DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 256 667 SO 016 409 AUTHOR Young, Harry F. TITLE Atlas of NATO. INSTITUTION Department of State, Washington, D.C. REPORT NO DS-Pub-9412 PUB DATE Feb 85 NOTE 43p.; Maps contain.ng small print and gray outlines may not reproduce clearly. AVAILABLE FROMSuperintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC 20402 ($1.75). PUB TYPE 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 ABSTRACT This atlas provides basic information about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Formed in response to growing concern for the security of Western Europealter World War II, NATO is a vehicle for Western efforts to reduce East-West tensions and the level of armaments. NATO promotes political and economic collaboration as well as military defense. The atlas consists of displays and narrative that illustrate and discuss the following information concerning NATO: membership and area, the , responsibilities, burdensharing, integrated commands and infrastructure, standardization of weapons, military forces, transatlantic deployment and logistics, nuclear forces, naval forces, military presence outside the NATO area, Soviet-bloc military presence in the Third World, militaryexpenditures, West European and North Atlantic economic cooperation, trade, overseasimport dependency, and security pacts. (RM)

***************************************************************..******* * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. * *********************************************************************** LLS. DENIATIMENT OF toucan)* NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC! 4014. Thedocument has been reprodutedas retewed iron,(NIirter burl orof 1.,en aohon Orrra mat log it MinorLharlge$ Puha/ been made to intetow IrPrOrtui ton quality

points of opruons stated in this duce menu do nut necessarily represent official NIE writ!KM or mita. y

W February 1985 Department of State Bureau of Public Affairs Washington D C

kr* Atlas of NATO Contents

1 Introduction 2 NATO: Membership and Area 3 NATO and the Warsaw Pact 4 Responsibilities in NATO 5 Burdensharing 6 NATO's Integrated Commands and Infrastructure 7 Standardization of Weapons in NATO 8 NATO-Warsaw Pact Conventional Forces 9 Transatlantic Deployment and Logistics 10 Strategic Nuclear Forces 11 Intermediate-range and Short-range Nuclear Forces 12 NATO-Warsaw Pact Naval Forces 13 NATO Members' Military Presence Outside the NATO Are.i 14 Soviet-bloc Military Presence in Third World 15 NATO-Warsaw Pact Military Expenditures 16 West European and North Atlantic.Economic Cooperation 17 NATO-Warsaw Pact Trade 18 NATO Overseas Import Dependency 19 Warsaw Pact Overseas Import Dependency 20 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 BEST COPYAVAILABLE Introduction Ilimmur This atlas provides basic informa- alliance among , France. conventional (non-nuclear) ground. (ion about the North Atlantic Luxembourg, . and the sea, and air forces; short- and Treaty Organization (NATO). United Kingdom, and the 1949 intermediate-range nuclear forces in NATO is the institutional form, North Atlantic Treaty signed in Europe; and (as the ultimate deter- and the common name, of the NorthWashington extended the area of rent) the U.S. strategic nuclear Atlantic Alliance established by the Western collective security to five force. treaty signed in 1949. The atlas con-other European countries and to NATO is a vehicle for Western sists of 19 displays illustrating Canada and the United States. efforts to reduce East-West tensions NATO's membership and structure. From the beginning, NATO was and the level of armaments. For ex- military strength, members' role in intended to promote political and ample, it was a NATO proposal world affairs. and relations with economic collaboration as well as that led in 1973 to the negotiations the and the Warsaw military defense. The permanent with the Warsaw Part on mutual Pact. representatives on the North Atlan- and balanced force reductions NATO !NM formed in response tic Council, the organization's prin- (MBFR) concerning conventional to growing concern for the security cipal body, discuss a full range of strength in Central Europe. And in of after World international issues. NATO sup- 11:19. while deciding to improve its intermediate-range nuclear forces . War II. By 1948. the Soviet Unionports research programs in science the strongest military power an the and the physical environment and (INF) in order to balance Warsaw continenthad consolidatedcom- closely follows international Pact deployments. NATO also called munist rule throughout Eastern economic developments. Outside the for arms control talksthe U.S. - Europe and prevented a peace formal organization. legislators Soviet INF negotiationsto reduce treaty reestablishing a unified and from all members have formed the deployment of these weapons on both democratic Germany. Articles 51 North Atlantic Assembly to confer sides. and 52 of the on common problems and present Charter recognized respectively the their findings to the council. NATO follows a policy of deter- right of selfdifense and the right to Authored by Harry F. Young form regional securityrra n ge- rence. Its armed forces must be melds. The 1948 Brussels Pact strong enough to discourage aggre established a West European sum and ward off attack. This Editing, Design, and Production: policy involves the strategy of resist- Colleen Sussman ing invasion as far forward as possible and the doctrine of flexible response. calling for the ability to counter all levels of potential ag- gression. Flexible response requires NATO: Membership and Area

