EUROPE

BRITAIN: "NATO's Mid-Life Crisis"

The independent weekly Economist editorialized (12/11): "Just as it was preparing to hang out the bunting for its 50th birthday next April, the world's strongest military alliance has teetered on the brink of real trouble.... There is no room for complacency about the future of a partnership that was created half a century ago, in a different world.... The Alliance will not survive, in any solid sense, unless Europeans and Americans do some hard, honest talking about their division of labor. America will not indefinitely bankroll the security of wealthy countries whose military budgets are a fraction of its own, and falling --let alone if those countries are unwilling to adapt to new security challenges. As well as tinkering with institutions, European governments should spend more money on modernizing their arsenals.... At the same time, a transatlantic partnership in which Europe pulls more weight can only be developed successfully if Europeans are convinced of American good faith.... There is one...very tangible way in which Europeans and Americans can demonstrate good faith--and that is by procuring weapons from one another, or jointly developing new technology to cope with 21st century threats.... A dense network of relationships between defense companies could do more than any form of words in a summit communique to keep NATO intact."

"Germany And U.S. Split Over Role For NATO"

The centrist Independent reported from Brussels (12/9): "Serious rifts in the transatlantic defense Alliance opened up yesterday as Germany called for a revision of the NATO nuclear weapons doctrine and Washington's proposals for a new global role for NATO ran into a wall of European opposition.... Germany and France poured cold water on American proposals to radically broaden NATO's scope, while Secretary of State Albright dismissed their suspicions as 'hogwash.'... The United States would like to see NATO sweep away any obstacles to operating anywhere in the world if its interests are under threat, even without UNSC authority.... French reaction yesterday reflects the concern in Europe that the United States is railroading its Allies into military solutions such as the controversial cruise missile attack on a suspected chemical weapons factory in Sudan.... British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook appeared to line up behind the Americans, advising against artificial geographic limits to NATO's activities.... Yesterday's meeting foreshadows difficulties in reaching agreement on a new blueprint to take NATO into the 21st century."

"Allies Oppose U.S. Proposals To Give NATO Global Role"

The conservative Daily Telegraph had this report from Brussels (12/9): "The United States clashed with its NATO Allies in Europe last night after Washington spelt out plans to broaden the Alliance's role, allowing it to react to crises anywhere in the world.... The American proposals prompted fears in European governments that NATO would become a global policeman with Alliance members tagging along behind American-led foreign policy initiatives."

"The Journey Ahead For NATO"

The independent Financial Times noted (12/8): "The United States wants to broaden NATO's horizon. This is partly because President Bill Clinton seeks a new initiative to brandish at NATO's 50th birthday summit. It is also because the United States evidently feels increasingly vulnerable to the risk of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the hands of rogue states or terrorists, and is urging joint action in NATO to guard against this worldwide threat. Its European Allies should take heed, in the interests of preserving NATO. If the United States were to conclude that Europeans were complacently ignoring what it considers a major threat, American support for the Alliance might shrivel.

"But Washington should resist new initiatives that would overstretch the Alliance's political and military resources which are heavily committed elsewhere.... Inevitably, Europeans are transfixed on the agenda in Europe. It is desirable that the United States should, occasionally, try to lift its sights towards the wider horizon. NATO has a useful role to play in taking passive measures against worldwide proliferation, such as coordinating of intelligence and civil emergency planning. But whatever some in the United States might wish, NATO does not have the makings of a global cop."

"New NATO For Old"

The liberal Guardian editorialized (12/7): "Defense Secretary George Robertson trumpeted the [Anglo-French] agreement signed at St. Malo on Friday as the start of a new era in defense cooperation. But this new era has the character of a New Year's resolution. It rings with good intentions [and] has minimal substance.... What NATO's other members will want to know is whether any concrete changes were agreed to by Britain and France. The St. Malo agreement...avoids the thorny issue of Europe's security architecture and whether the WEU...is to fade away or grow stronger. Above all, it says nothing about the two major decisions which the United States wants the member states to reach by April, when NATO celebrates its 50th anniversary. The first is whether NATO should expand its shadow to cover the whole of Eurasia, with authority to act anywhere in the Balkans, the Caucasus, and central Asia. (The United States is pushing for such a shift to get broader automatic backing for its global pretensions.) The second is whether such moves could be undertaken without UNSC authorization. To undermine the UN's primacy and turn NATO into a regional or global policeman is an even more dramatic shift than NATO's absorption of three former Warsaw Pact states.... This year's Kosovo crisis brought a consensus within NATO for intervention, though the issue of UN authorization was fudged. To go from a single emergency to a permanent change of policy requires a much fuller debate."

