(now Senator) Lehman, to work with him in the Office of Foreign Relief. He asked me to take the job of Chief of Personnel and Training. I told him I could not give up entirely the work I was then carrying on with the Navy School of Military Government in New York, to which I have referred. He said, "Well, I cannot have a person part time." So, I struck a bargain with him. I said, "I will give you 6 days a week and I will give the naval school at Columbia 1 day a week." Through practically all of that year I worked down here in Washington until Sunday night, took the Sunday night train to New York, lectured at the Navy school on Monday and came back on the night train Monday and worked through here again until Sunday night. That did not give me very much opportunity for running a magazine of the American institute, even if I had any official position with or any connection with it, which I did not. Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Dr. Jessup, may I say that reminds me of a Senator's day. Ambassador JESSUP. I have no doubt that that is much worse. From 1943 to 1946, Field served on the board of trustees and the executive committee of the IPR under Jessup. This statement is false. As I have already pointed out: in 1943, I was merely one of 50 trustees. In 1944, I was a member of the executive committee of the American council, but the chairman of it was Sproul. In 1945, I remained on the executive committee until March but was not chairman. From March 1945 on, I was not a member of the executive committee, and I ceased to be even a member of the board of trustees in December of that year. A BOX SCORE Now, Mr. Chairman, at the risk of burdening this subcommittee with a considerable quantity of detail, I have attempted to outline with care the history of the IPR, both in its international and in its American branches, and the record of my association therewith; and, in finishing my discussion of the IPR, I have come to the end of the list of six organizations with which according to Senator McCarthy's sworn testimony, I have had suspect affiliations. Now, Mr. Chairman, I understand the ball game is over today, and I hope you will permit me to give a box score without worrying the baseball fans. Here are the final figures, Mr. Chairman. With the National Emergency Conference for Democratic Rights, the Coordinating Committee to lift the Spanish Embargo, and the American-Russian Institute, I had no affiliations. Three strike-outs. With the American Law Students' Association and the Institute of Pacific Relations, I was associated, but neither of these is designated or known to be subversive. The Senator from Wisconsin grounded out twice. My association with the China Aid Council-solely through the IPR-does not fall in the category of association in McCarthy's terms. There we can say he "popped" out. With regard to his attack on my wife and her work with the Committee for War Orphans, Senator McCarthy fouled out. Now, Mr. Chairman, although the question has not been posed directly, the matter of my affinity or lack of affinity for Communist causes the question of Communist influence in the Institute of Pacific Relations-seem to involve in their fundamentals my position as a person and as a public official on the question of communism. COMMUNIST ATTACKS ON JESSUP Before a subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee, last year, I inserted in the record a number of public statements which I had made indicating my incontrovertible opposition to communism and my awareness of the threat communism presents to the free world. I also placed in the record a number of attacks on me from official Communist organs. I do not want to burden the record by reintroducing this material, but I ask the subcommittee's permission to bring it up to date. I would request, Mr. Chairman, that I have your permission to submit additional material of the same kind subsequent to that time to bring it up to date. I include statements of my own indicating my position, plus the attacks on me from the Communists in their publications from time to time. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that their attacks upon me are more indicative of my stand on communism than the attacks on me of Senator McCarthy. Senator SPARKMAN. Without objection, they will be included in the record. (The documents referred to appear in the record, as follows:) [Article from the Soviet State and Law] "THE INTERNATIONAL LAW" OF AMERICAN IMPERIALISTIC BANDITS When in the spring of 1950 the successful American jurist and diplomat, Philip Jessup, who was in Paris for the purpose of carrying out diplomatic instructions, read in the newspapers that in the U. S. A. Senator McCarthy had accused him along with a number of other officials of the Department of State of "communism," he dropped urgent matters and dashed home to prove his "reliability." This was not difficult and, of course, did not require that 4-hour speech that Jessup delivered to a special subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Senator McCarthy's charges merely proved to what pathological limits that anti-Communist hysteria had penetrated the ruling circles of the U. S. A. For many years Jessup had been a faithful servant of American imperialism and is one of the most diligent apologists of its foreign policy. Jessup's book A Modern Law of Nations is a typical example of that cosmopolitan falsification of international law which modern American jurists busy themselves with in order to conceal the policy of imperialist banditry and enslavement of peoples in the guise of some sort of "juridical principles" and "institutions" now being conducted by the United States of America. Through the tinsel of pseudo-scientific considerations on the part of Jessup there are obviously present the predatory designs of American imperialists that are very closely related to Hitler's plans of "a new order." In rejecting the most elementary concepts and principles of international law, Jessup poses as a reformer and speaks of two "defects that exist in the system of international law" that obstruct its progress, which he proposes to eliminate by the adoption of two new positions which for better scientific accuracy he calls hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that "international law, like national law, must be directly applicable to the individual" (p. 2). The second hypothesis, which goes by the name of "concept community interest," consists in departing from the "principle of unilateralism" in problems of the defense by a state of its rights and interests in international relations in favor of "more extended governmental functions of an organized international community" (p. 12). The reformer of international law from the Department of State is not very original. The idea of international rights of the individual even before the war were being strongly advocated by reactionary French jurists who were enemies of national sovereignty (Norvelle, Sel, and others) for the purpose of legalizing the intervention of the Anglo-French bosses of the League of Nations in the internal life of the state. This idea, which was seized upon in recent years by American imperialists, has received practical application in the attempts of American diplomacy to achieve, with the aid of a majority in the United Nations obedient to it, diplomatic intervention in the people's democracies for the defense of counterrevolutionary conspirators who have been unmasked and condemned by the peoples of those countries (the false charges directed against Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania in the violation of the rights of man). As an example of the practical application of this idea, Jesssup, himself, points to the notorious American plan of international control over atomic energy (p. 19), granting to an international agency on atomic energy jurisdiction in the internal affairs of members of the U. N. As for the concept of community interest, under the plausible cover of collective reaction of the community of nations to international law violations there is concealed an attempt to legalize the intervention of big imperialist powers, the United States of America first of all, through the instrumentality of international agencies obedient to them, in the foreign affairs of individual states, intervention which goes far beyond the limits of settling conflicts that break out between states. Thus, by application of this concept Jessup proposes to replace individual recognition with collective recognition (p. 12), which would actually mean making the recognition of any newly created state or government dependent on the Anglo-American majority in the U. N. The stubborn opposition of the United States Government and its satellites to admitting representatives of the Chinese People's Republic to the U. N., is a graphic illustration of the concept of community interest advanced by Jessup. Armed with these two hypotheses, Jessup undertakes to attack the most fundamental principles of international law: the principle of state sovereignty, the principle of equal rights of states, and the principle of nonintervention in the internal affairs of the state. "In the adoption of two hypotheses upon which this work is based is the questioning of the archfiction international law-absolute state sovereignty. The development of the organization of the international community suggests the utlimate possibility of substituting some kind of joint sovereignty, the supremacy of the common will for the old single state sovereignty" (p. 13). It is easy to understand that under the common will Jessup, like other cosmopolitan troubadors of imperialism, has in mind decisions imposed by the American imperialists upon the United Nations and other international organizations with the aid of the mechanical vote of the American satellites. As one of the examples of the supremacy of the common will, Jessup points to that same notorious American plan of international control over atomic energy (p. 13), the substance of which is too well known for it to be necessary to make special reference to it. However, Jessup is willing in the near future to maintain the concept of sovereignty in the sense of "exclusive new jurisdiction in certain domains, just as in the constitutional system of the United States the 48 States are considered sovereign" (p. 41). The comparison of state sovereignty to the competency of of a member of a federation or even an autonomous province is not at all new in modern bourgeois juridical literature, which bears the stamp of extreme reaction. However, the comparison advanced by Jessup sheds light on the secret meaning of all his considerations which consists in converting sovereign states into separate states of the American world empire. Jessup is also bitterly opposed to the principle of the equal rights of states which, according to his words, "is one of a number of principles which require revaluation." "With the development of international organizations even in the still relatively primitive form which the