UNITED STATES SECURITY AGREEMENTS AND COMMITMENTS ABROAD GREECE AND TURKEY TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1970 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON U.S. SECURITY Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m., in room S-116, the Capitol building, Senator Stuart Symington (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Symington, Fulbright, Pell, and Javits. Also present: Mr. Holt, Mr. Paul, and Mr. Pincus of the committee staff. Frank Cash, country director for Turkey, Department of State; Alfred G. Vigderman, country director, Greece, Department of State; Robert L. Pugh, Department of State, Turkish desk officer; Stephen M. Boyd, Department of State, Acting Assistant Legal Adviser, Near East and South Asian Affairs; Charles N. Brower, Assistant Legal Adviser for European Affairs, Department of State; Lt. Col. Melvin G. Goodweather, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force; Peter Knaur, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; Sophocles H. Hero, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Defense; H. G. Torbert, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations, Department of State; Capt. Edward Krebs (U.S. Navy) Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Turkish desk; Charles W. Quinn, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Greek desk; and Joseph J. Wolf, Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs, Department of State. Senator SYMINGTON. The subcommittee will come to order. It is the custom for witnesses who testify before the subcommittee to take the oath. Will you rise, please. Raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you give this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. DAVIES. I do. Mr. PRANGER. I do. Senator SYMINGTON. All right. Will you identify yourself, starting on the left, for the reporter. Mr. HERO. Sophocles H. Hero, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Defense. Colonel GOODWEATHER. Lt. Col. Melvin G. Good weather, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force. Mr. BROWER. Charles N. Brower, Assistant Legal Adviser for European Affairs, Department of State. Mr. BOYD. Stephen M. Boyd, Department of State, Acting Assistant Legal Adviser, Near East and South Asian Affairs. Mr. PUGH. Robert L. Pugh, Department of State, Turkish desk officer. Mr. WOLF. Joseph J. Wolf, Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs, Department of State. Mr. KNAUR. Peter Knaur, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, and I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, there will be two Defense backup witnesses arriving. They will be a little late, if it is all right with you. Mr. VIGDERMAN. Alfred G. Vigderman, Country Director, Greece, Department of State. Mr. CASH. Frank Cash, Country Director for Turkey, Department of State. Mr. TORBERT. H. G. Torbert, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations, Department of State. Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you. You have a prepared statement, do you not? Mr. DAVIES. I do, sir. Senator SYMINGTON. Today we will discuss American military forces, facilities, and programs in Greece and Turkey. We will hear the testimony of Mr. Rodger Davies, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East and South Asian Affairs, and Mr. Robert J. Pranger, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the same region. Mr. Davies, will you proceed with your statement? TESTIMONY OF HON. RODGER DAVIES, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NEAR EASTERN AND SOUTH ASIAN AFFAIRS, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT J. PRANGER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE Mr. DAVIES. Mr. Chairman, both Mr. Pranger and I are pleased to be able to appear before this subcommittee to discuss some of the political-military aspects of U.S. interests in Greece and Turkey, including some of the factors which have led to our current NATO relationship with Greece and Turkey which is the basis of our commitment to these NATO partners. Representatives of your subcommittee have had the benefit of briefings on U.S. activities, installations and U.S. forces in both Greece and Turkey. Your subcommittee has also heard Generals Burchinal and Polk. In addition, you will hear from Mr. Elliot Richardson, Under Secretary of State and General Goodpaster, commander in chief, U.S. European Command. STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF GREECE AND TURKEY United States commitments to Greece and Turkey are based on the strategic importance of these nations, both to the United States and to the NATO alliance. The geographic position of Greece and Turkey make them important obstacles to Soviet attempts to expand into the eastern Mediterranean area. Immediately following World War II the Soviets embarked upon a concerted policy of extending their influence and control into this area. Though Soviet techniques have varied since that time, domination of the eastern Mediterranean clearly remains a primary goal of Soviet policy. So long as this is true, the United States and NATO will continue to share strategic interests with Greece and Turkey. It was in recognition of these interests that the United States first acted, under the Truman Doctrine of 1947, to provide economic and military assistance to Greece and Turkey to enable them to resist Soviet expansion. The entry of Turkey and Greece into the NATO alliance in 1952 derived from the basic importance of these two countries to the West as a whole. The participation of Greece and Turkey in NATO contributed substantially to the strength of the alliance and remains of great importance, given the increasingly complicated situation in the eastern Mediterranean area. NATURE OF U.S. COMMITMENT TO GREECE AND TURKEY The heart of our commitment to both Greece and Turkey stems from article 5 of the NATO Treaty which provides that an armed attack against one or more members in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. The United States is, therefore, committed to go to the aid of both Greece and Turkey in the event of external attack by taking such action as we deem necessary, and in accordance with our constitutional processes. Senator SYMINGTON. Which one of the two countries would we defend if they started to fight each other? Mr. DAVIES. Sir, the NATO alliance is a defensive alliance and an attack within the alliance by one member upon another is not covered by article 5, and I hope would never take place. Senator SYMINGTON. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Near East and South Asian Affairs, I discussed this with Mr. Vance and, as you know, at times it got pretty close. Mr. DAVIES. Yes, and the matter affected our relations with the Turkish Government. Senator SYMINGTON. Under the SEATO Treaty, no country has to act unless at the time of the crunch it is considered in its interest to act, and that has become a practical matter as a result of so few of the SEATO signatories helping us with respect to whatever it is, we are trying to do in the Far East. Does the NATO Treaty require us to come to assistance if a member is attacked, or do we have the right to make the decision at the time? Mr. DAVIES. It is my understanding, sir, that we are obliged to take action, but the nature of the action would be decided in accordance with our constitutional processes. Senator SYMINGTON. Presumably that would mean coming to the Congress. Mr. DAVIES. I believe, sir, that any administration would want to have congressional support. However, the President must exercise his constitutional obligations. Senator SYMINGTON. I understand. That is not the thrust of my question. The thrust of my question is, is there a similarity in this regard between the NATO Treaty and the SEATO Treaty? Mr. DAVIES. Yes, sir. May I just check? Senator SYMINGTON. Why don't you supply it for the record. Never mind, Mr. Holt gives me article 5 of the NATO Treaty: The parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by article 51 of the charter of the United Nations, will assist the party or parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security. I am still not entirely clear as to whether that requires us to respond or whether we have an individual unilateral right not to. Mr. DAVIES. I believe, sir, the key words are "such action as it deems necessary." Article 11 of the NATO Treaty provides— This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. (The following additional information was later supplied by the Department of State.) Hon. STUART SYMINGTON, DEPARTMENT of State, Washington, D.C., June 24, 1970. Chairman, Subcommittee on U.S. Security Agreements and Commitments Abroad, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: When Deputy Assistant Secretary Rodger Davies appeared before your Subcommittee on June 9, the Subcommittee requested that the Department of State provide for the record information with respect to the differences between the North Atlantic Treaty and the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, as well as a statement regarding the question of whether the United States is obliged automatically to come to the aid of a signatory of the North Atlante Treaty with military assistance in the event of external attack upon such signatory. The information you requested is as follows: Both treaties were submitted to the Senate which gave its advice and consent to their ratification. None of the commitments contained in these treaties requires an automatic response from the United States. In the event of an armed attack within the scope of the commitments, the United States is obligated to decide upon and take appropriate action to meet the common danger. Such action shall be taken in accordance with U.S. constitutional processes. Should a situation arise calling into play these commitments, the Executive would seek to assure that the Congress at that time fulfills its proper role under the Constitution in the decision-making process. The Executive would keep the appropriate committees and congressional leadership fully informed and would cooperate to the maximum in Congress' fulfillment of its responsibilities. The North Atlantic Treaty The North Atlantic Treaty is central to the U.S. collective defense system. Article V of that treaty provides: (1) that an armed attack against one or more of the parties shall be considered an attack against them all; (2) consequently each party will assist the party or parties so attacked; (3) each party will take forthwith individual or collective action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic Treaty area. Article XI of the treaty further provides that implementation shall be in accordance with the parties' respective constitutional processes. There is nothing in the North Atlantic Treaty which could require an automatic declaration of war on the part of the United States. In the event of an |