THE ORGANIZATION

PARIS 1953

THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION

PALAIS DE CHAILLOT , 1953 SECOND EDITION THIRD IMPRESSION DECEMBER. 1953

PRINTED BY BOSCH. UTRECHT, THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Chapter i w h y the t r e a t y w a s s ig n b d 5

Chapter n w h a t the t r e a t y says 11

Chapter iii the development of t h e organization 18

Appendices

1. Article 51 of the Charter ...... 42 2. Extracts from the Brussels T r e a ty...... 42 3. The Vandenberg R e so lu tio n...... 44 4. Extracts from Ministerial speeches at the signing of the T rea ty ...... 45 5. Final Communique issued after the Ministerial Meeting in April, 1953 ...... 47

Charts

1. n a t o Civil and M ilita r y ...... 49

2. n a t o International Staff/Secretariat...... 50

3. n a t o Council C om m ittees...... 51 4. The North Atlantic Treaty Military Organization . . . 52-53

5. s h a p e and its Commands...... 54-55 6. Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic and subordinate C om m an d s...... 56-57 13]

CHAPTBRI Why the Treaty was signed

The North Atlantic Treaty, signed in Washington on 4 April, 1949, arose from a community of interest long visible in the history of the West, but never before given such clear recognition na d expression in time of peace. To-day, the North Atlantic no longer represents a vast barrier separating two continents, but the inland sea of a close­ ly-linked community. Its seaways and adjoining waters serve a group of nations which have been nurtured in common traditions and which share a common respect for the . Two world wars have demonstrated that an attack upon one of these nations threatens the security of the whole North Atlantic area, and that sooner or later, the others are drawn into the conflict. Twice in this century countries of the Atlantic community have banded together to resist and finally overcome in long and costly wars aggression thrust upon them. Now, for the first time they have pooled their resources for collective defence before aggression starts, in the hope and conviction that in this way they may preserve peace. To safe­ guard their security, these nations have therefore agreed that an attack against one of them shall be considered an attack against them all. The Treaty could not have come into existence without a major change in the policies of some of its signatories, and yet it was signed by twelve widely-spread nations, varying in size from the to and representing two continents. was represented by the United States and . From the other side of the Atlantic, the signatories were , Den­ mark, France, , , Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Nor­ way, and the . and acceded to the Treaty in February, 1952. If the Treaty was the beginning of a new process, it was also the end of an old one. Its text, which appears on page 12, is to a large extent self-explanatory. A treaty of this sort might have been signed by a group of friendly nations on a number of occasions in modem history. To understand why it was signed at this time, and by these particular nations, it may be helpful to review briefly the circum­ stances which preceded it. It would be a mistake to think of the Treaty as an agreement born

[5] entirely of the force of immediate circumsta nces. To some extent it was part of a natural evolution, but the date of its signature was largely determined by the emergence of factors beyond the control of the signatory nations, and to this extent, the Treaty is a resolute response to the challenge of these circumstances. The holocaust of the First produced a universal revulsion against violence and a determination to build an inter­ national organization which would not only prevent further resort to force, but also remove the circumstances which impelled nations to use force as a means of settling their differences. The history of the League of Nations between the wars was a forceful reminder of the problems with which the victors of the War would have to contend in planning an organi­ zation of United Nations. The victorious Allies of 1945 were confronted with a situation which had many parallels with that of 1919, but there was also a difference of profound significance: the United States, which had not joined the League of Nations, was in 1945 strongly in favour of setting up a new world organization, and warmly supported the establishment of the United Nations at San Francisco in the same year. It should be noted that the United Nations, like the League of Nations, was by definition meant to be all-embracing. It included not only like-minded nations; by its nature it repeated the bold attempt, which had failed once already, to establish a world order from which all would benefit. It was soon apparent that intransigeance and bad faith on the part of certain members threatened the over-all effectiveness of the Unit­ ed Nations as an instrument for world peace. The foreign policy of many Western nations had become based so firmly on a belief in the ability of the United Nations to secure the peace of the world that armies were disbanded and armaments drastically reduced. The pressure of a war against a common enemy had cemented the East- West alliance during the period of armed conflict. The aggressive So­ viet expansionism of the post-war period soon shattered this alliance. Optimistic hopes for the dawn of a new era of international co-ope­ ration within the framework of the United Nations faded. It gradu­ ally became evident that the creation of the United Nations did not mean that international tensions, nor even open hostilities, had automatically become things of the past. It is unnecessary here to set out the detailed history of Soviet

[6] post-war policy, but no c acount of the background of the North Atlantic Treaty is intelligible without some reference to the principal actions taken by Soviet Russia since World War II. Starting with the aggression against Iran in 1946, the long list includes: - seizure of control of the countries of Eastern Europe, culminating in the coup d'état in in 1948, - the rejection of the and subsequent efforts to crip­ ple the economic recovery of the West, - the organization of the Cominform, - violations of the Potsdam Agreement, - the year-long blockade, - the blocking of peace treaties with former enemy countries, - the continued maintenance of large Soviet forces throughout Eastern Europe, and the building up of ‘satellite’ forces, - the recurrent abuse of the veto in the United Nations, and, - since June, 1950, the continuing support of open Communist aggression against the Republic of .

As these and many other events of the same kind succeeded each other, the Western powers were not merely passive spectators, al­ though they were slow to realise the dangers which faced them. In the midst of preoccupations concerned with reconstruction, they set to work in the post-war period to win some assurance of security through the renewal of old alliances. In March, 1947 the United Kingdom and France signed a 50-year ‘Treaty of Alliance and Mutual Assistance’ at Dunkirk. This bound the two countries together in case of a revival of German aggression, but it also de­ clared that the two countries ‘v/ill by constant consultations on mat­ ters affecting their economic relations with each other take all possible steps to promote the prosperity and economic security of both countries and thus enable each of them to contribute more effectively to the economic and social objectives of the United Nations.’ The Dunkirk Treaty was in conformity with the obliga­ tions of both countries under the United Nations Charter. Only three months after the signing of the Dunkirk Treaty, ano­ ther form of international collaboration developed, and became all­ important in the post-war recovery and reconstruction of Europe. Speaking at Harvard University on 5 June, 1947, Gen. George. C Marshall, the United States Secretary of State, announced a plan for the economic rehabilitation of Europe. He called on the European nations to imite for the purpose and promised American assistance. [7] 'Our policy,’ said Mr. Marshall, ‘is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, n ad chaos.’ He insisted that ‘the initiative must come from Europe,’ and em­ phasised that by ‘Europe’ he meant ‘everything west of Asia,’ in­ cluding the United Kingdom and Soviet Russia. The immense significance of the Marshall Plan lay not so much in a generosity without historical precedent, nor in its vision and statesmanship, as in the fact that it revived close economic collaboration in Europe, by Europeans, for the common good. It provided the strong motive force which propelled Europe into a closer association within itself, as well as with the United States, and largely contributed to saving Europe from the very ‘hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos’ of which Mr. Marshall had spoken. The troubled times bred two further international agreements. The Treaty of Rio de Janeiro was signed on 2 September, 1947, by all American states except Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Canada. Cana­ da, already a member of the British and the United Nations, felt that her defence requirements were met by her share in these associations and in the Permanent Joint Board on Defence (Canada-United States). The Rio Treaty, essentially an alliance of mutual self-defence, offered a clear example of a ‘regional grouping’ within the Charter of the U nited Nations. On 17 March, 1948, the Brussels ‘Treaty of Economic, Social and Cultural Collaboration and Collective Self-Defence’ (the order of the two types of objective should be noted) was signed by Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. This Treaty conformed with the ‘ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations.’ It was essentially a treaty of like-minded na­ tions who were able to start their formal agreement in the acknowled­ gement of ‘the principles of , personal freedom and poli­ tical liberty, the constitutional traditions and the rule of law, which are their common heritage.’ It aimed ‘to strengthen . . . the econo­ mic, social, and cultural ties by which they are already united.’ It went further than this and seemed to anticipate the North Atlantic Treaty by resolving ‘to associate progressively in the pursuance of these aims other States inspired by the same ideals and animated by the like determination.’ The articles of the Treaty went far towards creating, not merely a blue-print for economic, social, and cultural co-operation, but practical plans to translate the blue-print into action. Thus, the signatories agreed ‘to conclude as soon as possible conventions with

[8] each other in the sphere of social security,’ ‘to promote cultural ex­ changes by conventions between themselves or by other means,’ and to apply certain provisions to disputes between themselves. The Brussels Treaty, like the Dunkirk Treaty, was intended to remain in force for fifty years. It expresses clearly the growing desire on the part of the signatories to draw closely together for more than merely military or economic reasons. In spirit and expression, this Treaty is the true forerunner of the North Atlantic Treaty. A Consultative Council of the Five Nations was set up to carry out the aims of the Brussels Treaty. The first meeting of this Council in Paris on 17 April, 1948, established, in addition to other Com­ mittees, a Permanent Military Committee to handle arrangements for common defence. On 28 September, 1948, it was announced that consultation between the Ministers of Defence (set up as a Defence Committee) and the Chiefs of Staff of the Five Nations, had led to the formation of a military planning branch and of a production and supply branch for the organization. A joint military organization for common defence, then known as Uniforce, was set up under the direction of Field-Marshal Montgomery, with head­ quarters at Fontainebleau. Three months after the signing of the Brussels Treaty, on 11 June, 1948, the ‘Vandenberg Resolution’ was adopted by the U.S. Senate by 64 votes to 4. Sponsored by the late Senator Arthur H. Vanden­ berg, it affirmed American determination ‘to exercise the right of individual or collective self-defence’ under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, set forth the objective of ‘progressive develop­ ment of regional and other collective arrangements’ in accordance with the Charter, and recommended the ‘association of the United States . . . with such other regional and collective arrangements as are based on continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid.’ From this date until the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty the following April, a series of discussions took place among the govern­ ments of the Western Powers. In Washington, representatives of the Brussels Treaty Powers, the United States, and Canada met through­ out the summer. One immediate result of these informal conver­ sations in Washington was the acceptance by Canada and the Uni­ ted States of an invitation to send observers to the permanent mili­ tary organization set up under the Brussels Treaty. The Washington talks were resumed in December, 1948, among the seven Powers (the Brussels Treaty Powers, the United States, and Canada). In February, 1949, the Norwegian Foreign Minister

