the opportunities which this Organization provides. President Eisenhower has a deep and abiding faith in the United Nations. He has often said so, and he has asked me to say it again. He wants the United Nations to become an increasingly effective instrument of

peace.

The U.S. delegation will work here in that spirit. We shall state as clearly as possible what we deem to be the just and right solution of the problems we shall here encounter. We do not think that the United States ought to be ambiguous about the problems of our time. But also we adhere to the basic United States belief expressed in our Declaration of Independence that we owe "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind." We are ready to learn from others. Also we recognize that our views may not always prevail. When that happens we shall no doubt regret it, but we shall not sulk. We shall try to accept the result philosophically, recognizing that we have no monopoly of wisdom or virtue, also that sometimes the passage of time alone provides the final verdict.

We shall have in mind the charter mandate to this Organization "to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations." Never was the need for such harmony more urgent. Never were the consequences of disharmony so menacing. Yet the fact of tension cannot be ignored. That would be dangerously unrealistic. Also the causes of that tension will have to be explored. Otherwise there can be no cure. But, in whatever it does here, the United States will seek to avoid any word or deed which might needlessly aggravate the present state of dangerous tension.

The primary purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security. Yet for over 3 years there was a war in Korea. A war in Indochina still goes on. Nowhere is there a sense of security. Because of these things some say that the United Nations has failed.

We must admit that the United Nations has not realized all the hopes that were held for it. That is largely because many of those hopes were unrealistic. They arose from underestimating the profound difficulties which lie in the way of establishing an international order of peace and justice.

The United Nations was built largely on the expectation that the leaders of the Grand Alliance, who had worked together for victory, would continue voluntarily to work together for peace. That expectation proved ill-founded. The alliance was the product of Fascist danger, and, when that threat was battered down, allied unity disappeared to be replaced by new division and new fears. These reached a peak when the Korean aggression occurred.

It is to the eternal credit of the United Nations that it was not then indifferent. The Security Council promptly called upon its members to help the victim of aggression. Almost every free nation responded in one way or another. Sixteen sent troops to Korea to fight to repel the aggression. That result is now signalized by the armistice which ends the aggression and ends the killing.

Korea became the place where, for the first time in history, an

international organization was instrumental in actually repelling armed aggression. That fact may have profound consequences. It may open ne v avenues to peace. We must hope so and try to make it so. Never was the need so great.

Physical scientists have now found means which, if they are developed, can wipe life off the surface of this planet.

These words that I speak are words that can be taken literally. The destructive power inherent in matter must be controlled by the idealism of the spirit and the wisdom of the mind. They alone stand between us and a lifeless planet.

There are plenty of problems in this world, many of them interconnected. But there is no problem which compares with this central, universal problem of saving the human race from extinction.

The nations are groping for the spirit and the institutions which will enable man to dominate matter. It has unhappily so far been impossible to provide either the spirit or the institutions on a universal basis. Therefore, some of the nations have developed their own community measures to deter aggression and to give protection to moral values that they cherish.

These countermeasures have, by common consent, involved the sharing of facilities and sometimes the placing of the military forces from one country in another country.

Soviet leaders have complained of these arrangements. But they should know, and probably they do know, that community arrangements are the least likely to be aggressive. Military force which is within a single nation can be used offensively at the dictation of one government alone, sometimes of one man alone. Military force which is distributed through several countries cannot be used effectively unless all of the countries concerned are in agreement. Such agreement would be totally unattainable except for operations responsive to the clear menace of aggression.

A community defense system has two great merits. It makes it possible for the small and the weak to get real security. Also it assures that even the great and the strong cannot, practically, pervert the system by using it for aggression. That way is the enlightened way. By that way the goals of our charter are advanced by means which none has cause to fear.

It may be asked, why do we fear? I could speak of that at length. But in order to avoid what seems provocative, I confine myself to a single summarizing fact: Since 1939 some 600,000,000 people of some 15 nations have been brought into the Soviet camp of dictatorships, and in no case has this come about by voluntary action of the peoples and nations concerned.

History records no more frightening fact.

In his address of August 8, 1953, the new Soviet Premier twice speaks of peaceful coexistence of the Communist system with that of the non-Communist world. Such expressions are welcome. But as against the background that I mention, mere words do not instantly

1 Izvestia, Aug. 9, 1953; for an English language translation, see The Current Digest of the Soviet Press, vol. V, No. 30, Sept. 5, 1953, pp. 8-12.

or totally reassure us. We have heard them before, and we know that Soviet doctrine prescribes the use of such words as guile.

If the Soviet leaders are honest, they must recognize that, if there is to be a new world climate, they must contribute to it more than they have yet contributed.

The United States is quite prepared to explore ways to end the present tension. President Eisenhower has already made that clear.' We shall, I hope, never grow weary or discouraged in our quest for peace. But what the United States does cannot achieve the desired goal unless there is an equivalent response.

Occasions are now imminent which permit, indeed require, the Soviet leaders to show more authentically their present intentions.

The Korean armistice 2 evokes a heartfelt welcome. The United States is glad that it was able to contribute to it as it did. But the armistice of itself is inconclusive as a test of the Communist will to peace because there was by then an effective military barrier to aggression. The Korean political conference, if the Communists come to it, will afford a better test.3

Korea has for many generations been the victim of big-power politics. Russia, Japan, and China have successively sought to use Korea to advance their aggressive purposes. It has been a long time since the Koreans have truly been the masters of their own destiny. Now we seek an opportunity to determine whether any one of the great powers wants to use Korea again for its own purposes or whether we all will renounce such ambitions so that there can be at last a United Korea for free Koreans.

