From the veiled sadness of the occasion to seating arrangement upsets: how the Guardian reported the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty

The Foreign Ministers of the 12 Western nations signed the North Atlantic Pact in the State Department at Washington last night. Mr. Dean Acheson, the Secretary of State, welcomed the Ministers with a short speech. Each of the visitors then spoke. Afterwards President Truman entered the hall and welcomed the guests. He said he hoped the treaty would be a shield against aggression and the fear of aggression. All the Foreign Ministers then signed the pact.

‘The end of an illusion’

from Alistair Cooke

5 April 1949

Washington, April 4

In a simple but severely formal ceremony more familiar to the Palace of Versailles than to the leafy and comfortable town on the Potomac, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed this afternoon by the 12 nations of the North Atlantic community which is now defined to any intending aggressor as:

Europe and North America need to stay united – now more than ever | Jens Stoltenberg Read more

The territory of any of the parties in Europe or North America, the Algerian departments of France, the occupation forces of any party in Europe, the islands under the jurisdiction of any party in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer, or the vessels or aircraft in this area of any of the parties.

The Ministers took their seats on the stage of the Departmental Auditorium of the State Department at three o’clock, and after an address of welcome from Secretary Acheson each of them in turn made a five-minute speech and signed the treaty in the following order: – M. Paul-Henri Spaak of Belgium, Lester Pearson of Canada, Gustav Rasmussen of Denmark, Robert Schuman of France, Bjarni Benediktsson of Iceland, Count Carlo Sforza of Italy, Joseph Bech of Luxembourg, Dirk Stikker of the Netherlands, Halvard Lange of Norway, Jose Caeiro da Mata of Portugal, Ernest Bevin of the United Kingdom, and Dean Acheson of the United States.

A cathedral hush

The signing of the United Nations Charter at San Francisco was the nearest thing in recent American memory to the scene to-day, in which black-coated figures moved through a cathedral hush broken at ritual intervals by well-bred waves of handclapping. But at San Francisco any citizen could stroll in off the street, have his fill, and shuffle out again, and the press photographers kept up a day-long tattoo of fork lightning from their popping bulbs. The photographers were, as always, with us to-day, alert as pointers, but as stationary, fenced in on high stands.

The auditorium is a big, handsome, dull building, whose massive pillars of crushed oyster shells do not add the glint of lightness or oddity that their material structure implies. The seating capacity is limited to 1,300, and this restriction started a little row in the Senate this morning that recalled the wounded pride felt in many Congressional breasts when the invitations to King George’s garden party here in 1939 had to be similarly limited.

Click to read.

Senator Scott Lucas, the Democratic leader in the Senate, called for a recess this afternoon to allow the Senate to watch the signing. Senator Forrest Donnell of Missouri, the most suspicious critic of the pact, promptly announced that he had not been invited. Senator Lucas “thought” that the whole Senate had been invited, an unfortunate thought to say aloud since the State Department had warned everybody over the weekend that the auditorium was too small to seat the whole of Congress. As it was, only 41 senators and 61 representatives were provided for being the members of the Senate and House Foreign Relations Committees and the chairmen and ranking members of all the Congressional committees. With them were members of the Diplomatic Corps, defence chiefs and military aides, and the press.

The orchestra of the United States Marine Corps played, doubtless without ulterior motive, the Overture to an Italian Comedy, Tales from the Vienna Woods and (from Gershwin’s Porgy and Bess) It Ain’t Necessarily So. But then the formality was restored by the appearance of the 12 ministers, coming with their Ambassadors and sitting in a semicircle around an arrangement of ferns and hydrangeas sprouting from the flag-poles of the 12 nations. Mr. Bevin came first, followed by Sir Oliver Franks, and the congregation respectfully rose.

The end of Atlanticism: has Trump killed the ideology that won the cold war? Read more

Church-like audience

It was on this compact and remarkably church-like audience that Mr. Acheson, a bishop’s son. looked out and said appropriately:

We are met together to consummate a solemn act. Those who participated in the drafting of this treaty must leave to others the judgment of the significance and value of this act. They cannot appraise the achievement, but can and should declare the purpose – like the purpose of those who chart the stars – not to create what they record, but to set down realities for the guidance of men, whether well or ill disposed. For those who seek peace, it is a guide to refuge and strength, a very present help in time of trouble. For those who set their feet upon the path of aggression, it is a warning that if it must needs be that offences come, then woe unto them by whom the offence cometh. The reality which is set down here is not created here. The reality 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 men and women…It is well that these truths be know. The purpose of this treaty is to publish them and give them form.

In their turn most of the ministers said sadly and undefiantly that this was an instrument of peace. But Dr Stikker for the Netherlands began with the thought that hung heavy over this ceremony and will hang thunderously over the United Nations General Assembly that opens tomorrow:

The treaty we are about to sign marks the end of an illusion: the hope that the United Nations would by itself ensure international peace.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest The North Atlantic Treaty, showing the signatures of the foreign secretaries and ambassadors of the original members of NATO. Photograph: Hulton Getty

San Francisco and now

Suddenly, in retrospect, the signing of the Charter at San Francisco only four years ago was a charming dream from which we had awakened gradually into a grey reality.

No matter what was said to-day, the ceremony generated the solemnity of certain recognitions that all the parties have come to over the weekend. That politically and economically Western Europe is being held above water by the United States till it can regain its strength. That militarily it has become essential for the United States to end its independent existence and to renounce its most beloved tradition of offering on a new continent a way of life wholly free from the hazards of the national States of Europe. Whether to-day was the beginning of a better dependency we can tell only when the first aggression tests the pledge of the 12 nations to stand together.

But seen from here that “Indian place in the wilderness” where a new nation planted its government, the sadness of to-day’s ceremony was the sadness of admitting that to-day was also for the Americans the end of something.

Editorial: The Treaty

5 April 1949

The signing of the North Atlantic Treaty is one of the most memorable moments of our time. There was a similar hopeful moment on June 26, 1945, when the United Nations Charter was signed. But the years since have been years of confusion and hopelessness. Now again the vista of peace opens.

Continue reading.

Donald Trump is right. Nato is a costly white elephant | Simon Jenkins Read more

Unanimous agreement on defence plans

2 December 1949

The defence ministers of the North Atlantic Pact powers which have been drafting a Western defence plan to-night announced that a unanimous agreement had been reached. A communique issued after a five-hour meeting said they had agreed on plans for he defence of the North Atlantic area, production and supply of arms, and coordination of schemes between the various regional groups.

It added that the measures adopted were not directed against any nation or people, “but the parties are determined that their civilisation and institutions shall be safeguarded.” The objective “is adequate military strength accompanied by economy of resource and manpower.”

Continue reading