21 January 1998
The press abroad depicted President Clinton's signing Jan. 16 of a charter of partnership with the presidents of the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as an offer of U.S. support for their membership bids into Western democratic institutions, particularly NATO. Copenhagen's conservative Berlingske Tidende judged with other papers that the charter "does not guarantee that the Balts will be given NATO membership"--seen by the three countries as the best protection against any Russian attempts to infringe on their sovereignty--but that "it ensures that the U.S. will work" toward their admission. A smaller, skeptical segment of opinion insisted that the charter was merely a "consolation prize" in exchange for the West's reluctance to antagonize Russia by granting them entry into the Alliance. Just like last year, when three former Warsaw Pact members received NATO's nod for inclusion, observers speculated as to Moscow's reaction to this development. Following are other highlights: ESTONIA--Available reaction to the charter's signing from Tallinn was uniformly positive. Writers emphasized that the pact strengthens the Baltics' hand in dealing with Russia and constitutes "strong compensation" for the postponement of partnership in NATO. In a reference to recent security guarantee proposals from Russian President Yeltsin to the Baltics, top-circulation, center-right Postimees held that the Baltics, by signing the pact, showed that they "preferred the U.S. charter to Kremlin security." LATVIA--The charter got a mixed reception in Riga. Some dailies realistically acknowledged, as centrist Neatkariga Rita Avize gamely put it, that, "even though after January 16, no one from New Jersey or Texas will be rushing to defend Skrunda vai Paldiski, the Balts will nevertheless be left less at the mercy of fate." Other publications dismissed the document as "psychotherapy." Leading Russian-language Chas declared Russia the "winner" on the charter. It pointed out that, although the U.S. believes that NATO membership for the Baltics "is only a matter of time," this time "will be measured by Russian clocks." LITHUANIA--Vilnius papers remained ambivalent about whether the charter would fulfill its promise. Leading, centrist Lietuvos rytasnoted, however, that some in the West believe "the Baltic states can be secure without membership in NATO, and that Russia's threat...is not as great as, for example, it was in 1991." The editorial urged Baltic politicians to keep this in mind and abandon the "stereotypical" thinking that prompts many to suspect a Yalta-type deal at their expense every time the great powers meet. RUSSIA--Moscow dailies sent conflicting signals regarding what Russia's future strategy might be. Some welcomed what they said was the U.S.' inclination "to heed Russia's possible objections" to Baltic yearnings for NATO. Two pieces in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta, however, saw the charter as a problem for Russia. To get its way with the Baltics, one suggested that Moscow could use "economic levers" and the other called for "defensive measures," including the "suspension" of Russia's pledge to destroy its tactical nuclear weapons by the year 2000. This survey is based on 45 reports from 12 countries, Jan. 5-21. EDITOR: Mildred Sola NeelyTo Go Directly To Quotes By Region, Click Below EUROPE ESTONIA: "A Signal Russia Should Take Baltics More Seriously" In the view of member of parliament and deputy chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee Aap Neljas in top-circulation, center-right Postimees (1/19): "The charter is a serious signal for Russia to take Estonia and other Baltic states more seriously as a partner in negotiations." "Baltic States Under New Roof" Ilmar Mikiver stated in center-left Sonumileht (1/18): "Whether it takes five or 10 years to get into NATO is a question for the future. For today it is more important that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania will move further away from a gray zone, and this process has really started." "One Of Most Powerful Supports For Integration" The lead editorial of top-circulation, center-right Postimees held (1/18): "The U.S.-Baltic Charter is absolutely one of the most powerful supports for Estonia's and the other Baltic states' continuing integration into international organizations like the European Union, WTO and North Atlantic Assembly." "Charter Will Give Security" The lead editorial in center-right Eesti Paevaleht proclaimed (1/17): "The over one-year-long charter drafting process turned into a reasonable and useful document." "U.S.- Baltic Charter: Propaganda Victory Worth All The Trouble" Commentator Harri Tiido wrote in center-right Eesti Paevaleht (1/17): "There is nothing wrong with the U.S.-Baltic Charter, and the attention that the document's signing got. This 'propaganda victory' is worth all the trouble." "Peace Of Mind Until We Get Into NATO" Aivar Jarne observed in wrote in top-circulation, center-right Postimees (1/17): "The U.S.