*96121201.rmr
NATO: FORWARD ON ENLARGEMENT, FORMAL CHARTER WITH RUSSIA
(Foreign Media Reaction Daily Digest)
Analysts abroad declared that this week NATO had started
"the countdown" to the entry of former Soviet bloc
countries with its announcement of a summit July 8-9 in
Madrid to select the first candidates and the acceptance by
Russia of the Alliance's offer of a special treaty to coat
the "bitter pill" of enlargement. But, taking their cue
from Russian Foreign Minister Primakov's denunciation of
enlargement yesterday in Brussels, most pundits feared that
Russia remains adamant in its opposition to enlargement,
despite NATO's promise that no nuclear arms will be
stationed on the territory of new members.
The Brussels ministerial's nod to new members found the
press in Western, Central and Eastern Europe as divided as
it has been since the isssue was first raised. Those in
favor of a greater NATO insisted, as did Amsterdam's
liberal-left De Volkskrant, that the organization "need not
harm Russian interests" and would "prevent the rise of a
power vacuum, where countries become the pawns of more
powerful neighbors." Opponents held that the entry of a
handful of countries would needlessly antagonize Russia and
create what London's conservative Times called "Europe's
new dividing line." Not surprisingly, writers from Poland
and Hungary--countries seen as among the leading candidates
for the first round of enlargement--greeted the news of the
meeting's decision with delight. Observers in Latvia and
Bulgaria, on the other hand, complained that the Alliance
was leaving the most "vulnerable" countries--such as the
Baltics--out in the cold. Centrist Neatkariga Rita Avize
of Riga argued, "Unfortunately, after the...Visegrad
countries become members of the Alliance, there will be a
noticeable security deficit in the Baltic states." In
Russia, the handful of commentators who deplored their
nation's anti-NATO line were heavily outnumbered by critics
of NATO's plans and mirrored what one observer called the
Kremlin's tactic of "simultaneous threats and dialogue."
The most interesting--and to many journalists outside
Russia, alarming--entry came from Russian Defense Minister
Rodionov two weeks ago. He declared in centrist
Nezavisimaya Gazeta that NATO's "eastward expansion" was a
"real danger to Russia's security" that would force Moscow
"to take adequate measures" that might include
"retarget(ing) our missiles at new NATO member states."
While some commentators dismissed the Rodionov threat and
anti-NATO remarks by other Kremlin leaders as just an
attempt to water down enlargement and render it palatable
to Russians, others were not so sanguine. Polish TV
Channel 2 voiced suspicions regarding what it viewed as
special treatment of Russia: "We should hope that it
won't be the Russian tail that is wagging the NATO dog.
That would be a too painful price for both the old and the
new members."
Another dispute at the Brussels gathering also captured the
attention of editorialists: the row between the U.S. and
France over Paris's demands for a European to head NATO's
southern military headquarters in Naples. Paris's right-
of-center Le Figaro suggested that the situation has
reached a stalemate because "it has been pushed up to the
level of (French President) Chirac and (President) Clinton"
and "neither can back down."
This survey is based on 71 reports from 18 countries, Nov.
27-Dec. 12.
EDITOR: Mildred Sola Neely
EUROPE
GERMANY: "Setting Stage For Sober Cooperation"
P. Pastorius told his regional radio Hessischer Rundfunk of
Frankfurt audience (12/11): "From a Russian point of view,
NATO--with its enlargement--is only taking another step to
a new division of Europe.... Nevertheless, here in
Brussels, we could feel a softening of the Russian
resistance to the Western Alliance moving closer to
Russia's borders. It seems that Russia has initiated a
turnabout in a controversy that it cannot win. It is true
that Primakov again voiced his 'unacceptable' against
NATO's enlargement to the East, but at the same time, he
accepted negotiations with NATO about a joint security
policy charter. This means that a new stage has now been
opened for the difficult rapprochement process between the
future partners. The time of useless speeches about the
setting up of a new European security architecture seems
to be over. Now a stage of sober cooperation will begin."
"What About Europe As A Whole?"
Regional radio Norddeutscher Rundfunk of Hamburg (12/11)
aired this commentary by Karl-Heinz Harenberg, "The other
European nations that have no chance of joining the
Alliance consider the limited expansion to be a new
division of Europe.... There is an absolute priority for
the attempt to save the Alliance..for a Europe in which
military alliances from the times of the Cold War no
longer have a right to exist. The price for this is high,
since NATO's strengthening, as a consequence, moves the
West to give nary a thought to alternative security
concepts that include Europe as a whole."
