Evening star., 1951-06-02
Defense Perimeter
OF United States

Senator Bridges: When you ad-
dressed the National Press Club
January II, 1850. you described
what you called the defensive
perimeter of the United States.
You included Japan and the
Ryukyu Islands and the Philip
pine Islands.
Why did you exclude Korea,
Formosa and, for instance. the
mainland of Asia? Why did you
make that specific statement?
My point in asking it. Mr.. Sec
retary. was that you were Secre-
tary of State Of our country then,
and when you made that state
ment. that that was the perimeter
of our defense. if it wasn't sort
of an invitation to the Russians
to, the Communists, that they
were free to attack in Korea. by
eliminating those points as part
OF our defensive perimeter?
Secretary Acheson: In my
speech at the Press Club I
was speaking of those defensive
areas, those defense points in the
Pacific at which United States
troops are stationed, and which
United States troops must defend.
said this defense perrin
eter runs along the Aleutians to
Japan, and then goes to the Ryu-
kyus-that is OkinaWa-We hold
important defenses in the Ryukyu
Islands and those we will continue
to hold. In the interests of the
population of the Ryukyu Islands.
we will at on appropriate time
offer to hold these islands under a
trusteeship of the United Nations.
They are an essential part of the
defense perimeter of the Pacific.
and they must and will be held.
All of these places are places
where American troops are sta
toned and which are to be held
in order to defend the perimeter.
Relations with Philippines.
Then l go on in my speech to
say the defensive perimeter runs
from. the Ryukyus to the Philip
pine Islands. Again we have troops
stationed there. Our relations.
our defensive relations with the
philippines are contained in
agreements between us. These
agreements will be Loyalty carried
out. Both peoples have learned
from bitter experience the vital
connection between our mutual
defense requirements. We are in
no doubt about it. And it is hardly
necessary for me to say an attack
on the Philippines could not and
would not be tolerated by the
United States.
But l hasten to add that no
one perceives the imminence of
any such attack.
l then went on to talk about other
areas in the Pacific and said so
far as the military security of
the other areas of the Pacific is
concerned, it must be clear that
no person can guarantee these
areas against military attack. But
it must also be clear that such a
guarantee is hardly sensible or
necessary within the realm of
practical relationships.
Should an attack occur, one
hesitateS to say where such an
armed attack would come from.
The initial reliance must be on
the people attacked to resist it.
and then upon the commitments
of the entire civilized world under
1.-THE Charter of the United Nations
which so far has not proved a
weak reed to lean on by any people
who are determined to protect
their independence against out
ESide aggression.
Now. think I said what I tried
to say very clearly, that the United
States had certain points which
were a defensive perimeter. At
those points United States troops
were stationed; there they would
stay and there they would fight.
In regard to other areas, said
nobody can guarantee that; but
what we can say is that if people
will stand up and fight for their
own independence. their country,
the guarantees under the United
Nations have never proved a week
reed before. and they won't in the
future. think that is fairly
accurate statement of what has
happened.
4 4