1 DECLARATION ON CAPTIVE PEOPLES-Continued 1 TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1953 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:45 a.m. in the Foreign Relations Committee room, U.S. Capitol Building, Senator Alexander Wiley (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Wiley (chairman), Smith of New Jersey, Hickenlooper, Taft, Langer, Ferguson, Knowland, George, Green, Fulbright, Sparkman, Gillette, and Humphrey. Also present: Dr. Wilcox, Dr. Kalijarvi, Mr. Marcy, Mr. Holt, and Mr. O'Day, of the committee staff. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we have assurances that Senator Humphrey will be here and, also, Senator Langer, though he is absent at present. Senator Tobey is out of town. And Senator Hickenlooper will be here. Now, should we wait before we start discussion? Senator TAFT. Bill Langer will be here later. He has got this International Wheat Agreement coming up. Senator SMITH. Let's go ahead and discuss the matter. The CHAIRMAN. It is the desire of the committee that the meeting come to order. The matter of business before the committee is H. J. Res. 200, a proposed resolution, joining with the President of the United States in a declaration regarding the subjugation of free peoples by the Soviet Union. NOT PEACE BUT A JUST PEACE Senator FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I have got one suggestion: In the fourth line from the bottom of page 2 of the resolution, it reads: "Join with the President of the United States in proclaiming the hope that the peoples who have been subjected to the captivity of Soviet despotism shall again enjoy the right of self-determination within a framework which will sustain the peace";-I think that we ought to take the word "the" out and make it "sustain a just peace". That is the fourth line from the bottom. Senator GREEN. What page is that? Senator FERGUSON. On page 2. I may have a different copy. Senator FERGUSON. "Sustain the peace". The CHAIRMAN. You might take the resolution here, and we will work on that. 1 See notes, p. 167. 72-194-77-vol. V-15 Senator FERGUSON. "A just peace" instead of "the peace", indicating it is the peace we have now. The CHAIRMAN. Where is that on this draft? Senator FERGUSON. It is on line 13, "which will sustain"-instead of "the peace" make it-"a just peace". I move we change the word "the" to "a" and insert "just". Senator SMITH. Is that the same suggestion that Walter Judd made in the House? Senator FERGUSON. Yes. It was within one of carrying in the House. The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute, the House hasn't taken any action. Senator FERGUSON. No, the committee of the House. The CHAIRMAN. Will you please state that again? Senator FERGUSON. "Will sustain a just peace". Take out the word "the" and insert "a" and "just". Senator TAFT. What is the objection, Homer? Senator FERGUSON. The objection to the way it is now, Bob, is to say "the peace" it could mean the peace now. I think we ought to use the word "just peace". Senator TAFT. What does it all mean anyway?"-been subjected to the captivity of Soviet despotism shall again enjoy the right of self-determination within a framework which will sustain a just peace". What is the purpose? I suppose the idea is to say that we are not going to march in with soldiers, is that it? Is that the idea why it is there? Senator FERGUSON. I think that is what he had in mind. Let them determine, and the whole condition will be such that they can determine it. The CHAIRMAN. That is a minor matter that there can be serious objection to. Does anyone have an idea on that? REPORT THE RESOLUTIONS SUBMITTED Senator GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I have this idea. There may not be very much difference between the meaning of "the peace "a just peace", but we are once again making changes. There are a great many others that will be suggested, and there will be additional argument why we should again modify it. The Democratic Policy Committee has expressed its approval by formal resolution of the document as is, and I doubt very much if we begin to tinker with it, whether we will be willing to pass a resolution adopting the changes which will doubtless be made. My argument isn't so much against this one change as it is against any changes. Mr. Dulles expressed the hope that it might pass as submitted. Te House considered this change as well as other changes and decided on the whole it was better to adopt it as submitted. I think the effect on the world will be much better if what the President submitted could be passed unanimously by the Senate as well as by the House. The effect on the world would be much better than if we begin to debate and discuss different amendments, and one necessarily leads to others, and in this particular case I shouldn't think it was worthwhile fighting for. CONGRESS NOT A RUBBER STAMP FOR PRESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Senator KNOWLAND. Mr. Chairman, if I might just respectfully differ with the Senator on that, it seems to me that some of us in the past, and I think properly so, have taken the position that Congress does have its responsibiilty, and if on any legislation-and I say it under a Republican administration as I would under a Democratic administration-if in the drafting of a document that they send up either as a law or a resolution, we find where it can be improved within the general confines of our policy, I think it is our obligation to make those suggestions. I certainly have never looked with favor on the theory that the Congress, once an executive sends something up here, can't dot an "i" or change a "t", improve the grammar or clarify language which is sent up to us. I don't believe that the Congress should merely rubber stamp a resolution or a piece of legislation. I don't think that we are carrying out our job as legislators or as members of this very important committee, and I respectfully suggest that if we can find within the objective that we are all seeking, in view of this speech of Mr. Vishinsky yesterday, wherein he attacked with equal vigor what he called the aggression of the TrumanAcheson administration and the Eisenhower administration, we should try to work out language here that will meet the problemsSenator FERGUSON. I want to join in those remarks, because I do not feel that the legislative body either under this administration or under the past is right when they ask the Congress to adopt the language that they want to use when Congress' job is to frame it in the language that they believe represents the policy. I want to work with the executive, but I don't think that we ought to be in the position that we can't change a word or even the meaning of it, and I think this does, and a thing like this. The CHAIRMAN. I don't think that is the attitude of the executive. Senator FERGUSON. I'm sure it isn't, but I don't think the opposition ought to pass a resolution or pass in their policy committee this kind of a matter, and then ask the majority party that they must go along with that language. SEEKING UNANIMITY Senator GREEN. The point is this; that the advantage of this one phrase over the other is so slight if anything, that is it worthwhile to muddy the waters by having it go back to the House for repassage there and also require the Democratic Policy Committee, which has shown a real serious endeavor for bipartisanship in this matter-I think that we have improvements to suggest, but I resist the temptation because of the effect on the world, which is our main consideration-passing it at all doesn't accomplish anything except psychologically-is to show the unanimity with which this nation is acting. Senator TAFT. If you pass this resolution now without amending it, you will have no unanimity in the Senate. You will have a substantial number of Republican votes against it, so we are up against the same problem you are up against as far as that is concerned. You may have Democratic votes against it, but if the plea is that we make it unanimous, this isn't going to make it unanimous. Senator GREEN. The nearer we come to unanimity, the better it is for the country. Senator TAFT. That is my concern too. I am trying to get as unanimous a view as possible. This particular amendment I don't see much objection to, if we do it one way or the other. Senator FULBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I don't see any objection, but certainly don't see any real significance. If there is something real or substantial in changing this, we can argue about it. I certainly agree with Senator Green's approach to it. Just a minor matter of words is truly a matter of taste. I am not going to be for it. If there is some substantial change that would really influence the votes, I would be interested in hearing that, but I am not going to vote for just a change in a single word that doesn't really change the meaning. BIPARTISANSHIP Senator FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reply to Senator Green's remark about the fact that they have passed in their Policy Committee this matter and therefore it makes it bipartisan. I can't agree with that. I think what you have adopted here is the philosophy of your party on these resolutions and therefore it is one party. That is the way I feel about it. Senator TAFT. No, I don't quite agree to that. They have approved a resolution. I don't think that their approval of a resolution means that you can't consider a single word change. I can't understand that and I don't think that is a reasonable position. I wouldn't ask the Republican Conference to do that without leaving the committee some discretion as to the wording. I don't believe your committee policy meant to endorse as is, but I can't interpret your policy committee to say "We must do it this way or we won't be for it." I think policy committees, at least in my experi ence on them, I have been very, very careful not to tell regular committees what they must and shall do in detail. I mean we may ap prove policy, but I don't think we dictate to them on the wording of their legislation. COMMITTEE WILL BE ACCUSED OF DELAY Senator GREEN. In view of the slight if any change in the meaning, won't it be said that the change is made simply for the purposes of delay, in the hope that other changes may be made later, or give the opportunity for other changes to be made later? Won't that rightly or wrongly be said by the press of the country or by the press of the world? "They are fighting for delay, anything to put off acting." If we act in favor of it, concurring with the House, the thing will be over, but otherwise there is always hope on the part of some people that it may be so changed that it will never go through. Senator TAFT. I personally oppose any change. I am just saying the policy committee I don't think undertakes to do that. SUGGESTED CHANGE HAS NO MEANING Senator GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, I don't think the suggested change means anything at all. If it meant anything at all, why I would discuss it. It means absolutely nothing, "a just peace". You have read the whole thing in context: "shall again enjoy the right of self-determination within the framework which will sustain the peace", that they shall again have the right to choose the form of government under which they will live, and the sovereign right of self-government shall be restored, and so forth. I don't see that it means a thing on earth, and it is for the sake of a change, I think it is all wrong. Let me make this statement. I don't know that I will make very many more about it. There are some Democrats who would like to see this thing very different from what it is. You gentlemen probably would like to see it different. There are some Republicans who would like to see outright repudiation of some of these secret agreements, maybe all of them. There are some Democrats, on the contrary, who would like to see an affirmance of them. The President himself in his own appearance before the Congress said he would ask the Congress to join him in this resolution, which he and his department sent down. It wasn't presented to me until after the others had seen it. There were some changes suggested, and some of the changes were minor, at any rate they didn't insist on some of them, and the policy committee did, the leaders did decide to go along with the President in this statement, which he had asked us to join. It is not like an ordinary resolution that comes up here on the floor which we ourselves are formulating, framing. When the President asks us to join with him, sends over the resolution, and then when responsible heads of the party leadership, a minority it is true, said well, we will go along with this, it didn't mean that there weren't other members of the party who wouldn't have liked to have said, "Well, these agreements were all right. We want to confirm them." You will find that sentiment on the floor of the Senate on the part of some of the Democrats, some maybe not, and I don't see that this change means a thing on earth. What you are saying is: Shall enjoy the right of self-determination within the framework which will sustain the peace; that they shall again have the right to choose the form of government under which they will live, and that sovereign right of selfgovernment shall be restored to them, and so forth. If that doesn't mean a just peace, you can't spell it out. There is no virtue in just changing a word, and there is so much danger in it under the circumstances under which this resolution has been presented to us, that I would myself forego any mere desire to have any part in the resolution. There may not be any virtue in this resolution at all. Maybe the President was unwise in suggesting it. Maybe he was unwise in asking the Congress to join with him in this resolution, but he did it. He has his purpose and I am not going to say that it is unwise. I don't like resolutions. I would just as soon not pass them. Senator FERGUSON. Will the Senator yield? |