Page images
PDF
EPUB

In our own hemisphere, the Monroe Doctrine-strictly and immediately enforced-is the only policy which stands between freedom and ultimate Communist takeover of all of Latin America.

I strongly urge the subcommittee to report legislation which affirms the Monroe Doctrine as a basic plank of American foreign policy and directs its implementation.

If this joint resolution is adopted, the President should take a firm stand against Communist expansion into the Americas, then tell and show the world we mean what we say that the Monroe Doctrine is not dead. The honor and security of our Nation is at stake.

(The text of H.J. Res. 63 follows:)

[H.J. Res. 63, 89th Cong., 1st sess.]

JOINT RESOLUTION To forestall intervention, domination, control, and colonization by international communism in the New World, and for other purposes

Whereas the intervention of international communism directly or indirectly in an American republic would constitute a fact or situation threatening the sovereignty and political independence of the states of the entire New World; and Whereas the American continents, by the free and independent position which they have assumed and maintained, have long since ceased to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European power or powers; and Whereas the intervention of international communism, directly or indirectly, or however disguised, in any American state, would be in effect such a colonization by a non-American power or powers, and would violate the sovereignty and political independence of an American state; and

Whereas such a fact or situation extended to any portions of this hemisphere would be dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States and the American continents; and

Whereas in the rapidly developing contingencies of the atomic age there might not be time to assemble a meeting of the Inter-American Organ of Consultation to provide for joint action to repel the danger: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That if such a fact or situation should present a sudden emergency, then any one or more of the high contracting parties to the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance would be justified, in the exercise of individual or collective self-defense under article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, in taking steps to forestall intervention, domination, control, and colonization by international communism in the New World.

In case of such defensive measures having been taken by the defending state or states, it or they should report to the Inter-American Organ of Consultation, to the end that an emergency committee, after the manner provided by the Convention of Havana of 1940, be set up for the provisional administration of the state thus defended, pending its restoration to a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Mr. SELDEN. We have no further public witnesses this morning. We have several Members of Congress who are scheduled to appear tomorrow. Due to previous commitments they could not appear today. We will now go into executive session, and representatives of the State Department will appear in connection with the resolutions that are pending before the subcommittee.

(Whereupon at 10:37 a.m. the subcommittee proceeded into executive session.)

Mr. SELDEN. Our second witness this morning is Hon. Robert M. Sayre, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs.

He is accompanied by Mr. C. Allan Stewart, former Ambassador to Venezuela and now Director of the Office of Caribbean Affairs. Mr. Sayre.

Mr. SAYRE. I have with me, also, Mr. Topping.

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Topping is Deputy Director of the Office of InterAmerican Political Affairs.

You may proceed, Mr. Sayre.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT M. SAYRE, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTER-AMERICAN AFFAIRS

Mr. SAYRE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before the committee to make some comments on House Resolution 542 and several other proposed resolutions concerning the policy of the United States with respect to the intervention of the international Communist movement in the Western Hemisphere.

I should like to state at the beginning that the Department of State is generally in accord with the objectives of the proposed resolutions which recognize that the American States consider international communism a danger to their national sovereignty and are determined to exercise, when appropriate, their rights of individual and collective self-defense to combat Communist aggression and intervention in the hemisphere.

As you know, the policy of the United States has been and continues to be to oppose by every practical means any attempt by the forces of international communism to reach into the nations of this hemisphere. Happily, our Latin American neighbors have over the past several years become increasingly aware of the very real danger posed by Communist efforts to intervene in this hemisphere and of the need to take effective-and sometimes drastic-action to combat these efforts.

You are also aware, I know, that one of the cardinal principles of the inter-American system-a principle consecrated in the Charter of the Organization of American States and in numerous inter-American documents-is that of nonintervention in each other's internal affairs. We have, of course, subscribed to the policy of nonintervention. Today's situation in which an unholy alliance marching under the banner of wars of national liberation is attempting to carry out its activities against the nations of this hemisphere emphasizes the need for more effective regional action.

