MAY 30, 1984

FRANÇOIS
DE ROSE

FEW ALLIANCES IN HISTORY HAVE LASTED SO LONG AS THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION. NONE HAVE ACHIEVED AS HIGH A DEGREE OF INTEGRATION OF MILITARY ORGANIZATIONS AND COORDINATION OF FOREIGN POLICY. WHILE NATO HAS EXISTED EUROPE HAS KNOWN THE LONGEST PERIOD OF UNINTERRUPTED PEACE SINCE THE STATE SYSTEM ORIGINATED THE MODERN PERIOD.

WHAT THEN AMOUNTS FOR THE RESTLESSNESS OF SO MANY THOUGHTFUL OVSERVERS? PART OF ITS REASON UNDOUBTEDLY IS THE VERY SUCCESS OF NATO. A GENERATION GROWN ACCUSTOMED TO PEACE HAS LOST THE CONVICTION ABOUT ITS CAUSES. IT IS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE WHY SOMETHING HAS _NOT_ HAPPENED. WAS WAR AVOIDED BECAUSE DETERRENCE WORKED OR BECAUSE THERE WAS NEVER ANY

2

THREAT OF AGGRESSION? IS THE WESTERN DEFENSE EFFORT
A NECESSITY OR A WASTE OF RESOURCES? HAVING EXPERIENCED
NO INTERNATIONAL CRISIS CENTERED ON EUROPE, THOSE
WHO HAVE GROWN UP SINCE THE END OF THE WAR -- SOON
TO BE A MAJORITY -- SHARE NEITHER THE CONVICTION
OF DANGER OF THOSE WHO CREATED NATO NOR THEIR COMMITMENT
TO ATLANTIC TIES.

BUT EVEN THOSE WHO HAVE RETAINED THE TRADITIONAL
CONVICTIONS FACE NEW COMPLEXITIES. FOR UNITY BASED ON
PREMISES OUTSTRIPPED BY TECHNOLOGY CAN ITSELF BECOME
AN ELEMENT OF INSECURITY. AND THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION
ABOUT THE TRANSFORMATION OF WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY SINCE
THE EARLY DAYS OF THE ATLANTIC ALLIANCE. WHEN NATO
WAS FORMED THE UNITED STATES HAD AN ATOMIC MONOPOLY.
WHEN THAT ENDED, THE UNITED STATES POSSESSED A MARGIN
OF NUCLEAR SUPERIORITY THAT ENABLED IT TO THREATEN

3

CREDIBLY THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS AS THE MAIN DETERENT
TO SOVIET AGGRESSION. SINCE THE MIDDLE SIXTIES THE
GROWTH OF NUCLEAR STOCKPILES HAS OVERTURNED THAT
EQUATION. IN THE PAST, NATIONS WENT TO WAR BECAUSE
THE CONSEQUENCES OF DEFEAT APPEARED TO OUTWEIGH THE
RISKS OF RESISTANCE. THE NUCLEAR AGE THREATENS TO
REVERSE THAT CALCULATION. A GROWING NUMBER OF CRITICS
ADVOCATE WHAT AMOUNTS TO ABDICATION; THE STRATEGY
OF THE ATLANTIC ALLIANCE HAS BECOME CONTROVERSIAL.

SOME FAVOR CONTINUATION OF THE STATUS QUO. OTHERS
ADVOCATE A RENUNCIATION OF WEAPONS OR AT LEAST THE
FIRST USE OF THEM. NEITHER COURSE CAN GUIDE THE
FUTURE OF THE ALLIANCE. THE STATUS QUO HAS LOST
CREDIBILITY WITH THE ADVERSARY AND THE PUBLIC. A
RECOMMENDATION OF NO FIRST USE INDICATES THAT ONE
WOULD RATHER BE DEFEATED BY CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS
THAN TO RESORT TO THE NUCLEAR ARSENAL. IT MAY THEREFORE

4

INVITE AGGRESSION SINCE HISTORICALLY DETERRENCE WITH
PURELY CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS HAS PROVED ABSURD. HOW
TO REDUCE THE RISK OF NUCLEAR WAR WITHOUT INVITING
CONVENITONAL AGGRESSION? HOW TO PRESERVE ATLANTIC
UNITY WHILE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALTERED PATTERNS
OF DISTRIBUTION OF ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL POWER?

