have to do, but in the world in which we live, we have no choice but to push ahead energetically with this task.

Does this mean that all the other things we would like to be doing, the creative, the productive activities, should be put aside for a later time?

Not at all. We must keep pushing ahead at the same time with our efforts to advance human well-being. We must carry on with our war against want, even as we arm against aggression. We must do these two things at the same time, because that is the only way we can keep constantly before us the whole purpose of what we are doing.

Unlike the medieval monks who all through life kept before them a skull as a symbol of death, we must keep before our eyes the living thing we are working for a better life for all people everywhere.

We have it in our power now, on the basis of the experience of the United Nations and the specialized agencies, and of many member nations, to transform the lives of millions of people, to take them out from under the specter of want, to give people everywhere new hope. We can meet and we must meet the challenge of human misery, of hunger, poverty, and disease.

As an example of the kind of need to which we must put our efforts, I would like to speak of the problem of the use and ownership of land, a source of misery and suffering to millions.

In many parts of the world, especially in Asia, nations have been seeking to achieve a better distribution of land ownership. Leaders in India and Pakistan, for example, are keenly aware of this problem, and are taking steps to deal with it effectively.

In Japan, as the result of a land-reform program, 3 million farmerswell over half of all the farmers in Japan-have acquired land.

In the Republic of Korea, where previously there had been twice as many tenants as owners of land, a redistribution of farmlands had, by the time of the invasion, changed this ratio so that those who owned land outnumbered those who held their land in tenancy. Plans scheduled for this summer would have made farm owners of 90 percent of the farm families.

In each of these countries, the result of redistribution of this land has been to give the individual farmer an opportunity to work for himself and to improve his status.

These examples I have cited are not slogans or phrases. They suggest what can be done on a cooperative, democratic basis, by processes of peaceful change, which respect the dignity of the individual and his right to self-reliance and a decent livelihood. The result has not been what has been called land-reform in certain other parts of the world-to collectivize the farmer and to place him under the complete control of the government instead of the land-owner.

Equally important is the problem of better use of the land. Control of soil erosion, better seeds, better tools, and better fertilizers are needed in almost every country, but especially in parts of Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, where the people suffer greatly from inefficient use of their land.

The major responsibility in these fields rests, of course, with govern

ments, but the United Nations should make special efforts to advise and assist governments in improving land use and productivity. A considerable portion of the funds pledged for the Technical Assistance Program is already available, to enable us to push ahead with an attack on such problems as these, as well as problems of health, education, industrialization and public administration.

A vast opportunity awaits us to bring, by such means as the United Nations has been developing, new hope to millions whose most urgent needs are for food, land, and human dignity.

These efforts, and this experience, if concentrated on areas of particular need, can have a combined impact of exciting proportions. The place to begin is Korea.

Just as Korea has become the symbol of resistance against aggression, so can it become also the vibrant symbol of the renewal of life. A great deal is now being done through the United Nations and under the unified command for the relief of the Korean people. This aid needs to be vastly increased.

But there is another job which needs to be done, and a greater one. As peace is restored in Korea, a tremendous job of reconstruction will be required.

The devastation which has overtaken Korea is a consequence of the aggression from the North. It is probably unrealistic to expect that those who might have prevented or recalled this aggression will make available the help needed to repair the damage caused by this invasion.

The lives lost as the result of this aggression cannot be recalled, but as the people of Korea set about the task of reestablishing a free and independent nation, as they begin to rebuild their country, the United Nations must be prepared to marshal its resources and its experience to help them.

Here, by focusing on one place of extreme need, the United Nations and the specialized agencies can demonstrate to the world what they have learned about helping people to combat disease, to build hospitals, schools and factories, to train teachers and public administrators, to make the land fertile.2

This is a job that can be done. It will take substantial funds and resources, and those are available. Fifty-three governments have pledged their support to the United Nations defense of Korea. Some of them have been unable to contribute military personnel or equipment. But all of them, I am sure, will want to contribute food, transportation and industrial equipment, construction materials and technicians, to the great task of reconstruction.

My Government is prepared to join with other member nations in making resources and personnel available. When the conflict in Korea is brought to a successful conclusion many of the doctors, engineers, and other technicians, and much of the resources now being used to support the United Nations military action, will be made available by my Government to a United Nations recovery force.

1 See infra, pp. 2576-2578. See infra, pp. 2585-2593.

I suggest that the General Assembly have the Economic and Social Council set up a United Nations recovery force to harness this great collective effort.

These measures not only will aid in restoring the people of Korea quickly to a condition of peace and independence, but they will demonstrate to the people of the world the creative and productive possibilities at the command of the United Nations.

Out of the ashes of destruction, the United Nations can help the Korean people to create a society which will have lessons in it for other people everywhere. What the United Nations will be able to do here can help set a pattern of coordinated economic and social action in other places, where the need is for development, rather than rehabilitation.

We look forward to a time when members of the United Nations. will be able to devote their energies and their resources to productive and creative activities, to the advancement of human well-being, rather than to armaments.

When the time comes that a universal collective security system enables nations to reduce their burden of armaments, we hope that other nations will join us in pledging a good part of the amount saved to such productive United Nations activities as I have described.

A world such as this, in which nations without exception work together for the well-being of all mankind, seems a very distant goal in these days of peril, but our faith in its ultimate realization illumines all that we do now.

In building a more secure and prosperous world we must never lose sight of the basic motivation of our effort: the inherent worth of the individual human person. Our aim is to create a world in which each human being shall have the opportunity to fulfill his creative possibilities in harmony with all.