The interference of international communism in the affairs of the American nations since World War II has made it inevitable that the inter-American system would seek a new formula which would respect the true meaning of the principles of nonintervention and self-determination of people and still provide for the security of the hemisphere. I believe that the members of the Organization of American States have, both in word and deed, demonstrated that they realize that the struggle against Communist aggression and intervention is of paramount importance. Illustrations of this can be found in the various resolutions of successive meetings of the OAS Ministers of Foreign Affairs concerning the threat Communist activities pose for the American nations, in the actions taken to isolate Cuba to prevent the disease from which that unhappy land suffers from contaminating the rest of the area, and, more recently, in the decisive collective action taken in the face of the desperate and dangerous situation in the Dominican Republic.

I believe that one of the clearest statements of the policy of the OAS with regard to individual and collective defense against Communist intervention is the resolution adopted by the ninth meeting of Foreign Ministers of the American Republics here in Washington in July

Mr. Chairman, you have already read the pertinent part of that resolution and I will not repeat it.

While this paragraph, of course, is directed specifically toward activities by the Cuban Government, I consider it as general recognition of the sovereign rights of the member states of the Organization of American States in responding to any clear threat of Communist intervention and subversion which amounts to aggression.

Now, in turning specifically to the resolutions under consideration. I should like to say that I believe that any official public statement made by the U.S. Government should, while making clear our determination to take whatever steps we feel are indispensable in our own interest as well as in the collective interest of the nations of the hemisphere, also clearly recognize the important role of the OAS.

I certainly agree with the statement you have already made along that line and the statements the other members of the subcommittee have made.

Consequently, I believe that the resolutions under consideration should adhere closely to the language adopted by the ninth meeting of consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs with respect to the use of individual and collective defense measures against Communist intervention and subversion which has the characteristics of aggression. In this respect, I believe it is entirely fitting and desirable that the resolution of the ninth meeting of ministers be cited, as in House Resolution 542, and I believe that in order to make the language of the latter more consistent with the Foreign Ministers' statement, the final "whereas" clause be amended to read:

Whereas the ninth meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs Serving as the Organ of Consultation in Application of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance recognized that in responding to acts possessing the characteristics of aggression and intervention carried out against one or more member states of the Organization of American States, the member states shall preserve their essential rights as sovereign states by the use of self-defense in either individual or collective form, which could go so far as resort to armed force, until such time as the Organ of Consultation takes measures to guarantee the peace and security of the hemisphere: Now, therefore, be it * * *.

Similarly, the second operative paragraph should be modified to

read:

(2) In the event of Communist aggression or intervention, any one or more of the high contracting parties to the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance may, in the exercise of their sovereign rights of individual or collective self-defense, which could go so far as resort to armed force, and in accordance with the declarations and principles above stated, take steps to forestall or combat such aggression or intervention by the subversive forces known as international communism and its agencies in the Western Hemisphere, until such time as the Organ of Consultation takes measures to guarantee the peace and security of the hemisphere.

[Security deletion.]

Mr. SELDEN. Thank you, Mr. Sayre. As I understand your statement, you have made only two suggestions. One is that the final whereas clause be amended to include the words "until such time as the Organ of Consultation takes measures to guarantee the peace and security of the hemisphere"?

Mr. SAYRE. In substance that is correct.

Mr. SELDEN. Your second suggestion is that the second resolved clause be amended accordingly. Is that correct?

53-465-65--3

Mr. SAYRE. That is right.

Mr. SELDEN. Otherwise, the State Department has no objection to this resolution in its present form?

So.

Mr. SAYRE. That is right, sir.

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Monagan?

Mr. MONOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Security deletion.]

Mr. SAYRE. [Security deletion.]

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Castro taught them a lot in the last 4 years or

Mr. SAYRE. Well, I think on this, Mr. Congressman, that he may have taught them a lot, but his own activities, the subversion he sponsored in Venezuela, the subversion he is now paying for in other countries, and the failure of his own economic policies has demonstrated to the Latin Americans what is going on in Cuba is not what they want.

