 | |
Chapter 19
American Foreign Policy
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens, the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.—But the jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it.(1)
George Washington, Farewell Address
A Great Neutral Nation. America, multi-raced and multi-nationed, is by tradition, by geography, by citizenry, by natural sympathy, and by material interest, the great neutral nation of the earth. God has so designed it. Drawn from all races, creeds, and nations, our sympathies run to every oppressed people. Our feelings engaged on opposite sides of great differences, will in their natural course, if held in due and proper restraint, neutralize the one the other. Directed in right channels, this great body of feeling for the one side or the other will ripen into sympathy and love for all our misguided and misled fellowmen who suffer in any cause, and this sympathy and love will run to all humanity in its woe, thus weakly shadowing the infinite compassion of the Master. (J. Reuben Clark, CR- 10/39:14-6)
Inasmuch as we are told the Lord will fortify this land against all other nations, is it not true conversely, that the Lord will not have us, the peoples of these lands, make any entangling alliances with those who dwell upon the other hemisphere? It is our responsibility to be true to these principles and the order of these lands upon which we dwell; and with all due respect to the other lands, that we shall not enter in any agreements or connections with them that will in any way interfere with our continuing to follow the laws and instructions of the Lord [p. 432] regarding this promised land. I believe that this concerns us.
I think that the present conditions under which we live indicate plainly that we are justified in maintaining a loyal attitude toward these nations [Western Hemisphere], and a neutral attitude toward all other nations, in order that this land of America—this promised land—shall become a place for the growth and development of the people who shall dwell here, and who, if they desire to enjoy the blessings of God, shall receive promises and blessings which will come to them only through the observance of righteousness, good will, and kindness. (Sylvester Q. Cannon, CR-10/39:123-4)
Our Apostacy From Peaceful Isolationism. The international gospel of the Founding Fathers was forecast by Jefferson in 1793. It was voiced by Washington in his Farewell Address in 1796, when he declared we should have “as little political connection as possible with Europe,” because Europe had a ‘°set of primary interests” with which we had “none or a very remote relation,” wherefore “must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concern; . . . why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” The Monroe Doctrine declaring against the future colonization of the American continent by Europeans, against the extension therein of their political system, against interposition by European powers to control the destinies of the Latin Americas, implemented the principles of the Address. And Jefferson, commenting in 1823 on the Monroe Doctrine, and the complete political separation of Europe and the Americas, solemnly affirmed: “Our first and fundamental maxim should be, never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe; our second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle with cis-Atlantic affairs.”
Nor may we overlook that great doctrine of neutrality set up under Washington himself and Jefferson and Hamilton, which was aimed at and brought about the [p. 433] localizing of international armed conflicts, and the preservation, under prescribed rules, of peacetime intercourse between belligerents and nonbelligerents. War was to curse as few people as possible. This has been jettisoned for the concept that every war should involve all nations, making all suffer the ravages of a global war.
Until the last quarter of a century, this gospel of the Fathers was the polar star by which we set our international course. In the first hundred thirty years of our constitutional existence, we had three foreign wars, the first merely the final effort of our Revolution, which made good our independence. During the century that followed we had two foreign wars, neither of considerable magnitude. During the next twenty-three years, we had two global wars. While the gospel of the Fathers guided us we had peace. When we forsook it, two great wars engulfed us.
It is not clear when we began our wandering, nor is it necessary to determine the time. President Theodore Roosevelt was hinting our straying when he uttered the dictum “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” We were to force others to do our bidding. President Wilson had the full departure in mind when he declared: °’Everybody’s business is our business.” Since then we have leaped ahead along the anciently forbidden path.
In our course under the new gospel of interference with everything we do not like, we have gone forward and are going forward, as if we possessed all the good of human government, of human economic concept, of human comfort, and of human welfare, all of which we are to impose on the balance of the world,—a concept born of the grossest national egotism. In human affairs no nation can say that all it practices and believes is right, and that all that others have that differs from what it has is wrong. bien inflict an unholy tragedy when they proceed on that basis. No man, no society, no people, no nation is wholly right in human affairs; and none is wholly wrong. A fundamental principle of the operation of human society is to live and let live.
Yet, to repeat, we have entered into new fields to impose our will and concepts on others. This means we [p. 434] must use force, and force means war, not peace.
What has our apostasy from peace cost us?
In men, our two recent adventures have cost in casualties, dead, wounded, and missing, 1,402,600, with almost as many saddened and crippled homes.
In money it has cost, in World War I, some $60 odd billions; and World War II cost us some $400 odd billions, including increased civilian help, in total, almost a half a trillion, the great bulk of which we still owe.
In spiritual values it has brought great numbers of our youth and older men to the very depths of desponding atheism. Our whole social structure seems undermined. We are becoming a blaspheming, unchaste, non-Christian, God-less race. Spiritually we seem ripe for another war.
In values of government and law, these wars and the interminglings of men of different concepts of freedom and human rights, have brought into our own system, the despotic principles of European systems, against which the Fathers warned, though they came to us through doors the Fathers did not see. Many and influential persons amongst us, of alien concepts and sometimes of alien birth, no longer admit that man possesses the inalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence and the fundamental precepts of the Constitution. Our courts no longer guarantee these rights and enforce these principles. We have and are aping and adopting the policies and the legal theories of Europe. Colonel House records that when President Wilson hesitated to launch us into the first World War, because he did not know what measures to take to wage the war, he, Colonel House, assured the President that it was simple, all he had to do, said Colonel House, was to do the things Europe had already done. And so we proceeded, and from then till now, we have constantly and more and more adopted European governmental concepts and laws, to the loss of liberty and of the happiness and security of our people.
