A

Ufa/z -

PROPOSED ^NOMINATION OF ADLAI E.

U ST EV EN SO N AS UN IT ED STATES

REP RES ENT ATI VE TO THE UNITED

NATIONS

GOVERNMENT

S to rage

H E A R IN G

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

EIGH TY -SE VE NT H CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON THE

PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON AS UNITED 

STATES REPRES ENT ATIVE TO THE UNIT ED NATIONS

---------

= p. JANUARY 18, 1961

E — = ru

$ —— IT Printe d for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relatio ns

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

64525 WASHINGTON : 1961
COMMITTEE ON FORE IGN RELATIONS

J. W. F U LB R IG H T. Arkansas. Chairman

JOH N SPA R K M A N , Alabam a 

H U BER T H. H U M PH R E Y, Minnesota 

M IK E M A N SFIE LD , Montana 

W A YN E M ORSE , Oregon

R U SS ELL B. LO NG, Louisiana 

A L B E R T G O R E, Tennessee 

F R A N K J. LA U SC H E, Ohio 

F R A N K CH U RCH , Idaho 

STU A R T SYM IN G T O N , Missouri 

TH OM AS J. D O DD , Connecticut

A L E X A N D E R W IL E Y , Wisconsin 

BO U R K E B. H IC K E N LO O PE R , low 

G EO R G E I). A IK E N , Vermont 

H O M ER E. CA PE H A R T, Indiana 

F R A N K CA RLS ON, Kansas 

JO HN J. W IL LI AM S, Delaware

Carl Marcy, Ch ief of Staff

Darrell St. Claire, Clerk
PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON AS 

UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED 

NATIONS

W E D N E SD A Y , JA N U A R Y 18, 1961

United State s Senate,

Committee on Foreign Relations,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, a t 10:4 0 a.m., in room 4221, New Senate Office Building, Senator J. W. Fulbright (chairman) 

presiding.

Present: Senators Fulbright (chairman), Sparkman, Humphrey, 

Mansfield, Morse, Long, Gore, Lausche, Church, Wiley, Hickenlooper, 

Aiken, Carlson, and Williams.

OPENING STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

The Chairman. The committee will come to order.

The committee is meeting this morning to hear the Honorable 

Adlai E. Stevenson, who has been designated by President-elect 

Kennedy as the nominee to serve as the United States Representative 

to the United Nations.

This is one of the most important positions in the world today. 

The United Nations can be the means either for the salvation of the 

free world or for its destruction.

I know tha t this witness needs no introduction to the members of 

this committee. Governor, it is very good to see you again and we 

are very happy to have you.

I think you have done so much during these last several years to 

elevate the tone and style of American politics, and I feel that all of 

us are indebted to you for this great service to the cause of democratic 

government.

Governor, do you wish to make a statement in the beginning before 

we address questions to you?

STATEMENT OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON, UNITED STATES 

REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS-DESIGNA TE

Mr. Stevenson. I have a brief statement, Senator, which I should 

be happy to read, if th at is your pleasure.

The Chairman. It is customary for the nominees to give us some 

idea of their qualifications.
2 PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON

Mr. Stevenson. That is going to be harder.

The Chairman. You may proceed, Governor.

Mr. Stevenson. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee:

A PPO IN T M E N T AS U N IT E D STA T E S R E P R E S E N T A T IV E

As you may recall, I ran twice for President. Many people showed 

considerable enthusiasm for this effort, but history records tha t still 

more did not. This time I have made myself available for whatever 

service would, in Senator Kennedy’s judgment, best serve the national 

interest. He has asked me to represent the United States at the 

United Nations.

I look forward to working with such a vigorous and enlightened 

President, whose intelligence and rationality can help lead the world 

toward law and sanity and away from the risk of senseless war.

I am delighted, too, to be working with trusted friends, Dean Rusk 

and Chester Bowles, in Washington. I will, as Senator Kennedy has 

suggested, hope to contribute, where I can, across the whole range of 

American foreign policy.

PR IO R U N IT E D N A T IO N S E X P E R IE N C E

I am not entirely, gentlemen, a stranger to the United Nations. 

I participated in the San Francisco Conference in 1945, when the 

charter was drafted. I helped to prepare the presentation of the 

charter to the United States Senate tha t summer. I was chairman 

of the executive committee created in San Francisco to implement 

the charter; and later, chairman of the United State s delegation to 

the Preparatory Commission in London, which created the machinery 

of the United Nations, which put the flesh on the bare bones of the 

charter. And I was a member of the United States delegations to 

the General Assembly in 1946 and again in 1947.

So the assignment which President-elect Kennedy has given me, 

with—I hope—your advice and consent, represents something of a 

homecoming for me.

r welcome this opportunity to serve the United States in the United 

Nations. I do not minimize its difficulties, but I also regard it as a 

great opportunity.

W HAT T H E U N IT E D N A TIO N S R E P R E S E N T S

The American people overwhelmingly agree that the United Nations 

is man’s best hope for peace. But it is something more than that. 

It is our best hope for fashioning a peace marked with freedom and 

justice—a peace which accords with the aspirations of free men 

everywhere.

The United Nations—as an idea and as an institution—is an extension of Western ideas; of Western belief in the worth and dignity 

of the individual; of Western ideology. It is based on a Western 

parliamentary tradition. Its roots are in the Western ideal of representative government. When one stops to consider the philosophical 

foundation of the United Nations, it is easier to understand why 

Premier Khrushchev pounds the desk in frustration.
PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON 3

PO S S IB L E R E B U F F S AND D IS A PPO IN T M E N T S IN U N IT E D N A TIO N S 

A RENA

The identity of the United Nations with our deepest convictions 

about the nature and destiny of man is a central fact we need to keep 

in mind as we move through a period of relentless turmoil and travail. 

The membership has almost doubled since mv time, and we are likely 

to encounter some unaccustomed rebuffs and disappointments in th at 

political arena in the months ahead.

As something of an expert in rebuffs and disappointments, 1 may 

be permitted to emphasize that our judgments about political institutions and processes must not be based upon passing gains or setbacks, but, rather, upon the basic concepts and the long-range goals 

they are designed to serve.

This faith, which is at the h eart of our own adherence to democratic 

government, may receive an early and extended test. This is because 

the United Nations is a sharp reflector of the turbulence which confronts us wherever we look in this world of ours.

The efforts of the Secretary General to fill the vacuum of law 

and order in the Congo have brought him and his office under unremitting attack from those who see opportunity in chaos.

The demands of the nations upon the United Nations for service 

have moved far ahead of their willingness to pay for it.

The entry of so many new nations into the United Nations has 

created stresses and strains.

O PPO R T U N IT Y TO ADVAN CE U .S . ID E A S AN D IN T E R E S T S

The members of this committee certainly do not need to be 

provided with a list of areas of difficulty. But there are trends tha t 

make our representation in the United Nations a sobering as well 

as a hopeful responsibility. You have all witnessed in the recent 

General Assembly the increasing difficulty of marshaling support 

for our positions. The fact tha t the membership has increased by 

more than one-third in the past 8 years, during this administration, 

from 60 to 99 members, has made the task of the United States 

Representative much more formidable. But it has also greatly 

increased the opportunity to advance the ideas and the interests of 

the United States.

The last session of the United Nations General Assembly was 

perhaps the largest gathering of Chiefs of State and of Foreign 

Ministers in history. To have on our shores, within the framework 

of free political institutions, in the atmosphere of freedom, such an 

aggregation of political leadership provides an unparalleled opportunity to communicate the policies, the goals, and aspirations of 

the American people. There is every reason to believe this opportunity will recur, and we must constantly improve our capacity to 

take the fullest advantage of it.

IM PO R T A N C E O F T H E U N IT E D N A T IO N S

And I have found in traveling around the world th at many of the 

new and less developed countries attach even greater importance to 

the United Nations than we do. They see in it, first, the best hope
4 PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON

for the peaceful settlement of disputes; second, the best hope for the 

enforcement of peace; and, third, a source of help in their economic 

development which will not subject them to subversion, foreign control or involvement in the cold war.

Anyone who doubts the potent, if intangible, force of the United 

Nations should consider the eagerness even of Communist regimes to 

join a club which is, and will continue to be, managed predominantly 

by its non-Communist members.

When a new African state wants to symbolize its nationhood, its 

leaders come to the United Nations.

When an Eastern nation wants to complain of discrimination by 

its neighbors, of border raid or outright invasion, its leaders dramatize 

the issue before the United Nations.

When a Latin American state seeks preinvestment capital—or 

even when one of its leaders is suffering from self-induced invasion 

jitters—its leaders ask for attention from the United Nations.

When Western Europeans want to protect exposed Berlin, their 

leaders remind the Communist powers of their obligations in the 

United Nations.

When a Communist leader wants to bang his shoe on the table — 

and be heard —he, too, must come to the United Nations.

O PE R A T IO N OF T H E U N IT E D N A TIO N S

And when we want to lead in the effort to make peace operational, 

we, too, find in the United Nations an immensely useful instrument of 

American foreign policy. Yes; it is an instrument of American foreign 

policy—and of the foreign policy of every other people represented at 

the United Nations in New York.

The United Nations is like a spade; it is not self-operating. It is 

what we make of it, for purposes tha t we can find in common with 

our neighbors in the world. To adapt a wise remark by a wise 

Frenchman, the making of peace is not a matter of the nations looking 

at each other, but of their looking together in the same direction.

The United Nations is partly a debating society but let us not 

denigrate the importance of debating, on the world’s platform, about 

men’s freedom to seek welfare, justice, a sense of achievement, and 

an opp ortunity to participate in the big decisions th at affect their own 

destiny.

In Congress, too, there are sometimes long and tiring debates; the 

first principle of a free society is an untrammeled How of words in an 

open forum.

But the United Nations is also an operation—a limited operation, 

but a crucial one. It operates, first, in those no man ’s lands of international security, like the Gaza strip or the Congo, where a limited 

amount of power and a great deal of negotiating skill can be usefully 

applied by international agents who are not above but are outside 

the clogged channels of communication between the world’s great 

chancelleries.

