Mr. JONKMAN. To create that second organization, would not the present United National Organization, or the two of them together, be a house divided against itself? Mr. DULLES. When you talk about creating a second organization, you are not speaking accurately. You would say, "Do we create a fourth organization?" We have now the United Nations; we have the Charter of the America States, bound together as an organization under 51. You have the western European countries under 51. So this would be a fourth one we are talking about. Mr. JONKMAN. I will change the word "second" to "auxiliary." Mr. JONKMAN. Would it not be a house divided against itself? Mr. DULLES. You have a house divided against itself, if you want to say anything less than universal involves division. I do not think anything less than universal involves division. I do not think that the fact that 48 American States have come together in the world involves any division of the world. I do not think that, if we should have a unification of western Europe and bring 20 nations together, that that involves any division. I think the more the national states can get together, that is all progress toward a universal goal. I do not think you will get universality all at one jump. You will get it piecemeal, by the nations who think alike and believe alike coming together closely. I think it will be achieved as a gradual process, and I want to encourage that gradual process. I do not call that anything contrary to the spirit of the Charter at all. I think, on the contrary, it is one of the methods whereby the Charter envisages an avhievement of a higher degree of universality. Chairman EATON. Mr. Judd. Mr. JUDD. Mr. Dulles, the committee is greatly indebted to you for making the trip down here, and, with such lucidity, effectiveness, and balance, discussing the issues with us. The two main resolutions before us approach differently the problem of more effective international organization, one on the universal level, the other with the emphasis on the less than universal basis. From a practical standpoint, in your judgment, which is the better for us to put the emphasis on? Which is the better for us to proceed under? Mr. DULLES. I would say on the less than universal basis under article 51. I do not have any objection at all to a declaration by Congress which suggests the various alternatives, and, as a matter of fact, your resolution does that. I can see no objection to that. Your resolution does not bind the administration to proceed along one way. You suggest Charter amendment, but you equally suggest under 51. I think your resolution opens up these various possibilities and I would not close any of those possibilities, because it might very well be that a time would come when it would be better to proceed by way of a Charter amendment. We might feel that the international situation was such that if we called a convention under article 109, that the support of our proposed amendments would be so overwhelming that the Soviet Union would just not dare stay out as a little minority. When that time comes, if it comes, then there would be no reason why we should not proceed under 109. There is every reason why we should proceed under 109. However, on the basis of my own practical experience and contact with this situation-as I say, I was the one who was in charge of the American delegation for debating this proposition last fall-I do not think that the moment is yet here when we can get the best result by a conference under 109 and it may be better to proceed first and exhaust more fully the possibilities under 51. I think we get more together in that way. Then as we have gradually, through 51 associations, perhaps interlocking, bound the nations of the world more closely together, leaving out under those circumstances, perhaps only the Soviet Union, then we will have perhaps a solid nucleus upon which to move under 109. Mr. JUDD. There are ordinarily two ways that a committee of Congress can get its ideas across. One is through the text of a resolution; and the other is through the committee report. Might it be wise, to avoid the danger of appearing to commit the Executive, to have a more general statement in a resolution coming out of this committee— a general statement of what the United States would like to move toward, and how far the United States itself is prepared to go—or if that is too strong, a general statement of our concern over the inadequacy of the present organization and the danger of the present situation, the failure to move forward as mankind had expected; plus our hope, as you say, that we can now move vigorously toward the "development of international law and its impartial enforcement"; and that the Administration will proceed with resourcefulness and high resolve in that direction; and then in the committee report set forth in more detailed and specific form the changes which it is the consensus of opinion should be worked out in agreement with other countries? That would bring the whole question to the floor of the House, where it would be further amplified by the debates. Thus, we would not be binding the Executive to a particular program but we would be crystalizing the profound concern of the American people and their aspirations with respect to these issues. Would that be a better way to handle it than a more specific resolution? Mr. DULLES. I would think so. I would consider, broadly speaking, that such program as you now suggest would be a very admirable way of handling the matter. I would like to say this: That there is always danger that the people who have to deal with the problem first-hand are so impressed with the difficulties, that they seem to mount up as insurmountable. It is always important to have an urge behind you to surmount these difficulties and to find through resourcefulness and imagination, a way to do it. I see no objection at all to Congress giving a push in that direction. I think the effect of that upon those who have to handle the thing on a day-to-day basis such as I have had to do somewhat in the past, the effect of that upon the world is splendid. You have to have a combination of far-range idealism but also you have to have your vision on what are the immediate obstacles ahead. Otherwise you may stumble and fall. I think it is wholly within the province of Congress to indicate the great goals that we need to achieve. Personally, I feel the same sense of urgency in this international situation that I think is evidenced by those who drew up these resolutions. I particularly feel it in relation to this atomic energy situation. I am greatly concerned as to the position humanity will be in if we do not find some international rule to govern the handling of atomic energy before it becomes an open secret so that almost anybody can use it. That is a disastrous situation. I do not know how long we have to operate in; 1 year, 2 years, 3 years-I do not know-but time is running out. It is not a situation where we can just sit by and allow ourselves to be stymied. When people are in a desperate position, where life itself hangs in the balance, they develop new resourcefulness, new strength, which they do not normally have. I believe the world is in a desperate position where just the normal procedures are not going to suffice. I think if Congress expresses that sense of urgency on behalf of the American people, that that in itself is a very great contribution to make to the cause in which we are all so interested. Mr. JUDD. If we had such an expression by the Congress in existence at the present moment, might it not be a most useful thing for our representative to present to Mr. Molotov and Mr. Vishinsky? He would be in an infinitely better and stronger position. He could say, "The United States is ready to go ahead on this program," and it would either expose them as engaging in the crudest