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. 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 prin

ciple 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 limita'tions 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 AcnESON. 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.

(Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations is as follows:) Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individua} or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present charter to take it at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Senator VANDENBERG. So we confront, then, this series of limitations. In the first place, no nation is the target of this treaty unless it nominates itself as an armed aggressor by its own armed aggression. Is that right?

Secretary ACHESON. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Senator VANDENBERG. Secondly, it is effective only so long as the Security Council fails to take measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Secretary ACHESON. That is made repeatedly clear in the treaty itself, Senator.

Senator VANDENBERG. Therefore, if the general membership of the United Nations is faithful to its obligation to the Treaty of the United Nations, this treaty never becomes operative in action at all. Secretary ACHESON. That is entirely true.

OBLIGATION TO VOTE FOR ARMS PROGRAM

Senator VANDENBERG. Now, this is a rather ticklish question which I dislike to bring up again, because I know it is a difficult one to answer. Nevertheless it involves the viewpoints of a number of my colleagues. On the nature and extent of the obligation that a Senator assumes, if any, when he votes for the pact, you have narrowed that obligation as nearly as possible to the vanishing point as you could, but you have left this sentence:

It does preclude repudiation of the principle or of the obligation of making honest judgment regarding mutual aid.

Let me ask you this question, and I am not intending thereby to indicate my own point of view but I would like to know what your answer is. Suppose a Senator who votes for this pact says, in his own honest judgment, that he prefers to let the general obligation involved in the pledge of "one for all and all for one" to stand as his commitment to do everything required of him when the crisis arrives. Is he entitled to say that?

Secretary ACHESON. Well, of course he can say it, Senator.

Senator VANDENBERG. Has he violated your rule if he says that? Secretary ACHESON. In my judgment I think he would have violated my rule, if we add something further to your question, and that is, that in his judgment the United States not only can help other countries but the strengthening of the other countries is called for in view of the world situation.

Senator VANDENBERG. I think that is pretty clear. I am not sure I subscribe to it, but certainly there should be no doubt on the subject. I must say that I think a Senator could logically say that he accepts this obligation when it arises under article 51 without accepting an

obligation to prepare in advance to implement article 51. However, you have made your answer, and that stands.

SCOPE OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Now, I have a question on the subsequent military pact, which under your last answer does become pretty definitely integrated into the initial decision that we have to make regarding the pact itself. I wonder if you can be any more specific than you have been in respect to this contemplated mutual aid program. I agree that the two things have got to be settled separately and yet a divorce in the first instance is pretty near impossible when a Senator is undertaking to arrive at a judgment.

You have suggested that you will ask for the authorization and appropriation of $1,130,000,000 for Atlantic Pact countries. I assume that is for the first year.

Secretary ACHESON. Yes, sir; that is for the fiscal year 1950.

Senator VANDENBERG. Can you say what may be contemplated beyond 1950?

Secretary ACHESON. No; I cannot say that, Senator, because I think it is almost impossible to say that at the present time. The program for the year 1950 has been worked out in advance of the setting up of the machinery provided for in this treaty. If the treaty is ratified, you will then have a council, a defense committee with various subcommittees, probably, with military people on them. When that gets into full operation, and there is a completion of the exchanges of views between the countries, they will know more clearly what the future plans are so far as the military establishment of each one of the countries is concerned.

The program for the year 1950 has been worked out in consultation with all of these countries, and as Senator Connally intimated a moment ago, it is based upon the maintenance of the military establishments of the European countries as they exist in their proposed 1950 budgets. It is not proposed to increase the establishments beyond what is already provided in their budgets.

This assistance has to do with the provision of more effective and better rounded equipment for those forces. The European nations will do the great bulk of this equipping themselves. They will enter into-in fact they already have devised the basis of agreements by which they will help one another get equipment.

So far as the pact countries are concerned, United States assistance will be somewhere between one-sixth and one-seventh of the total effort which will go into military efforts in Europe. We will provide, as is stated in the statement, approximately $1,130,000,000 for the pact countries.

NATURE OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE

Senator WILEY. Money or equipment?

Secretary ACHESON. That is the authorized funds, and the funds which we hope will be appropriated. Some of that. Senator, will be furnished in the form of already existing military equipment, equip; ment which is in existence. Some of it will have to be manufactured for that purpose. About $150,000,000 of it will be in the form of raw

materials which the European nations will have to import in order to help their own manufacturing of military equipment. That gives you the general picture.

Now, the equipment which we will be furnishing will be very largely in the nature of what you might call capital goods. It will be equipment which is not used up in 1 year in peacetime. It will last much longer than that, so that it will not be necessary to replace that equipment every year. There are certain more or less limiting factors here. If the size of the forces is limited by the primary necessity for recovery, as is the case in Europe, then any annual increment in existence is limited, so that there are limiting factors, both the fact that the equipment is in the nature of capital goods and is not readily expendable except in time of war, and the fact that the size of the forces is very closely related to the needs of recovery.

this

score,

PROSPECTS OF DECREASING MILITARY EXPENDITURES

Senator VANDENBERG. Of course, in contemplating future budgets on the greater the success of the program in increasing pacific and reliable security, the less will be the need, and the need may entirely disappear.

Secretary ACHESON. That is entirely correct, Senator. Of course, the outstanding purpose of both the treaty and of the military assistance program is the prevention of war. These two are complementary. If they prevent war from starting, and if that creates a stable situation in which you can look forward to the fact that war is not going to start, then the whole outlook is changed and greatly eased.