Will there be a West European army tomorrow?
few years ago.
The failure of this first attempt is frequently attributed to the refusal of the French and British bourgeoisies to allow the defeated German bourgeoisie to rearm. This is only a partial explanation, although true.
The World Council for Peace waged
It is not out of place to ask if a European capitalist army is going to be formed in the near future.
In recent times there have been a number of decisions moving in the direction of a common military structure.
has taken the form of pooling, if not integrating, military, including nuclear, capacity.
Increasingly broader circles of the European bourgeoisie seem to be opting for such a project. Even within the workers and peace movements, top social democratic leaders such as Willy Brandt, leader of the West German Social Democratic Party (SPD), have defended this orientation.
The British, French, West German and Spanish governments in particular have recently reactivated bilateral clauses concerning military cooperation. In the United States, Henry Kissinger, acting as a trail blazer
Soape Nato, has assumed heading sourperson for mopts take tree
, with the aim of making the European governments take more responsibility. The two main candidates for the Democratic party nomination, Walter Mondale and Gary Hart, in proposing strategic plans which would give the European partners a bigger share of the responsibilities.
These proposals do not only concern the defence of capitalist Europe, but also other strategic zones such as the Middle East and the Persian
Francois Mitterrand, current president of the European Council of
Ministers, even proposed, in February 1984 at The Hague, a militarilyequipped orbiting satellite as a European response to Ronald Reagan's
'star wars speech' last year.
The workers and peace movements have to understand what lies be.
In fact, its main purpose is to put forward an hind all this hullabaloo.
ideological and political response to the activity of millions of Europeans for peace and against militarism.
To clarify what is involved, it is useful to look back at the failure to create the European Defence Community at the beginning of the 1950s.
This makes it possible to see more plainly the modifications in a whole series of political, economic and military factors that today place objective limits on the bourgeoisie's political offensive for a common defence step forward by the European ruling classes in coordinating, harmonising or indeed fusing their military capacity and defence policy would represent a severe defeat for the mass peace movement and the workers movement. In order to fight such projects, we have to have a clear grasp of their practical political scope.
Jean-Louis MICHEL
The European ruling classes have actively considered the idea of a common defence policy several times since the end of the Second World War. This was particularly true at the beginning of the
1950s, when West
France,
Germany,
Belgium,
Italy, Luxembourg and the
Netherlands were on the point of concluding a treaty setting up the European
Defence
Community (EDC), with the strong encouragement of Britain and the
United States.
These latter were, with
France, signatories to a tripartite declaration on May 27, 1952, which stated,
•Western defence is a joint undertaking in which the British and American governments cooperate as members of the North
Atlantic pact.
These links are now strengthened by the reciprocal guarantees established between the member
10
This are trying to outdo each other states of the European Defence Community, between these member states and the United Kingdom, as well as between these member states and the states participating in the North Atlantic Treaty. For these different reasons, that these new guarantees only apply to the states concerned insofar as they are one or the other of these organisations, the American and British governments have as much a permanent interest as the French government in the effectiveness of the treaty establishing the European Defence Community, as well as the solidity and coherence of this com-
This body, which would have led to of a real European army under the auspices of Nato, finally collapsed like a house of cards on August 30, 1954, when the French National Assembly refused to ratify the treaty instituting a vigorous campaign of opposition to the EDC, particularly in France. The basis of the campaign was the Stockholm Appeal, launched on March 19, 1950. (2) Five hundred million signatures were collected all together, 14 million in France alone. Despite the strong chauvinist undertones ('stop German rearmament) of the campaign, which implied that the French army was endowed with all democratic virtues, it nevertheless offered a means for demonstrating mass opposition to European militarisation under the orders of the American imperialists in several of Failure of the EDO
This point deserves emphasis, because the situation at the time was, overall, favourable to such a project. The overwhelming American military superiority and East-West polarisation that existed at the time - which were best expressed in the Korean war - favoured a common European military build up, the American leaders would have nothing
In fact, quite the contrary, as such a proposal was a direct extension of Nato and of American strategy within it. None of the European countries signing the EDC treaty had a nuclear capacity. Indeed, if they had, this would have considerably modified the concept of military integration. The possession of nuclear weapons would have made any such integration conditional on the existence of strong supranational political power. The characteristics of the first generation of American nuclear weapons, and of the conventional weapons of the time did not make it possible to establish worldwide continuity between conflicts taking place thousands of miles apart, except on paper. Striking proof of this fact was given in the way that the ques-
All West European countries are represented in this assembly. body competent to deal with defence questions.
