« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
COMPATIBILITY OF ATLANTIC TREATY WITH ANGLO-RUSSIAN AND FRANCO
Senator DONNELL. You referred to the provision in the treaty which is a warning, I think, or at least a statement, by the parties thatEach party declares that none the international engagements now in force between it and any of the parties and a third state is in conflict with this treaty and undertakes not to enter into any international engagements which conflict with the treaty.
You commented on that earlier this afternoon.
Senator DONNELL. I want to ask you whether or not you yourself have examined the treaties placed before the Senate some weeks ago by either Senator Watkins or Senator O'Mahoney, or both of then, between France on the one hand and Russia on the other, and between Great Britain on the one hand and Russian on the other, which contain certain obligations of the contracting parties, whether you examined them yourself with a view to determining whether France and Great Britain, in a representation that there is no international engagement now in force and in conflict with this treaty, correctly construe the obligations under this treaty.
Secretary ACHESON. I have examined them very closely. I want to make one thing absolutely clear to you, and that is that the declaration in this treaty, by each of the signatories, that they have no treaty which is in conflict with the North Atlantic Treaty, is their responsibility, and they stand upon that, and we stand upon
that. I do not want to take the position for a moment that the Secretary of State of the United States, on behalf of other countries, undertakes to go into their treaties or express any views about them. We are not called upon by the treaty to do that. The nations make that declaration themselves. We have the plain language of the treaties before us. And that is where the matter rests.
Now, any person reading it I think can come to his own conclusion, and I think it is perfectly clear what that conclusion is. But I am not going to, as an officer of the United States, say in respect of any of these countries what their treaties mean or whether their declarations are anything other than what they should be, a statement of complete and absolute truth.
TERMINATION OF THE TREATY
Senator DONNELL. Is there any provision in the treaty by which the treaty may be terminated in less than 20 years?
Secretary ACHIESON. It may be terminated by unanimous consent at any time. But there is a provision for review at the end of 10 years.
Senator DONNELL. That provision for review does not, however, contain any provision for the termination of the treaty at the end of 10 years.
Secretary ACHESON. It can be done by unanimous consent.
Senator DONNELL. Certainly: Anything, as you said earlier this afternoon, can be done by unanimous consent.
Secretary ACHESON. That is right.
Senator DONNELL. I am not asking whether there is anything in the treaty which provides in any way for the termination of the treaty earlier than at the expiration of 20 years.
Secretary ACHESON. Not except as I have said.
Senator DONNELL. That is not an exemption. There is no provision for it, is there, for a termination earlier than 20 years?
Secretary Acheson. There are no words in the treaty which provide for its termination earlier than 20 years, as I stated to you. There is a provision that it should be reviewed at the end of 10 years, and it of course follows, as you yourself have said, that if that review leads to the unanimous conclusion that it should be terminated, modified or changed, that may be done.
Senator DONNELL. That may be done in 6 months from now equally. Secretary ACHESON. That is correct.
Senator DONNELL. That does not depend on a provision in the treaty ?
Secretary ACHESON. That is right.
Senator DONNELL. Did not the United States take the view in its negotiations that the treaty should run for 10 years and not 20!
Secretary ATHESON. I am not aware of that. I do not think that is true at all.
Senator DONNELL. That was reported in the press. Perhaps it may be incorrect.
Secretary ACHESON. That is unfounded.
Senator DONNELL. It was reported in the press that the European nations desired a 50-year period and this country desired 10, and ultimately 20 years was agreed upon.
Secretary Acheson. The latter statement is true. The European nations did desire 50 years. The earlier statement is not correct, that we took the position of 10 years.
Senator DONNELL. I thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, and Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection from the committee we will recess at this time until 10:30 tomorrow morning. Senator Austin will be the witness tomorrow. We will be glad to hear him.
(Thereupon, at 5:05 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a. m. Thursday, April 28, 1949.)
NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY
THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 1949
UNITED STATES SENATE,
Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, on April 27, 1919, in room 318, Senate Office Building, Senator Tom Connally (chairman of the committee) presiding:
Present: Senators Connally (chairman), George, Thomas of Utah, Tydings, Pepper, McMahon, Vandenberg, Wiley, Smith of New Jersey, Hickenlooper, and Lodge.
Also present: Senators Tobey, Donnell, Flanders, Watkins, Gillette. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. This is a meeting of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate. We are holding hearings on the North Atlantic Pact. We are honored this morning to have former Senator Warren Austin, now Chief Representative of the United States at the United Nations, and a member of the Security Council, representing the United States. Is that correct the way I have stated it? Ambassador AUSTIN. Yes, it is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Austin, we are very pleased to have you here, and we are prepared to hear any statement you desire to make with reference to the North Atlantic Pact and related matters.
STATEMENT OF HON. WARREN R. AUSTIN, CHIEF OF THE UNITED
STATES MISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS
Ambassador Austin. Mr. Chairman, will you let me say something personal before I start talking about the North Atlantic treaty ?
This is a very emotional experience for me, to be invited by this very great committee, on which I was serving when I resigned from the Senate about 3 years ago. I have not been back here since, and now to be asked to come and talk with you about so important and grave a matter as the North Atlantic treaty is a great honor and a great pleasure.
The CHAIRMAN. It is mutual. We esteem it an honor to have you here and a pleasure to have you here. We remember quite vividly your valuable services on this committee and your outstanding services in the Senate of the United States. We are glad to have your advice and counsel in view of your broad activities in connection with the United Nations and foreign relations generally. Ambassador AUSTIN. Thank you, sir. Now may I read a prepared statement ?
The CHAIRMAN. You may; and at the end of the prepared statement you will have to submit to questions, as you know.
Ambassador AUSTIN. I am a little bit intrigued by the novel situation of being on this end of the questions. However, I will try to respond to them with the utmost frankness and without any reservations whatever.
EFFECT OF THE TREATY ON THE UNITED NATIONS
From the point of view of the United States Mission to the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty, by its express terms and by its probable effect would, if properly executed, promote United Nations effort to maintain peace generally, increase its ability to remove causes of war, bring the world nearer to its goal of substituting pacific settlements for the ancient practice of fighting out controversies among nations, and aid in the promotion of social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. This is one of its objects.
It would be a shield under the protection of which such purposes and policies of the United Nations could be more rapidly achieved in the North Atlantic area than if the fear of aggression should continue to deplete the energies and confidence of peoples. This is the other object.
These objectives are complementary.
HOPES FOR UNITED NATIONS SUCCESS
Here in this committee, which only 4 years ago considered carefully the United Nations Charter, I hardly need recall the hopes we held then that there would continue to be a large measure of cooperation among the great powers. We did not expect the drastic deterioration in relations between east and west which has occurred. We certainly did not conceive that the Soviet Union would so brazenly violate the solemn Charter pledge to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of other states. None of us imagined the adoption of a deliberate and calculated policy of obstruction that has prevented the conclusion of peace treaties and impaired the work of the United Nations.
RUSSIA AND THE UNITED NATIONS
It was hard to believe what we were seeing. While most of the world was seeking to build a system of collective security in the United Nations, the Soviet Union sought security through the discredited policy of territorial aggrandizement. This feudalistic concept of security threw its black mantle over country after country in eastern Europe. Only decisive action by the United Nations, supported effectively by the United States, prevented Iran, Greece, and Korea from being drawn into the shadows.
COUNTER MEASURES BY DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES
As a result of the growing opposition of the non-Communist world, the balance is swinging toward the forces favoring peaceful progress. This committee can be gratified at the part it has played in influencing