The North Atlantic Treaty was signed treaty had been in existence for more stationed on their soil permanently in by the United States, Canada. and 1 than 20 years. Four countries have peacetime (except, as to Denmark, in European countries on April 4, 1949. since joined the alliance, but none has Greenland); and France (since 1966) and The treaty established the North Atlan- withdrawn. Spain do not take part in the integrated tic Council as its principal organ, which All members are obliged to come to military command structure. first met in September 1949 and, set- the assistance of any member under Defense obligations under the treaty ting up subsidiary bodies, launched the military attack. But membership does extend to members' home territory and North Atlantic Treaty Organinttion not entail uniform participation. Iceland to the North Atlantic islands under (NATO). has no armed forces; Denmark and Nor- their jurisdiction north of the Tropic of The treaty provided that any other way do not permit foreign troops to be Cancer. Colonial possessions and other European state could, by unanimous dependencies outside this area are not agreement. lw invited to join the covered. alliance, and that any member could withdraw upon 1 year's notice after the

The North Atlantic Truty Organization Node Von Amid Farm OM vow co (thousards,Chousinds. accession) snosiess. nee totes woo mid -1463) Belgium (1949) 9,865 95 Canada (1949) 24,882 83 Denmark (1949) 5,115 31 France (1949) 544'4 493 Germany, Federal Republic of (1955) 81,543 495 Greece (1952) 9,898 185 Iceland (1949) 238 no foram (1949) 56,345 373 Luxembourg (1949) 388 0.7 Netherlands (1949) 14,374 103 Norway (1949) 4,131 43 Portugal (1949) 10,008 84 Spain (1984 38,234 347 Turkey (1952) 49,115 069 United Kingdom (1949) 56,008 321 United States (1949) 234,193 2,138 NATO and the Warsaw Pact

NATO was established to provide a Western defensive system. Established The Warsaw Pact was concluded in Albania was a charter member of system of collective security for Euro- in 1949, the. F.R.G. was then still under 1955 after the F.R.G. joined NATO. the Warsaw Pact. Geographically pean countries outside the area of Western military occupation. The ostensible purpose was to counter separated from the other parties, Soviet control. Italy's charter member- Admitted to NATO in 1955, the the threat of a remilitarized West Ger- Albania severed relations with the ship and the admission of Greece and F.R.G. agreed not to produce or use many. In fact, the parties were already Soviet Union in 1961 and formally re- Turkey in 1952 were a natural exten- atomic, bacteriological, or chemical integrated into the Soviet military nounced its membership in the pact in sion of NATO's scope to the weapons and renounced the use of force system through standard treaties of 1968 after pact forces had repressed Mediterranean. to achieve German reunification. alliance concluded between 1945-48 and the reform movement in Czecho- In 1950. after South Korea was in- France, the United Kingdom, and the reorganization of their armed forces slovakia. To justify this intervention, vaded, NATO adopted the forward United States retained their rights, along Soviet lines. The pact has a joint the Soviet Union elaborated the strategy of resisting attack as far to derived from World War II, relating to command under Soviet leadership, and Brezhnev doctrine of the limited the east as possible and decided that Berlin and Germany as a whole. all forces come under Soviet command sovereignty of members of the socialist the Federal Republic of Germany in wartime. community. (F.R.G.) should be in'luded in the

North Cap* Warsaw Pact repallatien Mood Fenno (ri thousands. (m thousand. Ilitobsrs roattgoor tg63) mad-19(13)

Bulgaria 8,944 182 Czechoslovalda 15,420 205 German 0111110- C rift Republic 16,724 187 Hungary 10)391 115 Poland 35,555 340 Romania 22,849 189 272,308 5,050

ATLANTIC OCEAN

EDNATO The Untied has hh.oghwed ifs gu. Mahon of E stofsa lafris and lothylefruin ' =I Warsaw Pact USSR Poundahv Prt/P4.1.2 4M,M1001 f*Cpt.f.q. ulhotahA.