[9] visited Washington and London, to secure information about the terms of the draft Treaty. N orway and had been discussing a possible Scandinavian Defence Pact with . They were under diplomatic pressure from Russia to stay out of any AtlanticTreaty, but ac cepted nevertheless an invitation to the Washington talks. Other invitations were extended toc eland, I Ita ly and Portugal. After two months of negotiation, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington on 4 April, 1949, by the Foreign Ministers of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, , Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States. The text of the Treaty, an eloquent assertion of the unity and faith of the free democratic nations, is in complete conformity with the Charter of the United Nations. It combines both the idealism and the practical resolution of the nations who signed it. It was the outcome of two World Wars, of earlier agreements, and ofco-oper­ ation between like-minded peoples. The statesmen who represent­ ed their countries summed up the feelings of the free world that day. ‘They can and should,’ said Mr. Dean Acheson, the American Secretary of State, ‘declare the purposes of their minds and hearts,’ and the proof that they did so is to be found in the speeches they made at the time. (See Appendix 4, Page 45 for extracts from speeches by signatories). The purpose and unity eloquently stated on that day have led to the development of a new type of international organization and to novel forms of associated activity on the part of member States.

[10] CHAPTER II What the Treaty says

The North Atlantic Treaty is one of the shortest and clearest of in­ ternational documents. It proclaims as its first objective the deter­ mination of member governments ‘to safeguard the freedom, com­ mon heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the prin­ ciples of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law’. This agreement is far more than a defensive military alliance under which the allies agree to come to each other’s assistance in the event of war. The fourteen like-minded signatories are seeking to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and to encourage economic and cultural co-operation betweeu any or all of them. Under Article 3, the parties undertake unprecedented peacetime measures, ‘by means of continuous and effective self-help and mu­ tual aid, to maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack’. Here is the deterrent aspect of the Treaty by which the signatories, through discouraging a potential aggressor in advance, hope to preserve the peace. In its double aspect - its emphasis on social, cultural, economic and political progress as well as security - the Treaty is a reminder that these factors are in the long run indivisible. While striving to answer the security needs of the present, the Treaty looks forward from a troubled international past to a more enlightened future. The inherent right of collective self-defence is impressively sum­ med up in the statement that an armed attack against one or more parties shall be considered an attack against them all. The Treaty comes within the provisions of Article 51 of the Uni­ ted Nations Charter which states ‘Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs . . . ’ The wording of the Treaty makes it clear that each party is the judge of whether an ‘armed attack’ has taken place, and of what action, including the use of armed force, is required. This is the only possible position unless such decisions are entrusted to some agency other than the individual parties themselves. The obligation is placed on each member to assist the party attacked by taking forthwith, individually as well as in concert with the other signatory

[11] nations, ‘such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.’ Any European nation may be invited to accede to the Treaty if it is thought to be in a position to further the principles of the Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic Area. Pos­ session of territory bordering on the North Atlantic is not a precon­ dition of membership. In this connection it is interesting to examine the wording of the Protocol to the Treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey (see page 15).

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY Washington D.C., 4 April, 1949 The Parties to this Treaty 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, individuall iberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlan­ tic area. They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty:

ARTICLB1

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in u sch a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, 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.

a r t i c l e 2 The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friend ly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by pro­

[12] moting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

a r t i c 3 l e In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, 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.

ARTICLE4 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.

a r t i c 5 l e The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of the.n 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 collec­ tive self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forth­ with, 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 mea­ sures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

a r t i c 6 l e

For the purpose of Article 5 an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Depart­ ments of France, on the occupation forces of any Party in Europe, on the islands lu.der the jurisdiction of any Party in the North At­

[13] lantic area north of the Tropic ofC ancer or on the vessels or aircraft in this area of any of the Parties.

article7 This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting, in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Par­ ties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of inter­ national peace and security.

ARTICLE 8 Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with thisT reaty.

a r t i c 9 l e The Parties hereby establish a council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organised as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary ; in particular it shall establish immedi­ ately a defence committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5.

a r t i c 10 l e The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other ­ pean State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

a r t i c 11 l e

This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisionscl , ried out by the

[14] Parties in a ccordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of the United States of America, which will notify all the other signatories of each deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of the majority of the signatories, including the ratifications of Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, the Nether­ lands, the United Kingdom and the United States, have been depos­ ited and shall come into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications.

ARTICLE12 After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

artic le13 After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.

a r t i c 14 l e This Treaty, of which the English and French texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States of America. Duly certified copies will be transmit­ ted by that Government to the Governments of the other signato­ ries.

THE GREECE-TURKEY PROTO C O L A Protocol was signed by the Council Deputies in London on 22 October, 1951. After final ratification by all governments belonging

[15] lo the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Greece and Turkey acc­ eded to the Treaty on 18 February, 1952.

The text of the Protocol follows: The Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty, signed at Washington on 4 April, 1949, Being satisfied that the security of the North Atlantic area will be enhanced by the accession of the Kingdom of Greece and the Republic of Turkey to that Treaty, Agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1 Upon the entry into force of this Protocol, the Government of the United States of America shall, on behalf of all the Parties, commun­ icate to the Government of the Kingdom of Greece and the Gov­ ernment of the Republic of Turkey an invitation to accede to the North Atlantic Treaty, as it may be modified by Article II of the present Protocol. Thereafter the Kingdom of Greece and the Repub­ lic of Turkey shall each become a Party on the date when it depos­ its its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America in accordance with Article 10 of the Treaty.

a r t i c II l e

If the Republic of Turkey becomes a Party to the North Atlantic Treaty, Article 6 of the Treaty shall, as from the date of the deposit by the Government of the Republic of Turkey of its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America, be modified to read as follows: ‘For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack - (i) on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North Amer­ ica, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; (ii) on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediter­

[16] ranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.’

ARTICLE III

The present Protocol shall enter into force when each of the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty has notified the Government of the United States of America of its acceptance thereof. The Govern­ ment of the United States of America shall inform all the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty of the date of the receipt of each such notification and of the date of the entry into force of the present Protocol.

ARTICLBIV The present Protocol, of which the English and French texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the Archives of the Govern­ ment of the United States of America. Duly certified copies thereof shall be transmitted by the Government to the Governments of all the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty.

[17] C HAPTER III The development of the Organization

The development of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization falls into four phases. The first three of these are mainly of historical in­ terest, but a record may be useful to readers who wish to study the development of a unique international experiment. Readers who are not interested in the historical aspect should turn to the descrip­ tion of the fourth phase (pages 27 to 41), where an account is given of the nature of the Organization as it is at present.

First phase

The First Session of the North Atlantic Council took place in Washington on 17 September, 1949, when decisions were taken regarding the Organization necessary to implement the terms of the Treaty. The Council itself had been created by Article 9 of the Treaty, and the same article made it responsible for setting up ‘such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary’. In particular, it was to ‘establish immediately a Defence Committee which shall recom­ mend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5’. Article 3 called on the Parties to the Treaty ‘to maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack’, and Artic­ le 5 defined the circumstances in which the Parties to the Treaty would go to each other’s assistance in the event of an armed attack. The communique issued after this Session made it clear that any subsidiary bodies which were set up would be subordinate to the Council. The Council also foresaw that the Organization it was about to create would have to be flexible and subject to periodic review. It recognised that, whatever agency might be created, any or all the countries concerned could still consult and co-operate by other means. According to this communique, the Foreign Ministers of mem­ ber countries would comprise the ‘normal’ membership of the Council. The latter would meet in ordinary session annually and ‘at such other limes as may be deemed desirable’, and ‘Extraordinary Sessions under Articles 4 and 5 of the Treaty could be called at the request of any Party invoking one of these Articles’. Secretary of State Dean G. Acheson, of the United States, became the first

