Stanford University, USA October 1957

Speech made by the Secretary General, Chairman of the North Atlantic Council, H.E. M. Paul-Henri Spaak, to the students of Stanford University during his visit to the United States Dean Spaeth, my friends, Nothing is more moving for a man of my age than addressing an audience of young people such as this one,It is in circumstances such as these that we feel our responsibility most, because it is for you that we are working and, in the end, it is by you that we shall be judged. My political philosophy, if I may say so is very simple. I believe in few things, but I believe in them firmly. I believe we must do everything to preserve peace. But I also believe that it is better to fight than to accept enslavement, and the enslavement of which I speak is, above all, the enslavement of the mind. I believe that it is not the frontiers of geography but the frontiers of moral values which divide the world. I believe that all those who think the same way throughout the world must unite to defend their way of life, those great conceptions of democracy, freedom, social justice and respect for the individual. I believe that to wage this struggle the West must stand together. That is why I am devoting all my efforts to achieving both a united Europe and a powerful Atlantic Alliance. Having thus summed up my convictions, I would like to give you my opinion regarding some problems which should, I believe, to-day deserve our attention. First of all I would like to tell you the reasons which allow us to hope that a third world war will not take place and to describe the true nature of our struggle against communism. There are two essential reasons which allow me to be optimistic. Firstly, I think the conditions of modern warfare o today are entirely novel, and that any comparison with the birth of the crossbow or of gunpowder is invalid. Ever since I was very young I have in the course of my life come across people who spoke in a manner which always disturbed me terribly. They were the people who used to say: ''Men will always fight one another because men have always fought one another.'' When I was I8 and heard "experienced people'' saying that, I was terribly unhappy because this was such a pessimistic, desperate statement on mankind' s future and destiny. Today when I hear people advancing opinions like that my feelings are still hurt profoundly by this reasoning which is so simple as to be facile. The history of the world and its wars is not explained by this phrase Men have always fought one another and always will fight one another.'' One must ask one's self why men have always fought one another. And I think there is an answer, and a relatively simple answer to be found to this essential question, and that is that always, at least one of the two camps, and sometimes both, believed that it was going to be victorious, and that the military victory would leave them, their people, their group better off. It was the idea of possible victory which made war possible And so, there is one thing we ought to be very well aware of, and fortunately I think that the most important statesmen are, and that is that the expression "military victory" should be blotted out of our vocabulary when it comes to a third world war in which atomic weapons might be used. There is no statesman today who can imagine for an instant that, if he were to drag his country into a third world war in which atomic weapons were used, the problems that he would have to resolve after the end of this war, would be easier than those facing him today, and that the destiny of the group he represents and whose interests he is defending, would by better assured. I do not know if a third world war would be the end of humanity and of civilisation, but I do know that it would cause the respective adversaries to suffer blows so wounding and so deep that it would require tens and perhaps hundreds of years for the world to recover an even partial equilibrium. From the moment when the expression "military victory" is struck from among those phrases which have any meaning, the very idea of war is transformed. But I believe that there is another reason which should inspire us with confidence. This is the special ideology of the Communists. When I speak of aggression, I naturally speak of the Communists because for me there are no problems from the Western point of view. There are no problems from the Western point of view because I am deeply convinced that the Atlantic Alliance is purely defensive, and that there can be no question at any time of the peoples of the Atlantic Alliance declaring war on Soviet Russia, on the Communist World, and of trying to destroy them by force. I therefore speak only of the Communists and, if they do not have the same ideology and certainly not the same respect for peoples and individuals as ourselves, they nevertheless have other ideological characteristics of which we cannot afford to lose sight. And I believe that one of the most important points at the present time in the sphere of international politics is that Marxism (no matter how badly interpreted) accentuates the mechanical and fatalistic character of events. I am convinced that V. Krushchev believes, as he never ceases daily to repeat, that in fact Communism is carried along by the force of history. He believes, and this conforms with the tradition and the ideology of Communism, that the world which they call "Capitalist" and which we shall rather call the "Western" world is a world condemned, however great may be the efforts which it may make to resolve its problems. M. Krushchev indeed announces daily that Communism is the future. For those whom he disquiets, M. Krushchev the merit of speaking a great deal but of speaking, we are bound to admit, with an extreme simplicity which I, for my part, believe to be derived from his own convictions. Let us take his speeches as they stand. When M. Krushchev says: ;"I have this certainty, that in a few years Communism will have triumphed throughout the globe'', and when he says, addressing Americans on television (which by the way was a remarkable demonstration of a great freedom and of openness of mind on the part of Americans),when Krushchev addresses Americans for a whole half-hour saying. "In 50 years your grandchildren will ask themselves how you could have