Mr. CHIPERFIELD. It is, of course, understandable that the general public would like to see the Charter of the United Nations revised and strengthened but they do not realize, I think, the difficulty of doing so under present circumstances.

Secretary MARSHALL. I think that is correct, sir. There is confusion as to what the various changes would mean and what the problems of carrying them into effect would be.

I think the present active interest in the matter is very encouraging, but I think it is equally important that all the public should have a clear understanding of just what these various proposals would mean. Mr. CHIPERFIELD. If we were to call a conference of the United Nations for revision, which might be doomed to failure, and then we were forced into the dilemma of taking some action, we might be hurting our international relations rather than helping them, would we not?

Secretary MARSHALL. My feeling at the present time is that we should not jeopardize the integrity of the United Nations Organization. When one takes into account the number of nations involved in it-that they all did get together in agreement in drafting this Charter-it is a tremendous event in the history of the world.

When we think back into our own experience with our own Constitution, we can find parallels with present problems all the way through, particularly in the troubled state of mind after the final adoption of the Constitution, and the succeeding efforts to amend it.

There, we were dealing with only 13 States, and with people all speaking the same language. But they all had definite reactions. The slavery question dominated the thinking a great deal, as did States' rights.

In this problem now before us, we have other issues but in a sense they are somewhat the same.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Bloom.

Mr. BLOOM. Mr. Secretary, you believe that the United Nations can function?

Secretary MARSHALL. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLOOM. If there are any changes to be made in the Charter, would not the veto power apply there, too?

Secretary MARSHALL. Yes, sir; the veto power obtains in connection with changes of the Charter.

Mr. BLOOM. The veto power would apply, then, to the changes in the Charter. Do you feel, then, that changes can be made?

Secretary MARSHALL. At the present time, I would say, not by recourse to that procedure. May I read the pertinent paragraph of the Charter? [Reading:]

Any alteration of the present Charter recommended by a two-thirds vote of the conference shall take effect when ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council (Art. 109, par. 2). The right of veto is in the last phrase.

Mr. BLOOM. Then you believe at the present time it would be wrong to call a meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations, to try and find a way of amending the Charter to meet the abuses of the Charter?

Secretary MARSHALL. I did not hear the first part of the sentence.

Mr. BLOOM. I believe I understood you to say it would be inadvisable at this time to call a meeting of the General Assembly to amend the Charter to correct the abuses of the Charter.

Secretary MARSHALL. Did you say inadvisable?

Mr. BLOOM. Yes; that is correct, sir. Then you referred to the Constitution of the United States?

Secretary MARSHALL. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLOOM. Was not one of the first acts of the Congress of the United States after it came into being in 1789 to adopt the first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States?

Secretary MARSHALL. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLOOM. That was in less time than we are asking for something to be done to the United Nations.

Secretary MARSHALL. That is correct, sir, but I believe the conditions are somewhat different.

Mr. BLOOM. If two-thirds of the vote of the Thirteen Statesalthough there were only 10 of the States that really approved of the Constitution-if two-thirds of the votes of the Thirteen States were to be required to amend the Constitution, or even to adopt the Constitution, it would not carry; is that right?

Secretary MARSHALL. That is correct, sir.

Mr. BLOOM. Then how are you going to amend the Charter of the United Nations if the veto power still remains?

Secretary MARSHALL. I think that will come about, sir, in the development of a very different state of mind than that which is afflicting the world at the present moment.

The whole international situation is fraught with suspicion and fears, and a series of events, all of which are so disturbing that it is not probable that nations which take opposite views will moderate their points of view until there has been a more reassuring development in the world.

My own view is, and it is the view of my associates and advisers, that when we have achieved a little more of a feeling of security, when we have achieved particularly a little more economic stability in the world, these suspicions will be moderated. Gradually we will work into a back-and-forth adjustment that will lend itself, in general, to a more moderate point of view, and this would be the basis for getting together on some of the issues now under discussion.

At the present time, as I understand the situation through Ambassador Austin and Mr. Rusk here who are familiar with the various factors involved, through personal contacts with the principal representatives of the five major nations, we are the only major power which at the present time favors amendment of the Charter.

Mr. BLOOM. That is true in the case of other things, too. Is it the veto or the abuse of the veto that is objectionable?

Secretary MARSHALL. I would say, largely, the abuse of the veto. If the understanding that was given regarding the veto in San Francisco had been sincerely lived up to, we would not be in the present predicament.

Mr. BLOOM. Would the Senate of the United States have approved of the Charter with the veto power not there?

Secretary MARSHALL. It is my understanding that it would not. I was not in the country at the time of the debates.

I suppose it might have approved if some aspects of the veto had been removed from the Charter, but in the main issues, I am told it would not have approved. However, as I said, I was not in the country at the time of those debates.

Mr. BLOOM. I have one question on the loan of $65,000,000 to erect a building for the United Nations in New York City.

The way I read this resolution which I believe was referred to the committee by the State Department, it contains all of the provisions of the security for the loan to the United Nations. It regards mortgages or anything else, should anything happen in the future, so that the United States would be protected in any eventuality.

Secretary MARSHALL. That is the understanding I have received from my legal advisers.

Mr. BLOOM. If the loan will not be made of $65,000,000 do you know the amount of money the United States would have to contribute toward the erection of the building, and then secure the remainder of the funds from the other 57 different countries?

STATEMENT OF DEAN RUSK, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF UNITED NATIONS AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. RUSк. Approximately $27,000,000.

Mr. MARSHALL. It is about 40 percent of the total.