[18] Chairman of the Council, and thereafter the Chai rmanship was to be held annual ly in turn by each Member country, according to the alphabetical order in the English language. A proviso was attached to this decision that, if any country wished to relinquish its right to the Chairmanship, the office would pass to the member country next in alphabetical order. English and French were accepted as the two official languages of the Organization. The Council then proceeded to establish a Defence Committee, composed ordinarily of Defence Ministers, and charged with the task of drawing up unified defence plans for the North Atlantic area. It suggested specifically that the military part of the organiza­ tion should include a Military Committee and certain Regional Planning Groups. It was agreed that the Military Committee should consist of the Chiefs of Staff of all signatory nations or their representatives. This Committee was to establish a small executive sub-Committee, to be known as the Standing Group, composed of one represen­ tative each of France, the United Kingdom and the United States. The terms of reference of the Military Committee indicated that it was to provide ‘policy guidance of a military nature’ to the Stan­ ding Group, to advise the Defence Committee, and to recommend to the Defence Committee defensive measures for the North Atlan­ tic area. It was decided further that the Standing Group, which should function continuously, should provide policy guidance to the Reg­ ional Plan: ling Groups, and should co-ordinate their defence plans. Emphasis was given to the decision ‘that it is the responsibility of individual governments to provide for the implementation of plans to which they have agreed’. The Regional Planning Groups were instructed ‘to develop and recommend to the Military Committee, through the Standing Group, plans for the defence of the Region’. Five such Groups were set up: the Northern European Group (Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom); the Western European Group (Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom); the Southern European-Western Mediterranean Group (France, Italy and the United Kingdom); the Canadian-United States Group (Canada and the United States); and the North Atlantic Ocean Group (all member countries except Italy and Luxembourg). At the end of its First Session, the Council recognised that comprehensive questions of military production and supply, and of

[19] economic and financial factors would need close study forthwith. The Second Session of the Council, which was held in Washington, D.C., on 18 November, 1949, came to important decisions on these matters. In the first place the Council established a Defence, Financial and Economic Committee, composed, generally, of Finance Ministers. This Committee, responsible to the Council, was given the following tasks: ‘(1) To develop in co-operation with the Military Committee (in­ cluding the Standing Group) and the Military Production and Supply Board overall financial and economic guides to and limits of future defence programmes, which North Atlantic Treaty countries as a group and individually should undertake within available financial and economic resources. (2) To appraise the financial and economic impact on Member countries of major individual defence projects formulated by the Military Production and Supply Board or the Military Com­ mittee (including the Standing Group), including consideration of financing problems and availability of raw materials, capital equipment and manpower, and, on the basis of such review, to make recommendations as to action on such projects. (3) To recommend financial arrangements for executing military defence plans, and particularly financial arrangements for the interchange among North Atlantic Treaty countries of military equipment, surplus stocks, or materials and equipment to be used in producing military equipment. (4) To measure and to recommend steps to meet the foreign ex­ change costs of imports of materials and equipment from non­ Member countries required by defence programmes under the North Atlantic Treaty. (5) To consider, as may be found desirable and appropriate, plans for the mobilization of economic and financial resources in time of emergency.’ It was decided that there should be a permanent international working staff in London. At this Second Session, the Council also ‘approved the action of the Defence Committee in establishing a Military Production and Supply Board’. This Board was to report to the Defence Committee and its functions were to review the military supply situation, to recommend ‘ways and means of increasing available supplies when

[20] they fall short of military requirements’, and to promote more effic­ ient production of military equipment. The end of the first phase in the development of the Organization was reached at the Fourth Session of the Council in London on 15—18 May, 1950. The Foreign Ministers resolved ‘to secure the economic progress and prosperity of the peoples of their countries, and to promote the economic and social development of other peoples of the free world’. They agreed that the time had arrived for the creation of a civilian body which would supervise the activities of all parts of the organization. Accordingly the Council decided to establish the Council Deputies. The Council Deputies (meaning Deputies representing their Foreign Ministers) were organised as a group ‘to permit the Council fully to discharge its role as the principal and directing body of he North Atlantic Treaty’. ‘A year’s experience’, said one of the Coun­ cil communiques, ‘has shown that, on the political side, the meetings of the Council have been too infrequent to permit a sufficient ex­ change of views on matters of common interest within the scope of the Treaty’. In future, the Council decided that it must study the inter-relationship of the various defence plans and co-ordinate the work of the Council agencies; recommend to Governments the steps necessary to co-ordinate defence plans; exchange political views; promote and co-ordinate public information; and consider what action should be taken under Article 2 of the Treaty. All these matters became subjects of study by the Deputies who were to remain in permanent session in London. At the end of this phase in the organization, therefore, a pattern had been created which ensured continuing Council supervision of both civilian and military activities of the Organization.

Second phase

By the time that the Council held its Fifth Session, 15-18 , in , it w. j clear that military security would not be possible without the ‘creation, in the shortest possible time, of an integrated military force adequate for the defence of freedom in Europe’. The Council recessed until 26 September, 1950, to allow Ministers to consult their governments, and then agreed to the principles on which the force would be built. The force, said the Council, would be ‘subject to political and strategic guidance exercised by the appropriate agencies of the Or­

[21] ganization’. It would be under a Supreme Commander supported by an international staff, and strategic direction would be given by the Standing Group. The Council also announced that it was in agreement that Ger­ many should be enabled to contribute to the defence of . The Defence Committee was requested to make recommend­ ations at the earliest possible date as to the methods by which Germany could most usefully make its contribution, and the matter was taken under active consideration by the Council Deputies. At the Sixth Session, held on 18-19 December, 1950, in Brussels, the Council agreed that the United States should nominate the Supreme Commander. The President of the United States forward­ ed the name of General Dwight D. Eisenhower for the post of Supreme Commander, and the Council unanimously ratified Gener­ al Eisenhower’s appointment. After a preliminary tour ofn a t o capitals, sa c e u r (Supreme Allied Commander, Europe) proceeded with the exacting task of establishing and developing s h a p e (Su­ preme Headquarters, Allied Powers, Europe), his military head­ quarters, near Paris, and of selecting the officers of his command on an international basis. It was also announced at this Session that the Defence Committee had taken action to establish ‘a Defence Production Board with greater powers than those of the Military Production and Supply Board which is superseded’. The new Board was charged with ex­ panding and accelerating production and with furthering the mutual use of the industrial capacities of the Member nations. Meanwhile, the proposal to appoint a single Supreme Comman­ der for the North Atlantic Ocean had been discussed for some time between the North Atlantic powers concerned. It was agreed that the Supreme Commander should be American and his deputy British. The appointment was approved in principle at a meeting of the Defence Committee in October, 1950, and at the joint session of the Council and the Defence Committee in Brussels in December, 1950, it was agreed that a Supreme Commander Atlantic should be appointed as soon as possible after the Supreme Commander Europe. The Council also unanimously agreed that German participation would strengthen the defence of Europe without in any way altering the purely defensive character ofn a t o . The Council invited the governments of France, the United Kingdom, and the United Sta­ tes to explore the matter with the Government of the German Fede­ ral Republic.

[22] The end of what may be described as the second phase in the development of the Organization came with the important commu­ nique issued on 3 May, 1951. by the Council Deputies in London. This outlined a far-reaching step in the continuing organization of n a t o . In the first place, the North Atlantic Council absorbed the Defence Committee and the Defence Financial and Economic Com­ mittee, and so became the sole Ministerial body in the Organization. Secondly, the Council Deputies announced the creation ofFinan­ a cial and Economic Board to be located in Paris, alongside the Orga­ nization for European Economic Cooperation, so that it might avail itself of certain facilities provided by the latter organization. The change in the character of the Council was significant. ‘Heads of Governments’, said the communique, ‘may attend meetings of the Council in person. Otherwise, governments will be represented by their Minister for Foreign Affairs and/or the Minister of Defence, or by other competent Ministers, especially by those responsible for financial and economic affairs, according to the nature of the agenda’. The creation of the Financial and Economic Board was regarded as ‘another step towards simplifying and making more effective the executive organization ofn a t o ’. Its 1 unctions were to make recom­ mendations on financial and economic problems arising from the defence programme, and to advise other n a t o bodies under the Council Deputies on pertinent problems. Its recommendations were normally to be sent to the Council Deputies, but in specified cases might be sent direct to Member governments. It was to keep in close touch with the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and with other international organizations dealing with relevant problems.

Third phase

The reorganization announced in May, 1951, had a direct effect on the Seventh Session of the Council in on 20-25 September 1951. For the first time member governments were represented by Foreign Ministers, Defence Ministers and Economic or Finance Ministers. A number of important decisions were taken at this meeting. First, it was agreed that, subject to the approval of the Parlia­ ments of member States, Greece and Turkey should be invited to join the Organization.

[23] Secondly, the meeting reflected growing concern at the cost of rearmament. Specifically, the session examined ‘the danger of in­ flation, the burdens which increased defence efforts place on the balance of payments, and the obstacles to an adequate defence aris­ ing from price and allocation pressures on raw material supplies’. Accordingly, a temporary committee was set up ‘to survey urgently the requirements of external security, and particularly of fulfilling a militarily acceptable n a t o plan for the defence of Western Europe, and the realistic political-economic capabilities of the Member countries’. This committee became the Temporary Council Com­ mittee or T ‘ .C.C.’, and was known as ‘the twelve Apostles’. Its executive members, consisting of M. Jean Monnet of France, Sir Edwin Plowden of the United Kingdom and Mr. Averell Harriman of the United States, were designated by Press and public as ‘the Three Wise Men’. The Council received from the Occupying Powers a report on the progress of discussions directed toward establishment of a new relationship with the German Federal Republic. It was also in­ formed of the statement made in Washington by the British, French, and United States Foreign Ministers in which they wel­ comed the plan for a European Defence Community of which Ger­ many would form part. This was the first reference in the Council to the E.D.C. project. The Council also noted that agreement had been reached among the member countries on the financing of the firstn a t o infrastruc­ ture programme, in which Member countries shared the costs of air­ fields, communications and certain other installations for the sup­ port of forces. Since a first infrastructure programme had been init­ iated by the Western Union Countries under the Brussels Pact in 1948, the Ottawa programme was called the ‘second slice’ of infra­ structure. The first slice was originally estimated at £ 33,OOO,OOO and the second at £ 79,000,000. The Council also decided at Ottawa to consider the implement­ ation of Article 2 of the Treaty, and created an Atlantic Commun­ ity Committee, composed of Ministers from Belgium, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands and Norway. This Committee was instructed to make recommendations on the co-ordination of foreign policy, on closer economic, financial and social co-operation (‘both during and after the present period of the defence effort’), and on inter­ national collaboration in cultural activities and public information. The Eighth Session of the Council was held in on 24-28

