*97012901

NATO: SOLANA MOSCOW TALKS; FRANCO-GERMAN 'ACCORD'

(Foreign Media Reaction Daily Digest)

NATO Secretary General Solana's talks in Moscow Jan. 20 with Russian Foreign Minister Primakov, the beginning of a new round of negotiations over NATO's plans for enlargement, were widely seen in the media abroad as yielding little or no progress. "The parties retained their old positions," concluded Chisinau's opposition Tara. "That means NATO will continue the expansion and Russia will continue to oppose it." Commentators were not disappointed, however. Some assumed that the real bargaining eventually will take place between Washington and Moscow, others judged that the discussions revealed a "factional split in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs" over enlargement, and a few in Central Europe were relieved that there was no decision made on what Polish national TV Channel 2 called "the question...about the range of the Russian veto." Centrist Rzeczpospolita of Warsaw insisted, "Worse news would have been that of an agreement...which would entail a threat to tailor the shape of our membership according to Moscow's needs." The Russian press mirrored the reported "split" in the government, with dailies arguing whether it would be better to work with NATO, join it or resist enlargement. They offered conflicting advice even when agreeing that Russia should secure a special charter with the Alliance. "There's no rush," held reformist weekly Obshchaya Gazeta. "Russia has made no commitments to sign a treaty in time for the NATO summit in Madrid." Reformist Izvestia countered that Russia should hurry up and profit from NATO's offers, since it needs "an early agreement more than the other side does." Journalists recalled that, just a few weeks before the Solana-Primakov session, Russia brandished the prospect of reuniting with Belarus and advancing its frontier westward as a counter to a larger NATO. As other Russian papers did, reformist, youth Moskovskiy Komsomolets endorsed this move, declaring that association with Belarus is "perhaps the most formidable weapon in Russia's political arsenal. It is a sure way to wring serious concessions from the West." Observers in other countries acknowledged that, in the words of right- of-center Die Welt of Berlin, a Russia-Belarus union would "change the security situation," but in ways that might not please Moscow, since it would make "enlargement inevitable, to reassure...NATO countries...at the periphery of NATO."

Western European analysts were also fascinated by revelations in Paris's left-of-center Le Monde that France and Germany have reached a "strategic policy" accord that allegedly includes Paris's sharing its nuclear arsenal with Bonn. But on France Inter radio, former French Socialist Defense Minister Jean-Pierre Chevenement dismissed claims that this accord would create "a Franco-German defense structure...with the dual patronage of Europe and NATO." France, he said, has simply given up on its demands for a European to head the Alliance's Southern Command, and "signed a 'strategic policy' with Germany which is not a policy and shows no strategy.... The only strategy mentioned is that our forces will be at the disposal of NATO." Centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich echoed this assessment, maintaining that "there can be no special Franco-German path in nuclear matters" and that the objective of any Franco-German "dialogue" must be "to link the French nuclear power with the Alliance."
This survey is based on 65 reports from 16 countries, Jan. 14-Feb. 2.
EDITOR: Mildred Sola Neely

EUROPE

RUSSIA: "Solana's Style"

Alexander Golts said in weekly magazine Itogi (1/28), "There are grounds to fear that the style of the present secretary general threatens to stall the negotiations between Russia and NATO. His flexibility and a tendency to avoid open debate may mislead his Russian interlocutors into thinking that they could wrest more favorable terms by applying a little more pressure. Yet even in the unlikely case that Moscow will prevail upon the NATO secretary general (who has some sympathy for Russia), it doesn't follow that the NATO states--which have the final say--will agree with him. The paradox is that Russia would be better off with a tougher opponent. A person capable not only of finding an elegant compromise but of convincing the leaders of NATO countries that this is the only possible formula."

"Cold War Still On"

Under this headline, reformist, business weekly VEK (# 2, 1/24) published a comment by Vladimir Prikhvatilov and Oleg Solodukhin: "Moscow's firm stand on NATO expansion probably means that it has abandoned starry-eyed liberal-democratic hopes for U.S. and other foreign aid, realizing that the West's traditionally tough policy for Russia has not changed. The leaders of the 'free world' have been viewing this country as a historical rival and will never do anything to make it stronger. It is a fact that the Western community has always sought, through a conscious and concerted action, to weaken Russia's positions practically everywhere.... In continuing the Cold War against Russia, the West has often rudely interfered in her internal affairs. The damage caused to the Russian economy by the notorious financial stabilization, carried out as suggested by Western experts, is comparable to a defeat in a large-scale war."

"Russia Wants Say In NATO"

Vladimir Razuvayev stated in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (1/24): "'Atlanticists' and those who have grudgingly resigned themselves to the idea of NATO expansion, as a decided matter, clearly prevail in the Russian media. The best known TV personalities are among them. Funny, their views again greatly differ from public opinion. Official Moscow, however, remains adamant, insisting that it will not stop being wary of NATO until it has a say in this Alliance."

