Monday, September 16, 1996
Secretary of State Warren Christopher's speech September 6 in Stuttgart persuaded some European analysts that NATO's post-Cold War transformation is on track, but the debate continued over obstacles to enlargement, relations with Moscow and fuller participation of Alliance members France and Spain--despite Mr. Christopher's announcement of a summit in 1997 to decide on new members and approve a charter defining relations with Russia. The German media best reflected these conflicting views. Many opinion-makers were buoyed by the secretary's vision of a "new Atlantic community" bolstered by strengthened U.S.-German ties. Centrist Stuttgarter Zeitung, for example, pointed out, "From Germany's perspective, NATO expansion to the East and the integration of the Eastern European reformist states within the Western Alliance is an absolute necessity in terms of security policy. But it cannot be done without America." Others, concerned by perceptions of a reduced interest in the U.S. in its overseas commitments, urged Bonn to "counter the gradual erosion in the relationship" absent the Cold War threat and insisted that the U.S. must, in the words of German national ARD-TV, "remain our most important partner." Other German editorialists emphasized worries that NATO enlargement might antagonize Russia, although they detected a slight "relaxation" in Moscow's opposition. Fears that the security needs of new democracies excluded from the first round of NATO admissions would suffer led one commentator to welcome discussion among German, Danish and Polish foreign ministers on the island of Ruegen to establish "an anchor of stability in the Baltic area." Russian observers left little doubt that opposition to enlargement remains a guiding principle of Kremlin policy. Reformist Segodnya declared, "The enlargement of NATO in its current form (let alone a continuing and unlimited expansion) remains unacceptable for Russia." Regarding the proposed charter with Moscow, the paper added that "if it is a matter of enabling Russia actually to participate in decision-making on European security with the same rights that NATO members enjoy, then Moscow could accept the 'charter' proposed by Mr. Christopher. If the issue comes down again to some system of consultations, the 'new' proposals in fact contain nothing new and are unlikely to be accepted." Ljubljana's left-of-center Delo highlighted the difficulties a partial NATO enlargement would create for those left out: "Will the countries not selected be regarded as areas of reduced security?," it asked. Dissatisfaction with this eventuality surfaced again in Latvia, where centrist Diena insisted that solicitude for Russia's desire not to be isolated does not erase the fact that it is "precisely the sense of (the Russian) threat that makes us, as well as other East European countries, look for security under the NATO wing." Commentators in Spain, in addition, argued over whether Madrid would need to hold a referendum on its full integration into the Alliance's military wing, or whether the matter should be left to the Spanish parliament. This survey is based on 24 reports from 10 countries, Aug. 6-Sept. 14. EDITORS: Mildred Sola Neely and Diana McCaffrey EUROPE GERMANY: "Openness Best Policy Between Germany, U.S." Right-of-center Stuttgarter Nachrichten (9/10) noted: "The disappearance of the external threat after the end of the Cold War will make disagreements between the governments in Bonn and Washington more visible than before. In this situation, openness is the best to maintain friendship between Germans and Americans." "U.S. Must Continue To Be Germany's Most Important Ally" National ARD-TV's late evening newscast "Tagesthemen" aired the following commentary by Stefan Bergmann (9/9): "The world is about to restructure itself. In view of the Western Europeans' inability to act, the United States as the only remaining superpower is simultaneously trying to fill the role of global cop and member of an alliance--in Bosnia and northern Iraq. In the meantime, unified Germany continues to search for its new identity. In view of this fact the cultivation of German-U.S. friendship has been pushed too much into the background. Regarding Foreign Minister Kinkel's statements of loyalty, it is true that Germany continues to play its transatlantic part when it comes to persuading Russia regarding NATO's enlargement to the East, and when it comes to defending in a forthright manner the U.S. intervention against Saddam Hussein.... "And irrespective of the enthusiasm for Europe, the Bonn government should try to find out what is the value of this exaggerated flirt with the government in Paris, since, in the envisaged extended NATO, the United States must continue to remain our most important partner. This is why we need living links for an