N. AMERICAN DEFENCE ROW

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30045, 1 February 1963, Page 9

N. AMERICAN DEFENCE ROW

U.S. Critical Of Canada’s Part (N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) WASHINGTON, January 31. The United States made clear last night that it feels North America’s defence will not be complete unless Canada accepts nuclear warheads for its air defence forces, United Press International reported.

The United States State Department said in a statement that defence against manned bombers would be needed at least through the 19605, and that Canada’s Bomarc-B missiles and fighter interceptors could not be fully effective without nuclear weapons.

It said that in negotiations over the last two or three months Canada “has not as yet proposed any arrangement sufficiently practical to contribute effectively to North American defence.

The talks also involved nuclear weapons for Canada's N.A.T.O. forces.

By issuing the statement, the United States broke nearly a year of official

silence on the issue and stepped into the middle of a growing political argument in Canada, U.P.I. said. “Without nuclear air defence warheads, they (the fighters) operate at far less than their full potential effectiveness,” the statement said. No conventional warhead even existed for the BomarcB missiles, which had been deployed to protect Montreal and Toronto as well as to defend the United States strategic counter-blow force, it said. The United States also said Canada’s forces in Europe should accept nuclear warheads. Diefenbaker Contradicted

The department’s statement did not specifically name the Canadian Prime Minister (Mr Diefenbaker). However, it directly contradicted a series of statements Mr Diefenbaker

made in the House of Commons in Ottawa on January 25. U.P.I. said. Mr Diefenbaker had said that when the Bomarc first was planned, “the great challenge to North America was believed to be bombers carrying bombs . . . today that is changed. More and more there is a phasing out in connexion with the Bomarc threat as more and more in-

tercontinental ballistic missiles are increasing in number.”

The State Department said manned bombers would be a threat through the 1980’s.

Mr Diefenbaker said: “The strike reconnaissance role (of Canada’s N.A.T.O. fighter planes) has been placed under doubt by the recent Nassau declarations concerning nuclear arms, as well as other developments, both technical and political, in the defence field.” The State Department said the Nassau discussions “raise no question of the appropriateness of nuclear weapons for Canadian forces in fulfilling NA.T.O. and Norstad obligations. United States defence officials long have felt that Canada’s failure to accent nuclear warheads under United States control was a weakness

in the North American defence system. But the issue has been a particularly touchy one in Canada, It has gained momentum since the former N.AT.O.

Commander, General Laurie Norstad, on a farewell visit to Ottawa early this month, said Canada would not be fulfilling its N.A.T.O. obligations unless it accepted nuclear warheads.

A State Department spokesman declined comment on why the United States had suddenly taken a public stand on the issue The department’s statement said the provision of nuclear weapons to Canada “would not involve an expansion of independent nuclear capability, or an increase in the ‘nuclear club.’ “As in the case of other allies, custody of United States nuclear weapons would remain with the United States,” the department said. “Joint control fully consistent with the national sovereignty can be worked out to cover the use of such weapons by Canadian forces,” it said. Diefenbaker Silent

In Toronto. Mr Diefenbaker said he would make no comment until he had studied the United States statement, the Canadian Press reported.

The Canadian Defence Minister (Mr Douglas Harkness) also would not comment on the statement, one of his assistants told the Canadian Press.

The Liberal leader, Mr Lester Pearson, said he found it “surprising” that the United States should issue such, a statement, but blamed it on the conflicting versions of defence policy which, he said, had come from Mr Diefenbaker and Mr Harkness. The Social Credit leader, Mr Robert Thompson, termed the United States statement “a bombshell to say the least—it could be the spark to topple the Government.” He also attacked the United States move as “blatant undiplomatic interference” in Canadian affairs.

Arab Protest j

(NZ.PA.-Heater—Copyright) NEW YORK. Jan. 30. Palestine Arab representatives said in a memorandum submitted today to a Human Rights Committee of the United Nations that “mass Jewish immigration" to Israel was aimed at providing manpower for one of the strongest armies in the Middle East and to promote expansionist objectives. It was “the first step and one of the strongest incentives for Zionist aggression and ex--1 pension in the Arab world.”