Wednesday December 4, 1996
OSCE IN LISBON: 'MARRED' BY ROW OVER EUROPEAN SECURITY
Analysts overseas, discussing the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe's (OSCE) gathering in Lisbon Dec.
2-3, held that the summit was shadowed by the unresolved
dispute with Russia over NATO enlargement and which
organization should be the primary agent for European
security, the Atlantic Alliance or Russia's candidate, the
OSCE. While noting that some European leaders--most
forcefully French President Chirac--lobbied for meeting
Russia's demands on OSCE by "reinforcing" its military
aspects, it was clear to most observers that the U.S.' pro-
NATO view had carried the day. They judged that NATO, not
the OSCE, will remain the principal "pillar" of European
security and will proceed with plans to accept some former
Warsaw Pact allies as members. Polish TV's Channel 1
determined, "Russia didn't manage to succeed in weakening
the NATO position in the European security system." The
perception that Moscow's arguments in favor of the OSCE
were rebuffed in Lisbon--and with it Russia's bid for a
place of honor it cannot achieve through NATO--left Russian
media convinced that, in the words of Moscow's reformist
Izvestia, Russia was "totally isolated" at the meeting.
This development prompted reformist Segodnya of Moscow to
urge a one-on-one meeting between Presidents Clinton and
Yeltsin (their absence at the OSCE was widely deplored) as
the only venue that could solve the impasse over NATO and
"prevent a durable 'cold peace' in Europe." Segodnya's
proposal was in line with current assessments in the Moscow
press that the Kremlin will not soften its anti-enlargement
stance, as many had hoped. Referring to Russian Prime
Minister Chernomyrdin's "categorical 'nyet'" in Lisbon,
business-oriented Kommersant Daily of Moscow stressed, "The
Foreign Ministry, dead set against enlargement, has
apparently prevailed. In fact, what Chernomyrdin has
brought to Lisbon is exactly what Yeltsin brought to
Budapest two years ago, when he proposed that the European
security system be reformed, with the OSCE, not NATO, as
its linchpin." Given the Russian position, centrist, top-
circulation Corriere della Sera of Milan held that Vice
President Gore "said what he had to say, i.e. that NATO
does not intend to threaten anybody, least of all Russia,
but that it neither intends to be told by others what it
can or cannot do."
Most editorialists were of the opinion that the OSCE--which
they have through the years criticized as "a diplomatic
monster" paralyzed by the need for consensus among its 54
members--cannot serve as the key security organization from
Vancouver to Vladivostok. "For this purpose we continue
to need NATO," said right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine,
one of many publications on NATO's side. Vienna's
independent Die Presse declared, "One should let the
cobbler OSCE stick to its last. That is: to be a platform
of discussion" for Russia, the CIS and the rest of Europe.
Journalists, however, agreed with Lisbon's center-left
Publico that the summit was a "success" in other areas.
They applauded the nod to Russia's request to modify the
treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE), hoping--yet
again--that this concession would "soften" Moscow's
rejection of NATO enlargement. Writers welcomed the
decision to create a position charged with monitoring
freedom of the press in the OSCE member states.
This survey is based on 87 reports from 15 countries, Nov.
26-Dec. 4.
EDITOR: Mildred Sola Neely
EUROPE
PORTUGAL: "A Success, Though Difficult To Measure"
Center-left Publico (12/3) said in a piece by international
editor Teresa de Sousa, "The Lisbon summit was a success
but one that is difficult to measure in terms of the
infernal monotonous ritual of official speeches or by a
quick read of the two summit documents: 'Our Common
Security' and the 'Lisbon Declaration.'... Nevertheless,
the summit was a step, however short, on the road to
consolidating a new climate of confidence that opens the
doors to the two big questions on which post-Cold War
European security hinges: NATO and EU enlargement....
Perhaps the United States left for its European allies the
mission of coming up with a new conceptual framework for
European security as outlined in the 'Llisbon Declaration,'
but it contains some of Washington's calls for pragmatism,
but it also addresses some of Russia's concerns about
strengthening the OSCE as one of the most important
structures in a new model for European security."
"Gore's Minimalism"
Another item in center-left Publico (12/3) concluded under
the headline above, "NATO enlargement and an OSCE which is
a mere regional forum for political discussion...is the
U.S. perspective as presented by Vice President Al Gore
yesterday; views which are the total opposite of those
defended by the Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin
at the Lisbon summit.... Gore tried to placate Moscow's
fears of Alliance enlargement with a conciliatory tone....
In U.S. eyes, the advantages of their security model are
clear, and would be based on close relations with Russia
and the OSCE.... As is usual with OSCE summits, Al Gore
arrived, spoke, met with Chernomyrdin, fulfilled the
protocolary ceremonies called for by good manners, and
left."
