From one year to the next, it is difficult to find original words to describe the state of transatlantic relations. Indeed, they are bound to continue to constitute a "troubled partnership," and 1985 was no exception. To a large extent, it was the year of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). On the surface, even though most European strategists are more than skeptical about the concept, SDI has not created major tensions among the Western allies. The British and the German governments supported President Reagan's initiative. Italy showed some interest; France, Norway, Greece and Denmark rejected any governmental role, but avoided any confrontation. Overall, Washington may be pleased.
Thierry de Montbrial was head of the Policy Planning Staff of the French Foreign Ministry from 1973 to 1979, when he became Director of the Institut Français des Relations Internationales. He is also Professor of Economics and Chairman of the department at the École Polytechnique.
From one year to the next, it is difficult to find original words to describe the state of transatlantic relations. Indeed, they are bound to continue to constitute a "troubled partnership," and 1985 was no exception.
To a large extent, it was the year of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). On the surface, even though most European strategists are more than skeptical about the concept, SDI has not created major tensions among the Western allies. The British and the German governments supported President Reagan’s initiative. Italy showed some interest; France, Norway, Greece and Denmark rejected any governmental role, but avoided any confrontation. Overall, Washington may be pleased.
The year brought further displays of the American mood of unilateralism. This is true, for example, in Soviet-American relations, culminating in the November summit meeting in Geneva; the initiatives in this evolving relationship are not primarily the consequence of West European persuasion. Similarly with economic issues. Washington’s change of attitude through this year on exchange rates and the value of the dollar has been quite remarkable. As a result, the meeting in New York of the five biggest Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries on September 22 could produce a joint approach on how to drive the dollar value down. The American position on indebted Third World countries has also evolved.
Altogether, American and European positions on world macroeconomic management have come closer together—although the Europeans still consider that American authorities have not yet taken the relevant measures to significantly reduce the U.S. budget deficit, which they continue to regard as a major source of global imbalance. The point here is that the change of attitudes vis-à-vis economic problems, just like East-West relations, have only modestly been influenced by the Europeans. It was rather the product of an internal American debate.
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
Related
Since the end of World War II, Europe and North America have enjoyed an unprecedented era of peace. The central framework for maintaining that peace has been the North Atlantic Alliance and its permanent organization, NATO. Created to secure the West against aggression through a mutual defense system, NATO has proved remarkably successful in meeting a variety of challenges over the years. It has done so because Western leaders and the overwhelming majority of their countrymen have recognized the virtues of collective security for nations whose fundamental interests are held so closely in common.
Europeans enter the 1980s experiencing, for the first time since the cold war, a deep sense of concern--and even fear in some quarters--for the preservation of peace on their Continent. The decade began with speeches by European leaders, including President Giscard d'Estaing and Pope John Paul II, stressing the risks of a new world war, and polls conducted in several European countries throughout 1980 echoed similar qualms.
We are four Americans who have been concerned over many years with the relation between nuclear weapons and the peace and freedom of the members of the Atlantic Alliance. Having learned that each of us separately has been coming to hold new views on this hard but vital question, we decided to see how far our thoughts, and the lessons of our varied experiences, could be put together; the essay that follows is the result. It argues that a new policy can bring great benefits, but it aims to start a discussion, not to end it.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.