Mr. George H. Aldrich, acting legal adviser of the Department of State is the next witness.

Mr. Aldrich, do you have a statement to make to the committee?

STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. ALDRICH, ACTING LEGAL ADVISER, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. ALDRICH. Yes; Mr. Chairman, I have a brief statement.

It is a pleasure to appear today before the Foreign Relations Committee to discuss Senate Resolution 205, which concerns the effect of United States recognition of foreign governments.

Senate Resolution 205 would state the sense of the Senate to be "that when the United States recognizes a foreign government and exchanges diplomatic representatives with it, this does not imply that the United States necessarily approves of the form, ideology, or policy of that foreign government." The Department of State agrees with this view of the effect of recognition of governments. The proposed resolution reflects the established position of the United States that recognition of a foreign government does not imply approval of that government's domestic policies or the means by which it came to power.

WHAT IS ESTABLISHED U.S. RECOGNITION POLICY?

The CHAIRMAN. Why do you say that? What evidence is there that that is the established position? You don't agree with the thesis of Mr. Cranston then?

Mr. ALDRICH. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Cranston has considerable evidence in the nature of statements which appear, and perhaps sometimes are inconsistent, to suggest that we not always have been clear about our policy. But I think what we find here is that we are involved in many different kinds of situations. We are involved in situations of recognition of states in some cases, recognition of governments in other cases. We have been involved in these peculiar divided state problems since the Second World War, and we are also involved with great pressures to use recognition for political purposes or for other purposes to serve the interests of the state. Sometimes these pressures have resulted in statements that make it sound as if our policy is quite the opposite of what it is. But if I may go on with the statement, I think I can show you that we are at least at the present time of the same mind as the Senator, that it is not proper to imply from recognition, approval or endorsement of a government or its policies or the way it came about.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. I am sorry to interrupt you. Go ahead, and we will come back to that question.

Mr. ALDRICH. All right.

The Department notes that Senate Resolution 205 concerns the effect of recognition and does not attempt to enumerate the factors that enter into the decision to recognize.

FOCUS ON IMPLICATION OF RECOGNITION

We are pleased that the resolution focuses, as it does, solely on the implications of recognition. Since recognition is basically a political

act, infused with many foreign policy considerations, it would be impossible to set forth a workable formula that would determine whether recognition would be granted in any particular case. Each case of recognition-or nonrecognition-involves its own set of factual and political circumstances and depends, in the final analysis, on the judgment of the executive branch. The decision whether to extend recognition is made after weighing a number of considerations relevant to the basic question of whether recognition or nonrecognition would better serve the foreign policy of the United States.

We believe that Senate Resolution 205 could serve a useful purpose in the conduct of U.S. foreign relations by helping to make clear that no implications of approval or endorsement may reasonably be drawn from U.S. recognition of a foreign government or from the exchange of diplomatic representatives with it. That this may not today be fully understood results, I believe, in significant measure from confusion between the factors that enter into a recognition decision and the proper meaning and implications of that decision. The Department of State is pleased to support Senate Resolution 205 as a contribution to the effort to dispel that confusion.

That is the end of my statement, Mr. Chairman.

CONFLICTING STATEMENTS ON RECOGNITION POLICY

The CHAIRMAN. Let us come back for a moment to the statement you make that the proposed resolution reflects the established position of the United States that recognition of a foreign government does not imply approval of that government's domestic policy.

You heard Senator Cranston cite the statement by Secretary of State Dulles, didn't you?

Mr. ALDRICH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. What significance do you attach to that statement? Mr. ALDRICH. I think that without being able to examine the full context of that particular statement I can't analyze it, but I know that I have seen similar statements that seem to go both ways on these things. But I think that in many cases when the statement appears to imply, or states even quite flatly, that recognition is something that might encourage this government X and we don't want to do that, I think what it is doing is taking a shorthand way of saying, "We don't propose to recognize it because we think in our national interests it is not desirable to recognize it for a variety of reasons." But I think that is quite different from suggesting that our recognition of government Y means that we endorse or approve that government or its policies. I think it is the difference between talking about what we think of when we recognize and what are the factors that go into the decision to recognize, which are all of the judgments involved in deciding what is in the national interest.

