Eastern Defense Command? It might be a little money, not $100 million, but maybe $10 million, $15 million, or $25 million. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. I might say that John [Vorys] and Dick [Richards] were down at the White House yesterday. I raise this question as to the $100 million. As I recall, the Secretary [of State] seemed to think it was important. Am I wrong about that, or did he say? I have forgotten. Mr. VORYS. I forget. As I recall, there was no mention out loud of the $100 million. The thought was that maybe we would drop out the $100 million, and put in, instead of all of this, an innocuous but, we hope, rather punchy paragraph. What do you think of the idea? Mr. SMITH. I think it is fine. [General discussion off the record.] Mr. VORYS. My suggestion would be that we leave it in, on page 11, section 201. My own suggestion would be that we cut out the $100 million that is programed solely for this Middle Eastern purpose, that we use the language in lines 3 to 10. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. We will adjourn until 2:30. [Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee recessed until 2:30 p.m. the same day.] AFTERNOON SESSION Chairman CHIPERFIELD. We will go into section 604. Mr. CRAWFORD. Page 12, line 21, "Authority for Assistance to Korea-Title III (relating to Asia and the Pacific)." Mr. JAVITS. The question we had, sir, is what the meaning of section 302 was. STATEMENT OF ROBERT EICHHOLZ, GENERAL COUNSEL, MUTUAL SECURITY AGENCY Mr. EICHHOLZ. What that is, Mr. Javits, is that under the present law the only assistance, the only nonmilitary assistance which is authorized to be given in respect of Korea is authorized to be given through UNKRA, because there is a provision in section 303 (a) that 50 percent of the amount of money which is made available for UNKRA, if it cannot usefully be expended for UNKRA, may be used for the purposes of section 302 (a), which authorizes economic assistance in the Far East area, but not including the Republic of Korea. So the effect of this language which you were questioning would merely authorize up to 50 percent of the amount made available for UNKRA to be used for general economic assistance in the Far East area, including Korea. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Crawford. Mr. CRAWFORD. Section 605, "Title V (relating to organization and general provisions) of the Mutual Security Act of 1951, as amended." Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to strike out paragraph (1). I would like to make them use the same personnel they have, because I was in Europe and they have certainly got a lot of administrative employees running around there now. [General discussion followed.] Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Very briefly, you know the question that has been raised. We would like to get your viewpoint, and yours, Mr. Martin. We will proceed as rapidly as possible because we are awfully anxious to proceed with this. Mr. EICHHOLZ. I think Mr. Martin had better speak to the policy involved, and I will tell you its legal effect. STATEMENT OF EDWIN M. MARTIN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR MUTUAL SECURITY AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE 14 Mr. MARTIN. I have just two comments on the deletion of the proposed paragraph (b). It would seem to us desirable to make provision elsewhere which would permit aid to multilateral organizations in the Middle East. I think both the Secretary and Mr. Byroade testified we have difficulty in the Middle East, where they are not used to our legal forms in negotiating the rather lengthy kind of military assistance agreements that are required under the present legislation. It is because of that difficulty that we have included in this language authority for the President to decide that in some cases we might dispense with all the legal requirements of 511(a). With respect to the proposed new language, we have no fundamental objections to it. I would like to make just two suggestions about it. Procedurally, in view of the remarks that the Secretary of State made as a result of his trip to the effect that he thought this kind of an organization in the Near East was not imminent and that some individual problems have to be straightened out first, bit by bit Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Then why should we give $100 million for that purpose in this bill? PROSPECTS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MIDDLE EAST COMMAND Mr. MARTIN. As I understand it, the $100 million is not solely or necessarily primarily for the multilateral organization per se, but will go to the countries which we hope eventually will be willing to make up the multilateral organization. But the organization as such is, at the moment, somewhat of a stumbling block. We are still for it and would be glad to have you say you are for it. We just think in view of the fact that it is not perhaps as imminent as we had hoped, and that we have to press for some other things first, you might wish to consider whether it would be better to put this kind of an expression of view in this report, rather than in the legislation itself and ask for its approval by the Congress as a whole. One other point, which is probably a fairly minor one, is that I think it is less true in these countries than it was in the Far East that there is a legitimate distinction between free countries and free peoples. I am just wondering whether you want to repeat that language precisely. You may not wish to delete the "and free peoples" since, so far as I know, all the countries that are candidates are countries and are not just peoples. 14 Hon. Henry A. Byronde at the time was Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African Affairs. One other very minor point is that I would think that we would want it under that, in this language in which it is said this organization is to be by the free countries of this area, that there is no intention that such an organization would exclude the United States or other countries which are interested in the area which would have to put a certain amount of back money into the organization as we see it. That is the comment I have. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Any questions? Mr. VORYS. Mr. Martin, as I get it, you understand we were thinking of leaving section (a), the amount of 201, as is, that we were intending to leave that as is so that the military aid could go to other countries in the area, but to omit (b)? Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir. Mr. VORYS. As I understand it, the chances of having any multilateral organization at any early date are not very good. Is that right? Mr. MARTIN. As I understand the Secretary's view, he does not think the chances are good, but I do not think he precludes the possibility that before the end of fiscal year 1954 there might be such an organization. Mr. VORYS. But there just is not any date set or anything like that. Mr. MARTIN. No, sir. Mr. VORYS. We were thinking of striking out this language because of its involved nature and the fact that it can be misinterpreted or interpreted different ways. But in order to show an expression of encouragement, we might have language similar to that we have used in the Far East, that being language that has been gone over rather carefully, having that expression in the law itself. Do you think the Department thinks it would be preferable not to have that expression there, but merely in the report? Mr. MARTIN. We think it will be preferable, but we will not object if you choose to put it in the law. We do not feel strongly about it. Mr. VORYS. The objection to putting it in the law might be that this language, which is meant as a general expression of opinion, would make some people suspicious and make them pick it over word by word? Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir. Mr. VORYS. Thank you. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Eichholz. IMPLICATIONS OF CHANGING CERTAIN LANGUAGE IN THE BILL Mr. EICHHOLZ. I would merely like to point out that if this plan is adopted, in order to accomplish some of the things which you may still consider desirable, that (a) on page 11 would have to be rewritten to some extent. In the first place, without some language in (a), it would be impossible, if a Middle East organization were formed, to make assistance available to the organization rather than to the individual countries making it up. Second, there is the point that Mr. Martin mentioned that on page 12, lines 15 to 25, we have given ourselves some latitude with respect to the 511 (a) assurances. A further point is that (a), as it is now written in this bill, would authorize furnishing military assistance in the area of the Near East and Africa pursuant to section 202, and 202 as it exists in the present law only speaks of any country of the Near East area other than those covered by section 201. So 202 would be completely inoperative, and so you would have to make some technical change there. Also, 202, as it exists in the present law, only authorizes in the present law 10 percent of the amounts made available under 201 to be used for other than Greece, Turkey, and Iran. One final point is that the language we have written in (b) on page 11 would authorize us to make military assistance to a country such as Pakistan, which has not heretofore been considered to be in the title II area. Without appropriate language in (a), we could not make military assistance available to Pakistan under the provisions of title II, but would have to do so under the provisions of title III, and the figure given for title III military assistance includes nothing for countries such as Pakistan. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR MIDDLE EAST MILITARY ASSISTANCE Mr. JAVITS. I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Does the foreign policy of the country, as you are expressing it to us here, call upon us to make this money available for military assistance either in or outside of the Middle East Command? Mr. MARTIN. We wish to be free either way. Mr. JAVITS. You wish to be free in this fiscal year? You wish to have money available to give military assistance in or outside the Middle East? Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir. Mr. JAVITS. Is not the principal distinction between what you have written and the language that you have commented on the fact that this actually gives you money to dispose of even if there is no Middle East Command, whereas the other would only imply that you would get some money if there was a Middle East Command? That is the fundamental difference, it seems to me. Mr. MARTIN. I did not read that into the language. You mean your proposal would only give us money if there was a Middle East Command? Mr. JAVITS. We might be out there with a Middle East Command. Therefore, there is an implication that unless there is one, you do not get the money. Mr. MARTIN. I did not read that in. You are leaving in paragraph (a), as I understand it, which specifically authorizes funds for Greece, Turkey. Iran, and other Near Eastern countries. Mr. JAVITS. And you would be satisfied with that? Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir. Mr. JAVITS. You feel you could do all the military aiding you need? Mr. MARTIN. Yes. Mr. JAVITS. But what about the objection by the Defense Department on cutting down the amount and putting you in a section where you have not got the money? Mr. EICHHOLZ. That point, Mr. Javits, only applies to countries which have heretofore been considered outside the area, but which might be a part of a Middle Eastern Defense plan, such as Pakistan. There is one further small technical point that I should mention. Paragraph (a), as now written, does not indicate under what law military assistance to other than Greece, Turkey, and Iran is to be furnished. That is a purely technical amendment. You could say pursuant to the Mutual Defense Assistance Act, instead of pursuant to 202. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Fulton. Mr. FULTON. Would the changing of the word "Near" in Near East to "Middle East" give you more latitude for including such countries as Pakistan? Mr. EICHHOLZ. If a proper legislative history were built up, Mr. Fulton, it could be done. The legislative history so far is that Pakistan is in the title III area. As a matter of fact, that is where it is for purposes of economic assistance. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Vorys. Mr. VORYS. The amount for military for the Near East is how much? Mr. EICHHOLZ. $405,212,637. Mr. VORYS. If the law were left exactly as it is now, that would mean that you could give up to $42 million to any country in the Near East under existing law. Is that true? Mr. EICHHOLZ. That is correct. Mr. VORYS. Then if the amendment were left in, leaving $100 million for the President to play with, $20 million per country, you would get $20 million more there per country? Mr. MARTIN. That is not an additional appropriation, sir. Mr. VORYS. No additional money, but you were saying you might have to take something out that he intends to spend year after next. I am thinking about authorizations, you see. Under existing law you might get up to $60 million per country. Is that not true? Mr. MARTIN. You might get $60 million. Forty million dollars would be available for the group of Near Eastern countries other than the ones specifically named, and then there would be $20 million for as many as each of five other countries, if you wanted to use the full $100 million authorization in the Near East. Mr. EICHHOLZ. That $100 million would have to come out of other authorizations. Mr. VORYS. The 10 percent in 202 is not per country, then is it? Mr. MARTIN. It is for the group as a whole. EFFECTS OF LEAVING SECTION 202 UNCHANGED Mr. EICHHOLZ. Just one other point, Mr. Vorys. I assume that your suggested new language would not be a substitute for 202 as it now stands. Mr. VORYS. No; my present thinking is that the thing to do would be to leave out the amendment of 202 because we can achieve everything that we want to, that needs to be achieved, under existing law, |