網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

General MICHAELIS. The North Korean Army is the fourth largest Communist army in the world, and in my judgment backed by one of the most efficient air forces.

Senator SYMINGTON. I think they have one of the best air forces in the world.

General MICHAELIS. I am not familiar with air force figures. Senator FULBRIGHT. I don't know why they are so much better than South Korea.

General MICHAELIS. They are not, sir.

Senator FULBRIGHT. You leave that impression.

U.S. AID TO SOUTH KOREA AND RUSSIAN AID TO NORTH KOREA

Senator SYMINGTON. What I was trying to bring out was that the Russians have given them a tremendous military setup, far more than the Soviets and Chinese have given North Vietnam, and far more than we have given South Korea. The only difference is, wherever we go we pursue the Pax Americana policy of pushing the local people aside and saying to them now we want to do the fighting too. We never fight to victory but we play around with various wars, with tragic casualties. The Russians don't do that. They say, "We will supply you with the arms, but you must do your own fighting."

So they supply them with tremendous power, the North Koreans, which make them militarily stronger than the South Koreans.

Senator FULBRIGHT. It is mighty hard for me to believe the Russians have put more money into North Korea than we have into South Korea.

Senator SYMINGTON. I didn't say that. So far as we know there is not a company of Russians in North Korea. But the Soviets have given them a great deal of fine military equipment, far better than most.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Then they get more for their money. There is something wrong with a situation in which we have spent over $7 billion in South Korea and then are told that South Korea is threatened by North Korea, which is far smaller in population and should be weaker in every other way. There are not as many people. We have put the money in. We have given them planes. What do they do with the money? You have about $500 million in this trading affair, but I saw the figures not too long ago and we had actually put in over $7 billion in aid in South Korea. I do not believe the Russians throw their money away like this. This is what I meant when I began by saying it is the prudence of our own actions that is interesting to me.

PERFORMANCE OF U.S. AND RUSSIAN PLANES

If we are not doing it properly we ought to learn to do it better, and if the Russians make them much stronger we ought to stop pouring out the money for whatever it is and give them planes. I suppose we have a plane as good as a Mig.

Senator SYMINGTON. We haven't a better plane. We probably have better pilots. But the North Koreans have hundreds more fighters than we have given South Korea.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Would you say that the Mig plane is better? Senator SYMINGTON. At fighting altitude, don't put the general on

the spot. The F-4 was not designed strictly as an air superiority fighter; and it is now 16 years old.

Senator FULBRIGHT. If we cannot make a plane as good as the Russian planes, what is wrong with American technology?

Senator SYMINGTON. The answer to that is simple. We can, but we don't.

Senator FULBRIGHT. What is wrong with our planes? Why can't we make a plane as good as the Russians make one?

General HOLDERNESS. Sir, we can.

Senator FULBRIGHT. We cannot?
General HOLDERNESS. We can.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Then we do?

General HOLDERNESS. There is a question as to which is the best. For example, in the Korean war the Mig-15 could outperform the F-86 at altitude; the Mig-21 will outperform the F-4 at certain altitudes, but when it came down to the fighting, the F-86 took the Migs 10-to-1. This was a combination of training and the right kind of performance at the right place, and I believe that the F-4 will take the Mig-21, and it has been demonstrated in the right environment.

Senator FULBRIGHT. That being so, what is wrong with our supplying the South Koreans with all the F-4's they need? With the money we have given them, they could have all the F-4's they need.

General HOLDERNESS. On a programed basis, sir, they could absorb additional F-4's.

RESULTS OF U.S. AID TO REPUBLIC OF KOREA

Senator FULBRIGHT. We have already given them money. What has happened to the money there? Have we poured it down a rat hole? What has happened to the $7 billion? That is an awful lot of money. Something is wrong with this picture.

General TAYLOR. $2.9 billion military assistance.

General MICAHELIS. Yes, $2.9 billion.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I mean overall aid. That is nothing but direct military aid. The total figure given to me was over $7 billion in aid from all sources.

Senator SYMINGTON. That is not too bad because we have also given over $7 billion to at least four other countries. Apparently we want to help all countries with money; and the only people who object are the American taxpayers. Don't let's discriminate against South Korea. However, because that is one country that has done real fighting. One can name various countries we have given heavy money to who nevertheless refuse to do any fighting. The Chairman is right. It is around that figure.

Senator FULBRIGHT. It is the total.

Senator SYMINGTON. $7,459,900,000 is the total that has been given in military and economic aid to South Korea.

Mr. BROWN. What has happened is a country that was totally devastated, full of refugees, land, homes and schools destroyed, no earning power of foreign exchange, a problem of no fuel, no real means of earning a livelihood has changed into a vigorous country which is beginning to earn its own way and which will not require any grant economic aid after this year, which is increasing its exports, which is participating responsibly in the affairs of Asia, and which is one of the

fastest, if not the fastest, growing nations in the world. That, sir, is what has happened as a result of our aid.

