Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XIII, Western Europe Region

262. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Washington, August 14, 1967.

SUBJECT

• European Isolationism

PARTICIPANTS

• Switzerland
  • Willy Spuehler, Chief, Swiss Federal Political Department
  • Felix Schnyder, Ambassador of Switzerland
  • Charles Muller, Counselor, Swiss Embassy
  • Walter Jaeggi, Press Chief, Swiss Federal Political Department
• United States
  • Secretary Rusk
  • John S. Hayes, Ambassador to Switzerland
  • Arthur D. Foley, Swiss Affairs, Department of State
  • Cyril Muromcew, Interpreter

The Secretary asked if the Foreign Minister felt that De Gaulle is preventing European integration. Is Europe becoming isolationist?

Spuehler said that we have seen the French resist the entrance of Great Britain into the Common Market and it will take time to admit Britain, but Spuehler said that he feels that integration will go ahead. The European Common Market is only one of the problems involved in European integration. Switzerland is positive on this subject, but can only maintain its position if it can preserve its neutrality and safety.

The Secretary said that we are concerned about a possible trend toward isolationism in Europe. Isolationism in Europe would mean isolationism in the United States. Scratch an American and you will find an isolationist, he said. Our involvement in world affairs since World War II has been an act of will contrary to the general sentiments of the American people. During the last few months, while the United States has been engaged in Viet-Nam and maintaining its forces in NATO, Great Britain has declared that she will pull back from Southeast Asia in the 1970’s, Germany is talking about reduction of its defense budget, and no serious attention was paid in Europe to the Arab-Israeli war, although the Near East is only 30 minutes away by plane. Europe is also indifferent to events in Africa. The Secretary cited the Congo as an example. The situation in the Congo meant possible danger to most European governments, but only Switzerland and the United States acted in the Congo, the Swiss through the International Committee of the Red Cross. The United States sent three planes to the Congo to support the central government. The Italian Government asked us to keep our planes there to assist in the movement of Italian citizens. When we suggested that the Italians should send their own planes, they said they would not do so. These examples, the Secretary said, could be multiplied. European security and prosperity have led to laziness. The Secretary said he is saying this briefly and making perhaps an extreme case, but he wishes to make a point—the United States are not mercenaries for the whole world as some Europeans seem to think.

Spuehler said he understands the Secretary’s viewpoint. The United States are not mercenaries and are not going to be the policemen for the whole world.

The Foreign Minister noted that he sees a softening of alliances in the East as well as the West. The Secretary replied that peace makes alliances weaker. This is a natural development. But, he said, let us not forget that five years ago Khrushchev threatened President Kennedy with war in Europe over our position in Berlin. The countries of Eastern Europe have not been converted, the Secretary said. Both sides have perhaps become more prudent, especially since the Cuban missile crisis. The Secretary said he is not bothered by the slackening of alliances as long as they are available in time of crisis.

Some Europeans think that they can stand between the United States and the Soviet Union. They believe that Europe is an innocent bystander in the Moscow-Washington struggle. These Europeans feel that, if Europe could pull out, the issue would become one between Moscow and Washington only. But Europe is not an innocent bystander, because Europe is the issue. The United States is not going to fight the Soviet Union over polar bears in the Arctic; the safety of Europe is the issue. Europe is not a third world; it is the main problem.

Spuehler said he shares the Secretary’s views. Europe, he said, could never stand up against the Soviet Union without U.S. backing, and this is the thinking in Switzerland.

The Secretary observed that the United States for 20 years has been a minority of one in COCOM which has been attempting to limit trade in strategic commodities with Communist countries. Now that we have agreed to expand our trade with Eastern Europe, the Western Europeans say that we have entered into a conspiracy with Moscow. Our Eastern European trade is insignificant. Twenty-six percent of Eastern European trade is with Western Europe, and only 1.6 per cent is with the United States. But the Administration’s legislation to improve U.S. trade with Eastern Europe is seen as part of this conspiracy, when all we are doing is following the West European example.

Spuehler asked if the United States would support greater trade with Eastern Europe. The Secretary replied that we have no objection to this. He observed that some of Western Europe’s objections to our attempts to increase trade comes from a reluctance to face U.S. competition in Eastern Europe.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 1–3 EUR. Confidential. Drafted by Foley and approved in S on August 17. The source text is labeled “Part 3 of 3.”