Neutrals determined to deter likely aggressors

Press, 7 February 1985, Page 10

Neutrals determined to deter likely aggressors

By

CHRISTOPHER HANSON,

of Reuters (through NZPA)

London Neutral Switzerland rented part of the island of Sardinia from Italy last month so that its Air Force could be free to engage in low-alti-tude combat games. Switzerland, which has not fought in a serious war for 170 years, bans such exercises over its small, densely populated territory, so it opted for realistic training abroad. The Swiss are not the only European neutrals who take defence seriously. Sweden, Finland, Austria, and Yugoslavia have also invested heavily in hopes of deterring invaders. Although neutrality is likely to be one of the first casualties even in a non-nuclear war, all are confident of keeping an attacker at bay for some time. Radioactive fallout does

not respect neutral borders, and Western defence officials say that Europe’s neutrals could also suffer if Moscow launched a lightning conventional attack aimed at defeating N.A.T.O. without using nuclear weapons. If such a war started, they say, Finland and Sweden could be jeopardised as Moscow guarded its northern flank, Austria could become a battleground, and Yugoslavia the target for a Warsaw Pact incursion.

Geography is a serious handicap to Sweden and Finland, which are located near the strategic Soviet Kola Peninsula. The Kola bristles with missiles and naval installations, and N.A.T.O. officials say that Moscow would take great pains to protect it. A study written for the Pentagon last year by Lynn

Hansen, now a United States arms negotiator, linked dozens of recent submarine intrusions in Swedish waters with what it said was a Soviet plan to attack Sweden, neutralise its Navy, achieve naval supremacy in the Baltic Sea, and shield the Kola area if war broke out.

The Swedish Government said last week that there had been 20 submarine sightings between October and December last year. In a highly publicised intrusion — the so-called “whiskey on the rocks” affair — in 1981, a Soviet “Whiskey" class submarine ran aground well inside Swedish waters. Moscow blamed a navigation error and denies other intrusions.

In an effort to deter attacks against it, Sweden has built up what the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London deems the most effective neutral

military in Europe. Sweden’s Air Force rivals those of some N.A.T.O. nations. The country is now beefing up anti-submarine forces, but its long coastline makes defence difficult. Finland is more vulnerable, directly in the shadow of the Soviet Union, reluctant to do anything that might conflict with Moscow’s foreign policy goals. Its Air Force and 30,000man Army are restricted in size under a treaty with Moscow. This allows Moscow to call for military consultations if an attack across Finland against the Soviet Union is threatened. Finland, which was a World War II ally of Germany, is required by the treaty to repel any attack against the Soviet Union by West Germany or other N.A.T.O. countries. Most Western defence analysts discount the pros-

pect of a N.A.T.O. invasion of Finland and say that the most probable scenario would be for Moscow to move in, perhaps asserting that Finnish air defences could not cope with N.A.T.O. missiles that might fly over en route to Soviet targets.

A Soviet test missile that crashed in Finland on December 28 embarrassed Finland by raising questions about its air defences, N.A.T.O. diplomats say. Still, 1.1.5.5. rates Finnish forces highly. Adam Roberts, a specialist on neutral defence at Oxford University, says that the Finns, have used limits on their full-time Army to justify building a tough reserve force including many skitroops. The Army is trained to harass invaders, guerrilla style, and to launch big counter-attacks with tank forces.

But Western defence analysts say that Finland

would be vulnerable to amphibious Soviet landings near Helsinki, in the south, launched across the Gulf of Finland from nearby Estonia.

Neutral Austria, almost entirely surrounded by Communist countries in central Europe, is seeking to deter invaders with a 45,000man standing Army, a reserve force of 158,000, and an Air Force of 32 combat aircraft.

Austrian defence officials say that it is more likely that invaders would seek to move through the country, rather than occupy it. The Warsaw Pact could use Austria as a path to Yugoslavia or Italy. N.A.T.O. might use it as a counter-path. Austria has built a system of fortifications at strategic points and says that it would defend them heavily to block an invading army. Light infantry would stage

hit-and-run attacks against invaders. Mountainous areas would be strongly defended. The theory is that speed is of the essence in modern war: if a thrust through Austria risked slowing the tempo of an attack, because of local defences, the risk would not be worth taking. Austria is barred from acquiring modern missiles under a 1955 State treaty. This has impeded air defences. Neighbouring Switzerland can call up 580,000 reserves in 48 hours and wants Austria to spend more on defence.

Yugoslavia — which broke from the Soviet bloc in 1948 — is flanked in southern Europe by Warsaw Pact countries and faces serious ethnic divisions that Moscow might exploit. It has a 191,000-man standing Army, and 500,000 reserves, but plans to rely heavily on partisan warfare and would exploit difficult

terrain if Moscow ever moved in. The question is whether that would be enough to deter an attack. Europe’s neutrals may not be world-class military Powers but they have carved out a key political role for themselves as venues for arms negotiations — in Stockholm, Vienna, and Geneva, where super-Power space and nuclear talks will start in March.

In the past neutrals often served as islands of peace during wartime, intermediaries between combatants. But given the expected fast pace of modern war, the era of war intermediaries may be waning. In its place has come an era of long-term negotiations during peacetime. Neutrals have as much stake, as N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact in their outcome. .