FACTORS INVOLVED IN RECOGNITION

The CHAIRMAN. What are some of the factors involved, other than the fact you don't like the way they run their affairs, their system of government?

Mr. ALDRICH. Well, Mr. Chairman, the factors have been set forth many times and they differ. They have included a lot of things. I think

the most commonly given factors are that the Government is, first of all, a de facto government able to control and administer the territory. Second, that it is governing with the consent or at least the acquiescence of its people. Third, that

The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute, be a little more precise on that point.

Mr. ALDRICH. On the second?

The CHAIRMAN. With the consent or the acquiescence, which do you mean, or do you mean both?

Mr. ALDRICH. Well, I think this is something that can mean different things to different people. We have had this ambiguity since Jefferson referred to "the will of the nation substantially declared."

The CHAIRMAN. If it is so ambiguous and difficult, is it really a significant consideration then?

Mr. ALDRICH. I think it has been in some cases.

The CHAIRMAN. But is it under your present policy?

Mr. ALDRICH. I think our present policy is more concerned with the acquiescence rather than the declaration of the will of the people. I think that what we have done in recent years shows a far greater concern with deciding whether the particular government involved has effective control and is not sitting on top of an imminent revolution, but does in fact govern with the acquiescence of the people. We have not generally concerned ourselves with asking, would the people, if given a free plebiscite, endorse that change of government.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the present policy which, as you say, is established policy, does not require that they be a fully developed democracy in which the people have elected their government?

Mr. ALDRICH. I would say that the present policy would like to see that happen but that there are a number of cases in recent years in which we have not insisted on that before recognizing a new government or engaging in diplomatic relations.

ARE THERE DISTINCTIONS IN OUR RECOGNITION POLICY?

The CHAIRMAN. Maybe I am just toying with words. Is there a distinction between recognition policy on those bases and how you treat other cases?

Mr. ALDRICH. Well, I think there is a distinction, Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. I am only trying to clarify what this policy is and what we are talking about. I have the feeling that you are shifting a bit, maybe I am, from one concept to another. I am trying to concentrate on what it is that recognition means and what it takes to get recognition, and to eliminate every other consideration. Is that possible or not? It may not be. You say it is a political decision. Can you disassociate recognition from whether or not you like the character of the particular dictator who may be in power?

Mr. ALDRICH. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not think I can answer whether you can. I think I can answer to say that I do not believe we have at any time in our history disassociated the decision to recognize or not to recognize from broader considerations of what is in the national interest.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. ALDRICH. And, therefore, it seems to me that the resolution before us is sensibly designed to deal with what are the proper implica

tions of recognition and not what are the factors that should govern whether recognition takes place.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you. I think the resolution is very well drawn. It is not laying down conditions; it is just stating that recognition does not mean approval. That is all it is saying. Mr. ALDRICH. That is right, that is correct.

NO PREVIOUS STATEMENT SIMILAR TO RESOLUTION

The CHAIRMAN. That is why I think it is a very appropriate one. But I was trying to draw you out a bit in view of the statements made by previous Secretaries of State. We haven't had a declaration such as this by the Congress that I am aware of. Do you know, Senator Cranston, or any of you, whether the Congress has ever undertaken to make a statement similar to your resolution?

Senator CRANSTON. I do not believe that it has. We have researched that point and could find no prior effort.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know, Mr. Aldrich, whether it has or not? Mr. ALDRICH. I believe it has not, sir, so far as I know.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether or not the Executive has made a general statement, you might say, of principle similar to this or has it just acted on an ad hoc basis from time to time?