All this takes us into a situation that places our destinies largely in the hands of those who appear to be urging us towards war, not peace . . . .
The Principles of Isolationism. It is time we returned [p. 435] to the political faith and work of the Fathers. It is indispensable that we do so if we are to have peace. I believe in the old faith and the old works, under which we had so much of peace. I am a political isolationist in the full sense of the term and am not fearful in declaring it.
I am a political isolationist because:
I full believe in the wisdom of the course defined by Washington, Jefferson, and other ancient statesmen. The whole history of America before and since the Revolution proves the truthfulness of their assertions. All during our pre-Revolutionary history we were at war, we were robbed, plundered, and massacred because of European wars, in the issues and causes of which we had no concern. History is repeating itself.
I believe American manhood is too valuable to be sacrificed on foreign soil for foreign issues and causes.
I believe that permanent peace will never come into the world from the muzzle of a gun. Guns and bayonets will, in the future as in the past, bring truces, long or short, but never peace that endures.
I believe President Wilson had the true principle when he spoke of the strength and power of the moral force of the world. Moral force in a nation fructifies industry, thrift, good will, neighborliness, the friendly intercourse of nations, the peace that all men seek; whereas force is barren.
I believe America’s role in the world is not one of force, but is of that same peaceful intent and act that has characterized the history of the country from its birth till the last third of a century.
I believe that moral force is far more potent than physical force in international relations.
I believe that America should again turn to the promotion of the peaceful adjustment of international disputes, which will help us regain the measureless moral force we once possessed, to the regeneration and salvation of the world. We now speak with the strong arm of physical force only; we have no moral force left.
I believe we should once more turn our brains and our resources to the problem, not of killing men, women, [p. 436] and children, combatant and noncombatant, but of bringing to them more of good living and high thinking.
I believe political isolation will bring to us the greatest happiness and prosperity, the greatest temporal achievement not only, but the highest intellectual and spiritual achievement also, the greatest power for good, the strongest force for peace, the greatest blessing to the world.
Views of Founders Not Outmoded. I am not shaken in my convictions nor frightened by the assertion of many good people and fostered by the communists and “new thoughters,” that the doctrine of the Fathers is outmoded, and that we are in a new world. All the age old forces are still peering out at us,—greed, avarice, ambition, self ishness, the passion to rule, the desire to enslave for the sordid advantage of the enslaver. Not a single wanton face is missing and the visages of some are more hideous than ever. While radar, the radio, the telephone, the airplane have facilitated our talking and visiting with our neighbors, they have not made new beings out of us nor out of them, nor changed either our characters or theirs. We are just as we were, with the possibility of a little more back-fence gossiping and quarreling, and a little more brawling among the children. But the households remain essentially as they were. We still have oceans between us; we live on different continents, under different conditions. We can and should mind our own business and let others do the same.
In my view, our whole international course and policy is basically wrong, and must be changed if peace is to come. Our policy has brought us, and pursued, will continue to bring us, only the hatred of nations now—and we cannot thrive on that, financially or spiritually—and certain war hereafter, with a list of horrors and woes we do not now even surmise. If we really want peace, we must change our course to get it. We must honestly strive for peace and quit sparring for military advantage. We must learn and practice, as a nation and as a world, the divine principles of the Sermon on the Mount. There is no other way. [p. 437]
Give Us The Facts. Someone will, at this point, play the ace question, with that smug finality that always accompanies it,—What would you do?
I frankly answer, I do not know, for I do not know the facts.(2) Furthermore, a critic with no authority or power in a situation, and from whom is withheld a knowledge of the facts, is under no obligation to propose an alternative. He may rest by pointing out defects in policy.
On the other hand, I say, give us the facts, all of them, hiding nothing, and we shall tell you what to do. As one American citizen, I dare government to give us the facts, all the facts, including what kind of war they think the next war will be, what kind they intend to wage, and how many lives it will cost, including the aged, the infirm, and women and children.
We, the common people, have not been told the facts for years, since long before the last war broke. We are not now being told the facts.(3) We can only surmise. But give us the facts and we will answer. And in our multitude of counsel you will find wisdom. (J. Reuben Clark, CN-11/22/47)
Lying lips are abomination to the Lord; but they that deal truly are his delight. (Bible, Proverbs 12:22)
American Prestige. Many of us are prone to ascribe our difficulties in Latin American countries to the ambitions of avaricious dictators. I would not say that there is some basis for this position. But I do say, without fear of successful contradiction, that there would be infinitely less menace to our friendly relations with our neighbors to the south, and far less fertile ground for planting the seeds [p. 438] of insurrection and autocratic controls if our friends had more respect for our character, our way of life, and our consistency. Remember, there wouldn’t be sent out from our country the kind of films which are shown throughout the world and the lurid stories of our newspapers and magazines if there was not some foundation in fact for their production. That is the pity of it all. They are altogether too true.
I found the same condition, perhaps to a lesser extent, prevailing in Europe and the Near East. There we are judged, as all over the world, by the way we advertise ourselves, and unfortunately, the worst segment of our society constitutes our most effective advertisers. (Stephen L Richards, CR-10/53:100)
No nation, America least of all, can predicate all of its actions on winning a mere popularity contest. Prestige results from policies and principles that are in the best interests of free men. If we do the right thing in domestic and foreign affairs we may fairly assume the prestige will follow. (Ezra Taft Benson, 11/4/60)
Entangling Alliances—U.N. and N.A.T.O. Every engagement with a foreign nation which, if met, deprives us of the power to determine our own course at the moment of implementation, impairs our sovereignty.
