British charges against Albania resulting from the damage by mines to two destroyers and the loss of 44 lives in the Corfu Channel are now before the Court. Here is another case where a Soviet veto failed to achieve its purpose. The Soviet Union vetoed a Security Council resolution fixing the blame upon Albania, but the case was referred to the International Court for adjudication nonetheless and both parties have recognized the jurisdiction of the Court.

The Court also is considering the validity of Soviet vetoes of membership applications. That is a legal question that has been submitted by a resolution of the General Assembly. Its findings should be ready in time for consideration by the regular session of the General Assembly in September.

Even when Security Council action is stymied by the misuse of the veto a great deal is accomplished nevertheless. The current Security Council consideration of the coup in Czechoslovakia is a good example. This entire proceeding has been conducted in the face of Soviet veto threats. But their threats cannot halt the Council's examination of evidence. If and when the veto occurs, the evidence will become part of the record. It will be put in by members of the Security Council at the Security Council table.

Notwithstanding these accomplishments, changes are needed.

There are ways of working for them within the Charter. Do not go out and say to the world that is anxious for the UN that changes are needed that will split and divide the United Nations and that might destroy it.

It is not failing, it is doing good all the time-not as fast as we would like-not as well as we would like, and changes are needed, and right here on this very point of peaceful solution, seeking agreement by negotiation.

And so I say for the record, notwithstanding these accomplishments, changes are needed and your work is greatly cheered on by us. There are ways of working for them within the Charter.

Vigorous efforts are under way now to improve the machinery of the United Nations for the pacific settlement of disputes.

The United States was largely responsible for the establishment of the Interim Committee of the General Assembly. This Little Assembly, as it is generally known, is now studying a number of proposals aimed toward strengthening the machinery for the pacific settlement. of disputes.

Moreover, it is working on a series of suggestions to restrict the application of the veto and liberalize the voting procedures of the Security Council. The results of this work will be taken up at the next regular session of the General Assembly in September.

I believe that this distinguished committee has a copy of a provisional list of Security Council decisions which the United States proposes should be made by an affirmative vote of seven members whether or not such decisions are regarded as procedural or nonprocedural.

You understand the point there. You know that under article 27 of the Charter, you do not have to have the unanimity of the five great powers in procedural matters.

Now we are taking these 31 propositions and saying, "Let us make them procedural by agreement.'

No matter whether we are of the opinion that they have some substance or not, we know by experience that when one of these types of questions is vetoed the course of pacific settlement of disputes is impeded. Our hope is to get as much encouragement and help from you

as we can.

We know that you are sincere and that your purpose is really to be helpful and to strengthen the United Nations rather than destroy it. Here is where your help will count. We need the publicity of your approval in your debates in the Congress. It would stimulate our service. It would affect others besides the United States-the United Nations General Assembly and the Interim Committee. It would strengthen our efforts to obtain what is really needed. Now here it is: Agreement among the Permanent Members that such voting procedures could be followed and the establishment of those voting procedures made by rules. This approach has a chance of success, it is realistic, and it recognizes the one essential in building a genuine system of collective security-big-power unity.

No abandonment of universality should be tolerated. There is no real security without universality. We must not tear down this powerful buttress of the world organization. Instead, the structure should be braced on the inside.

Mr. JONKMAN. Does not the veto also extend to the question of whether or not an action is procedural or nonprocedural? Ambassador AUSTIN. Yes.

Mr. JONKMAN. How are you going to get around that?

Ambassador AUSTIN. That is a double veto, and we are getting around it right now in the Czechoslovakian case. The veto has not yet been cast but enough states have stated their views about the matter so that it is apparent we will have a vote of about nine to two. All of the members of the Security Council, save the Soviet Union and the Ukraine, probably will vote that the matter is procedural.

The motion proposes that we appoint a subcommittee to take the testimony of witnesses.

