NATO: SOLANA MOSCOW TALKS; FRANCO-GERMAN 'ACCORD'
(Foreign Media Reaction Daily Digest - 29 Jan 97)
NATO Secretary General Solana's talks in Moscow Jan. 20
with Russian Foreign Minister Primakov, the beginning of a
new round of negotiations over NATO's plans for
enlargement, were widely seen in the media abroad as
yielding little or no progress. "The parties retained
their old positions," concluded Chisinau's opposition Tara.
"That means NATO will continue the expansion and Russia
will continue to oppose it." Commentators were not
disappointed, however. Some assumed that the real
bargaining eventually will take place between Washington
and Moscow, others judged that the discussions revealed a
"factional split in the Russian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs" over enlargement, and a few in Central Europe were
relieved that there was no decision made on what Polish
national TV Channel 2 called "the question...about the
range of the Russian veto." Centrist Rzeczpospolita of
Warsaw insisted, "Worse news would have been that of an
agreement...which would entail a threat to tailor the shape
of our membership according to Moscow's needs." The
Russian press mirrored the reported "split" in the
government, with dailies arguing whether it would be better
to work with NATO, join it or resist enlargement. They
offered conflicting advice even when agreeing that Russia
should secure a special charter with the Alliance.
"There's no rush," held reformist weekly Obshchaya Gazeta.
"Russia has made no commitments to sign a treaty in time
for the NATO summit in Madrid." Reformist Izvestia
countered that Russia should hurry up and profit from
NATO's offers, since it needs "an early agreement more than
the other side does." Journalists recalled that, just a
few weeks before the Solana-Primakov session, Russia
brandished the prospect of reuniting with Belarus and
advancing its frontier westward as a counter to a larger
NATO. As other Russian papers did, reformist, youth
Moskovskiy Komsomolets endorsed this move, declaring that
association with Belarus is "perhaps the most formidable
weapon in Russia's political arsenal. It is a sure way to
wring serious concessions from the West." Observers in
other countries acknowledged that, in the words of right-
of-center Die Welt of Berlin, a Russia-Belarus union
would "change the security situation," but in ways that
might not please Moscow, since it would make "enlargement
inevitable, to reassure...NATO countries...at the
periphery of NATO."
Western European analysts were also fascinated by
revelations in Paris's left-of-center Le Monde that France
and Germany have reached a "strategic policy" accord that
allegedly includes Paris's sharing its nuclear arsenal with
Bonn. But on France Inter radio, former French Socialist
Defense Minister Jean-Pierre Chevenement dismissed claims
that this accord would create "a Franco-German defense
structure...with the dual patronage of Europe and NATO."
France, he said, has simply given up on its demands for a
European to head the Alliance's Southern Command, and
"signed a 'strategic policy' with Germany which is not a
policy and shows no strategy.... The only strategy
mentioned is that our forces will be at the disposal of
NATO." Centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich echoed
this assessment, maintaining that "there can be no special
Franco-German path in nuclear matters" and that the
objective of any Franco-German "dialogue" must be "to link
the French nuclear power with the Alliance."
This survey is based on 65 reports from 16 countries, Jan.
14-Feb. 2.
EDITOR: Mildred Sola Neely
EUROPE
RUSSIA: "Solana's Style"
Alexander Golts said in weekly magazine Itogi (1/28),
"There are grounds to fear that the style of the present
secretary general threatens to stall the negotiations
between Russia and NATO. His flexibility and a tendency to
avoid open debate may mislead his Russian interlocutors
into thinking that they could wrest more favorable terms by
applying a little more pressure. Yet even in the unlikely
case that Moscow will prevail upon the NATO secretary
general (who has some sympathy for Russia), it doesn't
follow that the NATO states--which have the final say--will
agree with him. The paradox is that Russia would be better
off with a tougher opponent. A person capable not only of
finding an elegant compromise but of convincing the leaders
of NATO countries that this is the only possible formula."
"Cold War Still On"
Under this headline, reformist, business weekly VEK (# 2,
1/24) published a comment by Vladimir Prikhvatilov and Oleg
Solodukhin: "Moscow's firm stand on NATO expansion probably
means that it has abandoned starry-eyed liberal-democratic
hopes for U.S. and other foreign aid, realizing that the
West's traditionally tough policy for Russia has not
changed. The leaders of the 'free world' have been viewing
this country as a historical rival and will never do
anything to make it stronger. It is a fact that the
Western community has always sought, through a conscious
and concerted action, to weaken Russia's positions
practically everywhere.... In continuing the Cold War
against Russia, the West has often rudely interfered in her
internal affairs. The damage caused to the Russian economy
by the notorious financial stabilization, carried out as
suggested by Western experts, is comparable to a defeat in
a large-scale war."
"Russia Wants Say In NATO"
Vladimir Razuvayev stated in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta
(1/24): "'Atlanticists' and those who have grudgingly
resigned themselves to the idea of NATO expansion, as a
decided matter, clearly prevail in the Russian media. The
best known TV personalities are among them. Funny, their
views again greatly differ from public opinion. Official
Moscow, however, remains adamant, insisting that it will
not stop being wary of NATO until it has a say in this
Alliance."
