Lapas attēli

18-nation disarmament conference at Geneva in keeping things going there, bringing up possible pragmatic partial solutions to the overall problem.

My criticism would be that it is much too much on an ad hoc basis. They seem very reluctant to think in broader terms, which I take it you agree is going to be necessary if we are going to make significant progress.

Mr. COHEN. I think that is so, and I again emphasize, not that I want to criticize or downgrade the Disarmament Agency, but I think since they have to link so much of their work with that of other agencies in the Government concerned with military power, that they may not be in a position to take as bold a position as a group working directly under the White House.


Senator CLARK. Let me make an observation as to your comment. When the Arms Control Agency was created at the urgent request of President Kennedy, with the strong support of Vice President Humphrey without which support I am sure it could not have been created, the concept was that the Director of that Agency should have immediate and personal access to the President of the United States. He was placed for certain administrative purposes in the Department of State. He was required to coordinate with the Secretary of State. The concept we had when we passed that law was that he should go right to the President with his proposals for disarmament. Now, instead of that we have now created a procedural morass in which a so-called Committee of Principals, heavily weighted by the military, passes on everything, and the Director of the Arms Control Agency is a rather rare visitor to the White House and goes there only after a consensus has been obtained where the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, the CIA, and everybody else in town has concurred.

To me this is one of the great procedural difficulties, and as a trained lawyer you know how important procedure is.

Mr. COHEN. I think what you point out is true. The only thing is there is no easy way out of it, because probably the Director of the Agency feels that if he goes to the White House too frequently, he will find greater difficulty working with the agencies whose cooperation he has to have to really get things to the President in a satisfactory condition, and so there is a vicious circle there not easily broken.

Senator CLARK. You remember, Mr. Cohen, before we had the Agency, our mutual friend, John McCloy, was the President's adviser on disarmament. It was to some extent a part-time job. Mr. McCloy is a very eminent New York lawyer. But he could walk into the White House any day he wanted to and he would be heard, and I am wondering if maybe that system did not work better. Perhaps it is over institutionalized. I do not know this. I say this as a strong supporter of the Agency and one of the Senators who was most anxious to have it created.

Mr. COHEN. I think you are right that frequently someone who does not work well in harness can do more than one who does, and for that reason I think trying it again in a little different way, as you have in your resolution, is most helpful.

As I say, we certainly need to tap the great resources of our country to tell us how we confront these problems on which the future existence of our country may depend, and certainly we need to get at this issue. Are we giving up the U.N. because it is not strong enough in the direction we want to see it, or are we really reverting to unilateral policy in a world of anarchy, and the same thing now is raised about the Organization of American States.

Are we concerned to perfect that organization, or are we returning to the policy which existed before the years that Roosevelt and Hull and Wells spent in building up our good-neighbor policy?

My own statement here, written statement, includes a lecture that I recently gave giving some ideas how I think we can give new strength and resourcefulness to the United Nations.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much.

Senator Church?

Senator CHURCH. I have no particular questions, I just want to join in welcoming you to the committee and commending you for your statement. I will read your written statement very carefully.

Senator CLARK. I will too, Mr. Cohen. Unfortunately it hit us pretty fast and I am sure it is very carefully thought through and as I can see a rather elaborate statement.

Mr. COHEN. It deals with a number of the problems that some of the other witnesses were questioned about.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much sir. We appreciate your being with us.

The next witness is Mr. Clark M. Eichelberger chairman of the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace.

Mr. Eichelberger? I understand Mr. Eichelberger you have no formal statement and we would be glad to have you proceed as you see fit under Senator Sparkman's 10-minute rule.


Mr. EICHELBERGER. I will. I will pull out my watch here to try to observe it.

Senator, I did not prepare a written statement, though I must say after hearing the many questions that were asked today, I have reached the point where if you will permit me, I should like to file a written statement later because I am thinking of so many things I would like to include.

Senator CLARK. We will be very happy to have it for the record. (At the time this transcript was published the statement had not been received.)

Mr. EICHELBERGER. Thank you. First of all I want to express my own personal ideas and not those of any organization.

Senator CLARK. Mr. Eichelberger, I think that is right, and I am glad you made that point. Would you mind stating for the record what organizations you are connected with?

Mr. EICHELBERGER. I am vice president of the United Nations Association which is the outgrowth of the League of Nations Association which started in 1923. I am chairman of the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace which is its research affiliate. Many of the things that I would like to talk about this morning are subjects that

are coming before our commission in a study that we will prepare and which I will be delighted to place in your hands at some time in the future.


There are four points of the resolution that I might refer to quickly. One is that the President is hereby requested formally as speedily as possible to present specific and detailed proposals, and he shall make available to the Congress and the public generally. He is requested to transmit copies of this resolution to the heads of government, and then the substantive part as to whether a treaty, revision of the charter, or both shall accomplish the final objective.

I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, as a matter of tactics, that I wish your resolution could be passed by the Senate by June 26, because June 26 is the 20th anniversary of the United Nations. The United Nations will be having a commemorative ceremony in San Francisco. I cannot think of anything that would better arm our delegation at the San Francisco conference or have an effect on other governments as to the intention of our Government to give strong support to the United Nations if this resolution were passed and could be referred to in San Francisco and be placed in the hands of other governments.

That is, of course, we give no impression to others that we mean to find a substitute for United Nations. Of course that is not the purpose of this resolution. It seems to me that the whole purpose of the resolution is to speed up consideration of some very fundamental problems, a world of law in the light of the critical situations in the world which are before it.


