(The material referred to appears as follows:)

ADDRESS BY THE HONORABLE PHILIP C. JESSUP, AMBASSADOR AT LARGE, AT THE ROUND TABLE ON WORLD AFFAIRS IN EXTENSION EDUCATION OF THE CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE, AT THE CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1951

It is a great pleasure for me to address a conference sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The endowment's nobility of purpose and breadth of accomplishment are known to all, and over the years my own small measure of participation in the work of the endowment has been a source of enduring satisfaction to me.

I particularly welcome this opportunity to address this Conference on World Affairs, because it is a conference of educators and, as one who has spent most of his life as a teacher, I feel at home among you. The task you have set yourselves to study American participation in world affairs and to formulate effective techniques for widespread American discussion of foreign problems-seems to me a task which is assuming a greater urgency every day and every hour. Ours is a representative government. Accordingly, American foreign policy, like American domestic policy, must at all times reflect the collective will of the American people-a collective will which in turn reflects the best thinking of each constituent segment of our national life. Those who mold the opinion of America-whether they be teachers, clergymen, journalists, statesmen, or leaders of farm, business, professional, or labor groups are also those who mold the conscience and the purpose of America. On their dedication to their task, and on their humble devotion to the principles of good will which guide free men, there may depend-and I say this in all deliberation-the preservation of our country and our way of life. I have no doubt that the task will continue to be well done. There is something gravely ironic about speaking today on Soviet policy to a conference convoked by an Endowment for International Peace. The endowment established half a century ago by the doughty Scottish steelworkers is dedicated to "international peace"-genuine peace among free and equal nations. But the Soviet despotism established by Lenin and led for more than a quarter of a century by his ruthless Georgian successor is dedicated to a far different aim-the aggrandizement of its power through the imposition of totalitarian communism, by stealth or force, upon the free peoples of the world.

The aim of Andrew Carnegie is our aim and the aim of all free nations. It is the aim so vigorously and prayerfully enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations 6 years ago, when "We, the peoples of the United Nations" affirmed our high resolve "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small

*

The Russians, as they are wont to remind us, were also signatories of the United Nations Charter; but is sadly apparent that the high principles of the Charter mean something different when translated into Russian. Words like "democracy" and "peace" have a very different meaning when spoken by a Soviet representative. We have learned the Soviet meaning of peace from the bitter tragedies of the satelite countries-those chill and dimly lit anterooms of the Soviet prison. Peace on Soviet terms ignores "fundamental human rights * * * the dignity and worth of the human person * * the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small Peace on Soviet terms consists only of the brutal and silent domination of the master over the slave. For, behind the banners and the slogans, the clenched fists and the burnished bayonets, the iron curtain and the iron bars, we see that Soviet "peace," like Soviet "freedom," is but a new mask for the wrinkled face of imperialism, long since repugnant to free peoples everywhere.

*

*

To know the nature of Soviet policy is not, however, enough. We must ask ourselves what we can do about it. What, in short, is our policy and the policy of the free nations with whom, in this one world, our fate is inextracably linked? And in talking about “our policy" and that of our friends I am not limiting myself to the conventional word "diplomacy" which appears in the title of our discussion today. I am talking rather of our composite policy-political, economic, and military-buttressed by that fundamental faith in human liberty and human dignity without which our efforts would lack meaning and hope of ultimate

success.

89965-51- -36

Briefly, what we can and what we must do in the face of the Soviet threat is to proceed resolutely upon our present course. In cooperation with our friends we must continue to develop strength-in-being which will offset that of the Soviet Government and its satellites. The Soviets are realists. They recognize facts and respect strength.

