Treaty on the Prevention of Controversies, of December 23, 1936.

ARTICLE LIX. The provisions of the foregoing Article shall not apply to procedures already initiated or agreed upon in accordance with any of the above-mentioned international instruments.

ARTICLE LX. The present Treaty shall be called the "PACT OF BOGOTÁ,"

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, having deposited their full powers, found to be in good and due form, sign the present Treaty, in the name of their respective Governments, on the dates appearing below their signatures.

DONE at the City of Bogotá, in four texts, in the English, French, Portuguese and Spanish languages respectively, on the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred forty-eight.

United States of America:

RESERVATIONS

1. The United States does not undertake as the complainant State to submit to the International Court of Justice any controversy which is not considered to be properly within the jurisdiction of the Court.

2. The submission on the part of the United States of any controversy to arbitration, as distinguished from judicial settlement, shall be dependent upon the conclusion of a special agreement between the parties to the case.

3. The acceptance by the United States of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, as provided in this Treaty, is limited by any jurisdictional or other limitations contained in any Declaration deposited by the United States under Article 36, paragraph 4, of the Statute of the Court, and in force at the time of the submission of

any case.

4. The Government of the United States cannot accept Article VII relating to diplomatic protection and the exhaustion of remedies. For its part, the Government of the United States maintains the rules of diplomatic protection, including the rule of exhaustion of local remedies by aliens, as provided by international law."

List of plenipotentiaries omitted. The signatory Nations were as follows: Honduras, Chile, Uruguay, Guatemala, United States of America, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Nicaragua, Mexico, Panama, El Salvador, Haiti, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia.]

191. COMMUNIST INFLUENCE IN GUATEMALA: STATEMENT BY UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE (DULLES), MAY 25, 1954 1 The Guatemalan nation and people as a whole are not Communists. They are predominantly patriotic people who do not want their nation to be dominated by any foreign power. However, it must be borne in mind that the Communists always operate in terms of small minor

Intervention of International Communism in Guatemala. Department of State Publication 5556, August 1954.

ities who gain positions of power. In Soviet Russia itself only about 3 percent of the people are Communists.

In judging Communist influence in Guatemala three facts are significant:

1. Guatemala is the only American State which has not completed ratification of the Rio Pact of the Americas.

2. Guatemala was the only one of the American States which at the last inter-American Conference at Caracas voted against a declaration that "the domination or control of the political institutions of any American State by the international Communist movement, extending to this hemishpere the political system of an extracontinental power, would constitute a threat to the sovereignty and political independence of the American States, endangering the peace of America" ***.

3. Guatemala is the only American nation to be the recipient of a massive shipment of arms from behind the Iron Curtain. It has been suggested from Guatemala that it needs more armament for defense. Already Guatemala is the heaviest armed of all the Central American States. Its military establishment is three to four times the size of that of its neighbors such as Nicaragua, Honduras, or El Salvador.

The recent shipment was effected under conditions which are far from normal. The shipment was loaded at the Communist-administered Port of Stettin. The ship was cleared for Dakar, Africa. The operation was cloaked under a series of chartering arrangements so that the real shipper was very difficult to discover. When he was discovered he claimed that the shipment consisted of nothing but optical glass and laboratory equipment. When the ship was diverted from its ostensible destination and arrived at Puerto Barrios, it was landed under conditions of extraordinary secrecy and in the personal presence of the Minister of Defense. One cannot but wonder why, if the operation was an aboveboard and honorable one, all of its details were so masked.

By this arms shipment a government in which Communist influence is very strong has come into a position to dominate militarily the Central American area. Already the Guatemalan Government has made gestures against its neighbors which they deem to be threatening and which have led them to appeal for aid.

The Guatemalan Government boasts that it is not a colony of the United States. We are proud that Guatemala can honestly say that. The United States is not in the business of collecting colonies. The important question is whether Guatemala is subject to Communist colonialism, which has already subjected 800 million people to its despotic rule. The extension of Communist colonialism to this hemisphere would, in the words of the Caracas Resolution, endanger the peace of America.

PART III. RELATED ACTION IN CONGRESS

A. The General Problem (1919–1955)

Relationship of Disarmament, Security and Peaceful Settlement

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

192. REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ON THE MULTILATERAL OR KELLOGG-BRIAND TREATY, JANUARY 14, 1929 1

Your Committee on Foreign Relations reports favorably the treaty signed at Paris August 27, 1928, popularly called the multilateral or Kellogg-Briand treaty. The two articles in this treaty are as follows:

ARTICLE I. The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

ARTICLE II. The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific

means.

The treaty, in brief, pledges the nations bound by the same not to resort to war in the settlement of their international controversies save on bona fide self-defense and never to seek settlement of such controversies except through pacific means. It is hoped and believed that the treaty will serve to bring about a sincere effort upon the part of the nations to put aside war and to employ peaceful methods in their dealing with each other.

The committee reports the above treaty with the understanding that the right of self-defense is in no way curtailed or impaired by the terms or conditions of the treaty. Each nation is free at all times and regardless of the treaty provisions to defend itself and is the sole judge of what constitutes the right of self-defense and the necessity and extent of the same.

