There is a need to re-evaluate US policies towards Eastern Europe in the light of Gorbachev's reforms. There is no prospect of fundamental change in relations between these countries and the USSR but, by improving its capacity to analyze trends there, expanding its contacts and developing its trade, the USA can discourage differentiation between the individual countries with the object of achieving a safer, less divided Europe.
William H. Luers, Ambassador to Czechoslovakia (1983-86) and to Venezuela (1978-82), became a career Foreign Service officer in 1957. He is now President of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Copyright © 1987 by William H. Luers.
We're sorry, but Foreign Affairs does not have the copyright to display this article online.
Related
The Clinton administration needs to lead Europe and expand NATO, but without harming ties with Russia. Washington should dispel the ambiguity created by its current waffling. The president must take a two-track approach: start the process of accepting Central European states into NATO by spelling out criteria for membership and sign a global security treaty with Russia. To make it work, Germany and Poland will have to reconcile, the West and Russia will have to soothe Ukraine, and the problem of the Baltics will have to be finessed. Only American leadership can help create a wider, safer Europe for the next century.
Let us put our cards on the table. There are two basic views about President Ronald Reagan's foreign policy. One, the Administration's, appears to be accepted (if the opinion polls are to be believed) by the majority of Americans. It is that the United States, after years of weakness and humiliation, has once again faced the challenge of an aggressive, expansionist Soviet Union, revived the global economy, rescued the Western Alliance and generally reasserted true American leadership in the world. The other view is shared to a greater or lesser extent by much of the rest of mankind, with the possible exceptions of the Israelis, the South Africans, President Marcos of the Philippines and a few right-wing governments in Central and South America. It is that the Reagan Administration has vastly overreacted to the Soviet threat, thereby distorting the American (and hence the world) economy, quickening the arms race, warping its own judgment about events in the Third World, and further debasing the language of international intercourse with feverish rhetoric. A subsidiary charge, laid principally by the Europeans, Canadians and many Latin Americans, but frequently endorsed in the Arab world and the Far East, is that in a desperate desire to rediscover "leadership," the United States under Reagan has reverted to its worst unilateral habits, resenting and ignoring, when it deigns to notice, the independent views and interests of its friends and allies.
In spite of a European swing to the right, "1987 saw relations between the governments of the United States and its European allies reach a nadir" for three reasons (1) the offhand US approach to disarmament evidenced at Reykjavik rekindled European fears about US reliability (2) Iran-Contra bungling, the administration's attitude to Third World problems and the 'Nietzschean approach' of US conservatives damaged USA morally in Europe -- in the worst case, Europe faces "a friendly and conciliatory Soviet Union and a cantankerous, bullying United States" (3) the budget deficit, which is likely to have the gravest long-term implications of the three, since "the true security of western Europe rests not on its military defences but on its economic and social stability".