3 9 Responsibilities in NATO

Military Advice, Plan- Integrated Defense and Ultimate Authority Overall Direction Administration ning, and Guidance Military Operations

Member Defense Planning Goverrukents: North Atlantic Cornell: Committee: Secretary General WNW, Comnifftee: NATO Cocernandic Belgium Foreign minisisia meeting Defenseministers of coun- Chairman of Pkwth Atlantic Chiefs-of-staff meeting at Allied Command Europe Canada twice a year to consider tries taking part in in- Council and Defense Plan. lust twice a year and (ACE) Denmark matters of political and tegrated military structure, ning Committee, and head Permanent military repre- Allied Command Atlantic France general concern; and meeting twice a year,' and of International Stall, with sentatives in permanent (ACLANT) Germany, Federal assistant secretaries session Republic of general for Greece Ambassadors as permanent representatives international Military Staff (ACCHAN) Political Affairs Iceland on Council and Defense Planning Committee.' Canada-U.S Regional Italy Defense Planning and Planning Group Luxembourg Policy Netherlands Defense Support Norway Infrastructure, Portugal Logistics, and Spain 'France and Spain do not take part in NATO's integrated Council Operations Turkey military structure France does not attend meetings of the Defense Planning Committee but has military missions to the United Kingdom Military Committee and Allied Command Europe Spam does sit Scientific and United States on the Defense Planning Committee and the Military Committee Environmental Affairs

10 11 4 Burdensharing

Although NATO countrie., assovereign established by consultation. These two states, have full authority to determine procedures set a general framework for their on military budgets, they all ac- national defense planning. cept the principle, k-,-wn as burden- NATO recognizes that no single for- sharing, that each must do its part and mula can provide an exact measure of assume a fair share of the costs of com- each country's contribution. Demands mon defense. on national resources vary from country NATO's part in the budget process to country, and some expenditures not is to establish overall needs and recom- included in the defense budgetforeign mend force goals (level and quality of aid, for examplemay also promote in forces) for each member taking part in ternational security. the integrated military commands. Con- tributions for the common infrastruc- ture and other joint projects are

Wass Ewald laws as Persentage at GNP*

Belgium Canada Denmark France F.R.G. Greece Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Portugal Turkey U.K. U.S. 'Spain is excluded because it loaned NATO in 1982 Ireland has no armed forces Source. AMA. World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers 1972-1982. 1984

13 5 12 NATO's Integrated Commands and Infrastructure

NATO began to establish its integrated In 1950 NATO also resolved to military structure in 1950, following the create a common military infrastruc- invasion of South Korea. ture. Con' truction of common facilities Infrastructum: Some Basic CommonFoci !Bias NATO Es military integration is is paid fo: by the host country with NATO Air Defense Ground Environ- NATO Pipeline System:Separate net- essentially a system of mntralized om. funds contributed by all participating ment (MAIM* system running works in Turkey, Greece. Italy, Denman:. mand to be implemented in wartime. members. from North Cape to Turkey's eastern and United Kingdom. and Central Euro- The forces each country assigns to France withdrew from the in- border. pean Pipeline System in Belgium. France. NATO remain 'Rider national control in tegrated military structure inMt;but the Federal Republic of Germany. and the peacetime and are transferred to the takes part in NATO defense support Airfields:220 in European NATO coun- Netherlands tries (except France. Spain) designed for appropriate allietl command only in an and procurement programs. France also full, ccordlnated military use. emen.t-ency. joins in infrastructure funding for air The allied commanders act under defense and warning installations. Spain NATO Integrated Communications the general direction of NATO's has never participated in the integrated System (NCRRapid communications for military and political authorities. Military Committee: they are responsi- commands. (Spain joined NATOin ble for preparing for the most effective WW2.) coordinated use of the forces in their regif

NATO Commands: Allied Commanc Europe Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEURI Allied CL imand Atlantic Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic (SACI ANT) Allied Command Channel Allied Commanderin,Chief Channel (CINCHAN)

v;it'ttst;," VANNs. CanadaU S Regional Planning Group

Note: Allred Command Europe rs divtded into three regionsthe Northern (Norway, Oenmark. approaches to the Rattle. and the fee northern R O 1, the Central 'Belgium Luxembourg the Netherlands and most of the F R G ). and the Southern (Italy. Cirer.Ce. Portugal. Turkey. and the Mediterranei.70 U K NATO An Forces is a fourth regional subordinate command of Allied Command Europe

