United Nations Organization. I feel that if the United Nations does not succeed, the world will be plunged into one or more world wars in the not too far distant future, and I am certain in my mind that the United Nations is the only possible way by which we have at the present, or are likely to find, assistance to avert future world wars. I think that the United Nations Charter must be revised on what is known as the ABC plan. This plan has been proposed by Mr. Ely Culbertson even though he denies authorship of it. I think he had a large hand in getting it together.

That plan calls for the elimination of the Security Council veto on all matters relating to aggression, armaments, or admission to the United Nations; secondly, control of atomic weapons as proposed by the United States and to limit heavy armament by a quota force plan, giving the United States, the United Kingdom, and Soviet Russia 20 percent apiece, China and France 10 percent each, and all others a total of 20 percent; thirdly to establish an effective world police force, made up of volunteers from small nations and their heavy arms backed by reserves of the five major powers.

Now it seems to me that the United Nations Council must be revised along those lines. Whether or nor Russia will cooperate, it still must be revised.

I am very much afraid and I feel very strongly in my own heart that the United Nations Organization will fail in the purpose for which it was conceived and for which I hoped it would have every success in the world.

I believe that these three steps are the best methods of helping it achieve its purpose.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Judd.

Mr. JUDD. I have no questions.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Richards?

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Stockman, to get down to the fundamentals of this thing, the United Nations is not working now, is it?

Mr. STOCKMAN. That, in my opinion, is correct.

Mr. RICHARDS. Therefore, you believe that the basic Charter of this thing should be revised to make it work?

Mr. STOCKMAN. That is exactly right.

Mr. RICHARDS. In matters of aggression and preparation for aggression, you think that the nations which want peace should be willing to surrender some of their sovereignty in that connection; is that right? Mr. STOCKMAN. I believe that is vitally necessary.

Mr. RICHARDS. In regard to the question asked by Mr. Lodge just now I want to ask for your further opinion: He said that if we regroup this association and Russia would not join, there would be no need for the veto, then.

As a matter of fact if you did not have amendments abolishing the veto in certain particulars, some other nation might wreck the thing just as Russia is trying to wreck it now, is that not so?

Mr. STOCKMAN. Yes, sir; I think that is the way it would work out. Mr. RICHARDS. Therefore, whether we keep the old Organization or form another organization composed of nations who wish to preserve the peace, the need will still remain for some changes in the original Charter?

Mr. STOCKMAN. That is the way it appears to me.

Mr. RICHARDS. That is all.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Fulton?

Mr. FULTON. Actually, the veto was a device arranged to withdraw from the consideration of the Security Council any questions that were too big for the infant United Nations; is that not correct?

Mr. STOCKMAN. I think that is probably correct.

Mr. FULTON. Then if you try to have this lamb swallow more than it can digest by withdrawing that veto power, you put into the agenda of the United Nations for action things that the Organization at its present stage cannot handle. Do you not think you might kill the baby lamb?

Mr. STOCKMAN. On the face of it that sounds reasonable, but I really do not think that would happen, especially if the participating nations have a desire to want to make it work, and unless they do have that it could not succeed anyway.

Mr. FULTON. Therefore, unless you get the agreement of Russia, so that she, too, will go along, it would then be apparent that the United Nations would not be able to function on matters that she does not want it to function upon.

Mr. STOCKMAN. I think we have to be realistic on the matter of Russia and consider her being out of the league to this point, and I believe we are going to have to bring ourselves to the realization that the way things are shaping up now, and have been for the past two and a half years, that this league and this world are going to have to get along without Russia being one of the participating nations, for the reason that she, so far, has shown no apparent thought of helping out with anything that will help out the world.

I reiterate, speaking as a layman and not in the manner of an authority on world-wide affairs, it seems to me that Russia has only stayed with the league just for the purpose of keeping her hand in on what is going on, and with no effort at all of helping the United Nations succeed, or helping anyone else in the world except Russia. Mr. FULTON. Actually, the biggest problems under the United Nations are those in which Russia is involved?

