Слике страница
PDF
ePub

lieve any desire on her part for nuclear limits German armaments in other treaty to preserve its nuclear monopoly on weapons of her own.

fields, as well. I ask unanimous consent the continent of Europe. This is a very large-sized assumption that the article from the Star be printed Treaty is equally hard. Presumably if seven

The problem of revising the Brussels I have not heard any clamor from the at this point in the RECORD.

powers can agree not to raise the issue of German people to become a nuclear There being no objection, the article the French nuclear program, they can also power. They know, as the world knows, was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, agree to revise the treaty to eliminate the that any step in the direction of nuclear as follows:

embarrassing clause. weapons for West Germany is considered

EUROPEAN CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

But this would inevitably involve demands by the Soviet Union to be a grave threat

for changes from the German side. And this (By Crosby S. Noyes)

is the problem which the seven Western Euroto her security. Aside from that prob PARIS.--The ministers of the Western

pean powers would dearly like to avoid as lem, nuclear weapons are very expensive. European Union who meet in Brussels to

long as possible. It is problematical whether that is an morrow are partners in a curious conspiracy If they were asked, French officials would expenditure the German people are of silence.

have a ready answer for their failure to adready to make.

The conspiracy consists of the fact that

here to the terms of the Brussels treaty, Of even greater concern to me is the France-which is a member of the seven

Conditions, they would say, have changed constant implication in all these discus

nation group-is or soon will be in open greatly since the treaty was signed 9 years

violation of provisions of the Western Eurosions that once the nuclear fleet is a

ago. At that time, for instance, there were pean Union treaty. And not one of the as

no atomic weapons in Europe. Since 1954, reality, the United States would be will sembled ministers is at all likely to so much

the accumulation of large American nuclear ing to give up the control of its war as mention the fact.

stockpiles in Europe-which along with Britheads. That is the old gimmick. That Under little-known terms of the treaty,

ish stocks are not subject to control of the is the "come-on.” We offer to pay far France is solemnly bound to submit its na

WEU powers-has made the relatively small more than our share; and to keep the tional nuclear program to the control of the nuclear French stockpile unimportant. American people quiet, it is said that the

Council of the Western European group as This remains to be seen. As things stand

as it begins production of nuclear warheads will remain under American

at present, the simple fact is that Britain, weapons. control. But once the project is a reality,

Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Italy, and From recent statements of high French

Germany possess between them undeniable once our money is spent and gone, then officials, this stage would now seem to have

legal control over the French nuclear effort our policymakers find it convenient to been reached. On October 16, Minister for

which they claim-in varying degrees-to invite the noncontributing countries in Information Alain Peyrefitte announced that

oppose. to help to run the fleet and decide when, "France has started to provide itself with

It may be the smart practice of civilized where, and how its nuclear warheads will an operational nuclear force."

diplomacy to continue to ignore this solbe fired.

The terms of the Brussels Treaty, signed

emnly ratified international undertaking. in 1954 by Premier Pierre Mendes-France There have even been rumors in the

But it is doubtful that the issue-which goes (who also launched France's nuclear develpress that administration officials have opment program that same year), are quite nitely be swept under the Western European

to the heart of Europe's future--can indefihinted that we would turn our entire explicit:

rug. share of the fleet over to Europeans. "When the development of atomic, bioThese are rumors and allegations that logical, and chemical weapons in the terri Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, Russia have frightening implications. The very tory on the mainland of Europe of the high

tory on the mainland of Europe of the high commits many wrongs; and, in my judgleast of them, aside from all the implica- the right to produce them has passed the followed a course of action by which she

contracting parties who have not given up ment, Russia has for years deliberately tions of the expansion and proliferation experimental stage, and effective production of nuclear forces, is that once again,

of them has started there, the level of stocks Uncle Sam is preparing to finance, pay that the high contracting parties concerned to create crisis after crisis. But, many for, and furnish to Europe the instru will be allowed to hold on the mainland of times we are guilty of the same tactics. ments of her defense.