15 6 14 Standardization of Weapons in NATO

NATi policy is to promote the la, of weapons were developed by one country standard and interuperable equipment (the German Leopard tank, for exam- and standard weaponry. The purpose is ple). Others are the product of joint ef- to eliminate duplication and permit the forts undertaken with NATO support. di:ferent national forces under in- Cooperative efforts have greatly ex- tegrated command to cooperate more panded since NATO's first joint project, closely. Although complicated by the a light jet fighter, in 1954. nature of the allianeea grouping of sovereign states with separate budgets anti military establishmentsstnd- aroration his achieved some natable suck eases. Some widely adopted

, .. , . lialas Anoa .. .,. , , , NATO Mame Early (- Z A Wooing System -1/11otri.'i' Nuttipl-framsh make France Francs France NATO is in the final stages of im- systemNLRB F.R.G. FAG. F.R.O. pktmenting its integrated airborne (non-nuctear Lenard United Kingikom United Kingdom Italy early warning and central system (AEW6). This involvors the use of rocket) United States a United States United Kingdom United States radar equipped aircraft to detect the approach of turtle planes and missiles and to direct defensive ac- tions. Thirteen countries Nye con- .- , . . .. tributed funds to procure IS NATO , . faareal 1 ''' E-3A aircraft, modified ground en- . , °naffs balikttinlie ... vironment, and basic facilities. Eleven .., I, . 1,.. + , , k 1, fill ,,, ,,,,, U.K. Nimrods would make up the . ., '71,' ,,, , i,,# li balance of the mixed force. As 'tt t d 4. -lik Oil k rz..,, members of each E-3A crew are ;,'sv.7. :,, 4; drawn from several participating coun- ,4 .17 .1 4 '2'S','. r4 .t.; tries, this is the first instance of col- , %N..i...:.L.a.Alill. ,i..,.. lective equipment Ownership and Fighting FeletsaF-111 United States Belgium Norway Belgium Norway operation in NATO's history. (multipurpose combat Denmark Turkey Dsnnwk Turkey aircraft) Nithwiands United Stems F.R.Q. United States Netherlands

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

, -,..i.....e 4 . , ; , f ,, k., =surface _ ,,,,., ..,- , ,Its,,rk.,- , , WNW* astern) , . tk..,,,,,, 4 14

. . 4 , z i1.W. A 4, " .40 i* ' 77.:' .e.'f&Fti.14:4Vy_ OA' 4°.r. . :'', ...... 4;1!..:,.. A. 4; .;7....,....1 ...... ,,, %I...ittrf.T=9.... ,,, ..-

17 7 .16 NATO-Warsaw Pact Conventional Forces

Each NATO member taking part in the Warsaw Pact forces facing NATO integrated military structure allocates a in the Central Region include the stand- Conventional Force Comparisons In Place andRapidly Deployable' certain portion of its armed forces to ing armed forces of the German NATO, generally reserving some units Democratic Republic (G.D.R.), NATO: Northern Central Southern BINNorthern and for purely territorial duty. Almost all Czechoslovakia, and Poland and the Warsaw Past: Region Region Region Central Regions national forces remain under national Soviet troops based in these countries. command in peacetime; only in wartime G.U.K. forces are permanently and 112 WIN are the NATO-alliwated or -earmarked directly subordinated to the Soviet forces transferred to NATO's integrated military command in Germany, whereas command. Some air defense units are other Warsaw Pact forces are osten- under NATO operational command in sibly under joint command. Romania is peacet inw. the only pact member that keeps its only in the F R.G. are there forces under tight national control. substantial NATO-allocated forces from The United States is the only other countriesBelgiuns, Canada, NATO member that has more than Netherlands. the ITnited Kingdom, and liaison forces in NAT() countries other the United States. By agreement with than the F.R.G. the France also maintains com- bat forces (at present three armored divisions) in Germany. The concentne t ion of forces there reflects NATO's strategy of forward defense. Divisions Tanks Artillery/Mortar F ighter4sombers Source NATO. NATO and the Warsaw 'Regions are NATO chasignations Pact Force Comparisons, 1984.