-Baltic Charter is an obvious compensation for Baltic states for not being included in the first and possibly not in the second round of NATO enlargement. But it is a strong compensation. It is a clear signal to Russia that they are not the only ones and that there is an equal partner next to Moscow. The Baltic states preferred the U.S. charter to Kremlin security, and this shows that a choice has been made between equal partners. The United States has given not just a finger but a whole hand to help us in the direction of the Alliance (NATO)." "Real Deepening Of Relations With U.S. Now Possible" Aadu Hiietamm commented in center-left Sonumileht (1/16): "The partnership charter that will be signed today is just a sum of declarative empirical truths that will ask for no commitments and permits different interpretations. Probably there would have been a stronger document if, instead of one, there would have been three partnership charters (a different one for each Baltic state). A real deepening of relations with the United States depends from now on the further steps of politicians. The possibilities for that are certainly better than before the signing of the partnership charter." "Remarkable Historic Charter For Us" An editorial in largest-circulation, center-right Postimees (1/16) said, "The partnership charter between the United States and the Baltic states...is definitely one of the most remarkable foreign policy events for us. Postimees believes that this is a fully substantive document and a strong declaration in which the United States expresses its clear and unanimous interest in the Baltic region.... One cannot exclude (the possibility) that an earlier signing of the charter was disturbed by Moscow's continuing strong rhetoric about NATO enlargement. According to Postimees' information, Russia had a great influence lately on the U.S.' reviewing the most weighty parts of the charter.... The U.S.' example gives a new impulse to the Baltic states' strengthening their positions in the united Euroatlantic region." LATVIA: "Commitment Without Illusions" Top political columnist Aivars Ozolins remarked in centrist Diena(1/19), "The partnership charter precisely ascertains the place and significance of the Baltic states on the map of security of Europe, as well as the goals and principles of future integration into continental and transatlantic structures, and also limitations that will hinder in the nearest future achieving the goals announced by the partners. The fact of abstention from promising more than it is possible to achieve in reality, assures us that the commitment of the United States is serious and allows us to consider this document as a really essential step. "It is to be understood that such attention towards the Baltic states is not determined by the sentimental feelings of a 'big uncle'; Clinton's signature on the document means U.S. confidence that the future fate of these three countries will be an indicator for a secure, united and peaceful future for Europe.... The charter is a step removed from a 'gray' or 'buffer zone,' a step removed from the deceptive neutrality offered by Russia (impossible for Baltics), which would mean in the best case trembling in the same 'gray' zone of instability, and in the worst and most believable case--to fall into greater and greater dependence on Russia. This is a step towards partnership in the most powerful military organization in the West-- NATO. "The paragraph [in the charter] is the greatest promise for help that we could hope for, and it is also the greatest promise we ever received from the United States.... It is obvious that till 1999, when NATO will decide about acceptance of the next countries, the Russian attitude will not change, and therefore the Baltic states will not likely be announced as the next candidates. This is not just our problem, in the first place the problem belongs to NATO itself.... Keeping this promise (that NATO's doors are open to every country) would entail a serious risk of alienating Russia, which would not lead to strengthening security in Europe and would not be in the interests of the United States and Western Europe, nor of the Baltic states.... Good relations with democratic and European Russia are as necessary to Latvia as to the United States or any other country. The document signed in Washington could be used by some politicians in Moscow as an excuse to address claims to the Baltic states, but in the long-term, it will be one of the important elements in the creation of a new Europe." "Charter As A Weapon Of Mass Hypnosis" Russian-language, regional business Biznes y Baltia (1/19) ran this by Daniil Trubnikov: "One can say many differing things about the fact that the Baltic states' prospects for entry into NATO are extremely dim.... In comparison with Russian President Boris Yeltsin's recent disarmament initiatives, which were announced in Stockholm, in which even specific numbers were indicated, the charter expresses only Uncle Sam's diplomatic reverence for his little Baltic brothers. "The U.S.