U.S. Urges Global Naval Role for NATO

Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger told a NATO naval conference here Tuesday that the alliance should expand its maritime reach far beyond its traditional boundaries and be prepared to protect the sea lanes of the Pacific, the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf.

His speech delineated another difference between the United States and the other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. At a NATO meeting two weeks ago in Canada, the Reagan Administration faced heated criticism of its plan to end compliance with provisions of the second strategic arms limitation treaty.

But while delegates to a conference on maritime strategy here appeared to disagree with any effort to widen the alliance’s commitment, they said that Weinberger, by advocating a wider role for the NATO allies, may succeed in focusing attention on the impact that events far from Europe can have on the member nations.

Vice Adm. Hans Joachim Mann of West Germany said it is important to point occasionally “to the fact that things might happen elsewhere that are important to NATO.” But he added that “you will never get a general approval by the governments” to widen the alliance’s military horizons.

In arguing for just that, Weinberger said: “Peacetime deterrence for NATO’s benefit does not exist solely in traditional NATO theaters. We must have leverage for action in corners of the globe far from the North Atlantic--places where developments can mightily affect NATO’s security.”

Weinberger told about 200 delegates to the conference that the alliance’s flanks--from Norway in the northwest to Greece and Turkey in the southeast--must be protected, and he said that this can be accomplished only “if we are prepared to take actions outside NATO theaters.”

Dane Opposed

In response to Weinberger’s proposal, Rear Adm. Mogens M. Telling of Denmark said: “You can’t expect small countries to expand on a global basis. It’s up to the superpowers.”

Weinberger’s concern about NATO’s reach stems from the expansion of Soviet sea power. Richard Pipes, a Harvard University expert on Soviet affairs and a former consultant on national security to President Reagan, said that the logistical problems of Soviet expansion into the Far East are formidable but that the potential of controlling the flow of Middle East oil to energy-thirsty Western Europe makes the Mideast a logical target for the Soviet military.

By treaty and tradition, NATO has generally limited its sea operations to an arc marked by the Barents Sea north of Norway, the North Atlantic and the eastern Mediterranean off the shores of Greece and Turkey. According to participants in the conference, any formal NATO operations beyond this area would require changes in the alliance’s governing agreements.

Weinberger, questioning where the alliance can draw its lines of defense in an era of expanding global commitments and economic interdependence, asked:

“Would it be prudent to indicate the slightest willingness to fall back at any point along the northern or southern flanks of NATO itself? Or the slightest willingness to do less than stand absolutely firm in our protection of critical sea lanes in the Pacific, the Indian Ocean or the Persian Gulf?

“I believe it would be not only highly imprudent to retreat from the worldwide commitments that benefit all our nations, but it would be an invitation to the forces opposed to freedom. . . .”

A senior Reagan Administration official, asking not to be identified by name, acknowledged later that in advocating a wider role for the alliance, Weinberger was taking a position that would meet with opposition from the allies.

“The NATO nations have a fairly narrow perspective,” he said. “They’d like the resources--the planes and ships--to be committed in the central area.”