29 December 1997
The December 16 signing in Brussels of accession protocols between NATO and the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland was hailed by a majority in the foreign media as the best path to increasing European stability and erasing Europe's post-World War II divisions. Observers cautioned, however, that "uncertainty" over enlargement is not over, since the parliaments of the 16 Allied countries must ratify these protocols before the new Allies can be formally welcomed in 1999. Journalists believed that approval by the U.S. Senate would be NATO's highest priority in the next few months. These were additional points raised in commentary: NEW ALLIES: DELIGHTED--Understandably, editorialists from the three candidate nations were the most gratified with the December 16 developments. Leftist Trybuna of Warsaw emphatically welcomed the accords as "a great opportunity" for Poland to "liv(e) and develop in a secure world." Comments also reflected both a sense of what the Western world owed lands formerly behind the Iron Curtain and of the obligations that Alliance membership entails. In Budapest, conservative Magyar Nemzet called NATO's invitation a "compensation for Yalta" and the granting of "the place due (us) among the democratic community of the Western countries." Prague's right-of- center Mlada fronta DNES urged Czechs to strive hard to adhere to the values of NATO and the West, hinting that the "success of the first new members" would determine the shape of the NATO of future years. RUSSIA: STILL SULKING--Russian dailies--neo-communist, center and reformist--agreed that, with its anti-enlargement efforts having gone "down the drain," Moscow has no choice but to "resign itself" to the growth of what they still see as a "dominant military organization" intent on "expanding" its "war machine" right up to Russia's borders. Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta and others insisted that "resisting the Baltics' possible admission to NATO has objectively become Moscow's principal goal on the Western front." Available reaction from Latvia and Lithuania, however, reiterated those countries' interest in keeping "the doors open to NATO" for former USSR partners and territories and their suspicions regarding Russian "guarantees." The Chinese press was the only one to echo Moscow's anti-NATO protests. "NATO enlargement," maintained the official Beijing Daily, "is the expansion of a military group...and goes against the main themes of peace and development aspired to by the people of the world." OTHER NATO GOALS--Moscow's reformist, business-oriented Kommersant Daily and Oslo's conservative Aftenposten were the only publications that reflected on Secretary Albright's call in Brussels for a wider NATO strategy to deal with the possible "threat" from nuclear, chemical and biological weapons emanating, said reports of her remarks, largely from the Middle East and Eurasia. Aftenpostensuggested that Moscow itself could "use its influence--especially in the Middle East," to contain this threat. "This will be the ultimate test of the Russian commitment to cooperate with NATO," that daily concluded. This survey is based on 45 reports from 16 countries, Dec. 4-23. EDITOR: Mildred Sola NeelyTo Go Directly To Quotes By Region, Click Below EUROPE GERMANY: "NATO: The $ Question" P. Harenberg commented on regional radio Norddeutscher Rundfunk of Hamburg (12/17): "The uncertainties have not yet ended because the ratification process in the parliaments has to be concluded before the final acceptance of new members.... The U.S. Congress' reservations have thus far not been removed. One reason is the cost.... Members of Congress will look at the figures more suspiciously than the majority of lawmakers in Bonn, since they have to vote not only on the additional costs for NATO's enlargement but also on an extension of the mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This also reveals one of the greatest contradictions with which NATO has to deal. On the one hand, the Europeans do everything to emphasize their independence of NATO's leading and protective power, but, on the other hand, the European NATO members almost insist on the United States to send combat forces...for the peace mission in Bosnia." "Bosnia, Enlargement, U.S. Role In Europe" Right-of-center Allgemeine Zeitung of Mainz (12/17) opined: "NATO no longer has to fear military competitors, but, nevertheless, it is unable to settle conflicts such as the one in Bosnia. Even though the Alliance will be faced with new problems and considerable costs in connection with its opening to the East, the integration of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary is a historic chance to prevent such conflicts from developing. For the Germans, a 'cordon sanitaire' will result in greater security. This also explains the interest of the Americans, who want to reduce their burden in Europe, to turn increasingly to