Europe shall be decided upon by a majority If we continued to support NATO while I am not at all interested in any more

vote of the Council of the Western European France followed her naitonalistic course of these military giveaways to Western Union."

of action, and if we did not see to it that

BEHIND THE SILENCE Europe. Either NATO is going to be an

West Germany continued to be proalliance in which everyone pays à fair

The reasons for the conspiracy of silence scribed insofar as the acquisition of nu

when it comes to invoking this clause are share, or the alliance should die. The

clear weapons is concerned, we would very simple. time to find out is now, and the place to · France, at least as long as President de

have to assume a part of the responsibegin finding out is here in the Senate, Gaulle is running the country, will most cer

bility for creating what I believe would in connection with this foreign aid bill. tainly not volunteer to place its nuclear be a very frightening and dangerous Before leaving this point, I want also

force under the control of any international crisis in the immediate future between to bring to the attention of the Senate

group. Other members of the group—most the Western World and Russia. I do not

of whom profess to deplore France's national know why anyone should think Russia. an article, by Crosby S. Noyes, which ap nuclear effort-feel that invoking the treaty would stand mute and would remain idle peared in the Evening Star of October

would be the quickest possible way of de24. 1963. In this article, Mr. Noyes de- stroying the Western European Union.

with France building up great nuclear scribes the meeting now going on in Paris At this stage, the Western European Un- power on the continent of Europe, and under the Western European Union ion is valuable primarily because of its non with France already in violation of the treaty. He points out that one provision

military aspects. European powers look on treaty provisions in regard to the amount. of this treaty obliges France, now that

it as a way of maintaining contact after of nuclear power a country can main

Britain's exclusion by France from the Com- tain on the continent. she has nuclear weapons in production,

If there were mon Market. Economic and political ques- added to that situation any weakening to submit to a vote of the council of the

tions are expected to dominate the discusWestern European Union “the level of sions at Brussels.

whatsoever of the proscription of nustocks that the high contracting parties The argument that France, if challenged, clear power insofar as West Germany concerned will be allowed to hold on the would simply denounce the Brussels treaty is concerned, there would be a greater mainland of Europe.” It takes a major

is somewhat disingenuous. France may not crisis than the 1962 Cuba crisis. ity vote of the council to make such deci

worry very much about the organization That is why I am fearful that this

which forms a bridge between Britain and sions.

mad, insane nuclear armaments race the Common Market. But behind the orAs Mr. Noyes indicates, France is al- ganization is a treaty which is of enormous

will end in war, because if we follow a ready in violation of that treaty obliga- importance to France as well as the other course of action that leaves Russia no tion. France has no intention of sub- countries of the Western community.

other course, just as Russia last year mitting the control of her nuclear weap

THE TREATY'S IMPORTANCE

was following in Cuba a course of action ons to a majority vote of the WEU; and The Western European treaty regulates, which left us with no other course, the apparently no member of the treaty among other things, the degree and quality challenge will be laid down. So if we group is planning to hold France to ac

of German rearmament. It is the treaty are dedicated to preventing war, we now count under its provisions.

and the only one—that prevents Germany have an opportunity in dealing with this Yet it is also this treaty—and this self. It also limits German-made armaments foreign aid bill, to use it in such a way treaty alone--that proscribes the Fed in many other fields. It would not be torn

as to change U.S. policy in regard to eral Republic of Germany from manu up lightly by France if for no other reason NATO. It is for that reason that I said facturing nuclear weapons and which than the fact that France relies on the a few minutes ago that Congress could

CIX -1323

very well strengthen the hand of the Before the Senate begins voting on the that some American troops could be President of the United States in diplo- amendments to the foreign aid bill, I brought home. matic relations with our NATO Allies hope that each Member will obtain from Before I proceed further, I ask Senby saying to him, “Mr. President, we the Department of Defense its summary ators, “Why do you not talk to the chairwill allow you only so much money for of “NATO Country Forces in Being and man

man of the Senate Committee on NATO”-much less than the amount the Force Objectives.” This is a frighten- Armed Services in regard to the issue of bill now provides.

ing document. It is frightening to me how many American troops are needed Many do not fully realize that what for one major reason: It indicates that in Germany? we are doing in connection with some not only has one of the major suppliers I do not propose to placate West Geraspects of the foreign aid bill, particu- of NATO forces failed to supply those many any further. We should bring larly in connection with the NATO as- forces, but it has no intention of supply- home at least four divisions now. I compect, may very well have a direct bearing ing them.

pletely disagree with the President of on whether in the years immediately I refer, of course, to France. Many the United States in his announcement ahead we may have to assume our share other of our NATO partners do not have of no intention to bring American forces of the responsibility for plunging the the forces "in being" that they are home from Germany. They ought to be world into a nuclear war. Yet I cannot assigned. Some do not plan to make any brought home and quickly—at least four see any basis for reconciling the na- improvements next year. But France divisions of them. That would leave, for tionalistic course of action of De Gaulle has reduced her already meager forces the most part, two divisions. I am not with world peace, and I cannot see any under NATO; she has no intention of sure that we ought to leave more than basis in reality for assuming that any meeting her force goals this year. And

one division over there. move to make West Germany a nuclear in terms of the troops, ships, and air