"Putting Europe In Uniform"

The independent Financial Times held (12/7): "The Anglo-French declaration that the EU should have a defense role is...historic.... It comes as Ms. Albright...has welcomed European efforts to take more responsibility for their own defense and argued for broadening NATO's role.... Above all, it could provide the EU with its missing dimension. The EU's...purely civilian nature has all too often allowed member governments to slide out of their military obligations and pass the buck to NATO and the United States. Giving the EU a voice in security policy ought to make Europeans face up more readily to tackling crises around the EU's borders. In short, it should turn Europe into the strong NATO partner the United States has always said it wants. The United States' positive reaction vindicates Mr. Blair in making a historic shift in British policy. But many questions remain unanswered. How will the EU's four neutral members fit in? What is to become of the WEU?... How will EU members behave? If they arrive at Alliance meetings with pre-cooked positions from which they refuse to depart, it would seriously annoy the United States and might frustrate European ambitions for bolder military policy. EU 'common positions' tend to be feeble. If NATO had followed EU common positions, it probably would not have acted in Bosnia or Kosovo."

"Divided Alliance"

The independent Financial Times had this commentary by associate editor Philip Stephens (11/20): "The isolation of the United States and Britain in their willingness to go to war against Iraq attests to a deeper disarray in the Western Alliance. Ever since the Wall came down we have been assured that the United States and Europe were crafting a new transatlantic security system. The rhetoric has it that NATO may have been robbed of its Soviet adversary, but it is still a vital guarantor of the West's security.... The reality suggests an Alliance profoundly divided as to its strategic purpose. Its Anglo-Saxon axis rests on an impulse for action.

"Elsewhere in NATO we see resentment and frustration. The resentment, and it is not confined to France, speaks against American hegemony of the Alliance. The frustration reflects a lack of will and of means to challenge the status quo.... Yet neither side, Anglo-Saxons or continental Europeans (...this latter grouping is not homogeneous), will admit that these deep currents of discord have wider implications for the future of NATO.... NATO diplomats even now are crafting the ambiguous phrases that will lie at the heart of next April's 50th anniversary communique. But they will not disguise the fact that having lost an empire, NATO has so far failed to find a role. In the meantime, Washington calls the shots."

FRANCE: "NATO's Future Role"

Andre Viollaz said in this AFP dispatch (12/10): "The United States is defending the idea of expanding NATO's role to include crises outside its zone, as well as the fight against nuclear weapons proliferation. But France fears that this would turn NATO into a planetary sheriff dominated by the United States.... While Hubert Vedrine's spokesperson...indicated that 'very clear differences existed between the French and U.S. positions,' the United States side indicated that Hubert Vedrine appeared more conciliatory than expected and that the possibility of finding a mutually acceptable formula for the Washington summit in April was very real."

"European Defense: Washington Is Wary"

Pierre Beylau noted in right-of-center weekly Le Point (12/11): "It will be difficult for Washington to contain forever Europe's aspirations to take over its fate in terms of defense.... Even if the United States has strong arguments to support its case. It cites the examples of the two world wars and Bosnia, where war would still be raging if not for the United States. Finally, it raises the point that building a European defense requires budgets. This is Europe's weak spot."

NATO And Europe's Defense"

Daniel Vernet opined in left-of-center Le Monde (12/10): "Madeleine Albright worked hard to dispel concerns from several European partners about the 'new strategic concept' for the Alliance. Hubert Vedrine, who is concerned that the concept might end up 'diluting the Alliance and dividing the Allies,'...was pleased by how well the recent Franco-British initiative on a European defense was received.... The mutual ostracism between NATO and the EU will have to cease, especially if the EU shares in the defense policies and if the United States takes the idea of burden-sharing seriously.... Sooner or later France will have to deal with redefining its relations with NATO.... This is probably the major difficulty for France.... All scenarios are still possible for the European defense: failure (dilution of the Atlantic Alliance), or success, with much needed quick action on the ground."