The World Council of Peace is an international body formed after the war on the basis of the Stockholm One of the main sponsors was Frederic Joliot-Curie. The appeal was launched at the international conference of peace activists in 1949, and demands the complete banning of all nuclear weapons This initiative was also partly linked to the diplomatic actions of the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, it made it possible to mobilise massively in favour of peace. The World Council of Peace today is mainly com posed of the peace movements linked to the Eastern European countries and the Westers Communist Parties.
International Viewpoint 7 May 1984
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
tion of using atom bombs in Korea was dealt with by the US general staff under the leadership of General MacArthur. It is also striking to note that the EDC treaty in Article 13 left 'non-European territories for which a member state has taken responsiblity for defence' outside
There are also political and economic factors that, taken together, favoured the development of an integrated military defence, besides these reasons of military strategy.
Economically, the European bourgeoisie found themselves in a position of direct dependence on, rather than competition with, the American ruling class. This was particularly true for the armament industry. On the other hand, it is true that the need to rebuild a productive capacity destroyed by the Second World War put objective limits on the capacity to undertake a too burdensome rearmament and militarisation drive. 3 of the EDC treaty insisted on this point, stating that, 'the Community will use the Joint military operation by British, American, West German and Dutch troops (DR) least onerous and most effective methods'
The political weakness and cowardice of the ruling classes in capitalist Europe, and the weakness of their just rebuilt national states, pushed them to consider abandoning at least a part of their national sovereignty without too much regret. To give a vivid idea of the morale of a sizeable section of bourgeois politicians of the time, it is interesting to recall what the then Belgian minister of foreign affairs, and future Nato secretary general, Paul-Henri Spaak, said to the Soviet Vichinsky, Without Nations in 1948: wanting to discuss any particular regime, we want to state that, having fought against Hitler and fascism, we do not intend to submit to any authoritarian and totalitarian doctrine....The Soviet delegation does not have to look for complicated explanations of our policy. Do you know what is the basis of our policy? It is fear, fear of your government, fear of your politics.' (3) What frightens the European bourgeoisie
All in all, in 1954 the bourgeois classes failed in their project of forming a European army under American hegemony, despite political, military economic conditions a hundred times more favourable than exist today. At the end of the 1950s they tried to strengthen the Atlantic Alliance in a communityoriented perspective, but this time within the definite framework of Nato.
French prime minister Felix Gaillard declared at the 1957 meeting of the North Atlantic Council (heads of govern-
*An alliance like this is an experiment in cooperation unprecedented in history. It is true that this cooperation in defence matters is limited to a precise geographical zone. But, for political questions our interests are necessarily linked beyond this confine....When this alliance brings together peoples who International Viewpoint 7 May 1984 know that the fundamental reason for their unity is not only the desire to defend their strategic or economic positions, but to save and reaffirm all the spiritual and moral values on which their civilisation is based, then it has to go beyond a mere alliance to achieve a real community spirit.' (4)
This speech, in unison with many others, was once again inspired by the fear then unsettling the ranks of the European bourgeoisies. earlier the Soviet Union had launched Sputnik 1, the first satellite in the history of humanity. The political, economic and military context had been radically changed by the evolution of East-West relations, and of relations between the United States and Europe, by the first convulsions of the new rise of the colonial revolution, not to mention the impact on all these factors of the arms race.
The EDC, or even the very idea of integrated common defence, was well and truly buried, despite the progress that had been made toward building a united capitalist Europe by the Treaty of Rome, which created the European Economic Community, in 1957.
While fear is once again the main motivation in the present political offensive by certain sectors of the bourgeoisie and thereformists in favour of common defence of capitalist Europe, it is a different sort of fear. Despite the flood of propaganda that has been let loose on the masses of Western Europe about the so-called Soviet threat, the real concern of the Western governments is the growth of the powerful peace movements. The change that these make in the national situation of each country and in the international context itself is underrated.
