the influence which it has been able to exercise upon the parties, is a strong tribute to the effectiveness and value of the United Nations. The case of Palestine is obviously one which presents peculiar difficulties. It has been considered in three organs of the United Nations, the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Trusteeship Council. The General Assembly has considered it both in a special session and in a regular session, and yesterday began its further consideration in its second special session. It would be inappropriate to comment at this stage upon the possible outcome of the deliberations which have just gotten under way at Flushing Meadows, but I do not hesitate to say that the situation would be a far more difficult one if the United Nations were not in existence.

There is not time today to go on through the entire roster of political issues which have been brought before the various organs of the United Nations and which either have been disposed of or which are still being handled by various United Nations instrumentalities. I should like to point out that despite all of the obstacles, the presence of the United Nations Special Commission on the Balkans constitutes a hopeful factor in the Balkan situation. One needs to remember that there has been a Balkan problem to worry the foreign offices of the world for over a century. The present phase of that problem is new, but that a problem exists should cause no surprise. It should be a cause of satisfaction that an issue of this kind no longer needs to be handled by one or two powers but can be discussed in the open forum of the General Assembly.

Aside from these great political issues which are being currently discussed in the Security Council and in the General Assembly, there are other types of United Nations activities which attract far less publicity but which in the long run are of real significance. There is, for example, the Interim Committee, commonly known as the Little Assembly, which began its meetings at Lake Success in January. That subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, which was created by a resolution of the General Assembly of November 13 last, is engaged in a type of activity which is novel in the short history of the organization. Here is a body on which every member of the United Nations is entitled to sit, which is not faced by the necessity of reaching quick conclusions on issues of immediate political importance and which has the mandate and the opportunity to engage in long-range background studies designed to bring about improvements in the functioning of the organization as a whole so far as the political and security fields are concerned. The veto question, which is widely recognized as being one of the most critical organizational problems of the United Nations, is, for the first time, receiving thorough and dispassionate study. A working group of the Little Assembly is now examining a list of 98 possible categories of decisions of the Security Council with a view to determining which ones of them should be decided by a vote of any seven members of the Security Council, that is, without the application of the veto. Real progress is being made in the direction of determining the common judgment of the members of the United Nations on this vital question.

It is sometimes superficially assumed that the only differences of opinion on the veto problem are those between the Soviet Union, on the one side and the United States on the other. Actually it is still to be clearly determined what is the extent of the agreement between the United States and other states outside of the Soviet bloc. It is still to be clearly determined whether the latter group of states would be prepared to modify their attitude if all other states represented in the General Assembly unite in specific recommendations for the liberalization of the voting procedure in the Security Council.

[The following two paragraphs were underlined for emphasis by Ambassador Austin:]

Another committee of the Little Assembly has gotten under way a thorough study of the improvement of methods of political cooperation between states. In the inter-American system over a period of half a century there has been a continuing effort to perfect the methods for the pacific settlement of international disputes. A parallel but unorganized effort may be said to have begun with the first and second Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907. The movement gathered impetus after the League of Nations was founded, and for over 10 years the League, through many organs, agencies, and individuals, devoted itself to an attempt to solve this problem. This historical experience is being restudied and evaluated in order to see what developments within the United Nations system are now desirable and feasible.

On the specific question of Korea, the Little Assembly through its consultation with the United Nations Temporary Commission on Korea, has given

evidence of the utility of a continuing body under the General Assembly which is able, between sessions of the Assembly, to assist in the carrying out of a program which the General Assembly has initiated.

In the nonpolitical fields the achievements of the various organs and specialized agencies of the United Nations are most encouraging. In these operations it is possible to find striking evidences of the underlying common interests of all states and of the possibilities of completely cooperative efforts to solve common problems. Notable examples are to be found in the work of the Food and Agriculture Organization with its development of experiental stations in a number of the countries of eastern and central Europe. The record of the World Health Organization, particularly in meeting the cholera epidemic in Egypt was a fine instance of genuine international cooperation. In the health field, there is a long history of prior international effort but that effort is being carried forward with renewed effectiveness through this newest of the specialized agencies of the United Nations.

