Secretary DULLES. I would say, Senator, that we have plenty of power in the world. The question is whether you try to use this power in a coercive and threatening way or not, which raises some serious questions. I believe that as the world is today, and given the relationships which we for our own sake need to establish with other countries, that it is not a good idea for us to go around just brandishing our power and saying, "If you do not do what we want in this respect, we are going to put you out of business." Now I know what the answer to that will be. They will say, "Well, all right, we will tie up with the other fellow." Senator LONG. Perhaps so, but, of course, there are many facets to the question. The point I have in mind is the question of how far you go. Secretary DULLES. Yes. Senator LONG. I recall a situation where, on some votes, even Mr. Syngman Rhee's South Korean government voted against us. Chiang Kai-shek's government voted against us on vital things. It seems to to me it was as much to their advantage to vote with us as against us. I just wonder whether it is all to our advantage to put ourselves into a position where people who depend upon us for their defense can with impunity disregard our wishes in matters relating to our mutual security. They can continue to get everything they want from us but they do not have to cooperate or help support our position. Secretary DULLES. Those situations are distressing, but I believe, Senator, that we are better off to have association and free nations who feel that they cooperate or not according as they see it to their interests rather than try to develop satellites that we crack the whip over. Now you may get some immediate advantages through cracking the whip but in the long run I think you accumulate more disadvantages and I just do not think that is the American way of doing it. Senator LONG. You may describe it as cracking the whip. Mr. Secretary, but I have oftentimes seen the indications that the Golden Rule does not work as well as some of us would like to have it work. Now and then some people tend to advocate a different rule, "Do unto others as they do unto you." When other nations discriminate against us and treat us unfairly, it does seem to me that it might be to our advantage to have the authority, even if we never used it, to act in a similar fashion with regard to them. I think sometimes they might treat us with greater consideration if we had that particular power. Secretary DULLES. I think we are not lacking in power. It is not our policy to use our power in those ways except in extreme cases. Senator LONG. I just question the advisability of passing a law so that you cannot use the power even if you think you should. You would not only not have the power but the other fellow would know that you did not have it. That is the question that occurs to me. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Malone. Senator MALONE. Mr. Secretary, this act has been extended 10 times, I think you testified. Would you mind including in the record at this point the dates and the length of the extensions, that is, the length of time for which it was first passed as an emergency and then the dates of its extension together with the time of the extension. Secretary DULLES. Can I supply that, Senator? I do not have it actually in my hand. Senator MALONE. Yes, I understand. (The information referred to follows:) TRADE AGREEMENTS ACT, ENACTMENT AND EXTENSIONS 1. The original act authorized the President to enter into foreign trade agreements for a period of 3 years from June 12, 1934, the date of enactment of the act (48 Stat. 943). 2. The President's authority to enter into foreign trade agreements was extended by Public Resolution No. 10, 75th Congressional, for 3 years from June 12, 1937 (50 Stat. 24). 3. The President's authority to enter into foreign trade agreements was extended by Public Resolution No. 61, 76th Congress, for 3 years from June 12, 1940 (54 Stat. 107). 4. The President's authority to enter into foreign trade agreements was extended by Public Law 66, 78th Congress, for 2 years from June 12, 1943 (57 Stat. 125). 5. The President's authority to enter into foreign trade agreements was extended by Public Law 130, 79th Congress, for 3 years from June 12, 1945 (59 Stat. 410). 6. The President's authority to enter into foreign trade agreements was extended by Public Law 792, 80th Congress, from June 12, 1948, until the close of June 30, 1949 (62 Stat. 1053). 7. The President's authority to enter into foreign trade agreements was extended by Public Law 307, 81st Congress, (which repealed Public Law 792, 80th Cong.) for 3 years from June 12, 1948 (63 Stat. 697). 8. The President's authority to enter into foreign trade agreements was extended by Public Law 50, 82d Congress, for 2 years from June 12, 1951 (65 Stat. 72). 9. The President's authority to enter into foreign trade agreements was extended by Public Law 215, 83d Congress. for 1 year from June 12, 1953 (67 Stat. 472). 10. The President's authority to enter into foreign trade agreements was extended by Public Law 464, 83d Congress, for 1 year from June 12, 1954 (68 Stat. 360). 11. The President's authority to enter into foreign trade agreements was extended by Public Law 86, 84th Congress, (69 Stat. 162) until the close of June 30, 1958. Senator MALONE. Such extensions have, however, been from 1 to 3 years, have they not? Secretary DULLES. Yes, sir. Senator MALONE. One year, I think, on three occasions. Secretary DULLES. I think so. Senator MALONE. Never more than three, and always an emergency. Secretary DULLES. Yes, sir. Senator MALONE. You have asked for 5 years? Secretary DULLES. Yes, sir. Senator MALONE. And a 25 percent further reduction in duties or tariffs. Secretary DULLES. Yes. Senator MALONE. And you do believe, I think from your testimony, that this act should be permanent? Secretary DULLES. I believe that the concept that underlies the act is good as far as we can see. Now you can imagine a change of world conditions where it would not be valid anymore. I would hesi tate to