Monday, August 5, 1996
Passage in the U.S. House of Representatives July 23 of a bill funding NATO enlargement and hints from Russia signaling a more benign view of some of its former Warsaw Pact partners' entry into the Alliance were some of the developments provoking a flurry of speculation among European analysts regarding which aspirants would be chosen and which would have to wait. Among those hailing the "good news" were writers from Warsaw and Budapest, reassured by the Congressional bill, which singled out Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic for assistance. Those from Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia were disappointed by the widely held conclusion that they would not be among those chosen first. Most downcast were observers from the Baltic nations, whose presidents reportedly failed to receive "guarantees" of future admission into NATO in a meeting with President Clinton June 25. In Western Europe, editorialists were still disagreeing over whether NATO enlargement to the East, in the teeth of Russian opposition, is the best course. One Stockholm daily lobbied for Sweden's NATO candidacy, while Madrid's leading, liberal El Pais insisted that "it would be absurd" for Spain not to follow in Paris's footsteps, now that France is slowly reintegrating into the military structures of the Atlantic club. POLAND AND HUNGARY--Commentators from these two countries alternatively celebrated or downplayed former Senator Dole's championing of their governments' NATO bids and reminded their readers that the White House is still reluctant to name names--some said understandably so owing to Russian sensitivities. Budapest's Magyar Hirlap, second largest in circulation, emphasized the "burdens" of membership for a nation with neighbors who might become "angry" with Hungary's good fortune. "NATO," the paper stressed, "offers assistance only in case of military threat but not in case of chauvinist outbursts." But all in all, reaction here made clear the satisfaction with the Congressional action, which Poland's mass-appeal Sztandar Mlodych concluded, "in a way, created a fait accompli." ESTONIA, LATVIA AND LITHUANIA--Reporters in Poland and Russia spoke of a "confidential" letter from Russian President Yeltsin reportedly "pressuring" Mr. Clinton "not to support in public the intentions of the Baltic states to enter NATO." Moscow's reformist Izvestia quoted "sources" in the Russian Foreign Ministry claiming the letter paved the way for the U.S. president's "restraint" in his meeting with the Baltic leaders. In Lithuania, conservative, pro- Landsbergis mouthpiece Lietuvos Aidas headlined "Baltic presidents received nothing in Washington," and Riga's centrist Diena concluded that--"translated into diplomatic language"--Mr. Clinton's remarks "could mean that we definitely will not be the 'first.'" On a more pragmatic note, centrist Neatkariga Rita Avize of Riga urged Latvians to use the first-ever NATO military exercise there as "an excellent opportunity...to learn from American Marines" and look to Baltic unity as a possible "trumpcard" in their quest for integration with Western Europe. The assumption that the Baltics' status will remain uncertain for some time worried a pundit in Stockholm, who stated, "Sweden lacks the resources to ensure the military security of the Baltic states." OTHER NATO CANDIDATES--Opinion-makers in Romania and Bulgaria were persuaded that Western consideration of Russian objections will shut their countries out of NATO. A typical gloomy conclusion came from independent Adevarul of Bucharest, which held, "Despite all the reassuring statements that there are no priority lists, no countries already nominated for the first or last wave, Romania is now left outside of Euro-Atlantic integration." In Bratislava, papers held on to the hope that Slovakia might yet be accepted into NATO, but insisted that its exclusion from the Congressional bill "is the latest warning to the (Meciar) cabinet...on their hermetic closing not only to security but also to European economic-political structures." RUSSIA--Columnists debated whether remarks by Foreign Minister Primakov and Security Council Secretary Lebed to London's Financial Times meant that Moscow is acquiescing to at least some form of expansion. Business Handelsblatt of Duesseldorf maintained that Russia "is now embarking on a compromise course.... Moscow is in a weak position because, in principle, it cannot prevent NATO's enlargement." French and Norwegian analysts, however, were less sanguine. Oslo's independent tabloid Dagbladet cautioned, "Even though realism concerning a NATO expansion seems to hold the upper hand in the Kremlin, this might change." NATO opponents in the Moscow press continued voicing their resentment of the Alliance, with one sourly pointing out that "all Russia's neighbors are welcome, with Russia itself asked not to bother." Reformist Izvestia hinted that Moscow, "though...almost resigned to the idea of Eastern European countries joining NATO...cannot bear to hear of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia doing the same. As for Ukraine, its admission would be a real disaster for Russian diplomacy." This survey is based on 78 reports from 19 countries, June 14-Aug. 5. EDITOR: Mildred Sola Neely EUROPE GERMANY: "End Of The State Of Suspense" Paul