Basic HTML Version
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, AUGUST 27, 1982
PAGE 6
If the Europeans are so "thick" that they cannot fathom this rationale,
then maybe it is time after all, say some U.S. voices, to cut the ties to
the continent, to let the Europeans float free, if that is what they really
want (which means if they no longer see things America's way). One, in
fact, almost detects a certain "death wish" for the Atlantic Alliance in
Tnf'Iuential conservative circles in AmerT'ca.�hTs"crowd has always been
more isolationistic. It has never-Yelt as comfortable having close ties to
Europe as has the liberal East Coast elite which controlled U.S. foreign
policy for years. This train of thought is expressed continuously these
days by William Safire, the token-conservative columnist of the NEW YORK
TIMES. In his August 12, 1982 syndicated column, Mr. Safire wrote:
If Schmidt and Mitterrand are so committed to making the biggest
East-west trade deal in history that they are willing to risk a
serious breach in the Atlantic Alliance, that is their business,
but the
u.s.
is not obligated to assist them in what we believe to
be a fundamental mistake.
The point of having an alliance is not merely to have an alli
ance--it is to act together in a common purpose. The purpose of
NATO, for example, is to deter the Soviet Union from doing in
West Germany what it has done in Afghanistan and Poland. If the
West Germans consider it more important to strengthen their ties
with the Russians than to maintain their ties with the Americans,
then the "alliance" has become a hollow shell and we would do
well to so recognize it.
A total of
350,000 U
.s. servicemen are stationed in Europe to
defend it from soviet aggression. we have a right to object to
actions by misguided allies that add to the power of our common
adversary. If these serious objections are derided by foreign
ministers who bluster about "divorce" [the words of French For
eign Minister Cheyssonl and threaten to use our technology
against our will, Europeans now taking us for granted may find
themselves with� fine gas pipeline to the� and� umbilTcaI
cord
!_2
the�.
It must be emphasized that the pipeline dispute is but a symptom of far
deeper troubles in the alliance. And at the heart of the quarrel is one
irreducible and nearly irreconcilable element: A fundamental disagreement
on the nature of the Soviet threat and how to respond to it. We have read
what Mr. Safire says concerning the American point of view. Now, to give
the French (and by extension, European) view, is Andre Fontaine, the editor
of a major French newspaper, LE MONDE, as published in the August 1, 1982
LOS ANGELES HERALD EXAMINER:
PARIS--It was bound to happen. No honeymoon can last forever,
especially when the two partners--France and the United States-
have so little in common and so many reasons to disagree.
To start with, it was an unlikely marriage--a match of incon
gruous partners. For years, the United States had warned against
communist participation in any Western government.
Who would
have dared to think that a dedicated anti-communist such as
Ronald Reagan could make friends with a president surrounded by
four communist ministers ( in Mitterrand's cabinet]? Reagan is a