Chairman BLOOM. Your principal interest, then, would be to avoid not doing anything?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is the thing to avoid; just to do nothing. So that is one reason why I tried to simplify my own resolution-because I felt the simpler it is and confining it to an expression of what I feel is the fundamental policy-that that is the least that we could get that means anything, and yet it is more likely to be acceptable at this time and it is not a commitment to any specific plan. I do not think we can get one. I am not sure I would want a commitment now because I conceive of that to be worked out after you have the fundamental policy determined.

Then it is an evolutionary process. We have had so little experience in this, I think it would require the very careful study of a group similar to that group which worked out our own Constitution. After all, that was not worked out in open meeting of the Congress. It was worked out behind closed doors, so to speak, by a committee of the most intelligent leaders of our Nation.

I have a feeling that would be the next step, but to start with that and say we have to have a blueprint before we do anything, before we even decide we want to participate-I do not think you could get much interest. There is no provision or authority, it seems to me, for that procedure. I feel now is the time because it will take a long time to develop anything that would be acceptable-and our opinion as to how long the war will last, of course, you all know it varies all the way from a year to 5 years. No one can tell. Certainly, even if we passed this resolution today and proceeded with all earnestness, we would not develop anything very concrete inside of a year, I don't thinkpossibly two.

TO REASSURE SENATE AND PUBLIC

I think the psychological effect of the passage of such a simple resolution would be very great on the people and particularly on the Senate. The Senate, as you know-their 114, the Ball resolution-has merely bogged down. My information is they do not expect any action whatsoever before the recess and, if course, we do not know what to expect after that. And even if we should take the position, this is a matter for the Senate because of their power to approve treaties, I think that still it would have a greater significance in reassuring some Senators and in converting other Senators-those who are on the fence, so to speak-that that is the sentiment of the people. I conceive of this more as an expression of the people's desires as regards the postwar international participation by this country. That seems to me the principal significance of any action we can take at this time.

Chairman BLOOM. Judge Kee.

Mr. KEE. Will the gentleman yield right there?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. There are all angles to this which could be discussed, and I do not purport to be able to outline all of them in this initial treatment.

Chairman BLOOM. Of course, as you know, Mr. Fulbright, when we talked over this matter at the time, it was suggested we would allow all of the resolutions to be considered in executive session and

71-567-76- -3

then let the committee decide what to do. Now, when you finish making your statement I would like to have Mr. Kee, who has a resolution which was introduced some time ago, make a statement.

A KELLOGG-BRIAND PACT WITH TEETH

Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Fulbright and I have discussed this matter and I think we are generally agreed upon the idea that something should be done by way of giving expression to our views. I just wanted to ask Mr. Fulbright-I agree with him and I take it that we all agree it would be unwise for us to attempt to agree upon any plan, but don't you think it would be wise to discuss a principle? In other words the principle that some machinery should be set up and we should agree upon that principle, that some machinery must be set up after the close of the war to enforce the maintenance of a permanent peace. In other words, to implement something like the Kellogg-Briand Pact.

Chairman BLOOм. That is, to put teeth in it?

Mr. KEE. Yes.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is my idea. And this country will participate in it if it is acceptable. Of course, we cannot say we will participate in anything. But we are genuinely, now, and are honestly determined to try to make an international system work that does have force in it and that has teeth in it.

CONGRESSIONAL ROLE EMPHASIZED

Chairman BLOOM. Will the gentleman yield there? When you say "this country" do you think we should say "this Congress"? In other words, that the country will participate-but I mean the Congress itself, the Senate and the House, should be informed and also sit in so as to know what is going on and suggest what the Congress would like to do.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Yes.

Chairman BLOOM. Mr. Kee.

Mr. KEE. I have been getting a tremendous number of letters, and I think all of you have the same kinds of correspondence upon the general idea of what should take place. But my idea in presenting my resolution was, if it was agreeable to the Members of Congress and to the committee, for us to present to the world a principle-if we can all agree upon that principle-that our Government will cooperate with the United Nations or any other sovereign nations who wish to join in the formation, after peace has come to the world, of machinery or an instrumentality to enforce the maintenance of permanent peace. Now, if we agree upon that principle, let the plan for the instrumentality be formulated at the conference table.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. There is no reason after we have made that declaration-we are free to examine that even before that and at least work out a tentative plan. But the timing seems to me very very important.

In the Kellogg-Briand Past (Pact of Paris) of August 1928, 23 nations pledged to renounce aggressive war, but the agreement made no provision for sanctions.

7

As I gather from recent expressions of some others, they have the feeling we should let this sort of evolve. We will drift along because of the good will created by the food conference and then later an economic conference, and so on, and eventually the political-we will come around to that. Of course there is a difference of opinion. I am very decidedly against that.

COLLECTIVE SECURITY NECESSARY FOR REAL SECURITY

I think the question of security is so uppermost in most nations-in the interest of most nations-that in the absence of international security they will naturally begin to secure their individual security by building up armies and tariffs. That creates a situation which is against and prevents the evolution of any international political situation or organization. I think it should come first. It is the basis of stability of all these others. I do not think a country can stand alone and prevent wars and it will not be very effective unless it is within and backed up by machinery-law and order, so to speak.

This is in our domestic life. I do not think many of our institutions would operate except with the backing of our Government and the police force, which really enforces order. Again, the decrees of our courts would not work properly without the ultimate backing of the Government, which is a political matter.