Georg Hefty said on the front page of right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (7/26), "The public announcement of Denmark's Defense Minister Haekkerup that the accession of some individual states to NATO would be on the agenda as early as the spring of 1997 has met with official satisfaction in Warsaw and Budapest. During the talks between NATO's Secretary General Solana and Hungary's Premier Gyula Horn...the problem is no longer whether but when and how they can join NATO. Hungary is in a special situation because--unlike Poland and the Czech Republic--it has no borders with the current NATO territory. On the one hand, this situation will result in the possible accession of Slovenia, and, on the other hand, Hungary is likely to back Romania joining the Alliance in order to alleviate the jealousy of the Bucharest government. But the first enlargement will not be the final stone in the new building of NATO. NATO is the winner of the Cold War. Who could blame (the Eastern European) countries if they want to side with the winner in the conflicts of the coming centuries?" "Moscow Embarks On Compromise" Moscow correspondent Markus Ziener dealt in his editorial in business Handelsblatt of Duesseldorf (7/26) with Russian statements that NATO's enlargement is no longer a threat to Russia: "Step by step, the Russian tanker is now embarking on a compromise course: Today, NATO's enlargement...can be negotiated and has thus, in principle, been accepted. With their moderate statements regarding this bone of contention, Foreign Minister Primakov and...Alexander Lebed, have now publicly changed course.... Moscow does not want to burden the relationship with the West with the conflict about NATO for all the time. "But this change of mind is not based on pure friendliness. Russia has realized the weakness of its own position in this question but also the negative consequences which an enduring rigid attitude would bring along. Moscow is in a weak position because, in principle, it cannot prevent NATO's enlargement.... In a country where political compromise has no tradition, the latest statements, however, have a different weight than elsewhere.... Now it is up to NATO to make the next move. In December, the Alliance wants to agree on its future moves regarding its enlargement, and it also wants to name the first candidates that can accede. By doing so, the Alliance is setting the course for its future relationship with Russia. One thinkable scenario could be to promise three to four Eastern European countries that they can join. But NATO could start this accession first with their political integration and later with the military one regarding the logistics for the deployment of nuclear weapons in particular. This would serve all sides, since the governments in Warsaw, Prague and Budapest want mainly NATO's security guarantees--and this one is not defined by nuclear missiles alone." BRITAIN: "Lebed: No Objections To NATO's Eastward Expansion" The independent Financial Times had a front-page coup this morning : an interview with General Lebed with Moscow correspondent Chrystia Freeland (7/25). The paper said, "Lebed...yesterday said he had no objections to NATO's planned eastward expansion, in a strong sign that the Kremlin's hostility to the plan may be fading. Mr. Lebed...said NATO enlargement would be expensive and unnecessary but that it did not pose a security threat to Russia." FRANCE: "A Change In Kremlin Regarding Enlargement?" In conservative Le Figaro (7/26), Laure Mandeville observed from Moscow about Lebed's Financial Times interview: "Does Lebed's position (vis-a-vis NATO eastward enlargement) mirror a change in that of the Kremlin? "The murky political chessboard in Russia--no one knows yet what Lebed's role within the Yeltsin team will be--prevents us from reaching conclusions." "Still Unclear" Beatrice Thibault concluded in financial La Tribune (7/26), "One month after Boris Yeltsin's re-election, Moscow's position (on NATO enlargement) is still unclear." RUSSIA: "Leave Neutral Countries Alone" Sergei Modestov concluded in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (8/2): "Trying to build up NATO's military potential at the expense of the traditionally neutral states, as well as former Soviet bloc countries, is at variance with reducing the danger of war, in general. One can hardly expect Moscow to watch these developments calmly." "Russia Itself Is Not Wanted" Vladimir Katin filed for reformist writers' weekly Literaturnaya Gazeta (# 31, 8/1): "The process of having Eastern European countries and Baltic and other ex-Soviet republics as NATO's partners has been going smoothly. The current expenses do not seem to bother Washington, as payoffs will be generous.... All Russia's neighbors are welcome, with Russia itself asked not to bother." "Moscow Fears Ukraine Joining NATO" Maxim Yusin, commenting on the recent resolution by Congress concerning NATO's enlargement, wrote in reformist Izvestia (7/25): "Though it has almost resigned to the idea of Eastern European countries joining NATO, Moscow cannot bear to hear of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia doing the same. As for Ukraine, its admission would be a real disaster for Russian diplomacy." "Free To Talk Of NATO's Enlargement" Vladimir Todres remarked from Prague for