tion that the preference of the American people is for peace. There is no question that the policy of the United States in the Far East, as in all other parts of the world, is devoted to an attempt to maintain the peace.

The mainenance of peace is not always possible; but the effort to maintain the peace is always the first duty of those in charge of the foreign policy of the United States.

We reject appeasement of aggressors as an instrument for maintaining the peace. We reject equally the theory that we will maintain peace alone, by our own dictate. We reject the theory of the preventive war.

We have chosen and we stand by the United Nations as the instrument for maintaining the peace. The General Assembly in adopting the Acheson plan called uniting for peace has recently approved significant new ways in which this collective instrumentality can be used.

Although not all of the current criticisms of our foreign policy are frank and open, a very large number of them, when boiled down to their essentials, constitute demands that the United States abandon as a chosen instrumentality the United Nations and follow instead a purely unilateral line. Boiled down to their essentials, a vast number of the criticisms suggest no affirmative policies for the maintenance of peace but point straight in the direction of accepting the policy of embarking on war.

I repeat that that alternative as an objective of United States policy is flatly and resolutely rejected.

The policy of peace is no policy of fear or appeasement. The leadership of the United States through the United Nations in meeting the aggression in Korea is proof of our readiness to meet bloody aggression with force when that course of action is imposed upon us by the ruthless and aggressive policy of another power. But we shall never imitate or adopt as our own such a policy of ruthless aggression.

As the President and the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have repeatedly explained in recent statements to the American people and to the world, we are committed to the proposition that we must build the strength of the free world so that we will maintain a position in which we can prove that aggression is a disastrous adventure.

At the same time, we have repeatedly stated that we are always ready to negotiate. Negotiation in broad terms includes all the peaceful processes which we are solemnly bound by the Charter of the United Nations to utilize. Those who deny the propriety of negotiation, of peaceful processes, must offer an alternative. If it is to be an acceptable alternative, it must be one consistent with our obligations under the Charter. The Charter is not an unrealistic document. It recognizes the right of individual and collective self-defense. It sanctions such regional agreements as the Rio Pact and the North Atlantic Treaty. It provides for collective action against aggression, such as that which the United Nations is now carrying on in Korea with the support of 53 of its members.

How simply-and how utterly misleading-it is to draw analogies between the lives of individuals and lives of nations. As individuals, we do not choose to sit around the same table with people who have broken their promises and who are plotting crimes-so the story goes. Why then, we are asked, will we sit around a table and negotiate with the representatives of a regime which violates its treaties and plots and instigates aggression? If we must have an analogy to the actions of individuals, let us recall that a district attorney, who represents law and justice, may properly talk with the attorney of a criminal at the bar.

But instead of worrying with analogies, it is better to face the realities of international life. In time of war, we have many times negotiated with our bitterest enemies on such matters as exchange of prisoners of war, truces, and finally the terms of peace. In time of peace, we must choose between isolation and dealing with the other governments which make up the world. In the United Nations, we must deal with all other members of the Organization or boycott it. We condemn such boycotts and will not engage in them.

More than this, we can never escape the hard fact that it is most particularly with those who are the enemies of peace that we must discuss and explore every possibility of peace. We have much less need to negotiate with our friends than with our enemies.

Critics of the United States policy in the Far East sneer at our repeated assurances that we are and will remain the friends of the Chinese people. In fact, we are the friends of the Chinese people and we will continue to remind them

of the fact. We do not accept the theory which is behind the arguments now currently being made that once a Communist dictatorship has established itself over a people which it momentarily enslaves, we should abandon those people to their fate. We do not believe that under such circumstances we should leave to those people only the choice between acceptance of enslavement or annihilation in war. We hold out to them the prospect of a peaceful world organized through the United Nations in which peoples can live together in friendship.

In some of the now rampant irresponsible criticism of United States foreign policy in the Far East, there is an attempt to undermine confidence in our country and to spread far. The American people are urged to think that we cannot stand up in the world we live in, that we are not strong enough to have our way of life prevail. What do these prophets of doom urge as a foreign policy of the United States? Only some have the courage, or the stupidity, to advocate outright the only choice that can be made if one starts from their premise. Their choice is to start dropping atomic bombs-their choice is war.