It operates, second, as a facility for sorting out issues so complex 

that they involve many different peoples. Multilateral diplomacy is 

not an alternative to bilateral diplomacy; each is appropriate in 

differing circumstances. If the United Nations did not already exist, 

we would have to invent it.
PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON 5

The United Nations operates not only in the no man’s land of 

international security, but also in everyman’s struggle against “poverty, hunger, desperation, and chaos.” (No one has yet improved on 

those eloquent words of General Marshall.)

ADVAN CIN G O F U N IT E D N A T IO N S O B JE C T IV E S

So we must, I believe, cherish, preserve, strengthen, this great 

experiment in international collaboration in these days of savage 

atta ck and severe testing.

We should use it not as a device in this cold war, not just in defensive 

reaction to Soviet initiatives, but affirmatively to advance its great 

purposes—to liberate man from the scourges of war, poverty, disease, 

ignorance, and oppression.

In this role, as in its others, the United Nations at its best is not 

a formula for “stab ility ,” bu t a framework for change. All the world’s 

tensions are not bad; some of the incentives of hope and the drives for self-expression and self-government are what make the free world hum. 

It is a mistake, in my judgment, for us to see in the United Nations 

merely a desperate survival operation, without also exploiting its 

potential as a cooperative search for better answers to the overhanging 

question: “After survival, what then? ”

Peoples are best cemented together, after all, not by mutual fear 

but by mutual hope.

H A R M O N IZ IN G T H E ACTIO NS OF N A T IO N S

I also see in the political field the possibility of a growing “ quiet 

diplomacy” within the United Nations whereby we may use more of 

the opportunities it presents to “ harmonize the actions of n ation s,” 

as the charter says, away from the glare of publicity tha t surrounds 

the more familiar United Nations meetings.

And we should be ever alert to the possibility of employing its 

machinery not only to bring conflicts to an end, but also to seek solutions before this stage is reached. It may take great statesmanship 

to solve a world crisis, but it is a sign of greater, if sometimes less 

well-known, statesmanship to prevent the crisis from developing.

ST A F F IN G U .S . M IS SIO N TO U .N .

Dean Rusk said here the other day that he did n ot think we should 

regard the rapid expansion of the United Nations as a burden, but, 

rather, as an opportunity. I very strongly agree with tha t sentiment. 

But it is an opportunity only if we grasp it.

And, judging from my preliminary look at the U.S. Mission to the 

United Nations in New York, we are bv no means staffed to keep in 

effective touch with the thinking of the 98 nations tha t are our colleagues in the U.N., and to keep them effectivelv in touch with our 

thinking.

There is no doubt tha t we have a large and growing job of representing the United States in this, the most complex embassy in the history 

of our diplomacy. We will doubtless be back here later to tell you in 

more specific terms what we th ink it takes to do this unprecedented 

job properly.
6 PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON

T R A N SFE R OF R E S P O N S IB IL IT Y TO N E W A D M IN IS TR A TIO N

In conclusion, I should report to you tha t in thinking about and 

preparing for this task I have consulted with and had the most 

helpful cooperation of your former colleague, Ambassador Henry 

Cabot Lodge, and also Ambassador James Wadsworth, Ambassador 

James Barco, and their associates at the U.S. mission in New York. 

I deeply appreciate their help, and also the help of Mr. Francis 

Wilcox, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization 

Affairs, who is presently leaving the Government after many years of 

most fruitful service. They have made possible the transfer of responsibility without interruption in the continuity of our representation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The C hairman. Governor, I think that is a very fine statement.

I particularly like your thought about it being an opportunity for 

affirmative action, rather than merely a device for defensive maneuvers 

against the manipulation policies of the Communists.

CO N FLIC T OF IN T E R E S T Q U E STIO N

Governor, there are a few rath er stock Questions that we usually 

ask. I wonder if you could inform the committee if you have any 

interests which you believe would constitute a conflict with the 

interests of the Government of the United States—private investments, 

or things of that sort?

Mr. Stevenson. I have resigned from my law firm, and my property in no respect, so far as I have been able to ascertain, would constitute a conflict with my responsibilities in this assignment.

The Chairman. Governor, from what I read in the press, your law 

firm has been so decimated tha t there is no law firm left.

Mr. Stevenson. I regret, Senator, tha t I have but one law firm 

to give to my country. [Laughter.]

premier Khrushchev’s latest outburst

The Chairman. Governor, have you had an opportunity to read 

the report in the morning paper of the most recent outburst of Mr. 

Khrushchev?

Mr. Stevenson. No, I have not, sir.

The Chairman. I wondered if you had. It is an extremely interesting one, but I can understand why you did not have time to read it 

this morning.

Mr. Stevenson. I have been anticipating certain other outbursts 

this morning.

IM PO R TA N C E OF AN O PEN FO RU M

The Chairman. As I said, I like your statement very much. I 

particularly like your comment tha t in Congress there are sometimes 

long and tiring debates, and tha t the first principle of a free society 

is an untrammelled flow of words in an open forum.

I am very glad to have this statement from you, and I hope my colleagues will understand the full significance of that state ment and 

what prompted it.
PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON

Mr. Stevenson. Any connection with parliamentary rules changes 

is purely coincidental.

The C hairman. Nevertheless, it is very appropriate and significant. 

I will defer my questions and call upon my colleagues at the moment. 

The Senator from Minnesota. Do you have any questions?

Senator Humphrey. First, Governor Stevenson, 1 wish to join with 

the chairman in commending you on this splendid statement, and on 

the emphasis tha t you have placed upon the positive aspects of the 

work of the United Nations and the fact that we ought not to expect 

miracles, but ought to expect the chance of some opportunities.

S T A F F IN G OF U .S . M IS SIO N TO U .N .

I was interested in your comments on the staffing of the U.S. 

mission to the United Nations, Governor.

I know th at you have given some serious thought to this, because 

of your concern with the operation of the U.S. mission.

In your consultation with Ambassadors Lodge, Wadsworth, or 

Barco, did you get any information, advice, or counsel tha t would 

indicate to you a need for changes in staff or changes in the required 

numbers, quality, or training of personnel for the U.S. mission?

Mr. Stevenson. Yes, Senator.

I have reviewed the staff personnel in New York with Ambassador 

Wadsworth and Ambassador Lodge at some length. I think that 

some changes may be desirable, both in the interests of the Mission 

and also in the interests of certain individuals themselves.

1 think that the most important concern, however, is some increase 

in the top representation in New York. After all, this is no common 

embassy to an individual country, where you maintain contact with 

an individual foreign office. Here we have to maintain contact with 98 

delegations in New York. To do tha t with 1% or 2 Ambassadors is 

difficult in the extreme; indeed, it is impossible.

Actually, as you know, especially the newer, more inexperienced 

countries want generally to see the chief U.S. representative, and they 

should. It is impossible for one man to do all of the top representation on the U.S. side.

I think, therefore, that the staffing at the higher level must be 

improved and increased. I am not prepared to specify precisely how. 

I have indicated in this statement, Senator Humphrey, that I may 

want to come back later on to make some suggestions about amendments to the Participation Act.

Senator Humphrey. Mr. Chairman, may I defer to Senator 

Sparkman, or should I continue?

The C hairman. You go right ahead.

Senator Sparkman. I would rathe r you continue. I am reading the 

statement.

L A T IN A M ERIC A N PR O B LE M S

Senator Humphrey. Governor Stevenson, your reference to Latin 

America, of course, interests all of us. It is a focal point of interest 

today in American policy. At least, American concern is with Latin 

America and Africa.

Have you given thought to how our activities in the Organization of 

American States might bette r be coordinated with our activities at the 

United Nations?

2
8 PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON

Mr. Stevenson. No, Senator, I have not reflected on tha t at any 

length.

I have felt during my own travels in Latin America, and in talking 

with the leaders of most of the countries of Latin America, th at there 

is something wanting here. We ta lk at two levels with them.

We talk with them in the OAS about what we do in this hemisphere, 

and we talk with them in the United Nations about what we do in the 

world. 1 do not believe tha t these are, by any means, identical instruments. One is concerned with the hemisphere; the other is concerned with the world.

There are, however, OAS problems where I am quite sure, especially 

in economic matters, wherein we could profitably take some leads 

from the U.N. experience.

M U LT IL A TE R A L ECONOM IC A SSIS TA N C E

Senator Humphrey. Your reference, Governor Stevenson, to bilateral diplomacy and multilateral diplomacy was interesting to me.

There are some countries that believe wholeheartedly in the bilateral arrangements and others tha t have, in a sense, possibly gone 

overboard on the multilateral.

Just to explore your thoughts on this for a moment—and in very 

general terms—do you think that there is a possibility within the 

structure of the United Nations, or one of its agencies, or through a 

newly constituted instrument, of establishing a multilateral program 

of economic aid under United Nations auspices?

Mr. Stevenson. Yes.

I think not only is it possible, but that the means exist for it; that 

the ground has been plowed in a preliminary way; and that, as we go 

on, we will find tha t more and more of the new countries would prefer 

to be aided from the West through the multilateral means of the 

United Nations.

This makes it easier for them to reject or decline overtures from the 

East of economic assistance, and it also relieves them of any selfconsciousness, any feeling of being the beneficiaries of charity, philanthropy, or becoming economically dependent on any single country.

I think there are many reasons to suggest tha t the trend is going 

to be more and more in the direction of multilateral economic 

assistance.

Senator Humphrey. I have been concerned about this matter. I 

believe that in the recent budget message there was some emphasis 

upon a larger U.S. effort in Africa of an economic nature. It seems 

to me that through the United Nations we could possibly enlist the 

cooperation of some of our more affluent allies in a central economic 

program for Africa, and for Latin America, and the entire financial 

burden not be placed upon this country, nor us find ourselves in 

economic competition with some of our friends, as well as with the 

Soviet bloc.