If* Will*, 'fa,. not ret avided SM ,ncer prorefoff of e stomaI affr,a Anil I :Illue",4 intotM U.S. ForCtIll In NATO Europe' '1 IIS W EilDundSfy foopoftefrifilf.O. ft; ncli net'IKAst.ly AuttforIalwo Cawley Awry Navy Matta Corps Alt Pores TOO Belgium 1,387 111 29 663 2.196 F.R.G. 212,452 329 84 39,665 252.530 Greece 553 447 14 2,664 3,678 Greenland (Den.) 345 345 Iceland 2 1.879 112 1.206 3.199 I Italy 4,325 4.457 271 5,166 14,219 Netherlands 779 16 9 1,917 2,721 Norway 38 40 16 130 222 Portugal 75 W 13 1,191 1,686 Strain 19 4,288 202 5.205 9,714 Turkey 1,326 82 19 3,811 5,238 United Kingdom 220 2,290 389 25,681 28,560 TOTAL 221,174 14.332 1.131 PAM 331,2111

'Countries with 100 or more U.S military Source. Department of Defense, mmnibers as of March 31. 1984. Defense. September 1984.

Major U S and other NATO Soviet and other pact ground forces in place forces in place

NATO: chiefly or exclusively na- Soviet forces only (U S S R tional ground forces western military districts) Now Franco and Spain do not take pert in NATO's integrated military commands Iceland has no rotatory forces. Countries with U.S air bases Non-Soviet pact forces only 8 18 Transatlantic Deployment and Logistics

NATO recognizes that In an emergent y its inplace forces in Europe would re- quire rapid reinforcement from North America and the- I 'nited Kingdom. The goal is to increase forces in Eurkpt- to 10 Army divisions and supporting Air Force squadrons and 1 Marine amphihious brigade within 10 days of a decision to reinforce. To :greed up deployment. the United States has a program. largely com- pleted. for propositioning supplies and equipment for six divisions in the Northern and Central Regions. The Canadian Air/Sea Transportable' Brigade also has prepositioned some' equipment in Norway. The Canadian Air/Sea Transpor- table Brigade and Canadian aircraft are medy for inmielliate deployment. The Kingdom has three brigades within the county, ready for rapid deployment to iierrnali. and Portugal is prepared to send one hrigadito nor therm Italy. NAT also has established the Allied Command Europe' Mobile Force Rapidly deployable (AMF) for rapid de'ployme'nt to NATO's reinforcements European flanks or other exposed areas. AMF is a multinational force Prepositioning of U.S or Canadian equipment consisting of air transportable battaliews and tactical air squadrons provided y Seatanes for transport of per- several nindiers. sonnel, equipment, and supplies Though not taking part in the in- tegrated command structure., France, in a recent reorganization of its armed Distances: force's. is creating a rapid action force Norfolk to Antwerp 3.800 miles of some 17,000 members eatable of Norfolk to Trondheim 3,800 miles rapid deployment within Europe as well Luxembourg to Trondheim 900 miles as overseas. Luxembourg to Ankara 1,450 miles U.S.S.R. western border to G.D.R. western border 500 miles

20 21

9 Strategic Nudear Forces

The U.S. strategic nuclear force is duction efforts. NATO policy is to en- NATO's ultimate deterrent and must, courage verifiable agreements that therefore, be able to inflict unacceptablewould maintain the deterrent and re- damage upon a potential aggressor. To duce the risk of nuclear war. counter Soviet improvements over the France and the United Kingdom last decade, the United States has possess independent nuclear forces begun to modernize its strategic forces. capable of retaliation in the event of The United States consults with the Soviet attack. other NATO allies at the highest level on the U.S.-Soviet strategic arms re-

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

* u.s. A u.s.S.R.

Pontbors IMOICOlninetelBallistic Illsollosit Subontino-Latmcind Bathatic Solonatinss Now * 11-111 Ambdialk *ftenksms." A as.a. aer Now Tinting Alise-e-ar Teoths INS 11110443 INS ------niaillinlir

*MTN12A) in M O Ammo M O Asi406--*IdeleedMA "51181404.04 AA*. 114 loam liamos . , , Aieem F175 1i75 I siise-sia -no iiiro4401.4111.41 Das 1 1 V 4 Anwsos . r a 41 *PoseidonC-3

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

itilindoinann AIM, Ikagriii ir' 1015 Icsaatlia Cilios , 11.11 .4* Tian II , 41116014 *142 PI

111110 ,Currently operational systems only Source Data from NATO, NATO and me Warsaw PactForceComparisons, 1984 rThe modification series for Soviet intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles is shown in parentheses for example RS-19(3). SS-N-18(2) 22 23

