08 December 1997
European and Argentine observers agreed that the NATO defense ministers' Dec. 2-4 gathering in Brussels reached a "historic agreement on the new command structure," in order to reform the Alliance to fit the needs of post-Cold War Europe. The "new" NATO, said Rome's conservative Il Tempo, is now "ready to face future regional or humanitarian crises in the European area, rather than attacks from the 'Reds.'" Most onlookers welcomed accords bypassing or removing several contentious issues that threatened to divide the Allies and the ministers' plans for a widely anticipated decision to extend SFOR's stay in Bosnia (to be covered in an upcoming report). These were the outstanding themes in commentary: COMMAND STRUCTURE--French writers acknowledged how "uncomfortable" Paris will be with its decision to remain outside the Alliance's military command following its failed bid for a more important European presence in AFSOUTH-Naples. Left-of-center Le Monde offered the most vivid explanation of France's "dilemma." The paper asked, "How not to be outside when you are not inside?" Despite Paris's military contributions to Alliance operations, the daily pointed out, "France cannot have the same level of responsibility as if it were integrated." Spain's entry into the command structure was eased, on the other hand, through a compromise on its "increasingly bitter" territorial dispute with Britain over Gibraltar. Still holding that "the British colony of Gibraltar remains an anachronism," liberal El Pais of Madrid nevertheless called the Britain-Spain deal "a reasonable, if not altogether satisfactory, agreement." London's conservative papers credited Britain with "unblocking" the impasse and suggested that "the move leaves Spain exposed to heavy diplomatic pressure within the Alliance." Two other developments elicited some comment: the settling of a long-standing dispute between NATO members Greece and Turkey and the progress in Russia's partnership with the Alliance. Protestations of accelerated cooperation at the Joint NATO- Russia Council notwithstanding, "it was made clear to the Russians," stressed Moscow's reformist, business-oriented Kommersant Daily, "that, contrary to their hopes, they will not be allowed to influence NATO's decisions." HUNGARY TO AFSOUTH--The decision to assign future NATO member Hungary to the AFSOUTH command triggered a voluminous debate among Budapest pundits regarding the benefits of joining what one called "the less developed wing of the Alliance"--given that Hungary's sympathies, they said, lie with the "Northwest" wing. One writer mischieviously tried to cheer those disappointed by the decision by pointing out that, while the Poles and the Czechs "will be crawling in the Ardennes in fog and rain," the Hungarians will be cavorting in the sun with Spanish, Greek and Italian beauties. YELTSIN'S BALTIC BID--A handful of columnists dismissed Russian President Yeltsin's proposal to reduce Moscow's military presence in the Baltics as another attempt to "keep the U.S."--and NATO--out of that region by convincing those countries that there is no reason to fear the Russian bear. This survey is based on 35 reports from 12 countries, Nov. 11-Dec. 7. EDITOR: Mildred Sola NeelyTo Go Directly To Quotes By Region, Click Below EUROPE BRITAIN: "Yeltsin Woos Baltic States Away From NATO" The conservative Daily Telegraph noted from Moscow (12/4) regarding the Yeltsin announcement of a "massive cut in armed forces" along Russia's northwest border: "His announcement...was a blandishment to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to stop them trying to join NATO." "Relief In NATO As Britain Lifts Veto On Rock" According to the conservative Times from Brussels (12/3): "Britain moved yesterday to unblock an increasingly bitter impasse with Spain over Gibraltar by making a concession that took NATO defense ministers by surprise. London had been refusing to approve a planned reform of NATO's command structure until Spain agreed to drop its restrictions on British military aircraft and warships using Spanish facilities when traveling to and from Gibraltar. The dispute between Britain and Spain, originating from the centuries-old rivalry over ownership of the Rock, was the only territorial dispute standing in the way of a newly restructured Alliance. London has now told NATO that Britain will lift its veto over the new command structure and deal with Spain as a separate issue." "British Move Allows NATO's Reforms To Proceed" The conservative Daily Telegraph said from Brussels regarding the Gibraltar compromise (12/3): "The move leaves Spain exposed to heavy diplomatic pressure within the Alliance.... By isolating the disagreement with Spain, Britain has made it possible for most of the NATO reforms to proceed." FRANCE: "NATO Reforms Without France" Jacques Isnard wrote in left-of-center Le Monde (12/4): "Preferring insertion of their forces to integration, the French will cooperate with NATO on 'a la carte ' basis.... As for the European defense structure, no European country wants to imagine a system of