It is interesting that, with very few exceptions, even the most enthusiastic supporters of the idea of an Atlantic Community have not clearly defined what nations are embraced within it; nor have they been willing to commit themselves to what they believe might be its best form of political organization. As of this moment, it seems to me both natural and prudent to avoid a dogmatic approach to both questions. However, I believe agreement on certain principles is now possible; and I am convinced that in a comparatively short period of time specifics may be possible as well. A discussion now of both principles and possible alternative solutions is therefore desirable. Whether the eventual answers will evolve from the quiet type of leadership shown by Jean Monnet in his highly successful sponsorship of the European Economic Community, or through a wider discussion, with public pressures forcing decisions, it is impossible to foretell.
It is interesting that, with very few exceptions, even the most enthusiastic supporters of the idea of an Atlantic Community have not clearly defined what nations are embraced within it; nor have they been willing to commit themselves to what they believe might be its best form of political organization. As of this moment, it seems to me both natural and prudent to avoid a dogmatic approach to both questions. However, I believe agreement on certain principles is now possible; and I am convinced that in a comparatively short period of time specifics may be possible as well. A discussion now of both principles and possible alternative solutions is therefore desirable. Whether the eventual answers will evolve from the quiet type of leadership shown by Jean Monnet in his highly successful sponsorship of the European Economic Community, or through a wider discussion, with public pressures forcing decisions, it is impossible to foretell.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
In "Saving NATO From Europe," (November/December 2004), Jeffrey L. Cimbalo warns that a dagger is pointed at the heart of the Atlantic alliance, and the murder weapon is the European Union's draft constitution. Ratification of that document, Cimbalo asserts, would have "profound and troubling implications for the transatlantic alliance and for future U.S. influence in Europe." Washington, he believes, should "end its uncritical support for European integration" and work with its friends in Europe to halt the EU process and save NATO from an untimely death.
Antony Blinken has missed a fundamental transformation at work. America and Europe may still share values and interests, but Europe and the world have changed profoundly since the Cold War. The transatlantic relationship must change, too.
The devaluation of the pound sterling on November 18, 1967, and the announcement on January 16, 1968, of a firm timetable for Britain's withdrawal east of Suez have been widely lamented as marking the "end of an era." Along with such spectacular domestic reversals as the imposition of charges for medical care and the promise of still heavier taxation, the events of the past several months may at least justify the clichés, so often repeated, that Britain is at a "turning point" or has reached a "crossroads." But does all of this necessarily mean continuing deterioration or indicate that Britain's economic base can no longer support her as a major power? Or can those of us looking on from outside reasonably hope that what Labor Ministers have called the "second Battle of Britain,"1 will result in new patterns of economic expansion?
