Good Friends--Sort of

By Russ Hoyle

Despite a show of unity in Madrid, the rift over sanctions runs deep

One after another, foreign ministers of leading Western nations strode to the podium at Madrid's Palacio Nacional de Congresos and delivered scorching variations on a single theme. "The commitment of the Polish government to fulfill its obligations under the Helsinki accords has clearly been abandoned," charged Canadian External Affairs Minister Mark MacGuigan. Said Secretary of State Alexander Haig: "The generals in this war against the Polish people are none other than the Polish regime itself, acting at the instigation and coercion of the Soviet Union." Added West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher: "We cannot accept that the threat of force can be justified even when it is employed within an alliance."

That calculated Western onslaught was staged before some 300 representatives from 35 countries, reassembled at the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe to review the 1975 Helsinki accords for the first time since martial law was declared in Poland last Dec. 13. The speeches were too much for Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister Leonid Ilyichev. Said he: "We resolutely oppose the efforts forts of of the the NATO bloc, and of of the U.S. in particular, to put on yet another political farce." The torrent of Western condemnation, interrupted only sporadically by East bloc protests, continued for 4 1/2 hours before the hapless presiding chairman, Jozef Wiejacz, Poland's Deputy Foreign Minister, abruptly recognized a Czechoslovak motion to adjourn the day's session, a move made presumably at Soviet insistence. Wiejacz's parliamentary maneuver provoked even more vituperation from the West. Snapped French Foreign Minister Claude Cheysson, who was next in line when the speakers were cut off: "This is democracy `a la East." Added Javier Ruperez, Spanish delegate: "The Polish delegate has declared martial law in Madrid."

The acrimonious session did, however, have a bright side. It inspired spokesmen for the Western allies to join a forceful show of unity at a time when many European government leaders are at odds with U.S. policy on a number of fronts. They angrily blame their economic problems on what they see as the Reagan Administration's failure to bring down world interest rates and on a stubborn protectionist streak in U.S. trade policy. In addition, the Europeans object to seeming inconsistencies in American policy--like refusing to impose a grain embargo on the Soviets while simultaneously demanding sacrifices from the Europeans. Strained by a bewildering array of tensions, including disruptive left-wing demonstrations over nuclear disarmament and U.S. policy in El Salvador, the Western Alliance is in greater disarray than at any time since Jimmy Carter's sharp turn against the Soviets after the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

The Reagan Administration's aim in Madrid was to use the meeting as a forum to chastise Moscow and the government of General Wojciech Jaruzelski for imposing martial law in Poland. The U.S. also seriously contemplated a boycott of the Madrid talks unless martial law was eased or lifted. European diplomats who believe strongly in East-West dialogue--notably West Germany's Genscher--balked at the plan. But Haig managed to persuade them to agree to a unified gesture of condemnation. The Soviet-initiated suspension of the conference thus played right into into American hands. Explained a Canadian delegate: "The whole thing was a fabulous stroke of luck. We came here disagreeing on key points. Now the Russians have made everybody so angry through their arbitrary tactics that [we] are all rallying behind Haig."

The Americans took full advantage of their diplomatic windfall. After the chaotic session had ended, Chief U.S. Delegate Max Kampelman drove home the Administration view that the 1975 Helsinki accords, which are the basis for the 16-month-old Madrid conference and which are viewed in Western Europe as a framework for guaranteeing human rights in East bloc countries, have been effectively gutted by Soviet aggression. Said Kampelman: "It would appear as if the Soviet Union is acting to undermine both the letter and spirit of Helsinki." Haig contended that continuing the talks at this point would be to "simply condone the massive violations of the accords." Said he: "There is a very clear convergence of viewpoints on the Polish question. Never before have there been such unanimous views in NATO."

For the Secretary of State, Madrid was one stop on a week-long tour that took him to Portugal, Morocco and finally behind the Iron Curtain to Rumania. The Secretary did not miss the opportunity to underscore firmly the U.S. position on Poland as he arrived in Bucharest, though he took care to cloak his message in diplomatic language. Said Haig: "Recent events in Eastern Europe and elsewhere in the world have emphasized once again the problems facing many countries as they attempt to pursue their national destinies free from outside interference."

But even the allies' show of harmony at Madrid could hardly disguise the disunity within the Western Alliance. Less than two months after President Reagan's unilateral decision to impose mild economic sanctions on Poland and the Soviet Union, the European allies, except for Great Britain and Portugal, have failed to impose economic sanctions independent of the U.S.'s, despite an agreement to examine possible measures at a special NATO ministers meeting in January.