Mr. STOCKMAN. I think that is right.

Mr. FULTON. Then if that is the case, if you set the organization up otherwise than with Russia's agreement, coming to Mr. Lodge's point, does that not make these proposed amendments futile?

Mr. STOCKMAN. It might. I really do not think so, because I do not think we have any cooperation from Russia at the present time, so I think we are going to have to go along on the basis of working without Russia anyway.

Mr. FULTON. Would that be very much a limitation on the United Nations as to the matters it will decide, so it would become more or less a small debating society?

Mr. STOCKMAN. I think that is one of the practical aspects we have to face. I think it could be that at the present time it is nothing but a debating society.

That is why I want to take whatever steps seem logical to help it.
Mr. FULTON. That is all I have. Thank you very much.
Mr. STOCKMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. LODGE. Mr. Stockman, if Russia would not agree to these amendments, you think it would be far preferable to form another United Nations than simply to proceed under article 51 into a series of regional, multilateral, military pacts, do you?

Mr. STOCKMAN. I am in no way familiar with article 51, but in answer to the first part of your question, I think we would be just as well off with another league without Russia, because I do not think they are cooperating or helping out with the present league. Mr. LODGE. Thank you very much.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Stockman, may I ask you a question?

Mr. STOCKMAN. Yes, ma'am.

Mrs. BOLTON. Do you feel that a complete break with Russia is indicated at this point? Do you think we have reached a moment where the world would be better off if we severed all possible connections with Russia?

Mr. STOCKMAN. Actually, I think that we probably would be better off. That is what I would term an entirely practical viewpoint. When I say that, I am thinking into the future, and I am of the opinion that that is what it will ultimately amount to in any event. Actually, I do not think possibly you should say that right now. It has not reached that stage, although I feel in my mind that it will. I am certain that Russia does not intend or propose to cooperate with the United States or any other part of the world. I would say that that is what it would come to and we might just as well realize that.

Mrs. BOLTON. Would you feel that we had any responsibility toward those satellite countries that are under the Russian domination at the moment, but within the borders of which there are thousands upon thousands who want to be out from under the influence?

Mr. STOCKMAN. Yes; I think we have a large responsibility to them. As to whether or not we can exercise any part of it, I think that is another question. With Russia dominating them, and overshadowing them as she does, I think it would be highly questionable whether we could do anything about it, but in answer to your question I think we have the responsibility.

Mrs. BOLTON. Then you would be reluctant to see us take any steps which would sever all possible communication with these countries. It would be quite impossible for us to hold out hope to them?

Mr. STOCKMAN. Yes.

Mrs. BOLTON. If we make a new United Nations, and exclude Russia, is that not exactly what we do?

Mr. STOCKMAN. Yes, it is. On the other hand, to reiterate what I have already said, I think that is actually doing what is already going on now, but we are putting it on top of the table.

Mrs. BOLTON. You think we would be better off if we abandoned many of these contacts we have in small committee meetings and discussion groups and so on, with Russia?

Mr. STOCKMAN. Madam Chairman, at all times I feel that to be en tirely realistic about any matter is the best possible solution. Does that answer your question?

Mrs. BOLTON. No; I think not. To me it resembles the recent descent into what is called Realism in Art which insists that we consider paintings of dirty little back yards works of art. I am not satisfied myself to say that to be realistic is to look at only the dark side of any matter. I think that your attitude toward what you term realism, and so forth, at that point is not one that I could agree to.

You feel that there is nothing else that we can do and therefore we should write them off?

Mr. STOCKMAN. I likened the United Nations to a sort of business agreement, in which the participating nations sit around the table and discuss with one another their problems just exactly in the same manner as the same number of businessmen would sit around a table trying to work out a problem affecting all of them.

I think that the United Nations should be considered as a business proposition because, after all, it involves money, the future of the Nation, and the future of human lives and it really is a business deal.

