USIS Foreign Media Reaction Report

07 July 1997

NATO SUMMIT IN MADRID: OVERSHADOWED BY 'BICKERING' AMONG ALLIES

As NATO heads towards one of its most fateful meetings ever--the July 8-9 "enlargement" summit in Madrid--the media highlighted the "acrimony" between the U.S. and its Western European Allies over how dominant a role the U.S. plays and over the number of former Warsaw Pact countries that should be admitted by the Alliance.

Attention centered predominantly on Paris's announcement last week that it will not reintegrate its forces into NATO's military command because, according to the French, Washington has stonewalled on their demands for a larger European defense role, and on France's championing--together with other countries--of membership for Romania and Slovenia. Analysts, however, pointed out that other Allies also are dissatisfied with "American hegemony" in the organization and the Clinton administration's decision that only Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary would be asked to join in the first round of enlargement. Journalists split on the merits of this perceived U.S. dominance, with some decrying U.S. "arrogance" and Europe's limited influence and others suggesting that a divided continent is no match for the U.S. superpower. And so, while Paris's left-of-center weekly Le Nouvel Observateur complained that "the U.S. attitude clearly indicates that NATO is and will remain...(its) instrument of political and military control over Europe," regional radio Sender Freies Berlin countered, "A European security policy, decoupled from the U.S., can succeed today even less than during the times of the nuclear stalemate. There is no alternative to the Euro-Atlantic security community." Milan's leading rightist opposition Il Giornale offered an even blunter assessment of the power structure in the Alliance. Pointing out that the former Soviet satellites and republics seeking entry into NATO are looking for security guarantees--namely, "an American umbrella," the paper declared, "This is why it will be up to Clinton to decide" on enlargement. While several observers predicted that NATO partners would reach a compromise and present a united front by the end of Madrid, London's independent Financial Times feared that unresolved "misunderstandings between Washington and Western Europe could impede the Alliance's main task in years to come, which is projecting security eastwards."

In Central and Eastern Europe, the press focused largely on their individual countries' standing in relation to NATO. Hungarian and Polish media looked to NATO's invitations for their countries to become members, while a pundit in Latvia fretted that the Baltics' exclusion in this round could spell disaster in terms of security. In Romania, independent Adevarul held that the U.S. "has not managed to come up with even a single valid argument to justify why our country was excluded from the NATO competition." In Moscow, reformist Izvestia declared, "Russia will have to put up with the idea of NATO's continued enlargement." Officials in the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Kremlin, it added, "think it absurd to attribute the Alliance's enlargement to an anti-Russian conspiracy of 'dark forces,' seeing it as a complex process with lots of reasons behind it."

This survey is based on 45 reports from 14 countries, July 1-7.

EDITOR: Mildred Sola Neely

EUROPE

GERMANY: "Europe At Odds"

Centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (7/7) noted: "Why should President Clinton, with his military engagement, become dependent on the European partners, who are at odds with each other? How could he explain to Congress that he rightfully gave in to European demands if there is no Europe? Those who complain about Washington should first shed tears for Europe."

"It's The Old Members Who Are Disrupting Alliance"

Centrist Leipziger Volkszeitung (7/7) argued: "The Paris 'non' to the return to the military structure is affecting the NATO summit even more than the bickering about the new members.... The whole controversy reveals that it is not the new members but mainly the old ones who disrupt peace in the Alliance. Now that there is no longer a common enemy...national interests and power claims are coming to the fore. They make it difficult to accomplish an internal reform and to agree on a new definition of NATO's role in a changing world. Thus the splendor of an enlarged NATO is fading behind the bickering about command posts."