That action would have a great deal to power could be reconciled with world squadrons she is supposed to furnish to do with our gold supply. In spite of the peace. If Congress does not do some- the Organization at the time of mobili- rationalizations that the administration thing about this matter, insofar as NATO zation, France does not intend to furnish has tried to make in regard to the sois concerned, in connection with the for- more than a small fraction of her assigneign aid bill, Congress will have to ment at the time of mobilization. What many to our gold supply problem, they assume its share of the responsibility for an ally. By what stretch of reasoning do not make a case.

do not make a case. It would have a the outbreak of a nuclear war, for I am can we vote more money to her? If the great effect. We ought to bring them perfectly satisfied that if a nuclear secret document to which I have been

home. France and a nuclear West Germany are referring could only have the label West Germany is a prosperous nation built up, Russia will act before the "Classified, Secret,” removed from it and

with full employment. buildup is completed, because her posi- the American people could know its con

Mr. President, we see an ironical paration is bound to be that although she tents. I take the position they should dox. If Germany were to fulfill her may not survive, her only chance of sur- be allowed to know the contents. I wish commitments to NATO, she would have vival will be had if she takes action to that the "secret" document which I have to take a great many men out of stop such a nuclear buildup. Senators on my desk could only be known to the

industry. now can appreciate my belief in regard American people so that the American

But the great United States-supposto the seriousness of the bill. people could know what we can count on

edly the great industrial example of the Of course, others can disagree with from France and what we cannot.

world-does not have to take men out of my evaluation of this situation; but many If this document could have the "Se

industry to fill up her troop ranks. She persons share it, and that is why a group cret” label removed from it so the Ameri

takes them out of the unemployed group. of us are seeking to amend the pending can people could know what we can count There is a lesson to be drawn from that bill. on from France and what we cannot, our

situation. I would bring them home. I It can be argued, at almost any time men, women, and dependents would be

would put them to constructive work by that Germany wishes to make the argu- pulled out of France so fast it would make

spending some of the foreign aid money ment, that the failure of France to live your head swim. There would be a re

to develop underdeveloped areas in the up to the treaty and the failure of the vision of the alliance demanded by the

United States. I would do something other members to hold France to account American people that would count France about the falling water table in many under the treaty have reduced the whole out formally, as she has already counted

parts of America. Such a program re1954 agreement to use a notorious herself out informally.

quires workers. It requires great dams. phrase "to a scrap of paper.'

Senators are welcome to come to my

It requires great reclamation projects. I In my opinion, the time for Britain, desk and read the document. If they America with some of the foreign aid

would do something about schools in France, Holland, Italy, and Belgium to come, I particularly suggest that they money that I would take out of Europe. indicate their rejection of nuclear look at the section labeled “B-NATO I would build schools which are sorely weapons for Germany is right now. If Country Forces in Being and Force Obthey have any apprehensions of a nu- jectives.” Take a look at the record of

needed at all educational levels-eleclear-armed Germany, they must make

mentary, secondary, higher education, our allies. It is a shocking record. We the Western European Union a meaning- continue to vote aid to them. So far as

and graduate. There is such a shortage ful organization. If they do not act to the Senator from Oregon is concerned,

of schools in our country that tens of apply its provisions to France, then they he will continue to call it what it is—a

thousands of young men and women are are washing their hands of any future

being denied the development of their limits upon German nuclear forces.

deception of the American people. The educational opportunities. They have already made it pretty clear American people are entitled to better

Mr. President, my heart does not bleed that they are not interested in diluting

treatment. If the administration does for West Germany, but my heart does German nuclear activity with their own not like that language, I challenge it to

bleed for the boys and girls in this counon in a multilateral fleet. release the document to the American

release the document to the American try who are being denied the developOnce again, they expect Uncle Sam to people and obtain their verdict. My ment of their educational potential. remain in partnership with Germany so language calling it "a deception of the The money that we are wasting on the that Germany will not become a nuclear American people” is mild in comparison foreign aid program is needed for the power in herself. But they are not in with what the American people will call improvement of American health. terested in sharing the expense.

