Within the Western Alliance, reel 1

Oregon educational broadcasting in cooperation with the Foreign

Policy Association presents United States foreign policy

demands of the next decade.

On the occasion of its 50th anniversary the Foreign Policy

Association of the United States organized a traveling foreign

policy conference. This is the first of a series of seven

programs developed from that conference based on the theme

demands of the next decade. These programs are designed to

stimulate the thinking of an armed form the American public about some of the issues

to be faced by the nation during the coming decade.

Our guests on these seven programs may be considered among the most

distinguished group of foreign policy experts ever assembled for such a

task. Today's program is subtitled. Within

the Western alliance. Future programs will consider such

topics as the communist world projections Asia

projections Africa and projections. Latin America.

Joseph C. Harsch debuts our program series with today's topic

within the Western alliance. Mr. harsh is a commentator and

correspondent on the ABC News staff in Washington D.C..

He has broadcast and written from Berlin and the Pacific and from London as

senior European correspondent for NBC. Author

columnist and lecturer Joseph C. Harsch wrote the book's pattern of

conquest. And the curtain isn't iron. He has written for The

Christian Science Monitor for 37 years and currently does

three columns a week. Following Mr harshest prepared lecture he will

respond to questions. Joseph C. Harsch within the

Western alliance.

I think the most important thing to notice about Western Europe today is that the United States

has for about three years been looking away from him. We have

roughly now for three years been specializing in Southeast Asia.

I almost feel and it's necessary to remind people where Western

Europe is just it. Well

do I need to it is a peninsula loosely associated with a cluster of off shore islands

lying to the north west of Thailand and attention forgotten.

Now while we have been specializing in Southeast Asia to

overstate a little bit France has taken charge of Western Europe and

Russia of the Mediterranean Sea. We

have not lost all our ability to influence events in other parts of the world.

We still are have one country solidly aligned with us in the Middle East and vice

versa. But in Western Europe it is difficult anymore to

say that there is a solid alignment between the United States and any of our former

allies. There is a residual of the nature of the lines.

There are still ahead of us and the machinery left over from the great

days of. Of the Cold War but

the machinery has become rusty the fabric has shrunk.

And the question the immediate question is how much is going to survive

the present period of a strange month between ourselves and the Western

Europeans. Let us go across the line country by country

first and just see where each one stands. The most important single fact about

Germany is that it is reached the natural time of release from penance for

past misdeeds. The Germans ever since World War 2

have played a passive role in Europe. That period is coming to an

end now. As a new generation takes over the leadership of the

country made up of people who are neither guilty for the sins of their fathers nor

conscious of any reason to feel guilty. The Germans are ready to step forth with

earned self respect on the world stage. They are doing so at the present

moment their chosen first partner is friends. And

their latest new friend is Rumania. Turned to France itself.

France has recovered fully from the indignity of defeat in World War 2

while the more sophisticated Frenchmen are embarrassed by the posturings of the most

anachronistic figure of the century. But they also recognize that in fact

he is the top figure of Europe today whether French hegemony

in Europe can survive the departure of Charles to go on for other lands to

conquer does remain to be seen. But as of today is the

plane not some people do think that when he goes the result will be chaos and

another period of great weakness for France. But the plain fact of today

is that Charles De Gaulle is the most influential single person

living between New York City and the Ural Mountains. Some would say between the

Pacific Ocean and the Ural Mountains. Britain is just going

through the painful experience of having to give up an empire in order

to gain economic health at home. The renunciation of empire is

complete.

Whether it will produce the intended reward of economic affluence back in Britain

remains to be seen. Among Britons at the moment. Confidence in it

happening under the leadership of Mr Harold Wilson seems to be

declining. Meanwhile the renunciation of empire is in

fact ending the once vigorous lively special

relationship between Great Britain and the United States. But I

think relatively few people have realised or noticed is that the last remaining

area in which that special relationship was exercised. Was in the

area of intelligence gathering. The last time

historically when you had to close an active partnership between the United States and

Britain was in the Korean War the there was

a very active and effective British participation in the United

Nations side in that war which gave considerable meaning to the

structure that had been built up in World War Two of constant

can consultation between the two countries.