old friendship." "What About Future Relations With Washington?" Thomas Wittke argued in centrist General-Anzeiger of Bonn (9/7): "German-U.S. relations are creaking under the burdens of the past months--but they hold without any problems. With his speech, which contained an honest balance sheet (of these relations), Warren Christopher indicated the perspectives of this friendship for the next millennium. Indeed, new bridges across the Atlantic need to be built. The problem is no longer defensive solidarity whose supreme goal is the defense against the communist threat. At the end of the millennium, the search for a new purpose for the transatlantic community is now beginning.... "Warren Christopher showed with his address the perspectives of (German-U.S.) friendship. But nobody can predict how long these statements remain valid. In November, a new U.S. president will be elected. Even if Clinton wins, he must assert his policy in the face of a Republican majority in Congress, majorities who think little of the international commitments of their country. Against this background, German diplomacy must work against a loss of quality in mutual relations." "Christopher Speech Moved Hearts" Adrian Zielcke judged in centrist Stuttgarter Zeitung (9/7): "The celebration at the Opera House in Stuttgart on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the speech of former U.S. Secretary of State James Byrnes moved the heart.... U.S. Secretary of State Christopher did justice to his reputation of being a realistic strategist, since he referred not only to the vision of a new Atlantic community in the next millennium, but he described in concrete terms the tasks and aims of U.S. and European politics in the coming years. The signal was clear: The nations of the Western world will have a chance to remain a--if not the only--determining force in the next century. Now it is necessary to form a new Atlantic community for the next century, a community in which the United States remains committed to Europe, a new community in which NATO forms the foundation of cooperation. Christopher's view was mainly directed to the Eastern part of the Old Continent in which a democratic Russia is to become an equal partner of the new community. But he also created hopes for Germany's Eastern neighbors by clearly saying that NATO's enlargement to the East will come." Stuttgarter Zeitung added, "It is of vital interest to the Germans that they work to counter the gradual erosion in the relationship. The United States is the sole remaining world power. The situation in the Balkans has demonstrated that the Americans, not the Europeans, were in a position to end the war. From Germany's perspective, NATO expansion to the East and the integration of the Eastern European reformist states within the Western Alliance is an absolute necessity in terms of security policy. But it cannot be done without America.... America voted for a partnership with Germany in 1946. In 1996, it would stand the Germans in good stead to renew this vote in the other direction." "U.S.-Germany Relations" D. Limberg commented on national radio Deutschlandfunk of Cologne (9/6): "In the United States a generation has been superseded for whom knowledge about the German and European situation was the most normal thing of the world. It has been replaced by a political class which looks to the inside, which believes that the domestic voter will not be impressed by a trip over the Atlantic. On the German side, however, there is also no reason to act in a high- handed manner. In Germany, parochialism is flourishing and people tend to look inward, too.... "Germany has lost its privileged place as a front state of Western democracies and is still about to search for normalcy. This should not lead to transatlantic disinterest, and this is important for German politics. It is self-evident that, in this process, the European component plays a key role. The Americans are calling upon the Europeans to bear their part of the responsibility instead of cultivating small-minded rivalries. Foreign Minster Kinkel said in Stuttgart that it would be wrong to complain about a lack of U.S. interest. He added that Europe must recommend itself as a strategic partner to the United States. But the Europeans are still far away from this state. We can by no means talk about a common foreign and security policy." "Setting Up European Security Architecture With, Not Against, Russia" Thomas Kroeter judged in centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (9/5): "Today, it is in the interest of united Germany not to be the easternmost NATO state, and for NATO's enlargement not to ruin its relations with Moscow. This is a very complicated field of relations between NATO and Russia. But in the preparatory stage of the Primakov visit, a certain relaxation became visible