European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - November 10, 1993, Darmstadt, Hesse                                Wednesday november 10, 1993 commentary the stars and stripes Page 15 Fai i u re of Naftal Wou id cripple free Anthony Lewis it is As a Symbol that the North american free Trade agreement really matters ithe economic effects of the agreement on the United states would be  if Congress turns Down the agreement to wipe out Trade barriers by Canada mexi co and the United states the political con sequences would be  matter How the opponents try to Dis Guise it the world would see defeat As message that America has gone protectionist. That would. Encourage the protectionism already rising in France and else where in Europe. The Effort to Complete the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and Trade negotiation would collapse i am  should the French government whose fear of farm voters now blocks agreement show political courage on Trade when the United states has abandoned its most important Trade venture in years from the collapse of the Uruguay round there could follow a worldwide Retreat from free Trade. Political leaders might Well continue to profess loyalty to the principle but they would give Way to local pressures for barriers Here there everywhere. Would such a surge of Protection ism matter it could i think it would mean the end of nearly 50 years of Ris ing world Prosperity. That s All. Since world War ii the world has experienced extraordinary economic growth. The engine for that growth has been International Trade vastly increased Trade in an age of More and More rapid transportation and communication. Successive rounds of Tariff reduction have fuelled the Rise of International Trade. The United states has been the Leader in efforts to Cut not Only tariffs but also quotas and other non Banff  now the Leader would be seen to have turned away turned  arguments made against Naftal by such significant opponents As the United Auto workers seem to me to come Down to fear of change and fear of foreigners. Change can indeed be pain Ful certainly so in our accelerating technological world. But the alternative to change is stagnation. One great american economic asset historically has been mobility. The secret of our Prosperity has been the mobility of both capital and labor in a huge Market the readiness to seize new opportunities to move. The need for mobility is the greater Inan age when new technological products can work economic revolutions when computer software becomes Avital Indus try overnight. Yet the opponents of Afta want us to put our Faith in keep ing things As they Are resisting change. The irony is that the jobs they want to protect Many of them Are Low wage jobs. But the future Prosperity of the United states depends on moving people and capital into new enterprises High paying ones not in telling us that wended learn nothing new. I have heard it said that president Linton acted against his own political in Terest in pressing for approval of naft because he alienated the labor unions that Are the Core of democratic Patty support. I think that gets the politics exactly backward. Unions in this country sad to say Are looking More and More like the British unions that have become such a Millstone around the neck of the labor party backward unenlightened. Clinton cannot build a new democratic party on that base. The crude threat ening tactics used by unions to make democratic members of the House vote against Naftal underline the Point. The consequences of Naftal s defeat would be particularly bad in latin Amer Ica. It would As Bernard Aronson for Mer assistant Secretary of state said strengthen traditional economic cliques which have grown Rich by manipulating and sometimes corrupting their political systems to shut out Competition at the expense of Ordinary  Given the growing economic clout Orasia a rational United states would be doing All it can to increase Trade in it sown hemisphere. Mexico is already Pur third largest Export customer despite mexican barriers to . Products that would be re moved by Naftal. Defeat of the agreement would be a Good Way to Tel Mexico we do not care about that Market. The opponents Are really saying Stop the world i want to get off. But we can not do that. All we can do is impoverish ourselves in the attempt. Com r people capital int enterprises Ica c the  a realizing Clausewitz s american Way of War its funny that the Media increasingly seems to for Kings and princes. It was a matter for what he called the Van cd Here syndrome. __.,_. Funn that the Media increasingly seems to understand the need for reporters who cover the Law Medicine and business to have some expertise noted Charles Peters in the Washington monthly a novem Ber 1993 Issue. But in government the Assumption is that anybody could do it ". One of Washington s most perceptive critics Peters haste same Blind spot when it comes to covering the Mili tary. In choosing John Lancaster who covers the Penta gon for the Washington Post to review John Keegan s a history of warfare in that same Issue Peters assumed degree of competence that was not there. Lancaster s Lack of grasp of the basics of . Military is apparent for it is Clear from his review that he is abysmally ignorant of the fundamentals of military theory and philosophy that determine the course of . Military operations. Among those fundamentals is the . Military s Reliance on the writings of the prussian army officer Karl von Clausewitz for a appreciation of the very nature of War. Fundamental to the Post Vietnam Renaissance within the military Clausewitz s on War first published in 1832, is used As a student text at All of the military War colleges. And it is used paradoxically because it most closely coincides with the american Way of  Veteran of the Napoleonic wars Clausewitz Drew from the French revolution what the framers of the Constitution had drawn from the american revolt an important lesson was that War was no longer a matter Xing. I remarkable Trinity of the people the government and the military. While the military wages War it is the people whose passions Are the engine of War. The responsibility of the government is to temper and translate those passions into achievable political objectives whose attainment fur thers the National interest the Only source of War is politics Clausewitz wrote the Intercourse of government and  even More important was clause Witz s validation of one of the foundation stones of american democracy civilian control of the military. Subordinating the political Point of View to the military would be absurd Clausewitz wrote for it is policy that creates War. Policy is the guiding Intelli gence and War Only the instrument not vice versa. No other possibility exists then than to subordinate the military Point of View to the political. But now almost certainly never having read clause Witz himself Lancaster gives credence to John Keegan s provocative theme that Clausewitz was  a British historian and journalist Keegan like most historians is blissfully ignorant about War s underlying philosophies. He also reflects the general British disdain for Clausewitz based one can Only conclude on the not in Harry g. Summers vented Herc  Hart the celebrated British strategist once condemned Clausewitz As a proponent of total War. Infant Clausewitz wrote one of the most powerful practical arguments Ever made against War becoming absolute violence. But Keegan perpetuates that wilful Igno Rance. As Lancaster approvingly notes " it was Only the Advent of nuclear weapons Keegan writes that exposed the hollowness of Clausewitz an analysis once and Tor All. How could War be an Extension of politics when the object of rational politics is to further the Well being of political entities " like Keegan Lancaster obviously does not know that Clausewitz made precisely the same Point 160 years ago. War does not Advance relentlessly toward the absolute As theory would demand Clausewitz said. Being incomplete and self contradictory it can not follow its own Laws but has to be treated As a part of some other whole the name of which is policy. Thus policy converts the overwhelmingly destructive element of War into a Mere  Lancaster s out of hand dismissal of Clausewitz an theory without at least an appreciation of How it complements the american Way of War Calls into question his own qualifications As a Pentagon reporter. But ironically it validates Peters insight that it will be impossible to Reform the government until editors hire reporters and Book reviewers who have worked in government and know How it functions. " c u � a geto Tom