World NATO: the pressure mounts for change By WILLIAM POMEROY A worried debate has developed within NATO about the future of the alliance. Brit- ain’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has taken the lead in insisting that NATO must find a new place — in other words, that NATO as a military alliance must remain with a new role. The Thatcher administra- tion talks of a “global role,” stressing the Middle East as an area of NATO “respon- sibility,” meaning intervention. But this outlook is not shared by the majority of NATO members, especially the smaller countries, which are pressing to re- duce the alliance’s military side and to em- phasize the political role in developing peaceful East-West ties. The resulting sharp debate within the alliance has been compli- cated by another debate over retaining and deploying nuclear weapons in the NATO arsenal. This has been conducted particular- ly between the Thatcher government, with its insistence on a tough nuclear stance and the Kohl government of West Germany, which wants out of its role as the main nuclear deployment site. However, commentators acknowledge that it is politically unfeasible to try to main- tain NATO military policies. Opinion polls in Western Europe consistently show that 80 to 90 percent of people see no threat from NATO powers, while forced to concede the end of the cold war, persist in keeping up the cold war’s paraphernalia. But the language of the summit statements indicates the growing pressure against - perpetuating military blocs. a a the East and that a large majority favour doing away with nuclear weapons. The vast majority of people welcome the peace and disarmament with which Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev is identified and expect to see a “peace dividend” in steep reductions in military budgets. Those controversies came to ahead at the July NATO summit in London. For the first time at a major NATO gathering the military was subordinated to the political perspec- tive. Several NATO leaders, including Sec- retary-General Manfred Woemer, declared that the cold war was at an end. In the statement signed at the summit, the main decisions were political: a proposal for the 16 NATO and seven Warsaw Treaty countries to sign a non-aggression agree- ment; an invitation for Gorbachev to attend the next NATO summit; and a proposal to strengthen the role of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) in developing the relations of all Europe and North American states. It was declared that the NATO and Warsaw Treaty 8 * Pacific Tribune, September 10, 1990 countries should “solemnly state that we are no longer adversaries.” It should be noted that the CSCE, stem- ming from the Helsinki Agreement, was a Soviet initiative. The Warsaw Treaty coun- tries, the Soviet Union in particular, lead in advocating replacement of the two military blocs by a strengthened CSCE as the or- ganization to resolve differences and develop relations of co-operation. However, the London summit has con- tinued to maintain the alliance’s military posture even while moderating some of the aggressive terminology. Thus the concept of “forward defense” which had put NATO forces close to eastern European borders and sited nuclear artillery and Lance short-range nuclear missiles to support an attack, has been toned down to “‘a new allied military Strategy moving away from ’forward de- fense,’ where appropriate, towards a re- duced forward presence.” The “flexible response” doctrine, includ- ing first use of nuclear weapons in the event of hostilities, has been modified by the for- mulation, “to reflect a reduced reliance on nuclear weapons.” But, says the declaration: “These will continue to fulfill an essential Tole in the overall strategy of the alliance to prevent war by ensuring that there are no circumstances in which nuclear retaliation in response to military action might be dis- counted” — another way of reiterating the first use doctrine. NATO has in fact undertaken no real initiatives toward demilitarization. The re- duced reliance on nuclear weapons is made conditional on “the total withdrawal of Soviet stationed forces and the implementa- tion of a CFE (Conventional Forces in Eur- Ope) agreement,” which could take years. - US. President George Bush’s much- publicized announcement of intent to re- move nuclear artillery from Europe will now be done only “in return for reciprocal action by the Soviet Union.” The NATO summit did not even discuss the major question of introducing the Tactical Air to Surface Mis- sile (TASM), the air-borne cruise-type mis- sile which the United States and Britain continue to press. In other words, NATO powers, while forced to concede the end of the cold war, persist in keeping up the cold war’s para- phernalia. But the language of the summit Statements indicates the growing pressure against perpetuating military blocs. In the past year almost all NATO mem- bers have unilaterally embarked on the cut- ting of defence spending and armed forces. The U.S. military establishment itself is TOP: British PM Margaret Thatcher (I), NATO Secretary-general Manfred Woerner, U.S. President George Bush and Secretary of State James Baker at NATO summit. Bottom: NATO troops on manoeuvres in West Germany,,. projecting a 25 percent cut in forces in the next five years, with a shift away from Eur- ope and toward rapid deployment else- where. U.S. overseas bases are being reduced. The prospect of the withdrawal of the 375,000 U.S. troops in Western Europe no longer raises alarm among other NATO members. Britain’s Thatcher government is in the midst of a defence review in which cuts as deep as those by the United States are ex- pected to be announced by the end of the year. A big reduction of British forces in West Germany is in the cards. The West German government’s three percent arms budget cut for 1991 is con- sidered a beginning step. The Gorbachev- Kohl agreement on the status of a unified Germany calls for a ban on nuclear, biologi- cal and chemical arms and limits troops to 370,000 instead of the present total of 700,000 for the two German states. France is not a part of NATO’s military structure, but its armed forces are a part of the Western defence picture and it has 50,000 troops in West Germany. In 1989 the Mitterand government cut 42 billion francs (about $6.5 billion) from projected spending for defense equipment in 1990-3. There is now pressure in the French cabinet to cut arms spending by $ 1.7 billion per year. At the summit Mitterand startled other leaders by declaring that France will withdraw its 50,000 troops from West Germany. Canada is conducting a defence review. It has already cancelled $ 8 billion worth of nuclear submarines, $2.5 billion worth of tanks and has scrapped plans to add to its air force. Italy’s defence spending has been frozen at about $16 billion a year until the year 2000, while greater cuts are discussed. The Italian army was reduced by 20,000 men and 12 battalions and artillery units in 1989, and a further 15,000 this year. Denmark froze its military budget in March 1989. The Netherlands earlier this year cut spending on new military equip- ment by $340 million for 1991, and is cut- ting troop strength by 15 percent over the next six years. Belgium is withdrawing 1,400 of its troops stationed in West Ger- many, along with helicopter squadrons. The strongest demands to shift to a political role have come from these and other small mem- ber states. Greece is in the midst of a defence re- view, with an eye to cutting its armed forces. Two of the U.S. bases being closed are in Greece — doubtless because of strong pop- ular Greek pressure. Arguments are now being advanced to eliminate NATO’s reliance on nuclear wea- pons. On July 2 the British-North American Security Information Council published a report which disproves the need for any nuclear weapons to deter a conventional war. The report notes that a nuclear deterrent does indeed exist but it has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. It exists in the pres- ence of around 125 nuclear power stations see NATO page 9 |