JESSUP'S ASSOCIATION WITH FAR EASTERN PROBLEMS

Senator SPARKMAN. May I suggest that we put this in, leave it open, and supplement it with the things you want?

As I recall this thing in Senator Austin's testimony it was that in the United Nations he was asigned-I do not remember that he said he was assigned to the Far East; he was assigned certain specific jobs to handle, one of which was Indonesia. I don't remember all of them.

Senator BREWSTER. And Korea.

Senator SPARKMAN. I don't remember about Korea. They were specific subjects as they came up on the agenda of the United Nations and not anything related to the State Department down here, or to any general policy.

Senator Smith of New Jersey. I would like to get these dates, though, because there was a moment of time when he was asked to set up that committee of three. I think that was in July of 1949, and that was entirely separate from his United Nations connection.

Senator SPARKMAN. That is right.

Senator Smith of New Jersey. That was based on his past experience and knowledge and in getting the white paper together, all the IPR meetings, and what not. That probably had no official connection, but it certainly is important in this picture.

Senator BREWSTER. I don't understand how anyone can say he was not assigned in the Far East when he was the one responsible for the editing of the white paper. For a man not connected with the Far East, that was certainly a very curious selection.

Mr. Rusk. I did not indicate that he did not have anything to do with the Far East. The question was asked as to what his relation had been to far eastern policy, and I had anticipated that question to the extent of asking Mr. Jessup to give me a list of his assignments since he came to the Department. Senator FULBRIGHT. I asked that question, virtually the same question, of Mr. Stassen yesterday. I didn't consult you about it, but I thought you were the proper person to give testimony on it.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I suggest we get this in, and then we can supplement it with anything else you want.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I will not object to anything you want to put in. Senator BREWSTER. The thing is already in the record. I was simply warning Mr. Rusk that if he is here to establish how little connection Mr. Jessup had with the Far East, he is omitting, or apparently intends to omit, what are, in my judgment, apparently very important aspects of it.

I have spoken my mind, so he is quite at liberty to present anything he desires or you desire.

Mr. RUSK. If you suggest to the committee that this list should be extended back to any point further, that will be done.

Senator BREWSTER. I will leave it entirely to your judgment as to its significance and importance and relevance on the issues on which we are concerned. Mr. RUSK. The question on which I asked for information was, "What have been the assignments since he was assigned to the Department of State?"

Senator SPARK MAN. It seems to me that you might add a supplement that would say something like this: "In addition to the foregoing, Mr. Jessup has had the following assignments in connection with the United Nations." As I recall, that was the only thing that is in addition to it.

Mr. Rusk. I would have to consult not only what record we have, but Senator Austin's record.

Senator SPARKMAN. I think you might consult his testimony, and perhaps get it from that. The only value in putting it here is that you would bring it all together in one succinct statement.

Senator BREWSTER. That is right.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I would like to hear this. I have to go to another meeting.

CONTINUING WITH LIST OF JESSUP ASSIGNMENTS

Mr. RUSK. He was assigned as ambassador at large on March 2, 1949. In March and April 1949, he was involved in negotiations with Mr. Malik on the Berlin blockade.

In April and May 1949, he was attending the second part of the third regular session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, and I will have to

fill in at the suggestion of the chairman the specific assignments which he had in that session.

Senator SPARKMAN. What is that first date that you had?

Mr. RUSK. March and April 1949, on the Berlin blockade. April and May 1949, the second part of the third regular session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Was he a delegate to that or just ambassador at large?

Mr. RUSK. He was a delegate.

From May 14 to June 20, 1949, he was attending the sixth session of tue Council of Foreign Ministers, in Paris, where European questions were discussed. I checked to confirm that there were no far eastern questions up there at all. On June 29, 1949, he returned to Washington.

From June 29 to September 12, 1949, he was working on far eastern problems in the State Department in Washington. That was during the period in which the 3 consultants were set up.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Was that the 3-man commission?

Mr. RUSK. That is right.

From September 13 to December 20, 1949, he was attending the fourth regular :session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. He came back to Washington periodically to meet with the 3 consultants, and they also held meetings in New York, I believe, and that detail I can furnish to the committee and also the subjects which he was asked to handle in that session of the General Assembly.

Senator BREWSTER. Did you verify what those were?

Mr. RUSK. I will, sir.

(Additional information regarding Ambassador Jessup's activities in the fourth regular session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York was supplied in the following letter from Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk.)

Hon. JOHN J. SPARKMAN,

United States Senate.

OCTOBER 18, 1951.

DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: In my discussion with your committee on October 8, I indicated that I would ascertain what Ambassador Jessup's specific assignments were in the fourth regular session of the General Assembly which convened in New York in the autumn of 1949.

I am informed by the Bureau of United Nations Affairs that Ambassador Jessup was asked to handle the question of the Italian colonies and the charges brought by the National Government of China with respect to Soviet violations of the Sino-Soviet Treaty of 1945. I believe the second point was discussed by Ambassador Jessup in his own testimony before your committee and reference was made by him to a summary of the matter contained in the President's Annual Report to the Congress on the United Nations.