The Government of the United States has no such mandate from the American people. The vast majority of the American people have faith in our system, in our ideals, in our way of life. They know that life is not easy, in its individual or in its national aspects. But they hold their heads high and look the world in the face. They know that the forces of peace and justice and decency have always been opposed by the forces of aggression and evil. They are ready to fight if that is necessary, but they do not admit there is never any other way. It is because this is true and because most of the world knows it is true that the United States is a leader through trust and respect. Most of the world trusts our purposes; they respect our strength and rely on it.

The Soviet Union, on the other hand, can only rule its satellites by fear. We do not choose to follow the Soviet way.

It is going to be necessary for us to make sacrifices, to expend great effort to fulfill the responsibility of world leadership. We will, however, lead and not drive. We will lead in a cooperative effort which blends the efforts of the free world. No slave system can have equal power. This is the reason we as a people reject the timorous counsels of those who cry that we must choose war as a national policy. It is because we reject the war policy that we have with us the strength of a united free world.

On Memorial Day of this year General Marshall spoke at Arlington. It is well to keep in mind what this great American soldier-statesman said.

* there is nothing to be said in favor of war except that it is the lesser of two evils. For it is better than appeasement of aggression because appeasement encourages the very aggression it seeks to prevent. And it is far better than submission to tyranny and oppression, because without freedom · and respect for human dignity life would not be worth living.

"Unless we are faced with the choice of these terrible alternatives, I think we should concentrate on finding peaceful solutions to the world's problems. Peace should be a dynamic force and not a negative condition that is merely the absence of armed hostilities. We should support to the full every existing instrument to the building of a more stable world.

*** ** We have before us the greatest task ever faced by any generation of men in the fight to preserve peace. War, I say again, is no longer just an evil. In this age it seems intolerable."

We responded, as we were bound to do in accordance with our obligations under the Charter, to the violent and unprovoked aggression against the Republic of Korea which began on the 25th of June. It is perfectly clear that nothing would give more satisfaction to those directing the strategy of Communist imperialism than to see the United States entangled in full-scale war on the mainland of Asia. There are thoughtless people in this country who would have us fall into this trap. The Soviet propaganda line, which is parrotted by the Chinese Communist regime in Peiping, tries to persuade the people of Asia that we are bent on the invasion and conquest of Manchuria. It has long been obvious and it has frequently been pointed out that the usual technique of the Moscow propagandists is to accuse others of what they themselves are doing or are about to do. Actually, the policy of the United States is as stated by President Truman n November 16 when he pointed out "that it is the intention of the United Nations to localize the conflict and withdraw its forces from Korea as soon as the situation permits. Speaking for the United States Government and people, I can give assurance that we support and are acting within the limits of United Nations policy in Korea, and that we have never at any time entertained any

intention to carry hostilities into China. So far as the United States is concerned, I wish to state unequivocally that because of our deep devotion to the cause of world peace and our long-standing friendship for the people of China we will take every honorable step to prevent any extension of the hostilities in the Far East."

This clear, unequivocal, and authoritative statement of American policy has been brought to the knowledge of all the peoples of Asia that we can reach by every means at our command. We must recognize, however, that conflicting statements from certain American sources indicating a contrary intention are widely distributed through the Communist propaganda. Even if these propaganda channels are not fully believed, they tend to cause doubt in the minds of these Asiatic peoples about the sincerity of the policy of the United States as declared by the President. Those in the United States who write or speak in such a way as to provide ammunition for this Communist propaganda must bear the responsibility for thus contributing to our enemies' attempt to undermine confidence in the United States and its Government.

In considering American foreign policy in the Far East, it is all too easy to concentrate upon the headline news of the moment. This is a temptation which those in charge of framing and executing foreign policy must constantly avoid. American foreign policy in the Far East has its roots deep in history. Many of the facts and circumstances which we are considering today are merely new manifestations of old problems with which the United States has contended for well over 50 years. We are faced today, as we have always been faced, with the imperialiste designs of Russia in Asia.

Both under the Czars and under the present Bolshevist imperialists, Russia has sought to extend its control over Asia. This policy has been pursued always at the expense of China. Since the Bolshevists took control of this old Russian imperialistic policy, they have tightened their grip on Manchuria, Mongolia, and Sinkiang-all at the expense of China. This is an example of what President Truman has called the new colonialism-Soviet style. The consistent policy of the United States over all these decades has been to protect China against the imperialism of Russia and, at times, of other powers. We have never deviated from that fundamental policy which is associated in American thinking with the famous doctrine of the open door.