"A 'Two-Class' NATO"
Speaking of the "great concession" on nuclear weapons to
Russia, Josef Joffe argued in an editorial in centrist
Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (12/12), "If the Alliance
has no right to deploy nuclear weapons or forces in
certain member countries, there will be a 'two-class
NATO.' The Poles in particular know the value of those
Western vows of 1939 that were written only on paper. At
the moment of truth, when the Germans marched in, the
Germans did not have to be afraid of Anglo-French forces."
"The Clock Is Ticking"
Nikolaus Blome had this to say about enlargement in an
editorial in right-of-center Rheinische Post of Duesseldorf
(12/11) under the headline above: "It will now be an art to
make this bitter pill palatable to the Russians. This
pill is probably no longer the acceptance of new members
but, rather, the shifting of the balance of power in the
world.... NATO should offer all possible means to the
democratic forces in Russia to sell this view to the
embittered hardliners. The idea of creating a new body
where the Russians have a say is worth thinking about.
This does not mean giving Russia a right to veto NATO
decisions, but such basic decisions do not have to be made
each day. There is, rather, the need for greater
cooperation in future regional conflicts, as now in
Bosnia. It will not touch the roots of the Western
Alliance if the Russians are granted greater
responsibility."
"France's Returns, With French Coating"
Centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (12/11) opined: "All
eyes in NATO are directed at Bosnia.... But the situation
in the Balkans is not the only focal point on the agenda
of the Alliance. The question of its own future has
caught up with NATO, and France in particular is seeing to
it that the attempt to find an answer will remain an
interesting affair. For the government in Paris it has
always been clear that France would not simply return to
the old Alliance building, but only to one that has a
French coating."
"NATO's Risk"
This comment ran on national radio Deutschlandfunk of
Cologne (12/10): "NATO is running a different risk: It
wants to create a system that is to offer assistance to
those states that will not be among the first wave of
candidates that may join the Alliance. But how credible
will such a system be for those states if Russia gets a
special treatment?... A lot will depend on the paper
which the NATO summit is to adopt at its summit in
Madrid.... Formally, NATO continues to stick to its
timetable, and this has value in itself, but the offer to
Russia may be too good, since it could create new
questions elsewhere."
BRITAIN: "Moscow's Softer Stance Takes NATO By Surprise"
The British press offered conflicting versions of Russia's
attitude toward NATO enlargement. The liberal Guardian
said (12/12): "NATO governments claimed last night that
they had achieved a 'breakthrough' by securing Russia's
tacit consent for the gradual expansion of the Alliance."
"Kremlin Rejects Offer Of Deal On NATO Expansion"
But the conservative Daily Telegraph held (12/12): "Russian
Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov denounced NATO plans to
expand into Eastern Europe yesterday, despite the
Alliance's offer of a 'NATO-Russia Charter' that would
place relations between the former adversaries on a new
footing."
"NATO Countdown Starts For Entry Of East Europeans"
The conservative Times remarked (12/11): "NATO yesterday
started the countdown to the entry of former Soviet bloc
countries, promising Moscow that it would not deploy
nuclear forces in them but also making clear that Russian
objections would not halt the expansion.... The decision,
which in effect marks a point of no return in the
transformation of the old Cold War Alliance, was
accompanied by new overtures to Russia to drop its fierce
resistance to NATO's move eastward."
"Russia: Too Big To Ignore, Too Big To Annoy"
On the NATO ministerial in Brussels, BBC-TV said (12/10),
"Enlargement is a tricky issue, but there is no doubt that
it will go ahead. What they (NATO ministers) haven't done
yet is to reconcile or mollify the Russians. Russia is too
big to ignore, and too big to annoy."
"NATO In Knots"
In editorial comment, the independent Financial Times held
(12/10): "As NATO foreign ministers gather in Brussels
today, a host of transatlantic differences, mainly pitting
Paris against Washington, is undermining the Alliance and
harming its credibility in Central and Eastern Europe.
That is an unfortunate state of affairs, to put it mildly,
at a time when NATO's message to both Russia and future
members of the Alliance needs to be firm, consistent and
very carefully crafted.... President Bill Clinton's
appointment of Senator William Cohen as defense secretary
is an indication of his determination to maintain his NATO
commitment. Both the United States and Western Europe now
need to settle their differences to concentrate on the most
important task ahead: enlarging the Alliance to become a
force for stability throughout the continent."
