the American people to accept the doctrine that we were one indivisible Nation.

Now, in traveling around the world-these are more or less sentimental views in traveling around the world like I have for 6 years, and having been in every continent, through the Pacific area, in through Europe, and in South and Central America, I tried to talk to people, about these things, who are out of the official group, if possible. We only get a very small sample. However, everywhere I have gone I have talked to these people in education, in farming, in business, laborers, and things of that kind, and I never found one, but what he wanted to find some way where his nation could live in a peaceful world. He says, "We want our representatives to compromise if they have to. We do not want to have these recurring wars in which all we get is tragedy, high taxes, and trouble."

So it is up to us, more than any other one group, to find a way to develop the mechanisms that can harness that universal desire.

As I say, my idea on these resolutions is this: If we can either strengthen the United Nations or improve it, it will be good. If we cannot strengthen the United Nations let us develop a new organization. You know the League of Nations is still in existence, legally. It is on a stand-by basis. We visited it last summer. There are a few people there. It is still legally in existence, but it is impotent because the United Nations has taken its place.

My idea is that if we could get rid of the veto that might be a big step. Whatever the original ideas were with reference to the veto, it is quite obvious that the veto is the barrier that we cannot surmount. Those who are willful and determined to block us can raise a barrier. If we have to form a new group then I say let us do it, because the gamble for peace, no matter what it is, is worth while.

I talked to my people along this line. They said, "How are you going to do it?" I said, "We have a pan-American group. That could be the nucleus. We could take in those countries such as Norway that have our slant on social life, in the economic field and in government-Norway, Sweden, Denmark, France, and all the group. We could undoubtedly get the help of the Oriental group, including China. China has maybe a backward government, according to our view, but it is the best they have, and we must work with the tools we have. We could take in the southern half of Korea. We could take in the Philippines, and so forth and so on." That is the way I looked at it at that time, and that is what I believed we should do.

It is certainly disappointing to those of us who have lived through two wars. We fought one war on the very basis that it would end all wars, and a good many people who fought the war believed that. We believed it for a long time. When we had the Disarmament Conference in 1922 I was one of those who was unsophisticated enough to think it was a wonderful thing, and frankly I am proud of the fact that we, the strongest of nations, were willing to scrap all those ships and tell the world, "We are willing to trim down our armaments and thereby eliminate one possibility toward war."

It proved to be futile later on. However, it was a great gesture. It showed where the heart of America lay. We then came along and had the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which was a noble statement of principle, but there was no force behind it. We have to find a way, whether

through the thing we have now, which appears to be impotent, if not dying, or through some other means, to get a way to harness the nations of good will together to make the rules of the game, and put the power behind the rules to make them work when courts decide complicated and controversial matters that they bring about.

That is my general idea on this thing. I do not know whether I have contributed anything to your thinking. We look upon you as the ones who have to dovetail and mesh all these ideas into something that is workable. However, certainly it must be obvious to every one of you that the great mass of people that we represent are thoroughly disillusioned, thoroughly disappointed, and some are just hopeless as to the future. They say, "Why can you not do something? Why do you not do something?" We try to explain that we have tried; that we have done everything possible to negotiate, to compromise, to trade, to disarm, and to do everything that would minimize the chance of a war. Yet, we are blocked with that situation that one nation whose concurrence is required simply will not agree or compromise.

Just to recapitulate, my idea is that if we can modify the United Nations' Charter so as to make it work, that would be the thing to do. If we cannot, let us then start on another road and see if we can harness the forces of good will in the world that will combine, holding the door open to any outsiders who want to join us. I think if we show a determined attitude, backed by force, that the policy of some of those who are obstructing us will radically change. They will see it is to their selfish advantage to join with us and try to get along with the world.

That is my very brief statement, and I want to thank you for the opportunity of making it.

Mrs. BOLTON. We are happy indeed to have had you with us.
Mr. Chiperfield, have you a question?

