Index by Year : Byrd's Eye View Archive

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

NATO

Published July 1966 Download PDF of the original newspaper column

From the Office of United States Senator Robert C. Byrd Room 342, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. Volume VI - Number 28 July 15, 1966 Byrd's Eye View A Public Service Column by Senator Robert C. Byrd NATO The current North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) crisis involves so many complexities that American citizens can expect lengthy exposure to news reports, communiqués, analyses, et cetera, pertinent to negotiations, compromises, multilateral haggling, unilateral expressions of indignation, and the like. One fact, however, in a certainty whatever happens, it will cost Uncle Sam a sizable sum of money for immediately ahead is the problem of pulling out of France the thousands of Air Force personnel recently announced by the Department of Defense as being withdrawn and the determination on disposition of certain Air Force facilities and supplies. Due for long term determination is the fate of U. S. Army Forces in France and Europe, including pipelines, Army bases, equipment, and other assets. The total value of all U. S. installations in France has been variously estimated up to $1 billion, although the Department of Defense, in announcing an immediate withdrawal of Air Force personnel and holdings, stated the cost would be only a fraction of this sum. Costs will be high to other NATO allies, also. The Belgian government, which has gingerly agreed to accept NATO's military headquarters on its territory, has already stated that a problem exists at to who should shoulder the bill and has warned of the rise in operational and living costs which may result from pouring NATO personnel into already crowded Belgium. And, related to a solution of NATO's future, is the issue of Great Britain's 56,300 troops in West Germany, and the additional 32,500 civilians employed by the British Army of the Rhine. The Bonn government has in the past helped to offset the cost of these troops, but it may now have to make a determination on an increase in its own present allocation of 4.7 percent of its national budget for defense. De Gaulle's eviction notice to NATO, for whatever cold comfort it may bring to Americans and other NATO participants, may eventually prove expensive to the French government financially and costly to De Gaulle politically at home, for also at issue in the rearrangement of alliance forces and assets is the future role of French forces in West Germany. These are reported to total 73,000 troops. Moreover, a question exists as to the continued usage by the French of American equipment of a strategic nature equipping French troops under NATO planning. Importantly, the French government is faced with the possible repercussions on its citizenry of loss of heavy economic benefits from the American presence in France. It is estimated that the shutdown of American installations will mean an annual loss to France of $60 million dollars in official business (at a minimum) , and 16,000 civilian jobs. On an overall basis, France is believed to receive at least $300 million yearly in foreign exchange from NATO backstops on French soil, which it stands to lose. Thus, with so much to be resolved, one fact is clear -- moving costs are never light, whether at a family or international level; and dissolving alliances -- at a family or international level is always a costly, messy business. -30-

‹‹ Return to column index for 1966