To develop strength which is dedicated to the preservation of peace has been the unwavering policy of this Government ever since the Soviet Government revived its predatory purposes following World War II. It is the policy which underlay the Truman doctrine-the President's resolute aid to Greece and Turkey announced in 1947. It is the policy which inspired the Marshall plan, launched by General Marshall in 1948, for aid to the devastated nations of Europe-the plan which has matured into ECA, point 4, and the Mutual Security Program. It is the policy which met Soviet force in Berlin with the great airlift in 1948. This policy produced the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. It is the policy which underlies Secretary Acheson's program of "situations of strength"-the program charted in his Berkeley speech of March 16, 1950. It is the same policy which enabled us to act swiftly and decisively, in cooperation with the vast majority of our fellow members of the United Nations, in defense of Korea when it was wantonly attacked on June 25, 1950. For, whether or not the battle in that stricken land comes to an early end, the masters of the Kremlin have already learned that aggression against even the weakest of nations does not pay-that a union of free and united nations is stronger than its strongest link. It is a lesson which we learned from Ben Franklin long ago, and it is, I think, the proof of our policy of meeting strength with strength.

This combined strength of the free nations-the bargaining power which is the essential prerequisite for genuine international peace is growing day by day. I think the leaders of the Soviet Government know this; I think they know it because they do have a realistic understanding of power. I also think they know it because their policy-their "diplomacy", if you will-has been so desperately and unsuccessfully directed toward isolating us from the other free nations of the world. And if they know the pace at which our strength has grown and continues to grow, their knowledge will carry with it the realization that their day of easy conquest is past-that they cannot divide and conquer the free nations one by one.

What have been the concrete achievements of the policy and its manifestations to which I have referred?

Greece aided by the Truman doctrine has thrown off the Communist-supported guerilla attack, and both Greece and Turkey will, we expect, soon become joint partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The economic recovery of Western Europe under the Marshall plan has beaten down the Communist attempt to capture those countries from within through local Communist parties. As announced week before last, by the foreign ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, the way has been paved for Western Germany to take her equal place in the community of free nations as a partner in its defensive strength and growing prosperity. At Ottaway last week the members of the North Atlantic community took further significant steps toward building its immediate strength and consolidating its long-range solidarity in political, economic, social, and cultural matters.

In Paris this spring at the meetings of the four deputies in the Palais Rose the Russians learned that their efforts to drive a wedge between the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, merely resulted in uniting us all the more firmly. This week, in conversations with Prime Minister de Gasperi, our long friendship with Italy is being further strengthened.

In the Far East as a result of the triumphant diplomacy of the San Francisco Conference, so ably prepared by Senator John Foster Dulles who will speak to you tonight, and guided with such distinction by Secretary Acheson, Japan will resume its place in the international community as a democratic, peace-loving and peace-supporting member. Japan's readiness for this step is due not only to the efforts of its own people but to the magnificent leadership of General MacArthur. The security of the Pacific has been strengthened by pacts with the Philippines and with Australia and New Zealand. In Indochina, with assistance from us and under the brilliant generalship of a recent visitor to Washington, General de Lattre de Tassigny, France and the associated states have checked the Communist aggression of Ho Chi Minh. In Korea, the United Nations have taught the Communist aggressors a bitter lesson, and denied them the fruits of aggression.

Above all, in the United Nations the free nations have demonstrated over and over again their solidarity in the cause of peace and their rejection of the false and empty propaganda of the Soviets. They have agreed with us in refusing to allow the Chinese Communist aggressors to be seated in any of the 46 different U. N. bodies. They are working together in carrying out the Acheson plan which was embodied in the General Assembly's resolution on uniting for peace.

If the Soviet leaders study carefully this catalog of present and continuing achievement, they may learn much. Particularly, they would do well to ponder three principles which guide the policy of the free nations of the world: 1. The free nations cherish peace. But, deeply as we cherish peace, we cherish our freedom more. We will not be bullied, and, if attacked, we will fight to preserve our freedom.

2. Because we cherish peace, because we have no wish to impose our ways on others, and because we believe in and welcome peaceful settlements of international differences as the only lasting settlements, we reject the delusive remedy of preventive war.

