Evening star., 1952-02-09
A ABod Day for Senator Taft


Senator Taft did not add to his stature in
the debate on the unsuccessful attempt to amend
the NATo treaty
The amendment offered in connection with
the move to admit Greece and Turkey to NATO
was sponsored by Senator Watkins Of Utah. Had
it been passed, it would have put the Senate on
record against any commitment of American
armed forces by the President "in manner
which would necessarily involve the United
States in war"
Senator Taft lent his full support to the
amendment until it was withdrawn in the face
of certain and overwhelming defeat, But-and
this is the significant thing-he was unable to
carry even the Republican minority with him,
and he was strongly opposed by Republican Sen
ators who have been closely identified with him
in the past
The North Atlantic treaty, while obligating
the United States to aid any member nation that
is attacked, provides that such aid shall be ex-
tended in accordance with our constitutional
processes. Senator Taft was not satisfied with
this The Constitution reserves to Congress the
power to declare war, and he argued that the
Watkins amendment would reinforce and
strengthen that principle.
Senator Taft seemed to think for example,
that the President lacking the express consent
or Turkey. That, presumably, would necessarily
commit the United States to war in event of an
attack But he conceded that the President
could send air units into those countries, and
that he could station naval units in adjacent
waters The distinction seemed to be that air
and naval units could run away in event OF an
attack, and that therefore we would not be
necessarily committed to war.
Senator Knowland asked whether the Presi-
dent could send to Greece or Turkey one of the
six American divisions which, with congressional
approval, are to be stationed in Western Europe.
Senator Taft said he hadn't thought about that,
but it seemed clear that the President could do
SO without seeking any further congressional
authority. If those troops should be attacked
in Greece or Turkey, however, We would be
necessarily committed to war under the Taft
theory.
Senator Millikin wanted to know who would
decide whether given troop assignment would
necessarily involve us in war. Senator Taft said
that the President of course, would make the
decision Senator Millikin wanted to know what
formula would be used to determine whether
one troop assignment would necessarily lead to
war, while another would not. Senator Taft
said that the line is bound to be shadowy
one And so on, and so on.
The point of all this Is that finely spun
legalistic arguments, while they may be all right
in the Senate cannot be fitted into the practical
problems of opposing aggression, The North
Atlantic pact either means that the subscribing
countries will stand together and use force It
necessary to oppose aggression, or it means
nothing. Our obligations under that treaty were
assumed when the Senate ratified 1t, and the
country has accepted them. Those obligations,
assumed after the great debate" ought not to
be whitfield down by indirection. Yet that is
what the Watkins amendment would have done,
if it would have done anything. 1t is significant
that Senator Taft in making fight for it,
found himself, for the first time standing almost
alone in the Senate. The inference is that while
he may want to take action that would be or
would seem to be retreat from international
obligations which we freely assumed with our
eyes open, the rest of the Senate, including the
overwhelming majority of its Republican mem
bers, will not go along with him.