cluded from any problem. I think it is of great importance that we think as clearly as possible about the possibilities, the immediate possibilities, of the United Nations, their powers-not their jurisdiction-but what they can do in specific situations, and that we do not believe that by creating the United Nations we have found an excuse for not doing things which we otherwise would have to do.

Now, the United Nations was not created to supersede the ordinary relations between states. If the United Nations can help in any situation it most certainly should do so. All threats to the peace are situations which should be and must be brought before the United Nations. But it was not the intention, so far as I know, that any state was precluded from asking the assistance of any other friendly state when an economic or other internal matter arose which caused difficulty in that state.

For instance, some time ago the Export-Import Bank set aside $500,000,000 to be loaned to China when conditions in China would make such expenditure of that money useful in the reconstruction of China. It did not, so far as I know, occur to anybody that that was showing any disrespect for or disinclination to support in every way the United Nations.

This Congress has appropriated very large sums of money to assist the new Philippine Republic. That was not considered in derogation of the United Nations.

The United States Government has done a great deal to assist the new Italian Republic. First and last, almost $1,000,000,000 worth of goods have been made available to that new struggling republic.

All of these acts, I had supposed, were in support of the principles of the United Nations. Now, it is against that background, I think, that we ought to consider this request of the Greek Government and the various requests which the Turkish Government has made for economic assistance from the United States.

If there is anything in the Charter which precludes us from doing what we have been doing with other countries since the Charter was created without criticism from anybody, then we should stop and ponder those considerations very carefully.

But if there are not, we should not lose critical and valuable time in going forward in order to go through what would eventually be procedures which would lead right back to the requests which we are now making of the Congress.

Mr. RICHARDS. Now, Mr. Secretary, I thank you for that. That was my understanding. The United Nations organization is unable to restore order in Greece; nor has it adequate financial facilities to help Greece and Turkey along the lines suggested. I will go farther and say that, even were those powers present, the veto power in the members of the Security Council would defeat either of these objectives. Therefore, the United Nations as now operating fails to meet the requirements of the situation.

Mr. ACHESON. Mr. Richards, I would not like by my silence to indicate that I believe in any way whatever that the United Nations is a failure. I do not believe that at all.

I think in this particular situation the United Nations is performing at this time an absolutely invaluable function and that function is to stop the disorders which are occurring along the northern border of Greece. It is doing that with our energetic support, and that step

alone is a vast contribution, and a contribution which cannot or could not have been made by any international or national organization, prior to the organization of the United Nations.

Mr. RICHARDS. I join with you in that. I agree that there are helpful powers being exerted in the world right now by UNO and we have grounds to expect greater things of that body, even in the face of the veto privilege.

Now, as to this proposal, Mr. Secretary, some say it is a return, at least temporarily, to international balance of power politics. Have you anything to say about that?

Mr. ACHESON. No; I do not think it is, Mr. Richards. What this seems to me to mean is very simple indeed. The Greek Nation is one of the oldest in the world. The very principles of democracy orginated in Greece. For two and a half thousand years the Greeks have been struggling. Sometimes they lost their independence and the possibility of democracy; then they would rise and get it back again and struggle on further to develop the principles of individual freedom and democracy.

Greece is now in great financial and economic trouble. That has come out of a very terrible war in which Greece was the victim.

This country, ever since its foundation, has been a close friend of the Greek people. We have helped in every way we could. We have been asked to help out. We want to help. We want to give the Greek people the help they so earnestly desire, to get back on their feet and remain a free people, struggling toward a more and more perfect democracy.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Secretary, to be frank, suppose a foreign power decided to help Iraq or Iran or Saudi Arabia, along the lines proposed here, and at their request, to the extent of $400,000,000, and suppose that we considered that power antagonistic to our way of life and our political philosophy, we would view that action with grave misgivings, would we not?

Mr. ACHESON. If any foreign power attempted to force any country to lose its independence, and to take on a form of government which it did not want to take on, we would regard that as contrary to the principles which underlie the Charter of the United Nations.

Mr. RICHARDS. The heart of this thing then is to bolster the right of the free determination of peoples, not only in Greece, but throughout the world, in the matter of government, is it not?

Mr. ACHESON. That is right, Mr. Richards.

Mr. RICHARDS. That is all.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Jonkman.

Mr. JONKMAN. Mr. Secretary, is it proposed that the $400,000,000 provided for in this bill is to be used as a loan, or as a gift, or both? Mr. ACHESON. That matter, Mr. Jonkman, under the bill, would be left to the discretion of the President, and I think the view which would be recommended to the President by the Department of State would be that, insofar as these funds are used for consumable goods or items which are not productive in the sense that they do not themselves produce wealth, that it should be made in the form of a grant. Insofar as items that are financed through this bill are actually wealth-producing items and would directly assist the economy of these countries in their foreign-exchange position, it would be justifiable to consider them a loan.

Mr. JONKMAN. I think that it would be more conservative to eliminate that word "grant" and make them all loans.

Is it not true that, according to the statistics that you have given us, Turkey seems to be in far better financial position than we? Mr. ACHESON. No, I do not think so. I do not think that appears

to be the result of the statistics.

Mr. JONKMAN. Well, on page 6 of those statistics you give the balance of trade for the last 11 years, ending with 1946, and according to those statistics it is shown that for the 10 years preceding 1946 the average favorable trade balance, that is, exports over imports, for Turkey is 25,000,000 lira, while for 1946 you show only 10 months, but adding one-fifth to that, you show 121,000,000 lira; in other words, an increase of her exchange balance, favorable exchange balance, of 500 percent.

Would you not say that Turkey is in a very good position as far as exchange is concerned?

Mr. ACHESON. I seem to have some difficulty in discovering what you are talking about.

Mr. JONKMAN. Turn to page 6, the last section of that book. Just assuming those figures are correct, and if your figures are correct, they are correct, would you not say she is in a better exchange condition than we, compared with 10 or 11 years ago?

Mr. ACHESON. No, I should not say that conclusion is justified, Mr. Jonkman. What you are referring to is the table of imports and exports.

Mr. JONKMAN. Of exports over imports.

Mr. ACHESON. Yes. That, of course, is not a balance-of-payments table.

Mr. JONKMAN. That creates a favorable exchange balance, does it not?

Mr. ACHESON. Of exports and imports only. There may be other items in the balance of payments.

Mr. JONKMAN. But I am speaking now of exports and imports, and we know that you have to have exports in excess of imports to get exchange, and Turkey is in a far better position than she has been for 10 years.

Mr. ACHESON. Well, the export position of Turkey is, of course, as you say, better than it was immediately before the war, or during the war, when Turkey had great difficulty in disposing of her exports. Mr. JONKMAN. To show that that shows up in her financial condition, you show on page 13 that in 1938 she had in the Central Bank a deficit on foreign exchange in clearing balances of 16,000,000 lira, and that is the average for 3 years, around that time, while at the present time, 1946, she has a favorable balance of 64,000,000 lira.

Does that not show her financial condition is far sounder than it was 8 years ago, before the war?

Mr. ACHESON. That is correct, sir; it is sounder. It does not lead to the conclusion that Turkey does not need the aid which we are discussing here. The amount of any foreign exchange balance that a country has has to be judged in terms of the needs of the country for foreign exchange payments.

Mr. JONKMAN. On page 11 of that report you show that the total debt, both domestic debt and foreign debt, amounts to 1,908,000,000 lira. That is correct, is it not?

Mr. ACHESON. The total debt at September 30, 1946, is that what you are referring to?

Mr. JONKMAN. Yes.

Mr. ACHESON. 1,908,000,000 lira.

Mr. JONKMAN. Ón page 10 you show that her annual revenue, her annual tax, is 1,019,000,000 lira. In other words, her national debt is considerably less than 2 years of her annual revenue, or taxes. I do not say annual income, but annual taxes. Do you not wish that the United States were in that condition?

Mr. ACHESON. I am not an expert in these matters. It may be that is a good wish. If it is a good one for the United States, then I

wish it.

Mr. JONKMAN. Do you not feel that if Turkey could pay her entire national debt by doubling her taxes for 2 years she is in good shape so far as her national debt is concerned?

Mr. ACHESON. Of course, that all depends upon whether Turkey can double her national revenue by doubling her taxes. It does not follow from these figures that it is remotely possible.

