Mr. JUDD. You spoke of the necessity for replacing the present group, Stalin and his colleagues who control Russia. Do you or do you not think there is any possible hope of replacing them unless and until there are checks-we will not say "defeats," but at least "checks" to their successful expansion?

Mr. EASTMAN. No, I say they must be stopped and compelled to retreat in some sense diplomatically before they will be weakened enough so that the opposition in Russia will begin to function.

Mr. JUDD. Is that one of the things that would lead you to support Resolution 163? Several times you spoke of Resolution 59, which is the one which merely calls for an international conference under article 109 to see if we cannot get agreement to strengthen the United Nations so it can establish law, interpret it, and enforce it for relations between nations.

The other resolution is 163 which has specific proposals for strengthening it so there would be a chance of it checking further Russian victories.

That is the basic reason why you favor that?

Mr. EASTMAN. Absolutely; yes, sir. It is not only that it checks them, but it also moves toward a solution of the second great world problem that we are confronted with; one is to check this totalitarian revolution, the other is to form a world federation that will really prevent war.

I got those two numbers mixed up and I am not sure I have been quite clear. Resolution 163 is what I have been advocating. It checks them and checks them in a way everybody will understand.

Mr. JUDD. In other words, it is not enough to cast out an evil system, we must put a better one in its place. We can perhaps defeat it by force of arms but we cannot overcome it except by a better system? Mr. EASTMAN. That is right.

Mr. JUDD. Do you approve of the proposal to have a western union, made up of five nations, in what essentially is a defensive military alliance with United States' support? Do you approve of that? Mr. EASTMAN. Yes.

Mr. JUDD. Do you see any reason why that should not be expanded? Do you see any disadvantages in expanding it to include all the countries who will come along?

Mr. EASTMAN. I think it should be expanded.

Mr. JUDD. The more nations you have, the more you reduce the chance of attack?

Mr. EASTMAN. You must get the double democratic world aware of the facts and into an organization.

Mr. JUDD. Do you think Stalin thinks, as you said Hitler thought, that we are a degenerate people and that, for example, even if our President and Secretary of State tried to get some changes in the Charter our American people would not support them? Do you think that Stalin thinks that?

Mr. EASTMAN. Yes, he does.

Mr. JUDD. Then, if the Congress of the United States were to pass a resolution, which it would not do unless it represented the majority sentiment of the United States because that is the way we operate, a resolution crystallizing for our own administration and for the world, including the Soviets, the overwhelming sentiment developed in these

hearings for strengthening the United Nations structure do you think that would hinder or strengthen the hand of our Executive in dealing with these nations?

Mr. EASTMAN. It would strengthen it enormously.

Mr. JUDD. The question was raised by my friend from Michigan that veto measures had not gotten Russia anywhere; that during 3 years' time they had vetoed repeatedly but had not succeeded in accomplishing what they wanted in the veto.

Is it not true that they accomplished this: They bought 3 years of precious time with those vetoes?

Mr. EASTMAN. That is right.

Mr. JUDD. From your study of communism and Marxist techniques and tactics, would you say that usually when they go out and shout for lower prices or ask for a strike to reduce prices and thereby cause the prices to go higher, they actually do achieve their real objective which is confusion and dissatisfaction?

Mr. EASTMAN. Confusion, chaos, and sabotage of our whole system; yes.

Mr. JUDD. Did you not mention the quotation from Stalin in which he said, "The mightiest ally of Soviet Russia, is to have-" he did not say "peace, prosperity, and contentment"; but-"strife, conflicts, and wars in every caplitalistic country"?

Mr. EASTMAN. That is right."

Mr. JUDD. So while the vetoes did not accomplish what to the uninitiated it looked as if they were trying to accomplish, they did in fact accomplish what they really were after-delay and confusion, reducing the effectiveness of the United Nations?

Mr. EASTMAN. Yes.

Mr. JUDD. You spoke of General Marshall's statement in which he said he hoped to dissipate their misconceptions regarding us and the possibility of the two systems living together in one world, and thereby to get agreement with them? Do you think that for a high official of the United States Government to say in public that we should not do anything until we get agreement with the Soviets improves or decreases the chance of getting that agreement?

Mr. EASTMAN. I think it decreases them in a terrifying degree. As I say, I think this is terrifying.

Mr. JUDD. Does it not just tell them that all they have to do is sit there until the world goes to hell, and we have told them in advance we won't do anything?

Mr. EASTMAN. Yes.

Mr. JONKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that question is proper.