that has now been confirmed by the Russian foreign minister in Bonn. He again confirmed (Russia's) principled rejection (of NATO's enlargement), but for the first time, Primakov is speaking about a dialogue that must now be started, and second, with the use of the term 'transformation' of the Alliance, he is referring to a formula that Defense Minister Ruehe represents. This does not mean that the problem has been resolved, but the chances are greater that...an European security architecture will be created which will be set up with and not against Russia. The success of this plan also depends on the authority with which Primakov can speak. It would not be the first time that a Russian foreign minister would be corrected by the Kremlin. This is why we should be excited and wait which message Boris Yeltsin has to announce during his meeting with Chancellor Kohl." "Delicate Problem Of Enlargement" Right-of-center Neue Presse of Hanover said (9/5): "The problem is the delicate enlargement of NATO to the East. Moscow is signaling continuing unease at it. But Russia considers itself to be in a situation that offers no alternative. The armed forces, demoralized by Chechnya, are lying low. The reform and recovery process of the country has got bogged down because of a phase of confrontation with the West. This weakness of the negotiating partners is encouraging some people here who want to react to Russia's worries about isolation with minor changes of their policies. "A more binding tie to collective security on the basis of the respect of human rights could take away these fears from Russia. At issue is the role of the OSCE, a kind of European United Nations. Will it try to help recover a 'wounded' country or will it turn into a forum in which all sides decide on conflict prevention in Europe? If Russia is willing to give the OSCE greater authority without threatening its right to veto, we should take advantage of this chance. But if NATO, in future, wants to treat the OSCE as the United States treats the UN--then everything remains cosmetic." "Anchor Of Stability In Baltic Area" Right-of-center Esslinger Zeitung asserted (8/22): "The accession of new members to NATO is taking shape. The fact that German Defense Minister Ruehe and his Danish and Polish counterparts Haekkerup and Dorbrzanski confirmed the course during their meeting on the island of Ruegen is an important signal. Indeed, it would be preposterous to refuse the new democratic and market economy-oriented partners in Central and Eastern Europe access to the Western military...community, thus blocking the growing together of Europe. The things Ruehe initiated will turn into an anchor of stability in the Baltic area, namely, the setting up of a new triangle of forces made up of Germany, Denmark and Poland. A security zone east of the river Oder and East of the Bavarian forest is in the German interest." BRITAIN: "NATO May Open Up To New Members In 1999" According to the independent Financial Times (9/12): "NATO may admit its first wave of new members in April 1999, the 50th anniversary of the Washington treaty which brought the Alliance into existence, according to Robert Hunter, the American ambassador to the North Atlantic Alliance.... Yesterday's prediction follows a series of upbeat comments from senior Western politicians about the prospects for combining NATO enlargement with a breakthrough in the often stormy relations between the Alliance and Russia." RUSSIA: "In Principle Moscow Welcomes Postponement Of NATO Expansion" Reformist Segodnya (9/10) featured this assessment: "At the end of last week U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher made a keynote speech in Stuttgart, outlining the U.S. vision of a 'new Atlantic community' and emphasizing in particular the need to formalize NATO's relationship with Russia in a special 'charter.' A day after this statement Chancellor Helmut Kohl came to Russia for an informal friendly meeting with President Yeltsin. Many people in the West concluded that this could hardly be a coincidence and that Mr. Christopher's speech must have been somehow agreed upon with Moscow, and that NATO's expansion is in principle a done deal.... "In principle, Moscow officials welcome Mr. Christopher's announcement that the decision on NATO's expansion will be postponed until spring-summer 1997. One of Boris Yeltsin's aides told me: 'The postponement of the date of the decision on expansion is a step in the right direction and an obvious result of our uncompromising opposition to NATO's expansion. Now everyone understands that a stable system of continental security cannot be built without reaching agreement with Moscow. As a result, sensible views of Western statesmen are beginning to take precedence over the NATO bureaucracy's egotistical desire to speed up the Alliance's