We have not pursued this policy because we were rivals for the domination of Asia. In Asia as elsewhere, we have pursued a policy based on our conviction that friendly cooperation and equal opportunity result in benefits to all peoples concerned. We do not accept the Russian theory that our national interests can be served only by getting special privileges or by subjecting Asiatic peoples to our control.

In the General Assembly of the United Nations last year, the United States joined with four other delegations in sponsoring a resolution which carried forward the historic policy of protecting the political independence and territorial integrity of China. No delegation in the United Nations voted against this resolution except the delegation of the Soviet Union and those delegations which always take their orders from Moscow. We needed no such additional proof of the continuation of Russian imperialism in Asia at the expense of China; but if others needed it, the speeches and votes of the Soviet and satellite delegations in the United Nations gave it to them. Here was a clear statement that the Russians would not join with the rest of the world in a guaranty to respect the integrity of China. Perhaps the only surprising thing was that in this instance they allowed their words to coincide so frankly with their actions.

The United States is now engaged with 52 other members of the United Nations in repulsing the Communist aggression upon another independent Asiatic stateKorea. From 1941 to 1945, we were equally engaged with the Allies who took the name of "United Nations" less than a month after Pearl Harbor, in defeating the Japanese aggression. The Soviet Union was then one of those Allies. The recent propaganda of the Soviet Union has attempted to indicate that they played a very great part in the liberation of the peoples of Asia from Japanese imperialism.

But the recorded views of the Soviet Union give the lie to this propaganda. In a note to the United States Government on February 20, 1947, the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that "the Soviet Government takes into account that the armed might of the United States of America played the decisive role in the matter of victory over Japan and that in the war with Japan, the United States of America bore incomparably greater sacrifices than the other Allied Governments."

There can be no comparison, of course, between the gigantic war effort waged by the United States and its allies to bring about the defeat of Japan in World War II, and the military effort made by the U. S. S. R. toward that common objective. It will be recalled that the Soviet Union did not enter the Pacific war until August 8, 1945. The Soviet forces thus were committed for a period of only 6 days before Japan accepted the Allies' surrender terms on August 14. Contrasted to this 6-day period, United States forces fought their bitter and difficult war with Japan for 3 years and 8 months, and at the end of the war had a force of over 3,600,000 fighting men arrayed against the Japanese Army and Navy in the Pacific.

Moreover, the Soviet declaration of war came 2 days after the Japanese militarists had been brought to their knees-their main island devastated by United States bombers; their navy, once the third largest in the world, virtually destroyed; their prewar merchant marine of some 6 million tons largely sunk; and its planes driven from the skies.

The Japanese people, by the defeat of the policy of their militarists, were like other peoples of Asia, liberated by the overwhelming power of the United States. Under the brilliant administration of General MacArthur, as the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, the Japanese people are now ready to resume their place in the international society as a democratic and peace-loving people. Their traditional system under their new constitution has been molded into an instrument to guide them in this new phase of their national existence.

The latest indication of the Russian attitude toward this reestablishment of Japan is found in their recent demand that the Emperor should now be tried as a war criminal. This demand, coming as it did 4 years after the surrender and many months after the war criminal trials in Japan had been terminted, strongly suggests that the principal motivation was to divert attention from Soviet failure to repatriate or otherwise explain the fact of over 370,000 Japanese prisoners who fell under Soviet control when hostilities ended in August 1945. So far as the trial of the Emperor is concerned, that is a question which lies within the jurisdiction of the Far Eastern Commission which in 1946 decided that the Emperor should not be indicted as a war criminal without its direct authorization.

The time has come to end the attitudes which existed in time of war. General MacArthur has announced that Japan is ready for a peace treaty. We are proceeding with negotiations looking toward such a peace treaty which will enable the new Japan to take its place as a member of the United Nations and thus to participate as a peace-loving member in the life of the international community.

Korea was also liberated by our victory in World War II. Its new liberation from Communist aggression involves different circumstances and different problems. However, again the United States has taken the lead in following the inevitable destruction of war with the peaceful process of reconstruction. In agreement with the suggestions made by Secretary of State Acheson in his opening address to the General Assembly this year, the United Nations has taken steps to assist the new United Korea to rebuild on sure foundations.

I have been speaking of some of the man-made difficulties which American foreign policy has countered in the Far East. These are only examples, but I shall not repeat now the full list of cases in which we are giving appropriate assistance to governments in the Far East to maintain themselves against external attack or internal subversion.

