The Press MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1969. Shrinking N.A.T.O.

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32117, 13 October 1969, Page 12

The Press MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1969. Shrinking N.A.T.O.

When the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was established soon after World War II the enemy, to the military-minded at least, was clearly identifiable: it was monolithic communism, directed from the Kremlin, aiming at world domination. Today, this, view is not without its adherents—they believe that the Chinese-Soviet split and the nationalistic stirring in East Europe are ploys to deceive the gullible in the West—but to most the enemy is less easily seen and the threat appears less immediate. The substantial military establishments of the Warsaw Pact countries and the invasion of Czechoslovakia have produced caution but have not upset the general belief that theories about defence valid 20 years or more ago are not valid now. France was the first defector. It withdrew from the military ride of N.A.T.O. and required the organisation to remove its headquarters from Paris. Now Canada, fulfilling an intention declared some time age, has recently said that it would soon reduce its air and land forces by half, to 5000 men. Canada’s reduction was expected to be greater—perhaps complete withdrawal—but the invasion of Czechoslovakia apparently caused a modification. Alike as their assessment of the threats to Europe might be, France and Canada had different motives for their withdrawals. General de Gaulle, President of France when the decision to withdraw was made, regarded United States penetration of Europe with disfavour; to the General—and others—it was unacceptable for Europe to depend ultimately for its defence on a Power with different interests, a Power which regarded the Continent as ultimately “ expendable ” in nuclear terms.

Canada was influenced by the expense of keeping a force so far from home; by a view of itself in a peace-making role; by the general belief, put most recently by the British Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Healey), that war in Europe meant a nuclear response from the United States and that therefore ground troops were needed less; and by its own plans to promote closer ties with China. The Canadian decision has alarmed other NA..T.O. partners which fear for a Europe made vulnerable by further withdrawals. The greatest fear is that the United States will withdraw because of constant domestic demands for reduced military expenditure. European countries are considering whether they will have to rely on their own defences. The West German Chancellor, Dr Kiesinger, has already questioned how long 200 million Americans will continue to defend 300 million Europeans.

The hrpaking-np of military blocs probably eases tension rather than creates it, but the process is not without its perils for peace. N.A.T.0., although United States-dominated, is an international organisation. If it did not defend Europe, national forces undoubtedly would; for Europe has only limited cooperation between countries. Each country would demand a nuclear deterrent, thereby multiplying danger to all mankind. Among the countries with national forces would be Germany, the rearming of which the Soviet Union fears probably above all else, including China. In border skirmishes with China some scores—perhaps hundreds —of Russian lives

have been lost; in the last war with Germany 20 million Russians died.