Suchergebnisse

The prospect of a European federation has aroused great enthusiasm in the United States, but at the same time the difficulties encountered in its realization have generated a host of frustrations. It is not unusual, after five years of costly effort, to hear that the moment of crisis has arrived; that we must either push ruthlessly toward the goal, or abandon not only integration but possibly assistance to Europe as well. Perhaps these are the only alternatives that confront the United States. But before we fasten on to them irrevocably, it may be well to ask once more: What is the nature of the area that we are attempting to integrate, and how has our thought on the subject developed? Some appreciation of the recent history and problems of Europe, and of the circumstances that inspired postwar American policy, may help to determine whether or not the range of choice is as narrow as it looks at present to the United States.

Excerpts from report to the 22d congress of the Communist party of the Soviet Union, Moscow, Oct. 17, 1961.

The Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) held the second part of its fourth session in Paris from December 17 to 20, 1958, under the presidency of Sir James Hutchison (British Conservative). In the course of the session, the Assembly was addressed by the Foreign Ministers of Belgium, the German Federal Republic, and the Netherlands, by the United Kingdom Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, by the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (M. Spaak), and by the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (General Norstad). The Supreme Commander considered that if a demilitarized zone was established in Europe, as suggested in the Rapacki Plan, his task would become impossible; M. Spaak also had little faith in a denuclearized zone, in an era of intercontinental missiles.

The first part of the fourth session of the Assembly of the Western European Union (WEU) was held July 2–5, 1958, in Paris, under the presidency of Sir James Hutchison (United Kingdom, Conservative). In the course of its discussion of military questions, the Assembly debated three reports and took note of a communication by M. Etienne de la Vallée Poussin (Belgium, Social Christian) on the responsibility of WEU in military policy. After its consideration of the request for an opinion from the Consultative Assembly on the military implications of regional or limited disarmament or of the policy of disengagement in central Europe, the Assembly adopted a resolution rejecting the Rapacki Plan and stating that disengagement which implied a withdrawal of United States and Soviet troops would be highly dangerous to the west unless it took place under certain express conditions, one of these being that neutralization of western Germany could not form part of such a policy. The Assembly also adopted a resolution and a recommendation on WEU's contribution to the production of armaments within the Atlantic alliance; the resolution allowed for the creation of a committee of investigation of five members, to be nominated by the Presidential Committee. In connection with the state of European security the Council approved by 50 votes to 6, with 8 abstentions, a recommendation from its defense committee calling for a minimum land force in central Europe of 30 divisions, with tactical nuclear weapons. There was to be no reduction in the contribution of member states, according to the recommendation, and they were to bring their contingents up to the agreed level.

The Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) held the first part of its sixth ordinary session in Paris from May 31 to June 3, 1960. After Mr. Badini Confalonieri (Italian Liberal) had been reelected President of the Assembly, the first item of business was the presentation of the fifth report of the Council of WEU, covering the period from January 1 to December 31, 1959, by Mr. van Houten, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands and Chairman ad interim of the Council. In connection with the transfer of social and cultural activities from WEU to the Council of Europe, he pointed out that, by means of partial agreements, the seven governments of WEU remained free to undertake new activities either among themselves or within the framework of the WEU Council, and that only the implementation of current activities was to become the responsibility of the Council of Europe. Speaking next of the Standing Armaments Committee and of the Agency for the Control of Armaments, Mr. van Houten stated that the procedure for cooperation in the field of equipment formulated by the Committee had been successful and that the Control Agency had continued to develop its activities. Concluding his report, he pointed to the importance of political consultations within WEU as a means of enabling members to discuss differences of opinion and thereby come nearer to a solution. In the general debate which followed, members stressed the importance of cooperation in armaments and civil defense.