I would be perfectly willing, if anyit. I challenge members of the Commit

one is at a loss to understand what we They will never share expense in any tee on Foreign Relations to answer my

can do with that money, to turn it all project to which the United States is argument. Let that classified document

over to heart research, to cancer reparty so long as they have the constant be read by every Senator before he casts search, to arthritis research, or to any example of our aid coming in whether his vote on the foreign aid bill and then

other kind of research sorely needed in they do their share or not. justify his vote if it is for it.

connection with other diseases that take FAILURE TO MEET NATO FORCE GOALS

I am always astonished at the an their heavy toll. I could go on for an We already know the sorry record that guished cries that go up from the press hour listing the needs of this country our major allies in Europe are making and politicians of the Federal Republic with respect to which we could spend in connection with NATO force goals. of Germany whenever it is suggested the money.

I would say to West Germany that I many, but to fall back and leave it to the United States will not live up to its do not approve of our Secretary of State massive retaliation to destroy Russia. obligations to Europe. going there and promising them that we But once Germany became an active We will not fail in our obligations; we will not bring home any American divi- member of the alliance, she was not sat

member of the alliance, she was not sat- are not failing now. We never have; and sions. We have already told them that isfied to see the abandonment of Ger

isfied to see the abandonment of Ger- we are the only member of the NATO if Russia makes a move against them we many as a defense strategy for Europe. that has not. But it is obvious that the will join them in their own defense. We She began to insist upon being defended, other partners, principally France, do have just finished demonstrating to them not liberated. So there was developed, not agree that it is necessary to have so that under our airlift power-if it is man and rightly so, what we now call the for- many men stationed in Germany. Even power they need, together with their ward strategy of defense. It calls for Germany has not furnished the manown divisions, and one or two that we Germany to be defended on her eastern power asked of her in NATO force goals. will leave there they will be quickly re- border, and not serve as ground across Since we have not won our allies inforced, if necessary, by manpower. which NATO will retreat, keeping France around to our way of thinking on this

But whom are we kidding, Mr. Presi- as the steppingstone back to the Con- matter, I think it is only reasonable to dent? Such a war will never be a man- tinent.

accept their decision, and to go along power war: It will never be a conven To carry out the American part in that with them. We should reduce our own tional war. We continue to spend bil- defense we have some 250,000 troops, forces in Germany, and most certainly lions of dollars for our nuclear might roughly speaking, in Germany.

we should reduce our forces in other because we know, if war should break But the German political leaders, de places in Europe. out with Russia, that it will be a nuclear fense leaders, and military leaders who The place we should start is in France. war, and military manpower in the old led the cause for the forward defense Remember that while we have some 250,conventional sense to a large extent will idea, many of whom are also the chief 000 men in Germany, we have around be a surplus commodity. Of course, if advocates of throwing in Germany's 400,000 in all of Europe. I would like to war should break out, it would be a non- cause with De Gaulle, have never seen see the total of American forces in Euexistent commodity, too—including ci- the fulfillment of France's part of the rope brought down to the figure of 250,vilian manpower.

forward defense. Nor will they. I sug- 000. That is a cut of 150,000. We should We should stop the waste of money gest that the next time they raise the cry start by bringing back the tens of thouinvolved in maintaining so many divi- that Germany is being abandoned by the sands of troops we have in France. sions in Germany. We should cut that United States, they go to De Gaulle and We could also reduce our very large amount and spend what is saved in the see how many French troops they can garrisons in Britain, Italy, Turkey, and development of our own economy and in get from him for the defense of Ger- Spain. helping the truly unfortunate sections many. Let them take Germany's de We should start by bringing back a of the world, such as are encompassed fense problem to De Gaulle, and see how division from Germany now, in 6 months by the Alliance for Progress program, much manpower they get from him.

another division, and in another 6 where the fight for freedom is still to be Certainly, if we all accepted the De months a third division. Germany would won.

Gaulle assumptions about Europe and know that we would defend her immediI have said many times—though I the Soviet Union, there would be no need ately, will all the power of the United continue to be misrepresented in the for American forces in Germany at all. States, in case she were attacked by press of this country—that I am not for De Gaulle is assuming that there is not Russia-assuming, of course, she herself cutting economic aid to Latin America. going to be any Soviet attack across did not commit an act of aggression. I will join in increasing it. I will vote Europe. He is assuming that the large to maintain it as it is, and then I will NATO ground forces are a waste of time

AMERICAN AID TO NATO PARTNERS SHOULD CEASE vote to add to it every dollar that we for France. If De Gaulle is right, then

But above all, we must stop up the concut from military aid to Latin America. they are a waste of time for the United stant outflow of American aid to these I would take some of the savings made States, as well.

countries. Despite the pleas that have by cutting military aid to other parts For some reason, I do not hear his been made from this floor in the last 3 of the world and utilize it by giving more counterparts in Germany accepting that years alone, and despite the promises economic aid to Latin America. That line of argument insofar as the United that have been made “downtown” to is the way we will win the case for free- States is concerned. They do not seem

head off drastic congressional action, the dom in the world. But I would not to argue with De Gaulle that he is wrong;

aid to our NATO partners still flows in waste the taxpayers' money in the type for them, it is only wrong for the United one form or another. We are usually of military aid we are now supplying States to play down or underestimate the told that no new commitments are being West Germany. dangers of attack from Russia.

made, and that all aid, except to Greece Mr. President, the same voices that Yet the more De Gaulle ignores the de- and Turkey, is in fulfillment of past raise these cries are all too often the fense of Germany, the more some Ger

commitments. same voices that cry out for closer mili- man politicians seem to love him. The

In light of some of their own poor pertary and political relations between

more De Gaulle plans on defending formances in fulfilling NATO commitFrance and Germany. Yet, as our Sec Europe at the Rhine instead of the east- ments, I am no longer much impressed retary of State has pointed out in Ger ern border of Germany, the more he ap- with this argument against cutting off many recently, there was not so much as peals to some German politicians. I will our aid. Virtually all of it is military aid. a tremor in Germany when France took tell you what I suspect: I suspect that But there is not one recipient that is not her Atlantic fleet out from the command their alliance with De Gaulle is only for capable of furnishing all its NATO forces of NATO. Of course, her Mediterranean the purposes of justifying Germany to without aid from us, if it so desires. fleet is long gone. Her failure to meet become an independent nuclear power, It does not intend to do so. It intends her troop commitments for the defense just as France has done.

to continue to "soak" the American taxof ermany is the most scandalous mili I think they know perfectly well that payer. It intends to continue to let tary problem faced by the entire alliance. so long as the De Gaulle theories of Euro Uncle Sam assume European obligations.

It is a matter of history that after pean defense prevail, they will get no He has all he can do to assume American Germany was brought into NATO as a help from France in defending the terri- obligations now. The word that ought full partner, and when she began fur tory of Germany from attack from the to be on the lips of every Senator is nishing much of NATO's manpower, East. I think they are also willing to "cut.” Cut, and continue to cut the bill there was a radical shift in NATO de- accept that, in return for the right of until justice is done the American taxfense plans for central Europe.

Germany to emulate the French example payer, because doing justice to the AmerIt had been the plan in the early and to adopt as their own the French

and to adopt as their own the French ican taxpayer by the cuts will not weak1950's that the alliance would have a reasons for having independent nuclear en the security of this country one iota. "trip-wire" force in Germany that would forces.

I believe that the bill should not go to serve to absorb the initial blow of a pro That, too, is their right and their coun- the White House without a flat prohibispective Soviet invasion while the nuclear try's right. But I think it makes a

But I think it makes a tion on new aid commitments to NATO retaliation of the United States was mockery of their outcries over the with- members and a directive that existing being brought into play. These trip-wire drawal of American forces, and their

drawal of American forces, and their commitments immediately be renegoforces were not expected to defend Ger- advocacy of the De Gaulle theory that tiated downward.

Not only should no new commitments invariably found themselves in agree with the kind of "snow job" language be made by the United States to Norway, ment with us on principle. The difficulty they flutter down on us every time they Denmark, Great Britain, France, Ger- with the State Department and other testify on foreign aid. They are great many, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Canada, officials of the administration is that seducers. I am not interested in being or Luxembourg, but any existing com- they seem to be unable to implement seduced into a further waste of taxpayer mitments should be promptly revised what they deem is sound in principle. It money. I want some delivery of savings downward. At the very least, there is when we come to their administrative from the State Department. We are not should be an American policy that any practices that they break down. That going to get them until we cut the forNATO member that does not fulfill its is where the inefficiency develops. They eign aid bill far below the Mansfield commitments to the organization for are good talkers, but they are failures amendments, at least to the House figfeits any American aid under existing when it comes to putting into practice

when it comes to putting into practice ures, although I would reorganize the agreements. their good talk.

