ED 256 667

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTIONREPORT NOPUB DATENOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

DOCUMENT RESUME

SO 016 409

Young, Harry F.Atlas of NATO.Department of State, Washington, D.C.DS-Pub-9412Feb 8543p.; Maps contain.ng small print and gray outlinesmay not reproduce clearly.Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington DC 20402 ($1.75).Reference Materials - Geographic Materials (133) --Reports - Descriptive (141)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Atlases; Disarmament; Global Approach; * International

Cooperation; *International Organizations;International Programs? International Relations;International Trade; Peace; Program Descriptions;*world Affairs; World Problems

IDENTIFIERS *North Atlantic Treaty Organization; USSR

ABSTRACTThis atlas provides basic information about the North

Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Formed in response to growingconcern for the security of Western Europe alter World War II, NATOis a vehicle for Western efforts to reduce East-West tensions and thelevel of armaments. NATO promotes political and economiccollaboration as well as military defense. The atlas consists ofdisplays and narrative that illustrate and discuss the followinginformation concerning NATO: membership and area, the Warsaw Pact,responsibilities, burdensharing, integrated commands andinfrastructure, standardization of weapons, military forces,transatlantic deployment and logistics, nuclear forces, naval forces,military presence outside the NATO area, Soviet-bloc militarypresence in the Third World, military expenditures, West European andNorth Atlantic economic cooperation, trade, overseas importdependency, and security pacts. (RM)

***************************************************************..******** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *

***********************************************************************

W February 1985 United States Department of StateBureau of Public AffairsWashington D C

LLS. DENIATIMENT OF toucan)*NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC!

4014. The document has been reproduted asretewed iron, (NI irter burl or of 1.,en aohonOrrra mat log it

Minor Lharlge$ Puha/ been made to intetowIrPrOrtui ton quality

points of opruons stated in this ducemenu do nut necessarily represent official NIEwrit! KM or mita. y

kr*

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Atlas of NATOContents

1 Introduction2 NATO: Membership and Area3 NATO and the Warsaw Pact4 Responsibilities in NATO5 Burdensharing6 NATO's Integrated Commands and Infrastructure7 Standardization of Weapons in NATO8 NATO-Warsaw Pact Conventional Forces9 Transatlantic Deployment and Logistics

10 Strategic Nuclear Forces11 Intermediate-range and Short-range Nuclear Forces12 NATO-Warsaw Pact Naval Forces13 NATO Members' Military Presence Outside the NATO Are.i14 Soviet-bloc Military Presence in Third World15 NATO-Warsaw Pact Military Expenditures16 West European and North Atlantic.Economic Cooperation17 NATO-Warsaw Pact Trade18 NATO Overseas Import Dependency19 Warsaw Pact Overseas Import Dependency20 NATO Members and Other Mutual Security Pacts

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents.U S Government Printing Office,Washington, D C 20402 (Tel 202 183 3238)

Department of Stile Publication 9412

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84 601143

4

IntroductionIlimmur

This atlas provides basic informa-(ion about the North AtlanticTreaty Organization (NATO).NATO is the institutional form,and the common name, of the NorthAtlantic Alliance established by thetreaty signed in 1949. The atlas con-sists of 19 displays illustratingNATO's membership and structure.military strength, members' role inworld affairs. and relations withthe Soviet Union and the WarsawPact.

NATO !NM formed in responseto growing concern for the securityof Western Europe after World

. War II. By 1948. the Soviet Unionthe strongest military power an thecontinenthad consolidated com-munist rule throughout EasternEurope and prevented a peacetreaty reestablishing a unified anddemocratic Germany. Articles 51and 52 of the United NationsCharter recognized respectively theright of selfdifense and the right toform regional security rra n ge-melds. The 1948 Brussels Pactestablished a West European

alliance among Belgium, France.Luxembourg, Netherlands. and theUnited Kingdom, and the 1949North Atlantic Treaty signed inWashington extended the area ofWestern collective security to fiveother European countries and toCanada and the United States.

From the beginning, NATO wasintended to promote political andeconomic collaboration as well asmilitary defense. The permanentrepresentatives on the North Atlan-tic Council, the organization's prin-cipal body, discuss a full range ofinternational issues. NATO sup-ports research programs in scienceand the physical environment andclosely follows internationaleconomic developments. Outside theformal organization. legislatorsfrom all members have formed theNorth Atlantic Assembly to conferon common problems and presenttheir findings to the council.

NATO follows a policy of deter-rence. Its armed forces must bestrong enough to discourage aggresum and ward off attack. Thispolicy involves the strategy of resist-ing invasion as far forward aspossible and the doctrine of flexibleresponse. calling for the ability tocounter all levels of potential ag-gression. Flexible response requires

conventional (non-nuclear) ground.sea, and air forces; short- andintermediate-range nuclear forces inEurope; and (as the ultimate deter-rent) the U.S. strategic nuclearforce.

