great authority and in them there is no veto power. The Assembly has coordinate jurisdiction with the Security Council with respect to security matters except when it comes to final action. Thus the United Nations can do much through the Assembly which the Soviet would block in the Security Council.

At its last regular meeting, the Assembly set up a Greek Commission to help protect Greece against attacks launched from her northern neighbors. It set up the Commission which arranged the election held this week in Korea as a step toward making Korea free and independent. It established a so-called "Little Assembly" so that the United Nations would have a vetoless political security body functioning all the year around. These three acts by the Assembly were taken over violent Soviet objection and the Soviet Union and its satellites have boycotted the Greek Committee, the Korean Committee and the "Little Assembly." Nevertheless, these three bodies are functioning. The Assembly has a mandate to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms. These rights and freedoms are now subject to attack in much of the world by a highly organized Communist campaign, which has already subjected to terrorism some 500,000,000 people of 15 different nations. One of the most important tasks that faces the free societies is to take joint action to meet that attack and that they are pledged to do by article 56 of the Charter. The Soviet Union has no power to veto such action.

The United Nations is carrying on a great work in promoting free institutions among colonial peoples. All the colonial powers are committed, under chapter XI, to develop self-government and the Trusteeship Council is exercising special responsibilities in certain areas. The Soviet Union violently opposed the establishment of the Trusteeship Council and has, until the last few days, boycotted it. It wanted revolution, not evolution. Nevertheless, the work of the United Nations with respect to dependent peoples has been going ahead in an encouraging way and there is no possibility of Soviet interference by

veto.

There are many other great projects which lie within the authority of the General Assembly and where no veto applies.

The United Nations, as a universal organization, has great actual and potential value. Concededly, it does not realize the hopes of many, but many of these hopes were from the beginning exaggerated. Progress at the universal level is bound to be slow. But it still must be attempted for only at that level can durable peace be achieved. But efforts at the universal level should not preclude more rapid progress at a less than universal level. Under the United Nations Charter both possibilities are open and I advocate a United States policy which would develop both possibilities with resourcefulness and determination and with high resolve born out of a sense of the awful predicament in which mankind now finds itself.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Dulles, we thank you for your very informative and illuminating statement.

We have heard a great deal of talk and suggestions about the surrendering of national sovereignty. I note that you say that our great Nation is ready to take the lead in surrendering its sovereignty. What do you mean by "sovereignty"?

Mr. DULLES. Perhaps "surrendering sovereignty" can be misunderstood. It may be better to say "exercising sovereignty" by agreeing to

certain rules of procedure by which we would be bound. I believe that we can agree and in fact we have agreed under the Charter of the American States to certain rules of procedure by which we are bound and to that extent we have given up our complete freedom of action.

As a matter of fact, every treaty involves to some extent a surrendering of sovereignty because by the treaty a nation foregoes its complete freedom to do whatever it will that is contrary to the terms of the treaty.

Mr. BLOOM. IS Sovereignty divisible, Mr. Dulles?

Mr. DULLES. In my opinion, it is.

Mr. BLOOM. Either you have sovereignty or you do not have it. I do not see how you can divide sovereignty.

Mr. DULLES. I think we divided it here in the United States. Some of our sovereignty resides in the States and some of our sovereignty resides in the Federal Government.

Mr. BLOOM. The people of the States are sovereign, under the State constitution, and the people of the United States are sovereign, because in the United States Constitution the people are all sovereign. That is a new interpretation to me. You may be right but I did not know you could divide sovereignty. You either have sovereignty or you do not have it.

Mr. DULLES. I believe that sovereignty consists of a bundle of rights and you can dispose of the contents of that bundle in different places, but it represents a metaphysical question we are discussing; that is not of great practical significance.

Mr. BLOOM. Is there such a thing as a sovereignty or is it the people of the State who are sovereign?

Mr. DULLES. Again you have a division. Under the Constitution, certain sovereign rights are invested in the Federal Government; other sovereign rights are invested in the States and rights which are not specifically delegated either to the Federal or State Government reside in the people.