3. To be prepared to defend our freedom, and to create that equal bargaining power which is the present prerequisite of any genuine settlement of international differences, we will, in concert with each other and in harmony with the principles of the United Nations, continue to strengthen community of free nations.

Even if the Soviet leaders continue to hide behind their iron curtain, these principles will endure. And to these principles we may add a corollary, but this the Soviet leaders will find it harder to understand: The free nations count their ultimate strength not merely in planes and ships and tanks but in their faith in people-faith in the full liberty and equal worth of each man and woman. As long as we maintain that faith, we are impregnable.

That faith will sustain us in the hard road that lies ahead of us.

For making peace is not a push-button matter. It takes sustained and patient effort.

We are now building the strength and unity of freemen. If we continue this task with unflagging determination, I believe we can face the future with confidence.

[Editorial from Washington Post, September 28, 1951]

PEACE POLICY

Ambassador at Large Philip Jessup, whose reappointment as a United States delegate to the United Nations is now up for Senate confirmation, gave an extraordinarily lucid summary of this country's foreign policy in a talk on Wednesday at a conference sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Senators might do well to read it in considering his qualifications. They will find in it no softness and no affinity for Communist causes. Neither will they find in it the blind irrationality about communism which passes so often these days for patriotism.

Mr. Jessup understands and abhors Soviet policy. "We have learned the Soviet meaning of peace," he says somewhat more literately and imaginatively than these things are usually said, "from the bitter tragedies of the satellite countries-those chill and dimly lit anterooms of the Soviet prison." And he is a realist-a realist who believes that Soviet aggression can be checked without the sacrifice of millions of human lives. "In cooperation with our friends, we must continue to develop strength in being which will offset that of the Soviet Government and its satellites," he says *** "This combined strength of the free nations-the bargaining power which is the essential prerequisite for genuine international peace-is growing day by day. I think the leaders of the Soviet Government know this; I think they know it because they do have a realistic understanding of power."

This is, as we understand it, the essence of American foreign policy-to maintain freedom, and to maintain peace along with it, if possible. Those who hold war with the Russians to be inevitable-and Senator MCCARRAN has candidly placed himself within this group-will have little patience with Mr. Jessup's temperance and balance. They are thoroughgoing patriots, of course; but their patriotism would invite the war they deem inevitable-and even, although they do not acknowledge the fact, make the United States an aggressor in what is euphemistically called a preventive war.

Senator McCarran is so sure that war is coming that he seems to have no use either for the statesmen of peace or for the ways of a free society. He wants diplomats who have abandoned diplomacy; and he wants to establish a garrison state even before the shooting starts. The sincerity of his convictions is quite beyond dispute. But we think the American people would like their foreign policy to be grounded upon a more hopeful, and a more realistic, premise.

PROCEDURE

Senator BREWSTER. Were you able to locate the copy of the original statment by Mr. Field?

Ambassador JESSUP. I was not able during the lunch hour to put my hand on it. I will continue my search.

Senator SPARKMAN. Did you finish your statement?

Ambassador JESSUP. I finished my main statement, and I am prepared to go ahead with the question of the round table and more recent developments in American policy in the Far East, Senator, if you wish me to continue.

Senator SPARKMAN. There are a few things that I wanted to bring up. It does not matter; I would just as soon you would go on with that. I can stay as late as the others.

Senator BREWSTER. I think if we can go on with this statement it would be well.

Senator SPARKMAN. All right.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. May I ask, are you talking about two different meetings, one where it was said that some decision was made about not sending materials to Chinese Nationalists and the other a round table meeting which was a combination of the so-called Jessup-Fosdick-Case Commission?

Ambassador JESSUP. What I intended to do, Senator, was to begin with that. It seems to me it is involved in recent statements by Mr. Stassen, and I wanted to begin with the build-up of the October round table conference in 1949 and proceed from that point.

TELEGRAM FROM JAMES WECHSLER, OCTOBER 4, 1951

Senator SPARKMAN. Since this represents a new subject, there are one or two things that I should clear up at this point, because they relate to things that have been gone over. It will not take but just a minute or two.

