Basic HTML Version
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, MARCH 9, 1984
PAGE 11
It is now unimaginable that the United States would engage in a
mutual holocaust with the Soviet Union to protect Western Europe.
Why, then, do European leaders join the Pentagon and the State
Department in pretending that the nuclear umbrella exists? ... In
truth, there really is only one viable military strategy for
Western Europe. That is to build up NATO's conventional forces
enough to fight--and win--a conventional war against
the
Soviet
Union, while at the same time possessing a second-strike nuclear
capability strong enough to inhibit the Russians from initiating
nuclear warfare.... In effect, the governments of Western Europe
are asking the United States to risk nuclear holocaust so that
they don't have to cut social-welfare budgets....
If we have learned anything from the NATO experience, it is that
dependency corrupts.
To the degree that Europe has been de
pendent upon the United States, European will has been corrupted
and European political vitality has diminished. A reconstructed
NATO could reverse that process. But it would have to be an all
European NATO, with the United States as ally, not . � member. . An
all-European NATO would not have to worry whether 1t was serving
American interests rather than its own.
If it wanted inter
med�ate-range nuclear missiles, we would providE!them--� only
on request. The way the nations of Western Europe are going to
regain the self-confidence and the will to engage resolutely in
international affairs is through a large degree of military
independence from the United States.
A new Atlantic alliance between the United States and an all
European NATO is possible and desirable. But if this is to come
about, we must subject the � that now exists, � very sick
NATO, to shock treatment. Nothing less will suffice.
So
the United
States
is hoping to p � sh the nations of Western Europe into a
more independent stance. Europe 1s resisting--so far. On his MEET THE
PRESS interview last Sunday, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, for
example, personally rejected the Kissinger proposal for a European (or a
German, Kohl said) to become NATO's Supreme Commander. This, of course,
makes sense, since it is rather illogical for the U.S. to possess the only
finger on the nuclear trigger, but for the top on-site military commander
to be non-American.
The dilemma of the Europeans is essentially this: relations with America
are souring to the degree that independence sounds increasingly logical and
necessary. But how can they unite--the Common Market seems to be falling
apart anyway. An�how could they make up for the withdrawal of America's
nuclear umbrella?
Stanley Hoffmann, chairman of the Center for European Studies at Harvard
University, wrote in the February 6, 1984 NEW YORK TIMES that the main
obstacle to an independent European defense system remains the role-
especially in the nuclear field--to be played by West Germany.
The crisis provoked in Western Europe by the deployment of
medium-range American missiles appears to have been overcome....
Nevertheless, the alliance remains in a paradoxical situation:
Its European members are full of deep anxieties and wish to