16 July 1997
TASKS
The visits by President Clinton, Secretary of State Albright and
Secretary of Defense Cohen to countries invited to join NATO and
several whose entry was postponed formed the backdrop for
additional assessments by the world media of what NATO achieved
in Madrid and what enlargement tasks lie ahead. The press noted
the enthusiastic reception accorded the three U.S. leaders, even
in countries that felt rebuffed by the Alliance in this first
round. In these visits, Brussels's independent Le Soir pointed
out, "The U.S. is...enjoying the laurels of the Madrid summit,"
where--according to another Belgian daily--Mr. Clinton succeeded
in setting the Alliance on the road to its post-Cold War
transformation as the "political watchdog and military fireman of
the Western democratic model." Both recognition and resentment
of the U.S. successful opposition at the summit of some Allies'
call for an enhanced European role in NATO's military structure
and for inclusion of five countries in the first enlargement
round was still evident in coverage. The U.S. president, said
centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich, showed "the descendants
of Talleyrand, Richelieu and Bismarck how to pursue foreign
policy in Europe." Rome's left-leaning, influential La
Repubblica stressed, "For those who have not realized it yet,
NATO is the U.S." Right-of-center weekly Le Point of Paris
groused, "For Washington, Europe's security is too serious a
matter to be left to the Europeans." In Warsaw, where gratitude
for the U.S. championing of Poland's membership reverberated
throughout the media, center-left Gazeta Wyborcza's front-page
headline declared on the day of Mr. Clinton's visit, "You Have
Changed The Course of History." The Russian press, however,
pronounced that the Albright meeting with Russian Foreign
Minister Primakov, widely interpreted as designed to mollify
Moscow, produced only "fairly modest" results. On the thorny
question of the possible admission of Lithuania, Latvia and
Estonia into NATO, stated reformist Segodnya, "the two sides
agreed to differ."
Predictably, supporters of the admission of former Soviet bloc
countries in the Alliance reiterated that NATO is creating "a
zone of stability and security throughout Europe," while
opponents of the move charged that enlargement would make NATO
territory "indefensible" and needlessly antagonize Russia. All
agreed, however, that President Clinton's major task ahead would
be to persuade the U.S. Congress to approve enlargement. The
liberal Montreal Gazette cautioned, "A bruising ratification
battle in the U.S. Senate could use up so much of Clinton's
political credit that further expansion becomes impossible."
Analysts in the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary impressed upon
their readers that "the hard part is still ahead," now that the
three must prove their commitment to NATO by fulfilling their
financial, military and political obligations. In the words of a
Czech paper, "The Czech Republic will have to prove that it is
able to be a real member of the Alliance." A majority of pundits
in those countries still waiting for admission emphasized that
their societies had to work on democratic and economic reforms so
that they could meet NATO's requirements. Other voices expressed
their satisfaction with NATO's declaration on their nations'
security. Madrid, said Riga's centrist weekly Fokuss, "is a
clear message to Russia not to touch Latvia, Lithuania and
Estonia."
This survey is based on 91 reports from 33 countries, July 9-16.
EDITOR: Mildred Sola Neely
EUROPE
GERMANY: "Three Visits"
Werner Adam judged in an editorial in right-of-center Frankfurter
Allgemeine (7/16): "On Sunday, three foreign ministers met their
Russian counterpart Primakov to inform him on the NATO summit in
Madrid. Should this not have created the impression in Moscow
that NATO had a bad conscience when it decided to enlarge the
Alliance and is now trying to improve relations with Moscow?
However, Madeleine Albright, her British counterpart Cook, and
Foreign Minister Kinkel explicitly told the Russians that NATO
remains open to the Baltic states. It is certainly true that
Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania are realistic enough not to
gather hopes (for an early accession). However, the Baltic
states take the Russian offer of security guarantees for them
even less seriously. Even the former Soviet republics no longer
trust the 'coreland' of the former Soviet empire. Irrespective
of the concrete agreements between NATO and Russia about their
future relations, this means further problems will surface with a
view to the Baltic states."
"Talleyrand And Bismarck Can Only Moan"
Josef Joffe remarked in an editorial in centrist Sueddeutsche
Zeitung of Munich (7/14), "All of a sudden, the U.S. superpower
latecomer in the guise of Bill Clinton appears on the scene and
shows the descendants of Talleyrand, Richelieu and Bismarck how
to pursue foreign policy in Europe.... Clinton harvested the
fruit. Warsaw received him with maximum cheers and he was
celebrated as the savior of Poland. Then he went to Bucharest to
give the Romanians assurances of his warmest support during the
next accession round. And they learned that the path to the
Alliance does not lead via Paris but via Washington.... While
Paris was tilting at windmills, Clinton has already tied the
Romanians to the United States. Talleyrand and Bismarck can
only moan."
"Will Europe Pay?"
Martin Winter argued in an editorial in left-of-center
Frankfurter Rundschau (7/14), "There are many nice words and
even more triumphant pictures. Clinton in Warsaw and Bucharest,
Albright in Ljubljana, Prague and in the Baltics, Cohen in Sofia
and Kiev. The cheers in the ex-satellite states of the Soviet
Union are understandable but the pax Americana not only signals
military security from the dangerously big neighbor but mainly
the promise of Western prosperity. The trips of the U.S.
president, his secretaries of state and defense create hopes
without these hopes being binding.... Clinton in particular
wants to tell his compatriots that the United States is the real
leadership power in Europe....
