Mr. TAFT. I think that is absolutely correct, Senator. I agree with that statement.

The CHAIRMAN. It is defensive as against the action of any foreign power that would violate the integrity, the safety, or the security of any of these nations?

Mr. TAFT. I agree with that completely. I think it follows the exact model of the Latin-American treaty of the same character. The CHAIRMAN. You refer, of course, to the Rio Pact?

Mr. TAFT. That is correct.

COMPARISON WITH PAST MILITARY ALLIANCES

The CHAIRMAN. You are a student of history and things of that kind. I would like to have you comment on the claims of some people that this is a military alliance. I want you to contrast this treaty with what was the traditional theory and foundation of the old-time military alliances of a hundred years ago or 50 years ago, or even more recently.

Mr. TAFT. I am not too much of an expert, Senator. But my impression is that most of those were both offensive and defensive alliances. That is to say, they contemplated the association of the nations concerned if anyone were attacked, but also to a pretty considerable degree if any one of them should undertake an offensive operation. That is certainly not the case in this instance at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Was it not true of the historic alliances like the holy alliance and others that they had offensive intentions? For instance, the holy alliance hoped to reconquer the western world and place it back under a monarchy. It failed, but still that was understood generally to have been the motive of the holy alliance.

Mr. TAFT. They would not have put it quite that way. They felt that they were restoring the legitimate authorities in Europe, first, and in other parts of the world afterwards; but certainly the effect of it was certainly an offensive alliance.

The CHAIRMAN. While it was not perhaps explicitly stated in the alliance, their objectives were that these three monarchs, and they regarded themselves as more or less ruling the European Continent, at least, would act together in whatever war or whatever enterprise might follow, is that not true?

Mr. TAFT. I think that is true, although they attempted to state a general objective which on the surface had certain moral foundations but which in fact came out as an offensive alliance.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it not true that the Monroe Doctrine had its birth and sprang from the ambitions and protections of the holy alliance

Mr. TAFT. I think that is unquestionably true. The original suggestion of it from Canning was an effort to balance somewhat the powers in the holy alliance.

The CHAIRMAN. The purpose of Canning in making that suggestion, and his correspondence shows it, was to offset or discourage the formation in this hemisphere of the old regime.

Mr. TAFT. That is right, Senator. I have not read his correspondence. You are getting a little out of my depth in history, I may say. The CHAIRMAN. It is pretty wel understood generally.

Then let me ask you one other question and I will have finished.

Prior to World War I you recall, I think, that the so-called Central Powers had a treaty or an alliance with Italy, in which Italy bound herself to go along with the Central Powers. She did not do that. She did not follow that in World War I. But she was charged with having breached her treaty and her agreement because she did not. Is that not true?

Mr. TAFT. Yes, and I think she probably did.

The CHAIRMAN. I think she did too, but still the basis of the whole thing was that she had been in one of these military alliances pledged to go to war when Germany or Austria went to war.

Mr. TAFT. There was a similar claim, of course, in World War II, and that time Italy jumped the other way.

The CHAIRMAN. Still, the same principle was involved.
Mr. TAFT. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Vandenberg?

Senator VANDENBERG. Mr. Taft, I like your statement very much, particularly the note of warning you put into it. I have no trouble whatever with the pact itself. I think it is just elementary common sense in behalf of peace. But I think the problem of implementation requires the precise cautions that you indicate.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PACT

You point, in this connection, to the difficulty that arose in pan America in connection with efforts to provide limited armaments. Is it not true that under the pact the requirement for continuous self-help and mutual aid, and the requirement for the constant integration of western European defense plans, is calculated, if properly carried out, to integrate these decisions to a point where none of the difficulties found in South America would arise?

Mr. TAFT. I think that is absolutely correct. There was no such provision for coordination—at least none that was working-in Latin America, and there was no provision for coordination in Washington at that stage.

Senator VANDENBERG. In the second place, in your statement you note the danger of our commitment through an act of omission of a weak ally, and perhaps an act of commission by a weak ally. Is it not true that under the terms of article 5 of the pact we are left in a completely obvious and completely legitimate right of self determination in judging the character of the crisis and the nature and extent of our contribution to the restoration of peace and security?

Mr. TAFT. Yes, sir; I think there is no question about that. I think it should be emphasized at every stage, however, that that is the fact.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator George?

Senator GEORGE. I have no questions of Mr. Taft.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Thomas?

Senator THOMAS of Utah. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Fulbright?

Senator FULBRIGHT. Mr. Taft, I associate myself with Senator Vandenberg's estimate of your statement. I think it is a very informative one in raising questions I have not seen raised prior to this time in these hearings regarding the influence of the military in the implementation.

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL

There is one paragraph particularly that I would like for you to amplify. That is on page 3, where you say:

This success has depended upon the particular people running the operation. The Merger Act should be amended as proposed to include the Vice President on the council and eliminate the secretaries of the three services.

Who proposed that?

Mr. TAFT. I understood there was a bill actually introduced, Senator, in one House or the other, which did provide for the elimination of the three secretaries. The addition of the Vice President I think was simply a casual suggestion, but one which seemed to me to have much merit, because in my own thinking, in connection with the operation of the State Department and, in fact, of the entire foreign and domestic policy of the Government, the place where the Vice President, it seems to me, could do the most good would be as the chairman of a committee like the National Security Council, but covering a somewhat larger area, so that I thought of myself, and when I saw the suggestion in the papers it seemed to me a very wise one. It also provides a contact with the Senate which is a very desirable one. Senator FULBRIGHT. I would gather from the whole statement on that page that you realize how very difficult it is to coordinate the civilian and military, and in military affairs they usually tend to go their own way, do they not?

Mr. TAFT. I was very much encouraged, however, Senator, by the Alsops' article in the Saturday Evening Post, to which I was referring in my statement, actually, in discussing the success of the National Security Council. I had heard that that was the case before, and their article amplified it with a good deal of detail on a basis that seemed to me quite accurate and sound.

MILITARY BUDGET OF THE UNITED STATES

Senator FULBRIGHT. When you mentioned, up at the top of that page, that Latin American countries, as a result of the military recommendations, would have increased their budgets to over 30 percent of the total budget for military expenses, our budget is over 30 percent for military items. The percent of our budget which includes foreign aid, which really has a very close associationMr. TAFT. I am referring strictly to the military budget. Senator FULBRIGHT. Our own budget is nearly 50 percent. Mr. TAFT. You are dealing with countries in which there is no such necessity for military operations, and in which a percentage of thirty is a burden on their economy which they are quite unable to bear.

ECONOMIC AND MILITARY ASSISTANCE

Senator FULBRIGHT. There is some question-at least the matter is being discussed here-as to how long we can bear 50 percent for this purpose including, as I say, the two items of ECA and the mili

tary.

Mr. TAFT. I would not include the ECA, myself.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Its ultimate purpose is the same, is it not?

Mr. TAFT. I do not think so. I was involved in the setting up of the first European Economic Committee in the fall of 1944, which was the forerunner of the ECA, and the objective at that time was not military but was in a broad sense commercial for the prosperity of this country, rather than the military considerations that subsequently made it possible to put it through.

Senator FULBRIGHT. What I mean, the object is the security of the western democratic people.

Mr. TAFT. That is one object.

Senator FULBRIGHT. One is military and the other is economic in its approach, but I did not understand and do not understand that the principal objective of the ECA is better economic opportunity for this country. I thought that was entirely incidental. In fact, I could not support it if that was its only purpose.

Mr. TAFT. I would suport it on that basis, and I was for it before any question of military defense came up. The military defense is unquestionably the consideration that put it through the Congress of the United States.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I am not able to accept the idea that we can be prosperous by giving away goods. It seems to me prosperity must depend upon a real economic exchange of values.