"Russia Seeks Compensation"
Leonid Velekhov, commenting in reformist Segodnya (1/23) on
the atmosphere of secrecy which surrounded the recent
Primakov-Solana meeting near Moscow, said: "Scant
information and observers' skepticism regarding Russia's
chances of getting compensation for NATO's apparently
inevitable enlargement are only natural. You cannot blame
the Russian Foreign Ministry for hating to see its
performance criticized."
"Russia Needs Legally Binding Treaty"
Alexander Nizhegorodtsev held in reformist weekly Obshchaya
Gazeta (# 3, 1/23): "Of course, a legal document requires
ratification by the national parliaments of NATO member-
nations, which takes a lot of time. The Atlanticists are
right about that. So what? There's no rush. Russia has
made no commitments to sign a treaty in time for the NATO
summit in Madrid. We are after quality, not speed. Even
without any treaty with NATO, Russia will not cease to be a
factor of European security. A hastily drafted,
declarative document, while creating the illusion of our
being involved in deciding Europe's future, will in fact be
a mere 'paper curtain' which can divide countries and
continents as effectively as an 'iron' one."
"Europe Unable To Build Own Security Base"
Duma deputy Vladimir Averchev pointed out in reformist
writers' weekly Literaturnaya Gazeta (# 3, 1/23): "We
invite politicians in Europe and North America to build a
strategic bridge between Russia and NATO symmetrical to the
one built across the Atlantic over 50 years ago.... One of
the greatest disappointments of the last decade is that
Europe has been unable to create a security basis of its
own within the transatlantic community, as symbolized by
its fiasco in the former Yugoslavia, where restoring peace
took a lot of strenuous effort by U.S. diplomacy. France
is going back to NATO's military organization to try again
to help Europe take good care of its own security. Having
Russia as a full partner along with the United States and
Canada is the shortest way to that goal."
"Moscow Eager For Dialogue"
Maxim Yusin reported in reformist Izvestia (1/22) about the
recent Primakov-Solana talks: "It looked as if Moscow was
now interested in a dialogue no less than the guests from
Brussels.... Anyway, Russian leaders must realize that
they need an early agreement more than the other side
does."
"Moscow Must Give Up Ambition"
Andrei Medin stated in reformist Vechernyaya Moskva (1/22):
"Moscow still has time to reach an honorable agreement with
Brussels. To do that, it must give up its imperial
ambition and be ready for compromise."
"Military Alliance With Belarus Is Answer"
Alexei Zverev held in reformist, youth Moskovskiy
Komsomolets (1/22): "A real military-political association
with Belarus is perhaps the most formidable weapon in
Russia's political arsenal. It is a sure way to wring
serious concessions from the West. All Javier Solana has
offered us so far is a review of several treaties, a
continued nuclear disarmament, more investments, and a
'formal agreement' on 'stable and long-term relations'....
All that is nothing compared to the strategic advantages
the proposed expansion will give NATO."
"Make Hay While The Sun Shines"
Maxim Yusin stated in reformist Izvestia (1/18): "Javier
Solana and his aides are well disposed to Russia. Now,
before their attitude changes and NATO expands, Moscow has
a great chance to secure a good agreement with this
Alliance.... Russia, more than the other side, must be
interested in intensifying the talks, since so far, it has
only had to deal with 16 Western nations. As shown by the
past few years, finding common ground with former potential
enemies is a good deal easier than with former Communist
brothers."
"Some Think Feud Shortest Way To Security"
Vladimir Abarinov of reformist Segodnya (1/18) observed:
"On the one hand, it is clear that NATO will expand, and
Moscow must do something to get out of this predicament,
before it is too late. People here cannot but see that, a
war danger from the West, unlike its real and reliable
initiatives, is propaganda. On the other hand, many
politicians in Russia, given to perverted surreal notions,
believe confrontation is the shortest way to security."
"Quality Better Than Speed"
Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (1/21) front-paged this piece
by Yulia Petrovskaya and Dmitry
Gornostayev: "Evidently, Russia should not hurry when it
comes to a final draft treaty with NATO. The quality of
the talks is more important than their speed. Not only
Russia's future but Europe's security depends on their
outcome. The proposed treaty, not enlarged NATO or the
OSCE, may provide a basis for international relations in
Europe."
"Clear Choice For True Russian Patriot, Although West
Frowns On Idea"
Duma Deputy Boris Fyodorov stated on page one of reformist
Rossiyskiye Vesti (1/15): "Steps toward reunification with
Belarus will clearly cause acute displeasure among certain
forces in the West. They fear a strong Russia in a way
that is irrational and strictly genetic. Hence feverish
attempts to expand NATO eastward to deter Russia (who
else?). Only the blind cannot see the danger of those
preparations. It is more proof that reunification with
Belarus is the only right choice. We cannot let this
historic chance be wasted. It is clear to any true Russian
patriot."
"Who Is Russia? Partner Or Enemy?"
Reformist Izvestia (1/15) ran this comment by Maxim Yusin:
"The advocates of Russia-Belarus reunification present it
as a response to NATO enlargement, as an 'adequate
reaction' to the West's 'hostile intrigues.' But why do
our politicians think confrontation with NATO inevitable?
