Special Message to the Congress on the Need for a Military Aid Program.

To the Congress of the United States:

To continue and strengthen our program for world peace and national security, I recommend that the Congress enact legislation authorizing military aid to free nations to enable them to protect themselves against the threat of aggression and contribute more effectively to the collective defense of world peace.

Such legislation is an essential part of our efforts to create an international structure capable of maintaining law and order among nations. Our prosperity and security, as well as that of other free nations depend upon our success in establishing conditions of international order. Increased assurances against the danger of aggression are needed to support our international economic programs, and in particular the European Recovery Program, which are so vital to the building of a stable world.

Under the Charter of the United Nations, each member nation is bound to settle international differences by peaceful means, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territory of any country. Thus, in joining the United Nations, the nations have given their assent to the basic principles of international peace and security.

We have, however, learned the unfortunate truth that this obligation, by itself, is not sufficient at the present time to eliminate the fear of aggression and international violence. The record of world events since 1945 offers us no certainty that all members of the United Nations will uphold these principles of peace in actual practice. Indeed, there is proof to the contrary, proof that in the pursuit of selfish ends some nations have resorted and may again resort to the threat or use of force. The fear created by this experience haunts the world and creates conditions of insecurity and instability which stand in the way of economic and social progress.

To reduce this danger and to allay these fears, we have taken additional steps to reinforce the obligations of the Charter. Under the Pact of Rio de Janeiro and in the North Atlantic Treaty, we are creating a framework of mutual obligation to prevent international violence in the Western hemisphere and in the North Atlantic area. These treaties provide support for the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

Furthermore, even in the absence of such compacts, we have refused to tolerate assaults on the integrity of peace-loving nations whose conduct conforms to the principles of the Charter. We have given military as well as diplomatic aid directly to nations threatened by aggression. Through our aid to Greece and Turkey, we have recognized the fact that, if the principles of international peace are to prevail, free nations must have the means as well as the will to resist aggression.

So long as the danger of aggression exists, it is necessary to think in terms of the forces required to prevent it. It is unfortunate that this is true. We cannot, however, achieve our goal of permanent peace by ignoring the difficult and unpleasant tasks that lie in the way. We need to show the same firmness and resolution in defending the principles of peace that we have shown in enunciating them. The better prepared the free nations are to resist aggression, the less likelihood there is that they will have to use the forces they have prepared. The policemen in our communities seldom have to use their weapons, but public peace would be greatly endangered if they did not have them.

The preparation of the military means for keeping the peace is necessary not only to the security of the United States but also to building a safe and prosperous world society.

Helping free nations to acquire the means of defending themselves is an obligation of the leadership we have assumed in world affairs. Within the practical limits of our resources, we must strive to act with foresight and precision, so that our strength and the collective strength of the free peoples associated with us will be most effective.

To be effective, the aid which we supply to other nations for defending themselves must be planned ahead. It must not be wasted. It must be carefully allocated to meet the realities of our own security. Above all, it is urgent to initiate a program of aid promptly if we are not to lose the momentum already gained toward recovery and political stability.

These general requirements are given sharp emphasis by consideration of the specific cases where aid is needed. Many anxious governments have requested our military assistance. Among these requests, there can be no more meaningful appeals than those which have come from the countries of Western Europe. It is entirely logical that these governments should turn to us and that we should help them. Their defense is our defense and is of deep concern to us. Twice in one generation we have found that we had to join with them in fighting against aggressor nations in order to preserve our freedom and the freedom of other democratic countries.

The principal task of the free nations of Western Europe in the last four years has been to restore their war-shattered economies. The inherent difficulties of this task have been aggravated by the foreign policy of the Soviet Union, which has done its utmost to prevent European recovery. Full economic recovery requires peaceful conditions and the assurance that the work of labor, industry and agriculture will not be swept away in the outburst of international violence. In place of these conditions, the Soviet Union, with its violent propaganda, its manipulation of the conspiratorial activities of the world communist movement, and its maintenance of one of the largest peacetime armies in history, has deliberately created an atmosphere of fear and danger.

