(3 of 4)
Similarly, in Belgium, the NATO proposal was opposed by powerful members of the Socialist Party, a component of the fragile government coalition. In a parliamentary meeting, Foreign Minister Henri Simonet arrogantly declared that some of his party colleagues "would be better employed drawing comic strips than dealing with foreign affairs." In Denmark and Norway, some leftists also had strong reservations about the missile plan. For a while it looked as if NATO might degenerate into what the West Germans had always feared it could become if left alone to shoulder the nuclear responsibility: a two-tier organization of small powers and a "directorate" of larger ones.
At last week's meeting, Vance and U.S. Defense Secretary Harold Brown argued that NATO must act immediately on the missile decision. They also pointed out that the Iran crisis had reawakened the U.S. to the dangers to its own security, and they emphasized that for the solidarity of the alliance, the European members should be visibly responsive to the Iran problem. NATO members did indeed give Vance a statement of support on Iran, though it was not the strong endorsement of U.S. policy he had sought.
During the six-hour session, the West Germans were openly impatient with the Dutch and the Belgians on the missile question. Said Bonn's Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher: "We Germans realize you have political difficulties. But two out of three of the new rockets will be based on our territory." He called on the organization to make "a clear-cut decision for the sake of the alliance."
In the end, the NATO members avoided a serious open split, but obvious differences remained. The final communique declared that NATO would press forward with the deployment of the missiles in "selected countries." NATO Secretary-General Joseph Luns confirmed that the countries were Britain, West Germany and Italy; he added that "Belgium and The Netherlands may accept the missiles later." Both recalcitrant countries said that they might well accept the missiles on their territory if there were no progress in disarmament negotiations with the Soviet Union; Belgium said it would reconsider in six months, The Netherlands in two years.
The communique called on the Soviet Union to enter into negotiations on the reduction of medium-range weapons as soon as possible. It also made a limited unilateral offer: to withdraw "as soon as feasible" 1,000 of the 7,000 U.S. war heads presently positioned in Europe, most of them in obsolete weapons such as land mines and bombs. The action was intended as a response to the ongoing withdrawal of outmoded Soviet tanks from East Germany, or, as a NATO diplomat acknowledged less than respectfully, "our garbage for their garbage." The Soviets have been giving conflicting signals as to whether they would be prepared to hold arms talks at the present time. It is clear, however, that in the negotiations that will surely be held eventually, last week's vote will reinforce NATO'S arguments as well as its arsenal.