Is the West going to attack us? Isn't it from the West
that we've been asking (and receiving) economic aid? Isn't
it the West which, in a most delicate way, has been
treating our problems, vacillations, ill- conceived moves,
and even absurdities like the Chechen war? The proposed
alliance with Belarus, as anti-West scare tactics, can only
lead to Yeltsin finally convincing 'friend Bill,' 'friend
Helmut,' and 'friend Chirac'...that Russia is no partner
but a potential enemy."
"NATO's Expansion: Key Issue"
Viktor Kuvaldin of the Gorbachev Foundation mused in
centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (1/14): "For years to come,
NATO's expansion will remain a prevalent foreign policy
subject, its importance, remarkably, underestimated and
overestimated by the Russian political elite, all at the
same time. It is being overestimated because admitting new
members to NATO is unlikely to change Russia's geopolitical
position. It is being underestimated because we are
talking here of making a strategic choice, a choice of our
future.... Let's face it, NATO is the only viable security
structure in Europe.... None of the post-Soviet nations,
Russia included, has firm international security
guarantees.... The West needs immediately to start
negotiations on gradually integrating Russia into NATO with
a view to creating comprehensive European security systems,
with NATO's expansion suspended."
GERMANY: "No German Finger On The Trigger"
Ruediger Moniac noted in an editorial in right-of-center
Die Welt of Berlin (1/29), "The discussion about an
allegedly secret agreement between Bonn and Paris...is
entering a dimension that is distorting and inappropriate
in reality.... We can only second the view of CDU foreign
policy spokesman Karl Lamers who said that the question of
a German finger on the 'nuclear trigger' does not even
come to the fore. It has always been difficult in German
circles to discuss the rationality of the tasks of nuclear
weapons as part of a political-military means to preserve
peace.... If the European Union is to develop into a
security community that is able to act, considerations
about the inclusion of a nuclear component in available
military potentials...are inevitable. But this does not
mean that Germany is automatically a nuclear power. Logic
should tell critics that Germany would then also have been
a nuclear power in the framework of NATO."
"Shhhh!"
Paris correspondent Bodo Morawe said in a commentary on
regional radio Hessischer Rundfunk of Frankfurt (1/28):
"Why is there no public debate about the Franco-German
strategy paper?... The core problems behind the formula
compromises, Paris's special role (in NATO), the German
increase in power, and a European nuclear strategy are
politically so explosive that every public discussion
would bring to the fore the 'arriere pensees' in Bonn and
Paris. But nobody is prepared for this, since it is
likely that it would result in a political nuclear fission
in Europe."
"Only Within NATO"
Kurt Kister noted in an editorial in centrist Sueddeutsche
Zeitung of Munich (1/28), "There can be no special Franco-
German path in nuclear matters, even though it is
embellished with the phrase of a European 'defense
identity.' In the interest of NATO, which will be
Germany's security policy home in the future, too, it must
be the aim of the announced dialogue to link the French
nuclear power with the Alliance. If the Bonn government,
with its special relations with France, wants to play the
mediator among the French, the Americans and the bodies in
Brussels, then this will be a reasonable, future-oriented
defense policy.
"A Franco-German entente nucleaire would certainly promote
French interests. As far as politics is concerned, it
could open up new possibilities for a seesaw policy
between a grand alliance with NATO and a small alliance
with Germany. For the Bonn government, however, this
would harbor not only the risk of increasing alienation
from Washington. In addition...this would also be a great
step to establish a secret nuclear power in Germany."
"Unspectacular"
Regional radio Bayerischer Rundfunk of Munich (1/27) aired
these comments: "How useful will this Franco-German paper
be in view of the fact that President Chirac embarrassed
the German partner several times before?... In the
strategy paper, both countries commit themselves to
creating a European defense identity but also to an equal
engagement in NATO. Originally, France pursued the idea
of an independent European defense without the Americans,
but France did not find a partner. Now this aim is to be
achieved within NATO in an alliance with the Americans, but
this goal is still far away and evidence of this is the
term 'defense identity,' which circumvents clear fixations.
The statements regarding the French nuclear weapons are
totally unspectacular. (Both sides) want a dialogue about
the role of these weapons in the context of a European
defense planning. The statement could be hardly more non-
committal. Neither the Bonn government wants a second key
for these weapons nor is the Paris government even
thinking about such a possibility.... More important than
papers is Franco-German cooperation in practice. Soldiers
of both sides are currently cooperating in Bosnia. The
joint mission in Bosnia serves as a test run for future
cases. The significance of this cooperation is much
greater than all declarations--even if they are signed at
the top level."
"Re-Integration' Of CIS Would Have Consequences For NATO"
Lothar Ruehl reacted in an editorial in right-of-center Die
Welt of Berlin (1/23) to the prospect of a Russia-Belarus
merger: "(These developments) could prompt the government
in Bucharest to accede to the Alliance and in this context
a Russian reintegration' policy...would play a decisive
role.... Such a development would also raise the question
of the future of the Baltic states. There is no doubt
that Belarus's merger with Russia even without a military
integration would prompt the three Baltic states to knock
at NATO's doors in Brussels--and it would be much more
difficult than in the past for the Alliance to reject their
wish to accede.
"There are still good reasons to stop NATO's enlargement at
the eastern borders of Poland and Hungary. But a real
union between Moscow and Minsk would strongly change the
security situation, making a further enlargement inevitable
to reassure the remaining Western NATO countries that are
situated at the periphery of NATO."