Now the Soviet Union comes in and says, "No; I veto that." Then, when we put the substantive question itself, he vetoes again, and the proposal is dead, so far as that particular method goes.

But we can get around it. These witnesses will be called before the whole Council or their affidavits will be brought into the whole Council. Thus, we will have their testimony in the Czechoslovakian case in spite of the double veto.

Since he knows that, I am not certain that he will actually veto. Mr. JONKMAN. Under their ideology is there such a thing as guilt on their part?

Ambassador AUSTIN. That is a question I cannot answer.

Mr. JONKMAN. After all, the point is there, unless they change and act with a will to cooperate. If you do not accomplish that, you cannot accomplish anything.

I would like to ask the same question with reference to a decision of the International Court of Justice on applications for membership. Can they take the veto away from the Soviets in that regard?

Ambassador AUSTIN. This is what happens: It is a question of law as to whether the Soviet Union had a right to add another qualification to a candidate for admission. There are certain qualifications

named in the Charter upon which an applicant is entitled to become a member. First, he shall be a peace-loving nation; secondly, he shall be in a position to contribute to the cooperative effort of maintaining peace in the world.

The Soviet Union comes in and claims, yes, Italy is entitled under those standards to be admitted, but we will veto her unless you will, at the same time, admit Albania, and other nations against which charges are pending in the Security Council.

The question in the Court is whether a voter in the Security Council can add another condition besides those that the Charter provides for admission to membership?

It is not the question of taking away the veto. It is an interpretation of the act and an interpretation of the Charter.

Chairman EATON. Now, will the gentleman finish his statement. Ambassador AUSTIN. I think you are very patient with me and I thank you.

The core of the world security problems is the relationship between the East and the West.

Since the end of the war the rift between these two powerful groups has gradually widened. No matter what the machinery nor how stringent the Charter limitations, the operators of the machinery would still be the member states. If these states will observe the obligations contained in the present charter and cooperate within the present framework of the Organization, its gravest problems will be solved.

Creation of additional machinery would not affect the basic political situation with which we are confronted. What is necessary is a fundamental adjustment between East and West. This will have to be undertaken at the suitable time.

The fact that in the short span of its existence, the United Nations has not been able to solve this basic problem has profoundly affected the thinking of many Members of Congress and of some of our most forward-looking civic leaders and organizations. But I have yet to find a single radical revision of the United Nations Charter which could, as a practical matter, be adopted at this time by any appreciable number of states and which. if adopted, would solve the crucial problem which is the basis of present world insecurity. The most likely result of revision, under the present circumstances, would be the destruction of the United Nations.

This point was convincingly stated by Congressman Javits last night on the Town Meeting of the Air..

Now, I speak of the United Nations as the bridge between the East and the West. The end of the United Nations would lead to the complete destruction of the political, economic, social, and technical activities of the United Nations. The present effectiveness of these activities stems to a great degree from the fact that all major powers and an overwhelming majority of other states take part in the organization. Once this relative universality of membership is destroyed, such collaboration as now exists would cease and a complete break between the East and the West would occur. The only possible bridge between the East and West would collapse; and yet, the problem of bridging the gap between the East and West is precisely the crucial problem of our time.

I am informed that our distinguished Secretary of State made plain in his statement this morning that the general attitude of the United States toward amendment is favorable, but that there are certain factors which have to be known before we start calling a convention for amendment of the Charter of the United Nations. At least two members of this committee are aware of the character of the General Assembly of the United Nations, the facility for debate, the individuality of membership and the historical background of the different countries, all of which tend to diversity of opinion. If you cannot be sure of agreement on certain fundamental factors referred to by the Secretary of State this morning, in advance, a convening of the General Assembly under article 109 would be Armageddon. I repeat what he says this morning in that connection. [Reading:]

We are not opposed to the amendment of the Charter in principle. If a proposed amendment has the following characteristics, we would be able to support it:

1. Generally strengthens and facilitates the work of the United Nations;

2. Is strongly supported by the Congress and the American people with full knowledge of its implications for the United States.