joint security outside of NATO's framework. A European defense structure will first have to be built within NATO, before there can be a new distribution of responsibilities.... France's participation without fully belonging is most uncomfortable.... It is incompatible with its own military reforms and the fact that France recognizes it can no longer intervene alone or for any length of time." "NATO's New Military Structure" Pierre Bocev acknowledged in right-of-center Le Figaro (12/3): "In spite of last minute skirmishes, NATO's new integrated military structure has been approved...without France. Defense Minister Alain Richard reiterated France's position: 'The distribution of responsibilities between Americans and Europeans does not fit in with what France would like.'" "France: In And Out Of NATO" Left-of-center Le Monde's Daniel Vernet wondered (12/2): "How not to be outside when you are not inside? This is the dilemma facing French diplomacy concerning NATO.... There was a glimmer of a solution with the sharing of responsibilities, but the dissolution of the National Assembly and the Socialist government, which is critical of Chirac's new strategy, changed all that. Was a compromise at hand? We will never know.... France finds itself in a strange position.... Its partners are having difficulty with France's request for 'participation without discrimination' in international inter-army forces. In their eyes, France cannot have the same level of responsibility as if it were integrated: If it did, then the idea of integration at a later time loses its meaning." "A New Meeting Between France And NATO?" Michel Colomes observed in right-of-center Le Point (11/28): "Following informal meetings in Paris between U.S. and French experts on the subject (of NATO)...the question is how to avoid isolating France when the Alliance, without France, signs NATO's new organization in April 1999. The experts' conclusion is as follows: France's missed return in NATO last spring is the result of a double misunderstanding rather than a profound disagreement. The United States misunderstood France's request for the Southern Command, which never implied that France was asking for command of the Sixth Fleet, as Washington believes. A misunderstanding on France's part because it refuses to accept Washington's reading of its own position as a delay and not a categorical refusal.... Experts believe there is a chance for France's return, and this opportunity lies between the moment NATO integrates Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and the April 1999 summit. They also believe that to appease France's hurt feelings, it is up to Washington to take the first step.... There remains one major concern: France's system of political cohabitation may not allow Paris to commit itself on such a sensitive issue." ITALY: "Big American Brother" Conservative Il Tempo held (12/3): "Under the pressure of the big American brother, the obstacles of Gibraltar and the Aegean were overcome, and the new NATO of the post-Cold War era was born yesterday in Brussels, ready to face future regional or humanitarian crises in the European area rather than attacks from the 'Reds.'" "Rome Supported U.S. On Southern Command" PDS (leading government party) daily L'Unita' (12/3) noted: "The reform...meets Italian requests. In the long tug-of-war among member nations to maintain their commands at NATO general headquarters, Italy is maintaining the Naples command--with an Italian vice commander--as well as sub-regional headquarters of Allied ground forces in Verona. Rome, on the other hand, supported the United States in the dispute over control of the Southern Command, deeming the presence of the U.S. Sixth Fleet essential for security in the Mediterranean region." "It's Not the Same Cold War NATO" An op-ed by Umberto Ranieri in PDS (leading government party) L'Unitaread (11/25): "It would have been preferable that the NATO enlargement agreed upon last July in Madrid had also involved other countries of the eastern Balkan region, like Slovenia and Romania.... However it is important that in the Madrid declaration there is a recognition of the strategic role of the Alliance's Southern region.... But NATO enlargement does not consist solely of a framework of military equilibria. It is part of a wider design comprising UN reform, EU enlargement, a strengthening of the OSCE, and Russia's equal participation in the management of policy and economics at the global level." RUSSIA: "Even Marshals Not Allowed To Dictate To NATO" Yury Chubchenko observed in reformist, business-oriented Kommersant Daily (12/4) reporting about Defense Minister Marshal Igor Sergeyev attending a Russia-NATO Council session in Brussels Dec. 3: "It was made clear to the Russians that, contrary to their hopes, they will not be allowed to influence NATO's decisions. Talking to journalists later, the marshal pouted, 'Russia will not take NATO expansion off the agenda.' And he added, 'But it is for later.' Evidently, for after the NATO move East." BELGIUM: "NATO Agrees On Military Structure" Foreign affairs