"However, in Eastern Europe, Clinton worked for his home front,
since in the United States, the responsible officials have a
sober view on NATO's enlargement.... The main question is who
is going to pay for NATO's enlargement? In this situation, the
pictures from Warsaw and Bucharest should help to open the
pockets of the Senate. But there should not be any illusory
hopes. The Europeans will be presented with the biggest part of
the bill. The same was true for the reconstruction aid for
Russia. The United States loves the glory but not the bills.
Only the Europeans can answer the question of how long they want
to accept this kind of burden sharing."
"NATO's Crisis: As Unstable As Rarely Before In History"
Emar Joeris commented on national radio Deutschlandfunk of
Cologne (7/12): "At the time of its greatest success, the
Alliance is as unstable as rarely before in its history. This
crisis shakes the foundations of the Alliance. We have often
heard discussions about a European defense identity, but nothing
was achieved.... The common denominator of the Europeans has
become smaller rather than bigger.... It will become even more
difficult to do justice to
those states...who were put off with an uncertain formula or
were not even mentioned. An Alliance that is unable to resolve
its own problems cannot negotiate clear and future-oriented
agreements either."
BRITAIN: "Welcome To The Nightmare"
The centrist weekly European had this commentary under the
headline above by defense editor Ian Mather (7/11): "The United
States has proved once again that in the post-Cold War world
Washington can do virtually anything it wants: even make
mistakes.... The Czechs, Poles and Hungarians have been made
members purely to please American voters. Strategically, it is
insane. NATO territory will be indefensible.... What Madrid has
revealed most clearly is the absence of any logically developed
plan for the Alliance's evolution into the 21st century.
"NATO Refashioned As Core Of New Security System For Europe"
The independent weekly Economist concluded (7/11): "At its summit
this week in Madrid, NATO refashioned itself as the core of a new
security system for Europe.... The Alliance is slowly managing,
through its thickening web of agreements and councils, to create
a zone of stability and security throughout Europe. Not a bad
achievement, if it can be made to last."
FRANCE: "Clinton's Next Task"
Right-of-center Les Echos discussed (7/15) President Clinton's
trip to Eastern Europe and conluded: "The success of the U.S.
president is both diplomatic, as the expansion of NATO is based
on U.S. conditions, and popular, as the president has been
greeted by spectacular crowds in Bucharest, even though Romania
is, for the time being, left outside of NATO. Now Bill Clinton
has to sell his initiative to the American public--which is
usually not interested in foreign policy--and to the American
Senate."
"NATO--France Punished"
Alexandre Adler maintained in right-of-center weekly
L'Express(7/10): "The United States has decided to isolate and
punish France. The purpose is to intimidate potential
trouble-makers who would like to counter America's role in
Europe's integration.... The United States may be right to want
to protect the freedom of action of the Sixth Fleet, in case of a
crisis in the Middle East...but this does not justify offering
France, the number one military power in the Mediterranean, a
second-rate role."
"NATO--An American Affair"
Pierre Beyleau wondered in right-of-center weekly Le Point
(7/12): "How can France hope to play a determining role in the
Alliance's reform of its military structure, while it remains
outside that structure? A close adviser to President Chirac,
recognizing the difficulty of France's position, admits: 'We are
like Asterix, completely isolated in his Gaul village,
surrounded by the Romans.'... The Madrid summit has underscored
the difficulty in bringing about the concept of a European
defense structure.... For Washington, Europe's security is too
serious a matter to be left to the Europeans."
ITALY: "NATO Forgets The Mediterranean"
A commentary by Lucio Caracciolo in left-leaning, influential La
Repubblica stressed under the headline above (7/12): "For those
who have not realized it yet, NATO is the United States. All
the rest, Italy included, are only marginal. Everything works
well as long as vital interests coincide and there is a common
enemy. But after the fall of the evil empire, the geo-strategic
map of Europe has become terribly complicated. Our interests do
not necessarily coincide with
U.S. interests, as became evident in the cases of the former
Yugoslavia and Albania." Caracciolo found that "the pros for
Italy are difficult to identify, while the list of costs and
cons is long and alarming," citing in particular "the
marginalization of Mediterranean Europe. We Italians are the
ones who will pay the higher cost, as the Western outpost in the
Adriatic-Balkan area of crisis. NATO will include three new
countries which are fairly stable and safe, but it is not
showing any interest in Southeastern Europe (for example,
Albania falls almost entirely on our shoulders). This
inclination towards Central Europe is not a good omen regarding
the maintaining of U.S. troops in Bosnia."
Caracciolo noted with concern also "the humiliation of Russia"
and the risks involved "in excluding Moscow from the
decision-making process on European balances, something which
does not help stabilize Europe but which may lead to the
destabilization of Russia, with unpredictable repercussions.
Finally, let's not forget the most serious strategic risk: the
end of NATO.... A rejection of NATO expansion by the U.S.
Senate, albeit unlikely, would force Clinton to reconsider his
approach towards Europe. Washington would have to choose
between a further redimensioning of its military commitment in
Europe and the temptation to affirm its total hegemony on the
Allies. Or perhaps both things together. In either case, there
would not be much to celebrate for Italy."
RUSSIA: "Albright-Primakov: Fairly Modest Results"
Boris Vinogradov observed in reformist Izvestia (7/15), "Her
dialogue with Yevgeny Primakov in St. Petersburg caused no
sensations. They devoted most of the time to discussing the
adaptation of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE) to
the new realities. Russia insists on revising the flank
limitations in its favor. On the question of the admission of the
Baltic countries to NATO, the parties came away holding opposite
positions.... On the question of the CFE, Yevgeny Primakov said
that neither Russia nor the United States have the right to
impose their will on the other 30 signatory states. But
considering the weight and importance of our countries, the two
ministers noted, Moscow and Washington are capable of creating
conditions under which the process of the treaty adaptation would
be easy and unforced. So, the results of the Russian-American
consultations are seen by the press as 'fairly modest."
"Baltics: U.S., Russia Agreed To Differ"
Andrei Smirnov noted in reformist Segodnya (7/15), "On the
question of possible admission of the Baltic countries to NATO,
the two sides agreed to differ. Madeleine Albright, who left St.
Petersburg for Vilnius, reaffirmed that the Alliance was open to
all the states committed to the ideals of democracy and the
market economy. The Russian foreign minister for his part
confirmed after the talks with the U.S. secretary of state that
Moscow was and remains categorically opposed to the admission of
the former Soviet republics to NATO. Not that the question is
all that relevant. The admission of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania
is a matter for the remote future. At present, according to
Yevgeny Primakov, we are talking merely about guarantees of
independence and sovereignty on the part of Russia and the West."
"U.S. More Concerned With Reassuring Baltics Than Russia"
Erik Alexeyev wrote on page one of centrist labor Trud (7/15),
"It looks as if Washington is more concerned with reassuring the
Baltic countries than with reasonably taking the Russian
viewpoint into account."
"Russia More Essential To European Security Than Others"
Political scientist Sergei Kortunov maintained on page one of
centrist weekly Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye (7/12), "At
present, Russia should behave as if it were really a full-fledged
NATO member. Moreover, formal membership in the Alliance is
absolutely unimportant to us. Today Russia is actually closer to
NATO than the Visegrad group. The
situation will remain the same after their planned admission to
the Alliance because the key problem of Euro-Atlantic security is
not the Central and East European nations, the Baltic countries
or even Ukraine, but the participation of Russia. Such a security
system can be built without the former countries, but not without
Russia."
"Russia, U.S. Caught With Pants Down"
Centrist, trade union Trud (7/11) quoted the honorary director of
the U.S.A. and Canada Institute Georgy Arbatov as saying: "NATO
should have transformed into something else or broken up--without
losing face--or openly stated that, as long as there is no
stability in Russia, the Alliance will have to stay around.
Russia and America were equally unprepared for the end of the
Cold War. Caught with their pants down, neither had a considered
long-term foreign policy.... Enlarging NATO too much will kill
it. Generally, I think a costly organization like that cannot
exist forever, unless we help, of course.... Russia must work,
her leadership must work. The sooner we put our house in order,
the sooner NATO will stop expanding eastward and start shrinking
westward."
AZERBAIJAN: "Enlargement: Positive Influence On European
Security"
Commentator Radik Ismayil concluded in opposition Millat (7/10),
"The Madrid meeting defined the 21st century NATO structure and
laid the basis for the future Europe. Historically, the
decisions adopted in Madrid are completely different from all
other documents signed recently. NATO's expansion toward the
East will have a positive influence on the security problems
throughout Europe. For a complete security of Europe, there is a
great need in a powerful military alliance like NATO."
BELGIUM: "A Symbolic Visit For Albright"
Christine Dupre wrote this in conservative, Catholic La Libre
Belgique (7/15): "Mrs. Albright, who enjoys a sincere friendship
with President Vaclav Havel, seemed a bit embarrassed by the
groveling of some of her hosts who, at best, never lifted a
finger against the Communist regime.... (The) allusion to the
'privileged links' between the Czech weapons industries and Iran,
or even Iraq, was not the only friction. Madeleine Albright
discovered (again) a country where nobody, with the exception of
the president, has tried to convince the population (of the
usefulness) of becoming a member of any organization, a country
where everybody simply awaits decisions from outside. The
secretary of state--who had not concealed her intention to close
the ranks of Central European politicians around the idea of NATO
enlargement during her trip-- could only be pleased with the very
timely announcement of the candidacy of Mr. Havel for his own
succession."
"NATO: Adapted To Post-Cold War Era"
NATO affairs writer Peter Dejaegher commented in independent
Catholic De Standaard (7/12), "Madrid was a historic summit,
especially because several processes converged which change
NATO's fundamental outlook. From a military bloc, the Alliance
is turning increasingly into the political watchdog and military
fireman of the Western democratic model.... For a short period,
it looked as if Paris would be the big winner of the summit. But
reality is different. Chirac took the lead of the countries
which were willing to admit five new members in the first round.
But the U.S. bolt on the door was firm.... The meeting of the
Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council was barely over when Chirac
gave a lecture about the cost that the enlargement involves:
France will not spent an extra 'franc.' For an enlargement with
three (members), that is. As if an enlargement with five
members--as desired by Paris--would be cheaper....
"The main thread is the evolution of the bipolar Alliance towards
a treaty organization which is adapted to the post-Cold War era
and the new challenges which this entails. The new NATO is
becoming a security instrument which is no longer merely shoring
up against a massive attack
from behind the Iron Curtain but for several hot spots on and
near the borders of its territory. Politically, NATO is
embracing both democratization and the transition to a free
market in Central and Eastern Europe at the same time. That
process of change has been going on for many years within the
Alliance."
"NATO: The Triumph And The Bill"
Pierre Lefevre judged in independent Le Soir (7/11): "The U.S.
president received a triumph, yesterday, in Warsaw.... The
United States is, at the same time, enjoying the laurels of the
Madrid summit, soothing the disappointed ones, and presenting the
bill (to the lucky ones). Clinton is putting the final touch on
an exceptional tightrope-walking exercise which he personally
masterminded. He mixed the right proportions of NATO's first
enlargement eastward, maneuvering between open Russian opposition
and a potential refusal from Congress. He granted membership to
three candidates, without totally discouraging the others. He
enlarged NATO eastward, without stepping into the Baltic or the
Balkan hornets' nests."
BULGARIA: "Thinking Hard About NATO Membership"
Mass-circulation 24 Chassa observed (7/14): "After the Madrid
summit, we have all grounds to ask ourselves the question whether
it is worth it to struggle so much for NATO, given that Greece,
Turkey and possibly Romania are members of the Alliance, they
will no longer be our enemies. It's good to think about whether
we should participate in this system of collective security only
because of Serbia and Macedonia.... It seems that our long
nourished NATO membership has been inspired considerations of
prestige. The membership, however, costs money."
"NATO Helps Him Who Helps Himself"
Trade union Trud (7/11) observed, "At the historic moment when
the great powers outlined the new lines between the East and the
West, Bulgaria remained nowhere--in between the world of
prosperity which we strive to enter, though we are not wanted,
and the other world, of which we claim we are no longer a part,
though we are not allowed to leave.... Clinton pledged a second
chance for us. The truth is that NATO helps him who helps
himself. So, whether we'll join NATO or we'll continue to
complain in front of its doors, depends on the people who will
rule the country in the next several years."
CANADA: "The Only Wave Of Enlargement For Quite A While?"
Columnist Gwynne Dyer suggested in the liberal Montreal
Gazette(7/11), "The White House's political judgement is that it
will be hard enough getting NATO expansion through the Senate
with just three new members--and it's probably right, because
opposition to NATO expansion in the U.S. elite circles is
building fast.... Beyond the parochial question of which former
communist countries have large enough immigrant lobbies in the
United States to command NATO membership, that is the real
question. Will NATO expansion really make the Russians do
something we will regret?... However, a bruising ratification
battle in the U.S. Senate could use up so much of Clinton's
political credit that further expansion becomes impossible.
The cost of the present expansion could get of of control....
Opening up a political can of worms is not the sort of thing you
do in an election year. With the Russian and U.S. presidential
elections taking up most of the available political attention in
1999, expanding NATO is unlikely to top anybody's list of
priorities at that time. The 'first wave' of new NATO members
may remain the only wave for quite a while."
CZECH REPUBLIC: "What Will Albright Want To Hear?"
A commentary in right-of-center Mlada fronta DNES (7/14) said,
"The Czech Republic will have to prove that it is able to be a
real member of the Alliance. Albright's visit today offers Czech
politicians the first opportunity to prove it.... The poor
readiness of the Czech military is a public secret in NATO.
Facing this reality, Albright can only appeal to Czech generals
to learn English. But as regards funding, there is no excuse
for Prague.... Consequently, Prague will have to pay for its
security. And this will be something about which the Czech
politicians will have to convince Albright."
"We Are Old Allies In What Matters"
A commentary in left-of-center Prace (7/15) noted, "Any time
Madeleine Albright visited the Czech Republic, her home town
Prague said: 'Welcome home!' This time, it was the secretary
of state who told the Czechs: 'Welcome home!' She said that
refering to the invitation NATO extended to the Czech Republic
to join the Alliance. With these two words she expressed the
conviction that Czechs with their historical roots and political
culture belong to the Western democratic community to which they
now return. Madeleine Albright says very often that to her as
the chief diplomatic leader of the United States, a historic
milestone and trauma is not Vietnam but Munich. Munich taught
us a lesson that international political decisions cannot be
made behind the backs of other states. The Munich tragedy was
repeated soon again in Yalta. But fortunately, the states in
divided Europe which preserved freedom realized soon that they
bear common responsibility not only for the defense of their own
identity but also for their oppressed neighbors to regain their
identity.... We are not new allies,' Albright said in Prague.
'In what really matters, we are old allies,' she added."
"We Will Help Determine The Others' Fate"
A commentary in right-of-center Mlada fronta DNES (7/11)
stressed, "Czechs, together with Poles and Hungarians, will be
the first former enemies to join NATO. Hence, the Czech
performance and its failures will undoubtedly co-determine the
Alliance's position on all future members.... Therefore,
joining the Alliance does not mean only getting closer to the
West. It will also require that the Czech Republic turn to the
East, the Balkans, the Baltics and Ukraine.... It will be of
great significance what conditions Czech will create for others
by their conduct."
ESTONIA: "NATO National Lottery"
Jaan Kaplinski wrote in center-left Sonumileht (7/15): "For more
than a year, the Estonian nation, at least the press, has been
excited by two questions: Will Estonia get into NATO and into
EU? This is like a lottery for most people: They cannot exert
much influence on both issues...which means that in this lottery
the rules are same as in every other lottery and gambling
games.... And so we must exchange part of our independence for
security. Security is understood simply: It is security from
possible aggression of eastern neighbors and being under their
influence. The danger from the East is considered very big and
to stop it is the Estonian goal number one. All other (aims) in
internal affairs and foreign policy will conclude with this
goal.... Playing the NATO lottery we have not noticed everyday
important things, like gamblers. The fantasy that first of all
Russia is a threat to Estonia releases us from need to be more
critical about ourselves and to take pains with our local
housekeeping."
HUNGARY: "NATO Means The West"
Tabloid Kurir (7/16) opined, "Last week's decision in Madrid will
go down as the most important political event of 1997 or even
the decade.... Hungary's invitation into the Alliance is the
logical consequence of the political changes that have taken
place since 1990. NATO enlargement
was the vital interests of not only Hungary but the Alliance
itself, too. NATO officials know very well that enlargement is
cheaper than having to settle a bloody crisis on the
continent.... The NATO- debate will only start now but one thing
is certain: The majority of Hungarians, including a large
portion of those against membership, want to belong to a
civilization, a cultural legacy and an economic potential
represented by the West. And NATO means the West."
"Baltics Are Scared Of Moscow And Rightly So"
Influential Magyar Hirlap (7/14) ran this op-ed piece: "The
Baltic states are scared of Moscow and rightly so: For them,
membership in NATO would be far more important than it is for
Central European nations. People in Vilnius, Tallin and Riga
have certainly not forgotten the lesson of history, that in some
cases the West is ready to forget small nations."
"Hard Part Is Still Ahead"
Conservative Magyar Nemzet pointed out in a front-page piece
(7/11), "Now that Hungary has received an invitation to join
NATO there is an even greater need for the consensus on the issue
among parliamentary parties. It was Secretary Cohen who
emphasized that from now on Hungary has to prove its commitment
to membership to an even greater extent than before. This would
of course be impossible without the support of parliamentary
parties, especially given the fact that the hard part is still
ahead of us: the concrete preparation for membership and the
task of informing the public on the issue. Since membership
involves huge costs, society must understand why these costs are
necessary and inevitable.... It is a key question what Hungarian
society will say at the referendum and this is why it is the
moral responsibility of all political parties to participate
actively in the process of informing the public."
LATVIA: "The Last Breath Of Yalta's Ghost"
Oskars Kastens told readers of centrist Neatkariga Rita Avize
under the headline above (7/14): "Eastern European and Baltic
security is directly dependent on the United States at this
point. The United States is currently putting pressure on its
European partners to accept at least one Baltic country,
probably Estonia. Some of this pressure is a result of Russia's
objections, which lessened the Baltics' chances of joining NATO.
At this point their (the Baltics) chances of joining will depend
to a large extent on the development of the first round of NATO
membership; in other words, whether or not the U.S.
Congress...will support the Clinton administration's plans with
two-thirds in favor.... No matter how trite and worn the words
'the door remains open' and 'the first won't be the last,' we
have no reason not to believe in these words. Especially since
they come from the mouths of American officials."
"The Balts Can Feel Safe After Madrid"
Edmunds Imsa, foreign editor of BNS news service, held in a
special commentary in weekly centrist Fokuss (7/14): "The
Madrid document is a clear message to Russia not to touch
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.... Even more so, unless we
experience some catastrophic changes over time, the Balts will
be in NATO in the 21st century."
"No Need To Throw In The Towel"
Askolds Rodins of centrist Diena offered this (7/12): "There is
no reason to assume that the results of the Madrid summit were a
foreign policy failure for Latvia.... Although we were not
brought in as (NATO) members, there is no need to throw in the
towel.... One cannot deny the presence of 'the Russia factor' in
Madrid, but just as significant is the fact that at this point
Latvia does not really meet the criteria necessary to become a
NATO member.... 1999 is just around the corner. We must
continue on the road we have chosen and remember that 'they only
help those who help themselves.'"
LITHUANIA: "Albright Encourages Baltic States To Seek NATO
Membership"
Lithuanian TV and print media gave extensive lead coverage to the
Albright visit, with leftist Respublika (7/14) among the many
that ran photos and quotes of the visit under the headline above.
The paper said, "According to a Lithuanian diplomat, in the
discussion with President Brazauskas, the secretary of state
noted that the new members of NATO must not only be consumers of
security, but also providers of security. She evaluated coldly
Russian attempts to offer the Baltic states multilateral
security guarantees if they decline to join NATO."
MOLDOVA: "Wave Passes And Leaves Moldova"
Right-wing Libertatea (7/9), weekly organ of the Permanent
Political Bloc "Alliance of Democratic Forces," and published by
the Liberal Party of Moldova, held in an editorial, "The
historical task of complete destruction of communist imperialism
has to be done. But the rush to expand NATO can provoke further
growth of influence of some national-communist political parties
in Russian society, which will weaken the position of liberals in
the Russian government.... It is necessary to reform Russia in
such a way that extreme communist forces will not have any
chances to contest at the 2000 elections.... From the height of
its neutrality, the Republic of Moldova remains 'totally cold.'
The philosophical attitude of the 'oligarchy' toward the first
wave, probably, comes from the immortal idea of Eminescu: What
is the wave, the wave passes and leaves us, as neutral as we are,
face to face with separatism, the Russian army, an anti-
reformist parliament, an unprofessional government and a
population brought to the brink of despondency?"
"Romania Protected By The West"
Petru Bogatu commented in official newspaper of the pro-Romanian
Popular Christian Democratic Front Tara (7/11), "Trying to tame
the Russians, NATO sacrificed its own union.... Today is a day
of national tragedy for Romania.... The Russian president
categorically opposed the admittance of Romania and Slovenia and
his American counterpart had to give him this satisfaction....
It is necessary to move away from the sphere of Russian interests
and this is the position of the Bucharest...and President
Clinton's visit to Romania is a clear signal that Romania,
although not received in NATO, is protected by the West."
NORWAY: "Clinton's Triumphant Week In Europe"
Conservative Aftenposten commented on the president's visits to
Poland, Romania and Denmark (7/12), "This has been a triumphant
week for the United States--in Madrid and Warsaw--while the old
Russian hegemony has been torn apart piece by piece.... For the
Americans, NATO's new leadership role is a triumph which also
carries several dangers with it. What are the expectations as to
what the United States and NATO will do in the East? Hopes are
based on more than just politics: The U.S. way of life and its
market economy finally gives the people of the new member
countries hopes of prosperity after a lifetime of humiliating
poverty."