been so stupid as to fail to rally to the banner of Communism when it is evident that Communism represents history and the future," on such occasions, I believe, that M. Krushchev is merely saying what he really believes. The Soviet rulers do not have a short term policy (Krushchev and Stalin have shown this clearly enough), rather they look far ahead and have the habit of planning and of patient waiting. Would a man who feels himself to be carried by the current of history and who is convinced that the day of his triumph will come risk all this in a third world war with the United States of America, an atomic world war in which he can be sure that however hard may be the knocks which he would administer, the measures of reprisal would be terrible for his country? What makes you think that he would risk all that? I, therefore, believe quite sincerely both by reason of the very existence of the atomic bomb ana by reason of Communist doctrine itself, that we must not continue to live under the impression that the Communists are systematically preparing the third world war. This does not mean that they are not doing all in their power to hasten this ''process of history". Nor does it mean that they remain indifferent and impassive to historical events; on the contrary, each time that there appears in the world, or in any corner of it, a problem which is difficult, you can be sure that you will find the Communists there to render the problem still more difficult, This explains what they have done in Iran, in Greece, in Berlin, in Korea and what they are at present doing in the Middle East; all this is designed to accelerate the process of difficulties and decadence in the Western World, in other words, to do everything short of provoking the third world war. And when indeed, in the various corners of the world which I have just listed, we saw the Western nations suddenly stiffen and give to understand that Communist action had gone far enough and that if it went further the Kremlin risked creating precisely what it wanted to avoid, we have generally seen them put a sudden halt to their actions. Then, a few months later, they can be seen carrying their action to some other corner of the world where some new difficulty has developed. If my theory is correct, we are safe for the foreseeable future, provided always of course that we remain strong, for wo must not lead them into temptation. Provided that we remain strong the third world war can no doubt be avoided. But the battle will take place and it will take place on the chosen territory proclaimed by M. Krushchev. Once again let us take things literally. In his interview on American television, to which I listened, not once but ten times did he return to the same idea; In a few years he said; the Communist economy will bear comparison in its results with the economy of the U.S.A. and we shall have demonstrated that our social standards in Russia and in the Communist world will be superior to those of the west. Here too, I believe M. Krushchev to be sincere and that this is really what he wants and what he is going to try and do. But it is also a territory upon which I have always felt that he could be defeated and upon which I am now convinced that he can be defeated. And we must take up this economic and social challenge, just as we have already taken up the military challenge. There is no reason why we should not be victors in the economic and social struggle just as we have been in the military sphere. Because, after all, things now seem to be much clearer and the curtain which had closed the Communist world to our view has been partly raised over Poland and Hungary. We no longer have to depend, in order to judge the economic and social situations of these countries, solely upon the speeches and accounts of passing travelers; we now have the cry of revolt of the Hungarian people and of the Polish people themselves, a cry of revolt showing us the bankruptcy of a political and ideological system already long since known to us. At one time we were under the illusion that from the economic and social point of view Communists were perhaps capable of achieving as much as we. How we know the truth, because the experience of Hungary and Poland has shown us that from the economic and social point of view communism leads, not only to a political set-back, but, what is perhaps more important, also to an economic and social set-back. Today I believe that we are on the right path and that we can say so. I believe that the Western World, not the "'capitalist"' world as it is still seen by M. Krushchev, from his readings of Marx, but the capitalist world such as we known it, (which has evolved considerably and which represents a "directed capitalism'' and a social one). This world may claim to state that our regime of political democracy and social and directed capitalism is infinitely superior to Communist totalitarianism and state capitalism. And believe me; the Russians' success in launching their artificial satellite in no way modifies the views I have just expressed. Of course the Russians are capable of achieving great scientific successes and making great discoveries, but I think that it is easier, by devoting the men and the money to these ends, to make great discoveries, than to give men and women the shoes, the homes and material comforts they need. In this struggle, as I have already emphasized, we must remain strong. This is why we must maintain and develop the Atlantic Alliance and we must know exactly why and how we can ensure this. I shall have to repeat quite a few things which are well known, or at least ought all to be well-known and are basic. They are basic because they are continually being disputed by one part of the world - the Communist part - and even by a certain number of Western people. NATO as at present constituted is essentially a military organization. It has its limitations and deficiencies which are Self-evident. Its existence has to be justified and explained. Our opponents accuse us of having set up a bloc, an "aggressive'' bloc they add. To such an accusation I have this to say in reply - if it is true that the Atlantic Alliance represents a bloc, it is the Communist world which is responsible for bloc-politics. Secondly it is utterly untrue that we are an ''aggressive'' bloc. After the Second