CRISIS IN NATO: The Brussels Summit : As NATO Chiefs Gather, Nuclear Dispute Threatens to Eclipse Bush’s Proposals

BRUSSELS —  Even as the leaders of the 16-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization gathered here for the opening of their 40th anniversary summit today, the continuing deadlock over short-range nuclear forces threatened to eclipse new arms control proposals that President Bush plans to present to the allies.

Administration officials have designed Bush’s proposals for reducing NATO’s non-nuclear forces to achieve two purposes--seizing some of the initiative in the East-West propaganda battle that Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev has so far been winning and distracting attention from a deep and prolonged split in NATO.

But with the short-range nuclear forces issue still unresolved, Bush faces the danger that the divisive fight will overshadow his efforts.

“The chances don’t look good” for a quick resolution of the missile debate, a senior aide to NATO Secretary General Manfred Woerner said. “The leaders may spend almost all of their time arguing about the SNF (short-range nuclear forces) issue instead of broader matters.”

Bonn’s Desire to Assert Itself

The immediate focus of the quarrel concerns whether to negotiate with the Soviet Union over short-range nuclear missiles, a move urged by West Germany and opposed by the United States and Britain. More profoundly, the fight involves Bonn’s increasing desire to assert itself as a major power within the alliance.

On the eve of the summit, Secretary of State James A. Baker III acknowledged that the short-range missiles dispute remains unresolved--and might stay that way through the summit’s end. But he insisted that while the issue would be important, it would not dominate the two-day discussions among the heads of government here.

“We’re still hopeful that it will be settled on terms that are acceptable to all of the members of the alliance,” Baker said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program. “I think there’s still a fair chance that that can take place.”

The senior aide to Woerner, however, took a gloomy view, saying late Sunday that there appeared to be no chance of compromising the differences before the formal opening of the summit.

“It will be up to the leaders themselves to find a compromise,” the NATO official said.

With the United States and West Germany remaining at loggerheads, NATO sources said they expect that the dispute will be papered over, with the NATO leaders deciding to refer the controversy to a working group for further study.

Representatives of the NATO nations were already arguing over whether an official of the United States or one from NATO would be chairman of the group, sources said.

NATO officials also complained that Woerner had not been informed of proposals that Bush plans to present. Bush and Baker have been briefing allied leaders on their plans over the last several days, but the lack of prior consultation with Woerner was highly unusual in the alliance.

Indeed, there were signs that even the U.S. ambassador to NATO, Alton Keel, had not been informed of the Bush proposals, even though the Keel team had submitted more than a dozen ideas for Bush initiatives from which the new proposals were taken.

Bush planned to meet early today with Keel and Gen. John R. Galvin, the commander of NATO forces in Europe.

Bush is expected to suggest that NATO change its position in negotiations now under way in Vienna over conventional (non-nuclear) forces. So far, NATO has insisted that the Vienna talks be limited to levels of weapons such as tanks, artillery and armored personnel carriers. Under Bush’s plan, NATO would offer to negotiate overall manpower levels as well.

As it now stands, NATO has offered a 10% cut in equipment but has refused to consider manpower in the talks.

Bush is also expected to indicate that the United States is prepared to lift some of the trade sanctions imposed on Moscow after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

Meanwhile, Bonn appears to be losing some support in the debate--even among the smaller, “weak sister” nations of NATO that support West Germany’s basic desire to negotiate with the Soviets--because of the Germans’ apparent refusal to show any flexibility on language to paper over alliance differences.

The anniversary meeting here was planned as a celebration of 40 years of peacekeeping--accompanied by a new political statement of purpose for the alliance and its future, answering the challenges posed by Gorbachev and his many-faceted peace maneuvers.

Leading up to the meeting, Bush made a series of speeches in which he called for strengthening the military alliance and reinvigorating its mission. His top aides have emphasized that they would not compromise on the issue of short-range nuclear forces.

A senior Bush aide said last week that the Administration had hoped to “finesse” that issue.

Basic to Strategy

He explained that the United States insisted on standing firm because nuclear weapons are “fundamental to the whole strategy” of deterring Soviet aggression with its overwhelmingly superior conventional forces.

Washington opposes “early” negotiations with the Soviets on short-range nuclear forces because it fears the talks would lead to elimination of the weapons and then to the eventual denuclearization of Europe.

The NATO heads are planning to conclude their three-session meeting Tuesday afternoon by issuing a political document, tentatively entitled “The Way Ahead,” but its luster is expected to be tarnished by the rancorous disagreement over the short-range forces.

Another document, called the “comprehensive concept,” covering NATO force structure and arms reductions in the future, is scheduled for release today. This statement is to include the hoped-for compromise on the short-range weapons issue or, alternatively, announce the proposed study group to resolve the issue in the absence of a compromise.

Times staff writer William Tuohy contributed to this story.