In Western Europe, with the notable exception of France, the activity of these movements has broken social and political consensus on defence policy. The mass movement demands nothing less than control over government defence policy. This is clearly expressed in the demand for referendums to be held on
This is obviously unacceptable for any capitalist state, and so the comforting mask of bourgeois democracy collects a few more wrinkles. Henry Kissinger summed up the situation quite well when he explained that, *a public climate of growing nuclear pacifism undermines what credibility remains [of Nato]'. (5) According to him, "Too many Europeans accept the caricature of a US run by trigger-happy cowboys whose belligerence has provoked Soviet intransigence? This comes from a sort of European schizophrenia' which is expressed in *a fear that the US might not be prepared to risk its own population on a nuclear defence of Europe, coupled with the anxiety that America might drag Europe into an unwanted conflict by clumsy handling of Third World issues or East-West relations.' This is quite a clear analysis, which takes account of all the political difficulties that the militarisation policy in Europe is coming up
Two other elements have to be added into the damage done by the peace movement from the standpoint of the ruling classes. First of all 'the demand for peace' helps to clear away the mystification of what is really involved in the negotations between the imperialists and the Soviet bureaucracy. The perspective of restarting dialogue with Moscow' owes a lot to of the European peace and, of course, to the nearness of the American presidential elections. This prospect has forced Reagan to loosen up his position for the sake of American public opinion. The absolutely predictable lack of tangible results in Payard. T969, Volume et Paul-Henri Spaak,
Quoted by Claude Delmas, L'OTAN, PUF, Paris, 1982, p 54.
"A Plan to Reshape Nato,' Henry Kissinger, Time, March 5, 1984.
For strikes against the missiles disarmament from the classical game of East-West relations (START, INF, MBFR, Stockholm) (6) can only stimulate a further rise in the mass movement, on a more radical basis.
The masses take for good coin hypocritical declarations such as the final protocol of the Helsinki agreement on the defence of human rights.
So they are now calling on governments to account
"If a five minute strike for peace could not stop the installation of the missiles, of for their violation these generous what sort of strength is needed to get them taken out?"
That is the rhetorical question the 1984 Danish peace conference sent to the
All this leads to changes in principles.
three main labor organizations in Denmark, the LO, FTF and the AC.
the traditional political setup, particular-
The majority of the 99 participants in the conference had no doubt about what ly with the growing involvement of reby a long series of proposals made to the conformist forces
- and especially social ference and the applause they got. Finn Jensen from the peace group at the B-anddemocracy - in the antiwar movement.
Such a change in the political climate
"The Dutch equivalent of the LO [the FNV] has already decided to hold a 15 in Western Europe would not be without
The Danish LO [Landsorganisation - Nationconsequences for the situation in Eastern al Labor Organization] should follow this example.
Europe.
The spillover effects of the anticontacts to take the lead in working for a simultaneous strike against the missiles war mobilisations in the West are deeply felt in several states in this area, notably
Gert Petersen, the chairperson of the People's Socialist Party [which got about
12% of the vote in the last general elections], also spoke enthusiastically about a
East Germany.
When this or that bourgeois politician
"What is decisive now is to get it accepted that we are no longer talking about talks of relaunching European military minutes but days and weeks, if we finally begin to strike against the missiles.
peace'
'preserve of cooperation, to
On the same line, the chairperson of the Danish Communist Party, Joergen course, this is the situation they are responding to.
"It is essential for the workers movement to begin to use work stoppages to
In contrast to the situation in the put an end to the crazy stepping up of the arms race.
1950s, the European bourgeoisies today to see the workers movements all over the world decide to stop all work
Whether this lasts five minutes of five weeks is are no longer strictly dependent on the not the important thing. The decisive thing is that we go as far as we can and
United States. In some arenas they are able to compete economically with their
The idea of a European-wide people's strike against the missiles is spreading like
American partner, and politically they do ince a group of teachers in Naestved formed an initiative group t not always let the USA tell them what to pread the idea a tew months ago, a long series of peace groups, workplace con do. On the military front the situation is mittees and unions, as well as persons of degrees of prominence, have come out in
Theoretically, the more complicated.
forces of the different West European one of the initiators, says, capitalist states form a topnotch miliways believed in the idea, but none of us expected it to spread so quickly.
The fact that the idea has real power was shown, among other things, by the tary entity under one command, but this perspective is totally illusory.
vote at the 1984 Danish Peace Conference.
the various plenary sessions where the idea was raised, the reception was positive,
It is illusory because the integration of forces cannot be posed these military
A long series of shop stewards and union officials signed a statement in supin the same terms as in the 1950s.
