ATLANTIC UNION BOUND TO FAIL Proposals for a union of democracies which seek to prevent war by amassing preponderance of military power are bound to fail, since preponderance will shortly become unattainable. The contagious effect of liberty on which such proposals ultimately rely is a factor which can slowly bring more complete liberty to the component parts of a limited world federation able to prevent war. However, as such proposals as that for an Atlantic Union cannot prevent war, they could not long preserve their initial freedom. The enforcement provisions of the present UN, based on the assumption that a preponderance of military power can be arrayed against an aggressor, with or without the veto will and would shortly cease to have any deterrent effect on the U. S. S. R. A world government able to take possession of all existing weapons of mass destruction before the advent of absolute weapons, and to inspect to see that no more mass destruction weapons are made, as outlined in Senate Concurrent Resolution 56, thus seems the only solution among the proposals before you. In view of the above considerations, it is to be hoped that Senate concurrent resolution will receive the immediate support of your committee and, with the identical House Concurrent Resolution 64, the support of the Congress as a whole. Senate Concurrent Resolution 56 outlines a foreign policy objective and, even apart from its broad popular support, could be passed immediately by the Congress as a means of exerting its legitimate function of leadership. Senate Concurrent Resolution 66-it being understood that the word "true" in line 5 does not refer specifically to the Chicago constitution, but to any government acting directly on individuals, however limited in powers, as opposed to a league of sovereign states-Senate Concurrent Resolution 66 calls for specific action toward calling a UN Charter review conference. PUBLIC POLL SUGGESTED Before passing Senate Concurrent Resolution 66, each Member of Congress might wish to present to his constituents the facts of atomic and hydrogen bomb war, of the world situations, and the implications as he sees them of a Charter review conference or world constitutional convention. After full discussion, during which the advocates and opponents would naturally make themselves heard, public opinion polls should be taken in each district and State by responsible and recognized polling agencies, or, on account of the unique importance of the issue, a referendum might be held at the time of the November elections. In any case, there is no time to lose. Modern means of communication have changed the time element in history. Formerly a new but intrinsically acceptable idea had to be passed from one person to the next and it took decades for a nation to adopt a new but valid idea. Now, while it still takes the same time for each person to become convinced, the new idea can be presented to the whole country or to the whole world at the same time. The time it takes to convince the average inhabitant of this globe of the immediate desirability and necessity of world government-that is the minimum time we need. The time it will take the Russians, who got the atom bomb in 4 years, to develop an absolute weapon, whether it be the hydrogen bomb or some succeeding development-that is the maximum time we have. You are in a position to help stretch our brief time as far as possible by giving your support to these steps toward a world federation able to prevent war. Sir, I should like to insert the last two pages for inclusion in the record. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Without objection, the last two pages will be inserted and made a part of your testimony. Is that right? (The pages referred to, headed "Continuous representation, an antidote to centralization in long-established federations," are as follows:) CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION, AN ANTIDOTE ΤΟ CENTRALIZATION IN LONGESTABLISHED FEDERATIONS-ANOTHER AMERICAN CONTRIBUTION TO POLITICS One of the most important of our existing freedoms, the beginning of what might be called continuous representation, is one which has received rather little attention. This is partly because it is not set forth explicitly in the Constitution, for although, as Washington said, "experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country," the written provisions naturally command more attention. The existence of two great political parties, in the literal sense entirely extra constitutional, cannot escape notice as part of our real Constitution, but the peculiar and distinctively American tendency of their development is often ignored. This is no minor matter, for examination of their inherent possibilities suggests that they may rank with the Federal principle itself as great American contributions to political theory and to the practical working of a world government. In Europe, the tendency has been for each major policy to be represented by a separate political party, and for the voter to vote for the party and its policy rather than for the individual candidate. From this naturally followed the doctrine of party responsibility, that the elected representative was primarily responsible to his party and bound to carry out its policies, rather than to his constituents. The latter were presumed to have committed themselves to the party policies until the next election. Here the parties have been more nearly loose federations, and the responsibility of the representative to his constituents more important relative to that to his party. Two parties are sufficient for us because the contest at elections has primarily been between the candidates rather than a choice between a number of different issues. Judgments of the candidates' abilities and personalities often decide elections, and definite conclusions concerning majority feeling on specific issues cannot often be drawn from the election results. Every voter who votes for the winning candidate may think him the best man for the job and only agree with half of what he supports, a different half in the case of each voter. As the trend toward greater popular participation in policy decisions is certainly a vital part of the real tendency of our Constitution, the failure of elections to give a regular and systematic determination of policy has led some to turn to the European idea of party responsibility. While natural, this is unnecessary in view of new developments in the field of communications