Every treaty of alliance, bipartite or multi-partite (the United Nations Charter is of the latter class), impairs our sovereignty, because every alliance requires a surrender of rights, since mutual aid in strictly non-sovereign interests, is the purpose of the alliance . . . .
Our adventure into world politics, contrary to the principles that were framed by the good sense and, I think, inspiration of our Founding Fathers, have levied upon us a tribute leading almost to the brink of disaster, and so far as ordinary human fore-sight can determine, we are by no means yet to the end of the road.
As pointed out, we face the balance of our journey with our sovereignty impaired in three great fundamental matters: the right to make treaties; to manage our foreign affairs; and to declare war (subject to our temporary right of self-defense), to choose our enemy, to direct and [p. 439] command our armies, and to make such terms of peace as we may desire, or be forced to accept . . . .
Concerning the impairment of sovereignty involved in the second class—we may note that by the North Atlantic Pact or Treaty, we agree that, if any of the parties signatory are the victims of an “armed attack” we join them as an ally against the attacker. We have no right, under the treaty, to enquire as to the cause of the attack, nor as to who, in fact, was the aggressor. The one who strikes the first blow is not necessarily the aggressor, either in fact or law. So far as the treaty goes, we must come to the rescue, even if our ally was the aggressor in the conflict. We may make no treaty in conflict with this treaty. The treaty remains in force for a definite period. The treaty is, obviously, in its effect, a defensive alliance against Russia. No matter what the cause, or how important or significant, if Russia strikes one of the allies under the treaty, we must go to war, if we meet our treaty obligations.(4)
One can easily perceive many, many trivial, more or less, matters that might produce a situation between some of the Western European powers and Russia that could cause a political explosion leading to war, and remembering Sarajevo, one knows how small a cap set off a giant stick of dynamite. This treaty impairs our sovereignty in the matter of all North Atlantic problems, because they cease to be adjustable according to our interests and desire, if the other parties do not agree. (J. Reuben Clark, CN-2/20/52)
Appeasement Not The Answer. In International affairs the word “appeasement” has come to have a sad connotation. It led to one war, and can lead to another. It has lowered self-respect, and has sacrificed the esteem of [p. 440] others. Appeasement is no answer to difficult situations.(5)
No man escapes when freedom fails
Even great men rot in filthy jails.
And they who cried, “Appease, Appease”
Are hanged by men they tried to please.
True as these things are in world affairs, they are equally true in the personal lives of individuals. (Mark E. Petersen, CN-11/14/59)
A milk-and-water allegiance kills; while a passionate devotion gives life and soul to any cause and its adherents. The troubles of the world may largely be laid at the doors of those who are neither hot nor cold; who always follow the line of least resistance; whose timid hearts flutter at taking sides for truth.(6) As in the great Council in the heavens, so in the Church of Christ on earth, there can be no neutrality. We are, or we are not, on the side of the Lord. An unrelenting faith, contemptuous of all compromise, will lead the Church and every member of it, to triumph and the achievement of our high destiny.
The final conquerors of the world will be the men and women, few or many matters not, who fearlessly and unflinchingly cling to truth, who are able to say no, as well as yes, on whose lofty banner is inscribed: No compromise with error . . . .
Tolerance is not conformity to the world’s view and [p. 441] practices. We must not surrender our beliefs to get along with people,(7) however beloved or influential they may be. Too high a price may be paid for social standing or even for harmony. Appeasement was recently tried in the world, and the most hideous war of history is the result. The Gospel rests upon eternal truth; and truth can never be deserted safely. Allegiance to truth, as well as tolerance, is of the Lord. (John A. Widtsoe, CR- 4/41:116-7)
Peaceful Co-existence Impossible. Some will support co-existence with communism as something we will have to learn to live with, thus writing off as lost to freedom some 700 million non-Russian, non-communist freedom-loving people living lives of virtual slavery behind the Iron Curtain.
The only way to co-exist peacefully with the communists is to surrender.(8) (Ezra Taft Benson, 1962, The Red Carpet, P. 57)
Disarmament—Washington’s Advice. The great Washington, soon after faithful admonition for the common welfare of his nation, further advised Congress that “Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” As the Italian would say—“Buono aviso.”(9) (Prophet Joseph Smith, 1844, DHC-6:199) [p. 442]
No Disarmament—Be Prepared to Fight. We all believe that the Lord will fight our battles; but how? Will he do it while we are unconcerned and make no effort whatever for our own safety when an enemy is upon us? If we make no efforts to guard our towns, our houses, our cities, our wives and children, will the Lord guard them for us? He will not; but if we pursue the opposite course and strive to Help Him to accomplish His designs, then will He fight our battles.
We are baptized for the remission of sins; but it would be quite as reasonable to expect remission of sins without baptism, as to expect the Lord to fight our battles without our taking every precaution to be prepared to defend ourselves.(10) The Lord requires us to be quite as willing to fight our own battles as to have Him fight them for us. If we are not ready for an enemy when he comes upon us, we have not lived up to the requirements of Him who guides the ship of Zion, or who dictates the affairs of his kingdom. (President Brigham Young, 1865, JD-11:131)
Take up the history of the first settling of America, and you cannot read of a colony ever being settled in the midst of savages, without having trouble, and suffering more from them than this people have in Utah. What is the reason? It is because those people did not know how to take care of themselves. We can scarcely read of one colony founded among the aborigines in the first settling of this country, wherein the tomahawk of the wild Indians did not drink the blood of whole families. Here there have been no such deeds committed; because when we first entered Utah, we were prepared to meet all the Indians in these mountains, and kill every soul of them if we had been obliged so to do. This preparation secured to us peace. (President Brigham Young, 1853, JD-I:105)
If you have the spirit of prayer to an almost unlimited degree, will you cease to watch? I have prayed many times, and had a man at the door to watch for the [p. 443] murderer who thirsted for my blood. Then he would pray, and I would watch. What for? To kill the blood-thirsty villain. I would not go and seek for him, but when he came to kill me in my own house, I wished to be prepared to disembody his spirit, to save my own tabernacle, and send his down to the dust, and let him go to the place prepared for murderers, even to hell.