-Baltic Charter serves the Baltic partners like the words of an experienced psychotherapist. In it, the Americans express with elegance even such an obvious fact as their advantage over Moscow in the geopolitical games.... In the same way, the truest characteristic of Russian reaction to the charter is the bewilderment which was expressed in the most recent statements by Russian politicians. By the way, that did not hinder the president of Latvia, Guntis Ulmanis, from making a quite optimistic prognosis of the prospects for Latvian- Russian relations." "A Victory For Latvia And Russia" Leonid Fedoseev emphasized in leading Russian-language Chas (1/19): "One has to admit that the charter is an incontestable victory for Latvia. You have to remember that the past few years have seen the increased estrangement of the Baltic states.... Estonia is preoccupied with Scandinavia, and especially with Finland.... Lithuania, in turn, is building special relations with Poland.... Latvia under these conditions is left in a state of suspension, and in a proud solitude.... Therefore the signing of the charter...and the U.S. promise to help the Baltics as a region have an extremely important meaning for Latvia: Hope is renewed for the establishment of a single Baltic region in which Latvia, at least in considering its geographical situation, occupies a central position.... "At the same time, on a global scale, the biggest winner from the charter was Russia. It was significant that...Madeleine Albright, despite her constantly talking about 'open doors,' categorically refused to answer a question about the likely time for acceptance of the Baltic states into NATO. It is significant that the influential New York Times advised the Baltic states, the day after the charter signing, to work out their relations with Russia--and with the ethnic Russians residing in the Baltics.... From the U.S. point of view, the Baltics' membership in NATO is only a matter of time. But that time will be measured by Russian clocks. There's no way to say it more clearly." "Important Meaning" Largest-circulation Lauku Avize, in a commentary by Latvian-American political scientist Janis Penikis, said (1/17), "This document has important meaning precisely because this is the first time that the United States, in writing, has taken upon itself a series of responsibilities in its relationship with the Baltics.... One thing which I view as a minus in this charter is the fact that it is very clearly stated that in the next couple of years the inclusion of the Baltic states in NATO will not be considered. The wording is that the entry of these three countries into NATO is anticipated, but that would be in the distant future." "Money And U.S. Concern" Readers of leading Russian-language Chas (1/16) of Riga saw this by Aleksandr Krasnitskii, "Two other aspects of the Baltic charter do not receive any attention at all. Which is too bad. First of all, the Western democracies now and then do take actions because of moral standards. To understand this--after 75 years of class-based foreign policy--is simply too much for those who hang out in the corridors of state in Moscow. And secondly, if ethical motives happen to coincide with mercantile ones--in those cases, there's nothing that can stop the West. "NATO aside, the investment of serious American money in the economies of the Baltic states will be the reason why Washington will express its concern whenever a single drunken [Russian] soldier shows up on horseback at the banks of the Zilupe. The arrival of three such stalwarts together will summon forth an emergency visit to Riga of the U.S. aircraft carrier 'Saratoga'--even though it might require shaving off half of Denmark to get that monstrosity through to the Gulf of Riga. In the battle for the Baltics, Russia cannot beat America with post-imperial bellowing, which now sounds so forlorn, but only by making use of America's own weapon--money. That means countering the arrival of American capital in the Baltics with investments by our own [Russian] companies. But for Moscow, that step is just not conceivable. They're used to scaring people with rockets." "Not Much To Boast About, Nothing To Be Ashamed Of" Aldis Berzins wrote in daily Jauna Avize (1/16): "From a legal viewpoint, Clinton promises to keep his fingers crossed for everything to work out well for the Balts and, as long as it does not conflict with U.S. interests, to provide moral support.... The document, which will be signed with much pomp, means the formation of intergovernmental committees that will follow the issues and, if necessary, provide U.S. support to the Baltics, which have been told, just as in Luxembourg--'it's all in your own hands.'... Although there is not much to boast about, there is also nothing to be ashamed of, and Latvia's image-building in the West...is definitely needed." "The Charter: Consolation Or Provocation?" Voldemars Hermanis of centrist Neatkariga Rita Avize stressed (1/15): "Even though it is clear that this document does not mean American guarantees...it also does not mean a step backwards.... Because, for four presidents to declare their common values in this way...will give impulse to programs and projects already in existence.... Washington, Riga, Tallinn and Vilnius, it seems, all did a lot before January 16 to make sure that Moscow does not react to the document as a provocation, as burning the bridge heading eastward.... The charter offerred to the Baltics is carefully polished so that Clinton does not get accused of torpedoing NATO and Russia's basic relationship.... A similar balancing act was observed last summer when NATO signed its charter with Ukraine.... The Baltic presidents made their choice a long time ago.... Even though after January 16, no one from New Jersey or Texas will be rushing to defend Skrunda vai Paldiski, the Balts will nevertheless be less left at the mercy of fate." "Can Latvia Fulfill Its 'Gentlemen's Agreement'?" In the opinion of Valdis Berzins of Rita Zinas (1/14): "Statements by some Latvian politicians about the document indicate a naive enthusiasm about America's supportive political gesture, but lack a sense of responsibility towards doing the actual homework.... The U.S.