Mr. BLOOM. That would be 60 percent for construction of the building, without considering the value of the land, is that not right? Mr. RUSK. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLOOM. And the mortgage given to the United States for the $65,000,000 also contains the provision that the land as well as the building is considered in the mortgage, is that not right?

Mr. RUSK. Yes, sir, the entire properties are subject to recapture by the United States.

Mr. BLOOM. So the loan itself, looking at it as a strictly business proposition, in your opinion, is a pure loan?

Mr. RUSK. That is right.

Mr. BLOOM. That is all.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Vorys.

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Secretary, we are glad to see you back safe and sound.

Who gives our representative, Senator Austin, his instructions? Secretary MARSHALL. They come from the State Department and the President.

Mr. VORYS. Is there any set procedure as to how he gets his instructions?

Secretary MARSHALL. The normal procedure is that an instruction goes directly from the State Department to Senator Austin. It is sent either by telegram or memorandum. In some cases, it contains the exact language to be used. In other cases it is a position paper defining the attitude of the United States, and it is left to Senator Austin's discretion as to how he employs that attitude in his discussions and debates.

Mr. VORYS. In the Assembly are the instructions handled the same way?

Secretary MARSHALL. Yes sir.

The procedure when I was attending the Assembly was that we had a meeting in the morning at about 9: 15 o'clock, with the delegates, and with the various advisors. It involved about 50 people. Each one of the issues of the day was discussed and a final decision was taken on what the position of the United States would be in a matter and who would handle it. Sometimes a committee of the delegates might be handling it, or the position might be in the form of a general state

ment.

The same procedure, I think is followed at the present time, so far as is possible considering the terrific pressure being placed on the leading individual to be in two or three places at the same time.

Mr. VORYS. It is a little different, in a way, in the Assembly than with our Security member, is it not? You have described what on the Hill here we might call a caucus that takes place with the Assembly but the Security member gets his instructions more directly, is that about right?

Secretary MARSHALL. Mr. Rusk has set in on the Council meetings and I will have him speak.

Mr. RUSK. In preparation for a General Assembly we prepare a full position book which represents our policy attitude on all of the questions that will be on the agenda of the General Assembly. Of necessity those must be broad in character and must take into account the fact that we have a parliamentary situation in the Assembly, where two-thirds votes are required in the plenary sessions and ordinary majorities are required in the committees.

Questions which arise before the Security Council are more specific and precise in character; therefore, the instructions are usually more precise.

Mr. VORYS. Thank you.

Mr. BLOOM. Is there a two-thirds vote on everything?

Secretary MARSHALL. In the Assembly, a two-thirds vote is required on important matters, sir.

Mr. VORYS. In your statement you spoke of the undeveloped powers of the General Assembly. I wondered if there are any powers there that would eliminate or effect the use of the veto? I wondered just what you meant by, "undeveloped"?

Secretary MARSHALL. For example, Mr. Vorys, there are certain actions that can be taken directly by the Assembly. Delegates to the Assembly can act if they have the approval of their governments. In the Assembly one can have a decision on a matter without it having gone to the Security Council.

Mr. Rusk just reminded me of the Greek case. Aside from handling that, the step taken last year by the Assembly in creating the Little Assembly constituted an expansion of the organizational facilities provided under the Charter.

However, I should say the principal undeveloped power is in the action of the Assembly itself with relation to important problems of international relations.

Mr. VORYS. That is what I wanted to get clear. Is it possible under the Charter for the Assembly, let us say, by a two-thirds vote to take action in, let us say, a security situation, which would not require further action by the Security Council, or could not be vetoed by the Security Council.

Mr. RUSK. Under the Charter the General Assembly is entitled to discuss all questions before the United Nations. It can also discuss questions of the maintenance of international peace and security. It can make recommendations on a particular issue provided that it is not at the same time before the Security Council.

If the General Assembly deals with a question such as Greece, or another question not before the Security Council, and it concludes that the question requires action under chapter 7, it must under the Charter refer that matter to the Security Council. However, there are things which the Assembly itself can do. It established a commission of its own to go to Greece after the Security Council had been unable because of the veto to do anything about the Greece situation. There is now in northern Greece a committee of the General Assembly acting as observers to attempt to discourage the aggression going on in that area and which has succeeded, we believe, in slowing up the timetable of that aggression.

Mr. VORYS. That was a case that was before the Security Council and the Security Council failed to act because of the veto but the Assembly went ahead.

Mr. RUSK. It was taken off the agenda of the Security Council in order to permit the General Assembly to deal with it.

Mr. VORYS. Could it be taken off the Security Council except by unanimous vote of the permanent members?

Mr. RUSK. The deletion of an item from the agenda of the Security Council requires a procedural vote on which the veto does not apply. Mr. VORYS. I see.

Then there is through the Assembly, the possibility of, let us say circumventing the veto?

Mr. RUSK. The Charter provided that both the Security Council and the General Assembly should act on such matters. It is not a question of circumventing the veto so much as using the powers which the General Assembly itself has under the Charter to do a job which the Assembly is entitled to do.

In other words it has powers, too, to deal with political situations and disputes.

Mr. VORYS. I did not mean to say, "circumventing the veto," but simply not using the procedure where the veto applies.

Mr. RUSK. That is right.

Mr. VORYS. Is it not true that the Charter in no place defines the word "aggression"? As I remember it, between the wars a lot of international conferences were devoted to defining that word, and that word, definition and conception was omitted, just because there could not be agreement on it. Is that correct?

Secretary MARSHALL. I think that is correct, sir-Article 39 says [reading]:

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

In relation to that, Mr. Rusk has a point I would like him to make. Mr. RUSK. The principal reason why, "aggression" was not defined at San Francisco was that it was thought that a definition of aggression would restrict the Security Council in the future and limit it in