The port of the idea, including Gert Petersen from the People's Socialist Party; Holger main military force in Western Europe
Foss, the chairperson of the building workers and also a member of the Socialist outside the American forces, including
People's Party; as well as Anker Scherning from the Samarbejdskomitee [one of the the submarines assigned to Europe and peace organizations ]and the Danish Communist Party.
leading Social Democratic unionists and members of the SAM the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean - is
(Socialdemokrater mod Atomvaaben og Militarisme - Social Democrats Against the French.
Nuclear Weapons and Militarism) expressed their full support for the idea.
includes the chairperson of the Aalborg district council of the LO, Frank Iversen;
Military cooperation the chairperson of the Vestegnen district council in Copenhagen, Knud Andersen;
and European defence
Christian Zastrau from the Copenhagen engineering workers; Kurt Johansen from the Copenhagen warehouse and retail-trade workers; as well as Toben Thomsen
While France remains one of the pillars of the Atlantic Alliance, it withdrew
Finally, the initiative group got a declaration of support from the Nej til Aromof the major peace groups], which through its Copenhagen its forces from the joint military command in 1966. It has a large nucler coordinating group is giving full backing to the idea.
The Initiative Group has just printed thousands of posters, stickers and leafcapacity, although not comparable to that of the US or the Soviet Union. Like lets to be distributed on the Easter marches.
If you are interested in learning more about the project, you can contact the the United States, it is militarily involved
Initiativgrup at Herlufmagle School, 4169 Herlufmagle [in the Copenhagen area ] or in a number of world hotspots, in Africa, the Middle East and the Persian Gulf.
Britain is quite a different case as it has a much greater military dependence on the United States for obtaining and maintaining nuclear arms systems and for military strategy, because it is completely the Nato command integrated into
Military integration would necessitate the inclusion of the French nuclear force in a wider overall conception.
hypotheses have been put forward (Paris-
London, Paris-Bonn) but they stumble on the following questions: In the context of a strategy of deterrent, who will
Birger SOERENSEN
W shipyards said, for example:
minute general strike on May 10.
in all the European countries."
new strike for peace. He said:
Jensen, said:
until the missiles are taken out.
still maintain unity."
support of the initiative.
Dennis Hehr, at times even enthusiastic.
from the Aalborg bricklayers.
have the authority to make the final decision to use nuclear weapons? Francois Mitterrand like Charles de Gaulle before him would say, deterrent is the president, it is me'
In fact, the integration of military forces at this level would suppose the previous existence of a European political power with a strong executive, whose president would have full power in this arena. This type of power, like that of a nation-state, will not come from a linear
It should use its international Personally, I would be
"It's really overwhelming
In particular in the discussions at On the other hand it is easy to see the interest for the French bourgeoisie in linking German economic potential to their own military strength. The reactionary leader Jacques Chirac has already made this sort of proposal. This does not hold up, unless one imagines
START: Strategic Arms Reduction Talks; missiles; MBFR: negotiations on conventional
International Viewpoint 7 May 1984
a complex 'dual key' system of control on which Nato has already come to grief. (7) The proposal by John F. Kennedy on this at the beginning of the 1960s has remained a dead letter. Anyway, German leaders have never shown much interest in such projects.
If integration from the top thus has to be excluded, there remains creeping integration at the bottom. This means a strengthening of cooperation, principally at the economic level, for research and production of new weapon systems. Because of the particular importance of its arms industry, which takes almost 10 per cent of the world market, the French government is actively in favour of tnis proposition. For Prime Minister Pi rre Mauroy "The concept of defenc: of Europe has to be well distinguisned from that of European defence. The idea of European defence implies an integrated, collective organisation, which could only be introduced if a single political authority existed. On the other hand, the increased consciousness in European public opinion of the imbalance that has appeared in the balance of forces between East and West gives a new topicality to the idea of "defence of Europe". In this spirit we should be able to develop cooperation between Europeans, particularly on the question of arms. Certain tri- or bilateral projects have already started: Transall, Jaguar and Alphajet aeroplanes; Puma and Gazelle helicopters; Milan, Hot and Roland missiles; tripartite minesweepers, for example. However, the structures for this cooperation, the Permanent Arms Committee, or the European Independent Programmes Group, have only obtained limited results. A joint policy of arms production should be considered as a priority target among the many tasks that have to be undertaken to improve a system of defence for Western Europe. In a period where there are active peace, neutralist and anti-nuclear movements, it is particularly important to preserve and strengthen Western European countries desire for defence.' (8)
Launching ramp for Pershing II (DR)
This is the only project that is even slightly serious and credible, even if in the short and medium term it faces big obstacles.