other trouble spots." "Europe Is No Longer Divided" Left-of-center Weser-Kurier of Bremen (12/17) rejoiced that "even before this century comes to an end, Germany will be surrounded by partners. When Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary...are accepted as members of the Western Alliance, post-war times have definitely come to an end 50 years after the Marshall Plan. After the fall of the Iron Curtain, it took 10 years to fill up the trenches that were opened during the Cold War. Europe is no longer divided. For the new members, the accession means the recognition of their democratic change since the end of communism and their embedding in the community of free states. The Alliance must now wonder which role it wants to play at the threshold to a new millennium." "Europe Can Only Be Safe If Other Countries Are Integrated" Right-of-center Maerkische Oderzeitung of Frankfurt on the Oder's editorial by Dietrich Schroeder said (12/17), "Despite the increase in security which will result from the current enlargement process, the first step to real stability in the Northern Hemisphere has been taken. The Russian colossus in the eastern part of the continent, however, will, in the long run, not be satisfied with its role at a side table. In Warsaw, Prague and Budapest, delight will prevail at the latest step, but Sofia, Riga and Tallinn--to name but a few--are concerned that they could miss the security train. Only if those countries are integrated, too, Europe can really think it is safe." "Foot In The Door" Centrist Maerkische Allgemeine Zeitung of Potsdam (12/16) and right- of-center Nord Kurier of Neubrandenburg (12/16) carried this editorial by Hermann Bohle: "After the Luxembourg beginning of 'application talks' on the enlargement of the EU, another step for the unification of the continent is being done today. The North Atlantic Council of Foreign Ministers will sign the NATO accession treaties for Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary in Brussels today. Nobody in the Alliance expects Turkey to realize its threat and block, out of anger about the EU, NATO's enlargement to the East. However, this threat created a bad mood in Brussels. U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and NATO's Secretary- General Solana will have to make clear to Turkey's foreign minister in today's meeting that 'primitive reactions' will not help.... It is self-evident that Turkey must abide by the same requirements as every other accession candidate.... In case Turkey returns to reason, the willingness of the European NATO members will grow to stop Greek disruptive maneuvers. During the NATO meeting, Ankara is waiting for the first signals." ITALY: "Alliance In Crisis Without Red Enemy" Foreign affairs commentator Antonio Gambino noted in Rome's centrist Il Messaggero (12/17) that the signing ceremony in Brussels drew little attention. He cited two reasons: "First, a military alliance presupposes the existence of an enemy or, better yet, of a concrete and precise threat--something not easily identifiable at the present time by the United States and Europe.... The truth is that the project of NATO expansion has an essentially American root: It was defined and it developed quickly because Washington wanted it so. In part to maintain President Clinton's electoral promises...and in part for the desire to give meaning, and a precise task, to an Alliance that, following the collapse of the Soviet empire, had lost any 'raison d'etre,' but which the United States believes is indispensable as a means of maintaining its presence and continuing to exert its control in Europe. The second reason for the little attention drawn by the ceremony in Brussels is that the inclusion of the three new members will become effective only in one year and a half." RUSSIA: "Moscow Resigns Itself To The Inevitable" Vyacheslav Zalomov asserted in neo-communist Pravda-Five (12/20): "Moscow itself paved the way to NATO enlargement. Before pulling out of [East] Germany, it 'omitted' to demand that its former Warsaw Pact partners never be admitted to the Alliance. All its attempts to convince the West that, in a post-Cold War world, military-political blocs are an anachronism have been in vain. Now that Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary are almost in NATO, Moscow's main task is to resist the enrollment of the Baltic states. Having resigned itself to the enlargement idea, the Kremlin seems to be concerned mostly about NATO's military infrastructure." "NATO To Help West Prevail Over East" Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (12/20) published this article by Mekhman Gafarly: "Today NATO generals perform political and economic, rather than military, missions. With a struggle for influence in ex-Soviet republics, including in Central Asia, between the West (Europe, the United States and Canada) and the East (Japan, South Korea, China, Pakistan, Iran, Thailand and other