World: NATO ENTERS THE THIRD DECADE

• Share

(3 of 3)

NATO's unhappiest hour was in 1966, when Charles de Gaulle summarily withdrew his country from military participation in the alliance and evicted NATO from installations in France, including military headquarters at Rocquencourt and Fontainebleau. To a degree, De Gaulle's decision was perhaps an unavoidable product of his own intense nationalistic pride. But his action also reflected the larger problem that NATO has historically been overly dependent upon the U.S.

The relationship came about naturally enough, since the U.S., with its virtual nuclear monopoly, was the military mainstay of NATO in the early years. But the military situation has changed, and the Europeans have failed to assume the proper share of their own defense. Most of NATO's European partners spend less than 6% of their gross national products on defense, v. the U.S.'s 10%. One consequence is that NATO has never met its defense goals. At present, NATO combat-ready troops, whose divisions are below full strength, are outmanned by Warsaw Pact forces along the Central European front, 585,000 to 355,000.

What-lfs. NATO planners fear such a troop shortage means that the alliance could not contain a Soviet thrust by conventional means and would thus have to resort almost at once to nuclear weapons. Though the possibility of direct So->~a aggression remains highly unlikely, NATO commanders nevertheless worry about "what-if" situations that could spill over into Western European soil. What if, for example, a revolt by the Czechoslovak army led to fighting that saw Soviet troops pursuing the Czechoslovaks into West Germany? Similarly, a Soviet move into the so-called gray areas of Yugoslavia or Austria would pose a threat to NATO. A strong conventional force would be able to turn back Soviet intrusions, but a weak NATO nonnuclear army might lead to a precipitous lunge for the atomic trigger that could send thousands of NATO nuclear warheads raining down on Eastern Europe and start World War III.

There is some evidence that even if the Europeans do not supply more troops, they will at least assume a larger share of NATO's defense burdens and a more important role in NATO policymaking. In the wake of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, several European members shored up their defense budgets. Britain's withdrawal from east of Suez may also benefit NATO by bringing home forces that can be put at NATO's disposal. That, in turn, may move Britain into a position to supply the supreme commander for NATO, a post that until now has always been filled by Americans—from Dwight David Eisenhower to the newly appointed commander of the allied forces, General Andrew J. Goodpaster.