"Everything Will Depend On Understanding Between U.S.,
Russia"
Werner Adam noted in an editorial in right-of-center
Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/21), "The beginning of talks
between NATO's Secretary General Solana with Russia's
Foreign Minister Primakov, therefore, is hardly more than
the beginning of a protracted process in which everything
will, in the end depend on an understanding between
Washington and Moscow."
"Solana's Task: Squaring The Circle"
Jens Dorner judged in an editorial in right-of-center
Bonner Rundschau (1/21), "NATO, under these
circumstances, will not create a new consensus in Moscow in
the coming months but instead it will be blamed for
everything that goes wrong. It is also certain that it
will even be impossible for Javier Solana to square the
circle.... Like in geometry, the planned security
partnership with Moscow will at best turn out to be a
miscreation. However, this could be tolerated if the
common core in the European search for peace is
maintained."
"Fine, But..."
According to centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (1/21),
"We could expect everything from NATO's Secretary General
Solana except that he would return from Moscow with a clear
result.... The ex-foreign minister of Spain...seems to
have survived the first stage of a difficult trip in a
favorable condition. However, the situation can quickly
change. This will be true in particular if the leadership
crisis in Moscow expands to a noisy war of succession. At
the latest at that time, the concept NATO considers a
draft for foreign policy stability could turn into a
poisonous bone of contention."
"Russian Blackmail"
Werner Adam judged in an editorial in right-of-center
Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/14), "This cannot be a
coincidence. A few days before the negotiations between
NATO Secretary General Solana and Russia's Foreign Minister
Primakov, Moscow...announced plans for a merger between
Russia and Belarus. The fact that Boris Yeltsin, who is
bedridden, has nothing more important to do than to
suggest a referendum on the formation of a uniform
state...is nurturing the assumption that there is a link to
NATO's plans. It is true that Russian forces patrol along
the Belarussian border, but if a merger took place,
Greater Russia would border on the Polish accession
candidate and on Lithuania that has turned into an obstacle
on the path to the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. From a
NATO angle this is a strategy of blackmail.... When will
the Alliance finally admit this?"
BRITAIN: "Is Russia Ready To Leave Its Lair?"
An editorial in the independent weekly Economist held
(1/24): "Since there can be no going back--to abandon long-
standing promises because of a Russian tantrum would bust
the Alliance--NATO's enlargement will start, as planned,
after a special summit in July.... But, if enlarging NATO
is to add to Europe's security, rather than diminish it,
Russia's legitimate concerns need to be addressed....
"If Russia is ready to strike a deal, there is plenty on
offer.... If the Russian bear chooses to be friendly, all
of Europe could enjoy the partnership. In the end, though,
whether or not Europe
slips back into old rivalries depends on how Russia now
reacts.... But is Russia ready to leave its lair?"
"NATO Enlargement Out Of Kilter With EU's"
The independent Financial Times suggested in an op-ed
commentary by columnist Ian Davidson (1/22), "NATO
enlargement has now become an unstoppable commitment which
will be translated into practice in July. Unfortunately,
enlargement may cause plenty of trouble without doing any
good.... It could jeopardize the West's strategic
relationship with Russia.... If NATO enlargement is
unavoidable, there might be fewer problems if it proceeded
gradually, in parallel with the eastward expansion of the
European Union. In that case NATO could play a quieter
role and the whole process of uniting Europe could be made
to seem more peaceful.
"In fact, the reverse is happening. NATO enlargement is
getting out of kilter with the timing of the eastward
enlargement of the EU.... What this means is that for at
least the next five years, and probably longer, the main
burden of uniting Europe will fall on the NATO military
alliance."
FRANCE: "European Defense: A Mirage"
Former French Ambassador Gabriel Robin groused in right-of-
center Le Figaro (1/29): "Since our Allies refuse to
abandon their position, France will abandon hers.... One
thing is certain: The defense of Europe will not be in
the hands of a 'European defense.' It will be in the hands
of Washington.... Europe will only get the left-over
crumbs.... There are appearances and illusions: The
proposed deputy posts in the NATO hierarchy are for
appearance's sake; the illusion is that these posts will
evolve into major positions.... To understand what the
'European defense' will look like, ask Yugoslavia: It is a
sharing in which Europe gets the rough end of war and the
United States gets credit for the Dayton accords.... You
start out wearing the 'European defense' uniform and end
up wearing the Alliance's servant's togs."
"Cooperation"
Daniel Vernet said in left-of-center Le Monde (1/25):
"Jacques Chirac and Helmut Kohl share the same view of
NATO's enlargement, which they consider to be inevitable,
as well as necessary, and of the redefinition of relations
with Russia, which they do not want to 'isolate.' Kohl
supports France's position on NATO reforms, including the
Southern Command.... The signing of the 'strategic
concept' may have more symbolic than real repercussions,
but if its principles are applied quickly, a Franco-German
defense structure should emerge...with the dual patronage
of Europe and NATO.... By underscoring their joint
approach, Chirac and Kohl prove one thing: In spite of
differences...between Bonn and Paris, there is no solution
for them except cooperation."
