Basic HTML Version
in Moscow and Havana.
They could at last capital-
ize on the region's social
and economic problems to
make significant gains of
their own.
In Western Europe,
Mr. Carter's abrupt can–
cellation of the controver–
sia! but nevertheless de–
fensive weapon, tbe neu–
tron bomb, caused shock
waves tbroughout the
NATO alliance. West German
Chancellor Helmut Schmidt was
particularly angry, from then on
criticizing the Carter administra–
tion for being indecisive and unpre–
dictable.
Sensing disarray in NATO, the
Soviet Union stepped up its west–
ern defenses by the deployment of
SS-20 missiles targeted against the
cities of Western Europe, upsetting
the East-West balance along the
most heavily armed Cold War front
in the world.
Mr. Carter's greatest misfortune
was to be burdened with the situa–
tion in lran in which U.S. officials
were held captive in their own
embassy. Negotiations proved fu–
tile. Even the attempt to rescue the
hostages by military operation
carne to an early, dismal and fiery
end on the floor of the Iranian des–
ert. American prestige had sunk to
perbaps an all-time low.
Abrupt Change with Reagan
Ronald Reagan carne into office on
J anuary 20, 1981-the day the
Iranians released the hostages–
with the avowed purpose of
restoring the nation's fortunes. The
nation's fiscal priorities were reset
with defense allocations immedi–
ately increased.
The President, a persuasive
speaker, subsequently took to the
television screens severa! times to
warn the American public of the
dangers in the revolutions brewing
in the Western Hemisphere.
The problems were fundamental–
ly economic and social in nature, he
said, but outside powers were
attempting to take advantage of
them, with the ultimate aim of
threatening the security of the
United States itself.
Americans, the President said,
could not afford to see the entire
September 1984
regían from the Panama Canal to
the exposed southern border of the
United States in the hands of hos–
tile forces, ruling over 100 million
people.
journalist living in Paris.
What is lacking, he adds,
is a ..popular consensus of
belief on where America
stands in the world and
what are its aims."
The result, he contin-
In Europe, it was felt
by sorne that after the
Carter administration ex–
perience , the govern–
ments of the NATO
countries would welcome
the changeover in Wash–
ington. Thís proved not to
be entirely the case, how–
ever. European officials
had adjusted to the lack
of firm Washington lead–
ership and.were not quite
ready to be led again-or
lectured to.
Mr. Reagan's blunt
talk concerning the Soviet
Union disturbed many on
U.S. defense commitment to Western Europe
comes under attack by vocal minority; pressure
also builds inside U.S.
the Continent, who were also not
convinced of his clear-cut position
on Central America.
The generalized European reac–
tion to the Reagan administration in
turn led to charges from so-called
neo-conservative circles in the
United States that, if Western Euro–
peans were to go "soft on commu–
nism," tbat perhaps the N ATO
alliance no longer stood for anything
and should be radically restructured,
if not scrapped altogether.
"Light-switch Dlplomacy"
The most disturbing element to
outsiders concerning the American
political scene today is that, from
one election to the next, Washing–
ton's view of the world and its poli–
cíes toward both friend and foe can
now change abruptly.
"There simply is no longer a
main li'ne of American foreign poli–
cy to wbich the two majar parties
adhere. This is the new reality." So
writes William Pfaff, an American
ues, is what Secretary of State
George Shultz has complained of:
..light-switch diplomacy"-policies
turned on and off according to
whatever philosophy and political
outlook is in vague in Washington
at the time.
Light-switch diplomacy, Mr.
Pfaff asserts, "is exactly what
American diplomacy is likely to
remain for the foreseeable fu–
ture."
The prospects of future wild
swings- if not in 1984, very possi–
bly 1988-in U.S. foreign policy
are already evident.
But should the Democratic Party
prevail in the Presidential election
in 1984, writes columnist Patrick J.
Buchanan, "the most radical shift
in America's direction and .national
priorities will be in foreign policy
and national defense. The funda–
mental premise of U.S. foreign pol–
icy for 40 years from Trumao to
Reagan [the East-West strug–
gle] ... will be abandoned." One
3