Uniter Nations takes," he continues, "there is a possibility that the function of equality as a legal and political principle may be fulfilled by a doctrine of community interest" (p. 31). According to Jessup's conviction, the idea of equality may be maintained only in the sense of equal protection of the law of states by international agencies, but "real capacity for rights would still differ with factual criteria" (p. 31). In other words, the equality of rights of states in the sense that Jessup gives it must mean the equal subordination to the common will that proceeds from the bowels of Wall Street and is reflected in the decisions of international agencies. With equal protection of the law of this kind it is really possible to obliterate the border between sovereign states and the individual States of the United States of America. In this connection, Jessup even proposes to put sovereign states on the same level as individuals. "It is not impossible," he observes, "to accord equal protection of the law to states and to individuals when these two different subjects of international law appear before an international forum"; in this case "equality before the law may be insisted upon with respect to both states and individuals" (p. 32-33). The equalization of states and individuals proposed by Jessup as subjects of international law is designed for the purpose of kindling antipatriotic sentiments, encouraging action directed toward the weakening and disintegration of state ties, and once more proves that the basic idea of his entire cosmopolitan theory is to destroy the national statehood of peoples for purposes of their more convenient subordination to the world rule of American imperialism. It is not surprising that such an obstacle to progress as the principles of sovereignty and equal rights of states is also conceived by Jessup in the principle of nonintervention in the internal affairs of a state, a principle which is logically derived from the two principles indicated. "It may be suggested," Jessup states, "that it would be more conformable both to the realities and to the desiderata of the international community if, instead of emphasizing that each state is independent of every other, it were frankly asserted that each state is dependent on all other states, linked together in the society of nations or in a world government." "The same thought is conveyed by the acceptance of the hypothesis of community interest" (p. 37). In a subsequent exposition, Jessup develops this hypothesis in the sense that "the acceptance of the hypothesis of community interest contemplates the admission of the right of the organized international community to intervene in the general interest" (p. 174). The leitmotiv of all these considerations of Jessup, the crowning of all his hypotheses and concepts, of all his refined pseudo-scientific argumentation, is the hackneyed cosmopolitan idea of the necessity for replacing the existing international community of independent states with a world government. Jessup hypocritically motivates such a necessity in the interests of maintaining peace and eliminating the use of force in international relations. He states, "Until the world achieves some form of international government in which a collective will takes precedence over the individual will of the sovereign state, the ultimate function of law, which is the elimination of force for the solution of human conflicts, will not be fulfilled" (pp. 2, 40, and elsewhere). By way of binding persuasion, Jessup holds out the threat of the atomic bomb, like his colleagues from the Department of State. He writes that progress in the development of international law, which he considers as a rejection of state sovereignty in favor of a "world government must be made if all civilization is not to go the way of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" (p. 14). All these arguments are just as trite as the idea itself for whose justification they are advanced. However, Jessup's book is curious in that in his zeal Jessup goes somewhat further than a number of his colleagues in trying to endow the predatory designs of American imperialists with the character of some kind of completed juridicial system; in his considerations on world government he strives to justify not only the tendencies of American imperialism toward world hegemony but also its tendencies toward forcible suppression of any kind of resistance to this hegemony on the part of peoples, the suppression of all democratic and liberation movements. "As organized societies gain in stability," Jessup writes in connection with the world system advocated by him, "the suppression of forcible changes in government becomes a normal and natural task of the community" (p. 184). "The international community should be based on the principle of mutual assistance to suppress internal disturbances of the magnitude of revolution or civil war" (p. 185). Thus, the world government must perform the rule of a world policeman. Considering it necessary to place some kind of juridical basis under these police functions, Jessup states that in the future world system revolution and civil war must be equivalent to aggression, must be declared outlawed, and must be considered as international crime. He adds, "The establishment of world government assumes the creation of governmental organs and processes adequate to remedy wrongs and to provide justice for all people. The law of a world state would therefore deny the right of revolution'" (p. 185). Being the wildest