I received this morning, or some time during the day, some time since we have been in session, a rather long telegram from Mr. James Wechsler, editor of the New York Post. I will read the first paragraph, because I think that states its application. It is addressed to me as chairman of the subcommittee:

In connection with Senator McCarthy's attack on the New York Post and myself, I would deeply appreciate the insertion of the following statement in the record of your committee hearings.

He closes by saying:

I would, of course, be delighted to make these statements under oath if the committee so desires.

I answered the telegram-I dictated the answer from the desk here-in which I told him I was inserting his telegram, that I thought it was sufficient, and I would call it to the attention of the subcommit

tee, but

SO far as I was concerned, I would not care for his appearance. I don't think you will find any objection to the insertion of the telegram because it deals entirely with the statement Senator McCarthy made.

(The telegram referred to appears in the record, as follows :)

Senator John J. SPARKMAN,

NEW YORK, N. Y., October 4, 1951.

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.:

In connection with Senator McCarthy's attack on the New York Post and myself, I would deeply appreciate the insertion of the following statement in the record of your commitee hearings.

The New York Post recently published a documented series of 17 articles on Senator McCarthy. These articles critically evaluated his record both before and after his election to the Senate. Nearly 2 weeks have passed since the publication of those articles and Senator McCarthy has not taken issue with a single fact published in them. A newspaper, as you know, has no immunity; it assumes full responsibility for anything it publishes.

Instead of challenging the articles Senator McCarthy has chosen to make a personal attack on the editor of the Post and to imply that only a subversive newspaper could have published this series.

I'm sure that Senator McCarthy knows that the Post is a militantly anti-Communist newspaper. I am sure he knows that the Communist Daily Worker has frequently denounced the Post and its editor. I am sure that he knows that the Post and its editor warmly supports the efforts of the United States Government to resist Communist aggression both through military action in Korea, through the organization of the North Atlantic defense forces and through economic aid to nations menaced by Communist imperialism. Naturally these are all matters of public record, as are the editorial denunciations of the Post which appear almost daily in the Communist press. Nevertheless Senator McCarthy chose to tell your committee that "their (the Post) editorials parallel the Daily Worker's editorials." He has further attempted to discredit factual material published in the Post about him by questioning the loyalty of the Post's editor.

I have never made any secret of my youthful Communist associations. They were ended in 1937 when I was 22 years old; may I add that I ended those associations long before Whittaker Chambers, Elizabeth Bentley, and Louis Budenz did so. I have actively and publicly opposed Communist totalitarianism since that time. It is a matter of public record that in 1946 I resigned from the newspaper PM with a public statement explaining that felt compelled to leave because the newspaper was Communist-dominated. Prior to that time I was known to be one of those engaged in a long effort to eliminate Communist influence on the paper and in the American Newspaper Guild. In 1948 I was one of the founders of Americans for Democratic Action which, as you know, is an actively anti-Communist liberal organization and specifically excludes Communists as well as other totalitarians from membership. I am a member of the national executive committee of ADA.

Since Senator McCarthy has also seen fit to attack my wife, may I add that she resigned from the Young Communist League in 1937 at the age of 21 and has similarly engaged in public anti-Communist activity since that time.

I regret the necessity for this extended statement but I believe it will be of interest to the members of your committee in view of Senator McCarthy's suggestion that the New York Post's exposure of him was a "party line" attack. I would, of course, be delighted to make these statements under oath if the committee so desired.

JAMES WECHSLER, Editor New York Post.

PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Senator SPARKMAN. Senator Brewster, you asked Ambassador Austin today, I believe, or perhaps it was Senator Smith, whether or not the provisional agenda for the Sixth General Assembly did contain the item on China. The staff has given me this note:

The State Department informs us that the provisional agenda of the forthcoming Sixth General Assembly contains the following as item 23: "Threats to