Mr. SHRIVER. I want to ask one more question. You refer on page 25 to the Military Assistance and Sales Act of 1966.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes.

Mr. SHRIVER. What are you referring to?

Secretary MCNAMARA. That is the authorization bill which lies before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. SHRIVER. That is all.

Mr. PASSMAN. We are very pleased to have the distinguished minority chairman of the Committee on Appropriations with us this afternoon. Mr. Bow, do you have any questions?

Mr. Bow. No, thank you very much. I have enjoyed sitting in with you today. It has been very informative.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Thank you.

Mr. PASSMAN. I yield to the distinguished lady.

Mrs. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

PROJECT SIMPATICO

While you were answering a quorum call which I neglected, I asked about Project Simpatico.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes.

Mrs. HANSEN. Will you place your reply in the record because I think the members of the committee will be interested in this. Secretary MCNAMARA. I shall be very happy to do so.

(The information follows:)

COLOMBIA: PROJECT SIMPATICO

The purpose of the Special Operations Research Office (SORO) research project "Studies of Social Factors Relevant to Military Civic Action Doctrine" (SIMPATICO) is to collect information on civic action programs conducted by indigenous military forces to assist the US Army in its military assistance advisory role concerning such programs throughout the world. The current phase of the study in Colombia is designed to determine the attitudes of Colombian citizens to various types of civic action programs of the Colombian Army.

The study is being conducted by the SORO department of the American University, under contract to the Department of the Army. The work was initiated in 1963 and consisted of library research and planning until 1965. Required field research was then begun in Colombia. In accordance with the research plan the field research to be conducted in Colombia contemplated the use of opinion surveys of villagers who have been in contact with various civic action programs conducted by the Colombian Army in order to determine the relative merits of the different type projects and their impact on the population.

The US Ambassador presented the Army-sponsored SORO research plan to the Colombian Government for its approval which was granted on 25 June 1965. The host government formed an advisory committee composed of members of the Colombian Army and other Colombian governmental agencies to monitor the research.

With the concurrence of the Colombian Advisory Committee, the American University contracted with National Research of Colombia (NARECO) to perform the field research. NARECO, an indigenous research organization that had been established for several years, hired research teams on or about 1 August 1965. On 15 September 1965 the project ran into personnel difficulties which led to the requested resignation of two of the local project leaders which in turn resulted in the resignation of other staff members working for NARECO.

The Colombian Governmental Advisory Committee was informed of these events and with its concurrence NARECO hired new research personnel. The field research began on 3 December 1965 and is scheduled to be completed by 1 June 1966. This project was debated in the Colombian Parliament and was defended by the Colombian Government during January and February 1966 and the project

was continued. All data under this study are unclassified and are furnished to the Colombian Government. Analysis of the data and preparation of the final report will be done jointly by SORO and NARECO personnel.

Mrs. HANSEN. It will probably be called to our attention. Speaking about the Colombian military force down there, isn't part of our military mission there devoted to assisting them to train their people

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes.

MILITARY SECURITY AGREEMENTS

Mrs. HANSEN. Mr. Conte was discussing this a little earlier. I would like to know how many military or mutual security agreements do we have around the world that would require the use of our American military?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Military Assistance Bilateral Agreements do not carry any requirement for use of American forces.

Mrs. HANSEN. That is not what I am referring to. I believe we have about 40 treaties that involve security clauses which carry directly or indirectly guarantees of assistance from this country. They have all been approved by the Senate?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I believe so. I would be happy to put a list in the record and indicate the date of the Senate review. Mrs. HANSEN. I think it would be well. (The information follows:)

MUTUAL DEFENSE TREATIES

was

The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty) opened for signature on September 2, 1947, ratification was advised by the Senate on December 8, 1947, and entered into force December 3, 1948. The ratifying countries were Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949, ratification was advised by the Senate on July 21, 1949, and entered into force on August 24, 1949. The ratifying countries were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Ice land, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom, and the United States. Greece and Turkey acceded to the Treaty pursuant to a 1951 Protocol, ratification of which was advised by the Senate on February 7, 1952, and which entered into force February 15, 1952. Germany acceded to the Treaty by a 1954 Protocol, ratification of which was advised by the Senate on April 1, 1955, and which entered into force May 5, 1955. The Security Treaty between Australia, New Zealand, and the United States (ANZUS) was signed on September 1, 1951, ratification was advised by the Senate on March 20, 1952, and entered into force April 29, 1952.

The Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the Philippines was signed on August 30, 1951, ratification was advised by the Senate on March 20, 1952, and entered into force August 27, 1952.

The Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and Korea was signed on October 1, 1953, ratification was advised by the Senate on January 26, 1954. and entered into force November 17, 1954.

The Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty (SEATO) was signed on September 8, 1954, ratification was advised by the Senate on February 1, 1955, and entered into force February 19, 1955. The ratifying countries were Australia, France, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and China was signed on December 2, 1954, ratification was advised by the Senate on February 9, 1955, and entered into force March 3, 1955.

The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan was signed on January 19, 1960, ratification was advised by the Senate on June 22, 1960, and entered into force June 23, 1960. This Treaty superseded an earlier Security Treaty between the United States and Japan which was signed on September 8, 1951 and entered into force on April 28, 1952 after ratification was advised by the Senate on March 20, 1952.

NEED FOR UPDATING NATO

Mrs. HANSEN. The Senate does not mention these things. The next question: Do you think that NATO needs an updating as was suggested the other evening in one of the papers, remembering the history of all alliances ever since the time of the Congress of Vienna and how they constantly change with changing times, with changing problems and with various occurrences in the world?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I think the answer is "Yes." By saying that, however, I do not mean to imply that I think that the action of President de Gaulle is an updating.

Mrs. HANSEN. I do not think so, either.

Secretary MCNAMARA. I think all alliances need to change and grow and evolve as circumstances change. NATO, certainly, among others. Of course, it is doing so constantly. The special committee on nuclear planning that was set up recently is one illustration of response to its need for continual growth and change.

EXPANSION OF WESTERN EUROPEAN DEFENSE BUDGETS

Mrs. HANSEN. I this planning and change and new developments and a new look, isn't it constantly noted, the increasing ability of Western European countries to finance a larger and larger part of their own defenses.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Absolutely.

They have substantially expanded their defense budgets over the last 4 or 5 years by about 37 percent on the average. Some several countries-Norway, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy-have all expanded their budgets by about 50 percent; but they have still not expanded them enough in my opinion. I believe that NATO nations, other than the United States, should increase their contributions to our common defense in the future.

Mrs. HANSEN. I wonder if you could show the relationship of their military increases to their gross national product as compared to ours?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I will be happy to include something in the record on that.

(Classified information supplied to committee.)

SALE OF WEST GERMAN STEEL MILL TO CHINA

Mrs. HANSEN. How about the West German steel mill going into China? Is any part of the steel produced to be used in their military preparations?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I assume that it would be.

Mrs. HANSEN. Do you mean to say we have soldiers defending West Berlin at the same time that West Germany is putting in a steel mill to assist China, while she waves her guns at us?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Let me say that the mill wouldn't become productive for a number of years.

Mrs. HANSEN. Well, China is still going to be there.

Secretary MCNAMARA. As you know, Secretary Rusk has stated his views of this action in discussing the problem with the West German Government.

Mr. Bow. Mr. Secretary, are any of the groups in Germany nego. tiating the building of this steel mill in Red China involved in any of the sales to us of military hardware?

Secretary McNAMARA. No,

Mr. Bow. I am just interested to know whether we are buying military hardware from these people in Germany who are negotiating for the steel mill in Red China.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Definitely not. Actually, our purchases of military hardware in Germany are negligible. There is only one important item that we are buying there, that is the Hispano Suisa 20 millimeter gun. The total procurement involved is somewhere around 20-odd million dollars. We are buying there only because we need the gun badly and can't get it in time from U.S. sources.

Mr. Bow. These people are not involved in the Red Chinese deal? Secretary McNAMARA. No; they are not. This gun is the only item we are buying that I am aware of. By contrast, the Germans are buying a year from us.

Mr. Bow. I was not as much interested in the amounts as I am in whether we are buying from them and they are at the same time dealing with Red China.

U.S. PURCHASES FROM FRANCE

Mr. SHRIVER. Are we buying anything from France?

Secretary McNAMARA. A few small items. Not very much. One or two antitank weapons we can't get anyplace else.

PURCHASE OF GERMAN HISPANO SUISA 20-MILLIMETER GUN

Mr. CONTE. Mr. Secretary, you mentioned the German Hispano Suisa. We were told last week that we can produce a 20-millimeter gun right here in the United States which is almost as effective, has almost the same penetrating power at only a slightly shorter distance. Now, why can't this be bought right here in the States?

Secretary MCNAMARA. You may have been told that by representatives of the Springfield Arsenal who were seeking to retain the arsenal in use. The Army has stated that the representatives of the arsenal who made those statements can't support them, and that there is no source for this gun other than the West Germany company which can produce it within a reasonable time.

We propose to buy a portion of our requirements from the West German source, and produce the rest in this country, but not at the Springfield Arsenal.

EFFECT OF MILITARY PURCHASES ON ECONOMIC STABILITY

Mrs. HANSEN. On page 25, Mr. Secretary, where you say "The use of military assistance funds to facilitate export sales-" and so forth, we heard testimony the other day from the Export-Import Bank, and

probably from other lending agencies while I wasn't here. In some countries, I know military hardware purchases can be used to develop a sense of military adventurism. In certain countries where there are economic frustrations, it may be easier to build up nationalism and to go on a military adventure against a neighbor than to correct an

economy.

Is economic stability being jeopardized by this sort of purchase? I am sure you are aware that when there is economic instability and conditions which result in poverty, increasing hunger and so on in a nation, these are causes that can lead to a Communist takeover in any country.

Secretary MCNAMARA. I think the answer is "Yes." Definitely. There are many countries in the world seeking to buy weapons which shouldn't be diverting resources from the growth of their economies to such weapons purchases. There is no question about that.

Whenever we come across a case of that kind, we refuse to sell the

weapons.

Mrs. HANSEN. But other nations of the world don't take the same attitude about the sale of the weapons?

Secretary MCNAMARA. That is correct. We both refuse to sell them weapons and explain, with as much courtesy as we can, but also with as much firmness as possible, that if they do buy them any place else and divert scarce economic resources to that end, we will take their action into account in planning our economic aid or other assistance programs.

Now, if you want to take 60 seconds and let me read a memo of conversation dated I will give you an illustration of this.

I would like this off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

CHINESE ACTIVITY IN AFRICA

Mrs. HANSEN. On page 20 you have mentioned the Sino-Soviets in Africa. How much activity by China is in Africa now?

Secretary MCNAMARA. There is a fair amount. I have some of the figures on the number of Chinese there. They have been singularly unsuccessful in recent months. They have lost ground in a number of African nations, but they haven't stopped trying.

Mrs. HANSEN. They are still sending

Secretary MCNAMARA. Still sending agents.

CHINESE ATTEMPTS TO ENTER SOUTH AMERICA

Mrs. HANSEN. Is China making any attempt to get into South America?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I think the answer is, "Yes"; but it is a small, feeble attempt, so far. That doesn't mean that it won't grow. They have been quite disappointed, obviously, in their relations with Cuba, which they were using as an instrument for entry into Latin America.

VIETNAM

Mrs. HANSEN. I have two questions on Vietnam. One of them posed by a letter that came into my office this morning. I think nearly every