reformist Segodnya (7/25): "Congress' decision is remarkable also in that it lifted a moratorium on discussions concerning NATO's plans, inferred to have been in force until the end of the presidential election in Russia." "Baltic States Expected More From Clinton" Reformist Izvestia (7/6) front-paged a comment by Konstantin Eggert and Maxim Yusin on a secret letter Boris Yeltsin sent to Bill Clinton a few days after the first- round presidential vote: "Diplomats from Baltic states admit they expected more certainty from Bill Clinton when it came to NATO membership.... According to sources in the Russian Foreign Ministry, that the U.S. leader was so restrained was due primarily to Yeltsin's letter. Russian diplomats described as an accomplishment of no less importance that Clinton, during his meeting with the Baltic presidents, had not only touched on the subject of the Russian-speaking population (in their countries) but had not hidden this fact from the press." "Countries Compelled To Choose Allies" News analyst Andrei Sannikov pointed out in centrist daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta (6/19), "The recent demonstration of Russia's and China's coinciding views on the problem of NATO expansion makes one recall the times of global plans of military confrontation. The expansion plans are introducing a growing division in European affairs. Countries are compelled to choose allies while often not having the right and the possibilities for such a choice. A group of 'reliable' states has appeared in Europe and is offered Most Favored Nation treatment, including with the European Union. One can hardly count on getting substantial capital investments if one is against the expansion of NATO." "Whither NATO?" Alexander Golz mused in centrist, army Krasnaya Zvezda (6/11): "It is hard to foresee now where NATO's evolution will lead. Even a sincere desire to adapt to the demands of the times does not guarantee a success. Dinosaurs, too, were doing fine: Their teeth were growing sharper, reflexes better and the skin thicker. But all proved in vain when the climate changed on this planet." BULGARIA: "Not So Great For Bulgaria" Independent Adevarul's Bogdan Chirieac observed (7/8), "From the viewpoint of Romania's interests, Yeltsin's victory is not necessarily a reason to rejoice.... Had Gennady Zyuganov and his Communists come to power, NATO's expansion would have been completely blocked for at least several years. A respite for Romania, which now stands excluded from the expansion plans of the Alliance. But with Yeltsin staying in power, the world has heard--most recently by deliberate leaks to the German media--that NATO membership for Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary has already been negotiated and accepted by 'Czar Boris.'" CANADA: "NATO Hasn't An Enemy In The World" Under the headline above, foreign affairs writer Richard Gwyn argued in the liberal Toronto Star (8/2) "In a familiar resort to bureaucratic busy-work, the (NATO) alliance has committed itself to a policy of 'enlargement.'... Now along comes Lebed to show it all up as bureaucratic busy-work.... The Cold War really is over. Russia no longer wants to, nor can it, fight anyone. This doesn't mean NATO should be disbanded. It is doing a useful job in Bosnia. Other jobs may come along. Nor does it mean democracy in Eastern Europe shouldn't be reinforced.... What it does mean is that it's time for NATO to stop using Russia to justify its own existence." ESTONIA: "Best U.S. Guarantees For Estonia" President Clinton's meeting with the leaders of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia held on June 25 was featured prominently in the Estonian electronic and print media. Center-left, third largest Sonumileht included (6/26) this commentary by Vello Ederma from Washington, "The main reason (for the visit) has been Clinton's Russia-centered foreign policy in Europe.... We have to hope that our presidents will not stand with hands outstretched but are ready to explain that our countries are also able to be equal NATO members and share responsibilities.... Best guarantee for us is American material support with mllitary equipment, contlnuing military cooperation, drills and exercises and U.S. advisers on Estonian soil." "Why Accords On The Back Of A Small Country?" "The background for the White House visit was very good, because the Russian-American June 1 agreement about changing CFE conditions was frightening even for Americans," wrote Toomas Alatalu, member of the Estonian parliament foreign relations committee in center-left, third largest Sonumileht (6/28). "More important then few hundred items of military equipment is to ask: How it is possible that two great states made agreement on the back of third, a little country, that makes us request (more) security guarantees?" HUNGARY: "Good News With Burdensome Consequences" Second largest in circulation Magyar Hirlap (7/29) warned, "One should not only pay attention to the green light paving the way for the Poles, Hungarians and the Czechs, but also to the red light signaling a barrier for many of the neighboring countries, thus separating the countries of the region from each other.... This decision may embarrass the Romanians, the Slovaks, the Ukrainians and the Baltic countries, thinking that the deal has been made at