kind of a bluff, or they would have to come along too. That in itself would be helpful to public opinion here. You can see in this morning's papers how many peopel are taken in by the skillful way the Russians grabbed an opportunity to make it appear that they are the ones who want peace and we are blocking it. Hitler followed the same procedure repeatedly with great success. In the absence of some such action as this by us, they make more heardway than we realize. That is one of the dangers from inaction that must be considered when we are estimating the possible dangers involved in taking action. Is not that true? Mr. DULLES. That is true. Chairman EATON. Mr. Fulton. Mr. FULTON. I want to thank Mr. Dulles for his fine statement and his nice use of the English language today. It is a pleasure to hear him speak so frankly and directly. I also wish to thank Mr. Dulles as one of the people who assisted the Foreign Affairs Committee in making suggestions for the reorgan ization of the committee along functional lines. I want to thank him personally for the time he took to outline his views when I wrote to him in Mexico. We members can now say that the Foreign Affairs Committee is reorganized on a world-wide scope into subcommittees classified by the subjects with which they deal. May we now go ahead on the general problem? The question comes up on matters relating to the United Nations, and possible changes in organization, as to whether that is a problem of one body of Congress, the Senate, or two bodies of Congress, the Senate and the House. This brings up the question whether on the old theory of the Senate negotiating treaties, that body has exclusive jurisdiction, or whether under the new theory that the House now supplies the money for these foreign commitments, that we also have an interest. Which is it, the Senate exclusively, or is it the Senate and the House who should be concerned with this problem? Mr. DULLES. I am willing to mix it up with Molotov and Vishinsky, but I am not willing to get into that type of thing. Mr. FULTON. Regardless of whether the so-called working paper has been introduced in one body alone, or there are joint resolutions here, do you think that both Houses of Congress should be equally interested in the organization of the United Nations and the effect it has on our democracy? Mr. DULLES. I think that what is sought is an expression of the concern and desires of the American people, that it is obviously preferable that that should be voiced not merely by one but by both branches of Congress. The more complete that expression is, the more convincing it is. Does that go far enough? Mr. FULTON. If that is as far as you would like to go, I will accept that. My next question was this: You have commented on article 51, and the fact that it was drafted originally in a reference framework that did not include atomic energy, which, of course, is true. Even though that were so, why in article 51, was the inherent right of the individual member to protect itself in self-defense, linked specifically with a condition? May I coment there, while we are speaking of language, that when a condition is put as a future condition, of course, the verb should have been in the subjunctive to be good English. So here, when you have a "future" linked with a "condition" expressed in the UN Charter in the present indicative, may I comment just as a practical committee member, that not only is the framework out of date but the language was out of date from the time the English language has come down to us from time immemorial. Mr. DULLES. As I say, I had some part in drawing up that article 51, and I am afraid I am not entitled to the very kind words you used earlier as to my precise use of English. I will say this, that when you come to drawing these things up in the hurly-burly of an international conference, it is not always possible to express one's self nicely. This was one of the most debated clauses that we dealt with at San Francisco, and I remember when the final check was, I think, agreed to at a room up in the penthouse, where 5 or 6 or 10 people were all working and drafting, and so forth, it is not possible for any one person to polish these things up very flossily. Now, I want to call your attention to this as a matter of substance: What article 51 says, is [reading]: Nothing shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs. Now, what does that mean? That means that if an armed attack occurs, that is an occasion for the exercise of the inherent right of selfdefense, but it does not say that the only case where you can exercise the inherent right of self-defense is if an armed attack occurs. In other words, there is an inherent right of self-defense which the Charter does not attempt to define and which could not be defined with any great precision, because the question is, what is aggression that justifies inherent defense? It is something that cannot be spelled out in detail in advance. It does take one particular case, and says, obviously, that if an armed attack occurs, then that is an occasion for exercising the inherent right of self-defense. It does not say that is the only occasion in which the inherent right of self-defense can be exercised. Mr. FULTON. Can I give you an inference on the way you have stated it here, because you have linked up the individual, or collective selfdefense, with a condition. If you will read it with me, this way, take the converse of it: If an armed attack does not occur against a member of the United Nations, then matters in the present Charter may impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense. Mr. DULLES. I would say you are doing violence to the Charter language whe nyou read it in that way. Mr. FULTON. I am taking the converse. You have stated it one way and I go beyond that and say, now, by inference, just take it in the converse. Then there is the inference that if there is no armed attack, matters is this Charter shall impair that inherent right. But as a matter of fact I do not think that you or Russia or the United States or any country intended to limit in any way whether armed attack or not, the individual or collective self-defense of members, but your language implies it. Mr. DULLES. There was no attempt to limit the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense. I prepared a memorandum for the United States delegation on that question of the inherent right of self-defense. I pointed out that there was that inherent right which could not be taken away by implication or event in my opinion expressly, because no individual can give up the right to protect his own life. My opinion there was that there was nothing in the Charter which did that or that would purport to do it. Mr. FULTON. On page 3 of your statement you have the comment that most of the Security Council action under chapter 6 dealing with the pacific settlement of disputes is by fair interpretation, procedural only. I would disagree with this, because I have raised the question with American Ambassador Austin previously, that American practice before the United Nations seems to be too much to change substantive matters over into procedural matters to obtain an ultimate end. Now, certainly, under article 37, when the Security Council is not only to recommend certain procedures for the pacific settlement, but also to advise members on how to do it, if we are limiting that merely to the procedural, the United States is not using, nor is the United Nations, the full power of chapter 6. Mr. DULLES. It was because of that, which I had in mind, that I did not say that all matters under chapter 6 are procedural. I say that most matters under chapter 6 are procedural, because I recognize there are some matters under chapter 6 and particularly the matter you point to which in my opinion is not procedural, but I think when it comes to, |