I have been concerned th at a real economic rivalry could develop in 

the days ahead between the United States, let us say, and Great 

Britian, or, even more so, between the United States and Germany, 

in the Middle East and the Africa areas, unless we are able to multilateralize the aid programs, so to speak, in a common effort.
PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON 9

Mr. Stevenson. I think there are two problems: The first is to 

make the most of the resources t hat we in the West have, the capitalrich or exporting or more favored countries.

I have been both interested and involved in the evolution of what 

is now called the OECD, the Organization for Economic Cooperation 

and Development.

It seems to me it is imperative, first of all, tha t we marshal our 

resources in the West for this purpose; tha t we expand our own 

economies; tha t we improve the health and the well-being of the 

Atlantic community and of the other capital-exporting countries.

Then we have the second problem of determining how best to make 

this aid effective and useful.

I think tha t here is where the multilateral means become more 

apparent.

In other words, in saying tha t the emphasis on multilateral help 

will increase, I do not mean in any way to depreciate the importance 

of the OECD, or organizing multilaterally what we have to offer in 

the West.

CO O RD IN A TIO N B E T W E E N STA TE D E PA R T M E N T AND U .S . M IS SIO N

Senator Humphrey. My final question is this: Do you foresee in 

the structural makeup of the State Department, from whatever information you might have as to structural adjustments or changes, some 

coordination through the office that will be occupied by Mr. George W. 

Ball on the policy statements on economic matters that you would 

present at the United Nations?

Mr. Stevenson. Well, I would assume so. T am not quite clear 

just how the channels of a uthority are going to be established in the 

State Department, so far as my mission is concerned.

I am clear t ha t I am expected, and intend, to the limit of my ability, 

to spend more time myself on these m atters in Washington than has 

been the practice in the past.

Senator Humphrey. I primarily ventured this broad general question as a step preliminary to discussing this matter in some detail 

with the economic officers of the State Department, because it has 

been my observation that there has been little, or very little, coordination between some of the pronouncements of economic policy before 

an international forum and the bilateral economic policies that are 

actually carried into practice.

It seems to me tha t if we are going to move on a multilateral front, 

it is essential that there be the intimate type of cooperation and coordination among both the bilateral and multilateral activities.

I have no more questions now. I know we do not want to discuss 

policies or programs here and I shall refrain from tha t until a later 

date.

F U T U R E U .S . P A R T IC IP A T IO N IN T H E U N IT E D N A T IO N S

The Chairman. The Senator from Wisconsin?

Senator Wiley. Governor, I think you should at least be congratulated on having a very optimistic attitude. Is that description 

right?

Mr. Stevenson. About the United Nations, sir?

Senator Wiley. Yes.
10 PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON

Mr. Stevenson. Well, I have tried to be realistic about it in this 

statem ent, and indicate tha t I think we have some rebuffs and disappointments ahead of us, and th at it is going to be more difficult.

But, likewise, I think it is a great opportunity.

E X P E R IM E N T IN IN T E R N A T IO N A L CO LL ABO RA TI ON

Senator Wiley. In your statement you spoke about strengthening 

this great experiment in international collaboration.

Would you amplify on tha t a little bit—tell us what you mean?

Mr. Stevenson. I used the word “experiment” because I do not 

think that this institution which has now endured for 15 years has 

by any means become immortal.

We had the experience of the League of Nations, and we now witness 

the atta ck on the heart of the United Nations as an operating agency— 

that is, the Office of the Secretary General—by the Soviet Union, so 

that its future is not without danger.

I think, therefore, tha t we, the United States, and other countries 

that believe in the concept of collective security, must do all we can 

to preserve the institution, to make it increasingly effective, to 

strengthen it.

How to strengthen it step by step is a much more elaborate matter. 

I think tha t the ideas are evolving about reconstitution of certain of 

the organs of the United Nations, including the use of the United 

Nations in the manner tha t Senator Humphrey just discussed for 

multilateral aid in the economic field.

These activities, and political activities such as the Congo and the 

Gaza Strip, contribute, I think, to strengthening the respect for the 

United Nations around the world.

premier Khrushchev’s statements and attitude

Senator Wiley. You also used the expression that “it is a sign of 

greater, if sometimes less well-known, statesmanship to prevent the 

crisis from developing.”

I would like to have an example as to just what you mean by that.

The chairman has called to your attention the attitude of 

Khrushchev as expressed in this morning’s paper. And I think also 

tha t over television he did not mince any words; that, in substance, 

if he could not get his way, war would come.

That is the sum and substance of the statement, as it appears.

Now, how is statesmanship going to prevent tha t crisis?

Mr. Stevenson. I wish 1 could answer tha t question, because it 

may be a question of mortal importance to all of us.

1 don’t know, aside from the use of reason, from the balancing of 

strength, from the marshalling of the sentiment of the world in the 

best parliament tha t we have, which is the United Nations.

No state is impervious, in my judgment, Senator, to world opinion, 

the Soviet Union included.

If, as you say, Prime Minister Khrushchev has indicated tha t he 

shall have his way by peaceful means or resort to war, I should think 

it was a very sad and solemn da y for mankind. I do not exclude this 

possibility. At the same time, we have witnessed extravagant 

statem ents by him before on many occasions, to be followed by other 

waves of reconciliation and of reduced tension.
PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON 11

I think this is part of the technique, and it may involve problems 

tha t are domestic—there are extremists in the Presidium, extremists 

in Peiping.

These are all considerations about which 1 must say I cannot enlighten you, sir, for 1 am sure you are aware of them.

Senator Wiley. Do you agree that the big issue before the world 

today is war or peace?

Mr. Stevenson. 1 do, sir.

Senator Wiley. And how do you analyze tha t mind tha t is known 

as Khrushchev? How do you estimate his attitude toward the 

world as it exists? Is he insistent that communism dominate?

Mr. Stevenson. Yes; I am quite sure that, as a Communist, his 

objective is one world, one Communist world, the extension of Communist dominion ideologically by whatever means are available.

1 think, likewise, tha t the means that he would prefer are peaceful 

ones, and in this his interest is almost identical with ours. He does 

not want the consequences of nuclear war.

This implies, Senator, a long competition tha t we have all anticipated, an economic, political, and psychological competition with the 

Communist bloc for years to come.

Senator Wiley. Well, if Khrushchev does no t change his attitude 

in the United Nations, what kind of position should we take?

Would you treat him as he has been treated, or will you use other 

methods?

Mr. Stevenson. It is a little hard to anticipate tha t as a generality.

I don’t know that I could answer the question until I were informed as to what the facts were, the circumstances to which we would 

have to respond.

R E F U S A L TO PA Y U .N . A SSESSM EN T S

Senator Wiley. You know that Khrushchev has refused to pay 

the assessments.

Have you any thoughts on how that matter should be handled? 

Mr. Stevenson. I think that this becomes a problem for all of the 

members of the United Nations, as to whether or not we are going 

to tolerate a refusal to comply with the resolutions about assessments.

This situation, as far as I know, has not arisen before. I think it 

would be a mistake for the United States, or for me here, to atte mpt 

to indicate what our position on this should be, when this matter 

comes up for consideration. Under the charter, I believe it is clear 

that a member which does not pay its assessments can be suspended 

and deprived of the privilege of voting.

This may be the proper solution, I don’t know.

CO M M U NIS T CHIN A

Senator Wiley. Of course, you are subordinate to the Secretary of 

State, but I think it is im portant to get your ideas as to the eastern 

situation.

What do you think of Communist China? Should they become a 

U.N. member, or how shall tha t situation be handled, in your judgment?

Mr. Stevenson. I cannot possibly, Senator, anticipate what the 

policy of this administration will be at this stage.
12 PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON

I think that you would agree that it would he quite improper for 

me to anticipate what it is before the administration has come into 

office and before these matters have been considered.

I think one can mention some factors about the China situation, 

however, that are obvious.

On the problem of admission to which you refer, it is apparent that 

the support for our position has been declining in recent years.

The problem of China’s relationship to the world community is 

extremely complex. 1 find it very hard to consider it, apart from 

China’s behavior in the world community—its belligerence, its antiAmericanism, its hatred and its fierce expansionism. It may be that 

we are dealing with an implacable situation which we can’t much 

improve.

I think we should always bear in mind a few things. One of them, 

of course, is our concern for the independence, the security, and the 

self-determination of Taiwan, and our trea ty obligations there. 

Another is tha t no arms control system could be effective tha t did 

not include the territory of China.

I don’t believe this ma tter is going to come up at this resumed 

session of the General Assembly; at least I am so informed by the 

staff in New York.

I think the view tha t China’s admission to the United Nations 

would end its isolation and would influence the Peking Government 

toward a less militant and military posture, and perhaps pave the 

way for other settlements in Asia, is highly optimistic. On the other 

hand, it might become impossible to prevent it.

I think, sir, I should not go beyond that.

Senator Wiley. Is it your thought tha t the admission of Communist China would be constructive or create a mess in the East?

Mr. Stevenson. I have tried to indicate I think it is highly optimistic to assume it would be constructive.

Senator Wiley. Tha t is all.

The Chairman. The Senator from Alabama?

Senator Sparkman. Governor Stevenson, I am sorry to have been 

late. I have been trying to obtain seats for the swearing-in ceremony.

Mr. Stevenson. I will be around to see you later, sir.

IN C R E A SIN G M E M B E R S H IP O F U N IT E D N A T IO N S

Senator Sparkman. I have read your statement, and I think it is 

a very fine one.

I have listened to the questions and answers, and my questions 

shall be very brief.

You know, of course, tha t many of the members of this committee 

have served in the United Nations. I had tha t privilege in 1950.

At that time there were 60 nations. In fact, the 60th came in 

during that year, and we thought the U.N. was crowded then. It is 

terribly crowded now, is it not? i

Mr. Stevenson. It is, indeed.

Senator Sparkman. And, in fact, the world is crowded with nations 

now, is it not?

Mr. Stevenson. I think I said before you came in, Senator, tha t 

since my time there the membership has doubled.

Senator Sparkman. Yes.

Mr. Stevenson. Risen from 50 to 99.

