Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

.

to restore and maintain international peace and security, how long do you think it would be before the Security Council, which contains among its permanent members Russia, would take the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security?

Perhaps I faultily stated the question.

Ambassador AUSTIN. No; you have a good question. I understand it. It is all right. It is a compact question.

Well, you are asking an opinion, and I am going to give you one.
Senator DONNELL. I would like to have it.

Ambassador AUSTIN. I don't know as it is worth a cent, but I think it will be forever and ever, see? I think that they will veto, of course. That is a perfectly natural thing.

Senator DONNELL. That is a very frank and clear statement, and I thoroughly agree with you, and I don't think that this situation of a temporary emergency that would be dissipated by some action of the Security Council next week will be taken. I want to thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

Senator VANDEN BERG. May I just intervene, inasmuch as my quotation is involved? I agree with the answer too, and I think one of the supreme virtues of this arrangement is that you can act in self-defense inside the Charter and outside the veto. That is what I like about it.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the veto does not apply to an inherent right that exists by reason of international law and custom over and above the provisions of the Charter and above the provisions of the pending treaty. Is that true?

Ambassador AUSTIN. That is true.

COMPARISON OF TREATY TO MILITARY ALLIANCE

Senator DONNELL. Might I have leave, in view of the interpolation by my good friend Senator Vandenberg, to state on the point of whether or not this is the opposite of a military alliance-that I am not clear on the point that an instrument which contains within it a contract to use effective self-help and mutual aid in maintaining and developing individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack, which contains within it also an agreement that an armed attack against one of them shall be considered an attack against them all, and which contains the further agreement that each of them agrees that forthwith, upon such an attack being made, each party, individually and in concert with the others, will take such action as it deems necessary, and so forth, as set forth in article 5-I just can't see where Senator Vandenberg makes the point that that is not a military alliance. I just wanted to make that statement on that, so I might not in any sense be thought to have been convinced by the very eloquent and clear and expressive statement made by Senator Vandenberg. Senator VANDENBERG. I would just like to add this postscript, that I suspect this question will be debated at some length on the floor of the Senate, when I personally will be quite happy and prepared to meet it. I simply add this postscript at the moment, that in my opinion the traditional interpretation of the phrase "military alliance" carries within it an offensive rather than an essentially defensive overriding objective, and that it is a partnership for power rather than a partnership for peace-in the traditional sense, I am saying. I do not think

that any of those characteristics is involved here, and that is the great distinction that I draw.

Senator DONNELL. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. To answer the Senator from Missouri, the reading also of Mr. Acheson's statement yesterday, I believe it was, when that particular question was directed to him, to distinguish between this sort of an arrangement and the traditional military alliance as practiced in former years, is recommended.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I shall certainly read that with care, and I am very happy to have the suggestion.

BALANCE OF POWER AND PREPONDERANCE OF POWER

May I just conclude by mentioning to Mr. Ambassador the fact that I have noted with interest particularly the fact that he points out in page 6 of his statement, "The ancient theory of balance of power lost its potential utility," and then points out that the undertaking of the peoples of the United Nations, et cetera, to combine their efforts introduced formally the element of preponderance of power for peace. That is in there.

But the point I am making is that the distinguished Ambassador, for whose judgment and character I have the greatest of admiration, points out that now the traditional idea of balance of power has been superseded by the preponderance of power idea; in other words this treaty, as I understand it, is to create not merely a balance of power, but a preponderance of power.

Ambassador AUSTIN. That is right. I meant exactly that.

Now, some people have talked with me about this, and you can imagine I have not taken that position without very great care. Senator DONNELL. I know you haven't. I am very sure of it. Ambassador AUSTIN. And I have talked with very learned men and got their views. I have had lots of help on that.

Some people interpret balance of power as the same thing as preponderance of power, but it is not. The traditional meaning of balance of power was equilibrium. The balance was kept level by means of two or more states, don't you see, usually more. But the strange thing is that in all the history of balance of power they never did have a balance. There always was a preponderance in some state, and in my years, the years I remember, it has been the United Kingdom, because of their control of the seas.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Chairman, may I thank not only the distinguished Ambassador for his very great patience and courtesy, but also the committee for permitting me to infringe upon their patience. The CHAIRMAN. I hope the Senator is satisfied with the action of the committee.

Senator DONNELL. I appreciate the action of the committee very much indeed, and I shall desire to avail myself, if I may, of future incursions of like character.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you. Senator Austin, for your very fine statement. We appreciate your presence.

The committee will be in recess until 2:30 o'clock, when we will reconvene to hear Secretary of Defense Johnson.

(Whereupon, at 1: 25 p. m., the committee recessed until 2:30 p. m. of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

The committee reconvened at 2: 30 p. m., upon the expiration of the

recess.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

The committe has the pleasure of having before it today Secretary of Defense Johnson who will testify on the North Atlantic treaty and related matters.

STATEMENT OF HON. LOUIS JOHNSON, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

Secretary JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am appearing here today at the invitation of your committe to add the views of the National Military Establishment to what Secretary Acheson has told you about the North Atlantic Treaty.

As you know, I have been in office only about 1 month and there have been many serious problems to face. I have had an opportunity, however, to study this momentous document. I say it is momentous with feeling, because it is a long stride in the peacetime path of American history. It is a bold and important step for us all, for in it we join our great power with that of our neighbors in a common effort for safety and self-preservation-for peace before victory, and without

war.

