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. Restrict U.N. membership to peace-loving nations!”
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.
Once we realize that Communism is a criminal operation, many new avenues of action open before us. For example, a criminal problem is not handled by negotiation and compromise but by following four steps:
1. Immobilize the criminal.
2. Render him harmless.
3. Gain his confidence.
4. Rehabilitate him.
It may be recalled that these are the four steps which were used in dealing with both Germany and Japan when their leaders pursued the criminal course of action which precipitated World War II. The Western allies followed these steps and Germany and Japan were not only immobilized and rendered harmless but they were successfully rehabilitated. After the war West Germany and Japan became two of America’s closest supporters.
Does this mean a preventive war should be waged against the criminal Communists? Not at all! It means that while there is still time and before a major shooting war is necessary, free men should utilize available peaceful pressures to immobilize the Soviet empire and work for the day when her own people can overthrow the tyrannical rule of Red leaders from within. What peaceful pressures are available?
We have already mentioned the importance of taking away the illegal membership which the USSR and her satellites hold in the U.N. Another highly potent weapon is available which would cut off Communist and espionage machinery. This is the peaceful weapon of severing diplomatic relations. It is the action Thomas Jefferson recommended for nations which treat us “atrociously.” He said:
“I am anxious that we should give the world still another lesson by showing to them other modes of punishing injuries than by war…. I love, therefore… (the) proposition of cutting off all communications with the nation which has conducted itself so atrociously.”{124}
Recently Senator Barry Goldwater and other students of the problem have advocated this very type of action against the Soviet empire. There are plenty of reasons to justify it. Russia is guilty of:
• Continuous violations of treaties and covenants.
• Repeated violations of international law.
• Vicious subversion and interference in the domestic affairs of other nations.
• Open warfare against peace-loving peoples.
• Provocative acts with the leveling of insults and false charges against the United States.
• Illegal killing of American servicemen.
• Illegal shooting down of American planes.
• Illegal imprisonment of American citizens.
The lack of political courage to sever diplomatic relations with Russia is often covered up with the plea that we might lose some important advantages by isolating Russia in this manner.
What advantages? Senator Goldwater has pointed out that there are none. Since the United States recognized the USSR in 1933, not one single advantage has accrued to the United States which could not have been achieved equally well—and often far more easily—without recognition. Recognition turned out to be a tool of conquest for the Communists.
In addition to isolating Communism internationally, it also needs to be outlawed domestically. This is so important that Lenin said the Communists must do everything possible to avoid it. Whittaker Chambers summarized this point when he said: “Lenin had tirelessly taught that when a whole Communist Party is outlawed, it is almost wholly paralyzed because it can no longer send into the surrounding community the filaments whereby it spreads its toxins and from which it draws its strength of life.”{125}