Basic HTML Version
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, AUGUST 27, 1982
PAGE 7
committed conservative, while Francois Mitterrand is proud to
have brought the left back to power after 20 years in opposition.
Ideologically they could not be further apart.
The American
president hopes to effect
a
dramatic reduction
in government con
trols. The French president relies on the state to achieve an
ambitious program of industrial reconversion and redistribution
of wealth.
Such a difference of approach could not but interfere with for
eign policy. Reagan wants to resist the Russians everywhere, to
get rid of the subversion he believes they are encouraging, to
support "good governments"--anti-communist ones--no matter how
they handle human rights. In Mitterrand's eyes, people become
communists less because of Soviet mischief than because of the
miserable conditions in which they live.••.Hence the complete
divergence between the two presidents on, for instance, Central
America.
The two countries' interests are no less conflicting than their
presidents' views. Both have to cope with the effects of the
world economic crisis••••Each government is concerned above all
to defend its markets and its currency. Nat1onal self1shness,--rri
such periods,� the rule••••
If the present crisis were limited to France and the United
States, it would be tempting to see it as just another misunder
standing and wait for better weather to come. But the novelty
this time is that all Europe is siding with France. Not only
Schmidt but also Italy and even Britain. The same could be said
of Japan and Canada.
Does this mean that Europe and Japan are ready to surrender to
Big Brother in Moscow? Not in the least. What they don't want is
to pay for the deterioration of the Soviet economy that the
United States hopes to achieve at the price of further deteriora
tion of their own economies. None of these countries shares the
American assumption that this is the only way to convince the
Russians to behave� peacefully,�r Moscow may decide instead
to respond by increasing tension in various parts of the world.
"Pull Out of NATO"
The upshot of the whole multifaceted dispute is the increased demand in in
fluential circles in America (so far resisted by Mr. Reagan) to reduce--or
even eliminate altogether--America's commitment to the joint Western
defense structure, embodied in NATO. There seems to be a widespread mis
conception, especially among American conservatives, that only the Euro
peans benefit from NATO; that, to America, NATO is just a financial burden.
("How long do we have to keep those 350,000 troops over there?") Where is
the understanding that� free Europe is� tremendous shield for Ame � ica
itself? Standing together, the U.S. and its allies outnumber the Soviets
in many military categories. The U.S. simply could not do it alone.
Yet the trend toward isolation, or reorientation of America's global strat
egy away from Europe toward Asia, say, or the Western Hemisphere continues.
This trend is amplified by the fact that America, with huge immigrations