Asian 'tigers') at its peak, the West needs NATO as an instrument of military-political pressure. Through NATO enlargement, the West seeks to prevail over the East, Russia already vanquished." "NATO Express Moves On, Despite Our Efforts" Vladimir Mikheyev said in reformist Izvestia (12/18): "All efforts by Russian diplomacy to stop NATO's advance to our borders have gone down the drain. Yevgeny Primakov at some point managed to slow down its progress, but that only delayed what the opposition in this country likes to call restoring a sanitary cordon around Soviet Russia. Even so, the tone Russian diplomats choose talking about NATO has been more restrained both in form and substance. While being opposed to NATO enlargement in principle, Moscow has to resign itself to what has happened. Evidently, part of the reason the Kremlin has softened up is that our North Atlantic partners have been so delicate about it all." "Main Goal Is To Keep Enlargement Damage To Minimum" Valeria Sycheva filed from Brussels for reformist Segodnya (12/18): "The main thing now is for the Russians in the Joint Council to try to keep to a minimum the damage NATO enlargement is likely to cause to Russia's interests and create a clear mechanism so the sides could make mutually acceptable decisions on security matters. Control over the forming of a military structure along the perimeter of the Russian border is particularly important." "Yes To Peacekeeping, No To Enlargement" Centrist, army Krasnaya Zvezda (12/18) ran this comment by Vadim Markushin: "Formally, any sovereign country is free to join alliances, pacts, communities, etc. But there are things like ethics, morals and trust. From that basis, the proposed NATO enlargement does not look like the right thing to do. Discussion about morals, rather than stirring emotions, should remind us of a need to learn from mistakes and not to take things at their face value.... Much is being done to foster trust and security. But that does not change the real sense of what is taking place--a military bloc is growing larger. Today a military bloc is an anachronism. Its transformation into something having more to do with peacekeeping is in accord with the times. Its expansion is not." "Moscow's Main Goal: Stop Baltics From Joining NATO" Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (12/17) front-paged a report by Dmitry Gornostayev in Brussels: "After signing the Founding Act in Paris, resisting the Baltics' possible admission to NATO has objectively become Moscow's principal goal on the Western front." "NATO And Islamic Factor" Viktor Kalashnikov judged in reformist, business-oriented Kommersant Daily (12/17): "The Islamic factor may top NATO's agenda in the next few years. The Islamic arc extending from Morocco to India is where Washington would like its allies to concentrate now. This, according to the Americans, is where the main battles are going to be fought for energy resources. People around NATO's Secretary General Javier Solana are said to be wary about so abrupt a shift in priorities. But they can't possibly ignore it." "Russian Army More Dangerous Than NATO" Aleksandr Bovin wrote in mainstream weekly Itogi (12/16): "Up against Solana, Primakov did well, proving a real virtuoso. He did everything he could and even a bit more. But the outcome was predetermined by history and the fact of NATO's existence, on the one hand, and by the balance of forces in the 1990s, on the other. I wish we would stop all that noise creating publicity for NATO. It is not NATO but a confused state of our army reform which poses a threat to Russia's security." "NATO: New Form, Old Substance" Centrist, army Krasnaya Zvezda (12/16) published this article by Yury Pankov timed to the NATO Council session in Brussels: "A dominant military organization in Europe, NATO is considering reform to make its position even stronger. Naturally, reform does not affect NATO as a military alliance, even though many European countries, both non- members like Russia and members like France, believe that the North Atlantic bloc needs to transform into a political organization with peacekeeping functions, as demanded by the times. Instead, the Atlantists continue working on their war machine, building up its might and expanding the range of its action. But in doing so, they have had to reckon with Russia and its firm stand on NATO enlargement." AUSTRIA: "NATO's Task In Bosnia" Livia Klingl wrote in mass-circulation Kurier (12/17), "Now the Western military Alliance, which, as we all know, won the Cold War without firing a single shot, turns the post-war order inside out. The division of Europe, however, has not been abolished, the 'eastern border of the West' has only been shifted eastward. There are plenty of opponents of an enlargement of the Alliance by admitting the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary: No political group in Russia considers NATO expansion to former Warsaw Pact territories