Copyright
United States. Dept. of State. Office of Public Co.

Department of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) online

. (page 85 of 116)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) → online text (page 85 of 116)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


Economic strength is now, and will continue to be,
a prerequisite to the attainment of lasting political
and military strength and world peace.

To enhance this strength, we are engaged in
cooperative action to build a stronger defense
against aggression. In the Western Hemisphere
and the North Atlantic area, we have entered into
collective security arrangements within the frame-
work of the United Nations Charter. In other
l^arts of the world, we have helped to strengthen
individual countries whose security is important
to peace, and to our own security.

Our major effort has been devoted to Western
Europe, because two great wars in this century
have shown us beyond any doubt that our pros-
perity, our security, and indeed our survival, are
bound up with the fate of the nations of Western
Europe. In the face of the Communist threat
to the common peace and security, we entered last
year into a compact with eleven other countries in
the North Atlantic area. Together, we announced
the principle that an attack on one would be
regarded as an attack on all.

This was a historic step that has great meaning
both here and abroad. It was evidence that our
people, and the people in the other countries which
signed the North Atlantic Treaty, reject the dan-
gerous futility of isolationism and understand the
necessity of cooperation with other countries if
peace and freedom are to be preserved.

Following the ratification of the Treaty, the
nations set about the practical task of providing
for their common defense. The prompt enactment



938



Department of State Bulletin



by the Congress of the Mutuul Defense Assistance
Act was one step toward that goal. To assist
Western Europe and other nations whose freedom
was threatened, the Congress authorized three
types of aid: first, the direct supply of certain
essential items of military e(iuipment; second, the
assistance of specialists in military production and
training; and third, the transfer of machine tools
and materials to enable increased production of
military equipment. For these purposes, the Con-

f;ress last year made available l,314,01t),000 dol-
ars in funds and contract authority. A detailed
description of the specific accomplishments of the
Mutual Defense Assistance Program will be found
in the report of activities under the program which
I am submitting separately to the Congress.

One billion dollars of the sum made available
last year was to promote the integrated defense of
the North Atlantic area. We have made great
strides toward tliis objective in the short period
since the act became effective. We have created
an organization, and established procedures, which
will assure tlie prompt carrying out of the
program. Equipment has begun to flow abroad.

The Nortli Atlantic Treaty countries have
agreed on the general role which each is to play
in the common defense. We are succeeding for
the first time in history in overcoming considera-
tions of national prestige and tradition, under
which each nation felt bound to equip itself com-
pletely with men and resources in every branch of
military activity. Our common defense planning,
instead, will be based on a considerable degree of
specialization. This will bring a much larger total
strength from the resources devoted to defense
purposes.

Balanced Collective Forces

The recent meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty
Council emphasized the need for balanced collec-
tive forces and established a permanent group, one
of the tasks of wliich will be to function contin-
uously in giving direction to the joint efforts of
the Treaty partners toward this objective.

The complex work of preparing detailed defense
plans, based on the concept of balanced collective
forces, is now going forward. We have not yet
fully determined the size and the nature of the
forces and equipment necessary to insure ourselves
against future aggression directed toward the
North Atlantic area. But, one thing is already
plain. The military establishments of Western
Europe are below the minimum level consistent
with security. Those countries must build up their
forces as swiftly as their resources permit, assisted
by such 'help as we can afford. To this end, I
recommend that the Congress authorize additional
funds in the amount of 1 billion dollars for the
next fiscal year. In conjunction with our own
defense buclget, and the defense budgets of the
other Treaty countries, this will continue the work



so well begun to bolster tiie defenses of the North
Atlantic area.

The emphasis on the defense of Western Europe
has not diverted our attention from the threats to
the integrity of nations in other parts of the world
whose security is closely linked to our own. The
jjroblem of security is world-wide. The threat of
aggression casts its shadow ujaon every quarter of
the globe.

The military assistance we have given Greece
and Turkey since 1947 has brought impressive re-
sults. In Greece, it has brought guerrilla warfare
to an end, and has paved the way toward political
stability and economic progress. It has given Tur-
key the ability to maintain its territorial and polit-
ical integrity. Our military aid to Greece and
Turkey must continue, but the amount required
will be less than half that needed in the current
fiscal year. For military assistance to Greece and
Turkey for the next fiscal year, I recommend that
the Congress authorize funds in the amount of
120 million dollars.

