Special of the week; Issue 10-70 "Great Decisions"

NDE are the national educational radio network presents special of the week from the series great decisions from w d t. Wayne State University Detroit part 3 in the 1970s. Great Decisions must be made in foreign policy. We talked with the Honorable William P. Rogers secretary of state. Nature has contributed very measurably to the security of the world and if we did not have the NATO's organization and not have sufficient military strength to make it clear to a potential enemy that they can take over other countries in Europe it would be a very unstable kind of situation so in practical terms it's necessary for us to maintain our military strength. That was the Honorable William P. Rogers secretary of state. We'll continue in a moment. Great Decisions 1970. France the third in this eight week series focusing attention on the most critical issues of foreign policy facing the

American government and people today. These programs produced by Wayne State University in Detroit designed to provide a deeper understanding of international problems. Now here is your moderator dean of administration at Wayne State University Dr. Harlan. Our first guest is Mr. Stanley shine balme of the Center for the Study of democratic institutions one of the Acts of the GO was in effect to take France out of NATO to 72 out of its territory and of course eventually France play a lesser role. What is apt to be the posture of France toward NATO no new regime and friends. Well that's really the $64000 question in France right now what Pompey do in office. There are a raging debate about whether Pompey do is the Gaullist or not. My inclination is to think that he is

and he's going to try to maintain a certain nationalistic approach such as the ghouls on the one hand to fight against the US dollar and the supremacy of the dollar on the other hand the fight against NATO wanting to keep French sovereignty without answering the total question of how the GOA list is the goal's choice Pompey do. I don't think Pompey do will keep France out of NATO now. United States has withstood the. Run on the dollar as it were. But has France been able to withstand it to overcome its run on its money. No. As you know France has devalued several times since World War 2. The franc as steadily gone down in value. We were able to resist that because during World War Two when in the four or five years after which we had been piling up a lot of gold so we were able to

resist that devaluation devaluation became a open topic for the US dollar in the last four or five years but I think we're over that hurdle now. I don't think that will happen. France not having the pile of gold that we did and having a tide of economic problem than we did was not able to resist. So the value of the franc along with the French economy diminished. Now we were fortunate. But the French have not been so fortunate internationally. Do you see any trends in prints money system in the next few years of any identifiable changes. Yeah I think France is far has got very serious problems with its economy. Part of it is based on a general political or social instability if you want. That's almost inherent in the nature of the French personality I just came back the night before last and my voice seems low it's because of a fatigue from a 12 hour plane trip. But

in Paris I was terribly aware of the number of police that are on the street. All of our bus loads of French police are stationed at various corners. And they seem to be there every evening. Now I mention that because the French economic structure is such that the distribution of income is not what it ought to be in an advanced industrialized country. They are producing at full capacity to a greater extent. To raise the income of any particular group. And in this moment I'm thinking in terms of the working class which feels it ought to have a higher up they got cut out of the same party. Keep in mind when I say full employment I mean you're producing as much as you can you can't produce more to satisfy this group. If you give this group more well that will happen is inflation. And once you start

inflating the French franc once prices start going up because you're giving one particular group higher wages. The franc goes up they import more and export less and it's that whole French dilemma again of the franc losing its value because they are not exporting enough. Now the instability of France I mentioned is that the French worker is not about to sit around warm. Without getting an increasing share because he doesn't feel he's getting enough. Keep in mind that 3 million there are 3 million members of the CGT which is the communist labor unions and they are bound to cause some having. They latched on to the May 68 student revolution in a hurry. The workers did but backed off of that because of other communist intentions and that in effect came to know what

the girl was able to well maneuver them on that one. But with the readiness of the French person. In this case the working class to demand more out of the party the French the French franc rather is in for trouble again. And I think that's a war on one problem that any French government will face. Mr. W. de Port is chief of the regional Western and Southern European division Office of Research and Analysis for Western Europe the United States Department of State. The departure of any strong leaders such as de Gaulle gives opportunity for looking back and trying to evaluate his contribution. Would you say that the goal has been justified or has he been repudiated his actions by happening since his leaving. Well it's very much too soon of course to have any kind of sound balance sheet and in a way I guess you never get a final one as we see now with the kind of