Senator Sparkman. Yes.
PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON 13

N EE D FO R F L E X IB IL IT Y IN T H E U N IT E D N A T IO N S

You feel, do you not, tha t it is absolutely necessary to have an 

international organization?

Mr. Stevenson. I do, sir, I do, indeed.

Senator Sparkman. And you feel th at the U.N. is the best organization, certainly the best that we have at the present time; is tha t 

correct?

Mr. Stevenson. More th an tha t—it is the only one.

Senator Sparkman. The only one.

You do feel th at it does not necessarily have to be rigid, but tha t it 

can be flexible and should be, and tha t changes should be made as 

we move on?

Mr. Stevenson. I do, sir. I think this is something we must 

always bear in mind: To a dapt the machinery to the needs.

P O S S IB L E R E B U F F S TO U N IT E D STA T E S

Senator Sparkman. You said something in your statem ent, and I 

believe Senator Wiley referred to it, about some of the troubled times 

tha t we have ahead.

Of course, in the past years the United States has in practically 

every case been on the winning end of the various votes tha t have 

been taken.

Do you see the possibility of our having to take some rebuffs as 

we move along?

Mr. Stevenson. 1 do, sir.

I think tha t it has been apparent this last session of the General 

Assembly tha t it is going to be progressively harder for the United 

States to prevail in all instances.

S T A F F IN G O F U .S . M IS SIO N TO U .N .

Senator Sparkman. Senator Humphrey asked you something about 

additional staff for your work, additional assistants to help you there.

As a matter of fact, we have not expanded our representation there 

in keeping with the growth of the United Nations, have we?

Mr. Stevenson. No.

It is less today than what it was when the membership of the United 

Nations was much smaller than it is.

Senator Sparkman. Don’t you feel it is inadequate to handle its 

tasks under the present situation?

Mr. Stevenson. I do, sir.

I think it is imperative to strengthen the mission there, expecially 

at the top. I think we can frequently call upon expert help from 

the State Department, but for the continuous problem of representation with 98 nations in New York, to take full advantage of this 

opportunity, to exploit it to the full in the interests of the United 

States, will require more senior manpower.

D IS A RM A M EN T PR O B LE M S
14 PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON

Senator Sparkman. Such disarmament matters as would be handled 

in the United Nations.

Mr. Stevenson. Insofar as it relates to the U.N.; yes, sir.

Senator Sparkman. You do believe tha t we should work toward 

some kind of disarmament or arms control?

Mr. Stevenson. I think this is the most important problem in the 

world today. I think it should be a first priority in American foreign 

policy.

Senator Sparkman. I feel the same way, and I am glad to hear 

you say it.

It seems to me th at it is absolutely necessary for us to do something 

about that problem, if we are to continue to exist.

TR A N SC E N D E N T PR O B LE M S

Mr. Stevenson. There are two transcendent problems.

One is the proliferation of the nuclear weapons in the world today 

and all of the implications th at flow therefrom.

And the other is the disparity in living standards between the 

rich and the poor in the world, illustrated, 1 think, by the fact tha t 

the annual per capita income in the United States is in excess of 

$2,000, whereas for more than a third of the world it is probably less 

than $100. This is a crude way of illustrating it. But we know the 

consequences of any such disparity as that.

CO M M EN TS ON MR. S T E V E N SO N ’S A P P O IN T M E N T AN D ST A T E M E N T

Senator Sparkman. Governor, I have often said that I feel tha t 

you have as fine a grasp of the international situation, the international facts of life, as anybody in the country.

I am delighted tha t you have taken this assignment, and I certainly 

wish you well in it.

Mr. Stevenson. Thank you, Senator.

The Chairman. The Senator from Iowa?

Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Governor Stevenson, I am very much impressed by the statement 

which you made here.

I think it is a splendid dissertation on the philosophy of the United 

Nations and of our hopes for associating with it goals and objectives 

of peace in connection with conflicts which may arise among nations.

Mr. Stevenson. I appreciate tha t, Senator.

Senator Hickenlooper. I also feel that you have touched on a 

subject where great difficulties of a practical nature are involved.

relationship to president and secretary of state

I would like to inquire for a moment or two about your situation as 

Ambassador to the United Nations. Let me make it clear at the 

outset that I do not intend to inquire into any confidential discussions 

which you may have had with the President on these matters. But 

some of the circumstances surrounding this transition, I think, are 

important.
PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON 15

On May 10, 1960, President-elect Kennedy was quoted in the press 

as making a state ment in Oregon, and I will quote the statement 

from the press:

Kennedy also said th at he believed any Dem ocra t nom inated for Preside nt 

should offer Adlai Stevenson the job of Secretary of S tate.

I have no means of knowing whether that is an accurate statem ent 

or not, but at least I have sufficient faith in the press to give it the 

benefit of the doubt at the moment, anyway.

Then later Mr. Rusk was appointed Secretary of State. Again I 

say I have no intention of going into intermediate details, but President-elect Kennedy is quoted on December 15, 1960, in the New York Herald Tribune, as follows:

Mr. Stevenson wanted to be clear on the working relationship that would 

obtain among the President, the Secretary of State, and the U.N. Ambassador.

Now, I find no quarrel with tha t statement necessarily. 1 think it 

would be a natural inclination and desire. But 1 am interested, as a 

matter of public policy, in what you conceive to be, or what actually 

are the limitations or the extent of your auth ority in determining 

foreign policy, in your new position.

Do you believe you will have an enlarged field in the determination 

of foreign policy over and above what other Ambassadors to the 

United Nations have held?

Mr. Stevenson. I am not sufficiently informed about the conditions tha t have prevailed in the past to be able to answer that “Yes” 

or “No.”

I can say tha t as to my own situation, my understanding is that 

policy matters, especially those which relate to the execution of my 

office in New York, will come to my attention. I will be a consultant. 

I will have an opp ortunity to express my views on policy formation in 

matters of concern to me.

Senator Hickenlooper. Do you have an understanding, Governor, 

tha t on matters that may come up, let us say rath er suddenly, you 

will have the right to exercise your independent judgment without 

securing the guidance and approval of the State Department or the 

President?

Mr. Stevens. 1 would hope tha t 1 could always have the guidance 

of the Secretary and the President, where necessary, in matters of 

tha t kind, and th at I should not be called upon to exercise independent 

judgment in any matter of major consequence, without suitable 

consultation.

If it arose, as in the case of response, immediate response to attacks 

on the United States, yes, I think it is clear that I would have the 

authority, it would be expected that I would do whatever my judgment indicated as the commander in the field.

Senator Hickenlooper. I think tha t has been the practice in the 

past.

Mr. Stevenson. Yes.

Senator Hickenlooper. But, on substantive matters, may I put 

it this way: Do you anticipate tha t you will be given a free hand, 

a comparatively free hand, to determine American policy within 

the United Nations and, in effect, to have a veto in any way upon 

contrary positions that may be taken by the Secretary of State?

6 4 52 5— 6 1-------3
16 PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON

Mr. Stevenson. No, I do not, sir. I would not assert any such 

privilege. 1 think it is most important-----

Senator Hickenlooper. Your expression there might be interpreted tha t you did have such privilege. Do you anticipate tha t you 

do have such privilege?

Mr. Stevenson. No, I do not, sir.

Senator H ickenlooper. Therefore, in your position as Ambassador 

to the United Nations, I take it tha t your concept is tha t you will, 

as our system provides, be answerable primarily to the President 

as his representative, as Ambassador there, and that the guidance 

followed by you will be th at as laid down by the President or through 

the Secretary of State as the President’s agent on international 

matters?

Mr. Stevenson. That is correct, Senator.

I think the only difference, which perhaps may not be clear in your 

mind, is that, to the extent that my time and circumstances permit, 

I would participate in the formation of policies that I would be called 

upon to execute.

Senator Hickenlooper. I understand tha t you will be in a consultative capacity. Is tha t what you mean by that?

Mr. Stevenson. I think tha t is a good word for it, sir.

FO R M U LA TIO N OF FO R E IG N PO LI CY

Senator Hickenlooper. From a practical standpoint, the United 

Nations has become a forum for the establishment of many basicpolicies, I believe.

Two years ago I had the opportunity to serve as a delegate to the 

General Assembly, and it seems to me that, more and more, the 

United Nations is becoming a policy-forming group for American 

foreign policy.

What is your view on the extent to which the policies developed 

in the United Nations should formulate American foreign policy, 

rath er than the cumulative judgment and action of the State Dep artment?

In other words, should the United Nations replace the State Departmen t in any major particular as the agency for formulating United 

States foreign policy?

Mr. Stevenson. Well, I think clearly not. The policies should 

continue to be formulated in the constitutional manner by the 

President and the executive agency provided for that, purpose, the 

State Department.

I think tha t where policy emerges as a result of United Nations 

activity, it is a response to what transpires there and an adaptation 

of policy, rather than the creation of foreign policy for the United 

States.

But it is inevitable tha t diplomatic interchange or negotiation, 

especially a continuous one like this, has a constant influence on the 

development of American policy. This is inevitable, as long as we 

have such an institution, I think, Senator.
PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON 17

ADM IS SIO N O F CO M M U NIS T CH IN A TO T H E U .N .

Senator Hickenlooper. Now7

, of course, one of the great areas of 

controversy in international matters is the question of Red China, 

upon which emotions may flow one way or the other.

Is it fair to say that you have taken quite a consistent position tha t 

Red China should be admitted to the United Nations?

Mr. Stevenson. No, I do not think I have ever taken that position. I think I have taken the position from time to time that we 

have to face the probability that it may be and that it will be.

Q U E STIO N OF U .N . P L E B IS C IT E FO R FO RM O SA N S AND FO R COM M U NIS T 

C H IN E S E

Senator Hickenlooper. I am not going exhaustively into this 

article, but you had a rather comprehensive article, quite a clear 

discussion of international matters in the January 1960 issue of 

Foreign Affairs.