POLAND: "Why Poland Should Support Baltic Membership In NATO"
Jacek Potocki commented for center-left Zycie Warszawy (7/16),
"To save face, Russian politicians changed the tune--while
reiterating that admitting (into NATO) the three new members is
the treaty's big mistake, they say that (such a decision) poses
no real danger to Russia in the present situation.... On the
horizon, however, there appears a new prospect which makes
Russian policymakers and military leaders lose sleep--the
possibility of admitting into the Alliance the three Baltic
states.... Notwithstanding what Russia says, the admission of
the Baltic states into NATO would have a positive and long-term
impact on Poland's security. This is why we should support the
idea (of their NATO membership)."
"U.S., West Opt For Independence Of Ukraine, Baltics"
Kazimierz Dziewanowski, former Polish ambassador to the United
States, commented in centrist Rzeczpospolita (7/15), "The
announced decision to take into account candidacies of the next
countries in 1999 (including Romania and Slovenia) seems to
clearly indicate that Clinton and his administration really want
to lead into the second round (of NATO enlargement).... Another
matter is the issue of Ukraine and the Baltic states. The
declaration signed with Ukraine...comes as a clear signal that
the United States and the West in general opt for both the
development of democracy in Russia and for the inevitability of
the collapse of the Russian-Soviet empire. Accordingly, they opt
for the independence and security of Ukraine and the Baltics."
"To Live In A Secure Country"
Jozef Szewczyk wrote for leftist Trybuna (7/14), "President
Kwasniewski didn't have a long sleep on Wednesday night (before
Clinton's visit). I wonder whether he thought...about the
invitation to NATO, about the security umbrella over us...the
removal of historic divisions, and Yalta, Potsdam and the Iron
Curtain undone.... On Tuesday, we lived under the threat of
nuclear attack from the West and from the East, and our
existence was burdened by decisions of Stalin, Churchill and
Roosevelt. On Wednesday, all of the above was of no
significance.... I have never served in the army, and certainly
will not serve in NATO forces.... What is important to me,
however, is to live in a secure country, and to be sure all the
time that (Poland) really belongs to Europe, not only on TV
broadcasts."
"You Have Changed The Course Of History"
Front-page coverage in all Polish dailies of the Clinton visit
included the headline in center-left Gazeta Wyborcza (7/11): "You
Have Changed The Course of History."
"Friend Of Poland"
Center-left Zycie Warszawy's Jacek Potocki concluded (7/11), "The
visit of President Clinton is of historic dimension, by taking
place right after the Madrid summit, where Poland...was invited
to NATO.... With his visit to Warsaw, Clinton actually
recognizes Poland's special role in the region.... (Clinton) may
be called a friend of Poland, appreciating her role as initiator
of great changes in the region.... We have to remember his
friendship, but also our obligations. That was Clinton's message,
as the friend of Poland."
ROMANIA: "All Hinges On Reforms"
Mass-circulation Evenimentul Zilei (7/15) commented that the job
of Romanian reformers will be more difficult because the
government made too much of Romania's accession into NATO,
sometimes postponing the most painful reforms. According to the
daily, President Clinton's message made it clear that NATO
accession and the reforms are linked: "If reform is successful,
this will have an enormous effect on the 1999 NATO enlargement.
But if Romania's reform is not fully successful, then Bill
Clinton's speech in University Square [during his visit to
Romania] will not be worth two cents."
"American Thought It Over--Romania Matters"
Under the above title, independent Adevarul opined (7/12): "In
University Square, Romanians forgot the huge disappointment
caused by America at Madrid and received Clinton's speech with
enthusiasm. After the...NATO summit, the U.S. president's
visit, scheduled some time before that, had been perceived as a
consolatory. After Madrid and Bill Clinton's speech in
University Square, (the move) has practically become a
guarantee.... President Clinton has
promised a strategic partnership between the United States and
our country. We have international support and national
consensus. It is our turn now to do our duty, because what is
asked is primarily in the Romanians' interest: the consolidation
of democracy and the carrying out of reforms."
"Clinton's Visit Can Be A Huge Success For Romania"
Ion Cristoiu of the recently appeared National (7/14) held,
"Extremely concerned, not so much with the course of reform in
Romania as with the stability of the region, Bill Clinton made
full use of his power of seduction to counter what his advisers
said could be the disastrous impact of popular post-Madrid
disappointment on regional stability.... Contrary to all
predictions, the U.S. president was met very warmly by the people
in Bucharest. The U.S. leader could see for himself that the
wrong done at Madrid did not create, as feared, an anti-American
current and a loss of sympathy for America to France's
benefit.... This could prompt him to be far more careful with a
country which, although kicked in the teeth, has remained
pro-American. From this viewpoint, Bill Clinton's visit to
Bucharest can be a huge success for Romania."
SERBIA-MONTENEGRO: "Summit Ended, And Differences Remain"
Belgrade's official Politika (7/11) carried a commentary by
special Madrid correspondent and foreign affairs commentator
Bosko Jaksic: "Clinton is acting as if the just-ended NATO
summit is the most precious jewel of both his terms of office,
although the U.S. skeptics and the European Allies are far from
sharing his enthusiasm. How can one claim that NATO expansion
cancels divisions when it is outlining new ones instead? How can
one explain that NATO's arrival on Russia's borders is not an
anti-Russia act? How can one glorify cohesion at the banquet when
the cohesion has been additionally shaken?... The summit has
just ended, and the differences remain.... The majority of the
Europeans think that nonacceptance of Romania and Slovenia
additionally destabilizes the already shaky south flank of NATO."
