Basic HTML Version
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, JULY 2, 1982
PAGE 12
tween Washington and allied capitals in Europe over the project had been
resolved in a compromise at the recent economic summit in Versailles,
France.
However, only two weeks after the economic summit, Mr. Reagan (under pres
sure from Mr. Haig's chief rivals, National Security Adviser William Clark
and Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger) reversed course and actually
tightened access to U.S. technology needed for the pipeline project. Not
only were American firms forbidden to sell materials for the enterprise (a
decision made in December, 1981), but now the President extended these
sanctions to branches of American firms abroad and even to European holders
of American 1icenses. The "extra-territoriality" of the decision infuri
ated Europeans. The west Germans have even threatened to take the case to
the International Court 'of Justice.
Europeans see President Reagan's policy on the pipeline as excessive inter
ference in their own affairs. After all, much is at stake. Their sluggish
economies with high unemployment would receive a boost from the thousands
of jobs the pipeline project would create. In just a few years Europe would
begin to get energy from that new source. This would ease the West's heavy
reliance on mideast oil at a time of increasing instability in that part of
the world.
(Significantly, the Soviets are once again encouraging the
Arabs to institute another oil boycott against the U.S. for its help to
Israel--just as it did months before the 1973 Middle East War.) European
leaders are also concerned because European, especially German, banks hold
a sizeable portion of the Eastern Bloc's debt to the West. They could hard
ly afford to have the East default on debts at this time of shaky Western
European economies.
With regard to the souring of Atlantic relations over the Soviet-Western
Europe pipeline project, West Germany's press had a few pointed remarks to
make. FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE (June 21) commented:
With this measure, it has become clear how deep the differences
of opinion have remained between the United States and its Euro
pean allies even after the Versailles summit. Reagan naturally
has to face the criticism that the United States, by expanding
the embargo on one hand, and continuing to deliver grain on the
other hand, is pursuing a policy that is little convincing and is
determined by its own domestic interests.
The STUTTGARTER NACHRICHTEN (June 21) added this:
The shock is great: In the middle of the decisive phase in which
the head of AEG Telefunken is struggling for the survival of his
company, the American President, with this measure, has seen to
it that thousands of workers of the AEG and other European firms
have to worry about their future. It would be no wonder if the
bitterness of those affected leads to demonstrations which would
be difficult to blame on the left.
Not just the Federal Republic but the Common Market as a whole, took a very
negative view of the U.S. turnabout, seriously warning Washington of grave
consequences to both the alliance and world trade. (The decision closely
followed another U.S. decision affecting European steel exports tq Amer
ica.)
Britain's Prime Minister Thatcher was the only trans-Atlantic ally