"All Eyes On Russia"
Center-left Publico (12/2) remarked in a piece by
international editor Teresa de Sousa, "Certainty prevails
among the delegations that the Lisbon OSCE summit won't be
a repeat of the Budapest failure two years ago...because
Russia comes ready to cooperate.... The fundamental
question for the summit is to find a way to work with
Russia so as to clear the road for NATO expansion. The
opinion of Western diplomats is that Russia has now
accepted that the OSCE will never be the dominant European
security organization."
"Continental Rift"
Under the headline above, business weekly Valor (11/29)
noted, "The absence of the U.S. president at the OSCE
summit, which his Old World counterparts had hoped would
draw major attention, is interpreted as another
demonstration of the North American administration's
distancing itself from Europe.... Some analysts say that
the United States wants to 'lower the profile' of the
summit by substituting Al Gore for Clinton.... This at a
time when relations between Portugal and the United States
are already uneasy. Portuguese foreign office circles have
been heard to say, 'With friends like that, who needs
enemies?'... The growing distance between the two capitals
is clear. Portugal has not been happy with the Democratic
administration's support for Indonesia (Clinton visited
Jakarta four times in his first four years). Recently the
president refused to see Timorese resistance leader and
1996 Nobel Peace Prize winner Ramos-Horta. As if that
weren't enough, Washington did not support Portugal's bid
for a seat as a permanent member of the UN Security
Council."
GERMANY: "We Need NATO For Europe's Security"
Werner Adam commented in a front-page editorial in right-
of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine
(12/4), "In Lisbon, a new confrontation regarding NATO's
enlargement to the East did not take place. But Moscow
not only continues to stick to its opposition to the
acceptance of former Warsaw Pact states in the Western
Alliance. It is even questioning the value and the
significance of NATO in general.... The United States
rightfully pointed out that it is not possible to make
unlimited concessions to the Russians without putting at
risk the transatlantic Alliance at the end.... Nothing
can be said against an OSCE as a well-approved instrument
of regional crisis management, but it cannot turn into the
foundation of a European security system. For this purpose
we continue to need NATO."
"OSCE's Merits"
Kurt Kister judged in an editorial in centrist Sueddeutsche
Zeitung of Munich (12/4), "It would be a futile effort to
turn the OSCE into an alliance for collective security in
Europe.... In the framework of the OSCE, states like
Armenia and Azerbaijan talk to each other, while their
soldiers usually fire at each other. Europe's nations and
even more the countries that border on Europe need such
institutions. It has its merits and makes sense even
though it will not turn into a supreme NATO."
"OSCE's Dilemma"
Berlin's centrist Der Tagesspiegel concluded (12/4), "The
OSCE (meeting)...joins the long history of painstaking
attempts at eliminating sources of conflict in Europe and
make peaceful cooperation the decisive guideline. This
summit did not bring the 54 participating countries any
closer to this aim. This and President Clinton's
demonstrative absence disclose the real dilemma of the
OSCE: It is wedged between the U.S. refusal to give this
organization an efficient role in...maintaining peace in
Europe, and the inability of the European Union to impress
Washington and Moscow with a common will. This is why it
is consistent to say that a new division of Europe has not
been rejected yet."
"CFE To Get Revised In Hopes Of Russia's Nod On NATO"
Werner Adam commented in an editorial in right-of-center
Frankfurter Allgemeine (12/3), "What the West rejected at
the beginning as unacceptable has now, thanks to their
harping insistence, been conceded to the Russians: The
treaty on conventional forces is to be revised. This
concessions is understandable, because the original
agreement was negotiated between NATO and the Warsaw Pact
and was concluded before the disintegration of the Soviet
Union.... Western concessions can also be explained
because such a step promises a softening of Russia's
opposition to NATO's enlargement to the East. However,
what Premier Chernomyrdin had to say in Lisbon does not
second this view. Russia continues to describe NATO as a
danger."
"How Do Russians Spell Security?"
Right-of-center Dresdner Neueste Nachrichten (12/3) opined:
"'Security in Europe' is in Russian still spelled
differently than in German, French or English. At the OSCE
summit..the 54 participating countries will not find a
common language either. The trenches are too deep between
Russia and Belarus on the one side, and the NATO partners
on the other. However, Russia's wish to turn the OSCE
into a kind of umbrella organization for NATO and the WEU
in where Moscow is an equal partner to Washington, London,
Paris and Brussels, is understandably not meeting with too
much support. The conflict in the Balkans shows the
distribution of roles: The OSCE controls the elections in
Bosnia; NATO is responsible for establishing the necessary
order. The Western security concept bases its hopes on
NATO as a military but also as a political factor of
stability in Europe. And the wish of Eastern and Central
European nations to join the Alliance shows that this
approach is accepted."
"Lisbon's Dream Factory"
Right-of-center Berliner Morgenpost held (12/3), "Russia
wants to deploy more forces and tanks along its so-called
flank regions. What will the neighbors of these flanks
think of it? The fact that Western circles seem to like
these Russian wishes, because they hope that Moscow could
modify its unyieldingness regarding NATO's enlargement to
the East, could quickly turn out to be a product of the
dream factory in Lisbon."