The main obstacle is that the armament industries of the different countries are not of the same size or importance, or in the same relationship to American competition. This is because of the different scope of the arms industry in each country, its place on the world military chessboard and, finally, because of the differing shares acquired by each national industry on the world arms market. A report of the general affairs commission of the Western European Union in 1979 described the particular situation this produces in the following terms: 'In the present circumstances every thing indicates that, within the Atlantic Alliance at least, the American arms producers profit the most. In fact, since they enjoy the large market that the US armed forces offers them, they can supply foreign markets with products whose production costs, including those of research and development, are spread wide. The European industries though can only spread their costs over the much smaller number of units that their national armies require. Thus, they are in a less advantageous position in the markets of their European partners than their American rivals. This situation gets worse still if one looks at the possibilities for "compensation". As they produce a smaller number of finished products, in order to offer equal "compensation" , they have to increase the amount that they are prepared to buy from their customers. (9) Thus the economy of scale phenomenon works in favour of the American producers against their European rivals on two counts. This explains the commercial success they have often had in Europe during the last few years. These successes help to still further limit the outlets for the Europeans, while increasing those for the Americans. Thus they strengthen the process which is rapidly leading European industrialists to confine themselves to a back up and sub-contracting role for their American rivals.' (10) The economic limits
The situation has changed very little since then. And this led Pierre Mauroy to make the following remarks to the French National Institute for Defence Studies on September 20, 1983: 'The arms family projects were launched in 1977 in the framework of the Atlantic Alliance. These should have made it possible to divide research and development between Americans and Europeans, according to their capacities. This project had to be abandoned under the pressure of American industrialists. Governmental will is not always enough in this arena. There are considerable economic, financial and industrial interests at stake. I think that the defence industry of the European countries has never been able to present a united front to its American partner. What is more
Manoeures of the French Rapid Action Force created by Mitterrand (DR)
International Viewpoint 7 May 1984 serious, is that the European governments have not tried with sufficient conviction to defend and encourage a European armament industry!
Bitter remarks, hard reality arising from the actual relationship of forces in this arena, which it is difficult to see how to change.
The international economic and finan7. "Dual key' control implies joint responsibility between two states on the decision to fire nuclear weapons. In other words, one state would be able to veto the decision. This makes it less likely that weapons would be fired, and thus reduces credibility as a deterrent. particularly when one key would be held by the US and the other by a European country. 8. Opening speech at the September 1983 session of the IHEDN (National Institute for Defence Studies). 9. The 'compensation' mechanism entails that a state wishing to sell arms has to offer to buy arms or other products from the buyer. 10. A report on the conditions for European cooperation on arms, presented to the 25th Ordinary Session of the Assembly, in May 1979.
13
cial mechanisms help to perpetuate this state of affairs. At the same time the general capitalist economic crisis on the one hand, and the prospect of a contraction in the world arms market on the other are casting a shadow over the future of those, like the French bourgeoisie, who have developed an arms industry out of line with the economic and industrial potential of their country.
On May 17, 1983, Le Monde gave a more precise analysis of this question of financing the spending linked to US arms production. Among other things one could read there: *Financing military spending other than by deficit would condemn the American economy first to stagnation and then to a sort of economic regression which would doom any military ambitions. Therefore, the only compromise solution has to be compulsory saving, which will nevertheless put into question the maintenance of the net volume of investment compatible with sustained growth. In 1983, spending was five times greater than net investment. In 1984, although the new recovery should continue, the ratio is expected to remain at 2.5:1. The monetary veil has cast its undulating folds around the reality of the evolution of American military strategy. In general, the imposition of such a high level of compulsory savings (7 to 8 per cent of Gross National Product) in a democracy, can only be achieved in a lasting fashion through inflation, which is in any case more and more difficult to control. There is only one other way of sustaining such an intense military effort: to reduce compulsory savings, that is to increase voluntary savings through maintaining a high interest rate. The help from foreign, European or even Arab, savings in the financing of the US military spending effort reconstitutes a de facto solidarity in a way that corresponds rather closely in the end to a proportional distribution of responsibility according to income.'
In these economic conditions, the perspective of substantial strengthening of military cooperation between European bourgeoisies, at least for arms production, seems in jeopardy.
