USIS Foreign Media Reaction Report

NATO ON THE EVE OF MADRID SUMMIT: 'DISCORD' ON ENLARGEMENT, EUROPEAN ROLE

Days before NATO leaders meet in Madrid July 8-9 for an epochal summit that will invite some former Warsaw Pact members to join the Alliance, the press overseas saw trouble brewing for the U.S. with its transatlantic partners over NATO enlargement and restructuring. As a result, it will take a "miracle," determined one pundit, for the Clinton administration's hopes for a summit of harmony and "agreement" to materialize. Writers underlined European resentment at what centrist General- Anzeiger of Bonn described as the administration's "high-handed" declaration that only three countries- -Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic--would be asked to join and that Romania and Slovenia would be asked to wait for a "second round." They also fretted over the perceived U.S. rebuff to France over its demands for a larger European role in the Alliance. The "discord" within NATO over numbers and the style of U.S. leadership prompted a few observers to warn that the budding reassertion of "national interests" might imperil the defense pact's cohesion. Munich's centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung feared that "the new NATO...freed from direct military opponents, could now turn into a threat to itself." Others were not so morbid in their assessments, but cynically predicted, as did Brussels's independent Catholic De Standaard, that the Europeans "will also have to accept Big Brother's rules of the game and...swallow an American-fashioned enlargement." That U.S. military and economic might would allow it to override its Allies' objections was widely acknowledged. In Paris, right-of-center weekly Le Point conceded that a European will not get the NATO military command in Naples, but insisted that this disappointment was not only the result of European disunity, but of the fact that Washington "remains the essential supplier of troops and the most important moneylender within the Alliance." Moscow's reformist Izvestia gloated over the Europeans and France's "humiliation," saying, "Europe has lost completely...proof that it still lacks political and military power, and that the U.S. is not going to give up leadership in this continent."

Signs of dissatisfaction among NATO Allies surfaced in comment from individual countries. General- Anzeiger noted that German leaders are under the impression that the U.S. is using reported Congressional resistance to the cost of enlargement to restrict enlargement to only three members as "a pretext...(to) hide its lack of willingness to conclude a compromise with the Europeans." Milan's provocative, classical liberal Il Foglio held that "Italy...will do battle in Madrid" to champion Slovenia's admission. Even in Budapest, where the media were delighted with Hungary's anticipated invitation, largest circulation Nepszabadsag agreed that joining NATO "serves Hungary's historical interests. However, it does not that Hungary...(should) be a lonely NATO member on the northern fringes of the Balkans." Oslo's Social democratic Arbeiderbladet declared that "Norway will support membership for Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic," but added, "However, Norway will not oppose further expansion if the majority votes in favor of this." Left-of-center, independent Dnevnikof Ljubljana complained at great length that there was "no excuse" for the U.S. decision to postpone Slovenia's admission.

This survey is based on 38 reports from 15 countries, June 16-July 2. EDITOR: Mildred Sola Neely

EUROPE

GERMANY: "A Bitter Aftertaste Lingers"

Washington correspondent Stefan Kornelius filed the following editorial for centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (6/30), "There has been a long discussion about the current escalation (in NATO because of its enlargement): The United States is accusing France in particular of having taken to the trenches and reacting in an inflexible way to U.S. offers for talks. But the United States, too, has not said for a long time precisely what its preferences are. Indeed, the Pentagon in particular flirted with Slovenia's strategic location. Even though the United States will assert its will now, even if the compromise for the next accession candidates will be concealed in the formulation (of the enlargement document)--a bitter aftertaste lingers.

"This row about numbers provides an insight into the new NATO which--freed from direct military opponents--could now turn into a threat to itself. If previous clear models no longer function in NATO, if the hierarchy that was born in the Cold War and cemented through burden sharing is now crumbling, national interests will gain in significance. These are unknown forces that could now be unleashed in a new NATO."

"Does Bonn Agree Or Disagree With U.S.?"

