Palais de Chaillot, Paris 13 November 1953

Press Statement by Lord Ismay The following statement was prepared for the Belgian press by Lord Ismay, Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization: Since to my great regret, my facility with French, though growing all the time, hardly permits me to make an extended statement to you, I have prepared this paper which I hope will answer some of the questions you may have in your minds and at the same time make more clear various points about the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation which are not always understood. First the constitution and powers of the North Atlantic Council. At Lisbon, a year ago last February, the NATO Ministers decided that a Council of Permanent Representatives should be established in Paris in Permanent session, with effective powers of decision. It goes without saying that each national representative can only act under authority from his Government; but the same condition applies to Ministers. Even if the Council in Paris were made up of Prime Ministers, those Prime Ministers would still have to refer to their Governments for authority to take decisions on any matters on which they had not already had instructions. The Council is not a supra-national authority, and its decisions must be unanimous. I myself have a dual role. I am Vice-Chairman of the Council and also Secretary-General of the International Staff which serve the Council. In the first capacity I preside over the meetings of the Council, except when the Chairman is present. As head of the International Staff, I see to it that the staff carry out the instructions of the Council and help them in all the ways that a staff should help. Thus it will be seen that I am not a political Eisenhower or Gruenther. I cannot speak or issue instructions on my own authority. I can only speak in the name of the Council and on the authority of the Council. It is very right that it should be so. Let me emphasise that all members of the Alliance enjoy exactly the same sovereign equality, irrespective of their size, their population, or the extent of their resources. Thus my good friend, and Belgium's extremely able and experienced Permanent Representative on the Council, M. André de Staercke, can express the Belgian point of view, and does, with precisely the same freedom and force as is enjoyed by the representatives of the other countries. The next Ministerial Meeting of the Council is to take place in Paris on December l4th to 16th inclusive. The main item on the agenda will be the Annual Review of the military requirements, and politico-economic capabilities. This is the third exercise of this sort that the NATO countries, their military advisors, and the international staff have undertaken, and although the work is not yet quite completed, I am told that it has moved ahead much more smoothly this year than in the past. I do not propose at this moment to anticipate the conclusions or findings of the Annual Review which, as you know, will be presented to the Ministers of the NATO countries for approval at the December meeting. Nor would it be proper for me at this time to go into the Agenda of this meeting, although it is obvious that a meeting of the Foreign Ministers, Defence Ministers and Economic or Finance Ministers of the member countries at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris next month will provide an opportunity for an exchange of views on many of the political, military and economic problems now confronting the Allies. I am confident that we will be able to show at this meeting very real progress in the qualitative improvement of our defensive strength and some improvement quantitatively. During the past year, we have had more than 100 joint manoeuvres of NATO forces, and there can be no question but that these are paying big dividends in welding an international force which can, if called upon, act promptly and effectively in the defence of the free world. These manoeuvres taking place on the ground, in the air, and at sea, almost continuously, provide a daily demonstration of the progress we have made in developing the essential team-work necessary for the smooth running of international forces. A visit to the NATO Defence College in Paris is a heartening experience and an encouraging proof of the progress we are making in our international cooperation. But even more important than these features I have just mentioned, is the unity which binds the l4 nations of the Atlantic Alliance together. This unity goes far deeper than was the case in the old fashioned Military Alliances. It is what happens more than anything else: that is the real answer to the threat of aggression; that is what potential enemies fear more than anything else; that is what they want to destroy more than anything else. We must be on guard against the sometimes persuasive whispers and insinuations of propagandists who seek to magnify our differences and try to drive a wedge in our unity. Nations cannot afford to stand alone to be picked off one by one. We have the eloquent evidence of countries that formerly were free, independent and important members of the Western European Community, who now have fallen under the domination and imperialistic exploitation of the Soviet. It is, of course, true that since the death of Marshal Stalin, the Soviet have shown signs of wanting to reduce the tension that so unhappily exists between the east and the west. This has led to some wishful thinking that we would now be justified in relaxing our efforts. That is certainly not the view of a single government of the North Atlantic Community. They yearn, each and every one of them, for the day when they can spend less money on armaments and more money on those things which would bring greater well-being and happiness to their peoples. They are unanimous that every effort must be made to ease the tension and that every possibility for reaching an agreement that would lead to peace must be untiringly pursued. On the other hand, they are equally unanimous that the improved prospects of peace are largely due to the very existence of the North Atlantic Treaty, to the spirit of unity that has been achieved and is ever growing, and to the exertions and sacrifices that have been made: and they have proclaimed that, as long as the fundamental threat to the security of the free world remains, it would be a mockery of all those sacrifices if they were now to relax their precautionary measures. Therefore, we must go on arming up to the limit in order to be as strong as possible as rapidly as possible, but not at the expense of national bankruptcy. We cannot afford, through excessive haste to avert the hot war, to lose the cold one. Our alliance, it cannot be too often repeated, is purely defensive. Not a ship, not a plane, not a gun will ever be used except in self-defence. And no one knows better than the Soviet General Staff that the forces we plan are of a magnitude which can never be put to offensive or aggressive purposes. I would like to make this particular point. It is a curious fact that we in the Atlantic Community are inclined to blame our own Governments, our own leaders for the sacrifices which we are making in the cause of defence, rather than to place the blame where it truly belongs. At the end of the war, we hastened to disarm, our soldiers were sent back to the farms and factories and whatever their civilian occupations were. This was true of every country in the west. In Russia, the armed forces were maintained at several times their pre-war strength. Across half of Europe, Soviet troops kept an iron grip. In 1949, Czechoslovakia was dragged behind the Iron Curtain to join Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, and the Baltic States. In April 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed. Twelve countries of the West on both sides of the Atlantic, and now augmented by G-reece and Turkey, were joined together to help prevent exploitation and imperialism. When we pay our taxes, when we undergo our military training, when we make the sacrifices which we are making to remain free, let us place the blame where it belongs, on the men in the Kremlin. We in NATO do not regard oursleves as members of merely a military alliance, planning for our immediate defence. For although security must of course get first priority (because if we go under there is no use planning for any other progress), we are acutely conscious of the fact that the Treaty makes specific mention of the non-military objectives of the signatory countries. We have agreed to work together for our common good in social, cultural, and economic matters. This work must go on, without waiting for the completion of our defence build-up. I would be dishonest if I pretended that we have as yet made much headway here, but I can assure you that this is a major preoccupation of us all. Let me conclude with this profession of my own faith. Speaking of the past, I firmly believe that if there had been no NATO, the peace would have been broken during the last three or four years. Speaking of the present, I firmly believe that if the nations who are bound together by the Treaty were to relax their vigilance or to loosen the ties that bind them, the peace would very soon be broken. Speaking of the future, I firmly believe that if we persevere, as we are doing, we will avoid the unspeakable horrors of a Third World War.