Mr. BLOOM. But, Mr. Dulles, we are not the Federal Government, this is a national government. Therefore, under the Federal Constitution you may have been right but today, under this Constitution, which proclaims the national government, the people are sovereign, and the people can change or do whatever they want. Under the State constitution, the States are sovereign.

Either you have a sovereignty or you have no sovereignty at all. You have given your sovereignty away. However, I do not see how you can divide it.

That is all.

Chairman EATON. The chairman has yielded to his distinguished predecessor long enough to be more completely confused by a layman than he ever was by a lawyer.

I just have one more question, Mr. Dulles.

Is it not your view that we should best continue the United Nations and develop it as it is now and go on from there, or try to substitute something else? That is what we are considering.

Mr. DULLES. I believe we should continue with the United Nations as it is, provided we use resourcefully the full potentialities that are within the United Nations Charter. I think those potentialities are adequate to accomplish everything that can be accomplished, practically, at the present time.

As I suggest here, I see great possibilities of developing a rule of law as between a considerable number of states that are members of the United Nations. I think that that can be done more simply and more broadly by operating under the Charter than if we start afresh, because there are quite countries, which I prefer not to name that might very well be frightened to join a new organization which the Russians would claim at least was primarily an alliance against them. I think it would be easier for them and therefore, we could get more nations into a collective security organization under article 51 than if we started a new organization.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Chiperfield.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. No questions at this time.
Chairman EATON. Mr. Richards.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Dulles, I would like for you to elaborate a little on your statement on page 2. [Reading:]

I doubt that the desired results can now be achieved by amending the Charter of the United Nations.

That is the statement.

Do you mean, "by attempting to amend"? Or you take the flat position that it would be unwise to amend the Charter if we could, now?

Mr. DULLES. No; what I mean is that I do not think that the procedure of the Charter amendment is the procedure which as a practical matter will get the results which are sought by the proposals before your committee.

I believe that if it were practicable to have a Charter amendment that in the light of our nearly 3 years experience, we could find certain respects in which the Charter could be improved upon. There are certain Charter amendments which I personally would like to see but I do not think it is practical to accomplish the results we want in that way because of the fact that the Soviet Union has a power to veto any amendments to the Charter.

Does that make my position clear?

Mr. RICHARDS. I think it does. I think if we had reasonable expectancy it could be done this way, that it would be helpful.

Mr. DULLES. I do. The emphasis of that sentence is, "doubt that the desired results can now be achieved."

The emphasis is on the word "can" and relates to the fact that in my opinion they cannot be achieved in this particular way at the pres ent time because of the Soviet right to veto Charter amendments.

Mr. RICHARDS. Now, you go on to say, that unless it is handled care fully it would destroy more than create. Do you mean handled care fully by the Congress? Do you refer to debates in Congress or con sideration of a resolution like House Concurrent Resolution 59, here Do you think it would be helpful for Congress to go into this thing and try to express the viewpoint of the American people, as repre sentatives of the American people, or would it be harmful?

Mr. DULLES. I say in the preceeding paragraph that in my opinior the moral stature of the United States would be increased, if the Con gress were to make it clear that at this critical time when the fate o humanity hangs in the balance, our great Nation is ready to take th lead in surrendering its sovereignty to the extent necessary to establis peace to an organ of just law.

If that is the view of the Congress I can see no disadvantage, but on the contrary I see an advantage in expressing that view.

That is what you might call the first stage; namely to know where the United States stands. But the United States is not a dictator in the United Nations and merely because we want something does not necessarily mean that we can get it.

The second stage is to attempt to carry out what might be the policy. That involves diplomatic handling by the President and the Secretary of State. That in my opinion is a matter of delicacy which would have to be handled with care, unless it destroys more than it creates and even precipitates the catastrophe it was supposed to avert. The consummation of the desired end is a difficult task. As I say, it should be pursued, in my opinion, with resoluteness, with resourcefulness, but also with care, because we do not want to be a bull in a china shop in this matter.

Mr. RICHARDS. You and other leaders of the United States in the field of foreign policy have, almost in so many words said that you think the machinery of the United Nations could be improved upon.

