I certainly agree with this, although it might be important to point out that in the charter, the United Nations members are already obligated to do this. Article 25 of the charter specifically says that members of the U.N. agree to accept and carry out decisions of the Security Council. The obligation to carry out Security Council decisions is in the background, then, of the United Nations procedures, but if it would be any easier to get a resolution through Congress without a clause committing us to support U.N. action it is, of course, quite possible that article 25 of the charter would cover the situation adequately. Senator MORSE. I think that deserves very careful consideration. If we find, as you say, we have a problem of getting that one vote over 50 percent, why, we had better consider it. On the other hand, whenever you start a litigious matter that involves arbitration and mediation, although the parties are bound to abide by the results, the arbitrator or mediator always at the beginning of the case gets them to commit themselves to that commitment. When you are one of the defendants, as we are, anonymously speaking in this case, it is a good thing to assure others that they are dealing with a country that will agree to abide by the jurisdiction. TIME SCHEDULE FOR U.S. WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS On the other point that you made, I only make this comment and then I will subside. If we should get to the point, speaking hypothetically, where a breakdown occurs in regard to a multilateral intervention to enforce the peace in Southeast Asia, my position always has been that once you reach that crossroads, the United States cannot justify continuing making war in Southeast Asia, but ought to announce a time schedule step by step, dropping back to lines of defense that we can hold to protect the men we have over there, give the countries in Asia a time schedule, a number of months, 3 or 6, to work out their own problems among themselves, following which we will withdraw. It is only at that point that I would favor a withdrawal when there has been due notice, and give them time to prepare themselves in order to avoid the difficulties that would result from a precipitous withdrawal on our part. It is not understood by many in this country. But if you cannot get other nations to participate in trying to prevent the spread of this war into a greater threat to the peace, if you give them an opporunity to do that, which this particular procedure we are holding hearings on seeks to give them, then I think the United States owes it to its own history and to mankind to announce that after a certain period of time we will withdraw our forces and we will leave an Asian war to Asians to handle, as we should have done in the first place. Thank you very, very much, indeed. Mr. ATWATER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator MORSE. Our next witness will be Dr. Quincy Wright, professor of international law, University of Virginia. Dr. Wright, please come forward and take the witness chair. I am going to ask Dr. Wright to close his ears for a moment while I address myself to a delegation of students that I see in the room, as well as others. PRAISE FOR DR. QUINCY WRIGHT I am always pleased when students attend our hearings because educational processes go on, may I say, in the Congress as well as in the classroom. To these students, I want to say that you have stepped into an opportunity this afternoon to hear, in my judgment, one of the greatest teachers in our country, and one of the keenest scholars of American academic life. I shall not read all of Professor Wright's qualifying credentials. I shall put them in the record, and make comments about a few of them. I told him this morning when I welcomed him that he should not be blamed for any viewpoint that I hold that is a mistaken one, for any viewpoint that I have fought for in connection with my work on the Foreign Relations Committee that is sound, he deserves no small credit for. Although I never sat at his feet in the classroom, I have sat at his feet as I have studied his writings and followed his brilliant career in international law for many years. I cannot begin to tell you students how pleased I am to sit with you as a student this afternoon and listen to Dr. Quincy Wright. I should mention his teaching at Harvard and Minnesota and Chicago, and New Delhi, India, and now he is professor of international law at the University of Virginia. You students need to do a great deal of reading of his writings. If I were back teaching, his writings in the field of international law would be on the compulsory reading list, such as the "Enforcement of International Law Through Municipal Law in the United States"; "Control of American Foreign Relations"; "Mandates Under the League of Nations"; "The Causes of War and the Conditions of Peace"; "Legal Problems in the Far Eastern Conflict"; "A Study of War"; "Problem of Stability and Progress in International Relations"; "The Study of International Relations"; "Contemporary International Law, a Balance Sheet": "International Law and the United Nations"; "The Strengthening of International Law"; "The Role of International Law in the Elimination of War"; a few among his many scholarly writings in this whole field of international law and foreign relations. (The biographic sketch of Dr. Quincy Wright follows:) BIOGRAPHIC SKETCH OF DR. QUINCY WRIGHT, OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. Born: December 28, 1890, Medford, Massachusetts Educated: Lombard College, A.B., 1912, Lombard College, LL.D., 1913, University of Illinois, Ph.D., 1915. Experience: 1915-16-Research Fellow, University of Pennsylvania 1916-19 Assistant Professor, Institute International Law, Harvard 1919-21-Assistant Professor Political Science, Harvard 1921-22-Associate Professor Political Science, Harvard 1922-23-Professor, University of Minnesota 1923-31-Professor Political Science, University of Chicago 1931-56-Professor International Law 1956-57-Visiting Research Scholar Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 1957-58-62-Visiting Professor International Law, Indian School of International Studies, New Delhi 1962-1963-International Relations, Columbia University 1958-1961-Professor, International Law, University of Virginia CONFERENCES ATTENDED AND OTHER ACTIVITIES Member Board of Editors, American Journal International Law, Member, American Political Science Association, Member, American Philosophy Society, Member, American Society of International Law, Member, American Institute Pacific Relations, Member, Commission to Study the Organization of Peace. PUBLICATIONS Enforcement of International Law Through Municipal Law in United States, 1916 Control of American Foreign Relations, 1922 Mandates Under the League of Nations, 1930 The Causes of War and the Conditions of Peace, 1935 Legal Problems in the Far Eastern Conflict, 1941 A Study of War, 1942 Problem of Stability and Progress in International Relations, 1954 Contemporary International Law, a Balance Sheet, 1955 The Strengthening of International Law, 1959 The Role of International Law in the Elimination of War, 1961 Senator MORSE. Dr. Wright, we are honored to have you and we await the contribution that I know you will make to this historic hearing. For you students, as I think you come to study the United Nations, are going to find even before you get through college that this hearing will be worthy of your careful analysis because every witness to date has contributed testimony which I think could be bound. I am not sure but what, when we get through with these hearings, we will not have a group of scholarly statements that I think should be published as a Senate document and be made available to the libraries of the country. That is the way I feel about the hearings, and the way I feel about our present witness. You take over, Doctor, and we will sit in your seminar. STATEMENT OF QUINCY WRIGHT, PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO AND THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you very much, Senator Morse. I am glad to talk about this subject to which I have given a good deal of attention. You have probably seen an article I wrote about the legal aspects of the Vietnam situation in the American Journal of International Law. Senator MORSE. I quoted from it in two speeches. MORSE RESOLUTION FAVORED Mr. WRIGHT. I am strongly for your resolution. I have not been able to study the Mansfield resolution, but I noticed in the paper yesterday that it seems to be considerably weaker than your resolution, and I am in favor of a strong resolution on this subject. I favor your resolution because I think it is in the interests of the United States to have the Vietnam situation examined in the United Nations. I think it is really an obligation of the United States to take a positive initiative. I also think that it is in the interest of the United Nations to have a full discussion of the situation, and it is also an obligation of the United Nations to have such a discussion. Finally, I think United Nations discussion and recommendation is in the interests of mankind or the world as a whole. IN INTEREST OF UNITED STATES TO STRENGTHEN UNITED NATIONS Now, the United States has a national interest in this subject because it is in our interest to strengthen the United Nations. That is the first point I would make. President Eisenhower, President Truman, and President Kennedy all said that the United Nations was the major instrument for the maintenance of peace in the world. I think they were right, and they went on to say it was, therefore, in the interests of the United States to strengthen the United Nations. If important questions that obviously are within the scope of the United Nations are not discussed there the United Nations is bound to be weakened. It is in our interest to maintain the prestige of the United Nations. IN INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES TO END VIETNAM WAR It is also in our interest to make every effort to end the war in Vietnam with as much saving of face as we can get. The prospects of negotiation seem to me pretty dim as long as it is on a bilateral basis. The United States offers the possibility of bringing about a conference or multilateral negotiation that would end the war. So for those two reasons the United States has a strong national interest in the purpose of this resolution. OBLIGATION TO USE THE UNITED NATIONS I also think it has an obligation. We should not overlook the fact that the first obligation undertaken in the United Nations Charter is to settle international disputes by peaceful means. That is a primary obligation. While the United States has sought to place the matter on the agenda of the United Nations since January 1966, there has been no great pressure to do so. The Senate, by this resolution, may bring strong pressure on the Administration to carry out the obligation which we have undertaken to settle disputes peacefully. PRESTIGE OF U.N. AT STAKE Now, these interests and obligations of the United States are closely related to the interests and obligations of the United Nations. The United Nations has an interest in discussing this because, as I said before, the United Nations loses in prestige by bypassing important questions which might be resolved by United Nations discussion. There are, I am aware, people who say it is injurious to the prestige of the United Nations if a matter is brought before it, but it does not succeed in bringing about a settlement. I hope that the United Nations will bring about a settlement, but I think it is more injurious to the prestige of the United Nations if it bypasses matters which are clearly within its competence. I believe the Secretary General has indicated that it is unlikely that the United Nations can act effectively in the Vietnam situation and the matter should be left to quiet diplomacy. Well, I do not agree with him. Quiet diplomacy seems to have failed and it may be possible for the United Nations to deal effectively with the situation. In any case I do not think that it ought to be bypassed. I should emphasize that the United Nations is under an obligation to take measures. Article 39 of the charter provides that "the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken." There is a positive obligation. Other articles say it is a "primary responsibility" of the Security Council "To maintain international peace and security." I do not think that the United Nations can properly, within the terms of its charter, escape the obligation to do what it can in this situation. REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 51 OF CHARTER I should also refer to article 51 of the charter by which the United States has sought to justify its action in Vietnam on ground that it is engaged in "collective self-defense against armed attack." I will have something to say about that argument, which I know Senator Morse is interested in. But even if we are in Vietnam on that basis, I should like to call attention to the fact that this same article says that if an armed attack occurs against member of the United Nations, and self-defense is undertaken, it can only be continued "until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter." Even if the State Department's theory is entirely correct, that we are in there for the defense of South Vietnam, still the United Nations is under a responsibility, under the charter, to take such measures as it can to restore international peace and security. The United Nations has, therefore, in my judgment, an obligation to do something and, as a member, an important member, of the United Nations, the United States should leave no stone unturned to see that the United Nations undertakes this responsibility. POSITION OF THE SOVIET UNION There has been a good deal of discussion on what the United Nations could do. It is said the Soviet Union will not allow a debate. I think we should consider the position of the Soviet Union. It is certainly important that the United States and the Soviet Union should act together if there is to be effective action in the United Nations. |