How to Dodge the Torpedo

Two articulate proponents of the American and European points of view on the nature of the alliance--and who was letting down whom--had a lively exchange at a lunch with TIME editors that provided a rare glimpse of the emotions underlying diplomatic relations. What sparked the debate was the charge that the Europeans had not rallied to Carter's call for support in dealing with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but the discussion covered the broader question of Europe's policy toward the Kremlin. Speaking for the U.S.: William Hyland, 51, now retired from a career that took him to the top levels of the State Department and the CIA. Hyland spent eight years as an aide to Henry Kissinger in the White House and State Department. Speaking for Europe: Karl Kaiser, 44, the director of the Research Institute of the German Society for Foreign Affairs in Bonn and professor of politics at the University of Cologne.

Hyland: Many Americans take the view that the West Europeans have been laggard, hesitant and weak, if not in total opposition to American policy. All this has been under the guise of a lot of talk about "special relationships" that they have to protect. The French have been their usual insidious, sinister selves. The Germans have taken comfort in the fact that they've got the French to move three degrees away from their destructive, obstructive policies.

Why should the Soviets worry about what the Europeans are going to do, given the way the Europeans have behaved? Why should the Soviets try to make some deal [on Afghanistan], when the Europeans--except for the British --have done absolutely nothing to cause the Soviets any concern at all?

Speaking from the American side, I think the Europeans have been way behind in all this, and they've got a lot of catching up to do. I don't think it's a great accomplishment that Europe has shown it can agree on a communique or two. As for the whole business about how the West Europeans have to think first about building Europe, that's talk from ten years ago. It is no longer an excuse for lack of a supportive policy.

Kaiser: I don't think you're fair. Let me go a step further and make a counterassault. The view you're expressing has been passed on from time to time in a semiofficial way, and it is really counterproductive. It irritates the Europeans because they feel they are doing a number of constructive things. It is certainly not correct to say that the Europeans have done absolutely nothing. If you put together all the measures, you come up with quite a list of actions.* Nor can you blame the Europeans for not coming forth with immediate answers when the Americans themselves don't know what they want to do. It is false to ask us to produce instant answers when you don't have them yourselves, answers without prior notice or consultation, or when deep down Washington is divided as to the effectiveness of the proposed measures. It is certainly not helpful in the transatlantic dialogue.

Many Europeans say, "We need a joint response; we agree with the U.S.; we agree with the principle of drawing the line; we'll do it jointly and we'll divide the work; now let's figure out how to do it." Isn't that the only sensible thing we can do at the moment? I think on the whole, the ship is moving in the right direction. Let's not torpedo it.

*Examples: giving military assistance to Turkey; aiding African states; adopting a nuclear modernization program.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.