SLOVENIA: "Consolation Visit"
Left-of-center, independent Vecer held (7/12): "Today, American
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright will console Slovene
politicians in Ljubljana. Slovenia's failure to be invited in
NATO in the first round can be painful just for those who naively
believed that our candidacy was serious, and did not realize in
time that ours was only an 'alibi' candidacy. Slovenia was
rejected by the United States...in order to demonstrate to the
Baltic countries--because of Russia's opposition--that even
seemingly undisputed countries have no chance."
"The Beginning Of Waiting For A Second Round"
In a commentary titled as above, left-of-center, independent
Dnevnik(7/11) stated: "Many experts have assumed...that an
unwritten agreement with Russia stands behind the strong U.S.
stance that only three 'new democracies' be admitted to NATO in
the first round.... We will not know for a long time whether
such an agreement really exists; and when we eventually do, it
will just be a neutral historical fact.... Non-admission--or
postponed admission, if you prefer--is good for Slovene
politicians for therapeutical reasons--it is a pill of political
realism.... In the international arena, Slovenia is not as
unique as to deserve special benefits."
SWEDEN: "Sweden Must Help Its Baltic Neighbors"
An editorial in conservative Svenska Dagbladet (7/10) remarked,
"In the Madrid summit final communique the NATO countries made a
direct reference to 'those states in the Baltic region which also
want NATO membership,' thus Sweden's three Baltic neighbors. The
U.S. Ambassador to Sweden Thomas Siebert, in a debate page
article in yesterday's Dagens Nyheter was even more clear. He
wrote that his country will not regard NATO's enlargement
complete or a success unless, or until, the aspirations of the
Baltic states are be fulfilled. Taking this and Sweden's Foreign
Minister Lena Hjelm-Wallen's positive words on the Madrid summit
into consideration, it now remains for Sweden to be of further
assistance to our Baltic neighbors in their efforts to become
incorporated in the Atlantic Alliance."
TURKEY: "Our Inconsistent Foreign Policy"
Mumtaz Soysal underlined in mass-appeal Hurriyet (7/11), "For
about a year, Turkey threatened to veto Poland, Hungary and the
Czech Republic's joining NATO in case of a rejection of Turkey's
EU membership. But, suddenly, we stepped back. This
inconsistent foreign policy, practiced largely by Ciller and her
staff, damaged the bright reputation of Turkey's foreign policy.
Let us hope the recent Turco-Greek convergence in Madrid does not
to end with another move backward. What is more, shall we, as we
have recently declared, be able to set up a 'special
relationship' between the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
(TRNC) and Turkey when the EU starts the negotiating process for
the Greek Cypriots' membership? You cannot expect others to take
the Denktas-Klerides summit seriously while Ankara keeps on
'eating its words.'"
EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC
CHINA: "After NATO's Eastward
Expansion"
Zhang Wei, writing in official Communist Party Liberation
Daily(Jiefang Ribao 7/16), stated, "The eastward enlargement [of
NATO] is the prime diplomatic policy in the second term of
Clinton administration.... Despite the solemn vow of Western
politicians that NATO will not deploy nuclear weapons and station
troops on the territories of its new members, Russia and
countries in the Commonwealth of the Independent States (CIS) are
still burdened with anxiety. What they worry about is whether the
western politician will keep their words.
"Ex-Defense Secretary McNamara and ex-Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger believe that NATO's eastward expansion will lead to new
demarcation lines in Europe as well as a split in Central and
East European countries, and damage the stability in Europe.
Meanwhile, it will, to a large extent, postpone the endorsement
of the arms control agreement reached by the United States and
Russia long ago and will have negative effects on relation
adjustment between big powers. Therefore, the prospect of NATO's
eastward enlargement will be more ominous than propitious and can
not afford optimism."
MIDDLE EAST
EGYPT: "President Of The Earth"
Mohamed Sid Ahmed, columnist for opposition weekly Al Ahali,
declared (7/16), "Observers say that the NATO conference in
Madrid has revealed that Clinton seeks to be president of
Earth.... In Denver, Clinton was proud of the economic
situation of the United States alone when compared to most of
Europe. He should also be proud of American technology.... NATO
was decided to be enlarged at the pace that Washington
decided...without regard to European views.... In this way,
Clinton tightened U.S. leadership over Europe and contained the
isolationist trend in the United States.... He pursued the
policy of 'the carrot and the stick' with Russia.... The United
States seeks to isolate Russia gradually from Europe.... For
Europe, Clinton's policies are characterized by being
'supervisory' over Europe rather than being 'a partner.'... The
United States can impose its will on the world, but not
Netanyahu."
ISRAEL: "NATO's Party Pooper"
The long-standing NATO-expansion critic, independent Jerusalem
Postremarked (7/13): "The enlargement of NATO has been a done
deal for some time. There was little left for President
Bill Clinton to do this weekend other than face the cheering
crowds in Eastern European capitals and smooth the ruffled
feathers of those rejected. Clinton's personal performance was
all we have come to expect from him on oversees trips. He now
seems second only to the pope in his ability to draw and woo
enthusiastic crowds--in his first and second terms he has done so
from Israel to Ireland and from Mexico to Romania.... The only
country not buying the whole deal is France.... The view from
Paris deserves serious consideration. In the future, it will
probably get it. The simple question is--do the taxpayers of the
United States and Europe know why their hard-earned money is
being spent on enlarging a dinosaur whose main enemies have
become extinct?... For all Clinton's talk of dismantling barriers
and bright new futures, the thinking inside NATO still remains
locked in the Cold War mold."