to be a good idea.... Within the Alliance, some fear that expansion might dilute NATO and would do more harm than good. And finally, there are those who are against a military alliance in general, because it is potentially aggressive and anachronistic.... "This attitude is rebutted by war-torn Bosnia. In this country, where half of the population became war refugees, a new tragedy would be inevitable if the only controlling power...did not ensure military peace. The problem of the NATO commitment in Bosnia is not the soldiers, but the politicians. They don't have a solution for this region in crisis, therefore miliary officials have to make up for political mismanagement." BELGIUM: "Russia Remains Great Imponderable For Baltics" In the view of foreign affairs writer Freddy De Pauw in independent Catholic De Standaard (12/23), "The candidates for the presidential elections in Lithuania strikingly agreed on foreign policy issues: to join the European Union and NATO.... The relationship with Russia has become much more pragmatic. A few influential Russian oil companies are playing the Baltic states against each other with success as all three want to export as much oil as possible from their harbors. That it too risky, the Russians say, because you all would like to join NATO which wants to install a 'cordon sanitaire' around us. "The EU has even increased mutual competition by putting Estonia on the first list of candidates and sending the two others to the waiting room. Lithuania has underscored its tangible economic recovery and claims that the EU made a decision on the basis of wrong data-- especially because Estonia's economy was dealt heavy blows while Lithuania and Latvia attempted to restore order after a series of financial scandals in which the new nomenklatura filled its pockets. "Both Riga and Vilnius hope that the EU will move them up (on the list). Indeed, even though the wind from the East has calmed down, they continue to distrust their mighty neighbor in the East. It is true, the Russian army was dealt a humiliating defeat in Chechnya, but it was also clear there that President Boris Yeltsin and his circles-- oil lobbies in the first place--do not bother about international conventions. And no one knows what Yeltsin or his successors may still have in mind." "History Will Remember This Date" Pierre Lefevre pointed out in independent Le Soir (12/17): "History will remember this date. NATO signed yesterday the membership protocols for Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.... Eight years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and except for German reunification, this is the first formal linkage of a part of the former Communist Central Europe to the Western world." CZECH REPUBLIC: "NATO Has Decided About Prague And Europe" A commentary in right-of-center Mlada fronta DNES on Prague's signing of the NATO accession protocol (12/17) stressed, "This is a new challenge. It is also a new beginning--for Prague and for the Alliance. NATO enlargement does not only concern Czechs. It also concerns the whole of Europe. The fall of communism has strengthened the need for having a security 'umbrella,' under which the entire continent will fit. NATO as an organization which was able to resist not only communism but also the uncertainties after its fall seems to be the best foundation (for this umbrella). The Alliance, which does not exclude any country from membership, can introduce clear and fair rules for the conduct of European countries. (It can introduce) rules which would exclude the possibility of (another) Yalta, as well as a Munich and September 1939, and August 1968. This is the reason why the success of the first new members is so important. Without their effort, the Alliance can end up as a somewhat more eastern and different looking 'curtain.'" FINLAND: "Increasing European Stability" Leading, independent Helsingin Sanomat's lead editorial (12/18) commented, "NATO is one of the most successful military alliances in history. It defeated its main adversary, the Soviet Union, and the Warsaw Pact without firing a single shot. NATO expansion broadens the influence of the Western world and its values in Europe. That will have far-reaching consequences which will increase European stability. The enlargement process underlines the profound changes that have taken place in Europe in the last 6 years, following the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union." HUNGARY: "Where Is Moscow Retreating To?" Under the headline above, influential Magyar Hirlap carried an op-ed piece titled by university lecturer Agnes Gereben (12/19), "For the time being, hiding behind the trenches of spectacular summits and lower-level, but cordial, diplomatic events, Moscow is slowly retreating from the regions where its place had been, doubtlessly, filled. It is trying to get a foothold where the hegemony of the United States is not yet, or no longer, exclusive." "From