thing to have a statement of this nature in the record to indicate the President's desire to find a way to the negotiating table, and his deep, intense, and personal interest in the use of the United Nations in that respect.

Senator Hickenlooper?

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HAS THE U.N. LIVED UP TO HOPES AND ASPIRATIONS?

Mr. Cohen, I know you have had a vital interest in the United Nations ever since you took part in the formation of the charter. Has the United Nations lived up to the hopes and aspirations you had at the time the charter was adopted?

Mr. COHEN. In some ways, yes, in other ways, no. Probably as U Thant pointed out and as Chairman Mansfield quoted him, it is not so much the United Nations, but the members of the United Nations that have failed to meet their responsibilities. The United Nations is not an autonomous organization or autonomous organization or a self-operating mechanism.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. The United Nations is an organization that is made up of the component parts of its members, is it not? Mr. COHEN. That is right.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. And the fundamental purpose of the United Nations is to prevent aggression and contribute to the maintenance of peace in the world. Do you agree with that?

Mr. COHEN. Yes, assuredly.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Has it succeeded in that basic objective? Mr. COHEN. It has not succeeded. It has made a contribution to our struggle for peace.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Do you have any reason to think that its past experience would indicate that it could be more successful in the future than it has been in the past?

Mr. COHEN. I think particularly with a concerted effort on the part of the great powers it could become very much more effective.

I think we went through the period where the great powers gave more effort to waging the cold war in the United Nations than they gave to developing procedures for peaceful settlement in the United Nations.

UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTION TO THE UNITED NATIONS

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Has there been any member nation of the United Nations that has done more to support the United Nations by money and submission of problems to it than has the United States during the history of the U.N.?

Mr. COHEN. I do not believe there are any. I think probably some nations I have not got the figures before me-like Canada, in light of their resources, probably have made a comparable contribution. Senator HICKENLOOPER. I understand your statement this morning to be an indictment of the United States as a pariah in the United Nations organization.

Mr. COHEN. Not at all, not at all. At first we led in giving strength and support to the United Nations. Gradually as other countries became less sensitive of their responsibilities to the United Nations

and as working at times through the United Nations became more difficult for us, we have not been doing as much as we might. But I am far from indicting. I think we have a very good record. Of course we always expect more from those who do well than we do from those that do less well.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. I see. In other words, is it the "turn the other cheek" philosophy to some extent?

Mr. COHEN. Well, you may call it "turn the other cheek," philosophy if you like, Senator. I think it has a good deal of realistic value in the world we live in today. I think sometimes we think military power may achieve more than it can achieve. I am far from urging that we go unarmed in an armed world, but I would not underrate the power of reason and good conduct even in the world today.

SHOULD THE UNITED STATES DISARM IN VIETNAM?

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Are you not advocating that we disarm ourselves in effect in South Vietnam by stopping all military activity there without any concessions or agreements on the part of the

Senator HICKENLOOPER. May I finish my question, please?
Mr. COHEN. I beg your pardon, sir.

Senator HICKENLOOPER (continuing). Without an agreement on the part of the enemy to come to the conference table, without any indication on the part of North Vietnam that they will even talk about this, if we do those things? Are you not suggesting that we disarm ourselves?

Mr. COHEN. Not at all. We are better armed if we are protecting areas that we clearly control than when we engage in aggressive search-and-destroy operations. We have not bound ourselves to continue in a defensive position if our overture for a cease-fire is not observed by the other side.

If they come and fire at us, it is they who have broken the peace, but we have not disarmed ourselves in any way.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. But what do we do if they do attack us, as they have in the past when we have on several occasions stopped the bombing?

Mr. COHEN. Obviously we have to defend ourselves if they do not observe the proffered truce. Then you reach the question whether we are not better able to defend ourselves by holding the positions we have or whether we gain anything by search-and-destroy operations and by bombing that seems to harden the enemy's resistance to the making of peace rather than breaking down that resistance.

OVERTURES MADE BY THE UNITED STATES

Senator HICKENLOOPER. I think you probably are aware, are you not, of the score or more overtures, officially and otherwise, which we have made through intermediary countries to North Vietnam to stop this military operation, to come to a conference table to discuss, as the President has often said, without condition, the situation there. We have received absolutely no indication of any willingness on the part of the North Vietnamese to talk. In fact, we have received nega

tive replies; that is, they make statements that the conversations will not take place. They will make no agreement whatsoever. We must just disarm ourselves and get out and leave apparently South Vietnam to their tender mercies.

Mr. COHEN. Well, there are a good deal of dialectical questions involved on both sides. Apparently it is a position-I am not trying to defend it—of North Vietnam that we have broken some unwritten rules of limited warfare when we carry the war to the north. From their point of view

Senator HICKENLOOPER. What do they do when they carry the war to the south?

Mr. COHEN. They say we carry the war to the south. They say under the Geneva treaties we had no right to increase the forces in the south. I am only trying to explain it. I do not think it helps to get into an argument by trying to make me defend their position. I am only trying to explain it.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. I do not want to force you into any position. I could not do that if I wanted to. You are not a man who will be forced into a position very easily that does not suit you. I understand that.

But you are attempting, as I read your statement to force the United States into an untenable position here, and that is the thing that I question. Maybe I am wrong about my interpretation of your whole statement.

Mr. COHEN. I do not believe that I am pushing the United States into an untenable position. I am raising the question whether escalating the war, as far as we have escalated it, has not produced, from our own point of view, negative results, and that deescalation, even if it does not bring about an immediate end to the war, would cause less loss of lives and treasure on our side and increase the possibilities of achieving an honorable peace.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Is my memory correct that the President has repeatedly stated publicly in speeches, the Secretary of State has stated publicly in speeches, that we are willing to go to the conference table I think the words are "tomorrow or next week" without conditions, to talk about this only upon the condition that the north stop their activities in the south, and we will stop our bombing in the north. But we get no reply from North Vietnam.