Thomas Wittke wrote in an editorial in centrist General-Anzeiger of Bonn (6/27), "Concerning the question of NATO's enlargement, the Bonn government is in a difficult situation. There are no good reasons against the United States' allowing the accession of only three new members. However, Bill Clinton's high-handed style in announcing the U.S. view (without previous consultations) has annoyed the Bonn government as did the argument presented by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: Congress would not agree on more candidates. In Bonn, there is the growing impression that this is only a pretext behind which (the United States) can easily hide its lack of willingness to conclude a compromise with the Europeans.

"This problem was only reflected in the Bundestag debate on NATO's enlargement. If the Bonn government had openly said that it would be opposed to the solution of three new members, this would have clearly signaled that the FRG would side with France in the transatlantic conflict between the United States and France. The Bonn government insists on the Madrid summit meeting to make a final decision--well knowing that NATO's Council will support the U.S. view. But the political idea of NATO's opening is buried under such small-minded transatlantic haggling."

"Dissent, National Interests And NATO's Future"

Karl Feldmeyer judged in a front-page editorial in right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (6/20) regarding the failure to reach agreement on a reform of NATO's command structure, "The dissent about the structural reform shows that national interests are today asserted much more vigorously than during the times of the Cold War. But this will not be to the benefit of NATO's credibility or its military capability to act. The change to an Alliance that is characterized by particular political interests will even intensify in future.

"This raises the question of the future value of NATO and the promise of its members to consider an attack against one member country to be an attack against the Alliance itself.... So far, the accession candidates obviously do not care about this. For them, NATO membership is tantamount to security from Russia. But for the old members, the question of the implications of an enlargement is all the more urgent the closer it comes. Money certainly plays a role, but it is more important which additional commitments the Alliance can take over...without creating doubts about its willingness and capability to comply with these commitments. At issue is its role as a guarantor of stability in Europe."

BRITAIN: "Clinton Sent Warning Over Enlarged NATO"

The centrist Independent included this from Washington (6/27): "A 50-strong group of America's great and good, including a posse of former ambassadors, arms control negotiators and foreign affairs experts, issued an open letter to President Clinton yesterday setting out strong objections to the enlargement of NATO and calling for the continuation of less formalized relations instead.... The letter, published ten days before the NATO summit meeting in Madrid where the new members are expected to be approved, is the latest and strongest indication of a gathering head of steam in the United States against expansion of the Alliance.... The letter provides a salutary warning to the administration of the opposition NATO expansion is likely to face when it comes before the Senate for ratification."

FRANCE: "NATO: First Skirmish Of Cohabitation"

Jacques Amalric noted in left-of-center Liberation (7/2): "The disagreement between the prime minister and the Elysee over NATO, although unnoticed by public opinion, marks the first skirmish of cohabitation.... France does not speak as one...and the United States, which reluctantly agreed to a 'European defense structure,' finds some satisfaction in France's garbled message. For the Elysee, talks with Washington were suspended until after Madrid.... Whereas for Matignon and the Quai d'Orsay, discussions are over...NATO is a major headache for President Chirac because of Washington's intransigence.... And this misstep of cohabitation will give Washington a new excuse to bury French demands on NATO's Europeanization.'... William Cohen previously announced that there was nothing to negotiate on the Southern Command.... Now, Chirac's only way out is to get a second round of Franco-American negotiations after Madrid."

"NATO: A Real Disagreement In France"

Baudoin Bollaert wondered in right-of-center Le Figaro (7/1): "Can France speak as one on the international stage?... In spite of an attempt to minimize last week's discordant declarations, there is a blatant disagreement on NATO between the government and the president.... The Elysee admits that progress has been made in trying to balance responsibilities between Americans and Europeans.... But the foreign affairs minister warns against 'overestimating the results achieved.'"

