Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Mr. JONKMAN. In these instances we would begin with the country which would itself decide as to the strengthening of its armaments? Secretary PATTERSON. They would submit a list of requirements, or a shopping list that would have a lot of items on it. It would then be up to us to say what portion of that we thought we could supply or furnish. Some questions would arise; some yes, and some no. The final decision on that would be by way of agreement between the country involved and our State Department.

Mr. JONKMAN. Would we then be putting ourselves in the position of deciding for that country as to what armaments they should have? It has already been said by one of the members and the expression was used "that we decide how a country should be armed." I think we should be careful of that.

Secretary PATTERSON. You and I go to a clothing store to buy a suit of clothes and so on. It is always up to the seller to say "No, I won't sell you that." It is only in that sense that it takes two to make a bargain.

Mr. JONKMAN. That analogy is not comparable in this instance. For instance, let us look at it from another angle:

It would be to the interests of the United States to provide Brazil with more armaments than, for instance, Argentina or Chile. Is that not true?

Secretary PATTERSON. Certainly the program would have reference to their population, activities, and positions relative to one another. There is no doubt of that.

A country like Brazil obviously needs more in the way of equipment than one of the smaller Central American Republics.

Mr. JONKMAN. Especially if you take into consideration what might possibly happen in Europe. Brazil would also be much more vulnerable than, for instance, Argentina.

Secretary PATTERSON. It has a more exposed position.

Mr. JONKMAN. They would be more exposed as compared with Chile. Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. JONKMAN. Then we would give more to Brazil.

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir We did that, and they also furnished troops to fight in the war.

Mr. JONKMAN. Supposing Brazil was not to arm itself for its defense in accordance with what we thought was necessary for that defense.

Is there anything in this bill to safeguard our pouring excessive amounts of money into Brazil? What I mean by that is, I understand from what you say the program will not cost us much of anything. We sell our new material at cost; on our surplus we lose nothing anyway, but will there be a danger in this legislation that we, from the standpoint of our own defense, get into defending, say Brazil, far in excess of other countries?

Secretary PATTERSON. We are already committed, as all the American states are, to hemispheric defense against aggression. That has been laid down already.

Mr. JONKMAN. Yes; that is as you said in your statement that under the Habana Conference we agreed that an attack against one nation is to be considered an attack against all of them.

Secretary PATTERSON. I regard this bill as merely giving us the means to carry out the spirit of the Chapultepec agreement. That is all it is, I think.

Mr. JONKMAN. I am quite in accord with you but the question in my mind is to what extent we are going to stick to carrying out that program and that program only, for defense against outside interference and not building up armaments in different countries of South America which may lead to friction among themselves.

Secretary PATTERSON. Certainly the objectives are well laid down, I believe, in the act.

Mr. JONKMAN. I believe so.

Secretary PATTERSON. The objectives as laid down in this act, if adhered to, will cause no trouble of the variety with which you are concerned.

Mr. JONKMAN. The point I am making from our discussion now is that we will not be able to control the strength of armaments of the individual countries.

Secretary PATTERSON. There is nothing here that would bar a particular country from making a deal with us, you mean, and then also going outside the hemisphere and getting some additional weapons from someone else. That is true.

Mr. JONKMAN. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman.

Secretary PATTERSON. It is believed that it will not likely happen, but I do not know how any law on our part would bind anyone not to do that.

Mr. JONKMAN. But while we are setting up a program it is well for us to look into the possibilities.

Secretary PATTERSON. Of course that is not contemplated. It is not contemplated that a nation would go to outside sources as well.

Mr. JONKMAN. Well, you have mentioned Canada. Now we have an interarmament program with Canada, but Canada is finding it difficult to accept much of that, is it not true, because she has been for so many years dependent upon the United Kingdom, it is difficult for her to break away from those weapons and strategies? Is that not true?

Secretary PATTERSON. That has certainly been a dilemma they have been in for some time. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. JONKMAN. We are working to eliminate that difficulty as much as possible, because there is a real danger that with projectile warfare, and so forth, Canada might become very, very vital to both of us, is that not true?

Secretary PATTERSON. That is true.

Mr. JONKMAN. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman EATON. Mr. Mundt.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. Secretary, carrying on with Mr. Jonkman's intentions, it will be easier for us to exercise some counsel and guidance. as to the armaments of the Latin American Republics if we enter into a program of this kind, than if we were to compel them to rely solely on European sources, is that not correct?

Secretary PATTERSON. I am sure of that; yes, sir.

Mr. MUNDT. Is it not true that during the last war, it was necessary to dispatch American forces to South America to protect many of our vital sources of strategic materials?

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir; with their consent, that is right. Mr. MUNDT. As I recall, the Japanese submarines threatened some of the power plants, did they not?

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir, both the west coast and the east

coast.

Mr. MUNDT. It is dramatically illustrated that our defense is interrelated?

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes; and certainly more troops from all Latin American Republics could have been used in World War II, had they had equipment standardized with our equipment at the outset. There is no doubt about that at all.

Mr. MUNDT. I recall when you were testifying on the Greek-Turkish loan, it was brought up in our hearings that we might use a lot of the surplus war equipment of former enemy countries, to provide the military supplies for Greece and Turkey, and you pointed out that would not be a wise course, because rather than steering them toward the armaments of Europe, it would be better to steer them toward the armaments of the English speaking world.

What you said about the Turkish people then would certainly be more true of the Latin Americans now.

We should steer them toward our own sources and thereby become one big happy family in the Western Hemisphere.

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. MUNDT. I was for this legislation when it went through before and I am still in favor of it. I think it will strengthen our national security.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Judd.

