by putting the world on notice as to our intention, will contribute to the peace and security of a dangerous and sensitive zone.

For these reasons, the Committee on Foreign Relations urges the Senate to give its advice and consent to the ratification of this treaty.

(3) Latin America

239. REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ON THE INTER-AMERICAN TREATY OF RECIPROCAL ASSISTANCE (RIO PACT), DECEMBER 5, 19471

The Committee on Foreign Relations, having had under consideration the inter-American treaty of reciprocal assistance, signed at Rio de Janeiro on September 2, 1947, unanimously report the treaty favorably and recommend that the Senate advise and consent to its ratification. For the information and convenience of the Senate, the following documents have been attached as appendixes to the committee report:

1. Text of the treaty.

2. Secretary of State Marshall's radio address of September 4.

3. Assistant Secretary of State Armour's statement before the Foreign Relations Committee.

4. Report of the United States delegation to the conference at Rio de Janeiro.

MAIN PURPOSE OF THE TREATY

The inter-American treaty of reciprocal assistance is designed to put into permanent treaty form, within the framework of the United Nations Charter, the basic principles embodied in the Act of Chapultepec. The treaty would accomplish the following: (1) It imposes an obligation on the contracting parties to take positive action to assist in meeting an armed attack against any American state; (2) it provides for consultation and action, not only in the event of armed attacks and other acts of aggression but whenever any other fact or situation might endanger the peace of the Americas; (3) it outlines the machinery and organs of consultation which the American states will utilize in taking collective measures to meet such threats; (4) it defines a special hemispheric security area; (5) it enumerates the political, economic, and military measures which may be taken against an aggressor; and (6) it provides for the effective integration of interAmerican peace machinery into the United Nations.

COMMITTEE HEARINGS

On December 4 the committee met with representatives of the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to examine in detail the provisions of the treaty. The principal witnesses were the Honorable Norman Armour, Assistant Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and Lt. Gen. M. B. Ridgway, Chairman of the Inter-American Defense Board and representative of the Army, Military Staff Committee, United States Mission to the United Nations. Other representatives of the State Department were John C. Dreier, Chief, Division of Special Inter-American Affairs; William Sanders, Associate 1 Ex. Rept. No. 11, 80th Cong., 1st sess. Appendix omitted. For text of the Rio Pact see document 132

Chief, Division of International Organization Affairs; and Ward P. Allen, Division of International Organization Affairs. Secretary Armour presented an over-all summary of the treaty, pointing out in particular the obligations of the signatory powers in the event of an armed attack or an act of aggression. His opening statement to the committee is attached as appendix 3 to this report. General Ridgway discussed the strategic aspects of the treaty, including the hemisphere defense area outlined in article 4, and the sanctions system contemplated in the agreement. The committee noted that no opposition to the treaty had been registered and considered that public hearings, under the circumstances, were not necessary.

NEGOTIATION OF THE TREATY

Building upon previous inter-American agreements for consultation in matters of common concern, the American Republics, at the InterAmerican Conference on Problems of War and Peace held in Mexico City in March 1945, approved a declaration known as the Act of Chapultepec, which provided that an attack by any state against an American state should be considered as an act of aggression against the others; and that whenever such acts or threats of aggression occurred, the signatories would consult in order to agree on measures to be taken, including the possible use of armed force.

This act was a temporary, wartime declaration not designed for legislative ratification, and although its framers had in mind the Dumbarton Oaks proposals for an international organization, the act was concluded prior to the time when the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations set the permitted pattern for regional security arrangements.

Consequently, in accordance with a recommendation in the act itself, the American Republics convoked the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Continental Peace and Security held near Petropolis in the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from August 15 to September 2, 1947, to translate the principles of the Act of Chapultepec into permanent treaty form. The Conference was attended by over 250 delegates and advisers from 20 American Republics, the delegations of 16 of which were headed by their Foreign Ministers. The United States delegation was headed by the Secretary of State, Gen. George C. Marshall, and included the following five delegates: Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg, President of the Senate of the United States and chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; Senator Tom Connally, ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate of the United States; Representative Sol Bloom, ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives of the United States; Ambassador Warren R. Austin, United States representative to the United Nations; and Ambassador William D. Pawley, United States Ambassador to Brazil. The delegates were assisted by Mr. Norman Armour, Assistant Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and others. In a little over 2 weeks the Conference reached complete agreement on the precise terms of a treaty. The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance now presented for the consideration of the Senate is the result of their efforts.

MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY

The principal provisions of the treaty may be briefly summarized as follows:

The high contracting parties obligate themselves to refrain from the use or threat of force in their international relations in any manner inconsistent with the United Nations Charter or the treaty. They pledge themselves to seek to settle all disputes by peaceful means.

In the event of an armed attack by any state against the territory of any American state, wherever that territory may be located, or an armed attack directed against any American state within a broadly defined geographic area, all the other parties are obligated to come to the immediate assistance of the attacked state and, in addition, are obligated immediately to consult in order to agree upon collective

measures.

In the event of any other aggression affecting the sovereignty or political independence of an American state or in the event of any other fact or situation that might endanger the peace of America, the parties are obligated immediately to consult to agree upon measures which must be taken to assist the victim of aggression and those which should be taken for the common defense.

In any of the above cases, the collective measures to be agreed upon are: The recall of chiefs of diplomatic missions, the severance of diplomatic and consular relations, the partial or complete interruption of economic relations or of transportation and communication facilities, and the use of armed force. If the attack takes the form of a conflict between two or more American states, the first collective measure to be taken is to call upon the parties to cease hostilities, and restore matters to the status quo ante bellum.