expansion.' Well-informed sources in the Kremlin assert that during his meeting with...Yeltsin...Chancellor Kohl also agreed that the questions of further development of cooperation between Russia and the West and that the problem of NATO's enlargement should not be tackled in a hurry.... "Moscow is planning to carefully consider the agreement proposed by Warren Christopher. If it is a matter of enabling Russia actually to participate in decisionmaking on European security with the same rights that NATO members enjoy, then Moscow could accept the 'charter' proposed by Mr. Christopher. If the issue again comes down to some system of consultations, the 'new' proposals in fact contain nothing new and are unlikely to be accepted.... People in the Kremlin do not rule out that the new American initiative is just a device designed to avoid a scandal at the next OSCE summit in Lisbon. But then at the NATO Council's December session, 'they could play a dirty trick on us and announce a speedy expansion.' Mr. Christopher emphasized in Stuttgart that NATO should continue to enlarge in the future after the first group of countries has been admitted, so as to include other East European and CIS countries. Yet, the enlargement of NATO in its current form (let alone a continuing and unlimited expansion) remains unacceptable for Russia, as it has always been." "Dayton Accords On Bosnia: Mechanism For NATO Interference" Vladimir Volkov held in reformist writers' weekly Literaturnaya Gazeta (8/30): "The Dayton accords, their purported goal being to have Bosnia and Herzegovina united, have, in effect, contributed greatly to the country's further fragmentation, having it divided now not in two but three parts.... Setting an obviously impossible task attests to ulterior motives.... The Balkans are being turned into a NATO base outside the area of its military responsibility. This is not an isolated fact and fits into NATO's plans for enlargement eastward. Speculation about NATO troop withdrawal in December was no more than electoral rhetoric. Any event justifying a continued military presence in Bosnia is in line with the ulterior motives of those behind the Dayton accords. The united Bosnia and Herzegovina thesis is a good excuse for NATO's military presence in the territory of the Bosnian Serbs, as well.... The Dayton agreement, as a sample of a 'double standard' approach, also creates a mechanism to enable NATO to interfere in the affairs of individual countries and regions." "NATO Should Not Underestimate Russia's Potential" Igor Maximychev of the Europe Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences concluded in official government Rossiyskaya Gazeta (8/6): "In a way, NATO's expansion may do Europe good by prompting its countries to seek solutions to building structures for a new, larger Europe. Once they get established, the question of whether or not to join alliances and blocs that cover only parts of the continent will no longer make sense.... A sober look at the situation in Europe shows that neither NATO nor Russia could do away with each other, even if they wanted to. But they can harm each other badly. And in that sense, NATO should not underestimate what has been left of Russia's potential. Otherwise, damage to Europe and each of its countries will be irreparable." BELGIUM: "Does Mr. Chirac Want To Paralyze NATO?" Conservative Catholic La Libre Belgique opined (8/31): "President Chirac warned NATO member countries against a 'limited enlargement' that would ignore Russia. He expressed the wish that the countries wishing to cooperate with the Alliance be allowed to participate in the summit scheduled to take place at the beginning of 1997.... If you want to jeopardize the enlargement process, which has become very complex for having been delayed, only invite to the negotiating table the representatives of states which do not yet belong to it. Russia, particularly, is opposed to this enlargement. Giving it a say would unavoidably produce the result opposite to the desired one.... One could have understood a warning against the risks of dilution of the Alliance, even though Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic's membership does not inspire any concern in this respect. But Jacques Chirac's proposal, if accepted, would have much more dangerous consequences: the paralysis of the Alliance. One wonders moreover, why the French president advocates a strategy for NATO which he rejects for the European Union, because he deems it necessary to reform the institutions before launching the unavoidable enlargement process." THE NETHERLANDS: "U.S.-NATO Enlargement Should Continue-- Role For Russia" Influential, Rotterdam-based NRC Handelsblad commented (9/7): "The United States thinks that NATO should continue plans for expansion with a number of East European countries. Russia should cooperate intensely with the new Atlantic Alliance. So said U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher in a speech he delivered in Stuttgart about a new European security architecture for the 21st century.... 