Denmark and N.A.T.O.

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27097, 21 July 1953, Page 8

Denmark and N.A.T.O.

For two chief reasons, the question of the delivery to Russia of a tanker now being built in Denmark has been raised at an unfortunate time. First, it will provide ammunition for Americans who oppose their country’s foreign aid programme and assist the McCarthy faction’s

extravagant campaign against trade with Communist countries. Second, the tanker question is sure to be

connected in both America and Europe with recent signs of Danish misgivings about the obligations of membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The tanker question was raised last week by an official of the United States Government before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; and Denmark was criticised by the official for carrying out a contract to deliver tankers to Russia “while seeking “ adjustments in ship contracts with “the United States”. The United States Government protested-to the Danish Government last year against a Danish intention to deliver a tanker to Russia. The Danes'

answer then was the same as their answer now—that an agreement to build tankers for Russia was completed in 1948, before the Korea war started and before the ban on delivering strategic materials to Communist States. It seems that Denmark is determined to go on with its contract, United States protests notwithstanding. Last year Denmark’s insistence created difficulties for President Truman, because a clear breach of the Battle Act was committed by Denmark. The Battle Act of 1951 provided for the suspension of all military and economic aid to any country knowingly permitting exports of strategic goods to Russia or any of its satellites. The act specifically named tankers. President Truman got over the difficulty by using special powers, given to the President in the act, to grant exemptions if he is satisfied that the withdrawal of further American aid would be “ detrimental to United States “ security ”. President Eisenhower might find difficulty in acting on that precedent. His freedom of action might be restricted by a combination of the McCarthy faction, who oppose any trade with Communist countries, and those who want to cut heavily American aid to Europe. The hand of the latter would be strengthened by Denmark’s recent equivocal attitude towards N.A.T.0., and in particular by Denmark’s weakening on N.A.T.O. plans for fighter aircraft and airmen from other N.A.T.O. Powers to operate from bases in Denmark in peace time. N.A.T.O. bases in Jutland are regarded as vital in a full Atlantic defence plan; they would not only support the defence of Denmark itself, but help < to keep Russian submarines from breaking out from the Baltic. A good deal was heard about the bases question during the general election campaign in Denmark last April. None of the main parties was prepared to commit itself on the issue, all insisting that parliament must decide when the time came. Last month, after the election, the Social Democratic Party—the largest single party and the alternative government—came down off the fence and stated its opposition to a United States offer to station two wings of fighter aircraft in Denmark under the North Atlantic Treaty. Opposition by the Social Democrats would make it impossible for the coalition Government of the -Conservative and Venstre parties to obtain parliamentary support—if they asked for it—for a proposal to establish foreign troops in Denmark because the Social Democrats would be joined in parliament on this issue by other, small, parties which oppose admitting any foreign forces in peace time. Oddly, in the circumstances, a big parliamentary majority could be mustered in support of the general principle of the N.A.T.O. alliance. It was a Social Democratic Party Government under Mr Hedtoft that took Denmark into N.A.T.O. in 1949. But now Mr Hedtoft’s party has virtually rejected the help which would allow Denmark, having joined N.A.T.0., to gain the full benefits from, and to contribute a proper share to, Atlantic defence. Denmark must not be surprised if the combination of the tanker issue and its attitude on the air base policy arouses strong criticism in the United States, and causes other N.A.T.O. nations—particularly Britain, whieh is vitally concerned about Russia’s submarine strength—to ask pointed questions about Denmark’s attitude towards the obligations of N.A.T.O. membership.