EXHIBIT NO. I Photostats of letterheads showing Jessup's affiliation with six organizations officially cited as Communist fronts. Attached to each of the following letterheads, showing Jessup's connection with the Communist front, is the official citation on the front by either the Attorney General or legislative committees. An organization officially cited as a Communist front is so designated because the Attorney General or legislative committees, after thorough investigation, conclude that the organization is controlled by Communists, serves Communist causes, and does the work of the Communist Party. Even the State Department's own Loyalty Yardstick states that membership in or association with Communist front groups makes an individual a security 1. vision, he could not have described more completely the situation confronting us today. After quoting the late President Roosevelt as saying that "The nearer we come to vanquishing our enemies the more we become inevitably conscious of differences among the victors." The Senator from Michigan went on to say: "How do these dangerous differences disclose themselves? Usually by unilateral decisions in which one or another among the United Nations makes its own announcement, pronounces its own interpretation upon its own rights regardless of the fact that these rights, for all of us, flow from our common effort. I assert that all vital decisions should also flow from the same sort of common effort." Is not this a vital decision which should "flow from the same sort of human effort"? Indeed, in all of its implications and future commitments, it is a decision so vital as to well determine the future destiny of the world. In the same speech the Senator from Michigan summarized his three dedications to peace, which he said were: "First, the inexpressibly vital need to prevent world war III through collective security. "Second, the paramount importance of a just peace if it is to be a permanent peace. "Third, the hazard to these objectives if each of the United Nations starts going its own way even before we have clinched total victory." What are we doing except going our own way? I have quoted the Senator from Michigan at some length, because in this year 1947 I agree completely with all he said in 1945. I have shown this faith by supporting, until now, the lead taken by him and the distinguished Senator from Texas (Mr. Connally) in all matters relating to the establishment of the United Nations for the purpose of preventing war by collective action. The Senator from Michigan is so right in speaking of the hazards to peace “if each of the United Nations starts going its own way" that his warning strengthens my conviction of the wisdom of my vote in opposing the pending bill. The United Nations was not consulted either before or after the President proposd this action to the Congress. The matter was not discussed at the council table. Sixteen days after the President's address to Congress, our representative merely gave notification of a course the President had already decided upon and had already asked the Congress to approve. It is little wonder that this action called for the following warning from Secretary General Lie, the official head of the United Nations, who said: "A willingness among nations to give and take and to make sacrifices, an insistent seeking after agreement, a determination to find a meeting of the minds, a readiness to resort to the United Nations even when the most vital national interests are at stake-always on behalf of the solemn principles and purposes of the United Nations-this is the bedrock on which alone the United Nations can build solidly and securely for the future." The preamble to this proposed legislation which attempts to justify our bypassing the United Nations is merely window dressing, a lot of pious words without effect or legal validity. Let me discuss now the Vandenberg amendment from the standpoint of whether it conforms to the charter provisions of the United Nations, "to take collective measures to remove causes of war." This much-discussed amendment does not in any way answer the challenge that we are taking unilateral action, as unilateral action means affirmative, direct, and independent action, while the Vandenberg amendment is negative, providing a veto procedure for withdrawal after the action is taken. It will take practically a two-thirds majority of the Security Council to ask the United States to withdraw after our operation in Greece and Turkey have actually been undertaken. Then the General Assembly of Nations can also ask our withdrawal, but this can only be done by a two-thirds vote, or 37 out of 55 nations so voting. It is inherent and basic, as I have said, in the Charter of the United Nations. that affirmative, collective action was the principle upon which the world relies in the hope of preserving future peace. Such a back door and negative procedure as now proposed was not envisaged by the framers of the United Nations. Is the United States willing to take the position that any and all members of the United Nations can undertake military intervention subject to a subsequent veto of two-thirds of the member nations? If so, in the name of candor and consistency, let us agree to an amendment to the United Nations Charter providing for such a procedure. A test of the sincerity of the United States would be to support an amendment somewhat as follows: Upon receipt of a request, any member nation can give military equipment, material, or money to finance the purchase of such, and send military personnel to train the military forces of any requesting nation, providing such intervening nation agrees to withdraw if requested to do so by two-thirds of the members of the United Nations. Such a provision in the Charter of the United Nations, of course, would make it a farce and turn the clock of peace back to the time and conditions which sowed the seeds of World Wars I and II. We ourselves cannot take unilateral military action without setting an example which would invite other member nations to do the same. The veto-provocative action already taken by a member nation is vastly different from affirmative action, whereby the United Nations not only would approve of the proposed military intervention in Greece and Turkey, but would actually be a party to it, and this, I submit again, is the concept of collective action adopted as the underlying principle of the United Nations. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Vandenberg], in his able speech opening this debate, said that the United Nations is not a relief organization, and the answer to that, of course, is that this is not a relief bill. It is a bill which provides for military intervention-for arming the Greek and Turkish Armies and training these armies with Americal military personnel. If our unilateral action in arming other nations is provocative of war, upon what ally can we depend? If we act independently and arm nations to oppose communism, can we assume that Russia will not follow our lead and establish a ccounterpolicy? In that event, who will stand by us? Have we the assurance of a single ally? We have not. We have undertaken this course alone, and we must take the consequences alone. In my speech in the Senate on April 1, I stated my views with respect to the future of the United Nations. I shall not elaborate on my statements made then except to say that the question of arming Greece and Turkey and all other like matters should come before the United Nations, in accordance with the direct mandate of its Charter. If the United Nations is not strong enough for the task, then let us take steps to make it strong. For myself, I will go the whole way in enabling America to perform her responsibility within the framework of the United Nations to preserve world peace. In that address to the Senate I proposed a show-down with Russia within the framework of the United Nations, and I repeat it now. We should not act single-handedly and alone. It is, of course, important to have Russia remain a member, but the time comes when patience ceases to be a virtue. If Russia continues to sabotage every effort toward world peace, then the only thing to do is to recognize the realities and to establish a group of nations who will cooperate effectively and act together. A Russia sabotaging the United Nations from within is even worse than a Russia outside of the United Nations. I make the confident prediction that shortly the necessities of the situation will force a show-down with Russia within the United Nations. If this showdown has to come, it is better to do so now than later. I believe that all America wants to work cooperatively with Russia in the United Nations, but we must insist upon two parties to this. Russia has deliberately and arrogantly used the veto power in 11 instances to stymie the constructive actions of the United Nations. It is significant that most of these retoes were directed against even the investigation of conditions which other nations believed to be desirable in the case of peaceful relations. Veto Power The veto power is now absolute. It would seem reasonable to me to amend it so that the veto power by any one of the Big Five would be subject to being overridden by a two-thirds vote in the General Assembly of 55 nations. Thus, the members of the so-called Big Five would have protection but not the absolute power to stymie essential action. This would provide a workable and fair procedure. 89965 0--51——-63 |