throughout that whole area. Economic problems have not been solved by international cooperation but have been dealt with by dictation. These same methods have been attempted in other areas-penetration by propaganda and the Communist Party, attempts to block cooperative international efforts in the economic field, wars of nerves, and in some cases thinly veiled use of force itself.

By the end of 1947 it had become abundantly clear that this Soviet pressure and penetration was being exerted progressively further to the west. In January 1948, the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Ernest Bevin, said that if any one power attempted to dominate Europe by whatever means, direct or indirect, it would inevitably lead to another world war unless this policy could be checked by peaceful means. He declared that if peace and security were to be preserved it could be done only

by mobilization of such a moral and material force as will create confidence and energy in the West and inspire respect elsewhere.

THE BRUSSELS TREATY

With encouragement from the United States the Brussels Treaty was signed on March 17, 1948. The Brussels Treaty system took the form, not of a network of bilateral alliances as had been originally considered, but of a collective defense arrangement within the framework of the United Nations Charter similar in many respects to the Rio Treaty. On the day the Brussels Treaty was signed, the President, in addressing both Houses of Congress, called the treaty a notable step toward peace and expressed confidence that the determination of the free peoples of Europe to protect themselves would be matched by equal determination on our part to help them do so and that the United States would extend to the free countries the support which the situation might require.

SENATE RESOLUTION 239

At that time the Congress had before it a number of proposals for strengthening the United Nations and making it a more effective instrument for the maintenance of international peace and security. My predecessor, General Marshall, and the former Under Secretary of State, Mr. Robert Lovett, entered into consultation with the committee on how the great influence of the United States might best be brought to bear in association with other free nations in strengthening the United Nations and furthering the cause of world peace.

On May 19, 1948, this committee unanimously reported Senate Resolution No. 239. That resolution declared:

Whereas peace with justice and the defense of human rights and fundamental freedoms require international cooperation through more effective use of the United Nations: Therefore be it

Resolved, That the Senate reaffirm the policy of the United States to achieve international peace and security through the United Nations so that armed force shall not be used except in the common interest, and that the President be advised of the sense of the Senate that this Government, by constitutional process, should particularly pursue the following objectives within the United Nations Charter: (1) Voluntary agreement to remove the veto from all questions involving pacific settlements of international disputes and situations, and from the admission of new members.

(2) Progressive development of regional and other collective arrangements for individual and collective self-defense in accordance with the purposes, principles, and provisions of the Charter.

(3) Association of the United States, by constitutional process, with such regional and other collective arrangements as are based on continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, and as affect its national security.

(4) Contributing to the maintenance of peace by making clear its determination to exercise the right of individual or collective self-defense under article 31 should any armed attack occur affecting its national security.

(5) Maximum efforts to obtain agreements to provide the United Nations with armed forces as provided by the Charter, and to obtain agreement among member nations upon universal regulation and reduction of armaments under adequate and dependable guaranty against violation.

(6) If necessary, after adequate effort toward strengthening the United Nations, review of the Charter at an appropriate tine by a general conference called under article 109 or by the General Assembly.

It will be noted that of the six objectives recommended, Nos. 1, 5, and 6 were designed to strengthen the United Nations on a universal basis. This requires the agreement of all the major powers. Our efforts to achieve these objectives are being steadily pursued but it has not yet been possible, and I am not able to say when it will be possible,

to achieve them.

The second, third, and fourth objectives are designed to promote peace and stability by ancillary methods within the principles of the Charter. In its report on that resolution the committee declared that these relatively unexplored resources of the Charter should be further explored and developed as rapidly as possible.

LEGISLATIVE-EXECUTIVE COOPERATION TOWARD IMPLEMENTING SENATE RESOLUTION 239

For more than a year the members of the committee and officers of the Department of State have been in consultation as to the nature of the problems involved, how they might best be met, and how the influence of the United States might best be brought to bear in the cause of peace. Throughout the negotiation of this treaty the United States negotiators have been guided by the wishes of the Senate as expressed in Resolution 239. It is highly gratifying that the views of the Senate, as expressed in the unanimous report of this committee on the resolution and the passage by the Senate of that resolution by a vote of 64 to 4. and in subsequent consultation on the text of the treaty, have been absolutely free of partisan spirit and have been moved solely by the interests of the United States, of the United Nations, and of world peace.

EXPLORATORY TALKS WITH WESTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

Following the resolution of the Senate. Mr. Lovett undertook to explore the matter with the Ambassadors of Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxemburg. The objective of this Government and of the other governments participating in these discussions was to establish an arrangement which would: First. Increase the determination of the parties to resist aggression and their confidence that they could successfully do so;

Second. Promote full economic recovery through removing the drag of a sense of insecurity;

Third. Stimulate the efforts of the parties to help themselves and each other and, through coordination, to achieve maximum effectiveness for defense; and

Fourth. Contribute to the maintenance of peace and reduce the possibility of war by making clear the determination of the parties jointly to resist armed attack from any quarter.

EXPLANATION OF NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY

I have explained the text of the treaty article by article in my report to the President, which is before you, and I will not repeat that explanation at this point. I wish merely to stress certain essential points of the treaty.

ARTICLE I

The treaty is carefully and conscientiously designed to conform in every particular with the Charter of the United Nations and to contribute to the accomplishments of its purposes. This is made clear in article I which reiterates and reaffirms the basic principle of the Charter, namely, that the participating countries will settle all their international disputes, not only among themselves but with any nation, by peaceful means in accordance with the provisions of the Charter. This declaration sets the whole tone and spirit of the treaty and provides unmistakable proof that any allegations that the treaty conceals aggressive intentions are obvious perversions of the truth. mocracies, by their very nature must conduct their affairs openly. They could not, even if they wished, conspire against anyone, individually or collectively. Such allegations are belied both by the terms of the treaty and by the very nature of the free institutions upon which the signatory governments are founded.

ARTICLE II. ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

De

Article II demonstrates the conviction of the parties that real peace is a positive and dynamic thing, that it is much more than the mere absence of war. In this article the signatory governments assert that they will strengthen their free institutions and see to it that the fundamental purposes upon which these institutions are founded are better understood everywhere. They also agree to seek to eliminate conflicts in their economic life and to promote economic cooperation among themselves. Here is the ethical essence of the treaty-the common resolve to preserve, strengthen, and make better understood the very basis of tolerance, restraint, freedom, and well-being, the really vital things with which we are concerned.

ARTICLE III. MUTUAL AID AND SELF-HELP

Article III, of which I will speak further later this morning, embodies in the treaty the concept contained in the Senate resolution of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid. This means that no party can rely on others for its defense unless it does its utmost to defend itself and contribute toward the defense of the others.

The basic purpose of the treaty is, as recommended in the Senate resolution, to contribute to the maintenance of peace by making clear

the determination of the parties to exercise the right of self-defense under article 51, should armed attack upon any party occur. This provision is contained in article V. If the treaty accomplishes its purpose such an armed attack will not occur. In order to accomplish that purpose, however, the parties must state clearly what they would be prepared to do if an armed attack should occur.

ARTICLE V. OBLIGATIONS IN THE EVENT OF AN ARMED ATTACK

Article V recognizes the basic fact that an armed attack upon any party would so threaten the national security of the other parties as to be in effect an armed attack upon all. It further provides that in the event of such an attack each of them will take, individually and in concert with the other parties, whatever action it deems necessary to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area, including

the use of armed force.

This naturally does not mean that the United States would automatically be at war if one of the other signatory nations were the victim of an armed attack. Under our Constitution, the Congress alone has the power to declare war. The obligation of this Government under article V would be to take promptly the action it deemed necessary to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. That decision would, of course, be taken in accordance with our constitutional procedures. The factors which would have to be considered would be the gravity of the attack and the nature of the action which this Government considered necessary to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. That would be the end to be achieved. Under the treaty we would be bound to make an honest judgment as to what action was necessary to attain that end and consequently to take such action. That action might or might not include the use of armed force. If we should be confronted again with an all-out armed attack such as has twice occurred in this century and caused world wars, I do not believe that any action other than the use of armed force could be effective. The decision, however, would naturally rest where the Constitution has placed it.

THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (M. A. P.)

I believe it appropriate to outline briefly the role of the proposed military assistance program in our over-all foreign policy and its relationship to the Atlantic Pact. As you know, the President will shortly recommend to the Congress the enactment of legislation authorizing the transfer of military equipment and assistance to other As you also know, the proposed program will request authorization and appropriation of $1.130,000,000 for Atlantic Pact countries and approximately $320,000,000 for other countries, including Greece and Turkey, making a total of $1,450,000,000 for the fiscal

year 1950.

The furnishing of military assistance to the Atlantic Pact countries is designed to assist us in attaining the fundamental goal of our foreign policy: The preservation of international peace and the preservation of the security of the United States. Our aid to Greece and Turkey, the European recovery program- the greatest of all measures to date in our foreign policy-Senate Resolution 239, the Atlantic Pact

which we are now considering, and the proposed military assistance program, are all designed to this end.

PURPOSE OF THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

You may ask why it is not enough to have the Atlantic Pact alone since it accepts the principle that an attack on one is an attack on all. Why does the Executive believe that it will be necessary to have a military assistance program in addition to the commitments contained in the pact?

The answer is found in the insecurity and the fears of western Europe and of many of the other freedom-loving nations of the world. Basic to the purposes of the military assistance program is the necessity of promoting economic recovery and political stability by providing a basis for confidence, a sense of security and a reasonable assurance of peace among European peoples. The military assistance program will improve the defenses and military capabilities of these nations, and thus increase their will to resist aggression and their ability to maintain internal security.

It is understandable that the free nations of western Europe cannot look forward with equanimity to invasion and occupation in the event of war, even if we guarantee subsequently to liberate them. Nor is it in our own interest to permit them to be occupied with the consequent necessity of the costly liberation of these areas. Our active foreign policy has given rise in Europe to a great momentum of recovery and a great increase in the will to resist. The hope for peace lies in maintaining this momentum. The free countries of western Europe must be encouraged to continue their efforts toward recovery. Their will to resist and their ability mutually to defend themselves must be strengthened. They must be encouraged and assisted to build up their defense forces, through self-help and mutual aid, to a point where aggression cannot take place through internal disorders growing from the seeds sown by a potential aggressor, or under the guise of border incidents. In short, they must regain, individually and collectively, their ability to maintain their independence and national security. This in itself is an additional deterrent to any would-be aggressor. Thus, even without the existence of the North Atlantic Treaty, the need for assistance for defense of these countries would be the same. With the pact, the assistance, once given, will be infinitely more effective.

MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND MUTUAL AID AND SELF-HELP

It is important, however, to view the objectives of the proposed military assistance program in light of the objectives of article 3, the self-help and mutual-aid article, of the North Atlantic Treaty, for the objectives of each are complementary. The objectives of both are to maintain and develop individual and collective capacity to resist by self-help and mutual aid. That is what article 3 is going to do; that is what the proposed military assistance program is going to do. Article 3 does not bind the United States to the proposed military assistance program, nor indeed to any program. It does bind the United States to the principle of self-help and mutual aid. Within this principle each party to the pact must exercise its own honest