3. Negotiations with other governments indicate that there is reasonable sup port for it in the United Nations.

That is why I am not here blasting any particular proposal. I have no intention to take any bill and pick it to pieces and undertake to analyze it part by part. What I am trying to convince you of is that at this time conditions in the world are such that a proposal for a convention to amend the Charter of the United Nations with respect to the veto of action under chapter 7 is not only unfeasible but is absolutely dangerous and tends to destroy all that we have built with so much effort.

Now, I have but little more to say, Mr. Chairman. This bears on the United States and the United Nations. The United Nations affords us an equal opportunity to mobilize world opinion and action against activities which threaten peace and security. It provides an unsurpassed forum for explaining our policies to other States and peoples and for mobilizing their support. We cannot live alone. We may be the leading country of the world, but we must live with the rest of the world in harmony and with their help. We need their help as much as they need our help.

The United Nations serves as an instrument of negotiation with other powers. Remember, we are 58 nations there with members in daily contact with each other, and into all hours of the night. I venture to say there is not another body in the world where men sacrifice so much in order to be in contact with each other and in communication. The events of the world are constantly before them and under consideration.

The United Nations permits the United States to act in concert with other powers in carrying out enterprises which this country could not or would not undertake unilaterally. It is the outstanding instrumentality for solving economic and social problems, safeguarding human rights and fundamental freedom, and improving the welfare of all the peoples. It is and should continue to be the "cornerstone of our foreign policy."

Since the desire of the overwhelming majority of the American people is the strengthening of the United Nations, what, then, is the best course to pursue?

I would not leave the committee without constructive and positive suggestions, and this briefly is it: Not one, but many acts are required. First. One of the most important actions you have already initiated-I refer to the European recovery program. The United Nations is as strong as its members. You know that every member undertook by itself, severally, as well as jointly, to carry out the principles and policies of the Charter. An organization of economically weak and politically chaotic members cannot have strength itself. When only the United States and the Soviet Union are strong, rivalry between them is virtually inevitable. The successful completion of the European recovery program, in my opinion, will not only strengthen the United Nations but will reduce the rivalry which is a basic cause of today's difficulties.

Second. We should strengthen our own military posture. It is futile to talk about arming the United Nations when we know that our force is inadequate to fulfill existing commitments. If we strengthen our ability to protect international law and order, we strengthen collective as well as national security-we strengthen the United Nations.

Third. We should, in my opinion, strengthen the military posture of our friends. History is full of evidence that the weakness of the just increases the malice of the wicked. We have acted to strengthen the economies of friendly states; now let us act to strengthen their military position.

Fourth. We should promote associations of like-minded States within the framework of the United Nations. The Act of Chapultepec, the Rio Treaty, and the Bogota Charter for the Organization of American States are significant advances in this direction. Similar important associations are in the process of formation. There is, for example, the economic organization established by the 16 Marshall plan countries. The unified defense system of the five western European states is another act which strengthens the United Nations.

Fifth. We should support specific efforts to strengthen the United Nations and help remove the causes of war. This means, I believe, that we should approve the loan for building the United Nations headquarters. We should join the World Health Organization, adopt Senate Joint Resolution 136 accepting the Convention on Privileges and Immunities, and ratify the constitution of the proposed International Trade Organization.

Support for the United Nations, to be genuine and effective, must be constant. We should, as a leading member, negotiate and ratify specific conventions for the progressive development and codification of international law, for prevention of the crime of genocide, for the protection of human rights, and the promotion of freedom of information.

Wise, patient, and persistent action in efforts such as these will lead to the development of a strong United Nations and the fulfillment of its tasks.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Ambassador, we are profoundly grateful to you for this most comprehensive statement. We will adopt the 5-minute rule for the first series of questions so that everyone will have a chance. After that we will throw it open.

With your experience in the other body, of course you have great powers of endurance.