-Baltic Charter signing is a diplomatic bandaid on the Latvian politicians' smarting cheek.... A slap on the other cheek might come from Russia...who keeps increasing its demands on Latvia to change the citizenship law, and the charter won't save us from that. The U.S.-Baltic Charter is a splendid but formal setting for (a) relationship, which still requires heavy work to give it actual substance." "No Lack Of Victories, But Several Questions" Aldis Berzins of Jauna Avize (1/5) noted: "The 'Victory' sweepstakes continues. In the middle of last year we won because we were promised that, as soon as we would be ready, we might become members of NATO. Just before Christmas we won because were promised the same thing that is guaranteed in the associative agreement signed between Latvia and EU a long time ago. This January we have won again, because the U.S.-Baltic Charter will be signed (actually it is a pay- off by the United States for refusing to include the Baltics in the first round of NATO enlargement last July).... As we can see, there is no lack of victories, but there are some remaining questions: According to the standard of living, which in the past two years has dropped by 20 points (UN statistics), are we really getting closer to EU?... Is the lowest defense budget in Europe really promoting our advance toward NATO?" LITHUANIA: "Two Views Of Charter" An editorial in leading, centrist Lietuvos rytas (1/20) said, "The U.S.-Baltic Charter...has already attracted the attention of many politicians and observers.... However, already at least two different opinions can be distinguished. According to one, the charter is a political document of particular value, which increases the security of the Baltic states and promises them a faster route to NATO.... A slightly different view of the document which was signed by four presidents last Friday in Washington prevails in the place, where, as is emphasized in the charter, the Baltic states would like to be--in the West. Compromise, compensation, consolation prize--these words are most often used in the German, British and American press.... Why do the evaluations of the Partnership Charter differ so much?... "However, it seems that there is another opinion in the United States and the West, that the Baltic states can be secure without membership in NATO, and that Russia's threat to the independence of the Baltic states is not as great as, for example, it was in 1991. Politicians of the Baltic states should probably give more consideration to this opinion. Such thinking, without giving up membership in NATO as the best security guarantee, would allow them to liberate themselves from still existing stereotypical ways of thinking, and to stop looking for comparisons with the Yalta conference, which divided Europe after the war, in every meeting or agreement of the great powers." "Will Vision Become Reality?" Manvydas Gostautas's editorial in pro-government, conservative Lietuvos Aidas declared (1/20) regarding the wording of the charter: "'A real, profound and enduring interest' does not rise to the U.S. national interest, which is defended by sending aircraft-carriers.... The signing of the charter has provoked Russia to offer suddenly its own security guarantees to the Baltic states, which were politely, but firmly rejected. ('We would not be against a similar charter with Russia, if it would have stated that Russia supports our membership in NATO,' Lithuanian diplomats joked.) Although the charter...does not provide the expected 'great' guarantees, and does not commit to protect or defend in the presence of possible threats ('partners will consult together, as well as with other countries, in the event that a partner perceives that its territorial integrity, independence, or security is threatened or at risk'), there is nonetheless an expression of the particular interests of the United States in the Baltic States.... The concrete activity of the Partnership Commission and of the bilateral working groups on economic, defense and military issues will reveal the strengths and weaknesses of the charter. Whether a vision of Europe without dividing lines, where democracy, the rule of law and free markets prosper, will become a reality will depend on their work." "A Failure Of Lithuanian Diplomacy?" In an editorial, liberal Respublika (1/20) judged, "The U.S.-Baltic Charter of Partnership and Cooperation is undoubtedly an important document for Lithuania. However, in the judgment of several Lithuanian politicians, this document represents a failure of Lithuanian diplomacy. Instead of a bilateral agreement, a compromise four-country document was signed. In international practice, this is the first time that four countries have signed a common document at such a level. According to a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, had a bilateral document been signed, it would have been possible to include several nuances important to Lithuania.... [I]t would have been possible to include the issue of Lithuanian-Polish cooperation in the area of security. In this way, it would have been possible to gain support for the establishment of a Lithuanian-Polish peacekeeping battalion, which has already been started.... "[T]he importance of