Page images
PDF
EPUB

ices. I do not mean a sacrifice of sovereignty. The thought of fashioning any kind of superstate s to us wholly repugnant, and no such thought pr plan has entered or can enter our counsels. But we must be prepared to pool our efforts and part of our armed forces-if that be considered sacrifice-not only for the common good but for the future security of our own nation and our own people. Is that too great a sacrifice to avoid the horrors of another war, waged with the terrific and as yet unimagined instruments that will cerainly be used if war comes to us and to other aations again in another generation, with its cerJain devastation and the certain destruction once gain of the flower of our manhood, probably inluding the blotting out of our cities and of a perentage of our civil population from which reason recoils? These awful visions sound fantastic. But they are not fantastic. With the constantly accelerating developments in science, especially military science and electric science, these are preisely the things that could and probably would ccur in a world war of the future. Can any sacifice be too great to avoid that sort of cataclysm? We must have one further consideration in mind. With the best efforts and the best will in the world, we cannot hope to prepare a blueprint for our future peace machinery that will be wholly satisfying to everybody. Human nature and international nature being what they are, the best we can do is to aim for the maximum of what is desirable within the scope of what is attainable and be prepared to accept the nearest approach to that maximum that will permit general and eventually, we hope, universal acceptance. We and other nations should be prepared to accept the net result of our combined endeavors only if that result holds out a fair promise to be effective in the maintenance of future world peace and seeurity. Criticism and debate there is bound to be, for the net result cannot possibly please everybody, and criticism and debate are to be welcomed just so long as they are helpfully constructive. It

is for the very purpose of inviting constructiv criticism and debate that we have published th results of the preliminary talks at Dumbarto Oaks in anticipation of a United Nations confer ence. But if the blueprint that emerges from th eventual United Nations conference offers a work able machine holding out a reasonable hope fo the prevention of future wars, a machine that car be improved and gradually, we hope, perfected with matured experience and the wisdom of en lightened statesmanship, we cannot afford, as in 1920, once again to retire into our shell and refuse to cooperate just because what we might consider to be a perfect instrument has not been produced We must give it a fair chance to succeed. Unless all the major powers play their full part it will be obvious that the plan cannot succeed. But I am very hopeful that the merits and the power of whatever instrument eventually emerges will com mend itself to the great majority of our people whose thinking has undergone a vast transforma tion since 1920.

Before discussing the Dumbarton Oaks propos als, let us consider certain aspects of their devel opment. You will recall that in the Four Nation Declaration signed at the Moscow Conference in 1943 the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the Republic of China pledged themselves to take the leadership in the creation of a permanent international organization for the maintenance of peace and security. It was understood at that time, as well as at Dumbarton Oaks that any such organization would be based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peaceloving nations and open to membership by all such nations. The next step after Moscow was to determine how far the four signatories of that Declaration were prepared to go-what obligations they would undertake-what responsibilities they were prepared to assume. Before undertaking to bring about a wider and more general understanding as to the responsibilities which would need to be assumed by all peace-loving na

ons in the interests of peace, they had to agree mong themselves, and it should be borne in mind that these four countries, because of their size and strength, can make or break any system of general security.

On the basis of this thought, preparations for the Dumbarton Oaks meeting were undertaken by each of the four Governments. Under the leadership of Secretary Hull, who unsparingly devoted his time and his energy to the direction of our own preparations for these conversations, shere emerged a set of proposals which this Government placed before the other three Governements. In this preparation, full account was taken of the experiences of the past, particularly that of the inter-war period. More than that, we underlook to assemble and analyze all ideas and suggestions, both official and private, at home and abroad, which threw light on the problems inWolved. When this initial work was completed, the ideas which emerged were then discussed with many members of both Houses of Congress and

ith numerous leaders of national thought. Thus prepared, as were the representatives of the other three Governments, it was possible, as President Roosevelt has said, that "so much could have been accomplished on so difficult a subject in so short a time".

But in spite of all this preparation, very little could have been accomplished at Dumbarton Oaks had it not been for the constructive and cooperative spirit which animated the discussions. The men who met there labored patiently and hopeefully in their endeavor to reach an agreement based on a genuine understanding. I wish to say, for my part, that in the many international conferences in which I have participated during the past 40 years I have never experienced such a seriouseness of purpose, nor such a sense of responsibility, as that displayed at Dumbarton Oaks.

This is all by way of preamble. Now I shall get down to brass tacks and shall discuss with you the provisional blueprint produced at Dumbarton

[ocr errors]

в

Oaks and the considerations underlying the mor important provisions in the plan. Please remem ber that while at Dumbarton, we merely erecte something to shoot at; the plan that was produced nevertheless, represents the best results of th combined thinking of our British, Russian, and Chinese friends, as well as our own. It is a pla which combines our idealistic aims with the reali ties of the world in which we live today.

The Organization envisaged in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals may be conceived as having thre principal purposes, each of which is related to the single aim of maintaining peace and security. The long-range purpose and objective is to assist in the creation of those conditions of stability and wellbeing in the international community which will be conducive to the maintenance of peace. Secondly, the Organization would facilitate peaceful means of adjustment or settlement of disputes between nations, which, if permitted to continue, might result in a breach of the peace. Finally, if peaceful means failed, and a threat to or breach of the peace occurred, the Organization would take such forceful action as might be required to maintain or restore peace.

For the accomplishment of these purposes, different types of organs exercising different types of functions would be required. The Dumbarton Oaks plan provides for a General Assembly, with an Economic and Social Council under its authority, a Security Council, an international court of justice, and a secretariat. To those versed in the structure of the League of Nations, this enumeration may sound familiar. Undoubtedly, there are some features which the United Nations would have in common with the former League. However, there are two fundamental differences which in my opinion constitute a great advance over the League. In the first place, the Dumbarton Oaks proposals assign to each of the principal organs of the Organization clear-cut responsibili ties, thereby eliminating any confusion as to jurisdiction. In the second place, each organ is en

dowed with appropriate powers for the discharge of its functions. These observations relate especially to the proposed General Assembly and the Security Council.

The General Assembly is to be the central organ of the Organization, in which all member states, large and small, would be represented on an equal footing and would enjoy equal responsibilities. In this body, the truly democratic character of the structure would be reflected. The General Assembly would be the center for international discussion and action with respect to cooperation in political, economic, and social questions generally. It would be expected to review the state of relations among nations and make recommendations to governments for the promotion of their cooperative efforts. It would be responsible for promoting the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It would also consider and make recommendations regarding the general principles of cooperation in the maintenance of peace and security, including those governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments. In short, the General Assembly would be the arm of the Organization which would promote its longrange objectives for the advancement of human freedom and progress. It would not be in any sense a legislative body or any agency of a superstate but rather an instrumentality to facilitate agreement among states for the advancement of their common aims.

It is evident from all this that the wide scope of the subjects with which the General Assembly of the proposed Organization will be concerned indicates that its activities will cover the whole range of political, economic, and social problems of interest to the international community. Moreover, the General Assembly would be able to approach these constructive tasks without being encumbered by responsibilities for the solution of specific conflicts or the specific implementation of policies which can better be achieved by specialized bodies and agencies.

624428-45-2

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »