time to draw back. We do not have the time to waste and if it is looked upon as a military alliance, in my opinion that is not to be feared too much.

In going into the atomic world of the future, I would rather go into that world with 35 nations or 40 nations lined up in an effective, functioning international organization, than to go into it in a disorganized condition as we are at the present time, not knowing who our friends and allies will be, and if it comes to the point of military alliance and of cleavage on a military plane, we should follow the ideal logical cleavage which does exist, I would feel safer if 35 or 40 nations were with us, on the principles which we believe to be fair and just and which we keep open for other nations to cooperate with us on this basis, than for us to proceed alone with a functionless organization to confuse and deceive the people.

Mr. JUDD. If it is not justified to build an organization for collective self-defense with 40 nations within the UN, how can we go out and challenge them with 5? If we are going to take on a bull, we should not do it with a pea shooter. We want to be as strong as possible. Certainly for us to tell the Russians in public hearings that as long as they stall or refuse to agree, we will not do anything, makes it practically certain that we will not get agreement. Under those circumstances they would be foolish to agree.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I recognize the alliance arrangement permitted under the Charter and I look upon that as a stopgap remedy in which I am heartily in favor.

I would like to see all 16 nations form an economic and military alliance for the protection of each nation and for the protection of the whole world.

I would also like to see our own Western Hemisphere join with the western European alliance, which might be the practical way of forming a functional group in the world organization.

However, I think you have to go further than that and attack this not altogether on a regional basis but on an approach through the United Nations, excluding no nation that will cooperate with the principles we believe in.

Mr. JUDD. I agree with you 100 percent. We must make perfectly clear in advance that only if we are not able to get agreement, with full recognition that it cannot be perfected in one jump-only if it proves impossible to get the whole world together into a workable organization, will we go ahead with these arrangements for collective self-defense under article 51.

Mr. LODGE. I apologize to my colleague for not having arrived in time to hear his statement.

Do you favor resolution No. 163? That is the resolution containing three specific recommendations with respect to changes.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. What was your question, please?

Mr. LODGE. Do you favor Resolution 163?

Mr. HOLIFIELD, Yes.

Mr. LODGE. Let us assume that the Soviet Union and her satellites do not agree to those changes. How do you suggest that we proceed at that point?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I have come reluctantly to the point that we must proceed in forming a functioning, international organization with or without Russia.

Mr. LODGE. What happens to the United Nations in that case? Mr. HOLIFIELD. The United Nations as an organization in my opinion would at that point cease.

Mr. LODGE. Under what provisions of the charter would it cease? Mr. HOLIFIFLD. It would cease as far as effectiveness is concerned. Mr. LODGE. How will action be taken to make the United Nations cease functioning?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I do not think formal action would be necessary. I think if 35 or 40 nations were drawn into a parallel organization in which they would subscribe to certain principles which are not now in the United Nations Charter, that by the very formation of a parallel organization, the original United Nations would automatically cease to be effective.

Mr. LODGE. Supposing the Russians said, "We are going to abide by the United Nations Charter even if you do not, we will stay with our satellites, we will stay at Lake Success, and you fellows can do what ever you want to do."

What would you do then?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think they could meet with their six or seven satellites.

You are assuming on a technicality.

Mr. LODGE. The Charter is not a technicality.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. You have blind allegiance to an organization which has proven by 3 years of experience that it cannot function; on 24 different occasions, as I recall it, the absolute single nation veto has obstructed international solutions of troubles between nations or troubles between nations and the United Nations, and therefore, allegiance to that functionless organization will get us nowhere. We must have a functioning organization, regardless of the provisions of the Charter.

You must proceed to form a parallel organization and make it work. Mr. LODGE. You would agree, I assume that the main reason the veto has not worked is because of the manner in which the Soviet Union has used it, would you not?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes; I certainly would.

Mr. LODGE. Then why abolish the veto if the Soviet Union is out of the United Nations? In other words, when we form our own international organization, why do we have to adopt this amendment No. 1? Why do we not leave the veto in?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Because, by leaving the veto in, we have had an organization which has proven itself unable to solve international disputes.

Mr. LODGE. Only because of the abuse of the veto by the Soviet Union.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I am not interested in why; the fact remains that it has been a stumbling block.

Mr. LODGE. I do not see how you can remedy a situation until you have ascertained the reason. Now the reason the United Nations has failed in these instances has been because of the use of the veto by Soviet Union.

If you feel that if Russia does not agree with these amendments, we should form our own United Nations without Russia, at that point what is the use of the amendment eliminating the veto?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Because, in my opinion, it would be a permanent obstruction in a parallel organization.

Mr. LODGE. Would you be willing to have the forces of this country committed by two-thirds of the members of that new United Nations?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. We have not gotten to the point of discussing whether it should be two-thirds or four-fifths of the organization in which the vetoes should be eliminated.

In my original statement I said I thought it should be modified. Now, going into the subject of the type of veto is an entirely different proposition and I probably am not as well equipped as my questioners to outline the degree of modifications.

Mr. LODGE. I would like to have your opinion on this. The main reason for this impulse to change the United Nations is because of the actions of Soviet Russia. Now, if Russia will not go along with this, and if we go along with your plan and have our own United Nations Organization, why do we need the amendment? We would have achieved complete agreement in the United Nations all along had Soviet Russia not been a member.

If you are going to eliminate Soviet Russia, why do you need the amendment at all?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Because I believe that the theory of single nation veto is not a democratic theory. I believe it has never worked in the history of world associations. I believe that you must subscribe to the majority principle. I am not saying what percentage of majority, because that is a matter of debate, but I think in the last analysis you must subscribe to the majority principle which is outlined in our Federal Constitution, and until we and other nations of the world are willing to get together on that basis, I do not believe we can get togther except by that principle.