"The Allies Are Divided Over NATO"

Jean-Dominique Merchet asked in left-of-center Liberation (12/9): "Does NATO have the mandate to strike a plant in the Middle East suspected of manufacturing chemical weapons? According to the United States it does. But the French say no.... Is NATO the world's sheriff or simply a life insurance for Europe under a U.S. umbrella?... The disagreement between the United States and the French, who has the support of some European countries, centers around two main points. The first is about NATO's intervention outside its zone, the second about its relationship with the UN.... From the U.S. view, NATO should be able to operate outside its zone, because, according to Albright, 'while the threat may come from countries outside the zone, it will nevertheless affect members of the Alliance.'... France does not share this viewpoint. According to Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine, 'weapons proliferation is only one issue among many others...and the Alliance one player among others.'... As for the UN, Hubert Vedrine maintains that 'missions that imply the use of force have to be placed under the authority of the UNSC.'"

"A New Strategic Concept For NATO"

Pierre Bocev wrote in right-of-center Le Figaro (12/8): "In spite of Germany's spectacular intervention on nuclear weapons, the debate at the center of the NATO ministerial is the 'strategic concept' for the Atlantic Alliance which is to symbolize the end of the Cold War and the start of a new era. The United States has tried to introduce into the 'concept' a new definition of NATO's reason for continuing to exist. From an organization for collective defense, it would become 'an Alliance of common interests.' But faced with almost unanimous refusal by its partners, Washington appears to have backed down.... The idea now, as enunciated by Albright, is to have NATO watch over security 'in and for' the transatlantic space, which leaves much room for imagination."

GERMANY: "NATO Pulling Washington's Cart"

Business Handelsblatt of Duesseldorf carried this commentary (12/10): "Albright curtly dismissed the need for a review of NATO's nuclear strategy. She doesn't want anyone to question the privileges that would be curtailed through a 'no first use' policy and nuclear disarmament. That NATO must thus remain a two-class society in the long run, in which the great majority of members have nothing to say when it comes to making fundamental decisions, is something that other NATO members object to, too, even though they are not eager to advertise their uneasiness.... So this subject will definitely be on the agenda at the Washington Summit. The same applies to out-of-area operations without a UN mandate. This would mean the Alliance taking on a completely new task...for which it was not originally established.... The Americans want to have the say, [with] NATO...pulling the cart alongside them. A new kind of burden-sharing on a global level."

"First Use Debacle"

Right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine frontpaged this commentary by defense correspondent Karl Feldmeyer (12/10): "The United States, Great Britain and France reacted with a cohesion one seldom finds within NATO, and they made clear that Germany is isolated within the Alliance. It is obvious that this response was unavoidable from the perspective of the Americans and the other nuclear powers, given factors such as the growing danger of biological and chemical weapons in the Third World.... Washington's ironic amazement, and the way it asked just why the Germans thought they could decide on weapons they did not possess, reveals a barely concealed anger.... One must acknowledge that [German Foreign Minister] Fischer has not only done a disservice to his own reputation, but to Germany and its reputation as a...reliable Alliance partner."

"NATO And The UNSC"

Right-of-center Neue Westfaelische of Bielefeld commented (12/10): "As long as the Security Council is so divided and as long as the right to veto anything is the main purpose of the organization, then it will suffer from self-paralysis. So NATO would be well-advised to continue to put dictators and state criminals in their places, if necessary without [seeking] Russian or Chinese approval in the UNSC. The next crisis will come, be sure, and it is most important to retain a capacity to act and be ready to intervene quickly. The UNSC has seldom had that kind of capacity, and NATO cannot wait for the organization too often."

"A Necessary Dialogue Within The Alliance"

Right-of-center Nuernberger Zeitung judged (12/9): "Even if Fischer failed to achieve much at first sight, at least he can take credit for prompting a long-overdue discussion within the Alliance.... The task of the 'new' NATO will be to find the right mixture of deterrence and crisis management.

"This can be done only through a dialogue within the Alliance, something that apparently has yet to be learned by both the Americans, who tend to want to go off on their own, and the Europeans, who still often lack self-assertiveness."