"Russia Seeks Compensation"

Leonid Velekhov, commenting in reformist Segodnya (1/23) on the atmosphere of secrecy which surrounded the recent Primakov-Solana meeting near Moscow, said: "Scant information and observers' skepticism regarding Russia's chances of getting compensation for NATO's apparently inevitable enlargement are only natural. You cannot blame the Russian Foreign Ministry for hating to see its performance criticized."

"Russia Needs Legally Binding Treaty"

Alexander Nizhegorodtsev held in reformist weekly Obshchaya Gazeta (# 3, 1/23): "Of course, a legal document requires ratification by the national parliaments of NATO member- nations, which takes a lot of time. The Atlanticists are right about that. So what? There's no rush. Russia has made no commitments to sign a treaty in time for the NATO summit in Madrid. We are after quality, not speed. Even without any treaty with NATO, Russia will not cease to be a factor of European security. A hastily drafted, declarative document, while creating the illusion of our being involved in deciding Europe's future, will in fact be a mere 'paper curtain' which can divide countries and continents as effectively as an 'iron' one."

"Europe Unable To Build Own Security Base"

Duma deputy Vladimir Averchev pointed out in reformist writers' weekly Literaturnaya Gazeta (# 3, 1/23): "We invite politicians in Europe and North America to build a strategic bridge between Russia and NATO symmetrical to the one built across the Atlantic over 50 years ago.... One of the greatest disappointments of the last decade is that Europe has been unable to create a security basis of its own within the transatlantic community, as symbolized by its fiasco in the former Yugoslavia, where restoring peace took a lot of strenuous effort by U.S. diplomacy. France is going back to NATO's military organization to try again to help Europe take good care of its own security. Having Russia as a full partner along with the United States and Canada is the shortest way to that goal."

"Moscow Eager For Dialogue"

Maxim Yusin reported in reformist Izvestia (1/22) about the recent Primakov-Solana talks: "It looked as if Moscow was now interested in a dialogue no less than the guests from Brussels.... Anyway, Russian leaders must realize that they need an early agreement more than the other side does."

"Moscow Must Give Up Ambition"

Andrei Medin stated in reformist Vechernyaya Moskva (1/22): "Moscow still has time to reach an honorable agreement with Brussels. To do that, it must give up its imperial ambition and be ready for compromise."

"Military Alliance With Belarus Is Answer"

Alexei Zverev held in reformist, youth Moskovskiy Komsomolets (1/22): "A real military-political association with Belarus is perhaps the most formidable weapon in Russia's political arsenal. It is a sure way to wring serious concessions from the West. All Javier Solana has offered us so far is a review of several treaties, a continued nuclear disarmament, more investments, and a 'formal agreement' on 'stable and long-term relations'.... All that is nothing compared to the strategic advantages the proposed expansion will give NATO."

"Make Hay While The Sun Shines"

Maxim Yusin stated in reformist Izvestia (1/18): "Javier Solana and his aides are well disposed to Russia. Now, before their attitude changes and NATO expands, Moscow has a great chance to secure a good agreement with this Alliance.... Russia, more than the other side, must be interested in intensifying the talks, since so far, it has only had to deal with 16 Western nations. As shown by the past few years, finding common ground with former potential enemies is a good deal easier than with former Communist brothers."

"Some Think Feud Shortest Way To Security"

Vladimir Abarinov of reformist Segodnya (1/18) observed: "On the one hand, it is clear that NATO will expand, and Moscow must do something to get out of this predicament, before it is too late. People here cannot but see that, a war danger from the West, unlike its real and reliable initiatives, is propaganda. On the other hand, many politicians in Russia, given to perverted surreal notions, believe confrontation is the shortest way to security."

"Quality Better Than Speed"

Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (1/21) front-paged this piece by Yulia Petrovskaya and Dmitry

Gornostayev: "Evidently, Russia should not hurry when it comes to a final draft treaty with NATO. The quality of the talks is more important than their speed. Not only Russia's future but Europe's security depends on their outcome. The proposed treaty, not enlarged NATO or the OSCE, may provide a basis for international relations in Europe."

"Clear Choice For True Russian Patriot, Although West Frowns On Idea"

Duma Deputy Boris Fyodorov stated on page one of reformist Rossiyskiye Vesti (1/15): "Steps toward reunification with Belarus will clearly cause acute displeasure among certain forces in the West. They fear a strong Russia in a way that is irrational and strictly genetic. Hence feverish attempts to expand NATO eastward to deter Russia (who else?). Only the blind cannot see the danger of those preparations. It is more proof that reunification with Belarus is the only right choice. We cannot let this historic chance be wasted. It is clear to any true Russian patriot."

"Who Is Russia? Partner Or Enemy?"