Mr. JUDD. You do not think it is proper?

Mr. JONKMAN. No.

Mr. JUDD. In what sense?

Mr. JONKMAN. Have the reporter read it.

The REPORTER (reading):

Does it not just tell them that all they have to do is sit there until the world goes to hell, and we have told them in advance we won't do anything?

Mr. JONKMAN. It is based on the assumption that they are just sitting there not doing anything, which just is not true.

Mr. JUDD. I will modify it and say it is telling them we won't make any effort to strengthen the United Nations so as to organize the free nations against their further aggression until they agree.

Mr. JONKMAN. I think that is subject to the same fallacy. I do not think we should use words to describe a situation that is not true at all. The United Nations has taken serious note of the abuse of the veto and other things. If you say, because of that, you are letting the world go to hell, it would not be fair, or we would not be sitting in that organization.

Mr. JUDD. I was not speaking of the organization as such, I was speaking of the attitude of United States officials in saying we shouldn't do anything until we are sure the Soviets will agree.

Mr. JONKMAN. You say they wouldn't do anything. You say you shouldn't do this.

Mr. JUDD. Shouldn't do anything about reforming, revising, changing, modifying, improving the procedures in the United Nations.

Mr. JONKMAN.. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that in this inquiry we should resort to propaganda ourselves.

Mr. JUDD. When I ask a question, to get the agreement or disagreement of the distinguished witness on a point of view which has been repeatedly expressed, I do not think that is propagandizing. He might say, "No."

Mr. JONKMAN. The probability is that he would say, "Yes." It is a leading question.

Mr. JUDD. Do you mean to tell me, as a lawyer, that lawyers do not ask leading questions?

Mr. JONKMAN. Yes, sir, they do, for one purpose; they know that the answer is going to be almost automatically "Yes," or "No," as the case may be.

Mr. JUDD. Don't you think it is important, for the future of the world-and it includes the future of my three children-don't you think we have a right and a duty to mobilize opinion in the direction of insuring the world a future?

Mr. JONKMAN. Not by misleading questions.

Mr. JUDD. It is not a misleading question.

Mr. JONKMAN. You are making a premise that is not justified when you say that the United States representatives take that attitude, and thereby they just let the world go to hell. That is not fair. I criticize those officials almost as much as you do, but I do not think we should go too far.

Mr. JUDD. It was only in that one respect of their advising against action to strengthen the United Nations until Russia will agree. Such advice I believe makes certain Russia will not agree.

You know I have worked for ERP and for every single one of the economic and military measures proposed and I will continue, but my point is, unless we go ahead with mobilizing into a joint force the strength of all people striving to be free, then the other measures will not succeed. We are assuming a burden we can carry this year, maybe until 1952, but it is an impossible burden as a longterm policy, and Mr. Stalin can just sit there and wait until the free world goes to pieces, because we will break down, in my judgment, if we try to carry the load alone.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask permission that the word "hell" be expunged from the record."

Chairman EATON. I was going to suggest that the gentleman let the American people stop just this side of hell.

Mr. JUDD. Thank you very much, Mr. Eastman. Your testimony has been of enormous value. It is not a matter of theory with you. You are aware of the facts of life.

Mr. EASTMAN. Thank you.

Chairman EATON. We are deeply grateful to you because this has been one of the most interesting, informing, and suggesting presentations of testimony we have had. We wish you further success in your program. I do not know how rapid it will be, but I hope you will continue in well-doing.

Mr. EASTMAN. Thank you very much.

Chairman EATON. The committee will adjourn at this time. We will meet again Tuesday, May 11, in the Foreign Affairs Committee

room.

(Whereupon, at 3:45, the committee adjourned, to reconvene Tuesday, May 11, 1948, at 10 a. m.)

(The following communications have been submitted for inclusion in the record :)

STATEMENT BY THE WOMEN'S ACTION COMMITTEE FOR LASTING PEACE, EAST FIFTYSEVENTH STREET, NEW YORK CITY, CONCERNING THE FUNCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS

The stated objective of the Women's Action Committee is "to unite American women to work for full participation of the United States in the United Nations and in those international measures necessary to build a world of peace and justice under law." It is an organization composed of many thousands of individual members. There are also 14 large national women's groups affiliated with us as member organizations with representation on our general committee, which is our policy-forming body. At our recent annual convention attended by delegates from all parts of the United States, a large majority of the delegates voted to "postpone indefinitely" action on a resolution supporting the current measures before Congress favoring amendments to the United Nations Charter. The following resolution was passed unanimously by our convention:

