CLARK MC FADDEN: With respect to the objectives of this conference, it may be slightly more modest to come up with a set of guidelines or rules of operation that can accommodate these differences and that can lead to growth and prosperity without diminishing the differences in national interest.
SYLVIA OSTRY: It seems almost inevitable that as you move towards the blurring line between civilian and military, friction is bound to increase. I have been in meetings in Europe where it is believed that the Americans are going to pull out of NATO, that the Republican Congress is such and such, and that therefore the Europeans will have to be autonomous.
The Japanese stance is perfectly logical. They have done extremely well. But as they approach the frontier, as the catch-up phase diminishes, they will be less willing to cooperate.
But there was a point that was made here today that I find even more interesting. In the weapons competition, which is very fierce, I was trying to imagine a high-technology enemy, and I thought of Bosnia. It is clear that it would be possible for the United States to produce some high-technology enemies by weapons competition, which in turn could develop into a vicious cycle.
JACQUES GANSLER: In fact, the most likely high-technology enemies are equipped with U.S. equipment. What many countries are doing—France, Russia, China, and Israel are probably taking the lead in this area—is taking good, firstline equipment and upgrading it. They are making it actually a lot better and for very small incremental costs.
It is this rapid worldwide spread of technology and weapons that is the concern that many people now have. You do not have to be a fully developed nation with the capability to develop these weapons. You can simply buy them at bargain basement prices.