this document is not in doubt, since for the first time the United States has declared its principles with respect to these small countries. It would be possible to distinguish three main items: America has recognized that the Baltic states are in its zone of interest; that they should become members of NATO and the European Union; and has offered its technical support in achieving these main goals.... One can only suppose that for the Baltic States to achieve membership in NATO, the interests of Russia will first be taken into account.... It doesn't appear that Russia needs to be afraid: The United States will not do anything without their knowing it." RUSSIA: "Baltics To Miss NATO In 1999" Nikolai Lashkevich said in reformist Izvestia (1/21): "The Balts are aware of Russia's opposition as the main reason why their partner overseas made no commitments to protect them in a contingency. They seem to have resigned themselves to the idea that they are going to miss the second wave of NATO candidates in 1999, hoping to make it finally in 2002." "America To Heed Russia's Objections" Marina Kalashnikova observed in reformist, business-oriented Kommersant Daily (1/16): "The Baltic charter is not an internationally binding agreement. Signing it will virtually seal the uncertain status of the Baltic countries. American politicians are hinting that whether the Balts will be admitted to NATO, in large measure, depends on whether they can settle their relations with the Russians. Moscow can always make this difficult for them by raising the question of the Russian minorities. America seems inclined to heed Russia's possible objections, leaving it some clout in European affairs. To sum up, the charter, rather than bringing the Baltics real political dividends, offers them surrogate rapprochement with NATO." "Charter Threat To Stability" Viktor Sokolov opined in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (1/16): "Signing the charter, which, among things, may help NATO's move closer to the Russian border, is, in a way, a threat to stability. But Russia may still have a chance and time not merely to remedy the situation but occupy the most influential position in the process of forming a new system of European security. For that, it needs to do a lot at home so that it could convince its Western partners to start drafting a new 'security' architecture from scratch. Using economic levers in its relations with the Baltics may be of use in that regard." "Moscow May Decide To Beef Up Defense" Vladimir Georgiyev mused in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (1/16): "With the charter signed, admitting the Baltics to NATO will become more real. That may change the geopolitical situation in that region, forcing Russia to take care of its military security in the first place. Have Washington and the capitals of the Baltic states ever envisioned a situation in which Moscow might take defensive measures? Russia is known to have pledged itself to destroy its tactical nuclear weapons by the year 2000. It may well decide to suspend that program." "Failed Expectations" Yevgeny Vostrukhov filed from Riga for official government Rossiyskaya Gazeta (1/14): "Of course, the Baltic states expected more. According to diplomats, the charter contains no security guarantees in the classical sense of the word. The United States, while approving of the Baltics' striving to join NATO, won't guarantee their finally making it into the Alliance. The charter is neither an alternative to NATO membership nor an attempt to ensure the security of the Baltic states on a regional level." "Baltics: NATO Membership--Matter Of Time" Konstantin Eggert held in reformist Izvestia (1/14): "The charter is a political declaration, formally without legal force. It, obviously, cannot touch Russia's Baltic initiatives for specifics. But it offers Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania incomparably more, from their own standpoint--moral support for their striving to become an inalienable part of the Western world. Washington, much sooner than Moscow, recognized 'state of mind' as a determining factor in Baltic politics, scoring a point against the Kremlin. President Yeltsin, in coming up with security guarantees and a 'regional security pact,' along with a host of proposals on regional cooperation, obviously did not think of doing so in a proper, modern fashion. That ruined the whole thing. The charter is a bid for NATO membership, and the Baltics are sure to make it someday. It is just a matter of time." "Good Alternative To NATO Enlargement" Sergei Guliy of reformist Noviye Izvestia (1/14) quoted a deputy chairman of the Duma defense committee, Aleksei Arbatov, as saying: "If charters of this sort come as an alternative to NATO's further movement eastward, Russia will only welcome them. Both we and the United States must do everything so that such documents could become an alternative to enlargement." "Baltic Charter: No Cause For Optimism" Valeria Sycheva observed in reformist Segodnya (1/13): "As seen from Moscow, the U.S.