Basic HTML Version
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, FEBRUARY 4, 1983
PAGE 13
would "banish from the face of the earth" all land-based American and
soviet intermediate-range missiles.
Mr. Andropov rejected the offer almost immediately, stating that it was
just ttthe same zero-option," and a "patently unacceptable solution" amount
ing to nothing but "unilateral disarmament" on the part of the Soviet
Union.
Impact Upon Japan
Closely observing the "triple header" in Germany were the Japanese. Tokyo
is very concerned that any "interim solution" (what the Germans call a com
promise on the Euromissile issue) would endanger their own security. This
is because they are convinced the Soviets would never scrap their medium
range missiles but only ship them east of the Urals, where from 90 to 100
SS-20s already are believed to be targeted on China and Japan (more of them
on the former, most likely).
In an attempt to assuage Japan's growing fears, Secretary of State George
Schultz went to Japan at the same time that Vice-president Bush flew to
Europe. Mr. Schultz told Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone that the
U.S.
would not sign an agreement that would permit the soviets to shift ss-20s
from Europe to soviet Asia.
President Reagan also obviously had the Japanese in mind when, in his open
letter, he called for intermediate-range weapons to be "banished from the
face of the earth"--not merely shifted elsewhere. Up until now the Japan
ese have felt secure, protected by the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Should the•
Japanese ever feel their security is severely compromised, they might feel
it necessary to go far beyond what the U.S. is now asking them to do in
military terms, and to become a real superpower to counterbalance the
Soviet threat.
��
Thus, it seems that no matter what it does, the United States is going to
gravely disappoint a major ally. It will either place west Germany in a
very uncomfortable position vis-a-vis the soviets by not compromising on
zero-option, or it could end up shaking the Japanese-American security
relationship to its very foundation.
"Year of Europe"
For some additional background here are excerpts from the news media on
this very vital subject. The first article deals with the European defense
scene in general, written by a French foreign relations expert Pierre
Lellouche, in the January 24, 1983 international edition of NEWSWEEK.
Ten years ago, Henry Kissinger proclaimed 1973 to be the "Year of
Europe" only to see his plans to revitalize the NATO alliance
crash in Western disarray over the Yorn Kippur war and the Arab
oil embargo. Now, however, unheralded by any trumpeting from
Washington, it a � pears that 1983
6
ay well be the real Year of
Europe. For1t
lS
in £FiTs year t atNATbmustfinall{aeciae
whether to deploy a new generation of medium-range nuclear mis
siles in Europe, a question that is vital to the future of the
continent. As French Foreign Minister Claude Cheysson put it
recently, 1983 will be "the most difficult year for the alliance
since its inception in l�.ir---
� �