"Moscow Will Again Lobby For OSCE Over NATO"
Right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine's editorial (12/2)
held, "If there is anything that Russian politicians fully
agree on against the West, it is the rejection of a NATO
enlargement to the East. And because in the Atlantic
Alliance the tendency toward enlargement is also
restricted, the Moscow government considered it appropriate
to once again pull all the stops to the plans on the
acceptance of former Communist bloc states into the Western
military Alliance immediately before today's OSCE summit
meeting.
"Russia will not even tolerate a mention of this subject in
the OSCE documents that are to be passed. Instead, we can
expect it to once again voice with warning eagerness its
old plan of making the OSCE the basis and roof of a common
European security system. As this enterprise obviously
aims at a weakening of NATO, Moscow will meet with a rebuff
in Lisbon just as it did at the last OSCE summit in
Budapest. However, the Western defense is less united.
Some countries do not lack the readiness to increasingly
accomodate the Russians."
"Small Steps Instead Of Big Breakthroughs"
Gerd-Eckard Zehm wrote in right-of-center Bonner Rundschau
(11/26), "The main actors in the political arena,
Presidents Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, will not be
present at the summit, but even without them, the OSCE
summit is likely to become an impressive meeting....
Nevertheless, leading OSCE diplomats do not expect a
'moving' event. Instead of great breakthroughs, there will
be minor steps that are directed to greater confidence-
building, conflict prevention and a strengthening of the
efficiency of the OSCE....
"One of the problems, the German delegation with Chancellor
Kohl at the top wants to address at the summit is, in
addition to security policy subjects, the human dimension.
According to the Bonn government, the OSCE is to set new
standards that will ostracize the practice of ethnic
displacements and will lay down the right of refugees to
return to their homes. In addition, the Bonn government
will suggest setting up the office of a media commissioner
in addition to the office of a high commissioner for
minorities which already exists. This media commissioner
is to watch the freedom of the press in the various OSCE
member states. He is also supposed to watch the latest
developments in the media landscape and--if necessary--
draft certain rules for the treatment of the new media."
RUSSIA: "Moscow Isolated In Lisbon"
Under this headline, reformist Izvestia (12/4) ran a
comment by Vladimir Mikheyev: "Assuming that Western
powers, considering themselves the victors in the Cold War,
had in mind to show Russia how totally isolated it was,
they seem to have achieved their aim in Lisbon. The OSCE
summit, effectively and forcefully, rejected the Moscow
view that NATO enlargement to the East will split Europe
again. The West must be certain that Moscow will simply
have to admit that it cannot stop the 'Orient Express.' In
fact, Russia has been left no choice, which perhaps
explains why there was no answer to Moscow suggesting,
rather unexpectedly, that it might join NATO's political
organization.... Overall, the Lisbon meeting was marked by
a divergence rather than a coincidence of views. NATO's
'Orient Express,' not yet on an official schedule, has
already cut Europe into two unequal parts, leaving Russia
less than a proud loner, Belarus its sole ally."
"Agreement On CFE Is Chief Accomplishment"
Fyodor Lukyanov stated on page one of reformist Segodnya
(12/4): "Agreement on renewing the CFE talks in Vienna,
experts say, is the main practical result of the Lisbon
summit."
"Only Moscow-Washington Compromise Can Avert Cold Peace"
Reformist Segodnya (12/4) published this comment by Pavel
Felgenhauer: "Russian foreign policy became clearer, at
least temporarily, after Premier Chernomyrdin, addressing
the Lisbon summit, strongly opposed NATO expansion
eastward.... Obviously, the advocates of a 'resist-and-
defy' policy in the (Moscow) corridors of power have only
gained, as their 'firmness' has at last begun to pay off,
forcing the West into concessions.... Moscow, apparently,
will now insist that NATO plans be postponed until a CFE
accord is reached in Vienna and the Alliance signs a
legally binding treaty, not a 'charter,' with Russia....
Support from France and Germany is only temporary and
opportunistic. They are not going to block NATO expansion
forever. Only compromise with Washington can prevent a
durable 'cold peace' in Europe. With their ministers stuck
in an impasse, only President Yeltsin and President Clinton
can save mankind by meeting one on one, as their
predecessors Gorbachev and Reagan did before them."
"Gore Feels Alone?"
Tatyana Malkina in Lisbon filed on page one of reformist
Segodnya (12/3): "Chernomyrdin made a forceful
presentation, aggressively confirming Russia's unshakable
stand on NATO expansion.... By contrast, Gore, who spoke
soon after 'friend Viktor,' was pointedly diplomatic and
amicable and even expressed the hope that the OSCE might
help NATO and Russia strike common ground, to everybody's
delight. It is easy to guess who is luckier in the
Portuguese capital: The U.S. vice president must feel
alone. Practically every speech included a set of
obligatory elements, with roughly a third of all speakers
referring to the OSCE spreading across boundless expanse
and everyone mentioning a new European security
architecture and a wider sphere of competence and a greater
role for the OSCE.... The Russian delegation seems to be
about to feel as if it might carry the day. Judging by the
atmosphere at the summit, Lebed's touching dream may
finally come true, as NATO's 'regular guys' will agree to
change the structure, name and goals of their organization,
and Russia, heaving a sigh of relief, will join it, along
with the rest of the OSCE."