If one scans the record of the Economic Commission for Europe which was set up by a resolution of the Economic and Social Council on April 3, 1947, one finds very helpful contributions toward the improvement of European economic conditions, particularly in the matter of allocation of coal and in the best utilization of electric power. It has been possible, through the Economic Commission for Europe to bring about improvements on a scale which covers all parts of Europe.

Another field of international activity which was highly developed under the League of Nations is again being carried forward successfully by the United Nations, namely in connection with the international traffic in narcotics. In this work under the Economic and Social Council all states regardless of political differences are able to cooperate and have been cooperating with much success.

[The following paragraph has been underlined for emphasis by Ambassador Austin:]

I would also mention the operation of the International Children's Emergency Fund and the allied United Nations Appeal for Children. The fund has so far collected nearly $30 million from governments in the form of money or goods. This sum supplements the $11 million which it acquired from the residual assets of UNRRA. The United States has agreed to contribute additional amounts contingent upon contributions of other countries. Sizable sums have been contributed from private sources through the UNAC. The distribution program of the fund now encompasses the feeding of some 4 million children in the hungriest parts of Europe. The recipient countries are Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Rumania, and Yugoslavia.

All of these examples which I have mentioned are merely samples. Many more could be mentioned. Many of these are activities which fall within the general purview of article 55 in chapter IX of the Charter. This article begins, "With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations *." It continues by pledging United Nations action in a variety of economic and social fields. From the outset it has been recognized that the provisions of chapter IX of the Charter, which is entitled "International Economic and Social Cooperation," were designed to meet at their roots the fundamental human problems out of which arise the stresses and strains on which political conflicts feed. It can be forcefully argued that this work of the United Nations, based on the Charter's reaffirmation of the dignity and worth of the human person. is of more fundamental importance than the equally necessary solution of particular conflicts, the sources of which have not yet been eliminated.

[The remainder of this speech was underlined for emphasis by Ambassador Austin:]

By recalling the above examples of successful cooperation I do not intend to minimize the difficulties of today. In his address to the Congress on March 17, the President reaffirmed our faith in the Charter of the United Nations. In the same address he said: "We cannot, however, close our eyes to the harsh fact that through obstruction and even defiance on the part of one nation, this great dream has not yet become a full reality." He minced no words in describing the course of Russian indirect aggression in Europe. The Charter of the United Nations does not use the term "indirect aggression" but there can be no question that such action violates its purposes and principles. The Charter expressly recognizes the right of individual and collective self-defense. In its preamble it

asserts that "We the peoples of the United Nations" are "determined

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest." "Respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms" are among its purposes and it is one of its principles that force or the threat of force shall not be used in any manner "inconsistent with the purposes." Repeated declarations of the President and of the Secretary of State affirm our readiness to operate and to cooperate within the framework of the Charter. President Truman in the same message to Congress from which I have already quoted declared:

“We shall remain ready and anxious to join with all nations—I repeat, with all nations-in every possible effort to reach international understanding and agreement.

"The door has never been closed, nor will it ever be closed, to the Soviet Union or any other nation which will genuinely cooperate in preserving the peace." In our own constitutional development in the United States, we as citizens have not waited for government to bring about the changes we felt were desirable. Many of them have resulted from the influence of bodies of men and women like you who have suggested solutions of problems and have made their wishes known. The Department of State has a primary responsibility for the development of our national policy in the United Nations. It is discharging and is prepared to discharge that responsibility. The United States Mission to the United Nations, of which Ambassador Austin is the head, has a primary responsibility for carrying out that policy from day to day and week to week in the organs of the United Nations. But our system is not the Russian system. In our system every citizen has a part to play and his sharing in the responsibility of government is desired and appreciated. To those groups of citizens who like you are organized to further the development of the United Nations we turn for suggestions, for support, and for criticism.

