Evening star., 1963-05-27
Ott0wo-So What?

For the benefit of readers who may
suffer from an uneasy sense Of confu-
sion about the accomplishments of last
weeks Ottawa NATO meeting-and, be-
yond that, over the whole concept of a
nuclear force for Europe-we offer the
following results of week end of soul
searching:
First, in military sense, the un-
named nuclear weapons pool will not
have the slightest effect on the defense
Of Europe. Neither will the "multilateral
force" to which it is designed to lead
These proposals will not change the
nature or number of available weapons,
or the control or targeting of those
weapons They will change nothing that
matters to the military men.
Second, so far as this country is
concerned, both projects are designed
to create the Illusion that our European
allies are getting their own nuclear
forces But the control of the nuclear
weapons-the trigger which has so con-
cerned the Europeans-iS to remain,
meanwhile, firmly in our control.
Third, our friends across the At
lantic are quite smart enough to see
through this situation. European leaders
who profess to regard these proposals
as making sense, militarily speaking, are
the ones who share our concern over the
dangers Of nuclear proliferation The
weapons pool and the multilateral force
will be useful to them as something to
talk about when they are needed by
other politicians or, worse still, by the
voters, for not developing their own nu-
clear forces.
In this regard, the multilateral
force may yet serve to get French lead
ership off the hook if Gen. de Gaulle's
national atomic drive comes a cropper
Germany, however, is the real problem.
The largely -unSpoken background real
ity in the controversy about independent
nuclear forces is that a lone-wolf, nu-
clear-armed Germany, on the French
pattern, would be almost as unaccept-
able to us as to the Russians The multi
lateral force, indeed, might be accur-
ately but undiplomatically described as
an attempt to find a politically accept
able way Of watering down the fires of
German nationaliSm-and, to pursue
the liquid metaphor, of diluting Ger
man power within the alliance.
Finally, the appeal of these expert
mentS, If any, has less to do with their
overt military function than with their
psychological and educational by-prod-
uctS.
The multilateral force would, after
all, be step in the direction of inter-
national cooperation, a closer melding
OF armed forces than any group of ma
tionS has hitherto achieved. 1t is seen
hopefully as part of the long trend to-
ward free world community, compar-
able to establishment of the Common
Market-a wobbly, uncertain movement,
to be sure, but one which at least has
the merit of involving a broader At
.antic, as opposed to a strictly CONT
mental, grouping.
A Subtler benefit, perhaps, is that
such force would permit European
participants to learn the facts of atomic
life, particularly the military and eco
nomic facts, without getting themselves
trapped in series of unmanageable
national atomic efforts.
The multilateral nuclear force, and
the midget step taken in that direction
at Ottawa, emerge then as military
hoaxes-but hoaxes which may still
serve useful purposes. Provided of
course, no one looks at them too closely.