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Johnson, I believe you have made a very constructive statement and also a very reasonable approach to this complicated subject. I believe everybody who was here yesterday afternoon and heard Senator Austin was convinced that the United Nations has not been a failure. I do not know whether the answer to the problem is Concurrent Resolution 59 or Concurrent Resolution 163, but my approach is similar to yours, which I believe is a reasonable one: There can be found an area of agreement between this committee, members of the United Nations, and the State Department, where we can sit down together and talk over this situation and probably get together a resolution which will strengthen the United Nations and not do harm to it or destroy it.

I think that is what you want us to do, is it not, Mr. Johnson?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; I want you to try on that as hard as you can. If we cannot have that then let us start one of our own. The nucleus for it is already formed. The ERP bill that your committee put out that we all heartily supported, that is the nucleus. They are already talking about military collaboration. The group of western countries, that is the nucleus we can have. We could probably take some oriental countries with us.

We do not want to get into a sad situation where one group is developing a big armament program and there is part of the world that is on the other side doing likewise.

One thing I would like to mention here, if I may, is somewhat in response to your question, and it is this: I am one of those who feels very badly that there is so much discussion about communism and Russia. Even the President came down and personally delivered a message and used the words of another form of ideology.

Here is my idea on that: We sat down and made certain agreements with Russia and the rest of the countries. What we want to emphasize is, not that we object to their ideology for their own country, but we want them to abide by their commitments to allow other countries to have what they want by a free election. In other words, she is breaking her contracts on which the sanctity of all law rests. It is that those who agree to things will abide by the agreement in spirit and in letter. She is not doing that. Let us put the heat on her for that, and not on her because of ideology.

I do not, of course, agree with any of their general ways of life or methods of government, but if that is what they want and they do not hinder their neighbors, let them have it. However, let her abide by her agreements, and in the case of Poland, when they saddled that country without a government not selected at a free election, we should have stepped in more vigorously, in my opinion. That opened the door for the penetration of 12 nations, or 13 nations.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. I have one more suggestion: Mr. Johnson, I also feel there is too much talk and discussion to the effect that the United Nations is a complete failure. I do not think it is. I believe under the Charter of the United Nations there can be worked out further regional agreements, as you suggest, under article 51 and article 52, just as we have worked out agreements for the Western Hemisphere under the Act of Chapultepec. If we find we cannot make the changes necessary to successfully make the United Nations work, that is in the Charter itself, we can work out some regional arrangement that may do the job and build up the security of the world outside of the Russian orbit.

Mr. JOHNSON. I do think we have made some progress, but you know, of course, what gets headlines in the paper are the failures, and not constructive things that you do. When your committee puts out a bill you do not get very much publicity on the constructive part of your bill, you get notoriety, publicity, and criticism on the weak spots in your bill, and the criticisms of it. That might be well for us to emphasize.

I try to tell my people that we have made considerable progress. When you go to remake a world with all the diverse backgrounds, peoples, and traditions and history, you have a terribly complicated job and you cannot expect rapid progress.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. That is all. Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Richards.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Johnson, I do appreciate the common sense of your argument.

Now, as a matter of fact, the United States initiated the United Nations idea, and has been strongest in support of the United Nations designs.

Now, you have talked about your travels around the world, and conversing with the people. As a matter of fact, right now the people of the United States are losing faith in the United Nations, are they not?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I think some of them are. That would be my reaction to some of these I have talked to, and communications that I get.

Mr. RICHARDS. It would be tragic for the American people to lose faith in the UN as a world agency for peace, would it not? Mr. JOHNSON. I think it would be bad; yes.

Mr. RICHARDS. I think we should try to do something about it. Mr. JOHNSON. I hope you can do something about it. I would like to help if I could.

Mr. RICHARDS. Then the surest way for the United Nations idea to die is for the people of the United States, too, to lose faith in the United Nations and become converted to the idea which some of the people in the Government have expressed, that you cannot improve the machinery of the organization now, and must wait until Russia is willing to go along.

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not know that I exactly agree with that.