While, in the present state of affairs, economic limits constitute the main obstacle to introducing joint arms production, what is going on in the background concerning military strategy should not be ignored. By extending their defence policy and, as a consequence, that of the capitalist world to a worldwide perspective, the US is foreing its allies, one after the other, to new sacrifices of sovereignty. The Euromissiles, and then the adoption of the Air-Land Battle doctrine by Nato - which opens up the perspective of a nuclear, chemical, conventional forward offensive battle on European territory -show this clearly with respect to the central European field of battle.
This has rather overshadowed the Americans other manoeuvres and war plans, particularly in the Mediterranean. The considerable strengthening of imper14 ialist military potential in southern Europe, under the pretext of protecting the sea routes which supply raw materials to the Western economies, has succeeded in giving the people of the Iberian peninsular, of Italy, Greece and Turkey, (not to mention all the other peoples who live in the Mediterranean area a place as unenviable as that of the German people in the case of a conflict. Opposing imperialist war plans
None of the European imperialist powers could have a strategy that brings together all the possible threats and conflicts, whether they arise from an East-West conflict, or a more limited dispute between imperialism and one of the 'southern' peoples. The practical result of this is that, while more and more bilateral agreements have been concluded between US imperialism and each of the southern European bourgeoisies, the possibility of a common military policy for the European bourgeoisies in that zone, that would not be strictly aligned on the American line, has become less likely.
French imperialism, despite its very long tradition of involvement in this zone, has also unavoidably had to face this problem.
The sinister Henry Kissinger, well-known for his odious cynicism, was among the first to let the cat out of the bag, with an overall proposal to 'reshape Nato'. The package gift, as it were, was prettily wrapped and presented to the European bourgeoisies as a token of 'the vitality of the Alliance which] requires that Europe develop a greater identity and coherence in defence matters'. (11) • To do so, the Europeans sponsibility ground defence, defence'. this would be by taining additional US ground forces side it'. explicit.
His proposal is to the world. to
European capitalist governments will be asked to endorse over the next period, as usual in a more or less amended version. It is likely that these governments and their backers, caught between the dictates of their protector and the de. mands of massive peace movements, will wax indignant and swear by an independent European defence policy. This will be all the easier as they will be conceding the main points to their US ally.
The workers and peace movements have no interest in granting even an ounce of confidence to the bourgeois or reformist projects that, in the name of a third road between capitalism and the bureaucratic dictatorships of Eastern Europe, advocate European 'neutralism' and total denuclearisation, so as to better prepare national or multinational conventional bourgeois defence. •Those who advocate such plans are, willy nilly, helping the war plans that both the European bourgeoisies and American imperialists are preparing. None of these schemes should get any support whatsoever.
The dangers contained in the present ideological offensive in favour of a European defence policy must not be either underestimated or overestimated. Not underestimated because the offensive's goal is clearly to find a political answer to the peace movements that will allow the unobstructed pursuit of militarisation. Nor should they be overestimated because the conditions do not exist for attempting something like 1952, or even for French imperialism's dreams of a much closer multilateral cooperation to come true. One should not confuse primarily ideological speeches and offensives with the actual creation of a united cap italist Europe in the military field.
The tasks of the peace movement thus emerge more clearly. Just as peace activists fought and continue to fight the deployment of any new US missiles in Europe, just as some of their counterparts in central Europe have begun to fight for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Germany, they will have to fight - as the movement did in the Spanish state - to shut down all foreign bases, especially in southern Europe. These are three demands that lead to the necessary break with Nato, which means not only a break with US imperialism but with the European bourgeoisies as a whole, bourgeoisies that have been allied to the US in the framework of a counterrevolutionary alliance since 1949. Naturally, for us this fight is part of the only historical perspective consonant with the interests of the proletariat, that of the Socialist United States of Euope, because "The slogan of the United States of Europe is not a cunning invention of diplomacy. It springs from the immutable economic needs of Europe which emerge all the more painfully and acutely the greater is the pressure of the USA? (12) 11. Henry Kissinger, Time, March 5, 1984 12. Disarmament and the United States of Europe, Leon Trotsky, October 1929. Writings of Leon Trotsky (1929), Pathfinder Press. New York, 1975.
International Viewpoint 7 May 1984
Pierre Frank is dead, and mass organizations.
The French Trotskyists had to engage in a series of discussions to determine the correct tactical orientation in that complex situation. A series of grievous differences and splits ensued in which