mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (01/21/85)
The Chicago Tribune ran an editorial yesterday (1/20) on "The Belgian Solution", which is the approach that the Belgian Prime Minister is taking to deployment of U.S. missiles in his country. Basically, the Prime Minister is facing elections within the next eleven months, at a time when polls show 47% of Belgians oppose deployment and only 18% support it. He is appealing to Washington to let him delay deployment until after the election so he doesn't lose. Reagan has "warned" the Prime Minister not to delay deployment Does the Tribune suggest that he listen to the near-majority in his country and tell the U.S. where it can put its missiles? No, that he show some "political courage" and continue with the deployment as scheduled. I guess that's the same kind of "political courage" shown by the Polish government in responding to Solidarity, or the "courage" shown by Reagan himself in ignoring the call for serious arms negotiations by a large majority of Americans. Seldom is it so clear just who calls the shots in Europe. In the East, it is undoubtedly the USSR. This makes it very clear who Big Brother is in the West. Mike Kelly
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (01/24/85)
>The Chicago Tribune ran an editorial yesterday (1/20) on "The Belgian >Solution", which is the approach that the Belgian Prime Minister is >taking to deployment of U.S. missiles in his country. Basically, >the Prime Minister is facing elections within the next eleven months, >at a time when polls show 47% of Belgians oppose deployment and only >18% support it. He is appealing to Washington to let him delay >deployment until after the election so he doesn't lose. Reagan has >"warned" the Prime Minister not to delay deployment >Does the Tribune suggest that he listen to the near-majority in his >country and tell the U.S. where it can put its missiles? No, that he >show some "political courage" and continue with the deployment as >scheduled. I guess that's the same kind of "political courage" shown >by the Polish government in responding to Solidarity, or the "courage" >shown by Reagan himself in ignoring the call for serious >arms negotiations by a large majority of Americans. >Seldom is it so clear just who calls the shots in Europe. In the East, >it is undoubtedly the USSR. This makes it very clear who Big Brother >is in the West. >Mike Kelly Responsable government makes its decisions based on the national INTEREST, not the national DESIRE. It is the the Belgian government's raison d'etre to make decisions based on its evaluation of reality, and then answer to the Belgian people at the polls for its decisions. To implicitly suggest, as Mike does, that government policies ought to bow to public opinion in all cases would transform the Democratic Republics of the West into Direct Democracies, and replace our admittedly flawed political class with one of demagogues. Mike, if a Gallup poll were released tomorrow showing similar margins of approval for legal racial discrimination or disbandment of the Armed Forces, would you rush to insist that those desires be legislated immediately? I would hope my government would resist wrong or unwise policies, and instead attempt to sway it citizens otherwise. The difference between the Reagan administration's reluctance to press arms negotiation (and the hypothetical deployment of cruise missiles in Belgium) and the Polish government's surpression of Solidarity is that in the former two cases, the decision makers must answer for their decisions (which, incidentally, they exercised under a constitution which has popular consent for its methods) to both the courts and the people. Jaruzelski did not have those constraints. One can freely speak of "political courage" so long as decision makers are held responsable to a broad electorate. This is such a case, and it is clear that the European governments do believe the cruise missiles are in their best interests, and stated as much when there was little public pressure. Remember, it was Helmut Schmidt, speaking with the approval of his continental allies, who requested the deployment of these missiles from Jimmy Carter. Finally, equating Soviet control over the Warsaw Pact with US "control" of NATO is a willful act of naivete. If the US "controlled" NATO, there would have been cruise missiles in Denmark and the Netherlands, the Belgians and especially the Dutch would deploy their army units committed to NATO in West Germany, the West Germans would abandon their doctrine of foward defense, the British would neglect their nuclear capabilities in order to strenghten the BAOR, the French and Greeks would be militarily integrated, the Turks would reconstitute Cyprus, the Spanish would cease deploying their forces primarily against Gibraltar, the Italians would raise their spending above their near-Japanese levels, the Norwegians would permit the basing of US or UK marines, etc., etc., etc. The fact is that NATO forces are deployed in a far from optimal pattern because of the political facts of life that the US must accept. Some "Big Brother". Mike, while your hyperbole on the matter may be source of personal satisfaction, you ought to realize that it undercuts whatever serious points you may wish to make. David Rubin
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (01/29/85)