Assistant Secretary John D. Hickerson, who was in charge of the Bureau of United Nations Affairs at that time, has informed me that he is available to the committee if further questions arise in connection with Ambassador Jessup's Iarticipation in that session of the General Assembly.

Sincerely yours,

DEAN RUSK.

From December 20, 1949, to March 15, 1950, he was on his trip through the Far East and Middle East for the Department.

From April 22 to May 27, 1950, he was at the fourth session, North Atlantic Treaty Council meeting, and the Big Three Foreign Ministers' meeting in London. From May 29 to August 1950, he had general and varied assignments in the State Department including far eastern questions. That is from May 29 through August 1950.

In September 1950, he was at the fifth session of the North Atlantic Treaty Council meeting and the Big Three Foreign Ministers' meeting in New York. From October 1950, to February 1951, he had general assignments in the State Department, and I personally can testify that he had almost nothing to do with far eastern questions during that period, because at that period I was Assistant Secretary of State and have a direct memory of that.

On March 5 to June 20, 1951, he was involved in the recent deputies' meeting in Paris, considering a possible meeting of the Foreign Ministers and no far eastern questions came up there except in the course of general propaganda and debate, and from July 1951, to the present his assignment has been to Western European subjects including NATO, and preparations for the Foreign Ministers' Conference and the Ottawa Conference.

POSITION OF AMBASSADOR AT LARGE

Senator GILLETTE. During these periods of assignment you referred to, what was his official position?

Mr. Rusk. He was appointed ambassador at large March 2, 1949. Then, Senator, where it refers to his membership in or attendance at a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, he was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate as a member of the United States delegation to those assemblies.

Senator GILLETTE. When he attended these other meetings not part of the United Nations organization, and when you say he was assigned to various tasks in the State Department, what was his capacity? What was his official position?

Mr. RUSK. His capacity was ambassador at large.
Senator GILLETTE, What does that mean?

Senator SPARKMAN. It is a roving ambassador that you can send anywhere and put on any kind of job.

Mr. Rusk. It was presented to the Foreign Relations Committee as a post which gave to the Secretary and to the President a man who could be assigned on a task force and negotiating assignments. It is a kind of role which the President assigned to Mr. John Foster Dulles in the matter of the Japanese peace treaty. He was ambassador at large appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, to be available to the President and Secretary of State for specific negotiating responsibilities. That necessarily involved him in preparatory work in the Department in connection with those responsibilities.

Senator FULBRIGHT. What I want particularly to emphasize is, when you prepare documents such as you read on the British, which were definitely policy documents, did he play any part in them? Or what kind of part did he play in the decisions that you reached there when you communicated with the British? Was he primarily a negotiator who was told what to do, or did he play the role, as I understand George Kennan played, in which the policy itself was determined within the Department? That is what I am trying to clarify. If he is a negotiator sent out to do something, that is one role. I always understood George Kennan, for example, was definitely a policy man who never negotiated but sat down in the Department there and reviewed everything else that was brought in and was certainly a factor in arriving at the conclusions.

DID JESSUP DETERMINE POLICY

Mr. RUSK. Just to answer that in detail, there is no indication that that first telegram of May 6, 1949, was taken up with him or cleared with him in any way. The clearance officers are noted on the telegram.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Their names are all on there?

Mr. RUSK. The office symbols are.

Senator FULBRIGHT His is not?

Mr. RUSK. No, sir. The individuals' names do not appear. The office symbols appear.

In connection with the mid-September 1949, meeting of the Council of the three Foreign Ministers just prior to the meeting of the General Assembly in New York, Mr. Jessup's assignment sheet does not show that he was present, and the notes I have here do not show he was present, but I will undertake to find out what role he played in that discussion.

In the general telegram of October 12, 1949, to the some twenty-odd countries, again it does not show that he played any part in that telegram.

The minutes of the November 10, 1949, meeting, in which Mr. Acheson reaffirmed our attitude on recognition, show that the Americans present were Mr. Acheson, Mr. Perkins, Assistant Secretary for European Affairs; Mr. John J. McCloy, and Mr. Paul Nitze of the Policy Planning Staff.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Was he ever a member of the Policy Planning Staff. Mr. RUSK. No, sir, although there is general discussion with members of the Policy Planning Staff and top officers of the Department Staff periodically. Senator FULBRIGHT. Was he ever assigned as a member of the Policy Planning Staff?

Mr. RUSK. No, sir. He came to the Department from the Mission on the United Nations in New York on March 2, 1949-Ambassador at Large. There would be, of course, continuous consultation among all of the top people on these important matters.

Senator BREWSTER. The fact that he did not appear as approving these, is more or less an approval or executive matter.

Mr. RUSK. I think it bears on the fact that he was not in this role as Ambassador at Large in the action chain of command.

