others the opportunity to embrace that concept. We do not conceal that conviction, and no United States Government could contain it. But our creed does not call for exporting revolution or inciting others to violence. Let me make that emphatic. We believe that violent change usually destroys what it would gain. We put our hopes in the vast possibilities of peaceful change. Our hope is that the Soviet leaders, before it is too late, will recognize that love of God, love of country, and sense of human dignity always survive. Repressive measures inevitably lead to resentment and bitterness and perhaps something more. That does not come about by artificial stimulation. It comes about because the Creator endowed all human beings with the spark of spiritual life.

We can understand the desire of the Russian people to have friends. The American people in the past have often shown by generous deeds their friendship with the Russian people. We can understand the particular desire of the Russian people to have close neighbors who are friendly. We sympathize also with that desire. The United States does not want to see Russia encircled by hostile peoples.

But we foresee that, unless Soviet policies are changed, those policies will, in their actual operation, create precisely such surrounding animosity and hostility as Soviet policy understandably wants to avoid.

Policies which will permit Korea to be united and free, which will allow independence to come peacefully in Indochina, which will unite Germany and free Austria, which will enable Russia's neighbors to enjoy national independence, which will end the dedication of the Soviet Communist Party to the violent overthrow of independent governments such are the policies which would go far to end present

tensions.

There are, of course, other ways to reduce tensions. I have by no means exhausted all the possibilities. I have, however, spoken of the major causes of present tension, and I have, I hope, made clear the willingness of the United States to discuss them all. So far the invitations in which we have joined with others of you represented here remain unanswered.

Governments which exert themselves without reserve to the creation of ever more powerful means of mass destruction, which tolerate no delay and spare no expense in these matters, and which at the same time are dilatory, evasive, or negative toward curing the situations which could bring these destructive forces into play-such governments cannot but stand morally condemned.

The Soviet Union can make a great contribution toward the relaxing of these tensions which threaten to develop into major disasters. At the same time let me make it clear we recognize that the United States and others have their contributions to make and their obligations to fulfill. That is true both in relation to Russia and in relation to what our charter calls "non-self-governing territories."

I say on behalf of the Government of the United States that we are prepared to show in ourselves the spirit which we invoke in others. Such a spirit, if it is mutual, should make it possible to tackle hope

fully what is perhaps the greatest problem-that of controlling the forces which could destroy us all.

On April 16, 1953, President Eisenhower expressed eloquently and vividly the terrible danger to humanity from present weapons. Also he pointed out our desire to divert expenditures from destruction to construction, which would particularly benefit the underdeveloped areas of the world. He recognized that it would be difficult to alter the armament situation markedly while there existed the present measure of distrust. He called for deeds, such as those which I have outlined, which would relax the tension. He went on to say that "as progress in all these areas strengthens world trust, we could proceed concurrently with the next great work-a reduction of the burden of armaments now weighing upon the world."

I emphasize this word "concurrently." The United Nations here has for some years been dealing with the problem of armaments. We know that even between nations of good will it is difficult to find a workable formula to do this. The task cannot, perhaps, be finally solved under the conditions of distrust which exist today. That, however, does not mean that the task should be abandoned or even postponed. We believe, on the contrary, that there should be intensified study of the problem of limitation and control of all categories of armament. There is a vast amount of technical work which needs to be done preparatory to any final solution, and without that preparatory work no final solution would be practical.

We have faith that the time may come-it might come quickly and suddenly when political leaders would be prepared to put into effect international agreements limiting armaments. When that moment

comes the nations should be able to seize it. That moment we must not let it escape. Perhaps it could never be recaptured. But to seize that moment when it comes requires that the technical analysis of the problem should before then have been advanced.

2

The United States has already put forward a series of proposals here which have attracted widespread support. On these we are not inflexible, except that we do insist that any proposals must meet one fundamental test: There must be effective safeguards to insure compliance of all nations and to give adequate warning of possible evasions or violations.

We do not believe that the studies which have been made up until now have involved a waste of time. On the contrary we believe that they have laid the foundation for quick action once the general atmosphere makes this possible. But these studies need to be carried on to a still higher state of completion. So far as the United States is concerned, we are prepared to dedicate ourselves with renewed vigor to this high task. Given a concrete demonstration of an equal desire on the part of the Soviet Union to negotiate honestly and sincerely on the substance of these matters, we are confident that this work can usefully go forward.

1

1 Supra., pp. 65-71.

For a summary, see the Department of State Bulletin, Oct. 27, 1952, p. 648,

and infra, pp. 2750-2796.

415900-57- -27

I note that the Argentine, Egyptian, and the Netherlands delegations have proposed agenda items dealing with charter revision pursuant to article 109. This article provides that, unless a review conference is held earlier, the 10th General Assembly to be held in 1955 shall have on its agenda the question of calling such a conference. I have no doubt that a review conference will be held. Article 109 was put into the charter in an effort to allay the very large measure of dissatisfaction which was felt at San Francisco with many of the provisions of the charter. Many nations, particularly the smaller nations, strongly objected to what they thought was an excessive award of power to the permanent members of the Security Council. They feared that the Security Council would prove unworkable because of disagreements among the great powers. Unhappily these fears have in large measure materialized. There were other provisions of the charter which were adopted with great reluctance and concern. It was only possible to secure acceptance of the charter at San Francisco by a provision assuring that there would be an opportunity to review it in the light of experience.