[24] November, 1951. For the first time the Council heard a personal review by the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, on the progress of military planning. The Council decided that n a t o agencies should give early attention to correlating the obligations and rela­ tionships of the European Defence Community with thosen of a t o . The Atlantic Community Committee also presented an Interim Report, and the Council directed that continuing and fuller study should be given to certain proposals made by this Committee, partic­ ularly to the question of the movement of labour betweenn a t o countries. On 18 December, 1951, the Temporary Council Committee pre­ sented its Report. Its Chairman (Mr. Averell Harriman, U.S.) described it as ‘the first comprehensive review of how the resources of the Member countries under peacetime conditions can best be employed in the interest of common security’. General Eisenhower described the Committee’s achievement as ‘a truly monumental piece of work’. The report was based upon the assumptions that ‘a sound econom­ ic and social base’ was essential for the defence effort, which in turn would yield 'co-operative action in expanding production and dealing with other economic problems arising from a larger defence effort’. ‘The prime requisite for carrying out the defence programme and at the same time maintaining economic strength’ was defined as ‘a satisfactory rate of general economic expansion’. Among other subjects considered in the T.C.C. Report were the problem of in­ adequate supplies of coal in Europe, the steel shortage, shortage of manpower and the problem of excess population, measures to strengthen the social structure, and the dollar balance of payments problem. But the core of the report was the detailed study of the Defence Programmes of individual countries in relation to their capabilities. Meanwhile, on 30 January, 1952, another majorn a t o command was established with the appointment of Admiral Lynde D. McCor­ mick (United States) as Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic (s a c l a n t ), with headquarters at Norfolk, Virginia (see page 37). The T.C.C. Report was sent to governments for their comments, and a supplementary report based on these comments became a prominent item on the agenda of the Ninth Session of the Council, held in on 20-25 February, 1952. Both in the range of pro­ blems it considered and the scope of the decisions it took, the Lis­ bon meeting was one of major significance.

[25] On the basis of plans presented to it for the creation of the Eur­ opean Defence Community, the Council at this meeting approved the principles which underlay the Treaty establishing this Commun­ ity. It was felt that, if the Treaty were ratified and implemented, the EDC would strengthen the defences of the North Atlantic area, would establish a community closely linked to the North Atlantic Alliance and would associate Western Germany more closely with the n a t o countries of Western Europe. ‘The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’, said the final communique, ‘respecting the principles on which the community is founded, will support and co-operate with its institutions.’ Secondly, the Chairman of the Temporary Council Committee reported on the reception by individualn a t o governments of the report presented to them in December, 1951. The T.C.C. Report in­ dicated military targets for 1952 with plans for ‘an orderly build-up’ after that time and, concurrently, the strengthening of the general social and economic structure of the Alliance. The report aiso advoc­ ated a reorganization of the structure ofn a t o for greater efficiency and to ensure that future assessments, such as it had just undertaken, might be carried out annually by a permanent international staff. The Council adopted the plan suggested by the T.C.C. Specific­ ally, member governments undertook to provide about 50 divisions in appropriate states of readiness for combat, some 4,000 aircraft, and ‘strong naval forces’, in 1952. Following earlier precedents, the Council reviewed the aims of the Alliance, re-emphasizing its peaceful intentions and the strictly defensive nature of its military effort. It also stressed the fact that the n a t o partnership existed not merely for defence but for ‘endur­ ing progress’. ‘All citizens’, said the declaration, ‘can play their part in the work of uniting the peoples in one Atlantic Community’. The final communique also recorded the accession of Greece and Turkey to the Treaty and the adoption of a report by the Atlantic Community Committee. This report emphasized the importance of economic co-operation, advocated the expansion and liberalization of , and urged closer association with other bodies, particul­ arly the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation. The Council directed that study on these subjects should continue. The terms of reference of the Standing Group and of the Supreme Commander, Allied Powers in Europe, were revised to reflect added responsibilities, notably for equipment priorities and planning for the logistical support of the military forces.

[26] Perhaps the Council’s most significant decision at this meeting was to reorganize the purely civilian institutions which serve the Alliance. Briefly, the Council was to remain in permanent session with effective powers of decision. Member states were to appoint Permanent Representatives to the Council which was to take up its headquarters in the Paris area and was to be served by a single in­ ternational Staff/Secretariat. The meetings of the Permanent Coun­ cil were to be presided over by a permanent Vice-Chairman who would also be the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization responsible for the organization and work of the Staff-/ Secretariat. Also in February, 1952, a naval and maritime air command was established for the English Channel and Southern North Sea area. The present Commander-in-Chief Channel and Southern North Sea is Admiral Sir John Edelsten (United Kingdom). Air Marshal Sir John Boothman (United Kingdom) is the Air Commander-in- Chief. These two Commanders-in-Chief are immediately respon­ sible to a body named the Channel Committee composed of the Naval Chiefs of Staff, or their representatives, of Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. This Committee is the n a t o authority for this area, acting as agent of the Standing Group. The decisions taken at Lisbon to reorganize the civilian institu­ tions set up by the Alliance resulted in the abolition of the Council Deputies, established in 1950. It was their work which made possible the reorganization decided upon at the Lisbon meeting, thus paving the way for the further development of the Alliance.

Fourth phase

SEC T ION I The months after the meeting of the North Atlantic Council at Lis­ bon were occupied with the reorganization of the civilian institut­ ions of the Alliance. Lord Ismay, Secretary-of-State for Commonwealth Relations in the United Kingdom Government, was appointed Vice-Chairman of the Council and Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. On 4 April, 1952, the third anniversary of the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty, the Council Deputies and the Defence Production Board, both of which had been functioning in London, and the Fin­

127] ancial and Economic Board in Paris, ceased to exist. On that day, Ambassador Charles M. Spofford of the United States, Chairman of the. Council Deputies, formally handed over his duties to Lord Ismay. During the month of April, those members of the Secretariat of the Council Deputies and the Defence Production Board who were to be employed in the new Staff/Secretariat moved to Paris and took up their headquarters in the Paris Wing of the Palais de Chail- lot. They were joined there by those members of the Financial and Economic Board who were to continue to serve in the new Organiz­ ation. By the end of that month, l al the Permanent Representatives and their delegations had assembled in Paris. One of the first tasks of the Permanent Council was to appoint General Matthew B. Ridgway as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in succession to General Eisenhower, who had resigned his command to return to the United States as a candidate for the Pres­ idency. The Council’s next task was to prepare for the conduct of the Annual Review of the defence effort of Member states. A simil­ ar review had been carried out during the autumn of 1951 by the Temporary Council Committee. During the summer and autumn, the Council received reports from a number of military commanders of the Alliance, and visited international manoeuvres in Germany, the North Sea, and the Mediterranean. With the establishment of its subordinate committees and working groups, composed of representatives of national delegations and of the international Staff/Secretariat, the Council had now begun to carry forward the organization and planning of the defence of Europe and the development of closer ties within the Atlantic Community. At the next Ministerial meeting of the Council in the new Paris Headquarters, 15-18 December, 1952, a Progress Report on the reor­ ganization was presented by the Secretary-General. This described the work accomplished by the Council, which had met regularly through the Permanent Representatives, since the move to Paris. It also dealt with the work being carried out by special Committees on civil defence and on non-military aspects of the Treaty covered by Article 2, such as over-population, and social, cultural and Infor­ mation matters. In adopting this Report, the Council passed a resolution on the implementation of Article 2. This Resolution spoke of the necessity of a continuing economic review not merely for defence purposes

[28] but to promote ‘social progress and the ideals of freedom’. It agreed that member Governments would strengthen ‘their political and economic capacities by finding solutions to their problems such as balance of payments, increase of output, internal financial stability and manpower.’ The Military Committee, which also reported to this meeting, disclosed a great advance in the effectiveness ofn a t forces, o in bet­ ter inter-unit co-operation, and in the standardization of military procedures. The Military Committee also approved the establish­ ment of a new Mediterranean Command, to which Admiral Lord Mountbatten was appointed. In receiving the first report on the Annual Review for 1952, which made it clear that the increase in forces agreed to at Lisbon had been substantially achieved, the Council made the important pro­ viso that, where resources were not available for both quality and quantity of these forces, the emphasis should be on quality. For the first time the Council passed a resolution on international affairs outside the n a t area. o Acknowledging that ‘the resistance of the free nations in South-East Asia as in Korea is in fullest harmony with the aims and ideals of the Atlantic Community’, the Council agreed that the French campaign in Indo- deserved ‘con­ tinuing support from then a t Governments’. o Finally, the Council expressed its view that the defence of Europe, including Western Germany, called for the early establishment of the European Defence Community and consequently for the rati­ fication of the Treaty. It also reaffirmed the importance of the reciprocal guarantees exchanged between the pa rties to the North Atlantic Treaty and the members of the European Defence Com­ munity. (See Appendix 5 for the Final Communique issued after the Ministerial Meeting in April, 1953).

