Mr. JONKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I refuse to yield any further. Mr. Judd said in his prepared statement, on page 2, in referring to the United Nations Organization:

The machinery was workable for peaceful settlement of disputes, if there were the will and the good will to make it work.

Now, do you propose, by perfecting this machinery, to create the good will that is necessary to make it work?

Mr. MUNDT. No, but we do propose to prevent any one or two countries which lack good will, to prevent it from working.

Mr. BLOOM. It is to prevent the abuse of the Charter.

Mr. JONKMAN. Mr. Judd said on page 3:

Surely the part of wisdom now is to recognize frankly that as long as one of the Big Five nations obviously does not want the United Nations machinery to work, then the machinery, no matter how good it looks, is useless for such a crisis as we face today, until the monkey wrench is removed.

I want it understood that with every freedom-loving person in the world I want to strengthen the United Nations if it can be done.

You have talked along similar lines, constantly, you have talked about Russia withdrawing, as if Russia is going to withdraw. The question is whether you are basing that assumption on the same fallacy that has caused us to be disturbed about Russia continually.

Now, it is my understanding that there is no provision in the Charter for a nation to withdraw. Is not that correct?

Mr. MUNDT. I did not understand your question.

Mr. JONKMAN. There is no specific provision in the Charter for a nation to withdraw?

Mr. MUNDT. Yes, I believe a nation can withdraw.

Mr. JONKMAN. I am pretty sure there is not. I would like to have you call my attention to it.

Mr. MUNDT. I think you will find there is a procedure for a nation to withdraw from the United Nations.

Mr. JONKMAN. I understand there is a provision in the Charter for expulsion of a nation that fails to pay its dues for more than 2 years without good reason, or for not living up to the provisions of the Charter.

Mr. MUNDT. Also, I think you will find a provision there by which one can withdraw after serving due notice and paying all fees. Mr. BLOOM. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JONKMAN. If you have the provision.

Mr. BLOOM. Is it not the fact that he can withdraw but for 2 years he would be obligated to the provisions of the Charter? Mr. MUNDT. I believe so.

May I correct any false impression which I may have left with you? It is our hope and belief that Russia will not withdraw, because she will find herself so hopelessly in the minority from the standpoint of the things a nation has to have with which to fight a war. We do not believe she can afford to withdraw.

Mr. JONKMAN. Understand, I am not trying to throw cold water on this resolution, by any stretch of the imagination. I would just like to see some reasonable, realistic means for attaining the objective.

Now, the resolution for the revision of the Charter-that is to consider the resolution-is not subject to the veto. That is right, is it not? Mr. MUNDT. Yes.

Mr. JONKMAN. When it comes to revising the Charter, that is subject to the veto.

Mr. MUNDT. Under 109, that is correct.

Mr. JONKMAN. Yes; and then it must have the consent of all the permanent members.

Mr. MUNDT. If it is done under 109; that is correct.

Mr. JONKMAN. You can have a meeting to consider that provision without the veto but when it comes to revision of the provision it is subject to the veto.

Do you think that Russia is ever going to consent to change it without using that veto?

Mr. MUNDT. I do if it is handled in a manner in which you also proceed through Article 51, to organize the strength of the world on the free side, in the event that she does exercise her veto under 109. That is why we use this parallel approach. One is the ungloved hand and the other is the fist within the glove.

If you do not do it the way you can do it under 109, we have article 51 as a second approach, which they cannot veto.

Mr. JONKMAN. My point is that all the things you have fortified us with as to our ability to lead the world, suppose Russia refused to concur. Would you proceed to try to expel her from the United Nations Organization? Could she block that by the veto?

Mr. MUNDT. I do not believe you can stop her from doing what she is entitled to.

Chairman EATON. Article 5 of the Charter says:

A member of the United Nations, against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council, may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of the membership in the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The exercise of these rights and privileges may be restored by the Security Council.

Article 6: A member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

Unfortunately, of course, the Security Council has the veto.

Mr. JONKMAN. I was aware of that, and I have not yet had my attention called to a provision under which any member can resign from the organization.

Mr. MUNDT. You also have the power through article 51 to organize the strength of the world on the side of the freedom-loving countries. Mr. JONKMAN. You have that now.