David Rubin has offered a good critique of my original posting on Euromissiles. Of course, I agree that not every popularly-willed policy should be immediately implemented. I do think, though, that it is unfair to claim European opposition to the missiles is a short-lived public sentiment. It is deep and broad. The basic problem is the lack of a European security community. NATO is pretty clearly dominated by the U.S. For various economic and political reasons, the Europeans have been forced to rely on it. I think that consensus is breaking down, and the fight over the missiles is evidence of that. How many NATO countries do you think would agree to a *new* plan for installation of missiles? Very few, I would guess. I think there is a deeper issue here, as well. We are told that there must be NATO missiles in West Europe because there are Soviet missiles in East Europe. This ignores the British and French missiles already in West Europe. These new missiles are *American* missiles stationed in Europe. Why does *America* need missiles in Europe? I think it has a lot more to do with the Third World than it does with Western Europe. The missiles basically allow the U.S. the leeway to intervene in places of its own choosing (Central America has been `in' recently) while holding the Soviets at arms length. The missiles are sort of a guarantee that intervention won't escalate to a conventional world war. The British and French missiles are intended to defend those countries, and can't handily be brandished by an American President. For those interested, this thesis is presented much more cogently by Randall Forsberg in the Winter, 1984, issue of World Policy. Her article is titled "The Freeze and Beyond: Confining the Military to Defense as a Route to Disarmament." Mike Kelly
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (01/30/85)
> = Mike Kelly >David Rubin has offered a good critique of my original posting on >Euromissiles. Of course, I agree that not every popularly-willed >policy should be immediately implemented. I do think, though, that >it is unfair to claim European opposition to the missiles is a >short-lived public sentiment. It is deep and broad. It is broad, but how deep it is remains to be seen. Much depends on how much European leaders lead. >The basic problem is the lack of a European security community. NATO >is pretty clearly dominated by the U.S. For various economic and >political reasons, the Europeans have been forced to rely on it. I >think that consensus is breaking down, and the fight over the missiles >is evidence of that. How many NATO countries do you think would agree >to a *new* plan for installation of missiles? Very few, I would guess. NATO is dominated by the US in approximate proportion to the US's contribution to the collective defense. Of course, if the Europeans were willing to spend the money and make the political commitments necessary, both North America and Western Europe would be better off, as the Europeans would need only consult their own interests and Americans could save large quantities of money and manpower. In addition, if the Europeans were able to defend themselves, and the US still loomed as an interested power, a Soviet attack on Europe would become impossible rather than merely improbable. >I think there is a deeper issue here, as well. We are told that there >must be NATO missiles in West Europe because there are Soviet missiles in >East Europe. This ignores the British and French missiles already >in West Europe. These new missiles are *American* missiles stationed in >Europe. Why does *America* need missiles in Europe? I think it has a >lot more to do with the Third World than it does with Western Europe. The >missiles basically allow the U.S. the leeway to intervene in places of >its own choosing (Central America has been `in' recently) while holding >the Soviets at arms length. The missiles are sort of a guarantee that >intervention won't escalate to a conventional world war. The British and >French missiles are intended to defend those countries, and can't handily >be brandished by an American President. The deployment of Soviet intermediate range nuclear missiles, obviously dedicated toward use against Western Europe, raised the fear among European leaders in the late 1970's that the Soviets might be able to launch a nuclear strike against Western Europe without fearing American retaliation (i.e, the old (and pointed) question: would the US sacrifice Chicago in order to avenge Hamburg?). Under such circumstances, the Anglo-French nuclear capability would not even approach that of the Soviet Union, allowing the Soviet Union to threaten a war which it would be sure to win. The missiles are meant as a signal that a Soviet nuclear attack on Western Europe would be met by American missiles, and that the Soviet Union will thus not be able to consider ONLY the British and French arsenals when calculating the danger of nuclear warfare in Europe. It is precisely because they ARE American missiles that they were requested in the first place. This is what is meant by linkage. Mike is quite right that the missiles do not serve American security (at least not directly); rather, they serve a political purpose by reassuring the Europeans (at least those who will be responsible for future decisions) that they will (can) not be abandoned by the US in the event of a Soviet strike in Europe. As for the US "brandishing" the intermediate range missiles in the event of a crisis in US-USSR relations, that would be politically impossible. Under such circumstances, the missiles would no longer serve European interests, and would have to be withdrawn. It seems highly unlikely to me that Jimmy Carter twisted Helmut Schmidt's arm to get him to request missiles meant primarily to enable US intervention in the Third World, as (1) Carter showed relatively little interest in US intervention there, and (2) Schmidt was given to proclaiming that Carter didn't twist ENOUGH arms (in fact, Schmidt has stated that the only time Carter, in his view, strongly pressured the allies was at the Venice summit of 1979, where the NATO allies agreed to a 5% annual real increase in defense spending. This agreement has since been repeatedly breached; it is ironic that the Reagan defense buildup may leave NATO weaker because of his amazing proclivity towards frightening allied electorates). >For those interested, this thesis is presented much more cogently by >Randall Forsberg in the Winter, 1984, issue of World Policy. Her article >is titled "The Freeze and Beyond: Confining the Military to Defense as a >Route to Disarmament." >Mike Kelly David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david