On March 16 of this year seven Republicans and seven Democrats of the House, including six members of this committee, introduced more specific resolutions to the same general effect. Sixteen Members of the Senate of both parties introduced essentially the same resolution in that body on April 12.

These resolutions call for revision of the Charter in three main respects as the probable minimum to enable the organization to be effective:

1. To eliminate the veto on matters of aggression and armament for aggression and to reorganize the Security Council so as to give representation more nearly approximating the actual strength of its members.

2. To provide for inspection and control of atomic and other important weapons.

3. To set up an international police force recruited from volunteers from the smaller member states and supported if necessary by the armed forces of the major states, which would be limited to agreed quotas.

If Russia's real objective is security, as some still maintain, then she should readily join in such changes, because such a United Nations would guarantee her security-as well as ours and that of every other country that is willing to live in peace and let its neighbors do likewise.

Should Russia refuse to cooperate, then at least the world will know that her real objective is not security, but conquest, and the other nations can go ahead under article 51 of the Charter, which authorizes members to unite for "collective self-defense."

It is now being proposed that we and the five nations of western Europe should organize for collective self-defense under article 51; and I approve. But if article 51 is good enough to permit five or six nations to get together firmly for collective self-defense, then it is good enough to enable 40 or 50 nations to get together-all who are willing to do so. Such a group would have preponderant power. No nation could posibly challenge it by embarking on aggression.

I may add in passing that some have suggested that all the nonCommunist nations who want to could get together under article 52 authorizing regional arrangements, with the door always open for Russia to join, too, if she desires.

It is not my view that we should at this time, in advance of the proposed general conference, commit ourselves to any particular amendment or revision, any paritcular specific remedy, even though probably each of us has his own ideas as to what changes are needed. Rather, we should jointly hold a sort of clinic on a very sick patient-examine, diagnose, and discuss the ailments, consider all the proposed remedies— and they will be many and varied-and then see if we cannot come to a fairly common mind as to which are the wisest and best to adopt. It is my confident belief that with the experience of the last 3 years it will be possible in a conference held now to evolve more workable and effective machinery for peace than was possible at San Francisco.

This time we must get an organization based on justice, under world law, and with a policeman. The gun must be in the organization's hand against any aggressor, rather than in the aggressor's hands against the world organization and against humanity.

We must get an instrument that the peaceful nations of the world can use to make peace, and not one which a nonpeaceful nation-if one of the Big Five can use to protect aggression and to block peace.

We must move as effectively to strengthen our moral and legal position as we are moving to strengthen our economic and military positions.

Stalin and the Politbureau apparently think that we think we cannot get along without Russia-and usually we have acted as if they were right. I am convinced that if we demonstrate to the Russians quickly that we and the other peoples of the world can if necessary get along without them, then there is a good chance we will soon find it possible to get along with them.

Whenever enough of the peaceful governments of the world get together on a basis that makes clear to the men in the Kremlin, first, that they do not need to go to war to get security or satisfaction of any legitimate grievances Russia may have; and second, that they cannot succeed even if they do go to war-at that point I believe there is a good chance they will come along. There would be nothing to gain by refusing.

Appeasement, exhortations, denunciations, bribes, or secret deals will not succeed. They have all been tried-with disastrous results. Russia will agree only when we get a set of circumstances where agreement is more advantageous than attempted conquest.

To call such a general conference to revise the United Nations Charter is not a vote of nonconfidence, a condemnation of the United Nations idea. Rather, it is a reavowal of our faith in that idea and an expression of our determination to achieve it in practice.

The great majority of the people of the world wants peace and is willing to pay the price for it. It is betrayal of them and of our own dead not to exert every possible effort to correct the structure and improve the machinery of the United Nations so that it can effectively deal with whatever disputes arise to threaten the peace.