10 r Intermediate-range and Short-range Nuclear' Forces

NAP) also has intermediate. range nuclear forces (INF') and short-range nuclear forces (SNF), which art. deployed in Europe in order to provide an essential link between the alliance's euhe'entiottal deterrent and the' 17.S. strategic nuclear deterrent. INF inelude land-bi:ell missile systems of less than intercontinental range and aircraft capable of delivering nuclear warheads. SNI.7 consist of tube artillery and short- range missiles. In the 1970s the Warsaw Pact modernized its air defenses. At the same Itt Ile the' Soviet 1Illi011began to improve its longer range intermediate- range nuclear forces (1,1t1NF) by deploying the SS 2 missile.. a highly accurate mobile missile with three in- dependently targetahle warheads anti a range of 2,7341 3,1o0 miles. NATO's response. to this threat was the 1979 dual.track derision railing for deloy- ment of 1'.S. Pershing- II missiles and groundlaunched cruise missiles ((;IA'Ms) beginning at the end of 19s:i and for U.S.Soviet negotiations to reduce INF deployment. The INF talks began in November 19s1. The. Siviets walked out in Novernlwr 19/43. N ATt >t deployment s began at the end of 195:1 it accordance with the 1979 decision. The' United State's wishes to set global limits on I.RINF. as these highly mobile and transportable missiles also Planned deployment of GLCMs pose a threat to U.S. friends and allies and Pershing II missiles (latter in Asia. F R G only) \%. SS --20 ranges from possible site in Soviet Urals Military District

Pershing II range

1/ GLOM range n NATO

'Warsaw Pact Global SS-20 Coverage 24 SS-20 location 11 4o .1 " - 1 -

1 s' 1 t .1'21',411.1Y:i ,,e,_,,,,...;itat,401.4,,, do Viti?. le f if f.% NI iiiii,li ,otto) lip; VPI 1 1 , Ililittc , - /ilf. 7,40 r '1 1- cijl 11) 0'1141 1 -lik 1,r wr-AN 4,1) 1 4 1 A 114ft . A , 111111 iiikiliilAirlittriqpIt.141,4 "/141 ill ...a /1 di 4%16'141i;t 14143 1 S,. Y 111410 i 1/1 'I Ktrii s 1"''%ititit i 0i411i f 7 < 4, tAill .or 7, , - NATO Members' Military Presence Outside the NATO Area

Some NATO members have military four of the African countries with whichdefense treaties with Japan, South Naval bases outside NATO area: forces outside the treaty area (in addi- it has bilateral defense agreements. Korea, and the Philippines; the 1977 tion to those serving with UN The United Kingdom withdrew from Panama Canal Treaty; the 1903 agree- U.S. peacekeeping units' French, Dutch, and all military bases east of Suez (except ment with Cuba on Guantanamo; and U.K. overseas d eras reflect Hong Kong) in 1971 but remains a part- the 1966 agreement with the United French obligations stern 4 se 4 the colonial ner in the Australia, New Zealand, U.K. Kingdom on Diego Garcia. era. (ANZUK) arrangement for the defense NATO recognizes that its vital in- U.S. forces French fo,s overseas are concen- of Malaysia and Singapore. The terests may be served by its members' A U.K. forces trated in the former colony of Djibouti Netherlands has token military forces in involvement in other regions. In 19510 (independent since 1977) and the island the Netherlands Antilles (an the defense ministers agreed to con- CilFrench forces of Reunion (a French overseas depart- autonomous part of the Nethulands sider special measures to compensate ment). France has small detachments in realm). for a possible diversion of NATO- French military advisers U.S. bases overseas, outside the allocated U.S. forces to Southwest Asia. U.K. military advisers NATO area, are governed by mutual U.S. security assistance personnel Soviet-bloc Military Presence in Third World

Soviet dt.ployment outside the Warsaw In 1981 Warsaw Pact countries had Pact area began with the dispatch of more than 18,000 military technicians in troops to Cuba in 1962. Soviet-bloc Third World countries. Cuba had more military presence in the Third World than 39,000. These technicians service now includes substantial combat forcesand train local personnel in the use of from the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Viet-Soviet-bloc military equipment pur- nam. In Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia,chased by these countries; organize and and Kampuchea these troops are en- train armed forces; and, in some coun- gaged against indigenous forces. tries, provide operational guidance against opposition forces.