"Fischer's Achievement"

National radio station Deutschlandfunk of Cologne aired this commentary (12/9): "NATO is only at the beginning of the debate over its new strategy, whereby it must define its future security interests.... A balance must be found between the traditional tasks and the new challenges..... The line that defines just where the Alliance's security interests start and end, still has to be drawn.... But it is appropriate to ask whether the threat of first use of nuclear weapons is appropriate in today's security landscape. It is high time to open the debate within NATO, as Fischer has done.... The outcome of the discussion that will take place within NATO over the next months is predictable: It is quite possible that a consensus can be reached within NATO to reduce the significance of nuclear weapons for deterrence.... This means that the threshold for the use of such weapons will be set higher. Fischer will have achieved a lot of this turns out to be the case."

"Fischer's Insignificant War"

Centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich carried this editorial by Joe Joffe (12/9): "Fischer refuses to give up, although he must know that the three nuclear powers will not allow the Germans to dictate strategy to them.... So what is driving the minister, who made a great initial impression on our friends with his promise of continuity? The answer is simple: The fight against first use is an old ideological jewel in the Greens platform.... There is so much to do if NATO strategy is to be adapted to the next century. Fischer shouldn't waste time fighting insignificant wars for which the only applause he will get is from his own party."

"NATO At The Crossroads"

Right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin front-paged this editorial (12/9): "There are currently two disputes within NATO. One is necessary, the other is not. Absolutely unncecessary was Fischer's initiative.... Necessary, but much more sensitive, is the dispute over the new NATO's backyard, where the Alliance will have to keep order in its own interest and, if necessary, without a UN mandate. NATO will have to get involved before we see genocide just beyond our own borders. The spirit of the UN Charter is sometimes worth more than its letter. But the Americans want more. They want a very general carte blanche, almost without geographical limits. It is true that the West has interests in the world that have to be protected. But to ask for too much is to put at risk the most precious thing the Alliance has--its unity.... The Alliance should not be asked to serve interests that are continually defined anew. NATO should remain modest."

"Alliance For Order"

Centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich carried this commentary by Joe Joffe (12/8): "The Alliance has achieved the absolutely unbelievable transformation from one that focuses on defense to one that can impose order.... In reality, it is not NATO as such that has proven itself ready to act, but its strongest member making the others act. Or, in harsher terms: No NATO without the United States. That is precisely the reason that Washington wants a 'new strategic concept' that is firmly based on the principle of out-of-area action and that does not depend on the blessing of the UNSC. But that is precisely the kind of concept that the others will not accept. Whether you take the Germans, the French or the English none of them wants to be pinned down. Instead, they all want the freedom to decide--on a case-by-case basis--whether they are prepared to accept American leadership."

"Fischer And The Bomb"

Jacques Schuster opined in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (12/3): "Joschka Fischer and the Greens have never understood the political effect of the nuclear bomb. They put sober considerations against emotions, strengthened by deeply-rooted resentments against the United States and the almost religious belief that they know better.... A debate about NATO strategy is not necessary. We have no nuclear weapons, and Europe remains dependent on the United States in case of a nuclear attack. And why do we Germans again have to explain to our Allies what peace means? The new government would be well-advised to leave megalomania in the dustbin of history."

"Leading Germany To Isolation"

Right-of-center Die Rheinpfalz of Ludwigshafen commented (12/3): "With his pressure on NATO to give up its nuclear deterrence strategy, Foreign Minister Fischer is leading Germany into isolation. Not only because the most important partners--the three nuclear powers-- consider the nuclear option part of their military scope of action, but also because the smaller NATO countries, including the accession candidates, expressly want this NATO nuclear umbrella as a kind of 'life insurance.'"

