (Senator Tobey, hearings, p. 74.) "Our policy must have a positive and affirmative answer to the challenge of communism." (Senator Pepper, hearings, p. 87.) This resolution, it is claimed, would serve those purposes.
2. The burden of an arms race "will not be eased until the United Nations in itself can guarantee the security of all nations" (Senator Magnuson, hearings, p. 100). Movement in the direction of a world federation through the United Nations would be a move toward given the United Nations strength to guarantee peace.
3. Passage of this resolution would be—
another step in the direction of informing the American people that we have to do something about setting up an international judicial system.
Furthermore, it would—
give assurance that the American people are in favor of the United Nations proceeding in the direction of seeking authority to enact international law (Senator Morse, hearings, pp. 102 and 103).
4. This proposal calls for working through the United Nations. It would not destroy the United Nations in the process of seeking a more effective international organization.
5. The resolution calls for an organization open to all nations. It would not, therefore, drive the Soviet Union out of the United Nations or seek to set up a world organization from which the Soviet would be excluded. Even if the Soviet Union should refuse to come into the world federation, the organization would always be open to her. Moreover, it is unlikely that the Soviet Union would find it expedient to stay out of a world federation.
6. Supranational government is the only way to end war and the threat of war. State sovereignty must be curbed. This resolution is the first step in the direction of creating world government with power sufficient to preserve peace.
7. International control over modern weapons of destruction will require limited world federal government. This means that the international government and its courts must have jurisdiction over the individual. This proposal envisages such control.
C. Principal arguments against resolution
(See hearings p. 427 and following.)
1. The constitutional issues posed by this resolution are as fundamental as any the United States has had to deal with since 1789. It is doubtful if the people of the United States have adequately considered or are now ready to place in the hands of others the power to dispose of the manpower and resources of the United States.
2. One may at least question whether a world federation based on democratic principles could prosper in a setting where—
two-thirds of the world's people live on less than adequate diet, one-half are illiterate, and only a minority live under truly democratic governments (hearings, p. 428).
3. If the United States goes into a world federation it will be necessary to compromise its way of life and institutions to some extent because it would be dangerous to assume that other nations would agree without question that the American way of life is best.
4. Questions have been raised as to the form of parliament contemplated, whether the United States representatives would be in a minority, what assurances there would be for the protection of minorities, what changes in the Constitution of the United States would be required etc., thus indicating some doubt as to whether proponents of the resolution had considered the full implications of the proposal.
5. It has been claimed that implementation of this resolution would not strengthen the United Nations, but would in fact destroy it by substituting another organization which would be something entirely different from the United Nations. A world federation would be a government with authority to legislate and enforce its will on states as well as on individuals. 'The United Nations, on the other hand, is an organization of sovereign states without legislative authority and without authority to apply its mandate to individuals.
6. Any delegation of "defined and limited powers" to a world government "adequate to preserve peace and prevent aggression" would, to be effective in the world in which we live, mean, in fact, a delegation of power approximating the delegation to our Federal Government. Doubt has been expressed that even the supporters of the resolution would be willing to go this far.
7. There would be no assurance that in a true world federation Communist and Fascist parties would not, even though representing a minority of the people in the world, be able to obtain control of the world government. The proposal sponsored by the United World Federalists does not envisage any method whereby a state could withdraw from the world federation in such an eventuality.
8. A world federation could not expect by its mere existence to end the basic conflict between communism and capitalism, between totalitarianism and freedom. It would only project that conflict into a new area where more clearly than ever the stake would be world domination.
9. There is no substantial evidence that other states would be willing to join a world federation.