Reformist Izvestia (1/15) ran this comment by Maxim Yusin: "The advocates of Russia-Belarus reunification present it as a response to NATO enlargement, as an 'adequate reaction' to the West's 'hostile intrigues.' But why do our politicians think confrontation with NATO inevitable? Is the West going to attack us? Isn't it from the West that we've been asking (and receiving) economic aid? Isn't it the West which, in a most delicate way, has been treating our problems, vacillations, ill- conceived moves, and even absurdities like the Chechen war? The proposed alliance with Belarus, as anti-West scare tactics, can only lead to Yeltsin finally convincing 'friend Bill,' 'friend Helmut,' and 'friend Chirac'...that Russia is no partner but a potential enemy."

"NATO's Expansion: Key Issue"

Viktor Kuvaldin of the Gorbachev Foundation mused in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (1/14): "For years to come, NATO's expansion will remain a prevalent foreign policy subject, its importance, remarkably, underestimated and overestimated by the Russian political elite, all at the same time. It is being overestimated because admitting new members to NATO is unlikely to change Russia's geopolitical position. It is being underestimated because we are talking here of making a strategic choice, a choice of our future.... Let's face it, NATO is the only viable security structure in Europe.... None of the post-Soviet nations, Russia included, has firm international security guarantees.... The West needs immediately to start negotiations on gradually integrating Russia into NATO with a view to creating comprehensive European security systems, with NATO's expansion suspended."

GERMANY: "No German Finger On The Trigger"

Ruediger Moniac noted in an editorial in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (1/29), "The discussion about an allegedly secret agreement between Bonn and Paris...is entering a dimension that is distorting and inappropriate in reality.... We can only second the view of CDU foreign policy spokesman Karl Lamers who said that the question of a German finger on the 'nuclear trigger' does not even come to the fore. It has always been difficult in German circles to discuss the rationality of the tasks of nuclear weapons as part of a political-military means to preserve peace.... If the European Union is to develop into a security community that is able to act, considerations about the inclusion of a nuclear component in available military potentials...are inevitable. But this does not mean that Germany is automatically a nuclear power. Logic should tell critics that Germany would then also have been a nuclear power in the framework of NATO."

"Shhhh!"

Paris correspondent Bodo Morawe said in a commentary on regional radio Hessischer Rundfunk of Frankfurt (1/28): "Why is there no public debate about the Franco-German strategy paper?... The core problems behind the formula compromises, Paris's special role (in NATO), the German increase in power, and a European nuclear strategy are politically so explosive that every public discussion would bring to the fore the 'arriere pensees' in Bonn and Paris. But nobody is prepared for this, since it is likely that it would result in a political nuclear fission in Europe."

"Only Within NATO"

Kurt Kister noted in an editorial in centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (1/28), "There can be no special Franco- German path in nuclear matters, even though it is embellished with the phrase of a European 'defense identity.' In the interest of NATO, which will be Germany's security policy home in the future, too, it must be the aim of the announced dialogue to link the French nuclear power with the Alliance. If the Bonn government, with its special relations with France, wants to play the mediator among the French, the Americans and the bodies in Brussels, then this will be a reasonable, future-oriented defense policy.

"A Franco-German entente nucleaire would certainly promote French interests. As far as politics is concerned, it could open up new possibilities for a seesaw policy between a grand alliance with NATO and a small alliance with Germany. For the Bonn government, however, this would harbor not only the risk of increasing alienation from Washington. In addition...this would also be a great step to establish a secret nuclear power in Germany."

"Unspectacular"

Regional radio Bayerischer Rundfunk of Munich (1/27) aired these comments: "How useful will this Franco-German paper be in view of the fact that President Chirac embarrassed the German partner several times before?... In the strategy paper, both countries commit themselves to creating a European defense identity but also to an equal engagement in NATO. Originally, France pursued the idea of an independent European defense without the Americans, but France did not find a partner. Now this aim is to be achieved within NATO in an alliance with the Americans, but this goal is still far away and evidence of this is the term 'defense identity,' which circumvents clear fixations. The statements regarding the French nuclear weapons are totally unspectacular. (Both sides) want a dialogue about the role of these weapons in the context of a European defense planning. The statement could be hardly more non- committal. Neither the Bonn government wants a second key for these weapons nor is the Paris government even thinking about such a possibility.... More important than papers is Franco-German cooperation in practice. Soldiers of both sides are currently cooperating in Bosnia. The joint mission in Bosnia serves as a test run for future cases. The significance of this cooperation is much greater than all declarations--even if they are signed at the top level."

"Re-Integration' Of CIS Would Have Consequences For NATO"

Lothar Ruehl reacted in an editorial in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (1/23) to the prospect of a Russia-Belarus merger: "(These developments) could prompt the government in Bucharest to accede to the Alliance and in this context a Russian reintegration' policy...would play a decisive role.... Such a development would also raise the question of the future of the Baltic states. There is no doubt that Belarus's merger with Russia even without a military integration would prompt the three Baltic states to knock at NATO's doors in Brussels--and it would be much more difficult than in the past for the Alliance to reject their wish to accede.

"There are still good reasons to stop NATO's enlargement at the eastern borders of Poland and Hungary. But a real union between Moscow and Minsk would strongly change the security situation, making a further enlargement inevitable to reassure the remaining Western NATO countries that are situated at the periphery of NATO."

