ing-finally, a step which your chairman envisioned at the turn of the century. I quote from a book that was written by him. A true world consciousness has at last been awakened. The earth has shrunk to a neighborhood. The sea no longer divides but rather units all lands. The viewpoint for the new century in politics and business is that of world citizenship. The Chinese puzzle is puzzling because it has revealed, as by a lightning flash at midnight, the solidarity of the race, the community of life, the complete oneness of all human interests and problems. No country or civilization is any longer isolated. Into the matrix of a common life all civilizations are flung and must give and take what they can. No one can forecast the nature of the new product, the universal man which will spring out of this combination. One thing is certain: all peoples will be modified in ideal, institution, and method. The mighty hand of God is pressing the nations together. Henceforth no man can live or die unto himself. * * * At the time these words were written, there were but a handful of men who had the vision to see that the world must be one. But during the 47 years that have passed since, we have taken part in two world wars, we have seen the complete failure of one league of sovereign states to keep the peace. We are now witnessing the expenditure of untold billions in preparation for another war. At the same time, we are witnessing a loss of faith in the United Nations' ability to prevent war. If this vision of one world were possible in 1901, is it so extraordinary that that vision has today taken the form of a vast movement to create order through the establishment of an international organization with authority? It does not seem so to me. We cannot ignore what we read in the papers and magazines or what we hear on the radio. The people are hearing from many sources that this country and the other nations of the world must be willing to surrender a measure of their national sovereignty if they are to protect their own national traditions, customs, and freedoms from the tyranny which would be the inevitable result of another world war. They realize that war must be made impossible, for there can be no victor in the next one. They realize that the first step in this direction is the creation of a world authority with the powers of government in the field of security. This realization is responsible for the phenomenal growth in the world federal movement. We have already taken steps to revive the world economically. We are taking steps to again become a strong military force. Both these steps are essential. But they in themselves cannot guarantee a lasting peace. We are therefore asking that you take the initiative in taking the political step without which all else will fail. In my opinion and in the opinion of many others, the first step should be a favorable report on Resolution 59 or an amended resolution along the same general lines. Failure to take such action can only be interpreted as a denial of these basic arguments you have already heard. I do not believe that today such a course is possible. Thank you. Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Thank you very much for your interesting and constructive statement. I believe every member of this committee is interested in doing everything it can to bring about world peace. There is a difference of opinion on this subject. Take, for example, Senator Austin's appearing before us. He is a man who should know more about the United Nations than any other man perhaps in the United States. He informed the committee that if we adopt Resolution 59, we might destroy the United Nations. makes ypu pause and wonder what is the right thing to do. It Mr. HOLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I believe-and I believe you would be surprised at the number of people who do believe-that a system of government must be created in the world under law, as Mr. Finletter and Mr. Meyer so ably pointed out this morning. I do not think that Mr. Austin would undertake to defend the United Nations unless it was that kind of an organization. Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Jonkman Mr. JONKMAN. I have no questions. You have given us a very interesting statement. I agree with your concepts. We must get to a higher spiritual level in order to accomplish a lot of these material improvements. Thank you very much. Mr. CHIPERFIELD. If there is nothing further, the committee will adjourn until 10 tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 4:50 p. m., the committee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a. m. Wednesday, May 12, 1948.) STRUCTURE OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE UNITED NATIONS WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1948 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C. The committee convened at 10: 25 a. m., in the Foreign Affairs Committee room, United States Capitol, Hon. Charles A. Eaton (chairman) presiding. Chairman EATON. The committee will be in order. We have as our first witness this morning our very distinguished fellow citizen, Mr. Dulles. I do not know whether he is willing to identify himself for the record or not; but, if he is, we will have him tell who he is and from whence he comes. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN FOSTER DULLES Mr. DULLES. I am John Foster Dulles, of New York City, N. Y. Mr. DULLES. Mr. Chairman, the resolutions which your committee is considering seek an all-important goal, namely the development of international law and its impartial enforcement. I am impressed with the soundness of this approach. Some seem to think that it is enough to have enforcement machinery. They forget that force is despotism unless it is subject to law. Stalin has described Soviet dictatorship as "rule unrestricted by law and based on force." He and his followers are seeking to extend that rule to the whole world and thereby to achieve world government. The American people do not want world government which can be had only by accepting despotism. That wholesome fact is recognized by the resolutions before you. They seek the rule of law, not of men. They would define aggression, establish control of atomic energy, regulate armament, and then enforce such laws through an international council in which no nation would have a right of veto. That approach to the problem of world order is basically sound and the moral stature of the United States would be increased if the Congress were to make it clear that, at this critical time, when the fate of humanity hangs in the balance, our great Nation is ready to take the lead in surrendering its sovereignty to the extent necessary to establish peace through the ordering of just law. Your committee should, however, understand-as no doubt you do— that the suggested program will have to surmount many difficulties before it is realized, and that, unless it