Yalta To Brussels" Conservative Magyar Nemzet carried an op-ed piece under the headline above by the paper's foreign political expert Lajos Pietsch (12/17), "The signing in Brussels...confirming the accession of Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic to the Alliance could very well be interpreted as compensation for Yalta. Compensation for the division of Europe, for the Soviet occupation, for the several decades-long Communist rule. After a long decision process, the Atlantic diplomats approved with one stroke of the pen that these three Central European countries be returned the place due to them among the democratic community of the Western countries." LATVIA: "OSCE Will Not Prevent Baltics From Choosing Allies" Aris Jansons of centrist Diena judged (12/23): "The charter will preserve the...principle...of allowing free choice of security allies, which Moscow would like to remove from the document.... Almost all participants rejected Russia's position, and that can be considered an indirect victory by the Baltic states, since this...principle is important to us--in the first case, to keep the doors open to NATO. "The North Atlantic Alliance truly did not trust OSCE with sole responsibility for European security. It should first come to terms with its possibilities of improving cooperation between Euroatlantic security organizations and the continent. The planned charter could make OSCE more effective in the mutual interaction of the expanded network of organizations, and that at a critical moment would not limit itself to the exchange of loud statements." LITHUANIA: "Candy For NATO" Foreign editor Violeta Mickeviciute concluded in liberal Respublika(12/4): "Observers forecast a long time ago that Yeltsin would use his visit to Sweden to strengthen a new Russian initiative--to provide security guarantees for the Baltic states.... One can see with the naked eye that Yeltsin's 'Stockholm offer' as well as Russia's security projects of various levels, are alternatives to NATO enlargement. Likely, the Kremlin hopes that the West will swallow Russian candy and will stop enlargement of the Alliance. However, it seems, that candies will not satisfy the West.... A high level Washington's official, commenting on Yeltsin's speech in Stockholm, urged Russia rather to ratify the START II treaty which was signed five years ago. This document, which foresees a decrease of Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals by one third, is more realistic than Yeltsin's new idea fix." NORWAY: "NATO Entering A New Era" Conservative Aftenposten commented (12/19) "This week, the NATO foreign ministers held their annual Christmas meeting in Brussels without too much fuss. During this meeting, they got the 50-year-old Alliance on the track to a new era. 1997 has become a turning point in efforts to reunite Europe; both NATO and the EU have decided to open up to new members from the East.... To a NATO where Russia is a partner rather than an opponent, the spreading of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons is the most serious threat. In Brussels...Albright said that preventing the spread of these weapons is the most important security policy task in our time.... This is a very important mission, a mission the United States has headed with the support of its Allies. In the time to come, Russia too should use its influence--especially in the Middle East. This will be the ultimate test of the Russian commitment to cooperate with NATO." "Debate Centers On Money, Not Politics" Leading tabloid VG stressed (12/19): "In less than a year and a half, in the spring of 1999, the formal inclusion of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland into NATO will take place during the 50th anniversary of NATO in Washington. Before that time, the national assemblies of the NATO countries will have to debate and approve expansion. The debate could become both long and hard, and the battle won't necessarily be over big politics and NATO's new role but over dollars and cents and who ends up paying for the party.... When it really comes down to it, it may be a good sign that people are arguing over money and not over relations with Russia. This symbolizes the political changes Europe goes through at the moment, and it doesn't become more obvious than at the foreign ministers' meeting in Brussels." POLAND: "Highest Priority: Ratification In U.S. Senate" Krystyna Szelestowska noted in leftist Trybuna (12/23), "With the signing of the three accession protocols to admit Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary into NATO...the issue of highest priority is now that this decision be ratified by the legislatures of the 16 member countries. It is public knowledge that the decisive step for the success of expanding the Alliance to the East will be the vote in the U.S. Senate.... The success [of the vote] is not yet determined.... The most difficult question from the point of view