World War the great powers of the West wanted to formulate and conduct their foreign policies on two bases: first, upon the maintenance of their alliance with the Soviet Union and secondly, on the United Nations. I am quite certain that to maintain this alliance with Soviet Russia the great powers of the West did not allow the idea of a United Europe to take shape from 1944 or 1945 as they should have done, and the delay of several years, moreover, severely prejudiced the cause. One of the reasons which hindered the renaissance of the European ideas and its development, is that the West thought it undesirable at this time to cause any difficulty, however slight, with Soviet Russia, and, since that country was hostile to the European idea, everything possible was done to moderate the wishes, the will and the hopes of those who wanted to attempt to rebuild Europe on a new basis. If the policy of co-operation with the Russians and the policy of working through the United Nations failed, I see two main reasons; one, is the systematic and deliberate sabotage by the Soviet Union of the Security Council through their abusive use of the right of veto. The other is the- need which confronted the West to put at some time a stop to Soviet imperialism. May I, if you will allow me, say a word or two on both of these point So I Was, and I remain, opposed to the right of veto in international organizations. And I still believe, with as much conviction as I did at San Francisco twelve years ago, that international: organizations will only work when the small, the medium-sized and also the Iarge nations, and I should add, of their free will, the large nations in particular, have realised that beyond their own will there exists international law which is shaped by the majority. At San Francisco we were obliged to accept the system of the veto. We know it was bad, but we. never foresaw that it would produce such disappointing results as it did inside the Security Council. In order to persuade us to accept the principles of the Charter, the large nations said: "We shall only make a reasonable use of the right of veto. We shall only use it when our vital interests are at stake. Try it and see." We let ourselves be convinced, especially since there was no alternative, and we have tried it - but what has this concession given to the Russians? Just this - since the United Nations came into being Soviet Russia has used her right of veto in the Security Council more than eighty times. We must understand the significance of this. It means that on more than eighty occasions when a solution to a major or minor problem had been reached and approved in the Security Council by a majority, indeed in some cases all but unanimously, that solution was rejected because of the negative vote of one nation, and as a result the resolution could not be put into effect On eighty separate occasions our discussions have proved abortive. In the face of such a system, how can one not abandon hope Iose one's illusions, one' s faith? In the face of such a system, is it possible for a politician to keep believing that an organization thus mortally wounded can bo the organization. from which to expect peace and security? Truly Soviet Russia's systematic sabotage of the Security Council's work was what compelled us to think of something more effective some years after 1945 after the period of illusions. At the same time as this systematic sabotage of the Security Council was going on, there was Soviet imperialism. I am well aware that every time I pronounce these two words at a meeting at which Communists are present, or Communist sympathisers, they protest. But they protest more in the name of a doctrine and an ideology than in the name of facts. Because it seems to them that that to join the two words imperialism and communism contradicts their doctrine. That may or may not be so, but what I do know is that that actually there is Soviet imperialism and I cannot comprehend how people try to argue on those grounds. To my mind imperialism is something very simple and clear. It exists when one country, a large country, seizes a certain certain territory and subjects men and women to its laws against their will. Soviet policy after the beginning of the Second World War was precisely this. There is no difficulty in pointing this out, the difficulty is that we too often forget the facts. Let us look at them. The Russians, thanks to the Second World War, have annexed the three Baltic states, taken a piece of Finland, a piece of Rumania, a piece of Poland; a piece of Germany. Thanks to a ruthlessly calculated policy, composed of internal subversion and external pressure, they have also established governments justifiably styled as "satellites" in Warsaw, Prague, Budapest, Sofia, Tirana, Bucharest and East Berlin. If this is not imperialism, if this is not the result of a deliberate policy consciously pursuing an imperialist aim, then indeed we shall have to begin again and re-define the meaning of words. The turning point in international politics after the Second World War was the coup d'etat at Prague. The disappearance of a democratic progressive government and its replacement by a totalitarian Communist regime will have a singularly important place when the time comes to write the post-war history of international politics. The coup d'etat at Prague, the disappearance of Czechoslovakia as a free democratic state; was the last straw on the camel's back, or, if you prefer, the flash of lightning which forced open the most stubborn eyes. Everyone in 'Western Europe understood and fortunately also in the New World, that if We wanted to prevent the continuing unbounded development of Soviet imperialism, if we wanted to prevent its repetition elsewhere, then the Western countries had to unite, to draw together and give Soviet Russia clearly to understand that Prague represented the last manifestation of this imperialism we would tolerate. It was to this end that we forged the North Atlantic Alliance. What I want to underline is this, a thing of which the Western people are perhaps insufficiently aware. There has never been any alliance which has realised its principal objective so completely. For I would have you realise that after 1948 in Europe - and the Atlantic Pact was designed for Europe -- Soviet imperialism was definitively