NATO is a vehicle for Westernefforts to reduce East-West tensionsand the level of armaments. For ex-ample, it was a NATO proposalthat led in 1973 to the negotiationswith the Warsaw Part on mutualand balanced force reductions(MBFR) concerning conventionalstrength in Central Europe. And in11:19. while deciding to improve itsintermediate-range nuclear forces(INF) in order to balance WarsawPact deployments. NATO also calledfor arms control talksthe U.S. -Soviet INF negotiationsto reducedeployment of these weapons on bothsides.

Authored by Harry F. Young

Editing, Design, and Production:Colleen Sussman

NATO: Membership and Area

The North Atlantic Treaty was signedby the United States, Canada. and 1European countries on April 4, 1949.The treaty established the North Atlan-tic Council as its principal organ, whichfirst met in September 1949 and, set-ting up subsidiary bodies, launched theNorth Atlantic Treaty Organinttion(NATO).

The treaty provided that any otherEuropean state could, by unanimousagreement. lw invited to join thealliance, and that any member couldwithdraw upon 1 year's notice after the

treaty had been in existence for morethan 20 years. Four countries havesince joined the alliance, but none haswithdrawn.

All members are obliged to come tothe assistance of any member undermilitary attack. But membership doesnot entail uniform participation. Icelandhas no armed forces; Denmark and Nor-way do not permit foreign troops to be

stationed on their soil permanently inpeacetime (except, as to Denmark, inGreenland); and France (since 1966) andSpain do not take part in the integratedmilitary command structure.

Defense obligations under the treatyextend to members' home territory andto the North Atlantic islands undertheir jurisdiction north of the Tropic ofCancer. Colonial possessions and otherdependencies outside this area are notcovered.

The North AtlanticTruty Organization

OM vow coaccession)

Node Von Amid Farm(thousards, Chousinds.

snosiess. nee totes woomid -1463)

Belgium (1949) 9,865 95Canada (1949) 24,882 83

Denmark (1949) 5,115 31

France (1949) 544'4 493

Germany, FederalRepublic of(1955) 81,543 495

Greece (1952) 9,898 185

Iceland (1949) 238 noforam

Italy (1949) 56,345 373Luxembourg

(1949) 388 0.7

Netherlands(1949) 14,374 103

Norway (1949) 4,131 43

Portugal (1949) 10,008 84

Spain (1984 38,234 347Turkey (1952) 49,115 069United Kingdom

(1949) 56,008 321

United States(1949) 234,193 2,138

NATO and the Warsaw Pact

NATO was established to provide asystem of collective security for Euro-pean countries outside the area ofSoviet control. Italy's charter member-ship and the admission of Greece andTurkey in 1952 were a natural exten-sion of NATO's scope to theMediterranean.

In 1950. after South Korea was in-vaded, NATO adopted the forwardstrategy of resisting attack as far tothe east as possible and decided thatthe Federal Republic of Germany(F.R.G.) should be in'luded in the

Western defensive system. Establishedin 1949, the. F.R.G. was then still underWestern military occupation.

Admitted to NATO in 1955, theF.R.G. agreed not to produce or useatomic, bacteriological, or chemicalweapons and renounced the use of forceto achieve German reunification.France, the United Kingdom, and theUnited States retained their rights,derived from World War II, relating toBerlin and Germany as a whole.

North Cap*

The Warsaw Pact was concluded in1955 after the F.R.G. joined NATO.The ostensible purpose was to counterthe threat of a remilitarized West Ger-many. In fact, the parties were alreadyintegrated into the Soviet militarysystem through standard treaties ofalliance concluded between 1945-48 andreorganization of their armed forcesalong Soviet lines. The pact has a jointcommand under Soviet leadership, andall forces come under Soviet commandin wartime.

ATLANTICOCEAN

ED NATO

=I Warsaw PactThe Untied has hh.oghwed ifs gu.Mahon of E stofsa lafris and lothylef ruin 'USSR Poundahv Prt/P4.1.2 4M, M1 001 f*Cpt.f.q.ulhotahA.

Albania was a charter member ofthe Warsaw Pact. Geographicallyseparated from the other parties,Albania severed relations with theSoviet Union in 1961 and formally re-nounced its membership in the pact in1968 after pact forces had repressedthe reform movement in Czecho-slovakia. To justify this intervention,the Soviet Union elaborated theBrezhnev doctrine of the limitedsovereignty of members of the socialistcommunity.