-Baltic charter plans are certainly no cause for optimism. But international documents of this kind are usually worded so that they allow for a variety of interpretations. In addition to that, Washington has been quite careful lately in expressing itself officially on European security and will hardly lay itself open to criticism. So this could be just another noncommittal declaration, and it will not bring the Baltics any closer to the Alliance. Experience shows that economic factors are more important than charters. The Baltic states are increasingly interested in economic cooperation with Russia." GERMANY: "A Vast Step Out Of The Shadow Of Russian Dominance" Christoph von Marschall noted in a front-page editorial in centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (1/16), "In the coming days, the Baltic states will take a vast step out of the shadow of Russian dominance to a Europe of mutual cooperation. In the presence of the presidents of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, President Clinton will sign a charter today that demands the full integration of the Baltic states into NATO and the EU. A week later...the Baltic Sea Council will meet in Riga. The visit of Russia's Premier Chernomyrdin, of the German chancellor, EU Commission President Jacques Santer and other state leaders will further emphasize the sovereignty of the Baltic states. "But both events also have a negative side which shows that the Balts are still far away from real equality on the international stage. Washington does not mention a date for their accession to NATO and it will be Helmut Kohl's first trip to the Baltics--so far he has shied away from bilateral visits since German unification in 1991. These reservations are not based on the ability of the Balts to cooperate or on the lack of democracy or the rule of law: These reservations show consideration for Russia." "A Certain Political Weight" Washington correspondent Stefan Kornelius wrote this editorial for centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (1/14), "Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia are the stepchildren of the European unification movement, and they consider themselves to be the losers of NATO's enlargement.... Their exposed location, their painful history with Russia and unresolved border conflicts continue to make it difficult for NATO to offer a security guarantee. The United States recognized the dilemma but also wanted to do justice to the historical links to the Baltics. It recognized that the European Union was not suited to act as a security policy substitute. This is why only a charter remained, which at first glimpse seems to be not a very committing document of mutual respect and recognition.... "Nevertheless, the charter has a certain political weight. Because it has been signed by NATO's leading power, because it has been coordinated with the other Alliance members, and because it has opened NATO's doors a little bit for the Balts. And so far, we have heard only minor protests from Moscow...although even the slightest attempts of the Balts to link to other organizations were disapproved in Moscow." BRITAIN: "U.S. Backs Baltic NATO Entry" According to the liberal Guardian in a dispatch from Moscow (1/16): "A further eastward expansion of NATO's borders, taking it within two hours' drive of St. Petersburg, comes closer to reality today when President Clinton signs a charter promising American support to the membership applications of the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.... There would be uproar in Russia if the Baltics were admitted to NATO. But the idea that Moscow might attempt military action or mount a blockade looks increasingly far- fetched. Recent Russian overtures to the Baltic leaders have been conciliatory. Moscow appears to have realized that its best way to menace the Balts' campaign is to be friendly, not threatening.... There was a weary, ritualistic tone to Russia's protests against the charter yesterday. The anti-NATO group in the state Duma confined itself to expressing deep concern.'" BELGIUM: "A Kind Of Passport For The Democratic World" Pol Mathil commented in independent Le Soir (1/16): "What is the 'Washington Charter' going to change?... Formally, not much--but in fact, a lot. The Baltics see three main ideas in it. First, the United States proclaims that the Baltics' and Europe's security are indivisible. Even though the charter is only a political declaration without binding effect, by asserting its support for the Baltics' security and independence, the United States declares its support to the Baltics' efforts eventually to join Western organizations, including NATO. This is not only symbolic. A former American citizen is already president of Lithuania, another minister of foreign affairs of Estonia.... "Moreover, the Baltics see in the charter a kind of passport to the democratic world.... Finally, and primarily, the charter reinforces the Baltics in their confrontation with Russia.... The efficacy of their smiles toward NATO depends on their relations with Moscow. The improvement of those relations is a long, arduous and perhaps painful process, in which the Baltics risked being 'less equal' than the Russians. The charter is likely to correct that situation." DENMARK: "A Step Closer To Inclusion In NATO" An editorial in conservative Berlingske Tidende (1/16) held, "The agreement does not guarantee that the Balts will be given NATO membership, but it ensures that the United States will work towards it. In short, it is difficult to conclude anything other than that the Balts have come a step closer to inclusion in the Western defense Alliance. The United States has done much to keep Russia