"Dangerous Expansion"
The conservative Times' editorial maintained under the
headline above (12/9): "When they embarked on this path,
Western governments may sincerely have believed that NATO
enlargement would be a force for European stability. There
is barely a politician, let alone a senior military
commander, who believes that now. Instead they refer to
NATO's 'obligation to accept the new democracies'; or talk
about guarding against a new security vacuum; or
privately, say simply that for the West to back off now
would send 'the wrong message to Russia.' The first two
arguments are disingenuous, since the West intends to leave
democratic states in the Baltics and Balkans--precisely
those most vulnerable to a security vacuum--on the other
side of Europe's new dividing line. The third cannot
conceivably justify heading into a foreseeable
confrontation with Russia that would jeopardize arms
control agreements and bolster revanchist anti-Western
nationalism. If enlargement also lowers NATO's credibility
as a military alliance, it will have created the worst of
all worlds."
"Russia Trains Nuclear Sights On NATO Hopefuls"
Noting Rodionov's statement about nuclear warheads and his
call for more bilateral agreements with Western countries,
the conservative Times suggested (11/29): "The aim of this
tactic of simultaneous threats and dialogue may be to water
down the nature of NATO enlargement, if it does go ahead."
"Russia Threatens Old Allies"
The conservative tabloid Express said (11/29): "The
extraordinary outburst from General Rodionov will send
shivers through Eastern Europe five years after the
collapse of the Soviet Union. His threat comes a week
after he told British Defense Secretary Michael Portillo
that he was relaxed about NATO spreading into Eastern
Europe."
FRANCE: "NATO Postponed"
Daniel Vernet maintained in left-of-center Le Monde
(12/12): "The restructuring of NATO has been postponed
because of a dispute between France and the United States
over the Southern command.... This has led to the
adjournment of a global agreement on NATO reforms....
Jacques Chirac has committed his authority to the issue,
because he feels it is symbolic of NATO's capacity for
change.... In answer to Washington's excuse that Europe is
not sufficiently active in the region, Paris has answered
that we must get out from this vicious circle whereby
Europe is kept under U.S. tutelage because it does not
assume its responsibilities. On the contrary, says Paris,
it is by giving Europe responsibilities that it will
become committed."
"Moscow's Shots Against NATO"
According to left-of-center Liberation (12/12): "Moscow's
contradictory attitude (over NATO) is nothing new.... It
has become the Kremlin's favorite approach lately. Things
seem to be going along as if Moscow were ready to accept
the Alliance's enlargement, but had decided to get
something in exchange from the West, such as a right to
review over Alliance matters.... The United States is
displaying unperturbed serenity: U.S. diplomats were saying
on Tuesday that Russia's attitude would not `delay
anything.' That remains to be seen, because the West will
hardly ignore a veto from Moscow.... In short, Moscow
wants to be part of Europe's future security."
"Instrument Of Influence"
Rene Lamy asserted in communist l'Humanite (12/12):
"America's standing position over NATO's enlargement to
the East can be explained by its geostrategy to conserve
world leadership.... NATO should have disappeared after
the end of the Cold War, but the Clinton administration is
trying to use it as an instrument of influence in East and
Central Europe, thereby opposing West European nations in
what they feel is their `private garden.'"
"A Summit Dominated By Franco-American Dispute"
Pierre Bocev wrote in right-of-center Le Figaro (12/10):
"Franco-American positions have become more entrenched for
one main reason: Instead of the leaving the issue to be
discussed on the sidelines as usual, it has been pushed up
to the level of Chirac and Clinton; neither can back
down.... One observer notes that it is `unthinkable' to
imagine that the Franco-American dispute would not be
resolved before the NATO summit.... NATO's enlargement to
the East poses such problems that everything else must be
resolved beforehand."
"Franco-American Tensions"
Alain Frachon observed in left-of-center Le Monde (12/10):
"The issue of NATO could turn out to be more serious....
France assigns to its European partners certain `ambitions
for Europe' in diplomatic and military areas, which are
not shared, particularly an ambition to free themselves
from the United States.... Hence France finds itself
alone, face-to-face with the United States. Today's
tensions in Franco-American relations are mainly the result
of a problem in European relations: There is a gap in terms
of ambition and projects between Paris and its European
partners."
