Under Resolution 163, which Dr. Judd has also introduced, there is a provision that in the event that there shall be a deadlock under article 109, the nations who choose to do so will proceed under article 51.

Now, you call it an article 51 federation. Dr. Judd and the Citizens Committee for United Nations Reform calls it something else. It does not seem to me to matter too much what you call it. I was therefore wondering, aside from the specific amendments suggested in Resolution 163, what you regard as the essential difference between your point of view and Resolution 163.

Mr. FINLETTER. Mr. Lodge, I think one of the most important things to do in this matter is to keep peace among the peacemakers. Therefore, I do not want to get into a difference of point of view between 59 and 163, but I will answer your question this way: I think that the main difference is that Resolution 163 would perpetuate the method of collective security in which the eventual sanction which enforces the law is war. Whereas Resolution 59 makes law the final sanction. Mr. LODGE. I was referring specifically to the suggestion that under article 51, a federation should be created which as I read it contemplates what Mr. Culbertson might refer to as "The law, the court, and the cop on the corner."

You provide for the same thing substantially though you do not specifically subscribe to the actual amendments in 163. I think I understand the differences between Resolution 59 and Resolution 163. What I am not clear on is the difference between your thesis, which is the article 51 federation, and the thesis proposed in 163.

Mr. FINLETTER. In the first place, my thesis is article 51 for a federation only after this hypothetical refusal of Russia or other states to join the proposal materializes.

Secondly, I feel that the article 51 arrangement is the best. It is not very good. It is a very much second best thing.

Next, as to the differences between the set-up under my proposal and under Resolution 163, I think they are very slight. There is, however, this difference, and that is that I propose a policing force, presumably of moderate proportions, first, to service the prototype of the force when all the nations join in the article 51 federation. I then do continue the national armaments, because you have to. You have nations outside it.

Mr. LODGE. 163 does that. They provide for an international contingent.

Mr. FINLETTER. I have no contingent under that 51 federation. Mr. LODGE. It is a question of detail again which I think you very wisely stated should perhaps not be gone into at this time.

It occurs to me that in broad measure you are in favor of 163. Mr. FINLETTER. No, sir; because I do not believe you can apply quotas to these matters. From what little I know of air power, I just do not think you can say you have this, that, and the other number of bombers, and this, that, and the other number of bases. It all depends on the manufacture of the component parts, and thousands of other things.

Mr. LODGE. Aside from the specific amendments in 163, which I understand even the proponents of 163 are willing to see modified, you would agree with the basic thesis of 163, then, that if you reach an impasse under 109 you go ahead under 51 without Russia. They

would call it a reformed United Nations. I think they would be agreeable to a change in that nomenclature. You would call it an article 51 federation, and I do not suppose you are a slave to that language. In other words there is a difference of opinion between yourself and Mr. Meyer.

Mr. FINLETTER. I did not know I had a difference of opinion with Mr. Meyer. I do not usually have them.

Mr. LODGE. The main point about 163, in my opinion, is not the detail of the amendment proposed, but the thesis.

This is not the Hamilton Fish Armstrong thesis, it is the thesis that you go ahead under 51 to form another United Nations.

Now, Dr. Judd, I believe, would be willing to call it something else. Whatever you call it "a rose by any other name" it is another organization.

Well, Mr. Churchill has started a regional organization, let us say, a beginning of a United States of Europe. We have been feeling our way in conferences at Rio, Bogota, and so forth, in the Western Hemisphere.

I do not see the difference in your point of view, or Mr. Culbertson's and Dr. Judd's point of view, as to the action to be taken under 51, if you reach an impasse under 109.

Mr. FINLETTER. Neither do I, with this possible one exception in the form in which you stated it, Mr. Lodge, and that is that I have a very great objection to calling any article 51 organization another United Nations, because that connotes that you are destroying the existing United Nations, and I want to get rid of that idea.

Mr. LODGE. I do, too; but I believe Dr. Judd would agree not to call it that.

Mr. JUDD. There is language in 163 which gives that impression, which is not the intention, and it will be corrected.