"Fate Of Madrid Summit Is Sealed"

Right-of-center Les Echos' editorial maintained (6/30): "The fate of the Madrid summit is sealed.... Most observers agree that Javier Solana will not manage to reach a consensus...he will just manage to minimize the negative effects of different points of view.... In the end, a compromise will be agreed upon to fit with the U.S. position.... In this context, discussions on NATO's reforms appear somewhat compromised. Jacques Chirac will be obliged to defend the position taken by Lionel Jospin: France cannot reintegrate NATO because the prerequisite conditions have not been met."

"U.S. And Right To Pretend To Manage NATO"

Pierre Beylau observed in right-of-center weekly Le Point (6/27): "The Atlantic Alliance is at a historic turning point. It must open up and modernize itself. But France will probably not get what it wants: the military command in Naples for a European. Yet, appearances will probably be kept up.... The relationship between France and the United States consists of a weird alchemy: a complex mixture of common interests and of sneaky rivalries.... The upcoming NATO summit of Madrid will not be isolated from this general climate created by this tumultuous context.... The real challenge is no longer Franco-American, but Euro-American.

"Will Europe be capable in the next few years of building a political and military structure that could restore the balance of the transatlantic relationship? The poor results of the Amsterdam Summit are not a good sign. As long as the United States remains the essential supplier of troops and the most important moneylender within the Alliance, it will have a right to pretend to manage NATO."

ITALY: "NATO Membership For Slovenia"

Rome's centrist Il Messaggero (6/29) carried an article co-signed by Italian Foreign Minister Lamberto Dini and Slovenian Foreign Minister Zoran Thaler, advocating Slovenia's entry into NATO:

"There is no reason not to accept Slovenia's request to join NATO with the first group of new members. And, frankly, it makes little sense to claim that postponing membership for a `virtuous' nation such as Slovenia would be the confirmation that there will certainly be a second round of new memberships. Turning virtue into fault is something which Slovenian and European public opinion is very unlikely to understand. These are the reasons why we remain firmly convinced that at the NATO summit in Madrid, Slovenia should be included among the new members of the Atlantic Alliance.'"

"Italy Will Fight For 'Five' In Madrid"

A commentary in provocative, classical liberal Il Foglio noted (6/19): "Italy...will do battle in Madrid.

Italian Defense Minister Andreatta reiterated that Italy wants a five-nation NATO expansion, including Slovenia and Romania.... The United States, which has instead proposed examining the candidacies of these two nations in 1999, is especially annoyed by Italy's attitude. The Italian decision to sacrifice itself for these two European nations rises from Italy's desire to strengthen the southern flank of the Alliance, reassessing the role of the Verona command and the Naples command (AFSOUTH).... Italy risks receiving a flat `no' as an answer from its American ally."

RUSSIA: "Up Against America, Europe Loses"

Commenting on France having changed her mind about joining NATO's military organization, reformist Izvestia (7/2) included this assessment by Yury Kovalenko in Paris: "Up against America, Europe has lost completely, which is proof that it still lacks political and military power, and that the United States is not going to give up leadership in this continent. The Europeans must feel humiliated, having to pay the piper for the Americans' calling the tune."

"France's Failure Is Lesson For Others"

Vladimir Katin in Brussels wrote for centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (7/2): "European capitals are worried, seeing Paris lose to Washington over the Alliance. That, in effect, is a lesson for the rest who might be getting ideas about ousting Americans from the NATO command."

"Whither Now?"

Boris Vinogradov said in reformist Izvestia (7/2): "With the Founding Act signed, Russia has a chance to show that she can be friends with NATO without joining it. All it takes is political will, a desire to develop cooperation with the bloc. It is necessary also to enhance the prestige of other international organizations--the UN, OSCE, Council of Europe--which, basically, must deal with security matters. Paris is a point of departure in both space and time. Nobody seems to know where to go now.... Clearly, you don't apply for NATO--NATO invites you. Nobody is inviting us. How about we make the first move, suggesting that we wouldn't mind joining? Especially since everybody in Europe acknowledges that Russia has embarked on the road of democracy, the Cold War is over, European security has never been stronger, and there is little chance, if any, of a new war breaking out. So, what's the problem?... That is a delicate subject, but it will have to be discussed frankly and definitive decisions will have to be made sooner or later. In the meantime, both sides have been following parallel courses. It is commonly known that parallel lines never cross, however far they go. I wish someone would explain why they don't cross."

"Vienna Can't Give Up Neutrality"

Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (6/28) front-paged this dispatch by Yulia Petrovskaya and Igor Korotchenko in Brussels: "The opinion among diplomats is that Bill Clinton's statement in support of only three candidates (for NATO) at the first stage offended, to say the least, his partners in Europe, the French above all.... Deciding 'the Austrian question' in a way that would please NATO most would set a dangerous precedent by 'diluting' the notion of a neutral status of a country. Austria's neutral status, a basic constitutional principle of that country, has been supported by the international community. Vienna's giving it up would be considered a direct violation of its generally recognized commitments."

"To Be In Madrid, Or Not To Be?"

Leonid Gankin stressed in reformist, business-oriented Kommersant Daily (6/27), "Russia, firmly opposed to the NATO march eastward, will not have her president bless its start by being in Madrid. But then, it would be unwise not to use such an important forum to discuss implementation of accords included in the Founding Act."

BELGIUM: "NATO To Madrid In Discord"

NATO affairs writer Peter Dejaegher had this to say in independent Catholic De Standaard under the headline above (7/2), "Miracles must happen if NATO wants to reach a general internal agreement before the summit on July 8. Division is something that NATO hates. In circles of the Alliance-- which decides only by consensus--there was a lot of furtive hilarity in the days after the EU summit in Amsterdam (as they believed that) such unexpected nightly consultations would never happen to NATO.

"Later on, however, it became clear that many European NATO member states did not appreciate the decisive manner in which the United States is keeping the door closed to Romania and Slovenia in the first wave (of admission). The result was that the NATO administration's plans to travel to Madrid with a consensus in its baggage fell to pieces.... Last week, France announced that it will not join the integrated military structure of the Alliance....

"Is NATO in Madrid heading for similar nightly consultations as the EU in Amsterdam? Probably not. It is clear that some European Allies have the feeling that they are treated like lap dogs by the United States. But, if the United States sticks to its position, Europe does not have any choice but to acquiesce in the basic consensus over three new NATO members. So long as Europe, for its defense, opts for the umbrella of its Big Brother on the other side of the ocean, it will also have to accept that Big Brother's rules of the game--and have to swallow an American-fashioned enlargement."

"The Price Europe Pays For Relying On U.S. For Security"

Independent Catholic De Standaard (6/23) ran this column by Lewis Carrafiello, collaborator of the Catholic University of Leuven's European Policy Institute: "It is virtually impossible for Clinton to have the Congress approve an enlargement by five members.... In this manner, the security of Romania and Slovenia has become the victim of the U.S. domestic agenda.... The enlargement of the Alliance will create a gap in Europe between states with NATO membership and nations without. What countries will be satisfied with NACC and PFP membership now that some countries have acquired the so-intensely cherished Article 5? So, while the security of the new members may increase, the security of those who are still standing in line will certainly diminish.

"This is the case, in particular, for the nations with substantial Russian minorities--i.e., Ukraine, Estonia and Latvia--or those who are situated in what Russia terms its near-abroad....

"Russia has accepted the NATO enlargement because it had no alternative and it has always viewed that limited enlargement as the last price to be paid for losing the Cold War. A strengthened Russia will not be so flexible when the Alliance seeks further enlargement. In the meantime, NATO will be creating an unstable vacuum of power in Eastern Europe.... NATO's enlargement is a bad policy concept from the Clinton administration for which Europe will bear the consequences. That is the price which Europe has to pay for relying on the United States for its security."

