Inter-American Defense Board. Are your duties in connection only with Latin-American states?

General RIDGWAY. My duties on that Board? Yes, sir.

Mr. MANSFIELD. There is no connection between your Board, no consultations and the like, and the Joint American-Canadian Defense Board?

General RIDGWAY. Not in their corporate capacity.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I think it probably would be a good idea if there were consultations between the two Boards, because, after all, what we are discussing here is not only the matter of the defense of Latin America and our own country, but we should at least be considering at the same time the defenses of our northern neighbor as well. Thank you, General.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Jackson.

Mr. JACKSON. Considering the passage of this legislation as proposed in the present bill, is there any law on the books at the present time which would permit us to meet an emergency in South or Central America with regard to furnishing arms without specific legislation? General RIDGWAY. My answer would be "No," sir, although I am

not sure.

Mr. JACKSON. At the present time we would have to wait until something happened and then seek the necessary legislation?

General RIDGWAY. Certainly there is no act that would permit any aid of anything more than a negligible degree, sir.

Mr. JACKSON. I think you have already answered the next question, General. It touches on Mr. Lodge's suggestion as to the possibility of objections to this program.

I feel that there will be, in spite of all that has been said here at these hearings, charges made that this is in a measure of unilateral interventionist approach to Central and South America, and some uninformed persons will undoubtedly say it is a breach of faith with the United Nations.

I think that there should be a very definite and positive statement from you in the record that this is in no way a unilateral approach, but is rather a multilateral approach entirely within the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

General RIDGWAY. I agree thoroughly with you, sir.

It is probably known to you and the members of the committee but at one time during the San Francisco Conference when the United Nations Charter was under debate, it was the position of the United States delegation out there, and a very strong position, that in referring to article 51 of the Charter, which is the one which provides for collective self-defense, that the United States wished inserted in that article in the Charter a phraseology which I think I can quote almost verbatim, sir, "that in the application of this provision," namely article 51, "the principles of the Monroe Doctrine and the Act of Chapultepec are specifically recognized."

That was stricken from the article as it was finally passed but I thought it would be of interest to know that the United States delegation fought strongly for a considerable period for the inclusion of those words.

Mr. JACKSON. However, provision is made for regional organizations in the Charter. Is that not correct?

General RIDGWAY. It is, sir.

Chairman EATON. Thank you, General. We appreciate your being here and your testimony has been most helpful.

General RIDGWAY. May I express my appreciation of your courtesy, sir.

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Chairman, we have two bills that we hoped to pass formally upon at a meeting of our committee, and since they are of great importance, and have been fully debated, I am wondering if we could have unanimous consent that the bill providing for the liquidation of UNRRA and for our continued participation in the Interparliamentary Union be approved at this time.

Chairman EATON. All in favor say "Aye." Contrary "No."
It is carried.

I am grateful to you, sir, for your help.

Our next witness is Colonel Deerwester of the Permanent Joint Board on Defense, Canada-United States.

Colonel, we are glad to welcome you back.

STATEMENT OF COL. CHARLES H. DEERWESTER, AIR MEMBER, PERMANENT JOINT BOARD ON DEFENSE, CANADA-UNITED STATES; SECRETARY, JOINT UNITED STATES-MEXICO COMMISSION; AIR ADVISER, INTER-AMERICAN DEFENSE BOARD

Colonel DEERWESTER. I am here representing the Permanent Joint Board on Defense, Canada-United States, in behalf of the senior United States Army member, Maj. Gen. Guy V. Henry, who is at this moment ill at Walter Reed Hospital with pneumonia.

Chairman EATON. We are sorry to hear that and I will request that you please convey our regrets to him. Colonel DEERWESTER. I will do so. He has asked me to present his views on H. R. 3836, known as the Inter-American Military Cooperation Act, and he has written a few remarks that I would like to read, sir.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. GUY V. HENRY, SENIOR UNITED STATES ARMY MEMBER OF THE PERMANENT JOINT BOARD OF DEFENSE, CANADA-UNITED STATES (READ BY COLONEL DEERWESTER)

The Permanent Joint Board on Defense, Canada-United States, was formed in August 1940, by an agreement resulting from a meeting between the late President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Mackenzie King, and known as the Ogdensburg agreement.

The Board is charged with the duty of pursuing studies relating to sea, land, and air problems including personnel and material, and quoting from the Presidential directive

* It will consider, in a broad sense, the defense of the northern half of the Western Hemisphere.

In discharging this continuing responsibility, the Board's work leads to the building up of close defense cooperation. The principles that were announced jointly by the two Governments on February 12, 1947 are in continuance of this cooperation.

It has been the task of the Permanent Joint Board on Defense to assure that a close military relationship between Canada and the

United States of America will in no way impair but on the contrary strengthen the cooperation of each country within the broader framework of the United Nations.

The announcement to which I have referred was made in Ottowa and Washington simultaneously and covers the results of discussions which have taken place in the Permanent Joint Board on Defense, on the extent to which the wartime cooperation between the armed forces of the two countries should be maintained in this postwar period.

In the interest of efficiency and economy each Government has decided that its national defense establishment shall, to the extent authorized by law, continue to collaborate for peacetime joint security purposes. This collaboration necessarily will be limited and will be based upon the following principles:

1. Interchange of selected individuals so as to increase the familiarity of each country's defense establishment with that of the other country.

2. General cooperation and exchange of observers in connection with exercises and with the development and tests of material of common interest.

3. Encouragement of common designs and standards in arms, equipment, organization, methods of training, and new developments. Âs certain United Kingdom standards have been long in use in Canada, no radical change is contemplated or practicable and the application of this principle will be gradual.

