When I telephoned one of my brothers in England early in December, he asked me what I thought of the "big debate." Assuming he referred to the election impasse in Florida that was dominating the nightly news, I began to express my opinion, only to be interrupted by his saying: "No, not that. The big debate."

I hesitated, trying to think of what he might be talking about. Having been cut off from the rest of the world by the American media, which seem incapable of focusing on more than one major issue at a time, I wasn't sure. I had to ask.

"The European Rapid Reaction Force!" he explained. "That's the big debate over here!"

Sure enough, a few days later my weekly Spectator magazine arrived from London and carried its own article on "The Big Debate" that had started thousands of people talking about something that could, in time, fundamentally alter the postwar balance of power and change the direction of the United Kingdom for decades to come. Not just the United Kingdom, either, but all of Europe and North America could be in for some big changes.

The announcement that triggered the big debate was the formation of the Rapid Reaction Force by the nations of the European Union. At stake is the future of the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) alliance, which has united the democratic nations of North America and Western Europe for half a century and brought its members unparalleled peace and prosperity.

The concern for America is that U.S. domination of the alliance may be ending, that the Rapid Reaction Force may be the beginning of the end for the EU-U.S. alliance. It didn't help ease American concerns that in April generals from the EU countries chose a four-star general from Finland-conspicuously a neutral, non-NATO country-to serve as the force's senior military adviser.

An article in Britain's conservative Daily Mail newspaper showed that Prince Charles, heir to the British throne, who is not supposed to get directly involved in politics, has expressed his own grave concerns about the development of the new European military force. He voiced his reservations that the force would signal the end of Britain's military alliance with America, which goes back to World War II. When asked for her opinions on the new force, Margaret Thatcher, former British prime minister, said simply: "I prefer NATO."

Will NATO be superseded by the European Rapid Reaction Force? Nothing is imminent. The multinational setup is not expected to be in place for three years. Initially it will field only 60,000 soldiers at any time, drawn from a larger force of 90,000.

The force will be for emergencies such as the 1999 situation in Kosovo or the ethnic conflicts throughout the Balkans, a region in Europe's own backyard. It will focus on humanitarian and peacekeeping responsibilities. The concerns being expressed are about where the Rapid Reaction Force may lead.

The continuing breakup of the former Yugoslavia during the '90s exposed Europe's military weakness and dependency on the United States. Americans have said for years that Europe needs to do more for itself and thus help the United States cut back on its military expenses in Europe. Europeans are reminded on occasion that they are as rich as the United States and should devote more of their national budgets to defense.

It doesn't help the situation that, while the United States piles up a huge deficit in international trade, most European nations have a surplus. This means the United States needs to cut expenditures overseas while the Europeans should be able to spend more.

The EU's population exceeds that of the United States, and most of the nations that make up the EU have compulsory military service. This is different from American military forces, which suffer manpower shortages. The idea, therefore, of a European Rapid Reaction Force sounds like it makes sense. The traditionally independent-minded French, who have been in the driver's seat of the EU for the past six months, are pushing for it.

The big question: Who will control the Rapid Reaction Force? It doesn't help that the United States is understandably concerned that American leadership of the Western world may be in question. The force is not the only recent major development in Europe. The December summit of EU leaders in Nice, France, shows an urgent commitment to European expansion and political unity.

After the Nice summit the BBC World Service's Analysis program raised the possibility of a new European superpower when it asked: "In 1990 there were two superpowers. Now there is only one. Could there soon be another?"

It was the first time I had heard Europe referred to as a superpower, albeit only a potential one. No doubt this is not the last time we will hear talk of blossoming Europeanism. As the BBC went on to report, any two superpowers will inevitably have areas of conflict, and those areas are growing by the day.

The idea of a European superpower to rival or even surpass the United States is anything but far-fetched. GN