East-West Negotiations Over United Germany’s NATO Role

Your May 30 editorial “Yes--Germany in a Transformed NATO” did not define the transformation. Instead you suggested that President Bush take time “to figure out the shape and mission of the new NATO.” In your June 1 editorial (“Down and Out in the Soviet Union”) you defined the problem: “What must be found--and this may take some doing--is a structure that keeps Germany firmly in the stabile community of Western nations without frightening the Soviet people and . . . further weakening their leaders.”

NATO is primarily a military organization and should remain a military organization. We must continue to recognize that security and peace will ultimately depend on military force. The transformation need only change the focus of NATO from confrontation with the Warsaw Pact to the maintenance of peace throughout the world, under any possible threat.

Years ago, in their Joint Statement of Agreed Principles for Disarmament Negotiations, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed that disarmament “must be accompanied by measures to maintain peace and security and a United Nations Peace Force strong enough to deter or suppress any threat or use of arms in violation of the United Nations Charter.” The United Nations does not now have a military force which is that strong. We have have never implemented that part of the U.N. Charter.

NATO should be transformed to be the foundation of that force. We should also transform the United Nations to give this new NATO a commander in chief who is independent of the bickering in the Security Council and the General Assembly. He (or she) should have the power to independently suppress any new Hitler or even a new Noriega.

The Soviet Union still endorses this statement of agreed principles so it should not only welcome, but participate in the creation of this new military force.

EDWARD C. PERRY II

Palm Springs