If, for instance, 50 men are sitting around a table and one of the largest stockholders in the proposition refuses to counsel or refuses to go along or you do not know where he is or he will not say yes, or he will not say no, you never can reach a business agreement. I think that is the case somewhat with the United Nations.

From that viewpoint it seems to me that if you have one of the most important nations who will not counsel and who will not go along, and just gets what it can out of the United Nations without giving anything in return, with that sort of person, no patience should be granted. I probably am not in line with the thinking of the committee, but that does not mean that you are wrong.

Mrs. BOLTON. May I suggest that to use the same case, the United Nations is probably the board of directors, but I question whether Russia is a stockholder, rather is she a member of the board. I think there may come a time when the stockholders, the people of the different nations, will assume the right to their own say.

Therefore, I would be very reluctant to have the stockholders of Czechoslovakia and Poland who are violently opposed to this thing which has been put upon them, I should be reluctant to find they had no voice. I would not call that a democratic procedure.

I was questioning the business proposition and I wonder if you might consider that?

Mr. STOCKMAN. I believe the example you have just made is the best one I have heard yet as to what is actually represented in the United Nations. I think that is a most admirable one and one that should be given a lot of consideration. I think you are exactly right in that, that the people of Russia more than likely are not being allowed to speak their mind, ar any part of their voice at all.

Mrs. BOLTON. Therefore, if we keep the board of directors going, there might not be so much trouble. Might there not come a time when the recalcitrant ones might be persuaded to move in for the benefit of their own stockholders?

Mr. STOCKMAN. I think that is quite right. Of course, in my mind, I question whether that will happen, but I think your point is extremely well taken.

T

Mrs. BOLTON. Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. FOLGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. FOLGER. Madam Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I think I should preface what I have to say by the observation that my anxiety as to the status of world affairs, rather than any assump tion that I have any peculiar knowledge or ability to be helpful to this committee, moves me in requesting this time in appearing before

you.

Of course, I am but one of probably 140,000,000 people who are uneasy and somewhat fearful.

We have been running along for more than 2 years. It is, of course, necessary that we admit that we had hoped for something and it has not been accomplished.

I was a little bit disturbed and possibly surprised to read that Secretary Marshall said that the United Nations is not supposed to make peace, but to preserve peace. I realize that in some of the record there is that thought that I thought was inadvertently expressed, that it was to preserve peace rather than to make peace.

I think the ability lies, if it lies anywhere, with the United Nations to at least help the United States and any other nations like-minded, to build a peace, and I would not have any observation I make interpreted as a willingness to forget the United Nations, or to fail to realize its possibilities in this effort we are in to build a just and lasting peace, which we indicated ourselves was proper and which we committed ourselves to at an earlier time in the Congress.

I think it is possible for the United Nations to help us build a peace and to be more instrumental in it. I am not here to advocate or even to suggest that the United Nations be crippled, but I do think that the line of thought as expressed in these resolutions-we have many of them; most of them I think are substantially to the same effect that that is not an attack upon the United Nations but is, as we had to do in the framing of our own Constitution, a later recognized necessity. What I stress especially is the enlarging and defining of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

I do not know that it is necessary to disregard the fact that that court is set up, and go into what we call a "world court," or establish another court, but I am rather of the opinion that the jurisdiction which is contemplated in the resolutions which have been offeredthat by your own committeeman Mr. Judd and the Senate Resolution No. 50, and others which are practically the same import, and having the same purposes, that there be given to this International Court of Justice, jurisdiction to prevent war, to put it in plain language. Of course, there is carried with it the necessity of establishment of an enforcement agency.

At that point I think I am committed to the belief that that court should not only have national jurisdiction, but should have individual jurisdiction, as the United States courts have jurisdiction over people in my State and yours for the violation of laws and offenses directed toward the Nation. This would be for offenses that were directed toward all of the nations of the world.

With your indulgence I want to read you a few excerpts which I think will be very helpful and which are very well conceived. I