CeD' ycz. &a

Soviet-bloc combat troops Sovietbloc military and internal security technicians 6)7 40Soviet naval facilities the Undid Sews tes not re:ogneel Ire eicapmeol at Estena Law and lemma IMO the USSR DOurVely 1104510ntator necaSaardy IluflOrdative 14 31 NATO-Warsaw Pact Military Expenditures

The figures for military expenditures are for all forces and facilities, not only Unitary Ibquaditures (aanstani'kiltdollars) those in or assigned to Europe. The percentage of the gross national prod- uct ((;NI') that is consumed by military expenditures is one indicator of the military burden on the national et notry.

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

U.S.S,R,

United States

EDNATO (excl. U S ) ti Warsaw Pact 1111 U S S R.)

$ 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 part The llibtecl Wiles has not mcosnsavel Me max of a general strategy to secure peace potation of Istorha Latvia dna lattuatua mm thr and prosperity. Economic cooperation U SSA Eioundstp Rphruthuitcon a rot noceisarav was equally important and was already aumordawir underway when the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in 1949. Article 2 of the treaty required members to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and encourage erwrnic collaboration. The European Recovery Program. or Marshall Plan, was initiated in 1947 to speed up postwar recovery with the help of American aid. (The Soviet onion refused to take part in this program and prevented its extension to Eastern Europe'.) The body set up to administer Marshall Plan funds, the Organization 1 for European Economic (70peration, was replaced in 1960 by the Organiza- 4 tion for Ecompnoc Cooperation and Development (OE('D). which included Canada and the 1Tnited State's. Now en- compassing all industrial democracies. the OECD seeks to promote world trade and economic growth and improve economic assistance to the Third World. The European Communities (E(') is the main achievement of postwar ef forts fur West European unity. Established In 1967 to cm) int the coal and steel, atomic, and common market communities set up in the' 1950s. the EC has the authority to conclude bind- ing economic agreements. It also pro. vides for regular meetings of its members' foreign ministers. Since 1975. leaders of the major in- dustrial democracies have held yearly anomie summits. Participants now in. elude Japan and six NAT() countries Canada. F'ranc'e. the Italy. the 1.'111.41 Kingdom, and !ht' United States. The Et' alsoIsrepresented. Plan E:jMarshallcountries El EC members

I-7 EuropeanOECD members 34 16 35 NATO-Warsaw Pact Trade

NATO favors the development of trade Neither grouping must import tion of the Siberian gas pipeline to with Warsaw Pact countries on com- goods from the other in order to sub- Western Europe should greatly increase mercially sound terms and in items that sist. But Warsaw Pact economies have this share. Gold and precious metals are do not contribute to Soviet military come to rely on NATO countries for next in importance. Some commodities strength. The Coordinating Committee foodstuffs and high technology, while exported to NATO countries are not for Export Controls (COCOM), compris- NATO countries have found it truly in surplus but are sold to acquire ing NATO countries (except Iceland and economical to import fuels, industrial convertible currencies needed to pur- Spain) and Japan, meets periodically to raw materials, and other goods from chase technology and goods in short review the list of items embargoed for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. supply. sale to Warsaw Pact countries because Petroleum and natural gas account of their military potential. for more than half of total Soviet ex- ports to NATO countries, and comple-

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

NATOflPficling 1fkide r by voi unit .1 1958-62 average (NATO), Canada BS1960 (Warsaw Pact)

France 1980-82 average (NATO), 1980 or latest available Federal 13epublic year (Warsaw Pact) of Germany Italy

United Kingdom

United States

Warsaw Past Bulgaria

Czechoslovakia Garman Demo- cratic Republic Hungary

Poland

Romania

Soviet Union

1 Percent 0 10 15 20 25 30 35

36 a 37 17 NATO Overseas Import Dependency

Although NATO countries are self- Note: The UnitedKingdom is a net oil exporter sufficient in coal, iron ore, nickel, and Dependency onNon -NATO but for economicreasons imports lower grade some other minerals, they must import Sources of Petroleum crudes to meet itsheavy product demand (average 1961-83) a large share of their current consump- % Sources for tableCalculations based on OECD tion of bauxite and alumina. chromite. %a TOM Quarterly Oil andGas Statistics. 1984. and BP copper, phosphates, and tin. Non-NAT() Pees bud WM/ Statistical Reviewof Energy, 1984 sources provide all the needs of NATO Cessumpees Ceesempeam countries for industrial diamond and Ail NATO almost all their needs for manganese countries 46 21 ores and platinum group metals. Canada 19 6 Since the Arab oil embargo of 1973, Frame 95 44 the larger industrialized members of Federal Republic of Germany GO NATO have greatly reduced their 26 Italy 98 61 dependency on oil as a source of United Kingdom energy. Gas and oil production within 38 13 United States 32 11 the alliance also has risen substantially. Other NATO due largely to development of the North countries 52 50 Sea fields. Hut most members still de- pend on non-NATO sources for a large share of the petroleum they consume.