which make it possible for us to develop continuous representation. In the early days of our Republic, when there was no mechanism for continuously finding out what a majority of the people wanted, the emphasis was on the Federal character of the Government and memory of the separate existence of the States was fresh. Opinion on many issues then tended to divide on State lines, and any man who could win the approval of a majority of the voters in his State or district of a State, would almost continuously agree with a majority of the voters regarding issues. At the same time, since under the Federal system, governmental power was relatively evenly distributed between the States and the Federal Government, the Federal system was felt to directly safeguard from limitation by the Federal Government, the right to self-government of the citizens, who could largely identify their interests with those of their States. Now, the powers of the Federal Government relative to those of the States have so greatly increased that the safeguards originally inherent in the Federal system have become of less and less force. Effective limitations on the power of the Federal Government must now be due to the nature of the control of its power by the people, rather than to the fact that its power is shared with the States. The fact that citizens, or governmental units with which they can easily identify themselves, exercise very little direct control over the policies of the Federal Government tends to make many people apathetic and uninterested in public issues. Fortunately, sampling and communication mechanisms have been developed which for the first time in history are making it possible to conduct representation as a continuous process which will extent effective continuous control over governmental policy to the people, and by enabling continuous participation by the people in deciding governmental policy, make it possible to reinvigorate democracy and make it the contagious faith it once was. The system might work somewhat as follows. Periodically the legislators would decide upon issues that they considered sufficiently general and important to be decided in consultation with the people. In regular broadcasts to his constituents each legislator would present the issue as he saw it and ask his constituents to form an opinion about it. Additional facts and arguments, both for and against, would be presented over the radio, in the newspapers, and elsewhere. At the end of a suitable time, impartial public opinion polls would be taken in each district to attempt to ascertain the opinion of a majority. Public opinion polls are based on sampling procedures, and when polls showed opinion nearly evenly divided, say 52 percent versus 48 percent, in a district, no definite conclusions would be able to be drawn from the poll results, and the representative would be free to vote either for or against the issue. It is when polls showed a large majority, say 75 percent versus 25 percent in favor or against the issue, that it could be concluded for practical purposes that the poll results did represent the views of a majority and the representative would be expected to vote in accord with them. Making this expectation effective could readily become the function of the political parties, since they have never had the rigid policy commitments of the European parties. Continuous representation would give the average citizen a justified sense of participation in determining policy and end his lack of interest in public affairs and his feeling of helplessness in determining the course of events. By providing a framework of two-way communication in which the people in fact made the final decisions, continuous representation would make it customary for the representative to present the facts on issues and his interpretation of them to his district and thus play his proper role of leadership even more effectively and systematically than at present. The representative would then represent the Nation and the world to his district in addition to representing his district to the Nation and the world. The people in each district would be exposed to the opinions of the people in other districts with which their opinions have to be compromised in Congress. By bringing Congress closer to the people, it would strengthen the legislative branch relative to the executive and reinvigorate our system of checks and balances. Continuous representation will not become necessary in the world government until it reaches a stage of political development comparable to that reached by the United States Federal Government after a century and a half of existence. For a long time, the balance between the limited powers transferred to the world federal government and the powers retained by the national governments will be a sufficient check on the power of the world government. However, it takes time to work out the details of new political techniques, and they should be tested well in advance. One has only to thumb through the appendix of the Congressional Record and note the number of radio reports to the people and of poll results to realize that this is exactly what is beginning to happen. As the process continues, Congressmen will poll their constitutents on questions they have asked in the radio reports, and the political parties will come to compete primarily on the effectiveness with which their congressional members are representing the people. Then the active participation of the people in policy making will again provide an adequate safeguard against the tryanny or blundering of powerful goverment. Methods made possible by that technical advance which has created and necessitated big government will preserve and even augment its original responsiveness to the people. And it will be found that America, which as Senator Thomas has recently emphasized, has provided the Federal pattern on which the world can be united, has also found the representa64429-50-44 tive pattern which, a century odd later, can preserve freedom and democracy in federations grown centralized. Mr. FRANKLIN. In view of the remarks of Commander Parr, as an example of what the State legislatures are doing today, I would like to include two brief items in relation to what has been done in this vicinity. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Without objection, they will be inserted into the record at this point. (Pp. 6 and 7 of World Government News, April 1950 issue, referred to, are as follows:) In Maryland, a resolution, House Joint Resolution 6, to repeal the State's 1943 Humber-type resolution was introduced in February. After well-attended hearings, the motion to rescind was radically amended in a way acceptable to World Federalists, and passed the house. The senate adjourned without taking action, the situation remaining unchanged. In Virginia, Senate Joint Resolution 32 and House Joint Resolution 54, identical resolutions repudiating the State's 1944 Humber resolution, were introduced in February. After hearings House Joint Resolution 54 failed to pass in the house and Senate Joint Resolution 32 was not reported out of committee. Instead, Senate Joint Resolution 44, the text of which follows, was passed unanimously by the senate and 70 to 7 in the house. "Resolved by the senate (the house of delegates concurring), That the United States should support development of the United Nations into a federation of nations, of powers limited but adequate to prevent aggression and to control weapons of mass destruction, thus bringing law and order to the relationship among nations. That the United States should not participate, however, in a centralized world government which would abridge basic freedoms guaranteed the American people by the Constitution of the United States." Senator THOMAS of Utah. Thank you, Mr. Franklin. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Mr. Russell Smith, will you come forward and identify yourself for the record, and then proceed. Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. STATEMENT OF RUSSELL SMITH, LEGISLATIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION Mr. SMITH. My name is Russell Smith, legislative secretary of the National Farmers Union. On behalf of the National Farmers Union, I urge the committee to report favorably Senate Concurrent Resolution 56, which would establish, so far as Congress is concerned, as the "fundamental objectives of the foreign policy of the United States," the strengthening of the United Nations and its development into a world federation of "defined and limited powers." FARMERS UNION SUPPORTS SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 56 The position of the Farmers Union with respect to Senate Concurrent Resolution 56 is entirely unequivocal. On March 8, 1950, at its biennial convention, delegates to that convention elected by farmers all over the country, adopted a program which contains, in its part VI the following statement regarding the United Nations. Now, this is a quotation from the program: The United Nations remains the hope of the world. There is no reason to believe that any alternative to the UN could be equally successful in a confused and divided world. In the past 2 years UN has moved forward slowly but steadily, despite the trend toward a division of the world into two warring camps. The UN, particularly through action by the general assembly, has made notable advances. In the doubt and confusion of the world at large, these advances sometimes have been minimized. But, if they are viewed together in persepctive, they afford great encouragement. The settlement of the Palestine issue, the successful fight of Indonesia for independence, the adoption of the Charter of Human Rights, and many other achievements prove this * * * In the face of limited funds and lukewarm support in some quarters the technical agencies of the UN also have made progress. In particular, the Food and Agriculture Organization has justified the faith of the Farmers Union in its value. We commend FAO for the vigor with which it has consistently sought to solve the basic dilemma of our society in which surplus foods and hungry people are allowed to coexist. We also applaud its progress in bringing information to the farmers of the world and its active leadership in developing the bueprints for the advancement of underdeveloped areas of the world. Despite this record of world progress, the pace of the advance remains too slow. We reaffirm our deep conviction that the United States has the greatest responsibility among the nations of the world for consistent cooperative action with the other nations and for the abandonment of unilateral activity in world affairs. Our responsibility is greatest because our power and opportunities are greatest. We therefore, urge that our Government take the lead in the speedy development of the UN into a constitutional world government of defined and limited power. That is the end of that quotation. In view of the sentiments I have just quoted, I submit to the committee that there is no question whatever as to the attitude of my organization toward the pending resolution. There was no dissent from the floor at the time when this part of the program was adopted at our convention this year. UNITED STATES MOVE MIGHT END EAST-WEST STALEMATE It will be noticed that our membership expresses concern regarding the division of the world into two warring camps. I suppose all of us, whatever our affiliations of any kind, are deeply and honestly concerned that the curtain which marks this division tends always to become more steel than iron. To many of us, the world seems to be in a permanent stalemate. To our membership it appeared essential that some move be made by one side or the other to end this stalemate, and they urged that the United States take the initiative in such a move since "our responsibility is greatest because our power and opportunities are greatest." Senate Concurrent Resolution 56 appears to be a move of the kind which the United States can take, both from the point of view of practicability and from the point of view of wisdom. We do not attempt to predict the outcome of such an action, nor would any sensible person seek to prophesize amid the present confusion. But we feel deeply and instinctively that any step toward world harmony and order must be taken through the United Nations, which, after all, is the conception of a great American President and in the building of which the United States has been the principal architect. In the discussion of Senate Concurrent Resolution 56, we feel that insufficient attention has been given to the importance of Congressional action of this kind. President Truman, no later than this week, has reaffirmed his faith in the United Nations. The President has done so before and we assume he will do so again. Nevertheless, the nations of the world are far more sophisticated concerning the American governmental structure than they were two decades ago. The death blow |