TRADITIONAL UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY AND THE TREATY

The first one has to do with the implications of this treaty in connection with our traditional foreign policy. Would you or would you not consider this an extension, for example, of our original foreign policy of noninterference in the affairs of the world and the Monroe Doctrine, and so forth? In other words, is it really an extension of exactly the same principle on exactly the same basis that we laid down when we made the unilateral declaration of the Monroe Doctrine that now we have extended in the Rio Pact into a collective responsibility of the same principle for this hemisphere? Now in this treaty we have extended our vision because of world conditions, World War II and threats to peace, to include these Atlantic Pact countries? The same principle is involved that we had in mind when we did set the Monroe Doctrine?

Secretary ACHESON. I think you are entirely right, Senator Smith. This is the recognition and enunciation of something which has happened twice before in our history. It lays down principles on which we have acted in this hemisphere since the statement of President Monroe which developed into a similar treaty within the hemisphere, and as this committee itself said in resolution 239 and in its report, if we had stated, and everyone had understood, before World War I and before World War II, that what did happen would happen, then those wars might not and probably would not have occurred.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I am glad to have you state that, because I agree entirely with the position that you have stated. It seems to me it is a perfectly logical development of our whole foreign relationship since the beginning of our history, and of course the change of world conditions. Conditions have changed, but we are still sticking to the things we believe in fundamentally, and we are prepared if necessary to join with others in defending them. Secretary ACHESON. That is correct.

REGIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Senator Vandenberg pointed out, I think very properly, that article 51 is the key article here so far as the right of individual or collective self-defense is concerned. But I have been asked this question: Whether, assuming that is true so far as article 51 is concerned, and passing over for the moment article 52, a question mark cannot be raised when we read article 53 of the United Nations Charter. That reads:

The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council

and then it excepts, of course, Germany as the enemy in the last World War.

My assumption is that the way we get around that, and I want to ask you if I am correct, we know perfectly well from the present composition of the Security Council we probably would run up against a stone wall, and therefore we have to fall back on the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs, because we feel the futility of the application of article 53 if we want

to have this anchor to windward in case that comes, in the event of an armed aggression.

Secretary ACHESON. Senator, I do not think that article 53 has any application whatever to this problem. There is no question of "getting around" anything in the Charter. We have no desire to get around anything whatever. Article 53 deals with a regional arrangement which has been set up, for whatever purpose it may be, and article 53 says that that regional arrangement shall not, itself, undertake positive coercive enforcement action against any country unless the Security Council asks it to do so and authorizes it to do so. Article 53 has nothing whatever to do with the right of self-defense, individual or collective. Therefore article 53 is not involved in our discussions in any way whatever. Under the North Atlantic Treaty nobody proposes to take enforcement action, aggressive action, preliminary action, any sort of action at all, except defensive, after an attack has occurred. Article 53 isn't talking about that at all.

Now I think it is important, and one hesitates to discuss this before Senators Connally and Vandenberg, who were at San Francisco and know far more about this than I do, to recall that in the drafting of the Charter article 51, which as originally proposed and discussed was under the heading of "Regional arrangements" and with these other articles, was purposely separated from them, so that the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense should not be associated with any other idea whatever; it is a complete, absolute right which is not associated with regional arrangements or actions of the Security Council, unless the Security Council steps in and stops their development. Therefore we are not concerned with article 53 at all.

Have I made that clear?

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I think you are right, but the question has been so pressed on me and others have raised the question as to what this language means here that I wanted very much to get your statement, and I think the separation of those in different chapters is significant, as you have suggested, of the two articles, 51 and 53.

Senator VANDENBERG. Before you leave that, Senator, I would like to testify that I cordially agree with the Secretary's analysis. Article 53 deals with affirmative action by the Security Council; article 51 deals with a situation where the Security Council does not act, and the need for article 51 grew out of the fact that article 53 did not meet the conditions to which article 51 addresses itself.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it not true that article 53 simply authorized the Security Council to use this regional arrangement to carry out instructions set forth in article 53?

Secretary ACHESON. That is right, sir.

ARTICLE 54 OF THE CHARTER AND THE TREATY

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. The next question, which I also admit I personally do not have any difficulty with but I would like to have the Secretary answer for the record, is with regard to article 54, and I will read it:

The Security Council shall at all times be kept fully informed of activities undertaken or in contemplation under regional arrangements or by regional agencies for the maintenance of international peace and security.

There again, if I may express my own interpretation, you apply the same interpretation that you just applied to article 53, that these two articles have nothing to do with the individual or collective selfdefense provision provided for in article 51.

Secretary ACHESON. I think that is right.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. And therefore, under article 51, if we are seeking to protect ourselves under the self-defense principle, we will not be compelled to keep the Security Council necessarily informed of all the activities we are taking in that connection.

Secretary ACHESON. We would, under the provisions of this treaty and under article 51, immediately inform the Security Council of any armed attack and of the measures which we were taking to resist it. That is an obligation both of the Charter and of this treaty.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. That would be at the moment the armed attack occurs?

Secretary ACHESON. Yes, sir.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. And the fact that we are just looking ahead to protect ourselves against any possible danger does not necessarily mean that we give that full information to the Security Council?

Secretary ACHESON. We would file this treaty under article 102 of the Charter. It would be filed with the United Nations in accordance with that obligation.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I thank you very much for that, because I have been asked that question many times, and I wanted to get your statement for the record on it.

INFORMATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND THE TREATY

I would like to refer to page 7 of your testimony, where you refer to article II, because a question comes into my mind in connection with what you say about article II. You say,

In this article the signatory governments assert that they will strengthen their free institutions and see to it that the fundamental purposes upon which these institutions are founded are better understood everywhere.

I have been one of those very much interested in our whole program of the Voice of America and the interpretation to the world of our purposes in world affairs. This seems to me to imply, in article II, that it is contemplated that from here on out possibly these Atlantic Treaty countries may jointly present to the world their purposes and intentions in entering into this treaty, and their general plans for strengthening their free institutions, and let the world know the fundamental purposes upon which these institutions are founded and see that they are better understood.

Am I possibly anticipating future action, or is it understood that we should create a "Voice of United Treaty Countries" to explain that position?

Secretary ACHESON. No, sir. It is not contemplated that there will be joint action. Article II does not impose any obligations upon the contracting parties. Article II states the fundamental things which are being defended. We are defending those things which are most precious to us. Those are free institutions, and we want everyone to understand what those are. Article II states the basic principles

of free government and the determination of each one of the parties to have those understood by everybody. Once you understand what those free institutions are, you know there is nothing aggressive in the Treaty, that there cannot be; but there are no plans and there is no obligation here for joint action under article II.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. But we are probably hoping, or I would be hoping at least, that the parties to this treaty would all attempt, so far as they can, to reiterate the point that you have just made. That is what we are trying to do in our presentation to the world of where we stand. I am saying this because I feel that a great deal will be accomplished by the proper carrying on of a publicity program and an expression of where we stand, so as not to permit these charges of imperialistic designs and aggression to take hold. I think we have a responsibility to make that clear as a part of the whole present world picture.

Secretary ACHESON. The Department of State, as you know, reiterates its belief in the importance of the Voice of America and other information activities which we take outside of our borders to make ourselves understood, and we will continue to urge on the Congress that we be enabled to do that as effectively as possible.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. And while you might wish that other countries will do the same thing as a group, there is no contemplation of joint action?

Secretary ACHESON. That is correct.

Senator VANDENBERG. May I interrupt you just a moment.

I think it is rather important to stress that point, Mr. Secretary. This is not a rival organization to the United Nations in any aspect of its contemplated activities, and to go into a collateral informational program at the same time that the United Nations is operating one or the State Department is operating one would be sheer duplication, and nothing of the sort is contemplated.

Secretary ACHESON. That is entirely correct.

PRIORITY OF ECA OVER MILITARY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Now, Mr. Secretary, am I correct in my feeling that we look upon the ECA program, the program for the rehabilitation of these countries of western Europe, as a No. 1 undertaking of our own, and under no conditions are we going to sacrifice that program for any other program? We are going to see that through. In other words, it has priority in our thinking as a means for bringing about world peace and as a means for resisting those forces that seem to tend to destruction and chaos and so forth, as against the forces of unity that we are trying to set up.

Secretary ACHESON. That is fundamental, Senator Smith.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Then we would not, in the case of this program and especially the military implementation end of it, contemplate cutting down on the ECA program at all, but we would consider that that was an A-1 proposition to be considered as the first objective in our own foreign policy?

Secretary ACHESON. Yes, sir. That has complete priority.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much. That is all I have in mind at the moment.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Pepper?

Senator PEPPER. Mr. Secretary, in article 106, chapter XVII of the United Nations Charter

The CHAIRMAN. It is the purpose of the Chair, if it is agreed to by the committee, that we will recess at about 1 o'clock, and come back at 2:30. I am not saying that to influence the Senator. I just want everybody to know what we have in mind.

CHAPTER XVII OF THE CHARTER AND THE TREATY

Senator PEPPER. I started to say that article 106, chapter XVII of the United Nations Charter, under the heading "Transitional security arrangements." does apparently make provision for association among the four signatory powers of the Moscow Declaration of 1943 and France with respect to maintaining international peace and security on behalf of ourselves and the United Nations. I think the answer is clear, but I wanted to make it clear in the record, to the effect that those four signatory powers and France were authorized in that article, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5 of the Moscow Declaration, to consult with one another, and, as occasion requires, with other members of the United Nations, with a view to such joint action on behalf of the organization as may be necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

In your opinion, that did not preclude other associations and consultations among member powers when in accord with article 51 of the Charter?

Secretary ACHESON. That is correct, Senator Pepper.

RELATIONSHIP OF TREATY TO CHARTER

Senator PEPPER. Now then, the question has been raised with respect to the relationship of the association formed under the treaty with the United Nations organization, and naturally the question would arise as to the relationship of the United Nations Charter to the North Atlantic treaty. It is provided, is it not, in article 103 of the United Nations Charter, that

In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

Secretary ACHESON. That is the provision of the Charter, and that is reiterated in the treaty.

Senator PEPPER. So that not only is it not intended that there should be anything in the North Atlantic treaty in conflict with what is in the United Nations Charter; if anything were in the North Atlantic Treaty in conflict with the Charter, then that would not be valid with respect to the Charter.

Secretary ACHESON. That is, as I say, stated in the Charter and in the treaty.

Senator VANDENBERG. Before the Senator leaves that point, may I ask a question on the same point?

Senator PEPPER. Yes, indeed.