IX The North Atlantic Treaty Organization

IX The North Atlantic Treaty Organization Background and Purpose. In November 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was established in accordance with the articles of the North Atlantic Treaty, for which the negotiations were concluded on March 15, 1949 and which became effective in August 1949. The sole purpose of the treaty, as indicated in the Preamble, is to safeguard peace and security through combined efforts of the member states. "The Parties to this Treaty," reads the Preamble, "reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments. They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage, and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area. They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defense and for the preservation of peace and security." 1 In Article 1 the Parties indicate their desire to settle international disputes in which they may be involved according to the provisions of the United Nations Charter, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Article 2 reflects the desire of the member states to contribute toward peaceful and friendly relations "by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being." The Parties also pledge to seek "to eliminate conflict 1 Department of State, Bulletin, March 20, 1949, pp. 339-342.

274 THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION 275 in their international economic policies and to encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them." In Europe the way was prepared for the Treaty by the Brussels Pact of March 1948 which provided automatic military and other assistance in the event of armed attack upon the member states Britain, France, and the Benelux nations. In the United States the way was prepared by the Senate's adoption on June 11, 1948, of a resolution proposed by Senator Arthur Vandenberg favoring the development of regional and other collective arrangements for individual and collective selfdefense. After the passage of this resolution, discussions were held in Washington between the United States, Canada, and the members of the Western Union on a treaty of collective security for the North Atlantic area. In addition to these seven states, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway were later invited to the formal negotiations leading up to the Atlantic Pact. The treaty was signed on April 4, 1949.

Mutual Aid. Article 3 provides that "the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack." According to the interpretation of Dean Acheson, who then was U. S. Secretary of State, this article means that "no party can rely on others for its defense unless it does its utmost for its own defense as well as for collective defense." This provision includes the general obligation of determined selfdefense and mutual aid wherever it is deemed feasible. According to this official interpretation, mutual aid is defined as such aid by each party "as it reasonably can give, consistent with its geographic location and resources and with due regard to the requirements of basic economic health. . . ." 2 This provision does not create any obligation to make specific contributions. Each party gives what it can.

Consultation in Case of Threat. According to Article 4 of the Treaty, "the Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened." Let us especially note the use of the word "threat" in this connection. The provision is not confined to threats arising from foreign aggression, but may be interpreted to include threats to political independence or domestic security arising from internal uprisings and attempts to overthrow 2 Report of the Secretary of State to the President, April 7, 1949, Department of State Bulletin, April 24, 1949, p. 532.

276 STEPS TOWARD UNION a member government. There is to be consultation in the event of domestic as well as foreign "threats." Collective Defense in the Event of Armed Attack. In Article 5 "the Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective selfdefense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security." This provision approaches the problem of armed attack very simply. It does not enter into a complicated definition of provocation and responsibility. The simple fact of armed attackprovoked or unprovoked—suffices to bring the defense provision into effect.

No Time Limit. The North Atlantic Treaty has no time limit. However, it does provide that after twenty years any member state may withdraw after one year's notice. After ten years the parties may consult together for the purpose of reviewing it (Art. 12). Organization. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded by the governments of twelve countries: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In February 1952, two other countries, Greece and Turkey, acceded after having been invited to sign the treaty. NATO's principal body is the North Atlantic Council, which is responsible for the execution of the provisions of the Treaty and is in permanent session in Paris, France. Its permanent delegates are representatives of the member governments on the Council, and its chairmanship is rotated annually among the Foreign Ministers of the member governments. Special assistance to the Council is provided by an integral international secretariat whose chairman is also the vice chairman of the NATO Council and who presides in the absence of the chairman. Other functions of the Council are concerned with defense expenditures, economic and financial resources, and financial arrangements for transferred military equipTHE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION 277 ment, supplies, and production tools. The Council has also been charged with the duty of stimulating the production and facilitating the distribution of military equipment and supplies. Finally, permanent or temporary committees have been established to assist the Council in fulfilling its broad responsibilities.

The military supreme command of NATO consists of the "Military Committee' and the two groups directly responsible to it, a "Standing Group" and a "Military Representatives Committee." The Military Committee consists of the Chiefs of Staff of the NATO members, meets periodically, and is responsible for directing military measures and efforts for the defense of the North Atlantic area. It also provides general policy guidance to the Standing Group which is composed of one military representative from each of the United States, United Kingdom, and France. This Standing Group is the executive arm of the Military Committee and is in permanent session in Washington, D. C. It is authorized to instruct and guide the various NATO commands on military matters. The Military Representatives Committee is also in permanent session in Washington and may provide general policy guidance to the Standing Group when the Military Committee is not in session.

There are two major NATO commands presently in existence. One covers Europe, and the other the Atlantic Ocean area. Furthermore, a planning group for Canada and the United States, as well as a Channel and Southern North Sea Command, was set up. The European Command (SHAPE), the supreme headquarters of which are in Paris, France, acts under the general direction of the Standing Group and directs the defense of the Allied countries in continental Europe. The Supreme Allied Commander in Europe would, in case of war, direct all land, sea, and air operations in Europe. In particular, he would direct three subordinate commands: Central Europe, Northern Europe, and Southern Europe. The Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, acting under the general direction of the Standing Group, is responsible for the defense of the Atlantic Ocean area. His headquarters presently are at Norfolk, Virginia.3 Mind and Peace. To protect us from armed attack and armed revolution and to promote the peace and security of the North Atlantic area are the purposes of the Pact. Through an advance proclamation of a common intent to resist aggression the signatories of the Treaty hope to preserve peace and security. This, of course, presumes that there are armed might and strength with which an ag3 U. S. Government Printing Office, O-1953, Regional Organizations, pp. 21 etc.

278 STEPS TOWARD UNION gressor can be repelled. It also presumes that collective defense leads to an increase of common strength. Inasmuch as these presumptions are not yet fact, but need to be realized, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization undertakes to enhance the common strength through rearmament and industrial mobilization and preparedness. In essence, then, the Pact deals with the problem of the extent to which defensive forces should and can be raised. It deals with armed might—with material and manpower, tanks and airplanes, ammunition and firepower, etc. Let us not underestimate the importance of such preparedness. But there is still another aspect of American and European security that is far more important than the preparedness expressed in the number of men and horsepowers. This is the strength of spirit and ideas which cause us to act. Armed might cannot ultimately be depended upon if our minds disdain the spirit and ideas of selfdefense. Rulers and nations who have rejected this fundamental principle of human action have fallen before the assault of their enemies. And we, as well as they, must finally fall if our minds embrace the spirit and ideas of weakness and selfdestruction.

The communist menace to world peace stems from the aggressive character of its ideology which animates the minds of many millions of people throughout the world. As men act according to their political and social ideas, hundreds of millions submit their actions to plans and orders of communist leaders for the realization of communism without hesitation and of their own accord. On the other hand, the free world is determined to safeguard its freedom because it rejects the ideology of communism and Soviet socialism as leading to the enslavement and poverty of the individual. As the world's public opinion is thus ideologically divided, anarchy emerges, bringing with it the danger of revolutions and war. The only conceivable solution to this state of ideological anarchy and danger to world peace lies in the conversion of the adherents of communism to the ideology of individual freedom and democracy. There can and will be peace if the communists should abandon their ideas of central planning, public ownership of the means of production, and government of the proletariat ruled by the central planners in Moscow.

On the other hand, if all the world were communist, numerous causes for world conflict would continue to exist. The ideology of individual liberty is the only conceivable road to lasting peace and security. Whoever desires and strives for their realization must ultimately strive for conversion of human minds to the love of and respect for liberty.

THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION 279 If the free world with its way of life is to be conserved, its ideas and ideologies must be conserved. The foundations of our civilization, the freedom and dignity of the individual and his right to property, must be preserved through steadfastly living and promoting the world view and ideology that further such freedoms. Perhaps then we can win the followers of communism to an understanding and acceptance of our ideas and in that way win the freedom and peace we all strive for. A most important aid in this conversion is a thorough exposure of the ideological fallacies of communism and its inevitable ultimate effects as well as a clear and logical presentation of the free world's ideology. This is not a task for our armies, but for our philosophers and economists. This brings us to some crucial questions. Are our philosophers and economists in the position to meet the ideological challenge of communism? Are they prepared to explode the fallacies of communist doctrines and defend the liberal principles of liberty and peace? Are they in the position to spread the ideology of freedom and dignity of the individual and his freedom to pursue happiness?

Sadly but truthfully we must answer this question in the negative. Most of our thinkers and leaders have long since discarded liberal philosophy and substituted the socialist ideology of central planning, public ownership or control of the means of production, and government omnipotence of the majority over the individual. They are supported by a great number of poets, novelists, and writers who in turn enjoy enormous popularity with most of our intellectuals. But how can we meet the ideological challenge of communism if our own philosophers and economists and the public opinion of the "free world" embrace the fundamental ideas of communism? Whoever accepts the ideological foundations of communism as the standard of his own thought and action is not in a position to refute the Soviet Russian contentions as to the nature of the political and economic world. So we see the ideology of this civilization in retreat. Certain fundamental freedoms of the individual have fallen, numerous economic freedoms have been abolished, and in some countries of the "free world" political liberties and bills of individual rights have become empty and meaningless. The ideology of control has been substituted for that of individual freedom.

The hopeless position of the free world in the realm of ideological communication leaves us with one dubious means of defense. The only way open to us for the repulse of Russian communism is to defeat Soviet Russia in war in the event she attacks. And yet, even 280 STEPS TOWARD UNION victories on battlefields may become belatedly lost to the vanquished through the superior force of his ideology. Unprepared as we are in spirit and mind, we must thus ready our arms for the defense of our civilization which our prevailing ideas are unable to defend. Mind and Armed Might. The defense of our civilization on fields of battle is subject to the same supposition as its defense in the clash of ideas. The value of an army depends on arms and equipment and, above all, on the readiness of the thousands of soldiers comprising the army to fight and risk their lives for its cause, whatever it may be. Brilliant and heroic fighting is the outcome of an attitude of the soldiers animated with the will to stake their lives rather than to surrender. Poor fighting, on the other hand, or the refusal to fight stem from the soldiers' conviction of the uselessness of the fight or its unworthiness. Man's ways of fighting, like all other ways of human action, are determined by the set of ideas that animate him.

This brings us to the most important question: Are the millions of soldiers who comprise the armies of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization animated with the will to fight for the defense of our civilization from communist onslaught? I ask the reader to form his answer to this question after the following consideration. The armies of several member states of NATO consist of millions of men who are professed members of communist party organizations, who vote communist party tickets, and who strive for the realization of communism in their own countries. It is fair to assume that 30 to 40 per cent of all soldiers of the French and Italian armies are communists. Several more millions are communist sympathizers or radical socialists who might, at any time, find conversion to communism agreeable and convenient. Now can you imagine these men risking their lives on the day of decision on the battlefield for the defense of a system which they themselves despise? Can you imagine these men repulsing the onslaught of communist soldiers whom they consider class comrades and liberators? Or will they rather surrender than fight?

Europe and Its Own Defense. In the event of war between Russia and the Allied Nations, Russia in all likelihood will launch a major offensive in Central Europe in order to avoid facing a serious attack from the West. The choice open to the leaders of Soviet Russia is simple—either Russian armies attack and attempt to occupy the European continent, or Russia must be prepared to face an offensive by Allied armies. In any case, Central Europe will be THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION 281 the theater of major operations in the event of war between East and West. This has even been so in the past. Not less than three times in modern history has Russia been invaded by enemy armies coming from Central Europe. Napoleon, in 1813, reached Moscow with his French and allied armies, but was finally defeated by a malicious Russian climate. In 1917, German and Austrian-Hungarian armies penetrated deep into Russia, defeating the Russian armies and forcing her government to surrender. In 1941, German armies again invaded Russia and probably would have defeated her if it had not been for the help of the United States and the opening of the second front in the west. All three invasions show that Russia is vulnerable to invasions coming from Central Europe.

