Canada’s N.A.T.O. Stand With France

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31093, 23 June 1966, Page 13

Canada’s N.A.T.O. Stand With France

(From MELVIN SVFRIN. N.Z.P.A. Special Crspdt.) TORONTO, June 22. In a surprising turn of events, Canada is throwing its weight behind Europe in the debate over the future of the North Atlantic alliance.

It is surprising, because many Canadians have long felt they could hardly afford the luxury of being sharply critical of American foreign policy in an area of real importance. One reason is that they saw little chance of changing Washington’s thinking on important matters. Another is that, in the; event the Americans were | to translate their displeasure’ with such rebelliousness intoj economic sanctions, Canada, would be hurt more than most nations. The Prime Minister, Mr Lester Pearson, has, nevertheless, come to grips with the basic issue. And he chose Springfield, Illinois, Abraham Lincoln’s home-town, as his forum. , Accepting bne of three Atlantic Pioneer awards for 1966 from the Federal Union, he delivered an address in which he placed a /major.

share of the blame on the United States rather than France for the present predicament of the 15-member North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr Pearson’s main point was that the administration of President Johnson is wrong in trying to isolate France instead of tackling the basic causes of the malaise. The United States, bitter over France’s decision to pull out of N.A.T.O.’s integrated defence organisation, has tried to turn France into an outcast. Mr Pearson openly backed President de Gaulle’s contention that Europe should not be forced to rely for its security against Communist attack on nuclear weapons remaining under sole American control. This has some significance for Canada since, under Mr i Pearson’s administration, this country has accepted nuclear I weapons the operation of i which remains American responsibility. The Canadian leader called on Washington to take the lead in establishing a closer alliance less dominated by United States authority. ■ “France is not, has not been, and will not be satisfied with an Atlantic organisation, or an Atlantic alliance of independent States dominated by America. “France, and not only France, feels that continental

Europe now Is strong enough, in large part because of the generous assistance of the United States, to be given its rightful share in the control of the policies of the alliance.

“I realise that a united Europe would, in its political economic and military decisions, be more independent of Washington than now is the case. I don’t see anything wrong with this.”

Mr Pearson is one of the founding fathers of N.A.T.O. and has often sought to get agreement to making it a cohesive political body as well as an organisation for mutual defence. He apparently feels he has a special responsibility for trying to bring about the fundamental changes he sees as necessary to keep the alliance from pulling apart. But there is, of course, the

(chance that other European members will refuse to loin him, leaving France and Canada alone together in opposition to Washington and the rest of N.A.T.O.

; If a clear split should occur along these lines, it would not be the first time Canada’s foreign policies had diverged from those of the United States. Canada continued to trade with Cuba after the United States imposed an embargo on most dealings with Fidel Castro and urged others to do likewise. And it has continued to do business with China knowing that this irritates the Americans. It has never been evident that any such displays of independence resulted in economic harm. But that does hot mean the next such move will not have such a result.