N.A.T.O. leaders’ meeting

Press, 5 June 1978, Page 10

N.A.T.O. leaders’ meeting

This year’s North Atlantic Treaty Organisation talks, which ended last week, concerned themselves in particular with Soviet and Cuban activity in Africa. The West is in a bind about Africa. The Soviet Union is supporting what may be generously described as a bunch of gangsters in Ethiopia. If it is attempting to moderate the excesses of the Government of Colonel Mengistu there, it is not being successful. The United States is being criticised for allowing the Soviet Union and Cuba to intervene in African affairs. France has intervened justifiably to rescue Europeans in Zaire: any appearance of supporting President Mobutu, of Zaire, who should be removed from Government on economic grounds alone, seems incapable of justification Does the West want to get itself embroiled in propping up bad African Governments? What are the long-term advantages for the West’’ Is Western concern for what is happening in parts of Africa more morallv defensible than the Soviet Union’s action in Ethiopia? On the whole, the Carter Administration’s caution to date seems soundly based

The Carter Administration is not of one mind on the subject. Mr Zbigniew Brzezinski. President Carter’s National Security Adviser, is the strongest antiSoviet official in the Administration, and he is reported to favour American intervention in Africa. His anti-Soviet views reached attentive ears during his recent visit to China and the Chinese have now spoken out against Soviet intervention in central Africa. Because the Carter Administration favours detente with the Soviet Union. Mr Brzezinski will probably prove an embarrassment to President Carter. The N A T O. leaders also discussed

Europe. President Carter strongly affirmed American commitment to the defence of Western Europe. As always, the relative strengths of the West and the Soviet Union were discussed. The Soviet Union has more tanks: but N.A.T.O. military doctrine calls not for the matching of tank for tank but for the ability to stop tanks. At sea,, the Soviet Union has more combat ships than has the United States, but only in smaller classes. It has far fewer ships than the combined Western navies and yet the Soviet navy amounts to 97 per cent of the naval strength of the Warsaw Fact countries. Any consideration of the relative strengths of the armed forces of the West and the Soviet Union must take into account the ages of the weaponry, the replacement plans, and the quality of arms, not just their quantity Western alarm may. at times, be mistaken: but President Carter, in spite of his views on detente, is clearly not wanting to allow a running down of the N A T O. forces.

The N.A.T.O. talks were taking place at the same time as the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks between, mainly, the American Secretary of State. Mr Vance, and the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr Gromyko. Some of the points being raised in the NATO. talks were also being raised in the S A L T negotiations. Mr Gromyko has now left the United States, and he and Mr Vance intend to continue their negotiations. Both the Soviet Union and the United States have a stake in peace, not just military prowess. The N.A.T.O. powers have been talking about ensuring peace by maintaining weaponry: the S.A.L.T. negotiators have yet to ensure peace by limiting arms. The greatest hope may still lie in their agreement provided that all countries follow their lead.