Senator BREWSTER. It does not mean that he was not consulted, necessarily? Mr. RUSK. Not necessarily, but it does not show that he was, and it also illustrates the fact that the chain of command or responsibility goes from the Assistant Secretary involved to the Under Secretary or the Secretary, you see.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Do you have any evidence that he objected to the policies as stated in those official communiques?

Mr. Rusk. None whatever. I have conversations in memory from many times when I am sure that he was generally in accord with the policy stated.

EDITING WHITE PAPER

Senator BREWSTER. When did he edit this white paper? That did not appear in your presentation.

Mr. RUSK. No, sir. The white paper was in the course of preparation throughout the spring of 1949. When he came down to the Department following the sixth session of the Council of Foreign Ministers in Paris, he was asked as an experienced and accomplished man to take a look at this white paper in its final stages.

Senator BREWSTER. How did it happen that he was the one they selected to do that?

Mr. Rusk. We needed someone in whom the Secretary had confidence, who was an experienced man in the preparation of such material, and the publication of such material. Here was a man who had long experience in the whole technique of research and publication and that sort of thing, and the Secretary asked him to take a look at this white paper in its final phases.

Senator BREWSTER. Wouldn't it be normal to have someone who was familiar with the situation to do that job?

Mr. Rusk. He had available to him the staff who had worked

Senator BREWSTER. I am asking you whether in doing a job of that character you would not want a man who had some background, some knowledge, not merely general experience in editing but a man who knew what it was all about. How could a man act as the editor of a publication of that character unless he had some over-all knowledge of the whole picture?

Mr. RUSK. I think it was felt that he had over-all familiarity with the general situation covered by the white paper. The main events of the period were public knowledge.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Without going into the merits or demerits of the IPR, it was known he had been active in the IPR and the IPR had been making research studies for supposedly a period of at least 10 years on the Far East.

Mr. RUSK. He had been interested for many years in the development of the Far East.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. He was chairman of that. I thought, of course, when he was appointed to edit the white paper it was based on that background of experience that he had with the IPR over the years. He had no connection with the State Department then, but he certainly had been profoundly interested in far eastern affairs.

MEETING REFERRED TO IN VANDENBERG DIARY

Let me ask you this, if I may. A lot of confusion arises in my mind about this alleged meeting that appears in the Vandenberg diary. There seems to be an issue as to whether Jessup was there or not. I can't see the importance of

whether he was actually there in the flesh or not, but it is important in my mind whether he knew of the issue that was going to be raised at that meeting about cutting off supplies, and whether he participated in the bringing of that material together.

In the first place, he said in testimony that he was not there, but there was confusion about the statement that he might have been mistaken.

Senator SPARKMAN. I asked him if he ever attended any such meeting, where it was discussed, and he denied he did.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Governor Stassen who was here yesterday, seemed to think there was some mistake about the thing, because I thought from what Senator Vandenberg had said to him, he was there.

I simply mention it to ask if you know whether he was aware that that issue of cutting off supplies to the Nationalists at that point was going to be raised, and whether he was in on the discussions that brought up the emergency meeting. I don't think it is merely a question of whether he was there in the flesh so much as whether he was in on the formulation of the policy.

Senator BREWSTER. I think the answer of Mr. Rusk to that statement of Senator Smith is extremely significant.

PUBLICIZING EXECUTIVE SUBCOMMITTEE TRANSCRIPT

Senator SPARKMAN. There are only 11 more pages.

It was not intended to have testimony from Dean Rusk in closed session. As a matter of fact, I was not there when the committee started questioning him. I assumed that he was never even put under oath because he was up to show us documents. The meeting would not have been in closed session had we been intending to have him testify. Therefore, I think it is perfectly in order for me to read this entire record at this open meeting because his testimony would have been taken openly and under oath, had we called him for that purpose.

Mr. STASSEN. I am pleased that you are opening it because I am for open hearings.

Senator SPARK MAN. There was no purpose in closing it. I will read all of it because there are just 11 more pages.

DID JESSUP PARTICIPATE

Senator BREWSTER. I want to repeat just the last statement of Senator Smith, because I think you have gotten right to the meat of the matter here now.

I do not think it is merely a question of whether he was there in the flesh so much as whether he was in on the formulation of the policy.

Now Mr. Rusk answered that.

Senator SPARKMAN (reading):

Mr. RUSK. I would be extremely surprised if he were in on any of the discussions on that particular issue. He was then still assigned to the mission to the United Nations. He had not come to Washington as Ambassador at Large. I was then Chief of the United Nations office of the State Department, now the Bureau of United Nations Affairs. I was not familiar with that, but I was familiar with what was going on in the United Nations, and familiar with the circumstances under which he was brought down as Ambassador at Large, because it affected my responsibilities in New York with our mission up there, and I would be extremely surprised if there was any consultation with him on these difficult and complicated Far Eastern questions until considerably later, because it is just not the way you usually do conduct business of that sort.