writer Bart Beirlant remarked in independent Catholic De Standaard (12/3): "After years of burdensome negotiations, NATO's 16 ministers of defense reached an 'historic' agreement on the new command structure. The number of headquarters will be reduced from 65 to 20. That is to make the Alliance more effective and to reduce the cost. The new geostrategic situation on the European continent after the Cold War compelled NATO to adapt its command structure and to formulate a new strategic concept. Because of the disappearance of the threat of a massive attack from the East through the heart of Western Europe, the focus moved to a better defense of NATO's flanks. In order to reach an agreement on the command structure, three obstacles were to be removed yesterday. Greece and Turkey agreed on the control of the air space in the Aegean Sea and thus ended a dispute which had been dragging on for forty years.... Spain and Great Britain expressed their willingness in principle to eliminate their dispute over Gibraltar with negative consequences for the Alliance.... Finally, France announced that it will not block the compromise reached , even though Paris believes that does not go far enough in the direction of strengthening the European pillar in NATO." "Prague's Problem In NATO" In the wake of Prime Minister Vaclav Klaus's resignation because of a scandal about party financing, independent Le Soir (12/1) ran this from Prague special correspondent Pierre Lefevre, "The main problem for the Czech Republic's adhesion to NATO is, much more than the unreadiness of its army, the lack of enthusiasm of its population. Only half of those polled are in favor of joining NATO. It is not much, compared to 80 percent in Poland of 90 percent in Romania.... Anyway, the bottom line is that the Czechs will find themselves full members of NATO as early as 1999. But perhaps will they once again have the feeling that they did not take part in the decision making." DENMARK: "To Keep U.S. Out Of Baltic Region" Center-right Berlingske Tidende judged (12/4): "Yeltsin's proposal to reduce Russia's military presence in the Baltic region seems, at first glance, dramatic.... By reducing its military capacity in the region, Russia hopes to convince NATO that Baltic membership is not necessary. If this strategy is allowed to succeed, Russia will have achieved its goal--to keep the United States out of the Baltic region. It is, of course, positive that Moscow has confirmed its intention to reduce its military capacity in one of the most heavily militarized zones of the Cold War, however, the Russian initiative must not stop the Baltic countries from achieving their goal of NATO membership." ESTONIA: "Baltic European Train Troubles Moscow Less And Less" Editor Anneli Roigas observed under the headline above in center-left Sonumileht (11/11), "Still called 'pribaltica,' (Russia's) closest neighbors' attempt to integrate with Europe troubles Russia less and less. Even though the Baltic peoples' wish to get under the protecting shadow of the NATO umbrella is still strongly opposed in Moscow, softer tones have alo been used in the pronouncements on this issue. Such an impression was created last Thursday in the impressive Stockholm Baltic security conference about Russia's announcements, said a Swedish high-level Minister of Foreign Affairs official." HUNGARY: "To See Naples And The Sun!" Influential Magyar Hirlap carried a squib by Laszlo Mikes Majlath (12/5), "It has been decided. In Brussels, (Hungarian Defense Minister) Gyorgy Keleti submitted (our) ardent desire, which--totally by chance--is identical with the expectations of the Atlantic Alliance: Hungary would like to belong to NATO's Southern Command. Our defense minister did not make a secret of the fact that the decision was not easy for Hungary, because our sympathies were with the North West; still, common sense ruled.... The Poles and the Czechs will be hopping mad when they have to be crawling in the Ardennes in fog and rain, while our Hungarian boys will be chasing tanned Spanish commando girls, Greek mountain rifle cuties, and Italian bombshells in Malaga, Sicily or in Crete." "A Crisis Like In Any Other Democracy" Renowned journalist Tibor Varkonyi told readers of second largest circulation Nepszava (12/5), "It was not mere courtesy on the part of NATO's leading official when they said they considered the crisis of the Klaus administration an internal affair of the Czech Republic. What reason would NATO and Western Europe have to be concerned about the crisis in Prague, when it is not any different, either in form, or content, from the crisis of any other Western democracy which has reached a turning point?" "We Are Joining NATO, Not Just AFSOUTH" Second largest circulation Nepszava's military expert Eva Elekes asked (12/4), "Is the concern justified that, by joining AFSOUTH, we are choosing the less developed wing of the Alliance, and thus the world will keep on thinking of us as the periphery of the uncertain crisis area in the Balkans? As a next-door neighbor Central European country to the Balkans, Hungary