"Do Not Yield"

Harald Mueller opined in left-of-center Die Tageszeitung of Berlin (12/3): "Germany is a non-nuclear state. This is why it is interested in minimizing the political and military significance of nuclear weapons. This is why conflicts are unavoidable. But Germany must stand up to such conflicts.... Under pressure from the arch-conservative majority in Congress, the U.S. government has a tendency to use arms control and disarmament as a means of security policy.... If one yields on the 'first use' question...one only supports this dangerous tendency. The current strategic concept was adopted in 1991. Even at that time, it was inopportune to stick to this concept.... The Soviet Union no longer exists. It is a sheer mockery of common sense to consider a discussion about the nuclear doctrine a taboo. The future of NATO depends on many things, but certainly not on the current nuclear doctrine. To stick to this doctrine corresponds to the defensive attitude of fossilized nuclear ideologues in the nuclear weapons states."

"On The German Agenda"

In centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich, Joe Joffe countered arguments for 'no first use' of nuclear weapons and for requiring UN mandates for out-of-area missions (11/23): "[On the first point], NATO should give up the 'first use' option for nuclear weapons.... This [suggestion] is unnecessary and foolish. It is unnecessary, because there is nobody in NATO who wants to fire nuclear cruise missiles at Russia at the first opportunity available. It is foolish because the Bonn government would then enter into a confrontation with the United States.... [Second], the Alliance should be linked to 'standards and norms of the UN and OSCE'--i.e., no NATO missions out-of-area without the UN's blessing.... Those who want to link categorically out-of-area missions to an approval of the UNSC indirectly and involuntarily say: 'I do not want NATO missions nor NATO itself.' It is certain that Beijing and Moscow will use their veto right in the UNSC, thus paralyzing the Alliance.... NATO would be an absurdity, for who needs NATO if it is as incapable of acting as the UN and the OSCE are?"

"NATO Is A Nuclear Alliance"

Michael Stuermer said in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (11/23): "If one does not succeed in coordinating an Alliance strategy by the NATO summit in 1999, a deep crack is looming that would mean a fundamental weakening of Germany's security....

"Nuclear weapons can by no means be balanced by conventional weapons.... Nuclear weapons are still an element of...stability.... What the Pentagon is repeating in a every great memorandum is an unwelcome truth in Germany.... NATO is a nuclear Alliance. If one of the partners no longer accepts this definition, NATO turns from a security system into a debating club."

ITALY: "NATO Is Divided On Its Own Future"

Elena Ragusin reported from Brussels in leading business Il Sole 24-Ore (12/9): "Yesterday Secretary Albright repeated that Washington wants NATO be able to move autonomously and without a UN specific mandate in areas of crisis.... On this issue the Europeans have strong reservations.... [On another point of debate], the German Foreign Minister got only Canada's support on the need to revise nuclear policy.... Finally, the issue of European security and defense identity is less controversial within NATO: Secretary Albright said the United States supports the initiative, while also underlining its limitations."

RUSSIA: "Old Tenets"

Vladimir Gerasimov remarked in neo-communist Slovo (12/11-15): "NATO refers to old tenets as a rationale for its continued existence and enlargement.... Russia's foreign ministry is 'seriously' concerned over attempts to 'globalize' NATO's new expansionist strategy and undermine UNSC authority. Is that concern enough?"

"Talking Is Better Than Sulking"

Vladimir Mikheyev noted on page one of reformist Izvestiya (12/10): "Moscow is beginning to realize that, no matter what NATO hopes to gain by getting Russia 'positively involved,' it is better to talk than sulk and nurse a grudge for being misunderstood."

"Only Chance For Russia"

Boris Volkhonsky remarked in reformist, business-oriented Kommersant Daily (12/9): "Europe's increased desire for independence has become a present for Russian diplomacy. Differences between Europe and the United States are the only chance for Russia to stop the Alliance from spreading further."

"Europe Between NATO And OSCE"

Under this headline, reformist weekly Moskovskiye Novosti (# 48, 12/8) published this article by Pavel Kandel of Russia's Europe Institute: "OSCE getting more active is important to Europe and even more so to Russia. [Without] the OSCE, it would be impossible for Moscow to resist the competitive NATO-centered security concept. The North Atlantic Alliance, acting as a 'European policeman,' much too often uses the ways--obviously biased and slighting of international law--the Russian police liked to use when dealing with Caucasian nationals. Its being trigger-happy betrays its weakness as a 'limb of law'--concerned more for its own safety than the common good."

AUSTRIA: "European Paper Tiger?"

