ing is not really the most appropriate function of the U.N. As a matter of fact, I suppose that the button-pushing really gets to be like this new book about Hollywood called "The Day of the Locusts"—it is an unreal fantasy world.

Basically, Mr. Chairman, the whole idea of the U.N., the purpose of the U.N., is, I think, too valuable to be left to the showboaters and to the dogmatics, and I trust we will be able, I hope we will be able in these coming few years, to enhance' what this institution really is, a place where diplomacy can play its role in negotiating, in easing, in compromising, in adjusting, so that difficult as we may find life on this world in these next 5 or 10 years, we will find it tolerable through this parliament of governments.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Now, Mr. Bitker, we would be very glad to hear from you. [Mr. Bitker's prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRUNO V. BITKER OF MILWAUKEE, WIS.

I am delighted to be able to appear before this distinguished body during its consideration of the relationship between the United States and the United Nations. By way of identification, I am a practicing lawyer in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Although I appear in my individual capacity, I have long been active in organizations, both governmental and private, relating to the general subject matter. I have also had the honor of testifying before this Committee on previous occasions, particularly concerning ratification of human rights treaties.

Witnesses preceding me at these hearings and at other times have suggested specific steps in the form of amendments to the United Nations Charter as well as procedural changes by which the present structure could be made more effective in attaining the noble objectives of the world organization. I do not intend to discuss at length these suggestions by which the United Nations could be strengthened or the means by which the United States could make its influence felt more positively within the United Nations.

On one front this Committee has already taken a significant step toward improving the image of the United States in the world community. I refer to its action in urging the Senate to ratify the Genocide Convention which, after many years in the deep freeze, is now on the Senate calendar awaiting a vote. I believe ratification of that treaty and others, especially the Convention Against Racial Discrimination and the two International Covenants on Human Rights, would go far to convince the rest of the world that not only do we proclaim our belief in the rights covered by these treaties but that we are willing to say so by signing on the dotted line.

The matter of strengthening the United Nations through Charter review, through Charter revision, through changed procedures, has been before this Committee for many years. As long ago as 1950, a Subcommittee under Senator Elbert D. Thomas on Revision of the United Nations Charter held extensive hearings, subsequently published, which are still of great value.

One of the series of resolutions relating to strengthening the United Nations then being considered by the Subcommittee was Senate Resolution 133, 81st Congress, 1st Session. Its sponsor was Senator John Sparkman, now the Chairman of this Committee. Much of what was said then could be repeated now with equal force. That resolution contemplated the removal of the veto power under the Charter in defined matters of aggression, the avoidance of the threat of atomic catastrophe, the reduction of the armament race, and establishing "an effective but tyranny proof international police force under a 'workable' Security Council and World Court." (P. 171 of the Hearings.)

Despite excellent statements that have been made by our several Presidents since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, as well as by Secretaries of State and by United States Ambassadors to the United Nations, the official position of the State Department has changed very little since it voiced its opposition to Senator Sparkman's resolution of 1950. The Department then opposed his proposal as "a transformation of the United Nations into some form of world

government." (Testimony of John D. Hickerson, Assistant Secretary of State, Hearings, P. 458.)

As recently as December, 1974, a very mild General Assembly Resolution (3349 [XXIX]) on the creation of an ad hoc committee of 42 to consider suggestions regarding the review of the United Nations Charter, was adopted by an overwhelming vote, the United States (and the Soviet Union) voted in opposition. This is regrettable. That vote evidently prompted Congressman William L. Hungate (with the endorsement of numerous other congressmen) to introduce House Concurrent Resolution, 206 (April 8, 1975). This resolution asks the President "to direct the Department of State to formulate constructive and forward-looking United States proposals for the more effective functioning of the United Nations, through (a) changes in the Charter of the United Nations, and/or (b) procedural changes that may not require Charter amendment, in order to promote a just and lasting Peace through the development of the rule of law, including protection of individual rights and liberties as well as the field of war prevention." A report to this Committee and the House Committee is requested before June 30, 1975. It is hoped that this Committee will give its support to House Concurrent Resolution 206.

