grunwald@uiuccsb.UUCP (11/20/83)
#N:uiuccsb:11000046:000:3708
uiuccsb!grunwald Nov 15 17:08:00 1983
Here's an interesting statement (all comments enclosed in >>..<< denote
direct quotes):
>> During a recent visit to Belgium, French President Francois Mitterand
came up with a bon mot about Euromissles and pacifists.
``The missles are in the East, and the Pacifists are in the West," he
said, as if that ended the discussion.
In the netherlands, Wim Bartels of the Inter-Church Peace Council (IKV)
told a french television interviewer that he was "most suprised" by this
simplistic statement. "In five years time, with the currently planned
modernization[1], the number of French and British nuclear missles will be
greater than that of the Soviet intermediate-range missles now targeted
on Europe. There is no reason for the french to be so arrogant."a <<
From In These Times (ITT) Vol 8, #2,
Nov 16-22, 1983
(without permission) (don't tell them, o.k.?)
notes: (1) -- the French and British are MIRVing their missles. Hence the
increase.
Can the NATO allience continue to ignore the native Euromissles in their
bargining? If the information stated is correct, and the combined French and
British forces shall soon suffice to counter the Soviet deployment, what is
the motivation behind the on-going and continuing delopyment of our Pershings
and cruise missles? Perhaps there is a need for a Eurodefense based not on
American control and intervention, but on an internal structure.
To this end, Jacques Chirac told an audience of Christian Democratic Union
(a conservative german party) leaders that there should be a European solution
to the defense of Europe and that Germany should play a part in this solution.
Later in the article, it is mentioned that >> [ Socialist Jean-Pierre ]
Chevenment suggests that the "independence of Europe" can be assured by
French and British nuclear forces.<< However, this independence is at the
expense of the Germans since no republic in Europe (particularly the U.S.S.R.)
will tolerate a German Nuclear force.
This would seem to be sufficient, except that, in the views of General Pierre
Gallois, theoretician of the Gaullist "force de frappe", France should take
no action if the U.S.S.R. invades Germany. >> "Let time go by so the Soviets
can solve the German problem while we protect France. I prefer to have the
Soviet Army on Frances border to allowing France to be destroyed." Moreover,
he said he was "sure" that the Soviet Union would invade Germany in the next
20 years.<<
These statements came on the heals of the statements made by Chirac, and quite
alarmed the Germans. One must realise that Chirac and Gallois come from the
same political family. ITT felt that perhaps this was Gallois posing a problem
to allow Chirac propose a solution: A German nuclear force.
I'd like to hear any comments as to why people feel that these comments might
have been made, particularly since France has continously held the position
that the reuniting of Germany would lead to further war and struggle in
Europe. It seems rather counter-intuitive, however, my knowledge of European
politics is rather small. Perhaps some of the people on the European branch
of the Usenet might respond?
Additionally, how should the Franco-British forces be treated in the INF
talks? The U.S.S.R. is in the position that the SS-20's are in effect, the
only nuclear weapons protecting the Warsaw pact. However, it views them to
be in defense of the entire Pact, not just the U.S.S.R. Thus, it contends
that one much consider all missles in an allience if one wishes to discuss
reductions in good faith.
"glowingly yours"
Dirk Grunwald
University of Illinois
USENET : ihnp4 ! uiucdcs ! grunwald
CSNET : grunwald.uiuc@Rand-Relay