The United States itself seeks no pretext for using Korea as a place for building up a military outpost on the Asian mainland. We are eager to bring our troops home.

The Republic of Korea has no ambitions which run beyond Korea. Japan has loyally undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country.*

If Soviet Russia and Communist China are willing to renounce ambitions which would be served by control of North Korea, then it should be possible to unite Korea under conditions which will enable the Koreans freely to manage their own affairs.

So far, it seems to us, the Communist side is pursuing dilatory tactics. The United States, pursuant to this Assembly's resolution of August 28, 1953, after consultation among the 17 nations nominated to represent the United Nations side, proposed a specific time and specific places for the meeting. This proposal was received by the Chinese Communists on September 5. A response was made on September 15. The response, however, was merely a reference to the proposal which the Chinese Communists made to this Assembly ask

1 See supra, pp. 65–71.

Infra, pp. 724-750.

See infra, pp. 2673-2678.

See article 5 of the Japanese peace treaty, infra, pp. 425–440.

Infra, pp. 2676-2678.

U.N. doc. A/2469. The communication was dated Sept. 13, 1953.

ing that it reopen its past decision and review its 10-day debate of last month with reference to the composition of the conference.

Meanwhile October 28, the last day for the opening of the conference as recommended by the armistice agreement, is rapidly approaching without the possibility of making the necessary time-consuming preparations.

One is forced to question whether the Communist side really wants to comply with the armistice and face up to the problem of withdrawing their forces from Korea and creating a united and independent Korea.

Let me turn to Indochina. There the fighting continues. Communist forces are seeking to gain political power by military violence. Their military strength comes from a steady flow of military supplies from Communist China and Soviet Russia and from the Sovietcontrolled Skoda munition works. The pretext, until now, has been that the Associated States of Indochina were mere colonies and that the Communist war was designed to promote "independence" rather than to expand by violence the Soviet camp.

It is no longer possible to support such a pretext. The French Government by its declaration of July 3, 1953, has announced its intention of completing the process of transferring to the Governments of the three Associated States all those remaining powers that are needed to perfect their independence to their own satisfaction.

The Communist-dominated armies in Indochina have no shadow of a claim to be regarded as the champions of an independence movement. If the Soviet-bloc countries outside of Indochina persist in promoting war in Indochina, they cannot now be surprised if their conduct is taken as proof that they adhere to the design to extend their rule by methods of violence.

Southeast Asia affords the Soviet leaders a chance to give substance to their peaceful words. We anxiously await their verdict.

Germany is another place where the present purposes of the great powers face an inescapable testing.

When Germany surrendered over 8 years ago, four zones of occupation were created, one each for Britain, France, the United States, and the Soviet Union. This was deemed a convenient way for the Allies to administer the first phases of the surrender terms. It was never intended that Germany should be permanently partitioned. Over 4 years ago Britain, France, and the United States put their zones together and enabled the Germans there to have free elections and build their own political community. The Germans in the Soviet Zone have been denied that unity and that opportunity.

3

This division of Germany cannot be perpetuated without grave risks. For no great people will calmly accept mutilation.

4

Since the Foreign Ministers Conference in Moscow in 1947, many efforts have been made to unite Germany and to establish through free elections an all-German government with which peace could be

1 Documents on American Foreign Relations, 1953 (New York, 1954), pp. 347–348. 2 See A Decade of American Foreign Policy, pp. 505-522.

3 See ibid., pp. 585-590.

Ibid., pp. 541-551.

dependably negotiated. The task has proved one of immense difficulty. The Russian people, like the French people, have not forgotten what their nation suffered from Hitlerite Germany during the Second World War. They expect, and they are entitled to, assurance against a repetition of such events. And that is also the ardent wish of the German people themselves. That is, indeed, the large purpose of the European Defense Community.' It will merge German military strength into the structure of a nonaggressive European community. No single member of the community will have national military strength to serve national ambitions. That is a result which Soviet leaders should welcome if they honestly want peace. So the three Western Powers have again sought a meeting with the Soviet Union to accomplish the unification of Germany. So far our proposals have met with no response.

Austria presents another test case. At the Foreign Ministers meeting held in Moscow in 1943, the Governments of the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States declared their purpose to restore the independence of Austria.3 That declaration remains to be honored. An Austrian state treaty was virtually completed 6%1⁄2 years ago. Today there is no substantial item of disagreement. The Soviet Union has now said it prefers not to continue to deal with this matter through deputies of the Foreign Ministers. So the three Western occupying powers have offered to conclude an Austrian treaty at a meeting of Foreign Ministers which has been proposed. So far that proposal has met with no response.

The entire situation in Eastern and Central Europe is bound to be a cause of deep concern. The peoples there are essentially religious people, and they are essentially patriotic people. They have a spiritual faith that is enduring and great traditions which will never be forgotten.

It is not in the interest of peace, or the other goals of our charter, that the once independent peoples of Europe should feel that they can no longer live by their traditions and their faith.

It is charged that unrest only exists among them as it is artificially stimulated from without.

That is true only in the sense that faith is a contagious thing which penetrates even curtains of iron. The American people, like many others, hold to the belief which our founders expressed in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Also we believe, as Abraham Lincoln put it, that there is "something in that Declaration giving liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but hope to the world for all future time." No peace can be enduring which repudiates the concept that government should rest on free consent or which denies to

5

* Infra, pp. 1839-1842.

Speech, Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Feb. 22, 1861; Roy P. Basler, ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, vol. IV (New Brunswick, N. J., 1953), p. 240.