Warsaw Pact

Ilitobsrs

repallatien Mood Fenno(ri thousands. (m thousand.roattgoor tg63) mad-19(13)

Bulgaria 8,944 182

Czechoslovalda 15,420 205German 0111110-C rift Republic 16,724 187

Hungary 10)391 115

Poland 35,555 340Romania 22,849 189

272,308 5,050

93

Responsibilities in NATO

Ultimate Authority Overall Direction

MemberGoverrukents:

BelgiumCanadaDenmarkFranceGermany, Federal

Republic ofGreeceIcelandItalyLuxembourgNetherlandsNorwayPortugalSpainTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States

4

North Atlantic Cornell:

Foreign minisisia meetingtwice a year to considermatters of political andgeneral concern; and

Defense PlanningCommittee:

Defense ministers of coun-tries taking part in in-tegrated military structure,meeting twice a year,' and

Ambassadors as permanent representativeson Council and Defense Planning Committee.'

'France and Spain do not take part in NATO's integratedmilitary structure France does not attend meetings of theDefense Planning Committee but has military missions to theMilitary Committee and Allied Command Europe Spam does siton the Defense Planning Committee and the Military Committee

10

Administration

Secretary General

Chairman of Pkwth AtlanticCouncil and Defense Plan.ning Committee, and headof International Stall, withassistant secretariesgeneral for

Political AffairsDefense Planning and

Policy

Defense Support

Infrastructure,Logistics, andCouncil Operations

Scientific andEnvironmental Affairs

Military Advice, Plan-ning, and Guidance

WNW, Comnifftee:

Chiefs-of-staff meeting atlust twice a year and

Permanent military repre-sentatives in permanentsession

international Military Staff

11

Integrated Defense andMilitary Operations

NATO Cocernandic

Allied Command Europe(ACE)

Allied Command Atlantic(ACLANT)

Allied Command Channel(ACCHAN)

Canada-U.S RegionalPlanning Group

Burdensharing

Although NATO countrie ., as sovereignstates, have full authority to determinetheir on military budgets, they all ac-cept the principle, k-,-wn as burden-sharing, that each must do its part andassume a fair share of the costs of com-mon defense.

NATO's part in the budget processis to establish overall needs and recom-mend force goals (level and quality offorces) for each member taking part inthe integrated military commands. Con-tributions for the common infrastruc-ture and other joint projects are

established by consultation. These twoprocedures set a general framework fornational defense planning.

NATO recognizes that no single for-mula can provide an exact measure ofeach country's contribution. Demandson national resources vary from countryto country, and some expenditures notincluded in the defense budgetforeignaid, for examplemay also promote international security.

Wass Ewald laws as Persentage at GNP*

Belgium Canada Denmark France F.R.G. Greece

'Spain is excluded because it loaned NATO in 1982 Ireland has no armed forces

12

Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Portugal Turkey U.K. U.S.

Source. AMA. World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers 1972-1982. 1984

13 5

NATO's Integrated Commands and Infrastructure

NATO began to establish its integratedmilitary structure in 1950, following theinvasion of South Korea.

NATO Es military integration isessentially a system of mntralized om.mand to be implemented in wartime.The forces each country assigns toNATO remain 'Rider national control inpeacetime and are transferred to theappropriate allietl command only in anemen.t-ency.

The allied commanders act underthe general direction of NATO'sMilitary Committee: they are responsi-ble for preparing for the most effectivecoordinated use of the forces in theirregif

In 1950 NATO also resolved tocreate a common military infrastruc-ture. Con' truction of common facilitiesis paid fo: by the host country withfunds contributed by all participatingmembers.

France withdrew from the in-tegrated military structure in Mt; buttakes part in NATO defense supportand procurement programs. France alsojoins in infrastructure funding for airdefense and warning installations. Spainhas never participated in the integratedcommands. (Spain joined NATO inWW2.)

Infrastructum: Some Basic Common

NATO Air Defense Ground Environ-ment (MAIM* Radar system runningfrom North Cape to Turkey's easternborder.

Airfields: 220 in European NATO coun-tries (except France. Spain) designed forfull, ccordlnated military use.

NATO Integrated CommunicationsSystem (NCR Rapid communicationsfor military and political authorities.

Foci !Bias

NATO Pipeline System: Separate net-works in Turkey, Greece. Italy, Denman:.and United Kingdom. and Central Euro-pean Pipeline System in Belgium. France.the Federal Republic of Germany. and theNetherlands

6 14

v;it'ttst;,"VANNs.