The United States supports the nationalist aspirations of those peoples who are progressively advancing toward the UN Charter's goal of self-government or independence. It is the policy of our Government to use the full measure of its influence to support the attainment of freedom by all peoples who, by their acts, show themselves worthy of it and ready for it. We are convinced that it is in the best interests of all concerned that a transfer of authority to such peoples be consummated quickly and generously. We appreciate the advantages flowing from a transfer which is based upon mutual accommodation. We recognize the far-sighted statesmanship of those who transfer authority and the sense of deep responsibility with which those who take authority assume the burdens of government. Once won, however, political freedom must be preserved. It must be preserved not only against attack from without but also from those who would betray that independence from within. We shall strive unremittingly through the United Nations and in association with free peoples, whether they be in Europe or in Asia, to see to it that freedom is preserved.

Let me return now to one of the difficulties which has long affected peoples of Asia and which is partly natural and partly man-made. I refer to the problem of land. I have mentioned briefly some of the things which we have done in meeting the problems of tenancy, of land distribution, and of the use of the land in Asia. In his address to the General Assembly of the United Nations on the 17th of October, President Truman emphasized our understanding of this problem and our desire to help. As the Congress of Industrial Organizations stated in a resolution adopted a few days ago, "We must prove to the people of the world that in a democratic society men can have both bread and freedom." Secretary Acheson and Secretary of Agriculture Brannan have recently pointed out the great achievement of the land-reform program in Japan under the millitary occupation. The result is that 3,000,000 Japanese farmers have acquired land and about 90 percent of all the cultivators of land in Japan are now owners. They have pointed out also the progress which was made toward land reform in Korea while we were still in military occupation. The Korean Government continued that program and had plans scheduled for last summer-before the Communist invasion-which would have made farm owners of 90 percent of the Korean farm families.

The General Assembly of the United Nations has recently adopted a resolution calling for a study of this problem of land reform and for suggestions on how best to meet it. In supporting this resolution in the General Assembly, Senator Sparkman, speaking for the United States delegation, pointed out that the program of individual farm ownership is one to which we are devoted in this country and which we think may well be undertaken in many parts of the world. The peoples of Asia are beginning to realize the difference between these democratic land reforms and the Communist fraud which, as Secretary Brannan has said, “consists of transferring land from feudal landlords to a feudal government."

*

In closing, let me say that I believe that we all are glad that isolation is dead. The isolation which is dead is the policy of deliberately choosing to act as if we could hold ourselves aloof from the world and ignore what is going on around That isolation has been killed by the American people who have accepted the policy of supporting the United Nations.

us.

But we are not free from the danger of a more insidious isolation. This isolation would not be the result of a deliberate choice but would be the inevitable consequence of misguided policies. We could be isolated from friendly nations by a dictatorial insistence upon policies formulated by us unilaterally instead of through the normal processes of consultation which are inherent in democratic leadership. Policies currently urged by some of those who criticize American foreign policy might well bring us to that kind of isolation.

Actually what do we see? In this hemisphere, our relations with the other 20 American Republics of South America are on a sure and firm foundation of friendly collaboration. We continue to enjoy our intimate association with our great neighbor to the north. In the North Atlantic community a new solidarity and spirit of cooperation have developed and the nations of this area are uniting in a plan for common defense against aggression. Through the Middle East and on into Asia it is now understood that the United States is not a self-seeking imperialist country which wishes to impose its will upon other peoples. They have heard President Truman's appeal for a "partnership of peace." In the action to defeat aggression in Korea, 52 other nations of the United Nations stand with us. The Acheson plan for "uniting for peace" has been adopted by the General Assembly with only the Soviet bloc dissenting.

Here is the demonstration of the success of American policy. American policy stands on the solid rock of international cooperation. It has rejected the old voluntary isolation and escapes the danger of an involuntary isolation. On that rock we stand and we will continue to stand!

ADDRESS BY HON. PHILIP C. JESSUP, AMBASSADOR AT LARGE, OVER AMERICAN BROADCASTING CO. NETWORK FROM STATION WMAL, WASHINGTON, D. C., THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 1950

Good evening.

Last December, Secretary Acheson asked me to go on a fact-finding trip to the Far East. I left Washington on December 15 and returned exactly 3 months later, on March 15.