France effectively snubbed Washington in late January by signing a contract with Moscow for a share in the $15 billion Soviet natural gas pipeline that will stretch 3,000 miles from Siberia to Western Europe. Last week a group of French banks extended the Soviets $140 million in credit to help finance the deal. Both West Germany and Italy are also committed to supplying credits and technology for the pipeline. Administration officials believe that the project, which when completed (current target: late 1984) will pump more than 40 billion cubic meters of natural gas to Western Europe, will only increase European dependence on Moscow. What is worse, say U.S. officials, the deal will ultimately provide the Soviets with hard currency to continue their arms buildup. Even the British lack enthusiasm for economic sanctions, though Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's government a week ago announced restrictions on Soviet and Polish diplomats, reduced landing rights for the Polish national airline, LOT, and imposed tougher standards for technology transfer to East bloc countries. As one senior British diplomat put it, "We don't think sanctions work. We have tried them before and know how ineffective they are."

The Europeans are reluctant to endanger their crucial commercial interests at a time when Washington's official posture on American companies involved in the pipeline is, to say the least, ambiguous. President Reagan has already barred U.S. companies from any direct involvement in the pipeline. That will almost certainly result in delay of the project. But the Administration has hesitated to turn the screws even further by blocking the export of technology, intended for the pipeline, that has already been licensed by U.S. companies for production by European firms. Reason: any attempt by the U.S. to cut off those agreements retroactively would be a severe blow to European faith in the reliability of major U.S. companies (among them, General Electric and Caterpillar Tractor Co.). As a result of U.S. indecision, European businesses continue to produce U.S.-licensed equipment, such as turbines, pumps and compressors, that are intended for the Soviet pipeline.

The Reagan Administration once again found itself in the embarrassing position last week of having two top officials in public disagreement over sanctions. Haig and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, both on overseas trips, managed to renew their differences only weeks after National Security Adviser William Clark was installed to help avoid such conflict. Weinberger has consistently argued for revoking the licenses and invoking even stronger restrictions on East-West trade to ensure that Western technology is "not exploited to make good the chronic deficiencies of the Communist system." Weinberger, who is especially critical of the European allies' involvement in the Soviet pipeline, sharpened his criticism in a 324-page message sent to Congress during his stay in Saudi Arabia last week. Said he: "No defense policy could succeed in the long run unless [we pursue] a policy that ensures that our resources will not be diverted to strengthen our adversary."

Haig, by contrast, is far more sympathetic to the economic plight of the Western European allies. He is prepared to go along with continued licensing and argues, as he did in Madrid last week, that the U.S. "recognizes that our European partners have their own imperatives." Admitting that the U.S. has failed so far to provide Western Europe with "attractive alternatives" to Soviet energy, he also attempted to downplay the dispute within the Administration over the pipeline. The U.S. position, he said, had been a "longstanding and consistent" concern that the Western European allies "not permit themselves to become overly dependent on Eastern sources for natural gas or any other energy product."

The European response to U.S. pressure on cutting back economic relations with the Soviets ranges from open hostility to quiet contempt. Fumed French Premier Pierre Mauroy: "I cannot accept to hear the Americans--who for so many years have wasted their energy--come and try to teach lessons to countries that are short of energy resources." Danish Prime Minister Anker Jo/rgensen charged last week that U.S. policy "is dangerous, senseless, and seriously lessens the chances of cooperation between the United States and Europe." But French Foreign Minister Claude Cheysson perhaps more accurately reflected official European opinion: "We should not punish ourselves with sanctions because there are developments in Europe we don't like. We need gas."

Indeed, part of the problem is that a decade of detente, and the accompanying increase in East-West trade, has spun a web of interdependence between the two blocs. Two-way trade between the industrial West and the Warsaw Pact countries--$11 billion a decade ago--reached a total of $90 billion in 1980. Of that, $77 billion was between Western Europe and the East bloc. West Germany's steel production is currently tied up in East bloc contracts, and more than 300,000 of the country's workers have jobs directly dependent on Soviet trade. Acknowledges one State Department analyst: "The trade issue is absolutely critical for the Europeans."

Shortly before he went into the hospital for heart surgery in Boston, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told the German weekly Der Spiegel: "The entire deportment of the Western allies gives the impression of indecision and disunity. The alliance has a lot of possibilities before it, and it is the duty of the member states to decide on these possibilities." Unfortunately, the one option that might make European governments more receptive to U.S. leadership, namely a renewed grain embargo against the Soviets, has been ruled out by Reagan. It remains to be seen whether the Alliance can also forge a coordinated strategy on the export of sophisticated technology to the Soviets or establish a firm policy on future default of Poland's massive debt to the West.

Nonetheless, few European political leaders believe that the differences over sanctions will permanently cripple the Alliance. "The feeling is that we are not dealing with a coup deforce of such proportions that it challenges the whole process of East-West trade built up in the years of detente," says a high French official. Rather, most see in the current divisions only a continuation of the political and military squabbles that have plagued but not destroyed the Alliance for decades. At bottom, both Europeans and Americans believe that the Soviets are ideologically bankrupt and militarily dangerous. To Europe, that should not preclude trading with them. To the U.S. and, as last week's show of unity in Madrid indicated, to the Europeans as well, the Soviets are also in need of a good tongue lashing now and then. --By Russ Hoyle. Reported by Lawrence Malkin/Paris and William Rademaekers/Madrid

With reporting by Lawrence MaIkin/Paris, William Rademaekers/Madrid

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