RESOLUTION ON THE STRENGTHENING OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Whereas the United Nations has been established for safeguarding world peace, and

Whereas the effective functioning of the United Nations should be a major concern of all peoples, everywhere in the world, and

Whereas the position of world leadership which the United States at present enjoys carries with it the responsibility of strengthening the United Nations; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Women's Action Committee for Lasting Peace, in annual convention assembled, considers the United Nations can best be strengthened at this time through affirmative interpretation of the present Chapter and strongly urges that the United States make every effort to:

1. Act whenever possible through and with the machinery of the United Nations,

2. Assist in further developing the machinery of the United Nations and of the specialized agencies into effective instruments of international cooperation and of international law and order,

3. Continue to recognize its responsibility for leadership in the United Nations and all of its specialized agencies in order that the confidence of the peoples of the world in the efficiency of the United Nations may be sustained during these critical times.

The Women's Action Committee is not opposed to world government. The ideal of world government appeals to all workers for lasting peace as an ultimate goal to strive toward. Our organization differs, however, with the immediate

revisionists as to timing and as to strategy in view of present world conditions. The United Nations as the established international organization is accepted by most groups at least as a starting point. The fact that an organization of 58 nations is functioning must be accepted by all but the most irreconcilable pessimists or the most starry-eyed idealists. While there have been delays at a time when delays can bring us to the precarious brink of disaster, thus far the majority of the United Nations, in spite of the delaying tactics of the minority, have devised ways of carrying on and slowly achieving results.

The present Charter of the United Nations provides for a review of the Charter at the end of 10 years. It would seem likely that efforts to amend the Charter could be given more judicious consideration and receive more unified support in 1955 than they could possibly receive under present international tensions. The Women's Action Committee for Lasting Peace is convinced that a third world war must and can be avoided. We feel that war can best be avoided by a firm program of action-not through a magic formula of words. It would be pleasant to return to pre-San Francisco days and speculate as to the ideal international organization. The fact is that the present Charter is the best that could be agreed upon after months of intensive discussion and negotiation. We consider that attempts to revise the Charter now would not only fall short of the aim to produce a more effective United Nations, but that they might well lead to an intensification of international misunderstanding.

As any revision of the Charter requires ratification by two-thirds of the member nations, including all five permanent members of the Security Council, it is highly questionable whether two-thirds of the members would ratify amendments at this time. There is no question but what the ratification by all five great powers would not be obtained. If the United States were to lead a revisionist movement now, we would be faced by two alternatives-either we might have to weaken our position by accepting defeat, or we would have to risk walking out of the United Nations and setting up a new international organization with as many followers as we could muster.

There is, however, an alternative to amending the Charter; the alternative is the functional strengthening of the United Nations by developing the potentialities for action within the framework of the present Charter. Several moves have already been made along this line and still others have been suggested; the full development of the powers of the General Assembly, the setting up of the Little Assembly, the development of new machinery for arbitration and peaceful settlement of disputes, continued effort to develop voting procedures in the Security Council that would be more in conformity with the interpretation of the Charter agreed to by the great powers at San Francisco, development of regional machinery under articles 52, 53, and 54 of the Charter, possible implementation of article 51 of the Charter, which provides for individual or collective self-defense in case of armed attack.

Current suggestions for revising the Charter touch upon the form but not the substance of the present difficulties of the United Nations. The world organization has been hampered not only by the Russian use of the veto but by the "slow veto" of noncooperation, the delays of international filibuster, hesistancy on the part of many nations to take forthright action in particular situations because of the uncertainties of general world conditions.

A mere revision of the Charter abrogating the veto will not meet these difficulties. The same holds true for other aspects of the revisionist movement. The ABC plan, for instance, calls not only for elimination of the veto, but for the limitation of armaments and for international forces under a quota plan. If international confidence were such that nations could reach agreement on the quota plan, they could also have reached agreement before now in the UN Commissions on Atomic Energy and Conventional Armaments, and the Big Five could have reached agreement in the UN Military Staff Committee on the armed forces and facilities to be put at the disposal of the Security Council.

The large majority of the membership of the Women's Action Committee is convinced the best way for the United States to strengthen the UN is (1) to make full use of its machinery under the present Charter to cooperate fully in all of the specialized agencies, (2) to give hope and strength to freedom-loving peoples and to nations who wish to maintain their independence, (3) to pursue a firm policy toward Russia, while at the same time leaving open all possible channels of cooperation.

75921-48- -14