informed during negotiations, and the Russian reaction so far has been low-key. A negative Russian response is to be expected...but the important thing is that Russia has altered its position. Less than a year ago, Russia was demanding U.S. guarantees that the Balts would never be offered NATO membership. Since then, Russia has relaxed the pressure on the three countries, and now seems to be concentrating its efforts on Baltic regional cooperation. The change in the Russian position gives rise to hope that the Balts' NATO aspirations may, at some stage, be realized in cooperation rather than in conflict." HUNGARY: "Opening Way To Using Former Soviet Military Bases In Baltics?" Political scientist Agnes Gereben pointed out in influential Magyar Hirlap (1/19), "The charter signed in Washington is, at the same time, very important for NATO as well. Yesterday's Moscow papers are not wrong in writing that the document will open the way to using the one-time Soviet military bases in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania." "Consolation Prize?" Top-circulation Nepszabadsag said in an op-ed piece by Zoltan Szalai (1/17), "Explicitly or implicitly, the partnership charter signed in the U.S. capital yesterday is intended as some sort of consolation prize for the three Baltic countries. Washington's Western European allies, more or less openly, say: The Baltic, inserted into Russian territories, in undefendable from the military point of view. Thus, the Atlantic Alliance would have to mobilize huge forces already at the beginning of a potential conflict. What's more, the danger of potential conflict with Russia is also greater than in the case of the Central European three. The true significance of the document is that the charter is not just medicine in the psychological sense, but, having signed it, Tallin, Riga and Vilnius have every right to feel that their commitment to Washington and NATO is not unilateral." "Not To Be Pushed Around By Superpowers?" Influential Magyar Hirlap carried this op-ed piece by foreign policy editor Csaba Szerdahelyi (1/15), "Certainly, it is no longer possible to spectacularly push small countries to one or other sphere of interest. But they should not be made to believe either that they play a key role in the haggling between the superpowers. They might end up actually believing it." MOLDOVA: By the Way, Baltic-U.S. Charter Opposite Russia" Igor Guzun stated in pro-Lucinschi, independent Momentul (1/17): "Positively, the Baltic States-U.S. Charter signing in Washington was one of the most important events of the last week. This event marked the strengthening of the relationships between the Baltic states and also revived the relations of the Russian Federation with the four capital cities--Vilnius, Riga, Tallinn and Washington. It seems the document does not stipulate any security guarantees by the United States for the Baltic states, but expresses in general Washington's 'strategical interest' in the independence, security and territorial integrity of these states." POLAND: "What The Charter Does" Leopold Unger told readers of center-left Gazeta Wyborcza (1/16), "Two old doctrines...stand toe to toe...with the Balts squashed in between. The first, a U.S. doctrine, does not promise the Balts anything. On the contrary, it clearly suggests that they will not be admitted to NATO even in the second round of enlargement. It proclaims, however, that the door remains open, since closing it will equal dropping another iron curtain and dividing Europe for good.... The second doctrine is Russian.... Russia categorically opposes the inclusion of any post-Soviet republic in NATO, contending it would threaten Russian security.... How can the partnership charter reconcile these two world visions?... "The United States has never recognized the annexation by the Soviet Union of the Baltic states.... The charter proclaims...no effort will be spared to help the Balts prepare for NATO membership. Even if, regretfully, the Balts do not enter NATO during the tenures of President Clinton and President Yeltsin, it can be assumed that the charter's provisions will not be 'diluted' by their successors.... In the charter, the Baltic states are given a kind of 'safe conduct' to enter Europe. Although there are no guarantees--as neither the West nor NATO itself is ready to make one--there is a solemn pledge that the security and welfare of the Balts remain a concern of the democratic world. Finally, the charter makes the Balts 'better armed' in their relations with Russia. No one can doubt that the success of the Balts' endeavors to be in NATO depends mostly on their relationships with Moscow." EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC CHINA: "Unspoken Words Behind 'Partnership'" Under the headline above, Li Yunfei remarked in the official, Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao,1/19), "The most sensitive point of the charter is that the United States will promote and support the three Baltic states' entry into NATO. Analysts believe that this indicates that U.S. plans regarding the European defense are not confined to the first round of NATO enlargement.... The signing of the charter shows that, in the Americans' mind, NATO enlargement is without limits." ## For more information, please contact: U.S. Information Agency Office of Public Liaison Telephone: (202) 619-4355 1/21/98 # # #