VETO POWER

Ambassador AUSTIN. The veto: You will remember that during the 1947 General Assembly, the question of what to do about the Soviet abuses of the veto was sent to the Little Assembly where, as John Foster Dulles put it, it could be studied with more light and less heat, Dr. Jessup's opening speech in the Interim Committee is attached, in which he expressed support for our point of view. He condemned the Soviet Union veto of membership applications, particularly that of Italy (see marked portion) and suggested on behalf of the United States the elimination of the veto in connection with Chapter VI, Security Council Decisions. You will remember chapter I relates to the pacific methods. This was in accordance with the Vandenberg resolution, copy attached here, urging voluntary agreement for all questions involving pacific settlement.

I now offer the same type of record.

(The documents referred to are as follows:)

STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR JESSUP, INTERIM COMMITTEE, MARCH 13, 1948

* *

**

The Interim Committee is considering the veto at the request of the General Assembly contained in its resolution of November 21, 1947, which "requests the Interim Committee of the General Assembly to consider the problem of voting in the Security Council, taking into account all proposals which have been or may be submitted by members of the United Nations to the second session of the General Assembly or to the Interim Committee."

The Interim Committee in order to give effect to the request of the General Assembly, on January 9, 1948, adopted a resolution which requested the members of the United Nations who desire to submit proposals on the problem of voting in the Security Council to transmit them to the Secretary-General on or before March 15, 1948, and further requested the Chairman to bring up the problem before the Interim Committee not later than March 15, 1948.

89965-51-22

The General Assembly resolution contemplated three phases of action on this problem: action by this committee, continued action by the Security Council and conferences between our committee and a committee of the Security Council.

In addition the General Assembly resolution requested consultations among the permanent members "in order to secure agreement among them on measures to insure the prompt and effective exercise by the Security Council of its functions."

It would seem appropriate at this time to indicate the progress made since January 9 in the direction of giving effect to the General Assembly program. We are gratified that a number of States have seen fit to submit proposals to the Interim Committee. We believe that these proposals furnish an excellent starting point for the studies of this Committee.

As to the second phase of action contemplated in the General Assembly resolution, Committee No. 1 of the Security Council has not as yet commenced its consideration of this problem for reasons well known to all of you. The press of vital problems in the Security Council, which for the past several months has been dealing with some of the most important aspects of international relations has left no time for meetings of Committee No. 1 which would be attended in many cases by the same individuals who have borne much of the burden in the Security Council.

There are now before Committee No. 1 of the Security Council certain proposals which the United States circulated last August. These proposals, as far as they go, are entirely consistent with the proposals which we are submitting to the Interim Committee and which I shall discuss later in some detail. They do, however, constitute a different approach. The proposals to Committee No. 1 of the Security Council are intended to provide specific rules of procedure for the Security Council. The proposals to the Interim Committee on the other hand, are intended to grapple with the broader problem of the failure of the Security Council to function with maximum effectiveness. In some instances, it may turn out that the General Assembly recommendations can best be implemented through rules of procedure. However, there are other alternatives. The United States proposals in the Interim Committee are directed chiefly to the objectives to be attained rather than to a detailed recommendation for implementation of the objectives.

In regard to the last paragraph of the General Assembly resolution relating to consultations among the permanent members of the Security Council, I believe I should report that consultations have taken place among the permanent members of the Security Council on the problem of the veto since our last meeting on this subject. The consultations have not as yet produced tangible results. The United States is prepared to continue such consultations as necessary in the attempt, to secure agreement on measures which will improve the functioning of the Security Council.

The United States, on March 11, in response to the request contained in the Interim Committee resolution of January 9 submitted to the Interim Committee proposals on this subject. It is my intention, at this time, to limit my remarks to the purposes of the United States proposals and to the general point of view which has given rise to the proposals, reserving my comments on the technical aspects until a later time.

The United States considers the problem of voting in the Security Council to be one of the greatest consequence and importance to the success of the United Nations. The Secretary of State in his address to the General Assembly last September stated: "The exercise of the veto power in the Security Council has the greatest bearing on the success and vitality of the United Nations * * * The abuse of the right of unanimity has prevented the Security Council from fulfilling its true functions. That has been especially true in cases arising under chapter VI and in the admission of new members." As the Seeretary went on to point out, we had reluctantly come to the conclusion that the most practical method for improving this situation would be through liberalization of the voting procedure in the Security Council.