Mr. COHEN. Well, again it is a question of viewing it from North Vietnam's point of view, from however wrong you may think they are. They say, "We are asked to stop our activities in the south in order that you should stop your activities in the north. You are not stopping your activities in the south. There is a war in the south, you are extending it into the north." In the North Vietnamese view this is wholly unwarranted. They say they are not extending the war into the U.S. territory.

RESOLUTION BEFORE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL

Senator HICKENLOOPER. With regard to these resolutions, it is a fact, is it not, that the question of the Vietnam situation at our request has been inscribed on the agenda of the Security Council? Mr. COHEN. That is true.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. That was inscribed last year, was it not? Mr. COHEN. That is true.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Is it ready to be taken up?

Mr. COHEN. I do not know, but as I gather, the best information one can obtain is that the members of the Security Council feel that they have little or no chance of getting Hanoi to come to the conference table on their request unless we first stop the bombing of the north. There has been considerable expression of opinion, not merely by the East, but by some our own friends expressing the hope that we would stop the bombing and then one infers, without having any definite promise, that then the United Nations may act.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. On that theory, they want promises out of us which completely bind us. But it would seem they are not willing to give any promises themselves in order to bring this matter to an issue.

Mr. COHEN. Well, when you say "they," do you refer to members of the Security Council or North Vietnam?

Senator HICKENLOOPER. I am not talking about North Vietnam. Mr. COHEN. From the point of view of North Vietnam, our extending the war in the south by bombing in the north is not part of their conception of fairplay. We say they have no right in the south, and they say we have no right in the south, but they apparently concede that there is a war in the south which they will accept as something that requires negotiation. They say they are merely helping the Vietcong, as we are helping the Saigon Government. But that is their point of view. I am only trying to indicate the obstacles that stand in the way of United Nations action because people ask, "Why does the U.N. not act?" You may not agree that these obstacles should stand in the way. But I have tried to explain the difficulties in order that you understand them. There is a difference of opinion, among military people as to the value of deescalation as against the value of escalation. I quoted some respectable military authority who have themselves suggested deescalation along the lines I proposed, as being helpful, in their view, in our own national interest even though our efforts toward peaceful settlement are not within a reasonable time successful, they believe that we are better off taking a defensive position than continuing to search and destroy in the south and escalate in the north.

You may have heard over "Meet the Press" last Sunday-Prime Minister Lee, of Singapore, say the thing that concerned him most was whether we were exerting sufficient caution in the north because there was a point where there would be increased participation by China and Russia.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Yes, I had the privilege of hearing Prime Minister Lee at length on two different occasions while he was here. I am very thoroughly schooled in his attitude, and I do not say that critically one way or the other, but I did hear his views expressed.

DISAGREEMENT WITH WITNESS' PHILOSOPHY

Well, Mr. Cohen, I will have to say that I am in substantial disagreement with the philosophy in your statement. I feel that it is a document of surrender. I do not mean to say that you intend that we surrender, but I feel that that is bound to be the net effect. If what you advocate in this paper were adopted as a policy of the United

85-837-67-2

States, I would fear for the future influence and success of the United States in most of the world for some generations to come. I think it would be abject and complete surrender, and utter defeat for America and the principles of self-determination and freedom which we are advocating for the people of South Vietnam.

Mr. COHEN. Those are not the consequences that I would foresee or the consequences that many eminent military authorities would foresee. You have to consider that if one says there is to be no peace of accommodation but a peace of surrender, the termination of this war may be very distant and the limitations that we now operate under may be disregarded by others coming in.

I am very much disturbed myself-we talk about the risks of others coming in-that we may be facing a situation of what one might call creeping intervention on the part of Russia and the Chinese. They are already giving more sophisticated weapons, which means they will have advisers there. That brings now more devastation, more loss of property, and more loss of lives on both sides. We failed to realize in 1962 how far we were committing ourselves to active military participation when we sent advisers to help direct the fighting in the battlefields. Now the participation of Russia and China is coming very near that. I do not think they want to go further, nor do we. But unless something is done to stop the drift, we may say, Senator, we have not surrendered but we may not save ourselves from a fate worse than retreat.

AN ACCOMMODATION ON BOTH SIDES

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Just one more observation. The accommodation which you seem to be asking is an accommodation on our side, that we make all the accommodation. Others have suggested that there be a mutual accommodation on the part of North Vietnam. We have stated repeatedly that we are willing to give an equal accommodation, and that we will stop the bombing. We will stop the hostilities if they do, and agree to come and talk without preconditions.

Mr. COHEN. Accommodation means accommodation, not surrender. I scarcely thought it necessary to elaborate that I think the real problem is dealing with the situation in the south. The Saigon government that we support is not controlling, even with all our aid and participation, large sections of the country, and the longer the war goes on, the more doubtful it is what the people of South Vietnam want except they want to be free of all of us. But they are as helpless as we are in knowing how to stop the war. That was one reason why I have suggested with U.N. aid, if available, and without it if need be, that we give more attention to the development of peace among the people of South Vietnam. I fear while we are fighting the war against the Vietcong we naturally consider those who want to try to make peace with the Vietcong as fellow travelers or as subversives.

Consequently we, with the best of intentions, have thrown our weight in favor of the military and those who have a vested interest in continuing the war, and, therefore, the longer the war goes on the harder it becomes to bring these poor people in South Vietnam together. But to bring them together is not, in my view, to surrender to accomplish our purpose of bringing peace, well-being, and freedom to the people of South Vietnam.