The success he is having, interestingly enough, is where he is dropping his old economic policies and going back to capitalism but calling it something else.

Mr. MONAGAN. There is none of them that basically want any control outside their own countries even though they may be extremely liberal or radical in some of their social or economic theories?

Mr. SAYRE. That is right. I think one of the basic problems we have in the hemisphere on this issue is to get the Latin Americans to clearly distinguish between the Communists and what you have described as the liberal elements in Latin America. They do not always make this distinction clearly and therefore go along with "popular fronts." They accuse us of not making this distinction. But we make that distinction very, very carefully and we made it in the Dominican Republic.

Mr. MONAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SELDEN. In connection with what Mr. Sayre said about attempting to get additional votes, I think perhaps he has distinguished between an elected official and one that does not have to face the electorate.

I have found that when you win, you win, if it is by just one vote. Some of the greatest victories we have won in the ŎAS have been by only the number of votes we needed, and I think we waste an awful lot of time in worrying about getting extra votes from the countries we have little likelihood of persuading to vote with us. I would urge when we get the necessary 14 votes that we go ahead and not wait indefinitely for other countries to come around to our point

of view.

I was at Punta del Este when our side was almost defeated because we wanted unanimity. Finally we came to our senses and, when we got the 14 votes, we passed the resolution and threw Cuba out of the OAS. I hope that this resolution will not be held up while we attempt to get 18 or 19 votes because, in my opinion, we are never going to get that large a majority in the OAS on any controversial issue. Mr. Whalley?

Mr. WHALLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Sayre, I was very much interested in being at the White House conference for the OAS a couple weeks ago to celebrate the fourth an

niversary of the OAS. I think President Johnson said we contributed $4.5 billion in 4 years. I got the feeling that the Latin American countries think that this is a one-way street, that we are supposed to give money grants and loans and to help them develop their industry, make land and tax reforms but they do nothing in return. What are we doing to sell them on the idea that we are trying to work with them as partners and that in return for the help that we give them we certainly ought to have their help and cooperation?

You have heard the chairman say that at different times when we needed their support it has been very difficult. Here a year or two ago it looked very much as though we could not get enough nations to participate with us in sanctions against Cuba. If we are doing a real selling job like General Motors, or the Ford Motor Co. would do, I think that they ought to be advised in some way or shown in some way so that we should work together in helping each other.

What are we doing?

Mr. SAYRE. Mr. Congressman, I thoroughly agree with what you just said. I think if what happened in the Dominican Republic in April of this year had happened in 1960, that we would not have had the majority in the OAS. One of the major reasons that I think that the OAS understands better the problems of subversion and understands better what the United States is trying to do is because of the commitment the United States made in the Alliance for Progress.

The Latin Americans clearly understand now that the United States is going to work with them. We are committed to work with them. They also clearly understand that when they made a commitment in the Charter of Punta del Este that they were to take self-help measures that is exactly what everybody meant. I agree with you it is a little hard to convince them that is exactly what we meant. We are insisting on self-help measures.

I do not want to get into individual countries [security deletion] but I do want to assure you we are insisting on self-help measures. We intend to continue to do that. One of the great things in the Alliance is illustrated by the attitude of the Brazilian Government. It outlined its plan to improve the situation in that country when the new government of Castello Branco came in. They said to us, "This is the kind of assistance that we would like from the United States. This is what Brazil is going to do. We want to make it very clear to you that even if you do not give us this assistance we are going to do what has to be done in Brazil to put this country back on the road."

We think this is the proper attitude in Latin America. This is the attitude we are promoting in Latin America. We have been successful in working out a program with Chile on that basis and I am hopeful that in the next few days we will work out a program with Colombia on that basis. [Security deletion.]

Mr. WHALLEY. I do not mean that we help them if they help themselves but I mean in some way it should be arranged, or if it could, we should get the story over that we want to help them but we want them to help us. We work together as partners.

Mr. SAYRE. I think that that story is getting over. We are trying to put it over in every possible way that we can. I wholeheartedly agree with what you say.

« PreviousContinue »