ITALY: "Very Good News"
A report by Brussels correspondent Adriana Cerretelli in
leading financial Il Sole-24 Ore said (12/12): "'The
Russian agreement to negotiate is very good news' stated
the American secretary of state yesterday.... According to
rumors circulating in Alliance headquarters, the charter
will be the stable and permanent basis on which relations
between NATO and its former historic enemy will be re-
established."
"Alliance Splits On Eastward Expansion"
Brussels correspondent Adriana Cerretelli filed for leading
financial Il Sole-24 Ore (12/11): "Secretary Christopher
responded to Russian Foreign Minister Primakov's negative
statements on NATO expansion upon his departure from
Moscow...by clearly showing his irritation about the delays
with which the Russians are reacting to NATO's openings.
'It's time for Russia to decide,' said Christopher
yesterday without mincing words.... If tension with Moscow
was more than evident yesterday, U.S.-European tensions
also emerged on more than one occasion. To begin with the
United States' idea to accompany the expansion process with
the creation of an Atlantic Partnership Council for the use
of Eastern European countries.... The Europeans, led by
France and Germany, opposed this project.... Not even on
internal reforms did things go smoothly. On the contrary.
U.S.-French differences on the division of command, in
particular concerning the southern command, were brought to
light without embarrassment.... In any case, Italy
supports the American thesis on this point since, as
Foreign Minister Dini said yesterday, `it responds to the
defense of our strategic interests in the Mediterranean
much more so than the French thesis which would call for
rotating commands, commands which are currently Italian.'"
"Others Not Willing To Make An Issue Of AFSOUTH"
A report from Brussels by Sergio Sergi in PDS (ex-
Communist Party) organ L'Unit (12/10) stressed: "Rumors
in Alliance circles have it that Paris is 'isolated' in
its standoff with Washington. Other Mediterranean
countries, such as Spain and Italy, have announced they
would welcome the change should the United States choose to
yield the AFSOUTH command, but they are not willing to
make this an issue of principle for fear that the yielding
of the command would be followed by the departure of the
Sixth Fleet from Naples."
RUSSIA: "Time Runs Out For Moscow"
Vladimir Abarinov pointed out on page one of reformist
Segodnya (12/11): "Russia has very little time for reaching
agreement with NATO. It will be much harder to deal with
an enlarged NATO. Statements on non-deployment of nuclear
weapons (in Central and Eastern Europe), while meeting
Moscow's concerns and threats, are unlikely to have any
effect.... The Russian Foreign Ministry likes saying that
an intention is a variable, potential a constant. But that
is also true of Russia, its unpredictability an obvious
factor of instability in Europe. There is no denying that
Europeans see Russia as a source of risk, if not threat.
That is the flip side of Russia always feeling suspicious."
"Pleasant Surprise"
Dmitry Gornostayev remarked in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta
(12/11): "Yesterday's statement by the NATO ministerial on
non-deployment of nuclear weapons came as a pleasant
surprise. Now Russia needs to have that statement sealed
legally."
"Last Car Of Last Train To New Europe"
Reformist Segodnya (12/10) front-paged this comment by
Vladimir Abarinov: "Signals coming in from NATO capitals
suggest that Russia is having the last chance to get on a
departing train. Signals going out from Moscow indicate
that it is not coming.... By insisting on special
treatment, Russia has gotten what it is after, an outsider
status. It beats me what Moscow is trying to gain by daily
harangues against NATO enlargement. Doing that would only
have made sense, if it had had a chance to kill those
plans. Threats to retarget Russian missiles or withdraw
from the CFE treaty only disappoint Brussels.... For
Russian politicians, who are more bureaucrats than
politicians, it is important to pose as firm advocates of
'adequate measures,' even if this is nothing but hot air.
Acting that way is safe. Engaging in dubious talks may
incur accusations of a Russia sellout, treachery, pro-
Americanism, and God knows what. It is a lot safer to buy
a ticket and not to show up for the train, as Russia did
with regard to the Partnership for Peace program."
"Europe To Be Split Again?"