"Chernomyrdin Echoed Yeltsin's Words In Budapest"
Georgy Bovt said in reformist, business-oriented Kommersant
Daily (12/3): "Suggestions that Moscow might soften its
stand, which most OSCE countries find inflexible and
hopeless, have not come true.... The Foreign Ministry,
dead set against (NATO) enlargement, has apparently
prevailed. In fact, what Chernomyrdin has brought to
Lisbon is exactly what Yeltsin brought to Budapest two
years ago, when he proposed that the European security
system be reformed, with the OSCE, not NATO, as its
linchpin.... So far, Russia has had only one ally,
Alexander Lukashenko, himself under fire for his
authoritarian ways. Under the circumstances, Moscow,
facing possible isolation, would be wise to stay away from
its Belarus friend so as not to make things worse for
itself.... The final declaration, evidently, will not
mention NATO where it comes to the free right of European
nations to join military-political alliances. But avoiding
mentioning problems does not make them any easier. Nor will
it give the OSCE the efficiency Moscow has been urging."
"Whither Europe?"
Reformist, government Rossiyskiye Vesti (11/30) wrote
editorially: "Faced with important security tasks, Europe
can best resolve them through the OSCE, the only universal
organization on the continent.... Russia believes that a
new European security plan must provide for close
cooperation among international organizations active in
European politics. Those include the OSCE, the EU, the CE,
NATO, the CIS, and others."
"Real Chance To Continue Dialogue"
Alexander Zditovetsky in Lisbon pointed out on page one of
centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (11/30): "For Russia, (this
meeting) is a real chance to continue a serious dialogue
with Western partners on European security and, in
particular, NATO expansion eastward.... The absence of
Clinton and Yeltsin will detract somewhat from the
summit.... Regarding the supersensitive issue of NATO
expansion, Russia is helpless to stop it, due to its
military-economic situation.... The West will not miss
this extremely propitious moment: Russia was not so weak
and vulnerable even in 1917."
"OSCE Is Better Than Split Europe"
Reformist, youth Komsomolskaya Pravda (11/30) published
this by Yelena Ovcharenko: "Now is the time to think of how
best to ensure European security in the next century. We
are familiar with the Brussels option and find it
unacceptable to Russia.... The Russian delegation is
leaving for Lisbon, convinced that OSCE documents should
not approve of NATO enlargement. The problems to be
discussed, of course, are not confined to who beats whom or
whether the 'Atlantists' will ever submit to the OSCE. A
new Europe really needs new security.... With an abundance
of European structures already in place, creating a new one
is hard and expensive. Much would have to be built anew--
the OSCE does not even have a legal basis. All that,
however, seems easier than going back to blocs and
coalitions."
BRITAIN: "Row Over NATO Mars Summit"
Glasgow's centrist Herald (12/3) pointed out under the
headline above: "Russia attacked NATO's plans for
enlargement, sounding a jarring note as OSCE members met to
try to build lasting peace in Europe for the 21st
century.... The crises in Belarus and Serbia also
detracted from the summit's intended harmony."
"Is Russia An Inherent Threat To Rest Of Europe?"
An editorial in the liberal Guardian (12/3) pointed out,
"Hopes that the end of the Cold War would also mean the end
of mystifying defense theology have not been sustained....
Just why the Russians should be partners in the global
economy but antagonists in continental defense remains
unclear. The various proposals for a new partnership
between NATO and Russia should imply Russian membership at
some future stage. If there is a good reason for this
being ruled out, we are not being told.... What is left
unsaid behind the new theology is the old conviction that
Russia is an inherent threat to the rest of Europe."
"Fears Over NATO Expansion"
Glasgow's centrist Herald maintained (12/2): "It is
important to remember that NATO enlargement, while
theoretically a sound idea, must be approached with much
caution. Membership is a guarantee of protection for
former Warsaw Pact countries, but it includes obligations
which these nations are unlikely to be able to honor for
some time....
"The real danger is that rhetoric and posturing may upstage
the conduct of business and lead to harder attitudes on all
sides."
"Avoiding New Row With Russia"
According to the liberal Guardian (12/2): "Despite being
determined to avoid anew row with Russia at today's
European security summit, Western countries look likely to
face trouble as Moscow grows increasingly jittery about an
expanding NATO.... American Vice President Al Gore hopes
that by tinkering with words and enhancing cooperation
between NATO, the OSCE and the European Union, Russian
concerns about NATO enlargement can be assuaged.
"Most OSCE members are wary of Russia's proposal for a
'steering group' modelled on the UN Security Council.
Washington explicitly rejects any link between the
expansion of NATO and the development of OSCE.... However,
some European countries think Washington is being too tough
and there have been transatlantic disagreements in
preliminary meetings in Vienna."