Now, in discussing the question of negotiation and settlement of 

disputes, I want to quote what seems to be a rather pertinent statement by you from that article. This goes to the point of the settlement of these disputes with the Communists and the tensions which 

exist. In tha t article you said:

On the Communist side, the concessions would include the extension to China 

of any system of inte rna tional inspection of disa rmamen t, ending the threat of 

force against Formosa and subversion in Indochina, a peaceful frontier settlement with India, free elections under United Nations supervision in Korea, and 

acceptance of the righ t of the inh abitants of Formosa to determine their own 

destiny by plebiscite supervised by the United Natio ns.

On ou r side—

and I am continuing to quote—

concessions would presumably include an end to the American embargo on 

China’s admission to the United Natio ns (not to be confused with diplomatic 

recognition), the eva cuation of Quemoy and Matsu and the inclusion of Korea 

and Japan in the atom-free zone and area of controlled disarmam ent.

There are one or two things in this quotation tha t I would like to 

discuss with you.

In the first place, you indicate that a part of the package might 

include the right of the inhabitan ts of Formosa to determine their 

own destiny by plebiscite supervised by the United Nations.

Now I do not want to misquote you, and if my quotation is inaccurate in any way, I would be glad to have the record corrected, 

or you can correct it a t the moment, if you care to. But in as much as 

you have apparently advocated a plebiscite on Formosa for the 

Formsoans to determine their own system of government, why did 

you not include a plebiscite on the mainland of China to let the 

Chinese people there determine what kind and type of government 

that they prefer?

Mr. Stevenson. Perhaps tha t would be a good idea, sir. I am 

not sure th at we could have much influence in bringing it about.

Senator Hickenlooper. Well, I agree that it would be very 

difficult, but how much influence do you think we can have, based 

upon past history and actions by the Kremlin, in ending the threat 

of force against Formosa?
18 PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON

Mr. Stevenson. I am not sure that we can have any. I said here 

a while ago that it might be tha t we were dealing with an implacable 

situation that we could not improve, and if you will be good enough 

to examine th at quotation a little, Senator, you will notice that I was 

suggesting that we explore with Khrushchev, not with the Chinese 

at this point, the possibility of pacification in the area based upon a 

broad settlement of issues by negotiation, not force.

Then I went on to indicate the many proposals that have been made 

on both sides as to wl at might be attractiv e to the Russians in order 

to pacify the Pacific.

This was not a proposal for negotiation with the Chinese through 

the United Nations.

Senator Hickenlooper. 1 understand.

But the wording of my question, of course, is why a plebiscite is 

considered to be an impertant part of any potential proposal for the 

people or Formosa ard why was a suggestion that a plebiscite would 

also be desirable for China not included?

The difficulties in the one case, I realize, are very great, but also 

undoubtedly, the difficulties on the other side are equally gn at.

Mr. Stevenson. I am sure they are very great.

Senator Hickenlooper. But I was curious about the failure to 

recognize the right of the Chinese people on the mainland to have a 

plebiscite, while suggesting that a plebiscite be confined only to 

Formosa.

Mr. Stevenson. Yes.

Senator Hickenlooper. Do you have any further comment on 

that?

Mr. Stevenson. No ; I have none, sir.

I was talking about the problem of Formosa, not the problem of the 

mainland of China.

Senator Hickenlooper. But are they not all involved? Is it not 

an area situation from a political standpoint?

Mr. Stevenson. Surely; they are all involved.

STA TU S OF O FFSH O R E IS L A N D S, K O R EA , AND JA PA N

Senator Hickenlooper. Would you, as Ambassador of the United 

States to the United Nations, expect to advocate the evacuation of 

Quemoy and Matsu and the inclusion of Korea and Japa n in an 

atom-free zone and area of controlled disarmament?

Mr. Stevenson. Clearly, Senator, I could not advocate anything 

tha t was not the policy of the U.S. Government.

I do not know what the policy of the U.S. Government is going to 

be with respect to the Formosa Straits or any solution in the Pacific. 

mr. stevenson’s foreign policy role

Senator H ickenlooper. I understand tha t tha t would be generally 

true, and y et Mr. Dean R usk is quoted in the press, on December 15, 

1960, as saying “that Adlai Stevenson would play a key role in 

planning U.S. foreign policy.”

So if that statement of Mr. Rusk is correctly quoted, you will be 

occupying a key role, which I would interpret to mean something 

more than acting in an advisory capacity.
PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON 19

Mr. Stevenson. A key advisory capacity.

Senator Hickenlooper. Perhaps so, but I think the words “key 

role” certainly indicate a much more authoritative participation in 

the decisions which are made than merely being in what might be 

called an advisory capacity.

Many people are in an advisory capacity, but I submit that comparatively few people are in a key role, as we understand it in the 

parlance of the day; so your attitude on those matters, if you do 

occupy a key role in the determination of foreign policies, would be, 

I would think, most important.

Mr. Stevenson. I think one of the difficulties, as best I can ascertain, is tha t while New York and Washington are close to one 

another and communication is easy, that still there is often a gulf 

between the mission in New York and the policies tha t it must 

advocate there and the State Department here. It is important to 

close this gap, if we can, so that they are fully informed here of the 

consequences, the embarrassments, or the advantages of a policy 

position in New York.

To do this, various things have been suggested. They have not 

been always satisfactory. The experience of all of you, I am sure, 

who have served on the delegation has revealed that orders are often 

changed, frequently at the last moment.

Sometimes policies, orders, have been inconsistent with the view 

of the delegation in New York.

In an effort to bring about a greater coordination of these policy 

positions, I have felt tha t the senior officer present in New York 

should have a more continuous relation to policymaking here in the 

Department, and that is what this is all about.

STA TUS OF FO RM OSA AND T H E O FFSH O R E IS LA N D S

Senator Hickenlooper. Back as far as 1955, especially with 

reference to a radio address which you made in Chicago on April 12 

of that year, it seems to me th at you took a very positive position tha t 

Quemov and Matsu should be abandoned by the United States. 1 

think you have had other things to say about tha t since 1955. I 

wonder, Governor, what your attitude toward the situation in Quemoy and Matsu is at this time?

Mr. Stevenson. Well, let me again say, sir, tha t I think it is quite 

improper for me to express policy views in my present capacity, which 

is not tha t of a private citizen, unless you withhold your advice and 

consent, on m atters tha t have not been resolved bv the new administration; tha t is, policy matters relating to China or anything else in 

the world.

I th ink tha t this situation that I am in must be apparent to you, sir, 

and, therefore, I should have to ask to be excused from commenting 

on what my policy would be in the future.

Senator Hickenlooper. Well, I respect that position certainly, 

and I would not expect you to outline in detail every action tha t you 

would take under any “iffy” or speculative position or situation that 

might occur. But I think in someways you occupy quite a unique 

position. You have been quite lavish in your comments on international m atters and positions with regard to such areas as Quemoy and 

Matsu and international associations, and rightfully so. I have no
20 PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON

criticism of that. You have been in a most important position of 

leadership in your party and as a leading American citizen, and you 

are perfectly justified in making those statem ents and taking those 

positions. But, by the same token, I do not believe that you can 

today divorce yourself from the positions you have taken in the past 

without reasonable explanation.

Mr. Stevenson. Well, 1 do not wish to-----

Senator Hickenlooper. I think you are not coming to this position 

as an unknown or an unheralded American citizen.

You are a man of prominence and great ability and great experience 

and the leadership positions tha t you have been in have caused you, 

as I again say, justifiably and perfectly properly so, to take these positions. But the situation of the whole Asian Continent, at least in my 

view, revolves in a great degree about our firmness or our weakness in 

Asia. And tha t involves the matter of whether Quemoy and Matsu 

are abandoned or whether they continue to be used as an instrument in 

our sustaining the position of the free world and of free China in 

the Orient.

That is the reason I think it is very important.

Mr. Stevenson. I think my writings speak for themselves. You 

will find tha t they are quite consistent in this field since 1955, since 

the first time the matter arose.

Perhaps the difference between us is one of emphasis. You will 

notice in 1955, and in subsequent writings on this matter, that my 

insistence has been on the firmness of the American position favoring 

the security, the independence, and the self-determination of Formosa; 

that, this was our responsibility before even we had a security treaty.

Senator Hickenlooper. Does that policy of firmness extend to the 

independence and self-determination.of mainland China?

Mr. Stevenson. I do not think we have ever assumed any responsibility for mainland China; if you mean for an anti-Communist 

revolution. I am sure tha t we have never assumed any such responsibility.

We have very definitely assumed responsibility for the security of 

Formosa.

D IS A RM A M EN T N E G O T IA T IO N S

Senator Hickenlooper. Now, on the question of disarmament, 

you have taken some strong positions, and, as I read them, quite 

clear positions, with regard to negotiation with Russia in this area.

Do you believe tha t any agreement with Russia that is not completely safeguarded by physical means, inspection or control, either 

multilaterally with several nations or through the United Nations, 

would be successful?

Mr. Stevenson. I do not think any agreement with the Soviet 

Union, with or without inspection and control, is secure; unless it is 

to their advantage to keep the agreement.

Senator Hickenlooper. Do you believe that the Soviet Union will 

make any agreements tha t they do not believe will advance the cause 

of international communism and world control?

Mr. Stevenson. No.

I think tha t every agreement tha t they make, they will conclude 

is in their interest, but tha t might include peace.

Senator Hickenlooper. But peace on their terms?
PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON 21

Mr. Stevenson. Well, disarmament, arms control, in some form 

or other. 1 am not sure just what area you are speaking about, but, 

generally speaking, I say tha t could include arms control, which could 

be in their interest.

CO M M U N IS T GO AL

Senator Hickenlooper. But do you agree tha t it is fundamental 

in the philosophy of the Kremlin and in international communism 

tha t world dominion is their ultimate and necessary goal?

Mr. Stevenson. Oh, yes, I have said tha t, I guess, scores of times.

Senator H ickenlooper. And do you see anything in the actions 

or the conduct of the Kremlin or its representatives that shows the 

slightest deviation from that purpose?

Mr. Stevenson. No, I have not.

I think the one interesting development of recent years has been 

the extent to which Communist ideology, at least in Russia in contrast to China, has changed with respect to the inevitability of war, 

which has been a classic Marxist position, as you know.