Valentin Mashkin of The Voice of Russia radio station
lamented in centrist, trade union Trud (11/27):
"Unfortunately, NATO plans for expansion to the Russian
border may split the continent again.... At a Paris summit
six years ago, most of its participants viewed the CSCE
(now the OSCE) as the cornerstone of a new European
security system. Today NATO countries appear extremely
allergic to that idea, sure that only NATO can play that
role. In short, the current Western policies are clearly
at variance with statements the leaders of Euro-Atlantic
nations made in 1990, as well as with the Paris charter for
a new Europe. Incidentally, the fate of that charter is
typical of many political declarations of that sort--good
wishes nobody feels obliged to fulfill."
"Rodionov: NATO Must Change, Not Expand"
Russian Defense Minister Igor Rodionov, writing in centrist
Nezavisimaya Gazeta on army reform and a policy toward
NATO, stated (11/28), "NATO, apparently, will for long
remain an important factor to be taken into account in our
efforts to build a new national defense system. Its
expansion to the East is a serious problem.... Instead of
effectively ensuring security in Europe, we may wind up
back in the grim past, the Cold War era. NATO, it can be
stated with certainty, has no strategic need for eastward
expansion nor yet for a continued existence in its present
form.... With NATO forces in the immediate vicinity of
Russian army installations, tactical nuclear weapons will
practically become a strategic factor posing a threat to
START I, START II and the chances of START III. This will
constitute a real danger to Russia's security. Should NATO
move eastward, we would objectively have to take adequate
measures. These may include a review of several key
provisions of the Russian military doctrine, intensified
efforts to set up a defensive military alliance involving
CIS and non-CIS countries, a massive military buildup in
southern, western and northwestern Russia (in defiance of
the CFE treaty), including a buildup of theater nuclear
potential on our western borders--we may have to retarget
our missiles at new NATO member-states. Also, we might
withdraw from the START treaties.... I think it would be
more logical for NATO to adapt to new geopolitical
conditions not through expansion but through transformation
into an organization designed to avert and settle crises
and carry out peace missions under the auspices of the UN
Security Council and the OSCE."
"Brussels About To Lose Patience"
Konstantin Eggert remarked in reformist Izvestia (11/29):
"Neither the Kremlin nor the Foreign Ministry seem to be in
a hurry to use their chance to get out of a senseless
confrontation with NATO more or less gracefully.... A
high-ranking official in the Russian Foreign Ministry
confided, 'Yevgeny Maximovich (Primakov) is rather
pointedly ignoring Javier Solana's being sincerely well
disposed to Russia.' That is not nice. It is also unwise
diplomatically. Fighting the 'unipolar world,' something
Russian diplomacy has of late been doing most assiduously,
looks all but comic: As we condemn U.S. diktat, we ask
Americans to stop 'NATO enlargement.'... Ironically, the
Russian military elite, the savviest of its members, was
the first to realize the senselessness of resisting NATO
expansion.... NATO enlargement is a complex process.
Russia, alas, is finding itself on the sidelines of
important discussions on the future of European and global
security. Moscow's being eager for a special treatment is
easy to
explain, but it is hard to accept from the standpoint of
its partners in the dialogue."
"NATO Plans Conflict With Russian Interests"
Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (11/28) ran this article by
National Defense Council Secretary Yury Baturin: "If NATO
is a military bloc, against whom is it directed? If NATO
is a future collective security system, why is Russia not
invited? So far, we have had no satisfactory answers to
those questions. Does NATO enlargement pose a military
threat to Russia? Yes, it does. NATO's military might will
increase and come closer to the Russian border. We are
talking here of an imminent violation of the military
balance.... This is why our position remains unchanged:
NATO enlargement, Russia being uninvolved, runs counter to
Russian interests and those of European security."
BELGIUM: "Russia's Spectacular Turnabout"
Independent Catholic De Standaard (12/12) stressed: "On
Wednesday, Russia made a spectacular turnabout and accepted
NATO's offer to conduct negotiations on the revision of
(the mutual) relationship. On the second and last day of
the high-level meeting at NATO Headquarters in Evere,
Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeni Primakov continued to
oppose NATO enlargement with Eastern European countries....
NATO is satisfied that Russia, for the first time in three
years, is no longer linking negotiations with NATO to a
freezing of the Alliance's
plans to expand.... Russia's Foreign Minister did not
appear to be assured by NATO's statement on Tuesday that no
nuclear arms would be stationed in the new Eastern European
member states. Nevertheless, in Primakov's view, NATO's
offer has opened the road for constructive consultation....
The turnabout narrowly failed to be welcomed by Alliance
leaders with 'hurrahs.'"