revisionist work that's being done on our own recent history and World War 2 you never come to a last word I see there are new biographies all the time. Mary Stewart and so on and which their careers are constantly being reconsidered I'm sure De Gaulle will be subject of much thought and much writing over the years I've been interested in for quite a number of years and I don't think there's any final yes or no answer to that question some of his achievements for example the decolonization of Algeria and of black Africa are absolutely positive plazas there can be no two ways about them these were useful necessary things for France. They it appeared that no one but a strong leader such as himself could carry them out and everyone was the gainer from that process it seems to me. Well there certainly are exceptions to that not everyone is always a gainer from anything I suppose but on the whole France and the West and the African countries themselves were gainers this much of his achievement very positive. The Constitution that he gave to France in 1058 has now been passed into other hands

as I said in the answer to your first question I think and it would appear that those institutions are strong useful ones which a strong president can use to very good effect whether this will continue to be the case will depend on who is elected to those offices in future times so far so good as far as the Constitution as far as economic growth is concerned of course the De Gaulle period was on the whole very successful except for its latter period. On the other hand the upheaval of 1968 shows that there are many people unhappy with this system in France or at least unhappy with him. There is still a large Communist Party a large communist vote. It's pretty clear that many students are unhappy with the situation in France as they are in other countries this is not a particularly. Problem specific to France but is a common one in the West and indeed throughout the world at this time so he didn't solve all the problems obviously some of his efforts in foreign policy I think were over ambitious. We're not particularly successful but there of course. Time will have to

tell how much of this was sterile and how much was fruitful he did try to restore a certain sense of pride to the French to convince them that they were the masters of their own fate after the defeat of 1940 I think myself that was in a sense the purpose of his life work really to convince the French that they were the masters of their own policy and I think that's not a bad thing necessarily. So on balance sheet CEOs made the balance sheet then is a is a mixed a mixed thing at this time and I suppose will continue to be a subject of dispute and debate for years. Hundred to gold. We recognize that France exerted international influence out of proportion to its size or its military strength or economic power are the factors sufficiently changed in 1970. So the French impact upon Europe and the war will be lessened markedly. In other words will France become a second or third rate power. And did the departure of De Gaulle then mark the end of the strategic position of France militarily

and politically. No I think that would be going too far France remains a major European power in the same general league of power with Britain with the Federal Republic of Germany first second right. These are not superpowers certainly in that sense one. One could use the word second rate I suppose but they are major important powers in France will continue to be that as it was indeed before De Gaulle came back to office in 1058 of course. He himself was such a commanding not to say domineering figure that he attracted an enormous amount of publicity his every word and gesture of course were analyzed scrutinized hung on and he had a great gift for dramatizing politics Needless to say and everyone can remember some of his more sensational statements and enterprise as well this kind of theatrical glamour has certainly departed and presumably his successor will not make gestures will not strike the public mood he plays it in a very low key manner obviously he is not a great maker of phrases he is not a man who will go to a distant continent and make

sensational statements and so forth. But France remains an important power and though it's now in a more difficult economic situation than it was before I don't suppose that that will last indefinitely. It will remain therefore a major factor in European affairs as it was before. We also talked with Mr. Harvey Wheeler of the Center for the Study of democratic institutions. The paradox is that De Gaulle was known as a nationalist and certainly it's true that he was devoted to France. And in a way devoted to France as the embodiment of himself. So there was in the fence itself and relation. But nonetheless he really in the long run I think in this is the paradox will stand for an internationalist orientation and the beginning of a new kind of nation state that is post nationalist.

Mr. Wheeler you have suggested that the goal should be looked at as an internationalist rather than a purely national isolationist figure yes. What do you see in the present picture that would justify that position. Well the first thing is determination. And we're talking about the gallstone. You ask about the present picture but it is a hangover from something that De Gaulle started and that is the degree of simply through the force of will and without any real power that he could wield. Inserted France in the eyes of the world and in the councils of the world. So that it was assumed and was able to play a position is far in excess of its paper power and the power that it might add up if you if you considered it in terms of traditional nation states but didn't to go all seemed to somewhat was draw from the rest of Europe when he withdrew France from a Tory and

not in his mind he would do France or the United States. And you think that the effect on Nathan was not that of withdrawal of France from Europe then. No I think it was it was it was the beginning of the end for NATO but NATO was outmoded and he was quite right. He saw it. What about his relationship to the Common Market the common market countries. Well that was of course the attempt to provide some kind of European integration and union that would allow France through the common market countries to play a more significant role in history of the world. Are you suggesting that he consciously was developing a policy which would permit France a relatively small country a relatively poor country to exert international influence beyond its size yet especially as I think it was extremely effective at it.

