to have this anchor to windward in case that comes, in the event of an armed aggression.

Secretary ACHESON. Senator, I do not think that article 53 has any application whatever to this problem. There is no question of "getting around" anything in the Charter. We have no desire to get around anything whatever. Article 53 deals with a regional arrangement which has been set up, for whatever purpose it may be, and article 53 says that that regional arrangement shall not, itself, undertake positive coercive enforcement action against any country unless the Security Council asks it to do so and authorizes it to do so. Article 53 has nothing whatever to do with the right of self-defense, individual or collective. Therefore article 53 is not involved in our discussions in any way whatever. Under the North Atlantic Treaty nobody proposes to take enforcement action, aggressive action, preliminary action, any sort of action at all, except defensive, after an attack has occurred. Article 53 isn't talking about that at all.

Now I think it is important, and one hesitates to discuss this before Senators Connally and Vandenberg, who were at San Francisco and know far more about this than I do, to recall that in the drafting of the Charter article 51, which as originally proposed and discussed was under the heading of "Regional arrangements" and with these other articles, was purposely separated from them, so that the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense should not be associated with any other idea whatever: it is a complete, absolute right which is not associated with regional arrangements or actions of the Security Council, unless the Security Council steps in and stops their development. Therefore we are not concerned with article 53 at all.

Have I made that clear?

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I think you are right, but the question has been so pressed on me and others have raised the question as to what this language means here that I wanted very much to get your statement, and I think the separation of those in different chapters is significant, as you have suggested, of the two articles, 51 and 53.

Senator VANDENBERG. Before you leave that, Senator, I would like to testify that I cordially agree with the Secretary's analysis. Article 53 deals with affirmative action by the Security Council; article 51 deals with a situation where the Security Council does not act, and the need for article 51 grew out of the fact that article 53 did not meet the conditions to which article 51 addresses itself.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it not true that article 53 simply authorized the Security Council to use this regional arrangement to carry out instructions set forth in article 53?

Secretary ACHESON. That is right, sir.

ARTICLE 54 OF THE CHARTER AND THE TREATY

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. The next question, which I also admit I personally do not have any difficulty with but I would like to have the Secretary answer for the record, is with regard to article 54, and I will read it:

The Security Council shall at all times be kept fully informed of activities undertaken or in contemplation under regional arrangements or by regional agencies for the maintenance of international peace and security.

..

There again, if I may express my own interpretation, you apply the same interpretation that you just applied to article 53, that these two articles have nothing to do with the individual or collective selfdefense provision provided for in article 51.

Secretary ACHESON. I think that is right.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. And therefore, under article 51, if we are seeking to protect ourselves under the self-defense principle, we will not be compelled to keep the Security Council necessarily informed of all the activities we are taking in that connection.

Secretary ACHESON. We would, under the provisions of this treaty and under article 51, immediately inform the Security Council of any armed attack and of the measures which we were taking to resist it. That is an obligation both of the Charter and of this treaty.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. That would be at the moment the armed attack occurs?

Secretary ACHESON. Yes, sir.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. And the fact that we are just looking ahead to protect ourselves against any possible danger does not necessarily mean that we give that full information to the Security Council?

Secretary ACHESON. We would file this treaty under article 102 of the Charter. It would be filed with the United Nations in accordance with that obligation.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I thank you very much for that, because I have been asked that question many times, and I wanted to get your statement for the record on it.

INFORMATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND THE TREATY

I would like to refer to page 7 of your testimony, where you refer to article II, because a question comes into my mind in connection with what you say about article II. You say,

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.

I have been one of those very much interested in our whole program of the Voice of America and the interpretation to the world of our purposes in world affairs. This seems to me to imply, in article II, that it is contemplated that from here on out possibly these Atlantic Treaty countries may jointly present to the world their purposes and intentions in entering into this treaty, and their general plans for strengthening their free institutions, and let the world know the fundamental purposes upon which these institutions are founded and see that they are better understood.

Am I possibly anticipating future action, or is it understood that we should create a "Voice of United Treaty Countries" to explain that position?

Secretary ACHESON. No, sir. It is not contemplated that there will be joint action. Article II does not impose any obligations upon the contracting parties. Article II states the fundamental things which are being defended. We are defending those things which are most precious to us. Those are free institutions, and we want everyone to understand what those are. Article II states the basic principles

of free government and the determination of each one of the parties to have those understood by everybody. Once you understand what those free institutions are, you know there is nothing aggressive in the Treaty, that there cannot be; but there are no plans and there is no obligation here for joint action under article II.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. But we are probably hoping, or I would be hoping at least, that the parties to this treaty would all attempt, so far as they can, to reiterate the point that you have just made. That is what we are trying to do in our presentation to the world of where we stand. I am saying this because I feel that a great deal will be accomplished by the proper carrying on of a publicity program and an expression of where we stand, so as not to permit these charges of imperialistic designs and aggression to take hold. I think we have a responsibility to make that clear as a part of the whole present world picture.

Secretary ACHESON. The Department of State, as you know, reiterates its belief in the importance of the Voice of America and other information activities which we take outside of our borders to make ourselves understood, and we will continue to urge on the Congress that we be enabled to do that as effectively as possible.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. And while you might wish that other countries will do the same thing as a group, there is no contemplation of joint action?

Secretary ACHESON. That is correct.

Senator VANDENBERG. May I interrupt you just a moment.

I think it is rather important to stress that point, Mr. Secretary. This is not a rival organization to the United Nations in any aspect of its contemplated activities, and to go into a collateral informational program at the same time that the United Nations is operating one or the State Department is operating one would be sheer duplication, and nothing of the sort is contemplated.

Secretary ACHESON. That is entirely correct.

PRIORITY OF ECA OVER MILITARY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Now, Mr. Secretary, am I correct in my feeling that we look upon the ECA program, the program for the rehabilitation of these countries of western Europe, as a No. 1 undertaking of our own, and under no conditions are we going to sacrifice that program for any other program? We are going to see that through. In other words, it has priority in our thinking as a means for bringing about world peace and as a means for resisting those forces that seem to tend to destruction and chaos and so forth, as against the forces of unity that we are trying to set up.

Secretary ACHESON. That is fundamental, Senator Smith.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Then we would not, in the case of this program and especially the military implementation end of it, contemplate cutting down on the ECA program at all, but we would consider that that was an A-1 proposition to be considered as the first objective in our own foreign policy?

Secretary ACHESON. Yes, sir. That has complete priority.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much. That is all I have in mind at the moment.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Pepper?

Senator PEPPER. Mr. Secretary, in article 106, chapter XVII of the United Nations Charter

The CHAIRMAN. It is the purpose of the Chair, if it is agreed to by the committee, that we will recess at about 1 o'clock, and come back at 2:30. I am not saying that to influence the Senator. I just want everybody to know what we have in mind.

CHAPTER XVII OF THE CHARTER AND THE TREATY

Senator PEPPER. I started to say that article 106, chapter XVII of the United Nations Charter, under the heading "Transitional security arrangements," does apparently make provision for association among the four signatory powers of the Moscow Declaration of 1943 and France with respect to maintaining international peace and security on behalf of ourselves and the United Nations. I think the answer is clear, but I wanted to make it clear in the record, to the effect that those four signatory powers and France were authorized in that article, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5 of the Moscow Declaration, to consult with one another, and, as occasion requires, with other members of the United Nations, with a view to such joint action on behalf of the organization as may be necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

In your opinion, that did not preclude other associations and consultations among member powers when in accord with article 51 of the Charter?

Secretary ACHESON. That is correct, Senator Pepper.

RELATIONSHIP OF TREATY TO CHARTER

Senator PEPPER. Now then, the question has been raised with respect to the relationship of the association formed under the treaty with the United Nations organization, and naturally the question would arise as to the relationship of the United Nations Charter to the North Atlantic treaty. It is provided, is it not, in article 103 of the United Nations Charter, that

In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

Secretary ACHESON. That is the provision of the Charter, and that is reiterated in the treaty.

Senator PEPPER. So that not only is it not intended that there should be anything in the North Atlantic treaty in conflict with what is in the United Nations Charter; if anything were in the North Atlantic Treaty in conflict with the Charter, then that would not be valid with respect to the Charter.

Secretary ACHESON. That is, as I say, stated in the Charter and in the treaty.

Senator VANDENBERG. Before the Senator leaves that point, may I ask a question on the same point?

Senator PEPPER. Yes, indeed.

ANGLO-RUSSIAN AND FRANCO-RUSSIAN TREATIES AND THE
NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY

Senator VANDENBERG. There are many questions raised regarding the French and British treaties with Russia in that connection. What is the situation in that respect? I am sure you are familiar with those treaties.

Secretary ACHESON. Yes, sir.

In the North Atlantic treaty there is article VIII, which states that each party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the parties, or any third state, is in conflict with the provisions of this treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international egagement

Senator PEPPER. Will the Secretary allow me to interrupt? I have just been notified that there are some amendments coming up on the floor in which I am interested, and if the Senator will allow me, since the Secretary is coming back, I will desist for the time being.

Secretary ACHESON. By entering into this treaty, the French Government with respect to its engagements, and the British Government with respect to its engagements, certify that there is nothing in those treaties which is in conflict with this treaty.

Senator VANDENBERG. In other words, the answer to these inquiries about the conflict between the existing French and British treaties with the Soviet Union is that there is nothing in conflict between those treaties and this pact, is that correct?

Secretary ACHESON. Yes, sir. The answer is that the British and the French Governments have stated that, and that is conclusive so far as we are concerned.

The CHAIRMAN. Would not their signing this treaty have the effect of really modifying or abrogating any treaty in conflict with this treaty, even though they might have difficulties with the contracting power in adjusting themselves to that decision? It is a subsequent treaty, and if there is any conflict this treaty would supersede the other. Secretary ACHESON. I am not prepared to say that that would follow, Senator. I think that it is left by the parties declaring that there is nothing in those treaties that conflicts.

Senator VANDENBERG. But in this instance there is no question whatever that both parties, both Britain and France, have declared that there is nothing in conflict.

Secretary ACHESON. There is no question as to that, Senator Vandenberg.

The CHAIRMAN. They are bound by that statement.
Secretary ACHESON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hickenlooper, if it is agreeable, when Senator Pepper comes back we will let him resume.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. I believe I can finish in a very few minutes. The CHAIRMAN. I am not rushing you. Take all the time you want.

FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS ASSUMED BY THE TREATY

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Secretary, I am interested in two phases of this treaty other than those which you have already covered, and to which you have given a number of answers in which I was interested. One of them is the financial obligation that we are assuming to sustain