"Everything Will Depend On Understanding Between U.S., Russia"

Werner Adam noted in an editorial in right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/21), "The beginning of talks between NATO's Secretary General Solana with Russia's Foreign Minister Primakov, therefore, is hardly more than the beginning of a protracted process in which everything will, in the end depend on an understanding between Washington and Moscow."

"Solana's Task: Squaring The Circle"

Jens Dorner judged in an editorial in right-of-center Bonner Rundschau (1/21), "NATO, under these circumstances, will not create a new consensus in Moscow in the coming months but instead it will be blamed for everything that goes wrong. It is also certain that it will even be impossible for Javier Solana to square the circle.... Like in geometry, the planned security partnership with Moscow will at best turn out to be a miscreation. However, this could be tolerated if the common core in the European search for peace is maintained."

"Fine, But..."

According to centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (1/21), "We could expect everything from NATO's Secretary General Solana except that he would return from Moscow with a clear result.... The ex-foreign minister of Spain...seems to have survived the first stage of a difficult trip in a favorable condition. However, the situation can quickly change. This will be true in particular if the leadership crisis in Moscow expands to a noisy war of succession. At the latest at that time, the concept NATO considers a draft for foreign policy stability could turn into a poisonous bone of contention."

"Russian Blackmail"

Werner Adam judged in an editorial in right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/14), "This cannot be a coincidence. A few days before the negotiations between NATO Secretary General Solana and Russia's Foreign Minister Primakov, Moscow...announced plans for a merger between Russia and Belarus. The fact that Boris Yeltsin, who is bedridden, has nothing more important to do than to suggest a referendum on the formation of a uniform state...is nurturing the assumption that there is a link to NATO's plans. It is true that Russian forces patrol along the Belarussian border, but if a merger took place, Greater Russia would border on the Polish accession candidate and on Lithuania that has turned into an obstacle on the path to the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. From a NATO angle this is a strategy of blackmail.... When will the Alliance finally admit this?"

BRITAIN: "Is Russia Ready To Leave Its Lair?"

An editorial in the independent weekly Economist held (1/24): "Since there can be no going back--to abandon long- standing promises because of a Russian tantrum would bust the Alliance--NATO's enlargement will start, as planned, after a special summit in July.... But, if enlarging NATO is to add to Europe's security, rather than diminish it, Russia's legitimate concerns need to be addressed....

"If Russia is ready to strike a deal, there is plenty on offer.... If the Russian bear chooses to be friendly, all of Europe could enjoy the partnership. In the end, though, whether or not Europe slips back into old rivalries depends on how Russia now reacts.... But is Russia ready to leave its lair?"

"NATO Enlargement Out Of Kilter With EU's"

The independent Financial Times suggested in an op-ed commentary by columnist Ian Davidson (1/22), "NATO enlargement has now become an unstoppable commitment which will be translated into practice in July. Unfortunately, enlargement may cause plenty of trouble without doing any good.... It could jeopardize the West's strategic relationship with Russia.... If NATO enlargement is unavoidable, there might be fewer problems if it proceeded gradually, in parallel with the eastward expansion of the European Union. In that case NATO could play a quieter role and the whole process of uniting Europe could be made to seem more peaceful.

"In fact, the reverse is happening. NATO enlargement is getting out of kilter with the timing of the eastward enlargement of the EU.... What this means is that for at least the next five years, and probably longer, the main burden of uniting Europe will fall on the NATO military alliance."

FRANCE: "European Defense: A Mirage"

Former French Ambassador Gabriel Robin groused in right-of- center Le Figaro (1/29): "Since our Allies refuse to abandon their position, France will abandon hers.... One thing is certain: The defense of Europe will not be in the hands of a 'European defense.' It will be in the hands of Washington.... Europe will only get the left-over crumbs.... There are appearances and illusions: The proposed deputy posts in the NATO hierarchy are for appearance's sake; the illusion is that these posts will evolve into major positions.... To understand what the 'European defense' will look like, ask Yugoslavia: It is a sharing in which Europe gets the rough end of war and the United States gets credit for the Dayton accords.... You start out wearing the 'European defense' uniform and end up wearing the Alliance's servant's togs."

"Cooperation"

Daniel Vernet said in left-of-center Le Monde (1/25): "Jacques Chirac and Helmut Kohl share the same view of NATO's enlargement, which they consider to be inevitable, as well as necessary, and of the redefinition of relations with Russia, which they do not want to 'isolate.' Kohl supports France's position on NATO reforms, including the Southern Command.... The signing of the 'strategic concept' may have more symbolic than real repercussions, but if its principles are applied quickly, a Franco-German defense structure should emerge...with the dual patronage of Europe and NATO.... By underscoring their joint approach, Chirac and Kohl prove one thing: In spite of differences...between Bonn and Paris, there is no solution for them except cooperation."

