Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 May 2009
It is no secret from even the most cursory reader of the daily press that NATO has of late been undergoing what is commonly referred to as a “crisis”. Four factors seem to me crucial components of the difficult problems with which the fifteen nations are wrestling.
1 Lawton Collins, General J., “NATO: Still Vital for Peace,” Foreign Affairs. 04 1956 (Vol. 34, No. 3). p. 376, 377.Google Scholar
2 Arnold, Wolfers, “Can a War in Europe Be Limited?” Yale Review, Winter 1956 (Vol. 45, No. 2), p. 214–228.Google Scholar
3 Raymond, Aron, “Europe and Air Power.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 05 1955, p. 100.Google Scholar
4 See, for example, Snyder, Richard C., Henry, Bruck and Burton, Sapin, Decision-Making As an Approach to the Study of International Politics, Foreign Policy Analysis Series No. 3, 1954, esp. p. 88–95.Google Scholar
5 John Foster, Dulles, “Developing NATO in Peace,” Department of State Bulletin, 04 30, 1956 (Vol. 34. No. 879). P. 706–710.Google Scholar
6 The choice of the words “Atlantic Community” can hardly have been accidental. One may surmise that other possibilities, such as “alliance”, “treaty”, or “pact” were avoided in order to give an appearance of solidarity to the organization and of making it appear that the task of the committee would be in fact to tighten bonds between countries already involved in the intimate relationship implied by the word “Community”.
7 As outlined by the Foreign Minister, the various organs of the agency would include an executive committee composed of donors and donees, a bank or fund to receive money and disburse it to various United Nations programs, a commercial clearinghouse to buy and sell surpluses of the countries receiving aid, a technical institute, and a bureau of statistics. The text of Pineau's address to the NATO Council has been reproduced by the French Embassy in its French Affairs Series. No. 31, May 1956.