NATO Commands:Allied Commanc Europe

Supreme Allied CommanderEurope (SACEURI

Allied CL imand AtlanticSupreme Allied CommanderAtlantic (SACI ANT)

Allied Command ChannelAllied Commanderin,ChiefChannel (CINCHAN)

CanadaU S RegionalPlanning Group

Note: Allred Command Europe rs divtded intothree regions the Northern (Norway, Oenmark.approaches to the Rattle. and the fee northern

R O 1, the Central 'Belgium Luxembourg theNetherlands and most of the F R G ). and theSouthern (Italy. Cirer.Ce. Portugal. Turkey. andthe Mediterranei.70 U K NATO An Forces is afourth regional subordinate command of AlliedCommand Europe

15

Standardization of Weapons in NATO

NATi policy is to promote the la, ofstandard and interuperable equipmentand standard weaponry. The purpose isto eliminate duplication and permit thedi:ferent national forces under in-tegrated command to cooperate moreclosely. Although complicated by thenature of the allianeea grouping ofsovereign states with separate budgetsanti military establishmentsstnd-aroration his achieved some natablesuck eases. Some widely adopted

weapons were developed by one country(the German Leopard tank, for exam-ple). Others are the product of joint ef-forts undertaken with NATO support.Cooperative efforts have greatly ex-panded since NATO's first joint project,a light jet fighter, in 1954.

, , .

lialas Anoa.. ..

.,. , , ,

(-Z Ai'-1/11otri.'

Nuttipl-framsh makesystemNLRB(non-nuctear Lenardrocket)

FranceF.R.G.United KingikomUnited States

FrancsFAG.United Kingdom

a United States

FranceF.R.O.ItalyUnited KingdomUnited States

faareal 1°naffs balikt tinlie

,. ,

.., I, . 1,k fill ,,,

.

'tti ,,#

,4 .17

.- ,'''

..... + , , 1,

,,,,,.,

t d

4;

.1r4 .t.;

. . ...

'71,' ,,, ,

li4. -lik Oil k rz..,,

;,'sv. .7 :,,

4 '2'S ','.

, %N..i...:.L.a.Alill. ,i..,..

Fighting FeletsaF-111(multipurpose combataircraft)

United States Belgium NorwayDenmark TurkeyNithwiands United Stems

Belgium NorwayDsnnwk TurkeyF.R.Q. United StatesNetherlands

=surfaceWNW* astern)

, . .-.

.

,, -,..i.....e 4 ;

f ,,_, ..,- , ,Its,,rk.,-

tk..,,,,,,14

.

. . 4' 77.:'z i1.W. A 4,.e.'f& y_Fti.14:4V OA'................................4;1!..:,.. A. 4; .; 7....,....1 ......,,, %I...ittrf.T=9....

..-

... s, , ,.., , ,_

k.,,,,,.,

, ,4

,

" .40 i*

4°.r. . : '', .,,,

.16

NATO Mame EarlyWooing System

NATO is in the final stages of im-pktmenting its integrated airborneearly warning and central system(AEW6). This involvors the use ofradar equipped aircraft to detect theapproach of turtle planes andmissiles and to direct defensive ac-tions. Thirteen countries Nye con-tributed funds to procure IS NATOE-3A aircraft, modified ground en-vironment, and basic facilities. ElevenU.K. Nimrods would make up thebalance of the mixed force. Asmembers of each E-3A crew aredrawn from several participating coun-tries, this is the first instance of col-lective equipment Ownership andoperation in NATO's history.

17 7

NATO-Warsaw Pact Conventional Forces

Each NATO member taking part in theintegrated military structure allocates acertain portion of its armed forces toNATO, generally reserving some unitsfor purely territorial duty. Almost allnational forces remain under nationalcommand in peacetime; only in wartimeare the NATO-alliwated or -earmarkedforces transferred to NATO's integratedcommand. Some air defense units areunder NATO operational command inpeacet inw.

only in the F R.G. are theresubstantial NATO-allocated forces fromother countriesBelgiuns, Canada,Netherlands. the ITnited Kingdom, andthe United States. By agreement withthe France also maintains com-bat forces (at present three armoreddivisions) in Germany. The concentnet ion of forces there reflects NATO'sstrategy of forward defense.

Warsaw Pact forces facing NATOin the Central Region include the stand-ing armed forces of the GermanDemocratic Republic (G.D.R.),Czechoslovakia, and Poland and theSoviet troops based in these countries.G.U.K. forces are permanently anddirectly subordinated to the Sovietmilitary command in Germany, whereasother Warsaw Pact forces are osten-sibly under joint command. Romania isthe only pact member that keeps itsforces under tight national control.

The United States is the onlyNATO member that has more thanliaison forces in NAT() countries otherthan the F.R.G.

'1

If* Will*, 'fa,. not ret avided SM ,ncerprorefoff of e stoma I affr,a Anil I :Illue",4 into tMII S W EilDundSfy foopoftefrifilf.O. ft; ncli net'IKAst.lyAuttforIalwo

I

Conventional Force Comparisons In Place and

NATO:

Warsaw Past:

112

Divisions

NorthernRegion

CentralRegion

Tanks

'Regions are NATO chasignations

Rapidly Deployable'

SouthernRegion

WIN

BIN Northern andCentral Regions

Artillery/Mortar F ighter4sombers

Source NATO. NATO and the WarsawPact Force Comparisons, 1984.

