a Europe,

defend yourself

NON-PROLIFERATION PAUL-HENRI SPA.A.K

The United States has secured the suspen- sion of the Geneva disarmament conference. It has acted wisely. It is giving itself a few weeks of reflection before taking up a final stand on the non-proliferation treaty.

I hope that a treaty preventing the prolifera- tion of atomic weapons will be finally adopted, since I believe that it would be dangerous for world peace if the atomic bomb and the means of delivering it were made available to a grow- ing number of governments. In the hands of the Americans and the Russians, atomic weapons constitute a disquieting menace hanging over the world, even if, paradoxically, this renders a global war, if not impossible, at least im- probable. But the more governments that possess these weapons, the greater the danger that they will be used. Not all statesmen are prudent Some are megalomaniacs. They should not be able, on any occasion, to use such powerful arguments to satisfy their ambitions or to ensure the success of their intrigues.

In principle then, a treaty is required. Having said that explicitly, I maintain that the Americans and the Russians must realise what they are asking. Simply put, it is that the whole world recognise their military superiority and, indirectly; their political preponderance.

It is the first time that such a situation has presented itself in the history of mankind. It is so new, so revolutionary, that certain hesi- tations by some are understandable, and their demands for complete clarity are justified. It may be said that signature of this treaty is only making de jure a situation which already exists de facto. That is correct up to a point, but there is an enormous difference between tacitly accepting a position which may only be temporary, and giving it juridical perma- nence. In placing their signatures at the bottom of the text which will be submitted to them, government representatives will be acknowledg- ing that for a long time, for a very long time, two countries, and two countries only, will be able, if they so wish, to use their power to divide the world between them or to dominate it. This is the realisation of a dream that the greatest conquerors of the past never dared have.

I confess that, as a European, it is not with- out melancholy that I view the situation. The Europe that we wanted, the Europe whose position in the world we intended to restore, the Europe that we hoped to make the equal of the United States and of the Soviet Union, is no longer realisable. It is dead for ever.

Phrases from speeches I made in the 1950s come back to mind. My earlier enthusiasms, I can now appreciate, were illusions. We have not known how to halt that decline which has been Western Europe's penalty for the • follies of two world wars which originated among us. Today we are paying the price of our errors and of our faults. Very well, we must bow our heads accordingly.

But if our military power has become negli- gible and if our political influence is tending to diminish, other fields of activity remain open to us. We can always, technically, in- dustrially, and commercially match the greatest.

In those domains we can always be among the most powerful and, thanks to our wealth, make a vital contribution to solving the problem of the underdeveloped countries. We can be an area of progress and social justice. We can remain an intellectual centre. We can bring our people all the material benefits which the development of science and technology promise them.

We can still be or do all that, but on one condition: we must be united. Events show irrefutably that the future belongs to the large communities. We must consolidate our force.. United Europe is more indispensable than ever, and Great Britain must find her place in it.

If, through ill-luck or stupidity, we were to reject a British request to cooperate at the very moment when a non-proliferation treaty (with the consequences that I have indicated above) was signed, we should finally be accept- ing that we were decadent. If, having lost our military power, having seen our political influ- ence diminish, we were to implicitly accept the restriction of our technological development, we shall have shown that we have resigned ourselves to our destiny: that of a second- or third-rate country, underdeveloped compared with the richest.

But I hope that we shall be spared this fatal error. The responsible statesmen in the Euro- pean community will show that they under- stand, and Britain will reveal herself as both reasonable and courageous. There is a prime duty which imposes itself on her. Because France is not present at the Geneva negotia- tions, it is Britain who must defend the legitimate interests of Europe. Now that she states that she wishes to become part of Europe, it would be inconceivable that she should re- nounce this role and that she should prefer that of the 'third great power.' Happily, she - has, I believe, understood this.

Enormous European interests are at stake. If we can accept military discrimination, it is impossible, unimaginable that we could agree to any other form of discrimination. We are re- nouncing the manufacture of atomic bombs, but we must insist that nothing hinders our scientific and industrial activities in the atomic field. The Russians and the Americans must understand that that is the price that we want them to pay for the privilege that they are asking.

It is not easy to distinguish precisely be- tween the use of atomic energy for peaceful

and for military purposes. No research must be forbidden to us. The controls that we are prepared to accept must have no effect other than to prevent us from manufacturing weapons. They cannot in any way hinder in the slightest our technical progress in all other directions. From this point of view the pro- posed treaty is far from satisfactory. In conferring the very important functions of control on the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, and in substituting for the control of atomic materials, such as is exercised by Euratom, a control over nuclear activities, the Russians and the Americans, who do not accept this control over their own territory, are proposing -a second and also

unacceptable form of discrimination. By adding that any amendment to the treaty must have the vote of a majority of the signatories to the treaty—a majority which must necessarily include all the nuclear powers—the 'great' countries are again creating a right of veto for themselves. The experience of the United Nations has shown how such a clause can lead to abuse and ineffectiveness. We also know that, compared with the system adopted by Euratom, this is a major step backwards. It cannot be accepted.

The Russians and Americans must know that their proposals have provoked strenuous and, to my mind, legitimate opposition. Accept- ing them as they stand would be equivalent to creating an unjustified discrimination in the field of the peaceful exploitation of atomic energy. If such proposals were to be insisted on, they ought to lead to a refusal to sign the treaty. By adopting a firm united stand, the European countries, and at least those which belong to Euratom, could induce the two big powers to modify their point of view. If the Russians and Americans were to come together in order to refuse this concession, the dangers of a system which makes them privileged powers would immediately become apparent.

But good may yet come out of this unhappy situation. The threat which looms, the brutal revelation of their inferior position, can arouse the conscience and will to resist of the Euro- peans. But there must be a united front. The Euratom Commission has already been alerted and has assessed the peril. It is essential that governments at first, and then the public, en- courage and support the commission.

At Zurich in 1947, Churchill said, Europe, awake. In 1967, we must say, Europe, defend yourself.—C 1967 Opera Mandl.