KUWAIT: "Enlargement Has Its Challenges"
According to Shafiq Al-Ghabra's article in independent Al-Rai
Al-Aam(7/21), "Enlargement is not without its challenges because
Russia still has reservations.... It considers itself the sole
loser in regard to security enlargement...but the second loser is
France, for it seeks to re-organize NATO in order to achieve a
bigger role foritself.... Following the Cold War, NATO
enlargement is considered (a sign of American) power and not
weakness. However, there remain some flaws, such as the
competition provided by France, and American foreign policy which
lacks clarity."
OMAN: "U.S. And NATO"
A commentary in the semi-independent, English-language Times of
Omanmade this point (7/12): "After NATO's decision to bring in
three former comnunist states, U.S. President Bill Clinton must
win backing for the idea from the American people, including some
who question why the alliance is needed at all in the post-Cold
War era.... While most of the debate so far has focused on the
wisdom of expansion and whether three or five new members was
most appropriate, some experts say the question for many
Americans is likely to be more basic.... As a broader U.S.
debate heats up, even advocates of expansion are raising tough
questions.... Among them is what military threat NATO expansion
is designed to counter, how expansion increases U.S. and European
security and whether border disputes involving one or several of
the new alliance members would be so vital a security threat that
'we are willing to risk American lives.'"
SOUTH ASIA
INDIA: "Unwise Expansion"
The above headline introduced this editorial (7/12) in the
centrist Hindu: "The United States...may have just taken the
first steps to sow the seeds of discord again. The Madrid summit
of...NATO has in effect confirmed European fears of hegemonic
domination by the United States, and potentially with even more
dangerous implications, divided the former Warsaw Pact nations
into haves and have-nots. Russia...will most certainly exploit
the divisions among the ranks of the erstwhile Soviet
satellites.... By insisting on bypassing Romania while including
its northern counterpart Poland, admittedly the most eligible for
entry, Washington has left a trail of bitterness and
disappointment in the volatile region."
BANGLADESH: "NATO Expands"
According to the centrist Independent (7/11), "Informed opinion
in Russia, liberals and hard-liners alike agree that the
Russia-NATO charter is the best deal Russia could expect under
the circumstances. The charter gives Russia the right to express
its views in a special joint council, but with no power to alter
or override NATO policies. The deal has been grudgingly accepted
by the Russian Duma. But strong public opinion prevails,
nevertheless, in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus that their nations
have been put in a 'shameless situation.'" The paper also said,
"The United States did put a brake on some other members'
enthusiasm, notably that of France, to admit two other members of
the erstwhile Soviet bloc--Slovenia and Romania. But the idea
was established, as the secretary general of NATO put it,
that...that 'no European democratic country' would be excluded."
AFRICA
SOUTH AFRICA: "A Vote Crucial
For New Millenium"
This viewpoint appeared in the liberal, independent Star (7/11),
"It is ironic that the expansion of NATO should cause concern in
both the United States and Russia. The creation of a new
Europe...became a reality this week.... Not surprisingly...Boris
Yeltsin boycotted the...summit to avoid giving any hint of
support for what Moscow sees as a military encroachment on
territory formerly under its umbrella.... There are rumbles in
America about high cost, the danger of being drawn into
interminable foreign border and minority rights squabbles, the
dividing of Europe into those countries which are 'in' and those
which are 'out' and the destabilizing of the political situation
in Russia.... There can be no doubt that debate in the U.S.
Senate, and the consequent vote, will be crucial in shaping the
world order as we head for the new millennium."
LATIN AMERICA
ARGENTINA: "NATO, An Armed
Democracy"
Oscar Raul Cardoso, international analyst of leading Clarin
(7/12), pointed out under the headline above, "The political
triumph achieved by the United States, the real promoter of this
enlargement...has been built on one main argument: As the
collapse of true socialism (sic) opened the doors to an extension
of the democratic system, now that same new territory has to be
covered with a new system of collective security, that is, with
NATO.... The enlargement of NATO is based on the double idea of
democracy and the market.... From now on, the potential is
enormous: There are more than 20 nations that have already
established cooperative ties with NATO and are already
considered as candidates to become future full-fledged
members.... It is a kind of 'coactive' (sic) strength that will
guarantee democracy and this is why the Madrid summit will have
future implications that go far beyond the European scenario."
BRAZIL: "Why Do Allies Need Protection Against Russia?"
An editorial in center-right O Estado de Sao Paulo (7/11)
concluded, "NATO's expansion indicates that it continues to
protect its Allies against Russia. In a not-so-remote future,
depending on the course of developments, NATO may extend itself
until Vladivostok to contain a new superpower: China. Russia is
today a politically unstable nation with a tremendous economic
and military potential. But it does not constitute any threat
against its Eastern (sic) neighbors. On the contrary, NATO's
expansion generates tension, suffocates Russia, hurts Russian
national pride as well as tends to encourage nationalism and
conservative tendencies."
URUGUAY: "U.S. Won The Battle, But What Did France Get?"
Conservative, business El Observador (7/9) noted, "This time,
the United States won the battle as it obtained the approval to
include only three new partners in NATO instead of the five that
France wanted. Now, the big question is: What did the United
States promise France to prevent it from interfering with
Washington's plan? With the U.S. Navy Fleet going around the
Mediterranean Sea from its base in Naples, it's hard to believe
that Washington would hand over its strategic power to Paris. But
the idea of having another European country controlling NATO's
Southern Command in the near future is not absurd either."
##
For more information, please
contact:
U.S. Information Agency
Office of Public Liaison
Telephone: (202) 619-4355
7/16/97
# # #