That Iran remains an independent country in
spite of continuous Soviet pressure is due in part
to the strong support of the United States. The
security of the Republic of Korea is under the con-
stant menace of the Communist-dominated regime
in North Korea, whose purpose is to destroy the
new republic established after free elections held
under the auspices of the United Nations. The
independence of the Philippine Republic, freely
given it by the United States, has become a symbol
to the Far East, and, indeed, to the whole world.
Today, it is under attack by a subversive element
among its own people, whose objective is to servo
the ends of Communist imperialism. For military
assistance to Iran, Korea, and the Philippines, for
the next fiscal year, I recommend that Congress
authorize 27,500,000 dollars.

The problem of security against Communist ag-
gi'ession extends to certain other countries of the
Far East which have been emerging as new and
independent states. Recent events make it evident
that the forces of international communism do
not want these countries to grow in freedom — in-
stead the Communists seek to dominate them. The
75,000,000 dollars which the Congress authorized
last year for assistance to countries in the general
area of China has been available to help these na-
tions ward off the threat to their security from
subversive Communist forces within their coun-
tries, and to help them prevent the further exten-
sion of Communist imperialism in the Far East.
The value of having these funds available has been
amply demonstrated. Programs of assistance to
countries in this area, such as Indochina, are now
underway.

The rapidly changing conditions in and around
China require the constant reevaluation of the sit-
uation in that area and constant readiness to act
in the interests of peace when we can do so effec-
tively. Accordingly, I recommend the authoriza-



June 12, 1950



939



tion of an additional 75 million dollars for military
assistance to countries in the general area of China
during the next fiscal year.

Emergency Assistance

The security of the United States and the free
world may demand prompt emergency assistance
on the part of the Unitetl States to other imperiled
nations whose continued integrity is of vital im-
portance. I, therefore, reconuuend to the Congress
that limited jM'ovision be made for authority to
cope with such emergencies. It will not be neces-
sary to provide additional funds for this ])urpose.
Such emergencies will be sufficiently provided for
if a small portion of the funds made available for
military assistance may be shifted to meet such
situations should they arise.

The present provisions of the statute under
which the United States is authorized to provide
military assistance to countries which can afford
to pay for such assistance have proved unneces-
sarily restrictive. As enacted, the law limited the
countries to which the ITnited States could provide
military erjuipment on this basis to those countries
designated in the law and to those which have
joined with the United States in a collective or
regional security arrangement. There are, how-
ever, other countries the security of which is of
importance to the United States and to which it
would be in the national interest to provide mili-
tary equijiment at no expense to the United States.
Moreover, limitations respecting the amount, time,
and .security of payment have tended to frustrate
the puri)()ses of the present provisions. I, there-
fore, recommend that Congress take action to
modify the present provisions.

In addition to direct military supplies, assist-
ance is now being provided to certain other coun-
tries in the limited form of materials and nuu-hine
tools. We are hel])ing our j^artner nations to in-
crease their ability to help themselves by produc-
ing the equipmeiU. they need. The limitations in
the law which ])rev(^nt the furnishing of produc-
tion equipment othei- than machine tools has inter-
fered with programs of additional military i)ro-
duction in a way which I am confident was not
intended by the Congress. Accordingly, I lecom-
mend that the Coiigr'ess authorize the ])rovision of
production e(iuipimMit withotit limiting it to
machiTie tools.

The recoiiniicndal ions I have made will, J
believe, conti'ilnile to gi'eater conuuon strength
among the free nations. They are desigiH>d, just
as our own defense program is designed, to build
the nec(>ssai'y level of military strength to dis-
coui'age aggression, without uruici-miniug the eco-
nomic sti'eiigth whicli is fundamental to long-run
S(H'ui-it\'. In this lield. as in others, we nuisl ])re-
serve the moment uin we liaxc gained by our ait ions
to build a stable pealeiis(.(l ti) llie press on (lie same ilale. .\ snlislan-
tially siniilai' st.-Uenienl was sul)se(iuenll.v presenled before
tlie House Conanillee on Foreign .Vfl'airs on .Inne .S : for
text, see 1 >ei)artment of States press release i\S'> of that
d.-ile.



940



Departmenf of State Bulletin



of Congress on Wednesday.- Tliat report, 1
think, showed the very sigiiiKrant jn-ogress being
made by all of the members of the North Atlantic
Treaty towards makinp; the Treaty a working in-
strument for the peace of the world.

