Basic HTML Version
PAGE 10
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, JUNE 8, 1984
West Germany. Of all the scheduled NATO host countries--Holland, Belgium,
Britain and Italy--only Italy has moved forward with the plan without sig
nificant hitches. For some time now Italy has been the most reliable NATO
partner as well as the most pro-Common Market member of the EC. Its support
of the eventual goal of political union is stronger than that of any other
EC member.
Back t . o NATO, the biggest fear is that NATO itself--whose foreign ministers
have Just concluded an otherwise successful 35th anniversary meeting in
Washington--may slowly begin to unravel due to the anti-missile issue. The
Dutch decision plays directly-rnto the hands of NATO reformists in the U.S.
who increasingly call for a sharp scaleback of American commitment to NATO.
Some want NATO scrapped altogether, saying it
1
s time the Europeans stood on
their own two feet, with little or no U.S. help. These anti-NATO Americans
will now claim that the Dutch decision is further proof that the Europeans
simply are not willing to hold up their end of the Alliance, so why should
the U.S. be a part of the Alliance any longer?
How to adequately defend Europe
1
s vital interests around the world is sub
ject to a great deal of deliberation on the Continent, now that the solida
rity of NATO is crumbling. The latest crisis in the Persian Gulf underlines
the need for Europe to be able to send multinational forces around the world
to defend European interests. But need and willingness are two different
things. Here is a report by Stephen Milligan in the May 25 SUNDAY TIMES of
Britain entitled "Europe Needs an Army":
The sudden escalation of the Gulf war last week sent shock sig
nals around the world. As usual, all eyes turned to Washington.
Would the Americans intervene? The United States imports little
oil from the Gulf. It relies far more on oil that passes through
the Gulf of Mexico, and President Reagan is already uncomfortably
embroiled in the fire of Central America. Besides, after the
humiliation in Lebanon, few American politicians in an election
year want to see more marines dying in far-off places like the
Middle East.
Meanwhile, the countries that are really at risk if the Gulf were
closed--in Western Europe, and Japan--do little but watch as the
danger grows greater. If anybody has an interest in keeping the
flow of oil going, it is they. More than a quarter of Western
Europe's oil comes from the Gulf against only 4% of America's.
Yet Europeans seem powerless to act. The prospect of Japanese or
German soldiers going to war for the first time since 1945 is not
an appetising one. But Western Europe needs to be able to dis
patch troops when necessary, even if they include no Germans.
The United States is not capable of or willing to defend western
interests everywhere around the world. As the tale of the two
Gulfs show, American and European economic interests often dif
fer.
Worse still, the degree of the American commitment to
defend Europe is increasingly in doubt. Why, ask many Americans,
should we keep 300,000 troops to defend Europe when the Europeans
are almost as rich as us and yet unwilling to defend their own
interests? NATO has been unable to rationalise arms production.
Not only do one country's bullets not fit another's rifles, but
the alliance has failed to reap economies of scale by obliging