It is already apparent, after 8 years, that this opportunity should be grasped.

In 1948 the United States Senate adopted a resolution calling for the elimination of the veto power from all questions involving the pacific settlement of international disputes (chapter VI) and from the admission of new members. It also called for a revision of the charter under article 109, if the United Nations should not otherwise have been strengthened.

This year the United States Senate adopted a resolution appointing a special committee, of which Senator Wiley is chairman, to study proposals for amendment to the charter.3

Many private United States organizations have shown their desire for a charter review, and they are preparing for it.

Such a conference will not work miracles, but it can be of major importance. In order, however, to get the best results, the task should promptly engage the best thought and attention of all member nations-not merely their governments but also private organizations. The influence of private groups was not adequately felt in 1945, because World War II had not yet ended and normal communications were lacking in much of the world.

We should also welcome suggestions from those nonmember nations which aspire for membership and which are excluded by the veto in the Security Council. Today the number and influence of these nations is so great that their views should not be excluded in considering the future of an organization designed to include all peace-loving nations able and willing to carry out the obligations of the charter. Surely it is possible to make this Organization more responsive to the needs of our peoples. They only want simple things. They want the

1 Items 58, 70, and 72 For action by the General Assembly thereon, see its Res. 796 (VIII), adopted Nov. 27, 1953 (General Assembly, Official Records, Eighth Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/2630), p. 51).

2 A Decade of American Foreign Policy, p. 197.

3 S. Res. 126, 83d Cong., 1st sess., adopted July 28, 1953.

opportunity to worship God in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. They want the opportunity to think in accordance with the dictates of their reason. They want the opportunity to exchange views with others and to persuade or be persuaded by what appeals to their reason and their conscience. They want the right to live in their homes without fear. They want the opportunity to draw together in the intimacy of family life, of community life, and to establish worthy and honorable traditions which they can pass on to their children and to their children's children. They want to be able to work productively and creatively in congenial tasks of their own choosing and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. They want governments to which they

consent.

Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to make it possible to satisfy such wants and to put to rout the vast impersonal forces which seem imperiously to demand that humanity be bent and broken merely to produce the engines for its own destruction.

To a large extent the simple wants of the people are denied them because of international tensions. These are not always within the direct competence of this Assembly. Some of the problems of which I have spoken are the primary responsibility of other international groupings. That, however, does not mean that these problems are beyond the influence of the members of this Assembly, and that is why I have spoken of them.

This Assembly is the only world forum where the attitudes of the world community make themselves felt. No one can take part in the deliberations of this Assembly without feeling the impact of moral forces. It is an impact which none can disdain.

In these coming days we can, and I think we shall, set up influences which will move the nations nearer the goal for which all the peoples yearn. That should be the overriding dedication of all the nations represented here. It is, I assure you, the dedication of the delegation and of the Nation for which I have the honor to speak.

62. HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 157 (84th CONGRESS, 1st SESSION), JUNE 17, 19551

Whereas it is the hope and prayer of the American people that peace will be established among all the nations of the world, thus avoiding the carnage and destruction of war, making possible the lifting of the burden of arms and thereby freeing the energies of mankind to work more effectively to overcome the ravages of hunger, disease, illiteracy, and poverty: Therefore be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress reaffirms the deep desire of the people of the United States for an honorable and lasting peace, and expresses the hope that the people of all the nations of the world join with the people of the United States in a renewed effort for peace.

169 Stat. B 9.

SEC. 2. The President is requested to convey an expression of such reaffirmation and such hope to the representatives of the nations gathered in San Francisco to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations.

63. ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT AT THE TENTH ANNIVERSARY MEETING, SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 20, 19551

This, my second appearance before the United Nations, gives me, as Chief Executive of the United States, the great privilege of joining with you in commemoration of an historic date-significant, momentous, for all mankind.

I am privileged to bring you a special message from the Congress of the United States. Last week the Congress unanimously adopted a resolution requesting me to express to all of you here, on behalf of the people of the United States, our deep desire for peace and our hope that all nations will join with us in a renewed effort for peace. Later this week my close friend and associate, Secretary John Foster Dulles, speaking with my full confidence and concurrence, will address you on appropriate elements in the foreign policy of the United States. Because of this circumstance, it seems fitting that I, today, speak principally in terms of my country's unswerving loyalty to the United Nations and of the reasons for our tireless support of it.

A decade ago, in this city, the charter of the United Nations was signed by its 50 founding members. Into a world shattered and still at war, but hopeful and eager for a new dawn, was born an international organization fashioned to be the supreme instrument of world peace.

For this Nation, I pay respectful tribute to you whose faith and patience and courage and wisdom have brought it through 10 tumultuous, frequently discouraging, sometimes terrifying-but often rewarding years. That there have been failures in attempts to solve international difficulties by the principles of the charter, none can deny. That there have been victories, only the willfully blind can fail to see. But clear it is that without the United Nations the failures would still have been written as failures into history. And, certainly, without this organization the victories could not have been achieved; instead, they might well have been recorded as human disasters. These the world has been spared.

So, with the birthday congratulations I bring, I reaffirm to you the support of the Government of the United States in the purposes and aims of the United Nations and in the hopes that inspired its founders. Today-together-we face a second decade. We face it with the accumulated experience of the first 10 years, as well as with the awful