their expense. "The consequences of this compromise may be burdensome. Countries accepted and not accepted may fall into different spheres of interest. Hungary's position is especially delicate. The uncertain waiting list for the Romanians, Slovaks and Croatians may lead to an unwanted union of those countries.... The Slovak and Romanian nationalists may turn their anger against Hungarian minorities. NATO offers assistance only in case of military threat but not in case of chauvinist outbursts." "Why NATO Is Irrelevant For Russia" According to second largest N pszava (7/26), "A few weeks after Boris Yeltsin's victory what Central European leaders have been waiting for with patience finally took place: Foreign Minister Primakov and General Lebed both sent a message to the world stating that Russia no longer opposes NATO enlargement.... It seems very likely that Yeltsin made a deal with the West.... Yeltsin must strengthen his weak Russia and build a new empire. There are two things he needs for making this dream a reality: a healthy and striving economy and a strong professional army. In this respect NATO and its expansion is irrelevant for Russia." "Let Us Not Be Deceived" Highest circulation Nepszabadsag (7/14) remarked, "It is certainly true that NATO enlargement has become an issue in the US presidential campaign. This is good news for countries, including Hungary, intending to join the Alliance. But let us not be deceived by this new phenomenon; the only goal it serves is to attract voters with Central-Eastern European origin. It would also be mistaken to be deceived by Senator Dole's ambitious approach to enlargement: Dole, unlike the incumbent president, is not restrained in any sense of the word: He holds no office and thus does not have to take Russian concerns and worries into consideration." ICELAND: "Joining The Cornerstone Of Peace" In the view of leading Morgunbladid (6/11), "The newly liberated nations (of Eastern Europe) realize better than anyone else that peace must be maintained and guarded. The cooperation within NATO is in many ways unique in world history.... The connection across the Atlantic with the democratic nations of North America has proven to be invaluable during the last decades, and will continue to be so in the future. NATO is, and will be, the cornerstone of peace in Europe." LATVIA: "Baltic Unity Might Be Our Card" Voldemars Hermanis said in centrist Neatkariga Rita Avize (7/12), "Could one consider the first-ever NATO military exercise on our shores, 'Baltic Challenge 96,' as a special security shield? For now, let's just call it baptism by fire for the joint Baltic creation, 'Baltbat,' (Baltic Battalion) and good advertising for the Partnership for Peace program.... "True, in the event of a real threat, an airlift from Maryland to Adazi would probably not be carried out. Therefore...let's put it another way: 'Would Latvia be militarily ready to offer its support to Estonia or Lithuania at a critical moment?'... First we must overcome our pacifist cowardice, look the truth straight in the eye, and say: The Baltic commanders have an excellent opportunity over the next couple of days to learn from American Marines.... Everyone plays the hand they've been dealt. Baltic unity--at times chewed to pieces and totally doubted--is one of the trump cards." "Fishing For Ethnic Vote No Reason For Rushed NATO Enlargement" Centrist Neatkariga Rita Avize (7/8) observed in a piece by foreign news commentator Oskars Kastens, "After carefully analyzing Dole's decision (regarding NATO expansion) one concludes that a move like that would create even greater tension rather than increase security in the region of Eastern Europe.... Dole's proposal to limit NATO expansion could have an unpredictable effect, because it could divide Eastern Europe. Granting security guarantees to the three Visegrad countries will leave the Baltic states, Ukraine and Moldova behind the lines.... Fishing for votes in Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, where there is a high population of Eastern European descent, should not and cannot become a reason for rushed and nearsighted NATO expansion." "Definitely, We Will Not Be The 'First'" Centrist, Latvian- and Russian-language Diena (7/2) remarked, "President Clinton did show (Latvian President) Ulmanis the thumbs up, but he never mentioned Latvia or the Baltic states in the context of NATO. He did, however, say that 'the first to be accepted will not be the last.' Translated from diplomatic language, that could mean that we definitely will not be the 'first.' "In the foreseeable future, we cannot hope for fundamental NATO security guarantees, therefore we must be even more active in promoting integration into the European Union, developing cooperation with the Nordic countries, continuing and finishing domestic economic and political reforms, attracting maximum foreign investments, and developing trade with Europe and the United States. The uncommonly high level of interest in the Baltic presidents' visit expressed by American politicians and entrepreneurs is proof that the foundation for Western presence (in the Baltics) has been laid successfully." LITHUANIA: "Baltic Presidents Received Nothing In Washington" Editorial commentary (7/2) on Lithuanian President Brazauskas's visit was generally positive. However, several