It is our hope that the relaxation in international tension, which we seek, will be accompanied by a great restoration of human liberty, where it is now lacking, and progress everywhere toward the "larger freedom."

But the safeguarding of human freedom is not a distant goal, nor a project for the future. It is a constant, immediate, and urgent concern of the United Nations.

1

The United Nations should keep forever in mind the objectives set forth in the universal declaration of human rights, and we should press forward with the work of our distinguished Human Rights Commission. While we are engaged in creating conditions of real peace in the world, we must always go forward under the banner of liberty. Our faith and our strength are rooted in free institutions and the rights of man.

We speak here as the representatives of governments, but we must also speak the hearts of our countrymen. We speak for people whose deep concern is whether the children are well or sick, whether there is enough food, whether the roof leaks, whether there will be peace.

1 A Decade of American Foreign Policy, pp. 1156-1159.

2 See infra, pp. 204-246.

But peace, for them, is not just the absence of war.

The peace the world wants must be free from fear-the fear of invasion, the fear of subversion, the fear of the knock on the door at midnight.

The peace the world wants must be free from want, a peace in which neighbors help each other, and together build a better life.

The peace the world wants must be a moral peace, so that the spirit of man may be free, and the barriers between the hearts and minds. of men may drop away and leave men free to unite in brotherhood. This is the task before us.

7. STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 1 BEFORE THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, OCTOBER 13, 1950 2

I know that I speak for all of the sponsors of the seven-power draft resolution when I express gratification at the response to our proposals. When we introduced that proposal, we had hoped and thought that our resolution had expressed the manifest desire of all the peoples that we should really do something to create what our Charter refers to as "effective collective measures." We now feel that the hope with respect to the strong world-wide demand is realized because the general debate, which is now drawing to a close, shows that, with very few exceptions, all the representatives want the peace to be protected by something which is more solid than pious words.

The general debate here has indeed, to a very large extent, taken for granted the desirability of the goals that we seek through the seven-power draft resolution and, to a considerable extent, has revolved around the question of whether this General Assembly has the power, consistent with the Charter, to recommend the creation and, if need be, the use of armed forces as United Nations units.

I will not go into the legal questions which involve an interpretation of the language of the Charter, not because that is not important, but because it has already been dealt with so thoroughly by many able analysts. They have shown conclusively the constitutionality of what we propose. They showed that, while obviously the Security Council has the primary responsibility and alone has the power to act in an authoritative way, to impose economic, military, and diplomatic sanctions as contemplated by chapter VII, the General Assembly, nevertheless, has broad residual power under article 10 and other articles to recommend, either to the members, or to the Security Council with respect to "any matters within the scope of the present Charter" subject only to the one qualification that the Security Council is not dealing with the matter at the moment. That,

1 John Foster Dulles.

2 Department of State Bulletin, Oct. 30, 1950, pp. 687-691.

Presented to the committee, Oct. 13, 1950, by Canada, France, the Philippines, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Uruguay; U.N. doc. A/C.1/576 ibid., Oct. 23, 1950, pp. 655-656).

of course, is a qualification which the General Assembly has always respected and which I am sure it will always respect.

The legal arguments have been developed so fully that I shall not repeat them. I shall, however, attempt to reinforce them by a few rather practical observations. In my opening remarks, I recalled that at San Francisco there was a bitter and final controversy with reference to the authority of the General Assembly. It revolved around this article 10. The result, as represented by the present language, was until the last moment, desperately resisted by the Soviet Union. As I think back to that time, I wonder why it was that the Soviet Union delegation held out until the last moment and indeed threatened not to sign the Charter at all because article 10 was so broad. If, in fact, article 10 only means what Mr. Vyshinsky says it means, if it means that this General Assembly cannot really do anything of any consequence, if it means that all it can do is to utter fine words and, that it cannot do anything with regard to action of consequence, why did we have this great struggle at San Francisco?

I know why we had that struggle at San Francisco because I was there and took part in the negotiations, and I know that struggle took place because the Soviet Union then realized that the broad scope, given to the Assembly by article 10, meant that in reality their veto in the Security Council would not necessarily be the final word in behalf of this organization. That is the explanation, and the only reasonable and intelligent explanation, that can be given regarding the debate that then took place on article 10. I know, of my own. knowledge, that that was the reason for it.

I recall that at San Francisco on June 21, 1945, the day following the final concession by the Soviet Union with reference to the drafting of article 10, the chairman of the Australian delegation, speaking before the Second Commission of the Conference, said of the then finally agreed language of article 10:

there is no limit on the power of recommendations save the one mentioned in the text, and the Assembly may make recommendations on these matters to the United Nations. Of course those recommendations will have no operative effect in any country and questions of procedure will have subsequently to be determined.

Mr. President, I am not going to attempt any definition of so wide a Charter as this Assembly will possess. In fact, Mr. President, in my opinion, it is so wide that if I state how wide it is, there may be some attempt to re-open the question.1

The Soviet Union representatives, then sitting in that Commission, heard those words and they then made no attempt to reopen the question, but they do so now, after 5 years. Well, they are 5 years too late. For the clear and then agreed wording of article 10 has been accepted and has been reflected in many acts of the Assembly.

On more than one occasion, we have here recommended the taking by the members of measures which the Security Council alone had the

1 The United Nations Conference on International Organization, San Francisco, California, April 25 to June 26, 1945: Selected Documents (Department of State publication 2490; 1946), pp. 716-717.