Overseas Press Club, New York, USA 1 November 1957

Speech Address by H.E. PAUL-HENRI SPAAK, Secretary General of NATO, before the Overseas Press Club New York, November 1, 1957. I have just completed, a most interesting seven thousand mile tour of the United States during which I have seen much that has impressed me, and much to encourage me in my new task as the Secretary General of NATO and Chairman of the North Atlantic Council. As you know, I have held this post now for six months, and I should like to-day to give an account of the state of the Alliance and to sum up briefly my reactions to what I have seen and heard during this last crowded week. I do not need to remind you, but I feel I must emphasise once more that the Atlantic Alliance is a defensive alliance born out of the situation created by Soviet imperial expansion in Europe, culminating in the communist "coup d'etat" in Prague. The "coup d'etat" of Prague was the real turning point of international politics after the end of the second world war, the repetition of which the free world could not and would not tolerate. The purpose of the Alliance, to stop the expansion of the Soviet imperialism in Europe has been one hundred per cent fulfilled. This has been a great bloodless victory for the West, a victory which is perhaps not sufficiently recognised in the free world. This is why the Russians regard NATO as public enemy number one, You will have often heard me say that it is in the political and economic sphere that we must now strengthen the Alliance. This is not to say that we should neglect the military build-up, and I shall have more to say about this later. You will recall that in their report the Three Wise Men recommended that the members of the Alliance should try to improve political consultation on problems of common concern and to avoid adopting policies which might affect other members of the Alliance. I am glad to say that great progress in this field has been made during the last months, for example : (a) during the time of the disarmament discussions in London last August, the Western members of the Sub-Committee kept in close touch with their allies in NATO so that when they put forward, their proposals they had the solid backing of their NATO allies; (b) during the recent Middle East crisis, the Council followed events very closely. There was a full and useful exchange of information and the broad outline of a common policy suggested, I do not claim, of course, that the results obtained have yet 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 Atlantic Alliance. The Three Wise Men also urged the closest co-operation in the economic sphere. We have made some progress here and this essentially ties up with the military problem which I will touch on in a few minutes. Close co-operation here is of the utmost importance because it is in this sphere that Khrushchev now challenges the Western World. On repeated occasions he has announced that the Communist system will provide the people with a higher standard of living than the so-called capitalist system. I think we must believe that he is speaking sincerely when he said the other day on American T.V. that : "in fifty years, Americans would ask themselves how their grand-parents could have been so stupid as to fail to rally to the banner of communism when it must have been evident that communism represented the future." If Khrushchev is sincere in saying this, and I believe he is, it is not logical to conclude that the Russians want war. That is why I do not believe that the Russians are systematically planning a Third World War. But, on the other hand, they are not only maintaining immense forces in being, but are equipping them with modern weapons. I would like here to say that the launching of their satellite and their success in producing the intercontinental ballistic missile has in no way tipped the Balance of power in their favour. As long as the Russians maintain this high level of armament, the North Atlantic Alliance must maintain its forces in a state of sufficient strength and readiness to discourage the Kremlin from adventures. NATO's strategy has from the beginning been directed towards the deterrence of war. We have aimed at having our forces at a strength sufficient to provide this deterrence, both the strength of our ground forces in Europe as well as our strategic retaliatory power. We have done much to achieve this. Let me cite for your some simple statistics. (a) In 1949, when NATO was founded there were some 50 military airfields in Europe, none of them able to handle jet aircraft. To-day, there are nearly 200 airfields, all of them able to handle the fastest of modern aircraft. (b) By the end of this year we hope to have completed a fuel pipeline, which will bring the necessary fuel to our forward locations, from the harbours of Europe. (c) We have completed a large communications network and are daily improving it. Many of these projects were paid for out of a programme which we call "infrastructure" - a programme under which all the NATO nations contribute a proportionate share to a common fund. This is necessary because it would not be possible for some of the poorer countries of Europe, where many of these installations are located themselves to pay for the installations on their soil. I report this progress with pride, but it does not permit us to overlook the fact that a great deal remains yet to be done. And we must realistically recognise that what remains to be done to bring our defence effort to its maximum effectivenes will be costly, both in terms of manpower and money. Our air warning system is not yet completed and we must now begin the modernisation of all NATO forces so that they will have the nuclear capability which our military authorities consider essential. In these fields, our goals are clearly set: the German contribution is coming along as