This brings me to what I deem most important for the consideration of this Committee. There is almost unanimity of opinion that the United Nations must be strengthened. The opposition to any material change, expressed by some of the nations, including our own, can be summarized by such phrases as "it would be a world government", or "it threatens our sovereignty", or "the giant states will devour the small states", or "the haves will have more and the havenots will have less." These are the same objections that were strenuously and sincerely advanced during the Era of the American Revolution by some of the 13 independent, sovereign states (the colonies). Yet out of that conflict evolved a great federation of states which we now know as the United States of America. What is here proposed is that the experience of the 13 colonies during the period from 1776 to 1789 be studied to determine whether the manner whereby the sharp conflicts that then existed between the sovereign states were resolved can serve as a possible pattern for resolving the problems now facing the international community.

It may be fortuitous that these Senate hearings should be conducted on the eve of the Bicentennial Observance. The report which could come out of these hearings and the study which might be prepared by scholars for this Committee could not only serve as a meaningful celebration of what happened 200 years ago, but also be a contribution to the whole world in seeking peace under justice for all mankind during the next 200 years.

Two hundred years ago this country consisted of 13 independent, sovereign states. At the time the notion that they could be unified into one nation, under one law, appeared to many to be pure fantasy. But it was done. The late Catherine Drinker Bowen entitled her dramatic documentary work about the Constitutional Convention of 1787, "Miracle at Philadelphia." And miracle it was! The distinguished American historian, Carl Van Doren, called it "The Great Rehearsal." Can the miracle of that time be repeated? Can the "rehearsal" become a world production?

The 13 colonies were faced with dangers from both within and from without. But no one at that time could have imagined the dangers which face mankind today. The sense of danger which impelled the 13 colonies to join together for common action is not yet deeply felt throughout the world. Yet it was this recognition of danger that enabled the Allies to win World War I and World War II. This sense of danger has produced among the Western Europeans the Common Market, which places unprecedented restrictions on national sovereignty. For the moment we may not be so fearful of World War III being started by the super powers. But we cannot be unaware of what might come out of widespread hostilities between other smaller powers, some of which may already have developed an atomic bomb. Nor can we close our eyes to the danger from famine, industrial collapse, the breakdown of international trade, pollution and other disasters resulting from world imbalances of food, of population, of energy, of money. These dangers are obviously greater than the dangers of the Era of the Revolution. They demand international solutions, as the problems of 1776 required national solutions.

It is easy to view the Revolutionary Era with the hindsight of 200 years and assert that what was accomplished then was merely the adjustment of differences between members of one family. But that simply was not true. The 13

states were not one big happy family, unified by language, by religion, by a community of interests. On the contrary, disunity prevailed throughout the war and for years afterward: harmony rarely existed.

James Madison of Virginia, a chief architect of the Constitution (and later to become the President of the United States), noted that: "Of the affairs of Georgia, I know as little as of Kamchatka." And Pierce Butler, of South Carolina another delegate to the Constitutional Convention, concluded that "the manner and mood of thinking" of the several states, differed "nearly as much as in the different nations of Europe."

While there was no love lost between the colonies and the colonists, there were of course, similarities between them. But it is interestering to recall that Dutch was the preferred language in parts of New York, especially in the commercia world. It is intriguing to note that many influential persons thought German should be Pennsylvania's official language. In certain of the colonies, French and Spanish were commonly used.

On the economic front, the rivalry between states was no different than wha exists between some nations today. Customs laws were freely used by one stat against another. New York took steps that produced a serious drain on Con necticut and New Jersey. Despite the provisions of the Articles of Confederation New York entered into a separate treaty with the Indians. New Jersey viewe New York as a foreign state against which barriers must be erected to preven its encroaching upon the Sovereign State of New Jersey.

It is said that because the colonies were physically adjacent to one another eventual unity was easy to attain. This was a factor, of course. But it is necessary when comparing now with then, to measure distances not only in miles but i time. The fact is that it took many more hours, in some instances even mor days, to travel from one city to another, than the hours required today to mov from one side of the world to the other. Indeed it takes far less time today t circle the globe than it took most delegates to reach Philadelphia from variou points of departure.

It is a matter of wonder that the colonies won the War of Revolution. Cel tainly it was not due to any unity between the colonies. Although designate Commander-in-Chief, George Washington was in fact the commander of thirtee allied armies and not of a unified Continental Army. Throughout the war h correspondence consisted of constant pleas for food, for clothing, for arms. Durin the first part of the war, there was in fact no central government. The Co tinental Congress conducted the national affairs-if they could so be desi nated--not by virtue of any charter but under a kind of gentlemen's agreemen Examples of the insistence upon the separate sovereignty and independence the colonies appear not only during the post Revolutionary period, but eve during the war itself. For instance when Washington urged New Jersey troop to swear allegiance to the United States, they refused, proclaiming that "Ne Jersey is our country." One New Jersey delegate to the Continental Congre found the idea of swearing allegiance to a central government so unacceptab that he publicly criticized Washington for requesting the oath. Even Jol Adams later referred to Massachusetts as "our country" and to the Ma sachusetts representatives as "our embassy."

As time went on it became clear that achieving independence was difficu enough, but establishing a strong, central national government was even mo difficult. Before the Constitutional Convention convened in 1787, Washingt concluded that: "We are either a united people under one head, and for feder purposes; or we are thirteen independent sovereignties, eternally counteracti each other." Washington was deeply disturbed by the constant bickering a confrontations between the states. Various states violated the peace treat particularly in respect to the honoring of prewar debts to British merchant which the British used to justify their own refusal to evacuate frontier for that had been surrendered to the United States. Washington was, therefor especially fearful of the military insecurity of the United States against t British on the north, the Indians on the west and the Spanish on the sout and west.

Between 1783, the end of the war, and 1789, when the Constitution came in force, citizens of all political beliefs and of no political beliefs, recognized t inadequacy of the Articles of Confederation. The lack of a central national a thority caused Washington to comment: "I do not conceive we can exist lo as a nation without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade t whole Union in an energetic manner as the authority of the state governmer extends over the several states."

Problems confronting the 13 sovereign states of the Era of the Revolution loomed as large then as those which in 1976 confront sovereign nations of the world. The eminent Henry Steele Commager in his recent historical study, "Jefferson, Nationalism and the Enlightenment", thus summarizes the comparable situations: "The problems which confronted the Revolutionary Generation were quite as complex, as importunate, and as frightening as those which confront us now." There then existed a nation of some three millions, "divided into thirteen independent states, scattered over an immense territory without any system of roads or of communications, with no common organs of government, no common centers of economy, no common church, no common ruling class, and as yet no common loyalties. .

After the end of the Revolutionary War, it did not take long for the ardor for independence, which had held the colonies together even though so loosely, to diminish. But the need to bring the states together into a single nation became increasingly obvious. Accordingly, in February, 1787, the Continental Congress, called a convention of the States "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation . . . to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union."

That convention, meeting in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, came to be known as the Constitutional Convention. The result of that convention was not the revision of the Articles of Confederation but the adoption of the United States Constitution. This was not the stated purpose of that convention and the objections to so drastic a step were vigorously advanced. A principle objection to any change then was expressed in the same phrase now used against considering United Nations Charter review: "Let well enough alone."

A key and decisive issue before the Convention was on voting. The same problem existed then as now: should the vote of every state be equal? The one state-one vote rule had been followed during the Revolutionary War and continued under the Articles of Confederation. The large states favored representation on the basis of population (and possibly other factors). If voting was proportional, the small states feared being engulfed by the large states. The small states demanded equal voting power regardless of size, of wealth, or of population.

The Great Compromise, one state-one vote in the Senate, proportional representation in the House, now appears so simple a way out, that it is not easy to realize that the Constitutional Convention might have fallen apart over this one state-one vote problem. In a sense, it is the same problem that faces the world organization today. Without attempting to resolve that question here, it is suggested, however, that a system of voting, certainly in the General Assembly, might retain the one nation-one vote formula in certain types of decisions, while following a form of weighted or proportional voting, based on population, wealth or other relevant factors, in other types of decisions.