Mr. JUDD. Mr. Secretary, you state categorically that any assistance to these countries would be only at their request and at their initiative, and not as a result of pressure from us.

Secretary PATTERSON. That is right.

Mr. JUDD. Furthermore, if we do not furnish them military supplies, they are going to get them elsewhere?

Secretary PATTERSON. There is not the slightest doubt of that.

Mr. JUDD. Furthermore, that there are European countries who want to keep their armaments industries in good shape and who therefore would like very much to be furnishing and supplying these materials to the countries of South America?

Secretary PATTERSON. That is already evident.

Mr. JUDD. There are countries trying to persuade the Latin American Republics to buy their munitions, airplanes, and naval vessels? Secretary PATTERSON. That has been going on for some months. Mr. JUDD. For example, there are countries in Europe which were very proficient-in the building of submarines. There is no market for their submarines now but it is conceivable that those who now control those submarine yards would like to get a market for submarines so they could get their submarine construction industry back into. shape.

Therefore, not only is it advantageous to the American countries and ourselves to have this standardization, with their arms tied in with our own arms, it is of further advantage in that to the degree they

[ocr errors]

get from us, they will not be getting them from some other country and thereby building up a source of armaments that might later be used against ourselves?

Secretary PATTERSON. That is true.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Mansfield.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Secretary, I have no questions, but I do have a few requests: I wish the Secretary would furnish for the record what foreign countries had military missions in Latin American countries, what are there now representing foreign countries, and also what military missions we have in the Latin American states. Secretary PATTERSON. I will be glad to do that.

In general, there are no recognized foreign missions there now and we have missions in practically all of them.

(The information referred to is as follows:)

From 1919 to 1941, 12 of the Latin American countries employed European military missions, some of them, at different times, engaging missions from as many as four different European countries. The most important German missions were found in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay, Peru, and El Salvador. French military missions worked effectively in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela. Italian military missions were particularly strong in Bolivia and Ecuador and were engaged also at various times by Argentina, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela. Spanish military missions were active in Bolivia and Venezuela.

There are no military missions from outside the hemisphere in any Latin American country at present, but there is an Argentine and a Brazilian mission now in Paraguay.

United States military missions are now in every country in Latin America excepting Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Uruguay.

Secretary PATTERSON. You made reference, Mr. Mansfield, to the letter from the State Department and the War Department. That is O. K. by me. I want my letter and reply to go in, too.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I am sure the Secretary understands that what has been available to some people on this committee anyway should be available to all the members of this committee if we are going to understand all sides of this particular question.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Secretary PATTERSON. Lonly want to put in the letter in reply.
Chairman EATON. Mr. Fulton.

Mr. FULTON. In order to save time, I will give back my time.
Chairman EATON. Mr. Colmer.

Mr. COLMER. Mr. Secretary, I am impressed that the objective of this legislation immediately is to help these countries protect themselves, and, incidentally, to protect us against certain aggressive forces, and I am in accord with that.

The thing that impresses some of us is that in that all-out objective of stopping this aggression we continually find ourselves doing one thing with one hand and another with the other.

Now, to be specific, we are continually making shipments to that aggressive force. I will name it-Russia.

You do not have to comment on it, Mr. Secretary, if you do not care to, but what a lot of us would like to see would be a consistent policy in meeting that aggressive force.

I read in the press a few days ago where we were shipping oil to this aggressive force. It was intimated in the press that our Navy might be suffering from a lack of oil.

We do know that there is a shortage of oil in this country.

At the same time, we are permitting that force to have its agents in this country. Our big industrial industries and corporations are taking orders and making shipments. They have access to our knowhow for industrial development.

Somewhere along the line it seems to some of us, at least, that we must spell this thing out and follow a definite, consistent policy.

I do not know what this is all about, Mr. Secretary, unless it is just a little public plug for a resolution I have had pending for some time and an attempt to bring that about.

If the Secretary cares to comment on that I will be pleased.

If he does not, I will understand.

Secretary PATTERSON. I believe views of the military and civil power in this Nation are cordially in line with the existing doctrine. I will refrain from that and mind my own business.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Javits.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Secretary, I am sure you are thoroughly impressed with the urgent necessity of avoiding any fortification of the power of aggression between countries in Latin America through this program, are you not?

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. JAVITS. Section 5 of the bill provides three principal methods for transferring military equipment. One is by payment by the recipient for originally procured matériel. Another is by similar payment for matériel which is part of our own establishment and not surplus, and the third one relates to the disposition of surplus military equipment to the recipient substantially on a lend-lease basis. Now, if one country in Latin America is extremely rich and its neighbors are very poor, is it not a fact that if this program is just left to take its own lead, the rich country will be able to get the most modern equipment, and its poor neighbors will get only the surplus equipment which may be almost obsolete, because they cannot pay

for it?

Secretary PATTERSON. That is possible. That will depend upon the administration of the act.

Mr. JAVITS. Has there been any decision that the State Department or any other department shall have paramountcy in the decisions?

Secretary PATTERSON. I think in anything of this type the State Department always does take the lead, and should; and the final papers are executed, as far as we are concerned, in the State Department.

Mr. JAVITS. Has the War Department made any estimate of the situation in the terms in which I have just stated it, or does it intend to if it has not yet done so?

Secretary PATTERSON. Of course the programs themselves, I take it, are evolved in the Inter-American Defense Board.

General Ridgeway is our representative, and he is here.

Mr. JAVITS. He will testify?

Secretary PATTERSON. Yes; he will testify later today.
Mr. JAVITS. Thank you very much.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Lodge.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »