The behavior of the Soviets in the atomic energy negotiations shows these features: 1. Distrust of the proposals of other nations. 2. An effort to get concessions from other nations without yielding anything themselves. 3. Bitter denunciation of the opposition, and vicious propaganda attempts to sow discord and arouse suspicion. 4. Finally, steady freezing of Soviet opposition, as though their own propaganda had a certain self-propagating quality. This last feature is most disturbing. Yet the Soviet system seems to have this effect. Public statements from the Kremlin set the tone and give the cue to many organizations and publications throughout the world which, in some form or other, repeat the Kremlin's ideas. These are then reported back as the sentiment of the peoples of the world. These reinforcing echoes of their own voices apparently solidify the original views of the Kremlin. It is as through, in the words of Mr. X, in his now famous article in foreign affairs: "It is an undeniable privilege of every man to prove himself right in the thesis that the world is his enemy; for if he reiterates it frequently enough and makes it the background of his conduct he is bound eventually to be right." It seems that there could be no clearer statement of what is happening in the Atomic Energy Commission of the United Nations. At the start of the negotiations, either from motives having to do with their internal situation, or from suspicion of the motives of others, the Soviet representatives took the position that the majority plan was a hostile gesture. Failing to make an objective study of the elements essential to any real control, and with no informed body of public opinion which could cause them to reconsider their original position, the Kremlin has seemed to become increasingly committed to a course which is as dangerous to the Soviet Union as it is to the rest of the world. The appropriate forum for atomic energy negotiations as approved by the last General Assembly is the forum of the six permanent members of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission. The United States stands ready at all times to take part in the consultations in that forum whenever the Soviet Union chooses to return to it. We We believe the United Nations plan is an effective plan. It has our support. But as the President said last February, "It has our support not because of its form or its words but because we believe it would achieve effective control. The stakes are too large to let us, or any nation, stand on pride of authorship. ask only for a plan that provides an effective, workable system-anything less would be a sham agreement. Anything less would increase, not decrease, the dangers of the use of atomic energy for destructive purposes. We shall continue to examine every avenue, every possibility of reaching real agreement for effective control. But we will not rely merely on a paper convention "prohibiting" the use of the atomic bomb. We must not only prohibit the use of the bomb; we must establish a system which will make that prohibition effective. That is the crucial difference between the U. N. and Soviet plans. It is the difference between eliminating or continuing to live under the threat of atomic war. These negotiations illustrate the difficulty of peaceful adjustments with the Soviet Union. It would be dishonest to deny that the attitude and action of the Soviet Union creates a threat to the peace of the world. Their actions do belie their peaceful protestations. They are devoting a huge proportion of their resources to military purposes. There is nothing in their history to indicate that this great military machine of theirs is dedicated to the cause of peace and freedom. There is abundant evidence to the contrary. There is nothing in their political literature or philosophy to indicate that they respect weakness even though it were weakness inspired by benevolence and good will. Neither we nor other nations who share our view of life and dedication to freedom are willing to place ourselves at the mercy of the Soviet Union. The fate of the Baltic States, of a Czechoslovakia, of a Hungary, or a Poland is not one which we crave for ourselves or our children. In the face of such an aggressive imperialist system as that of the Soviet Union, there is a prerequisite to negotiation. That prerequisite is strength. It must be a strength sufficient to be apparent to the rulers in the Kremlin. It must be sufficient and sufficiently long maintained to convince those rulers that their policies, their will cannot be imposed. It must be an economic strength which continues to demonstrate the fallacy of their Marxian concept that capitalism contains the seeds of its own decay. It must be a military strength which negates the possibility of a repetition of the tragic histories of armed subjection. NOMINATION OF PHILIP C. JESSUP It must be a spiritual strength which not only stands firm but which marches Whatever the road which you travel in meeting this challenge, I beg of you to cultivate the virtue of steadfast and confident patience. Be confident that you will be able to make your contribution to the attainment of the goal which we shall surely reach. In so doing, take your inspiration from still another statement of Elihu Root who said: "I think it makes but little difference whether a man gives his life and his service to laying the foundation and building up the structure, or whether he is the man that floats a flag on the battlements and cries 'victory'." [State Department Press Release No. 30, January 15, 1951] EXCERPTS FROM THE ADDRESS BY THE HONORABLE PHILIP C. JESSUP, BEFORE REPRESENTATIVES OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS MEETING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AUDITORIUM, MONDAY, JANUARY 15, 1951, GLOBAL STRATEGY The strategy of peace has to be global just as much as our military strategy in World War II was global. During the war we were trying to establish the conditions of a permanent peace. types of common operations, military and other, in Europe, throughout the We and our allies were involved in various Pacific area, in the Middle East and Asia, in Africa, in Latin America and in the Atlantic. It is equally true today that, as we continue in our effort to establish peace, we cannot be indifferent to what goes on in any part of the world. The international Communist movement directed from the Kremlin is trying to undermine the free world in every sector. It encourages violence and aggression although it uses its satellites to do the fighting and dying for it. We naturally have both a practical and a moral interest in the independence, prosperity, and welfare of all countries and all peoples seeking freedom and peace. It is the objective of our global strategy to prevent war if we can. If the Soviet Union insists on plunging the peoples of the world, including the peoples of the U. S. S. R., into war, the result of our global strategy will be that we and other free peoples will win. If the Soviet Union is convinced of the fact of our combined strength and united determination, it may be deterred from starting a war. Nevertheless, we must realize that the international Communist movement likes to have a continuing state of tension in the world. Since they are able to create tensions by subversion and aggression, we have got to make up our minds that we must face a long period of tension. During that long period we must remain strong. This will involve big sacrifices and continued effort. Those sacrifices and efforts will be far less than those required by war itself and we must endure them. Since the imperialist Communist movement is centrally controlled by the Kremlin and is worldwide in its activities, we, too, must maintain a solid front in the United Nations and act internationally. Unlike the Kremlin, we do not operate a slave system and we must, therefore, understand the varying points of view among the free nations in order to maintain a system of international cooperation. It is part of our global strategy to hold fast to our ideals and moral principles which give us a distinct superiority over the Kremlin. We are demonstrating all through the world that free societies offer a better way of life and more strength than can exist under the slave system. We can be strong and at the same time preserve the rights of the individual and the independence of the countries united in support of the principles of the United Nations. Those principles require the use of the procedures of peaceful settlement and we are always ready to use them as we have repeatedly demonstrated. [State Department Press Release No. 256, March 20, 1950] STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PHILIP C. JESSUP, AMBASSADOR AT LARGE, BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE MARCH 20, 1950 Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the opportunity that your committee has given me to appear before you in connection with the charges and insinuations which have been made against me by Senator McCarthy. On March 8 Senator McCarthy made the following statement to this committee which I quote from pages 71 and 72 of the record: "Although I shall discuss the unusual affinity of Mr. Philip C. Jessup of the State Department for Communist causes later in this inquiry, I think it pertinent to note that this gentleman now formulating top-flight policy in the Far East affecting half the civilized world was also a sponsor of the American-Russian Institute." No one can be loyal to communism and also loyal to the United States. This attack on me by Senator McCarthy is obviously intended to give the impression that I am disloyal to the United States. When Senator McCarthy made that statement, I was in Pakistan completing an official mission throughout the countries of Asia. This mission was carried out as part of the effort this country is making to strengthen the free and democratic forces in Asia and the capacity of free Asia to resist subversive or antidemocratic forces. During the course of this mission it was my duty to speak on behalf of the Government of the United States to the chiefs of state, prime ministers, foreign ministers, and other high officials of almost all of the countries of that area. In the course of that mission I also made various public statements in an attempt to make clear to the peoples of the East that the solution of their problems does not lie in the false hopes dangled before them by the agents of Communist greed and imperialism. For example, at New Delhi on February 23, 1950, I issued this statement to the press: "Since the end of the Second World War, history has recorded the extension of a new imperialism that has brought more than a dozen countries under the domination of a single expanding power. The device used by this expanding power in extending its imperialism is to hold out the glittering promises of communism as a beacon light for the rescue of peoples who are suffering from economic underdevelopment or who are trying to remove the shackles of the old traditional kinds of colonialism. However, where communism gains control, it becomes immediately apparent that the peoples are not allowed to determine their own future, but must conform to a single policy laid down in Moscow." * * Communism is hostile to