Different ways have been suggested for obtaining this objective. There are before the Committee proposals of Argentina and of New Zealand which suggest that the way to accomplish the objective is by amending the Charter. The United States suggests a different method. We do not believe that there is a short cut to peace. The amendment of the Charter, as everyone recognizes, requires the concurring votes of the permanent members of the Security Council and proposals for amendments thus do not avoid the necessity for the unanimity which hose votes would record. The proposals of the United States are advanced in

the conviction that they suggest the most practical method for moving toward the objective of liberalizing the voting procedure in the Security Council.

The United States recognizes the basic importance of a genuine unanimity among the permanent members if the Security Council and in fact if the entire United Nations are to achieve its maximum success. The United States also recognizes that in connection with the most important decisions of the Security Council such as those for enforcement action under chapter VII of the Charter, a voting formula requiring unanimity among the permanent members is a necessity and corresponds to the political realities of the international situation. This was well pointed out by Ambassador Austin in his statement to the General Assembly as far back as October 30, 1946:

*

"The principle of unanimity of the great powers has from the first-and by general agreement-been limited in its application as a voting procedure to matters essential to the maintenance of international peace and security. The Charter requires unanimity of the major powers only in substantive decisions by the Security Council. There is no requirement for unanimity in the Assembly, in the Economic and Social Council and in the Trusteeship Council * * "This does not mean that unanimity or the closest possible approximation to it is not to be desired and striven for in all these organs. It means only that it was not deemed essential to apply the principle to the voting procedures. "Those organs and agencies do not have the power to enforce the law. That power rests with the Security Council and that is the reason why the members of the United Nations appled the principle of unanimity to the voting procedures of the Security Council and not to the voting procedures in any of the other institutions of the United Nations.

"The large nations that are permanent members of the Council possess the power to keep peace in the world-to enforce observance of the law. The Charter does not give them that power. It recognizes that power and places obligations upon these nations to use that power in accordance with the law."

The United States continues to adhere to the viewpoint which Ambassador Austin expressed so forcefully more than 2 years ago. The proposals of the United States suggest 31 separate items which come up in a study of the veto. The proposals of China, the United Kingdom and New Zealand suggest still others and additional ones may be raised in the course of our discussion. I agree that the study of those items will necessarily be a technical study. The problem is a technical one. There is no simple formula which can be applied as a "cure-all" and which will automatically result in the liberalization of the voting procedure and immediate improvement in the effectiveness of the Security Council. The United States feels that progress can best be achieved in the General Assembly through careful study. To quote Mr. Dulles concerning the nature of the study: "It is not a study which is designed to produce any predetermined result or to produce any specific diminution of the veto power, but it is a study of the problem to the end that the General Assembly next year will be able to approach this problem with more light and less heat than was the case at the last General Assembly. We felt that a good deal of violence and antagonism which marked the discussions in the General Assemblies both in 1946 and 1947 was largely due to the fact that the problem had not been adequately studied and its difficulties adequately perceived."

[The following paragraph was underlined for emphasis by Ambassador Austin:]

To come to the specific United States proposals, the United States first suggests that the Interim Committee should study the categories of decisions which the Security Council is required to make in carrying out the functions entrusted to it under the Charter and the Statute of the International Court of Justice and should report to the General Assembly those categories of decisions which in its judgment, in order to insure the effective exercise by the Security Council of its responsibilities under the Charter, should be made by an affirmative vote of seven members of the Security Council.

It is apparent from the resolution of November 21 that in giving the Interim Committee this task the General Assembly was exercising its power "to make recommendations relating to the powers and functions of any organs of the United Nations (art. 10 of the Charter)." It therefore seemed most appropriate to us that the study in the Interim Committee should deal primarily with the functioning of the Security Council and that the Interim Committee conclusions and the General Assembly recommendations should be directed to the desired result; namely, to the liberalization of voting procedures in connection with those decisions of the Security Council where such liberalization is most likely in fact to result in the improved operation of the Council.