'We want to bring Russia into the family of market democracies and we want the Russians to play a role in the institutions for European security and economic cooperation,' said Christopher." "NATO Will Hold Expansion Summit: Concrete Step Eastward" Amsterdam's centrist Het Parool commented (9/7): "There will be a NATO summit next year to take a decision about the admission of new member states. At the summit, a charter will most likely be approved which arranges the relation with Russia. So said U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher yesterday in a speech in Stuttgart. This announcement of the special summit, is the first concrete step toward eastward expansion of NATO. Until now there has been a lot of talking about this issue but there has been hardly any progress." LATVIA: "We Don't Share Christopher's Optimism" Centrist Diena ran this commentary by Aivars Ozolins (9/14): "One can understand not wanting to leave Russia isolated, but I doubt we can share (Secretary of State) Christopher's optimism, because it is precisely the sense of threat that makes us, as well as other East European countries, look for security under the NATO wing.... Especially when he spoke of NATO openness to everyone, he did not explain how the organization will contain Moscow's threats to expand its influence to the borders of any new member nation, in essence--at the expense of those countries outside of NATO.... "Christopher's accent on the OSCE's role...causes concern, because Russia has always tried to give this organization NATO-like supervisory status.... In light of all the activity, the U.S.-Baltic Charter does not look so inspiring, even though it will be something completely different than the document to be signed with Russia." "Is There An Alternative To NATO? No." Centrist Neatkariga Rita Avize (9/9) carried a commentary on page two: "Considering the various viewpoints over NATO expansion, the time has come to seek an answer to the one deciding factor--is there an alternative to Latvia's movement toward NATO, or in other words, are there other ways in which Latvia can strengthen its military security for the long run? If we answer this question in the positive, then...a surgeon can operate on a patient with an electrician's tools, and an electrician can install lines using a scalpel and syringe. In both cases the result can be tragic.... Three alternatives which could be applied to support Baltic regional security: Russia's current state of weakness and its dependence on Western financial support; the new countries' greater or lesser ability to survive; disarmament agreements, and on top of everything Russia's political will to recognize the Baltic nations' independence.... Russia's weakness is very relative...there can be no question of Russia's weakness regarding the Baltic region, and it would be an absolute mistake to claim that Russia is in any way weak toward the Baltic states.... As regards the survival capacity of the new countries, one must admit that this factor should not be considered an alternative to NATO, but rather a prerequisite and promoter on the road to NATO, since it includes democracy, growing economic stability and defense forces.... In this contemporary period of advanced technology, any significant preparation for military operations would not remain unnoticed by NATO structures or even appropriate Latvian structures.... It is hard to imagine that any military aggression toward the Baltic states would occur without larger complications on an international level and that the response would be limited to economic sanctions. "It is apparent that Latvia's statesmen today have the right to claim that Latvia wishes to join NATO. These rights were granted to them by the voters in the Saeima (parliamentary) elections. But the decision as to how the NATO membership process will take place must be made by the Saeima.... Western investment in Latvia provides new jobs and revenue for both the government and the employee, as well as world standard quality products. I doubt that the new generation will be interested in trading Western imperialist Audis and Opels for Moskvitchs and Zaporozitchs again.... And what would be so wrong, with some young person--no matter whether Latvian or Russian-- getting an education at West Point...and eventually working his way up to a NATO general? Latvia could only be proud." NORWAY: "Through NATO's Back Door" Independent tabloid Dagbladet commented on the pledges by four non-NATO countries to participate in WEU military operations (8/6), "Discreetly, four neutral countries are taking their positions within