Now what we want to know is whether or not it would be helpful, whether it would bolster your hand, for the Congress of the United States to express its viewpoint on this subject?

Mr. DULLES. I think it would be helpful for the Congress of the United States to express its viewpoint on the policy involved and on the position that the United States would be prepared to take. I doubt whether it would help the matter if the Congress were to be rigid as to particular machinery or methods by which it was best to achieve that end, because that I think is a matter which can most usefully be left and in fact, constitutionally must be left to the President and the Secretary of State.

Mr. RICHARDS. Then you think it would be unwise for the Congress of the United States to express its opinion as to methods of procedure, the vote any particular nation would have, for instance, on the Security Council, or anything like that?

Mr. DULLES. I do.

Mr. RICHARDS. That is all. Thank you very much.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Vorys.

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Dulles, I did not quite understand your reference to article 56 as a vetoless method of meeting attacks on free society. As I get it, that is merely a pledge of cooperation in the matters referred to in article 55, none of which could constitute attacks on a free society.

Mr. DULLES. In my opinion, the greatest menace we face today is the attack which is being organized by the Soviet Communist Party against individual freedom. That is the essence of the struggle upon which we are engaged. The Communist view is that men are not entitled to be free in their own sense, that they are entitled to be coerced and terrorized and that campaign is operating, and is already terrorizing 500,000,000 people so that they do not dare exercise what we believe to be basic rights and freedoms.

There are many millions more, hundreds of millions more, which will be apt to come under that terrorizing threat. I believe that that is a violation of something which the Charter pledges the members to protect.

The Charter is not designed to merely protect the states from an attacking state, the Charter is designed to protect individuals in their personal rights and freedoms. If you will read the preamble of the Charter you will see the whole basis of the Charter is the peoples and the desire of the peoples to maintain their human rights and freedoms. I consider the possibilities inherent in articles 55 and 56 are very great and have not yet been adequately exhausted. That is another of the possibilities which I see of achieving the ends which are sought by some of the resolutions before you, by available Charter procedures which have not yet been fully exhausted.

Mr. VORYS. I was very interested in that analysis of article 56 because I frankly had not thought about it as another vetoless article. Mr. DULLES. Under article 56, the members are pledged to take not only separate but joint action to secure the objectives sought by article 55 which includes universal respect for and preservance of human rights and freedoms and it is those human rights and freedoms which are being desecrated by the program of communism.

Mr. VORYS. Now you also mention chapter XI, the trusteeship chapter, as a vetoless method of procedure.

If the Soviets join the Trusteeship Council, which they have a right to do

Mr. DULLES. They now have. They joined a few days ago.

Mr. VORYS. Would there not then, be a veto available there by their merely joining?

Mr. DULLES. NO. The Trusteeship Council acts by majority vote. There is no veto on the Trusteeship Council.

Mr. VORYS. Now a number of witnesses have mentioned that the convening of a constitutional convention under article 109 would be possible, in that it would not be subject to the veto, and have urged that if seven members of the Security Council could be prevailed upon to vote for it, even though four voted against it, if such assembly were held and amendments to the Charter determined upon by a two-thirds vote of the Assembly, that then these amendments could be submitted to the nations of the world and that this would have a tremendous effect on world opinion and would put the Soviets in a position where it would be almost impossible for them to stop the new constitution or amendments to it from going forward.

In the first place is there any chance of getting seven members of the Security Council, at the present time, to sponsor such a conference under article 109?

Mr. DULLES. That is a difficult question to answer.

One can never say with confidence what other countries will do until you have actually tried it out.

The impression I got from the discussion at the last Assembly on this whole question of the veto power and possible amending the Charter was that it would be difficult to get the required number to call such a convention, because there are a very large number of the members of the United Nations who are reluctant to precipitate something which they would consider to be sort of a final show-down between the United States and the Soviet Union.

As I said in my statement, I do not exclude the possibility of such a convention. I feel at the present time to call it would be primarily a tactical move which would have to be weighed in the light of the overall problem of our relations with the Soviet Union and with the atti