1 AREA COVERED BY THE TREATY Senator DONNELL. Very well. I shall not pursue that inquiry further. This matter I should like to ask about as a matter of information. It may have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of it. I would like to know why it is that this document is called the "North Atlantic Treaty." What is the reason for that? Secretary ACHESON. It has to do with the defense of the North Atlantic area. Obviously that does not mean that you are defending water. This is not a treaty that has to do with water and not with land. It has to do with that area of the world which is concerned in the North Atlantic, and that means those countries which border on it or border on countries which border on it. And it has to do with that area of western Europe which, with the United States and Canada, constitutes the whole North Atlantic defense area. TREATY NOT A REGIONAL ARRANGEMENT Senator DONNELL. Was the thought in the minds of those who prepared the pact-originally, I should say, in their work upon it-that the justification under the United Nations Charter for such a pact would at least in part lie in that portion of the United Nations Charter which refers to regional arrangements? Secretary ACHESON. No. It lies in article 51. Senator ACHESON. And not 52? Secretary ACHESON, That is correct. Senator DONNELL. So the appellation of "North Atlantic Treaty" did not in any sense indicate a desire on the part of those who framed the pact to bring the pact under the aegis, so to speak, of the regional arrangement contemplated by the United Nations Charter? Secretary ACHESON. That is correct. We were concerned with an area. This was not a universal commitment, widespread commitment all around the world. It had to do with a particular area, and an area of great importance to the United States. Senator DONNELL. And as previously indicated, the governments which entered into these negotiations which culminated in the treaty, originally included only those either fronting on the North Atlanticon the Atlantic Ocean, or close at hand, as, for illustration, Belgium, Luxemburg, et al., and did not include a country as far removed from the Atlantic as Italy. Am I correct in that? Secretary ACHESON. The point is not whether it is removed from the Atlantic. That is what I was trying to get at a moment ago. You are not defending some water here. You are talking about a defense area. And Italy is very closely connected with the defense of that western European area, which in turn is what we call the North Atlantic area. Senator DONNELL. Mr. Chairman, did the committee desire to continue at this time in view of the vote call that has come in? The CHAIRMAN. We do not pay any attention to votes, but I will consult the committee. What is your desire, to recess or go on? Senator DONNELL. I will be very brief. It will take me only a few more minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Let us go on. Senator DONNELL. Had you finished your answer to that? COMPATIBILITY OF ATLANTIC TREATY WITH ANGLO-RUSSIAN AND FRANCORUSSIAN TREATIES Senator DONNELL. You referred to the provision in the treaty which is a warning, I think, or at least a statement, by the parties thatEach party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any of the parties and a third state is in conflict with this treaty and undertakes not to enter into any international engagements which conflict with the treaty. You commented on that earlier this afternoon. Senator DONNELL. I want to ask you whether or not you yourself have examined the treaties placed before the Senate some weeks ago by either Senator Watkins or Senator O'Mahoney, or both of them, between France on the one hand and Russia on the other, and between Great Britain on the one hand and Russian on the other, which contain certain obligations of the contracting parties, whether you examined them yourself with a view to determining whether France and Great Britain, in a representation that there is no international engagement now in force and in conflict with this treaty, correctly construe the obligations under this treaty. Secretary ACHESON. I have examined them very closely. I want to make one thing absolutely clear to you, and that is that the declaration in this treaty, by each of the signatories, that they have no treaty which is in conflict with the North Atlantic Treaty, is their responsibility, and they stand upon that, and we stand upon that. I do not want to take the position for a moment that the Secretary of State of the United States, on behalf of other countries, undertakes to go into their treaties or express any views about them. We are not called upon by the treaty to do that. The nations make that declaration themselves. We have the plain language of the treaties before us. And that is where the matter rests. Now, any person reading it I think can come to his own conclusion, and I think it is perfectly clear what that conclusion is. But I am not