House figures by taking more off miliThe President made a statement in his Mr. Bell continued:

tary aid and adding that saving to econews conference yesterday in which he First we sought a special contribution from nomic aid. said that additional American forces Germany and other NATO countries directly The colloquy continued: were sent to Germany in 1961 because of to the Greek military budget as part of an

Senator MORSE. Let me see if I could get unfulfilled commitments by other allies,

increase in the funds available for the Greek into the record on a percentage basis an Note that, Mr. President; we sent military forces. During the last or current

answer to this question. Let's take all of the fiscal year, Germany has contributed specifAmerican boys over there in 1961, ac

economic and military aid that Greece and ically and directly to Greece as we have been cording to the President of the United doing for many years, for the purpose of help

Turkey get. Let's set the other NATO coun

tries off to one side and compare their conStates, because of the unfulfilled com ing them carry larger military forces than tributions to the U.S. contributions to mitments of other allies. Why? By

By their own economic circumstances would Greece and Turkey percentagewise. what justification? I do not know. permit.

What percentage would the other NATO That statement by the President is an Secondly, we have, under the Organization

countries be paying and what percentage indication that the Congress must no

for Economic Cooperation and Development, would the United States be paying? We longer leave any choice to administra

the OECD, and its Development Assistance don't have to talk about specific amounts. tion officials. We must write it into the sortium of countries. Germany is a memCommittee urged the establishment of a con

Do Senators know why we could not law that this country is no longer to ber; we are a member; several other coun talk about specific amounts? The inunderwrite the failures of our allies.

tries are as well. We will consider the re formation is classified. It is top seLet me read an excerpt from the For- quirements for economic progress in Greece, cret. That is so, even though it involves eign Relations Committee hearings on

and together consider what the contributions taxpayer money. It is a very sad thing. the Foreign Assistance Act of 1963,

of 1963, might be made to that progress.
This consortium has met twice and the

It is discouraging, too. In this examinawhich includes the colloquy I had with Germans have made a substantial pledge.

tion of Mr. Bell, as a member of the Mr. Bell, of AID. The colloquy is very

Furthermore, Senator, as you know, Greece committee, I could not talk in terms of interesting. I read a part of it:

is one of the cases where we are now rapidly specific amounts, because they are clasSenator MORSE. Mr. Bell, I share the views changing the form of the assistance that we sified. So I had to resort to the indirecof Senator FULBRIGHT that he has expressed make available.

tion of talking in terms of percentages. with regard to this European aid.

Last year, 1962, we made our last economic

I say to the American people, "How I won't use the figures although I think grants to Greece. figures have been used in public, but I want This year, the present fiscal year, we have long are you going to tolerate such a to direct your attention for a moment to made only loans to Greece. The last loan,

situation? How long are you going to economic and military aid to Greece and that I approved the day before yesterday, is take it? When are you going to crack Turkey.

at 392 percent interest and 20 years, like the down on the politicians? When are you Mr. BELL. Yes, sir.

one you commented on a week ago with re going to whip them by leaving them at Senator MORSE. That amounts to many spect to Taiwan.

home unless they are willing to start millions of dollars. That is as much as I So that we are moving in what seems to me protecting your interest? When are you will say. They amount to many millions of a sensible direction toward providing such going to serve notice on the politicians dollars. And the United States makes the assistance as we still will provide to Greece contribution. on terms that are more relevant and more

that the veil of secrecy must be lifted to Greece and Turkey supply 24 divisions of appropriate in the light of the progress

a very large extent?” men in the Mediterranean area under NATO. Greece is making; and we have been trying I say to the American people, "You get Here again those divisions are dependent to urge and arrange for greater and more ap exactly the kind of government you are upon the United States because our further propriate participation by Germany and willing to tolerate. If you are willing to military assistance would encompass the other European countries.

tolerate a government of secrecy, you cost of their maintenance.

Again, my comment should be qualified

will get a government of secrecy. But if I digress to say that, in spite of all

to say that we would hope the Europeans
will do more than they have to date, but we

you are going to make it clear to the the talk about Turkish and Greek divicertainly concur in the direction that you are

politicians that you want them to remove sions, they are of no value if not mainpointing.

government by secrecy from the Ameritained by the United States. We equip them. We pay them. They are depend

Mr. President, it sounds good. They something about stopping the waste of

can scene, and that you want them to do always sound good. However, when we hundreds of millions of dollars encoment upon us. That is not my idea of a very effective or efficient ally.

analyze their language, it is always eva

sive. To return to the colloquy:

The talk by Mr. Bell is not sub- passed in the foreign aid bill, or you will

beat them, you will start getting foreign stantiated by policy. So I again say to What I am at a loss to understand is why

aid reform, and not before." my administration: "Tell me how much shouldn't West Germany-West Germany in particular, although I think it is true of we are going to be able to make it possi

