20 November 1997
Hungarian voters' resounding 'yes' to joining NATO pleased most European commentators, who depicted the results of the Nov. 16 referendum as an endorsement of the Alliance's enlargement policy and an expression of Hungary's desire to join a democratic Europe. Writers were convinced that the Hungarian "avalanche of 'yeses'" had sent a "strong signal" to enlargement doubters, including those in the U.S. Congress, of the "Old World's willingness to take part in a collective defense and security effort." Madrid's conservative ABCwas moved by the fact that it was Hungary, a country that paid a "high price in being separated from Europe and its liberties," that voiced such enthusiasm for NATO. The paper added, "That is why the Hungarians have seen so clearly what NATO [membership] means: a guarantee that history will not repeat itself, and security that the future will evolve in conditions of freedom and respect for human rights." Moscow's official government Rossiyskaya Gazeta, in turn, did not hesitate to highlight what it perceived as flaws in the referendum, beginning with the fact that fewer than half of eligible voters took part. "Why weren't they asked whether they wanted nuclear weapons or NATO's military bases on their territory?," the daily demanded. "Or whether they wanted their sons sent abroad to bring order to foreign countries?" HUNGARIAN VIEWS ON REFERENDUM--Adherents of NATO in the Hungarian press were delighted that, at 85 percent, the "proportion of 'yes' votes...surpassed all expectations." They viewed membership in the Alliance as a boost to their candidacy for the European Union and an opportunity to make a "historic" choice--previously denied them--in favor of "modernization...in a democratic framework." This group of pundits stressed that, with its NATO seal of approval, Budapest could show that it is not interested in contributing to "rivalries" among its neighbors, but in the "easing of centuries of tension." One journalist, however, pointed out that the majority of those who voted live in "more affluent, western parts and in the capital." He wondered whether the poorer segments of Hungarian society do not care about politics because it seems a "faraway, chaotic and exclusive world where their problems are not being addressed." Extreme right wing weekly Magyar Forum denounced those who would "fawn" over NATO, one of the Western institutions that "let Hungary down in 1956." OTHER ISSUES OF CONCERN FOR NATO SPAIN--BETWEEN A ROCK AND...--Spanish analysts vented their frustration with NATO's perceived indifference to Madrid's overtures for a solution of its dispute with Britain over Gibraltar. Independent El Mundo groused, "It is evident that NATO has no respect for us, the Madrid summit and all our cajoling notwithstanding." BALTIC SECURITY--A German observer stressed the "suspicions" and "psychological barriers" between Russia and the Baltic states that prompted the Balts' swift rejection of Boris Yeltsin's offer of a Russian security guarantee. The writer said the Balts believed it was "another Russian attempt to sabotage their wish" for NATO membership. This survey is based on 40 reports from 14 countries, Nov. 6-20. EDITOR: Mildred Sola NeelyTo Go Directly To Quotes By Region, Click Below EUROPE HUNGARY: "The Minority Decides" Second largest circulation Nepszava carried an op-ed piece under the headline above by well-known journalist Janos Desi (11/19): "It is clear from the statistical data that the fewest people voted in the eastern, poorer part of the country, while the most did so in the more affluent western parts and in the capital. If I limit the explanation to just one cause, then it is the following: Those living among the most difficult circumstances take much more for granted that politics is a faraway, chaotic, and exclusive world where their problems are not being addressed. Why should they care about politics?" "Setting An Example" Historian Zoltan Ripp wrote in second largest Nepszava (11/18), "In the new situation, the Hungarian foreign policy can prove with acts that it does not want to use its advantageous position for rivalry. By doing so, it could offer a successful foreign political pattern in the region which could significantly contribute to the easing of centuries of tension." "Was It The People's Wisdom, Or Propaganda?" Right-of-center Uj Magyarorszag stated in a piece by Janos Kecskes (11/18), "In the current campaign, everyone sang the praise of the government, and the opposition could not even speak against it. And it was not in vain that Hungarian Socialists studied methods of the French and the U.S. left which led them to victory; the mixing of the state-of-the-art Western and former Bolshevik methods has brought the result. So let's rejoice over the results, but it would be good to know whether the decision was a manifestation of the people's wisdom and sense of strategy, or rather it was the overwhelming propaganda that worked." "Victory Of Responsible Part Of Hungarian Society" Top-circulation Nepszabadsag's editorial said (11/17), "For Hungarian society, this decision has been the acceptance, and not the rejection of something. The voters have not chosen an enemy. The Hungarian public considers NATO the way to the European Union. The majority of yes votes, the success of the referendum is the victory of the responsible part of the Hungarian society over lack of interest, over national isolation." "Surpassing All Expectations" Renowned journalist Janos Avar observed in conservative Magyar Nemzet(11/17), "The proportion of yes votes in the NATO referendum has surpassed all expectations, and the turnout has not disgraced us in the eyes of our future allies, either. And the people, once again, have taught a lesson to their politicians: They did not allow themselves to be confused either by party feuds, or by extreme opinion, or not even by the well-meaning naive." "Chance For Modernization And Democracy" Top-circulation Nepszabadsag editorialized (11/14): "This referendum is different from all other elections so far. On Sunday, we will be able to choose not from among parties and politicians, but from among historical perspectives. We will decide whether Hungary would obtain the chance for modernization to be realized in a democratic framework." "Big Brother Is Watching Us" Influential Magyar Hirlap carried this article by social historian Attila Melegh (11/14): "At least the influential, opinion-forming political and media elite have done their best to prevent us from actually weighing the advantages and disadvantages of membership in NATO for Hungary. It seems, once again, that we have to worry about not pleasing Big Brother who is watching us. It would be nice if the Hungarian political elite would not represent Europe in Hungary, from some aspect of civilization and real political height, but rather Hungary in Europe. And would let the Hungarian people know about the related problems. Otherwise they are just providing ammunition for the radical right and left." "Central Europe: Re-Annexed To Europe" Right-of-center Uj Magyarorszag remarked in a piece by retired colonel Gyula Varhidy (11/13), "In case someone still misses the point, what we are talking about now is that Central (Eastern) Europe which had been referred to the sphere of interest of the Soviet Union, and made into a colony, is being re-annexed to Europe. This is an inevitable historical process, of which membership in NATO is one stage." "Good Partnership Would Help Russia" Readers of top-circulation Nepszabadsag (11/13) saw this: "Prime Minister Antall called the attention of Yeltsin several times in 1992 and 1993 to the fact that if the border between the North Atlantic Alliance and Russia is constituted by a line of small countries swinging to and fro. That is also a security risk for Russia. If there is good partnership between NATO and Russia--and there are joint efforts going on to achieve that--that would, for instance, exclude the possibility of a policy based on anti-Russia emotions in such a future member country as Poland--not to mention Germany." "Fawning On Those Who Let Us Down In 1956" Istvan Pozsonyi declared in extreme right wing, marginal weekly Magyar Forum (11/6), "The entire free world, the UN, the West--NATO, if you please--let Hungary down in 1956. We have to `thank' them for the several decades of communist dictatorship, the lengthy foreign occupation, the retaliations, the multitude of ruined Hungarian lives. These who let us down, this NATO is what the current leadership of the country, with assistance from the opposition, is fawning on." GERMANY: "Joining Europe" National radio Deutschlandfunk of Cologne aired these comments (11/17), "With the firm integration into the Western defense and economic alliance, Hungary is moving from its border position, which had made it an object of desire for the rivaling blocs. According to leading Hungarian politicians, this gives the country the chance to settle the precarious situation of the large Hungarian minorities in the neighboring countries. This would certainly stabilize the peace in this region under the umbrella of NATO." "The People's Wish" Centrist Neue Osnabruecker Zeitung's editorial said (11/18), "Only now has it become completely evident how much a rejection from NATO to the enlargement would have collided with the people's wish. Eighty- five percent of the votes opted for an accession to the Alliance-- this result was much higher than expected. This refutes convincingly all skeptics who believed that, in light of increasing economic difficulties, the Hungarians would turn away from the West. Moscow, which for so long opted against enlargement, does receive a painful rejection via the ballot box. That is one more reason why Hungary was right to let a referendum decide over the future relations with NATO. There is hardly any doubt that the results in the two other accession countries would have been the same, if the people also had had the chance to vote." "An Important Victory For Clinton" Washington correspondent Stefan Kornelius editorialized in centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (11/14): "The enlargement of the Alliance is probably the most important foreign policy project for President Clinton, and it can decide whether his term will enter the history books as a lengthy chapter or as a