CZECH REPUBLIC: "U.S. Proposal Is Better"

A front-page commentary in Prague's centrist Lidove noviny (6/23) said, "Instead of calling for inviting more than three countries, most speakers at this week's 'NATO Workshop' in Prague made it clear that NATO must be an open organization. It seems that Czech government officials were right when they said that the American proposal to invite only Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in the first wave provides better conditions for opening yet another round of admissions (for Slovenia and Romania)."

HUNGARY: "NATO Ever More Popular"

A front-page article in influential, liberal Magyar Hirlap (7/2) noted that a Gallup opinion poll requested by the Hungarian Ministry of Defense showed a "major jump" in Hungarian public support for the country's potential NATO membership: "This time the percentage of those in favor is 61 percent, which is particularly remarkable since at the time the survey was conducted, President Clinton's official position on which countries should be included in the first round of expansion was not yet declared."

"Lonely NATO Member On Northern Fringes Of Balkans"

Largest circulation Nepszabadsag wrote (6/28): "Our invitation to NATO in the first round serves Hungary's historical interests. However, it does not that Hungary, aspiring for EU ( and not the Balkans) membership, with a Western (and not a Southern) orientation [should] be a lonely NATO member on the northern fringes of the Balkans. If the real losers of the power struggle between Germany and France had not been the Central-Eastern European countries, then the EU countries, arguing with Washington on NATO issues, would not have to tolerate now that it is the United States that tells them which Central or Eastern European country to admit first."

"Of Arms And Men Lobbying"

Conservative Magyar Nemzet stressed (6/23), "All major military producers of the world are lobbying in Hungary which will soon issue the tender for fighter jets.... Until now Saab, the producer of the Grippens, has been the most active in trying to convince Hungarian officials about the merits of its fighter. Last week, however the president of Lockheed Martin, the producer of F-16's, came to Hungary to hold talks with the prime minister of Hungary. He stated that his company views Hungary as the gate to the region.... Although Hungary only wants to purchase 30 new fighters, it is in an excellent bargaining situation, since it seems that Hungary will be the very first country in the region to decide which fighter to purchase and its decision will be a huge influence on other states."

MOLDOVA: "European Affairs Decided By U.S."

Igor Guzun wrote in centrist Momentul (6/21): "Because France hasn't gotten a place in the southern NATO for Romania, it doesn't have anything to lose and will be firm until the Madrid summit. Very irritated by the American decision, Italy also reaffirmed its support for Bucharest and Ljubljana.... The Portuguese Minister of Defense Antonio Vitorino declared that 'the process of choosing is not over yet. According to the tradition, the decision must be taken by all the allies, with no exceptions.' Actually, invoking the same NATO tradition, we should acknowledge that the European affairs are decided (for the time being) less by Luxembourg and even by France, and more by the United States."

"Romania Decision: A Bomb"

Vasile Grozavu judged in liberal Libertatea (6/18): "Clinton's decision not to admit Romania in the first wave of NATO expansion had an effect of a bomb.... However, the debates are not yet finished- -possibly, the refusal is a political game to push the European countries, especially the southern ones, favorable to Romania's admission to NATO, into a discussion, in order to emphasize the democratic character of the Alliance. But it is not out of the question that the USA wouldn't like to irritate Moscow, by acting too energically. That could destabilize more the political situation, which is destabilized enough by the Cold War troubadours in Russia."

NORWAY: "Norway Wants Three New NATO Members"

Social democratic Arbeiderbladet noted (6/26), "At the NATO summit in Madrid, Norway will support membership for Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. However, Norway will not oppose further expansion if the majority votes in favor of this. This was confirmed by Foreign Minister Bjoern Tore Godal in an address to the Norwegian Parliamentary Committee of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday."