"Europe Needs Americans More Than They Need Us"

P. Pastorius commented on regional radio Sender Freies Berlin (7/4): "'Every man for himself and America for all of us.' This has turned into the slogan for a reform that has failed with its approach. What is increasingly demoralizing the Europeans is the fundamental view that they need the Americans much more than the Americans need Europe.... By doing so (refusing to reintegrate into NATO's military command), Paris sees to it that the uneven distribution of power remains at least on the agenda--even if it ends up in an open controversy. However, a return to de Gaulle and his policy of the empty chair can be ruled out. France is realistic enough to realize that a European security policy, decoupled from the United States, can succeed today even less than during the times of the nuclear stalemate. There is no alternative to the Euro-Atlantic security community. In Madrid, however, NATO will show a cohesive picture to the outside."

"France's Anti-U.S. Reflex"

Klaus-Juergen Haller said in a commentary on Westdeutscher Rundfunk of Cologne (7/4): "With its anti-American reflex, France seems to compensate for the loss of its superpower role. Maybe this is the real problem (of NATO)."

"NATO Enlargement Cannot Be A Singular Step"

S. Trunk commented on regional radio Bayerischer Rundfunk of Munich (7/2): "NATO can contribute to developing stable democracies East of us, it can contribute to helping the economic reconstruction process to make progress, and it can contribute to reducing the tensions between the various ethnic groups.... But this positive effects can happen only if NATO's eastern enlargement is not a singular step. The Alliance must also remain open for other candidates which want to accede. This is also true for the Baltic states."

"French Logic"

Guenter Nonnenmacher pointed out in an editorial in right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (7/3), "Without waiting for the decisive word from the president, Foreign Minister Vedrine and Premier Jospin announced that the conditions for the return of France to NATO's military integration have not been fulfilled. This is a shadow that has now been cast on NATO's summit meeting in Madrid. Annoyed at the unilateral U.S. decision to allow only three states to join the Alliance, the Paris government continues to insist on the accession of Romania and Slovenia. According to the criteria which NATO agreed upon, such a move would be plausible in the case of Slovenia, but in the case of Romania, France is mainly interested in increasing the 'Romance' club in the Alliance. Such French NATO policy is not logical. Imagine a Romanian officer occupying an important position in NATO's command chain, while French generals have to stay out. Does the Paris government really want to pursue such a policy?"

BRITAIN: "NATO's Mysterious Ways"

An editorial in the liberal Guardian observed (7/7): "It is an illusion that there is always a choice between a good and a bad course in international politics. Frequently, as with the decision to enlarge NATO, there would be difficulties whichever choice was made. What is certain is that if a choice once made is later reversed, nobody benefits from the resulting confusion and perception of weakness.... To say that the expansion of NATO is an illogical business is fair comment.... NATO has never been a simple military alliance. It is, and remains, a complex political structure discharging many functions, some in mysterious ways."

"Quiet Satisfaction, Serious Concerns"

The independent Financial Times' editorial maintained (7/7): "The NATO heads of government gathering in Madrid this week will have some grounds for quiet satisfaction, and some reasons for serious concern. The good news is that NATO has, so far at least, succeeded better than anyone expected, in charting a path to enlargement in Central Europe without forfeiting relations with Russia or creating a backlash among disappointed would-be members.... (However), there is something paradoxical about the fact that NATO has managed to walk through the minefield of enlargement in Central and Eastern Europe without running into any serious problems, but the ostensibly simpler task of sorting out relations between the United States and its West European Allies has proved impossible.

"There is a real danger that misunderstandings between Washington and Western Europe could impede the Alliance's main task in years to come, which is projecting security eastwards.... The Alliance must put its own house in order as well as building extra wings."

"Muddle Of NATO's Own Making"

Readers of the conservative Times saw this editorial (7/7): "The Clinton administration has ensured that this will be a needlessly acrimonious summit. If American tactlessness were the only problem, there would be little novelty here, and still less cause for alarm. NATO is no stranger to periodic crises; and out of anxiety that the United States might otherwise scale down its commitment to European security, the Allies have usually suppressed their irritation at heavy-footed American diplomacy and fallen into line.

"On enlargement, if not on NATO's military structure, that is also the most likely outcome at Madrid. But this time, America will have misused its power in pursuit of an ill-judged strategy, whose most obvious principal effect has been not only to foment division in Central and Eastern Europe but to place a question mark over the future credibility of NATO.... NATO must live with the consequences of this strategic muddle of its own making.... Damage limitation is now the name of the game."