"France Gives Up On Its Independent Defense Policy"

Former Socialist French Minister Jean-Pierre Chevenement commented on France Inter radio (1/27): "Through Mr. de Charette, France has given up on the Southern Command...and we have signed a `strategic policy' with Germany which is not a policy and shows no strategy.... The only strategy mentioned is that our forces will be at the disposal of NATO.... In essence, we align ourselves with Germany, under pretext of building a counterweight to the United States, when Germany in fact is aligned with the United States."

"France-U.S.: The Counterweight"

Hubert Vedrine maintained in right-of-center weekly Le Point (1/25): "There is today, in the tone of voice used by American officials and the media...a desire to show who is in command and to put France back in its place.... How then to remain a friend and ally of such an overpowering nation, without having to always agree? How to preserve France's autonomy and its plan for Europe?... The answer is to use Europe as a counterweight. But this works only when our partners feel commercially threatened and when they are sure it is not a French anti-American crusade.... France's main task is to convince its European partners, and the Americans as well, that a strong Europe, allied with the United States, would make transatlantic relations healthier and would be a security asset for peace."

"NATO: France Looking To Get Out From Under"

Baudoin Bollaert wrote in right-of-center Le Figaro (1/24): "In order to come out of its isolation, France has softened its position on the Southern Command, while remaining firm on its principles.... The daggers are being put away.... France has no choice, faced as it is by the U.S. position.... At the same time, France has arguments to defend the role it wants to play within the Alliance.... In asking whether the Alliance can do without France's potential, France wants to remind (the United States) that it can bring NATO value-added assets when military budgets are being reduced by all. But France will have to play with more finesse than it has in the past."

"The Sound Of Grinding Teeth"

In the opinion of Josette Alia under the headline above in left-of-center weekly Le Nouvel Observateur (1/23): "On NATO, France is caught between its fear of seeing Russia humiliated by the United States, with a risk of a return to the Cold War, and its fear of the United States' granting too many concessions to Russia and later treating the EU as a second-class citizen. The problem is to carry sufficient weight in the game being played out between Washington and Moscow.... One can see that beyond these Franco-American quarrels, what is at stake is the future of U.S. relations with Europe.... In a world which is neither bipolar nor multipolar, the United States stands alone. It is in its interest for Europe to be an autonomous and solid partner. Unless it prefers giving in to the dangers of hegemony. We will know on July 8."

"Disagreement In Moscow Over NATO"

Left-of-center Le Monde pointed out in a piece by Sophie Shihab (1/22): "Russia's embarrassment at being faced with NATO's enlargement was apparent on Monday: The partially state-controlled television stations, which never fail to criticize NATO's arrogance, made a surprising turnabout and criticized the Kremlin's rigid attitude towards NATO, saying it might lead to Russia's weakened isolation.... What is certain is that dissension exists in Moscow about how to deal with NATO.... In the past few days, several leaders of the independent states have put on the pressure with public pro-NATO statements."

ITALY: "NATO Expansion A Nightmare For Moscow"

A commentary by Aldo Rizzo ran in centrist La Stampa (1/20): "The possible revival of a serious clash with Russia on NATO expansion is a danger for America and Europe, but even more so for Russia, whomever its leader, since that would mark the end of a difficult, but vital, economic cooperation with the West, not to mention the possibility of a new strategic game, of which nobody in Moscow, from the left or the right, could afford to bear the cost (the alternative of an anti-Western alliance with China is purely tactical and has no concrete meaning). As for the advantages for Russia, if the latter accepts a realistic and more than dignified agreement with the West following the end of the tragic Communist utopia, it would get in exchange permanent inclusion in a politico- strategic economic system which still appears to be the winning one despite its many difficulties. What will be Russia's choice? And who will be deciding?...

"The problem for the West is that it is not certain that rationality will prevail in Moscow, which remains the second nuclear capital and has a huge geopolitical weight. Yet the West cannot give up too much following its victory in the Cold War."

AZERBAIJAN: "Solana's Visit Revealed Split In Russia's Foreign Ministry"

Under the pen name "Nurani," Tofiqa Qasimova said in independent Ayna/Zerkalo (1/25): "It looks as if Russia will not be able to prevent NATO expansion. But it is also possible that 'in exchange' for NATO expansion, the West will make some concessions to Russia in the arms control issue, specifically in flank agreements. However, Solana's visit revealed certain realities of Russian politics which may have far-reaching consequences.

"It looks as if Solana's visit to Moscow, besides everything else, deepened the factional split in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The future of Russian foreign policy depends on which faction's position wins on Smolensk Square: Will Moscow embark on a risky political controversy with the West, using the support of those whom Kozyrev once called 'political riff-raff,' or will it accept the terms of the West and become a 'buffer zone' between Brussels on the one hand and Tehran and Baghdad on the other? Neither of the alternatives is 100 percent favorable to Moscow."

BELARUS: "What Brought NATO's Secretary General To Moscow?"