On September 17, 1787, the 12 states represented at the Constitutional Convention unanimously approved the final draft of the Constitution (Rhode Island, the 13th state, had boycotted the Convention). It was thereafter submitted to separate constitutional conventions in each State for ratification by a minimum of nine states to bring it into force. It is significant that the Constitution begins, "We, the people of the United States," instead of, "We, the States." That phrase, "We, the people" is also the opening phrase of the United Nations Charter.

While the state conventions were debating ratification, there appeared a flood of pamphlets, pro and con. The opponents identified a central government with tyranny, feared that the voting compromise was not sufficient to protect the small states against the large states, urged that the country be divided into geographical regions (the usual proposal was for separate political entities for the Southern Colonies, the Middle Colonies and the New England Colonies).

The final ratification of the Constitution was not speedily nor easily attained. It was not until June 21, 1788, that the ninth state, New Hampshire, ratified. But as of that date, two key states, New York and Virginia, had not acted. Although the Constitution could have been considered in being without these two states, obviously the new nation would only limp into existence without them. It would be like having a world organization without the United States and the Soviet Union.

Fortunately, New York and Virginia ratified shortly after New Hampshire acted. It is interesting to note that ratification carried by only 3 votes in New York, by mere 10 vote margins in Virginia and New Hampshire. Rhode Island, which did not ratify until one year after the new government was established, did so by a slim 2 vote majority. The significance of these votes lies in the fact

that opposition to a meaningful, central government was as strong then, as opposition to strengthening the United Nations might be today. But our own history has demonstrated the worth of a central government joining together separate and even antagonistic states. From that experience should we not be convinced of the value of considering the pattern for the world? Is it possible that by using this model, the international community can reorganize itself so as to be better able to solve global problems?

In conclusion, I want again to express the hope that this Committee may produce a study in depth that would serve as a meaningful observance of the Bicentennial of the American Revolution and also as a contribution toward world peace with justice. If attempts to halt the killing conflicts in the world today through a strengthened United Nations appear visionary, it must be remembered that to many thoughtful and knowledgeable citizens of the 13 sovereign colonies, the idea of a strong, central government under a Constitution appeared wholly unrealistic. Can the United States make any greater contribution in its observance of its own Bicentennial than to help the world to abolish war, mankind's most fearful illness? It is true that America was blessed with an extraordinary galaxy of statesmen in the Era of the American Revolution. But the dangers of war, of famine, of general disaster are greater today and statesmen of equal capability and courage are here today. May America lead the way now as it did 200 years ago.

STATEMENT OF BRUNO V. BITKER, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION COMMITTEE ON WORLD PEACE THROUGH LAW

Mr. BITKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am honored to appear before this distinguished body. By way of identification, I am a practicing lawyer in Milwaukee, Wis., and I have come out from Senator Percy's country. I am not, in the sense in which you have referred to it, officially connected with any United Nations organization, but I am affiliated with quite a number of organizations that have a direct and related interest in the United Nations and world affairs. But my appearance here is wholly in my individual capacity.

Incidentally, I have had the honor of appearing before this committee before, particularly in connection with the ratification of the Human Rights Commission.

COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS TESTIMONY

Now, the witnesses who have appeared previously, not so much this morning, but those whose testimony I was able to secure and read, and on other occasions persons have appeared before this committee to suggest specific ways in which the U.N. Charter might be amended, or by which the procedures within the United Nations might be changed so as to more nearly produce the result which was hoped for when the United Nations was first created. But I do not intend to take the time to discuss those specifics today, other than some general references to them.

In the first place, I want to make a special comment about at least one of the papers that I was able to read, of a witness that had appeared last week, and that is the statement by Senator Fulbright. It was an excellent statement, as I am sure this committee recognized. I also was impressed by the statement made by Professor Richard Gardner, although that dealt more specifically with fiscal matters and economic matters. And with the statement by Maxwell Stanley, which was of a broader, more encompassing nature. I need not tell anyone how impressed I was, as we all were, by the statement of Mr.