"France Gives Up On Its Independent Defense Policy"
Former Socialist French Minister Jean-Pierre Chevenement
commented on France Inter radio (1/27): "Through Mr. de
Charette, France has given up on the Southern Command...and
we have signed a `strategic policy' with Germany which is
not a policy and shows no strategy.... The only strategy
mentioned is that our forces will be at the disposal of
NATO.... In essence, we align ourselves with Germany,
under pretext of building a counterweight to the United
States, when Germany in fact is aligned with the United
States."
"France-U.S.: The Counterweight"
Hubert Vedrine maintained in right-of-center weekly Le
Point (1/25): "There is today, in the tone of voice used
by American officials and the media...a desire to show who
is in command and to
put France back in its place.... How then to remain a
friend and ally of such an overpowering nation, without
having to always agree? How to preserve France's autonomy
and its plan for Europe?... The answer is to use Europe as
a counterweight. But this works only when our partners
feel commercially threatened and when they are sure it is
not a French anti-American crusade.... France's main task
is to convince its European partners, and the Americans as
well, that a strong Europe, allied with the United States,
would make transatlantic relations healthier and would be
a security asset for peace."
"NATO: France Looking To Get Out From Under"
Baudoin Bollaert wrote in right-of-center Le Figaro (1/24):
"In order to come out of its isolation, France has
softened its position on the Southern Command, while
remaining firm on its principles.... The daggers are being
put away.... France has no choice, faced as it is by the
U.S. position.... At the same time, France has arguments
to defend the role it wants to play within the
Alliance.... In asking whether the Alliance can do without
France's potential, France wants to remind (the United
States) that it can bring NATO value-added assets when
military budgets are being reduced by all. But France will
have to play with more finesse than it has in the past."
"The Sound Of Grinding Teeth"
In the opinion of Josette Alia under the headline above in
left-of-center weekly Le Nouvel Observateur (1/23): "On
NATO, France is caught between its fear of seeing Russia
humiliated by the United States, with a risk of a return to
the Cold War, and its fear of the United States' granting
too many concessions to Russia and later treating the EU as
a second-class citizen. The problem is to carry sufficient
weight in the game being played out between Washington and
Moscow.... One can see that beyond these Franco-American
quarrels, what is at stake is the future of U.S. relations
with Europe.... In a world which is neither bipolar nor
multipolar, the United States stands alone. It is in its
interest for Europe to be an autonomous and solid partner.
Unless it prefers giving in to the dangers of hegemony. We
will know on July 8."
"Disagreement In Moscow Over NATO"
Left-of-center Le Monde pointed out in a piece by Sophie
Shihab (1/22): "Russia's embarrassment at being faced with
NATO's enlargement was apparent on Monday: The partially
state-controlled television stations, which never fail to
criticize NATO's arrogance, made a surprising turnabout and
criticized the Kremlin's rigid attitude towards NATO,
saying it might lead to Russia's weakened isolation....
What is certain is that dissension exists in Moscow about
how to deal with NATO.... In the past few days, several
leaders of the independent states have put on the pressure
with public pro-NATO statements."
ITALY: "NATO Expansion A Nightmare For Moscow"
A commentary by Aldo Rizzo ran in centrist La Stampa
(1/20): "The possible revival of a serious clash with
Russia on NATO expansion is a danger for America and
Europe, but even more so for Russia, whomever its leader,
since that would mark the end of a difficult, but vital,
economic cooperation with the West, not to mention the
possibility of a new strategic game, of which nobody in
Moscow, from the left or the right, could afford to bear
the cost (the alternative of an anti-Western alliance with
China is purely tactical and has no concrete meaning). As
for the advantages for Russia, if the latter accepts a
realistic and more than dignified agreement with the West
following the end of the tragic Communist utopia, it would
get in exchange permanent inclusion in a politico-
strategic economic system which still appears to be the
winning one despite its many difficulties. What will be
Russia's choice? And who will be deciding?...
"The problem for the West is that it is not certain that
rationality will prevail in Moscow, which remains the
second nuclear capital and has a huge geopolitical weight.
Yet the West cannot give up too much following its victory
in the Cold War."
AZERBAIJAN: "Solana's Visit Revealed Split In Russia's
Foreign Ministry"
Under the pen name "Nurani," Tofiqa Qasimova said in
independent Ayna/Zerkalo (1/25): "It looks as if Russia
will not be able to prevent NATO expansion. But it is
also possible that 'in exchange' for NATO expansion, the
West will make some concessions to Russia in the arms
control issue, specifically in flank agreements. However,
Solana's visit revealed certain realities of Russian
politics which may have far-reaching consequences.
"It looks as if Solana's visit to Moscow, besides
everything else, deepened the factional split in the
Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The future of Russian
foreign policy depends on which faction's position wins on
Smolensk Square: Will Moscow embark on a risky political
controversy with the West, using the support of those whom
Kozyrev once called 'political riff-raff,' or will it
accept the terms of the West and become a 'buffer zone'
between Brussels on the one hand and Tehran and Baghdad on
the other? Neither of the alternatives is 100 percent
favorable to Moscow."
BELARUS: "What Brought NATO's Secretary General To
Moscow?"