of the Americans is the cost of NATO enlargement, and how much of the sum the American taxpayer will have to bear.... "Recent estimates...based on the latest information from the Polish- American Congress and forecasts by diplomats in Washington say some 50 senators are expected to say 'yes,' while 40 are still hesitant...and 10-12 are clear opponents.... There are still several months to go before the U.S. Senate undertakes the vote.... This time must be used to present solid arguments, ones capable of convincing even the most hardened opponents, that Poland is a stable country with a dynamically developing economy, one able to get sufficiently prepared for NATO membership and then continue to meet the ensuing obligations." "Are There Still Obstacles To Membership?" Centrist Rzeczpospolita (12/20-21), in a piece by Kazimierz Dziewanowski, former Polish ambassador to the United States, said, "With the preliminary decisions on accepting the first three countries [into NATO] taken, none of the gloomy scenarios about the consequences such a move was supposed to trigger in Russia has come true.... Arguments about the reportedly overwhelming financial costs of this operation have also dropped off.... "It does not all mean, however, that this matter is already settled. A decisive moment is approaching--the vote in the U.S. Senate.... One must be aware as well of the increasing activities of the opponents to the enlargement process. And those include, above all, various forces in Russia and a variety of Russian special services-- plus their friends and aides in other countries.... The enlargement process could also be affected by negative political developments in the world, like some unexpected crisis in the Balkans or in the Middle East, exacerbation of the crisis of power in Russia, [or a] global financial/economic breakdown.... Now, with everything going smoothly, there is no need to fear. We are ever closer to the ultimate objective. In any situation, however, one must be aware both of the objective and of the threats." "A Great Opportunity To Live In A Secure World" Krystyna Szelestowska maintained in leftist Trybuna (12/17), "The signing of accession protocols to admit Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary into NATO is the embodiment of one of the most significant decisions in the 48-year history of the Alliance...to enlarge NATO with the countries which not so long ago belonged to the military bloc remaining in confrontation with NATO.... Not only has NATO gone beyond its traditional borders, but it has also fundamentally changed its concept of operation.... For the three countries...this [decision] is a great opportunity--one impossible to overestimate--of living and developing in a secure world, a chance of entering a new system of security." "Poland Under New NATO Flag" Marek Orzechowski wrote in economic Prawo i Gospodarka (12/16): "By signing the accession protocols to admit Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland into NATO, the present Alliance will move its peace- keeping mission on the European continent from west to east. For the new NATO members, this will be a historic confirmation of their permanent position in European structures, of binding their fate with the security and stability of the whole of Europe--or rather with the whole of Western Europe.... Enlarging NATO...with Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary will unequivocally determine--and let us hope that for good--that the states and their national interests be anchored in the Western defense system, which is itself a stabilizing factor for them and for the rest of the European countries.... Consequently, this historic decision means taking on many obligations which, naturally, were not talked about in the antechambers, but which will become number one issues once we enter their parlors. And it's not only the languages that we have to know there. We will also have to learn the European standard which says that everyone under the NATO flag has equal rights but also the same obligations." PORTUGAL: "Why NATO Needs Two Pillars" Teresa de Sousa, international editor for center-left Publico, held in an editorial (12/17): "It is precisely because the Alliance rests on the convergence and on the defense of civilized values, and because it is destined to embody the global power politics of the United States, that this strategy runs the risk of being perceived by the world as an alliance of one civilization against other civilizations and, therefore, as a threat. The United States can look at the globe not only from the perspective of its own enormous power...but also from a position of continental invulnerability. Europe, which geography does not protect, will only be able to find the basis for its own security in a stable relationship with its surrounding regions...and in exchanges among civilizations. "The following question concerns the coincidence of interests between the