Of course, they would like to avoid it because it is the most difficult, and the easy way out is always the acceptable way-and it is easy to avoid the political and let it go, but I think it is a disastrous approach, myself. I do not think it will evolve along to where we finally, just without any effort, find ourselves in a peaceful world. I do not think it works that way. I think the most difficult way is usually the most effective way, and that is to attack the political first or at least simultaneously. I do not know that it must be first, but certainly not left until all the others are examined and then think, because of that, there will evolve a satisfactory system backed by force. I don't think it will be that way.

WOULD ALSO ENHANCE SOVIET SECURITY

I can see during this present period, they speak about Russia, and particularly Russia, who would feel compelled to look after her own security-not knowing to rely upon others, it would be of great importance to her if she could get all these strategic boundaries and, too, the Balkan countries-whereas if we had any reliance on a system, an international system, may be the importance of this would not be so great and it would be much easier to be arrived at satisfactorily.

Mr. KEE. You do not believe Russia will be alone in that position? Mr. FULBRIGHT. What?

Mr. KEE. Don't you believe Russia will not be alone in that position? Mr. FULBRIGHT. Why, yes; every country would feel that same way. We have to look after our own fences and each time they do

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization held its founding meeting at Hot Springs, Va., May-June 1943. The conference, called to deal with the wartime emergency in food production and distribution, was the first formal U.N. meeting on any subject. It called for the creation of a postwar world food agency.

something in the way of a treaty or tariffs, that very thing is another case against the creation of an international system. It seems to me that gradually would throw people further apart instead of growing closer together.

Chairman BLOOM. Mr. McMurray.

LEADERSHIP DILEMMA IN A DEMOCRACY'S FOREIGN POLICY

Mr. MCMURRAY. Will the gentleman yield? I should just like to say, more or less in support of what Mr. Fulbright said, it seems to me this problem is an educational problem-that these things ought to be discussed. You cannot decide international policy in a democratic country unless the people understand what is possible. First they have to know what is desirable-what we want, what to work for-and then we have to work out various techniques of what is specifically possible.

The point I would like to make specifically is this. There are a series of assumptions that people believe, and people act on what they believe-not on what is true but on what they believe to be true-and some of those assumptions ought to be examined. That is, it seems to me, the business of a congress. It is the business of political leadership, because political leadership in its best sense is educational leadershipto examine those assumptions first; and second, to examine the various techniques that may be used to carry out an agreed-upon assumption.

I think Mr. Fulbright said something rather striking there. It is trite, perhaps, but it is still striking that unless we have an expectation of some system of collective security every nation on earth-large, small, and intermediate-will bend all of its energies towards its own individual security. That is the western state system. That is the modern state system. That is the expected thing. That is the ideal thing among nations.

NO SECURITY IN ISOLATION-DESPITE POPULAR VIEW

But I think the assumption, that there is any security anywhere for any nation-and I make no exceptions-by its own might, by its own arms, by its own preparation by individual means, ought to be challenged because it can be challenged historically today. I think that reasonable men can be convinced-I say all reasonable men can be convinced that security for an individual nation or state is no longer possible in our world. Now, there are reasons for that I am not going into. I put that out as a dogmatic statement not because I want to be dogmatic, but that is an assumption we have to work on and generally to accept in the country before we will ever do anything on a specific basis.

If we have a choice of individual security-speaking of nations, national security-or collective security; if there is a real choice, I am frank to say-I hate to say so, but I am frank to say--we will never adopt a real system of collective security as long as the majority of the people, the majority of the voting power or the ruling party or parties, or any way you want to divide it, believe as a people we can go our own way and let Europe stew in its own juice and let Asia follow

Asiatic processes. Today, since that assumption is abroad, it is generally expected. All America more or less expects that.

I have some ideas of my own about that. I come from the heart of isolationism in America. I come from the heart of a State called the isolationist commonwealth of America. I represent that district here in Congress. The reason those people there are isolationists is that they have never known anything else, and they never had the political leaders and never had any political leadership to give them the other side of the picture. They are completely ignorant about it. Surprisingly enough, if you hit the issue on the head and go down and talk to the people and hit the nail on the head, they will follow that leadership and they will follow that party even if it is the minority party in that area. We ought to examine this assumption. It seems to me committee meetings would be a good place to do that. Then we ought to examine the techniques. I thank you.

Chairman BLOOM. Mr. Chiperfield.

PRAISE FOR COMMITTEE'S WARTIME UNANIMITY

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, June 7, marked exactly a year and a half since Pearl Harbor. Since that time every bill that this committee has voted out has been voted out unanimously. I believe that is a remarkable record. I wrote you a letter to that effect yesterday, Mr. Chairman, congratulating you.

Chairman BLOOM. Congratulating the committee.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. And the committee. I do not think any record of that kind could do anything but speak loudly of our willingness to cooperate and that record to me does not seem to indicate isolationism or interventionism, but a geniune willingness on the part of this committee to help win the war and bring about a permanent peace as rapidly as possible. And I just thought since it was exactly 1 year and 6 months since that record was created, that I should call the attention of the committee at this time to it.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BLOOM. Mr. Stearns.

NEW HAMPSHIRE FOR UNITED NATIONS

Mr. STEARNS. I would just like to call the attention of the committee to the fact I am working in a sense under instruction.

[The following is a resolution passed by the New Hampshire Legislature:]

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty-three

JOINT RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING CONGRESS ON A UNITED NATIONS OF THE WORLD

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened: That the New Hampshire delegation in the Congress of the United States hereby is requested to exercise its influence to have the Congress expeditiously explore the action necessary to form a United Nations of the World with its organization and administration based upon law; and, as soon as expedient,