Mr. TAFT. I think there is no question about that, but I think also that our prosperity could not exist if the rest of the world were in the economic status that it was at the end of the war, and it would be worth giving a good deal in order to restore it to its situation in western Europe as the other great workshop of the world.

Senator FULBRIGHT. That is purely temporary. The objective of it is to establish them where they can stand on their own feet. Mr. TAFT. Certainly. There is no question about that.

Senator TAFT. One of the principal objectives or ingredients in that is this question of security, first security from invasion by the Communists.

Mr. TAFT. That is correct, and it has been a very successful implementation of the policy that was described by Mr. X.

POLITICAL INTEGRATION OF EUROPE

Senator FULBRIGHT. At one point you say the problem is broadly political and not military. In that broad sense I agree with that. I wondered if you had given any thought to the political problems that exist in Europe; that is, the political fragmentation of that area. Do you think that there would be any advantage to this country in rearranging the pattern of political associations in Europe?

Mr. TAFT. I think it might, but I think it is a very long-term project. I don't think it is anything which the United States could do from the outside, and I think we have to approach the problem in the light of the situation as it is. In that situation, the moral determination of a nation like France, in my judgment, is the key to the defense of Western Europe, rather than their military budget. I think in that respect there is probably the greatest progress in the course of the last 2 years.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Do you think that if these countries remain independent sovereignties they will become strong enough to support themselves either economically or militarily?

Mr. TAFT. That is a very difficult question, Senator. We are out of balance to the extent, I think, of some $5,000,000,000. They, I see from the latest figures, taking western Europe as a whole, were out of balance to the extent of $5,600,000,000 for last year, for the year 1948. I think that is our most serious economic problem, as to whether those two imbalances can be corrected. I hope they can, but I do not think it is at all certain that they can.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Do you think if these countries in western Europe to some extent merged their sovereignty so that they could rid themselves of the economic barriers that it would be beneficial to that area?

Mr. TAFT. I think there is no question about it. I only say that that certainly is not a project which the United States can put over, so to speak. It has to be done by them.

Senator FULBRIGHT. If we are investing our money and our efforts and taking considerable risks of even greater dangers, do you think we have no interest in suggesting to them that they do what you feel, and I think a good many others feel, would contribute to the ultimate objective?

Mr. TAFT. I have the greatest interest in that. I still would say that the problem has to be solved in the long run by a self-starting operation in Europe. We cannot do it by any pressure that we would put on from the outside, although we may definitely insist on doing so, and in view of our investment I think probably we should.

Senator FULBRIGHT. We are seeking to do that in the economic field. Mr. TAFT. That is right, and we have made some progress.

ENCOURAGEMENT OF UNIFICATION

Senator FULBRIGHT. And many of us feel those efforts will be fruitless in the economic field unless it is accompanied by political change. It seems, therefore, we have every reason to at least suggest to them that that ought to be done.

Mr. TAFT. I think so. I only say that as a practical matter I think we have done so. I do not think as a practical matter we can compel it. Senator FULBRIGHT. When do you think we did so?

Mr. TAFT. My impression from the reading of the press for the last 3 years has been that we have assisted and given such push as we felt was appropriate in that direction.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Can you think of any instance in which we officially gave any such push?

Mr. TAFT. No; I cannot think of any instance where we did it officially, and I am not at all sure that that would not react if we did. Senator FULBRIGHT. Unofficially?

Mr. TAFT. I can only say, in reading the papers, the New York Times and other organs of opinion and of fact, there have been reported instances where we have attempted to assist in that direction. I am very, very skeptical of how much can be done by us from the outside, Senator. I do not think that just because we put $5,000,000,000 a year in there that we can compel them to do anything. We may stop the money, but that still will not compel them to do it.

Senator FULBRIGHT. You have no faith in persuasion, either?

Mr. TAFT. Well. I am for persuasion. I am saying that it has to be internal and self-starting in order to accomplish the purpose.