National Press Club, USA October 1957

Speech by H.E. Paul-Henri Spaak INTRODUCTION This is my first visit to the United States In the capacity of Chairman of the North Atlantic Council and Secretary General of NATO, and, during this visit, my first public appearance gives me the opportunity of addressing the press of the United States, I do not imagine for one moment that the purpose of this gathering is to make the acquaintance of Mr. Paul-Henri Spaak, since I have already met many of you on numerous occasions, I would prefer to think that it is to exchange our impressions on the international situation, now that I have had five month experience with NATO,with the accentt on the challenge which the USSR has thrown out to the Free World, and on the role of the press of the free countries in what, whether we like it or not, we can only describe as a battle. I. BASIC FACTS 1. In the economic and social spheres, we can confidently say that, in spite of the shortcomings of our economic system, or, to use a more optimistic formula, thanks to the improvements which have followed the broadening of our social concepts and the increased role of the State, the Western way secures for our peoples far better living conditions than those prevailing in the USSR and its satellites. This was made clear by the events in Hungary and Poland. To my mind, this is a basic fact and, as a Socialist, I can only note the lack of success, to put it mildly, of one form of Socialism: authoritarian State Socialism, 2. Nevertheless, it would be wrong, and therefore dangerous, to believe that the USSR has ceased to cherish the dream of world domination., Its leaders, are past masters in the art of alternating promises with threats in their skillfully organized propaganda campaigns. The lead now taken by the USSR in the launching of inter-planetary devices also proves that in certain fields unpleasant surprised may still be in store for us. II. THE ROLE. AN ESSENTIAL ONE. OF THE FREE PRESS 1. To inform Let us take the subject of the satellite, since the world press has given its readers abundant information about it. One of the best articles i have read on the question was written by one of my friends, Mr. Thierry Maulnier, HE headed it; "The Satellite and shoes". He showed, very simply and frankly, that the Soviet leaders had to choose between several alternatives, and that they had finally chosen to give priority to the construction of certain major works, such as the great dams and the Don-Volga Canal, as well as to prestige - boasting achievements such as the putting into service of jet-propelled aircraft and the launching of the satellite. These priorities quite obviously meant sacrificing certain categories of consumer goods, and Mr, Thierry Maulnier took shoes as an example, since we know from the official statistics of the Soviet Union that each inhabitant of that country can look forward every year to the purchase of exactly one pair of new shoes. He then tried to imagine the feeling of national pride which would be the reward of Soviet citizens when they looked up to the sky and saw the baby moon produced by labour and expenditure, representing the cost of the several million pairs of shoes which would have enabled them to replace this indispensible article twice a year instead of only once. I feel that, while paying tribute to the technical skill of the Soviets, the Free World should also remember how its own choice of priorities is made. If we do this, we can better judge the exact value of Westem achievements in fields which, whilst less spectacular, have insured for most of us, in fact nearly all of us, a steadily improving standard or living, I think, don't you, that this is well worth a few months' delay in the launching of our satellite? Nor must we forget that the artificial satellite was not the only priority target of the USSR. The millions of pairs of shoes which are denied to Soviet citizens, also serve to ensure priority to the production of hydrogen bombs and teleguided launching devices which threaten the entire world. 2. If he bears this in mind, the American reader, like his fellows in the other free countries, will be inclined to respond more readily to the appeal of those of his leaders who explain to him that, in the light of these developments and in view of the resources at the disposal of the Free World, more than one choice will have to be made and more than one sacrifice cheerfully accepted to ensure that there shall be no weakening of the defensive shield behind which life pursues its even coarse, improving steadily and adding every day to the happiness of our peoples; that the strength of this shield must never be diminished OR questioned; how, on the contrary, we must adapt our forces and modernise then so that they can hit back decisively and effectively if the Soviet Union were to launch an attack; and that they must, moreover, be equipped with weapons sufficiently powerful - I would even go so far as to say sufficiently terrifying and frightful - so that our enemies, knowing that we would not hesitate to defend ourselves would be deterred from agression 3. Here again, the press has an essential part to play. It must enlighten public opinion whenever it is presented with a misleading choice. We must fully realise that, if we were able to halt the Soviet expansionist drive in 1947, when it looked as though nothing could prevent the successful resumption of their military advance, we owe it to the gathering of our forces under the NATO banner and to the fact that within that framework we were able to make clear our firm determination to reply to the first signs of aggression with the most terrible counter-measures. Any system which tended to weaken this absolute solidarity, which was condusive to indifference as to the fate of others; any system which, in brief, tolerated a small local conflict because selfishly and short-sightedly one accepts a war in which one is not personally involved, under cover of making a distinction between the destructive power of the weapons used, would, in reality, be measuring war in the most immoral fashion by a scale marked off in human lives and, in the final analysis, would be helping to make war possible. Is war to be tolerated when the dead can be numbered in units and thousands instead of millions? This is an illusion which WE must fight. War starts when the first innocent victim is killed. To accept a subtle distinction between local conflicts and generalised wars is to pave the way for such local conflicts and to shake the confidence of the most directly threatened populations in the solidarity of the Alliance. In the long run - and I say this on the soil of these United States of America, which have twice been dragged into a war that was started outside their frontiers, but which, in the case of the second, have already seen a surprise attack launched against their territory - at Pearl Harbour half-way between the aggressor and the continent, this would lead to the United States being left almost alone to bear the brunt of the burden in the ultimate conflict which, I finaly believe, can still be avoided. CONCLUSION In conclusion, I should like to launch an appeal in favour of the solidarity of the Free World, I have already said or written that to my Knowledge the Soviet Union could only hope for one ultimate weapon against the Atlantic Alliance, namely, lack of unity between the Allies. To safeguard and consolidate this unity so essential for the maintenane of peace, I appeal before you and through you for the solidarity of all in the Free World, who write, read and think.