would not be able to keep away from the Southern Slav process anyway. Our contribution to the setting up of the base at Taszar was a very significant argument for getting us among the finalists of the race for admission. The peace implementation mission in Bosnia will be a long-term item on NATO planners' agenda. The southern states of NATO must have been concerned that Germany might be the only one to benefit from the enlargement, and they would have been displeased had all the three new members joined the North wing.... After all, Hungary is not joining this or that command, but rather, the most efficient defense organization in the world." "Hungary Has More Business With AFSOUTH" Readers of influential Magyar Hirlap (12/3) saw foreign political expert Zoltan Gyevai, "Those approaching the issue from a geopolitical point of view are generally of the opinion that the Hungarian military has more business with AFSOUTH than in the North, where, among the countries significantly more developed, Hungary would be lagging behind the others. In the South, Hungary has more chances to play not only the role of a kid brother, but rather, with its values and experience, have an influence on the thinking and on the activities of the southern wing. If there is an argument against the South, it is, according to observers, the fact that Hungary would find itself in a region burdened with political unrest. However, Hungary's attention has already been turned to the South by a current problem. This is the issue of peace in Bosnia, in the guaranteeing of which Hungary will keep on playing an important role." "Last Commentary On NATO" With this wishful-thinking headline, conservative Magyar Nemzet's Tamas Molnar said (11/27), "Those who think the New Order will be different because it will include everyone are joking with history. In fact, division will start immediately, some will revolt here, some there, against the all-encompassing empire; member states will not be equal." "One Of The Meanest Hoaxes Of The Century" Extreme right-wing, marginal weekly Magyar Forum's editorial by editor-in-chief Istvan Csurka argued (11/20), "One of the meanest hoaxes of the century took place as the November 16, 1997 referendum was being introduced. The Hungarian government voluntarily reported for service in Brussels and in Washington. It offered that, with an exemplary referendum, it would help those U.S. circles which want to keep the arms race alive, that is, to operate the world economy according to the practice of the Cold War by expand NATO." POLAND: "Ratification" Piotr Stasinski observed in center-left Gazeta Wyborcza (12/6-7), "It is the Clinton administration that is our strongest ally today. It engaged both America's and the president's authority in the process of NATO enlargement. For the Clinton administration, then, rejecting the [NATO enlargement] ratification would be more than a mistake in [America's] foreign policy--it would be the failure of U.S. credibility. "President Clinton, then, must navigate among the reefs again--like he did during the negotiations on the Founding Act with Russia. Is it possible to somehow satisfy the isolationists, while attempting at the same time the undertaking that will possibly reinforce the U.S. military presence in Europe for decades?... What counts now is the question on NATO enlargement costs for the American taxpayer, and how much of these costs will be covered by the European Allies of the United States.... For NATO to become a firm prospect of security for Poland, one truly able to resolve our syndrome of geopolitical threat, we must reinforce the Alliance ourselves--reawaken and reinvigorate the pact, and reanimate its routine-ingrained original sense based on shared values." "This Stubborn Russia" Ernest Skalski wrote in center-left Gazeta Wyborcza (12/4): "One might think that with the many agreements already signed between Russia and NATO, and after Russia's numerous conditions have been accepted, work on enlarging the Alliance would continue unobstructed. In the meantime, Russia's Defense Minister Marshal Sergeyev has lodged objections against plans to establish a joint German-Danish- Polish Corps--the reason is that the headquarters would be located in [the Polish town of] Szczecin. From the Russian perspective, in this way a NATO structure would be established in Poland.... Such steps are not likely to reverse the process of NATO enlargement, but they will not facilitate future relations with Russia. Russia, for its part, will maintain its image as a troublesome partner. Moscow, however, does not seem to be much concerned about this." SPAIN: "Spain And NATO" Barcelona's centrist La Vanguardia's editor, Juan Tapia, wrote (12/3): "Yesterday Great Britain withdrew its objections to the new military chain of command, thereby removing the last obstacle to Spain's full integration into the Atlantic Alliance's military structure.... In consequence, Spain has joined those European countries in which the Atlantic Alliance has always been viewed positively. First, because it provided guarantees for