U.S. ForCtIll In NATO Europe'Cawley Awry Navy Matta Corps Alt Pores TOO

Belgium 1,387 111 29 663 2.196F.R.G. 212,452 329 84 39,665 252.530Greece 553 447 14 2,664 3,678Greenland (Den.) 345 345Iceland 2 1.879 112 1.206 3.199Italy 4,325 4.457 271 5,166 14,219Netherlands 779 16 9 1,917 2,721Norway 38 40 16 130 222Portugal 75 W 13 1,191 1,686Strain 19 4,288 202 5.205 9,714Turkey 1,326 82 19 3,81 1 5,238United Kingdom 220 2,290 389 25,681 28,560TOTAL 221,174 14.332 1.131 PAM 331,2111

'Countries with 100 or more U.S militarymmnibers as of March 31. 1984.

Source. Department of Defense,Defense. September 1984.

Now Franco and Spain do not take pert inNATO's integrated military commands Icelandhas no rotatory forces.

8

18

Major U S and other NATOground forces in place

NATO: chiefly or exclusively na-tional ground forces

Countries with U.S air bases

Soviet and other pactforces in place

Soviet forces only (U S S Rwestern military districts)

Non-Soviet pact forces only

Transatlantic Deployment and Logistics

NATO recognizes that In an emergent yits inplace forces in Europe would re-quire rapid reinforcement from NorthAmerica and the- I 'nited Kingdom.

The goal is to increaseforces in Eurkpt- to 10 Army divisionsand supporting Air Force squadronsand 1 Marine amphihious brigade within10 days of a decision to reinforce.

To :greed up deployment. the UnitedStates has a program. largely com-pleted. for propositioning supplies andequipment for six divisions in theNorthern and Central Regions. TheCanadian Air/Sea Transportable'Brigade also has prepositioned some'equipment in Norway.

The Canadian Air/Sea Transpor-table Brigade and Canadian aircraft aremedy for inmielliate deployment. The

Kingdom has three brigadeswithin the county, ready for rapiddeployment to iierrnali. and Portugalis prepared to send one hrigadi to northerm Italy.

NAT also has established theAllied Command Europe' Mobile Force(AMF) for rapid de'ployme'nt to NATO'sEuropean flanks or other exposedareas. AMF is a multinational forceconsisting of air transportable battaliewsand tactical air squadrons provided yseveral nindiers.

Though not taking part in the in-tegrated command structure., France, ina recent reorganization of its armedforce's. is creating a rapid action forceof some 17,000 members eatable ofrapid deployment within Europe as wellas overseas.

Rapidly deployablereinforcements

Prepositioning of U.S orCanadian equipment

Seatanes for transport of per-sonnel, equipment, and supplies

Distances:Norfolk to AntwerpNorfolk to TrondheimLuxembourg to TrondheimLuxembourg to AnkaraU.S.S.R. western border to

G.D.R. western border

20

3.800 miles3,800 miles

900 miles1,450 miles

500 miles

21

9

Strategic Nudear Forces

The U.S. strategic nuclear force isNATO's ultimate deterrent and must,therefore, be able to inflict unacceptabledamage upon a potential aggressor. Tocounter Soviet improvements over thelast decade, the United States hasbegun to modernize its strategic forces.The United States consults with theother NATO allies at the highest levelon the U.S.-Soviet strategic arms re-

duction efforts. NATO policy is to en-courage verifiable agreements thatwould maintain the deterrent and re-duce the risk of nuclear war.

France and the United Kingdompossess independent nuclear forcescapable of retaliation in the event ofSoviet attack.

U.S.-Soviet Strategic Arms: Modernity Conveyed'

* u.s. A u.s.S.R.Pontbors IMOICOlninetel Ballistic Illsollosit Subontino-Latmcind Bathatic Solonatinss

NowTinting * 11-111 Ambdialk *ftenksms." A as.a. aer Alise-e-ar Teoths

INS

Now

1r

F

IV

a41

INS11110443

------niaillin lir

inM O *MTN 12A) M OAmmoAsi406--*Ideleed MA "51181404.04 AA*. 114 loam

.liamos

, , Aieem1i75175

siise-sia -no 41 Das 1iiiro4401.4111.4 Anwsos .