We talked was Dr. Bernard Brown professor of political science at the City University of New York. Dr. Brown I was proper to move as I had in the 1970s to you based on a number of large problems. What are the principal problems which property you must face. And what are the predictions of things to come in France in the seventies. Well part be due will have to face a whole range of what I would call normal problems that is the problems that confront the British prime minister or the German prime minister and the American president and so on he must confront the problem of inflation maintaining the strength of the national currency. He must confront the problem of continued modernization of industry and he must also try to cope with the social consequences of modernization which includes a nation of the intellectuals. He must cope with the problems of labor relations university reform and so on. That is there is no case to

be made out for French exceptionalism in the 1970s France will have to grapple with the problems that confront all industrial societies. However there are additional problems that confront the French as compared with say the British or the Germans. The major problem as I see it confronting Pompey do is to create a political majority in the 1970s a majority that does not now exist. You see the institutional problem has not yet been solved in France. The institutional problem is not serious in Britain or in Germany but it is serious in France. It has not been solved because there is still. There is still a basic ambiguity within the constitutional structure. There is an ambiguity and a tension between the office of the presidency and the Office of the prime minister. This ambiguity can be worked out in practice can be eliminated in practice only so long as the Gaullist still have

a political majority in the national assembly. However elections are coming up in one thousand seventy three or they will have to come up no later than one thousand seventy three. The Gaullist do not have a popular majority in the country they never have had. Even in the last elections when they won something like three quarters of the seats they did not get a majority of the votes. The anti Gaullist or non Gaullist parties have always had a majority of the popular vote. It is only because of the divisions of the non Gaullist parties and because of De Gaulle's charismatic leadership and role in the history of France that the godless have been able to win. The national assembly with only a minority of the popular votes. The indications are that the non Gaullist parties are going to this time overcome their divisions their disunity they will present a more united front. And as I see it it is most unlikely that the Gaullist are going to win a majority another majority in the next legislative elections when this happens. A

non-goal is Parliament will confront Pompey do a Gaullist. And under those circumstances they will make life so uncomfortable for the president of the Republic that in all probability he will have to go. If he does not go he will have to in effect convert himself into a President of the old third or fourth Republic that is simply help the Parliament along in forming coalitions. But this is the most serious problem which the French confront the institutional problem is yet to be resolved. Now I don't see how this problem how the. I don't see how the French government is going to get through the next decade without undergoing a constitutional crisis. The tension within the constitutional structure must somehow be worked out. It has not yet been worked out. We return to Mr. Stanley shine bomb. There's been some concern in among some quarters of France about American

domination of industry and so on American owner ownership and that sort of thing American participation manufacturing. Do you see that as an increasing or decreasing phenomenon. Well I see it as an increasing phenomenon. One American capital R has had it in a sense. Never that it was never that it was that quantitative it. It's headed we're going into other than Western European areas and Japan the rest of the world the third world so to speak is just too unstable. So now the American capital is going to go in creasing amounts. To Western Europe and France affords a great opportunity. The French will resist much more I think than the Germans or or the British I think will find gentle resistance all over but the French resistance will be intensive. The goal is really gotten that message through to the end to the French people and I think regardless of what Pompey do or any successor to papa

do does I think the French people are going to resist American capital. But I do think American capital is powerful enough that it will get in there. And even with the goal there are American Capital made significant inroads. What does that do to American and French relations if there is great resentment of the French toward American investment. I don't think of it I don't think it harms the relations basically. I think there will be some resent ment. I think that the word is valid but I don't think it'll have any political force. I do think the power of economics is a very forceful one and I don't see any problem on that I think the American problem with France is more one more basically political having to do with a stance towards Russia alternately towards China and to some extent the development of the German Franco relationships.

Once again Mr. Hanson departs hundred to go all it seemed that perhaps the European Common Market would have been damaged beyond recovery. Has it been damaged beyond recovery and also in connection with it. Does it make any difference really whether or not Great Britain is now permitted to join. There's a kind of paradox I think to the Common Market under de Gaulle. Most attention has been focused on the things he did against it such as excluding Britain from membership or preventing the development of integrated political arguments and so on these things got the headlines but it tends to be forgotten of course that there was no common market at all and De Gaulle came into office and that really it has grown to what it has grown to that is there is now a customs union there's now a common market there's a common agricultural policy all this is developed while De Gaulle was in office and with his consent he was certainly a very tough bargainer for France's interest in all of these matters. But