And here there has been some modification in the 20th Party 

Congress in Russia, a view which apparently has not been shared in 

the Chinese Communist Party, so tha t this is one of the differences 

that seems to have emerged.

Just how this is being resolved, I am not yet clear. I am sure tha t 

what we have read is not an adequate and full explanation.

Senator H ickenlooper. Well, do you feel th at the Kremlin, while 

perhaps deviating temporarily from the theory of the inevitability 

of war, has at all abandoned the instrumentality of war, if necessary, 

and if they think they can be successful in establishing world communism?

Mr. Stevenson. I think they are concerned about the proliferation 

of nuclear weapons and the consequences of nuclear war.

As to conventional war; no. I think they have probably not changed 

their views at all as to the utility of conventional force.

Senator H ickenlooper. So any possible difference—if there is a 

difference between the Kremlin and Peiping—and there are those who 

believe th at there is no substantial difference, that it may be a smoke 

screen-----

Mr. Stevenson. I think it would be a mistake to overestimate 

that difference; yes.

Senator Hickenlooper. So tha t the difference would come, as you 

see it, on the basis tha t Peiping may still follow the theory of the 

inevitability of war, but Moscow says tha t conquest may be accomplished without war; but tha t, if necessary, war is a weapon of conquest?

Mr. Stevenson. Yes; I think that is true. I think tha t is substantially correct.

Senator Hickenlooper. That is not a very articulate, b ut a reasonably fair, statement of the situation.

P O S S IB IL IT Y OF R E A C H IN G A N Y M A JO R A G R E E M E N T S W IT H T H E U .S .S .R .

Well, then, if international communism and control in Moscow are 

fundamental in the Kremlin’s policies, how do you envision a ny reliable peace or any reliable agreements with the Kremlin on the basis
22 PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON

of the concept of the free world; that is, any agreements of any major 

importance? I am not talking of little, incidental agreements here and 

there.

Mr. Stevenson. I said if they thought it was to their advantage 

and to their interest, tha t then they would keep the agreement.

Senator Hickenlooper. Th at is right.

Mr. Stevenson. And if the agreement related to peace, and they 

considered peace to be more in their interest than the risk of war, 

tha t they would keep the agreement.

Senator Hickenlooper. I understand, and I think I agree thoroughly with you tha t if they consider it to be to their advantage, 

they will agree.

But can you conceive of the Communists agreeing to any major 

proposition, even though it might contribute to peace for a time? 

Can you envision them agreeing to any major proposition tha t would 

in any substantial way weaken the position of international communism in the world?

Mr. Stevenson. No; not if it would weaken the position of international communism; no.

Senator Hickenlooper. And do you think the ideals of the West 

and the Kremlin are compatible; that is, on the basis of the theory 

of individual dignity as represented in the West, and that of individual 

utility for the benefit of the state as involved in the Kremlin? Are 

those two theories in any way compatible?

Mr. Stevenson. No; they are entirely incompatible.

Senator H ickenlooper. Then it seems that many of your hopes for 

agreement which will sustain or advance the cause—tha t is, our theory 

in the West, the cause of freedom in the world—may be hopeless from 

the standpoint of accomplishment.

Mr. Stevenson. By agreement?

Senator Hickenlooper. By agreement.

Mr. Stevenson. I have said many times, sir, tha t I have thought 

we were in for a long period of conflict and competition with the 

Soviet Union.

But 1 have been hopeful tha t we could eliminate, to some extent 

at least, the hazard of war, because that was of mutual interest to them 

as well as to ourselves.

importance of u.s. military strength

Senator Hickenlooper. Do you believe that anything but superior 

military strength on the part of the United States and the free world 

would deter the Communist expansion?

In other words, is th at, would you say, the important deterrent?

Mr. Stevenson. If such a thing were possible, it would be a very 

effective deterrent.

I raise the question as to the possibility in a nuclear age of ever 

achieving what you call superiority, because the consequences----- -

Senator Hickenlooper. I do no t know tha t you know what I mean 

by “superiority” because I did not define it. I used the term loosely, 

perhaps.

Mr. Stevenson. Yes.

Senator Hickenlooper. By “superiority,” I would say our ability, 

for instance, to inflict far greater destruction, even to the point of
PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON 23

total destruction, on the enemy than the enemy could inflict on us, 

even as grievous as their injury to us might be.

Mr. Stevenson. I have said many times, Senator Hickenlooper, 

tha t the strength of the free world was indispensable to the peace of 

the world, and I have talked about it in terms of at least an equality 

of strength, so tha t any weakness of ours would not constitute an 

inducement or encouragement to adventure by the Communist bloc.

mr. stevenson’s appointment

Senator Hickenlooper. I think I have taken enough time, Mr. 

Chairman.

In all kindness to you, I may say, in response to your remark awhile 

ago tha t you will cease to be a private citizen in a few days, tha t 

because of my political affiliation I have used whatever meager efforts 

I had in the p ast to retain you as a prominent private citizen. I say 

tha t without any rancor or gravel, but I can assure you that I have 

no such plans a t this time.

Mr. Stevenson. Thank you, Senator.

The Chairman. Senator Mansfield?

V IE W S OF E IS E N H O W E R A D M IN IS T R A T IO N ON FO RM OSA AN D O F FSH O R E 

IS LA N D S

Senator Mansfield. Governor Stevenson, I recall another man 

who, when he was a private citizen, in a speech in Louisville, Ky., 

made a statement that he believed in the Bricker amendment. Later 

he changed his mind when he became a public official and occupied 

the position of Secretary of State. This same man, for whom I 

always had a great admiration, while a private citizen wrote a book 

called, I believe, “War or Peace,” and he had some very intersting 

things to say on page 121 relative to China. So I think we can sort 

of pair tha t off against what you are alleged to have said as a private 

citizen some 4 or 5 years ago, and perhaps wipe the slate clean.

Mr. Stevenson. Well, Senator, I hope tha t one does not have the 

impression tha t I am in any way embarrassed by anything I have 

said on the subject of China a t any time in the past, because I am not.

Senator Mansfield. I am sure you are not, and certainly, as far 

as Senator Hickenlooper is concerned, he had every right to ask the 

questions which lie asked.

Mr. Stevenson. Oh, most certainly.

Senator Mansfield. And you have every right to give the answers 

tha t you desire.

But I just thought I would recollect, as best I could, somewhat 

similar instances which might well fit in the record at this time.

There has been some discussion about the offshore islands, the 

Quemoys and the Matsus. Again, as I recall, at the time the Formosa 

resolution was considered, there was no question as to our going to the 

defense of the Pescadores and Formosa, based on the mutual security 

agreement with Chiang Kai-shek. But there was some question in 

the committee relative to the position of the offshore islands, and, as 

I remember, the fear was expressed in the committee tha t maybe 

some lieutenant (junior grade) or some admiral might strike the m atch 

which could s tart the flame. Again, falling back on my recollection,
24 PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON

Secretary Dulles assured us—and I think Walter George, then chairman of this committee, stated so publicly on the floor of the Senate— 

tha t as far as the disposition of the offshores was concerned, it would 

be a matter for sole determination by the President of the United 

States. I am assuming that the position under the Eisenhower 

administration would, of course, be maintained by the incoming 

administration.

I wanted tha t on the record, too.

mr. stevenson’s appointment

Governor, I want to say tha t I am very much impressed with your 

statement. As usual, it was cogent, to the point, and expressed your 

general philosophy, with which I agree.

I was also impressed with the graciousness you have shown toward 

Ambassadors Lodge, Wadsworth, and Barco, all of whom have 

performed outstanding services representing our country in the 

United Nations.

I think we are most fortunate that you have been selected by Mr. 

Kennedy for this most im portant job. I wish you well.

I know that you and Dean Rusk will work very closely together, 

and I think the country will be in good hands. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman.

Mr. Stevenson. Thank you, Senator.

The Chairman. The Senator from Kansas?

Senator Carlson. Governor, you and I had the privilege of serving 

as Governors of two great Western States at the same time.

Therefore, we have had some very pleasant associations together 

in the past, serving on the Council of State Governments and many 

committees.

Mr. Stevenson. I am sure they will continue to be that way, sir.

Senator Carlson. I can assure you that they will. We served 

together on many Federal and State affairs committees, and I appreciate your statement this morning.

lo u have responded well to the questions asked. I have no 

questions, but I do want to make a comment on a matter tha t is 

going to be one of your problems.

A IR M E N IM PR IS O N E D BY SO V IE T U N IO N

We have two very fine young men ol this Nation who are incarcerated in a prison in Russia and they are held in violation of international 

law; namely, Captain McKone, of Kansas, and Captain Olmstead, 

of New Jersey.

I would urge you to use all your influence in this im portant position 

to see that we secure the release of these young men, if possible.

Mr. Stevenson. I quite agree, sir, and I assure you tha t T will.

Indeed, I can say to you that I already have, to the extent that 

I have been able to, in my position as a private citizen, and I will 

continue to do so as a public official.

Senator Carlson. I than k you, sir, and that is all, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. The Senator from Louisiana?
PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON 25

ACC O M PL IS H M EN TS OF T H E U N IT E D N A T IO N S

Senator Long. Governor Stevenson, I asked Secretary Herter a 

short time ago if he could give us some information, perhaps something 

that we could use as a mailing piece to those who write suggesting 

tha t the United States should quit the United Nations, something 

more or less indicating what the United Nations has accomplished.

I have seen some pamphlets mailed out indicating tha t the United 

Nations has accomplished nothing and that it has been a complete 

failure, unworthy of our support.

Would you just for the record indicate what you believe some 

of the accomplishments of the United Nations have been?

Mr. Stevenson. I would be very happy to, Senator Long. I would 

also be very happy to give you some documentation tha t might be 

more useful for the purpose tha t you have in mind.

Senator Long. I would like to have that.

Mr. Stevenson. Yes.

Senator Long. But you might also give a statement for the record.