Mr. ALDRICH. I think many Secretaries of State have made statements. They are not all in the same terms.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. ALDRICH. I think to that extent we can certainly say that the lack of clarity here is partly a responsibility of statements by the executive branch.

The CHAIRMAN. Each Secretary made his own statement and the succeeding Secretary didn't feel at all compelled to follow, did he? Mr. ALDRICH. I am not sure that even each Secretary was fully consistent in what he said from time to time.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think you are quite right. [Laughter.]
If none of you has any particular questions, I would like to develop

one.

Senator COOPER. Are you asking me if I want to ask a question? The CHAIRMAN. If you wish to interrupt, I certainly hope you will.

WILL RESOLUTION ASSIST EXECUTIVE IN RECOGNITION POLICY?

Senator COOPER. I would like to ask Senator Cranston if it is correct to say this resolution does not prescribe any criteria or standards for recognition? What it does is to, as you say, state what the impliactions of recognition are. It doesn't set any standards for recognition. Mr. ALDRICH. That is the way we understand it, Senator.

Senator COOPER. And I think Senator Cranston said that.
Senator CRANSTON. That is right.

Senator COOPER. There has been debate over recognition or nonrecognition of certain countries in the Congress, and would you consider that the passage of this resolution, approval of this resolution, would modify to any degree or assist the Executive in recognizing a particular country?

Mr. ALDRICH. Senator, I think the Executive will still, after this resolution is passed, if it is, I think the Executive will still have to

32-770 - 79-23

consider the same factors that he considered before. The President and Secretary of State will have to make the judgment as to whether recognition or nonrecognition of a particular State is in the national interest. I think that to the extent that public misunderstanding of the effect of recognition is today an inhibition, and I am really not an expert on this and really cannot say to what extent it is an inhibition-I think essentially it is more a political decision than a legal one-but to the extent of this inhibition, I think this resolution could help to correct that impression and do away with that inhibition. But essentially I think the same factors would have to be weighed as of today. Senator COOPER. I agree that the resolution would be helpful.

DOES UNITED STATES LAY DOWN FACTORS FOR RECOGNITION?

I don't recall, because I have not studied this-I am sure Senator Cranston has if we have ever laid down any particular factors for recognition. There have been at times statements by Secretaries, Secretary Dulles, noting certain reasons why certain countries were not recognized. I see you are familiar with past statements that have been made by the executive branch giving reasons for not recognizing a specific country.

Mr. ALDRICH. Yes; that is correct, and I think the reasons run through a tremendous variety depending upon the circumstances of the case. But I think they boil down ultimately to which decision does the President or the Secretary decide to be best for our national interests, and they can take many forms.

Senator COOPER. Has the United States had reason to believe that if another country would not accept recognition in the sense of an exchange of diplomatic representatives or consulting with our diplomatic representatives or in any way to act in some formal way, what would the Department's position be toward recognition?

Mr. ALDRICH. I am sorry, sir, I missed the first part of your question. Senator COOPER. I will give you an example. We are talking about Communist China. Not many countries recognized Communist China just after the communists secured control of the mainland. But as I understand it, with the possible exception of the Swiss, the Communist Chinese Government has never recognized the recognition.

Mr. ALDRICH. Well, I think that recognition is generally conceived to be something which can be negotiated and I think the Chinese Communists have certainly negotiated about the terms of recognition in terms of exchange of diplomatic representatives about as hard as any country I know.

Senator COOPER. I think that is all.

Mr. ALDRICH. This comes after the initial decision, of course, as to whether it is in our interest, or in the interest of whatever country, to try to establish relations.

COUNTRIES WHICH DO NOT HAVE U.S. RECOGNITION

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Aldrich, just a few questions for the record. I understand there are now 126 countries in the UN, is that correct? Mr. ALDRICH. I am sorry, sir, I don't know.

The CHAIRMAN. How many of these do you know that we recognize?