3. Should the United States be willing to relinquish the veto with respect to the admission of new members to the United Nations?

4. If the veto were relinquished with respect to membership, should we still seek its retention with respect to the matter of who should represent China in the United Nations?

5. Should the United States be willing to give up the veto with respect to the international control of atomic energy in the event a feasible control plan is devised?

Each of these questions, and many others which occur to the reader of this study, must be considered by members of this subcommittee if they are to submit constructive suggestions to the Senate. The questions must be answered in terms of what is best for the United States. What course of action with respect to the veto provisions of the United Nations charter will best assure the security and national interests of the United States?

This study provides a broad framework for a consideration of the veto power and the various proposals which have been made to alter it. Its publication does not indicate either the subcommittee's acceptance or rejection of any of the views which are expressed. Before reaching any conclusions, the subcommittee will want to obtain the thinking of the American people on all the aspects and ramifications of the problem.

In the text, at page 13, is the following:

Whenever the United States finds itself at variance with the views of the Council's majority, the veto, whether utilized or not, offers a safeguard to the American position. Abolition of the veto would mean giving up that safeguard in matters which heretofore have generally been considered the exclusive concern of the Nation. The Security Council, for example, could order the armed forces of the member nations into action provided the military agreements envisioned in article 43 were concluded. If the veto were abolished, United States troops might conceivably be called upon to support a United Nations decision which the United States opposed.

Concern regarding the veto power cannot reasonably result from dissatisfaction as to its existence, but can and should stem only from its improper use.

Consequently, we are surprised and deeply concerned that it is referred to in the preface of the document from which we have just quoted as a "kind of monkey wrench in the machinery of the (United Nations) Organization" and characterized in the document as an "evil."

We maintain that it is not an evil, but that it is our most valuable sovereign right and the basis upon which our independence and security rest. Efforts to limit its abuse should, of course, be made through persuasion; but it should not be eliminated or restricted.

National Sojourners opposes any such action.

Elimination is, or restriction upon, the veto power would inevitably affect the following matters. Some, if not all of them, might well be advocated in connection with United Nations Charter revision itself.

QUESTION OF MEMBERSHIP

(2) Membership in the U. N. Nations of the world should not, merely because they have reasonably stable governments and regardless of the political principles under which they govern, be admitted to the United Nations Organization. We should maintain our right of veto in such matters.

While the Soviet nations have vetoed the admission of some 14 nations, which might otherwise have been admitted, the United States and other Nations have opposed the admission of the mainland government of China.

It is interesting to note that in our domestic consideration as to the admission of States to the Union, our Constitution requires that they have a republican form of government.

QUESTION OF WORLD LAW

(3) World law, enforceable upon individuals. Any such proposal, presupposes (a) the establishment of international courts with criminal jurisdiction; (b) the enactment of a body of international law. defining new offenses; and (c) the trial of alleged offenders under an international system which would differ from and deprive our citizens of the due processes guaranteed under our Bill of Rights. We oppose any such suggestion.

POWER TO TAX

(4) The power to tax. One need hardly comment upon this suggestion. The people of the United States, and of some other countries, are adequately taxed now. It is one thing, within our willingness and by our own choice, to bear the major portion of the costs of joint international enterprises, but the thought of vesting the power to tax in a world federal government is quite another. This would convert voluntary contribution, over which we have control, into a compulsion which could hardly be expected to be found acceptable to our citizens.

We should always be conscious of the truism, pronounced by Chief Justice Marshall in McCullough v. Maryland, that the power to tax is the power to destroy. In fact taxation was one of the main causes of the Revolutionary War. We should not easily surrender that which our forefathers fought to gain.

WORLD MILITARY FORCE

(5) World military force. At present, there is provision for the contribution of military forces to the United Nations for police purposes.

The proposal that the United Nations should be empowered to raise, maintain, and use a world military force which might well be used against us is obviously dangerous in the extreme. Coupled with that is the suggestion that sovereign nations be prohibited from maintaining independent national forces of their own, except for police purposes. That would convert the danger into a reality of complete

subjugation.

We oppose this.

It appears clear that there are those, many of whom have the best of intentions, who would involve the United States in a world government or other type of supergovernment.

In the main they are the same groups and individuals who oppose an amendment to our Constitution to protect our internal law against encroachment by treaty or excutive agreement. We support such an amendment.

Those who oppose it, since its purpose is solely to protect our own domestic affairs, should be asked what it is they seek to regulate through international agreement which might even be beyond the

powers of our own Federal Government as granted it by the Constitution.

Finally, National Sojourners, consistent with its recognized patriotic purposes and its opposition to any form of world or other supergovernment, urges the rejection by our Government of the various proposals outlined in this statement, and any others which would alter the United Nations Charter so as to abolish or restrict the sovereignty and independence of the United States, as being detrimental to the security of our country.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

VETO STATEMENT IN STAFF STUDY DISCUSSED

Senator MANSFIELD. Captain, you say on page 4, fourth paragraph, of your statement something which I think should be cleared up:

Consequently, we are surprised and deeply concerned that it is referred to in the preface of the documents on which we have just quoted as a "kind of a monkey wrench in the machinery of the United Nations Organization" and characterized on the document as an "evil".

I think for the record I should read the full paragraph which is short, and point out that the staff has prepared these background studies at the specific request of this committee and that in each preface in these studies there is the following statement:

Its publication does not indicate either the subcommittee's acceptance or rejection of any of the views which are expressed.

And before reaching any conclusions the subcommittee will want to obtain the thinking of the American people on all the aspects and ramifications of the problem.

Now getting back to the particular paragraph from which you quoted some parts, it reads as follows:

Almost since the inception of the United Nations, the veto has been criticized as being a kind of a monkey wrench in the machinery of the organization. The device has been used 58 times, 57 times by the Soviet Union to block action by the Security Council. This abuse of the veto has led to demands for its abolition. In seeking to correct an evil, however, care must be taken not to

compound it.

I just wanted that in the record so that the full meaning of it will be understood.

Captain WILLENBUCHER. I am very glad, Mr. Chairman, you read it because I think that the way we had it in our statement might have led to an incorrect conclusion. We want to be entirely factual, of

course.

Senator MANSFIELD. I am sure of that, Captain.

Captain Willenbucher and General Schulz, we are delighted that you have appeared before us today. You have been very specific in your recommendations as to what you think should be done and the committee is indebted to you for coming before us.

Captain WILLENBUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MANSFIELD. The committee now stands adjourned until 10:30 tomorrow morning when we will meet in the caucus room in the Senate Office Building.

Whereupon at 3:40 o'clock the committee adjourned to reconvene at 10:30 a. m. Friday, April 22, 1955.

REVIEW OF THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER

FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 1955

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a. m., in the caucus room, 318 Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C., Senator Walter F. George (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senator George.

Also present: Senators Green, Sparkman, Humphrey, Barkley, Wiley, and Aiken.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order.

The committee meets today to hear the comments of Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt on the United Nations Charter.

We are happy to have you, Mrs. Roosevelt. You have an experience with this subject which is equaled by a very few people. As I recall, you attended the first meeting of the General Assembly in London, in 1945, which did so much of the basic work in establishing the United Nations. You also served as a member of the American Delegation to the General Assembly on several subsequent occasions and you represented this country on the Human Rights Commission. Out of your wide experience, I know that you have much to contribute to the work of the committee.

STATEMENT OF MRS. ELEANOR ROOSEVELT, FORMER UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL; FORMER UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Mrs. ROOSEVELT. Thank you very much for your kind welcome, Senator. I am very happy to be able to come down. I am a member now of the American Association of the United Nations, and have been working for them for the past 2 years, organizing throughout the country, so that we might have more information about the United Nations. At the same time, in having more information, I hope that people may become more interested in doing things which would strengthen the United Nations.

I have been very happy in your hearings on the possibility of meeting and having revisions of the charter.

I think the more we can awaken interest among our people, and the more they know about the United Nations, the better it will be.