Mr. Stevenson. I think, like everyone, I had at the inception in 

1945, 1946, and 1947, when I was active in this work after the war, 

hopes tha t the great powers would stick together, and that the 

division tha t has ensued between the Soviet Union and the West 

would not come to pass; that the alliance of the war would continue 

into the future.

Had it done so, there is no doubt but what the United Nations 

would have been far more effective.

As a result of this division and the ambition of the Soviet Union, 

the Security Council—which we looked to in those days as the hope 

for peace and security—has been, in large measure, frustrated by the 

Russian veto.

The General Assembly, on the other hand, has emerged as an 

opportunity to marshal the public sentiment of the world.

Public opinion, I think you will agree, sir, is the sovereign of us all 

and of all nations as well as peoples. In the mobilization of world 

opinion the United Nations has been very successful.

Its various agencies, such as the Economic and Social Council, the 

Trusteeship Council, have performed invaluable service. The 

specialized agencies such as the World Health Organization and the 

Food and Agricultural Organization have helped bring about an 

improvement in the conditions of life of people throughout the world.

The U.N. has performed important security services in policing the 

Sinai Peninsula at the time of trouble in the Middle East, and latterly 

in the Congo. These are enormous undertakings far beyond the 

anticipated competence of the Secretary General’s Office. They are 

functions tha t were originally contemplated for the Military Staff 

Committee which has never come into being, due to Russian 

intransigeance.

But these services to the world in both security matters and in 

economic and social m atters in these intervening years have, 1 think, 

more than justified the Organization.

More than that, I think, is the value, philosophically, of having 

created a structure for collective security. If we did not have such a 

structure we would still be trying to erect one. It is just as indispensable to peace and security in the world as it is in domestic society.
26 PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON

I look forward with great hope to its expansion, to the extension 

of the dominion of law in the world. I suspect that it may be many 

years in the making, but this is the beginning.

SO V IE T M E M B E R SH IP IN T H E U N IT E D NA TIO N S

Senator Long. Would it be your judgment tha t we would be better 

off with the Soviets out of the United Nations than with them in it?

Mr. Stevenson. I think it depends on what you mean by “better 

off.” If they are out of it, then, of course, we have a club of friendly 

people and can do a lot of things tha t we could not do otherwise.

But, unless we can maintain this contact with the Soviets, we will 

not be able to bring the same influence to bear on securing the peace, 

and on working out agreements if any are possible with them, that 

we would if they were in the organization.

So I do not think you can equate the two. It depends on w hat you 

are after.

Senator Long. Yes.

On the one hand, it could be a much more effective organization 

for achieving action; but, on the other hand, it offers an opportunity 

of contact to try to work out differences, I take it?

Mr. Stevenson. Tha t is right.

And, also, if they are ou t of it, then they are isolated and we suffer 

the risks of separation.

U .N . A C T IO N IN K O R EA N C R IS IS

Senator Long. What is your judgment as to the value of the United 

Nations in the Korean crisis? Do you believe tha t this Nation would 

have been better off if we had not been impeded by having to consult and to contend with the views of allies and members of the United 

Nations?

I am sure that you perhaps share the disappointment of some of us 

tha t we did not get more effective help from others. Or do you feel 

perhaps that the United Nations was, on the whole, a substantial 

asset to the situation tha t developed there?

Mr. Stevenson. I thought it was an asset, because it established 

the principle of collective security in action for the first time. It was 

important to have the participation of the other nations, even on the 

limited basis in which they participated.

Senator Long. In other words, the fact that we went there with the 

approval of the United Nations placed us in the position before the 

world to make the case th at we were maintaining peace and security, 

rather th an going there as an act of aggression?

Mr. Stevenson. Or even going there in fulfillment of a bilateral 

obligation to the Korean Republic. As it is, we went there in fulfillment of our multilateral obligations to maintain the peace of the world.

Senator Long. In either event, it did not keep the Communists 

from propagandizing all over the world to the effect tha t the United 

States started the war.

I believe they had some picture of Mr. Dulles with a helmet on, 

contending that he had been at the front line immediately before the 

war started, or something of that sort.
PROPOSED NOMINATIO N OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON 27

But T take it t ha t you would feel t hat U.N. action did help to make 

clear what our purposes were in going there?

Mr. Stevenson. I think so.

Senator Long. Thank you very much.

The Chairman. The Senator from Oregon?

mr. stevenson’s appointment and statement

Senator Morse. Mr. Chairman, Governor Stevenson, I have no 

questions.

I wish to pay my respects to you for what I consider to be probably 

the finest condensed statemen t on the symbolism and import of the 

United Nations tha t I have ever had the privilege of reading.

As an old teacher, I would suggest that for every high school and 

college teacher in America teaching a course that deals with foreign 

policy it should be required reading.

Mr. Stevenson. Than k you, Senator.

Senator Morse. I am looking forward to our conference together 

in which I hope to share with you the very fascinating and illuminating 

experience I had as a delegate to the United Nations General Assembly 

this last fall. And I think you have set forth in your statement very 

clearly the major problems that confront our Government as far as 

the challenge of the United Nations is concerned, for it truly is 

challenging.

I happen to hold the point of view that unless we make it work, 

there is not going to be any Western civilization.

U .S . E X A M PL E FO R T H E W ORLD

The Chairman. The Senator from Ohio?

Senator Lausche. Governor, in response to one of the questions, 

you stated tha t one-third of the people of the world have an annual 

income of about $100 a year.

The Foreign Relations Committee had a study made on the 

economics of the world, and it was reported in that study that the 

United States—and this is a fact—in 1957 had a gross national 

product of $440 billion, producing in excess of $2,000 a year for each 

one of our citizens on an average. Now, I understand tha t your 

objective will be, with all of your might, to seek the achievement of 

peace consistent with the maintenance of our honor, and contributing 

to the securtv and life of our country.

Is th at a fair statement of what your objective will be?

Mr. Stevenson. Tha t is a very eloquent statement of it, Senator 

Lausche.

Senator Lausche. That would mean th at you take the position th at 

under our system of government, having produced a per capita income 

of more than $2,000 a year, while one-third of the people of the 

world have a per capita income of less tha n $100 a year, in a peaceful 

combat we will be able to demonstrate to the world that the welfare 

of the individual and the enjoyment of his human dignities are best 

assured under our system of government?

Mr. Stevenson. I think we should leave no stone unturned to 

advertise the virtues of free society. I think, at the same time, we
28 PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON

have to also bear in mind tha t other societies are not as fortunate, 

either by natural endowment or by the skills of their peoples as a 

result of education, and that it will be difficult, it not impossible, for 

them to enjoy anything like our standard of living for a long time to 

come.

Senator Lausche. But tha t does not negate the proposition tha t 

on the basis ot past performance our system has provided a dignity 

for the human being and an economic welfare far greater than any 

other nation in the world has ever produced.

Mr. Stevenson. It has no historical counterpart, so far as I know. 

That is correct.

Senator Lausche. Now, then, the report which we received in this 

Foreign Relations Committee showed tha t under the best statistics 

obtainable China, with 650 million people, in 1958, had a gross national 

product of $50 billion, or the equivalent of about $77 per person.

CO A LIT IO N G O V E R N M EN T S

Now, I want to go to another question.

There has arisen the suggestion tha t there be a coalition government established in Laos. Whp,t is your view on coalition governments, having in mind what followed World War II?

Mr. Stevenson. Well, I can’t express an informed judgment on 

Laos, Senator, because I am just not informed. But I can say generally about coalition governments tha t they serve a useful purpose 

in some instances.

Where the coalition is with Communists, we have usually found th at 

they do not work; tha t Communists take over. I do not think it is 

possible to generalize about the virtues of coalition governments.

I think they are better than Communist governments.

Senator Lausche. Yes.

But the fact is th at I would say in every instance where there has 

been a coalition established between the Communists and what are 

supposed to be representatives of the free world, the Communists 

adopted their normal techniques and finally took over.

Mr. Stevenson. I am sure tha t tha t could be established. I do 

not know tha t it would be true in every case, but I should think it 

would be true in most.

Senator Lausche. Well, it was true in China, I think, was it not?

Mr. Stevenson. I think in some of the postwar governments in 

which Communists were included, after the war, as in Italy, for 

example, they did not prevail and take over.

Senator Lausche. Well, the most glaring example, I think, is 

Poland.

Mr. Stevenson. Poland, certainly.

Senator Lausche. Where the Lublin nucleus was set up in Russia 

and they sent him in and got Mikolajczvk to join and then finally 

kicked him out.

Mr. Stevenson. Also in Czechoslovakia.

Senator Lausche. And I think in Yugoslavia, where Mikhailovitch 

was put to the wall by the gun.

Now, then, on the matter of coalition governments, to the extent 

tha t you might be able to express yourself, would you declare that, on 

the basis of past experience, that subject ought to be approached with 

great caution before we participate in that type of government?
PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON 29

Mr. Stevenson. You mean before the United States participates?

Senator Lausche. Yes. Tha t is right.

Mr. Stevenson. Oh, yes; I would think so.

PO S S IB IL IT Y OF O B T A IN IN G A G R EEM EN TS W IT H T H E U .S .S .R .

Senator Lausche. You state that past experience has demonstrated 

tha t the Red Soviet will make no agreement unless, in its opinion, the 

agreement will contribute to the advancement of communism.

Mr. Stevenson. Well, I think those were Senator Hickenlooper’s 

words. My words were: unless the agreement is in the interest of the 

Soviet Union, as they see it.

O B JE C T IV E S OF U .S . F O R E IG N PO LIC Y

Senator Lausche. At the risk of having this question labeled as 

academic, having in mind, undoubtedly, the deep thought tha t you 

have given to this general subject, and having in mind my efforts to 

formulate my own definition, I wonder if you could state for this 

committee your definition of what our policy ought to be with regard 

to our relations with foreign countries?

Maybe it is quite a burden, but a general declaration. I have 

heard it said we have no foreign policy; t hat we have only a containment policy; but nowhere have I heard anyone declare on the basis 

of a general policy what we ought to aim to do.