FRANCE: "Paris's Difficulties In Promoting Its Vision Of
OSCE"
Alain Frachon remarked in left-of-center Le Monde (12/4):
"Paris is facing difficulties in promoting its vision of
the OSCE. Russia, on which it counted, seems to be more
interested in an exclusive dialogue with Washington,
hoping to gain the most in exchange for NATO's enlargement.
The United States is hostile to a change of status for the
OSCE which should, in its view, remain an informal
forum.... Eastern Europe is counting on NATO, not on the
OSCE, for its security. And the EU supports Paris, but
without much enthusiasm."
"NATO's Enlargement: Best To Insure Security, Stability"
Jacques Malmassari observed in right-of-center France Soir
(12/3): "The Alliance needs a facelift to adapt to a new
Europe opening to the East.... Europe recognizes the need
for a U.S. presence. This doesn't mean that it wants to
subcontract its security to Washington forever.... NATO
must go forward towards the East on two legs, one American,
the other European. NATO's enlargement is not a gift from
the West to Central Europe, nor is it a threat for the
Russian people. It is today the surest way of insuring the
stability and the security of the continent."
"France In 'Renewed NATO' Would Help Russia"
Readers of right-of-center Le Figaro saw this by Baudoin
Bollaert i(12/3): "NATO's enlargement is still dividing
Russia and the United States.... For the French president,
a reinforcement of the OSCE is the only thing that can
counterbalance NATO's enlargement.... Even if he didn't
say it outright, Chirac believes that France's return to a
'renovated NATO Alliance' would help Russia in accepting
NATO's enlargement."
"A New Franco-American Disagreement"
Left-of-center Liberation's Jacques Amalric opined (12/3):
"The opposite positions of Chirac and Al Gore...are not
surprising. It demonstrates once again that the United
States wishes to continue with NATO under U.S. influence,
while Chirac is asking, without much hope, for a
Europeanization of its military organizations."
"What Is OSCE's Purpose?"
Baudoin Bollaert wrote in right-of-center Le Figaro (12/2):
"The basic question is this: What is the purpose of the
OSCE? The Russians would like it to be a super-
organization that would include the Atlantic Alliance. The
United States disagrees because it perceives Europe's
security to be guaranteed by the `de-multiplication'
(reduction) of NATO. In the middle, France is in favor of
a stronger OSCE and a renewed NATO.... Paris feels that
with a charter giving the OSCE more weight, NATO's
enlargement would be easier to accept by Moscow."
"Mission Impossible For European Security"
Jacques Amalric observed in left-of-center Liberation under
the headline above (12/2): "`The most important issue for
the Russians,' confides a French diplomat, `is their
relationship with the United States, which fascinates
them. For them, the OSCE is an empty shell that can stay
empty. All of their diplomatic efforts are concentrating
on their future relations with NATO, and therefore,
according to them, with Washington.' This state of mind
sits well with the United States.... Meanwhile, without
openly saying that NATO's enlargement is subordinate to
its Europeanization, Paris admits that a tie-in exists."
ITALY: "Defense, It Is Up To Europe"
A commentary in leading financial Il Sole 24-Ore (12/4)
maintained: "At the Lisbon OSCE summit an important
awareness, especially among European leaders, has been
enhanced: NATO expansion alone does not represent a new
security architecture in an area stretching from Vancouver
to Vladivostok and it will not be enlargement at any
cost.... It is unlikely, given the uncertain leadership in
the Kremlin, that Moscow will propose new ideas.... Rather,
it is better that the Europeans, in particular Italy,
France and Germany, transform their `Lisbon awareness' (a
secure Europe with Russia) into a concrete proposal,
perhaps endowing the OSCE with those operational means that
allow it to become the main structure of a Euro-Atlantic
defense system."
"NATO Remains Pillar Of European Security"
According to PDS (former Communist Party) organ L'Unita
(12/4), "NATO remains the pillar of European security. And
the OSCE, which the Europeans...would like to reinforce,
does not have the requirements for being an alternative,
first of all because the United States is not willing to
give up its leadership by putting the security of the Old
Continent in the hands of a `condominium'."
"Thorniest Among Unresolved Issues: NATO Enlargement"
According to centrist La Stampa in a dispatch from Lisbon
(12/3): "The absence of the Russian and American
presidents symbolized and summarized the thorniest among
the unresolved issues, i.e. NATO expansion. No progress
has been made in Lisbon and nobody, in fact, expected any.
Chernomyrdin's speech was a tough one.... But Western
leaders, who remembered Yeltsin's very tough speech in
Budapest, where he had talked of `cold peace,' were
satisfied with the portion of Chernomyrdin's sentence in
which he admitted that Russia has no right to a veto.
Therefore, things will proceed according to Washington's
plans, even though everybody realizes that, this way,
medium-range prospects for a new European security
architecture will be more difficult and that, on the
contrary, there may develop situations of instability and
growing mutual diffidence. U.S. Vice President Gore
concluded his speech by saying: Roads are created by
walking on them. Which is good...when everybody is able to
proceed, but is not so good when some can proceed and
others are forced to go back."
