Mr. PERLMAN. No. What I am thinking of is that Professor Finch, and the members of this committee of nine complained that this does not go far enough. So far as I can see, there is not any reason for us to contemplate any further step in the foreseeable future. Senator WILEY. You know, you fellows have been Mr. PERLMAN. I don't think that we will be interested in any additional steps. I don't think so. I do not know what the Department has in mind about it, but if this is ratified and eventually 20 nations ratify it, as seems likely, that will be a convention that will be in effect, so far as the main purpose is concerned, and that is the agreement among the civilized nations of the earth that mass murder is an international offense. A BASIS FOR PUNISHMENT WHEN CONDITIONS PERMIT I do not have any idea in my own mind that when those provisions in this treaty contemplating that genocide will be punished in the court of the country that commits it, that that will mean anything under present conditions of any real practical value. I cannot visualize, for instance, Germany punishing the crime of genocide which it, itself, committed at the time that it committed it. But, when this is in a treaty that is ratified by most of the nations of the Earth, if there is a revolution in those countries, they will punish those who, at the time genocide was committed, led their government into that field, and they will have a basis for it, for punishing them into the courts of their own country. You cannot expect those committing genocide to punish themselves and therefore, all this does is to set a legal basis for the punishing of the crime when conditions permit such punishment to be levied. That is all. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Now, let's hear from the United Nations Mr. HICKERSON. Let's make it clear we have not any 7-mile boots in regard to this. We have no further steps in mind, internationally, on the subject of genocide. We hope very much that the Senate will see fit to approve the treaty. I am not a lawyer. Our two legal representatives can, of course, answer legal questions. I wanted to say something, and in just a moment I will read a little statement for the record, which is unnecessary because all of you indicated before in your statements that you understand it. It is very important that we ratify on other grounds than The CHAIRMAN. What other grounds. MOVEMENT AGAINST GENOCIDE ORIGINATED IN UNITED STATES Mr. HICKERSON. One ground is that the word "genocide" was developed in the United States. The movement to punish people for committing this crime originated in the United States. Groups here begun to agitate it and forced this country to take the leadership, Mr. Chairman, in the United Nations. The CHAIRMAN. How did they force us to do that? The CHAIRMAN. We started it, we were the leaders Mr. HICKERSON. These groups did it. The CHAIRMAN. We were out waving the flag! Mr. HICKERSON. These groups The CHAIRMAN. You said it originated here, this pressure Mr. HICKERSON. Outside of the Government, sir. RUSSIAN MISREPRESENTATIONS That was private citizens who were shocked by what had happened and 43 countries signed it, 12 have already ratified it, and if you don't ratify it, the Russians of course will make representation The CHAIRMAN. They always make representations anyway. You can't satisfy the Russians. Mr. HICKERSON. Mr. Chairman, it will give them a little more ground for misrepresentation. Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Has Russia done anything about it? Mr. HICKERSON. They have signed it. Senator MCMAHON. With reservations. They pointed out that they do reserve the right to define them as political criminals. Am I correct on that? Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I think the first charge they would make is that we genocided the American Indian, and it is pretty nearly true, too. I mean, that would be the kind of thing they would do. Senator MCMAHON. You see this, Mr. Chairman Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I am not raising that as an objection. We are open to a possible charge of that kind, in the history of the world. I imagine what we are doing here is legalizing the foundation for what we did at Nuremburg without any legal foundation. The only thing that we had there was really the Kellogg-Briand pact. Mr. HICKERSON. It is inconceivable that the act of genocide would ever be committed in this country. Senator SMITH of New Jersey. But, we may be charged with that, that is the danger, and the Court of International Justice may say that here is a prima facie case made against the United States of genocide, and there you are, left, condemned in the eyes of the world. Mr. HICKERSON. I don't agree that they could ever get that through. Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Only in the case of a violent race riot. Mr. HICKERSON. They couldn't do it because that is not genocide in any way, or under any understanding. Senator SMITH of New Jersey. You might say our intention was Mr. HICKERSON. They might conceive it if there was a prejudice against us, and there are some prejudices against us. That is made up of representatives of different countries Mr. PERLMAN. Senator, they can make any charges they want, they might charge us with genocide. Senator SMITH of New Jersey. We will have it raised on the floor as sure as shooting, if we report this favorably. There will be those who will raise that kind of question that has been raised here, you know that. Senator MCMAHON. That is why I adopted the somewhat unusual procedure, I think it is unusual, of having all the questions raised that could possibly be raised, and the answers written. Senator SMITII of New Jersey. That is a good job. Senator MCMAHON. I think it is a good thing. Mr. HICKERSON. Undoubtedly that is correct, if there is a lynching case, if this treaty goes through, Russia probably will charge that genocide has been committed in the United States. I would not put it past them at all. Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I would expect it as early as they could find something. Senator MCMAHON. We have the alternative of having them say that they signed the treaty and agreed to be against mass murder, and now "they are afraid to be for it because they are murdering a minority in the United States." Mr. HICKERSON. That is correct. Mr. PERLMAN. That as a crime that was committed almost before the Constitution was adopted. The CHAIRMAN. Anyone else want to say anything on that? Mr. HICKERSON. I am going to ask to leave this statement for the record. The CHAIRMAN. All right, gentlemen. The committee will stand recessed, subject to call. [Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m. the committee stood in recess, subject to call of the Chair.] MUTUAL DEFENSE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM1 [EDITOR'S NOTE.-The first Mutual Defense Assistance Program was enacted in September 1949, as followup legislation to the North Atlantic Treaty, which had been ratified in July. On June 1, 1950, the President recommended the authorization of additional funds for military aid and suggested several amendments to the 1949 legislation. These requests were considered in joint public sessions with the Armed Services Committee on June 2, 5, 6, and 15, and in the joint executive sessions printed here. A bill, S. 3809, incorporating the recommendations of the two committees, was reported out on June 21, passed the Senate on June 30, the House on July 19, and was signed into law by the President on July 26 as P.L. 621. the Mutual Defense Assistance Act, 1950.] TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1950 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D.C. The committees met in join executive session, pursuant to notice, in the committee hearing room of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, U.S. Capitol, at 2 p.m., Senator Tom Connally (chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee) presiding. Present: Senators Conally, Thomas of Utah, Tydings, Green, Fulbright, Vandenberg, Smith of New Jersey, and Lodge, of the Foreign Relations Committee; Senators Tydings, Chapman, Johnson, Saltonstall, and Cain of the Armed Services Committee. SECRECY MUST BE PRESERVED The CHAIRMAN. I want to stress with all of you that this is an executive hearing and that those who are present, regardless of whether they are Members of the Senate or the House or not, are under honor bound to keep secret what transpires here. One of the regrettable things of my experience is that nearly every time we have a secret hearing in any committee, before you get the door open to get out, a newspaperman out there has heard all about it. These matters are of the highest importance. They are technical; they are military, and we must preserve secrecy with regard to them. Does anybody else want to make any comments? I am not reflecting on anybody individually; I am reflecting on the whole group collectively. Senator CAIN. I would think, sir, when the meeting is over, the chairman should suggest what should and should not be said outside, and that would be agreed to by all of us. 1 See appendix K. The CHAIRMAN. I do not know of anything that should be said outside except that the general was here and we heard him and let him go. We heard him on the arms program. We will see to that as we go along, however. We have met today to hear the testimony of Gen. Omar Bradley. He is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I believe that is right, is it not? General BRADLEY. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. He is a very distinguished soldier. We have under consideration the arms program for Western Europe. We will be glad to hear you, General. STATEMENT OF GEN. OMAR N. BRADLEY, CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF; ACCOMPANIED BY MAJ. GEN. L. L. LEMNITZER, DIRECTOR OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE General BRADLEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, if it is agreeable I will read the prepared statement which, incidentally, is the same one I made before the House committee this morning, because I did not have time to prepare two, and then will try to answer such questions as members of the committee may have. Senator SALTONSTALL. This statement was read in open hearing, was it not? fit. General BRADLEY. Yes, sir. This may be used in any way you see Senator SMITH of New Jersey. This was apparently released after you made it this morning. PROCESS OF DECISION General BRADLEY. Yes, sir. When I am faced with a decision of whether to continue one of the programs of the Army, or the Navy, or the Air Force, I like to sit back in my office over at the Pentagon and review the basic principles which initiated the program. If these are still valid, I next think over the successive actions we have taken during all phases of the program to see if there have been any mistakes and if any changes are indicated. Having reviewed the principles and the successive actions relevant to the program, I next try to decide two things: Should this project be continued? And if so, how much should we put into it for the next year? I believe the same procedure would be appropriate while we consider the military aid program for the American people. BACKGROUND When the American people elected to further our own security and economic stability by assisting friendly nations-especially those in Western Europe-we faced these facts: We realized that a nation is ultimately no stronger than its economy. We recognized that our friends needed economic help if they were to recover quickly from economic anemia resulting from years of war. |