Scandinavian American. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1945-1958, 1949-05-01
Norway and the North Atlantic Pact


the Atlantic Pact was definitely
an instrument of peace-and that
if, in spite of everything, wal
should comet would have tc
come from somewhere else. We
were certain that all that the At.
lantic countries wanted was
through solidarity and collective
security, to hold the frontiers OF
freedom, law and democracy if,
God forbid, the free world should
once again be challenged by anti
democratic forces.
Now these things have been said
again and again, and when I re.
peat them here, it is because they
are true. If there are some who
will not believe our words, we are
amazed and sorry. But we shall
continue to repeat them, hoping
that ultimately we can get the
truth across to those with whom
we want to live in peace, UNDER
standing and friendship. And that
means all nations on this globe.
And so by the overwhelming ma
jority of 100 to 10 the Norwegian
Storting authorized my Govern
ment to sign the Pact. It has been
said that this was a courageous
step on the part of Norway.
We ourselves do not look at it
that way. We are firmly convinced
that we only did what is in Nor
ways own interest, and that we
are infinitely safer inside than out
side the Atlantic Pact.
There prevails in Norway today
a feeling of security which we did
not have before we joined. We feel
that this time the free world has
taken note of the lessons of his
tory-something which does not al
ways happen! We feel that we
have refused to be picked one by
one.
In joining the Pact we attached,
and attach, the greatest impor-
lance to article 8 of the Pact which
states that the parties separately
and jointly, by means of continu-
Gus and effective self-help and mu-
tual aid, will maintain and develop
their individual and collective ca
pacity to resist armed attack"
We are fully aware, that to the
extent of our limited resources and
with due regard to the priority of
we have, by signing
the Pact, undertaken to do our
part in making mutual aid" a
reality.
l believe that it cannot be en-
phasized too strongly that the Pact
is directed only against aggression
as such, from wherever it may
come. Those of us who have ex-
perienced two world wars and the
insecure period between them,
know that conditions change rapid
", and that in foreign policy one
has to plan not only for today and
tomorrow, but for an uncertain
future and unforeseen contin-
gencies.
We all know that the motives
of the United States have been i'm
pugned in connection with the At
lantic Pact. Realizing the pre-
dominant part which this country
is bound to play in this undertake
ing America had not asked for any
or territorial aggran-
dizement after those wars. lmme-
upon the termination OF
the second world war America had
started rehabilitation and reduc-
ton of ornaments on a scale
irreconcilable with inn
perialistic and aggressive designs
of a war-mongerl
We found that Americas near
est neighbors, Canada and Mexico,
do not seem to have any fear of
heron the contrary, they enjoy
relations of trust and sincere
The same is-with the
Spanish war in mind-the case
with Cuba and the Philippines. To-
wards Latin America the United
States have followed the policy of
the good neighbor.
We found further that the Unit
ed States had taken the lead in or
or carrying the prepon-