While strengthening our own defenses, carrying out swiftly and efficiently the economic and military assistance programs to which we have set our hands in Europe and Asia, we must also exercise positive, vigorous, imaginative leadership to develop and improve the United Nations until, please God, it can be made capable of enacting, interpreting, and enforcing world law governing relations between the nations and peoples of the earth.

In what other way can we hope to revive our hopes and the world's hopes for a just and enduring peace?

Unless we succeed in establishing such a peace, quickly, we and our children are doomed.

Mr. Chairman, as a member of this great committee, I know full well the deep concern you and all the members feel regarding this, the most momentous question of our time. We are not alone in that concern. There are organized groups in at least 23 other lands wrestling with the same problem-the problem of survival. I am confident that after hearing and considering testimony from many of the most distinguished and thoughtful men and women of our time, the committee will feel impelled to report out a resolution urging that our country take the lead in forming a "more perfect union" that alone can secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

Chairman EATON. I am sorry that the entire committee could not be here; but, owing to circumstances beyond their control, several have to be absent.

We want to thank you for one of the most brilliant and comprehensive statements that even you have ever made in our presence. I wish to call attention to the one fundamental statement which you have made, which I hope will receive continuous attention; namely, that

the Kremlin already has a world-wide organization, the Communist Party. It has a dozen countries under its complete control. Its world-wide organization is already functioning efficiently and at full speed. It intends to win, and in order to do so it must keep any other world organization crippled and ineffective.

In that statement it seems to me you have unveiled the very center of the problem confronting not only the United Nations but every freedom-loving people in the world.

Is it the will of the committee to question the various members as they testify or to hear their testimony and then question them? Mr. Chiperfield, what is your view on the subject?

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Anything will suit me.

Chairman EATON. What is the opinion of our distinguished former chairman, Mr. Bloom?

Mr. BLOOM. Mr. Chairman, I think we better wait and hear the witnesses, in case there is anything comes up upon which we want to question them. We should decide at the time on whether we want to question them or not.

Chairman EATON. On that suggestion, Mr. Judd, we will proceed. The next witness that you have named here is Mr. Mundt.

I may say to the committee, when these distinguished statesmen have finished, you will have an enormous intellectual mass to digest.

STATEMENT OF HON. KARL E. MUNDT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. Chairman, I want to pick up the ball of our colleagues and associates in these resolutions and possibly set out the goal of our committee action.

I think it should be emphasized over and over again that not only today is communism the only functioning international agency in the world, but that by permitting this functioning international agency to continue to block all peace activities on the part of the United Nations, we have placed this country in a hopelessly impotent and inadequate position.

Every civilized country in the world today has its segment of the Communist Party. All of those segments operate in unison. They operate cooperatively. They promote a coordinated program which is patterned and promoted from the Kremlin, in Moscow. As a consequence, the United States in these last few years, has become the great, single isolated nation of the world. It has been isolated not by action of this Congress; it has been isolated not because of any attitude on the part of any segment of the American public; it has been isolated by the march of events of recent history.

We stand today alone, as a great bulwark of freedom, in this socalled ideological or cold war. Against us is arrayed this interna

tionally organized, internationally functioning, internationally cooperating, Communist Party.

It is an old adage that an organized minority can defeat an unorganized majority in politics, and an organized minority can eventually defeat an unorganized majority in any contest of any kind in this world.

We must meet this danger at its source.

On the Communist side, we have a great organized minority working as a team.

On the free side, we have the United States isolated and standing alone, attempting to lead the free side of the contest. We do not have any working papers with our British cousins, in Great Britain. We have no compact, or any treaty or any organizational status with any countries out of the Western Hemisphere. The closest thing we have on this side is the Act of Chapultepec, which is established for the purpose of joint defense of the Western Hemisphere and not for the purpose of recruiting a team to defend freedom against the organized attacks of this Communist minority.

The only binding relationship we have to the other free countries is the mucilage of our American currency which holds us to them and them to us. When the currency runs out, we will find ourselves facing the hazards of this internationally organized Communist attack with no organized, coordinated support on our side.