Mr. MUNDT. Yes; but you do not utilize it now unless you call a meeting for the purpose of getting a job done. There is power in article 51 which we propose in this resolution to activate. We feel that the possibility of that will force the Russians to come along with this procedure, because otherwise they would be tantamount to just setting off with 12 little countries by themselves.

Mr. LODGE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JONKMAN. I yield.

Mr. LODGE. I feel that calling a meeting under article 109 is desirable, but there are some grave questions with regard to 163.

Is that the way the gentleman from Michigan feels?

Mr. JONKMAN. Yes. I am trying to find out if there is a reasonable opportunity to attain the objectives you are seeking by any machinery that is at hand.

Mr. JUDD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LODGE. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. JUDD. Article 52 begins:

Nothing under the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangement.

Russia now has a "regional arrangement" of herself and 11 satellites. It has been suggested by some that there is nothing to prevent all the other 40 or so nations from getting together in a "regional arrangement" within the United Nations, adopting for themselves the revised rules provided in 163; not secede from the United Nations, not set up another organization, but get together on a firmly organized basis within the United Nations, either for collective self-defense under article 51 or as a regional arrangement under 52.

Mr. MUNDT. It is not another United Nations, but it is just within the present United Nations; the Russians are operating their team, the Communist team, within the present United Nations. We propose to operate a freedom team within the same framework of the United Nations which will have over 80 percent of the strength of the world behind it.

Mr. BLOOM. Is it not the same thing we have done at Rio? It does not affect the United Nations at all. The United Nations_provides and says you should do that. We did the same thing at Rio. We formed a regional agreement between the nations of this hemisphere. Mr. MUNDT. The Act of Chapultepec is perfectly within the framework of the United Nations.

Mr. BLOOM. It does not weaken the United Nations but strengthens it, just the same as they have been doing all over the world.

Mr. JONKMAN. That is in reality a regional organization, within the meaning of the United Nations Charter.

You are proposing to create a regional organization that is worldwide, and that covers the same territory as the United Nations Charter, but leaves out the Communist-inclined nations; is that right?

Mr. MUNDT. It is a region defined ideologically instead of geographically.

Mr. JUDD. We do not exclude them; they exclude themselves.
Mr. LODGE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JONKMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. LODGE. Under that, it seems to me that we have the right now without any resolution to go ahead without any reference to article 51. As I understand it, it is in further implementation of resolution 59. I wonder if we should not consider whether it would be advisable to restrict ourselves to 59 and allow our representatives full freedom to attempt to negotiate changes in the United Nations?

This resolution 163 talks about 51 on the one hand and "Provisions of the United Nations Charter" on the other. Therefore, it is not simply a resolution which calls for going ahead under 51. It is also a resolution which calls for the further implementation of resolution 59, in order to revise the Charter.

I think that ought to be made very clear.

Mr. JUDD. It is in paragraph 5 on page 2 of the resolution.

Mr. LODGE. Yes, but in paragraph 7 on page 3 it talks about the revision of the United Nations Charter. On page 2, paragraph 6, it talks more about the revised International Organization, which I take it refers to the present International Organization, or else you would not call it revised.

Mr. JUDD. It says "a more effective international organization," and that is intended to mean we want the UN to be a more effective international organization.

These are the things we would like to have in the revision. We are not committing ourselves but suggesting these as changes to make it workable. It would not be an outside organization, but an organization within an organization.

Mr. LODGE. Under those circumstances you would keep an unrevised United Nations going.

Mr. JUDD. Certainly.

Mr. LODGE. That was not clear to me from the resolution. glad to have that explanation.

I am

Mr. MUNDT. This resolution coming from our committee, I might say to the gentleman from Connecticut, should be broad enough to mandate the President to call this conclave of member nations of the United Nations to study the whole purview of the Charter.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I would prefer to insert my statement at this point in the record, and allow these gentlemen to testify. (The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE MANSFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA ON HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 173

Mr. Chairman, along with a number of my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican, I introduced House Concurrent Resolution 173, which has for its purpose a recommendation that the Charter of the United Nations be revised. I am delighted to have this opportunity to appear before this distinguished committee and to ask that you consider this and other similar resolutions and to report out a resolution which will have for its purpose, a revision of the very unsatisfactory conditions which exist in the United Nations at the present time.