"Christopher Attempts To Temper Russia's Frustrations"
Foreign affairs writer Jorn De Cock observed in independent
Catholic Het Nieuwsblad (12/11), "In an attempt to temper
Russia's frustrations, Secretary Christopher vowed that no
nuclear weapons would be deployed on the soil of new
members. At first glance, this promise contradicts the
foundations of NATO ideology but it remains harmless.
Christopher literally said that 'in today's Europe, NATO
has no intention, no plan and no need to station nuclear
weapons on the territory of any new members.' That does
not imply at all that NATO will commit itself in written to
a nuclear arms-free status of the new member states in the
future security charter with Russia."
"NATO Crosses The Rubicon"
In independent Le Soir (12/10), Pierre Lefevre noted:
"NATO will cross today the point of no-return in its
enlargement to the East. The Atlantic Council...will set
the date--in July of 1997--for the NATO summit which will
designate the first candidates for membership and open the
door to negotiations which themselves should result in
enlargement in 1999.... The French-American antagonism was
even clearer regarding the Europeanization of NATO's
military structure. Paris continues to demand that the
future command of the southern flank be entrusted to a
European.... Although substantial progress has been
achieved....no solution is expected about this issue in the
near future."
BULGARIA: "U.S. Forces Its Dual Standard Upon Europe"
Center-left Standard (12/4) remarked, "The U.S. exercises
political intrigue in the selection of the East European
countries which are to join NATO first. Officially,
Washington asserts that NATO's enlargement aims at
strengthening European security. Its unofficial goal is to
immunize the former Soviet satellites against Moscow's
geopolitical aspirations. If that is so, then the first
countries to join NATO should be Lithuania, Latvia, and
Estonia, or Bosnia and Herzegovina where peace is so
fragile. Washington, however, prefers other countries
which don't even border on Russia. What is the goal of the
White House then--to ensure a real security in Europe or to
impose its will upon the European countries?
DENMARK: "Greatest Worry: How Russia Will React"
An editorial (12/12) in center-left Politiken suggested
about enlargement, "The greatest worry is how Russia will
react. Recent developments suggest, however, that a
solution will be found.... Christopher announced that
nuclear weapons would not be deployed in the new member-
countries. This issue has played an important role in
Russian debate. NATO has no strategic need to deploy
weapons in the new member-countries, so this is not a
problem. Russia is still against the expansion of NATO....
Nonetheless, Russia seems to have accepted the expansion as
fact and has decided to try to make the best of the
situation. That is why Primakov did not threaten to make
reprisals, but accepted NATO's offer of a special status
agreement which would give Russia a privileged position in
relation to NATO and would include elements important for
Russian security. "
HUNGARY: "Policy Of Common Sense Triumphed"
Very conservative Uj Magyarorszag commented (12/12), "The
NATO ministerial meeting proved that Brussels continues to
be committed to NATO enlargement. The policy of common
sense triumphed: The West has understood that it is not in
its interest to let Central Europe become a gray zone; a
security vacuum.... By making this statement (on nuclear
weapons), NATO granted a great favor to the societies of
future members which would have also resented nuclear arms
in their countries. NATO is inevitably opening its gate;
it is now the future members' job not to block their own
entry into the Alliance."
"Don't Ignore Russia's Anti-NATO Rhetoric"
Conservative Uj Magyarorszag commented (11/29), "Russian
rhetoric against NATO enlargement is getting stronger and
stronger and this fact should not be ignored by the
international community. Theoretically Russia still is
the military superpower of Europe and the last thing the
West wants is running the risk of getting involved in any
action that would threaten the present relative stability
in Europe.
"Russia's sensitivity on the issue of the enlargement is a
fact and it is also easy to understand why the Russian
leadership feels that NATO enlargement and the possibility
of the deployment of nuclear arms close to its borders
would worsen the country's security situation. What
Russians are doing now is to try and force Brussels, even
by blackmail, to change its mind on the enlargement or at
least slow down the process. On the other hand the
Washington-led security Alliance seems more determined
than ever: They promise day after day that Moscow's
opinion on the enlargement will not be considered and that
the invitations to certain states will be mailed as early
next year. In the meantime, it would probably be a good
idea to get prepared for the further actions of Russian
psychological warfare."
LATVIA: "To Lessen Blow To Baltics?"