"Smiles And Gore's Message"
Franco Venturini wrote from Lisbon in centrist, top-
circulation Corriere della Sera (12/3): "The OSCE is going
to conclude today amid smiles and handshakes a summit
which the presences of Clinton and Yeltsin, as well as the
controversial presences of Milosevic and Arafat, could have
made stormy.... The message from Moscow was that Russia
will not pose a veto on the
choices made by others but that nobody can prevent it from
defending its own vision of European security.... U.S.
Vice President Gore said what he had to say, i.e. that
NATO does not intend to threaten anybody, least of all
Russia, but that it neither intends to be told by others
what it can or cannot do; that NATO expansion will
stabilize Europe and therefore it is in the interest of
everyone."
"OSCE Centered On NATO"
PDS (former Communist Party) organ L'Unita said (12/3):
"Even though NATO expansion is also not an official item
for discussion...the summit is de facto centered around
the future size of NATO."
"'New Order' Won't Be Born In Lisbon"
A commentary by Franco Venturini in centrist, top-
circulation Corriere della Sera (12/2) was rather
pessimistic about the prospects of the OSCE meeting in
Lisbon: "Certainly the 'new order' sought by a Europe
shaken by its escalating nationalisms and its ethnic
cleansings...is not going to be born in Lisbon. Why?
Because the convalescent Yeltsin and the skeptical Clinton
will not be there. Because the 54-member OSCE is a
diplomatic monster paralyzed by the rule of unanimity....
But, most of all, because...the dreams of those who seek
the dividends of victory and those who refuse to pay the
price of defeat are too different. The West, which has won
the Cold War, says Clinton, cannot substitute the Iron
Curtain with a curtain of indifference. It has to open
towards the East, it has to extend its security system
(NATO) towards the new European democracies which 1989
freed from the Soviet yoke....
"But then there is Russia.... It would not be wise to have
the new European security born `against' the Kremlin and
its nuclear arsenal. The project for a 'Pax Atlantica'
then shows its limits: The most threatened areas, such as
the Baltics and Ukraine, would remain excluded from the
umbrella of an expanded NATO.... It is necessary to find
a compromise with Moscow which will not humiliate Russia,
will not exacerbate its resurging nationalism, will not
make the price of defeat too great."
"NATO-Russia Thorn At OSCE Summit"
Aldo Rizzo concluded in centrist La Stampa (12/2): "The
key item in Lisbon is the one which does not appear on the
official agenda, i.e. NATO expansion and the seesawing, but
overall negative, reaction in Moscow.... Between Moscow
and Washington, the Europeans allies say neither 'yes' nor
'no.'... The problem will not be resolved in Lisbon,
where, however, there will be a useful discussion."
AUSTRIA: "Good And Bad News From Lisbon"
Independent, mass-circulation Kurier's commentator Otmar
Lahodynsky regretted (12/3) that the OSCE failed to answer
the basic question of how a European security model for the
21st century ought to look like, mainly because of
diverging opinions: "Russia wants to make the OSCE a
bastion confronting NATO, the United States consider it a
useful forum of discussion and democracy, and the European
Union dreams of a European security network with a stronger
OSCE."
But Lahodynsky also traced "positive signals from Lisbon."
He mentioned first signs of a rapprochement on CFE and a
few reforms in the human rights sector: ,"Another
important task of the OSCE will be the freedom of the
media, which is oppressed in many European countries such
as Belarus, but also Serbia, Croatia and Turkey....
Despite all its shortcomings, the OSCE remains an important
pillar of the European security architecture, but not the
only one."
"Cobbler OSCE, Stick To Your Last!"
Andreas Schwarz wrote in independent Die Presse (12/3)
"After Lisbon, it is a fact that the OSCE, which has its
roots in the East-West conflict, is unsuitable as the
foundation of a security architecture. The principle of
unanimity and the hardly successful conflict management
don't allow this illusion.... One should let the cobbler
OSCE stick to its last. That is: to be a platform of
discussion, sometimes constructive, maybe even epochal.
But the organization will certainly never be a security
architecture for Europe."
BELGIUM: "Russia Speaks Threatening Language Against West"
Foreign affairs writer Frank Schloemer observed in
independent De Morgen under the headline above (12/3):
"NATO headquarters in Evere is following with Argus eyes
the OSCE summit...where a Russian threat has concentrated
black clouds over the meeting.... If necessary, the
Russians will demand a revision--a unilateral termination
in the worst case--of the international disarmament
agreements and stated that they might seek 'new military
allies' if NATO were to expand after all.... The Kremlin
is mad and using terms like 'you are marching in our
direction,' and is convinced that its own security is
threatened. France and Germany have shown understanding
for the Russians' fear but that is much less the case for
the United States and, above all, the would-be members from
Central and Eastern Europe....