Mr. LODGE. What I am trying to do is to sift this testimony that has been so ably and eloquently presented this morning by both you and Mr. Meyer, with the idea of seeing just what is the common denominator we can adopt here in attempting to adopt legislation on this subject. It appears to me that there is very little, if any, difference between the article 51 federation idea and the main idea with the changes Dr. Judd is agreeable to in Resolution 163, and that indeed the only difference between those ideas and the Churchill idea is that it embraces a larger area and perhaps there would be a charter like the United Nations Charter involved, although you would not call it that.

Mr. FINLETTER. I would agree with that, in general.

Mrs. BOLTON. Would the gentleman yield for a moment?
Mr. LODGE. I would be glad to.

Mrs. BOLTON. In sifting this testimony, I hope you will give serious consideration to the language Mr. Finletter used in gathering together the nations of the world which I believe put it much better than the language in 59.

Mr. LODGE. Thank you, Mrs. Bolton.

I have one more question, Mr. Finletter: Under Resolution 163, although the abolition of the veto in cases of aggression is provided for, it is also specifically provided that these matters must be referred to the respective governments in accordance with their constitutional processes. I take it that you are in agreement with that?

Mr. FINLETTER. Yes.

Mr. LODGE. In other words, you recommend the abolition of the veto in certain instances, but you would also agree that you could not commit the armed forces of the United States in that fashion?

Mr. FINLETTER. I think this is a tremendously difficult question. Mr. Armstrong did propose that the United States forces could be committed in that fashion.

Mr. LODGE. I know it is a very difficult question, and that is the reason I asked you the question, because I think you are well able to answer difficult questions.

If you must refer the question, if your own representative to the United Nations must refer this to Congress, you have not in fact abolished the veto, have you?

Mr. FINLETTER. No.

Mr. LODGE. Thank you very much.

Mr. JUDD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LODGE. Yes.

Mr. JUDD. You have not abolished a nation's veto on the use of its armed forces, but you certainly can abolish the use of the veto by an aggressor whereby legally and without reproach he can under the present Charter prevent any action against himself.

Mr. LODGE. I will say to the gentleman that that is precisely what General Marshall favors. He favors abolishing the veto in chapter 6, but keeping it in chapter 7, which deals with aggression.

So I find the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota lined up with our distinguished Secretary of State on that issue.

Mr. JUDD. It says in Resolution 163 that use of national contingents must be according to the constitutional processes of the respective governments, and that means the Congress of the United States alone can declare war.

I think we are daydreaming if we imagine we can get the Congress of the United States, or probably any other country, to agree at this stage to allow an international organization to commit its own contingents.

Mr. LODGE. I think that is quite true.

Mr. JUDD. Do you agree with that, Mr. Finletter?

Mr. FINLETTER. With the one qualification, if full-out war came about, but not in a policing operation for the enforcement of law. That is a vital distinction.

By the way, I think the Rio agreement can give us some light on that. They went all the way up to the two-thirds provision, as I remember it. Mr. LODGE. I think you will agree with me, Mr. Judd, that the abolition of the veto becomes largely an illusory matter if the Congress must ratify what the United States representative has done.

Mr. JUDD. The Congress of the United States would not hesitate right now to abolish its veto either here or by our representative at Lake Success, in action against us if we were to start an aggression, because we never intend to start one. We pledge ourselves to two things: Not to start an aggressive war ourselves, and to help prevent others from doing so. I think we are willing to give up the veto on those two pledges.

Mr. LODGE. That is an impingement on our national sovereignty to which I am willing to agree.

Mr. JUDD. First, we pledge ourselves not to start an aggressive war. Why should we hesitate to do that? Secondly, we pledge ourselves to help put down immediately anybody who does start an aggressive war. Why should we hesitate to pledge that since our own security will require that we do it ultimately?

I am from Minnesota, and one of our best known products is Gold Medal flour. Its slogan is "If eventually, why not now?" Twice in a generation it has been proved that we have to get in eventually. Why not do it at once and cheaply, instead of later and under the most costly and difficult circumstances possible. I think the Congress of the United States will go along with that. That is a policing action and not an all-out war, in fact, the best way to avoid an all-out war. Mr. LODGE. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his able contribution.