rapidly as possible, the French authorities have assured us that their forces will be returned to the NATO line as soon as they can be released from Algeria: and thanks to American aid, European forces are already being supplied with such modern weapons as the "NIKE", the "HERCULES" and the "MATADOR". It is my hope that during the discussions of the heads of governments this coming December, we shall be able to establish an even fuller plan for the oo-ordination of our military effort so that we may bring our defensive posture to the desired level. This is essential because a deterrent is only effective when you can inflict such heavy destruction on the enemy, both in. limited and unlimited warfare, as to make him realise that aggression does not pay. Let me emphasise that when I speak of the need for a deterrent, I do so because the Soviet Union continues to face us with a threat whose military magnitude is increasing-daily. Last summer the North Atlantic Council spent a great deal of time developing proposals on disarmament. I strongly favour these proposals and hope sincerely that the time will come when real progress in this field will be made. But until the Soviet Union is willing to accept realistic controls, we must be on our guard and must have the weapons to repel any attack. The strength which the United States is contributing to the common effort is indeed very impressive and this trip of mine through the United States has enlightened me on many of these points. I visited the Supreme Allied Command Atlantic and was impressed by an array of naval power, which, together with the ear-marked fleets of Canada and the European naval power will make it difficult for an agressor to penetrate the Atlantic. I visited the Strategic Air Command, which is often referred to as the "sword of NATO". No doubt its striking power has contributed mightily to the preservation of peace and I am certain it will continue to do so. I visited the Army Guided Missile Centre, where, in addition to American officers, over 250 officers and technicians from the various NATO countries are training in modern weapons. This was a most heartening sight and is a necessary step towards equipping our European defence forces with these weapons in the near future. Finally, yesterday I was received at Continental Air Defence Command at Colorado Springs and was shown the measures taken to preserve the American continent from air attack. This is also what we are working to bring about in Europe. There is one area in which a co-ordinated effort now is vitally required. In their communique President Eisenhower and Prime Minister Macmillan recognised the need for early action. I speak, of course, of co-operation in the fields of science and technology. When approaching co-operation in these fields there are three periods which must be considered; the immediate, the short-range and the long-range. In the immediate period ahead, our problem is to combine our efforts towards the development of certain specific weapons, particularly in the field of missiles, and to provide nuclear power for our forces in Europe. The President's announcement that he will seek a modification of the Atomic Energy Act will do much to increase confidence on this score. I am certain that for this purpose satisfactory arrangements can he made. The short-range and long-range problems are much more difficult. There are blue prints now on the drawing boards, for which our universities have not developed a single scientist or engineer. We have reached the stage, where our inventors have drawn ahead of the scientists and engineers who can make their inventions operations. We need an immediate programme in the universities in the entire Atlantic Community for the development of men who can deal with the space age. But we must look further. Ten to twenty years from now, our need for men trained in these fields will be twice as much as it is now and we must now encourage our young people to take the basic education which will enable them later on to enter these fields. Moreover, we must adapt our educational systems to prepare these young people. I want to emphasise that this is another problem which cannot be solved by one country of the Atlantic Community by itself. We will only solve it if we solve it together. But you must not think that this co-operation will be a one-way street. While there can be no Question that America leads with its contribution in this field, Europe has always been able to hold its own and will unquestionably continue to do so. I need not remind this audience of the men which Europe has produced -men like Einstein, Bohr, Fermi, Penney and Teller. Beyond these, Europe has contributed institutions of higher learning, laboratories and raw materials. European countries have made immense progress in the manufacture of aircraft and modern weapons. With the development of EURATOM, European atomic energy developments can make even further strides. I am looking forward to the time when a real community of scientists will be established among the nations of the Free World. We must recognise that then and only then will we be able to compete with the single-minded effort of the Soviet Union to keep the world in awe with scientific gadgetary, carrying the threat of disaster. Is it not absurd that the Western countries at this critical time are wasting their resources competing among themselves. Such dispersion of effort imposes an enormous financial burden on all our countries. On the other hand a pooling of our resources of men and materials would mean an immense relief to Western economy as a whole. My message then to the people of the United States is: "Have confidence in your faithful allies, and they will readily share the burden with you." To the people of Europe I would say: "I have found a steadfast loyalty here to the Atlantic Alliance, let us also play our full part."