STRUCTURE OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE UNITED NATIONS

The committee convened at 10: 15 a. m., in the caucus room, House Office Building, Hon. Charles A. Eaton (chairman) presiding. Chairman EATON. The committee will be in order.

Mr. Holifield will be the first witness.

STATEMENT OF HON, CHET HOLIFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I welcome the opportunity to appear before your great committee for the purpose of making a very brief statement. I am one of those who believe that universal peace can never be established on the basis of national military strength alone. I sincerely believe that a functioning-and note that I stress the word "functioning"-international organization is the only hope for national security in the new atomic

age.

I was a member of President Truman's Atomic Bomb Evaluation Committee at the Bikini test. I visited the two great Japanese cities that were destroyed. For the past year and a half I have served on the Joint Committee of the House and Senate on Atomic Energy.

It is because of my personal knowledge of the terrible and potential destruction of an atomic war that I deem that some legislation is necessary to further strengthen and to make more effective our present international organization which we call the United Nations.

Chairman EATON. Would you state exactly how you would straighten it out and make it effective? Are you going to do that? Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

In July 1947 I introduced two resolutions, H. R. 116 and H. R. 117, the purposes of which were similar to the present resolution introduced by Mr. Judd and Mr. Hays. The purposes contained in my resolutions, however, did not go as far as the present legislation. The purposes in my resolutions were threefold. It called upon the President of the United States through the delegate to the United Nations to call a conference as provided for in the Charter and for the purpose of amending the Charter.

The first and most important point to be considered by the delegates of the United Nations was the possibility of modifying or amending

the veto provision which in 23 or 24 different instances has been utilized by member nations and in 22 occasions, I believe by Russia, for the purpose of stalemating or objecting to an international decision on problems between nations or between a nation and the United Nations Organization.

⚫ I am convinced that while it was necessary to include that provision in the original United Nations Charter that the experiences of the past 3 years have shown that unless it is modified to some extent that we have a form of international organization without the vital power necessary to make it effective.

In my resolution I provided that we should proceed as the Charter calls for in the establishment of an International Court for the purposes of adjudicating problems between nations. It also provided that we immediately proceed toward the formation of an International Police Force which is also, as you know, provided in the Charter but which has not yet been effected. It is my opinion that if this particular point had been complied with, or if the International Police Force, in other words, had been established, that the stalemate in Korea and in Palestine might not have occurred.

The so-called Judd-Hays bill goes further than my resolutions and I am in accord with the general purposes set forth in that legislation. I certainly believe that the subject of limitation of armaments in the different nations is a subject which should be immediately taken up by the United Nations. The crushing burden of armaments throughout the world, which amounts to about two-thirds of our present budget, is indicative of the need of the studying of this problem and it can only be studied on an international basis. I am, therefore, in full accord with the extension of the subject of inquiry, as contained in the Judd and Hays bills.

I join gladly with the nonpartisan and forward-looking group Representatives and Senators who are sponsoring identical resolutions to amend and improve the United Nations Charter.

In July 1947 I introduced two resolutions, H. R. 116 and H. R. 117, the purposes of which were similar to those of the present resolution. However, the present resolution goes further into the subject than my resolutions, and deals with additional factors pertaining to the difficult job of establishing international accord. I am, therefore, happy to join with my colleagues on this additional attempt to move toward universal peace.

I firmly believe that the most important problem facing our Nation and the world, is the establishing of an international organization which will be a vital functioning vehicle for world peace. Our present United Nations is a noble beginning, but 3 years of experience has disclosed basic organizational faults which must be eliminated. It is the mark of wisdom to recognize defects and move constructively to im prove. Those who point out the faults and criticize are morally and spiritually obligated to formulate constructive improvements in the function of the United Nations.

To criticize and condemn is the mark of defeatism. To criticize and improve is the obligation of every honest and sincere public official. I shall join with every group in our Nation who are loyal, conscien ticus, and dedicated to the fight against a third world war. That fight must be made intelligently, with sober evaluation of the realities

of the present world situation. It is not enough to cry: peace! peace! It is not enough to decry and condemn war.

We must, if we live up to the challenge of our times, move constructively and in a practical way toward constructing a vehicle for obtaining peace. We must eliminate war for the benefit of suffering mankind and we must realize that war can be eliminated only on the international level. National security can no longer be obtained within national boundaries or through dependence on national strength alone. It is for these reasons that I gladly join with my colleagues in their nonpartisan sponsorship of a resolution for United Nations revision. Chairman EATON. You referred to the aid for the establishment of a court. We have in the Charter here, the statute on the International Court of Justice. Is it that Court?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes; I consider that a court. My words were directed to the fact that the purpose of the Charter has not yet been achieved, and toward expediting the setting up of that Court of Justice.

Chairman EATON. This is to be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I am fully in accord with that, and my only complaint, if it is a complaint at the present time, is that it has not advanced to the place where it can function in matters of international dispute.

Chairman EATON. Are here any questions?

Mr. FULTON. How would you implement the enforcement of the decisions of the United Nations?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I believe that can be done only through the estahlishment of an international police force as called for in the Charter. I recognize the fact that there have been many conferences for that purpose which have been fruitless up to the present time.

Mr. FULTON. Even if we should change the Charter as is suggested by any one of these resolutions, would it amount to anything if the decisions of even that amended United Nations cannot be enforced? Mr. HOLIFIELD. In my opinion, unless we have an international police force, we are in the same position that the League of Nations was in 25 years ago when we invoked sanctions against Mussolini, and against the Japanese on their invasion into Manchuria and Ethiopia. We are absolutely in a position of helplessness. We are in a position where, as has been evidenced recently, a few disorganized Arab tribesmen can defy the will of the majority of the nations of the world on a particular subject.

Mr. FULTON. Does your form of procedure envisage the possible set-up of a police force with those countries who would cooperate?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes; with those who would cooperate in a functioning United Nations which would not be obstructed by an absolutely single-nation veto.

Mr. FULTON. Do you think that might be misinterpreted as an alliance against the others who did not join?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think that it might be, but my sense of urgency in proceeding along this line comes partly from the knowledge which I have as a member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. The testimony before our committee has been that we have probably-and this is a matter of dispute-5 years to 8 years sole ownership of the

75921-48- -8

atomic bomb. In other words, our best scientists have testified before that committee and have made public statements so I am not revealing anything of a confidential nature, that it is possible for any foreign nation to develop machinery for the conversion of atomic energy into atomic war missiles within a period of time from now to 1952 or 1953. I therefore feel we have from 5 to 7 years in which to more nearly perfect an international organization which will seek to settle disputes on the basis of international law and multilateral agreement, and not on the sole basis of national military strength. It is my sense of urgency on the time limitation, where we are the sole owners of atomic energy, and it is my theory that if another nation has atomic energy, that we will not be in a position to sit across the table and bargain as easily as we can now. It is my judgment that we would not be able under those conditions to possibly obtain a majority of the nations of the world who see international values as we see them and who would line up with us at the present time, but who through fear might not line up with us under circumstances which I have indicated. That is why I think it is so urgent that a United Nations Organization be put on an effective and functioning basis just as quickly as possible. I cannot stress too strongly my feelings on that measure. I think the sands in the atomic hourglass are running out and I think we must do something.

I am aware of the testimony given by our great Secretary of State, General Marshall, yesterday. I know of only the newspaper account of it. I can see the value in what he has to say. I cannot be the judge of the timing of proposed changes in the international organization, but in the over-all timing, I believe I am capable of saying we must do something between now and 1952 or 1953.

Mr. FULTON. Thank you.

Mr. JUDD. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
Chairman EATON. Yes.

Mr. JUDD. It has been said by some that for the United States to try to get all the nations who are willing to come along into a real organization under law and with a police force, might be regarded as unfriendly to Russia, for example, or threaten the United Nations and perhaps destroy it, as both the Secretary of State and Ambassador Austin repeatedly said yesterday.

If that is true, do you not think that getting together a western union in Europe, five or six nations into a military alliance with the United States, which those same gentlemen are promoting, would be a threat to Russia and be regarded as somewhat unfriendly and therefore jeopardize the United Nations and perhaps destroy it?

How do you explain the thesis that getting all the nations together in an agreement that Russia cannot challenge would be dangerous. but that getting a little handful together which Russia can challenge would not be dangerous?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. The logic of the gentleman's remark, I agree with completely. Anything we do, I believe will be looked upon by those nations that do not agree with the multilateral approach to world solutions as a threat.

I say then in all sincerity, that we who believe in the principles of multilateral, international solutions by international law must go forward without fear of criticism, from those nations who wish to return to the jungle of national sovereignty. I believe this is no