While there is a definite difference between Resolution 59 and Resolution 163 and I think the difference was well stated by Mr. Meyerthere is at best a very slight difference between Resolution 59, plus your proposal, and Resolution 163.

Mr. FINLETTER. I do not think I quite go along with that, because I think if you restrict that to the article 51 section I would agree.

Mr. LODGE. Aside from the details of the amendments. I am referring to the procedure of going ahead under 51.

Mr. FINLETTER. My recollection is that that is substantially correct. Mr. LODGE. Thank you very much.

Mr. JONKMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me for a question?

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Jonkman.

Mr. JONKMAN. Mr. Finletter you have emphasized that time is running against us, and that is of course a very, very compelling argument. However, assuming that a resolution to revise the Charter was defeated, and certain of the nations were to organize under the plan that you propose, in the nature of a secessionist organization, under which I think is a poor color of right, and continue to sit alongside the United Nations, would you then have resolved anything?

Mr. FINLETTER. I think that would be most unfortunate if the secessionist idea got in at any point. I do not see why we cannot take the Charter which encourages these subsidiary arrangements, which arrangements have been approved by the Secretary of State as being bulwarks of the Charter.

Mr. JONKMAN. Do you not think you are straining the interpretation of regional organizations when you ask for a universal organization as far as it may go, out of the United Nations? Are you not in reality, under color of right, creating a competitive organization? Mr. FINLETTER. I cannot agree, Congressman, that you are creating a competitive organization. The fact is I think you must be careful not to create a competitive organization. I think if you had all the nations of the world, except the Soviet ones, you would be setting up an organization which the men at San Francisco did not contemplate. That is not to say that this Congress has not enacted laws which have developed out of interpretations that were not contemplated.

Mr. JONKMAN. Suppose we jump that hurdle. Would you not have two organizations that are constantly debating within themselves and against themselves, without resolving the fact that time is running

against us on the use of the atomic bomb, or anything else? What is your remedy there?

Mr. FINLETTER. I would hope that the remedy would be that if an article 51 federation were set up, and clearly pointed out to show every action on its part, that it was an organization for peace, that that idea would get into the heads of the other abstaining states, and they would stop abstaining.

Mr. JONKMAN. Then if that did not work, time would be running against you, would it not?

Mr. FINLETTER. Time would march on, and it would be a question of whether war got there ahead of the abstaining states.

Mr. LODGE. The virus which you see in Resolution 163, as it is now written, is, as I understand it, that it gives the impression that we are in effect seceding from the United Nations; that we are in effect sabotaging the United Nations by setting up another one with these reforms.

On the other hand, you feel that there is a difference of form which may be very important, but there there is no substantial difference between an article 51 federation and the idea of going ahead under article 51 to form another organization.

Now, do you believe that your idea of an article 51 federation will not contain the same virus, in that it will give the world the same impression as the suggestion contained in resolution 163?

Mr. FINLETTER. In the first place, I cannot agree, Congressman, that any resolution proposed by Mr. Judd would have the virus that you mentioned in it. I think if that virus has been injected, it has come from the interpretations of it and I am sure those were erroneous interpretations.

Secondly, I think we are up against an enormously subtle thing. It is the subtle thing of being prepared to defend ourselves and simultaneously urging for peace. I think only by putting peace in the speeches and debates that are made can we eliminate that virus. That virus is not in there unless you gentlemen allow it in.

Mr. LODGE. Of course, the Citizens Committee for United Nations Reform say that theirs is a suggestion that we proceed with Russia, if possible; without Russia, if necessary, but not against Soviet Russia.

My question is, Will the form that you recommend, the article 51 federation, be so understood that it will not contain the virus that you see in Resolution 163 as it is now drafted?

Mr. FINLETTER. It will not have that virus, or will not appear to have that virus if the men in charge of forwarding it through this Government see to it that it does not have that virus.

Mr. JUDD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LODGE. Gladly.

Mr. JUDD. Is is not true, according to your own statement, that the proponents of the ABC resolution did not intend to have that virus in there?

Mr. LODGE. That is right.

Mr. JUDD. We have had testimony from eminent American officials which was directed toward knocking down a proposal which nobody had made. They were against what they said we were suggesting; but what they were against, we were not suggesting. They said we must

75921-48-17