perpetrators of imperialist aggression and banditry in modern times the American imperialists, in the person of their officials, diplomats, and jurists, strive in every way to represent this aggression and banditry as the maintenance of peace, and to represent as aggression the peoples' struggle to throw off the imperialist yoke. For example, it is a known fact that in striving to convert the United Nations into a tool for the suppression of democratic forces in the individual countries, the diplomacy of American imperialism has invented the absurd and nonsensical concept of internal aggression. It is also a known fact that in conducting bloody intervention in Korea under the flag of the United Nations the American imperialists and their satellites have declared the struggle for liberation on the part of the Korean people to be aggression. In such an insolent falsification of the fundamental concepts of international law we also have the basic purpose of those cosmopolitan theories of international law which are adopted for the purpose of arming American impartialist diplomacy. By justifying the necessity for creating a world government in the interests of the maintenance of peace and the elimination of the use of force Jessup has in mind the forcible suppression of all national movements. This must include the principal function of the American new order in the framework of which the vindication of their basic rights on the part of nations must be classified as crime. Jessup writes further, "the world government will enact law and will take steps to suppress armed rebellion against its authority" (p. 185). “The international community would have to take cognizance of and remedy situations within states which are provocative of rebellion. It would have to be prepared, as the Federal Government of the United States is prepared, to render armed assistance to any of its members whose local forces are inadequate to preserve domestic peace and tranquility" (p. 186). As we see it, Jessup advises the future world government to follow American examples in carrying out its police functions. The American imperialists have really acquired considerable experience in the matter of terrorizing popular movements. It suffices to recall the "bloody Thursday" of July 28, 1932, when American troops under the command of Gen. Douglas MacArthur initiated military action against a peaceful and unarmed crowd of unemployed war veterans who had made a hunger march on Washington. At the present time the United States Government is endeavoring to transfer this experience to the international arena and incidentally is even using the services of one and the same person in the role of chief promoter of these bloody feats. Under the command of this same MacArthur American flyers are bombing hospitals and peaceful habitations in Korea and are shooting Korean women, old people, and children. In setting up the American way of life as the example for a world government Jessup is distressed over the fact that "the United Nations, in the form in which it is now organized, is not capable of performing such a role." Thus, the world government must preserve peace in the same manner in which the American government with the aid of General MacArthur was preserving peace in Washington 1932 and is preserving peace in Korea at the present time. Jessup is trying to dispel any doubt as to the fact that the world Government will successfully perform this mission. But on what does he base a decisive guaranty that it will be able to suppress insurrection on the part of peoples against the American world order? Jessup sees such a guaranty in nothing other than the atomic bomb. He writes, "The international police force is envisaged as swooping down on the people who have resorted to arms in defiance of world government and with one or two shattering blasts eliminating the evildoers and all their works" (pp. 190-191). He even challenges the possible objection that there would be no need for such military operations, and in this connection he does not conceal the fact that he does not rely with full confidence even on the personnel of the international forces (some officer may not justify confidence and lead behind him military contingents over to the revolutionary party); Jessup considers as absolutely reliable only that atomic bomb to which he appealed for salvation in the world government. But the inconsistency of this Pharisaic argument does not bother him. On the other hand, he is concerned with the following practical question, for example: "Assuming that the territory of the rebels has been seared and devastated and their whole organization of local government and supply utterly crushed, is the world government to set up a cordon around the area and allow it slowly to fester away, or will occupation forces then move in to restore normal life to the area?" (p. 191). Jessup does not answer this question, but the very act of raising such a question characterizes the predatory nature of his cosmopolitan nonsense no less eloquently than an answer would do. We have before us the book of a jurist and internationalist who occupies a prominent post in the Department of State. It is devoted to the basic problems of international law and consequently represents, as it were, the scientific credo of its author. Therefore, to a certain extent, we may judge from it the personality of the entire contemporary American science of international law. Behind the outward attributes of an ostensibly scientific nature, behind all those |