網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

GOOD RESULTS WITH SMALL SUMS

I hope very much that the committee will feel that it can approve the MSA program, because I think that in this area, particularly, we can accomplish very good results with relatively small sums that are asked for, particularly if we get these funds available for the Israeli area as a single amount, without splitting it initially between Israel and the Arab States, and that will give us a bargaining position there in which some of the water development and some of these things of that sort would be very helpful. If the Israeli know that they are going to get whatever they got in the past, it would be more difficult to bargain with them. If we had a total amount which we could switch more to the Israeli or to the Arabs, I think our bargaining position there would greatly strengthen our way of helping to solve some of the problems which lie in the way of a peace between the Arab states and the Israeli, and a certain amount of Point Four aid to these Northern countries is going to prevent an economic collapse and at the same time some military aid which was given to Turkey as a member of NATO, and give some to Pakistan.

The trouble with Pakistan at the moment is we do not have any program of military aid for Pakistan, because we don't dare to do it because of the repercussions on India, but if the Kashmir dispute should be settled, then I think that Pakistan could be built up more strongly than we plan to do at the present time.

Then Pakistan and Turkey, with some little help in the middle, because while you have got a tremendous boundary with the Soviet Union on the other side, much of it is very mountainous and the passes are very easily defended.

BASIS OF THE KASHMIR DISPUTE

Senator LANGER. Mr. Secretary, what is the real basis, in your opinion, of the dispute between Kashmir and Pakistan, aside from the water question, what do you think is the reason they can't get along?

Secretary DULLES. Well, it is an area which has a very strong sentimental value to both countries. Nehru was born there, for example, and a great deal of sentiment attaches to it. Of course, the waterways are extremely important. The rivers which rise there are important. The religious groups are pretty much mixed up there. They have not been separated out to the extent that they have been between Pakistan and India generally, where you have a tremendous population shift to conform to the religious situation.

You have got a lot of just national pride involved on both sides. I think that myself an arbitrary division is probably better than the United Nations effort they have. They have been trying to have a plebiscite for a long time. I am not so keen about these plebiscites because the preliminary of a plebiscite is always to beat up the greatest weight of emotion you can, try to arouse the people as much as you can, and the end result of a plebiscite there would be more ill will and bitterness than that which you started out with, and would make your solution more difficult, rather than earier, and it may be that a somewhat arbitrary division might be the better solution.

I suggested that to both sides, and I think there is more hope in that way than there is in the plebiscite. But, as I say, you have got a mixture of religion, sentimentality and economic interest in the waters which combine to create very intense situations.

Senator SMITH. Do you think there is a chance now of uniting the two countries, Pakistan and India?

Secretary DULLES. No.

USE OF FARM SURPLUSES

Senator FULBRIGHT. Mr. Secretary, has anyone ever brought to your attention a proposal by the American Farm Bureau Federation about the use of our surpluses in this Pakistan situation? It looks like the very type of situation they had in mind. Has that ever been brought to your attention?

Secretary DULLES. Yes.

Senator FULBRIGHT. What do you think of it, does it seem practical to you?

Secretary DULLES. I am not familiar with the details, but this is certainly a situation. Here we have got this vast quantity of wheat bought and paid for.

Senator FULBRIGHT. That is right.

Secretary DULLES. And no new facilities for storing it any more, and there is so much that it looks as though we will have to put a restriction on wheat production. Now, as I say, this has all been bought and paid for already, so aside from the cost of shipping there is no new money demand upon us, upon the United States, and the shipment of wheat to Pakistan would seem to be within the course of reason. In fact, any other course would seem to me to be quite irrational.

Senator KNOWLAND. The proposal was to be made of some kind of a wheat loan, to be paid either at some future time, either in wheat or rice, which might be used to aid some other stricken country, rather than as an outright grant.

Secretary DULLES. That is one of the issues, as to just how it should be set up.

Senator FULBRIGHT. There were two suggestions: One was that it be a loan, if you would make it subject to being used in other places, and the other was in the nature of a loan, money in a fund to be usable for future development in that country.

Senator KNOWLAND. Instead of a direct grant, the thing the Farm Bureau had in mind was that they would retain it in the country, that we would not take it out of the country, but that it be used as a fund for future development within that country.

Senator FULBRIGHT. That suggestion is full of possibilities.

Secretary DULLES. Well, they have an oversupply of jute. One of the things we looked into was obtaining jute for our people, and they thought it was not of too good a quality.

[At Senator Langer's request, a subcommittee was appointed to consider S. 138, a bill to provide aid to persons in the United States desirious of migrating to the Republic of Liberia. The committee adjourned at 1 p.m.]

MINUTES

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1953

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee considering the St. Lawrence Seaway legislation met at 2:30 p.m. in executive session in the committee room. Present: Chairman Wiley, Senators Green, Sparkman, and Humphrey.

The subcommittee considered some suggested changes in the committee print of S. 589. A motion was approved by those present to vote to report the bill to the full committee. In addition to those present the chairman had the proxies of Senators Tobey and Taft. For record of proceedings, see official transcript. The subcommittee adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

72-194-77-vol. V -30

(457)

MINUTES

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1953

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met in executive session at 10:30 a.m. in the committee room.

Present: Chairman Wiley, Senators Smith, Hickenlooper, Tobey, Green, Fulbright.

The committee met informally with Jean Monnet, president of the High Authority of the Coal and Steel Community of Europe; Franz Etzel, vice president of the Community; and Dirk Spierenburg, the Dutch member of the Community.

For record of proceedings, see printed hearing.

The committee recessed at 12:30 p.m., to meet again at 2:30 p.m. in the committee room.

(458)

REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR, MUTUAL SECURITY

AGENCY

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1953

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:55 p.m., in the Foreign Relations Committee room, U.S. Capitol, Senator Alexander Wiley (chairman), presiding.

Present: Senators Wiley, Smith of New Jersey, Tobey, Langer, George, Green, Fulbright, and Sparkman.

Also present: Dr. Wilcox, Dr. Kalijarvi, Mr. Marcy, and Mr. Holt, of the committee staff.

The CHAIRMAN. The meeting will come to order. Will you have a chair, Governor. I suggest you sit right there so that we may hear you better.

We are glad to see you back from Europe so chipper. I presume that you have a great deal of valuable information to give us, and we are just hungry for some real stuff, so carry on in your own way and tell us what's what.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD E. STASSEN, DIRECTOR,

MUTUAL SECURITY AGENCY

Mr. STASSEN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I am pleased to return and meet with the committee again.

I might open up with a very concise presentation of some of the highlights of our observations, and then respond to your requests. I made the journey, as you know, with the Secretary of State, under his leadership, and particularly looked into the economic and defense support aspects and the relative fundamental facts, with the view to doing our part in the implementing of the foreign policy and the defense policy of the country under the leadership of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs.

My staff prepared a few charts which I think might first, very quickly, give some highlight facts that I find are of basic significance in any economic or defense or social aspects consideration of the whole area. I will step up to the charts.

1 To the Middle East.

« 上一頁繼續 »