World: NATO Nagging

In moments of grave crisis, NATO is a model of arm-in-arm harmony. But when there are no Berlin blockades or Cuban missiles to bring out their underlying unity, the Western allies are divided. There is little doubt anywhere that the U.S. has crushing nuclear superiority over the Russians. Disagreement arises over the questions of 1) how much of a voice Europe is to have as to when and how this U.S. force is to be applied, and 2) what Western strategy should be in the intermediate grey area short of total war, an area in which NATO is perhaps more important politically than militarily. These problems swirled up again this week as the foreign and defense ministers of 15 NATO nations sat down for their big annual review conference in Paris.

Massive or Flexible. For the record, the agenda was crowded with distant general matters: What next in disarmament talks with Russia? What meaning for the West in the Sino-Soviet split? But in a kind of corridor warfare and in separate bilateral meetings, some factions tried to maneuver the U.S. into giving Europe more say in the use of the H-bomb, and others looked for ways to frustrate Charles de Gaulle’s force de dissuasion.

Under U.S. urging, Secretary-General Dirk Stikker (ailing and probably due for early retirement) is carrying out sweeping studies to reassess NATO force levels and basic strategy. The French have been working against the “Stikker studies.” Clinging to their own massive retaliation theory, which holds that any aggression in Europe must turn into a nuclear war, De Gaulle’s men sneer at Washington’s concept of “balanced” conventional-and-nuclear forces to provide a “flexible response” to Red moves.

Force or Farce. Paris is equally skeptical of Washington’s proposed multilateral force (“multilateral farce,” the French call it). So are most of the other allies. But at least a few are beginning to believe that the idea—surface ships armed with Polaris weapons and manned by mixed crews from various NATO nations—just might work.* No one has any other practical or even impractical plan to give Europe a greater share in the use of the Bomb. From the rational French viewpoint, the “sharing” provided by MLF would be an illusion, since the U.S. would still retain control of the missiles. But Lyndon Johnson has hinted that this control might be transferred to the Europeans —if and when Europe truly unites.

There were other NATO problems and squabbles: the command structure is badly outdated, and the Western Big Three are too heavily represented on NATO staffs at the expense of other allies. One concrete accomplishment: agreement to set up a $308 million electronic system stretching from Norway to Turkey that will control and guide such fast-moving new aircraft as the F-104. Its less than martial name: NADGE (NATO Air Defense Ground Environment).

*Skeptics were reminded that Nelson’s flagship Victory at Trafalgar in 1805 was manned by 16 different nationalities.