Centrist Neatkariga Rita Avize (12/11) lamented in a piece
by Oskars Kastens: "Unfortunately, after the...Visegrad
countries become members of the Alliance, there will be a
noticeable security deficit in the Baltic states.... What
is the solution to this delicate Baltic issue?... To lessen
the blow to the Baltics from being pushed out of the first
round of expansion, the United States wants to convince a
hesitant EU to accept the Baltic countries...by the year
2000.... Russia may be offered veto...rights at NATO....
This change in developments is not very encouraging for the
Baltics, because NATO's move eastward in this scenario may
be limited to the three or four countries mentioned
earlier."
"Share Details Of NATO-Moscow Pact"
According to centrist Diena (12/5) in a commentary by Aris
Jansons, "Obviously, the continent's new security model is
not possible without Russia, which in reality does exist
in Europe and which, in its present state of weakness,
will not let anyone else deny it its interests.... Sooner
or later a deal must be struck between Moscow and NATO--but
the details of the deal must be shared with other
countries on the continent: The past has had too many
painful lessons from secret pacts."
THE NETHERLANDS: "NATO Is Good For Stability And Won't
Harm Russia"
Amsterdam's liberal-left De Volkskrant said in an editorial
(12/11): "These objections (to enlargement) reveal little
vision into the historical function of the Atlantic
Alliance. This function was not only the deterrence of
possible Russian aggression; NATO also embodies--and this
is no less important--the solidarity between the United
States and the democratic part of Europe.
"With the end of Communism, Europe now has new democracies.
If NATO were to refuse to take in these nations and were to
allow a division in the common security, it would be
unfaithful to its raison d'etre.
"A strong, defensive and democratic transatlantic Alliance
has prevented the rise of a power vacuum, where countries
become the pawns of more powerful neighbors or where they
themselves develop conflicts as in Yugoslavia. It is good
for stability and need not harm Russian interests."
POLAND: "Russia Agrees To Charter, But Not Enlargement"
Centrist Rzeczpospolita (12/12) ran this by Brussels
correspondent Maria Wagrowska: "Russia agrees to holding
negotiations with NATO on the issue of a special charter.
It resolutely opposes plans to expand NATO eastward,
saying it risks creating a new dividing line in Europe.
Such a statement was made yesterday in Brussels by
Russia's Foreign Minister Primakov after the meeting with
the heads of 16 member nations of the North Atlantic
Treaty. NATO sources say that the Russian politician did
not link the development of relations with the Alliance
with the question of NATO enlargement."
"What Will Poland's Status Be Within NATO?"
Polish Television Channel 1's main news program,
"Wiadomosci" (12/10) aired this story by Waldemar Milewicz
from Brussels: "What will Poland's status be within NATO?
NATO assures that we will be given the same rights and
duties as the others, but is courting Russia at the same
time.... The head of Russian diplomacy, Primakov, doesn't
want any NATO weapons in Poland and he demands that it be
written in the treaty. It is dangerous for us. The
question isn't even that of NATO missiles, which no one
wants in Poland, but about concessions towards Russia. The
Kremlin has agreed on NATO enlargement to the East long
ago. Today it is protesting only to bargain more. All
concessions towards Moscow are a proof that it is worth
doing.... No one is able to answer what Russian status
within NATO will be, the 17th member or only a partner for
talks."
"Will Russian Tail Wag NATO Dog?"
Channel 2's main news, "Panorama" (12/10) included this:
"Russia a partner or a secret member? That question can be
asked after reading the offer which was presented to
Russia. We can only hope that these are only anesthesia
calming Russian pains concerning NATO. And we should have
hope that it won't be the Russian tail wagging the NATO
dog. That would be a too painful price for both the old
and the new members."
"Rodionov Calls A Spade A Spade"
All major dailies carried stories on the Rodionov
statement, with center-right Zycie (11/29) observing,
"Russia's Defense Minister Rodionov has finally called a
spade a spade regarding the military measures with which
Russian politicians on a number of occasions threatened
the West if NATO admits Central European nations....
Rodionov says that Russia will form a military anti-NATO
pact...strengthen its armed forces, deploy new nuclear
weapons near its western, northwestern and southern
borders. It will not comply with the currently binding
limitations of arms, which are in force under the
agreement on conventional weapons.... Russia will also aim
its rockets at new members of NATO, especially if they
allow the nuclear arsenals to be deployed on their
territories. Rodionov does not say if Russia will do that
in the event new member NATO nations did not deploy such
rockets."