"NATO's Chosen Recruits Prove Unfit for Service"

According to the liberal Guardian's defense editor David Fairhall (7/7): "If membership of NATO were based on military competence, the Alliance would be inviting Romania and Slovenia to join instead of Hungary and the Czech Republic.... Hungary and the Czech Republic have been condemned as 'thoroughly incompetent' in NATO's confidential military assessment."

FRANCE: "European Defense Victim Of NATO"

Right-of-center Le Figaro published these thoughts by former French Ambassador to NATO Gabriel Robin with Baudouin Bollaert (7/7): "The summit will be a success for Washington and a triumph for NATO, which has become the key structure of our collective security organization. The American hegemony creates three victims: the UN, which will be limited to merely stamping whatever NATO decides; the OSCE, which will vegetate in forgotten limbos; and finally the European Union, because, the more NATO asserts itself, the less room is left for her to exist.... It was a big mistake to believe that our European partners would give us their support and that Washington would be delighted to satisfy us.... The second mistake lies in our ignorance of NATO. NATO is SACEUR, not the Atlantic Council. Under the power of the United States, SACEUR has tremendous prerogatives. They may have been justified in the face of the Red Army, but have no reason to exist now. Therefore, before reforming NATO, it would be necessary to begin by reforming SACEUR.... Instead we (the French) focussed on the Southern Command, which even if we had obtained, would not have brought us anything as far as independent action.... Both within the NATO structure, or outside, a European defense seems today impossible and useless."

"U.S. Attitude Indicates NATO Is Its Instrument Of Control"

Francois Schlosser said in left-of-center weekly Le Nouvel Observateur (7/3), "Jospin will not be going to Madrid. He wants President Chirac to carry the full responsibility for a twofold diplomatic failure: NATO's 'Europeanization' and the exclusion of Romania.... All the offers made by Paris for a compromise have been rejected by Washington.... The U.S. attitude clearly indicates that NATO is and will remain an instrument of poilitical and military control over Europe, exclusively controlled by Washington. There will probably be some token reforms adopted in Madrid to please Europe.... The Alliance will continue to speak as one, using the voice of America."

"NATO: Romania's Only Safeguard"

Florin Aftalion maintained in left-of-center Liberation (7/3), "Romania's other great love (besides France) is the United States. It abandoned Romania at Yalta, but it could be its only protector for the future.... Becoming a member of NATO would give Romania the opportunity to have strong ties with France and the United States, thus acquiring protection against Russia.... If its candidacy is rejected, Romania's efforts towards economic and democratic reforms could be for naught. A communist and nationalist coalition could very well come back to power. NATO is a shield against internal threats to Romania's young democracy.... Is it still possible to make Clinton change his mind?"

ITALY: "NATO, Europe And The Right To Complain"

A commentary by Aldo Rizzo in centrist, influential La Stampa said (7/7): "The summit opening in Madrid tomorrow is not a 'routine' one.... The two main items on the agenda are NATO expansion and the U.S.-French dispute on France's entry into the NATO integrated military command and NATO's Southern Command.... But behind these specific issues, there is one more general theme, i.e. the overall relationship between America and its European Allies. This relationship is not idyllic at the present time. While acknowledging the vital importance of the Atlantic ties, the Europeans (in varying degrees) complain about a certain `arrogance' on the part of the United States, even in minor episodes such as Clinton's attempt to have G-7 leaders wear 'Western'-style clothes at the Denver summit. Certainly a minor thing, were it not for the fact that it followed a pedagogic litany of the undeniable successes of the U.S. model vis-a-vis European social/economic problems. Not to mention the increasing tendency of the United States to decide unilaterally, or almost so, on issues such as NATO expansion.... But the Europeans will not be able to go beyond their right to complain, in Madrid and after Madrid... a right the Americans are not denying them.