Mikhail Shimanskiy wrote under the headline above in
government Respublika (1/22): "The North Atlantic Alliance
attempts to lay out its relationship with Russia. The
NATO secretary general's trip is regarded in the West as
the beginning of the most compex diplomatic missions of
postwar times, as here we are talking about the security
model for Europe and not to take Russia into account in
this respect will be tactless as well as strategically
wrong.... Moscow is still strongly opposed to the
expansion of NATO. However, it says that it's ready for
cooperation with NATO on the basis of equality. Just how
it is going to cooperate is not clear. It is obvious that
the amorphous relationship within the '16+1' framework
which leaves Russia without vote will not suit her."
BELGIUM: "Sharing 'Force De Frappe'"
Regarding the revelations on French-German military
cooperation by Le Monde on Saturday, foreign affairs writer
Frans De Smet said in independent Catholic Het Nieuwsblad
(1/27): "This is the first time that the French view the
Germans as equal partners in the field of defense
matters.... The common defense should yield better control
of costs.... The sharing of the French nuclear weapons
with Bonn in the framework of the 'common defense' is not
mentioned in that many words in the new French-German
treaty. But Chirac and Kohl are promising a 'dialogue on
the role of a nuclear deterrence force in the framework of
a European defense policy.' By this they mean, of course,
the French nuclear weapons--possibly complemented by the
British (nuclear arms)--which would be made available to
the Western European Union."
"NATO Enlargement: Possible And Desired"
Independent De Morgen (1/15) included an op-ed column by
Foreign Minister Erik Derycke: "As far as its future
cooperation with Russia is concerned, NATO should show
creativity and imagination for all issues--except for
Article V (defense of the territory). I can imagine, under
certain circumstances, Russia sitting at the table with the
16 NATO members as an equal partner with discretionary
power. In my view, this should be possible when peace
operations are discussed in which Russia is
participating.... I wish to emphasize that all the current
members states must be fully involved in the conception of
the new NATO-Russia relationship and that it must not
become a matter of negotiations between the 'bigger'
(members) and Moscow....
"NATO enlargement through consensus is not only possible
but it is also highly desirable. As a matter of fact, we
have to avoid Russia clinging to its nuclear weapons to
compensate for conventional 'inferiority.' Several leaders
in Moscow have already threatened this. Russia must
realize that its credibility is not served by not ratifying
START II, for instance.... It is up to NATO to make
Russia's--unjustified--feeling of insecurity as small as
possible."
BULGARIA: "NATO Expands Eastward, Russia Expands Westward"
Under the headline above, ruling Socialist Party Duma
(1/15) observed, "The Kremlin found an adequate response
to NATO's strategy for territorial expansion. If the
Alliance plans to expand eastward, then Russia will expand
westward.... It is obvious that this step will be followed
by another. Belarus's borders will become again the borders
of Russia. Belarus's territory may again become a base for
Russian nuclear weapons. Given that Belarus borders on
Poland and Ukraine, this warning for the two NATO
candidate members becomes quite obvious--if they allow
NATO's nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territory,
then they will have Russian weapons situated along their
borders."
HUNGARY: "In Russia's Sphere"
Readers of liberal, influential Magyar Hirlap (1/27) saw
this op-ed piece: "According to some sources, Russia is
adamant in three issues. First, that NATO must not deploy
nuclear weapons on the territories of new members. Second,
that no NATO troops must be deployed in the new members
either and it must not establish permanent bases there,
either. Last, that Russia be given the veto right when it
comes to the membership of the three Baltic states and
Ukraine in the Alliance. This is this last demand that the
West feels most concerned about, since it proves that
there are political forces in Russia that still consider
these former Soviet republics to belong to Russia's
interest sphere."
"West Lacks Policy For Central-Eastern Europe"
Conservative Magyar Nemzet (1/25) concluded, "Debates on
the deadline of EU and NATO enlargement indicate very well
that the West lacks a policy towards Central-Eastern
Europe.... It is kind of ironic to remember how
coordinated Western efforts were two decades ago when its
main goal was to drive wedges into the Soviet world. At
the Madrid summit, NATO must finally come forward and
announce which countries it wants to invite. Further
vague promises to Central-Europe can no longer make up for
the absence of a relevant policy."
"How To Be A NATO Player"
Influential liberal weekly 168 Ora stressed (1/21),
"Joining NATO is not necessarily the best nor is it the
only solution to represent Hungary's strategic interests.
High ranking Ministry of Defense official Istv n Gyarmati
argues that, once Hungary becomes a member of NATO, we will
finally have the chance to have a say in decisions
influencing our future. Well, I think that Hungary only
has this chance until it joins the Alliance. Before the
country is admitted to NATO the Hungarian government is in
an excellent position to bargain; all it needs is to
finally understand that the enlargement is primarily in
the interest of the Alliance itself. The admission of
Hungary and perhaps Slovenia into NATO would strengthen
NATO's southern wing to such an extent that it obviously
causes concerns in Russia and tremendous excitement among
present members. This is why the efficient enlargement of
the Alliance cannot take place without involving Hungary.
This makes it possible for Hungarian diplomats and
military leaders to finally assume the role of the player
in the NATO game rather than that of kibitzer."
LATVIA: "Moscow Waits Impatiently For Western
Concessions"
Aris Jansons of centrist Diena said (1/22): "Even though
NATO members armed its representative with a load of
practical offers, one could not have expected a break in
the oral stand-off between the two sides because the
Russian president was still recuperating.... It does seem
that Solana's offers were important--no wonder Primakov
called his staff to a meeting after the guest had left....
