this case, an end to fighting has been bought at a heavy price, and the final result is still obscure.

One result, however, has been the driving home to the nations interested in Southeast Asia of the importance of a collective organization for defense against further aggression. At Manila this month eight nations met and negotiated and signed a treaty calling for collective defense against aggression.1

The Manila Pact 2 constitutes significant action taken under the charter of the United Nations, which recognizes the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense. Those who cry out when others exercise their inherent right of self-defense only expose their own aggressive purposes.

3

The Manila Conference did much more than extend the area of collective security. It adopted the Pacific Charter. Thereby, the eight nations-Asian and non-Asian-which met at Manila proclaimed in ringing terms the principles of self-determination, selfgovernment, and independence. This charter, and the spirit of fellowship which gave it birth, should serve once and for all to end the myth that there is inherent incompatibility between East and West. The peoples of Asia who are already free, or who seek freedom, need not remain weak, divided, and unsupported in the face of the new imperialism which has already reduced to colonial servitude 800,000,000 people, of what were once 15 truly independent nations.

The past year has been marked by intensive efforts in the field of atomic energy. The United States has sought to share its commanding position in this field in ways that would permit many to join in a great new adventure in human welfare. We hoped to turn atomic energy from being an instrument of death into a source of the enrichment of life.

I vividly recall December 8, 1953, when we here heard President Eisenhower propose that the nations possessing atomic material would cooperate under the auspices of the United Nations to create a world atomic bank into which they would each contribute fissionable material which would then be used for the purpose of productivity rather than destruction. I shared the drama of that moment and sensed the universal applause which then greeted that proposal-applause which echoed around the world.

4

Because it seems that oftentimes negotiations publicly conducted with the Soviet Union tend to become propaganda contests, President Eisenhower proposed that these new negotiations should be privately conducted. The United States, after consultation with others, then submitted a concrete, detailed proposal to carry out President Eisenhower's great conception. I myself met several times with the Soviet Foreign Minister at Berlin and at Geneva to discuss this matter. We are quite willing that all documents exchanged between the United

1 For documents relating to the Manila Conference, see infra, pp. 912-945.

2 See Treaty and Protocol of Sept. 8, 1954; infra, pp. 912-916.

3 Infra, pp. 916–917.

4 Infra, pp. 2798-2805.

5 Infra, pp. 2805-2808.

States and the Soviet Union during these negotiations be published.1 We hoped and believed that, if the Soviet Union would join with the United States, the United Kingdom, and other nations possessing fissionable material and atomic know-how, this act of cooperation might set a pattern which would extend itself elsewhere. The plan we submitted could not have hurt anyone. It was motivated by the hope of lifting the darkest cloud that hangs over mankind. Its initial dimensions were not sufficient to impair the military capability of the Soviet Union, and there was no apparent reason for its rejection. Above all, it was a practicable, easily workable plan, not dependent on elaborate surveillance.

Nevertheless, the proposal was, in effect, rejected by the Soviet Union last April. Its rejection was not because of any alleged defects in the plan itself. Any such would certainly have been negotiable. The Soviet position was, in effect, to say we will not cooperate to develop peacetime uses of atomic energy unless it is first of all agreed to renounce all those uses of atomic energy which provide the free nations with their strongest defense against aggression.

To date, the Soviet Government has shown no willingness to participate in the implementation of President Eisenhower's plan except on this completely unacceptable condition. Yesterday, when it was known that I would speak on this topic today, the Soviet Union broke a 5 months' silence by delivering a note in Moscow affirming its readiness to talk further. But the note still gave no indication that the Soviet Union had receded from its negative position.

The United States remains ready to negotiate with the Soviet Union. But we shall no longer suspend our efforts to establish an international atomic agency.