the EU's united defense politics. The steps Finland, Ireland, Sweden and Austria are taking will eventually let them slip in NATO's back door the very day the Alliance expands with new members to the East.... The governments in these ex-neutral countries are facing a difficult problem of explaining to their citizens how being Alliance-free can be combined with active participation in a foreign affairs and defense alliance with military ambitions. For now, they may have to say one thing and do something completely different--just like Sweden has done all along." POLAND: "In Ruegen About NATO" Center-right Zycie Warszawy commented (8/22) on the meeting of German, Danish and Polish defense ministers in Ruegen: "The German Minister of Defense Volker Ruhe confirmed yesterday (8/21) that at the beginning of 1997 NATO summit would convene and the decision would be made there which countries could start the negotiations on admission to the Alliance. Ruhe said that Poland would 'undoubtedly' be among the candidates for NATO.... The enlargement of NATO was hampered at the beginning of 1996 by the presidential elections in Russia. Although after Yeltsin's victory the situation has become more clear, still the presidential elections in the United States are coming and the opponents of expeditious extension of NATO can be active again." SLOVENIA: "The Problems Rise With The List Of Candidates" Ambassador Hunter's visit to Slovenia sparked this reaction on left-of-center Delo's front page (8/27), "There is no doubt that NATO will expand; nevertheless, real problems arise as lists of the first candidates are drawn up. For the Central European countries--Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary--Russia is the most important element; the case of Slovenia--being a former Yugoslav republic--is additionally solved on the level of political precedent. Reasons for a positive decision will most probably be varied: the geographic and historical vicinity of Russia, the actual (importance) of an individual country between the two poles, the status of its relations with neighbors, readiness to follow political standards concerning the status of minorities, etc. The decision and selection are also difficult because an additional question has to be answered: Will the countries not selected be regarded as areas of reduced security?" SPAIN: "Spain Within NATO But With Command" Emilio Romero opined in economic La Gaceta de Los Negocios (9/11): "Being part of NATO demands being part of its military structure also but, at the same time, Spain should have a commanding role in the south of Europe. We are not talking about war but about defense. Solana will receive the parliamentary satisfaction of Spain's full integration into NATO, both with obligations and demands." "NATO In Madrid" Liberal El Pais concluded (9/10): "Javier Solana's visit to Madrid will have served to accelerate an unavoidable debate [on Spain's full integration into NATO]. It would be convenient for the result of it to be one of such wide parliamentary consensus that it would render the 1986 referendum obsolete and show that there is no need for any new public consultation on a subject which no longer divides the population. Political parties need large doses of political responsibility. Except in very concrete cases, a referendum is not the proper way to democratically solve a debate in a parliamentary democracy." "Spain In The New NATO" Conservative ABC said (9/10): "NATO is today the only organization capable of confronting European problems effectively, as could be seen in Yugoslavia, where the EU failed in its first attempt at carrying out a joint action and had to step aside so that NATO would put an end to the war. It is now necessary for NATO to adapt its structure to Europe's new geostrategic situation which requires quick, mobile forces to face conflict in any geographical point. There is no legal problem for Spain in being fully integrated into NATO because the only text which the Spanish parliament approved in 1981 warned that Spain was entering NATO with all its consequences and a parliamentary consensus would suffice for Spain to occupy the position it should have taken when it joined the organization 14 years ago." "What Consensus?" Independent El Mundo commented (9/10): "Spain's belonging to NATO is nothing but one more proof of the foreign policy which Spain is embarked upon.... The reform of the Atlantic Alliance has been spurred by the United States to abort any initiative leading to the creation of a European security system separate fromt the U.S. giant. We had proof of this recently when Javier Solana applauded the U.S. intervention in Iraq despite France's absolute displeasure and Spain's initial one. Is this Solana's idea of European consensus?" ## NATO: TAKING THE PULSE OF U.S.-EUROPE TIES, ENLARGEMENT