Senator CLARK. Mr. Eichelberger, let me interrupt for a moment to devote your attention to what some of the cosponsors of the resolution had in mind as a possibility. It may be that the present defects in the United Nations Charter, the veto, the one vote-one country, the inadequacies of financial resources, are so grave and so difficult to remedy that a wiser course would be to proceed through the 18-nation conference at Geneva which is dealing with disarmament, and to create an agency which would be connected with the United Nations to insure its own resources, but which would consist of the major powers having military armaments and who would be in the process of disarmament. They perhaps should create their own council in which there would be no need for a veto, because they would be enforcing a treaty and there would be no need to have any smaller states which did not have any vital interest in the disarmament process, and which could, because it did consist of all of the nations having armaments, create a peace force, and perhaps also those additional institutions of law and equity, conciliation and mediation, which would be most helpful in providing tribunals to solve political problems.

This is the alternative which the resolution is intended to pose but not to decide.

Mr. EICHELBERGER. I did not appreciate that. When you spoke of the revision of the charter or a treaty, I assumed your thinking was

that possibly a security system would grow out of the plan for total disarmament in a world of law.

Senator CLARK. That is correct.

Mr. EICHELBERGER. That would be drafted on the United Nations. I am inclined to believe that it may be much easier to supplement, to add to the United Nations and to make liberal interpretation than to go through the sticky problem of trying to revise the Charter.

Senator CLARK. Yes. Let us not forget that there are presently tabled at the Geneva Conference two treaties of general and complete disarmament, one proposed by the United States, the other by the Soviet Union. In addition we have the McCloy-Zorin agreement on 18 points, and while there are very, very wide differences of opinion between the Soviet Union and ourselves in that regard, it might be easier to bridge that gap than to have a revision conference for the U.N.

Mr. EICHELBERGER. I agree, I agree completely, and both plans look to strengthen the United Nations, the world of law, the United Nations police force. The question is its phasing.

Senator CLARK. That is right.

Mr. EICHELBERGER. How we get some harmony between the two plans. Therefore I would like to address myself in my closing few moments to some thoughts that I think we ought to have along with this, because other witnesses have commented on things that I might otherwise discuss.

One is that we keep repeating a world of law. So that that does not become a slogan, I think we must now-your committee, the Government-must give thought as to how a rule of law is achieved. What is to be the lawmaking process of the world community.


Now, an examination will show that the United Nations has produced more law than has been realized. The extent of the law of the Charter on Outer Space, it provides no one shall annex a celestial body. The United Nations Committee of the Assembly has been codifying the laws of outer space. The General Assembly was originally to pass resolutions, and they were to be recommendations. Some of those recommendations by concensus have come to have the effect. of law, common law, such as the Declaration of Human Rights.

A great amount of regulatory law has been produced by the specialized agencies. But quite obviously there must be a more regular procedure for the production of the law that is going to be needed if we are going to have a world based on law.

Senator CLARK. Let me turn your mind to this sticky problem. This law is no good unless it is enforceable; is it?

Mr. EICHELBERGER. I quite agree. We have got to know what is the law to be enforced. I think both must come. I am inclined to think that the Assembly must be the body to produce law, and that brings us to a question of the weighted vote which Mr. Lausche raised some time ago.

The second point I would like to make in my remaining few minutes is that we must not give the impression-and this is going to be our greatest difficulty in talking to the many new states of the worldthat we are not trying to develop a law to stabilize the privileged

status quo of the 27 nations of the world that are privileged nations against the rest of the members of the United Nations that are underprivileged. That there is a great deal of resentment in part of the world as to our Western concept of international law.

Therefore, a world of law must have the cooperation of others, and that is why, Senator Clark, I do not quite believe that 18 nations meeting at Geneva can create a world of law themselves, because I think we need the support of many nations whose concept of world law may be different than ours, and they are afraid that we are going to create the status quo of the privileged powers.

I think for illustration we are going to have long and very strained feelings. I think one of the greatest problems that the United Nations faces today is the rivalry for the sea that will be somewhat like the rivalry of the colonies in Asia and Africa. As the nations are now drilling in the shallow North Sea, they are now planning to go 10,000 feet into the Pacific to get cobalt and nickel and so on. My theory has been that the United Nations must have sovereignty of its own and it must have its own taxing power. It must have the power of the purse.

I would like to see the United Nations lay title to the sea beyond the Continental Shelf and be able to license, and that would give it a great source of revenue. Engineers and oceanography are considering it. Your rule of law must be broad enough to make possible such great administrative tasks.

Senator CLARK. You could achieve the same result, could you not, if the nations would agree to impose a very small tax on international trade to be collected by the United Nations for its benefit.

Mr. EICHELBERGER. That is right, Senator, but I am disturbed about the threat to peace that is going to come from a rivalry for the food and fisheries and raw material and the oil in the sea bed, unless the United Nations acts, just as I was concerned that we might have a great rivalry in outer space until the nations proceeded to carry world law to outer space.

My final conclusion is I certainly would not want us in any way to give the impression that we are being escapists from the fact that above everything else, above the rule of law, is the willingness of nations to consider the United Nations the foundation of foreign policy rather than an instrument of convenience. I am afraid the great powers today, including our own in certain circumstances that have been mentioned this morning, want to use the United Nations where they are sure they can win and are not willing to try the United Nations where they are not quite sure what the results might be, and whether there is a long process that they at least should expose the United Nations even though they must act unilaterally at this time.

I would like to commend you, sir, and your colleagues for a resolution which cannot help but speed up the executive branch and have great educational effect in this country and elsewhere, and I would hope it will have its effect in San Francisco on June 26.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Eichelberger.
Senator Church?

Senator CHURCH. I just want to say that you have brought some very interesting suggestions to this committee. It is obvious that you have thought not only in broad concepts about the United Nations,

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »