floor at all. If anybody would ask about that we would say, "We cannot tell you." At least that is the way it always has been.

Mr. Wood. This is one of the reasons why, in all cases, the military end item figures, while they can be disclosed fully to this committee, cannot, I regret to say, in view of your requirements on the floor, be declassified so they can be discussed on the floor.

Chairman СHIPERFIELD. For security reasons? (Discussion off the record.)

Mr. WOOD. We are, I think, approaching the point of being able to declassify some of the military end item figures notably in the European area. The particular situation illustrates one of the reasons why we will not be able to declassify all such figures.

Mr. VORYS. While we have been insisting in this committee that while we see the precise military program for every country we have also gone along every year with the viewpoint that the amount of money for the equipment is not disclosed and not discussed on the floor because it just would not do at all for our enemies to know what is going where.

I do not remember that there has ever been any variation in that at all. There have been illustrative figures of the number of planes going to Europe or that sort of thing, but I do not think we have ever discussed the military program for any particular country.

Mr. SMITH. If the gentleman will yield, I think we have to take into consideration the fact that about 75 percent of this program is for military purposes and for us to get by without making some explanation, if a question is raised as to what the countries are getting, is not going to be satisfactory.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Smith, we can, of course, and have in the past, declassified the figures for military aid for each area. We are now working on, and I think we may succeed in, declassifying the military figures, certainly, I think, those relating to the past, and, possibly, in some case and on an illustrative basis, those involved in the coming program, particularly as they affect certain of the countries of Western Europe. That is not entirely clear yet, but in the interests of making available for use on the floor as much information as possible we are working on that.

This is an illustration, however, of the fact that it would be most dangerous to do that in all cases.

I think I would like to work out a more carefully prepared statement on this question which the members of the committee might wish to use on the floor. The general tenor of it would run, "Yes; there are some internal-security forces there and if something is needed for assistance to those forces in their mission of internal security, it will be provided for out of this bill. The sums are not known." Something like that.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind 1 or 2 members of the committee that a year or 2 ago perhaps their was a woman who came from Japan, a member of the Senate, who made a very strong plea for the Japanese people that we might not force them into rearming. They were the only people in the world who had experienced the atom bomb and it was far more terrible than any description that had ever been given of it and a definite percentage of the people of Japan would fight it to the limit. That they would far rather be overrun and killed by any force that came in than

to play any part at all in a war which would mean the use of weapons of that type. It was a very, very moving appeal that was made.

We checked back on some of it and were told that that was a small part of the people, that it did not amount to anything, but my own reaction to that was that when we say it does not amount to anything it is because we perhaps do not see the full picture.

Mr. Wood. In other words, Mrs. Bolton, it is terribly important, as thing have developed in the world and as the aggressive military intentions of the Soviet Union have become more apparent, not to leave Japan defenseless, and not to have the responsibility ourselves of protecting her forever.

Mrs. BOLTON. But at the same time, we do know that the Russian infiltration of Japan, the Communist infiltration, has been far greater than the Americans are saying officially, and that it is-what do you think they kept those prisoners there all this time for and a lot of other things and then returned them in the nick of time to do a whole lot of cell making.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. May I say one word. Admiral Radford is on his way.

Mrs. CHURCH. What would be the terms of the proposed bilaterial agreement and under what conditions could we get such agreement? Would it have to be a secret agreement behind the backs of and over the heads of the Japanese people?

Mr. Wood. The text would be in line with the standard of agreements negotiated with other countries. It would be published in the usual form. However, I am not the person to testify authoritatively on that. If General Stewart does not know that, we would have to get Secretary Robertson back here to speak authoritatively on that.

General STEWART. I know of no suggestion that this thing be done secretly.

Mrs. CHURCH. Would it not have to be done secretly?

General STEWART. No. I will submit a more detailed statement for the record.

I know of nothing that suggests we are trying to do it secretly. Mrs. CHURCH. What are we doing, then?

General STEWART. There have been discussions between the Japanese Ambassador and General Clark and our Ambassador on these things.

(Discussion off the record.)

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. We are delighted to have you, Admiral Radford, before our committee. I think in your own way you might tell us something about the situation in the areas where you have been. After that, we may have a few questions of interest to the individual members of the committee.

I do not know what you testified to in the Senate or whether you made a statement. As Mr. Vorys has said, we just want to let you have your head.

Mr. VORYS. We have just gone over the proposed program for military and economic aid in the area you are commanding and we would be happy to have your overall picture of the strategic problems that face us there and anything else you want to say about it.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. This is an executive hearing. Let us go off the record.

(The then following remarks were not reported.) Chairman CHIPERFIELD. On the record.

Could you evaluate the proposed programs in your area, both military and economic?

STATEMENT OF ADM. ARTHUR W. BRADFORD, COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE PACIFIC FLEET, UNITED STATES NAVY

Admiral RADFORD. Mr. Chairman, I feel that the program in Formosa, the Philippines, Indochina, and Thailand, the military programs-and I assume that you are talking about all the programs, now?

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Yes.

Admiral RADFORD. And the economic programs in all that area are absolutely essential in the long run to the security of the United States. An armistice in Korea would have no effect, to my mind, in lessening the need for these programs.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Thank you very much, Admiral. We wish you well on your trip.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, General Stewart will continue to answer any questions on Japan.

Before he does so, I would like to clarify one situation. It is perfectly clear that the money that is in this program for Japan would not under the present law be used for the delivery of equipment to Japan without adequate preparations by way of bilateral agreements or, if this were necessary, through changes in the stipulations of the Japanese Constitution.

General STEWART. That is right. I know of no other thought or suggestion that any other procedure be followed.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I question the advisability of appropriating or authorizing for an item which we do not know is going to be used. I think that reaches a ridiculous situation.

Mr. WOOD. May I just say, Mr. Smith, that if these things can be arranged we hope and expect, it seems to us-and that is why we have included funds for the purpose in this bill-it would be a tragedy not to have funds available for these purposes which are so vital to the security of that area and to our own security.

We are faced with a dilemma, as I see it, and this committee will decide which horn of the dilemma we grasp. If we don't include funds in the bill, and we then find that the necessary arrangements can be worked out, we would not have the means to carry out a program and it seems to me that we could be charged with being derelict in our duty of making adequate provision for the security of this country. I am not trying to argue with you, Mr. Smith, but I am trying to explain why we put this in here.

Mr. SMITH. I don't know what we could be charged with if we go ahead on that basis.

Mrs. BOLTON. I think this country had better watch its step. If we are going to go back on not only our promises to Japan and treatymaking performances, but she signed a treaty because it has in it the fact that she will not be rearmed.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mrs. BOLTON. It is a very serious matter in our relationship to the rest of the world.

Mr. Wood. It is not a matter of forcing the Japanese to rearm.
Mrs. BOLTON. But, even taking part of it and putting it in.

Mr. WOOD. As I think you are aware, there is very, very strong sentiment within Japan with respect to the necessity for the Japanese, thing being what they are in the world, to get themselves into a position where they can defend themselves. This is not a matter of our walking in and forcing them to do this.

Mr. SMITH. But it does not work that way, you know that, Mr. Wood. We put it up to them and then what they have to say about it is this

Mr. WOOD. These things spring out of common discussions of these questions. The world moves.

Mr. SMITH. I will make a proposition with you: Would you, assuming that the committee permits the amount to stand, and if at the time of the appropriation no agreements have been made, say that the amount be stricken from the appropriation bill?

Mr. WOOD. I am afraid I would not, sir, because these developments are likely to not be completed until well along in this coming fiscal year, sometime after the time, I hope, when appropriations will have been made for this purpose.

This is a request, Mr. Smith, for authority to obligate funds in a fiscal year ending 1 year from this coming June 30.

Mr. SMITH. All right.

Contrary to the national policy of the country who is supposed to benefit by it?

Mr. WOOD. That national policy, Mr. Smith, is in the process of very radical revision in view of the things that have been happening in the world, particularly those that have given indication of Soviet aggressiveness, since the time that such national policy was laid down. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. We will decide that when we get to it, and the committee is marking up the bill.

General Stewart

General STEWART. Mr. Chairman, we come now to the Latin America. As an introduction I would like to say that in the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance of 1947, the United States and other American Republics agreed that an armed attack upon one country would be regarded as an armed attack on all and that the other nations would assist any American state subjected to such attack, acting together in the common defense for the maintenance of peace and the security of the hemisphere.

Out of that treaty have grown certain plans and the Mutual Assistance Program that I present to you is designed to assist these countries in creating certain units required for hemisphere defense and some of these units are scheduled to be used outside of their own countries.

(Discussion off the record.)

General STEWART. Now, based on this treaty and a declaration as prescribed by the law that the assistance to these countries was in the interests of the security of the United States we have made agreements with Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Peru, and Uruguay. These agreements with the exception of those for the Dominican Republic and Uruguay are now effective. The Dominican and Uruguayan agreements will become effective upon receipt of notification of ratification by those countries.

(Discussion off the record.)

General STEWART. That is the background of our program.

We have not made much progress-I don't enjoy saying that, but it is a fact.

These bilaterals do not become effective until the country's legislative body agrees to them. Brazil only came in on the 19th day of May 1953; Chile came in the 10th of July 1952; Colombia, the 17th day of April 1952; Cuba, the 7th of March 1952; Ecuador, the 20th of February 1952; and Peru, the 8th of April 1952.

We have had about a year to get these programs going.

There have been some other difficulties in making substantial progress. We have had questions of placing personnel in the MAAG's down there. The countries have been somewhat slow to reach the agreement required under the laws that govern our operation.

I would like to explain that: If we have a training mission, for instance, in a South American country, those people are to a certain extent employed by the country. They get extra pay from the country. Under an interpretation made of the MSA Act, no one receiving any such pay can be a judge or have the decision in making up these programs of mutual assistance.

So we have had quite a loss of time in getting things like that straightened out and getting MAAG personnel into the countries. We have used some temporary MAAG's to get some of the equipment going.

(Discussion off the record.)

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Is Panama a party to this treaty?
General STEWART. Yes, sir.

Mr. WOOD. We have here Mr. Cale, of the State Department, who could answer any questions of that nature.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD G. CALE, JR., DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF REGIONAL AMERICAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. CALE. Yes, Panama is a party to the Rio Treaty.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. VORYS. Did you say our MAAG's receive pay from the governments they are visiting.

General STEWART. A MAAG cannot. Some of our training missions we have had in Latin America for a great many years do receive compensation from the foreign governments for the work they do in training their forces.

Mr. VORYS. Do you mean if you would be sent there or some of these officers on a training mission, you or they would be paid by that government in addition to their compensation from our Government.

General STEWART. Yes, sir; that has been a practice for many years, long before this started.

It has been ruled that the law prohibits any man so receiving pay from being designated a final judge of the equipment that they need. I was merely trying to explain our slowness in getting this program under way.

Mr. VORYS. I never knew that was the case.

Do the training missions in any other place except Latin America get side money like that?

General STEWART. I really don't know, sir.

I know that many years ago, I believe General MacArthur himself was head of a mission in the Philippines and those people, I be