Suppose we had faith enough to accomplish all we have been speaking of, which would be the most proper, to use prayer alone without watching, and have faith alone without works, or watch and add works to faith? I will mix works with my faith, and watching with my prayer, and reap the benefits of their united operation . . . .
There will more come upon this people to destroy them than they at present think of, unless they are prepared to defend themselves . . . .
Let every man and woman who has a house make that house a fort, from which you can kill ten where you can now only kill one, if Indians come upon you . . . . From the day I lived where brother Joseph Smith lived, I have been fortified all the time so as to resist twenty men, if they should come to my house in the night, with an intent to molest my family, assault my person, or destroy my property; and I have always been in the habit of sleeping with one eye open, and if I cannot then sufficiently watch, I will get my wife to help me. Let an hostile band of Indians come round my house, and I am good for quite a number of them. If one hundred should come, I calculate that only fifty would be able to go to the next house, and if the Saints there used up the other fifty, the third house would be safe. (President Brigham Young, 1853, JD-I: 107, 166-7)
Disarmament Agreements(11)—A Great Mistake. There are those who recommend that the clash between communism and freedom be avoided through disarmament agreements. Abolishing our military strength and adopting an unenforceable contract as a substitute to protect us would go down in history as the greatest mistake free men could make in a time of peril.(12)
Thank God for a great, courageous, patriotic organization which has taken [p. 444]
the position that it is both immoral and stupid to enter into any treaty with criminals who have no respect for treaties. The Communists say that promises, like pie crusts, are made to be broken; that they enter into treaties only for the advantages to themselves, and with no expectation of abiding by such treaties. And they have proved by their actions, in violating dozens of solemn treaties before the ink was hardly dry, that they are just as unscrupulous as they claim to be.
Amid the infinite confusion around us today, the only safeguard is the moral standard. The important question about any proposed action, by a man or by a nation, is not “Is it smart?” but “Is it right?” Entering into the test-ban treaty with the Soviet murderers is morally wrong. And for that very reason it is assuredly unwise.(13) (John Birch Society Press Release, Sept., 1963)
That statement has the ring of statesmanship, not vacillating weakness which today imperils freedom. I concur with President McKay when he said:
. . . I would not deal with a nation which treats another as Russia has treated America. It is a condition which cannot be permitted to exist. (CN-8/6/52, P. 2) [p. 445]
President McKay also declared:
Force rules in the world today; consequently, our government must keep armies abroad, build navies and air squadrons, create atom bombs to protect itself from the threatened aggression of a nation which seems to listen to no other appeal than compulsion.(14) (Gospel Ideals, P. 304)
(Ezra Taft Benson, 9/23/63)
We get the impression that he [Khrushchev] has in mind that his Marxian ideology, and his atheism, shall gain control somehow and make of all of us the followers of his doctrines. He preaches peace, I may say, and then he preaches the abandonment of certain weapons of war,(15) then he preaches that we go back to traditional warfare,(16) where numbers count, he preaches that we shall destroy our military installations, and if he gets rid of these, I see no end to what he may try to do. (J. Reuben Clark, CR-10/59:46)
Spiritual Preparedness. Preparedness is today on every tongue. There is danger ahead, and defenses must be set up. Preparedness is not a new word to Latter-day Saints. For one hundred and ten years our voice has been one of warning to prepare against the commotion and [p. 446] calamities of the last days. We have taught and continue to teach that full preparedness and complete defense against the devastation by evil is the acceptance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ we may look for the peace of Eden, but not before.
Our land is setting up defenses of powder and steel. That is well enough. But there are intangible defenses more powerful which direct the use of material defenses. These must be fostered, if our preparedness shall be adequate. To one of these defenses I call your attention—to the education we give our children, particularly in schools, as a determining defense against evil. (John A. Widtsoe, CR-10/40:61-2)
So long as armed aggression is rampant in the world proceeding upon the principle that the only deterrent to the gratification of every rapacious desire is the limit of brute force, peaceably inclined peoples must prepare themselves to repel that force. But, cautions the warning manifesto, unless a spiritual and moral resuscitation is worked and respect for religious values built up we shall arm in vain. (Albert E. Bowen, CR-10/40:128-9)
The Monroe Doctrine—An Inspired Policy. It is generally understood in the Church that the greatest and most significant principle by which this land is fortified against the encroachments and invasions of European and Asiatic powers, is found in the Monroe Doctrine. This doctrine is not a law on the statute books of our country. It is not a resolution passed by the Congress of the United States, but is a definite statement of policy issued by President James Monroe in a message to the Congress of the United States, December 2, 1823 . . . . [See P. 550 for pertinent excerpts of the Monroe Doctrine]
It might appear to the casual observer that this doctrine came by chance, as many things, it seems have done, but this is not so. It was the inspiration of the Almighty which rested upon John Quincy Adams, Thomas Jefferson and other statesmen, and which finally found authoritative expression in the message of President James Monroe to Congress in the year 1823.(17)
The spirit of this doctrine was in the blood of the [p. 447] people of the United States. Weak as the United States was at this time, it appears that this proclamation by its President which was sent to all the world, was beyond the nature of boldness, it was extremely rash . . . . We can imagine what might have happened many times in the past if we had no such doctrine. The weaker nations on this hemisphere would have been swallowed up by the greedy powers in other parts. It has been respected, not only because of the fear other powers have had of incurring the hostility of the United States, but more than that, because the God of this land proclaimed liberty to the Gentiles upon this land. There shall be no kings raised up unto the Gentiles on the land of Zion, and the mission given to the United States, by divine decree, is to see that this commandment is respected. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Progress of Man, 1936, P. 357, 466-7)
The Monroe Doctrine—Why Formulated. Here was the situation that called forth this policy—known as the Monroe Doctrine—in 1823.
Several of what are now the Latin American Republics had by force of arms newly won their independence from Spain and Portugal. Among them were Columbia, Mexico, Chile and Brazil.
Meantime a number of the sovereigns of Europe were seeking to enforce the “divine right of kings” with the express purpose of putting “an end to the system of representative government.” France, accordingly, had proceeded to restore the rule of Ferdinand VII in Spain. Now these countries proposed to overthrow the new and independent governments in Latin America.
This our government refused to permit. It said so plainly in the celebrated Monroe Doctrine. The heart of the Monroe Doctrine consisted of these words: “. . . the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.” [p. 448]
And the Doctrine went on to spell out clearly just what was meant as follows: “The political system of the allied powers is essentially different . . . from that of America . . . We owe it, therefore, to candor, and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers, to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.”
Now there is a statement which might well be engraved in all the capitals of all the countries in this hemisphere today. Every word in it is as applicable today as it was 139 years ago.
Surely if it were true a century and a half ago that European monarchy was essentially different from our American system of representative government, it is even more true today that the communist system is totally different, totally incompatible, totally inimical to our free way of life.
We are eminently justified in declaring that we should consider any attempt on the part of the communists to extend their system to any part of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.
Moreover, the Monroe Doctrine went on: “Nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren if left to themselves, would adopt it (this system) of their own accord.” Here again the words of the Monroe Doctrine ring true.
It is almost unthinkable that any people would knowingly and willfully take on themselves the yoke of communist oppression. No nation, has ever done so yet. If large masses of the Cuban people have done so it is because they have been duped or coerced.
This Monroe Doctrine has been the continuing policy of our Nation for almost a century and a half.(18) [p. 449]
It has been reaffirmed by many American Presidents. (Ezra Taft Benson, 9/22/62)
The Monroe Doctrine—Should Be Invoked In Cuba. This is a time of decision. Further vacillation will serve only to drive all of Latin America straight into communist hands. If action is not taken against the power-drunken bandit [Castro] and his cohorts, the day will soon come when it cannot be done at all.
The Monroe Doctrine was first invoked against the Russian Czar Alexander. The Cuban menace represents the first time in one hundred years that a hostile foreign power has established a firm beachhead in the Americas.
The American people are deeply upset, frustrated, and angry at what they fear is a retreat from the time-honored Monroe Doctrine—a retreat which could now end in war.
President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., whose scholarly work on the Monroe Doctrine, as Under Secretary of State, is well known, in tracing our destiny said this:
Then came our GREAT Monroe Doctrine which placed us of the United States squarely behind efforts of Latin America to gain freedom and against those European states who would thwart it.
God again moved us forward towards the destiny He has planned for us. He was preserving the blessings He had given to us. (Memorandum on the Monroe Doctrine, Dept. of State Publication No. 37, December 17, 1928.) . . .
This Monroe Doctrine widely accepted by the republics of the south, has been the continuing policy of our nation for almost a century and a half. It has been reaffirmed by many American presidents. We are on solid traditional American ground in demanding that the communists should not attempt to extend their political system to this side of the Atlantic Ocean.(19)
If time permitted, we could show that in recent [p. 450] years, the principles of the Monroe Doctrine have been strengthened by various joint agreements among the American nations: These should be invoked. The longer we wait the more difficult will be the job. (Ezra Taft Benson, CR-10/62:16-7)
Treaty Law—Some Illegal Usurpations. In the last several years, foreign-born, Roman Law-trained immigrants, . . . have acquired, in our national administration, places of considerable influence and power. In recent years the yen for a world-state in which we shall play a dominant part, has seemingly innoculated even some of our highest officials.
In furtherance of the general plan in contemplation of a world-state, we have made treaties of alliance containing obligations that infringed upon our sovereignty. We have made multipartite treaties—the League of Nations (which, when it was understood, the people rejected), the United Nations Charter, to which the Senate gave its advice and consent just one month and two days after its signature, the people having no time to examine its merits before it became operative. All of these surrendered some of our sovereignty. Not infrequently they involve commitments for the Chief Executive which he cannot fulfill, as also for the nation which the Chief Executive cannot guarantee shall be carried out.
These circumstances have brought into high places an expressed feeling that our treaty powers are uncontrolled, even unlimited; that we may by treaty do what our Chief Executive may wish, with the Senate’s prescribed approval.(20)
It has been affirmed that:
. . . the investment of the Federal government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. The powers to declare and wage war, to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereignties, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have vested in the Federal government as necessary concomitants [p. 451] of nationality. (United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318)
This is surely a dangerous doctrine . . . .
