CLOSER LINKS EAST OF SUEZ

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30764, 31 May 1965, Page 10

CLOSER LINKS EAST OF SUEZ

! (.V.Z.P.A.-Reuter —Copyright' \i LONDON, May 30. ■* Britain wants the ‘j United States, Austra- f lia and New Zealand to agree to closer military ' links east of Suez, says , an authoritative ~ Government source. )< The plan is still in its early!’ (stages but it would have far- ’ (reaching effects on Britain’s J defence strategy in that area.; All four nations already)’ have heavy commitments in P the area through the South-;; east Asia Treaty Organisation; (and the United States, Aus-1 1 tralia and New Zealand have special links for Pacific de-j fence through the A.N.Z.U.S.); ) Pact. j The Prime Minister (Mr Wilson), is expected to dis-j I cuss the new move in private ; I talks with Sir Robert Menzies | iand Mr Holyoake, in London (next month.

They will be here for the Commonwealth Prime Minister’s Conference, opening on June 17. Talks In Paris The Defence Secretary (Mr Denis Healey) may also sound out United States thinking on the proposal in talks with the American Defence Secretary- (Mr Robert McNamara) in Paris next Monday and Tuesday. Both men will be there for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s defence ministers’ meeting. Any formal proposals for new four-power military links east of Suez will have to await the outcome of Britian’s current defence review, begun by the Labour administration when it took office last October. This is nearing completion and should be virtually finished by the autumn. ; The United States is heavily committed in South Vietnam, with some military backing from both Australia and New Zealand. Britain has support from

Australia and New Zealand in Malaysia, where she is supporting the federation against Indonesian threats of "confrontation.” Common Strategy When the N.A.T.O. Defence Ministers meet in Paris they will try to hammer out a common strategy reconciling force requirements and economic resources available for the defence of Europe in the nuclear age. I The Ministers, who will be. ' accompanied by their chiefs of staff, will have before them, ! a progress report known as; (“N.A.T.O. force planning exercise for 1970.” ; Compared with the Soviet I block, the N.A.T.O. allies have j ja vastly more productive eco-; jnomic system more powerful) ’strategic force and more men; , under arms. ; Requirements But the forces actually ini being in Europe have never;

completely met the require-; ments of the N.A.T.O. mili-l tary authorities as to size, training, equipment, or de-, ployment. i Part of this difference is I economic in nature, part is 1 political and part is attribut- ■ able to the complexity of co- ! ordinating the defensive ef--1 forts of fourteen allied na- • tions (Iceland has no armed ' forces) in such a manner as to produce the most effective combined forces. ’ Added to the complexity of; ’ the problem is a spreading) feeling that East and Westl have entered a period of im- ’ proved relations and that ten1 sions have been lowered. ’i The alliance is further; .(divided between the United ; I States nuclear strategy con ) jcept of “flexible response” *)and the French concept of' '“massive retaliation." /I Britain is pressing for a • change in allied planning ’ which is still based on a pattern laid down in the fifties) t and largely outmoded.