footnote. It is by no means certain that the enlargement of NATO gets the necessary approval of the Senate.... The debate began late but the White House has orchestrated it in a smart manner by appointing a coordinator-- Jeremy Rosner--for the ratification process. He acted in a very effective manner as a salesman on Capitol Hill. In addition, he has got support from outside, since an impressive alliance of the 'who's who' in the foreign policy establishment joined forces and curried favor for the enlargement.... Now the two top politicians in the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms and Joseph Biden wrote a letter in which they expressed their conviction that NATO's enlargement is the right policy.... But despite these two strong advocates, the two-thirds majority for the ratification is not yet sure.... If the resistance in the Senate is to be overcome in the remaining four months until the final vote, the Alliance and primarily the European members must defuse the most dangerous bomb on this path: the question of money." "Russo-Baltic Misunderstandings" Hannes Gamilschegg penned the following editorial in centrist Stuttgarter Zeitung (11/10), "In the relationship between Russia and its small Baltic neighbors, there are psychological barriers that hardly can be broken. Whatever the other side does, it always creates suspicion. President Yeltsin's latest offer of a Russian security guarantee in favor of the Balts was rejected and the tone was harsher than necessary.... Yeltsin's offer was linked to a number of reasonable suggestions for intensified cooperation. But a security pact that is announced by Moscow always awakens memories of the time when the Soviet Union guaranteed this security and then, nevertheless, annexed the Baltic states. And the way in which Yeltsin presented his proposal was not appropriate to dispel this suspicion. "Yeltsin presented his suggestion without prior consultations with the affected countries, and everybody was caught by surprise. A better instinct on the one side and better listening on the other could have turned the offer into an opportunity for Russo-Baltic relations.... Instead, the Balts understood the proposal as another Russian attempt to sabotage their wish for membership in NATO, while the Russians understood it as fresh evidence of the recalcitrant neighbors not being interested in a normalization of neighborly relations. It is a pity." BRITAIN: "U.S.-Europe Row Over Cost Defused" This assessment ran in the independent Financial Times (11/20), "New assessments of the cost of enlarging NATO appear to have defused a potentially damaging dispute between the U.S. and European members of the Alliance." FRANCE: "Security Structure Outside Europe Not Viable" Arthur Paecht, a parliamentary representative and vice president of the Commission on Defense, argued in right-of-center Le Figaro(11/17): "France no longer has the political and military means for an isolated military intervention, in Europe or anywhere else. It may be regrettable, but it is a fact. In addition, if we want to build a European defense structure, we will have to accept our European allies' point of view: There is no possible European defense outside NATO.... None of our allies is ready to turn his back on NATO and the security system it represents, or on the U.S. military presence and the ultimate security it represents for our continent. To build a European defense structure outside of NATO would be to build it alone." ITALY: "The People's Will" In the view of leading business Il Sole 24-Ore in a dispatch from Budapest (11/18): "Hungary will join NATO because this is its people's will.... Having convinced their people of the rightness of the project, now Hungarian authorities should prepare their country to bear the supplementary costs of the integration process.... Sunday's result will also reopen the debate on the big contracts to upgrade the outdated arsenals of the East. In this regard the big Western companies' appetites are mainly focused on aviation contracts." "Hungary, An Avalanche Of 'Yeses' To NATO" The headline above introduced this assessment by Moscow correspondent Giulietto Chiesa in centrist, influential La Stampa (11/17): "The real problem was not who would win, but whether people would go to vote.... The man-on-the-street has swallowed the most important pill: i.e., that the expenses he will have to bear in order for Hungary to join NATO are a good investment towards Hungary's future entry into Western life, i.e. into the European Union. In any case, he was told that he would have to spend more to guarantee an isolated national defense. In reality, nobody knows exactly how much NATO membership will cost the Hungarians, the Poles and the Czechs.... But the interests behind this strange and apparently useless battle are huge. Useless because the referendum was not obligatory, given the fact that the legal ratification of the decision for joining NATO is a prerogative of parliaments. After all, neither Poland nor the Czech Republic called a referendum, but the government led by Gyula Horn wanted to make sure that it was enjoying popular support." RUSSIA: "Why Did So Many Hungarians