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: US control of NATO (Re: EuroMissiles and Belgium)
Message-ID: <506@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Jan-85 10:34:49 EST
Article-I.D.: fisher.506
Posted: Mon Jan 28 10:34:49 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 29-Jan-85 07:09:01 EST
References: <710@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 96

>> If the US "controlled" NATO, [...] the French and Greeks would be
>> militarily integrated, the Turks would reconstitute Cyprus [...]

>I don't know about your claims regarding other countries but
>I do know the situation in Greece and Cyprus painfully well.
>Your argument just doesn't stand in the face of facts.

>(Unfortunately) Greece now IS militarily, as well as politically,
>integrated in NATO. Greece withdrew from the military organisation
>of NATO for a short period (1974-1980). The step of withdrawal was
>taken by the conservative government that came to power after the
>collapse of the Greek junta (July 1974), under tremendous popular
>pressure: NATO and the US were (and are) seen by the majority of
>the Greek people as the instigators, financiers and supporters of
>both a domestic tyranny (the fascist junta of 1967-1974) and of the
>Turkish aggression in Cyprus. The same government later reversed
>the withdrawal in late 1980, when it became clear it would lose the next
>elections (Nov. 1981) anyway.  The present Greek government was elected
>on the basis of a programme explicitly calling for withdrawal from NATO
>altogether. It has since recanted its pre-election promise under
>pressure by the US government. So much about the US not controlling
>NATO.

I stand by my assertion: Greece does not permit any of its national
forces to come under NATO command.  It is still a member of the
military organization of the alliance, but the FACT is that Greek
forces are far less well-coordinated with those of its nominal allies
than even French forces are.

Another interesting fact is that American military aid to Greece and
Turkey is fixed in the ratio of 7:10.  If the US were free in this
regard, Turkey would be receiving far more aid than Greece, as

	(1) It's equipment is older than the Greeks, and 
	(2) It bears far greater burdens in the general interests of
	    NATO.

Am I to draw the conclusion that the Greek government exercises
control over the US government because they have successfully
pressured the US into following an alternate policy?  That would be
absurd---as absurd as the charge that the US controls Greece.  THE
GREEK GOVERNMENT TOOK WHAT ACTION IT FELT WAS IN ITS OWN BEST
INTERESTS.  Perhaps the Greek government did not want to risk losing
US military aid, or felt withdrawal would interfere with Greece's
entry into the Common Market.  Perhaps they decided that they stood a
greater chance of favorably resolving their disputes with Turkey by
threatening withdrawal, rather than actually withdrawing.  In any
case, it is apparent that the Pan-Hellenic Social Movement decided to
try for the best of both worlds: to maintain the advantages accrueing
from being a member in good standing of the Western European Community
and avoiding the political fallout from its broken promise by blaming
US pressure for the change of policy.  Apparently, people like you are
willing to equate pressure with coercion, and thus that strategy is
succeeding.  Your beef is with the politicians in Athens, not in
Washington.

>Regarding Turkey's "reconstituting" Cyprus: The US would never
>want Turkey to "reconstitute" Cyprus. Cyprus has been a nation
>militantly committed to the non-aligned movement. It has an extremely
>strong Communist Party (>40% of the votes) and occupies an extremely
>strategic location in the Eastern Mediterranean. The last
>thing the US would want to see is an independent and united Cyprus.
>What it would like to see is a divided Cyprus, half Greek, half Turkish --
>which would automatically bring the entire island under the US "sphere
>of influence". So, Turkey is not resisting "reconstituting Cyprus"
>IN SPITE of US desires, it is doing it BECAUSE of US interests.
>Of course, the US doesn't want Turkey to take this too far because
>then Greece might be "lost" irrevocably. Such are the "political
>realities" that the US has to accommodate in NATO. They have nothing
>to do with the real interests of the Greek people or the Turkish people
>or the Cypriot people. The point of whatever accommodation is to strike
>the balance needed to optimally screw all of them.

The loss to American interests resulting from continued Turko-Greek
hostility is far greater than any possible gain from the weakening of
a minor non-aligned power.  Cyprus has not threatened American
interests in the past, and has not raised the American hostility you
claim exists. Your view of American priorities is quite self-serving
(and contradictory); on the one hand you argue that NATO is a vehicle
for the advancement of primarily American interests, yet on the other
you claim that the US is supporting the division of Cyprus, which
seriously weakens that vehicle.  

Finally, if Cyprus were reconstituted and a general settlement of
outstanding Greco-Turkish disputes were reached, the political
position of the Greek government would be weakened, as they would no
longer be able to blame their shortcomings on the US and would not be
able to reap the benefit of nationalist feeling directed against
Turkey.  With the Pan-Hellenic Social Movement having a vested
political interest in maintaining the status quo and the national
resentment against the US and Turkey which helps keep them in power,
it would be surprising to see any serious attempts at reconciliation
by the Greek government.

					David Rubin
			{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david