West’s Leaders Chided Over Soviet Threat

U.S. Gen. John R. Galvin, commander of North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces, issued surprisingly strong criticism of some Western leaders Monday, accusing them of failing to warn their citizens that the Soviet military threat remains serious.

Addressing a meeting in Hamburg, West Germany, of members of parliaments from NATO countries, Galvin said the Kremlin’s arms posture is unchanged despite Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev’s insistence that his military is moving from an offensive to a defensive strategy.

He suggested that too many Western leaders have listened only to Gorbachev’s words and have not kept an eye on the menacing force level of his military.

“I do not find much political leadership here,” said the outspoken four-star general. “I think political leaders should step forward and say, ‘We do have hope, but the danger is still there.’ ”

West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, among other Western officials, have insisted that the West take Gorbachev “at his word.”

Arms Modernization Issue

Genscher, along with some Belgians and Italians, argues that modernization of short-range nuclear forces--recommended by the United States and Britain--should be delayed, pending talks with the Soviets on additional arms reductions.

Galvin said the Russians have shown no inclination to reduce the 3 to 1 superiority in tanks and artillery that they hold on the central European front, adding that if the Soviet Union “closed all tank factories today and NATO tripled its production, it would take us 10 years to catch up.”

Therefore, Galvin said, in new conventional arms talks it is important that “the massive imbalance is the first thing that has to be dealt with.”

He said the West should be on guard as it enters the prospective talks next year.

“There is a risk we could misjudge the world situation by making unilateral concessions prior to going into negotiations,” he said. “That is the worst thing we could do.”

The NATO commander also warned against any withdrawal of the 326,000 American troops stationed in Europe.

On the touchy issue of “modernization” of short-range nuclear weapons in Europe, which Galvin recommends, he said an upgrading of aging atomic weapons could lead to a “significant” reduction in the number based in Europe.

U.S. lawmakers attending the North Atlantic Assembly argued over the burden-sharing issue--the contention by some that the European members of NATO are not contributing their fair share toward the common defense.

Andy Ireland (R-Fla.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, told the NATO lawmakers: “There is a strong bipartisan feeling that the time has come for the United States to stop picking up more than a fair share of the bills.”

Many members of the U.S. Congress have criticized European countries for not contributing more of their gross national product to the NATO defense budget.

For their part, the Europeans maintain that defense contributions cannot be quantified purely in terms of monetary allocations and that environmental damage resulting from military bases and exercises should be considered.