POLAND: "What We Need To Join The Club"

Pawel Wronski concluded in center-left Gazeta Wyborcza (7/2), "The invitation to join NATO is like an invitation to join an exclusive golf club. In order to become a club member, one has to be properly dressed and equipped, and has to know its rules.... We don't have much time, unfortunately...to convince the governments of NATO members that we are a credible partner, and are able to strengthen the military power of the Alliance.... First, we are not prepared politically, militarily and economically for NATO membership. And second, one can presume that the Russian diplomacy will do everything to make the (NATO) member countries aware of the above....

"In order to have the (NATO) forces act immediately, each of the member countries is to have a clear system of taking political decisions.... At present, (in Poland) there is no system for managing the country in a critical situation. There is no decree on 'the state of war.'... The NATO-Russia charter has brought some negative symptoms. It is the treaty's obligation not to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of its new members, as well as not deploying bigger units on Poland's territory. It was the decision of NATO and Russia, although Poland--as a NATO member--should have the right of sovereign decision whether it wants to have bases and nuclear weapons on its territory."

"Interests And Responsibilities"

Jan Skorzynski stated in influential, centrist Rzeczpospolita (6/30) regarding President Clinton's visit to Poland and Romania: "One could hardly come up with a better choice. Poland and Romania--because of their population and military potential as well as the geographic situation--are the pair of the most valuable allies of the West in the post-Yalta part of Europe. It is worth doing much not to let it happen that a new dividing line is established between those countries; preventing a chronological difference from turning into a political one. A feeling of disappointment and rejection which after the Madrid summit may arise in Bucharest could be used by a third party. It is not only the Americans who should try to convince Romania and other countries which will not be admitted in the first stage that it does not mean that they will be left permanently in the gray zone of security. Poland, as the largest country in the region, has specific responsibilities as well as interests: The concern that the eastern border of the Republic of Poland would not long be the eastern border of NATO, that the area of democracy and security extend beyond that border."

"Enlargement Opponents Launch Counterattack"

Almost all Polish papers covered the open letter written to President Clinton opposing enlargement. Center-left Gazeta Wyborcza (6/27) said in an article by Jacek Kalabinski, "The opponents of the enlargement of NATO in Washington have launched a counterattack. Their goal is to block in the Senate the admission of new members to the Alliance."

"It's Not Just The NYT And Intellectuals"

Kazimierz Pytko commented in center-left Zycie Warszawy (6/27), "Judging by statements made by our politicians, the issue of Poland's accession to NATO is a foregone conclusion. In the meantime, this affair is just beginning. At the Madrid summit, we will not be admitted to the Alliance, but only invited to negotiations on the admission. It's a big difference.... The opponents of the enlarged NATO are getting ready for a fight but it already can be seen that it is not only the New York Times and the intellectuals gathered around it. It is characteristic that America does not bother much about the intellectuals. It's a different matter when the floor is taken by a powerful lobby--then even the president gives up."

ROMANIA: "Clinton Won't Be Bringing Bags Of Money"

Commenting on reports of a Clinton visit, independent Adevarul (6/26) pointed out, "Clinton will not bring a bag of money to support the reforms, like (he did) in Poland and Hungary years ago. Neither can we hope for the special facilities extended by the United States to the countries included in NATO."

"It's Not The Americans, It's The Romanians Themselves"

Pro-government and often sensationalist Ziua's Radu Budeanu (6/26) remarked, "The American obstruction isn't worth taking as an offense or made into grounds for confrontation. Europe, in which we are actually interested, gave us the bonus we could never hope for until the elections (last) November. Victimized by the Americans, Romania has become the focus of Western European sympathy, which is very profitable in the medium and long term. The main thing is to avoid destroying this feat the way we ruined our European ascension after the (December 1989) revolution.... History can repeat itself. It's not the distant Americans with their often wrong perceptions and often unfortunate tactics who are our enemies. I've always said it: The Romanians' worst enemies are the Romanians themselves."