THE POLITICAL TRANSFORMATION IS EQUALLY DRAMATIC.

IN THE 1950'S EUROPE WAS ECONOMICALLY PROSTRATE AND
MILITARILY IMPOTENT. THE UNITED STATES ECONOMY REPRESENTED
50% OF THE WORLD'S GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT. SINCE THEN
EUROPE HAS RECOVERED A GREAT DEAL OF ECONOMIC VITALITY.

THE U.S. SHARE OF THE WORLD'S GNP HAS SHRUNK TO 22%-25%.
THE UNITED STATES HAS SECURITY OBLIGATIONS IN
MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD WHICH WERE DORMANT IN THE
FIFITES. A REALLOCATION OF PHYSICAL BURDENS IS
THEREFORE IMPERATIVE. BUT A NEW DIVISION OF POLITICAL
AND PSYCHOLOGICAL IS EVEN MORE CRITICAL. IT IS NOT

5

NATURAL FOR A CONTINENT OF EUROPE'S HISTORY AND RESOURCES
TO DELEGATE MOST SIGNIFICANT SECURITY DECISIONS TO
AN ALLY 3000 MILES AWAY. THIS BREEDS SUSPENSIBILITY ON
BOTH SIDES OF THE ATLANTIC. A LARGER ROLE FOR EUROPE
IS A NECESSITY IF ALLIED UNITY IS TO CONTINUE WITH THE
NEXT GENERATION.

FRANCOIS DE ROSE HAS FACED THESE DILEMMAS AND
OFFERED A REMEDY. FEW ARE AS WELL-QUALIFIED FOR
THIS TASK BOTH BY CONVICTION AND BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.

FRANCOIS DE ROSE HAS CONTRIBUTED TO STRATEGIC AND
POLITICAL THINKING IN THE ALLIANCE AS AN INDIVIDUAL
AND IN MANY OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; HIS LAST POST WAS
DISTINGUISHED TERM AS FRENCH AMBASSADOR TO NATO.

HE REPRESENTED A COUNTRY WHOSE DEFENSE POLICY WAS
A SEEMING PARADOX: REJECTING NATO INTEGRATION BUT
STRONGLY AFFIRMING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ALLIANCE.
HAVING ASSUMED RESPONSIBILTY FOR ITS OWN DEFENSE

6

IT COULD NOT ESCAPE A REALISTIC ASSESSMENT OF THE
NEED FOR JOINT ACTION -- HOWEVER ORGANIZED.

FRANCOISE DE ROSE HAS BEEN A PASSIONATE BELIEVER
IN ATLANTIC UNITY. HE HAS HAD THE COURAGE TO CHALLENGE
FASHIONABLE THEORIES. HE BELIEVES NEITHER IN TRADITIONAL
NATO DOCTRINES NOR IN THE RENUNCIATION OF THE WEAPONS
AROUND WHICH OUR STRATEGY HAS DEVELOPED. HE URGES
A GREATER RELIANCE ON CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE. HE CALLS
FOR GREATER EUROPEAN UNITY TO ASSUME THAT RESPONSIBILITY.
HE RECOGNIZES THAT IN THE END THE WEST MUST KEEP
OPEN THE OPTION OF NUCLEAR DEFENSE AND HE OFFERS
VALUABLE SUGGESTIONS FOR LINKING THE DEFENSE OF EUROPE
AND THE UNITED STATES.

PERSONALLY, I AGREE WITH HIS PHILISOPHY AND ALMOST
ALL OF HIS RECOMMENDATIONS. BUT THAT IS NOT THE
KEY ISSUE. MORE IMPORTANT IS THE FACT THAT NO