Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, Western Europe, Volume IV

840.20/3–3149

The Ambassador of the Soviet Union (Panyushkin) to the Secretary of State

[Informal Translation] No. 32

[Washington,] March 31, 1949.

Sir: Upon instructions from the Soviet Government I enclose herewith for the Government of the USA a memorandum of the Soviet Government concerning the North Atlantic Pact.

At the same time I enclose the text of the declaration of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR of January 29, 1949 concerning the North Atlantic Pact.¹

Accept [etc.]

A. Panyushkin

[Enclosure]

Memorandum of the Government of the USSR Concerning the North Atlantic Treaty²

On March 18 the Department of State of the USA published the text of the North Atlantic Treaty which the Governments of the USA, Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Canada intend to sign within the next few days.

The text of the North Atlantic Treaty has fully confirmed what was said in the declaration of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR of January 29 of this year,¹ which is attached herewith, both as regards the aggressive aims of this Treaty and as regards the fact that the North Atlantic Treaty is in contradiction with the principles and aims of the United Nations Organization and the commitments which the Governments of the United States of America, Great Britain, and France have assumed under other treaties and agreements. The statements contained in the North Atlantic Treaty concerning its defensive design and its recognition of the principles of the United Nations Organization serve aims which have nothing in common either with the tasks of self defense of the Parties to the Treaty or with real recognition of the aims and principles of the United Nations Organization.

Such great powers as the United States, Great Britain, and France are parties to the North Atlantic Treaty. Thus the Treaty is not directed either against the United States of America, Great Britain, or France. Among the great powers only the Soviet Union is excluded from the number of the parties to this treaty, which may only be explained by the fact that this Treaty is directed against the Soviet Union. The fact that the North Atlantic Treaty is directed against the USSR as well as against the countries of people’s democracy has also been specifically indicated by official representatives of the United States of America, Great Britain and France.

To justify the conclusion of the North Atlantic Treaty, reference is made to the fact that the Soviet Union has defensive treaties with the countries of people’s democracy. However these references are completely untenable.

All the treaties of the Soviet Union on friendship and mutual assistance with the countries of people’s democracy have a bilateral character and are directed solely against the possibility of a repetition of German aggression, the danger of which no single peace-loving state can forget. In this connection the possibility of interpreting them as treaties in any degree directed against the Allies of the USSR in the last war, against the United States or Great Britain or France, is entirely excluded.

Moreover the USSR has similar treaties against a repetition of German aggression, not only with the countries of people’s democracy but also with Great Britain and France.

In contradiction therewith the North Atlantic Treaty is not a bilateral but a multilateral treaty which creates a closed grouping of states and, what is particularly important, entirely ignores the possibility of a repetition of German aggression, not having consequently as its aim the prevention of a new German aggression. And, inasmuch as the USSR alone of the great powers which comprised the anti-Hitlerite coalition, does not participate in this Treaty, the North Atlantic Treaty must be regarded as a treaty directed against one of the chief Allies of the United States, Great Britain, and France in the last war—against the USSR.

The parties to the North Atlantic Treaty are carrying out extensive military measures which can in no way be justified by the interests of self-defense of these countries. The carrying out under present peace-time conditions by the United States in cooperation with Great Britain and France of extensive military measures, including an increase in all types of armed forces, the drafting of a plan for the utilization of the atomic weapon, the stockpiling of atomic bombs, which are a purely offensive weapon, the construction of a network of military air and naval bases, and so forth—have by no means a defensive character.

The preservation of a Combined Anglo-American Military Staff in Washington, organized during the second World War, the recent establishment of a military staff of the so-called Western Union in Fontainebleau (France), as well as the intention to establish immediately a Defense Committee provided by the North Atlantic Treaty are by no means an indication of the peace loving or defensive aims of the parties to the Treaty, but along with other numerous military preparations contribute to intensifying anxiety, alarm and the whipping up of war hysteria, in which all kinds of instigators of a new war are so interested.

The North Atlantic Treaty is designed to frighten states which do not agree to submit to the dictates of the Anglo-American grouping of powers, which aspire to world domination, although the second World War, which ended with the defeat of fascist Germany, which also aspired to world domination, confirmed anew the untenability of such pretensions.

Such countries also participate in the North Atlantic Treaty whose governments expect to benefit at the expense of the richer parties to this Treaty, making various plans to obtain new credits and other material benefits.