"This business between NATO and Russia should be taken care
of if only for the sake of avoiding a serious
deterioration of relations between Moscow and the West as
well as those Eastern European countries moving towards
the North Atlantic Alliance.... The international mood can
start resembling 'cold war' instead of 'cold peace'
again."
MOLDOVA: "Russia's Relations With NATO: No Results"
Opposition Tara stated in its editorial (1/24): "The
negotiations between Javier Solana and Yevgeny Primakov
were very tense because of Russia's opposition to NATO's
expansion to East. Their results could be qualified to
null. That means the parties retained their old
positions. That means NATO will continue the expansion
and Russia will continue to oppose it. Probably without
success."
NORWAY: "Sleeping With The Enemy"
Independent tabloid Dagbladet considered whether NATO's
negotiations with Russian will be for the better or the
worse (1/21): "It is hard to grasp, but NATO has actually
begun expansion negotiations with Russia. Will sleeping
with the enemy lead to something good, or will this become
another Munich?... If all goes well--if Russia really acts
the way the West hopes it will--NATO expansion may be
President Clinton's great contribution to the world's
history. Future historians may say that he transformed
Europe from a battlefield of the Cold War to a peaceful and
cooperating continent of equal partners. If it goes wrong,
however, Clinton's legacy could be that he awoke the long
dormant Russian nationalism and militarism. Clinton could
become the president who stirred up the explosive East
versus West situation, leading to another arms race of both
conventional and nuclear arms."
"The West's Responsibility To Baltics"
Conservative Aftenposten argued that Norway and the U.S.
should support the Baltic countries' application for NATO
membership (1/14): "NATO has taken on an all-European
role--a role that was unthinkable only a few years back....
The EU, NATO and the United States find themselves in an
unique position to tie the Baltic countries to the West
once and for all. Their paramount task must be to prevent
the Baltic countries from becoming a gray security policy
area, stuck between Europe and the severely weakened and
very unpredictable Russia."
POLAND: "Alarming Visions"
Weekly newsmagazine Wprost (2/2) carried an article by
Jaroslaw Gizinski, "For Poland and other nations aspiring
to membership in the Alliance, the vision of a 'soft' NATO
and Russia being a consultative member of political
structures of the pact, is alarming. Although, according
to the Washington treaty, there cannot be talk of 'worse'
membership in the pact, in practice, NATO's guarantees for
Poland might turn out to be worth less than those that
neutral Sweden had in the Cold War years.... Western
politicians, despite increasingly definitive declarations
of the will to enlarge NATO, are not concealing the fact
that maintaining the dialogue with Russia is still of a
crucial significance. The stability in the vast area of
Euro-Asia is a more important factor in global policy than
the integration of Central Europe, which is not
directly threatened anyway. The Russians are aware of this
and therefore they will pile up difficulties and bargain
for the highest price for their consent."
"No News Is Good News"
Centrist Rzeczpospolita (1/22) carried a commentary by Jan
Skorzynski: "Little is known about the Monday talks
between Javier Solana and Yevgeny Primakov in Moscow. At
any rate, the talks were not successful because they
failed to bring an agreement on special relations between
Russia and the Atlantic Alliance. Was it a setback then?
Not really. From Warsaw's point of view, worse news would
have been that of an agreement between NATO and the
Russian Federation which would entail a threat to tailor
the shape of our membership according to Moscow's needs....
An agreement between the pact admitting new countries from
Central Europe and a new Russia is in the Polish interest
and is useful to all of Europe. But not at any cost. If
for Moscow's neutrality...one should pay by allowing the
Kremlin to co-decide about the enlargement of NATO, there
is a question mark over the advantages of such endeavors.
Perhaps it is better that no breakthrough news came from
Moscow after Solana's meeting."
"How Difficult It Will Be To Win Senate's Nod To
Enlargement"
Jacek Kwiecinski penned this for extreme right-wing weekly
Gazeta Polska (1/16), "Various ardent opponents to NATO
enlargement have been very active lately. It is worth
noting that the decision on the enlargement of the
Alliance will be taken by all NATO member nations,
beginning with the U.S. Senate, where a two-thirds vote is
required. Some European nations perhaps will want to vote
to spite America.... The offensive of the opponents of
NATO expansion, widespread and noisy, was launched as if
it was ordered soon after the initial decisions had been
taken by the Council of the Alliance.... The New York
Times, surely beating all records, published 13 (!)
articles against the enlargement of NATO. The most recent
editorial in the December issue was especially harshly-
worded. As expected, the outcome of the presidential
elections in Russia exerted no influence whatsoever on the
standpoint and arguments of this very influential daily,
because this is an 'ideological' standpoint. The New York
Times, like Russia, defies reasonable argument. This paper
clearly does not like Poles and Poland. But by and large,
it is about something different: The daily has been
shamelessly pro-Moscow. It unembarrassingly repeats the
Russian conclusions about NATO as a relic of the Cold War,
is pleased with the French position, and it does not
conceal the fact that it would be happy if NATO ceased to
exist.... If we add isolationists and senators, who are
agitated about the cost of the admission to NATO, to the
New York Times and leftists, it seems that the winning of
two-thirds majority in the Senate will be difficult."
