Basic HTML Version
ing American newspapers and
newsmagazines have rung out with
majar opinion pieces on this theme.
"There is a growing U.S. uni–
lateralism, feeding on European
neutralism," wrote columnist Wil–
liam Pfaff, an American living in
París. "The collapse of the alliance
is no longer unthinkable."
"Tbe most urgent crisis is the
impending crisis of NATO," wrote
lrving Kristol in
The Wall Street
Journaf.
"It
ís not a spasm.
It
ís a
tidal wave that will sweep all befare
it, leaving NATO in ruins."
" The alliance is at a turning
point ," stated another leading
American columnist, Josepb Kraft.
" Even NATO-firsters must now
wonder whether it wouldn't be bet–
ter for the United States and
Europe to dri ft apart."
Accept the inevitable, counseled
another piece of advice in
The Wal/
Street Journal,
this time written by
an American businessman with ties
to Asia. "The time has come for the
U.S. to sever its ties to NATO,"
wrote this autbor, wbo further
expressed the belief that neither the
conquest of Western Europe by tbe
Soviets (after American troops had
supposedly withdrawn) nor "Finlan–
dization" of the continent "would
make little strategic difference to the
U.S." but would only "add to Soviet
burdeos."
The author said that the United
States should, in effect, turn its
back on the special relationship
with Europe and instead look to
Asia where "the vast Pacific basin
líes at America's other shore. "
Compared to the 1.5 billion to two
billion people of the Pacific basin,
he said, "Europe seems a puny
affair. "
Hints-and Threats-of Change
On both sides of the Atlantic, "but
especially in the U.S.," observed
Morton M. Kondrake in yet anoth–
er
Journal
article, " we are talking
ourselves into tbe breakup of the
allíance ... ignoring the vital inter–
ests we have in common. "
What started on the internation–
al conference circuit, noted Mr.
Kondrake, who is also executive
editor of
The New Republic
maga–
zine, "has moved to tbe [opinion
and editorial] pages and it soon
may translate into policy. We have
March 1982
America on the other hand, especially
the Reagan administration, tends to view the
Soviet Union as a singleminded
expansionist power.
It
must be checkmated at
all points around the globe.
gone from warnings about weak–
nesses in the alliance to outright
calls for U.S. withdrawal from
NATO."
lndeed, hints of policy change at
the governmental level are being
dropped.
Arthur Burns, U.S. ambassador
to West Germany, said recently
that " the nuclear debate is becom–
ing a battle for the soul of Europe."
U.S. troops, he went on to say,
"will not stay here if they are not
welcome."
Mr. Burns also quoted Mike
Mansfield, former U.S. senator,
now U.S. envoy to Japan, as hav–
ing said that America's future líes
in the Pacific, not the Atlantic.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Mans–
field was the author of the "Mans-
field Amendment," introduced in
the U.S. Senate in 1971, calling for
American troops to be wíthdrawn
from Europe. The Senate rejected
the Mansfield Amendment. But
now, Senate majority leader How–
ard Baker says he is not sure a
repeat proposal would not sail
through.
The
Times
of London, in a majar
year-end editorial December 31,
1981, said that critics of the
alliance on both sides of tbe ocean
are taking extremely shortsighted
positions and that "it is time to
worry'.' over NATO's future.
Europe, the
Times
reminded its
readers, needs the military power
of the United States to defend its
territory and to protect its econom–
ic lifelines around the world. By the
5