But the matter seems to have gone far beyond this general statement. One now holding high government office is quoted as declaring:
. . . congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty laws can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from the Congress and give them to the President;(21) they can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given the people by the Constitutional Bill of Rights.(22) (Frank E. Holman, Story of the “Bricker’” Amendment, pp. 14-15)
The Bill of Rights did not give anything to the people; the people reserved these rights to themselves. This treaty-law doctrine is power-thirst gone mad.(23)
Of course, if this were the law, or if it was to become the law, which pray God may never be, then the sovereignty would be shifted from us, the people, and would be lodged in the Chief Executive and a two-thirds majority of a quorum present in the Senate. We would cease to be a Republic and become a . . . virtual despotism, for there would be in the Chief Executive and the Senate unlimited sovereign power. [p. 452]
Furthermore, this heresy runs counter to views of the ablest of the Framers themselves.
It has been said we cannot have a world-state without a surrender of some of our sovereignty. This is probably true. But if and when we come to the surrender of that sovereignty, it must be done by an amendment to our Constitution authorizing it, the amendment to be made in form and manner that we the sovereign people have prescribed in the Constitution itself. Let us not surrender our sovereignty by illegal usurpations by our treaty-making agents. I am speaking of voluntary surrenders of sovereignty . . . .
It cannot be too often repeated that any suggestion of any doctrine such as this at the time of the Convention, would not only have broken up the Constitutional Convention itself (it would have been treated with the scorn some of us think it deserves) but would, having in mind the then temper of the people, also have made the formation of the United States of America under the Constitution an impossibility . . . .
The whole of the discussions in the Constitutional Convention itself, in the State Conventions considering the adoption of the Constitution, and in “’The Federalist,” all join in what seems a unanimous voice that the treaty-making power was to extend to the normal incidents of the intercourse and relationship of sovereign nations, and no further. It was never contemplated by the Framers that this power should be subverted in an effort to destroy our independence as a nation and make us a subservient part of a world-state.
How earnestly Washington, a fond and wise “Father of his Country,” in his poignant Farewell Address, with prophetic admonition and warning, urged us against foreign entanglements and alliances: “Why,” he said, “by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?”
How much more serious an interweaving of our destinies with the whole family of nations!
It has already been said that to an outsider this new [p. 453] theory of treaty-law is a device to secure our participation in a world-state.(24) The visionary beauties of this state, its advantages, its blessings to humanity, are dressed for us as if this were some modern concept now for the first time blossoming in the earth,—a sort of flower of paradise. (J. Reuben Clark, 5/29/57)
No Moral Force Left in World. We must bring to bear in the solution of matters of world concern, that moral force of the world of which President Wilson rightly thought so highly. As the situation stands today (1944), we of America have lost our own moral force in world affairs—a force which was once very great; we speak now only as our brute force may sustain us. There is indeed no moral force left in all the world to whose voice the warring nations are as yet willing to hearken. We are now living under the law of the jungle where in cataclysms every beast fights to the death for his own life.
Are we Christians? We act like pagans . . . .
A solution by a rule of brute force would discard all the wisdom of the ages and take us clear back to the dawn of civilization. (J. Reuben Clark, 2/24/44)
U.N.—Charter Adopted Without Due Deliberation. The Covenant of the League of Nations was rather fully explained to the people, and they rejected it. Since it [p. 454] never became operative for us, we shall not now trouble ourselves about its terms.
The United Nations Charter (of the same type) had practically no explanation made of it to the people, and they did not reject it. The chronology of its consideration is interesting.
The San Francisco Conference was almost exactly two months in framing it (April 25 - June 26, 1945). Signed on June 26, 1945, it was submitted to the Senate on July 2nd. The Foreign Relations Committee began its consideration on July 9th; it began formal hearings on July 11, and closed them on July 13th; the Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification on July 28, 1945. A deliberate plan, carefully worked out, to adopt the Charter before the people could study and understand it, could not have worked more effectively to this end.(25) We were so launched into a world organization, about which neither the peoples of the world, nor ourselves, had any adequate knowledge; they and we had less understanding . . . . (26)
U.N.—Some Basic Defects. We might observe that there is practically no essential idea or principle in the United Nations Charter that was not found in the League of Nations Covenant, and that as a document embodying a constitution, the Charter is inferior to the Covenant.
The Charter has these two basic defects: It has been too largely framed without a careful consideration of how [p. 455] it might affect us and our welfare, if our position suffers any essential international change; and, next, it has the fault which has been the curse of all similar plans heretofore framed, beginning with the Grand Design of Henry IV of France, namely, that it is aimed and framed with one power in mind and with a view to exercising a definite control thereover, to the point of its humiliation, if not extermination . . . .(27)
U.N.—Impairs U. S. Sovereignty.28. “Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free . . . . It is the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.” (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 8)28 We may note three important impairments of sovereignty that come to us through the United Nations set-up.
We should, in the first place, observe that what I will call the interior lines of communication among the various Charter provisions, are so numerous and so exceedingly intricate, some of the lines are so indistinct as to be traceable only with difficulty, the descriptions of the lines are often traced in language that conceals rather than clarifies the thought, there are so many places in the lines where the drafters seem not to have dared to put down their true course,—so many of all these that one cannot be too sure of his ground, nor too certain of his conclusions. But the conclusions reached here are believed to be reasonably accurate.
We may observe, in the first place, that, under the United Nations Charter, we have lost the right to make the treaties we may wish. All treaties we make must conform to the provisions of the United Nations Charter. Existing treaty provisions that are out of harmony with the Charter, must apparently fall. Having in mind the complicated provisions of the Charter touching international economic and social cooperation, and the intricate international trusteeship system, we may well find that [p. 456] we shall be greatly hampered in the development of our own international trade and commerce, when we surrender the Santa Claus role, and seek to get some compensating advantage for ourselves. We have not yet plumbed the depth of this impairment of sovereignty in our treaty-making powers.
Another impairment: We have lost the sovereign power to adjust our own international difficulties—a power which has enabled us to live as the most peace-loving nation in the world, and to build up a record of achievement in the peaceful adjustment of international disputes unequalled by any other great nation in the world . . . .
One more impairment of sovereignty under the Charter—We have surrendered, by the Charter terms at least, those great attributes of sovereignty, upon which the very existence of sovereignty depends: the power to declare war (subject to the right to take temporary self defense measure, pending action by the Security Council), the power to decide against whom we shall make war, the power to conduct war, and the power to make peace and to determine its terms. We apparently have not lost the power to raise and support armies or to provide and maintain a navy, subject, however, to the right of the Security Council and the Military Staff Committee to regulate armament and possible disarmament. (J. Reuben Clark, CN-2/20/52)
U.N.—No Place for God. Have you ever heard of a voice being raised in any of the sessions of the United Nations since its inception more than two years ago protesting the infractions of God’s laws or importuning his help in achieving the purposes of that organization? I think you have not, unless perhaps in some innocuous way, because I suspect that it is tacitly agreed that God and religion shall be shut out of the proceedings. Well, my friends, it is a part of the message that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints bears to the world that God and religion cannot be shut out from the consideration of world affairs without mortal hazard to the cause of goodness and peace. (Stephen L Richards, CR-10/47:133) [p. 457]
We seem to be trying now to rear a government whose proponents and sponsors cannot even invoke divine blessings upon their deliberations or its destiny. What chance do you think it has to heal the wounds of the world? (Albert E. Bowen, CR-10/50:75)
The United Nations is largely a failure and there is very little hope of them getting very far along the road to success. They shut God our of their deliberations from the very beginning.(29) (Ezra Taft Benson, 1962, The Red Carpet, P. 106)
U.N.—Not United. Currently we have the United Nations. Let us take a look at it. Have you ever thought of the name “United Nations” in light of the attitudes of some of its members toward each other? When I think of it, a name comes to my mind from Church history,’Liberty Jail.” There seems to be about as much unity between some members of the United Nations as there was liberty for the Prophet and his companions in Liberty Jail.
Frankly now, are we, as rational beings,—in the light of history, the signs of the times, and the revelations of the restoration and the Bible—realistically justified in putting our hopes and expectations for peace in the United Nations? Doing so, are we not again hoping to “gather grapes of thorns,” and “figs of thistles?” I am not here thinking of the fringe benefits admitted by most everyone, but of lasting peace. It seems to me that from the inception of the U.N., we have had nothing but wars and rumors of wars.(30) Our own nation alone has suffered [p. 458] in casualties more than 40,000 killed and 110,000 wounded, and that in a conflict where one of the most powerful members of the U.N. was a de facto belligerent against the U.N. itself. That same member took a similar position against a fellow member in Indo-China, and it is now backing a nonmember against the United States, a member of the U.N.
These circumstances, however, should not have been unexpected, because “communism—and all other similar isms,” in the words of the First Presidency of the Church, “are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the Gospel Plan.” (Marion G. Romney, BYU, 3/1/55)
U.N.—A Failure. In the last months of 1961 and so far in 1962 we have been witnessing “the decline and fall of the United Nations.”
We have witnessed also the gradual assumption of control in the United Nations by the communists and the so-called neutralist nations most of which are under communist control or are dominated by fear of the communists.
Lord Home, British Foreign Minister, remarked recently: “There seems to be a code of behavior (in the United Nations) where there is one rule for the communist bully, who rules by fear, and another for the democracies, because their stock is reason.”
We have heard much about the proposed bond issue to rescue the UN from its financial difficulties. Of this, Sen. Thurmond points out:
The UN fiscal deficit is not the cause, but is merely one manifestation of the sickness which besets the UN’s organization. The deficit is a reflection of initial defects and the [p. 459] subsequent degeneration of that body. The failure of countries to pay their dues and assessments to the UN demonstrates the low value to which UN membership has sunk.
I do not share the feeling of some that it would be a great disaster if we should withdraw from the United Nations. I see very little hope of getting very far with the present situation. The UN is very largely a failure. What we need is a strong organization of free nations. I agree with the editors of ‘National Review” who wrote in their November, 1961 issue under the heading, “Put the Poor Thing Out of Its Misery”:
Isn’t it about the moment for us—us Americans, that is, and our governors—to pull at least ourselves sufficiently together to see the UN for what it is, and to draw conclusions.
Either we throw the communist nations out of the UN and transform it into an association and alliance of those nations that wish to live and develop in freedom, or we abolish the General Assembly and the Security Council and reduce the UN to a non-political international technical center. One or the other.
To prolong the present UN agony will further promote the confusion and chaos that are the aim and interest of our enemy . . . .
Surely “freedom” would be a more worthy purpose than the present United Nations’ goal of “peace” especially when aggression is constantly undertaken in the name of peace.
There is no mention of God in the United Nation’s Charter, the United Nation’s Covenant of Human Rights or any other similar United Nation’s document. “Prayer to Christ” is specifically forbidden at the opening of all United Nations sessions. It was a serious mistake to shut God out of the deliberations of the United Nations.
For 16 long years our deep longing for peace and “our childish faith in a sterile organization has prevented us from facing the issue realistically.” During the same period “there has been a steady decline in freedom for individuals throughout the world.”