But not only will these considerations of defense lead Soviet Russia to wage a major war in Central Europe, but also the economic and military advantages connected with a Russian occupation of the European continent will probably induce the Russian government to launch a major offensive in Central Europe. This is the strategic situation which the European nations will be facing in case of war. Now, what are European governments presently doing to maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack? It is interesting to observe the European preparations of selfdefense in this perhaps gravest crisis of Europe and its civilization. Henry Hazlitt gives an excellent description of European defense preparations in a comparison of European defense efforts with those of the United States.4 "The United States," says Hazlitt, "is spending on national defense more than four times as much absolutely as ten of its European beneficiaries combined (some $53,200,000,000 against a total of $11,800,000,000). It is also spending much more relatively—15 percent of its gross national product (total value of goods and services produced) against an average of 7 percent for the ten beneficiaries."

Hazlitt then offers the following table on the 1953 armament expenditures of the NATO member states as compared with their total central-government expenditures and their gross national product. While the government of the United States is spending some 70% of its total budget on defense, the European governments are spending on the average some 30% of the budgets on defense and some 70% on nondefense items such as deficits on their nationalized 4 "Why Doesn't Europe Aid Itself?" Newsweek, June 15, 1953.

282 STEPS TOWARD UNION DEFENSE EXPENDITURES Percentage of Total Percentage of Central-Government Gross National Country Expenditures Product Belgium-Luxembourg 23.6 6.3 Denmark 24.2 3.5 France 37.6 11.2 Greece 39.0 8.5 Italy 26.4 5.8 Netherlands 23.3 6.2 Norway 26.5 5.0 Portugal 35.5 5.0 Turkey 40.8 6.5 United Kingdom 37.2 12.0 United States 71.3 15.0 industries, overexpanded social-security programs, subsidies to government-controlled industries, and other "welfare programs." It would be logical to assume that the 30% of expenditures for defense are considered sufficient to repel the eventual Russian onslaught on the European continent and that the high percentage of nondefense items can be maintained because of an indubitable safety of Europe. However, when all the facts are analyzed, such an assumption must be seen to be fallacious. The truth is that the European governments consider their domestic "welfare" and nationalization programs more urgent and important than their defense from Soviet Russian dangers. The insufficiency of European defense preparations is openly admitted by the European governments; they do not even hesitate to ask the United States, which is spending some 71% of total expenditures on defense, to contribute generously to European defense. The United States indeed is contributing some $4,200,000,000 a year to their defense. "Why can't they, instead, take this out of their nondefense expenditures?" asks H. Hazlitt.

The ten NATO countries "spend altogether a modest $11,800,000,000 on defense and some $34,200,000,000 on nondefense." The answer is obvious. "Social successes" and "progress" are considered more important than selfdefense. As to the ultimate effect of the European preference of "welfare" and socialism over defense, no further comment is necessary. But this picture of European willingness and preparedness for selfdefense as described by Henry Hazlitt is even darker in reality. Only total central-government expenditures are compared with expenditures for defense. It would be fair to take into consideration THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION 283 total government expenditures which include not only those by the central government, but also those of state and local governments and other public authorities. A comparison of total government spending on all levels of government with total defense spending would reveal an even larger ratio being spent in favor of welfare and socialist programs.

As has been pointed out repeatedly at other places, the European nations as well as all other nations have a choice: either they may choose the libertarian road of freedom or they may take the welfare or socialist road which will lead them to ultimate selfdestruction. The defense and welfare expenditures by the European governments are irrefutable proof that the nations of Europe prefer and have chosen the latter.