Stay Home?" Fyodor Lukyanov wrote in official government Rossiyskaya Gazeta(11/19): "The 'strange referendum' left more questions than it answered. Asked why so many people stayed home or voted against NATO, the Hungarian president said that the idea of neutrality, dating back to 1956, is still alive in the minds of many Hungarians. Why then, journalists wondered, weren't they asked whether they wanted their country to remain neutral and have security guarantees from the UN and 'Nuclear Club' members? Why weren't they asked whether they wanted nuclear weapons or NATO's military bases on their territory? Or whether they wanted their sons sent abroad to bring order to foreign countries? Or whether they wanted extra hundreds of millions of their money spent on rearmament?" "No Surprise" Yury Chubchenko said in reformist, business-oriented Kommersant Daily(11/18): "The results of a NATO vote in Hungary last Sunday came as no surprise. The Hungarians agreed that joining NATO will enhance their country's security." "France Out To Oust U.S." Dmitry Gornostayev said in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (11/14): "Of course, the French idea of the Europeans commanding the Europeans has undeniable logic--without a question, there is a need for balance between Europe and the United States inside NATO. But an American- European equilibrium would be a major upset for Washington. A win for the French would mean a loss in influence for the Americans. Washington will probably have to accept that in order to maintain unity inside the bloc." "Russia May Have To Resign Herself To NATO Extending To Baltics" Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (11/12) ran an article by Rik Pipe in Vilnius and Viktor Sokolov: "Russia's concern over the proposed NATO movement to the Baltics is self-evident. The Alliance's expansion, at variance with Russia's interests, may pose a threat to her security. But she can't stop that process. Riga, Vilnius and Tallinn have turned down all of Moscow's proposed alternatives to NATO membership. Russia may have to resign herself to NATO extending to the Baltics and give up resistance. Acting reasonably has its pay- offs, like a solution to a crisis over the Russian-speaking minorities in Latvia and Estonia. Most importantly, Moscow should avoid making a nice gesture of the kind that gave it more problems following German reunification." BELGIUM: "A Gratifying Outcome" According to independent Catholic De Standaard (11/18), "NATO was very pleased on Monday with the results of the referendum on NATO membership which was held in Hungary on Sunday. The high turn-out-- against all expectations--was particularly gratifying for the Alliance. About half of electorate showed up and 85 percent of them spoke out in favor of membership.... "Nothing now seems to hinder formal entry into NATO of Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic, unless one of the parliaments of the members states--i.e., the U.S. Congress in particular--prove obstructive. However, expectations are that this will not be the case and that the three nations of the 'first wave of enlargement' will become members in 1999, 50 years after the establishment of the Alliance." CZECH REPUBLIC: "Much More To Be Done Than Persuading Congress" Social Democratic Senator Jan Kavan wrote in left-wing Pravo (11/13), "After I returned from a USIA- and USNATO-sponsored trip to the United States, I finally understood that those Czech politicians who say that it's sufficient to win over several reluctant American senators are mistaken. I have understood that Assistant Defense Secretary Kramer expressed a generally acknowledged view that, of the three invited countries, Poland is very well prepared, Hungary is fairly well prepared and the Czech Republic is by far the least prepared.... "I would welcome it if more Czech politicians would encourage discussions with citizens (about NATO membership). So far, a number of them give the impression that they have underestimated the urgent need of drafting new legislation and the necessity of focusing on the defense capability of our country, not to mention informed public support for NATO membership." "Worth Our Membership In NATO" Director of the Center for Democracy and Free Enterprise Ladislav Venys observed in left-wing Pravo (11/13), "The price for the first step towards NATO enlargement eastward is not as high as uninformed citizens of NATO countries and the three new Allied countries might think. The increase of the U.S. budget by $200 million annually will cost every working American almost $2, i.e the equivalent of one can of beer or a packet of cigarettes a year! And surely, every American will gladly give these up for the benefit of a good cause. Even to Czechs, Poles and Hungarians, increased costs (for enlargement) should not be such a problem. The Czech Republic's share of the NATO budget (worth some 600 million crowns a year) represents about 120 crowns per one employed Czech a year, i.e. 10 crowns a month. That means to give up, for instance, one beer or half a packet of cigarettes a month. And this is obviously worth our membership in NATO." "Prague Is In Thanks To NATO's