Senator FULBRIGHT. But they are much weaker than North Korea. Mr. Ambassador, I want to ask a question that keeps recurring, and I cannot get it quite clarified.

With respect to additional Korean troop dispatches to Vietnam, in the summary of major problems and/or requests attached to Minister Kim's letter [deleted].

U.S. PAYMENT OF INDIVIDUAL ALLOWANCES FOR ROK TROOPS

Do you think this indicates the importance with which the Koreans view the individual allowances?

(Subsequently the Department of State provided the following information:)

Hon. J. W. FULBRIGHT,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

JULY 31, 1970.

DEAR Mr. CHAIRMAN: The Secretary has asked me to reply to your letter of July 24 concerning making known the attitude of Korean Government officials in 1966 on the importance of a 20-25% raise in overseas allowances for the four lowest ranks of Korean troops in Viet-Nam.

As this view was expressed in private correspondence from the Defense Minister, and as it was preliminary to the definitive arrangement set forth in the Brown letter, the Department believes it proper to delete the precise text from the published record and consider it to be confidential. There could, however, be no objection to publicly stating that "in the course of the correspondence, Minister Kim stated that the prospect of increased allowances was, among other things, an important element in attracting volunteers."

[blocks in formation]

Whether such a 20-25% raise in overseas allowances should be viewed as a reasonable incentive to volunteers for overseas duty, or as a "bribe to get— mercenaries" is clearly a matter where opinions differ. We have thought of this as reasonable compensation for soldiers volunteering to undertake overseas duty, comparable to various perquisites we pay to our military personnel in Vietnam. We have never thought of it as a bribe, that is, as payment to perform an unlawful or improper act.

We would appreciate your incorporating this letter in the record of the hearings.

Sincerely,

DAVID M. ABSHIRE, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.

Mr. PORTER. Yes; I think it indicates the importance that they attach to getting what one might describe as the most favorable allowances for the individuals.

Senator FULBRIGHT. For the individuals.
Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir.

Senator FULBRIGHT. This was not a payment to the Government of South Korea, although there were very substantial payments to the Government of South Korea from these individual allowances. Is that correct?

Mr. PORTER. There were payments for remittances for a variety of

reasons.

The government, for example, handled many of the payments made to individuals, holding the foreign exchange and crediting the individual through nonpayments, that kind of thing. Contractors, too, when their remittances were sent to Korea, those remittances went into the central foreign exchange funds of the country, of the government,

and there were, of course, equivalent sums in local currency made available to the payees. In that sense, yes.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Did the individual soldier of the Korean forces know that the United States was paying his increased allowances? Mr. PORTER. I would think there is no question about it, sir. Senator FULBRIGHT. So there is no point of that being a secret. Mr. PORTER. Not that I would say.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Is that right?

WOULD ROK FORCES HAVE BEEN SENT LACKING U.S. PAYMENT OF

INDIVIDUAL ALLOWANCES?

Do you think the Korean forces which have been sent would have been sent if we did not provide individual allowances to each soldier, which in some cases doubled their salaries?

Mr. PORTER. I cannot say, sir. I cannot say. There was an economic burden.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Wait a minute. You have already said you based your case on the fact that they were motivated by a very great desire to repay a debt to us.

Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Then why would the allowances be paid? Why were they made, if that was their motive?

Mr. PORTER. They didn't have the resources with which to support such a force overseas and to pay for all of its requirements and the added risks to the men and the usual things that are accorded to forces in action.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Do you think the soldiers would have gone if you hadn't doubled their salaries?

Mr. PORTER. I think the soldiers would have gone if their own government had been able to support them, which they say is their intention in the future, incidentally, if it is ever necessary.

ROK INTENT TO PROVIDE BOTH TROOPS AND SUPPORT COSTS IN FUTURE

That is an interesting point, sir. It was made to a prominent Senator recently in Korea by an ROKG official, but up to now we have been able to "give you only the men, but stay with us and let our economy develop and in 5 years time or so if necessary we will be able to take on all our support costs, and it is our intention."

Senator FULBRIGHT. Then you agree with one of the other witnesses that we will be in Vietnam 5 years or longer?

Mr. PORTER. I don't think he was referring-I hope he was not referring to Vietnam, sir.

Senator FULBRIGHT. To what was he referring?

Mr. PORTER. In case of need.

Senator SYMINGTON. I asked the question about Vietnam in another hearing.

Mr. PORTER. Not to you, but to another Senator.

Senator SYMINGTON. You were referring to what Mr. Colby said? Mr. PORTER. No. He was referring to a general situation in the future whereby the United States might want support from its friends, and he said that if that occasion ever arose it was Korea's intention not only to send or make available manpower but also support their costs overseas.

« 上一頁繼續 »