Mikhail Shimanskiy wrote under the headline above in government Respublika (1/22): "The North Atlantic Alliance attempts to lay out its relationship with Russia. The NATO secretary general's trip is regarded in the West as the beginning of the most compex diplomatic missions of postwar times, as here we are talking about the security model for Europe and not to take Russia into account in this respect will be tactless as well as strategically wrong.... Moscow is still strongly opposed to the expansion of NATO. However, it says that it's ready for cooperation with NATO on the basis of equality. Just how it is going to cooperate is not clear. It is obvious that the amorphous relationship within the '16+1' framework which leaves Russia without vote will not suit her."

BELGIUM: "Sharing 'Force De Frappe'"

Regarding the revelations on French-German military cooperation by Le Monde on Saturday, foreign affairs writer Frans De Smet said in independent Catholic Het Nieuwsblad (1/27): "This is the first time that the French view the Germans as equal partners in the field of defense matters.... The common defense should yield better control of costs.... The sharing of the French nuclear weapons with Bonn in the framework of the 'common defense' is not mentioned in that many words in the new French-German treaty. But Chirac and Kohl are promising a 'dialogue on the role of a nuclear deterrence force in the framework of a European defense policy.' By this they mean, of course, the French nuclear weapons--possibly complemented by the British (nuclear arms)--which would be made available to the Western European Union."

"NATO Enlargement: Possible And Desired"

Independent De Morgen (1/15) included an op-ed column by Foreign Minister Erik Derycke: "As far as its future cooperation with Russia is concerned, NATO should show creativity and imagination for all issues--except for Article V (defense of the territory). I can imagine, under certain circumstances, Russia sitting at the table with the 16 NATO members as an equal partner with discretionary power. In my view, this should be possible when peace operations are discussed in which Russia is participating.... I wish to emphasize that all the current members states must be fully involved in the conception of the new NATO-Russia relationship and that it must not become a matter of negotiations between the 'bigger' (members) and Moscow....

"NATO enlargement through consensus is not only possible but it is also highly desirable. As a matter of fact, we have to avoid Russia clinging to its nuclear weapons to compensate for conventional 'inferiority.' Several leaders in Moscow have already threatened this. Russia must realize that its credibility is not served by not ratifying START II, for instance.... It is up to NATO to make Russia's--unjustified--feeling of insecurity as small as possible."

BULGARIA: "NATO Expands Eastward, Russia Expands Westward"

Under the headline above, ruling Socialist Party Duma (1/15) observed, "The Kremlin found an adequate response to NATO's strategy for territorial expansion. If the Alliance plans to expand eastward, then Russia will expand westward.... It is obvious that this step will be followed by another. Belarus's borders will become again the borders of Russia. Belarus's territory may again become a base for Russian nuclear weapons. Given that Belarus borders on Poland and Ukraine, this warning for the two NATO candidate members becomes quite obvious--if they allow NATO's nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territory, then they will have Russian weapons situated along their borders."

HUNGARY: "In Russia's Sphere"

Readers of liberal, influential Magyar Hirlap (1/27) saw this op-ed piece: "According to some sources, Russia is adamant in three issues. First, that NATO must not deploy nuclear weapons on the territories of new members. Second, that no NATO troops must be deployed in the new members either and it must not establish permanent bases there, either. Last, that Russia be given the veto right when it comes to the membership of the three Baltic states and Ukraine in the Alliance. This is this last demand that the West feels most concerned about, since it proves that there are political forces in Russia that still consider these former Soviet republics to belong to Russia's interest sphere."

"West Lacks Policy For Central-Eastern Europe"

Conservative Magyar Nemzet (1/25) concluded, "Debates on the deadline of EU and NATO enlargement indicate very well that the West lacks a policy towards Central-Eastern Europe.... It is kind of ironic to remember how coordinated Western efforts were two decades ago when its main goal was to drive wedges into the Soviet world. At the Madrid summit, NATO must finally come forward and announce which countries it wants to invite. Further vague promises to Central-Europe can no longer make up for the absence of a relevant policy."

"How To Be A NATO Player"

Influential liberal weekly 168 Ora stressed (1/21), "Joining NATO is not necessarily the best nor is it the only solution to represent Hungary's strategic interests. High ranking Ministry of Defense official Istv n Gyarmati argues that, once Hungary becomes a member of NATO, we will finally have the chance to have a say in decisions influencing our future. Well, I think that Hungary only has this chance until it joins the Alliance. Before the country is admitted to NATO the Hungarian government is in an excellent position to bargain; all it needs is to finally understand that the enlargement is primarily in the interest of the Alliance itself. The admission of Hungary and perhaps Slovenia into NATO would strengthen NATO's southern wing to such an extent that it obviously causes concerns in Russia and tremendous excitement among present members. This is why the efficient enlargement of the Alliance cannot take place without involving Hungary. This makes it possible for Hungarian diplomats and military leaders to finally assume the role of the player in the NATO game rather than that of kibitzer."

LATVIA: "Moscow Waits Impatiently For Western Concessions"

Aris Jansons of centrist Diena said (1/22): "Even though NATO members armed its representative with a load of practical offers, one could not have expected a break in the oral stand-off between the two sides because the Russian president was still recuperating.... It does seem that Solana's offers were important--no wonder Primakov called his staff to a meeting after the guest had left....