Liberal Der Standard carried this commentary (12/5-6): "The Atlantic Alliance is currently adapting its doctrine to the changing circumstances. There is consensus on a strengthening of the European pillar.... The Franco-British initiative, however, goes much further: It implies...the development of a European army. Whether or not it is meant seriously will be shown by Paris's and London's willingness to pay for those transport facilities that have [thus far] been provided almost exclusively by the United States.

"Washington will only reduce its dominant position within NATO if the Europeans assume more costs. If they don't, initiatives like the most recent one will remain those of a paper tiger."

BELGIUM: "NATO Divided Toward 50th Anniversary"

Frank Schloemer argued in independent De Morgen (12/10): "The semi-annual summit meeting in Brussels was not able to eliminate all points of division.... In the Alliance, the divergence of opinion is the deepest regarding the nuclear strategy and role of NATO as a 'crisis manager.' As far as the latter is concerned, Washington is pressing for (the possibility to) intervene anywhere when a crisis puts at risk the common interests of the member states. Several European members believe that this formulation is too wide because it may imply that NATO is in a position to interfere virtually everywhere.... European countries fear that the United States, which dominates the Alliance, might use NATO to dispatch troops as it pleases for the sake of common interests. There also remains disagreement over the nuclear strategy. The three nuclear powers in NATO--the United States, France and Great Britain--are totally opposed to [the German proposal] questioning the 'first use' principle. Germany only receives open support from Canada."

"Madeleine Albright's Reassurances"

In independent Le Soir, Pierre Lefevre judged (12/9): "The debate is less tense than initially expected. Madeleine Albright has appeared less the war-monger than was feared on this side of the Atlantic.... NATO must go beyond the traditional concept of collective defense of its territory and, according to the U.S. formula, defend its 'common interests.'... Some people had feared that the United States might forget NATO's initial role: collective defense, as defined by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.... Mrs. Albright reassuringly said that it will not be the case. How far should one intervene outside of NATO's traditional zone? Here too, Madeleine Albright was reassuring. 'We are not going to try to create a new global NATO,' she said.... The Belgian minister Erik Derycke seemed to be appeased.... What should be the legal basis for those new missions? Most Europeans want to stick to the current international order, whereby any armed intervention in any country is subject to UNSC approval. 'NATO will act in any case in agreement with the principles of the UN charter, while continuing to answer that question of the mandate on a case-by-case basis,' Mrs. Albright asserted."

"Reaching Consensus On Strategic Concept"

Foreign affairs writer Bart Beirlant observed in independent Catholic De Standaard (12/9): "The goal is to have the new definition of major political and military tasks ready by April 1999, when NATO celebrates its 50th anniversary in Washington.... The debate on this issue is far from over: What are the new risks?... What is the common interest?... How far can NATO venture (outside its territory)?... What about nuclear policy?... Which judicial basis is needed for missions that go beyond Article 5?... The Ministers defined the main issues of discussion yesterday. By the time of the NATO anniversary celebrations in Washington, specialists must succeed in reaching a consensus."

"A Vision Of The Future Not Shared"

In conservative Catholic La Libre Belgique, Sabine Verhest wrote (12/9): "The sixteen [NATO members] do not seem to be really on the same wave length. Of course, they remain attached to the principle of collective defense...but Americans and Europeans diverge on a number of essential points. For instance, the United States advocates an extension of the Alliance's role, particularly in the field of nonproliferation.... But, according to the Europeans, NATO should not act as if it were the only referee for this issue.... The Sixteen are also diverging about their zone of intervention....

"'The firing of a ballistic missile carrying a weapon of mass destruction from one outlaw country is as much a threat against our borders as the Warsaw Pact tanks 20 years ago,' said Mrs. Albright. But such a language is not likely to reassure the Europeans who fear that the United States will use the reformed Alliance to send troops all over the world."

CZECH REPUBLIC: "Is New NATO Worth The Effort?"

A commentary in right-of-center Mlada Fronta DNES stated (12/10): "NATO is changing its strategy at a time when Czechs, Hungarians and Poles want to join (the Alliance). It is looking for new tasks and expects the newcomers to master them. Will they be able to? They should, [it's] in their own interest.... Discussion of NATO's 'new strategic concept' will result in the confirmation of the Alliance's original mission, as well as in setting new tasks.... It will be up to the Czech government to find money and enthusiasm for operations in the name of NATO. Our government should be prepared for that and should think in public what it wants to do in the Alliance.... NATO means a lot to us. After being in the role of a powerless ball kicked between superpowers for decades, we'll get among the countries that are able to do something good for the rest of the world. And that's definitely worth the effort."

