Radio talk on the BBC

I am speaking tonight, not as an Englishman, but as an international servant of the fourteen countries which are linked together by the North Atlantic Treaty. I hope that I am being heard by many men and women in those countries, because I am convinced that, if the Alliance is to prosper, it must have the personal understanding and support of the citizens of the North Atlantic Community.

When I am asked: "What is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?", I am tempted to answer: "It is a great adventure. It is perhaps the most challenging nad most constructive experiment in international relations that has ever been attempted. It is undoubtedly our best chance of preventing the measureless catastrophe of a third world war."

But obviously I must be more specific than that. The best definition of NATO that I can give you in a few words is that it is the organisation that has been set up to ensure that the fourteen partners to the Treaty think together and act together in political, military, economic, social, cultural and other matters: in fact, to ensure that it is a true and thorough partnership. The fourteen partners are (I give them in alphabetical order): Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Now let me explain why these countries have bound themselves together by a treaty. At the end of the Second World War the democracies, hoping and believing that the United Nations would prove an effective instrument for peace, disarmed as fast as they could. Soviet Russia did nothing of the sort. They maintained their armed strength at wartime level. They launched a world-wide campaign of lies and hatred against the free world. They turned the proceedings of the United Nations into a farce by the use of the veto. They brought under their control, one by one, the countries of Eastern Europe. The democracies realised that unless something were done, it was only a matter of time before the countries of Western Europe also were overrun. What was to be done? How was the balance of power to be restored? No single nation could do this alone. It could be done only by combining. That is why the North Atlantic Treaty was conceived. It was signed about 4½ years ago.

By the terms of the Treaty, the partners have agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them shall be considered as an attack against them all. Just think what that means. It means that the United States of America have abandoned their historic isolationism from the affairs of Europe. It means that several other countries have abandoned their age-long policy of neutrality. It means that no future aggressor will be able to gobble up his victims one by one as Hitler did. "One by one" - that was the deadly technique.

But, of course, a promise to stand together in the event of trouble would by itself have been just a brave gesture unless it were backed by armed strength. With that in mind, the partners to the Treaty have pledged themselves to develop their individual and collective capacity - I repeat collective capacity - to resist armed attack. True to that pledge, every single member of the Alliance has spent progressively more money on defence each year since the Treaty was signed. Powerful American, Canadian and United Kingdom forces are already on the Continent, standing on guard alongside their European allies.

But let there be no mistake about our purpose. The military strength at which we aim is the barest minimum for defence. Their neither is, nor ever will be, any margin whatsoever for aggression of any kind on our part. If it were otherwise, is it likely that a powerful peace-loving body like the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions would have solemnly pledged their determination - and here I quote - "to support the efforts of the free nations to strengthen their defences in order to stave off aggression."

Is it not almost intolerable that, after the sufferings and appalling waste of two world wars, the free world should have to continue to spend money on armaments at the expense of those things which would bring well-being and happiness to their peoples? But at least let us be clear on this point. No nation is called upon to make a greater contribution to the collective strength of the Alliance than its national economy can afford.

Because I have dwelt so much on the subject of armed strength, it must not be thought that the North Atlantic Treaty is a military alliance of the old-fashioned sort. Far from it. The purpose of the Treaty is not only immediate defence but also enduring progress; and it is, as I have already said, implicit in the terms of the Treaty that the North Atlantic Community should develop into a true family of nations, thinking together, acting together, and helping each other over the whole field of international relations.

Let me now turn to the constitution and functions of the organization, and explain how it is directed.

The controlling authority is the North Atlantic Council. This is a Council of Governments, each of which may be represented at the Council table by any Minister or Ministers that they wish. Since, however, Ministers have got their own jobs to do in their own countries, they can only be assembled together on comparatively rare occasions - say twice or thrice a year. Consequently, each Government has a Permanent Representative in Paris, the Headquarters of NATO, with full authority to speak for his Government. This arrangement enables the work of the Council to be carried on continuously from day to day. It also enables the Council to be summoned at a moment's notice in the event of an emergency.

It is not always realised that the Council has no supra-national powers. All its decisions must be unanimous and have the agreement of all the partners. Nor is there any question of big or small countries, rich or poor countries, powerful and weak countries. Any one of the fourteen is at liberty to oppose a decision which it considers to be contrary to its national interest. This means that on controversial questions there has to be a good deal of discussion, and a good deal of give and take, before unanimity is reached. But, to the best of my knowledge, there has never been any conflict of serious proportions on any important question which has not been ultimately resolved. The reason is simple. The ideals and interests of all the partners are fundamentally identical.

As for the functions of the Council, I can, of course, only mention a few in the time available. Perhaps its most important service is that it provides a forum where political questions affecting the North Atlantic area can be thrashed out. It also enables those member Governments who have responsabilities outside that area to keep their friends informed of what is happening. For example, Indo-China is not within the North Atlantic area, but events there are of great moment to all the North Atlantic Community: for, if once the flood gates were opened to Communism in any part of the world, no man knows where the waters would reach.

I do not wish to anticipate the talks you are going to hear from some of NATO's most distinguished military leaders, but I will try to explain very briefly the relations between the North Atlantic Council and the military authorities.

It is the duty of the Council first to give political guidance to the military; secondly to provide them, so far as is possible, with the men, equipment, and so forth, which they require to discharge their responsibilities; and thirdly to support and sustain them in every way that is possible. It is, for example, the business of the Council to see that the morale of the civilian populations is maintained at a high level. The skill of the commander, the valour of his men, the excellence of equipment, will avail nothing if the home front cracks. High morale is based on knowledge. It is therefore the business of the Council to ensure that all their citizens understand the reasons for the exertions and sacrifices demanded of them.

Then again, there is the question of civil defence. The military commanders cannot be expected to look after what I may call the back areas. Therefore it is the business of the Council to see that the civil defence arrangements in all member countries are not only effective in themselves, but also coordinated the one with the other.

Let me conclude. I am convinced that the North Atlantic Treaty has already made a vital contribution to the preservation of our freedom and our way of life, and that it continues to provide the best - if not the only - hope of peace. I believe that we are on the right road and that we are gaining each day, not only in armed strength, but in unity and purpose. I am positive that, in spite of the signs that the Soviets have shown of wishing to ease the tension that unhappily exists between the East and West, the menace remains undiminished and mortal, and that it would be a mockery of all the exertions and sacrifices that have been made if the alliance were now to relax their precautions. That, of course, does not mean that we must not all do our outmost to reduce the tension.

I fear that the Soviet for their part will continue to do their utmost to disrupt our unity, and that exertions and sacrifices and unceasing vigilance will continue to be demanded from us all for some time. Nevertheless, when we look back upon the carnage of the two world wars, the millions upon millions of treasure that were poured out, the misery and the agony and the waste, can anyone doubt that the premium we are paying, each according to his capacity, to ensure against a third - and far more terrible - catastrophe, is very cheap at the price?