"Yet, the 54 OSCE members have made a small step in the
direction of the Russians. They appear to be willing to
discuss the 1990 CFE Treaty on conventional weapons
again.... (This treaty) might be adapted and expanded."
HUNGARY: "Chirac Sides With The Russians"
Readers of influential, liberal Magyar Hirlap (12/4) saw
this piece by Janos T. Barabas, "OSCE's Lisbon summit ended
with a significant success: An agreement was reached that
the treaty on the limitation of conventional weapons would
be re-negotiated. Thereby a long-time Russian demand has
been fulfilled, which obviously has contributed to the fact
that Moscow showed a less firm opposition to NATO's
enlargement than had been expected. However, it is
unlikely that the Russians would ever give their blessings
to their former allies' membership in NATO. Jacques
Chirac, who started a tough battle with the Americans on
NATO's new system of command, has, in fact, taken the
Russians' side. By taking the position that OSCE should be
strengthened in such a way that would give some sort of
military function to the organization, he has, in fact,
provided new arguments for those opposed to NATO's
enlargement. It is to be regretted, even if his principal
goal was to achieve a better bargaining position for
himself in the fight for NATO's command posts."
"Inopportune Timing Of OSCE Meeting"
Influential, liberal Magyar Hirlap stressed (12/2), "With
the deadline for the enlargement of NATO approaching, the
disagreements over the process are getting more and more
attention, as well. The OSCE meeting is being held at a
very inopportune time, since NATO foreign ministers will
convene only a few days later to discuss the major issues
regarding the future of the Alliance. The OSCE is facing a
difficult task: It will have to ease the concerns of
states left out from the enlargement process but it is hard
to see yet how this would be possible.
"Moscow's policy towards OSCE is best characterized by
being contradictory. On the one hand Moscow wants to make
the OSCE the central pillar of the new European security
architecture; on the other hand it often blocks attempts to
strengthen the influence and scope of authority of the
organization. The reason for this is of course that most
of the conflicts in the settling of which OSCE could play
a role break out in Russian spheres of interest."
THE NETHERLANDS: "Who Would Want A Russian Europe?"
Centrist Algemeen Dagblad's editorial declared (12/3),
"Since the end of the Cold War, the European countries,
together with the United States and Canada, have been
looking for more security and cooperation on the Old
Continent. The current OSCE meeting in Lisbon is only a
stop along the way to that goal which is long not in sight.
The OSCE might have had more influence, but its capacity to
make decisions still suffers from its size. Only if there
is agreement among all the 54 members can a decision be
taken. This principle has created a diplomatic monster
which is too ponderous to be effective. In addition to
this, the OSCE members have different views on the
future.... For example Russia, which unlike the United
States and Europe, would like to see the OSCE become the
main security institution in Europe.... OSCE, Russian
style, would push NATO onto second place.... But who
would want a Russian Europe?"
"OSCE At An Impasse"
Influential NRC Handelsblad (12/2) judged, "The OSCE is
back to where it started: A company of members who disagree
with one another--the OSCE is at an impasse."
POLAND: "Russia Didn't Weaken NATO's Position"
Polish TV's Channel 1 aired this on its main news program,
"Wiadomosci" (12/3), "In Lisbon at the close of the
summit, the leaders of 54 countries accepted the
declaration about the model of security in Europe in the
21st century.... Russia didn't manage to succeed in
weakening the NATO position in the European security
system."
"A Useful Forum For Discussion"
Polish TV Channel 2's main news program, "Panorama" (12/3)
suggested in a piece by Jacek Biernacki, "The Russian
proposal to make the OSCE the pillar of European security
didn't get through in Lisbon. Quo vadis OSCE? After the
Lisbon summit, there isn't a clear answer for that
question. One thing is obvious, however, to transform the
OSCE into an efficient system of peacekeeping in Europe is
almost impossible. That is why we should leave the
concerns about peace within structures already proved
correct, like NATO, and let OSCE be what it is now--a
useful forum for discussion."
"Gore's Short Answer To Chernomyrdin's 'Nyet'"
Polish TV Channel 1's main news broadcast, "Wiadomosci,"
(12/2) said, "Five thousand people listened in Lisbon once
again to Russia's categorical 'nyet' to the plans for
Polish membership in NATO.... The American answer was
short: Al Gore, the vice-president: 'NATO is a defense
treaty and there is no reason that any country should be
afraid of its enlargement.'"
"OSCE Cannot Usurp NATO's Place"
Radio RMF FM's Brussels correspondent Katarzyna Borkino-
Szynanska remarked (12/2), "It is unacceptable in Brussels
that OSCE could take over the NATO position. NATO proved
its efficiency, has won the Cold War without a shot, and
is conducting its policy in Bosnia. OSCE is barely
effective and is not able to work out any consensus."
"Moscow Wants Bilateral Deal With NATO"
Polish Television Channel 1's "Wiadomosci" main news
program (12/1) aired this piece on the Lisbon summit from
Russian correspondent Witold Laskowski: "Some of Moscow's
analysts
consider that by toughening its attitude towards NATO
enlargement, the Kremlin wants only to gain more
concessions from Western countries. In truth, Moscow is not
able to fulfill its threats, because of economic reasons.