The godless United Nations has failed as it was certain to do.
I agree with Dean Russell of Rockford College, Illinois that “we American people sponsored and endorsed [p. 460] a completely alien concept of government when we joined the United Nations . . . . It is high time we gave some consideration to the interests of the United States instead of the United Nations. Let us get out before we are dragged under.”
One U. S. Congressman also explaining that “nowhere in the United Nations Charter or any of its subsidiaries do you find any reference to a Supreme Being,” recently said, “There is, indeed, no evidence of the Lord’s work in the United Nations.” (James B. Utt of California in the House on January 15, 1962.)
Representative Utt also included in his address to the House some brief expressions relative to the UN by a noted British publisher and two great Americans:
Said Lord Beaverbrook:
Here in New York City, you Americans have the biggest fifth column in the world—The United Nations.(31)
And from the late Senator Robert A. Taft is this terse warning:
The UN has become a trap. Let’s go it alone.
And from former President Herbert Hoover:
Unless the UN is completely reorganized without the communist nations in it, we should get out of it.
Dan Smoot wrote in The Dan Smoot Report of January 29, 1962:
United States membership in the United Nations has caused a perversion of our fundamental concepts of government . . . .
We cannot restore Americanism; we cannot have an American policy, either foreign or domestic; we cannot reestablish America as a free and independent constitutional [p. 461] republic—until we withdraw from the United Nations.
(Ezra Taft Benson, 1962, The Red Carpet, P. 193-7)
U.N.—Must Respect Domestic Freedom. The Family of Nations cannot exist on any other principle than their freedom in all matters of domestic policy, nor can individual States; and the existence of States for the due ordering of all society is of far more importance than the temporary suffering of any group, large or small, within a State. Every State, member of the Family of Nations, must be its own master as to its own nationals. We have always claimed this right unqualified for ourselves.(32) (J. Reuben Clark, CR-10/39:16)
U.N.—A Problem For All Citizens. It is not necessary to point out to you just what could happen to us in any world organization where we are 1 out of 59 or 60 in all matters of voting; nor how hazardous our situation could be if the organization should put us by its votes under any obligation as to military expeditions against recalcitrant members or as to financial aid and assistance to the indigents.
Some one will ask,—What may we do to solve this situation?
First, this is a problem for all citizens, and not for a few interested and revolutionary bureaucrats. It is the problem of every industry, of every farm, of every profession, of every household, of every man and woman of the nation, for if the present plans shall carry through they will want our money to pay their bills,(33) and want us [p. 462] and our sons to police the world. The problem is not insoluable, taken over the years. With courage and unselfishness we shall work it out. But it will not be solved by wistful thinking or by revolutionary design.(34) It calls for common council, not for dictatorial decree; it calls for a united purpose of a united people not for selfish design fathered by an alien minority. The wisdom of the mass is always greater than the thinking of the few, however able the few may be. (J. Reuben Clark, 2/24/44)
U.N.—Communist Dominated. With reference to the United Nations and spurious appendages, I would like to quote the Internal Security Annual Report for 1956, p. 213, as made by the Senate Internal Security Sub-Committee, as follows:
What appears, on the surface at least, to be by far the worst danger spot, from the standpoint of disloyalty and subversive activity among Americans employed by international organizations, is UNESCO—the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Among less than ninety Americans employed by UNESCO the International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board found fourteen cases of doubtful loyalty.
Then, in the footnote, we see this:
Information in the possession of the sub-committee, indicating a great deal of evidence not yet publicly adduced, points to the possibility that the parent body, the U.N., may be the worst “spot” of all.
There is no indication that there has been the slightest improvement in the United Nations or its satellites since that time.
I have in my possession a copy of an unpublished manuscript on the United Nations Charter prepared in 1945 and given to me by that eminent international lawyer and former Under Secretary of State, J. Reuben Clark, Jr. President Clark’s declarations on this, as on other subjects, emphasize more and more with the passing of time his vision and statesmanship. [p. 463]
Commenting on the United Nations Charter and the “travesty on exhaustive consideration” as the charter was hastily approved by the Congress, under urging from the State Department, he continues with a devastating analysis and a sober warning to the American people that there will be a day of reckoning. I believe that day is near at hand. The hopes and the aspirations of the people have been betrayed. I hope this scholarly, unpublished memorandum by President Clark with its penetrating analysis will someday soon be available in full. Meantime, I urge all to read the solid volume, Stand Fast by Our Constitution, which embodies much of J. Reuben Clark’s timely instruction. Meantime, let us have no further blind devotion to the communist-dominated United Nations. (Ezra Taft Benson, BYU, 12/10/63)
Foreign Loans—None By Government. Governments now debtor to us are not now safe risks for further Treasury loans from us.
If you add to this fact the further ones that we are in no position nationally to make Treasury loans unless we either substantially raise, not lower our taxes, or resume our peace-time deficit spending—that is, float more government bonds—neither of which alternatives is desirable, and each may be ruinous, I say, unless we go forward on either or both of these bases, we are in no position to make loans to foreign governments from our national funds.
Whatever further financing of foreign governments is to be done by dollar lendings should be done only by lendings made in the conventional way of privately purchased foreign bonds by persons willing to take the hazard It should not be done by Treasury lendings with taxpayers’ money whether that money be obtained by further taxation or by the sale of our own government obligations, or by some scheme which may be proposed of our own government guaranteeing bonds issued directly by foreign governments . . . .
Foreign Loans—The Political Element. With all due respect to our governmental departments and those who man them, one can be reasonably certain that the dominating element in making the loans by government will, |