[29] SECTION II THE REO R GANIZAT IO N OF T HE CIVILIAN INSTITUTION S OF THE ALLIANC E The North Atlantic Council The Council, in accordance with the decisions taken at Lisbon, now sits permanently in Paris. For matters within the purview of the Alliance the Council is ‘in effect an international cabinet’ with autho­ rity ‘in no way altered by the presence or absence of Ministers’. It usually meets at least once, and often twice a week. Except when the Chairman of the Council is present, the Vice-Chairman who is also the Secretary-General presides. After the Treaty was signed, the first Chairman of the Council was Mr. Dean G. Acheson, United States Secretary of State. The next year the Chair was taken by M. Paul van Zeeland (Bel­ gium), who was succeeded by Mr. Lester B. Pearson (Canada), Mr. Ole Bjern Kraft (Denmark) and Mr. Georges Bidault (France). It was recommended at Lisbon that Ministerial Meetings should be held three times a year.

Council Committees Below the level of the Council there have been established a number of Committees and Working Groups, whose function is to advise the Council upon the specific matters with which they deal and to recommend appropriate action. Military advice comes to the Council primarily from the Military Committee, which is composed of the Chiefs of Staff of the Member states of the Alliance. Below the Military Committee are the Mili­ tary Representatives Committee, the Standing Group and the Su­ preme Commands which are described in greater detail in Section III (page 33). The Council has decided that civil and military planning must go hand in hand, and accordingly has set up a number of standing and ad hoc committees composed of members of delegations and of the International Staff/Secretariat.

International Staff/ Secretariat A chart of the International Staff/Secretariat is on page 50. Since the move to Paris, the International Staff/Secretariat has been organised as follows:

[30] (1) De p u t yc retary-GeneralS e The Deputy Secretary-General, Jonkheer Henri van Vredenburch (Netherlands), is the Secretary-Genera l’s Chief of Staff, with respon­ sibility over the whole field of the work of the International Staff/ Secretariat.

(2) Th e Divisiono f Political Affairs This is a division set up under the Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs, M. Sergio Fenoaltea (Italy). It contains three sections whose duties are: (a) Political liaison with Delegations and the preparation of reports on political subjects for the Secretary-General and the Council. (b) Liaison with other international organizations, e.g. the Interim Committee of the European Defence Community, the Council of Europe and others. (c) Activities connected with the carrying out of Article2 of the North Atlantic Treaty; liaison with unofficial or voluntary orga­ nizations supporting the aims ofn a t o .

(3) Th e D i v i s io o f P nr o d u c t a i no ndL o g i s t i c s

This division has been set up under the Assistant Secretary-General for Production and Logistics, Mr. Lowell P. Weicker (United States). Most of the officers in this division are specialists in production or major items of military equipment Their work is co-ordinated by a Review and Liaison Section. The Infrastructure Section is attached to this division. The work is divided in four main categories : (a) Technical services, e.g. the supply of information to meet pro­ duction problems in member States as they arise and the esta­ blishment of working parties for the exchange of technical in­ formation on defence equipment among member governments. (b) Procedures are being formulated on long-term production plan­ ning for defence, in which one or more member States would share. This involves continuous study of equipment deficien­ cies, industrial resources and capacities in order to recommend programmes for the most economic production.

[31] (c) Participation in the Annual Review consists of analysing of pro­ duction programmes and capacities in member states in relation to their national force programmes for current and future years, in order to present realistic estimates with appropriate recom­ mendations for achieving balanced forces within the resources of member countries. (d) Exercise of engineering and financial supervision over the infra­ structure programme. The Infrastructure Section does this work as the agent of the Infrastructure Committee of the Council. In all these activities, the division works in close collaboration with delegations from member States.

(4) Th e D i v i s io o f E nc o n o m ia c n s dF i n a n c b

This division has been set up under the Assistant Secretary-General for Economics and Finance, M. René Sergent (France), and is divi­ ded into three sections : (a) An Economic Studies Section whose work includes a conti­ nuous survey of the politico-economic capabilities of Member countries in relation to defence. (b) An Emergency Planning Section, which is concerned with supplies of raw materials, primary products, and general com­ modities. (c) A Costing and Screening Section, which studies the costing of national defence programmes, and the cost of changes proposed by the military agencies. This division plays a very important part in the conduct of the An­ nual Review.

(5) The O ffice of t h eSe c r e t-G a re y w e r a l

The secretariat side of the Organization is carried out by this office under the control of the Executive Secretary, Hon. R. D. Coleridge (United Kingdom). This official acts as Secretary to the Council and is responsible to the Secretary-General for arranging its programme of work and for seeing that action is initiated on decisions taken by the Council. The Secretaries of Council Committees are responsible to the Executive Secretary, who also maintains liaison with the Standing Group Liaison Officer. The Executive Secretary is also responsible for the general admi­ nistration of the International Staff/Secretariat.

[32] (6) T he I n f o r m a t io n D ivision The Information Division, working in cooperation with the national Information Services of member countries, has the task of supply ­ ing information about the decisions of the Council and the work of the Organization to the Press, radio and other publicity outlets. The Information Division is directly responsible to the Secretary- General. Its Director is Mr. R. A. Farquharson (Canada).

(7) T h e O f f ic e of th e F in a n c ia l C o n t r o l l e r The main responsibilities of this Office are preparation of the Budget, collection of contributions of member governments, disbursement, maintenance of budgetary and cash accounts, and internal control of expenditure. Dr. . H D. Pierson (Netherlands) is Financial Controller.

(8) T he O ffice of S ta t ist ic s This Office is responsible for the planning and supervision of a programme of statistical reports on the status and progress ofn a t o and for the provision of technical statistical guidance. Mr. L. Wood (United States) is Director.

S ECTIO N III THE MILITARY SIDE

The principal Council decisions affecting military organization have already been given in their chronological order. The relation of the military to the civil side of the Organization is indicated in the chart on page 49. The sub-commands of Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe are shown in the chart on pages 54—55 and of the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic in the chart on pages 56—57. The following is a summary of the present military structure.

(1) Military Committee (MC) The Military Committee is the supreme military authority in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is composed of one of the

[33] Chiefs of Staff of each n a t o power. Iceland, having no military estab lishment, may be represented by a civilian. Meetings of the Military Committee take place as often as may be necessary to give the highest military advice to the Council and to provide direction and guidance to subordinate military bodies. The military bodies in permanent session, through which the direction of the Military Committee is given effect, are the Military Representatives Com­ mittee and the Standing Group. The Chairmanship of the Military Committee rotates annually, like the chairmanship of the Council, in the alphabetical order of countries in the English language.

(2) The Military Representatives Committee (MRC) In order that a fully representative military body may be available at all times to provide the Council with military advice in matters relating to national forces and actions by respective national Chiefs of Staff or governments, the Military Representatives Committee is established in continuous session in Washington. Members are re­ presentatives of the Chiefs of Staff of the North Atlantic nations. One of the important results arising from the formation of this Committee has been the ability to provide the Council with con­ tinuous military advice which has been agreed to by all the North Atlantic military staffs. The Military Representatives Committee is authorized to deal with many military matters which would other­ wise have to await a full meeting of the Military Committee. Ice­ land, which has no military establishment, is not represented on the Committee. Belgium represents Luxembourg.

(3) The Standing Group (SG) The Standing Group is composed of representatives of the Chiefs of Staff of France, the United Kingdom and the United States (or when appropriate, the Chief of Staff from each country), and is designated by the Council as the superior body to whom the Su­ preme Commanders are responsible. The Standing Group is in continuous session in Washington. The Chairmanship of the Stan­ ding Group rotates quarterly. The Standing Group draws its authority on certain subjects from the Military Committee and functions as its agent and executive body on certain subjects. It also acts as the steering and executive body of the Military Representatives Committee. Each member of

[341 the Standing Group also represents his country on the Military Re­ presentatives Committee, the Chairman of the Standing Group acting as the Chairman of the Military Representatives Committee. To achieve a unified defence of the North Atlantic Treaty area, the Standing Group co-ordinates and integrates defence plans origi­ nating in n a t o commands and the Canada-United States Regional Planning Group, making appropriate recommendations thereon to the Military Representatives Committee, the Military Committee when in session, and ultimately to the Council. The Standing Group maintains a permanent liaison officer (sg l o ) with a small staff composed of officers drawn in rotation from all member nations at the headquarters of the Council in Paris. Through this medium, military advice based on instructions from the Standing Group/Military Representatives Committee is con­ tinuously supplied to the Council and its working groups. Conver­ sely, the Standing Group/Military Representatives Committee is made fully aware of the Council’s plans and political guidance, thus insuring clcse cooperation between n a t o civilian and military authorities. Besides the n a t o Supreme Commands, other military agencies receiving guidance and direction from the Standing Group are the Military Agency for Standardization in London, and the Advisory Group on Aeronautical Research and Development, then a t o De­ fence College, and the Air Training Advisory Group, all located in Paris. Also subordinate to the Standing Group are the European Military Communications Coordinating Committee, the European Long Lines Agency, and the European Radio Frequencies Agency.

(4) Commands To meet the need for the efficient operation of forces throughout the n a t o region, Supreme Commanders have been appointed to the following areas:

I. e u r o p e a n c o m m a n d - the land area extending from the North Cape to North Africa and from the Atlantic to the Eastern of Turkey.

This area under the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (sa c e u r ) has its headquarters at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, more commonly known s ash a p e .