Moscow wants only to bring about the signing of a
bilateral agreement with NATO before the Central European
countries become members."
"Chernomyrdin: Steadfast Objection To NATO Enlargement"
Bartosz Weglarczyk maintained in center-left Gazeta
Wyborcza (12/2), "Russia wants the OSCE to take the
responsibility for stability in Europe. Among other things,
Russia wants the system of security in Europe to comprise
not only geographic Europe, but also the whole area of the
OSCE. It means that, for instance, the Asian countries of
the former Soviet Union, whose foreign policy in the face
of Europe is completely subordinated to Russia, would also
have their say on the issue of NATO enlargement."
SPAIN: "A Building Without Russia"
An editorial in liberal El Pais said under the headline
above (12/4), "The differences verbally expressed by the
Russian delegation at the Lisbon OSCE summit illustrate
the major problem that Europe must solve: Putting Russia
into the security framework that is being developed....
The West knows what it does not want to do with Russia--
letting it join NATO or the EU--but (the West) does not
appear to have a constructive solution. Russia could
contribute to it by behaving in a more positive way...but
its insistence on watering down the summit's criticism of
Belgrade's lack of democracy is not a hopeful sign.
However, there are signs that Moscow has already accepted
the idea of NATO expansion and that what it now seeks is
to not be isolated.
"The OSCE deserves to be considered not only as a forum for
debate...but also because it offers the opportunity for
bilateral meetings to all of its members. Although it has
looked differently on occasion...it has a remarkable
political ability to prevent fraud and abuse from becoming
legal."
"OSCE: Much Ado About Very Little"
Under the headline above, independent El Mundo (12/3) said
in an editorial: "The United States and Russia have not
come any closer regarding a security framework for
Europe.... Gore's kind words to Chernormyrdin are nothing
but reflections of good intentions."
"Post-Cold War European Security Will Not Emerge In Lisbon"
In the editorial view of liberal El Pais (12/2), "The post-
Cold War European security will not emerge out of the OSCE
summit in Lisbon. While NATO is preparing to expand to the
East, the...countries...meeting in Lisbon appear to aspire
only to appease the fears of an increasingly weakened and
untrusting Russia. The absence of Bill Clinton and Boris
Yeltsin in addition to the difficulties in reaching
consensus on the final document herald a summit of
'transition,' a mild diplomatic adjective for 'void of
content.'
"Russia's internal weakness, its isolation from old Warsaw
Pact allies and even its rivalry with other former Soviet
republics, make this summit an unbalanced fight in which
the West has no special interest in putting Russia against
the ropes. Moscow's wish to form a kind of European
security council...also has little opportunity to prosper."
SWEDEN: "What Is Really OSCE's Purpose?"
An editorial in liberal Dagens Nyheter (12/3) held,
"Today's problem in Europe is not the lack of security
organizations. On this continent there are more
organizations than tasks, and the
OSCE is one example of this surplus.... Its shortcomings
are obvious and its only advantage, which in itself is not
unimportant, is the fact that Russia is included in
cooperation on equal footing with EU and NATO members....
Many of OSCE's problems would be easy to take care of.
Procedural changes would, for example, give enhanced
resoluteness. But the key question remains. What is
really the purpose of the OSCE?... It is difficult to
escape the feeling that the OSCE to a great extent is given
the responsibility for all that is left over."
EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC
JAPAN: "OSCE Shows Its Limitations"
Conservative Sankei's Lisbon correspondent Nozu wrote
(12/4), "The OSCE summit ended on Tuesday with nothing to
show except an ambiguous model declaration about the
creation of a 'borderless and common' security zone in
Europe. European leaders have held four OSCE summits since
the end of the Cold War in order to find a new framework or
a new vision of security. What became evident, however,
was the limitation of the OSCE itself."
CHINA: "Another Trial Of Strength Between Russia And U.S."
Gao Shijun filed for official, Central Political and Legal
Commission Legal Daily (Fazhi Ribao, 12/4), "During the
(OSCE) meeting...the leaders of Russia and the United
States engaged in a new trial of strength. Russia
reiterated its firm opposition to NATO's expansion eastward
and the United States emphasized that the expansion plan is
not subject to change. This struggle shows that it will
be hard to bridge the differences over how to build
European security within Europe.... Divergent interests
and many difficult, pressing problems that demand a
European solution are affecting the establishment of a new,
post-Cold War security architecture. Untiring efforts must
be made in order to narrow the differences among the
parties and to reach understanding. Many issues will remain
unresolved after the OSCE meeting concludes."
INDONESIA: "Our Definition Of Peace And Security"
Leading, independent Kompas's editorial concluded (12/3)
regarding OSCE, "Our definition of peace and security is
more than just being free from war. We believe that true
peace and security cannot occur so long as oppression,
injustice, human rights violations, and poverty exist."
##