Friend and Foe

By Jacob V. Lamar Jr.

The Senate takes on NATO

In his twelve years in the Senate, Sam Nunn, the earnest Georgia Democrat, has earned a reputation for levelheaded expertise in military issues. Thus his blunt proposal last week that the U.S. withdraw one-third of its troops from Western Europe unless other NATO allies increase their own defense spending disturbed politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. Nunn's intent was to strengthen NATO, not rupture it. Said he: "This is not a petition for divorce. This is a petition for the alliance to carry out its vows." But the measure highlighted a growing belief in Washington that, as Nunn put it, "America cannot solve NATO'S problems alone."

Nunn's amendment, which he submitted during the final days of Senate debate on the defense authorization bill for fiscal 1985, called on NATO countries to increase their annual defense spending by 3% after inflation. If that commitment, which was made to President Carter in 1978, was not met, the NATO allies risked a reduction in the 326,414 U.S. troops defending Western Europe. A Pentagon report released last week concluded that, of the 16 NATO countries, only the U.S., Canada and Luxembourg had consistently met the 3% goal since 1980. NATO's conventional forces, Nunn argued, currently serve as "little more than a delayed trip wire for early resort to nuclear escalation," because they could do little to halt a Soviet invasion without tactical nuclear weapons.

President Reagan telephoned Nunn to warn that his proposal would disrupt NATO at a time when the allies had just deployed controversial intermediate-range nuclear missiles. Secretary of State George Shultz traveled to the Hill to cajole key members. Also making pleas to Senators were ambassadors from West Germany, Britain and Italy. Nunn's amendment was defeated by a 55-41 vote, but only after Maine Republican William Cohen had worked out a less drastic alternative: U.S. troops would stay at the present level while the allies would be prodded to increase their commitments. Said Nunn afterward: "I achieved what I set out to do, trigger a serious debate. The main objective is to provoke European allies into doing more."

Despite the defeat of the Nunn amendment, the Administration could not claim total success when the Senate finally passed, 82-6, the defense budget at 3:57 a.m. Thursday. Reagan had requested $313 billion in military funds, which would have been a 13% annual increase after inflation; the Senate authorized expenditures of $299 billion (a 7.8% increase), but the House has approved a budget of only $292 billion. Both chambers rejected money for the development of nerve gas, but approved funding for almost every other major weapons system.

More significantly, Congress showed an increased willingness to use the defense budget to force the President's hand on arms control. By a 77-22 vote, the Senate urged Reagan to submit for ratification the 1974 Threshold Test Ban Treaty and the 1976 Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty, which would limit underground nuclear detonations to 150 kilotons or less. The Senate also called on Reagan to seek a comprehensive ban on all nuclear tests and a summit conference on nuclear weapons "without preconditions or assurances of success." The House had already voted to withhold funds for the MX missile until April of next year, the money to be released only if both houses of Congress approve.

One problem in defense debates is accurately assessing the strength of Soviet and U.S. forces. According to an article published by the Arms Control Association, a private group in Washington, new Pentagon estimates show that the U.S.S.R. leads the U.S. in nuclear warheads by 34,000 to 26,000. It has long been an assumption of both hawks and doves that even though the Soviets had more land-based missiles, the U.S. led in numbers of warheads. Another report, by outgoing NATO Secretary-General Joseph Luns, revised downward the count of Soviet-bloc divisions ready to fight in Europe from 173 to 115 with a total of 4.5 million troops. (NATO now has 88 divisions, with 2.8 million soldiers.) Reagan last week rebuked a Marine deputy chief of staff for suggesting that U.S. and Soviet strength would be put to a test. Lieut. General Bernard Trainor called a limited conventional war with the U.S.S.R. "almost inevitable" at "some point in our lifetime." The President's reply: any idea that war cannot be avoided is "one of the most dangerous things in the world." --By Jacob V. Lamar Jr. Reported by Bruce van Voorst/Washington

With reporting by Bruce van Voorst/Washington