Will" Foreign affairs analyst Ivana Stepankova said in left-of-center Slovo(11/10), "Only time will show that the little attention the Czech government paid to the prestige of the military was one of the major weak points of the current government and one of the causes of low public support for NATO membership. But the fact that we (Czechs) have managed to get into the first wave of countries which were invited to join the Alliance is only due to the political will of NATO which requires from the candidates, first and foremost, political stability, firmly rooted democracy, education and training of military personnel." DENMARK: "NATO Expansion Up And Running" An editorial in center-right Berlingske Tidende concluded (11/16), "The pieces of the NATO jigsaw puzzle are falling nicely into place. Today sees a referendum in Hungary and everything points to a 'yes' vote.... Everything is pointing to the official inclusion of Hungary at next month's NATO summit. Following that, the inclusion will have to be approved by the member countries and it looks increasingly unlikely that Congress will vote no. Fifty out of the 67 senators seems likely to vote yes and the yes lobby was further strengthened recently by Jesse Helms's recommendation to vote in favor of the expansion. Helms is normally one of the American politicians most in favor of isolation and with him in the fold Clinton ought to be able to convince the skeptics. In addition, fears that NATO expansion would damage relations with Russia do not appear to have been warranted. Cooperation between Russia and America has never been better, and despite disagreement over Iraq, Russia is increasingly being viewed as an equal partner rather than a potential enemy." ESTONIA: "Baltics Dismiss Russian Security Guarantees" This private Baltic News Service's article (11/7) was widely aired by Estonian radio: "Despite cajoling from a top Russian diplomat, Baltic foreign ministers on Thursday turned a cold shoulder to Russia's offer to provide security guarantees if they stay out of NATO. Neither Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania are immediate candidates to join the Alliance, but all three former Soviet republics aspire to membership. Russia, although resigned to NATO's taking in former members of the Warsaw Pact, is eager to keep the Baltic states out." "Which Side Of New Border Will We Be On?" Political weekly magazine Luup published this article by Harri Tiido (11/10): "When Secretary Albright testified before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, she for the first time ever announced the Russian danger, which really has been the main motive for Alliance candidates' interest.... Most of the politicians and experts, including some critics of enlargement, agree on one thing: To give up enlargement would be such a political loss for the United States that it would of be less expensive to cover all costs of enlargement alone.... There should be no 'on the record' speeches to the effect that NATO enlargement is not creating new borders in Europe. It is, and this is the whole point, on which side of the invisible front one or another country will stay." FINLAND: "Europe's Natural Leader" Pentti Sadeniemi, editorial writer for leading, independent Helsingin Sanomat, commented (11/18), "NATO expansion increases U.S. influence. NATO remains at the core of all out-of-area networks of cooperation, and Washington is the key NATO state. The EU's 'European pillar' of security is based on the WEU but concrete measures will depend on support from NATO, and ultimately from the United States. The recent cooperation agreements signed between NATO and Russia and NATO and Ukraine are an important part of the security network, the central point of which is Washington.... "Under different circumstances, such a hegemonic position might give rise to strong resistance. But the amount of friction in Europe is considerably low. Europeans have many reasons to allow the United States to take the lead.... Washington's unrivaled nuclear strength, intelligence capabilities, military transportation capabilities and its ability to make quick decisions make it a natural leader--not only during the Cold War but in post-Cold War crisis management. The new independent countries of Eastern Europe not only welcome but even demand that the United States take the lead." LITHUANIA: "Referendum--A Means To Convince Washington" In the opinion of foreign editor Violeta Mickeviciute in liberal Respublika (11/18), "Hungarian leaders hope that the referendum will speed their country's admission to the Alliance. The more so, since the decision of the NATO summit in Madrid regarding three new members must be ratified in the parliaments of all NATO states. However, not all of them support the idea of enlargement, and there is particular concern about the position of the Alliance's leader, the U.S. Congress. According to Prime Minister Horn, the results of the referendum send 'a message to those in Washington, who have doubts or are opposed to NATO.'" POLAND: "For U.S., NATO Promotes Stabilization, Security In Europe" Centrist Rzeczpospolita's Maria Wagrowska held (11/12), "The Clinton administration