In fact at the end of World War 2 you had a

combined and general stuff of the Armed Forces of the two countries we

were as far as military or affairs were concerned virtually one nation

that has been gradually pulled apart bit by bit. The last time it was

exercised on the field of battle was the Korean War. It

was very heavily damaged by the Suez crisis because in

that crisis rightly or wrongly when the British fleet with the troop

transports were headed through the Med towards the eastern Mediterranean

an American fleet part of the Sixth Fleet came happened across the bows of the

British fleet. It has never yet been disclosed.

As to whether the maneuver by the American fleet was intentional or

accidental whether it was done to try as a sort of a last warning to the

British not to do what they did. The fact is that throughout the British armed services

there is a widespread belief that it was on the verge of

being a hostile act on our part towards them. There has never

been really close intimate military collaboration between the two

countries since then. The special relationship has survived

in two areas. Among the diplomats

it has survived in that during the period of World War Two.

Most go almost say all of the young men who are at the top and middle

levels of the British and the American foreign services work intimate in the

posts leading together all over the world so that there's a vast

interlocking relationship of personal friendship.

A young British Foreign Service officer posted to the embassy in Washington

instantly know how often people in the state department of the upper and middle

levels but sent this personal relationship was built out of the

partnership of World War Two. It does not touch those who

have come into the two services since the war so that the closeness is a

declining condition or rather of a condition that is moving up with the age

groups and eventually disappears when the age group of men that served together

during World War 2 have all retired. The

last special area of active collaboration was then

has been in the field of intelligence gathering to use am I

a five not too accurately but merely as a label because James

Bond has made MIT five a phrase that we all understand. Actually

MIT 5 does not do the intelligence gathering it's another branch of British intelligence.

But if we say CIA on am I five you all know what I mean. And I say

that in spite of the fact that both CIA and my five had their

defectors which have been embarrassing to each in

turn they have of greatly value each other because

they were the only two intelligence services that covered the whole

world. And that reflected the interests of governments interested in affairs throughout the

whole world. But as of a month ago as you know the British government

has elected to abandon to give up all

of its responsibilities and its military positions East of

Suez. This doesn't happen instantly and it is a gradual

cutting down of phasing down and out. But the announcement of the intent to pull back has

been made and that is just as good as the actual pullout because once a

great power has announced that it's giving something up it has instantly

lost the effective power to influence events in that part of the world. So

the announcement by Harold Wilson that the British were withdrawing from East of

Suez. Has. Given everybody knows that

human nature will take its course in those areas. This announcement came as a

terrible disappointment in Washington. We had know that the British

economy could no longer sustain the burden of world power

that it had been carrying up to the time in fact still is caring to some extent.

But we had not expected them to pose a whole thing

apart to dismantle everything. It was the profound hope of Washington

that they would not cancel the entirety of their order for

F-111. They did cancel along with our profound hope that

while we knew they were going to announce a considerable withdrawal from East of Suez

that at least they would not announce a withdrawal from the Persian Gulf. They

proceeded to announce a lot. It was everything

it was phrased in terms of Britain turning away from overseas

empire to continental Europe and it meant to

us two things A that the British were giving up their role in parts of the

world that interested us. In other words that there was no longer

going to be a common interest in say the affairs of

Malaysia or the affairs of India or Burma or Ceylon or anything like that

up to this time whenever we in the British got together

we had a common interest in discussing the welfare of a given area of the world the

problems of the area. The moment they announced the withdrawal from East of Suez

it meant there was no longer that area of mutual interest for

discussion for exchanges of ideas for exchange of responsibility.

But even more than that it meant that the British government no longer being

interested in the whole world is not supplying its

intelligence gathering services with the means of continuing

to be actively interested in the events of the whole world.

CIA has relied quite heavily on the British for information

about events inside China. They have always maintained a diplomatic mission in

China as you know. We have not recognized China since the Communists took it over so that we

have no intelligence gathering network inside China except such

Chinese as Jews who work for us there are a potential slate which isn't quite as good as

having some of your own people there. So that they've been valuable

to us. In all those parts of the world where we're not represented

there's been a great deal of exchange of very lively and active exchange of information

between our intelligence services. All these years. Now this is bound to

come to an end now because the British are no longer interested in any part of the world except

Europe. They pulled out of everything else they're handing it over they're going home.

Now let's briefly the rest of Europe. I think it can be dismissed as simply is this to

say that it's rich it's getting richer and daily less meaningful

in terms of power in the world. Right now it's really of the other European powers

is getting rich faster than any of the others and plays a role ro by

protesting America's war in Vietnam. Only miles away.