Ambassador AUSTIN. In Committee III on June 13, 1945.
Senator PEPPER. That was at San Francisco?

Ambassador AUSTIN. During the writing of article 51. They had just completed it and he burst into song. I am not reading the whole of it. He said:

I would more particularly like to express my gratitude to Senator Vandenberg and the delegation of the United States who have helped so much in the drafting of the text now submitted and in securing its acceptance. The text makes a clear distinction between the prevention and repression of aggression.

After skipping a lot of it I come to this. He had, in between, described the devastation that France had suffered in the war. He said: This is why we have sought and will continue to seek

that has reference to the future—

through pacts of mutual assistance and regional arrangements, fully in conformity, of course, with the governing principles of the Charter, the means of taking action on the very day, the very hour, or minute, when brutal aggression is committed, aggression that can be made all the more deadly by the speed of technical devices.

Nobody can meet that. That, in my opinion, is the end of the claim that this pact, this treaty, was not contemplated by the Charter or by article 51.

There are other references in there by other distinguished statesmen from around the world to the same effect.

Senator VANDENBERG. And may I interrupt you, Senator? They are uniformly all in the same tenor, without a single dissenting voice. Ambassador AUSTIN. Thank you, sir. I believe that is correct.

REGIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND THE TREATY

The principal emphasis in the treaty is upon its character as a group of nations who are binding themselves together to take collective action in self-defense. Article 51 contains ample authority for the right of any group of nations, regional or otherwise, members of the United Nations or otherwise, to bind themselves to take collective action for self-defense against an armed attack. In certain of its aspects, the treaty is also a regional arrangement. Don't think that I am arguing that this treaty undertakes to set out in full the kind of regional arrangement that is described in chapter VIII. I am not. The point. I am making is that if in the operation of this treaty the signatories go into the exercise of duties that fall within that chapter, then that chapter applies. But in the main what I am saying is that this is not that kind of an organization. This is an organization for collective self-defense against an armed attack. That is another limitation. And I say, in certain of its aspects the treaty is also a regional arrangement, and insofar as it partakes of those characteristics, chapter VIII of the Charter provides full authority for its provisions. Thus, those aspects of the treaty which are not authorized by chapter VIII are covered by article 51, and vice versa.

Now I come to another topic, Regional Versus Universal Arrangements. We have been asked the question, "Why don't you shoot for something larger?”

REGIONAL VERSUS UNIVERSAL ARRANGEMENTS

The question may be asked: Is the conclusion of collective security pacts on a regional basis the best solution? Would it not be better to devise a universal pact to which all states might adhere? In the abstract such a universal pact might appear desirable. However, any binding collective defense pact to be effective depends on the individual and collective and effective self-help and mutual aid as envisaged under article 3 of the treaty. On its part the United States at the moment is making prodigious efforts through the European recovery program to enable the participating countries of Europe to stand on their own feet economically and so be both psychologically and economically able to resist internal and external pressures. Under the treaty it is contemplated that this self-help and mutual aid will be continued and augmented, in particular through the development of a coordinated defense program as envisaged in articles 3 and 9 of the treaty. The United States contribution to this over-all program requires a substantial outlay by the American people, a contribution which, it is hoped, will lead to a more stable world.

I do not mean by this to dismiss out of hand the idea of a generalized article 51 treaty. We should welcome all contributions of intelligent men of good will who are constantly searching for ways and means by which the great purposes of the United Nations may be advanced. But I doubt and here is the milk in the coconut-that many member nations would be prepared to undertake substantial commitments going far beyond those contained in the Charter of the United Nations with respect to all other nations who were prepared to reciprocate. Furthermore, assuming that a formula could be found which most of the United Nations could accept, would we not run a very serious risk of splitting the United Nations, and driving out of it nations who might consider the new arrangement directed against themselves? I feel myself that the course we have chosen is the more practical of the two alternatives. We should continue to examine, of course, sympathetically, all suggestions for strengthening the United Nations and the cause of peace.

Now I come to the New Power for Peace.

NEW POWER FOR PEACE

I have been asked whether the North Atlantic Treaty is not the resumption of the practice of setting up a power equilibrium; whether it would take the place of the United Nations; or whether it would reduce the opportunities of the United Nations for development through service. My answer is "No."

The ancient theory of balance of power lost its potential utility through the voluntary association of states, on the basis of sovereign equality and universality. The old veteran, balance of power, was given a blue discharge when the United Nations was formed. The undertaking of the peoples of the United Nations to combine their efforts through the international organization to maintain international peace and security, and to that end, to take effective collective measures, introduced formally the element of preponderance of power for peace. And out went old man balance of power.

Effective collective measures are intended to be dealt with through the Security Council, through regional arrangements, and through groups for collective self-defense. Members of the United Nations have joined to put an end to war. They have bound themselves not to use force except in the defense of law as embodied in the purposes and principles of the Charter. Treaties, combining within the framework of the Charter nations that sincerely adhere to and practice the great principles of the United Nations, increase that unaggressive and decisive preponderance of power introduced by the Charter. Among such treaties, we recognize the Brussels Pact, the Inter-American Agreement, and the Atlantic Treaty as activities. giving power, both moral and material, to those principles. The Charter is a check and a guide for the organizations resulting from such treaties. The treaties are a stimulant to the influence and activities of the United Nations.

In this swiftly shrinking world, peace will be secured and maintained only if we pursue the goal of collective security that is set up in the Charter. I support the North Atlantic Treaty because I believe it is a practical, although geographically limited, method of supporting that universal objective.

Like all treaties, the words of the North Atlantic Treaty will take on meaning in the light of the policies and actions that the signatories follow in implementing it. That is why I opened my statement by emphasizing that the Treaty must be properly executed. I believe it will be so executed. The President and the Secretary of State have expressed the determination that the Treaty shall support and not be a substitute for the United Nations. My old friends, I want to say to you that I have already defended the Treaty against the attacks of the Soviet group, some of which I have mentioned here. am determined, as are the President and the Secretary of State, that the North Atlantic Treaty shall not take the place of or weaken the United Nations, but that it will increase the opportunities of the United Nations to develop through service.

I

If the North Atlantic Treaty is operated according to the letter and spirit both of the Charter and of the Treaty, it can lift the cause of peace above any level yet attained.

The CHAIRMAN. You are open to questions?
Ambassador AUSTIN. Yes.

INHERENT RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Austin, the matter of article 51 and the inherent right of nations to self-defense arises, does it not, independently of the Charter or any other arrangements that we might have? If it is inherent it is a natural right that each nation would have to resist aggression or attack.

Ambassador AUSTIN. The chairman is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. The purpose, or one of the purposes, of this Treaty is to not only recognize that principle in each individual state, but to recognize the power of the individual states to join a collective arrangement for the same purpose of defense inherently in each one, but joined together in an arrangement set forth in this Treaty. Ambassador AUSTIN. That is right, Senator.

GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF THE TREATY

The CHAIRMAN. With regard to the regional character, and the Soviet complaint that this was not confined to a particular region, is it not true that those forming the arrangement would probably have the right to define what the region is, and does not this treaty define particularly the region to which it is applicable?

Ambassador AUSTIN. Yes. The region is described here.

The CHAIRMAN. It is described accurately and definitely; is it not? Ambassador AUSTIN. Yes; I consider it so. But I do not think that that is exclusive. I do not want my answer to be regarded that way. I think there is a possibility of that region being amplified upon unanimous agreement of the signatories, and that in making that agreement each signatory will, of course, have the right, and probably the duty, to give its consent or dissent according to its constitutional processes, so that if the question arose here in the United States whether a certain country should be added to those that are now signatories, I believe that that question would have to come to Congress. There are two ways of looking at it. One would be whether this amounted to a protocol or additional provision of the treaty, or whether this amounted to authorizing legislation that would enable the Chief Executive to give the consent of the United States to that addition. In that case, of course, the extent of the area would be changed.

The CHAIRMAN. In that event would it not be open to very serious question that we could not change it without congressional approval, senatorial approval, because of the fact that it would in essence be a new arrangement?

Ambassador AUSTIN. That is what prompted me to say what I did about it, yes. It is a serious question.

BASIS FOR A REGION

The CHAIRMAN. In the case of Portugal and Italy, you say the Soviets made some complaint about them. As a matter of fact, those nations are intimately associated by sea routes and their geographical position with the general plan of the treaty to make this area defensive; is that correct?

Ambassador AUSTIN. That is true, but I think there are other factors in the consideration of what constitutes a region.

The CHAIRMAN. I am glad to hear it. You might point them out, if you will.

Ambassador AUSTIN. I think the customary life of the countries, their contact with each other in business, culture, and interchange of travel, those things which identify an area by the customs of the people, enter into this question of what is a region, and in such cases as ours here the ocean is no longer a barrier. And we find ourselves very close together on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean and on both sides of the Mediterranean.

PURPOSES OF THE CHARTER AND REGIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

The CHAIRMAN. It is clear, is it not, in the charter and particularly in the articles dealing with regional arrangements that they must be within the general purposes of the United Nations and that

there is no conflict between permitting a regional arrangement of this character and the United Nations.

Ambassador AUSTIN. My answer is, "Yes." I think also, if you will permit me to add-I don't know whether I am heading right by offer ing additional statements

The CHAIRMAN. That is what you are here for, not to hear me ask questions but for you to answer them.

Ambassador AUSTIN. You are very gracious. I have never been on this end of the questions before. I want to be perfectly respectful to the committee and not get outside of my position as a witness.

What I had in mind, prompted by your question, was that not only is that true by virtue of the terms of the Charter, but it is true by virtue of the terms of the treaty-the same thing.

The CHAIRMAN. I wanted to make that clear in answer to the charge that the regional arrangements that we are entering into would be in conflict with the United Nations Charter. As I understand, Mr. Gromyko urged that in his comment before the General Assembly.

Ambassador AUSTIN. That is true. Every one of those six countries in that group made that claim.

The CHAIRMAN. They have a unity of purpose and a unity of speech, have they not, pretty much? Never mind answering that.

OVERRIDING AUTHORITY OF UN

Article 51 of the Charter says

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual 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.

That recognizes the overriding authority of the United Nations; does it not?

Ambassador AUSTIN. It certainly does.

INCLUSION IN THE TREATY OF NON-UNITED NATIONS MEMBERS

The CHAIRMAN. Article 51 is restricted to an armed attack against a member of the United Nations. Has there been any comment or objection that this treaty spreads that and permits the participation by other nations not members of the United Nations?

Ambassador AUSTIN. That is right. It was raised as an objection. It was asserted that the treaty was in conflict with the Charter because of that characteristic, that the treaty has in it two states that are not within those words.

The CHAIRMAN. You answered that, of course, successfully?

Ambassador AUSTIN. I answered that in my formal statement, and I pointed out that the answer to this is perfect, because you had exactly that situation in fact before you-and I mean you-and you and Senator Vandenberg were there on that work. You had exactly that situation.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Vandenberg was a member of the subcommittee. I was on another committee. We had frequent meetings of the delegation.

Ambassador AUSTIN. You had two states that were not present at San Francisco, were not participating in the organization of the