Address to the International Civil Service Training Organization 27 October 1956

"The Current Problems of NATO" Address by Lord Ismay Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, The tilte of my talk is "The Current Problems of NATO". We are not short of problems. I can assure you that we have plenty of them. But if I try to deal with all of them, we would be here all night. So I shall just select two or three of the most important and which have the greatest interest at the present time. The fundamental problem of NATO is exactly the same as it was when the North Atlantic Treaty was signed 7½ years ago. The position at that time was that the Soviet had dominated one by one all the countries of Eastern Europe; and, as General Gruenther said, the only thing they needed to dominate the countries of Western Europea also was shoes. That was the problem that faced the Western democracies. It can be stated very simply: How were we going to safeguard our freedom? How were we going to preserve the peace? The answer they gave is well known. They said: "Let us band together, let us pledge ourselves to regard an attack upon one of us as an attack upon us all. Let us pledge ourselves tu build up our collective capacity to resist aggression. And let us pledge ourselves to co-operate in the political, economic, social and cultural fields, as well as in the military field". All those pledges were enshrined in the North Atlantic Treaty: and it was to implement those pledges that NATO was set up. Seven and a half years have elapsed since the Treaty was signed. In that period we have been through pretty rough times in NATO, and have been subjected to a lot of criticism which I am sure we have deserved. But we have, on the whole, proved one of the most successful international organizations that there has ever been set up. Why? Because we have so far achieved our object. We have preserved the peace, and not a square inch of territory in Europe has fallen under Russian domination since the Treaty was signed. A shield has been built up. This is not as strong as a lot of us would like; but ut's a pretty good deterrent to aggression and it would certainly give a good account of itself if any nation were so wicked, or so foolish, as to attempt aggression. And, above all, we have built up a degree of unity among ourselves which would have been thought impossible seven or eight years ago. Take the North Atlantic Council for example. I like to think of them, not as fifteen Ministers, of fifteen Ambassadors, sitting around a table, each pressing their own national point of view. I look on them as a Board of Trustees working jointly together for the cause to which they are dedicated without reference to national interest. And, Ladies and Gentlemen, if you go upstairs (you won't find them this afternoon because it is a Saturday) on most days, you will find a staff of fifteen different nations working together, and you would be struck by the unity and the team spirit with which they work. It is therefore fair to say that we have achieved our objective. But our very success has brought a lot of new problems and new difficulties in its train. The Soviet have always disliked NATO. They dislike and fear the unity which it represents. They tried to stop the North Atlantic Treaty being signed in the first place. They tried to stop Turkey and Greece coming in in 1951, and they did their utmost to stop Germany coming in 1954. They failed. I believe it's largely due to that failure that they have now changed their tactics. We see the smile instead of the frown. We see them travelling about on goodwill visits all over the world instead of remaining isolated in the Kremlin as they used to. We see them, or rather hear them, saying that Stalin was the most awful tyrant, and that all the dreadful things that happened in the past were Stalin's fault. And we have seen them liberalize, or start a more liberal policy, not only in Soviet Russia, but also in the Satellites. They talk about disarmament. They say, "We have reduced one million two hundred thousand men". I don't want to be cynical, but I would remind you, that the Western democracies reduced their armies immediately the war stopped, and I would also point out that those 1,200,000 men are needed in agriculture and in the industries, and that they will do far more for the potential military strength of Russia serving in those spheres than they will walking about in khaki at Kiev or wherever they happen to be. The Soviet leaders talk a great deal about peaceful coexistence, relaxation of tension. If only we could believe all this! I don't believe we ought to be too cynical - we ought never to shrink from anything that will bring an accomodation between the West and the East - but we mustn't jump the conclusions without good reason. Are we justified in thinking that this is a change of heart, and not a change of tactics? As to this, may I make a few comments? First of all, the rulers of the Kremlin themselves say with their own lips that world domination remains their ambition and their ideology. Secondly, that the Iron Curtain is still there, almost as rigid as ever, preventing the people from this side circulating freely in Russia and preventing the Russian people coming over here and seeing how free men live. To me personally, that is one of the most sinister features in the present situation. I believe that we are engaged in a battle for the minds of men. And I have no doubt that if we could circulate freely in each other's countries we could win that battle. Finally, what is to prevent the Soviet changing their tactics overnight? They have no Parliament to restrain them: they have no free press, they have no public opinion. So it would be the height of folly to assume that this was a change, a real change, of heart. All the same, it has had a great effect on some people in the NATO countries. Isn't it only natural that people who have been subjected to strains and restrictions - as most of our people have - should be tempted to indulge in a little wishful thinking! They long for the day when they can spend theur money on happiness, contentment and prosperity of peoples, and not on armaments and unprofitable things like that. They yearn passionately for peace. Above all the fear that brought us together - because let's be quite frank about that, it was fear that brought us together in the first instance - the fear has receded. Anyone can see that the fear of an immediate attack is far less than it was. Thus there is a temptation to say: "Need we go on like this? Is NATO longer necessary?" That reminds me of the story of a village in the mountains, with a twisty road running through it. At one corner there was a very steep cliff. There were a lot of nasty accidents there. So, they built a high wall. A visitor who saw the wall being built was very relieved. It seemed very good precaution. But when he came back eight years later, the wall had been allowed to crumble, and had practically disappeared. So he asked a villager: "What has happened?" The villager said: "Weel, nothing has happened. There were no accidents, so we thought the wall was unnecessary." I have told you some of our main difficulties. We have many others. But the point which I would like to leave with you is this: that because we are going through a difficult patch in NATO, ther is no reason for despondency at all. On the contrary, there is every reason for vigilance, every reason for continued exertion, every reason for continued unity. And I feel absolutely sure that if only we can have hope in each other's future, faith in each other's purpose and tolerance towards each other's shortcomings, we shall not only save our children and our children's children from the unspeakable horrors of a third World War, but we will make life kinder and happier and safer for all the peoples of the world.