The Naked Communist (41 page)

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.

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."
⁵

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."
⁶

But would not a statute outlawing the Communist party threaten legitimate political parties? Not if the statute were aimed at any organization "advocating the overthrow of the government by force and violence." Criminal law strikes at illegal acts or any conspiracy to commit illegal acts. A conspiracy to overthrow the government by force and violence is therefore criminal in nature. Any organization which promotes such illegal activities should be outlawed. As a number of authorities have already pointed out, it is foolish to treat the Communists as a legitimate political party as it would be to give bank robbers business licenses.

Probably the greatest single weakness of the Sino-Soviet bloc is her shaky economy. Here is a soft spot where peaceful pressures could be devastating. No amount of Soviet propaganda can cover up the obvious collapse of the Chinese communes and the sluggish inefficiency of the Soviet collectivized farms. Every single Soviet satellite is languishing in a depression. Even
Pravda
has openly criticized the lack of bare essentials and the shoddy quality of Russian-made goods.

These factors of austerity and deprivation add to the hatred and misery of the people which constantly feed the flames of potential revolt. Terrorist tactics have been used by the Red leaders to suppress uprisings. In spite of the virtual "state of siege" which exists throughout the Soviet empire, there are many outbreaks of violent protest.

All of this explains why the Soviet leaders are constantly pleading for "free trade," "long-term loans," "increased availability of material goods from the West." Economically, Communism is collapsing but the West has not had the good sense to exploit it. Instead, the United States, Great Britain and 37 other Western powers are shipping vast quantities of goods to the Sino-Soviet bloc.

Some business leaders have had the temerity to suggest that trade with the Reds helps the cause of peace. They suggest that "you never fight the people you trade with." Apparently they cannot even remember as far back as the late Thirties when this exact type of thinking resulted in the sale of scrap iron and oil to the Japanese just before World War II. After the attack on Pearl Harbor it became tragically clear that while trade with friends may promote peace, trade with a threatening enemy is an act of self-destruction. Have we forgotten that fatal lesson so soon?

The Communist leaders have always been extremely sensitive to their own internal weaknesses. They frequently resort to capital punishment to suppress the bitter criticism of their own enslaved people. They use propaganda to boast of pretended success in the very areas where they suffer the greatest failures. A close scrutiny of recent history will demonstrate that time and again free men could have tied the Communist conspiracy in knots if only they had been watching for opportunities to exploit fuming internal pressures which were ready to explode.

Many of these pressures are building today. Each one of them represents a golden opportunity for direct action by the free West. But free men must first make up their minds whether they really
want
freedom for the Iron Curtain captives. Is it worth giving up a little trade? Is it worth the temporary political heat of a showdown in the U.N.? Is it worth the momentary clamor which Red agents would foment if we withdrew diplomatic recognition?

It is extremely confusing to freedom fighters -- especially in the satellites -- when they watch the failing Communist economy being bolstered and fed by 39 Western nations. In the U.N. the distortion of justice and common sense bewilders them. In diplomatic circles the constant capitulation and compromise outrages them. A refugee from a Russian slave labor camp wrote to me: "There must be a noose of ignorance around the necks of the West. Don't they know we would eventually overthrow the Communist leaders if the West would just stop feeding, fondling and coddling them?"

In the minds of these people, it borders on criminal neglect when we withhold the impact of powerful peaceful pressures which are available to us. During World War II we promised freedom to all of these satellite peoples. And we should never let the Communists forget that
Stalin promised them freedom
. In his order of the day, No. 130, dated May 1, 1942, Joseph Stalin declared:

"It is not our aim to seize foreign lands or to subjugate foreign people.... We have not and cannot have such war aims as the imposition of our will and regime on the Slavs and other enslaved peoples of Europe who are waiting our aid. Our aim consists in assisting these people in their struggle for liberation from Hitler's tyranny and then setting them free to rule in their own lands as they desire."
⁷