4. Mutual and reciprocal availability of military, naval, and air facilities in each country; this principle to be applied as may be agreed in specific instances. Reciprocally each country will continue to provide a minimum of formality for the transit through its territory and its territorial waters of military aircraft and public vessels of the other country.

5. As an underlying principle all cooperative arrangements will be without impairment of the control of either country over all activities in its territory.

While in this, as in many other matters of mutual concern, there is identity of view and interest between the two countries, the decision of each has been taken independently in continuation of the practice developed since the establishment of the Joint Defense Board in 1940. No treaty, executive agreement or contractual obligation has been entered into.

The committee is undoubtedly aware of the extensive movement of United States personnel and material into our neighboring country to the north in the late war.

You are, as well, familiar with the establishment during that precarious period of the northwest staging route, running northward from Edmonton, Alberta, into Fairbanks, Alaska. This northwest staging route consisted of a chain of airfields interlinked by the construction of a highway for the purpose of furnishing logistical support to these air bases, as well as the land-line communications system connecting each base one with the other.

The maintenance and control of this chain of air bases, land-line communications, and a highway is now under the control of the Canadian Army and Air Forces, and is being maintained at Canadian expense as a vital military connecting link between the United States and Alaska.

Since all of the maintenance equipment, as well as the telecommunications equipment, was manufactured within the United States, it is understandable that repair items necessary to keep this system in good maintenance must of necessity also come from our country.

Since much of this equipment is manufactured within the United States purely for military purposes, it is also obvious that in order to procure such equipment it can be sought only through the armed services of the United States.

There are, as well, scattered throughout Canada many weather stations originally constructed by the United States and now operated by the Canadian Government that need United States manufactured supplies and spare parts to keep them in operation. The weather information furnished is available and utilized daily by United States aircraft transiting Canada as well as the North Atlantic and North Pacific routes.

Here again I desire to point out that such equipment and spare parts as are needed to maintain these stations are being sought from the armed services of the United States.

I believe that I may well say that in order for Canada to continue the maintenance of the northwest staging route, the operation of weather stations for the use of the United States as well as the many other electronic navigational aids necessary for the safeguarding of aircraft, some such legislation as is now presented in the form of the Inter-American Military Cooperation Act is desirable.

Military opinion in the United States and Canada is that in any future war one of the major and early objectives of any enemy will be an air attack against the vital industries in areas in these two countries, coupled probably with other types of diversionary attacks in other parts of the North American Continent.

General standardization of arms, matériel, tactical doctrine, organization, and training will be required before the armed forces of the United States and Canada can operate quickly and effectively against such attacks.

At present there is no legal method by which these necessary objectives can be accomplished. The Inter-American Military Cooperation Act, if passed, furnishes such authorization. Such authorization is an urgent necessity before any substantial progress can be made by the armed forces of the two countries in preparing for the defense of the northern portion of the Western Hemisphere.

Chairman EATON. Thank you, Colonel.

I regret that it is necessary for me to leave, and I am asking our ranking member, Mr. Vorys, to take the chair.

Mr. VORYS (presiding). Before our chairman leaves, I know that our committee and all of those present wish to wish him well on the errand that takes him from us. This is his fifty-second wedding anniversary.

Chairman EATON. I am a great believer in one war at a time. I have had 52 very happy years with a red-headed Yankee girl, and I am grateful to the Almighty for the privilege of going back and celebrating with her today. I did not think John would spring that on me.

Colonel DEERWESTER. Mr. Chairman, because I have the microphone, on behalf of all the military folk here, I wish you a lot of success today.

Chairman EATON. Thank you very much, sir. I am proud of our military folk, and I hope they will all be as happily married as I have

been.

Mr. VORYS. This proves we have no secrets in the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mrs. Bolton.

Mrs. BOLTON. Colonel, I think the committee would be glad to have in the record something from you, perhaps in the nature of a comparison between our agreements with Canada and our working relationships with her and those we propose to set up for the whole interAmerican group.

Colonel DEERWESTER. I think the two systems we are pursuing, the one under the Pan American Union, the Inter-American Defense Board, and the policy followed by the permanent Joint Board on Defense, Canada-United States, are almost identical in purpose.

Mrs. BOLTON. May I interrupt you just there? I had in mind a little bit the strategic end of it, as far as you would feel you would care to bring that into the picture.

Colonel DEERWESTER. As nearly as I can answer that question, I think our close collaboration with the United States section of the permanent Joint Board on Defense here in Washington, with the delegates from the Inter-American Defense Board, serves to give a unanimity of view and purpose that are, to all intents and purposes, identical.

I might add that due to the fact that Canada is our close neighbor to the north as well as Mexico to the south, that there are many problems that come up periodically between those two countries and the United States that are not common to the remainder of the countries of the hemisphere, such daily problems as transiting aircraft, customs, and immigration and things of that sort in connection with our military duties. This same Board, the Permanent Joint Board on Defense, the United States members also are the United States members of the Joint Mexico-Canada-United States Defense Commission, which is also an executive organization or committee or board.

Mrs. BOLTON. Has that a definite relationship to the CanadianAmerican Board?

Colonel DEERWESTER. The two Boards are run almost identically in the same manner.

All of the delegates of the Permanent Joint Board on Defense are coordinated with the War Department, or the Operations Division of the War Department.

I think I can say that there is no group going off at a tangent and away from our general objective.

Mrs. BOLTON. The whole thing ties in together, so what ever we do with Canada and have done with Canada, would tie in very directly with the Inter-American picture?

Colonel DEERWESTER. It does, yes.

Mrs. BOLTON. Thank you, I have no further questions.

Mr. VORYS. Colonel Deerwester, I do not know whether you put this in the record, but would you state what the approximate cost of our cooperation with Canada would be in this connection?

Colonel DEERWESTER. I believe that the War Department figures on that, sir, are that there will be spent, if Canada accepts to the complete