"The fact is that, among Allies, what counts are relations of strength, and Europe does not exist in this respect."

"Why It Is Up To Clinton To Decide"

A dispatch from Madrid by Alberto Pasolini Zanelli ran in leading rightist opposition Il Giornale(7/7): "The (former Soviet republics and satellites) are mainly looking for one thing: a guarantee and an `umbrella,' which will not be exactly a Western umbrella but an American umbrella. This is why it will be up to Clinton to decide, and not Solana or Kohl, Chirac or Blair or Prodi. Only the U.S. president, in fact, can offer what the former Soviet republics (sic) are asking for and he is the only one who can carry out the double strategy of expansion eastwards of an Alliance which was born in an anti-Communist role and which continues to protect us from Russia, while at the same time obtaining not only Moscow's green light but also some form of collaboration."

"France And Italy On Same Wavelength"

An article from Paris in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (7/3) noted after reporting on a recent telephone call by Italian Prime Minister Prodi to French President Chirac: "France and Italy are on the same wavelength, i.e. in favor of a five-nation expansion, which is contrary to the U.S. position.... In Italy, the Refounded Communist Party claimed that 'French Prime Minister Jospin's decision to reverse France's previous decision to return to full membership in NATO's military wing...is of major political relevance and Italy should do the same.'"

"Paris's Challenge May Be Obstacle To Positive Outcome At Madrid"

A commentary in provocative, classical liberal Il Foglio (7/3) concluded, "Paris' challenge to the Americans may be an obstacle to a positive outcome of the NATO summit in Madrid. France's tough position risks pulling Italy, which is closely linked to France at this time both on a strategic and operational level, into a senseless quarrel with Washington."

RUSSIA: "New Security System In The Making"

Konstantin Eggert wrote in reformist Izvestia (7/5): "The part of European history that started with the fall of the Berlin wall and the breakup of the USSR is going to end in Madrid with the birth of a perfecty new security system which has yet to shape up and prove viable. Anyhow, Russia will have to put up with the idea of NATO's continued enlargement.... In the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Kremlin, too, there are people who will admit that NATO is a union of democratic states. They think it absurd to attribute the Alliance's enlargement to an anti-Russian conspiracy of 'dark forces,' seeing it as a complex process with lots of reasons behind it."

"An Event As Important As The Fall Of Communism"

Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (7/5) front-paged an article by Yulia Petrovskaya and Alexander Kuranov: "The decision to be announced in Madrid is hard to overestimate in terms of contemporary history. It is comparable to the turbulent autumn of 1989--the end of communist bondage in Eastern and Central Europe. Whatever Eastern European leaders say about embracing the West's democratic values, their statements--fair as they are--are only the smaller part of the truth. Its bigger one is concern for security unattainable for a small country unless it has serious partners to lean on, as repeatedly proven by the history of that region. Though few Eastern European politicians openly refer to an unpredictable situation inside Russia and the revival of imperial ambitions among her leaders, this is exactly why Warsaw, Prague and Budapest have been acting the way they have been acting. One of the good things about Eastern Europeans' being interested in acceding to Western structures is their efforts to settle whatever problems they might have among themselves."

"NATO To Transform Into U.S.-Dominated Global Military Coalition?"

Vladimir Katin, a RIA Novosti correspondent at NATO, filed from Brussels for reformist writers' weekly Literaturnaya Gazeta (# 27, 7/3): "For all the snags and conflicts within the Alliance, it grows stronger and bigger, enlisting more members and sympathizers and getting reformed and rearmed. In the long run, it may well transform into a U.S.-dominated global military coalition, replace the United Nations and other ineffective organizations, and assume the role of a planetary policeman. That looks like a possibility, judging by the way Americans have been acting in NATO, trying to adapt it to their own interests."

"Ukraine Ambivalent On NATO"

Larisa Ostrolutskaya in Kiev sent this assessment to reformist weekly Obshchaya Gazeta (7/3): "Ukrainian politicians remain ambivalent about NATO enlargement eastward. NATO officials assure that the Alliance is reforming to become a collective European security system. But that does not remove the problem of a divided Europe with a buffer zone. A charter on special partnership is no solution either."

BELGIUM: "The First Wave Will not Be the Last One"

Gerald Papy observed in conservative Catholic La Libre Belgique (7/7): "The main conclusion of the Madrid summit seems to be written already. Even if NATO Secretary General Solana--as if he were trying to maintain some suspense--declared last Saturday that he was not yet decided 'whether three, four or five countries would be invited to negotiate their membership.' He further stated that he would like to convene another summit in Madrid in 1999 to encourage 'new steps toward enlargement to other countries.' This formula seems to satisfy countries which, like France, favor a 'greater enlargement.'... And since--according to France's request--a commitment will be made that Slovenia and Romania will be part of a second wave, a compromise seems quite likely. But it won't prevent a last-ditch struggle by Jacques Chirac who will explain 'why the membership of Romania and Slovenia...would reinforce the Alliance's geographic cohesion.'"

"Europe Runs The Risk Of Becoming Playground Of U.S., Russian Interests"

Independent De Morgen (7/7) ran a lengthy op-ed column by K. Malfliet, research director of the Catholic University of Leuven's Central and Eastern Europe Institute for European Policy: "Europe has missed a unique opportunity to make the European idea about security policy come true. The question today is not only what Europe can and is willing to become but also what the superpowers want it to become. Maybe Europe was not sufficiently aware of the suspicion with which Russia and America have followed the success of European integration. Europe is again running the risk of becoming a playground of American (NATO) and Russian (CIS) interests. For America, a limited enlargement of NATO is a good affair. While the United States was forced to watch powerlessly the European Union develop into a potentially important competitor, it is in a position to link Western Europe closer to itself via NATO enlargement and to call for far-reaching solidarity for the recovery of post-communist countries. For Europe, the enlargement of NATO with Eastern European countries is a bad affair. The chances of a pan-European collective security are decreasing drastically. Europe, without an alternative for transatlantic and Eurasian cooperation, will allow again itself to be reduced to a chessboard for American and Russian domestic policies."

CANADA: "NATO Is Getting Bigger, But Not Meaner"

Under the headline above, foreign affairs columnist Gordon Barthos wrote in the liberal Toronto Star(7/4), "Russia's leaders no longer dread NATO expansion. They still grouse about expanding a Cold War alliance that they deem unnecessary. But there's none of the hysteria that Moscow once displayed.... It's ironic that public opinion in some NATO countries, particularly the United States, is questioning the purpose, scope, speed and cost of expansion, even as the Russians accept it.... In Madrid, NATO's members will disagree on details.... But on the principle of expansion, there's broad agreement.... There's no denying that by expanding, NATO is consolidating its Cold War triumph, and limiting Russia's potential to re-emerge as a threat. But the Russians know that they stand a better chance of boosting their influence in Eurasia by being a willing partner in regional security than by playing the truculent, enfeebled lone wolf."

HUNGARY: "U.S.: The Sin Of Arrogance?"

Anticipating the delivery of NATO's invitations to join the defense organization, highest circulation Nepszabadsag (7/3) headlined "NATO Invitations Are Being Mailed Today," while conservative Magyar Nemzet (7/3) went with "No Message Arrived From Brussels Yet." In the opinion of conservative Magyar Nemzet (7/3), "Before the Madrid NATO summit the number of--naturally anonymous--interviewees among the Western Allies of the United States condemning the superpower for the sin [of arrogance] are increasing. Of course, an--also anonymous--high-ranking Washington official, in the name of his government, objected to the lamenting of their Allies saying, 'No matter what we do, we get a piece of their minds.'... Not only the continuous incomprehension of the historical role of the medium-sized European powers is reflected in all of that, but even more so the EU countries' search--incapable of a unified international policy, spectacularly failing with the souther Slav crisis--for a scapegoat for their own impotence. Still, the familiar Atlantic argument remains a fact. According to rumors, however, the German Kohl is once again cautiously balancing: As his adviser says, he would be equally happy with either three, four, or five new NATO members. To him, as well as to the overwhelming German influence in Central Europe, it does not really matter; for the time being, this region hardly has to reckon with 'American arrogance.'"

LATVIA: "How Much Of A Negative Effect On Those Left Outside?"

Aris Jansons remared in centrist Diena (7/5): "Another important question that must be answered in Madrid is--how much of a negative effect will there be on the countries left outside the door? It is possible that there may be slight antipathy towards the United States on that front.... Will Europe be healed or divided up again?... If this summit proves that the Alliance remains open to new members, that security in the Euro-Atlantic union is indivisible and that its basic goal is to unite, for the first time in history, a democratic and secure Europe, then the question is irrelevant."

"We Need Security Now"

Aivars Ozolins wrote in centrist Diena (7/3): "We need security for our future now, not later when it might be incomparably harder or even impossible to achieve. At this point when it is basically evident that we will not make it into the first NATO round, a security surrogate would at least be recognition at Madrid that we would be among the candidates for further expansion. That most likely will not happen. So we have no other choice but hold the United States to its word when it promises an open door policy.... Let's hope we have time to wait.... We truly feel grateful that America does not forget us and is concerned about us.... If Russia ever did become a threat to us, it would be a comfort that NATO is as near as possible."

POLAND: "How We Will Find Ourselves In NATO"

Center-left, mass-circulation Zycie Warszawy (7/7) featured this commentary by Kazimierz Pytko, "George Bush, Henry Kissinger and in several days, Bill Clinton. It looks like Warsaw is a magnet for American politicians. There is no doubt that our 'to be or not to be' in NATO depends on the Americans.... Kissinger is one of the well known and influential Americans who firmly support accepting new members into NATO. This is a necessary counterbalance to the opponents of expansion, who are also influential people. Kissinger's business partners are, among others...Alexander Haig, Lawrence Eagleburger and Brent Scowcroft. The Republicans in the Congress have to take their opinions into consideration. The same goes for Democrats and Clinton. If the elite of both parties is 'for'--we will find ourselves in NATO. Maybe even as a strategic partner for the Americans."

"NATO And CFE"

Maria Wagrowska wrote in centrist Rzeczpospolita (7/4), "Some (Western diplomats) were even convinced that the battle for NATO expansion will de facto take place in Vienna (at the CFE talks). It is these talks which are to establish the size and deployment of conventional forces in Europe--more specifically than agreements between Russia and the United States, or Russia with NATO.... President Yeltsin in his discussions with Bill Clinton in Helsinki last March promised that the first stage of negotiations on the 'renewed' CFE treaty will be concluded late spring or early summer. But that hasn't happened. Nor has the signing of the treaty between Russia and NATO on bilateral relations, security and cooperation.... Poland is interested in establishing the way the CFE will be adapted; it would then be clear what the military aspects of NATO expansion would look like....

"But it looks like this won't happen soon. Russia and Belarus, and to some extent Ukraine, keep thinking in the terms of military blocs.... One can ask--what will be the procedure of NATO expansion without the adaption of the CFE?... The West and the countries that wish to join NATO want its expansion not to cause confrontation. NATO, however, may even be expanded with no changes...in the original text of the CFE. Such a change should be in the interest of Russia."

"Madrid: Tough Test For Clinton, Albright"

Jacek Kalabinski wrote in centrist Rzeczpospolita (7/4), "President Clinton is flying to Madrid accompanied by the loud protest of the opponents of NATO expansion, who have the advantage in opinion-making circles.... The opinion prevails in Washington that the Madrid summit will be a tough test for both President Clinton and Madeleine Albright, who as secretary of state, will have to enter into diplomatic combat."

"Why Clinton Is Coming To Warsaw"

Polish Channel 2 TV's "Panorama" evening news (7/2) aired a report on the U.S. decision that only three candidates will be invited, saying: "The Clinton administration emphasized that talks with Poland on NATO membership should be completed in December this year, so that starting January the U.S. Senate might work on ratification of NATO enlargement. Despite some optimism as to the Senate approval, the opposition to such expansion is gathering its strength. That's one of the reasons President Clinton is going to Warsaw next Thursday to speak to the Polish nation. He wants to congratulate its achievements, but also to let (the Polish people) be aware of obligations connected with NATO membership, and this was emphasized by the White House representatives."

ROMANIA: "Clinton Visit: Smart Move In Political Chess"

In his front-page editorial article, director Cornel Nistorescu of mass-circulation Evenimentul Zilei(7/1) cautioned against viewing Clinton's visit as "a kind of compensation for failing to accede in the first group and a kind of promise for the second (group).... Clinton's visit is the result of a serious assessment made by the White House and, therefore, a smart move in a game of political chess.... A visit by Bill Clinton to Romania is meant to be a gesture of support for the recent Romanian course and a kind of moral check for the current government. The American president's visit is also meant to be a positive signal sent to the Romanians at a time of disappointment and a gesture that would tone down a possible anti-American reaction fueled by nationalists.... From all these (elements), I would stress first of all the fear and a certain concern about the fragile situation in Romania. It would be a harmful illusion to feel, like some do, that the game was won once and for all and that, from now on, only the speed with which we advance towards true democracy and market economy matters."

"Tell Us The Truth"

Bogdan Chirieac said in independent Adevarul (7/1), "Since it announced its clear-cut position against Romania, the United States has not managed to come up with even a single valid argument to justify why our country was excluded from the NATO competition. Instead, the Romanians will have to be content with President Clinton's four-hour visit to Bucharest on July 11.... Our disappointment is big because the Americans were most loved and awaited people in Romania this century. It is terribly painful when you're betrayed by those you love most.... Clinton should tell the truth, even if it were to sound like this: 'Romanians, America did not and does not want you. Look for your future elsewhere!' If a fixed date is not set and Romania is not named for (NATO) integration at Madrid, waving about the hoax of the second wave is an undeserved mockery for a nation which has paid in blood its breakaway from communism."

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

JAPAN: "Russian Leaders Will Boycott Madrid Summit"

Noting that President Yeltsin, Prime Minister Chernomyrdin and Foreign Minister Primakov will not attend the Madrid NATO summit, Moscow correspondent Noboru Okabe wrote for conservative Sankei (7/2), "Russia's boycott is intended to signal that Moscow will not tolerate NATO's eastward expansion to include former Soviet republics, especially the three Baltic nations.... Russia's bottom line is blocking NATO expansion from reaching Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine--countries Moscow considers critical buffers for its security. Because the United States eventually hopes to bring the three Baltic nations under the NATO umbrella, confrontation between Moscow and Washington over second round expansion is inevitable."

CHINA: "As NATO Summit Approaches, Franco-U.S. Tensions Intensify"

Under the headline above, Gao Faming and Dong Zhenbang said on China International Radio and in the official Shanghai Communist Party Liberation Daily (Jiefang Ribao, 7/4), "France reiterated on July 2 that it would not rejoin the integrated NATO military command. This is symptomatic of the intensifying conflict within NATO between France and the United States.... The French announcement of its intention to defer rejoining NATO's integrated military command is, in fact, timed to state French resistance to American interference on European issues, and will likely throw a pall over the Madrid summit."

SOUTH KOREA: "U.S. And France In Tug Of War"

Independent Dong-A Ilbo (7/7) commented, "The major issues at the upcoming Madrid Summit can be summed up as 'expansion' and 'leadership of Europe.' While the United States, mindful of Russia's reaction, opposes further enlargement beyond the three new democracies, France maintains that as many nations as possible should join NATO. France also demands that a European should be appointed commander of the Southern Command, but the United States says that it cannot accept having a foreign commander with operational control over the U.S. Sixth Fleet. The United States and France are expected to face off over these issues."

##

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency
Office of Public Liaison
Telephone: (202) 619-4355

7/7/97

# # #