Mr. LODGE. Let us examine that principle, Mr. Holifield. The representative principle of government that we have in this country is representation according to population. There is no such representation under your plan.

Luxemburg would have a vote equal to us and Luxemburg has a population of probably 350,000 people.

Would you be willing to commit the forces of this country on account of the vote of nations the size of Luxemburg, Belgium, and Holland, and so on? Does that seem to be democratic on your appraisal of the meaning of that word?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I certainly do not, and I say you are bringing in another subject-the subject of what type of proportional representation we should have in a functioning United Nations.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. That proportion of representation does not necessarily need to be confined to populations as it is so confined in our own Nation. It can be confined to or can include, along with population, industrial productiveness, natural resources, and other factors upon which we could arrange agreement.

Mr. LODGE. In other words, you would not be prepared to disagree with me as to the necessity for working out some other arrangement for voting and not necessarily representation by nation states.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I agree with you completely, I think, on that. Mr. LODGE. Let me ask you this, Mr. Holifield: Under your resolution there is a 20-percent quota in heavy armaments. Do you realize that that is one field in which we have a particular predominance?

Do you believe it is wise-assuming that the Soviet Union agrees to agree to a 20-percent parity with the Soviet Union on the items in which we have predominance and not to limit the Soviet Union on the elements of power in which she has predominance, to wit, mass armies?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think that is a matter that can be ironed out during these hearings, and in writing your bill, the exact formula could be arrived at. I would say that if Russia and the United States were put on the same heavy armament basis, the same ratio of population basis, that the United States would still have a tremendous advantage both from the standpoint of industrial productiveness and the standpoint of possession of atomic energy.

Mr. LODGE. The thought I have in mind is that even if the Soviet Union were not to join these amendments, they are subject to grave questioning.

I would like to refer for a minute to this proposition: That under these amendments the armies of the small countries could be committed by a vote of the large countries.

That is not possible under the present arrangement in the United Nations.

Do you consider that to be a democratic procedure?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I believe that the new functioning organization must be set up on a basis of majority decision, with minority going along with the majority decisions.

Now if it happens to be a small or large nation, which in a vote on a certain matter should be in the minority, I think that they must go along with the majority in those decisions.

Mr. LODGE. Do you believe that a system whereby France has one vote and we have two is more democratic, to use your own words, than a system whereby France has one vote and we have one?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I said before and I will repeat that I do not know exactly the basis for the establishment of the 2-to-1 formula, there. Mr. LODGE. In other words, you are not prepared to back to the hilt every one of the amendments you proposed in your own resolution? Mr. HOLIFIELD. No; I am not. I am prepared to support a basic formula in this resolution, which is to call together a conference for the discussion and establishment of certain principles. It will be possible that such a conference would achieve a different formula, but the points at issue are the points which I think must be discussed.

Mr. LODGE. That could be done under Resolution No. 59. You would not need Resolution 163 to call a conference together to discuss these matters.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. That might be, sir.

Mr. LODGE. What is the advantage of Resolution No. 163 over No. 59, if you are not prepared to back up these amendments?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think the advantage is that it brings into the foreground of people's discussion and the people's knowledge certair

factors which have to be considered, and I think that out of the crucible of discussion there will be conclusions reached on these very vital principles which are outlined there.

Mr. LODGE. Thank you very much.

Mr. JUDD. There is nothing in the resolution that would authorize the big powers to order the armed forces of little powers around. The international contingent is recruited exclusively from small powers, but it is under the direct control of the Security Council and not through governments. They serve in it as individuals, not as representatives from individual countries.

Mr. LODGE. Let me ask you this question: You have, as I recollectyou would have two votes for Britain, the United States, and Russia. Mr. JUDD. Two for the British Commonwealth.

Mr. LODGE. You have two votes there for each one of them; that is six. One for France and one for China; that is eight; and two for the little ones. That is ten.

Now if the eight get together and decide to commit the forces of the two, they can do it; can they not?

Mr. JUDD. The two probably would not have any forces except military. They would not need any.

Mr. LODGE. They would be contributing to the international contingent.

Mr. JUDD. Yes; their individual citizen might join.

Mr. LODGE. The two can commit that international contingent?
Mr. JUDD. Yes; but not as contingents of countries.

Mr. LODGE. The eight can get together and commit the international contingent and these countries cannot do that under the present Security Council arrangement. You have 11 votes on the present Security Council, of which 6, I believe, are small nations and 5 are permanent members.

Mr. JUDD. Do you not think the little nations would rather have security than have their own little individual armies that cannot possibly defend them against any big-power attack?

Mrs. BOLTON (presiding). May I ask, who has the floor?
Mr. JUDD. I yield the floor if I have it. Thank you.
Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Gordon, have you any questions?

Mr. GORDON. I have no questions.

Mrs. BOLTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Holifield.

We will next hear from Congressman Stockman.

STATEMENT OF HON. LOWELL STOCKMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Mr. STOCKMAN. I am Lowell Stockman, Member of Congress from the State of Oregon.

Madam Chairman and members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I am highly indebted to you for your consideration of my opinions this morning, and I want you to know I appreciate being given this opportunity to appear before this distinguished committee.

I am appearing in support of the revision of the United Nations Charter in the capacity, as I like to refer to it, of a layman. I am not what I would term in any manner or sense an authority on our foreign-affairs situation or the international situation. I am, however, deeply concerned and vitally interested in the success of the