(V) [No. 85] REPORT OF SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE VISITING AMERICAN MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AND NATO BASES IN FRANCE INTRODUCTION On June 15, 1966, Chairman L. Mendel Rivers of the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, appointed a subcommittee of six members to go to France for the purpose of making an on-site inspection of the American military installations and the NATO bases which President de Gaulle of France has ordered vacated by April 1, 1967. The scope of the mission included an inspection of the construction at the U.S. installations, originally authorized by the Armed Services Committee, and a study of such new construction as may be required as a result of the pullout and a preview of the problems associated with the move. Since the French action will cause the removal of 16 huge U.S. supply dumps and vast stockpiles of military supplies, the subcommittee was expected to obtain information concerning plans for moving usable equipment to new locations and the salvage of the less usable and obsolete materials. In addition, the committee was asked to look into military family housing which will be vacated and the matter of immobile trailers which service personnel would be required to abandon. The six members who were appointed to make the trip, during the 10-day July 4 recess of Congress, were: O. C. Fisher, Texas, chairman; Charles H. Wilson, California; Frank E. Evans, Colorado; William G. Bray, Indiana; Charles S. Gubser, California; and Alexander Pirnie, New York. BACKGROUND The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was signed in Washington on April 4, 1949. It is essentially a framework for very broad cooperation between its signators. It is not only a military alliance but it also provides for joint permanent action in the political, economic, and social fields. The signatory countries undertake, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to preserve peace and international security and to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area. They also undertake to eliminate any incompatibility in their international economic policies and to encourage economic cooperation between their countries. The treaty, thus, has a dual aspect: It proclaims the importance of economic and social progress and, at the same time, reaffirms a security policy based on the inherent right of collective self-defense. The treaty is for a period of 20 years after which time any country may cease to be a party 1 year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the governments of the other parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation. (The treaty will expire on August 4, 1969.) On March 7, 1966, the decision of France was sent to President Johnson in a letter announcing her decision to terminate her participation in the "integrated" commands of NATO and no longer to (10377) place her forces at the disposal of NATO, "to recover in her territory the full exercise of her sovereignty, now impaired by the permanent presence of Allied military elements or by the habitual use being made of its airspace." In that letter, President de Gaulle indicated the willingness of the French Government "to reach agreement with the Allied Governments and the Government of the United States regarding the military facilities to be accorded on a mutual basis in the event of a conflict in which she would join battle at their side, and regarding the conditions governing the cooperation between her forces and theirs in the event of joint action, especially in Germany." (See page 10584.) On the same date, President Johnson sent to President de Gaulle the following letter: DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have read with care your letter of March 7, 1966. I am immediately bringing your views to the attention of our other allies. Since the course you propose to take so seriously affects the security and well-being of not only the French and American people but all the people of the NATO Alliance, I am asking for their comment. I would be less than frank if I did not inform you that your action raises grave questions regarding the whole relationship between the responsibilities and benefits of the Alliance. On March 8 and 10, 1966, the French Government delivered a memorandum on NATO to the 14 representatives of the Governments of the Atlantic Alliance. In that memorandum, the French Government stated that it— considered that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization no longer corresponded insofar as it is concerned to the conditions prevailing in the world at present which are fundamentally different from those of 1949 and the years thereafter. Therefore, without renouncing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or withdrawing from participation therein, the French Government served notice that, as she had previously done in connection with her naval forces assigned to NATO, she was withdrawing her ground and air forces from the NATO organization, and was requiring the transfer of the headquarters of the Supreme Command, Allied Forces, Europe, and the Central Europe Command, from French territory. In the text addressed to the U.S. Government, France included the following language: fet multilateral problems are not the only ones to be raised for the United States and France. In the past, the two countries have in fact concluded a series of bilateral agreements that are still in effect, as follows: Depots at Deols-La Martinerie; Certain airbases and installations in France made available to American forces; The French Government considers that these agreements, in their entirety, no longer correspond to the present conditions, which lead it to reassume full exercise of its sovereignty on French territory, in other words, to accept no longer that any foreign units, installations or bases in France be responsible in any respect whatsoever to authorities other than the French authorities. It is prepared to study and, eventually, to settle with the U.S. Government the practical consequences of this. The French Government is, furthermore, prepared to enter into a discussion on the military facilities that could be made available to the U.S. Government on French territory in the event of a conflict in which both countries would participate by virtue of the Atlantic alliance. These facilities could be the subject of an agreement to be concluded between the two Governments. In view of the decision of the French Government to withdraw from the military portion of NATO and to require relocation of the NATO forces and American forces stationed in France, the special committee, in accordance with instructions, made an on-the-spot inspection of various NATO and U.S. installations in France to determine for itself the implications of the decision of the French Government. INSPECTION The committee met at Headquarters, U.S. European Command, outside of Paris, with Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, Supreme Commander, NATO forces, and his staff. The briefing revealed a thorough awareness on the part of the general and his associates, of the magnitude of the withdrawal problems, and the importance-from the standpoint of the American taxpayer of the salvage operation related to the movement and disposal of our surplus supplies in France and to the relocation of our facilities. Following the 5-hour briefing, the committee divided, and visited the following USACOMZEUR installations in France: Further, the committee inspected Mildenhall Air Force Base in England, to which the Air Force units currently stationed at Evreux, France, are being transferred. The committee recognized that the problems occasioned by the unilateral decision of the French Government are enormous and far reaching in consequence. At the time the committee was in France, political negotiations had not begun with the French Government and it was impossible to determine what the negotiating position of the United States should be with regard to future mutual cooperative efforts in the military field. Nevertheless, the position of the members remaining in the alliance must be predicated on the fact that the French Government assumes responsibility as the result of its unilateral decision. One thing is certain. NATO will continue with or without France. This was made evident in a joint declaration released on March 18, 1966, which stated: The following declaration has been agreed between the heads of Governments of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The North Atlantic Treaty and the organization established under it are both alike essential to the security of our countries. The Atlantic alliance has insured its efficacy as an instrument of defense and deterrence by the maintenance in peacetime of an integrated and interdependent military organization in which, as in no previous alliance in history, the efforts and resources of each are combined for the common security of all. We are convinced that this organization is essential and will continue. No system of bilateral arrangements can be a substitute. The North Atlantic Treaty and the organization are not merely instruments of the common defense. They meet a common political need and reflect the readiness and determination of the member countries of the North Atlantic community to consult and act together wherever possible in the safeguard of their freedom and security and in the furtherance of international peace, progress, and pros perity. The U.S. Government has expended nearly $846.8 million for facilities in France. Of this amount, the U.S. share of the NATO facilities construction program in France totals $296,600,000. The remainder is for American installations located in France. These latter installa |