Here is the problem as I see it: The average person does not know very much about the United Nations. I go out in my area and try to explain the problems to them. What the security problems are, what they hope to do, and explain that it is complicated.

I find that they are interested to hear about it and are anxious for us to succeed. They want to know the things we have learned in our travels and in Congress by collaboration with our colleagues in Congress.

I think there is a great latent group. Take the religious group. They are very strong for the United Nations. That is my impression. A good many women's groups are very strong for it. However, they cannot understand why we do not make more progress.

Mr. RICHARDS. They want us to do something about it.

Mr. JOHNSON. They want us to make progress and want us to succeed. If there is something wrong, they want us to correct it. Mr. RICHARDS. And, we are not making progress now?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I do not know if we are or not. We have done some things that I think are very good, and we have made some wonderful offers, but we have not had acceptance of them by those that must accept them.

Mr. RICHARDS. Thank you.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Jonkman.

Mr. JONKMAN. Mr. Johnson, I think you have made a very well organized and good statement. You said several times that if the United Nations' organization with Russia does not work, then let us build one of our own.

However, you also said at another time that you believe in making the present organization work if it can be done, and you refer to the regional organizations that we are creating at the present time.

Do I understand from that that it is your idea that we should get along with the present organization, perfecting the regional organizations within the Charter, and your plan for building another one is only as a last resort?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is substantially correct; yes. In other words, we have something now that we created. We got the statesmen of the world to sit down and work it out. I do not think we should just discard it unless we see it is impossible to make it effective.

Now, our progress has been very disappointing in some ways and our leadership has been ineffective. It is not because they did not offer something, but because there was one member of that group that 'could veto all of it, and did. If it becomes obvious to us that the United Nations is impotent, I say let us turn around and create something that will have more life and that incorporate the salient parts of the other one. That is as a last resort.

Mr. JONKMAN. In other words, I take it that your analogy is that what disturbs the American people is, here we have machinery for peace that is supposed to keep the peace-not to create a force to make peace, but to keep the peace. Yet we are facing a program of being armed to the teeth which next year may cost us $20,000,000,000 for our own armament, and perhaps another $10,000,000,000 for economic relief and perhaps military aid to other nations, and, in addition to that, we are threatened with the atomic bomb which we are told may materialize in the hands of others in 2 years. It is a terrible dilemma. Yet, if we were to disrupt the organizations, we might be better off or we might be worse off.

Mr. JOHNSON. I cannot answer that "yes" or "no." Here is the thing that goes through my mind: You can drift into a war quite easily, and some people think we are doing just that, that we are drifting into a war. However, you cannot drift into a peace. You have to take hold of the situation that confronts us and fashion that peace, and that is a lot more complicated and a lot more delicate than waging a war. If this machinery can help us to do that, then I want to see that done. However, if it is so impotent that we are just drifting, drifting, drifting, drifting, then we are liable to have the war that all of us are so afraid of, that will ruin everybody and everything.

Mr. JONKMAN. Does it require a great deal of imagination to realize that if we disrupt the United Nations' organization we will still have to arm to the teeth; we still will have to continue our foreign program, and we will not at least have the bridge which now does bring the East and West together to a certain extent?

Mr. JOHNSON. I agree with you.

Mr. JONKMAN. Would we eliminate anything that stares us in the face now by eliminating the United Nations?

Mr. JOHNSON. The other one would be created into full bloom before the United Nations was entirely dissipated or abandoned.

Mr. JONKMAN. You would have to do everything you are doing now in the nature of armament.

Mr. JOHNSON. That might be true.

Mr. JONKMAN. Would you not have the same fear of the Soviets getting the atomic bomb?

Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly, you would have the same fear of that one particular group.

I think I agree with you that we have to try to make what we have fashioned work. It is only as a last resort when we see that is utterly impossible and we are drifting into chaos, and possible a war, that we should organize something else that will work.

Mr. JONKMAN. That was what I got from your statement. Thank you very much.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Judd, have you anything?

Mr. JUDD. I have nothing, except to thank Mr. Johnson for an excellent statement.