"This business between NATO and Russia should be taken care of if only for the sake of avoiding a serious deterioration of relations between Moscow and the West as well as those Eastern European countries moving towards the North Atlantic Alliance.... The international mood can start resembling 'cold war' instead of 'cold peace' again."

MOLDOVA: "Russia's Relations With NATO: No Results"

Opposition Tara stated in its editorial (1/24): "The negotiations between Javier Solana and Yevgeny Primakov were very tense because of Russia's opposition to NATO's expansion to East. Their results could be qualified to null. That means the parties retained their old positions. That means NATO will continue the expansion and Russia will continue to oppose it. Probably without success."

NORWAY: "Sleeping With The Enemy"

Independent tabloid Dagbladet considered whether NATO's negotiations with Russian will be for the better or the worse (1/21): "It is hard to grasp, but NATO has actually begun expansion negotiations with Russia. Will sleeping with the enemy lead to something good, or will this become another Munich?... If all goes well--if Russia really acts the way the West hopes it will--NATO expansion may be President Clinton's great contribution to the world's history. Future historians may say that he transformed Europe from a battlefield of the Cold War to a peaceful and cooperating continent of equal partners. If it goes wrong, however, Clinton's legacy could be that he awoke the long dormant Russian nationalism and militarism. Clinton could become the president who stirred up the explosive East versus West situation, leading to another arms race of both conventional and nuclear arms."

"The West's Responsibility To Baltics"

Conservative Aftenposten argued that Norway and the U.S. should support the Baltic countries' application for NATO membership (1/14): "NATO has taken on an all-European role--a role that was unthinkable only a few years back.... The EU, NATO and the United States find themselves in an unique position to tie the Baltic countries to the West once and for all. Their paramount task must be to prevent the Baltic countries from becoming a gray security policy area, stuck between Europe and the severely weakened and very unpredictable Russia."

POLAND: "Alarming Visions"

Weekly newsmagazine Wprost (2/2) carried an article by Jaroslaw Gizinski, "For Poland and other nations aspiring to membership in the Alliance, the vision of a 'soft' NATO and Russia being a consultative member of political structures of the pact, is alarming. Although, according to the Washington treaty, there cannot be talk of 'worse' membership in the pact, in practice, NATO's guarantees for Poland might turn out to be worth less than those that neutral Sweden had in the Cold War years.... Western politicians, despite increasingly definitive declarations of the will to enlarge NATO, are not concealing the fact that maintaining the dialogue with Russia is still of a crucial significance. The stability in the vast area of Euro-Asia is a more important factor in global policy than the integration of Central Europe, which is not directly threatened anyway. The Russians are aware of this and therefore they will pile up difficulties and bargain for the highest price for their consent."

"No News Is Good News"

Centrist Rzeczpospolita (1/22) carried a commentary by Jan Skorzynski: "Little is known about the Monday talks between Javier Solana and Yevgeny Primakov in Moscow. At any rate, the talks were not successful because they failed to bring an agreement on special relations between Russia and the Atlantic Alliance. Was it a setback then? Not really. From Warsaw's point of view, worse news would have been that of an agreement between NATO and the Russian Federation which would entail a threat to tailor the shape of our membership according to Moscow's needs.... An agreement between the pact admitting new countries from Central Europe and a new Russia is in the Polish interest and is useful to all of Europe. But not at any cost. If for Moscow's neutrality...one should pay by allowing the Kremlin to co-decide about the enlargement of NATO, there is a question mark over the advantages of such endeavors. Perhaps it is better that no breakthrough news came from Moscow after Solana's meeting."

"How Difficult It Will Be To Win Senate's Nod To Enlargement"

Jacek Kwiecinski penned this for extreme right-wing weekly Gazeta Polska (1/16), "Various ardent opponents to NATO enlargement have been very active lately. It is worth noting that the decision on the enlargement of the Alliance will be taken by all NATO member nations, beginning with the U.S. Senate, where a two-thirds vote is required. Some European nations perhaps will want to vote to spite America.... The offensive of the opponents of NATO expansion, widespread and noisy, was launched as if it was ordered soon after the initial decisions had been taken by the Council of the Alliance.... The New York Times, surely beating all records, published 13 (!) articles against the enlargement of NATO. The most recent editorial in the December issue was especially harshly- worded. As expected, the outcome of the presidential elections in Russia exerted no influence whatsoever on the standpoint and arguments of this very influential daily, because this is an 'ideological' standpoint. The New York Times, like Russia, defies reasonable argument. This paper clearly does not like Poles and Poland. But by and large, it is about something different: The daily has been shamelessly pro-Moscow. It unembarrassingly repeats the Russian conclusions about NATO as a relic of the Cold War, is pleased with the French position, and it does not conceal the fact that it would be happy if NATO ceased to exist.... If we add isolationists and senators, who are agitated about the cost of the admission to NATO, to the New York Times and leftists, it seems that the winning of two-thirds majority in the Senate will be difficult."