Decisions taken in the consultation require a vote of two-thirds of the ratifying states, and decisions to take any of the measures enumerated above will be binding upon all the parties, except that no state shall be required to use armed force without its consent.

A meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the ratifying states will be the normal mechanism through which the consultations will take place and the decisions reached, but the Governing Board of the Pan American Union, in continuous session in Washington, may be utilized as a provisional organ of consultation to save time in urgent cases until the Foreign Ministers' meeting can be convoked.

The treaty constitutes a regional arrangement within the framework of the United Nations Charter to deal with those security matters which are appropriate for regional action. Action taken under it to meet an armed attack will continue only until the Security Council of the United Nations has taken the measures necessary to maintain or restore peace. Moreover, for any enforcement action under the treaty to meet aggression other than an armed attack, the authorization of the Security Council will be obtained. None of the provisions of the treaty impairs the rights or obligations of the parties under the United Nations Charter.

The treaty is open for signature by all American states and will come into force when ratified by two-thirds of the signatories. It may be denounced by any party, and the denunciation will become effective at the expiration of 2 years.

RENUNCIATION OF FORCE AND OBLIGATION TO SETTLE DISPUTES

PEACEFULLY

In numerous treaties and agreements concluded in the past the 21 American Republics have denounced the use of force in international relations and have underlined their support of the fundamental principles that disputes between nations should be settled by peaceful means. Articles 1 and 2 of the present treaty, therefore, very properly reaffirm at the outset several of the basic obligations which appear in the principles and purpose of the United Nations Charter. Thus, the signatory parties condemn war and agree not to resort to the use or threat of force in any manner inconsistent with the Charter or the treaty. They likewise undertake to submit every controversy which may arise between them to methods of peaceful settlement and to endeavor to settle such disputes by the use of existing inter-American peace machinery before referring them to the United Nations. This latter principle is in complete harmony with the Charter, which encourages member states to settle their disputes by means of their own choice.

OBLIGATIONS IN THE EVENT OF AN ARMED ATTACK

In the Act of Chapultepec there was no distinction in the obligations assumed with respect to various types of aggression. However, the Charter of the United Nations in dealing with regional security arrangements draws a clear distinction between an "armed attack" and other acts or threats of aggression. The framers of the present treaty decided, therefore, that the best way both to assure consistency with the Charter and to take full advantage of the freedom of action under the right of self-defense as recognized therein was to follow the pattern set up by the Charter.

A principal feature of the treaty, therefore, is the twofold obligation laid upon the parties in the event of an armed attack. First, each one of the parties is obligated "to assist in meeting the attack" (art. 3, par. 1). By this language the right of individual or collective selfdefense recognized in article 51 of the United Nations Charter is converted into an obligation. The provision contemplates that the parties will begin to carry out their obligation to assist individually or collectively prior to consultation, and in the case of a sudden attack, this element of time might prove decisive. This is an essential point of the treaty.

In such a case it was recognized as impractical to seek to determine in advance in the treaty itself the nature, timing, and exact extent of the immediate assistance to be given. This decision is accordingly left to each of the parties under the terms of article 3.

The second obligation in the event of an armed attack is to consult without delay in order to examine the immediate measures of assistance already taken and to decide upon the measures of a collective character that should be put into effect. It is specifically provided in the treaty, as it is in the United Nations Charter, that both the individual and the collective measures may continue "until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

73652-56 63

HEMISPHERE DEFENSE AREA

Article 3, paragraph 3, of the treaty provides that the two obligations discussed in the preceding section of this report come into effect "in case of any armed attack which takes place within the region described in Article 4 or within the territory of an American state. When the attack takes place outside of the said areas, the provisions of Article 6 shall be applied." This region, which is described in technical terms in article 4, is shown graphically on the accompanying map. It embraces both North and South America, including Canada and Alaska, together with Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctic regions of the continent, and all of the area lying between.

As brought out in the hearings before the committee, the effect of this definition of the region upon the two obligations discussed above may be summarized as follows:

1. The obligations are operative if an armed attack takes place against "the territory of an American State" wherever that territory is located. This includes, therefore, not only the territory of the continental United States and all other American states on the continent, but also the islands of Hawaii, Guam, and any other possessions of this country abroad, since they all constitute a part of "the territory of an American State."

2. The obligations are likewise operative if an armed attack is directed against an American state and takes place within the region described. In such case it need not be against the territory of an American state but could take place anywhere within the region and might, for example, be against the land, sea, or air forces of such American state.

3. The term "American State" includes Canada.

4. If the attack is not directed against territory within the defense area or the territory of an American state outside the area, then the obligation of article 6 applies. As discussed below, this is an obligation to consult in order to agree upon the collective or individual measures which "must be taken * * * "to assist the victim of the aggression."

The committee wants to emphasize the fact that the delineation of such an area in the treaty in no sense constitutes an attempt to define the Western Hemisphere. It simply serves to define the geographic area, in addition to the territories of the American states, within which an armed attack will bring into operation the individual obligation to extend immediate assistance to the state attacked.

OBLIGATIONS IN THE EVENT OF OTHER SITUATIONS WHICH MAY
ENDANGER PEACE IN THE AMERICAS

Article 6 sets forth the additional situations, other than an armed attack, which may endanger peace and provides for the steps to be taken in order to deal with them. This article applies whenever the inviolability or integrity of the territory, the sovereignty, or the political independence of any American state is affected by-(1) an act of aggression other than an armed attack; (2) an extracontinental or intracontinental conflict; or (3) any other fact or situation that might endanger the peace of America.

[Map omitted.]