SLOVENIA: "No Excuses For Slovenia Being Left Out"

Left-of-center, independent Dnevnik (6/18) insisted, "No excuse about Slovenia being less ready for joining NATO than the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary can withstand the arguments. Neither the price nor democracy or transparent military, nothing! In all fields, we are ahead of these American 'anointed.' Not even in armament--of course, proportionally with the size of the country and the number of inhabitants--do we not lag behind the outdated military trash of this eastern--also economically--shaky group. The only fact is that we are small. But aren't also Luxembourg and Belgium small? Another weak point may be--but just in the American eyes--that we are too close to the restless--for the Americans--unpredictable Balkans. Others, they can be called wiser, think that (being close to the Balkans) is the fact that prescribes NATO's expansion to the territory of Slovenia. After all, who is responsible for the Balkans to have become what it is now? The United States itself-- together with the historically indecisive European democracies--with its proverbial hesitant and, in most cases, entirely wrong geostrategy--insomuch it has any at all.

"How is Slovenia supposed to react to this new mistake by Washington? According to unofficial sources, our government has prepared a scenario according to which it may...announce 'lesser problems' in NATO's air and ground connections with Hungary...meaning that tanks, guns and other military machinery will not rattle across our territory.... The Pentagon must have sensed the possibility of such a reaction. The news about Secretary Cohen's 'imminent visit to Slovenia' cannot be explained differently. Of course, he is not coming just to give us a full bag of promises.... He is coming because of the concern about how the communication between NATO and Hungary will function.... Now it is the right time to ask how the American administration is demonstrating its real friendship with Slovenia. It has not put in a word for us in the division (of Yugoslav property).... Rather, in the framework of the old Bush or Zimmermann 'strategy'...it has been waiting for every sign from Belgrade.... Of course, we must also be ready for imperial pressure, because America holds all instruments in its hands.... We can get from the United States at least as much as it considers necessary.... How...Italy will react to Washington's dictate ... is its own matter. It will have to decide what it prefers: A geostrategically dead, possibly unpleasant wedge between itself and Hungary, or a soft...Slovene carpet for its--and NATO's--'ostpolitik.'"

TURKEY: "NATO Expansion And Opportunities"

Ferai Tinc wrote in mass-appeal Hurriyet (6/30): "Both the European Union and NATO will decide on their new members before mid-July.... It would be contradictory if Turkey, although a member of the security Alliance, is excluded from the regional political alliance. In order to strengthen its hand, Turkey must first carry out democratic reforms at home as well as display good will for positive solutions in Cyprus and the Aegean before the EU Summit to be held in Luxemburg in December."

SOUTH ASIA

INDIA: "Undermining Europe, Containing China?"

An analysis in the centrist Times of India (7/1) by columnist Siddharth Varadarajan, who was recently in Brussels, held: "In the long-term, the United States does not want Germany, alone or with France, to become hegemonic in Central Europe.... Nearly 50 years after Lord Ismay...said NATO's role was to 'keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down (in Europe)', the United States might be going one step further. Senior U.S. officials like Strobe Talbott have begun talking of eventual Russian membership in NATO. If that ever happens, what that will do is complete, from the western side, the 'containment' of China that the United States has already begun in the East. Slowly but surely, the stakes in the global power game are rising. And that can't be good for India, Europe or the world at large."

"Russia And NATO"

An editorial- page analysis in the centrist Times of India by defense analyst Raja Menon wondered (6/27): "Is the world being pushed into a civilizational divide? It could well be, if NATO's plans to advance up to Russia's borders are pursued.... The Cold War has ended, but even more importantly, the ideological arguments that drove it have also been put to rest. In which case, the desire to persist with NATO and expand it must be seen clearly for what it is.... Western society, with its 'unique' values, can only be protected if the major constituents can suppress their serious differences (apart from cultural ones) on farm subsides, fishing quotas, agricultural surpluses, aerospace competition and the push and shove for the big Asian markets. NATO then appears to be more of an organization to keep the Western nations in line than as a shield against Muslim, Slavic or Sinic threats."

##

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency

Office of Public Liaison

Telephone: (202) 619-4355

7/2/97 # # #