[…] In the debate on the North Atlantic Treaty, Senators focused on several issues, including: (1) whether or not the Treaty undermined congressional war powers; (2) the meaning of the article V collective defense provision in the treaty; and (3) the link between the Treaty and the Military Assistance Program (MAP) that the administration planned to seek in support of West European self defense capabilities.
When the resolution of ratification came to the Senate floor, three reservations were proposed and defeated. […]
The hearings opened with testimony from Secretary of State Dean Acheson. Secretary Acheson began by making note of the fact that the Committee on Foreign Relations and its members had been deeply involved in development of the Treaty. […]
He also emphasized that the Article V mutual defense provision in the Treaty was not an ”automatic” commitment and would be in accord with constitutional requirements. (”This naturally does not mean that the United States would automatically be at war if one of the other signatory nations were the victim of an armed attack. Under our Constitution, the Congress alone has the power to declare war. The obligation of this Government under article V would be to take promptly the action it deemed necessary to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. That decision would, of course, be taken in accordance with our constitutional procedures.”) […] Senator Bourke B. Hickenlooper (R-Iowa) asked whether or not the United States would be ”…expected to send substantial numbers of troops over there as a more or less permanent contribution to the development of those countries’ capacity to resist?” Secretary Acheson replied ”The answer to that question, Senator, is a clear and absolute `No.'” Läs dokumentet