what the Asian people want to do and what we want to holp them to do-which is to develop the stability of their new countries and to develop their resources and their technical skills so that they are not subject to penetration, either through ignorance or distress or because they succumb to the false promises of the Communists." If Senator McCarthy's innuendoes were true, the representatives of the foreign governments with whom I spoke would be entitled to believe that my statements to them were deceitful and fraudulent. They would be entitled to believe that no confidence should be placed in the declarations which I made on behalf of our Government. If it were true that the President and the Secretary of State had sent on such a mission a person who was a traitor to his own Government they might well feel that they could place no confidence in the statements made by any of the representatives of the United States abroad. It may be relatively unimportant whether the character of a single American citizen is blackened and his name is brought into disrepute, but in the present serious situation of international relations throughout the world today it is a question of the utmost gravity when an official holding the rank of Ambassador at Large of the United States of America is held up before the eyes of the rest of the world as a liar and traitor. I am aware, Mr. Chairman, that Senator McCarthy has not used these words. But if his insinuations were true, these words would certainly be appropriate. It is impossible for anyone to estimate the harmful effect that these innuendoes have had on the success of my mission and the foreign policy of the United States. It is clear that if these insinuations remain unanswered, they will further weaken the United States in its conflict with world communism. For that reason I flew back from Europe and asked this opportunity to be heard by this committee. It is obvious that an individual holding the high position of Senator of the United States would not venture in this way to undermine the position of the United States in its relations with the rest of the world unless there was some reason for doing so. I have tried to figure out what the reason behind this attack might be. I suppose that if I chose to follow the tactics which you gentleman have witnessed in recent weeks, I would start with the hypothesis that this action was Communist-inspired. It so happens that, so far as I know, the only other attack upon my integrity during the course of my trip in Asia was made by Izvestia, the official publication of the Soviet Union in Moscow. On March 3 Izvestia attacked me in the following manner: "At a press conference arranged on February 23 in Delhi, Jessup set out to obtain a change of view in Indian public opinion. Jessup brought into action all kinds of means: Flattery and the publicizing of American 'assistance to backward regions, and most of all, of course, slanderous fabrications against the U. S. S. R. * * * In general, Jessup tried with all his might but he had little success. The imperialistic aggressive character of the policy of the United States throughout the world, and in Asia in particular, is so evident that no hypocritical speeches and anti-Communist philippics could hide it." So you see, while I was on this mission I was attacked by two sources, Izvestia and Senator McCarthy. Anyone who believes in the concept of guilt by association might draw some startling conclusions from this fact. However, I do not believe in the concept of guilt by association. Moreover, I do believe that anyone who, without adequate proof, levels a charge of conscious or ignorant support of communism at a Member of the United States Senate or at an official of the United States Government-is irresponsible. I have no evidence that Senator McCarthy was motivated by a desire to assist the international Communist movement even though his words and actions have had that effect. I therefore reject this first possibility concerning the reasons for the insinuations made against me. A second possibility might be that such an attempt to discredit the position of the United States in its relations with the other free countries of the world was inspired by sheer partisanship. It is hard to believe that anyone holding the position of a Member of either House of Congress of the United States would so subordinate the interests of his country to sheer partisan advantage. I am sure no one of our major parties would do so. I shall therefore pass on to a third possibility. The third possibility might be that the person bringing these charges had made a careful investigation and was convinced they were true and so serious that they ought to be made public even before the individual concerned had been asked for his side of the story. Are these charges and insinuations true? Senator McCarthy asserts that I was a "sponsor" of the American-Russian Institute. It is true that my name appears on a list of the sponsors of a dinner given by the American-Russian Institute, but not as a sponsor of the organization itself. The dinner in question was one given on May 7, 1946, on the occasion of the presentation of its first annual award to Franklin D. Roosevelt which was accepted on behalf of his family. Senator McCarthy pointed out that the names of Howard Fast, Saul Mills, Ella Winter, John Howard Lawson, and Langston Hughes also appear on this list. He did not point out that approximately 100 people were named on this list of sponsors and that it also included the names of H. V. Kaltenborn, George Fielding Eliot, Dean Christian Gauss of Princeton, and Mary Emma Wooley, former president of Holyoke. The