[35] Saceur The first Supreme Allied Commander in Europe( s a c e u r ) was Gener­ al of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower (United States), who was replaced on 1 June, 1952 by General Matthew B. Ridgway (United States), who was in turn succeeded by General Alfred M. Gruen- ther on 11 July, 1953.

S a c e u r is responsible, under the general direction of the Standing Group, for the defence of the allied countries of continental Europe against invasion, and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe would, in time of war, control all land, sea and air operations in Europe to this end. Internal security and defence of coastal waters remain as a rule the direct responsibility of the national authorities concerned, but the Supreme Commander would have full authority to carry out such operations in these areas as he considered neces­ sary for the defence of Western Europe.

S a c e u r ’s functions are defined as: (a) The organization and training of the various units of the armed forces of the North Atlantic countries which have been allotted to his command so as to ensure that they are knit together into one unified force; (b) the preparation of defence plans; (c) making recommendations to the Standing Group about such matters as the adequacy and training, equipping and support of his forces, and indeed on any military questions which affect his ability to carry out his responsibilities in peace or war. The Supreme Commander ordinarily receives his directions from the Standing Group, but he has the right of direct access to the Chiefs of Staff of any of theP owers, and in exceptional circumstan­ ces to Defence Ministers and Heads of Governments. In addition, all the North Atlantic countries maintain military liaison officers at s h a p e who are responsible for day-to-day liaison with their Chiefs of Staff. On the day that the first Supreme Allied Commander Europe assumed his command, he was authorized by the five Brussels Treaty Powers to take over the responsibility of the Western Union Commanders-in-Chief Committee, the Command planning orga­ nization set up in September, 1948, under the Brussels Treaty. Field-Marshal Montgomery is the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe. His special responsibility is to further the

[36] organization, equipment, training and mobilization of national forces allocated to the Supreme Commander. S a c e u r also has a Deputy (Air), General Lewis Norstad (United States), and a Deputy (Navy), Admiral André Lemonnier (France).

Commands subordinate to Saceur There are four subordinate commands in thes h a p e area: fi ) the ‘Central Europe Command’, with a Commander-in-Chief directly responsible tos a c e u r . Commander-in-Chief Central Europe has under him a Commander Allied Land Forces Central Europe, a Commander Allied Air Forces Central Europe, and a Commander Allied Naval Forces Central Europe. (ii ) the ‘Northern Europe Command’, with a Commander-in- Chief directly responsible tos a c e u r . Commander-in-Chief Northern Europe has under him a Commander Allied Naval Forces Northern Europe as well as a Commander Allied Land Forces, Norway; a Commander Allied Land Forces Den­ mark; and a Commander Allied Air Forces, Northern Europe; (iii) the ‘Southern Europe Command’, with a Commander-in-Chief directly responsible tos a c e u r . The Commander-in-Chief Southern Europe has under him a Commander of Naval Striking and Support Forces, Southern Europe; two Comman­ ders Allied Land Forces, one for Southern Europe and one for South-Eastern Europe; and a Commander Allied Air Forces Southern Europe; (iv) the ‘Mediterranean Command’, with a Commander-in-Chief directly responsible tos a c e u r . The Commander-in-Chief Allied Forces Mediterranean has under him the Commanders of the Gibraltar, French and Italian areas, as well as the Com­ manders of the Mediterranean Central and Eastern Areas if and when designated. A general view of the permanent military structure outlined above is given in the chart on pages 54— 55.

II. t h e atlantic ocean c o m m and - extending form the North Pole to the Tropic of Cancer and from the coastal waters of North America to those of Europe and Africa, except for the Channel and waters around the British Isles. The above area, under the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic

[37] (S a c l a n t ), Admira l Lynde D. McCormick (United States), has its headq uarters at Norfolk, Virginia. Admiral McCormick was ap­ pointed 30 January 1952.

Saclant The Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic, S a c l a n t , like the Su­ preme Allied Commander Europe, S a c e u r , is directly responsible to the Standing Group. The Allied Command Atlantic succeeded the North Atlantic Ocean Regional Planning Group as the activated international ocean command over the North Atlantic Ocean area. The primary task of the Allied Command Atlantic is to provide N a t o with security in this area by guarding the sea lanes and denying use of the Atlantic to an enemy.S a c l a n t has responsibili­ ty for islands in this area, such as Iceland and the Azores, and his duties include rendering support to adjacent commanders with particular emphasis on the defence of Europe. S a c l a n t has been charged by the Standing Group with the fol­ lowing functions: (a) Developing defence plans. (b) Conducting joint and combined training exercises. (c) Being concerned with the entire command’s state of readiness, training standards and establishment units. (d) Advising N a t o of logistical requirements. Standing Group directive broadens S a c l a n t ’s authority in the event of war to include: (e) Determination of policy. (f) Direction of over-all operations. (g) Assignment of forces.

S a c l a n t is an operational rather than an administrative comman­ der. Unlike S a c e u r , S a c l a n t has no forces permanently attached to his command. For training purposes and in the event of war, forces earmarked by the nations involved are assigned to his direc­ tion. These forces are predominantly naval in view of the area’s geography but ground and land-based air forces are included. All the N a t o nations contribute financially to the support of S a c l a n t ’s headquarters. Canada, Denmark, France, the Nether­ lands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States furnish officers to S a c l a n t ’s staff, and are principal contri­ butors of earmarked forces and bases. In addition to those nations,

[38] Belgium and Iceland have liaison representatives accredited to the Allied Command Atlantic. The Supreme Commander ordinarily receives his orders from the Standing Group. He has, however, the right of direct access to the Chiefs of Staff of an}' of the nations involved in his command, and, as the occasions demand, to the appropriate Defence Ministers and Heads of Governments. Vice-Admiral J. F. Stevens (United Kingdom) is the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic and S a c l a n t ’s Chief of Staff is Rear Admiral Leon J. Huffman (United States).

Commands subordinate to Saclant At present there are four principal subordinate commanders di­ rectly responsible toS a c l a n t : (i) The Commander-in-Chief Western Atlantic Area (C in c w e s t- l a n t ), who has under him the Commander Ocean Sub-area (Co- m o c ea n la n t ), the Commander U.S. Atlantic Sub-area (C o m u s- la n t ), the Commander Canadian Atlantic Sub-area (C o m c a n - la n t ) and the Air Commander Canadian Atlantic Sub-area (Co- maircanlant ). The latter two form a joint command. (ii) The Commander-in-Chief Eastern Atlantic Area (Cinceast- l a n t ) , with his subordinates Commander Northern Sub-area (C om - n o r l a n t ) ,Commander Central Sub-area (Comcentlant),Com­ mander Bay of Biscay Sub-area (C o mbisclant) and Commander Submarine Force Eastern Atlantic (Comsubeastlant). (iii) The Air Commander-in-Chief Eastern Atlantic Area (C in - caireastlant ) has a joint command with C inceastlant . Respon­ sible to him are the Air Commander Northern Sub-area (C o m a ir - n o r l a n t ) and the Air Commander Central Sub-area (C o m a ir - c e n t l a n t ). (iv) The Commander Striking Fleet Atlantic (C omstrikefltlant ) who is an operational rather than an Area Commander. A general view of the military structure outlined above is given in the chart on pages 56—57.

III. t h e c h a n n e l c o m m a n d — The English Channel and the Southern North Sea (See also page 27 for Channel Committee). The Commander-in-Chief Channel is Admiral Sir John Edelsten (United Kingdom). Air Marshal Sir John Boothman (United King­ dom) is the Air Commander-in-Chief.

[39] All three commanders, Sa c e u r , Sa c l a n t and Commander-in- Chief Channel are responsible for the development of defence plans for their respective areas in time of war, for the determination of force requirements for the defence of their areas and for the deploy­ ment a nd exercise of the forces assigned to them. All of their reports and recommendations regarding forces and their logistic support are made through the Standing Group. All three Commanders obtain political guidance through the Standing Group from the North Atlantic Council; in the case of the Channel Command, such guidance is sought through the Chan­ nel Committee. All three commands arc organized along flexible lines that allow for mutual support and the rapid shifting of land, sea and air forces to meet the various tactical situations which might confront the North Atlantic Community. The Supreme Commands are divided into various Sub-Commands to organize more effectively the defence of geographical areas.

IV. OTHER MILITARY AGENCIES The Canada-United States regional planning group The purpose of this planning group is to develop and recommend to the Military Committee, through the Standing Group, plans for the defcnce of the Canada-United States Region. This agency is in Washington.

Nato Defence College The n a to Defence College was inaugurated on 19 November, 1951, for the training of individuals who will be needed to serve in key capacities in n a to organizations. It occupies part of the Ecole Mili­ taire buildings in Paris. Its first commandant was Admiral André Lemonnier of the French Navy, who was replaced on 16 November, 1953, by Air-Marshal L. Darvall (United Kingdom). The classes consist of approximately fifty students per term, drawn from officers of the rank of Lt. Col. or above and certain civilian officials from the n a t o countries. The study course is for six months. Three clas­ ses have now completed their studies at the College and its influence in the cause of n a to co-operation is already making itself felt.

Military agency for standardization This body was set up in London early in 1951 as a subsidiary

[40] agency of theS tanding Group, from which it receives guidance and directions. It is composed of representatives of Canada, France, the United Kingdom and the United States, but also includes accredited representatives of the othern a t o powers. Its purpose is to facilitate military standardization both, procedural and material, among Member nations, and to draft agreements for ratification by each interested nation.

Communications agencies in Europe Established August, 1951: European Military Communication Co-ordination Committee - e m c c c , in Paris; naval communications being dealt with by a sub­ committee known as e n c a (European Naval Communications Agency). European Long Line Agency -ella in Paris. European Radio Frequencies Agency -erfa in London. e m c c c is a Working Party of the Standing Group to deal with signal matters pertaining to the defence of Western Europe and the associ­ ated n a t o area. e l i.a studies all matters relating to the use of national telecom­ munication facilities by the armed forces in Europe. erfa collects all available information on radio frequencies and prepares plans for allocation and assignment of frequencies.

Advisory group on aeronautical research and development Established January, 1952, in Paris. Its objective is to bring together leading aeronautical experts of the n a t o nations with a view to recommending effective ways to utilize their respective research and development personnel and facilities for the common benefit of then a t o community.

Air training advisory group Established July, 1952, in the Paris area. Its object is to recommend to the Standing Group improvement of agreed n a t o Air Force standards and to recommend to national Air Forces action concerning improvement in training methods, in order to achieve then a t o Air Forces standards.

[41] A P P E N D IX 1 Article 51 of the United Nations Charter (24 October, 1945)

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defenss if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

A P P E N D IX 2 Extracts from the Brussels Treaty (17 March, 1948)

The titular heads of the participating states: Resolved to reaffirm their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the other ideals proclaimed in the Char­ ter of the United Nations; To fortify and preserve the principles of democracy, personal freedom and political liberty, the constitutional traditions and the rule oflaw, which are their common heritage; To strengthen, with these aimsin view, the economic, social and cultural ties by which they are already united; To co­ operate loyally and to co-ordinate their efforts to create in Western Europe a firm basis for European economic recovery; To afford assistance to each other, in accordance with the Charter of the Unit­ ed Nations, in maintaining international peace and security and in resisting any policy of aggression; To take such steps as may be held to be necessary in the event of a renewal by Germany of a policy of aggression; To associate progres­ sively in the pursuance of these aims other States inspired by the same ideals and animated by the like determination; Desiring for these purposes to conclude a treaty for collaboration in econo­ mic, social and cultural matters and for collective self-defence; Have appointed. . . their plenipotentiaries. - .w ho... have agreed as follows:

a r t ic l e I Convinced of the close community of their interests and of the necessity of uni­ ting in order to promote the economic recovery of Europe, the High Contracting Parties will so organize and co-ordinate their economic activities as to produce the best possible results, by the elimination of conflict in their economic policies, the co-ordination of production and the development of commercial exchanges. The co-operation provided for in the preceding paragraph, which will be effected through the Consultative Council referred to in Article VII as well as through other bodies, shall not involve any duplication of, or prejudice to, the work of other economic organizations in which the High Contracting Parties are or may be represented but shall on the contrary assist the work of those orga­ nizations.

ARTICLE II The High Contracting Parties will make every effort in common, both by direct

[42] consultation and in specialized agencies, to promote the attainment of a higher standard of living by their peoples and to develop on corresponding lines the social and other related services of their countries. The High Contracting Parties will consult with the object of achieving the earliest possible application of recommendations of immediate practical interest, relating to social matters, adopted with their approval in the specialized agencies. They will endeavour to conclude as soon as possible conventions with each other in the sphere of social security.

ARTICLE III The High Contracting Parties will make every effort in common to lead their peoples towards a better understanding of the principles which form the basis of their common civilization and to promote cultural exchanges by conventions between themselves or by other means.

ARTICLE IV If any of the High Contracting Parties should be the object of an armed attack in Europe, the other High Contracting Parties will, in accordance with the pro­ visions of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, afford the Party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power.

a r t i c l e v All measures taken as a result of the preceding Article shall be immediately re­ ported to the Security Council. They shall be terminated as soon as the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. The present Treaty does not prejudice in any way the obligations of the High Contracting Parties under the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. It shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

a r t i c l e VI The High Contracting Parties declare, each so far as he is concerned, that none of the international engagements now in force between him and any of the other High Contracting Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of the present Treaty. None of the High Contracting Parties will conclude any alliance or participate in any coalition directed against any other of the High Contracting Parties.

ARTICLE VII For the purpose of consulting together on all the questions dealt with in the present Treaty, the High Contracting Parties will create a Consultative Council, which shall be so organized as to be able to exercise its functions continuously. The Council shall meet at such times as it shall deem fit. At the request of any of the High Contracting Parties, the Council shall be immediately convened in order to permit the High Contracting Parties to con­ sult with regard to any situation which may constitute a threat to peace, in whatever area this threat should arise; with regard to the attitude to be adopted and the steps to be taken in case of a renewal by Germany of an aggressive policy; or with regard to any situation constituting a danger to economic stability.

[43] ARTICLE VIII In pursuance of their determination to settle disputes only by peaceful means, the High Contracting Parties will apply to disputes between themselves the follow­ ing provision: The High Contracting Parties will, while the present Treaty remains in force, settle all disputes falling within the scope of Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice by referring them to the. . . C ourt

ARTICLE IX The High Contracting Parties may, by agreement, invite any other State to accede to the present treaty on conditions to be agreed between them and the State so invited ...

ARTICLE X The present Treaty . .. shall enter into force on the date of the deposit of the last instrument of ratification and shall thereafter remain in force for fifty years . .. Done at Brussels, this seventeenth day of March, 1948 . ..

A P P E N D IX 3 The Vandenberg Resolutio (11 )

Whereas peace with justice and the defence of human rights and fundamental freedoms require international co-operation through more effective use of the United Nations: Therefore beResolved, it That the Senate reaffirm the policy of the United States to achieve international peace and security through the United Nations so that armed force shall not be used except in the common interest, and that the President be advised of the sense of the Senate that this Government by constitutional process, should particularly pursue the following objectives within the United Nations Charter: 1. Voluntary agreement to remove the veto from all questions involving pacific settlements of international disputes and situations, and from the admission of new members. 2. Progressive development of regional and other collective arrangements for individual and collective self-defence in accordance with the purposes, prin­ ciples, and provisions of the Charter. 3. Association of the United States, by constitutional process, with such regional and other collective arrangements as are based on continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, and as affect its national security. 4. Contributing to the maintenance of peace by making clear its determination to exercise the right of individual or collective self-defence under Article 51 should any armed attack occur affecting its national security. 5. Maximum efforts to obtain agreements to provide the United Nations with armed forces as provided by the Charter, and to obtain agreement, among member nations upon universal regulation and reduction of armaments un­ der adequate and dependable guaranty against violation. 6. If necessary, after adequate effort toward strengthening the United Nations, review of the Charter at an appropriate time by a General Conference called under Article 109 or by the General Assembly. Source: Senate Resolution 239, 80th Congress, 2nd Session, June 11, 1948.

[44] APPENDIX 4 Extracts from Ministerial speeches at the signing of the Treaty ‘The reality (of the Treaty),’ said Mr. Acheson, ‘is the unity of belief, of spirit, of interest, of the community of nations represented here. It is the product of many centuries of common thought and of the blood of many simple and brave m en... The reality lies not in the common pursuit of a material goal or of a power to dominate others. It lies in the affirmation of moral and spiritual values which govern the kind of life they propose to lead and which they propose to defend, by all possible means, should that necessity be thrust upon them . . . From this act, taken here today, will flow increasing good for all peoples . . . New strength and courage will accrue not only to the peoples of the Atlantic community, but to all peoples of the world community who seek for themselves, and for others equally, freedom and peace.’ M. Paul-Henri Spaak (Belgium) emphasised the defensive nature of the Treaty. ‘The new Pact is purely defensive,’ he said, ‘it is directed against no one, it threatens no one; it should therefore disturb no one . .. War is a hateful and absurd thing. It settles nothing and its consequences constitute almost as heavy a burden for the conquerors as for the conquered . . . Twice within less than 25 years the of Western Europe, the United States of America, and Canada have faced terrible dangers. Twice the civilization that they represent, their way of life and thought have been jeopardized. Twice it has required mili­ tary miracles to save them. Twice an over-blind trust has all but ruined them. It would be unpardonable to ignore the repeated lessons of history.’

Mr. Lester B. Pearson (Canada) underlined the importance of the Treaty as an alliance for communal progress as well as for defence. ‘This Treaty, though born of fear and frustration, must, however, lead to posi­ tive social, economic and political achievements if it is to live . . . We, of this North Atlantic community, the structure of which we now consolidate, must jealously guard the defensive and progressive nature of our... League Security and progress, like peace and war, are indivisible. So there must be nothing nar­ row, nothing exclusive, about our league; no slackening of our interest in the welfare and security of all friendly peoples. The North Atlantic Community is part of the world community and as we grow stronger to preserve the peace, all free men grow stronger with us.’ Mr. Gustav Rasmussen (Denmark): - ‘The very natur their (i.e., North Atlan­ tic nations’) institutions makes a calculated plan of aggro-j^on a virtual impossi­ bility . . . The preservation of peace (is) in deep accord with the ardent desire and old tradition of the Danish people.’ M. Robert Schuman (France):- ‘We are uniting with the intention of providing a common and reciprocal protection. We want to discourage in advance any aggression, by making it more and more dangerous for the aggressor .. . Nations are more and more convinced that their fates are closely bound together, that their salvation and their welfare can no longer be based upon an egotistical and aggressive nationalism, but must rest upon the progressive application of human solidarity.’ Mr. Bjarni Benediktsson (Iceland):- ‘It is not only this realistic reason (i.e., de­ fence) which has decided our attitude. We also want to make it crystal clear that we belong and want to belong to this free community of free nations which now is being formally founded . . . It is not only this threat to world peace and human well-being which unites us. Neither is it only the fact that wc all live in the same part of the world. There arc stronger bonds which bind us together. We all

[45] belong to the same culture. Wc would all prefer to lose our lives rather than lose our freedom.’ Count (Italy): - ‘SigningPact... a is not enough. Life shall have lo circulate through it, as a result of constant free collaboration in the service of peace between all its members, present and future. . . N ot only would we fail the spirit of the Pact, we would also belittle its force if we considered it only as a pro­ tective umbrella. We must pray to God that this Pact will prove to be like the English Magna Charta: on one side intangible, on the other side a continuous creation.’ M . Joseph Bech (Luxembourg):- ‘The North Atlantic Pact is the logical supple­ ment to the Brussels P act. . . Nothing proves better this ineluctable solidarity of the destinies of our countries than the fact that the United States, breaking with a tradition of two centuries old, is concluding a military alliance in peacetime, that is an event of extraordinary historical significance for the United States and of the utmost importance for Europe.’

