Cutting Costs

As West Germany's President Theodor Heuss went about Washington on a genial state visit, the West German government last week informed the U.S. that it is no longer prepared to pay any costs of supporting U.S. troops in Germany. Bonn's note, described as "blunt," was not made public. Reportedly, the Germans explained that their recent $100 million troop-cost settlement with Britain (TIME, April 28) was simply an act of mutual aid to a NATO ally in economic difficulties and hence could not be regarded as a precedent for further payments to the U.S. The theory of support costs has been that, without much defense industry or any substantial armed force, wealthy West Germany is not carrying its own weight of the NATO burden.

The West Germans still owe $77 million on last year's bill, which the U.S. agreed not to dun them for before the German elections. The elections have come and gone, but the money is yet to be seen. As Britain and France have cut their NATO manpower, and West Germany has at last begun to contribute its own troops to the alliance, Bonn has stiffened its attitude -on support costs, which many Germans choose to call "occupation costs." Defense Minister Franz Josef Strauss, an open foe of support payments, has even implied that if his government does agree to any payments, he will cancel large chunks of his ministry's several hundred million-dollar U.S.-arms contracts. Though his domestic arms buildup is going so slowly that he seems unlikely to spend the $2.5 billion allotted him this year, Strauss announced last week that he was cutting back from 700 to 400 the number of M48 tanks ordered in the U.S. because of the increased burden on his budget of the troop-support settlement with Britain.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.