act together during peace. It was the foreign minister of France who, in 1949, insisted that to be truly secure, Europe needed not only help in resisting attack but help in preventing attack. "Liberation," he said, "is not enough.'

The success of NATO has been measured by many yardsticks. The most significant to me is the most obvious: War has been deterred. Through the common organization, we have welded the military contributions of each of the 15 allies into an effective instrument. So convincing was this instrument that potential aggressors took stock and counted as too high the price of satisfying their ambitions. It has been proved true that "one sword keeps another in the sheath."

War has been deterred not only because of our integrated military power, but also because of the political unity of purpose to which that power is bent. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the bonds of culture, of political institutions, traditions, and values which form the bedrock of the Atlantic community. There is here a political integrity and an identity of interests that transcends the personalities and issues of the moment.

If our collective effort should falter-and our common determination be eroded -the foundation of the Atlantic's present stability would be shaken.

The mightiest arsenal in the world will deter no aggressor who knows his victims are too divided to decide and too unready to respond. That was the lesson of two World Wars. Yet a nation-not by the action of her friends, but by her own decision to prepare and plan alone could still imperil her own security by creating a situation in which response would be too late and too diluted. Every advance in the technology of war makes more unacceptable old and narrow concepts of sovereignty.

No one today can doubt the necessity of preventing war. It is our firm conviction that collective action through NATO is the best assurance that war will be deterred in the Atlantic world.

Look at the Atlantic community through the eyes of those who in years past have yearned for conquest. The sight is sobering. Integrated commands, common plans, forces in being in advance of an emergency for use in emergencyall testify to a collective readiness and the integrity of collective purpose. other eyes NATO can only be a clear warning of the folly of aggression.

To

NATO today must be shaped on the experience of the past. Reliance on independent action by separate forces--only loosely coordinated with joint forces and plans-twice led to world wars before 1945. But collective action has proved successful in deterring war since 1945-during 20 years of upheaval and grave danger.

We reject those experiences only at our own peril.

For its part, the United States is determined to join with 13 of her other allies to preserve and to strengthen the deterrent strength of NATO. We will urge that those principles of joint and common preparation be extended wherever they can be usefully applied in the Atlantic alliance.

We are hopeful that no member of the treaty will long remain withdrawn from the mutual affairs and obligations of the Atlantic. A place of respect and responsibility will await any ally who decides to return to the common task. For the world is still full of peril for those who prize and cherish liberty-peril, and opportunity.

These bountiful lands washed by the Atlantic-this half billion people unmatched in arms and industry-this cradle of common values and splendid visions-this measureless storehouse of wealth can enrich the life of an entire planet.

It is this strength-of ideas as well as arms, of peaceful purpose as well as power that offers such hope for the reconciliation of Western Europe with the people of Eastern Europe. To surrender that strength by isolation from one another would be to dim the promise of that day when the men and women of all Europe shall again move freely among each other.

It is not a question of wealth alone.

It is a question of heart and mind. It is a willingness to leave forever those national rivalries which so often led to the useless squandering of lives and treasure in war.

It is a question of the deeper spirit of unity of which NATO is but a symbol. That unity was never better expressed than when, at the conclusion of the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949, a great French leader declared that "Nations are more and more convinced that their fates are closely bound together-that their salvation and their welfare must rest upon the progressive application of human solidarity,"

It is to the preservation of human solidarity that all our efforts must be directed. Let all of you, of the Foreign Service Institute, make it your task as well as mine.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Secretary, there are one or two questions I would like answered; you could place the answers in the record later on, if you wish. I will give you the questions:

What is the difference between international commands and the national forces?

What is the command structure of NATO? (The information requested follows:)

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMAND AND THE NATIONAL FORCES, THE DIFFERENCE

The primary difference between the International Command and National Forces (Command) is in the level of command authority. Broad command authority is vested in the former, whereas specialized tactical maneuvers can be directed by the latter.

International Command

A major NATO command such as Allied Command, Europe (ACE) is composed of a commander and a staff of international officers. The next echelon below has international area commands such as CINCNORTH, CINCENT, CINCSOUTH and CINCAFMED. Commander in Chief, Central Europe (CINCENT), for example, has two functional international commands, i.e., Commander Land Forces, Central Europe (LANDCENT) and Commander Air Forces, Central Europe (AIRCENT). LANDCENT, for example, then has two remaining international commands, i.e., Central Army Group (CENTAG) and Northern Army Group (NORTHAG). All forces at echelons below Army group level are commanded by national commanders. For example, Commander, U.S. 7th Army would report to CENTAG in a NATO conflict. National Forces

These forces, Army level and below, numbered Air Force and below and Navy fleet and below, are committed to NATO by member countries and remain under national command during peacetime (except for minor specialized units which are under peacetime control of SACEUR).

WHAT IS THE COMMAND STRUCTURE OF NATO?

The following paragraphs and charts show the essential elements of the NATO command structure.

North Atlantic Council, Paris, France.-Highest level of NATO. Permanent representatives hold rank of Ambassador to NATO. Ministerial sessions are attended yearly by Ministers of State, Defense and Finance.

Military Committee, Washington, D.C.-Highest military body of NATO. Composed in permanent session of representatives of NATO country chiefs of staff. Standing Group: This is the executive agent for the Military Committee and is composed of the United States, United Kingdom, and French Military Committee representatives.

Allied Commands, Europe and Atlantic, and Channel Committee.-These are the major NATO commands eligible to exercise wartime operational command and control over Allied forces. They also have peacetime planning and training funetions. The attached charts show the area and functional breakdown of each major NATO command. Allied Land Forces, Central Europe is further divided into the Northern Army Group and Central Army Group; Allied Air Forces, Central Europe is further divided into the 2d and 4th Allied Tactical Air Forces; and, Allied Air Forces, Southern Europe is further divided into the 5th and 6th Allied Tactical Air Forces.

Mrs. KELLY. At this point, there is one other question I would like to pose:

Is NATO's military structure integrated, as General de Gaulle seems to imply?

Mr. MCNAUGHTON. There is an integrated military command structure, and the principal commander involved is General Lemnitzer, the head or the so-called SACEUR.

There are two other integrated commands, but this is the one that is normally referred to.

He commands no ground forces during peacetime. He does have at his disposal, subject to his command, certain air defense forces. So the answer to your question is that you have an integrated command structure which commands nothing in peacetime, but it does do joint planning, integrated planning; it does conduct exercises and this sort of thing, and it is available as a structure to which the forces can be attached if war seems imminent. Then the forces, according to advance promises, are turned over to this integrated command.

The answer, specifically, is that there is an integrated command. There is no integrated ground force during peacetime, but there is an arrangement which provides for handling a war in an integrated way if a war occurs.

Mrs. KELLY. Can a member be compelled to provide facilities. against his will or to designate forces which would be assigned to the international command in an emergency?

Mr. MCNAUGHTON. I am not sure I understand. No sovereign nation can be compelled to do anything.

Mrs. KELLY. Under the NATO arrangement

61-704-66