"No Turning Point On Talks With Russia"

Public Television Channel 1's main news "Wiadomosci" aired this assessment of the Solana visit to Moscow (1/21), "If the Alliance agrees to all conditions set up by Moscow, in the future it could turn out that Kremlin representatives in Brussels have more of a say than the new members from Central Europe.... The case for acceptance of the new members into NATO seems to be a foregone conclusion. There is a game of political poker going on between Moscow and Brussels, in which Moscow's superpower aspirations are at stake. Today's talks haven't reached any turning point."

"How Extensive Will Moscow's Veto Be?"

Channel 2's main news program, "Panorama," broadcast this by its Moscow correspondent (1/21), "The super-secrecy of today's talks proves that the Russians place the negotiations with Solana on the same level as the division of Europe after the Second World War or the division of Germany. The next treaty between NATO and Russia is to set up a new world order for the next 100 years. And, practically, the question is about the range of the Russian veto. Will it be limited only to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons on the territory of the new members or will it also include other questions, such as the exclusion of the Baltic states or Ukraine from NATO?"

"No Concrete Results"

Radio ZET concluded (1/21), "Solana's visit didn't bring any concrete results; it only set the schedule for future talks and future regular consultations. Russia will not be satisfied by any vague proposals but wants to bargain more."

"Mother Russia Will Gather In"

Under the headline above, right-wing Zycie (1/14) said in a commentary by Bronislaw Wildstein, "Yeltsin's approval of Lukashenko's wooing is not a surprise, although it must arouse some concern.... The acceptance of Lukashenko's courting means that economic reason is being replaced with imperial logic. I guess Yeltsin is not banking on a change in NATO's plans in the face of the blackmail to merge with Belarus, which is dependent on Russia. The incorporation of Belarus into Russia is a further step in the reconstruction of the Soviet empire and awakening of the Great Russian nationalism. It is much easier for Yeltsin to tempt with participation in the power of the empire than it is for him to improve living conditions. And that is why, paradoxically, Yeltsin's decision confirms the need to enlarge the North Atlantic Treaty."

TURKEY: "Turkey Comes To The Crossroads"

Hasan Cemal lamented on page one of mass-appeal Sabah (1/26), "Europe is on the verge of restructuring. The EU will be expanding by admitting new members. So are NATO and the WEU. Some countries like Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, which will be promised to become EU members, will become full members of NATO and the WEU, too.... But as Turkey's membership in NATO will remain the same, it will receive a second-class treatment in the EU and the WEU. This is unjust.... Turkey cannot accept this injustice.... Along with other Eastern European countries, Turkey, too, must be given a promise and a timetable concerning its full membership in the EU.... If necessary, Turkey can use its veto right against NATO expansion.... If Europe treats Turkey in such a rigid way then it will be accused of 'cultural racism.' It will be proven that it is a Christian club."

"NATO's Southern Flank Neglected?"

Ergun Balci insisted in liberal Cumhuriyet (1/26), "From Turkey's point of view, if NATO expands, attention will be focused on the Eastern flank. The South, where Turkey is, will be pushed aside."

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

CHINA: "An Arduous Negotiation"

The Solana meeting in Moscow sparked this assessment by Xu Hongzhi for official, Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao, 1/24), "Both sides called the meeting useful, but differences still exist and negotiations will have to continue.... It is hard to say whether an agreement can be reached before the Madrid summit meeting in July."

"Trouble Has Just Begun"

Gu Qi maintained in official, Shanghai Communist Party Liberation Daily (Jiefang Ribao, 1/22),

"NATO enlargement has basically become a forgone conclusion.... Russia cannot stop it but manages by various means to express its anger and dissatisfaction.... The arguments for enlargement do not hold water. However, the U.S. government has some intentions which it finds inconvenient to discuss openly. In order to achieve a position of global leadership, first of all, the United States must control Europe. The United States finds it easier to control NATO than to interfere in the OSCE. In addition, NATO needs to consolidate its equipment and upgrade its technology. Related trade in armaments has been estimated to be worth $40 billion to $100 billion. It is natural that the United States--the world's number one arms dealer--stands to benefit from it.

"Although the West has planned to make some concessions, enlargement, as President Yeltsin once said, is an insult to Russia. Perhaps the trouble has just begun."

"Showdown Over NATO Enlargement"

Xu Hongzhi warned in official, Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao, 1/14), "It is dangerous to ignore Russian opposition and insist on Eastward enlargement. NATO must proceed cautiously and handle its relations with Russia with care in order to head off a new confrontation.... Independent experts think that the two sides will compromise in the end. The question is, what kind of compromise will they reach? The United States and Western Europe do not share the same views on this issue. NATO must first come to a consensus on enlargement before NATO can reach a compromise with Russia on the issue."

##

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency
Office of Public Liaison
Telephone: (202) 619-4355

1/29/97

# # #