*Poseidon C-3

11170 F1-111 *Illinnonion IN 11,- , 1370

itilindoinan n AIM,Ikagriii ir'

1015 Icsaatlia Cilios11.11

,

,

.4 * Tian II 41116014*142 PI

10

,Currently operational systems onlyrThe modification series for Soviet intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic

missiles is shown in parentheses for example RS-19(3). SS-N-18(2)

r

22

Source Data from NATO, NATO and me Warsaw Pact Force Comparisons, 1984

23

111110

Intermediate-range and Short-range Nuclear' Forces

NAP) also has intermediate. rangenuclear forces (INF') and short-rangenuclear forces (SNF), which art.deployed in Europe in order to providean essential link between the alliance'seuhe'entiottal deterrent and the' 17.S.strategic nuclear deterrent. INF ineludeland-bi:ell missile systems of less thanintercontinental range and aircraftcapable of delivering nuclear warheads.SNI.7 consist of tube artillery and short-range missiles.

In the 1970s the Warsaw Pactmodernized its air defenses. At thesame Itt Ile the' Soviet 1 Illi011 began toimprove its longer range intermediate-range nuclear forces (1,1t1NF) bydeploying the SS 2 missile.. a highlyaccurate mobile missile with three in-dependently targetahle warheads anti arange of 2,7341 3,1o0 miles. NATO'sresponse. to this threat was the 1979dual.track derision railing for deloy-ment of 1'.S. Pershing- II missiles andgroundlaunched cruise missiles((;IA'Ms) beginning at the end of 19s:iand for U.S.Soviet negotiations toreduce INF deployment.

The INF talks began in November19s1. The. Siviets walked out inNovernlwr 19/43. N ATt >t deployment sbegan at the end of 195:1 it accordancewith the 1979 decision.

The' United State's wishes to setglobal limits on I.RINF. as these highlymobile and transportable missiles alsopose a threat to U.S. friends and alliesin Asia.

24

Planned deployment of GLCMsand Pershing II missiles (latter

F R G only)

\%. SS --20 ranges from possible sitein Soviet Urals Military District

1/

Pershing II range

GLOM range

n NATO

'Warsaw Pact Global SS-20Coverage

SS-20 location

11

1

7,or.

"

1s'

Viti?. le f

.1'21',411.1Y:

f.%

iiiii,li,otto)

iitat,401.4,,,

t...; do

VPI

lip;1

1, Ililittc

/ilf.7,40

, -

,,e,_,,,, ifN

I

r'1

1-1,r

11)1

-likw

r-AN

4,1)cijl

1410'1

4o

.1-

1 -

111

ft 1

4

114

A.

,

111

"/141ill

di

41i;iiikiliilA

irlittriqpIt.141,4...a

/1t4%

16'1

14143 1S,.

111410Y

i 1/1 'I Ktrii s 1"'

4,'%

ititit<

tAill

i f 7i0i411

A

1

,-

NATO Members' Military Presence Outside the NATO Area

Some NATO members have militaryforces outside the treaty area (in addi-tion to those serving with UNpeacekeeping units' French, Dutch, andU.K. overseas d eras reflectobligations stern 4 se 4 the colonialera.

French fo, s overseas are concen-trated in the former colony of Djibouti(independent since 1977) and the islandof Reunion (a French overseas depart-ment). France has small detachments in

four of the African countries with whichit has bilateral defense agreements.

The United Kingdom withdrew fromall military bases east of Suez (exceptHong Kong) in 1971 but remains a part-ner in the Australia, New Zealand, U.K.(ANZUK) arrangement for the defenseof Malaysia and Singapore. TheNetherlands has token military forces inthe Netherlands Antilles (anautonomous part of the Nethulandsrealm).

U.S. bases overseas, outside theNATO area, are governed by mutual

defense treaties with Japan, SouthKorea, and the Philippines; the 1977Panama Canal Treaty; the 1903 agree-ment with Cuba on Guantanamo; andthe 1966 agreement with the UnitedKingdom on Diego Garcia.

NATO recognizes that its vital in-terests may be served by its members'involvement in other regions. In 19510the defense ministers agreed to con-sider special measures to compensatefor a possible diversion of NATO-allocated U.S. forces to Southwest Asia.

Naval bases outside NATO area:

U.S.

French

U.S. forces

A U.K. forces

French forces

French military advisers

Cil

U.K. military advisers

U.S. security assistancepersonnel

Soviet-bloc Military Presence in Third World

Soviet dt.ployment outside the WarsawPact area began with the dispatch oftroops to Cuba in 1962. Soviet-blocmilitary presence in the Third Worldnow includes substantial combat forcesfrom the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Viet-nam. In Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia,and Kampuchea these troops are en-gaged against indigenous forces.

In 1981 Warsaw Pact countries hadmore than 18,000 military technicians inThird World countries. Cuba had morethan 39,000. These technicians serviceand train local personnel in the use ofSoviet-bloc military equipment pur-chased by these countries; organize andtrain armed forces; and, in some coun-tries, provide operational guidanceagainst opposition forces.