nevertheless the common market has grown from nothing to what it is today. And I think it's grown into a very impressive organization perhaps this is a case of the glass being half full or half empty one can emphasize that the market might have been other than it might have done more without the gob but I'm quite impressed with what it has accomplished. Even with him in these circumstances I think the prospects for the market as an economic union are very bright that the prospects for British admission of course now seem to be much better than they were. Whether the market will turn into a political federation which is what some of its advocates had hoped I think that one would be more cautious about this is a very slow business these are very ancient sovereignties in Europe. Nationalism was born in Europe and I don't think it is dead there yet that the prospects for political federation. I think that's rather farther down the road. But as far as being a prosperous and growing economic union including Britain I think the prospects are good

and I think it does make a difference whether Britain joins and that is certainly still in American interest it should do so and I certainly think it's in Britain's interest and in the interests of the present six members. It has often been asserted Mr. deport that the United States policy officially was in favor of a strong Union of European countries perhaps a political union in the United States of Europe. Well that sort of thing is such a union of Western European countries in the interest of the United States should we be perhaps a little afraid of it. And then. If we should have such a union. What part would France have to play in such a partnership. Well there can be no such union I think without France in a certain sense such a union can grow on only as fast as the most reluctant partner wants it to grow and in a sense that has been France in the last 10 or 11 years. On the other hand the movement for European unity seems to have a great deal of life in it as far as ideologies

go in Europe today I think it has as much popular support as anything else and perhaps more than some others that doesn't mean everyone in Europe wants a united Europe tomorrow but it means that there are influential people with a substantial backing of public support who do continue to favor this who have continued to favor it during to Gaal's time and who now that he is gone are pushing in that direction again. I think personally that we should not fear this development as far as it goes well and good of course it's a formidable trading partner. But I don't think we have anything to fear particularly in that sense from trade competition and of course we have already very substantial and prosperous investment behind the European wall so to speak some Europeans you know have even said half bitterly and half half as a joke that the U.S. has prospered more from the European Common Market than anyone else because of the great amount of American investment which has gotten into the market. Because American firms knew how to organize on a continental basis

which the European companies themselves have not yet learned to do so that there's been this series of takeovers of European business by large American firms which has created some some bad feeling but on the other hand. It has also been seen to be very useful to Europe. It seems to me that the US has benefited in the US that the Europeans have also benefited and that as the movement continues there will be. There are obviously some drawbacks for everyone but I think there's more on the plus side than on the minus in the longer run and more basically. Of course we have hope that Europe as a developed might be able to play a larger part in its own defense for example might be able to play a larger part in world affairs which it has not done much in recent years. The father unity develops presumably the more this would be true as I suggested I think this kind of unity is not going to take place tomorrow. And therefore there isn't I wouldn't fear it but I wouldn't hope for too much but the general trend and development seems sound.

What do you think of the role of France in the Middle East. While there there's been a good deal of continuity of course from the De Gaulle government many have thought for some reason when Pompey do came in last summer that he would reverse what was one of General de Gaulle's most conspicuous policies and that was the rather pro-Arab position which he had taken since the Six-Day War in 1967 it does now seem that in this case the French government continues to find it in France's interest to strengthen its ties with the Arab states and therefore has continued to pursue the same basic policy which General de Gaulle laid down at that time. And there are various signs of course now that France is strengthening its relations where it can in the Arab world and finds that useful to the national interest to do for various reasons of course France has for a long time had an important part to play in the Mediterranean. It had footings in Syria and

Lebanon the French like to talk about their presence there is dating from the Crusades and of course they only recently abandoned Tunisia Algeria and Morocco or gave them independence rather so that France has a long interest. In the Middle East in the Arab world it was Napoleon they would remind you who opened Egypt to the west in his campaign there at the end of the 18th century France has many interests in these areas and presumably apparently this government intends to continue them on the line marked out by General de Gaulle. It seems one of the most striking cases of continuity in foreign policy since the general left. Great Decisions 1970 programme number three France after to go a new deal for France's allies. Our moderator DR HARLAN Hagman dean of administration at Wayne State University had as his guest the Honorable William P. Rogers secretary of state Mr. Harvey Wheeler of the Center for the Study of democratic institutions. Mr. Anson W. deport chief

of regional Western and Southern European division Office of Research and Analysis for Western Europe. Dr Bernard Brown professor of political science of the City University of New York and Mr. Stanley shine Bohm of the Center for the Study of democratic institutions. Join us next week for a discussion of race and world politics and what role for the United States in the Struggle for Racial Equality. Great decision. 1970 is produced by Wayne State University in Detroit in cooperation with the Foreign Policy Association and they are a special of the week. Thanks w d e t Wayne State University Detroit for these recordings. Park for next week. This is any art of the national educational radio network.