Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: EuroMissiles and Belgium
Message-ID: <500@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Jan-85 11:01:56 EST
Article-I.D.: fisher.500
Posted: Thu Jan 24 11:01:56 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Jan-85 07:56:05 EST
References: <579@tty3b.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 72

>The Chicago Tribune ran an editorial yesterday (1/20) on "The Belgian
>Solution", which is the approach that the Belgian Prime Minister is
>taking to deployment of U.S. missiles in his country.  Basically,
>the Prime Minister is facing elections within the next eleven months,
>at a time when polls show 47% of Belgians oppose deployment and only
>18% support it.  He is appealing to Washington to let him delay
>deployment until after the election so he doesn't lose.  Reagan has
>"warned" the Prime Minister not to delay deployment

>Does the Tribune suggest that he listen to the near-majority in his
>country and tell the U.S. where it can put its missiles?   No, that he
>show some "political courage" and continue with the deployment as
>scheduled.  I guess that's the same kind of "political courage" shown
>by the Polish government in responding to Solidarity, or the "courage"
>shown by Reagan himself in ignoring the call for serious
>arms negotiations by a large majority of Americans.

>Seldom is it so clear just who calls the shots in Europe.  In the East,
>it is undoubtedly the USSR.  This makes it very clear who Big Brother
>is in the West.

>Mike Kelly

Responsable government makes its decisions based on the national
INTEREST, not the national DESIRE.  It is the the Belgian government's
raison d'etre to make decisions based on its evaluation of reality,
and then answer to the Belgian people at the polls for its decisions.
To implicitly suggest, as Mike does, that government policies ought to
bow to public opinion in all cases would transform the Democratic
Republics of the West into Direct Democracies, and replace our
admittedly flawed political class with one of demagogues.  Mike, if a
Gallup poll were released tomorrow showing similar margins of approval
for legal racial discrimination or disbandment of the Armed Forces,
would you rush to insist that those desires be legislated immediately?
I would hope my government would resist wrong or unwise policies, and
instead attempt to sway it citizens otherwise.

The difference between the Reagan administration's reluctance to press
arms negotiation (and the hypothetical deployment of cruise missiles
in Belgium) and the Polish government's surpression of Solidarity is
that in the former two cases, the decision makers must answer for
their decisions (which, incidentally, they exercised under a
constitution which has popular consent for its methods) to both the
courts and the people.  Jaruzelski did not have those constraints.

One can freely speak of "political courage" so long as decision makers
are held responsable to a broad electorate.  This is such a case, and
it is clear that the European governments do believe the cruise
missiles are in their best interests, and stated as much when there
was little public pressure.  Remember, it was Helmut Schmidt, speaking
with the approval of his continental allies, who requested the
deployment of these missiles from Jimmy Carter.

Finally, equating Soviet control over the Warsaw Pact with US
"control" of NATO is a willful act of naivete.  If the US "controlled"
NATO, there would have been cruise missiles in Denmark and the
Netherlands, the Belgians and especially the Dutch would deploy their
army units committed to NATO in West Germany, the West Germans would
abandon their doctrine of foward defense, the British would neglect
their nuclear capabilities in order to strenghten the BAOR, the French
and Greeks would be militarily integrated, the Turks would reconstitute
Cyprus, the Spanish would cease deploying their forces primarily against
Gibraltar, the Italians would raise their spending above their
near-Japanese levels, the Norwegians would permit the basing of US or
UK marines, etc., etc., etc.  The fact is that NATO forces are
deployed in a far from optimal pattern because of the political facts of
life that the US must accept.  Some "Big Brother".  Mike, while your
hyperbole on the matter may be source of personal satisfaction, you
ought to realize that it undercuts whatever serious points you 
may wish to make.

					David Rubin