The United States regards the Monroe doctrine as a part of its national security and defense. Under the right of self-defense allowed. by the treaty must necessarily be included the right to maintain the Monroe doctrine, which is a part of our system of national defense. Bearing upon this question and as to the true interpretation of the Monroe doctrine as it has always been maintained and interpreted by the United States, we incorporate the following:

We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. ***. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness. (President Monroe's message, December 2, 1823.) U. S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. Senate Executive Report No. 1, 70th Congress, 1st session.

665

The doctrine upon which we stand is strong and sound because its enforcement is important to our peace and safety as a Nation, and is essential to the integrity of our free institutions and the tranquil maintenance of our distinct form of government. (Message of President Cleveland, December 17, 1895.)

The doctrine is not international law, but it rests upon the right of self-protection and that right is recognized by international law. The right is a necessary corollary of independent sovereignty. It is well understood that the exercise of the right of self-protection may, and frequently does, extend in its effect beyond the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the State exercising it. *** Since the Monroe doctrine is a declaration based upon this Nation's right of self-protection, it can not be transmuted into a joint, or common, declaration by American States, or any number of them.

It is to be observed that in reference to the South American governments, as in all other respects, the international right upon which the declaration expressly rests is not sentiment or sympathy or a claim to dictate what kind of government any other country shall have, but the safety of the United States. It is because the new governments can not be overthrown by the allied powers "without endangering our peace and happiness" that "the United States can not behold such interposition in any form with indifference." (Hon. Elihu Root, July, 1914.)

There are now three fundamental principles which characterize the policy of President Monroe as it was and as it is. First, the Monroe doctrine was a statement of policy originated and maintained by reason of self-interest, not of altruism. Second, it was justifiable by reason of the right of self-defense (which is a recognized principle of international law). Third, it called no new rights into being, therefore, whenever it oversteps the principle of self-defense reasonably interpreted, the right disappears and the policy is questionable because it then violates the rights of others. *** The Monroe doctrine is based upon the right of self-defense. This is the first law of nations as of individuals. (Prof. Theodore Woolsey, June, 1914.)

The committee further understands that the treaty does not provide sanctions, express or implied. Should any signatory to the treaty or any nation adhering to the treaty, violate the terms of the same, there is no obligation, or commitment, express or implied. upon the part of any of the other signers of the treaty to engage in punitive or coercive measures as against the nation violating the treaty. The effect of the violation of the treaty is to relieve the other signers of the treaty from any obligation under it with the nation thus violating the same.

In other words, the treaty does not, either expressly or impliedly, contemplate the use of force or coercive measures for its enforcement as against any nation violating it. It is a voluntary pledge upon the part of each nation that it will not have recourse to war, except in self-defense, and that it will not seek settlement of its international controversies except through pacific means. And if a nation sees proper to disregard the treaty and violate the same, the effect of such action is to take it from under the benefits of the treaty and to relieve the other nations from any treaty relationship with the said power. This treaty in no respect changes or qualifies our present position or relation to any pact or treaty existing between other nations or governments.

This report is made solely for the purpose of putting upon record what your committee understands to be the true interpretation of the treaty and not in any sense for the purpose or with the design of modifying or changing the treaty in any way or effectuating & reservation or reservations to the same.

193. REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ON THE VANDENBERG RESOLUTION, MAY 19, 1948 1

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, having had under consideration the subject of international cooperation through more effective use of the United Nations, unanimously report a resolution (S. Res. 239) favorably to the Senate and recommend that it do pass.

1. MAIN PURPOSE OF THE RESOLUTION

World peace requires constructive action to strengthen the United Nations. The purpose of Senate Resolution 239 is to state the sense of the Senate of the United States concerning the desirable and feasible objectives which the United States should presently pursue within the United Nations Charter in behalf of international peace and security, the pacific settlement of disputes, and the effective exercise of individual and collective self-defense against armed aggression.

2. TEXT OF RESOLUTION

[Text is printed as document 194 below.]

3. BACKGROUND OF THE RESOLUTION

The unfavorable trend of postwar developments, both within and without the United Nations, has caused concern to peace-loving people everywhere who place their hopes in the United Nations as the major international instrument of a free and prosperous world. Millions of people are concerned at the delay in reaching peace settlements. They are concerned over the present inability of the United Nations to assure international peace and security. They are troubled by the excessive use of the veto and failure to reach agreement upon the provision of armed forces for the Security Council or upon control of atomic energy and regulation of conventional armaments.

The present sense of insecurity in many parts of the world retards and hampers the efforts which the United States is already making to promote international economic recovery. It is clear that the security aspects of world economic recovery cannot be ignored. The people of the world look to the United States, as the strongest free nation, for leadership in making the United Nations an effective instrument for the preservation of peace and security.

The sincere concern of the American people has led to the introduction in the Senate of a number of resolutions which aspire to reform the United Nations Charter, or to chart a course for United States foreign policy through the United Nations. During the past 2 months the committee has given particular attention to these problems. On April 9, 13, 14, 20, May 11, 12, and 19 the committee had before it Senate Concurrent Resolutions 10, 12, 23, 24, 47, 50; Senate Joint Resolution 212; and Senate Resolution 239. On May 11 the chairman presented to the committee a working paper which had been developed with the cooperation of the State Department after a considerable period of study. The committee then proceeded to consider the resolution in executive session with the benefit of full information from the Department of State concerning its experience in

18. Rept. 1361, 80th Cong., 2d sess.