is handled carefully, it could destroy more than it created, or even precipitate the catastrophe it would avert. I doubt that the desired results can now be achieved by amending the Charter of the United Nations. The Soviet Union has the right to veto any such amendments and it would almost certainly do so. I say this as the American who, at the last Assembly, handled the United States proposal that the Assembly should study modification of the veto power, and I debated this matter vigorously with Messrs. Vishinsky and Gromyko. The view I express is shared by all who have dealt at first-hand with this problem. The reason for the Soviet attitude is simple. Communist doctrine does not look upon "laws" as being embodiments of impartial justice which restrain even those in outhority. To Communists, "laws" are merely the means whereby those in authority achieve their ends. Therefore, the program you are studying would, according to Soviet ideas, mean delivering the Soviet Union into the hands of a hostile majority. Obviously, Soviet perverseness should not be allowed indefinitely to prevent the realization of international order under law. A time may come when it would be useful to confront the Soviet Union with a conference for revision of the Charter. That, however, would at the present time be a tactical move, rather than a move from which we could genuinely expect Charter amendments which would embody the program you are considering. Present progress will have to depend primarily on either proceeding within the framework of the present Charter or else establishing a new international organization of which only some of the nations are members. In my opinion, much progress is possible without radically amending the present Charter. To some extent that progress can be made by voluntary renunciations of the right of veto and by interpreting more liberally the Charter provision which excludes veto power over Security Council action which is "procedural." Most Security Council action under chapter VI, dealing with the pacific settlement of disputes, is, by fair interpretation, procedural only. Perhaps the most hopeful avenue of progress is opened up by article 51 of the Charter, dealing with the inherent right of collective selfdefense. The possibilities in article 51 are indeed recognized by two of the resolutions before you, House Concurrent Resolution 163 and House Concurrent Resolution 194. Article 51 is a key article, which embodies a basic policy shift from the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. They would have prohibited any collective action, unless it was authorized by the Security Council. That meant that the veto in the Security Council could be used to block all measures of regional and collective self-defense. Those who made up the American delegation at San Francisco, as your chairman will recall, realized that, in view of the veto power, the Security Council could not itself be relied upon to provide effective protection and that being so the nations ought to be free to organize effective protection of their own. Consequently, at San Francisco, we proposed that the Charter authorize collective self-defense. That proposal was adopted, despite Soviet obstruction. The result is that the United Nations Charter contemplatetes national association at two levels. There is, as the top level, universal association, which is loose. Underlying that there may be regional and collective selfdefense associations which can be as tight as the members want. Pursuant to that Charter concept, the United Nations system has already been supplemented by the defense system of the American states, concluded last year at Rio, and by the western European defense system initiated this year at Brussels. Such regional and collective defense associations, under articles 51 and 52, can be developed without limit, and the United States is entitled to join any of them if it considers that doing so will promote peace with justice. Some may consider article 51 inadequate because it speaks of a right of action "if an armed attack occurs." That suggests that members of a collective self-defense group might have to remain passive until atomic bombs actually strike them. As one who worked on that article at San Francisco, I can say that it probably would not read as it does if, when it was drafted, atomic warfare had been known. But the basic feature of article 51 is its recognition that there is an "inherent" right of collective self-defense. Article 51 does not attempt to define exhaustively that inherent right. So, I believe it is permissible for a collective defense group to treat as aggression the violation of rules for the regulation of armament which the General Assembly has determined to be necessary for international peace and security and which the defense group accepts for itself. In this connection, it may be noted that the General Assembly has already voted unanimously, including the Soviet Union, that atomic weapons should be eliminated and atomic energy should be internationally controlled to insure its use only for peaceful purposes. It is my judgment that if some nations want to begin to establish a rule of law under the auspices of the United Nations, they may do so now under article 51, interpreted in the light of General Assembly action with regard to regulation of armaments and development of international law. It is not necessary to do away with a universal association that is loose in order to have a partial association that is highly organized. I will go further and risk the prediction that any such program as you are considering can be developed more easily and more broadly within the framework of the present universal organization than if we start afresh. There are several countries that might join a collective defense organization under the Charter that might not join a new organization which would seem to split the world into two opposing blocks. If it is possible to develop an effective rule of law without destroying the universality of the present United Nations, that course ought, in my opinion, to be preferred. The present United Nations, with all of its weaknesses, is an asset rather than a liability. It does provide Soviet leaders with a world forum for propaganda purposes. That is undesirable, but their propaganda is now wearing thin. On the basis of my experience and I have participated in all the regular sessions of the Assembly-these "town meetings of the world" have served to enlighten world opinion about the nature of Soviet leadership. Soviet tactics, obstruction, boycott, and smear have alienated many who were originally disposed to be friendly or neutral. General Assembly debate promotes worldwide moral judgments that are influential even though their implementation is not well-organized. Also, it is to be born in mind that the much discussed "veto" operates only in the Security Council. The Assembly and its organs have very |