May I say at the offset that I fervently believe in the purpose of the United Nations and that I think that if it can be made more workable, it will be a possible solution to the evils of war which have plagued humanity over the centuries. There are four factors which I think need revision if the United Nations is to become the kind of an agency that we wish it to be.

(1) The power of the veto should be eliminated in the Security Council whenever it is dealing with "matters of aggression" or "armament for aggression" or admission of new members. The elimination of the veto in these respects will, I believe, overcome the fundamental weaknesses which the use of that weapon have indicated to date and will allow, on either a straight majority, two-thirds majority, or three-fourths majority, an opportunity to consider questions along these vital lines without any one nation having the power to block a decision.

(2) These concurrent resolutions now provide to prevent any power to arm for agression by the adoption of the American proposal for a UN atomic development authority and by laying down a world-wide quota limitation upon any nation's production of heavy armament.

(3) The World Court would be strengthened and given the authority to interpret any disputed point in the revised Charter and hand down a forceable decision thereon.

(4) There would be established a world police force to consist of one international contingent, as the active force, and five national contingents operating as reserves. The international contingent would be under the direct control of the Security Council and would consist of volunteers recruited exclusively from the smaller nations. The armed forces of the five

major powers would be the national contingents. The United States, Russia, and Britain would be limited to 20 percent each of the fixed world total; France and China to 10 percent each. The collective quota of remaining member States would be 20 percent. Insofar as the national contingent of the United States would be concerned, it would be recommended that the United States Marine Corps be designated for that particular duty. I make this suggestion because of my great faith in the ability of the Marine Corps because of the high type of its personnel and because it is the one such force which has received the necessary type of air, sea, and land training which would make it a highly mobile and adaptable unit. The history of the Marine Corps since its inception is of course actual evidence of its ability to undertake such a mission as might be assigned to it if it became the national contingent of the United States operating on the basis of this proposel under the United Nations.

In addition to what has already been said, it is safe to assume that through the creation of the international monetary fund a start, at least, has been made toward setting up the United Nations on a sound financial basis. I realize that much more needs to be done in this respect but at least the ground work has been laid and as the UN becomes stronger and is able to assume more in the way of responsibility, the international economic aspects will at the same time be strengthened considerably.

In conclusion I should like to call to your attention the fact that none of these resolutions are considered perfect. The purpose of all of us who participated in introducing these measures in both the House and Senate is to publicize what we think are the weaknesses of the UN and to offer possible solutions as to how these weaknesses may be overcome. There will be many suggestions, I am sure, that will be better than those we are bringing to your attention and I want to assure the committee that there is no pride in authorship as such among any of us but only a desire to set the wheels in motion to bring about a revision of the UN Charter so that it can become a stronger organization in the creating and maintaining of a lasting peace throughout the world. I believe strongly in the UN and I think it is the one hope of man in the difficult and trying days ahead. I should like to also state that these resolutions are not the result of any ideas on the part of any one party but that they represent a definite attempt on the part of Democrats and Republicans alike to do a job on a bipartisan level with the only hope that the UN can be made to function successfully to the end that peace will come to all peoples all over the world.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT HALE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE

Mr. HALE. It has been a great privilege for me to sit here this morning and hear the very able discussion of these concurrent resolutions, one of which I introduced last summer; I think it was House Concurrent Resolution 66, one of a series which was more or less superseded by the resolutions which were introduced in March.

However, House Concurrent Resolution 66 and that series of concurrent resolutions is, as I understand it, still before the committee, and the committee could appropriately act thereon if it desired so to do.

I did not know until yesterday about this hearing today, and accordingly I now have no prepared statement as I would have preferred to have. I think, however, I can express the opinions that seem to me most relevant in connection with this concurrent resolution, and perhaps the committee will subsequently permit me to file a prepared statement on some of the more technical points.

Chairman EATON. We will be glad to do that, sir.

Mr. HALE. I am by no means the oldest member of the House of Representatives, but in my life which I still like to think of as having been comparatively brief, I witnessed the rise and fall of the League of Nations. I sat about the Hotel Crillon in Paris in 1919, while the League was in the process of gestation.