Secretary ACHESON. The obligation, Senator Saltonstall, is not in the law but in the treaty, which is the United Nations Treaty. That is the obligation. The law simply makes it clear that the Congress does not impose any duty on the President which is inconsistent with the Charter. Under the Charter he will refrain. He has the duty to refrain. Senator SALTONSTALL. But the decision as to whether or not he will refrain is in the United Nations and not in himself? Secretary ACHESON. It is only if he determines that the provision of assistance to any nation would be inconsistent with the obligation of the United States. Senator SALTONSTALL. That is what I am trying to bring out. The decision is his, and not in the United Nations. Secretary ACHESON. That must always be so. Senator SALTONSTALL. So by the United Nations Charter we do not subordinate ourselves to the extent of determining that we will not give assistance to any nation regardless of conditions? Secretary ACHESON. We do undertake under the Charter to refrain from giving assistance, but whether some action we are taking is giving assistance or is not, is up to us to determine. Senator SALTONSTALL. And that remains with us under the United Nations Charter? Secretary ACHESON. Yes, sir. DEFINITION OF THE WORD "NATION" Senator SALTONSTALL. Now may I ask you one other question. On page 13, subtitle (e), you define the term "nation." That is quite a different definition from the original act that was submitted. I wonder if it means anything or adds anything to the act in its present form. Secretary ACHESON. It was put in there, Senator Saltonstall, to make it perfectly clear that the old definition was taken out. Senator SALTONSTALL. Then I wonder if this definition does not limit you more than you intended to be limited, because in using the words "eligible to receive assistance," "a foreign government eligible to receive assistance" I do not see those terms defined in any way, except I assume that it means any nation that will receive aid under titles I, II, and III, or section 408. Secretary ACHESON. Yes. Senator SALTONSTALL. There again you use the words "eligible nation." You do not define "eligible nation" in any way except by the presumption that they are in I, II, or III. Secretary ACHESON. It means the governments of the nations which are mentioned in I, II, or III, or the government of a nation which has joined with the United States in a collective defense or regional arrangement. Senator SALTONSTALL. That is what I understand. Does not that definition limit us in this country perhaps more than we wanted to be limited? In other words, it seems to me that that subsection should be stricken out. Secretary ACHESON. It is perfectly agreeable to me to strike it out. What we wanted to be clear was that the old definition, which aroused so much criticism, was out, and we put something in its place to make it clear. We were afraid if we left it out somebody might suspect it was hidden away somewhere in the bill. Senator SALTONSTALL. Putting it in the language that you are now, you have limited yourself, maybe, and have given a definition that does not really mean anything; does it? Secretary ACHESON. What it means is that only the governments of the nations referred to in this bill can get any assistance. Senator SALTONSTALL. That is right, and that means titles I, II, and III. Secretary ACHESON. And section (c) of the other. I have no objection to striking it out. Senator SALTONSTALL. Would it help to have it stricken out? Secretary ACHESON. I really do not think it makes any difference. We put it in to be sure that we were doing what had been requested of us. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, is it not true that before this present bill was introduced that very point was discussed by you and other members of the committee, and we arrived at the same conclusion that you have here, that it was not material whether it went in or whether it went out? But it was put in to make clear that the old definition in the old bill was not to be adhered to in this bill. It was to satisfy those who were complaining of that statement. Senator Knowland? Senator KNOWLAND. I will be very brief, Mr. Secretary. First of all, to make my own position clear, I supported, as you know, the Atlantic Pact without reservations. Secretary ACHESON. I know you did. Senator KNOWLAND. I intend to support an implementation bill. I think the general theory of setting up a fire department against aggression is a good one. And in order to give the community of nations fire protection in each individual house it is necessary.. My chief difference with the Department, I may say, is the fact that the one place we have a four-alarm fire going we apparently are not answering the alarm. I refer, of course, to China. COST OF MILITARY AID CHARGED TO GREECE AND CHINA But I would like to ask this question. In view of the statements made earlier by Senator Russell relative to this question of surplus, calling your attention again to the white paper, in which a letter signed by Brig. Gen. T. Š. Timberman to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives as late as June 21, 1949, appears, on page 979 of the white paper General Timberman says this, in referring to the $125,000,000 China aid program which the last Congress provided. He says: All appreciable quantities of surplus items had been disposed of prior to the implementation of the China Aid Act. They have been previously applied to the foreign military assistance program, including Greece and Turkey. Then, further on, he says: A small quantity at surplus prices, considerably more at 1945 procurement cost prices, but the majority at either replacement cost prices or the price actually charged by the manufacturer * In other words, as I read that letter, at the time of the China aid $125,000,000 program there were, in fact, substantially no surpluses, so the Department took the position, under existing policies, that the Chinese, for their $125,000,000, had to be charged the full price or the replacement cost. Yet at the same time, under the GreekTurkish aid program, we charged roughly for the substantial part of the equipment about 10 percent. My question is, How is it that on June 21 we apparently had no surpluses available that could be sold at this bargain-counter rate, yet today the committee is informed that approximately $450,000,000 of surplus will be available out of the war reserves of this country? It seems to me that there is an inconsistency there which the committee should be fully informed regarding. Secretary ACHESON. I quite agree, Senator, that this is a matter which should be cleared up. I think it has been raised with the Military Establishment, who are preparing details on it for the committee. It may be that the answer lies in the fact that there are different types of tiems that are being talked about. I am not competent to answer it, and I understand the answer is being prepared for you. Senator KNOWLAND. I would like to have supplied by either your Department or the Department of