World

The long road to conventional arms cuts

MOSCOW — A plea for understanding is
always a poignant thing. It is a sign of new
doors opening up, an invitation to dialogue.
Often the crucial breakthrough in resolving
some intractable conflict is heralded by an
appeal from one side to the other to “put
yourself in our shoes.”

This, suddenly and unexpectedly, is just
what the Warsaw Pact is now hearing from
its NATO adversary on the subject of con-
ventional arms and the balance of forces in
Europe. Above all, they are saying, now
that the INF treaty will remove a portion of
NATO?’s nuclear deterrent from the Euro-
pean theatre, please understand that the
people of Western Europe are terrified of
Soviet conventional armies, and wary of
pressure from that socialist colossus that
straddles the European and Asian conti-
nents.

What would make the West feel better
and, perhaps, put them in a more congenial
negotiating mood? “Highly asymmetrical
reductions in conventional forces,” ans-
wered the recent NATO summit, cuts which
would result in “‘tens of thousands” of War-
saw Pact planes, tanks and artillery pieces
being unilaterally scrapped.

One view may see this as a constructive
opening to what are certain to be long and
complex negotiations to tame the conven-
tional military situation in Europe. After all,
there are immense imbalances and asymme-
tries in the structure of the opposing
forces — indeed, each has evolved from
quite different historical, geopolitical and
technological circumstances — and it is
quite correct to introduce political, eco-
nomic and even psychological perceptions
into the discussion, for the military problem
is only one face of that multi-headed mons-
ter, the arms race.

Soviet leaders and military officials have
already affirmed the principle of asymmet-
ric reductions. They insist on only one
thing: that sacrifices be reciprocal.

At a security seminar held here last
month, Soviet General V. Markelov put
this view succinctly. “The USSR has already
shown its willingness to engage in uneven
cuts. That’s exactly what we did in the INF
treaty,” he said. “In other areas, we are
ready to cut our advantages as long as the

From
oscow

other side is also willing to do so. But we are
not going to engage in unilateral disarma-
/ ment.”

For example, said Markelov, what if the
Warsaw Pact has numerical superiority in
tanks? “We agree that perhaps adjustments
need to be made here. But shouldn’t all
components be discussed? Let’s talk about
tanks, but let’s also talk about navies, where
NATO has an overwhelming superiority.”

Until the willingness to seriously examine
both sides of these questions becomes mut-
ual, we are not going to see any positive
results emerge from the discussion of con-
ventional arms. The Warsaw Pact already
meets all of its defence needs with aggregate
armed forces that are slightly smaller than
those of NATO alone. Figures from the
Centre for Defence Information in Wash-
ington show that the NATO countries
maintain a total of 5.9 million people in
uniform, while the Warsaw Pact has just 4.7
million military personnel.

These armed forces are structured differ-
ently, and this is what creates all of the
negotiating problems. However, these are
nothing compared to the underlying
inequalities, which can never be debated or
bargained away.

In the final analysis, the ability to wage

conventional warfare is rooted in popula-
tion and industrial power. The 16 nations
that make up the NATO alliance have a
population of 630 million and a collective
gross national product almost three times as
large as the 383 million people who live in
seven Warsaw Pact countries. Even if Can-
ada and the United States were withdrawn
from the NATO figure, these indicators
would just be roughly equal.
Technological superiority is a less tangi-
ble but tremendously important factor.
Again, it is a major advantage of the West.
As for the disparities in existing military
forces, these need to be addressed thought-
fully and, yes, with understanding. The
Soviet Union won World War II by beating

.the Nazis at what the Nazis did best: tank

warfare. Ever since, Soviet generals have
retained a healthy respect for formations of
massed armour. NATO, perhaps stressing
its technological edge, has concentrated on
building sophisticated anti-tank systems. It
now deploys over 400,000 of these, or
roughly eight for each and every Warsaw
Pact tank between the Elbe river and the
Pacific Ocean.

Another case: the NATO side is arguing
that the Warsaw Pact greatly outnumbers
them in ‘“‘combat aircraft,” and that thou-
sands of these should therefore be unilater-
ally slashed. But this conceals a deeper
disparity. The overwhelming majority of
Soviet combat aircraft are short-range
interceptor fighters, not capable of carrying
bombs or rockets into Europe.

In the cold war years the USSR found it
necessary to construct multi-layered air
defences around its huge perimeter precisely
because it was disproportionately threa-
tened by the U.S. strategic air command
and by the large tactical air forces of the
NATO powers. If the Soviets are now being
asked to dismantle their admittedly vast air
defence network, shouldn’t the West also be
expected to cut several thousand of their
shiny new hi-tech tactical strike fighters,
capable of reaching deep into the Soviet
heartland?

This discussion could go on and on. But
at the bottom of it lurks political realities
which above all need to be understood.
There is no doubt that the people of West-
ern Europe fear war, but in this are they any
different from the Soviet people, or those of
Eastern Europe?

And while people in the West may have
as yet only a dim idea of the economic

WAR MEMORIALIN BREST, BYELORUSSIA..

benefits of disarmament, the Soviet people
know it well and want that release of
resources for civilian development so badly
they can taste it.

Any visitor to the USSR, in his or her first
conversation with a Soviet citizen, will
quickly come to realize that this is a country
with a long historical experience of war.
They have repeatedly seen their land

}

. “Soviets yearn for peace . .. but they will not tolerate any government
that even gives the appearance of leaving borders undefended.”

scorched and their cities levelled by invad-

-ers, and a good many of those cruel lessons

are within living memory. Hence, though
the Soviet people yearn for peace, and can
likely be persuaded to accept mutual disar-
mament on equal terms, they are not likely
to tolerate any government that even gives
the appearance of leaving Soviet borders
undefended.

Czechoslovakia proposes
European zone of peace

PRAGUE — Czechoslovakia’s new pro-
posals for the creation of a “zone of peace”
in Central Europe has gained favourable
international attention, Czechoslovak For-
eign Ministry spokesman Dusen Rovencky
told journalists here last week.

The proposals, first outlined Feb. 24,
include the gradual creation of a “zone of
confidence, co-operation and good-neigh-
bourly relations along the line of contact
between the Warsaw Treaty and NATO
states,” Rovencky said.

“Tn the military sphere, there could be a
gradual creation of a zone in which the level
of military confrontation would be reduced,
the most dangerous types of offensive wea-
pons eliminated and important confidence-
building measures adopted,” he said.

Rovencky said the Warsaw Treaty coun-
tries and the People’s Republic of China
view the proposals as consistent with other
proposals by socialist countries for nuclear
and chemical weapons-free zones, as well as
Poland’s call last year for reductions of
arms in nine European countries. The
NATO countries are studying the proposal.

The new approach — known as the
“Jakes plan” because it was unveiled by
Czechoslovak Communist Party General
Secretary Milos Jakes Feb. 24 — is “aimed
equally at military, political, economic, eco-
logical and humanitarian spheres,” Rov-
encky said.

It is based on that premise that all coun-
tries, no matter what their size, can make a
vital contribution to ensuring human survi-
val, he said. ;

In his Feb. 24 appeal, made at a state

celebration marking the anniversary of the
1948 victory over reactionary forces, Jakes
emphasized that Europeans “‘are intercon-
nected by countless historical, cultural and
national relations, while at the same time
(they) live along the frontier of the two most
powerful military-political alliances, and in
a region saturated with weapons.”

His appeal urged those states to take
advantage of the disarmament process
begun by the INF agreement. “We have
exceptionally wide possibilities to contrib-
ute to the strengthening of present positive
tendencies,” he said, urging use of the
“stimulating influence of the disarmament
dialogue to achieve progress in other
spheres.”

Earlier this month, Czechoslovak For-
eign Minister Bohuslav Chnoupek cited
Norway, the USSR, the Federal Republic of
Germany, the German Democratic Repub-
lic, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Turkey, Bul-
garia, Poland, Denmark, the U.S., Britain,
Canada and France as countries which
could contribute to the process outlined by
Jakes.

“At a certain stage of the elaboration of
this plan, the concerned representatives of
states could meet to examine the best ways
to realize it,’ Chnoupek said.

“This would help in overcoming prejudi-
ces and would contribute to a better mutual
acquaintance and understanding, and the
development of dialogue on such important
issues as economic co-operation ..., the
joint solution of ecological and environ-
mental problems and the elimination of fric-
tion in the humanitarian sphere.”

Pacific Tribune, March 30, 1988 « 9