are parties, and its obligations are binding upon us? Is that not true?

Secretary ACHESON. That is so. It is a treaty ratified by the Senate of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. And entering into a treaty like the United Nations is not a surrender of sovereignty but it is really an exercise of sovereignty.

Secretary ACHESON. That is very true, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. One other point, and then I will turn you over to some of the other committee members.

AUTOMATIC DECLARATION OF WAR

Is there or is there not anything in the treaty that pledges us to an automatic declaration of war in any event?

Secretary ACHESON. There is nothing in the treaty which has that effect, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Those are matters still residing in the discretion and judgment of the Government and the Senate?

Secretary ACHESON. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. Even after the occurrence of events, we would still have that freedom, would we not?

Secretary ACHESON. That is true.

MINORITY DOMINATION IN AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

The CHAIRMAN. I was interested in your statement that in the United Nations or any other international organization there was the possibility that a group within that organization would have designs that could be very destructive and detrimental to the organization. There is evidence, to my mind, not necessarily to yours, that such possibilities are already in existence at the present time-that there are little groups who vote together and act together with an objective, I think, of hampering and disrupting the international organization. There is nothing of that kind in this treaty?

Secretary ACHESON. No, sir. What I was referring to was the difficulties which faced the United Nations.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Secretary ACHESON. And I was pointing out that I thought it was not, as one commonly hears it said, a defect in the provisions of the United Nations Charter. It is not because we do not have a better Charter; it is not because we do not have world government that this difficulty arises. It would arise in any organization, no matter how perfectly devised. The difficulty comes in the attitude and the actions of this powerful minority group, and it happens that the same thing happens in a trade-union or a church or a club or a political body, that when some of the members of it undertake to use the principles and procedures to frustrate the functioning, then the organization just won't work.

THE SOVIET ALLIANCE SYSTEM

The CHAIRMAN. I noticed in the press-I have no direct diplomatic information on the subject-that at least one great country is denouncing this treaty and complaining about it because it does not

approve of it. This country is not a signatory and it was not concerned with the treaty.

Is it not true that since the war that same power has formed alliances and arrangements with a number of the Balkan countries without asking anybody's advice or anybody's agreement, and most certainly without consulting the United States of America?

Secretary ACHESON. That is true, Senator Connally. And I think all of those treaties have been printed in the document which the Senate has had prepared.

The CHAIRMAN. Containing very strong obligations on the part of those nations.

UNITED NATIONS' ABILITY TO MAINTAIN SECURITY

The United Nations, as you have pointed out, has not been effective in some respects, because of frustrations and delays and obstructions of this group, so that by reason of that we feel the necessity of entering into and signing or ratifying the present treaty. Is that true? Secretary ACHESON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. There is nothing in this treaty that is in anywise hostile to the purposes or plans of the United Nations? They are supplementary, are they not?

Secretary ACHESON. That is entirely right, Senator. The purposes of this treaty are to accomplish the very purposes of the United Nations. This is an ancillary method, within the provisions of the Charter, for accomplishing the purposes of the Charter.

LEGISLATIVE-EXECUTIVE COOPERATION PRIOR TO SIGNATURE OF THE TREATY

The CHAIRMAN. The treaty is really a concrete implementation of the resolution that the Senate passed, in which the State Department collaborated throughout the preparation and the consideration of the objectives set forth in this resolution, is that true?

Secretary ACHESON. Yes, sir. That resolution has been the constant guide of the negotiators of this treaty.

The CHAIRMAN. There is one other point that I would like to bring out, and that is this: Is it not true that during the preparation of the present treaty consultations were held frequently between the State Department and members of the Committee on Foreign Relations. as to the exact text, the use of words here and there, and things of that kind? Is that not true?

Secretary ACHESON. That is true, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. There was no secrecy on the part of the State Department, no attempt to keep from the Committee on Foreign Relations or from the Senate, for that matter, the provisions of this treaty as they were being formulated?

Secretary ACHESON. Not the slightest.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to commend that course in the future. I think we will get along much better under that procedure than by the Senate being handed a treaty or a convention with the words "Here it is; take it or leave it." If the members of the committee that are interested in these matters might be consulted-and I am not complaining-prior to the final act of adopting or ratifying or agreeing to a treaty or convention.

Secretary ACHESON. I think it is a very wise course which you suggest.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

DETERRENT EFFECT OF TREATY

As I view the treaty, and I will ask you whether or not you agree with me, one of its chief merits is that there would be a deterrent effect on any nation that contemplated an armed attack or an aggression because of the knowledge by that nation that such an attack would arouse the opposition of the whole group and the resistance of the whole group.

Secretary ACHESON. That is the first dominant and overwhelming purpose of this treaty. As the Senate Resolution pointed out, as the President stated in his inaugural and other addresses, the only really effective way to deal with the threat of war is to prevent wars from happening. Anything that you do after the war has happened is an aid to national survival, but the disaster has occurred, therefore everything that can be done to prevent a war from happening is to the greatest possible benefit not only of the United States but of all the rest of the world, including the nation that might be foolish enough to think of aggression, because in these days both the aggressor and the nations against whom the aggression takes place suffer terribly in the course of a modern war.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it not also true that it would have a deterrent effect on the practice that is growing up of one nation reaching out and grabbing little nations one at a time, and incorporating each into its system, when it knows in advance that to do that would arouse the hostility and resistance of all the nations that are parties to this treaty?

Secretary ACHESON. Yes, sir. That is a very great part of the effectiveness of this treaty.

The CHAIRMAN. A great and powerful nation without that situation in mind could just reach out and grab some little wobbly and weak nation and incorporate it, and then go on to the next one and the next one and the next one, until it had picked the roost clean. Secretary ACHESON. That is true, sir.

ACTION IN CASE OF AN ARMED ATTACK

The CHAIRMAN. One other point. Article 5 of the treaty provides that an armed attack against any one of the nations shall be considered an armed attack upon all of them. It further provides that in the event of such an armed 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. With regard to the language "including the use of armed force," is it not true that that does not require the use of armed force, but armed force is merely one of the means, among other means, which it may adopt to perform its duty of helping maintain the integrity of the Atlantic area?

Secretary ACHESON. That is true, Senator, and of course, whatever means would be employed would be appropriate to the gravity of the attack.

The CHAIRMAN. Exactly. But, after all, it is up to each country to determine for itself, is it not, what action it deems necessary to restore the security of the Atlantic Pact area?

Secretary ACHESON. There is no question about that, Senator. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. I wanted to get that clear, if I could, because there was some disagreement over it.

REFERENCE TO UNITED NATIONS

Secretary ACHESON. Of course, one of the first things which would occur would be reference to the United Nations.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you develop that a little?
Secretary ACHESON. I beg your pardon?

The CHAIRMAN. I say, go ahead and develop that, if you care to. Secretary ACHESON. Nearly all of the signatories of this treaty are members of the United Nations, and if a situation was developing which looked as though an armed attack might be threatened, one of the first things that you will do will be to invoke the Security Council, invoke all the provisions of the Charter for the pacific settlement of disputes. But when the armed attack occurs, and no effective action having been taken by the United Nations, then this treaty provides for action to resist the armed attack.

RELATIONSHIP OF TREATY TO MILITARY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

The CHAIRMAN. From page 9 of your statement I would like to quote just a moment:

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.

Now, again:

Within this principle each party to the pact must exercise its own honest judgment as to what it can and should do to develop and maintain its own capacity to resist and to help others. The judgment of the executive branch of this Government is that the United States can and should provide military assistance to assist the other countries in the pact to maintain their collective security. The pact does not bind the Congress to reach that same conclusion, for it does not dictate the conclusion of honest judgment.

That is very true, is it not?
Secretary ACHESON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN (reading):

It does preclude repudiation of the principle or of the obligation of making that honest judgment. Thus, if you ratify the pact, it cannot be said that there is no obligation to help. There is an obligation to help, but the extent, the manner, and the timing is up to the honest judgment of the parties. Secretary ACHESON. Yes, sir.

RELATIONSHIP OF TREATY TO UNITED NATIONS

The CHAIRMAN. You referred to this being in aid of or supplementary to the United Nations. Is there anything in this treaty which is in conflict with any of our obligations under the United Nations?

Secretary ACHESON. There is not only nothing which is in conflict, but there is express provision in the treaty that the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations prevail. Article 7 provides:

This treaty does not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the United Nations of the parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibilities of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.

PURPOSE OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

The CHAIRMAN. I have gotten the idea somewhere from these discussions that even the proposed arms agreement coming along a little later does not necessarily envisage the increase in the armed forces of the signatories to the pact, but rather the furnishing of supplies and equipment to bring up to date their armed forces.

Secretary ACHESON. That is the basis on which the proposal will be made to the Congress, Senator. You are quite correct.

The CHAIRMAN. I am glad you bring that out, because some Senators seem to be confused about the arms program. They are worried that it means that we are going to vastly increase the armed forces of European nations and give them large amounts of supplies and so forth that would involve us still more deeply in some scheme of military alliance.

Senator Vandenberg?

LIMITATIONS OF THE TREATY

Senator VANDENBERG. Mr. Secretary, first of all I want to be sure that the record discloses what I conceive to be the very close limitations within which the treaty moves into action. I am not clear about your answer to one question that the chairman asked you. He asked you what happens when an armed aggressor contemplates or undertakes an attack, and I understood you to say that the treaty came into effect under those circumstances. It is not my understanding that it would come into effect on the basis of a contemplation. The armed attack has to occur. Am I wrong on that?

Secretary ACHESON. You are right, Senator. If I gave the other impression, it was inadvertence on my part.

Senator VANDENBERG. And that is not the only limitation. The area of action is completely described within article 51, is it not? Secretary ACHESON. Yes, sir.

Senator VANDENBERG. And under article 51 even the cooperative effort which is made under the North Atlantic Treaty ceases the first moment that the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security, is that not true?

Secretary ACHESON. That is true, both under article 51 and under the express provisions of this treaty.

Senator VANDENBERG. I think it would be well, Mr. Chairman, to print article 51 in the record at this point, because it is the key to the whole situation.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, article 51 will be printed in the record at this point.