GAULLE DOOMED THE NATO ALLIANCE?
By Gerhardt Knebel.
After a long search, it proved. possible to find the H~bomb:.. that fell into the Mediterranean following a mid-air collision . between an American bomber and a tanker plane. No doubt it. was quickly defused.
The diplomatic bomb that. de Gaulle placed on the table at NATO . headquarters for: the consideration. of his fourteen allies is a different matter. All of them see it, all of them hear: it- ticking; but no one knows how to defuse it; no one knows whether it will. just. give off a harmless cloud of smoke that. will finally drift away, or whether it will shatter the whole NATO structure like a blockbuster,
De Gaulle's unvarnished views and opinions were clearly _ expressed in the ‘French memorandum of March 9 to the members of the alliance: .
at) nn eo
ay hg. a member of “the “‘abibntie pact: hanes” biédges” aempril city and solidarity with the imperialist industrial countries: aoainetin: the noncapitalist countries and the’ "third world" of underdeveloped. *. nations. If de Gaulle in theory holds the nation to be an’ enduring +. | entity standing above its changing social systems, he nevertheless conceives the "grandeur" of France: to:resti solely on the foundation of monopoly capitalism ~~ one’ with: competing large concerns -which he hopes to build-at the cost of the workers under: a Five Year Plan and with a modern capitalistic national economy erected at the: expense of his Common Market partners.
(2) France withdraws from the "integrated" military setup of: . the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, withdraws its officers from.) the unified command units, demands French control over the NATO bases in France and respectfully requests that the NATO High.Command and the NATO Central European High Command get out of France. France is willing to leave its two divisions in West ‘Germany under & special provision. Xo be defined later. .
The grounds given in de Gaulle Ss. memorandum ‘for. his move - are. Hs very interesting. Unfortunately, we can touch on these only briefly.
according to the: ‘tiémorandun , ‘there: is no longer a direct. threat in Europe"; secondly, "France has acquired an atomic armament of a type that excludes any form of integration"; finally, the nuclear equality between the USA and the Soviet Union, "which has .succeeded the earlier American’ monopoly, has changed the general conditions for the’ defense of the West."
If. ATO were,.a-defensive organization, as it always ‘used “to. be pictured, then it is difficult to see how the threat of war ‘in Europe could disappear through the breaking of the American atomic monopoly. We have held that NATO, particularly in the period of John Foster‘Dulles' "roll-back" policy, was aimed aggressively at: -
the workers states and that-if. the danger of war and a "crusade to the East" declined it was due to the increase in Soviet atomic armaments. Is de Gaulle saying this in a diplomatic way?
Leaving this aside, de Gaulle in any case confirms what we and the antinuclear protest movement have long asserted -- a war in Europe with all its criminal atrocities has become impossible asa "reasonable" means of settling questiens, since any such war would necessarily escalate into an atomic conflict. And de Gaulle confirms the view that atomic arms are in fundamental contradiction to any kind of alliance inasmuch as no member would permit another member to drag At into. an atomic war. :
‘Concerning de Gaulle! s aims in striking this blow against _ NATO, speculation has varied. It appears to us that what he is seeking to do primarily is to demonstrate his independence from Washington in the international arena in a dramatic way, thus opening the possibility, in conjunction with French capacities in nuclear. weapons, of playing a greater role in world politics than is justified by French atomic strength.
-.As an alternative to the "integrated" NATO, in which the United States holds an unassailable leading position, de Gaulle is working for an independent West Europe, federated economically, politically and militarily, but not integrated.
In such a Europe, the leading role would fall to France (along ~ with England eventually), thanks to the "force de frappe" [atomic striking force]. This capitalist West Europe could then nurture the economic and cultural contacts with East. Europe that would later contribute to restoring capitalism in that area.
De Gaulle appears to discount the. danger that France's withdrawal..from NATO might increase the relative weight of West Germany, contribute to its securing atomic arms and lead to the formation of a Washington-Bonn axis directed against the East. He adheres, it would seem, to the concept that the nuclear "balance of terror," as. well as common opposition to China, will bring Washington and Moscow into a "partnership" that Washington would not relinquish for the sake of Bonn.
“De Gaulle may recall that in its time, bourgeois England joined in an alliance with the feudal powers in Europe against the French bourgeois revolution (thus putting national above class interests). He may calculate on a similar development in the three-cornered rivalry of the U.S.A., the Soviet Union and China. Unfortunately, the national policies of the. "Communist" leaderships in Moscow and Peking are scarcely designed to discourage such calculations,
Will de Gaulle's grandiose concept of an independent Europe (extending some day to the Urals) under French leadership be realized? The first stage -- "West Europe" -- has already run into insurmnountable-obstacles. In neither West Germany nor England is there. os eny likelihood of forces emerging in the near future that would seri- ... ously oppose American dominance and lend support to ‘de Gaulle.
Yet it must not be overlooked that de Gaulle .is basing himself on real, present tendencies of development. The verbal pledges of the other NATO states to continue the integrated military organization even without France does not hide the fact that removal of the French beam has left the framework shaky.
The question of whether or not to follow de Gaulle's example will be carefully weighed in Norway where the ‘leftist Socialist party, despite its numerical weakness, holds something of a key position. It is well known that Greece and Turkey, the partners in southeast. Europe, are antagonistic and. both are angry at the U.S. In Italy, in Bélgiun, ‘in Denmark, the démand to withdraw from NATO will find ~~ more of an echo. Even in West Germany "Signals and signs" can be noted, like Adenauer's sudden discovery that the Soviet Union wants peace, or the credits underwritten by the West German government, in open disregard of American wishes, to construct a giant steel plant in the People's Republic of China.
“In view of ‘the temporary _ impossibility of cracking open the East & ‘European markets by military force, sharpening capitalist ‘conpetition necessarily operates as the main divisive factor in the © capitalist NATO alliarice, leading to anti-American tendencies and to competition in peaceful penetration of the markets of the noncapitalist states.
This situation opens up new possibilities for' action by the socialist left: sharpened struggle in England and Germany against the pro-American policy of the Labour party ‘and of the Social Democratic party, for an independent left-wing policy; in-France, a struggle for complete withdrawal from NATO and the liquidation of. the ."force de frappe";*a general struggle for withdrawal from NATO and for a denuclearized Europe with the pérspective of 8 United: States of Europe.
If the left fails in this. struggle, then the developments which were given impetus by de Gaulle's move threaten to lead to a strengthening of the national ‘capitalist forces in West Europe (most. dangerously in West Germany) and national bureaucratic forces in East Europe ,. with unforeseeable consequences. There are no ‘grounds , therefore, for complacent rejoicing over de Gaulle's blow against NATO; what should be done is to take active advantage of it for the benefit of peace and the development of socialism.