In the face of what has occurred in Greece, and in Berlin, in the face of the threats and pressures to which Iran and Turkey have been exposed, in the light of the suppression of human liberty in countries under communist control, the nations of Western Europe have not been able to ignore the necessity of a military defense for themselves. They have seen what the Soviet Union has done to nations for which it professed friendship and with which it was recently allied. They have observed how a communist coup d'etat, operating in the shadow of the massed military might of the Soviet Union, can overthrow, at one stroke, the democratic liberties and the political independence of a friendly nation.

As a consequence of that experience, and in the light of the fact that the two most devastating wars in history originated in Europe, they realize that they must have a shield against aggression to shelter their political institutions and the rebirth of their own economic and social life.

The nations of Western Europe have addressed themselves in all seriousness to the task of providing such a shield. In the Treaty of Brussels, five nations of Western Europe established joint measures for their own defense. In support of that treaty, they have coordinated both their defensive strategy and their plans to produce necessary military supplies.

Those five nations, together with Norway, Denmark and Italy, have undertaken annual military expenditures equivalent to about five and one-half billion dollars. This is the maximum amount they are able to spend without seriously interfering with the civilian production necessary for their economic recovery. This amount is not, however, enough to furnish these nations the protection they need. Concentrating, as they are, on restoring their economic stability, they are unable to spare the plants and the materials required to bring their defense establishments up to the necessary levels. Furthermore, there are certain items essential for their defense which they are not equipped to provide for themselves. They have, therefore, come to us with urgent requests for assistance in providing the necessary margin of arms and equipment which will make them better able to repel aggression and mitigate the anxieties of their peoples.

I recommend that we supply these countries with assistance of three types: First, a limited amount of dollar aid to enable them to increase their own production of military items without impairing their efforts for economic recovery; second, the direct transfer of certain essential items of military equipment, and third, the assistance of experts in the production and use of military equipment and the training of personnel. Such a program will enable these countries to acquire the elements necessary to their defense without hampering their recovery.

The military assistance which we propose for these countries will be limited to that which is necessary to help them create mobile defensive forces. Our objective is to see to it that these nations are equipped, in the shortest possible time, with compact and effectively trained forces capable of maintaining internal order and resisting the initial phases of external aggression.

At the present time, the military power which is the greatest deterrent to aggression is centered in the United States, three thousand miles away from Europe. It must be made clear that the United States has no intention, in the event of aggression, of allowing the peoples of Western Europe to be overrun before its own power can be brought to bear. The program of military assistance now proposed is a tangible assurance of our purpose in this regard.

Outside of Western Europe we are already engaged in a program of military assistance to Greece and Turkey. This program has been in effect since May 1947. The communist effort in Greece, in the form of a guerilla war supported from abroad, has been condemned by the General Assembly of the United Nations. Our aid to Greece has checked this attempt to overthrow the political independence of a free nation. It is important that present gains against the guerillas be maintained and that the operations be pressed to a successful conclusion. Only if this is done, can the economic reconstruction of Greece be accomplished.

In Turkey, our aid has lessened the burden of military preparedness which the threatening pressure of the Soviet Union had imposed on a primarily agrarian economy. Although the Turkish defense system has been improved, additional equipment and maintenance parts are needed for the modernization of certain Turkish defense units.

We are also confronted by the necessity of making military assistance available in other areas of the world outside Europe.

In Iran the use of surpluses of United States military equipment has aided in improving the defensive effectiveness of the Iranian Army and the maintenance of internal order. It is now necessary to provide certain additional items to round out this program, and thereby to strengthen the ability of Iran to defend its independence.