Mr.Dirk U. Stikker (Netherlands): - ‘Together we are determined to gird the North Atlantic with a chain of strength . . . We rejoice at the thought that at last the truth prevails that the North Atlantic is a highway that unites, not a barrier that divides. We rejoice at the thought that North Americans and Western Euro­ peans have found each other in a common edifice dedicated to peace.’

Mr. Halvard Lange (Norway): - ‘We have a longer coastline on the North Atlantic than any other country. Our experience through the centuries has been that the Ocean did not separate. On the contrary, for us it has been the highway of com­ mercial and cultural intercourse . . . The overwhelming majority of the Nor­ wegian people deeply believes that the signing of the Atlantic Pact is an event which may decisively influence the course of history and hasten the day when all nations can work together for peace and freedom.’

Dr. Jose Caeiro de M atta P( ortugal): - ‘My country, in accepting this invitation.. to take her place among the original participating nations in the Atlantic Pact, was not concerned exclusively with considerations of her own. . . security More than ever it is necessary to defend the principles and the positions which those peoples that are the depository of the ideals of western civilization occupy in the world.’ M r. Ernest Bevin (United Kingdom): - ‘Countries whose representatives are sign­ ing this great Pact today are composed of peace-loving peoples with spiritual affinities, but who also have great pride in their skill and their production, and in their achievements in mastering the forces of nature and harnessing the great resources of the world for the benefit of mankind . . . Today will bring a great feeling of relief to millions of people. At last democracy is no longer a series of isolated units. It has become a cohesive organization, determined to fulfil its great purpose.’ The final speech was made by the President of the United States. ‘In this pact,’ Mr. Truman said, ‘we hope to create a shield against aggression and the fear of aggression - a bulwark which will permit us to get on with the real business of government and society, the business of achieving a fuller and happier life for our citizens . . . We believe that it is possible for nations to achie­ ve unity on the great principles of human freedom and justice, and at the same time to permit, in other respects, the greatest diversity of which the human mind is capable . . . For us war is not inevitable. We do not believe that there are blind tides of history which sweep men one way or the other. In our own time we

[46] have seen brave men overcome obstacles that seemed insurmountable and forces that seemed overwhelming. Men with courage and vision can still determine their own destiny ... If there is anything certain today, if there is anything inevitable in the future, it is the will of the people of the world for freedom and peace.’

A P P E N D IX 5 FINAL COMMUNIQUE Issued after the Ministerial Meeting in April, 1953

1. The North Atlantic Council, meetingParis in in Ministerial Session with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Defence, Economics and Financc present, and under the Chairmanship of Lord Ismay, completed their work today.

2. The Council agreed on short and long-term programmesnato for . They established a firm military programme for 1953 and a provisional programme for 1954. In addition to the forces which Greece and Turkey are contributing, there will be a notable increase in the size of the forces assignedn a t oto Su­ preme Commanders and a considerable improvement in their effectiveness. Training is being greatly improved at all levels. The series of large-scale manoeu­ vres held during the last year has appreciably raised the standard of co-operation of the forces of the member countries; units are being better equipped and the organization of support forces is developing.n a t The o military authorities consider that the attainment of the force goals in 1953, and the combined in­ fluence of these various factors, will add materially to the defensive strength of n a toduring 1953.

3. Agreement was reached not only on the common financing of the second part (£ 67,000,000) to the Fourth Slice of the Infrastructure Programme (the first part to the amount of about £ 80,000,000 having been settled at a Ministe­ rial Meeting in December), but also on a cost-sharing formula which would cover future programmes to be submitted by the Supreme Commanders for the three-year period beginning in 1954, involving expenditure of up to £250,000,000 subject to the approval of Parliaments. These programmes will include a wide range of projects such as airfields, telecommunications, naval bases and port facilities, pipe-lines and radar installations. The military authoritiesn a to of now have a financial planning figure to which they can work for over three years. In addition, an improved system is ready to be put into operation to ensure closer financial supervision over the expenditure of common infrastruc­ ture funds.

4. The Council gavelose c attention to various economic and financial factors affecting the rate of expansion of the defence efforts. It was agreed that the development of sound national economies and the increase of military forces should be pursued concurrently; in certain fields the establishment of long-term joint military production programmes appeared to be the least costly and the most efficient solution.

5. It was on these lines that the Member Governments and the International Staff developed a method for preparing correlated production programmes. The object of this is both to ensure that the defence production undertaken by European countries within their own budgets is on the most economic lines and to make defence production in Europe more effective. The participation of the United States, through off-shore procurement, adds to th3 contribution of the European countries and plays a very important part in these achievements. The

[47] additional fighter aircraft production programme, which has recently been announced, is a first important result of this. It will facilitate the expansion of the aircraft industries in five European countries while at the same time streng­ thening the air defence capacity of the Alliance. Other programmes are being considered,n a t o is also studying the means of developing production in Europe of spare parts for the maintenance of equipment of American and Canadian origin. 6. The Secretary-General’s ProgressR eport to the Council stressed the close collaboration between the civilian and military agenciesn a t oof, and outlined the current work of the International Staff. It emphasised the importance of developing a better public understanding of the aims and achievements of n a t o , a matter to which Governments should give their constant attention. The Report described the progress made in the many and varied technical studies by Committees of the Council in a number of widely different fields, such as civil defence and other aspects of civil organization in time of war. In the course of discussion on the Report, the Council re-emphasisedr thei interest in then a t o countries’ co-operation in the economic, cultural and social fields. They noted with satisfaction the initiative taken by the President of the United States of America, recently announced, with a view to fostering the solution of over-population problems in certain countries.

7. The Council continued their regular practice of exchanging views on political matters of common concern. In reviewing the international situation they were in full agreement. This agreement included theii estimate of the recent Soviet moves and gestures. To the extent that these moves and gestures are proved by events to be genuine efforts to reduce international tension, they will be wel­ comed by Member Governments, whose policy has always been to seek every opportunity for world peace. 8. Nevertheless, the Council found that there had not yet in fact been any change in the fundamental threat to the security of free peoples. The most strik­ ing evidence of this continuing threat is the huge and constantly strengthened military force maintained by those nations whose policies have been responsi­ ble for the present tension, and who are still promoting aggressive war in several parts of the world. The most recent example is the extension of hostilities in Laos. This serious development has increased the burden of France in the struggle against agression and has given rise to deep concern on the part of other Member Governments. 9. The Council, therefore, reaffirmed the policy of collective defence which has proved fully justified, and which has been responsible for the growing confidence of the free world in the future. The Council felt that there was every prospect that this policy, continued with firmness and patience, will create a basis for a just settlement of unresolved international problems.

10. The Council considered it essential that Member Governments should continue to develop the free Atlantic Community which should include a European Defence Community to be established as soon as possible in an ever more closely united Europe. 11. The Council reaffirmed their fundamental desire to build for peace. They looked forward to the day when a greater share of the resources of their coun­ tries would be devoted to national and international reconstruction and develop­ ment. Convinced that in unity lies their greatest strength, they are resolved to broaden co-operation in every field, economic, political and social, as well as military, and so to make the Atlantic Community a lasting reality.

[48] CHART No. I NATO CIVIL AND MILITARY CHART No. 2 NATO INTERNATIONAL STAFF/SECRETARIAT CHART No. 3 NATO COUNCIL COMMITTEES CHART No. 4 THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY MILITARY ORGANIZATION * Not in continuous session; meets several times annually °EMCCC European Military Communications Coor­ dinating Committee in Paris in ° ELLA European Long Lines Agency in Paris

ERFA European Radio Frequencies Agency in London CHART No. 5 SHA PE A ND ITS COMMANDS

ALLIED FORC ES MEDITERRANEAN

CHART No. 6 SACLANT AND SUBORDINATE COMMANDS COMMANDER SUBMARINE COMMANDER AIR COMMANDER COMMANDER AtR COMMANDER COMMANDER STRIKING FLEET FORCE AND NORTHERN NORTHERN CENTRAL CENTRAL EASTERN BAY OF BISCAY SUB-AREA SUB-AREA SUB-AREA SUB-AREA ATLANTIC SUB-AR E A SPht'IALTASK AREA FORCES

PITRt AVIE SCOTLAND PLYMOUTH PLYMOUTH NORTIIWOOD U.K. (wire ■ i>)