What about something like this:

It is our foreign policy with respect to relations with foreign countries to be fair, to aim for the achievement of peace throughout the 

world, maintaining, however, our national honor, and insuring the 

future existence of our country. Moreover, it is our aim to give 

encouragement to other people of the world to adopt free systems of 

government, unimpeded or mandated by Communists; and to encourage 

independence when it is indicated tha t an ethnographical, homogeneous people have the ability to run their own government?

Mr. Stevenson. Well, if I understood you, sir, you said that our 

objectives were to treat others fairly, to promote peace with honor, 

to insure the security of the United States, to encourage others to 

adopt free institutions.

Obviously, I agree with all of those propositions.

E ST A B L IS H M E N T O F N E W G O V E R N M EN T S

Senator Lausche. What about the establishment of new governments where the evidences are clear tha t the people involved have 

not yet reached the stage where they can run their own governments 

and where it is rather reasonably certain tha t there will be chaos and 

a vacuum will develop?

Mr. Stevenson. This is one of the problems with which we are 

confronted now. It presents great difficulties. I suspect for a long 

time we will have to anticipate tha t these countries can only be 

directed or controlled or run, after they atta in their independence, by 

strong central governments, what we would call nondemocratic 

forms, until large numbers of people are sufficiently educated and 

advanced to exercise some judgment. I do not know any other solution for tha t problem.

Senator Lausche. I think I agree with you.
30 PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON

R E L A T IO N S H IP B E T W E E N U .S .S .R . AND S A T E L L IT E C O U N T R IE S

Now just one further question:

We hear constantly the talk that we are imperialists; that we are 

seeking to exploit; and those who speak tha t way forget tha t we 

have spent $75 billion to help people around the world.

What is your view of the relationship between Red Russia and the 

countries in middle Europe and E astern Europe?

Are they subservient countries under the master domination of the 

Soviet?

Mr. Stevenson. Well, I think all of Eastern Europe from the 

Baltic to the Black Sea is under the political domination and in some 

cases the military control of the Soviet Union. The extent to which 

the people are sympathetic with communism varies, I suspect.

I have traveled in some of these countries. I would suspect tha t 

in Poland the popular support for the Communist government is 

very meager. It may be greater in oth er countries. I think it varies 

from country to country. I think one can say with some confidence 

tha t in no case are the Communist governments majority governments.

Senator Lausche. That is your view?

Mr. Stevenson. That is my view, sir.

Senator Lausche. That is, they are governments imposed by the 

power of the Soviet?

Mr. Stevenson. Well, it is not always, sir, the power of the Soviet. 

It is in some cases the power of the local Communist Party, which 

has all the instruments of power.

Senator Lausche. Do you see in tha t situation the elements of the 

development of a colonial power or an imperialistic power of the 

Soviet?

Mr. Stevenson. Oh, yes. I think it is very clear that this is an 

extension of 19th century imperialism in a new form.

Senator Lausche. I think that is all.

U .S . PO LIC Y REG A RD IN G E ST A B L IS H M E N T OF N E W N A T IO N S

Senator Morse. Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise one point 

for clarification. I am not sure that I understood all the import of 

one question Senator Lausche asked you, nor am I sure that the 

record will disclose necessarily your meaning in your answer, and I 

only register this observation, and ask for any comment that either 

you or Senator Lausche want to make, or let it stand.

Senator Lausche asked you regarding this matter of independence, 

about people in some areas of the world who are seeking independence 

from present colonial rule, and I believe the import of the question 

may indicate tha t we would seek to prevent tha t independence or 

use our influences to prevent that independence until a value judgment 

was reached as to whether or not they were ready to govern themselves.

I only want to sav that, in my judgment, if we follow that course 

of action, we are headed into very real trouble, because these people 

are going to determine for themselves whether they are ready for 

independence.

If the United States seeks to brook it and continues to side with 

the great colonial powers t hat now subject them and dominate them,
PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON 31

and in many instances, such as South West Africa, inflict horrendous 

atrocities upon them, we are going to be confronted with serious 

bloodbaths in that part of the world against the white man.

Senator Lausche. If I may?

The Chairman. The Senator from Ohio.

Senator Lausche. The inference drawn by the Senator from 

Oregon concerning my question is incorrect.

My declaration of policy is that we will encourage the establishment 

of independent nations when we believe that there is a reasonable 

probability tha t those nations, those ethnographical, homogeneous 

peoples, will be able to maintain independent governments.

Now, then, I am not going to ask Governor Stevenson about this, 

but there is great room for debate on this thought advanced by the 

Senator from Oregon whether we can afford to follow a course tha t 

will be inimical to the interests of our historic allies, and 1 will not 

press tha t question. That is, I think the United Kingdom has gone 

to great lengths, as have other powers, in releasing countries. But 

you do have the question whether there are areas that are capable 

of maintaining stable, independent governments.

Senator Morse. Will the Senator yield?

I only want to say to the Senator from Ohio that as to his statem ent 

of our policy of encouraging independence, I completely agree.

Senator Lausche. That is it.

Senator Morse. But there is a corollary. I am afraid, if there 

had not been this little colloquy, the record would not have been very 

clear on it, and tha t is as to whether or not we should follow the 

opposite course of discouraging independence on the part of these 

people, if we think they are not ready for independence. And their 

attitud e is: “Mr. Uncle Sam, it just does not happen to be any of 

your business.” And they are going to follow t hat course of action.

That is why, Governor, I thought it was so unfortunate tha t we 

found ourselves in the General Assembly with a vote of 89 to 0, with 

9 abstentions, one of which was the United States. We joined with 

eight colonial powers and refused to support the anticolonial resolution.

That was a dark day for the United States in the General Assembly.

When we got through with tha t vote, I want to say, as a delegate 

to the General Assembly, in my judgment, our influence at tha t point 

was nil.

N A T U R E O F U N IT E D STA T E S IN F L U E N C E

The Chairman. Any further questions?

Governor, I certainly have enjoyed your responses to these many 

and searching questions.

I think you have acquitted yourself very well. This last exchange 

has only brought to mind one thought I was curious about, if you 

wish to comment on it. You need not, if you do not care to.

Of course, we all agree with your state ment—I do, at least—about 

our prosperity, and I know we deplore the poverty, the extreme 

poverty, in much of the world. I think our aversion, of course, to 

human suffering and degradation is aroused by this extreme poverty.

This recalls to my mind a letter I had not thought of in a long time 

which—I don’t remember when it was, a year or two ago—John 

Steinbeck wrote to you, which is related to this question.
32 PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON

You had visited England, I believe, and had gone with him on a 

trip, visiting the site of, I think, King Arthur’s Court.

Recalling tha t letter, together with certain studies that I have seen, 

I think since then, on the effect of prosperity upon a society, it occurs 

to me tha t this question of how to maintain our strength and our determination to fight for our system of society, our sense of values, in 

the face of this great prosperity, is one of the greatest problems confronting the United States.

Do you recall that letter that Steinbeck wrote to you?

Mr. Stevenson. Yes, I do, sir.

The Chairman. It impressed me very deeply; tha t here we are, and 

we all admit this great prosperity, but is this, after all, necessarily a 

source of strength in the contest with these lean and hungry nations 

tha t are growing over the world?

Is not this something tha t we should examine very carefully, rather 

than to assume that this necessarily assures our triumph in the end?

Mr. Stevenson. I think our ideals are of much greater influence in 

these new nations than our economic well-being.

And here I sometimes wonder, Senator, why the United States, 

which has developed advertising perhaps more extensively than any 

other society, is always a t a disadvantage in furthering the public understanding of its ideals and aspirations, which are so meaningful to 

most of these emerging peoples that Senator Morse has been speaking 

about.

I think the most im portant export commodity we have is not wheat, 

is not even surplus agricultural commodities, but it is the ideals of 

freedom and independence, the ideals embodied in the Declaration of 

Independence, which have swept the world.

The Chairman. It has often occurred to me that our emphasis upon 

our greater material prosperity, rath er than being an asset in our 

dealings with many of these countries is a great handicap, because we 

have to, in a sense, live it down by our actions. To continue to talk 

about i t does not promote the cause which I think we all are interested 

in promoting.

Mr. Stevenson. Certainly we must temper our pride and power 

with humility.

The Chairman. The quality of the people and the quality of the 

action—we will say of the performance of society—in fields other than 

just the production of gadgets would be much more impressive than 

to continue to produce the gadgets.

That is what I thought was the import of th at letter, or exchange, 

I should say.

Mr. Stevenson. Tha t is quite right, Senator.

The Chairman. This merely brought tha t to mind. I thought it 

was an extremely impressive short epistle th at I read.

I yield to the Senator from Ohio.

Senator L ausche. I have spoken on this subject, and I have time 

and again said tha t our greatest strength, our economic riches, is our 

greatest weakness.

We are the champions, wre are at the top of the ladder, and when 

people are living in squalor and distress, you can understand tha t they 

look with envy upon us.

It is n ot peculiar, because within the Halls of the Congress I hear 

the same psychology advanced by my colleagues. “ He has too much; 

pull him down.”
PROPOSED NOMINATION OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON 33

And we aggravate the situation by our perfumed couches, and by 

our vessels of gold and silver out of which we drink, and the dancing 

we do and the coats we wear, and that is especially true of those who 

are representing us around the world. If we have a weakness, that 

is where it lies.

Mr. Stevenson. Wealth is a heavy burden, sir, I agree.

The Chairman. Governor, do you wish to add anything further?

I believe the questioning is completed.

Mr. Stevenson. I am extremely grateful to the members of the 

committee for their patience with me this morning and for the attentiveness and the very generous treatment tha t has been accorded 

me. I am grateful, indeed.

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Governor. We look 

forward to seeing you in the future?

A N N O U N C E M E N T OF N E X T CO M M IT TEE M E E T IN G

May I announce to the members of the committee tha t tomorrow 

morning at 10 o’clock we will meet here to hear the Honorable Chester 

Bowles.

The committee is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned to 

Thursday, Janu ary 19, 1961, at 10 a.m.)