INITIATIVE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF STATE DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State has outlined to you the progress the Government is making in what he calls "waging the peace." He has demonstrated that the North Atlantic Treaty and the military assistance program are components of our progressive foreign policy. The initiative and responsibility for both have clearly and properly been with the Secretary of State. This great structure of freedom has been built through months of careful and precise work by Secretary Acheson and his foreign colleagues. He and his staff took over this heavy burden where General Marshall and Mr. Lovett left off and were aided by the cooperation of this committee. I think that all who have worked on this treaty are deserving of the highest gratitude of this country.

ECONOMIC STABILITY AND PREPAREDNESS

There has been very close cooperation on these matters between the Department of State and the Military Establishment, for all of us are seeking the greatest security for our country. In striving for this objective, however, we must carefully balance the military requirements of coping with the dangers we now face with the maintenance of a sound and prosperous American economy. At the same time we must give first priority to restoration of economic stability in Europe while assisting her to regain greater military security. All of these calculations involve risks, but our willingness to face them may well measure our ability to prevent war. We must face them squarely and courageously.

It is absolutely clear to me, as it was between 1937 and 1940 when I was last in the Military Establishment, that we must be prepared to

counter foreseeable threats. This requires preparedness not only in terms of guns, ships, and airplanes, but in terms of readily convertibleresources of manpower and industry. It is equally obvious that we need friends and partners. Through this treaty we band together with many of our friends and by the military assistance program we put the means in their hands to defend themselves, thereby increasing our own security.

Ambassador Austin has explained to you the importance of this treaty to the United Nations, how it is consistent with the UN Charter and serves as a strong brace in support of the peaceful objectives of the Charter. It is and has long been my belief that we must continue earnestly and faithfully our efforts to make the United Nations succeed. What he has said confirms my belief that the ability of the western nations to work for peace through the United Nations will be strengthened.

THE TREATY-NOT A MILITARY ALLIANCE

I expect that sometime during the congressional consideration of these matters that someone will say that I have been inconsistent in my attitude toward treaties of this character. They will probably refer to a speech I made a year ago to the Daughters of the American Revolution. At that time I stated, and I quote:

Military alliances are not in the tradition of the United States.

As Secretary Acheson has carefully pointed out, this treaty is an association of nations that have come together under the Charter of the United Nations to exercise their inherent right of self-defense through a collective security arrangement authorized by the Charter of the United Nations.

This treaty, like the Rio Treaty, is thus a vital measure for selfdefense. Neither of them, in my opinion, is a foreign military alliance in the customary sense, and therefore my remarks in the speech I referred to do not thus apply. These treaties are logical extensions of the time-honored Monroe Doctrine, and entirely consistent with our policy of seeking international security through the United Nations.

When I made that speech, I was referring to the Brussels Pact, the signatories of which had held their first meeting only 3 days before. At that time I considered it to be a purely western European military alliance. But, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I was then a private citizen, and properly did not have access to information regarding implementation of that pact which has since been made available to the entire world.

The North Atlantic Treaty is of much wider scope and involves a broad area in which the very preservation of the United States is at stake. It is a partnership with our friends for the common defense. In that speech I also said, and I quote:

We cannot give to any foreign nation or group of nations the power to say when the United States should go to war.

I can assure you that I continue to believe this. It seems clear to me from a reading of article 5 that in this treaty we do not give to any foreign nation or group of nations the power to say when the United States should go to war. We obligate ourselves to take what

ever action we deem necessary "to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

Now, as Secretary of Defense, I want to tell you how important this treaty is from the point of view of the Military Establishment. I understand that you have invited General Bradley to testify before your committee next week. He will give you more detailed information about the meaning of the treaty to our armed forces.

STRENGTHENING OF UNITED STATES SECURITY THROUGH TREATY

From the military viewpoint, the basic objectives of the collective defense system contemplated by the treaty are to deter war and to attain maximum military effectiveness in war, if war cannot be prevented. The North Atlantic Treaty will form a basis for improving United States security by improving the military potential of all the member nations. This potential will be improved in terms of collective action as well as individual armed strength.

I am sure that its value as a war deterrent and, in the last resort, in war itself must be obvious to you all. Nevertheless, it is our firm belief in the Military Establishment that the ratification of the treaty cannot, in itself and without further action, safely be relied upon to accomplish the objectives of the treaty. Unless its terms are vigorously implemented, its force for peace will be vitiated and, if there should be war, we should have to pay an inordinate price for our failure to implement it.

NEED FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE

We must keep constantly in mind the three fundamentals of preparedness-manpower, materials, and suitable positions from which to employ them in the event of attack. The treaty goes far toward making available for the common defense the manpower and strategic positions. The main lack in this great partnership will be materials-the materials required for defense. Some of the required materials may become available over the next few years as byproducts of economic recovery and we must assure uninterrupted effort toward attainment of the goals set by the Marshall plan.

If we are to strengthen the line of defense in Europe and elsewhere, we must go further and supply our friends with some of their deficiencies in arms and equipment and help them to help themselves. We have invested a great deal in rebuilding the western community and now we should join these friendly neighbors in building a bulwark against aggression.

MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT AND MILITARY ASSISTANCE

There has been some talk lately of the possibility that by joining the treaty we can reduce the investment in our Military Establishment. It is confidently hoped that over the next few years we will enhance our security by joining this partnership for peace. However, I am sure it is clear to you that until the world situation clarifies we cannot afford to relax the strengthening of our military forces. We may, over the long term after the strength of our partnership is built up, be able to reduce our annual expenditures for the armed forces. How

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »