The Press MONDAY, MAY 22, 1950. Atlantic Community

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26118, 22 May 1950, Page 6

The Press MONDAY, MAY 22, 1950. Atlantic Community

The decisions taken at their London conference by the Foreign Ministers of the 12 North Atlantic Pact Powers must be considered in relation to the decisions and pronouncements of the Foreign Ministers of the United States, Britain, and France in order to understand their deep importance for Europe and for the world. Taken together, the results of the conferences of the Three and the Twelve are momentous. For while it is true that Europe’s chief danger now is war, and not the economic collapse or the political disintegration which were the chief perils when the Marshall plan was launched, it is also true that political, social, economic, and- strategic purposes are indivisible. Uncertainty about the economic prospects after 1952 has been one of the main reasons for the defensive plans projected under the North Atlantic Pact losing much of their original impetus; a feeling of military insecurity, arising in part from doubts about the will and the ability of the United States to back the Atlantic defence system effectively, certainly has hindered economic effort and economic cooperation, and probably has checked the movement toward political unity.

The inspiring events of the last few days will resolve many of these uncertainties and remove many causes of hesitation. In the military field, the setting up of an

“ Atlantic High Command ”, on which each of the 12 signatories of the North Atlantic Pact will be represented, will bring the United States and Canada into the detailed planning of European defence as full working partners. There is assurance in the communique issued by the conference of the Twelve that this planning will take full account not only of the military problems involved in allocating strategic roles to the member countries and in co-ordinating their efforts, but also of the economic and financial problems of each country. Although some of the European countries are carrying less than their fair and reasonable share of the common defence, according to well-informed observers there has so far been little or no attempt to assess the reasonable capacity of the various nations to contribute.

The assurance of continuing military support from across the Atlantic is matched by the explicit promise of economic co-oper-ation contained in a statement issued by the Foreign Ministers of the United States, Britain, and France simultaneously with the communique from the conference of the Atlantic Pact nations. In this statement the United States Secretary of State was quoted as saying that “ while the European Recovery “ Programme terminates in 1952, the “interest of the United States in “ Europe will necessarily continue ” and that “study of the problems is “ now going forward actively in the “ United States on the highest Gov- “ ernment level ”. The statement also recorded that the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs had indicated “ a similar “interest on the part of his country “ to participate in the study of these “ problems ”.

The four Ministers [said the statement] were agreed that it was their hope through a new working relationship to proceed promptly towards finding solutions of the general economic problems which lie immediately ahead along lines which would eliminate conflict in their international economic policies. They recognise that Canada, the United States, and Western European countries have a continued interest in developing and strengthening economic collaboration between them in order that they can make together the full contribution to the building of a peaceful and prosperous world order.

Those who looked for the London conferences to bring agreement on the kind of “ High Atlantic Coun- “ cil ” recently proposed by Mr Bidault—with executive powers in the political and economic as well as in the military field—may be disappointed. The Foreign Ministers of the Big Three apparently looked at the proposal and decided that the time is not yet ripe. Few can doubt the wisdom of their decision. They recognised in their joint statement that “ the development and “ strengthening of the economic ties “ of the community of nations may “in the future require formal “ organisational expression ” and recorded their opinion that it is unnecessary at this time to suggest “ precisely what form of arrange- “ ment will prove to be best suited “to the taking of common action “in the community ”. There is no reason for disappointment here. It is a formal and solemn recognition of the interdependence and community of interest of the peoples on both sides of the Atlantic.