The new Republic of Korea, established as a result of free elections held under the auspices of the United Nations, is menaced by the communist regime in the northern part of the country. With the advice and assistance of the United States, the Korean Government has established a small force to protect its internal security and defend itself against outside aggression short of a full scale war. Equipment has been requested from the United States for minimum army and coast guard forces. It is essential to the survival of the Korean Republic that this assistance be made available.

In addition, it is necessary to continue our program of limited aid to the Republic of the Philippines, which was originated under the Act of June 26, 1946.

In this hemisphere we have assumed obligations of mutual defense with the other American Republics under the Pact of Rio de Janeiro. Our northern neighbor, Canada, is a party with us to the North Atlantic Treaty. It is important under the terms of these two treaties that we should assist Canada and the American Republics to establish adequate defenses properly coordinated with our own.

In view of our limited resources, it is impossible for us to assist on a grant basis all countries whose defense is related to our own. We can afford to bear the cost of military aid only with respect to those countries vital to our national security where the danger is greatest, and where the ability to pay for military equipment is least. With respect to such countries as Canada and the American Republics, therefore, I recommend that our assistance be limited to the use of the facilities of our Government to procure defense equipment for them at their own expense.

All these various requirements for military assistance should obviously be handled in a unified program, adaptable in its administration to the operation of our foreign policy.

The sum which will be needed in new appropriations for the fiscal year 1950 for all the grant programs now contemplated, together with a margin for emergencies, is approximately $1,450,000,000. The bulk of the supplies to be procured under these programs will be delivered over the next two years. Of this total $50,000,000 has recently been requested for the interim continuation of our program of military aid to Greece and Turkey under existing authorizations. New authorization will be required for $1,400,000,000.

The major portion of the total is to be devoted to the needs of the Western European nations. It is not proposed that specific sums be committed in advance to particular countries. Rather, the President should be able to make allocations as circumstances require.

The aid we provide will constitute only a minor fraction of what these countries will spend themselves. Agreements will be executed with the recipients, to provide for mutual assistance and to assure proper use of the equipment furnished. The recipient nations will be required to limit the use of the items supplied to the defense of agreed geographic areas, and will not be permitted to transfer them to other nations without the consent of the United States. The President should be authorized to terminate our aid at any time. Aid will be terminated in the event that a recipient acts in a manner inconsistent with the policies and purposes of the program or with its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations.

The recommended program covers the most pressing current needs for military aid. How long it may be necessary to continue military aid depends on many unpredictable factors. Our burden will undoubtedly lessen as our program for peace brings its returns. Advancing economic recovery will enable the free nations to sustain a larger share of the expense of their own defense measures. Progress toward a peaceful settlement of international differences will reduce the threat of violence, and lighten the cost of preparedness. Ultimately, when the peaceful principles of the United Nations are fully realized, the protection of the peace may be assigned to the security forces of that organization.

If this program of military aid is to succeed, we must prosecute it promptly and vigorously. Our policies for peace are having the desired effect. We cannot afford to lose the momentum we have already gained.

One need only look back to the situation with which we were confronted two and one-half years ago to be convinced of the rightness of our course of action. At that time the free nations of Europe were not only exposed and defenseless, but they were also caught in an economic impasse which threatened the existence of their democratic forms of government. Europe, with its great storehouse of skills and its heritage of free institutions, seemed about to disintegrate and to fall piece by piece under the sway of totalitarian control.

The fact that such a disaster has been averted should inspire us with confidence in the ultimate triumph of the cause of peace and freedom not only in Europe but elsewhere in the world.

Like the North Atlantic Treaty, this program of military aid is entirely defensive in character. By strengthening the defense establishments of the free nations, it will increase the confidence of the peoples of the world in a peaceful future and protect the growth of world recovery.

I would not suggest that this program alone will bring present international tensions to an end. It will, however, preserve the initiative which the free nations of the world now have, and help to create a world structure so firm economically and militarily as to convince any potential aggressor nation that its own welfare lies in the direction of mutual tolerance and peaceful foreign relations.

HARRY S. TRUMAN