columnists scored him for coming back from Washington "empty handed"--without firm U.S. commitments that Lithuania will be admitted into NATO. "Brazauskas returns without guarantees," reported left-leaning Respublika, while conservative, pro-Landsbergis mouthpiece Lietuvos Aidas ran a commentary entitled "Baltic presidents received nothing in Washington." FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: "Political 'Hug' From U.S." A commentary in leading Nova Makedonija noted (7/15) the visit of Secretary Perry and his statement of support for Macedonia, adding, "Such a strong political 'hug' surprised even those who announced and expected it." The paper called a close relationship with the United States "the top subject in Macedonian foreign relations.... It is clear that Macedonia is well on its way into the system of collective security (NATO) and that it has strong support in the face of the first among the members of NATO, the United States of America." "Russia Will Be Sorry!" In its traditionally sarcastic editorial column, Vecer (7/15) concluded, "Now we can relax, the Americans have laid us on the 'sofa.' 'SOFA' is the name of the agreement which regulates in practice the legal status of the presence of U.S. Forces in Macedonia and Macedonian forces in the United States. The agreement is a small step for Macedonia but a big one for the United States. A small step for us since we will stop worrying whether Russia will veto the extension of the (UN) mandate. A big step for the United States because now they have the Macedonian forces in their military structure.... The Macedonian defense wall will make the Russians sorry they abstained in the Security Council." NORWAY: "Current Realism Could Fade In The Kremlin" Independent tabloid Dagbladet remarked on General Lebed's claiming that a NATO expansion is seen as no threat to Russia (7/31), "Even though realism concerning a NATO expansion seems to hold the upper hand in the Kremlin, this might change. The latent uncertainty concerning Russia's foreign policies is the fundamental reason why some former Soviet states want full membership in NATO. Even Lebed stressed in his interview with the Financial Times that the most serious threat against security and stability lies within the domestic development in Russia." "NATO Vs. European Security Community?" In the opinion of independent tabloid Dagbladet (7/18), "In the 1990s, the security dilemma of the Cold War has been replaced by visions of a European security community. But a classical collective security system is not going to happen in today's Europe... The reasoning behind the entire NATO Alliance would disappear if a comprehensive and collective security cooperation was established where Russia and the United States would cooperate in deterring military aggressors." "Is NATO The Answer?" Nordlys, the largest regional newspaper for northern Norway, asked (7/8), "Is NATO the answer to all the problems between the applicant countries? Isn't it also wise to bring up the question of whether inclusion of Russian's historical enemies into NATO will cause even more conflicts between Western Europe and Russia?" POLAND: "America, Russia And America" Center-left Gazeta Wyborcza (8/5), in an article by Washington correspondent Jacek Kalabinski, remarked regarding the letter reportedly sent by Boris Yeltsin to Bill Clinton on June 20 in which he demanded "a free hand" on the issue of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia: "On June 25 in Washington, during the conversation with the presidents of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, Clinton supported their pro-Western aspirations, not making any binding promises about their future entry into NATO though. It is a concern for the Balts that Clinton administration argues its moderation on the issue of admitting Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to NATO.... Clinton has not responded to the letter yet. The Washington Post says the reply will be of a bureaucratic and ambiguous nature: It will not close the door to NATO for the Balts but it will not mention Western guarantees of security either. American military experts claim that NATO will not be capable of defending the Balts against a massive Russian attack." "The Bear Can Rear Up On Its Back Paws" Centrist Rzeczpospolita (8/1) carried an article titled "Russia Does Not Soften Its Veto Against NATO Enlargement" on an interview granted by Russian Deputy Defense Minister Kokoshin for Moskovskoye Novosti: "'We are still pursuing such a model of security in Europe which would exclude NATO enlargement and at the same time make allowances for the interests of Central and Eastern European nations,' said First Deputy Defense Minister Andrei Kokoshin.... In his view, the veto against NATO enlargement was not President Yeltsin's strategy before the elections, but it reflected a long-term Russian policy zeroing in on the protection of its national interests. According to Kokoshin, the nations of Central and Eastern Europe demand that the discussion between Russia and NATO on the plans of the Alliance be conducted with their participation.... Kokoshin believes that NATO enlargement does not correspond with a new logic of international relations and is the continuation of an old way of thinking. It is based on the idea of 'filling the vacuum which was created after the break-up of our three empires: the Third World, the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.' 