> oy

WORLD

Armed confrontation

The Warsaw Pact advances proposition which could unravel the complexities of conventional arms control. GNP 5 ah Military Spending Often forgotten in the terrifying equation of the miliary Mecpniver fe Strategic East-West military balance are the non-nuclear, or— Nuclear Weapons conventional forces that face each other along a line of Total . - : . . Nuclear Weapons confrontation in Central Europe. These armies are News Analysis alice gigantic, on both sides. Their upkeep absorbs tens of Anti-Tank Weapons billions of dollars annually. Reducing, or dismantling TEL ® iyo eal Other them is one of the most difficult and complex arms ~ ences Yenciee control problems currently facing the major powers. Fred Weir pach fe Sal Earlier this month, at a two-day Warsaw Pact summit Helicopters meeting in Budapest, the leaders of the European wg tape yes Te : . Major socialist community put forward a proposal atone if been little indication that NATO is prepared to seriously Surface Warships : addresses the idea of mutual cuts in conventional forces, Attack Submarines

accepted, might begin to unravel the conventional

weapons conundrum. At the very least, it could be a

major confidence-building step in the troubled atmos- phere of general arms control negotiations. The Warsaw Pact allies proposed that gradual reduc-

tions be applied to the armies of both blocs, eliminating

about one quarter the strength of each by the early 1990s. That would be a total cut of approximately one million personnel, together with their weapons and equipment.

The proposal emphasizes that proportional quantities of

military hardware, including tactical nuclear weapons

and strike aircraft, be destroyed or removed as the pull- backs unfold. Verification would be ensured by

“national technical means”’ supplemented with on-site inspections when necessary. The Warsaw Pact urges the

creation of an Advisory Committee composed of rep- resentatives from the two sides plus neutral states to

Oversee the process.

_ NATO Propaganda

As an immediate measure they suggest an initial cut- back of 100,000 to 150,000 men, to be mutually imple- mented within a year or two, and followed by further

negotiations to finalize a schedule for more drastic

_ reductions.

Response from the Western powers has so far been cool. While agreeing to ‘‘study’’ the proposal, there has

Europe key to tensions

OTTAWA — Europe can be either a bridge of East-West understanding or a focal point of East-West confrontation leading to war, Soviet Ambassador to Canada Alexei Rodionov told a group of Canadians here June 17.

Pointing out that Europe was ‘‘the most heavily armed and dangerous region of the world”’ that had already spawned two world wars, Rodionov said the USSR had made proposals that would ‘‘ease the tensions and fears that are growing’’ on the continent and the world.

His allusion was to the Soviet proposals to elimi- nate all Soviet and American medium-range ballas- tic and Cruise missiles from Europe, and to the new Warsaw Treaty plan for significant cuts in troops and conventional weapons on the continent.

Ambassador Rodionov said that World War II had shown that the arms race “‘does not guarantee security, but merely heightens the threat of war,”’ and that ideological differences must not obstruct joint efforts in confronting a common threat.

He said that just as Western war-time leaders “‘rose above ideological prejudices ... a new type of mentality in that spirit is needed now in the nuclear and space age”’ to end the threat of nuclear war looming over the world.

FRG disaster used Chernobyl as cover up

_ that compensate. For instance, the Western advantage

either now or in the future. NATO propaganda has always argued that the USSR

Where They Stand: Military Resources of NATO, Warsaw Pact and People's Republic of chins :

*NATO totals include France and Spain. tExcludes border guards, internal security, railroad and const Sources: NATO, ACDA, DOD, CIA,.1ISS, CDI.

~NATO* Warsaw Pact 630 million 383 million $6,132 Billion $2,257 Billion $312 Billion $300 Billion 5.9 million 4.7 milliont 11,190 8,240 c. 200 26-31,000 18-23,000 at 30,000 64,000 1s 400,000+ Not Available 54,000 80,000 Be 24,000 48,000 1 ee 11,200 11,000 a 12,700 4,400 477 314 a 241 - 299 a 4

and its allies enjoy an ‘““enormous advantage’’ in conven- tional forces deployed in Europe, and for this reason balanced, equalized cuts would be ‘‘unfair,”’ they say.

The myth of Soviet numerical supremacy is so wide- spread, so frequently repeated — often in lurid detail — that it is scarcely ever questioned by anyone. The Penta- gon pamphlet, ‘‘Soviet Military Power,’’ puts it in typi- cal rhetorical form:

‘Traditionally, Imperial Russian and Soviet armies have been characterized by great numbers ... The Soviets today have superior ground forces in Europe. They have a substantial advantage in the number of troops. At the outset of a war, the Soviets plan to move quickly, slicing through NATO forces in the Central Region and driving to the English Channel .. .”’

Juggling Figures

The problem with this view is that it is simply untrue. NATO publicists manage to achieve an alarmist view of the conventional military balance by eliminating France and Spain from Western numerical totals (because they are not full NATO members), and by counting only those forces on their own side that are directly assigned to NATO operations. On the Warsaw Pact side, however, they count every soldier and piece of equipment as far east as the Urals — including construction troops and border guards. They also misrepresent differences in makeup and structure between the opposing armies, to make areas of Warsaw Pact advantage look far more important than they are, while downplaying elements of Western superiority. An example of this concerns num- bers of tanks in the European theatre, which NATO propagandists frequently cite as proof of their dire mili- tary situation vis a vis the Warsaw Pact.

However, as Soviet General Mikhail Milshtein has noted: ‘‘When you talk about approximate military pari- ty, such as now exists in Europe, you can’t just take one military component and use it as a measure of the overall balance. Yes, the Warsaw Pact countries have numerical superiority in tanks.

parison).

Chinese armed

of hand.

reductions, lowest possible

only hope that

‘‘But there are other components on the Western side

in European theatre nuclear warheads for artillery, nu- clear mines, aircraft systems and so on ... There is an important Western advantage in aircraft systems integ- rated with ground forces, including combat helicopters which provide valuable support with their guns and mis- siles. And quite a big superiority in anti-tank weapons.”

“Fortress America”

Overall, according to the Centre for Defence Informa- tion, NATO leads the Warsaw Pact in military spending, military manpower in uniform and total ground forces in Europe. Airpower in Europe is roughly equal, while U.S. and other NATO navies have twice the naval ton- nage and several times the firepower of the combined

Soviet and Warsaw Pact navies. (See chart for ful

Nor is this the full picture. NATO is able to c0 trate its forces along a relatively short confrontat in Europe, while the United States sits securely ‘fortress America’. hand, must guard a 20,000-kilometre land frontie ' must continue to allocate a huge portion of its # potential to contend with rapidly modernizing:

In fact, if Chinese military power is ado to nel NATO, the Warsaw Pact can be seen to have b the numerical strength deployed by its adversall

Military experts agree that all of these armie too large and unwieldy. Their very size consti factor of instability, increasing the chances that a dent or small conflict could escalate and get qu!

As the Warsaw Pact noted in its recent offer ® ‘‘proper security can be guarantee

a ‘level of reasonable sufficiency’. The Warsaw no other defensive doctrine”’

The USSR has now capped its program for 8 a disarmament by the year 2000 with a bold propo”), reducing conventional armies as well. The Wars# clearly believes that the time has come to begin dis™ , ing these oversized, exorbitantly expensive t behe™ and to usher in a new era of peace in Europe-

Fide armies are “a factor of instability”

A major nuclear accident at a West German atomic power plant last month went unreported for several weeks while the corporations that run the in- stallation tried to blame high local radiation levels on fallout from the Soviet Chernoby] disaster.

The accident occurred May 4 in a new reactor being put into service at Hamm, near Dusseldorf in west-central Germany. .t resulted in serious radioac- tive emissions which were detected at the time by scientists, but attributed by authorities to the Soviet reactor mishap at Chernobyl. The Hammzaccident was not admitted until June 3, when the mal- functioning German reactor had to be shut down entirely.

When news of the accident and coverup became known, WestGerman

8 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JUNE 25, 1986

Greens and anti- nliGlear activists took to the streets in furious protest. While these demonstrations and the attendant arrests and violence were widely re- ported in the North American media, the reason for them — the Hamm acci- dent and the month-long attempt to keep it secret — were not mentioned.

Indeed, most news reports published in Canada left the clear impression that the outrage being expressed by West German citizens was either mindless anti-nuclearism, or a belated reaction to the Chernobyl tragedy.

To learn any relevant information concerning the incident, Canadians would need to have access to European newspapers, for it seems that our own big press has participated in the cover- up of the Hamm accident.

. government

The Manchester Guardian Weekly (June 8), for instance, reported the event briefly: __

*‘A new West German nuclear re- actor, at which a radioactive leak went unreported during the Chernoby] fall- out scare, was shut down at the week- end amid a growing political row about secrecy surrounding the accident.

‘““The Social Democrat state of North Rhine- Westphalia, to whom the leak at the 300-megawatt reactor at Hamm should have been reported, said it was scandalous that an attempt had been made to conceal the accident, which happened on May 4.

‘* At the time the industry consortium

operating the reactor blamed the high | radiation level in the district on the -

: : ; dl _ with the accident at the Soviet 0¥

a

foal : 00 A

The Soviet Union, on the

forces of 4 million.

thal 0)

s aren tatu"

cl f it

level of equilibrium, or what is ee

NATO will agree.

Chernoby] fallout. But an indepen ecological institute charged that” cent of the elevated radiation

measured on May 4 had nothin8

power station.’

The total absence of this repo™ the North American media raise$ of the identical questions that ° vi press and politicians seized UP” vis the Soviets and Chernobyl: B about honesty and promptness } reporting of accidents? Where values of openness, the investi spirit of the free press?

Are nuclear accidents only when a Cold War moral can be at to them?

y