"Read It This Way"
Bartosz Weglarczyk wrote for center-left Gazeta Wyborcza
(11/29), "One should not be afraid of the Russian defense
minister's threats, although they make some people's flesh
creep. The [Rodionov's] message should be read the other
way round: Russia has come to terms with the fact that the
first round of the enlargement will occur soon. Rodionov
is already thinking of what will happen later."
SLOVENIA: "Christopher's Wise Move"
Left-of-center, independent Vecer (12/11) stated in a
commentary: "Christopher, who has not renounced (NATO's)
eastward expansion, made a wise move when he calmed down
Russia with his statement that no nuclear weapons would be
placed on the territory of potential new NATO members. With
this statement, (Christopher) has offered Russia the
possibility to honorably renounce its demand that Poland,
the Czech Republic and Hungary do not (join NATO)....
Judging from the reaction of the United States and the
European Union to Milosevic's and Tudjman's acts, they have
evidently decided to draw a final line between the normal
and abnormal world. At least for a certain period of time.
The 'abnormal' world, which begins at the Kolpa river (on
the frontier between Slovenia and Croatia), plays with its
destiny."
SPAIN: "NATO Summit In Madrid"
Conservative ABC's editorial judged (12/11), "With the
designation of Madrid as the site for the NATO summit, the
Spanish government is justly thanked for its decision to
include Spain in NATO's military structure."
"Alliance Will Decide Expansion Toward East In Madrid Next
July"
Carlos Segovia reported for independent El Mundo (12/11):
"During the Madrid NATO summit, Spain's President Aznar
will try to improve the mean compensations and conditions
awarded to Spain within the organization."
EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC
SOUTH KOREA: "NATO Expansion, A Given"
In the view of conservative Segye Ilbo (12/11), "The NATO
ministerial meeting in Brussels has reaffirmed NATO's
eastward expansion. However, the timing of the expansion
and the issue of a security guarantee demanded by Russia
remain unresolved. According to Sandy Berger, the U.S.
representative at the meeting, Washington's top priority is
to stabilize Europe through an expanded NATO. While
France and other Allies support such an expansion, subtle
differences exist between them and Washington over such
issues as who will head the Alliance's military command.
The United States remains opposed to conceding the command
to Europe."
SOUTH ASIA
INDIA: "NATO Will Divide Europe"
K. Subrahmanyam wrote for the pro-economic reforms Economic
Times (12/9), "So long as NATO remains and has essentially
the image of a military alliance commanded by the sole
superpower, it will divide Europe into 'we' and 'they.'...
Standards of security and insecurity are set by the
powerful countries of the world. When the most powerful
country of the world argues it requires the largest nuclear
arsenal and a globe-girdling sophisticated military force
to ensure its security and still talks of its security
threatened by 'rogue' states halfway around the globe, the
Russian concerns are easily understandable."
SRI LANKA: "NATO's Aggressive Advance"
The independent, English-language weekly Sunday Times
(12/8) stressed, "NATO's aggressive advance into what was a
clearly demarcated Russian sphere of influence (the Warsaw
Pact countries) is yet another sign of self-assertive
supremely confident sole superpower, the United States. It
not only moves toward NATO's expansion but demands domestic
change, democracy, by some countries that participated in
the OSCE summit in Lisbon last week....
"Moscow cannot watch calmly while its former allies and
partners...join other blocs or organizations which are so
patently controlled or strongly influenced by the non-
European superpower from across the Atlantic. These new
relationships bring NATO dangerously close to Russia's
borders--and this at a time when violent, secessionist
conflicts have erupted on the periphery of what we now call
the Commonwealth of Independent States."
LATIN AMERICA
ARGENTINA: "NATO Reflects Survival Of Misgivings Against
Russia"
The editorial in daily-of-record La Nacion (12/10) said, "A
typical creation of the Cold War, NATO reflects the
survival of misgivings between Russia and the other nations
that belonged to the Soviet Union, particularly due to
their uncertain domestic stability and to the notorious
influence of political sectors where authoritarian criteria
has not disappeared. This leads to the need of a long-term
agreement with Moscow, that binds Russia to the efforts of
keeping harmony between the European nations."
##
For more information, please contact:
U.S. Information Agency
Office of Public Liaison
Telephone: (202) 619-4355
12/12/96
# # #
.