“The enslavement of a substantial part of the world’s population by Communist imperialism makes a mockery of the idea of peaceful coexistence.”{120}
And the President sounded a note of awakening resistance when he said:
“It is appropriate and proper to manifest to the peoples of the captive nations the support of the Government and the people of the United States of America for their just aspirations for freedom and national independence.”{121}
What About the United Nations?
All over the world people demand that some type of international arena be created where disputes between nations can be arbitrated or settled without resorting to war. Two attempts have been made to create such an arena—the League of Nations and the United Nations. Both ran into difficulty and for the same reason. Both organizations started out as exclusive federations of “peace-loving” nations and then turned right around and tried to convert themselves into world parliaments where all nations could be represented including warlike or predatory nations. In both cases the predatory nations successfully seized power and almost completely nullified all the high-sounding phrases contained in their original statements of purpose.
As far as the United Nations is concerned, this weakness was emphasized by John Foster Dulles when he addressed the American Bar Association. He said the failures of the U.N. are due primarily to the fact that its “effective functioning depends upon cooperation with a nation which is dominated by an international party seeking world domination.”{122}
Henry Cabot Lodge pointed out the same thing: “In 1945 and 1946… the United States assumed that Russia was a peace-loving nation, and the whole United Nations was based on the assumption that the alliance between the United States and the Soviet Union would continue, which of course, was a very false, tragically false, assumption.”{123}
There are numerous provisions in the U.N. Charter which permit predatory powers such as the USSR or her satellites to bring the orderly processes of the U.N. to a dead halt. In the U.N.’s 15 years of existence, the USSR has used this organization for subversion behind the scenes and legal sabotage in her open councils. This has not only frustrated the peace-preserving powers of the U.N. but has almost completely paralyzed individual action by the other members because they have committed themselves to rely on the U.N. to settle disputes.
When one reflects upon the Soviet veto of the U.N. attempt to censure Russia following her invasion of Hungary and her veto of the U.N. attempt to have an investigation of the killing of four Americans on the RB-47 in 1960, it emphasizes the long list of atrocities which Soviet leaders have committed without punishment or censure even though every one of them violated Article 2 of the U.N. Charter. Consider these provisions:
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all members.
2. All Members… shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means….
4. All Members shall refrain… from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state….
5. All members shall… refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
In Hungary, China, Southeast Asia, Cuba, Africa, Central and South America, Korea—one might say in every sector of the world—the USSR has violated these principles continually.
As a result of this vast contradiction between promise and performance, the whole U.N. complex is gradually reaching an impasse or stalemate. What then can be done with Red aggression, with its worldwide program of insurrection, riots, civil war and conquest? And what should be done with the U.N.?
Because the United States is the most wealthy and powerful nation in the world, she is expected to provide an answer. And because practically every other imaginable suggestion has been presented, it is time to come up with the simple, direct answer which we should have adopted long ago: “Turn back to the original intent of the Charter.
This is precisely what Article 4 provides, and it has been the violation of this article which has produced most of the trouble. Because we have waited so long to eliminate the warlike nations, this change will involve some difficulties. But this would be nothing compared to the difficulties which lie ahead if free men pursue their present course. Due to the veto technicalities and numerous violations of American constitutional law in the existing Charter, it would be necessary to reconstruct the entire framework of the U.N. Nevertheless it could be done.
No doubt some would object to the elimination of Russia and her satellites from the U.N. on the ground that it would prevent the U.N. from serving as a world parliament.
The answer to that objection is the proven fact that the U.N. can never serve peace-loving peoples as long as the U.N. tries to accommodate its forum to the harassment and bedevilment of nations who make no pretense at fulfilling their obligations either under the Charter or under international law.
What if the founding fathers of the United States had tried to include King George in the Constitutional Convention? The results would have been as frustrating and aggravating as they have turned out to be with a predatory nation and her satellites sitting in the U.N. Assembly of peace-loving nations. The founding fathers would no doubt look at our present U.N. operation and say: “It is illogical. It is illegal. It is impossible.” Fifteen years of U.N. history painfully prove it.
But would not such action drive Russia and her satellites into a second association of Red nations and create a contest of power blocs?
This already exists. The only difference would be that the Red bloc would not be in the U.N. to sabotage the united desires of the peace-loving nations as it does today.
Would not such action provoke war?
Not as long as the West remains strong. It would not weaken the West’s military position at all. If anything, such action would strengthen it. It would also create the necessary federation of strength to start putting economic and political pressures on Communism and thereby allow her enslaved peoples to strike from within and eventually destroy this spectre of human tyranny. This new arrangement would give us the ideal vehicle to begin implementing all the fine promises we made in the “Captive Nations’ Proclamation” on July, 1959. Is there no other way? Apparently not! All other approaches turn out to be diversionary. They merely postpone the day of honest decision. If free men united to bring about this needed change, the new federation of peace-loving nations could perform a political miracle—one which would give new assurance for both peace and prosperity.
We have a task to perform and time is running out.
Is the Communist Movement a Legitimate Political Party?
This question grows out of another illusion which the Communists created in our minds. They induced us to accept the idea that Communism is a legitimate expression of political action. The truth is that Communism is a criminal conspiracy. It is a mistake to treat it as a political party.
Political groups solve their problems by entering into negotiations, attending conferences, and working out their differences with bona fide compromises which all parties are expected to perform. This has never worked with the Communists because they use deceit, disregard of laws, violation of treaties, intimidation, subversion and open insurrection as basic tools of conquest. This makes it a criminal conspiracy.
