The Key West citizen. [volume] (Key West, Fla.) 1879-current, 1949-02-26
PACT MUST HAVE. TEETH

lantlc Security Pact is being made rather
slowly with Secretary of State Dean
Acheson saying that it is more important
to build the pact solidly than hurriedfy.
One of the issues now to be decided
involves the commitment that the United
States will make in connection with the
joint security obligation. The European
countries at first wanted clause pledg-
ing the signatory powers to take military
and other action" to support any pact
member suffering an armed attack.
The United States demurred to this,
saying that under the Constitution, Con-
gress alone could declare war and, in ac-
cordance with this viewpoint, the phrase
was changed to read: Military or other
action" Now, the United States proposes
that no specific reference be made to
military" aid and that in event of an
armed attack on member nation, the
other powers signing the pact will pledge
themselves to take action forthwith"
This is watering down of the intents
and purposes of a security pact. While
Congress alone has the power to declare
war, the Constitution also provides for
treaties, which, when ratified by the Sem
ate, become binding upon the nation.
Certainly, if American military action is
TO be understood" there is no objection
to making the obligation unequivocal.
In Washington, one hears the explain
alton that the pact, as it stands today, con-
tains principle and several qualifica-
tions. The principle, it is explained. is
that an attack on one nation in the pact
shall be regarded by the rest as an attack
on all. The implication is that if there is
an armed attack upon one nation includ-
ed in the group, the United States and the
other nations, would react as if their own
territory had been attacked.
The United States, it seems. wants the
pact to contain some qualifications, in
Guiding (a) the right of each nation to
determine whether an armed attack had
actually occurred, (b) freedom for each
nation to decide what action to take if an
armed attack actually occurs, and (c) no
direct and specific obligation to take
specific action to deal with any indirect
aggression.
We find it somewhat difficult to be-
lieve that the free nations of Western Eu-
rope will be able to accept treaty en-
bodying this point of view as a guarantee
of assistance in the event of armed ag-
gression by the Soviet Union, or any 9TH
er great power. Consequently, if the Sc
curity pact is to perform the function that
it was originally designed to achieve,
there seems to be necessity of binding
commitment from the United States
The argument is made in Washington
that an explicit reference to military ac-
ton, on the part of this country in the
event of armed aggression against another
nation i'm the security agreement, would
depend upon the decision of Congress.
Consequently, it would not give the Eu-
Orpeans added security although it might
lead to avodable opposition in the forth
coming Senate debate.
We are not inclined to agree with this
reasoning because it is incOnceivable that
a Congress of the United States would
fail to carry out commitment embodied
in a treaty signed by this nation There
might be a minority in opposition but, if
the nations word and Influence are to
count in world affairs, this country must
be prepared to carry out in full all obliga-
tons assumed under general security
pact.