Mr. Chairman, since that is the danger, and since that is the crux of the problem that has compelled us to spend some $30,000,000,000 since the war, trying to keep freedom alive, and trying to ward off the vicious attacks of communism, I feel, as Dr. Judd and the other members of the Senate and the House who have joined with me in introducing this series of identical resolutions, that we should attack this danger at its source.

We do not attack it at its source when we vote $6,000,000,000 under the Economic Cooperation Act to help rehabilitate 16 countries of western Europe. As Dr. Judd pointed out in his statement, we do buy time. We think we have bought about 12 months of time, at $500,000,000 a month.

If we have bought that much time, we are fortunate. If we make that time work in the cause of peace, we are prudent and sound. But if we simply buy that time and wait for the expiration of the calendar year, to purchase an additional amount of time at an increased cost, we are improvident in our utilization of the taxpayers' funds.

I hope our committee will take the leadership in carrying out a prudent and a positive program.

This veto that the Russians have utilized in the United Nations some 23 times or 24 times, it seems to me, is carrying out a very simple and very basic football tactic which, as the greatest football-playing nation of the world, we should have been able to solve and counteract in the 30-odd months they have been following it through the United Nations: The tactic, as I see it, is simply this:

The Communists block the peace-loving nations of the world while they run around left end with the ball making a touchdown. They have blocked us, as I say, some two dozen times. They have made 11 touchdowns while blocking the peace-loving nations from doing anything to stop the aggressive march of communism, which, since the

last months of the last war, has amassed and acquired more real estate and subjected more people to domination than any other aggressive move in the history of the world in peace or in war, in like amount of time.

By vetoing an international police force; by vetoing international control on the inspection of the atomic bomb; by vetoing all efforts to establish border patrols and international settlements of disputes as to sovereignty of various areas-steadily, slowly, but surely, the Russians have made touchdowns in the cause of communism while blocking us with their persistent vetoes.

They have done it in Lithuania, Latvia, Esthonia, Albania, Jugoslavia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia.

They have the ball on the 2-yard line in Finland, ready to push it over for their eleventh consecutive touchdown, any time the quarterback in the Kremlin decides to call the touchdown signal.

I submit, that, Mr. Chairman, as a nation of football players, having seen this thing take place for 30 months, for 11 consecutive plays, we should by now be able to figure out some kind of signal to stop that very simple tactic of blocking our tacklers while they run with the ball. especially inasmuch as it is being promoted by a country which would not know the difference between a football game and a bullfight because they have never seen either one of them in Russia.

We should not let them continue to befuddle us and before us by so simple a move.

To counteract that, we who have introduced this series of resolutions proposing that there be called a meeting of the member nations of the United Nations to consider all possible ways and means of bringing this tactic of blocking and running with the ball for a touchdown to an end. We suggest that through articles 109 and 51 of the Charter, we explore the means whereby the freedom-loving nations of the world may also have on our side an international organization, working in the interests of peace, to counteract this 30-month-old organization in which the Communists have operated internationally in the interests of aggression and in the interests of their control.

We do not believe that we should eliminate the veto entirely, because by so doing we pretty well eliminate our national sovereignty, but in those essential elements, such as matters of aggression, such as the control of weapons designed to destroy mass populations, the atomic bomb, and others, such as the establishment of an international police force, and such as the matter of the admission of memberships into the United Nations family, we think the veto should be eliminated.

Perhaps out of these discussions by the member nations of the United Nations, growing out of what this committee recomends if the Congress then passes legislation requesting the President to call such a meeting, there will come other valid and helpful suggestions for promoting the peace.

I do not think we should eliminate the veto, for example, from the standpoint of the right of Congress, the constitutional right of the Congress to declare war. That should be something to remain a part of the sovereign function of this Government and this Congress. But if we have an international police force, that police force should be ordered by the United Nations to move in and stop little wars from becoming big ones, without any country having the right to veto such. a movement.