going to, as an officer of the United States, say in respect of any of these countries what their treaties mean or whether their declarations are anything other than what they should be, a statement of complete and absolute truth. TERMINATION OF THE TREATY Senator DONNELL. Is there any provision in the treaty by which the treaty may be terminated in less than 20 years? Secretary ACHESON. It may be terminated by unanimous consent at any time. But there is a provision for review at the end of 10 years. Senator DONNELL. That provision for review does not, however, contain any provision for the termination of the treaty at the end of 10 years. Secretary ACHESON. It can be done by unanimous consent. Senator DONNELL. Certainly. Anything, as you said earlier this afternoon, can be done by unanimous consent. Secretary ACHESON. That is right. Senator DONNELL. I am not asking whether there is anything in the treaty which provides in any way for the termination of the treaty earlier than at the expiration of 20 years. Secretary ACHESON. Not except as I have said. Senator DONNELL. That is not an exemption. There is no provision for it, is there, for a termination earlier than 20 years? Secretary ACHESON. There are no words in the treaty which provide for its termination earlier than 20 years, as I stated to you. There is a provision that it should be reviewed at the end of 10 years, and it of course follows, as you yourself have said, that if that review leads to the unanimous conclusion that it should be terminated, modified or changed, that may be done. Senator DONNELL. That may be done in 6 months from now equally. Secretary ACHESON. That is correct. Senator DONNELL. That does not depend on a provision in the treaty? Secretary ACHESON. That is right. Senator DONNELL. Did not the United States take the view in its negotiations that the treaty should run for 10 years and not 20? Secretary ATHESON. I am not aware of that. I do not think that is true at all. Senator DONNELL. That was reported in the press. Perhaps it may be incorrect. Secretary ACHESON. That is unfounded. Senator DONNELL. It was reported in the press that the European nations desired a 50-year period and this country desired 10, and ultimately 20 years was agreed upon. Secretary ACHESON. The latter statement is true. The European nations did desire 50 years. The earlier statement is not correct, that we took the position of 10 years. Senator DONNELL. I thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, and Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection from the committee we will recess at this time until 10:30 tomorrow morning. Senator Austin will be the witness tomorrow. We will be glad to hear him. (Thereupon, at 5:05 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a. m. Thursday, April 28, 1949.) NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 1949 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, on April 27, 1949, in room 318, Senate Office Building, Senator Tom Connally (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Senators Connally (chairman), George, Thomas of Utah, Tydings, Pepper, McMahon, Vandenberg, Wiley, Smith of New Jersey, Hickenlooper, and Lodge. Also present: Senators Tobey, Donnell, Flanders, Watkins, Gillette. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. This is a meeting of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate. We are holding hearings on the North Atlantic Pact. We are honored this morning to have former Senator Warren Austin, now Chief Representative of the United States at the United Nations, and a member of the Security Council, representing the United States. Is that correct the way I have stated it? Ambassador AUSTIN. Yes; it is correct. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Austin, we are very pleased to have you here, and we are prepared to hear any statement you desire to make with reference to the North Atlantic Pact and related matters. STATEMENT OF HON. WARREN R. AUSTIN, CHIEF OF THE UNITED STATES MISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS Ambassador AUSTIN. Mr. Chairman, will you let me say something personal before I start talking about the North Atlantic treaty? This is a very emotional experience for me, to be invited by this very great committee, on which I was serving when I resigned from the Senate about 3 years ago. I have not been back here since, and now to be asked to come and talk with you about so important and grave a matter as the North Atlantic treaty is a great honor and a great pleasure. The CHAIRMAN. It is mutual. We esteem it an honor to have you here and a pleasure to have you here. We remember quite vividly your valuable services on this committee and your outstanding services in the Senate of the United States. We are glad to have your advice and counsel in view of your broad activities in connection with the United Nations and foreign relations generally. Ambassador AUSTIN. Thank you, sir. |