"No Turning Point On Talks With Russia"
Public Television Channel 1's main news "Wiadomosci" aired
this assessment of the Solana visit to Moscow (1/21), "If
the Alliance agrees to all conditions set up by Moscow, in
the future it could turn out that Kremlin representatives
in Brussels have more of a say than the new members from
Central Europe.... The case for acceptance of the new
members into NATO seems to be a foregone conclusion. There
is a game of political poker going on between Moscow and
Brussels, in which Moscow's superpower aspirations are at
stake. Today's talks haven't reached any turning point."
"How Extensive Will Moscow's Veto Be?"
Channel 2's main news program, "Panorama," broadcast this
by its Moscow correspondent (1/21), "The super-secrecy of
today's talks proves that the Russians place the
negotiations with Solana on the same level as the division
of Europe after the Second World War or the division of
Germany. The next treaty between NATO and Russia is to set
up a new world order for the
next 100 years. And, practically, the question is about
the range of the Russian veto. Will it be limited only to
the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons on the territory
of the new members or will it also include other
questions, such as the exclusion of the Baltic states or
Ukraine from NATO?"
"No Concrete Results"
Radio ZET concluded (1/21), "Solana's visit didn't bring
any concrete results; it only set the schedule for future
talks and future regular consultations. Russia will not be
satisfied by any vague proposals but wants to bargain
more."
"Mother Russia Will Gather In"
Under the headline above, right-wing Zycie (1/14) said in a
commentary by Bronislaw Wildstein, "Yeltsin's approval of
Lukashenko's wooing is not a surprise, although it must
arouse some concern.... The acceptance of Lukashenko's
courting means that economic reason is being replaced with
imperial logic. I guess Yeltsin is not banking on a change
in NATO's plans in the face of the blackmail to merge with
Belarus, which is dependent on Russia. The incorporation of
Belarus into Russia is a further step in the
reconstruction of the Soviet empire and awakening of the
Great Russian nationalism. It is much easier for Yeltsin
to tempt with participation in the power of the empire than
it is for him to improve living conditions. And that is
why, paradoxically, Yeltsin's decision confirms the need
to enlarge the North Atlantic Treaty."
TURKEY: "Turkey Comes To The Crossroads"
Hasan Cemal lamented on page one of mass-appeal Sabah
(1/26), "Europe is on the verge of restructuring. The EU
will be expanding by admitting new members. So are NATO
and the WEU. Some countries like Poland, Hungary and the
Czech Republic, which will be promised to become EU
members, will become full members of NATO and the WEU,
too.... But as Turkey's membership in NATO will remain the
same, it will receive a second-class treatment in the EU
and the WEU. This is unjust.... Turkey cannot accept this
injustice.... Along with other Eastern European countries,
Turkey, too, must be given a promise and a timetable
concerning its full membership in the EU.... If necessary,
Turkey can use its veto right against NATO expansion....
If Europe treats Turkey in such a rigid way then it will be
accused of 'cultural racism.' It will be proven that it is
a Christian club."
"NATO's Southern Flank Neglected?"
Ergun Balci insisted in liberal Cumhuriyet (1/26), "From
Turkey's point of view, if NATO expands, attention will be
focused on the Eastern flank. The South, where Turkey is,
will be pushed aside."
EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC
CHINA: "An Arduous Negotiation"
The Solana meeting in Moscow sparked this assessment by Xu
Hongzhi for official, Communist Party People's Daily
(Renmin Ribao, 1/24), "Both sides called the meeting
useful, but differences still exist and negotiations will
have to continue.... It is hard to say whether an
agreement can be reached before the Madrid summit meeting
in July."
"Trouble Has Just Begun"
Gu Qi maintained in official, Shanghai Communist Party
Liberation Daily (Jiefang Ribao, 1/22),
"NATO enlargement has basically become a forgone
conclusion.... Russia cannot stop it but manages by
various means to express its anger and dissatisfaction....
The arguments for enlargement do not hold water. However,
the U.S. government has some intentions which it finds
inconvenient to discuss openly. In order to achieve a
position of global leadership, first of all, the United
States must control Europe. The United States finds it
easier to control NATO than to interfere in the OSCE. In
addition, NATO needs to consolidate its equipment and
upgrade its technology. Related trade in armaments has
been estimated to be worth $40 billion to $100 billion. It
is natural that the United States--the world's number one
arms dealer--stands to benefit from it.
"Although the West has planned to make some concessions,
enlargement, as President Yeltsin once said, is an insult
to Russia. Perhaps the trouble has just begun."
"Showdown Over NATO Enlargement"
Xu Hongzhi warned in official, Communist Party People's
Daily (Renmin Ribao, 1/14), "It is dangerous to ignore
Russian opposition and insist on Eastward enlargement.
NATO must proceed cautiously and handle its relations with
Russia with care in order to head off a new
confrontation.... Independent experts think that the two
sides will compromise in the end. The question is, what
kind of compromise will they reach? The United States and
Western Europe do not share the same views on this issue.
NATO must first come to a consensus on enlargement before
NATO can reach a compromise with Russia on the issue."
##
For more information, please contact:
U.S. Information Agency
Office of Public Liaison
Telephone: (202) 619-4355
1/29/97
# # #
.