brought to a halt and that to attain this aim we did not have to use force. This was just as we had wished, just what we had attempted to do. In a world where a great deal of adverse comment is directed at politicians, when they can point to a successful achievement there should be no hesitation in applauding it. And those who think that we could now afford to diminish the power of this military alliance or even do away with it, to my mind commit an awful mistake, because this military power owes the fact that it has not been used to its very existence. The day it is weakened or done away with, those responsible will simply have recreated the conditions which prevailed in 1S45 to 1948 and will make it possible for Soviet imperialism to renew its expansion across the world, and absorb one by one the countries of Europe. This would be the greatest tragedy witnessed by mankind - millions and tens of millions of human beings would be subjected to political and moral slavery while the rest of the world stands by, powerless to help. Having properly emphasised the success of this military effort by the West, it must nevertheless be recognised that the Atlantic Alliance cannot continue to expand in the military sphere alone. Even when the Atlantic Treaty was first planned, negotiated and signed, the originators expressed the idea. that the Alliance should have a political, economic and cultural foundation. It was because of events and circumstances that the Atlantic powers were compelled to concentrate first on the military effort. At the beginning of 1956, the North Atlantic Council, fully aware of the needs I have just mentioned, called upon Mr. Pearson, Mr. Martino and Mr. Lange, the Foreign Ministers of Canada, Italy and Norway, to submit a report on the possibility of expanding political .and economic co-operation within the Alliance. These three Ministers, who were. later called the "The Three Wise Men of NATO" thereupon Set to work. The essential thing they concluded is that on all occasions and in all circum-stances member governments, before acting or even before pronouncing, must keep the interests the requirements of the Alliance in mind. On the assumption that this will and this desire do exist, the following principles and practices in the field of political consultation are recommended: (1) Members should inform the Council of any development which significantly affects the Alliance. They should do this, not merely as a. formality, but as a preliminary to effective political consultation, (2) A member government should not, without adequate advance consultation, adopt firm policies or make major political pronouncements on matters which significantly affect the Alliance or any of its members; unless circumstances make such prior consultation obviously and demonstrably impossible. This is my charter ,and I am pledged to see it fulfilled, But of course this is more easily said than done. The disarmament conference held in London provided us with a most valuable experience. The Western Powers represented in the Sub-Committe were called upon to make proposals which necessarily concerned their partners in the Atlantic Alliance. It followed. naturally that there should be consultations between the Western Powers represented at the London Conference and the other NATO member countries represented in Paris. These consultations took place. The NATO machinery proved to be sufficiently flexible to conduct and follow up these consultations without causing any delay. It enabled the Western Powers at the London Conference to put forward their plan at the end of August, and to speak, not only in their own name, but in the name of all the partners in the Atlantic Alliance. Events in the Middle East also have given us another opportunity to try out our new methods of consultations. In four-or five Council meetings, the developments in the Syrian situation have been carefully studied. There has been full exchange of information. Facts have been examined and discussed and the general lines of a constructive policy have been suggested. I cannot say that the results obtained have been perfect, but they are already sufficient to prevent a repetition of what happened last year, and to assure that the Middle East situation will not cause a new crisis in the North Atlantic Alliance. Already it has been proved that a Joint policy can perfectly well be worked out and that the system of prior consultation in all frankness and loyalty is not an added complication, but, on the contrary, makes things easier. There you have what seems to me some of the most important problems before the Alliance. If we wish to resist militarily, if we wish to take up the challenge in the economic and social spheres, if we wish to demonstrate to the whole world that it is those who remain faithful to our principles and to our values who will see their situation bettered the most rapidly, then what we have to do, beyond our immediate problems and our material worries, is to save our way of life, our way of thinking, our civilisation. Of course, some of us underline our differences, but the greatest of then is as nothing compared with what we have in common. You can know all the jokes you like about the French, the English, the Belgians, the Italians and the Americans. You can criticise their manner of life, say that some do not know how to eat, nor others how to joke, that some cannot yet do other things: it is all very funny, sometimes very true and often very witty, but, after all, we are still guided by the defence of the same cause, the cause of Christian civilisation. Of course it is Christianity, in the minds of many, which has been developed and enriched by humanism and by the principles of the American and French Revolutions and also by the nood of social justice so powerful today. There can be no respect of persons if there is no political democracy and there can be no respect of persons without social justice, and only when we have carried this to its maximum, not only in our own countries but also in all places where we have undertaken political responsibilities, shall we find a quiet conscience and moral peace, which will allow us genuinely to take up the challenge of Communism.. But this challenge the whole Western World must take up together: this is the prerequisite making possible our success.