Another operation in Resolution Law is currently in the news. A series of General Assembly Resolutions have been directed to Britain in the Rhodesian affair. Just as the UN may order Britain to do certain things and to go to war if it becomes necessary to carry out the orders, so may the UN dictate to us. In fact they have done it, and continue to do it. Our young men fight and die all over the world as we "accept and carry out" the decisions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Strangely enough we find the term "one man, one vote,” used frequently as the UN issues its mandates to the British Government. Quite evidently this is the source of the "one man, one vote" edict of the Supreme Court in the Re-apportionment decision.
Under the terms of the Charter, as it is interpreted by the UN, the Colonial Powers were required to give up their colonies at the end of World War Two. Southern Rhodesia was a colony of Great Britain and in 1961 Rhodesia "jumped the gun" and declared her independence. Britain knowing that she would eventually have to free Rhodesia, raised no objection. In fact Britain co-operated with Rhodesia in establishing the new government and in writing the new constitution and setting the date for elections. Everything was peaceful and harmonious.
Then the UN got into the act, demanding that Britain RESCIND the Constitution of Rhodesia.—TAKE BACK this colony and hold it under British protection until such time as Rhodesia established a new government based on the principle of "one man, one vote". The "free" press has given us the impression that Rhodesia has just recently seceded from British control. The fact set forth in the British reply to the UN MANDATE, as reported in the UN publication, Everyone's United Nations, Pg. 388, indicate the British position:
"Prior to this Assembly action the United Kingdom had stated through its representative that the United Nations bad- no authority to intervene in the affairs of Southern Rhodesia and he formally recorded the objection of his government to any resolutions that might be adopted. The Constitutional Position was that since 1923 his government had had no effective power to legislate for Southern Rhodesian internal affairs and could not now intervene without the consent of the Government of Southern Rhodesia. His government could not transmit information to the United Nations because it did not have the Constitutional right or power to require the Government of Southern Rhodesia to provide the United Kingdom with information."
The General Assembly, upon receipt of the British reply, adopted another resolution condemning Britain for her position and renewing the UN demand that Britain take back Rhodesia. The UN "found" that the British Government, in effect, did not know what it was talking about. The UN held that Britain had both the power and the right to do as the General Assembly commanded and she had better get about it.
When Britain failed to comply, the General Assembly adopted another resolution invoking initial sanctions against Britain. This brought Britain to heel and she promised to try to persuade Rhodesia to cooperate and to use every means SHORT OF WAR. Britain made it very clear she would not go to war with her former colony. This brought forth another General Assembly resolution commanding Britain to subdue Rhodesia by whatever means were required to do it. If it required war, then Britain will go to war. Furthermore, the UN could order the United States to take on that war, or to help Britain. The UN could take over in its own name and commit OUR armed forces. This is the fearful power "our" Senate has conferred upon the United Nations.
These had all been General Assembly resolutions. The next resolution came from the Security Council decreeing an embargo on oil to Rhodesia. Article 25 does not mention the decisions of the General Assembly and apparently the British Parliament was not taking them very seriously, but a Security Council resolution was something else. They knew this was serious. They called in the Prime Minister demanding an explanation for the British vote in the Security Council which had been cast in favor of the embargo.
The Prime Minister attempted to throw Parliament a curve by asserting that he did not regard the Security Council resolution as "mandatory." This brought down the House. Parliament had become familiar with Article 25 and they finally came to realize the extent of which Britain was committed under the UN Charter. The indignation of Parliament was so great that the Prime Minister was obliged to sit down while the clerk restored order.
It might be noted in passing that had Britain refrained from voting for the resolution,—or had voted against it,—the resolution would have failed. A vote of ALL FIVE Permanent members is required to adopt a resolution in the Security Council. The British delegate takes the same oath of office that the American delegate takes,—he votes in the interest of the UN ONLY.
In the light of the Charter provisions, requiring the colonial powers to surrender their colonies upon accepting membership in the U. N., it is interesting to contemplate the attitude of France. Just why did France become involved in the bloody and expensive war of attrition in her former colonies in Algeria and French Indo China? Was it because the French Government delegation to the United Nations Conference,—or the French Government—did not dare tell the French people, after the long and expensive experience in World War II, that she would have to surrender her valuable colonial possessions? Had a war been necessary to convince the French that they would have to get out of Southeast Asia?
It is now being admitted in official circles,—the late Winston Churchill complains rather bitterly about it in his last book,—that toward the end of World War Two, President Roosevelt, who knew the provisions of the United Nations Charter which had been approved at Yalta, informed our allies, England, France, Belgium, and Holland, that they would have to "ease" themselves out of their colonies if they were to achieve debt cancellation and aid. The colonial powers, with an unpayable debt to cope with, had no choice. They agreed. The Marshall Plan aid followed the debt arrangements and the colonial powers, using the "student riots" as an excuse, gradually "eased" out of the colonies and in time became far richer without the colonies than they had ever been with them.
The student rioters, all trained for their positions of leadership in the Foundation financed universities of the United States and, to lesser extent in Europe, took over in one little country after the other, again without a hitch. Everything came off as though long planned and rehearsed. The Foreign Aid program of the United States began working wonders in Africa and Southeast Asia. Everything was ready for the building of a great industrial empire. More than a THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS of Foreign Aid poured into this area within a few years. The money could not be spent,—not even by the "experts" as fast as it poured in. Time and opportunity have brought the American investment in this area to more than a hundred BILLION dollars but still it is not enough. The Empire Builders must have the SAVINGS which will result from disarmament.
Returning Senators and Congressmen complain loudly about the seemingly useless expenditure of money all over the world. They complain and they insist they do not see any sense of it, but year after year they appropriate the money for it, sometimes more than the spenders ask for.
In the early days of foreign aid they fussed about the roads and railroads that went nowhere—the dams and power plants that served nobody, the piles of expensive equipment rusting along the highways. In later years they began to understand the purpose of all this—it will be put to use as the course of empire wends its way.