At the same time one cannot but see the groundlessness of the anti-Soviet motives of the North Atlantic Treaty, since as everyone knows the Soviet Union does not intend to attack anyone and in no way threatens either the United States of America, Great Britain, France, or other parties to the Treaty.

The conclusion of the North Atlantic Treaty and the establishment of a new grouping of powers is motivated by the weakness of the United Nations Organization. It is quite evident however that the North Atlantic Treaty does not serve the cause of strengthening the United Nations Organization but on the contrary leads to undermining the very foundations of this international organization, as the establishment of the mentioned grouping of powers not only does not correspond to the aims and principles of the UNO but contradicts the Charter of this Organization.

The parties to the North Atlantic Treaty refer to the fact that this treaty represents an allegedly regional agreement envisaged by Article 52 of the UNO Charter. But such references are wholly unfounded and untenable. There can be no question of any regional character for this Treaty, inasmuch as the alliance envisaged by this Treaty embraces states located in both hemispheres of the globe and does not have as its aim the settlement of any regional questions. This is also confirmed by the fact as already announced, that states which are not members of the United Nations Organization (Italy, Portugal) are being drawn into participation in the North Atlantic Treaty, although Article 52 of the UNO charter envisages the conclusion of regional agreements only among members of the United Nations Organization.

The establishment of the North Atlantic grouping of states cannot be justified by the right of each member of the UNO to individual or collective self-defense in conformity with Article 51 of the Charter. It is sufficient to say that such a right under the UNO Charter can arise only in the event of armed attack on a member of the Organization, whereas as everyone knows, no armed attack threatens the United States of America, Great Britain, France or other parties to the Pact.

It is clear that references to Articles 51 and 52 of the UNO Charter are untenable and designed solely to cover up the real aggressive aims of the military grouping of states which is being established by the conclusion of the North Atlantic Treaty.

No one can deny that the North Atlantic Treaty and, first of all, Article 5 of this Treaty, is in direct contradiction with the Charter of the United Nations Organization. The text of Article 53 of the Charter which speaks of enforcement actions, in accordance with regional agreements, states directly that “no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council” with the exception of measures specially provided with regard to former enemy states. In spite of this, Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty envisages the application of armed force by parties to the Treaty without any authority whatsoever from the Security Council. Thus even if the North Atlantic Treaty were considered a regional agreement, Article 5 of this Treaty is incompatible with the UNO Charter. This shows again how groundless are all references of the North Atlantic Treaty to recognition of the principles and aims of the Charter of the United Nations Organization.

On the basis of everything set forth above the Soviet Government arrives at the following conclusions:

1. The North Atlantic Treaty has nothing in common with the aims of self-defense of the states parties to the Treaty, which no one threatens and which no one intends to attack. On the contrary, this Treaty has a clearly aggressive character and is directed against the USSR, which even the official representatives of the states parties to the Treaty do not conceal in their public pronouncements.

2. The North Atlantic Treaty not only does not contribute to the strengthening of peace and international security which is the obligation of all members of the United Nations organization but is in direct contradiction with the principles and aims of the UNO Charter and leads to the undermining of the United Nations Organization.

3. The North Atlantic Treaty is in contradiction with the Treaty between Great Britain and the Soviet Union concluded in 1942, under which both states undertook to cooperate in the cause of maintaining peace and international security and “not to conclude any alliance and not to take part in any coalition directed against the other High Contracting Party.”

4. The North Atlantic Treaty is in contradiction with the Treaty between France and the Soviet Union concluded in 1944, under which both states undertook to cooperate in the cause of maintaining peace and guaranteeing security, namely “not to conclude any alliance and not to participate in any coalition directed against one of the Contracting Parties.”

5. The North Atlantic Treaty is in contradiction with the agreements between the Soviet Union, the United States of America, and Great Britain concluded at the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences³ as well as at other meetings of the representatives of these powers held both during and after the second World War, under which the United States of America and Great Britain, like the Soviet Union, undertook to cooperate in the cause of strengthening general peace and international security and to contribute to the strengthening of the United Nations Organization.

Washington, March 31, 1949.

1. See telegram 228, p. 51.
2. Informal translation by the Office of Eastern European Affairs. For the Russian text of the memorandum, see Vneshniaia politika Sovetskogo Soiuza, dokumenty i materialy, 1949 god, Moscow, 1953, pp. 89–94.
1. See telegram 228, p. 51.
3. See Foreign Relations, The Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945 and ibid., The Conference of Berlin (The Potsdam Conference), 1945.