Mr. CANFIELD. Senator, 20 years is a long time. However, in the present world situation it seems to me that you have to provide security for quite a period ahead. I am not particularly bothered about this period so long-and I touched on the principal point I am anxious to emphasize-as we make it clear that the pact is an expedient to meet a situation that confronts us, and that we will not let up on the long-term objective of amending the United Nations with a view to establishing world law, effective world law, backed by force. That, we think, is of enormous importance, and it is a matter of emphasis so that both things will be presented at the same time with equal force. Senator DONNELL. You do agree, however, that a period of 20 years is a period within which many unforeseen events may occur, things that we cannot at this time foresee? That is correct, is it not? Mr. CANFIELD. That is undoubtedly true.

Senator DONNELL. And the 20-year period is only 1 year less than the period between the termination of the First World War and the beginning of the Second World War. I believe I am right in that, am I not, from 1918 to 1939?

Mr. CANFIELD. That is right.

MILITARY IMPLEMENTATION OF TREATY

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Canfield, you say also in your statement that

we must bring ourselves

I am quoting

to face the unpleasant fact that in the past when two aggregations of power have continued to arm against each other and have been unable to settle outstanding issues betwen them, war has almost invariably resulted.

Have you considered carefully article 3 of the proposed North Atlantic Treaty, which provides:

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this treaty, the parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack?

Mr. CANFIELD. Yes.

Senator DONNELL. Is it your understanding that that involves any idea or contemplation of the arming of these various nations in order to make themselves possess the individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack?

Mr. CANFIELD. I think that is possible.

Senator DONNELL. That is really the only way they could resist armed attack, by preparing by force of armis to resist it, is it not? Mr. CANFIELD. Yes, Senator; but it seems to me the main emphasis on armament is armament of this country.

Senator DONNELL. Do you think that there is any emphasis on the fact that this country is going to assist the European nations to arm themselves?

Mr. CANFIELD. It is certainly being discussed and debated.

Senator DONNELL. And it has been suggested, has it not, already, that as the first appropriation $1,130,000,000 shall be appropriated for purposes of that general type? Am I not correct in that? Mr. CANFIELD. That is correct.

Senator DONNELL. And are you also aware, Mr. Canfield, that the $1,130,000,000 does not at all necessarily represent the actual value of what is going to be sent, but that what will be sent over there may be very much undervalued, and that the $1,130,000,000 may include transportation and rehabilitation costs only instead of the actual valuation of the material itself? You are aware of that fact?

Mr. CANFIELD. I am aware of that, and I would agree with what I would presume would be your point of view, that no diminution should be made in the amount of Marshall plan aid we are now giving for peaceful purposes, peaceful development.

Senator DONNELL. And also you would agree, would you not, that if we enter into this treaty we should comply with every term of it in the letter and the spirit? You would agree with that?

Mr. CANFIELD. I should think that would be the policy of this Gov

ernment.

Senator DONNELL. And you do agree that the maintenance and development of individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack includes among the measures necessary to be taken the provision of adequate military force with which to resist such armed attack, do you not?

Mr. CANFIELD. Yes, Senator. I think you would agree that you would then get into the very difficult area of determining where the attack would be resisted, whether it is possible to arm Europe, the western European nations, effectively enough so that you would maintain a front in western Europe. Those are questions, it seems to me, that should and will be discussed in great detail by military experts. I do not feel competent to pass judgment on that.

OBLIGATIONS TO REARM EUROPE

Senator DONNELL. I appreciate that. But you do feel that any citizen, including yourself, or any such citizen who has carefully considered these matters, is entitled to draw the conclusion, and must inevitably draw the conclusion, that among the means designed to maintain and develop this individual and collective capacity to resist. armed attack is the military strengthening of these various signatory countries. You would agree with that, would you not?

Mr. CANFIELD. No; I would not. I would say that that is not necessarily true, that the pact could be made effective by close military consultation between the various countries by integration of staff work and so on.

I am not at the same time saying that giving arms aid to the western European countries to a limited degree is not advisable.

Senator DONNELL. You would be inclined to think, would you not, Mr. Canfield, that the giving of armed aid to some extent to western European countries would be advisable and would be contemplated by the provisions of article 3 which I have read from this treaty, would you not?

Mr. CANFIELD. I should think so, but personally I would oppose it if that meant any diminution of Marshall plan aid for peaceful pur

poses.

Senator DONNELL. I am not entering into the Marshall plan question; I am entering into the question of our obligations under the treaty.

Mr. CANFIELD. It is a question of men and money.

Senator DONNELL. You mean if it came to a choice of reducing military assistance and continuing with Marshall aid, you would favor keeping Marshall aid at what it is?

Mr. CANFIELD. Keeping Marshall aid where it is now.

Senator DONNELL. You are chairman of the board of a great organization, Harper & Brothers Publishing Co. How long have you been with that company?

Mr. CANFIELD. Twenty-five years.

Senator DONNELL. What was your educational background behind that, if you do not mind telling us?

Mr. CANFIELD. Harvard University.

Senator DONNELL. When did you receive your degree there?
Mr. CANFIELD. 1919.

Senator DONNELL. And what degree do you hold?

Mr. CANFIELD. Not much: A. B. But I went to Oxford, which puts me in a better class.

Senator DONNELL. Were you a Rhodes scholar?

Mr. CANFIELD. No; I was not.

Senator DONNELL. How long did you attend Oxford?

Mr. CANFIELD. One year.

Senator DONNELL. Did you travel on the Continent in recent years? Mr. CANFIELD. Yes.

Senator DONNELL. How recently have you traveled over there? Mr. CANFIELD. Last year.

Senator DONNELL. Did you get into Norway?

Mr. CANFIELD. No; I did not.

Senator DONNELL. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate your testimony.

Mr. Alfred Kohlberg.

STATEMENT OF ALFRED KOHLBERG, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN

CHINA POLICY ASSOCIATION

Mr. KOHLBERG. Mr. Chairman, my name is Alfred Kohlberg. My address is 1 West Thirty-seventh Street, New York City. I am appearing here today as chairman of the board of the American China Policy Association. This association was set up a little over 3 years ago to investigate and study our policy in China particularly.

The first president of our association and its founder was Mr. J. B. Powell, a distinguished foreign correspondent, of Mr. Donnell's State, Missouri, who, unfortunately, passed away 2 years ago, and I believe Mr. Donnell paid a tribute to him in the Senate at the time.

Senator DONNELL. He died under very tragic circumstances at a Missouri University luncheon.

Mr. KOHLBERG. That is correct, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you a short statement?

Mr. KOHLBERG. I have no written statement.

Our second president was the Honorable Clare Boothe Luce, of Connecticut, and our present president is Mr. William Loeb, Jr., of New Hampshire and Vermont.

I am also national chairman of the American Jewish League Against Communism, and while I cannot speak for them, I represent their point of view in my statement.

Before stating our position on the Atlantic alliance, I would like to read two sentences from a letter from the Secretary of State to the chairman of this committee. These sentences are [reading]:

The study which has been made of the Bolshevist movement, some of the results of which are furnished herewith, shows conclusively that the purpose of the Bolsheviks is to subvert the existing principles of government and society the world over, including those countries in which democratic institutions are already established. They have built up a political machine which, by the concentration of power in the hands of a few, and the ruthlessness of its methods, suggests the Asiatic despotism of the early Tsars.

That letter, sir, is dated October 27, 1919, from Secretary of State Robert Lansing to the Honorable Henry Cabot Lodge, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate30 years ago October.

The CHAIRMAN. Is your testimony on the China situation?

Mr. KOHLBERG. No; it is on the Atlantic alliance.

I read those sentences, sir, because we favor the confirmation of the Atlantic alliance by your body, and we favor it because it is a step in the restraint of this Asiatic despotism that threatens to overflood the whole world.

DANGER OF OVEREMPHASIZING EUROPE

We think, however, sir, that it is only a step, and that other steps must follow, such as a Pacific alliance, for example; that we cannot hold back the Red tide only in western Europe. It must be held back from the rest of the world until the day when it may be overthrown, possibly by the peoples who suffer under it.

We, however, feel that there are certain aspects of this Atlantic Alliance that should be further considered. It is the breaking of a 152-year tradition of American foreign policy based on the Farewell Address of President Washington, who advised that we make no permanent alliances with European powers, but should rely on temporary alliances when needed.

We favor this, but we think the reasons for this permanent change in policy should be fully understood by the country, and we think that a full understanding of that would require that we go on further, as we say, to further strengthening of the powers and forces that are holding back this Red tide of Asiatic tyranny, as the Secretary of State called it.

We feel also, Senator, that the Monroe Doctrine and the open-door policy should be considered at the same time, because a change in one section of our traditional foreign policy calls for reconsideration of the other two traditional sections of our foreign policy.

The CHAIRMAN. We have handled the Monroe Doctrine pretty well in the Rio Pact, have we not?

Mr. KOHLBERG. We think that it has been modified in the Rio Pact. It has become a consultative pact, whereas, when stated by President Monroe, he rejected British cooperation in his statement and made it a unilateral statement, and we think the reasons for making it a consultative pact should be more fully explained.

The CHAIRMAN. Have not all the governments of the world acknowledged the strength of the Monroe Doctrine, with the exception of a few intended violations which the United States resisted and wiped out of the way, such as Maximilian in Mexico and the Venezuela claims, and things of that kind? I was under the impression that the Rio Pact was putting into treaty form practically all of the principles of the Monroe Doctrine. We do not relax any. We still adhere to the Monroe Doctrine.

Mr. KOHLBERG. That is correct, sir; but there are two parts to the Monroe Doctrine. The first part is the prohibition of extension of territorial possessions by European powers. The second part is the prohibition of extension of any of the systems of government of any European powers. And the Soviet Union is attempting the extension of its system of government in every country of the Western Hemisphere.

The CHAIRMAN. We are resisting that always, are we not?

EXTENSION OF ATLANTIC PACT TO OTHER AREAS

Mr. KOHLBERG. Yes. That is why I say I think the whole subject needs to be covered, rather than just the Atlantic Pact. We are completely for the ratification of the Atlantic Alliance, but we think that we stop too soon in only looking at that; that the rest of the world must be considered all in the same framework.

I appeared before the Appropriations Committee of the Senate last June. At that time I made a statement for our association covering what I have referred to now. In order not to take your time reading it, I wonder if I could put it in the record. It is a six-step program covering the world.

(The paper referred to reads as follows:)

While it is true that the conduct of our foreign relations is the constitutional prerogative of the President, the power of the purse remains with Congress. The signers of the Constitution probably never expected that it would cost $10,000,000,000 a year to conduct our foreign relations. It is my humble opinion that when you appropriate the cash you assume responsibility for results.

What we face is an ideology plus a force. This ideology promises socialism, economic democracy, miraculous medicine, free education, no more exploitation, racial equality and every variety of "pie in the sky." These ideas are for export only. Behind the iron curtain it delivers poverty, the police state, terror, and slavery.

The force is the Communist International, which includes the ever-expanding Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and musters 450,000,000 subjects and slaves, and millions of spies and agents all over the world.

It will destroy us or we will destroy it.

Force can be destroyed by force, but an ideology cannot be destroyed by force alone. It must be destroyed by a better ideology.

We have that better ideology. It is freedom-political freedom, religious freedom, and economic freedom.

I believe that every one of the steps which I am going to suggest is inevitable; that every one of them will in any case be taken the day after war comes; but that, if taken now or in the very near future, war may be avoided.

Step 1.-Congress must declare that world communism has proclaimed the United States its enemy, and itself our enemy. This declaration the Communist hierarchy has officially made a number of times, most particularly in section 1, paragraph 1 of the constitution of the Communist International which proclaims its objectives to be to fight "for the establishment of a World Union of Socialist Soviet Republics," that is, for the conquest of the entire world. In accordance with this declaration, “adhering to, giving aid, and comfort to" world communism would fall under the constitutional definition of treason.