agreements which do not require formal ratification. Some of the technical provisions in the three conventions are temporary in nature and as the situation in Germany changes, it may be necessary to make modifications in them from time to time. Under such circumstances it would seem impractical to require resubmission of the conventions to the Senate before each such modification could go into effect. These related conventions will, under the terms of article 1 of the 1954 Paris protocol on termination, come into force at the same time as the protocol. The subsidiary agreements themselves are amended by schedules II, III, IV, and V of the Paris protocol (pp. 22-36 of Ex. L and Ex. M, 83d Cong., 2d sess.) and are printed in their amended form on pages 19-127 of Senate Document 11. For the most part these amendments serve to bring the related conventions up to date by eliminating references to the EDC, by taking account of the lapse of time since their original conclusion and by reflecting Germany's progress since 1952 with respect to certain Allied programs, such as decartelization, deconcentration, displaced persons and refugees, claims and external debts, etc. Other changes were made to reflect better Germany's new status of equality and to bring the related conventions into harmony with more recent agreements. The original conventions, it has been noted, were submitted as executive agreements for the information of the Senate. Although the amendments to these conventions are a part of the protocol on the termination of the occupation regime, which is now before the Senate for advice and consent to ratification, the President and Secretary of State have informed the committee that ratification of the protocol "will not change the nature of those related conventions." There are also submitted for the information of the Senate two new agreements: (1) the Convention on the Presence of Foreign Forces in the Federal Republic of Germany; and (2) the Tripartite Agreement on the Exercise of Retained Rights in Germany. The first of these regulates the stationing of Allied Forces on German territory and is discussed further elsewhere. The second one declares that the retained rights set out in the Convention on Relations will be exercised by the respective Chiefs of Mission accredited to the Federal Republic of Germany who will act jointly in matters the Three Powers consider to be of common concern. Neither of these instruments has been submitted to the Senate for approval. 12. SENATE ATTITUDES TOWARD GERMANY The committee notes that these protocols reflect views which the Senate has often expressed on the German question. For the past several years the reports of the Foreign Relations Committee have called attention to the potential importance of Western Germany in the joint defense of the free world. At the same time the committee has urged upon the executive branch that appropriate action should be taken as soon as practicable so that Germany might assume her proper place in the family of nations. As has been noted, the Senate has taken a series of steps in this direction. On October 18, 1951, the Senate approved a resolution which had been passed by the House of Representatives and which was signed by the President on October 19, bringing to an end the state of war between the United States and Germany. As the Foreign Relations Committee's report on the resolution pointed out, this resolution reflected the agreement reached by the Governments of France and the United Kingdom on September 18, 1950, to the effect that the unification of the German people was of fundamental importance to the free world and that peaceful and friendly relations should be restored with the Federal Republic of Germany as soon as possible. Then in July 1952, the Senate, with only five dissenting votes, approved the 1952 Bonn agreement and the NATO protocol to include Western Germany within the defensive system of the North Atlantic area. On July 30, 1954, by a vote of 88-0, the Senate approved Senate Resolution 295, expressing its wish that the President shouldtake such steps as he deems appropriate *** to restore sovereignty to Germany and to enable her to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. These are only a few of the many manifestations of interest which the Senate has expressed in the desirability of working out a satisfactory solution to the German problem. The committee believes that inasmuch as the Senate's advice has been followed by the executive branch, this should constitute an additional reason why the consent of the Senate to ratification should be speedily granted. 13. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The two protocols before the Senate have the same basic purposes as the 1952 Bonn conventions and the 1952 NATO protocol. These remain the same as when the Senate considered the 1952 agreements. The effect of the protocol on termination, and the related documents, is to bring the occupation regime to an end, to include the Federal Republic of Germany in the community of free nations as an equal partner, to resolve a number of outstanding problems left over from the war and the occupation, to provide for the stationing of forces in the Federal Republic for the purpose of assisting in the common defense, to regulate the status of those forces while they are in the Federal territory, and to provide for their support by the Federal Republic. Had the Bonn conventions of 1952 come into effect it would not now be necessary for the Senate to act on the pending protocols. Those conventions, however, have had to be revised for several reasons. In the first place, they were, by their own terms, to come into effect only upon the entry into force of the treaty constituting the European Defense Community. When that treaty failed of ratification in France last August, the conventions were prevented from coming into force, and the references to the treaty in their texts became meaningless. Shortly thereafter, new arrangements for a German defense contribution were agreed upon in London, utilizing NATO and the new Western European Union, rather than the European Defense Community. Accordingly, the conventions had to be revised to sever the connection between them and the EDC Treaty, to delete the references to that treaty, and to take account of the new defense arrangements. In addition, there were provisions which had become outmoded since the conventions were signed, because the action originally contemplated had subsequently been taken or otherwise become out of date, and further revisions were called for in order to simplify the agreements and make them reflect more clearly the status of equality which the Federal Republic was to attain. The Committee on Foreign Relations believes that it is in the national interest for the United States to take the steps necessary to restore the Federal Republic of Germany to a position of equality with other free nations of the world. In the 10 years since the end of World War II, the German people and their Government have shown their dedication to the principles of free economic enterprise and democratic government. Their dedication to these principles has been rewarded. German economic recovery has been little short of phenomenal. Postwar elections have been conducted freely and fairly with a resulting stability of government necessary for economic progress. Western Germany, by the Convention Terminating the Occupation Regime, undertakes to conduct its policy— in accordance with the principles set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and with the aims defined in the Statute of the Council of Europe. It affirms its intention to associate itself fully with the community of free nations through membership in international organizations contributing to the common aims of the free world. It undertakes by the protocols to the Brussels Treaty to subject its potential military strength to international control. And, finally, as noted earlier, in the final act of the London Conference, despite the tremendous desire of the people of Germany to be reunited, the Federal Republic has undertaken never to have recourse to force to achieve the reunification of Germany or the modification of the present boundaries of the German Federal Republic and to resolve by peaceful means any disputes which may arise between the Federal Republic and other states. The committee urges the Senate to give its support to the pending protocols so that the desire of the United States to have the Federal Republic of Germany join with the free nations in defense of freemen may be clearly demonstrated. [Appendix omitted.] 232. REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY ON THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT FOR COOPERATION WITH NATO FOR COOPERATION REGARDING ATOMIC INFORMATION, MAY 4, 19551 On April 13, 1955, the President submitted to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy a proposed agreement between the parties of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for Cooperation Regarding Atomic Information. As soon thereafter as possible the Subcommittee on Agreements for Cooperation, to which the proposed agreement was referred, heard witnesses from the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Atomic Energy Commission on the proposed agreement. After exhaustive inquiry from all witnesses, the Subcommittee on Agreements for Cooperation unanimously concluded, and reported to the Joint Committee that the proposed agreement is in conformance with the letter and spirit of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. U. S. Congress. Senate. Report No. 267, 84th Congress, 1st session. 73652-56-59 The Joint Committee, by unanimous vote on May 3, 1955, adopted the report and conclusions of the Subcommittee on Agreements for Cooperation. This report is made by the Joint Committee under the provisions of section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. HEARINGS Those who appeared at the executive hearings held by the Subcommittee on Agreements for Cooperation on April 26, 1955, were: For the Department of Defense: Hon. H. Struve Hensel, Assistant Secretary to Secretary of Hon. Herbert B. Loper, Assistant Secretary of Defense Col. Sidney Rubenstein, Director, Administrative Security Divi- Comdr. David P. Klain, Navy Deputy to Colonel Rubenstein Lt. Col. Mark H. Terrel, Assistant to General Loper James M. Wilson, Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Mr. William Lang, Office of General Counsel For the Department of State: Mr. Gerard Smith, Special Assistant for Atomic Energy For the Atomic Energy Commission: Commissioner W. F. Libby Commissioner Thomas E. Murray Mr. William Mitchel, General Counsel Capt. John A. Waters, Director, Division of Security BACKGROUND In his message to Congress on February 17, 1954, President Eisenhower requested that the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 be amended in several respects. He said in part: For the purpose of strengthening the defense and economy of the United States and of the free world, I recommend that the Congress approve a number of amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. These amendments would accomplish this purpose, with proper security safeguards, through the following means: First, widened cooperation with our allies in certain atomic energy matters: Second, improved procedures for the control and dissemination of atomic energy information; and Third, encouragement of broadened participation in the development of peacetime uses of atomic energy in the United States. In his message he later stated: In respect to defense considerations, our atomic effectiveness will be increased if certain limited information on the use of atomic weapons can be imparted more readily to nations allied with us in common defense. information to be communicated does not reveal important information about nuclear components of weapons) the Subcommittee on Agreements for Cooperation has received testimony from both the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Defense, indicating that each item to be communicated has met the test of joint determination. Furthermore, the Subcommittee was informed fully of each item presently intended to be communicated. Section 123 of the act requires, in regard to agreements for cooperation, pursuant to section 144 b, that the proposed agreement be submitted to the President, together with the recommendations of the Department of Defense thereon. The agreement must include terms, conditions, duration, nature, and scope of the cooperation. It must include a guaranty by the cooperating party that security safeguards and standards as set forth in the agreement for cooperation will be maintained (since no material is to be transferred pursuant to the NATO agreement, section 123 a does not pertain), and a guaranty by the cooperating party that restricted data will not be transferred to unauthorized persons or beyond the jurisdiction of the cooperating party, except as specified in the agreement for cooperation. Section 123 also required the President to approve and authorize execution of a proposed agreement and to make a determination in writing that the performance of the agreement will promote and will not constitute an unreasonable risk to the common defense and security. Finally, section 123 requires that the proposed agreement, together with the determination and approval of the President, be submitted to the Joint Committee, and that a period of 30 days elapse while Congress is in session before the agreement may become effective. The present NATO agreement meets all statutory tests of section 123. Further, it was negotiated, recommended, and approved by the Department of Defense and the President, in accordance with the terms of section 123. On April 13, 1955, it was submitted to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and, upon the expiration of the statutory time of 30 days when Congress is in session, it may be executed. THE AGREEMENT AND PERTINENT DOCUMENTS There follows, as appendix I, a letter from the President to the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, stating that the President has approved the NATO agreement and authorized its execution and determined that the execution of the agreement will promote and will not constitute an unreasonable risk to the common defense and security of the United States; and, as appendix II, the NATO agreement itself. [Appendices omitted.] (2) The Far East 233. EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE UNITED NATIONS SHOULD DECLARE COMMUNIST CHINA TO BE AN AGGRESSOR IN KOREA, JANUARY 23, 19511 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the United Nations. should immediately declare Communist China an aggressor in Korea. 1 S. Res. 35, 82d Congress, 1st session. |