entire list is already in evidence as an exhibit of this committee, and the committee can make its own judgment as to the caliber and variety of the people who are on it. A search of my files has failed to reveal any information concerning this incident, nor do I remem ber attending the dinner. From approximately February to June of 1946, I was seriously ill in a hospital in New York City, so it is unlikely that I attended. I do recall, however, that I was asked by Mr. William Lancaster, a prominent New York lawyer, to permit my name to be used as a sponsor of a dinner which was to be held on October 19, 1944. I had met Mr. Lancaster through his ac tivities on the Foreign Policy Association, at a time when Gen. Frank McCoy was president and Senator Alexander Smith and I were members of the board. I accepted, but was unable to attend the dinner. I shall be glad to make the entire list of approximately 250 sponsors available to the committee. It is utterly irrelevant to the charges or insinuations that I or anyone else agreed to sponsor dinners of the American-Russian Institute of New York City in 1944 or 1946. There was no reason why a loyal American should not have done so. The Attorney General expressly excluded the American-Russian Institute of New York from the first lists of subversive publications which were published and did not include it until April 21, 1949. The committee may be interested in knowing that I turned down invitations to speak at dinners held by this organization in both 1948 and 1949. During the course of my life, I have participated in many organizations. Thse organizations have been of a type that one would normally associate with a person of my outlook and interests. They include the American Philosophical Society, the Foreign Policy Association, the American Society of International Law, the Sigma Phi Society, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the American Bar Association, and the American Legion. From 1933 to 1946 I was closely associated with the Institute of Pacific Relations. I am proud of my association with that organization which was founded by a group of leading businessmen and scholars in Honolulu sometime in the mid-twenties for the purposes of increasing knowledge and friendship among the peoples of the Pacific area. Despite the controversy which has occasionally surrounded it, it has continued to discharge the functions for which it was created. Although there is still much to be done in increasing the knowledge of the American people about countries of the Pacific area, the institute has made a real contribution to the advance which has been made in this field during the last 25 years. I first became associated with it in 1933 when the late Newton D. Baker was its chairman. It is necessary to explain that the Institute of Pacific Relations is an international organization composed of national councils in countries touching upon or having close interests in the Pacific area. My first contact with the organization was to attend in 1933 one of the periodic international conferences which have been held by the organization. In those meetings leaders of business and banking, former high officials of government, journalists, labor leaders, researchers and teachers from all of the Pacific countries have met for a common study of the problems of the area. Many of the leading figures whom I have since met in the United Nations I first met through my connection with the Institute of Pacific Relations including Mrs. Pandit, presently Indian Ambassador to the United States, and Dr. Hu Shih, the great Chinese philosopher who was former Chinese Ambassador in Washington. As indicative of the type of personnel attending these conferences, I should also like to refer to the one held in Hot Springs, Va., in 1945 at which I was chairman of the American delegation and Adm. Thomas C. Hart, later United States Senator from Connecticut, was vice chairman. I was a member of the board of trustees of the American Council from about 1933 until my resignation because of health and the pressure of other work in 1946. I was chairman of the board of trustees of the American Council during 1939 and 1940. I was the chairman of the Pacific Council from 1939 to 1942. I have also at various times served as a member of the executive committee of the American Council and in 1944 as chairman of the research advisory committee. I was succeeded as chairman of the American Council by the late Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur, president of Stanford University, who was succeeded by Robert G. Sproul, president of the University of California, and now by Gerard Swope, honorary president of the General Electric Co. Throughout my connection with the institute, the board of trustees has included leaders of American business, finance, and academic and public life. I would assume that anyone who was interested in inquiring into what I had done and what I have stood for would be interested in my entire life and background. An inquiry into my background would have shown that my ancestors came to this country from England in the seventeenth century and settled on Long Island and in Pennsylvania and New England. My great-grandfather, Judge William Jessup of Montrose, Pa., was a delegate to the Republican Convention of 1860, which nominated Abraham Lincoln for the Presidency. He was chairman of the committee which drafted the platform upon which Lincoln was elected. A great-grandfather on my mother's side, John M. Butler, as a Pennsylvania delegate, cast his vote for Lincoln at that same convention. My father was a lawyer in New York City and a lay leader in the Presbyterian |