phosphates

bauxite and bauxite alumina tin

copper ores ..

copper ores bauxite and alumina chromium ores industrial diamond (stones) _- CAW hapart Soaraes: manganese ores platinum group metals [-.:2 Crude petroleum

The MIPS BOW Pas rag micagniaal roar EDOther minerals palm al lama, Labia. era Wrens ina US sot Ilknoraibry satansraaca a not asaaasarily asollansalve la 38 39 Warsaw Pact Overseas Import D 'ependency

The Warsaw Pact is much less depend- American countries in exchange for a ent than NAT() on raw materials from share of production. But imports from Soviet lawn Wanes: the Third World and other non-NATO the Third World do not necessarily in- Els bated liberals and Metals, countries. The Soviet Union is well en- dicate an absolute deficiency or true im- From Sources Other Than dowed with natural resources port dependency. Middle Eastern and Warsaw Peek 1903 including the minor metals important North African oil imported by pact % el for modern rocketry, aeronautics, and countries in exchange for weapons and *mew nuclear energyand supplies most of other assistance is less than the Nets Minya{ dee P I Isereals) the industrial raw materials consumed petroleum the Soviet Union exports to by other Warsaw Pact countries. The Western Europe. Antimony 12Yugoslavia share of Third World trade in the total Weapons are the leading Warsaw Bauxite and 37Greece, Guinea, noibluc trade of individual Warsaw Pact export to the Third World. fol- alumina India, Jamaica, Pact countries ranges from 6% to 15%. lowed by machinery and industrial Yugoslavia (For Romania, the exception, Third equipment. Bismuth 50Japan World trade ;s about one-quarter of Cobalt 47Cuba total foreign trade.) Mica 13India The Soviet Union and its allies are Tin 27Malaysia, helping to develop mineral industries in Singapore, some Asian. African, and Latin United Kingdom Tungsten 43China, Mongolia

Source' R Levine. Mining Annual Rivrew, 1984.

phosphates - ,ors' cobalt tungsten and bauxite fluorspar

zinc

wheat--

Chief Meal Sources: wheat and beef Petroleum

Other Commodities

10 41 19 NATO Members and Other Mutual Security Pacts

France, Turkey. the United Kingdom. 1952 Security Treaty Between Pact, renamed Central Treaty Organiza- defunct since Iran, Pakistan. and :Ind the United States are NATO Australia, New Zealand, and the tinited tion (CENTO) when Iraq withdrew in Turkey withdrew in 1979-80. members that have joined other States (ANZITS) for the Pacific area. 1959. CENTO's purpose was to provide None of these regional security ar- regional security pacts. France, the United Kingdom, and security for the Middle East. The rangements has created a permanent The United States is party to the theTnited States are parties to the United States did not join CENTO but military command structure or devel- 1917 InterAmerican Treaty of 1954 Southeast Asia Collective Defense. sat on CENTO's Economic Committee oped a machinery or infrastructure Recipritcal Assistance Treaty). the Treaty (SEATO). Although the treaty and Military Committee and sent an comparable to NATO's. first regional securityarrangernolt organization was disbanded in 1975. observer delegation to meetings of the based on Article 52 of the l'N Charter. treaty obligations are still in effect. CENTO Council. ('ENT() has been The State's also behings to the Pakistan withdrew in 1973. France maintains an inactive status. Turkey and the United Kingdom were members of the 1955 Baghdad

46

=1 NATO 1,44(4 %

R o Treaty 1947

ANIUS1 9,, 1

SEAT()19'14 Mats: Cuba was excluded from the Inter American Defense 42 Board in 1982 Pakistan withdrew from SEATO in 1973 20 43 1'.S.ut1Vt.141a11.1,11 PK 7:11:: orr : 3955-46 119 :lu