Much, of course, remains to be done. Further
progress will continue to depend on the un-
slackened effort of all I'i partners. It is per-
fectly clear, however, that if the Treaty members
are to be able to pi-eserve the North Atlantic area
from aggression, tlie United States nmst continue
with its military aid to those countries.

The North Atlantic Treaty states the determina-
tion of tlie partners to defend their territories
and their ilemocratic institutions against those
who might otherwise seek to destroy them. It
gives explicit recognition to the fact that an armed
attack against any one of its members is an attack
against all members. It provides that should an
attack occur, each member, individually and col-
lectively, will take such action as it deems neces-
sary, including the use of armed force, to restore
and maintain the security of the North Atlantic
area, lliis being so, it is essential, and the 12
signatories have agreed, that they will separately
and jointly, by continuous self-help and mutual
aid, maintain and develop their individual and
collective capacity to resist aggression. By unify-
ing their separate strengths, they can preserve the
peace by confronting a potential aggi'essor with
conditions under which resort to war would be
clearly disadvantageous.

The Treaty, as an expression of determination
to present a common defense to aggression, in
itself constituted a powerful deterrent. Its full
effectiveness, however, depends on each member's
lending his full support to the difficult task of
building a collective defensive capacity equal to
realistic requirements for defense.

Events of the past year have demonstrated un-
mistakably that we and our partners in the North
Atlantic area intend to carry forward this task to
completion. We have made plain to those forces
■who oppose our free democratic institutions that
we can translate our will and our intentions into
positive and effective action.

Historical Background of Military Aid

When I appeared before you last summer, in
support of the INIutual Defense Assistance Act of
1949, the North Atlantic Treaty was new. Its
organization had yet to be created, and we could
not foretell the extent to which it would become
an effective instrument for the common defense.

The Members of the Congress were, therefore,
rightly concerned that unless our aid were spe-
cifically dependent upon the adoption of an inte-
grated defense concept for the North Atlantic
area, its effectiveness in increasing the security of
the area would be seriously diminished. They

' For text of Secretary Acheson's address see p. 931.



were also concerned that unless the other members
considered our aid as only supplementary to their
own efforts of self-help and nmtual aid, the
achievement of our objectives woidd place an im-
pos-sible burden on (he resoui-ces of this country.
Tiiey believed, and very properly, that unless a
collective defense, as dislinguished from individ-
ual national defenses, could be devised, the secu-
rity of the North Atlantic area would be in
perpetual jeopardy.

TJiis concern was shared by all of us and was
wisely reflected in those provisions of the law
which placed specific conditions on the furnishing
of military assistance in tlie North Atlantic area.
These conditions were: first, the conclusion of an
agreement with each prospective recipient nation
which included an undertaking, among others, to
engage in self-help and mutual aid in furtherance
of the purposes of the North Atlantic Treaty ; and,
second, the approval by the President of recom-
mendations for the integrated defense of the
North Atlantic area which were to be developed
by the Treaty organization.

These conditions have been completely fulfilled,
and we have moved forward in a real collective
effort to a degree that none of us would have
dared to predict 9 months ago.

Before the end of January, the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization had recommended, and the
President had approved, a strategic concept for
the integrated defense of the North Atlantic area.
This accomplishment was only possible after a
Treaty organization had been established and was
vigorously at work. It also required full agree-
ment among 12 nations in an area where even in
wartime agreement is not simple of achievement.

Before the end of January, bilateral agreements
had been signed with those North Atlantic coun-
tries which had requested assistance. The negoti-
ation of these agreements was characterized by
a healthy desire on the part of all countries con-
cerned to explore all issues honestly and openly
and by a refusal to cloak problems behind indeci-
sive language.

By March, a detailed list of the specific equip-
ment to be furnished had been fully developed.
This list was consistent with, and in support of,
the strategic concept. It was derived, in other
words, not from traditional political desires to
maintain large national forces in all three armed
services but, instead, from the recognized need to
equip forces on the basis of the role to be played
by each country in the coordinated defense of the
North Atlantic area.

By early spring, a small organization had been
established, both here and abroad, to administer
the Program. Tliis organization is capable of
assuring that the provisions of the legislation are
carried out and is in a position to render the kind
of technical assistance to recipient countries which
will assure their most effective utilization of our
equii^ment for the common defense.



June 12, 1950



941



The signing of the bilateral agreements, the de-
velopment of firm programs of assistance, and the
establishment of an organization to administer
these programs were all conditions precedent to
the actual furnishing of aid. Since then, military
assistance has begun to flow to the North Atlantic
countries.

Many projects for increasing the production of
military equipment in Europe, with the use of
materials and machinery provided from this coun-
try, have been submitted. Some of these have al-
ready been approved and are being carried out;
numerous others are now under review.

Programs for training the military forces of
our partners in the use of the modern military
equipment which we are furnishing them are also
in operation. These programs include not only
training in Europe by special United States per-
sonnel but also training in this country of key
military personnel from abroad.

In the North Atlantic Treaty Organization it-
self, initial defense plans, based on the agreed
strategic concept, have been developed by each of
the five military regional planning groups, have
been combined by the standing group into an in-
itial area plan, and have been approved by the
Militai-y and Defense Committees as starting
points.

These plans must constantly be reviewed and
revised, and they must be tested against the pres-
ent and potential economic and financial capabili-
ties of all of the participants. Resolutions adopted
by the Council, at the meeting from which I have
just returned, were designed to expedite the eval-
uation and improvement of these plans and to
translate them into action.

European Efforts

The efforts of the Europeans to increase the de-
fensive capacity of the North Atlantic area, in
compliance with article III of the Treaty, are en-
couraging. There is a new spirit in being which
is characterized by the conviction that the defense
of the Atlantic area is a real and attainable objec-
tive. In spite of the continued importance of pur-
suing the task of economic recovery, which is in
itself essential to the success of any defense effort
in Westei-n Europe, our European partners are
progressively devoting more funds to their defense
budgets.

Basic to our joint effort, and basic to your con-
sideration here, is the agreement by all 12 members
of which I spoke on Wednesday, that we should
concentrate on the creation of balanced collective
forces in the progressive build-up of the defensive
strength of the North Atlantic area.

As a result of this agreement, the efforts of
the 12 nations will necessarily pay much larger
dividends, in terms of increased security, than
would be possible through individual, unrelated
increases in each branch of each armed service of



each of these nations. The agreement represents
an assurance that the aid which we make available
will have its maximum effect and not be wasted
in the creation of unnecessary forces.

The importance to our security of maintaining
the spirit and activity wliicli have been generated
in our Western European partners must be ap-
jjarent to all observers. The Schuman proposal
for a Franco-German coal and steel pool could
only have been made against a background of in-
creased confidence in the economic and military
security which has resulted from our economic and
military assistance and the efforts of the Euro-
pean nations themselves. The inauguration on
July 1 of this year of the European Payments
Union among the Western European countries
also reflects that increased confidence.

The task, however, is far from completed. But,
the record of the past months is a forecast of what
can be accomplished provided we and our partners
are prepared to carry forward with full vigor the
work which we have begun. On the other hand,
if any of us let down, or slacken our efforts, the
result could well be disaster. Only by forceful,
concerted action along the lines which have been
initiated can the countries which practice democ-
racy preserve democracy.

The 1 billion dollars which the President has
recommended for assistance in the North Atlantic
area is part of our necessary contribution to this
effort. The amount is derived from a variety of
factors of which the following are perhaps the
most important : the requirements for the defense
of the area as they have been developed by the
planning which has already gone forward in the
Treaty organization ; the ability of the European
nations, through increased military production,
to fill these requirements without destroying their
economic stability; the capacity of the forces
which Western Europe can now support to assimi-
late the aid which can be furnished ; and our own
military supply position.

No item of assistance is proposed in this pro-
gram for nationalistic reasons. Each item is in-
cluded because it is required for integrated defense
of the North Atlantic area. In the aggregate, the
program proposed, when joined with the planned
programs of the other membere of the Treaty,
represents another important step toward the
eventual creation of an adequate common defense
for the North Atlantic community.

While the military assistance which is planned
for the North Atlantic area accounts for a major
portion of the President's recommendations, his
proposals for aid to other areas where freedom is
at stake are also essential to the security of our
country.

Before turning to the other areas of the world
wliich require United States aid, I should like to
call your attention to certain important problems
which have arisen in the administration of the law.
Solutions to these problems are urgently needed:



Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) → online text (page 85 of 116)