The United States is determined that President Eisenhower's proposal shall not languish until it dies. It will be nurtured and developed. We shall press on in close partnership with those nations which, inspired by the ideals of the United Nations Charter, can make this great new force a tool of the humanitarian and of the statesman, and not merely a fearsome addition to the arsenal of war. The United States is proposing an agenda item which will enable us to report on our efforts to explore and develop the vast possibilities for the peaceful uses of atomic energy. These efforts have been and will be directed primarily toward the following ends:

4

(1) The creation of an international agency, whose initial membership will include nations from all regions of the world. It is hoped that such an agency will start its work as early as next year.

(2) The calling of an international scientific conference to consider this whole vast subject, to meet in the spring of 1955, under the auspices of the United Nations.

(3) The opening early next year, in the United States, of a reactor

These exchanges were subsequently published in the Department of State

Bulletin, Oct. 4, 1954, pp. 478-489.

2 See the Soviet aide-mémoire of Apr. 27, 1954; ibid., pp. 482-484.

Ibid., pp. 486-489.

Ibid., p. 474.

training school where students from abroad may learn the working principles of atomic energy with specific regard to its peacetime uses.

(4) The invitation to a substantial number of medical and surgical experts from abroad to participate in the work of our cancer hospitals in which atomic energy techniques are among the most hopeful approaches to controlling this menace to mankind.

I would like to make perfectly clear that our planning excludes no nation from participation in this great venture. As our proposals take shape, all nations interested in participating, and willing to take on the responsibilities of membership, will be welcome to join with us in the planning and execution of this program.

Even though much is denied us by Soviet negation, nevertheless much remains that can be done. There is denied the immense relaxation of tension which might have occurred had the Soviet Union been willing to begin to cooperate with other nations in relation to what offers so much to fear and so much to hope. Nevertheless, there is much to be accomplished in the way of economic and humanitarian gains. There is no miracle to be wrought overnight. But a program can be made and vitalized to assure that atomic energy can bring to millions a better way of life. To achieve that result is our firm resolve. Closely allied to this question of peaceful uses of atomic energy is the whole vast and complex question of disarmament. At this Assembly last year, the United States affirmed its ardent desire to reduce the burden of armament. I stated here that the United States would vigorously carry forward the technical studies on armament control and limitation which are vital to any solution of this problem.1

Last spring the United States participated in discussions in London with the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, and Canada on a subcommittee of our Disarmament Commission to see whether a fresh approach to the problem could achieve a solution acceptable to the Soviet Union as well as to the free world. The record of these meetings has now been made public.2

It shows that the representatives of Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States tried with patience and ingenuity to explore all avenues of agreement with the Soviet Union which would be consistent with the security of all nations. Once more we made clear, as we have again and again in the past, that we seek to eliminate the use of atomic energy for any purposes but those of peace. These efforts were met by a flat refusal by the Soviet Union even to discuss our proposals on their merits. The crux of the Soviet position was that, before it will engage in real negotiations on disarmament, it insists upon a paper ban by the major powers of the use of nuclear weapons. The great shield, the supreme deterrent, must first be abandoned, leaving the free nations exposed to the Communists' unrivaled manpower. Once that inequality has been assured, then perhaps the Soviet Union will negotiate further from its

1 See Secretary of State Dulles' address of Sept. 17, 1953; infra, pp. 350–359. 2 See Department of State Bulletin, Aug. 2, 1954, pp. 171-183.

position of assured supremacy. Such procedure would not increase the security of any free nation.

Reluctantly we must conclude that the Soviet Union has at present no serious desire to negotiate on the disarmament problem. But we shall continue to hope, and to seek, that the Soviet Union may ultimately come to cooperate on a program which could end the wasteful diversion of vast economic wealth and bring it into the constructive service of mankind.

No doubt you will have observed that many of the efforts for peace to which I have referred were conducted outside of the United Nations itself. It should not, however, be forgotten that the organs of the United Nations are themselves steadily carrying forward activities which contribute substantially, even though not spectacularly, to the political, economic, and social conditions which are the foundation for peace. The United States wishes to pay a high tribute to those who perform these indispensable tasks.

If many major political developments have occurred outside the immediate framework of the United Nations, that is due to two causes one good, one bad:

The charter of the United Nations itself provides that the parties. to any dispute which would endanger international peace and security should first of all seek a solution by negotiation, resort to regional agencies, or other peaceful means of their own choice. Only when these methods fail should there be resort to the Security Council. In other words, the Security Council of the United Nations was never intended to be a court of first instance, but only a court of last resort. In this sense, the unprecedented peace efforts of the past year fall within the pattern which our charter itself prescribes.

A second cause exists, and it is disturbing. It is the fact that the membership of the United Nations falls far short of representing the totality of those nations which are peace-loving, which are able and willing to carry out the obligations of the charter, and which are indispensable parties to many critical international problems. Fourteen nations are now debarred from membership only through the use-in reality the abuse of the so-called veto power. None of these is in the category of Communist China, which has been found by the United Nations to be guilty of aggression.3 All 14 are fully qualified for membership. Unless ways can be found to bring peace-loving, law-abiding nations into this organization, then inevitably the power and influence of this organization will progressively decline.

We are approaching the tenth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. All of the member governments and their peoples may properly be thankful for the great accomplishments of the United Nations and for its unique service as a forum for international discussion. However, this coming anniversary must be made more than a date for self-congratulations. It is the time to take account of

1 For the text of the U.N. Charter, see infra, pp. 134-161. Austria, Cambodia, Ceylon, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Republic

of Korea, Laos, Libya, Nepal, Portugal, and Viet-Nam.

3

By General Assembly Res. 498 (V), adopted Feb. 1, 1951; infra, pp. 2608-2609.

weaknesses of our organization and of ways in which it can be made to function better as a guarantor of peace and justice and as a center for harmonizing the actions of nations. That, indeed, was the idea of the founders, who planned for a charter review conference to be called at the next annual session of our Assembly.

The search for peace has had its high hopes and its deep frustrations. But after the frustration, there is always renewed hope. On behalf of the United States I would say in my closing words that we believe that international peace is an attainable goal. That is the premise that underlies all our planning. We propose never to desist, never to admit discouragement, but confidently and steadily so to act that peace becomes for us a sustaining principle of action. In that, we know that we shall not be alone. That is not merely because we have treaties of alliance and bonds of expediency. It is because the spirit of peace is a magnet that draws together many men and many nations and makes of them a fellowship of loyal partners for peace.

22. THE STATE OF THE UNION: Message by the President to the Congress, January 6, 1955 (Excerpts)1

In the past year, there has been progress justifying hope for the ultimate rule of freedom and justice in the world. Free nations are collectively stronger than at any time in recent years.

3

Just as nations of this hemisphere, in the historic Caracas 2 and Rio Conferences, have closed ranks against imperialistic communism and strengthened their economic ties, so free nations elsewhere have forged new bonds of unity.

5

6

Recent agreements between Turkey and Pakistan have laid a foundation for increased strength in the Middle East. With our understanding support, Egypt and Britain, Yugoslavia and Italy, Britain and Iran have resolved dangerous differences. The security of the Mediterranean has been enhanced by an alliance among Greece, Turkey, and Yugoslavia.8 Agreements in Western Europe have paved the way for unity to replace past divisions which have undermined Europe's economic and military vitality. The defense of the West appears likely at last to include a free, democratic Germany, participating as an equal in the councils of NATO.10

10

1 H. Doc. No. 1, 84th Cong., 1st sess.; Department of State Bulletin, Jan. 17, 1955, pp. 79-83.

2 See infra, pp. 1299-1302, 1333-1336.

3 See infra, pp. 1337-1340.

Infra, pp. 1253-1256.

5 See infra, pp. 2223-2226 and 2304.

See infra, pp. 423-425.

7 See infra, pp. 2261-2275.

8 Infra, pp. 1235–1239.

Infra, pp. 972-989.

10 See infra, pp. 1474-1496 and 1637-1639.