CeD' ycz.&a

Soviet-bloc combat troops

Sovietbloc military and internalsecurity technicians

40 Soviet naval facilities

14

6)7the Undid Sews tes not re:ogneel Ire eicapmeol at EstenaLaw and lemma IMO the USSR DOurVely 1104510ntatornecaSaardy IluflOrdative

31

NATO-Warsaw Pact Military Expenditures

The figures for military expendituresare for all forces and facilities, not onlythose in or assigned to Europe. Thepercentage of the gross national prod-uct ((;NI') that is consumed by militaryexpenditures is one indicator of themilitary burden on the nationalet notry.

Sthoce ACDA World Military F xpendrtures andArrrv, 1r4rIsPen., 1972 1982 1984

Unitary Ibquaditures (aanstani 'kilt dollars)

ti

U.S.S,R,

United StatesEDNATO

(excl. U S )Warsaw Pact

U S S R.)1111

$ bIlhone 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260

Pillitary Expentatures, 197242 (% of. Gra,

16" 1600

1972 1973 1974 1975 19 1977 1978 1919 w' 1981

33 15

West European and North Atlantic Economic Cooperation

Military cooperation was but one partof a general strategy to secure peaceand prosperity. Economic cooperationwas equally important and was alreadyunderway when the North AtlanticTreaty was signed in 1949. Article 2 ofthe treaty required members toeliminate conflict in their internationaleconomic policies and encourageerwrnic collaboration.

The European Recovery Program.or Marshall Plan, was initiated in 1947to speed up postwar recovery with thehelp of American aid. (The Soviet onionrefused to take part in this programand prevented its extension to EasternEurope'.) The body set up to administerMarshall Plan funds, the Organizationfor European Economic (70peration,was replaced in 1960 by the Organiza-tion for Ecompnoc Cooperation andDevelopment (OE('D). which includedCanada and the 1Tnited State's. Now en-compassing all industrial democracies.the OECD seeks to promote worldtrade and economic growth and improveeconomic assistance to the Third World.

The European Communities (E(') isthe main achievement of postwar efforts fur West European unity.Established In 1967 to cm) int the coaland steel, atomic, and common marketcommunities set up in the' 1950s. theEC has the authority to conclude bind-ing economic agreements. It also pro.vides for regular meetings of itsmembers' foreign ministers.

Since 1975. leaders of the major in-dustrial democracies have held yearly

anomie summits. Participants now in.elude Japan and six NAT() countriesCanada. F'ranc'e. the Italy. the1.'111.41 Kingdom, and !ht' UnitedStates. The Et' also Is represented.

3416

The llibtecl Wiles has not mcosnsavel Me maxpotation of Istorha Latvia dna lattuatua mm thrU SSA Eioundstp Rphruthuitcon a rot noceisaravaumordawir

E:jMarshallPlan

countries

El EC members

I-7 Europeanmembers

OECD

14

35

NATO-Warsaw Pact Trade

NATO favors the development of tradewith Warsaw Pact countries on com-mercially sound terms and in items thatdo not contribute to Soviet militarystrength. The Coordinating Committeefor Export Controls (COCOM), compris-ing NATO countries (except Iceland andSpain) and Japan, meets periodically toreview the list of items embargoed forsale to Warsaw Pact countries becauseof their military potential.

Neither grouping must importgoods from the other in order to sub-sist. But Warsaw Pact economies havecome to rely on NATO countries forfoodstuffs and high technology, whileNATO countries have found iteconomical to import fuels, industrialraw materials, and other goods fromthe Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

Petroleum and natural gas accountfor more than half of total Soviet ex-ports to NATO countries, and comple-

Trade With Mantboro of Other Grouping osourforo of total Wear trade)

NATO flPficling 1 f kide r

by voi unit .1

Canada

France

Federal 13epublicof Germany

Italy

United Kingdom

United States

Warsaw Past

Bulgaria

Czechoslovakia

Garman Demo-cratic Republic

Hungary

Poland

Romania

Soviet Union

tion of the Siberian gas pipeline toWestern Europe should greatly increasethis share. Gold and precious metals arenext in importance. Some commoditiesexported to NATO countries are nottruly in surplus but are sold to acquireconvertible currencies needed to pur-chase technology and goods in shortsupply.

BS 1958-62 average (NATO),1960 (Warsaw Pact)

1980-82 average (NATO),1980 or latest availableyear (Warsaw Pact)

Percent 0

36

10 151

20 25 30

a 37

35

17

NATO Overseas Import Dependency

Although NATO countries are self-sufficient in coal, iron ore, nickel, andsome other minerals, they must importa large share of their current consump-tion of bauxite and alumina. chromite.copper, phosphates, and tin. Non-NAT()sources provide all the needs of NATOcountries for industrial diamond andalmost all their needs for manganeseores and platinum group metals.

Since the Arab oil embargo of 1973,the larger industrialized members ofNATO have greatly reduced theirdependency on oil as a source ofenergy. Gas and oil production withinthe alliance also has risen substantially.due largely to development of the NorthSea fields. Hut most members still de-pend on non-NATO sources for a largeshare of the petroleum they consume.

Dependency on Non -NATOSources of Petroleum(average 1961-83)

Ail NATO

%aPees bud

Cessumpees

%TOMWM/

Ceesempeam

countries 46 21Canada 19 6Frame 95 44Federal Republic

of Germany GO 26Italy 98 61United Kingdom 38 13United States 32 11

Other NATOcountries 52 50

Note: The Unitedbut for economiccrudes to meet its

Kingdom is a net oil exporterreasons imports lower gradeheavy product demand

Sources for tableQuarterly Oil andStatistical Review

Calculations based on OECDGas Statistics. 1984. and BPof Energy, 1984

phosphates

bauxite andalumina

bauxite

tin

copper ores ..

copper ores

CAW hapart Soaraes:

[-.:2 Crude petroleum

EDOther minerals

la

chromium oresindustrial diamond (stones) _-

manganese oresplatinum group metals

bauxite andalumina

38

The MIPS BOW Pas rag micagniaal roarpalm al lama, Labia. era Wrens inaUS sot Ilknoraibry satansraaca a not asaaasarilyasollansalve

39

Warsaw Pact Overseas Import D 'ependency

The Warsaw Pact is much less depend-ent than NAT() on raw materials fromthe Third World and other non-NATOcountries. The Soviet Union is well en-dowed with natural resourcesincluding the minor metals importantfor modern rocketry, aeronautics, andnuclear energyand supplies most ofthe industrial raw materials consumedby other Warsaw Pact countries. Theshare of Third World trade in the totalnoibluc trade of individual WarsawPact countries ranges from 6% to 15%.(For Romania, the exception, ThirdWorld trade ;s about one-quarter oftotal foreign trade.)

The Soviet Union and its allies arehelping to develop mineral industries insome Asian. African, and Latin

American countries in exchange for ashare of production. But imports fromthe Third World do not necessarily in-dicate an absolute deficiency or true im-port dependency. Middle Eastern andNorth African oil imported by pactcountries in exchange for weapons andother assistance is less than thepetroleum the Soviet Union exports toWestern Europe.

Weapons are the leading WarsawPact export to the Third World. fol-lowed by machinery and industrialequipment.

Soviet lawn Wanes:Els bated liberals and Metals,From Sources Other ThanWarsaw Peek 1903

Nets Minya{

AntimonyBauxite and

alumina

BismuthCobaltMicaTin

Tungsten

% el*mew

dee P I Isereals)12 Yugoslavia37 Greece, Guinea,

India, Jamaica,Yugoslavia

50 Japan47 Cuba13 India27 Malaysia,

Singapore,United Kingdom

43 China, Mongolia

Source' R Levine. Mining Annual Rivrew, 1984.

phosphates -cobalt

bauxite

,ors'

tungsten andfluorspar

zinc

wheat--

Chief Meal Sources:

Petroleum

Other Commodities

wheat and beef

10 41 19

NATO Members and Other Mutual Security Pacts

France, Turkey. the United Kingdom.:Ind the United States are NATOmembers that have joined otherregional security pacts.

The United States is party to the1917 InterAmerican Treaty ofRecipritcal Assistance Treaty). thefirst regional security arrangernoltbased on Article 52 of the l'N Charter.The State's also behings to the

1952 Security Treaty BetweenAustralia, New Zealand, and the tinitedStates (ANZITS) for the Pacific area.

France, the United Kingdom, andthe Tnited States are parties to the1954 Southeast Asia Collective Defense.Treaty (SEATO). Although the treatyorganization was disbanded in 1975.treaty obligations are still in effect.Pakistan withdrew in 1973. Francemaintains an inactive status.

Turkey and the United Kingdomwere members of the 1955 Baghdad

Pact, renamed Central Treaty Organiza-tion (CENTO) when Iraq withdrew in1959. CENTO's purpose was to providesecurity for the Middle East. TheUnited States did not join CENTO butsat on CENTO's Economic Committeeand Military Committee and sent anobserver delegation to meetings of theCENTO Council. ('ENT() has been

defunct since Iran, Pakistan. andTurkey withdrew in 1979-80.

None of these regional security ar-rangements has created a permanentmilitary command structure or devel-oped a machinery or infrastructurecomparable to NATO's.

46

=1 NATO 1,44(4

20

%

R o Treaty 1947

ANIUS 1 9,, 1

SEAT() 19'14

42 Mats: Cuba was excluded from the Inter American DefenseBoard in 1982 Pakistan withdrew from SEATO in 1973

43 1'.S. ut1Vt.141a11.1,11 PK 7:11:: orr : 3955-46 119 : lu