That, of course, applies to Democrats other NATO countries, too-contribute ecoble for us to cut in Turkish and Greek

as well as Republicans, so far as the nomic aid to Greece and Turkey? aid, in terms of the amount of money

senior Senator from Oregon is concerned. Mr. BELL. They are, sir.

that the NATO allies are now willing to We are talking about a nonpartisan isSenator MORSE. To what extent and in contribute as their share, thus reducing

sue in which there is no room for partiwhat amount percentagewise? our share?"

sanship. Mr. BELL. I am not sure I have the figures I have been advised that the talk

I do not know of any other way. Unwith me. But I would be glad to supply

less Congress is willing to live up to its them for the record. May I expand on that about West Germany contributing still a moment, if I may? does not put them into a substantial

responsibilities in protecting the AmeriWe have within the last year taken two contribution in comparison with the con can people, they will have to protect steps which are exactly in the direction that tribution of the United States. There is

themselves in what I said last week is you are indicating as desirable and which little from France. If there is anything

little from France. If there is anything the citadel of American freedom, the votwe agree is desirable.

from Great Britain, it is only a token ing booth. Their first opportunity will I marvel, all through the hearings on

contribution. Where are the other

the other be in 1964. foreign aid, that whenever we had the NATO allies?

When I asked Mr. Bell what percentState Department or other administra I serve notice on the State Depart age the other NATO countries would be tion witnesses in a tough position, they ment that I am not at all impressed paying and what percentage the United

States would be paying, and stated that Do not forget that all the data I have must remain soaked and socked. That we did not have to talk about specific been discussing in the last few minutes is not right. This is a matter of comamounts, he answered as follows:

are economic-aid data, not military-aid mon fairness to the taxpayers. I do not Mr. BELL. I have partial data in answer to data. In military aid, we are being taken know why the ratio should be 50-50. Mr. that question now and I will answer the rest for even more of a ride. In that area we Bell says that the administration will of it if I may in the record.

are doing most of the paying. Mr. Bell work “toward a rough 50–50 ratio.” If In the years 1960 through 1962, apart from

admits it, for under the heading “Mili it is a "rough 50-50," it will not be on the military assistance, just looking at the eco

low side, so far as the American internomic side, about 70 percent of the foreign tary assistance" there is an interesting

ests are concerned. That is an interestassistance disbursements to Greece came sentence in his report to the Committee from the United States and 30 percent from on Foreign Relations. Under the head ing use of the word "rough.” I will tell West Germany.

ing "Military Assistance," it is stated: Senators what he means. He means, "It Senator MORSE. From West Germany?

The United States provided almost all the

will not be 50; it will be somewhat more Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. Senator MORSE. Is she the only country Turkey. military equipment used by Greece and than 50; but we hope not too much more

than 50.” But what is "too much” with that participated?

the State Department? If it were 70 Mr. BELL. In those years. However, the That was to the tune of hundreds of

percent, they would be heard to say, "We consortium that I spoke of, includes in ad- millions of dollars. Mr. Bell's own figdition to Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, ures show that in connection with eco

are working toward a rough 50 percent.” Netherlands, Luxembourg, Canada and our nomic aid we still provide most of the

If it were 60 percent, they would say, "We selves.

are working toward a rough 50 percent.” So that the current flow of assistance to funds. Now that West Germany and

But I raise the question, why 50 perGreece which is being influenced by this other countries have become prosperous

cent? I do not know why the ratio consortium will include contributions from because we built them up, they are oblig

should be 50 percent for the United at least some of these other countries. ing, they are willing to make money out

States and 50 percent for the rest of the And I will put the exact facts in the rec- of Greece; they are willing to make hard

countries. I would like it much better ord, sir. loans at good interest rates. All I am

if Mr. Bell had said we would be work(The information referred to follows:) saying to the administration is “Draw

ing toward an exact 20 percent, not a “UNITED STATES-ALLIED EFFORTS IN GREECE out entirely; use our money in Latin

rough 50 percent. I say to Mr. Bell and AND TURKEY America."

the State Department: "Fifty percent is “GREECE

I want to know what the answer is to entirely too much, even if you reach that “U.S. assistance to Greece in calendar year this almost hidden sentence in Mr. Bell's

point; but you are not there." 1963 will represent 53 percent of total free report to the Committee on Foreign Rela

The language about the creation of a world aid, compared to 70 percent for the tions, under the heading “Military As consortium is another semantic device 1960–62 period. It is estimated that Greek

sistance": receipts of official assistance from European

to divert us. Setting up a consortium sources during calendar year 1963 will nearly

The United States provided almost all the does not mean a single thing until we equal U.S. aid during the same period. Re- military equipment used by Greece and consider what results will flow from it. ceipts under European official credits in Turkey.

Senators will vote on the foreign aid calendar year 1963 will be about 47 percent

We shall continue to do so if we do not bill without having any commitments of total aid receipts. “A large part of the European aid to Greece stop. We will not get any assistance from other countries, either through the

consortium or through any other mein calendar year 1963 consists of loans from from our NATO allies. So long as Uncle European investment banks and drawdowns Sam is willing to pay through the nose, dium, whereby they will assume any under German Government loans, as well as he can continue to pay through the nose. other obligation, or in some instances over $13 million in grant aid by European That one sentence in Mr. Bell's report

That one sentence in Mr. Bell's report any obligation at all, as regards Greece NATO members for support of the Greek de- ought to be emblazoned on the walls of and Turkey. fense program.

the Chamber during the course of this Under the heading Consortium for That is very interesting. For years, debate:

Military Assistance to Greece," we find we made grants. We rebuilt our NATO The United States provided almost all the

in the committee hearings, on pages 638 allies and made them prosperous, so that military equipment used by Greece and and 639, the following: in 1963 they were very cooperative. At Turkey.

CONSORTIUM FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO good interest rates, they made bank loans How long are we going to keep it up?

GREECE to Greece. That is a far cry from grants. How long shall we accept the noncoop

Military assistance then will be the only Now that we have made them into eco- erative attitude of our NATO allies? Are

significant kind of assistance that goes into nomic surplus nations, now that they Greece and Turkey not important to

Greece. are prosperous, they are willing to make them? We would hear much howling if

This will present a problem which we have some money out of Greece.

not yet worked out the arrangement of a the United States decided not to supply new kind of consortium. This is a new Mr. President, do you know what I almost all the military aid. Of course problem for us, and has only arisen as the favor? I favor letting the entire amount Greece and Turkey are important to the European countries in recent years have been be loaned. There are other places where defense of Europe. It is also important able to meet their own defense requirement we ought to put our money. Let the

Let the that our NATO allies, whom we have and to begin to be able to contribute to whole program be taken over on a loan rehabilitated and made prosperous, give

others. basis, and let us put the money in Latin us a little assistance in keeping Greece going to have to work toward consortium

I expect over the next 2 or 3 years we are America, at our front door. Let us do and Turkey militarily strong. something about our Pacific problems.

like systems in the military field just as we The colloquy in committee continued:

have developed them in recent years in the I call upon the administration, I call

Senator MORSE. Can you tell me if you economic field. upon our NATO allies, to relieve us of think that that consortium will change that Senator MORSE. Am I correct in my underany further obligations in respect to 70- to 30-percent ratio?

standing a very large percentage of military Greece at all.

aid to Greece and Turkey over the years has

That is, with respect to economic aidMr. Bell supplied me with the follow

been paid by the United States? Would it ing material on Turkey:

Mr. BELL. Yes, sir, we do.

be an understatement-if I correctly recall Senator MORSE. How much?

the figures—to say that we have been paying TURKEY

Mr. BELL. We have been working in most at least 70 percent of the costs of military The U.S. portion of assistance to Turkey is of the consortiums toward a rough 50-50 aid to Greece? expected to drop to 65 percent in calendar ratio, and I assume we will do the same here. Mr. BELL. More than that, sir. For Greece year 1963, as Turkey receives the assistance Greece is a case in which we expect eco

and Turkey. extended by the European countries and nomic assistance to be terminated within the Senator MORSE. And Turkey? Canada under the consortium. In the past, next 2 or 3 years, and at that point we ex Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. I would say 90 percent the United States has been providing most pect them to be able to obtain the external of military aid has been paid by the United of the economic assistance received by Tur- capital they need from the World Bank, the States. key. In calendar year 1961, disbursements Export-Import Bank, from normal commerunder U.S. loans and grants (excluding Pub- cial and private sources.

Mr. President, we should not be fooled lic Law 480) represented about 75 percent

by the earlier testimony by Mr. Bell in of Turkish aid receipts. Germany provided

Our allies get out of it by paying prac- regard to economic aid, when the figure the other 25 percent.

tically nothing. The American people he stated in regard to economic aid by

« ПретходнаНастави »