the Army the amount of military supplies that we have given to Greece and Turkey under the GreekTurkish Aid Act. It may be that this would have to be done in executive session, but I want to have two sets of figures; No. 1, which shows in the Greek-Turkish report, which Members of Congress have received, showing the amount that has been expended, but I want to know whether that is at the dollar value which we have set upon it or whether in fact, instead of it being $318,000,000, that would represent $3,000,000,000, as and example-what the cost value of the equipment that has been furnished is, as well as the dollar value we have placed upon it, for both Greece and Turkey. Could that be supplied? Secretary ACHESON. I think it can be, sir. We will go to work on it. FUTURE MAINTENANCE COSTS Senator KNOWLAND. One final question. Senator Russell also pointed out that this would just be the beginning of a program, and I think that is correct, because we certainly cannot embark upon it purely as a 1-year affair. But I want to call to the attention of the committee, and also to the attention of the two Departments that will testify, so that we can get their estimates, that in the report on the Greek-Turkish aid, on page 10, appears this statement relative to Greece: Maintenance of equipment and supplies have absorbed in the past, and will continue to absorb, a large proportion of American military-aid funds. If that is true in regard to Greece and Turkey, then my question is, is that not also applicable to a much greater extent to the aid furnished under the arms implementation program? In other words, if we supply a tank, that does not end it. We have to be prepared over the years, since the parts are manufactured and are available only in this country, to supply all the replacement parts. Is that not correct? Secretary ACHESON. We will lay all of that material before you. There is one difference in the two programs, in that you are fighting a war in Greece, and that is why this maintenance is rather high. 95506-494 We will give you all the material. (This matter was discussed in executive session.) Senator KNOWLAND. Thank you. That is all. The CHAIRMAN. We have with us a distinguished man, Mr. Dulles. He is not a member of either one of these committees, but he is here and he is demonstrating his interest. Have you any questions? Senator DULLES. I greatly appreciate your courtesy, Mr. Chairman, but the combined Foreign Relations Committee and Military Affairs Committee have enough talent, I think, without taking time to ask questions. The CHAIRMAN. We admit the talent. NATURE OF THE DEFENSE COMMITTEE I want to just make one sort of half-way question and half-way observation, and that is about article 9 of the treaty, and this Council that is going to be set up. It seems to me that there is a misapprehension about the powers and functions of this Council. A lot of Senators and a lot of others seem to infer that under article 9, when this Council is set up, it is going to take over this whole program. As I understand it, that is not the case at all. This will be more or less an advisory council which will make recommendations which may be adopted on which may not be adopted, and it is to be assumed that the military organization that is set up under this program will consult with them and get their views, but those views necessarily will not control. Is that general statement accurate, Mr. Secretary? Secretary ACHESON. It is an advisory council; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. It is an advisory council. They have no executive authority; they have no administrative authority. They give their views and then they accept them or reject them, as the case may be. Very well, if there is no objection, the committee willSenator CHAPMAN. Let me ask one more question, Mr. Chairman. In view of that statement, then, who will have authority to coordinate and integrate this whole program? Secretary ACHESON. It will have to be done by agreement, Senator Chapman. Senator CHAPMAN. Of all of the participating nations, is that right? Secretary ACHESON. I do not mean that every nation will have to agree in every act, but an act taken by one government will have to be worked out by agreement with the others. The CHAIRMAN. Is that all? Senator CHAPMAN. That is all. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand in recess until 10:30 tomorrow morning, at which time Secretary of Defense Johnson will be the witness. On Wednesday we expect to have the Chiefs of Staff upon their return from their European trip. (Whereupon, at 1:10 p. m., the committee recessed until the following day, Tuesday, August 9, 1949, at 10:30 a. m.) MILITARY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 1949 UNITED STATES SENATE, JOINT FOREIGN RELATIONS AND ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEES, Washington, D. C. The committees met, pursuant to adjournment on August 8, 1949, at 10:30 a. m., in room 318, Senate Office Building, Senator Tom Connally, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, presiding. Present from the Foreign Relations Committee: Senators Connally (chairman), George, Thomas of Utah, Pepper, Green, Fulbright, Vandenberg, Smith of New Jersey, and Lodge. Present from the Armed Services Committee: Senators Russell, Byrd, Chapman, Johnson of Texas, Hunt, Bridges, Gurney, Saltonstall, and Knowland. Also present: Senator Dulles, of New York. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. The witness today will be Secretary of Defense Johnson. The chairman is going to absent himself for a very short time, and he will ask Senator George to take charge of the hearing and proceed with the testimony. You have a prepared statement, I assume? Secretary JOHNSON. I do, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I will get that when I get back. If the committee will excuse me, I will go to another committee and return promptly. We are very happy to have you, Mr. Secretary. Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator GEORGE. Mr. Secretary, I presume you prefer to complete your prepared statement before yielding to questions? Secretary JOHNSON. I would prefer it, sir. It is short and boiled down. Senator GEORGE. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF HON. LOUIS JOHNSON, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE Secretary JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, members of the Senate Committees on Foreign Relations and Armed Services, the security of the United States depends primarily on our own strength, but we need all the strength we can marshal in case of emergency. The second source of strength that can be placed at our disposal for mutual defense is the strength of our allies. We cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of the world, nor can we rely on our own arms alone. This military-assistance program is the most realistic way in which we can begin to build up our allies so that they will be strong enough to make a real contribution to their own security and, therefore, directly to our security. |