say that any particular thing is good for eternity because we are in a world of change. But I do believe that given the world as it is today, that this is a sound principle on which to operate. Senate MALONE. And should be permanent under the conditions as you understand them to be. Secretary DULLES. So long as the conditions are permanent, yes. Senator MALONE. I will have to locate the quotation. Senator MALONE. But I am sure you gave that impression. Secretary DULLES. I think I said that so long as the peril existsSenator MALONE. You may be correct-You have said so long as the emergency exists and the emergency seems to be permanent. It has lasted 24 years and shows no sign of being allowed to abate. Secretary DULLES. All right. Senator MALONE. It seems to have been assumed that the emergency is permanent. Secretary DULLES. Thank you. Senator MALONE. Does this bill, H. R. 12591, in any way approve the organization that has been referred to as GATT, the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade? Secretary DULLES. No, sir. I think there is an express disclaimer of that. Senator MALONE. The act has been before this committee several times and the Congress always included the disclaimer, so you have included it yourself this time, have you? Secretary DULLES. The House put it in. You did not include it? Senator MALONE. Were you Secretary of State when the International Trade Organization came before the Congress, or Assistant Secretary of State? Secretary DULLES. I have never been Assistant Secretary of State. Senator MALONE. What did they call you when you worked for Acheson? Secretary DULLES. I worked as a consultant on the Japanese Treaty, if that is what you refer to. Senator MALONE. And the Japanese Treaty is the extent to which you were ever consulted by him. Secretary DULLES. Yes. Senator MALONE. You wrote the Japanese Peace Treaty? Secretary DULLES. I am generally considered to have played a leading part in that. No one person does it all himself. Senator MALONE. It was under your direction? Secretary DULLES. That was my job, yes. Senator MALONE. You know that the Japanese now are negotiating with Communist China for trade treaties? Secretary DULLES. No, sir. They have broken off negotiation. Senator MALONE. That is right, temporarily I think. There is no question of their future relationship-they will trade with China no matter who controls that great country. They were in Peking to make a trade agreement, were they not? Secretary DULLES. A trade agreement was negotiated by the business people of Japan, but its terms were not found acceptable from a political standpoint. Senator MALONE. When the Japanese treaty was before the Senate for approval I made a statement on the future relationship between Japan and China-they of course will resume trade with China. How many nations have recognized Communist China now? Secretary DULLES. I do not have the precise figure. I would say approximately 25, something in that general order. Senator MALONE. Does that include all of the European nations? Secretary DULLES. No, sir. Senator MALONE. How many? Secretary DULLES. Are you talking about Western Europe or Eastern Europe? Senator MALONE. All of Europe. Secretary DULLES. All of the so-called Soviet bloc countries of Europe have recognized Communist China. Senator MALONE. Then what you would call free Europe. How many of them have recognized Communist China? Name what you can remember and then you can complete the record. Secretary DULLES. The United Kingdom has, Sweden has, I think Denmark has. I would not want off hand, Senator Senator MALONE. Would you complete the record? Secretary DULLES. Yes. (The following was subsequently received for the record:) RECOGNITION OF COMMUNIST CHINA Twenty-six nations members of the United Nations and one other nation, Switzerland, recognize or have diplomatic relations with the Communist Chinese regime. In addition, four other Communist regimes (East Germany, North Korea, Outer Mongolia, and North Vietnam) recognize the Communist Chinese regime. The 27 nations recognizing Communist China are: There are, on the other hand, 42 members of the United Nations and 3 other nations (Republic of Korea, the Vatican and the Republic of Vietnam) which recognize or have diplomatic relations with the Government of the Republic of China. In addition, the Federal Republic of Germany recognizes neither the Communist Chinese regime nor the Republic of China. Senator MALONE. When Great Britain, England, recognized Communist China, did that include their member nations of the Empire? Secretary DULLES. Some of them and some not. Senator MALONE. Would you complete the record in that regard? Secretary DULLES. Yes. Senator MALONE. Now the ones that have recognized Communist China trade with Communist China, do they not? Secretary DULLES. Yes, and some who do not recognize nevertheless trade. Senator MALONE. Yes, I think that is exactly right. And, of course, it was proven through congressional hearings, that these nations also were trading with Russia with certain strategic materials like copper, were they not? England, for example? Secretary DULLES. No, they are not trading in strategic goods. Secretary DULLES. We have a list of strategic goods. My recollection is that copper so far has been kept on the strategic list, and that there is not trade in copper. There is trade I believe in copper wire. Senator MALONE. What is copper wire made out of? Copper? Senator MALONE. Once you have copper, no matter what form it is in you have copper; do you not? Secretary DULLES. Yes. Senator MALONE. For any purpose. Secretary DULLES. You can always melt it down. Senator MALONE. I will ask permission to have included in the record at this time a list of strategic and critic furnished by the armed services from time to time. material that is It appears on page 10 of the Senate Report 1627, 83d Congress. Senator LONG. If that is already available, Senator Malone, that will be printed in the record. Senator MALONE. At this point. Senator LONG. Yes, the document to which you have referred with that page reference. |