the democratic systems and market economies that felt threatened by the Soviet military and ideological challenge. Additionally, because it constitutes an instrument of effective political-military cooperation with which to confront situations of instability and human rights violations such as those found in the former Yugoslavia." "NATO Begins Anew" Centrist La Vanguardia of Barcelona also opined (12/3): "The new NATO, with a different military structure, has become a reality after British and Spanish, on the one hand, and Turks and Greeks, on the other, reached compromise agreements on the bilateral issues that had impeded the process..... [But], for a new NATO, old problems. The defense ministers also achieved a consensus on drafting plans for extending NATO's stay in Bosnia after the completion of the current SFOR mission in June 1998.... With the war criminals still at liberty and peace threatened, the Alliance continues to risk its prestige in the Balkans." "Side-Stepping The Rock" Liberal El Pais noted (12/3): "Madrid and London have reached a reasonable, if not altogether satisfactory, agreement by choosing to sidestep the Gibraltar issue or to defer it until such time as they can negotiate a more definitive solution bilaterally.... The weight of Europe is growing in the new structure, although this Europeanization has been diminished by the French decision not to seek integration because, in its view, the role given Europe in the Naples Southern Command is inadequate. Yesterday a new NATO, an essential component of a new Europe, was born in which the British colony of Gibraltar remains an anachronism." "NATO Undermines [Spanish] Sovereignty" Independent El Mundo's columnist Pablo Sebastian railed (11/26): "It would seem that Spain's strategic importance to the United States and NATO continues to diminish...despite its Spanish secretary general, Javier Solana.... At least that is what one concludes from Spain's current position within NATO, an Alliance from which Spain was not only unable to obtain guarantees for our most exposed outposts, Ceuta and Melilla, but also unable to obtain command of the waters from the Canaries to the Balearics and the intervening Straits of Gibraltar, the most important axis for our national defense and security. It would appear even less likely that Spain will be able to open negotiations regarding the decolonization of 'The Rock'...a process in which our NATO ally and EU co-member, the United Kingdom, which recently delivered Hong Kong to the Chinese communist regime, refuses to participate." TURKEY: "Fight Over Aegean Calms Down" Sami Kohen wrote in mass-appeal Milliyet (12/5): "NATO's southern flank has finally resolved the issue of subcommand in the Aegean. We have to say 'at last,' since this has been an ongoing issue in the Alliance for 20 years. The consensus is meant to be the outline of an agreement. However, technical work will continue on that, and actual implementation will start as early as 1999. But even the current situation has pleased NATO capitals, Washington in particular. This is because the ongoing disagreement on subcommand has been harming NATO's future plans, and hampering hoped-for restructuring for the 21st century. It is very notable that Turkey and Greece reached a consensus after so many years of conflict.... It seems that the fight over the Aegean in connection with NATO is about to end. Let's hope to see the same thing on the real Turkish-Greek conflicts." LATIN AMERICA ARGENTINA: "NATO's New Design" Guillermo Ortiz, international analyst for business-financial El Cronista, observed (12/3), "NATO's reform, which will be enforced in 1999, is a key point in a phase of historic...changes, which affect not only the geopolitical and economic fields, but security as well. Though belatedly, the Western Allies understood an old saying: The disappearance of the USSR buried the classical notion of conflict linked to a military attack coming from a single power source. The end of the Cold War, far from ensuring an era of harmony marked by commercial confrontation between mega-blocs, inaugurated a period of 'chain destabilization', which was triggered by multiple causes. "Globalization made the world smaller, and ethnic groups, and tribes feel they are fit to fight for their identity and their self- determination. The ethnic-secessionist outbreaks in the heart of Europe confronted that continent with a reality: The need to stop the disintegration processes taking place along its eastern border at a time when its western portion was completing its 'Maastricht-based' integration.... In this context, the other issue to be solved is the Russian role.... NATO's enlargement is inadequate in the 'strategic vacuum' which has appeared in that large area to the East of its original perimeter; action by Moscow is, therefore, required. Russia may well act in its 'zone of influence' taking into consideration NATO's desire to manage costs and efficiency." ## For more information, please contact: U.S. Information Agency Office of Public Liaison Telephone: (202) 619-4355 12/8/97 # # #