has so much engaged in expanding NATO with Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary that it apparently does not take any other option into consideration. The efforts of politicians and government- related strategists focus on integrating Central Europe into the North Atlantic Treaty, and on convincing the skeptical Senators and various communities to support NATO enlargement.... For the Americans, NATO expansion is an element of the post-Cold War order now taking shape in Europe--the order which would eliminate the phantom of confrontation from European relations.... NATO is perceived [by the Clinton administration] not only as a military alliance, but also as an organization promoting stabilization and democracy in Europe, and serving as a forum for political consultations with Europe." SPAIN: "Hungary Says 'Yes'" Liberal El Pais noted (11/20): "The Hungarians have voted overwhelmingly in favor of joining the Atlantic Alliance. Unfounded were the fears of the government and the opposition that the results of the referendum would be invalidated by massive voter abstention.... Hungarians live in a country that has been thrashed throughout history. For the first time they have had a chance to decide for themselves which countries they want to be allied with for their security, and they have made good use of that opportunity in what was an impeccable exercise of sovereignty and [historical] memory." "Hungary Chooses NATO" Barcelona's centrist La Vanguardia underlined (11/19): "Hungary, the first country to break down the wall, has been the first to align itself with the West. What is significant is that it has done so under the guidance of a prime minister, Gyula Horn, who was the foreign minister in the last Hungarian communist government. And, as the former communist leader has himself declared, the importance of this referendum is that Hungarians, for the first time in history, have been able to decide for themselves which side they want to be on." "Gibraltar: Rock Of Contention With England" Conservative ABC opined (11/16): "It is totally senseless that two military allies retain a historic difference whose only justification is an outmoded sense of colonialism. The Spanish government, in proposing concrete steps, such as joint use of the Gibraltar airport sited in an area illegally occupied by the United Kingdom, maintains a position of moderation whose rejection [by the other party] would be difficult to understand." "Belarus: A Warning" Hermann Tertsch warned in liberal El Pais (11/15): "Whoever thinks that the countries of Eastern and Central Europe are perfectly secure outside NATO should take a look at what has happened in Belarus in the last three years. There, before the eyes of an indifferent international community, the most complete and implacable regression into totalitarianism has taken place. It is the best example to demonstrate that the advances of democracy in the region are not irreversible." "Hungarians See Clearly What NATO Means" This piece ran in conservative ABC (11/17): "Hungarians and Czechs paid a high price in being separated from Europe and its liberties. That is why the Hungarians have seen so clearly what NATO [membership] means: a guarantee that history will not repeat itself, and security that the future will evolve in conditions of freedom and respect for human rights." "We Get No Respect" Antonio Gala, writing in independent El Mundo, groused (11/7): "It is evident that NATO has no respect for us, the Madrid summit and all our cajoling notwithstanding. [This is true] with or without Solana [as secretary general], nor do I think he speaks up much in our behalf.... [NATO] is an organization created to provide cushy jobs for soldiers and bums [or both at once], and to keep us subordinate to the United States. Gibraltar, the Canaries, Ceuta and Melilla--they have no idea where they are." SWEDEN: "Hungary's 'Yes': Important Many Times Over" An editorial in liberal Dagens Nyheter (11/18) concluded, "Hungary's yes to NATO is of great importance many times over. The people had their say. Their message gives a strong signal to all of Central and Eastern Europe, and those who are critical (of NATO's enlargement) in the U.S. Senate now will realize that this is an expression of the Old World's willingness to take part in a collective defense and security effort." "Decisive Step In NATO's Eastward Enlargement" Conservative Svenska Dagbladet's editorial said (11/18), "With the Hungarian electorate's convincing yes to NATO membership, a decisive step in the eastward enlargement of the Atlantic Alliance has been taken.... The approaching enlargement of NATO has gained additional legitimacy. And this means that we are getting closer to the remarkable situation that this country, where the attempted liberation from the Soviet empire was crushed less than 40 years ago and which still were in the domains of the same empire until only a few years ago, soon will have a stronger voice than Sweden in the new security structures that are emerging in Europe." ## For more information, please contact: U.S. Information Agency Office of Public Liaison Telephone: (202) 619-4355 11/20/97 # # #