two sides of the Atlantic under new international conditions. And the experience of the past few years is rife with examples demonstrating that often this coincidence does not endure. The American predilection for a 'diplomacy of arrogance,' or for unilateralism, if you prefer--that Europe felt in Bosnia, but also in a long list of events from the Helms-Burton law to Kyoto--puts to the test the consistency of an Alliance that cannot be based solely on common values. "Europe cannot be simultaneously dependent upon the United States for its own security and an independent partner of the United States in the rest of the world. Whatever the reach of the Alliance in the future, the experience of the past few years also shows that it will only be effective if it is based on a balanced relationship between its two pillars." EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC CHINA: "Enlargement Goes Against Peace And Development" According to Qi Zijian and Yi Gaochao in the official, Beijing Municipal Beijing Daily (Beijing Ribao, 12/22), "NATO enlargement will still encounter many difficulties after it is formally put into action: the United States and Russia will face a new round of contests; differences still exist within NATO; the expense problem; and, the opposition from inside NATO member nations. NATO enlargement is the expansion of a military group after the Cold War and goes against the main themes of peace and development aspired to by the people of the world." "U.S.' Three Goals In Enlargement" Readers of the official, Beijing Municipal Beijing Daily (Beijing Ribao, 12/18) saw this by Yuan Bingzhong, "Through NATO enlargement, the United States hopes to accomplish three goals: First, crippling and containing Russia strategically to prevent Russia from staging a comeback; second, filling the security vacuum in Europe left by the Cold War and absorbing Central and Eastern European nations into its sphere of influence; third, preventing the rise of those Western European countries who have the potential to challenge the U.S. position as the 'only superpower' in the world." "In Future: Further Disputes With Russia, Allied Estrangement" Yang Zhiqing, Sun Yunyu and Xue Fukang pointed out in intellectually oriented Guangming Daily (Guangming Ribao, 12/18), "If NATO continues to expand eastward, particularly to the area of the three Baltic nations, the dispute between Russia and NATO will inevitably be intensified further.... The United States hopes that European countries will play an independent role in the regions where U.S. interests cannot be directly touched. On the other hand, the United States remains cautious of Europe's growing identity which might cripple the U.S. leading position in NATO. "It is predictable that the gulf between Europe and the United States will continue to widen, but cooperation is the only choice at present." "NATO Enlargement Fits U.S. Interests" Ding Gang held in the official, Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao, 12/17), "NATO enlargement complies with the fundamental interests of the United States and is a result of concerted efforts made by the United States and European countries. The United States is seeking to utilize NATO to guarantee its influence in European affairs. Currently, the security of Europe cannot do without U.S. protection for two reasons: One, the United States is strong in military capability and two, Western European nations have yet to establish uniform diplomatic and security policies." LATIN AMERICA ARGENTINA: "The End Of Yalta" An editorial in pro-government La Prensa (12/22) stated, "Brussels...was the host to the foreign ministers of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland for the signing of protocols for the entry into the Atlantic Alliance, one of the formal requirements prior to their definite incorporation in 1999. Thus, one of the darkest chapters in European and world history is closed.... "This process poses a series of tactical and strategic problems. Even though it is unlikely that NATO's enlargement would have been possible if Russian opposition had been more than just rhetorical, the irritation of the Kremlin seems, to a certain degree, real. Because, even if NATO vindicates itself as a defensive alliance and not as aimed at Russia or any other country, what the three countries are after is consolidating their defense after having been part of a region that has endured two world wars and almost half a century of Soviet occupation. Today, Russia seems to be nation that is able to guarantee the continuity of its policies, but its future development is still uncertain. It is to be expected that NATO's enlargement will not simply mean the move of Europe's dividing line a little further to the East." ## For more information, please contact: U.S. Information Agency Office of Public Liaison Telephone: (202) 619-4355 12/29/97 # # #Europe East Asia and the Pacific Latin America and the Caribbean