'Our opponents act according to a classic pattern and risk getting a classic response,' warned the deputy defense minister. 'The sight of the bear rearing on its back paws is well-known to the world,' said Kokoshin." "The White House Is For And Against" Washington correspondent Jacek Kalabinski judged in center- left Gazeta Wyborcza (7/29), "The White House issued an official statement immediately after passing the act. It said that the White House was pleased with the fact that Congress supported President Clinton's policy of enlarging NATO. At the same time, the document raised numerous objections to the act because Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic had been mentioned by name.... In other words, the Clinton administration signaled that it was 'for' and even 'against.'" "Congress Created A Fait Accompli" Mass-appeal Sztandar Mlodych (7/26) printed this commentary by Aleksander Kropiwnicki on the U.S. Congress passing the bill on financial support for Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to join NATO: "The sum ($60 million) is small. So small that it looks more like a tip than real help. But it's a beginning. The Congress, by clearly identifying by name the three countries that in a foreseen future will join NATO, has, in a way, created a fait accompli.... This is why the White House, despite its signs of irritation, is not able to proceed with its 'Russia First' policy in broad daylight. Our diplomacy should use this forced period of favorable circumstances. There are the elections in November and whoever wins, there will be a time for making agreements with the Russians again." "Many Poles Want To Join, But Not As Many Want To Pay" Readers of center-left Gazeta Wyborcza (7/16) saw this article by Pawel Wronski on an opinion poll taken by the CBOS Public Opinion Research Center: "'Do you want to join NATO?--I do!,' responds 83 percent of the Poles polled by CBOS. 'What is the condition of the Polish armed forces? -- Bad!,' over two thirds reply. 'Do you want to pay for the armed forces so that it can access NATO?--No!,' cries 67 percent of the polled. 'The approval of joining NATO is not ranked as high as one would think based on sheer declarations,' said a CBOS official with dismay, summing up the results of the July poll." "Yeltsin Pressured Clinton On Baltics" Centrist Rzeczpospolita said of the Clinton meeting (7/8), "Yeltsin sent a confidential letter to Bill Clinton in which he asked the American president not to support in public the intentions of the Baltic states to enter NATO. Yeltsin also asked Clinton to touch on the issue of discrimination against Russian people in those states.... On the issue of Russian minorities, not only did President Clinton mention the subject in his conversation with the three presidents, but also informed the press about it." "Dole, Clinton And NATO" Centrist Rzeczpospolita also pointed out (7/8) in an article by Kazimierz Dziewanowski, "Dole is on the offensive. Clearly and without ambiguity, he has already expressed his opinion about the necessity of enlarging NATO and admitting Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary to NATO in the course of the next two years. His position differs from that of President Clinton, who also opts for NATO enlargement, but he avoids mentioning any term. Dole's declaration stems from the conviction that the United States and the West should firmly support new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe.... Seldom is President Clinton's attitude clear. One should admit though, that the incumbent president has had a more difficult situation. He had to make allowances not only for American elections but also the Russian ones." PORTUGAL: "Needed, Beside Reform" An editorial in center-right Diario de Noticias by political observer Carlos Gaspar (6/10) commented, "This reform of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a positive step. On the one hand, it serves to consolidate the transatlantic alliance, adapting its operational mechanisms in order to respond with greater flexibility to new strategic situations. On the other hand, it opens the way to the effective formation of a 'European pillar' that should turn into an equal partner of the United States, or of the 'North American pillar' in the Western community of collective defense. Nevertheless, in the long run, there exist certain risks which must be emphasized, namely the 'Europeanization' of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.... (The) logical result of this process could put at risk the principle of indivisibility--or the 'inseparability'--of the common security of all member states. "In this sense, the decisions taken in Berlin require more force. Most immediately, a rapid enlargement, in order to eliminate the 'gray zones' of European security in Central and Eastern Europe.... Next, a growing international strategic articulation among allies in order to respond to the threats to their common interests outside the strict domain of European territorial security. Finally, a real effort [to attain] a convergence of Western interests, indispensable to avoiding isolationist tendencies at the margins of the Alliance." ROMANIA: "Left Outside" In a front-page editorial for independent Adevarul (7/18), editorialist Bogdan Chirieac argued that "the loud noise on (granting Romania MFN status) is to hide the possibility of the current Romanian government's failure to achieve its most important goal. Despite all the reassuring statements that there no priority lists, no countries already nominated for the first or last wave, Romania is now left outside of Euro-Atlantic integration." "Still Heeding Russia?" Pro-presidential Dimineata headlined its editorial (7/12) "An absolute foreign policy priority: Romania's integration into Euro-Atlantic structures." The author argued that the latest signals on NATO integration were not very encouraging for Romania and mentioned a statement by Defense Secretary Perry suggesting that Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary had the best chance of joining NATO. Dimineata said: "Many political analysts saw in Perry's statement a discreet way of saying that NATO still heeds Moscow's opinions and its well-known, constant opposition to the enlargement of the North Atlantic Alliance." SLOVAKIA: "Latest Warning On Slovakia's Hermetic Closing" Passage of the NATO act, which did not mention Slovakia by name, prompted commentator Julius Gembicky to write in center-right Narodna obroda (7/26) "Even if we specify that this ruling out of Slovakia from the $60 million dollars voted for Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, does not definitely close the doors to the Alliance, it is the latest warning to the cabinet of Vladimir Meciar on their hermetic closing not only to security but also to European economic-political structures." "Putting Off Promised Changes While European Train Is Long Gone" Center-left Pravda's foreign affairs editor Leopold Moravcik maintained (7/26), "The tendency of the current government to put off realization of promised changes, which has convinced the West that we have left the path to democracy, could be the reason we find out that the train headed to European and transatlantic structures, which we had wanted to board, is already long gone." "Do Not Take Latest Warning Lightly" Trade union Praca (7/26), in a piece by Zuzana Kollarova headlined "We are not among the favorites of the U.S. Congress, on this we should look in a mirror," commented after listing anti-democratic actions of the present government: "Fulfillment of the conditions, and not announcements, could change the view of American congressmen about Slovakia. Thus, we should not take lightly the latest warning." SPAIN: "Absurd Not To Normalize Spain's Participation In NATO" Liberal El Pais's editorial observed (7/15), "Spain's non- military integration into NATO was somehow justified 10 years ago. What is now being contemplated is not the integration into a military structure designed against the Soviet enemy during the Cold War.... The NATO of 1996 doesnot only exist to carry out side-defense tasks but missions like the present one in the former Yugoslavia in which countries like Sweden and Russia take part under the command of NATO.... They are not defense missions but missions of preservation and establishment of peace outside the usual umbrella of the Alliance.... It would be absurd and counterproductive for Spain's interests if France were to normalize its participation in NATO, and countries like Poland or the Czech Republic were to integrate fully into this organization, while Spain remained in an unconfortable position that would reduce its influence in collective decisions and make Spain's participation in new missions more difficult." SWEDEN: "Sweden Can't Ensure Baltics' Military Security" According to liberal Dagens Nyheter (8/5), "Some time soon we'll knock on NATO's door. Sweden is getting closer to NATO membership.... There are certain signals or at least hints that Sweden (and Finland) would readily accept responsibility for the security policy of the Baltics.... Those within NATO and the EU who are the most knowledgeable of our state of affairs, are aware of Sweden's and (Swedish Prime Minister) Persson's well-documented personal interest in an important role in regional cooperation. The country admits responsibility but Persson draws the line on defense policy. Sweden lacks the resources to ensure the military security of the Baltic states.... "The things that are left unsaid to the Swedish people should at least be explained to Clinton. Sweden is in danger of becoming involved in an untenable 'big brother' situation if the Baltic countries have to wait for many years to become members of the EU-- today it's rumored privately in Brussels that the new members from the east will have to wait until 2002. Where will we be if Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania can't become members of NATO or the EU?" "Clear Disadvantage Not To Be NATO Member" Conservative Svenska Dagbladet (6/24) stressed regarding the new CFE revisions, "The government's main reason for not joining NATO has been the idea that Swedish membership would not strengthen Swedish security. Because of the new Russian standards of armament, within the framework of the CFE agreement, we now have a situation were we can ascertain that, from the security policy point of view, it is a clear disadvantage not to be a member of NATO." ## TRENDS ON NATO ENLARGEMENT: