Threat to Alliance Seen in Argument : NATO Missile Rift: What It’s All About

West Germany is having its most serious rift with its major allies, the United States and Britain, since the Federal Republic was founded 40 years ago. Here are questions and answers about the quarrel:

Question: How serious is the argument?

Answer: Very. It threatens the trust and cohesion which underpin the Atlantic Alliance.

Q: What is the core of the dispute?

A: It’s about short-range nuclear missile forces, those with a range of under 300 miles, known as SNF, based in West Germany. Bonn wants the missiles to be part of “early” talks with Moscow aimed at reducing such forces.

Q: But weren’t the United States and the Soviets negotiating a 50% cut in strategic missiles, and didn’t talks lead to banning intermediate-range missiles (INF) in the 1987 treaty?

A: True. But the Americans and the British are afraid of taking NATO’s short-range missiles out of West Germany because, they argue, the missiles are a key element of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s “flexible response” deterrent.

Also, strategists say they provide a deterrent umbrella for the 250,000-strong U.S. forces in Germany. If Bonn gets rid of the nuclear deterrent, Congress may pull U.S. forces out. “No nukes,” they argue, “no troops.” And withdrawal of U.S. troops could mean the end of NATO.

Q: Have the Germans any supporters in the argument over early missile talks?

A: Definitely. They are backed by Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Greece, Spain, Portugal and probably Italy. On the other side, the Dutch, French, Turks and possibly the Canadians support the Anglo-American position.

Q: Does Kohl want all short-range missiles out of his country?

A: He says no, but the Americans and British fear Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev might make an offer Bonn couldn’t refuse--namely pulling all nuclear weapons out of Europe. The Americans and British want to put off any talks on short-range forces until progress is made in the new conventional arms negotiations in Vienna.

Also, the Americans, and particularly Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, are still mistrustful and angry at Kohl and Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher for their about-face on missile “modernization.” Washington and London expected the West German government to commit Bonn to deploying a modernized version of the aging, short-range Lance missile.

Q: Why?

A: Because ministers at previous NATO meetings decided that the Lance will be obsolete around 1995 and that a credible replacement is needed. The idea was that the U.S. Congress would fund a replacement if assurances were made by Bonn that the new missiles would be deployed.

Q: Didn’t the West Germans go along with that NATO decision?

A: They did, but they recently changed their minds. Opinion polls show that missile modernization is highly unpopular among German voters, and for the chancellor to go along with the modernization could keep him from remaining in office after the December, 1990, federal parliamentary elections.

In the Anglo-American view, Kohl has acted as a provincial politician in making his turnabout, rather than as a statesman who would stick by the NATO decision.

Q: Why are these short range-missiles suddenly so unpopular after being stationed here for 40 years?

A: Because of Gorbachev. His statements on reducing nuclear weapons in Europe and his calls for easing of tensions hold much attraction for West Germans. They believe he is serious about detente and new East-West relations. As a result, many Germans want to rid their country of all nuclear weapons, especially short-range missiles that would be able to hit targets only in West Germany and East Germany.

Q: But does that mean the West Germans want to get out of NATO?

A: No. All public opinion polls show the majority of Germans want to stay in.

Q: Thatcher’s personal stand is clear. What about that of President Bush?

A: European leaders aren’t sure. Even U.S. diplomats talk about the “black hole” in Washington--in terms of guiding foreign policy.

Q: Do the Germans feel that Washington and London are ganging up on them?

A: Yes. They remember the reported words of Lord Ismay, first secretary general of NATO, that the alliance was created to keep the Americans in, the Soviets out and the Germans down.

Q: Is there any truth in this?

A: Yes. In British ruling circles, you hear sentiments that the Germans lost the war and should do as they are told.

Q: Besides support among European allies for Bonn’s view on the short-range missiles, are they sympathetic to West Germany in other ways?

A: Yes. Many Europeans believe that after 40 years of being considered an economic giant and political dwarf, West Germany is coming of age. It wants a stronger voice in the alliance, since the country is on the East-West fracture line. Many Europeans approve of West German overtures to the East Bloc.

Q: What do the Germans think about the Anglo-American pressure on them?

A: Many think that while Kohl’s turnaround is a sorry development, the Americans and British overplayed their hands by pushing him into a corner. This, they say, serves no positive end, since the political opposition here favors a ban on all nuclear weapons.

Q: So the argument isn’t simply black and white.

A: Not at all. There are reasonable arguments that the modernization issue could have been left on a back burner until after West Germany’s 1990 elections.

Q: Will NATO patch up the quarrel by the May 29-30 summit?

A: More likely they’ll paper it over. Language will be written into the final communique that, while not making anyone happy, will keep the breach from widening.