|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Defending Europe in the 1990s
| Article
# : |
15148 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
4 / 1989 |
1,959 Words |
| Author
: |
Rudy Boschwitz
Rudy Boschwitz is a Republican senator from Minnesota. He
serves on the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European
Affairs. |
"Europe's shores are our shores. Europe's borders are our
borders. We will stand with [the Europeans] in defense of
our heritage of liberty and dignity."
--President Reagan
On April 4, 1949, when the United States signed the North Atlantic Treaty, our country for the first time formally committed itself in peacetime to come to the military aid of Western Europe--an act unthinkable even a mere decade before. We had learned that our country could not risk dissociating itself from Western Europe if we were to protect our own freedom. This key reason behind NATO's creation has been a cornerstone of policy guiding every postwar administration.
As we celebrate NATO's 40th anniversary and begin a new administration here at home, it appears to be a particularly apt time to examine whether the alliance continues to be the best guardian of freedom for the West and, if so, how it should develop strategies to meet the new challenges we will face in the 1990s.
NATO continues to fulfill a vital and, for the foreseeable future, an irreplaceable mission. Indeed, the new Soviet leader and the new Soviet "thinking" present at least as great--and certainly a more subtle--challenge to the West as when the Soviets appeared more overtly menacing. Our success in dealing with Mikhail Gorbachev will depend largely on our ability to meet his challenge in a unified way. NATO provides the framework for that unity; its abandonment would leave each country in the alliance to face extremely important military and political questions on its own. Political confusion--and a greatly increased vulnerability--would be the results.
Moreover, as we move to fulfill the conditions of the INF agreement, the great Soviet superiority in conventional forces in Europe will be accentuated. As we approach new negotiations on reducing conventional forces and strategic arms, unified Western positions are essential. On a more pragmatic level, the existence of NATO helps each member minimize duplication in arms systems, allowing each to get the most "bang for the buck."
Four major differences between 1949 and 1989 stand out in shaping new directions and new concerns for the NATO alliance. The first is the existence of rough nuclear balance between the United States and the Soviet Union.
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