Mr. JONKMAN. You said yesterday that part of this money would be used for economic purposes in Turkey. Is it not true that on page 7 you show that the cost of living has gone down 30 points in 1946 in Turkey?

Mr. ACHESON. That is correct, yes.

Mr. JONKMAN. Do you not think Turkey should be loaning us a little money instead of we loaning it to Turkey?

Mr. ACHESON. No, I do not think that follows from the figures. Mr. JONKMAN. Then why should we put, either by grant or by loan, as you said yesterday, $100,000,000 to $125,000,000 into Turkey? Is it not true that this is an idealogoical warfare? We are showing Russia we mean business and we are going to help the countries to the south of her that are being threatened by a war of nerves.

Mr. ACHESON. Well, I think we covered that a few minutes ago, Mr. Jonkman. The reason I gave, and still give, for the necessity of giving Turkey assistance in the situation in which she finds herself is that the strain of maintaining the establishment Turkey regards necessary for her security will, if continued, cause a serious economic difficulty in Turkey.

It is to prevent those difficulties from accruing that we believe it is desirable to meet the Turkish request for assistance.

Mr. JONKMAN. Why and how was Paul Porter made Ambassador? Mr. ACHESON. Mr. Porter was sent to Greece to head an economic mission which was requested by the Greek Government.

Mr. JONKMAN. The bill provides in section 2 that this aid can be rendered by detailing there to assist those countries any person in the employ of the Government of the United States. That of course, contemplates that it is not going to cost us very much because we will only be detailing persons who are on the pay roll anyway to go over there and assist them; is that not true?

Mr. ACHESON. Well, that section of the law is necessary to give the authority to detail such persons. There is no implication to be drawn from

presently in the employ of the United States would have any part in the missions which might go to Greece.

Mr. JONKMAN. You mean it is not confined to those that are already employed?

Mr. ACHESON. That is correct.

Mr. JONKMAN. But it would offer an opening for those that are already employed and are going to be out of employment, would it not? Mr. ACHESON. Well, if they were out of employment then they would not fall within the provisions of the section which you have named. They would have to be reemployed.

Mr. JONKMAN. Could not Paul Porter's entire outfit of OPA be transferred over there and stay right on the pay roll?

Mr. ACHESON. That would not be the objective of this provision. Mr. JONKMAN. You know that Paul Porter said the night that he took over from Chester Bowles, "I want it emphatically understood that OPA is not in receivership and I am not a liquidator. OPA is a going concern composed of loyal men and women who have done much for the country and will do much more."

Is he still going in Greece?

Mr. ACHESON. Mr. Porter is in Washington at the present time and is prepared to testify before the committee. He has returned from Greece.

Mr. JONKMAN. Is it intended that he shall go back there?

Mr. ACHESON. Mr. Jonkman, I am not able to answer that question. The composition of any mission that will go will be for the President of the United States to determine.

Mr. JONKMAN. One more thought. Turkey at the present time. has an army of about 1,000,000 men, has she not?

no.

Mr. ACHESON. She does not have that number of men under arms;

Mr. JONKMAN. Do you know what the number is?

Mr. ACHESON. The Secretary of War, who will follow me, will be able to tell you exactly.

Mr. JONKMAN. That is all.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Jarman.

Mr. JARMAN. Mr. Secretary, I wish to reiterate and emphasize the belief expressed by you, and concurred in by the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Richards, that the United Nations has not failed. I wish, however, to go a little further and take the liberty of expressing the opinion that it will not fail.

On the other hand, despite the occasional somewhat gloomy aspects of its functioning, I am a firm believer in the idea that it is going to succeed and be the instrument of creating permanent peace in the world.

Now, I wish to make a statement which I think should appear in the record in view of the circumstances.

With all due respect to any colleague or colleagues who may think otherwise, of at least of one of whom I am particularly fond, I believe the State Department to be entirely correct in wishing those whose duty it is to decide such an all-important and momentous issue to be fully informed, not only on matters which can freely be made public, but on those of a diplomatic nature and others on which the best interests of our country require secrecy. I also believe the Department to be fully justified in the confidence in the members of the committee which causes it to be willing to confide secret information to us. I have no desire whatever for the publicity of matters relative to which the best interests of my country will be served by secrecy.