"Solana's Reprimand"

A commentary in centrist intellectual Lidove Noviny noted (12/8): "Solana's warning that the three accession countries should speed up preparations for NATO admission because the date of their entry (into NATO) depends on when they'll be able to fulfill the necessary military considions, comes at a time when representatives of these three countries are swearing to comply with all military requirements. But by when? The dates mentioned differ, the most likely deadline is March 1999, i.e. a month before the Washington summit.... One or two months of delay is not a problem.... Solana's statement, therefore, can be interpreted as encouragement to politicians in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to devote more time and energy to problems concerning their militaries."

DENMARK: "U.S.-European Differences"

Left-wing Information editorialized (12/9): "Even though Albright's proposals about NATO's new strategic concept carefully skirted previous ideas about NATO's role as the world's policeman, they still contained enough material to provoke a confrontation with (America's) European Allies. Everyone is agreed that NATO should respond to crises outside NATO territory, but no European country could imagine operations outside of the Euro-Atlantic region.... NATO in the 21st century should become a regional security organization that, with time, should be open to all of the region's states, (and) not (only) a tool for America's global interests."

"A European Security Identity"

Center-right Jyllands-Posten commented (11/22): "Europe cannot avoid having to consider its own security (policy). It cannot keep on counting on assistance from the United States every time situations like Bosnia and Kosovo arise. Europe needs to create its own security identity through the EU, the WEU or a third organ.... This would not damage trans-Atlantic cooperation. America and Europe are closely tied to each other. Nobody could imagine the world's only superpower abandoning Europe.... The time is right for Europe to present its vision of future trans-Atlantic cooperation. If peace is to be protected in the Western world, it is important that Europe does more for itself and more for others."

FINLAND: "NATO Has Problems Finding New Direction"

Leading, independent Helsingin Sanomat editorialized (12/11): "The NATO foreign ministers meeting revealed that the Alliance is under considerable pressure only five months before its 50th anniversary. Relations with Russia are also troubled because of NATO's enlargement plans and growing nationalism in Russia. In U.S. plans (for the new strategic concept) NATO must be ready to face out-of-area threats. The U.S. campaigns to stop the proliferation of mass destruction weapons and wants its European allies to join the war. European allies, meanwhile, emphasize the role of territorial defense, and fear that they may drift into supporting U.S. global policing actions. Some European allies feel that out-of-area operations require a UNSC mandate.... Many Americans, however, consider Kosovo a precedent for acting without a UN mandate.... Russia, too, is worried because it fears that NATO'S future remote operations might be extended to Russian oil production areas, for example."

HUNGARY: "NATO In Service Of Global Interests?"

Influential Magyar Hirlap opined (12/9): "Several European Allies are concerned that the United States wants to put NATO in the service of its own global political interests. To dispel this concern, Albright stated yesterday that Washington did not want a global NATO, yet did see a role for the Alliance in facing non-geographical challenges."

"Pushing Enlargement Back"

Pro-government Magyar Nemzet carried a piece by foreign policy editor Lajos Pietsch (12/8): "The worst that can happen is that enlargement might be pushed to April. However, beyond a few technical and legislative details, it is of no significance. The best Hungary can do among such circumstances is to further accelerate preparation."

"Trying To Get Agreement Among The 16"

Influential Magyar Hirlap wrote (12/8): "Perhaps the only thing all sixteen Allies agree on is that NATO's basic function should continue to be the collective defense of its members.... A key element of the new strategic concept to be accepted in April is that new security risks are not geographical but functional.... Paris's concern is that out-of-theater operations will further increase American dominance."

FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: "NATO Expansion"

Opposition oriented Nova Makedonija had this article by Biljana Georgievska (12/8): "It is helpful that Madeleine Albright said that NATO expansion should not stop after the first round. Constant threats to the peace and stability in the region...and...the efforts of some countries--including Macedonia--to permanently stabilize the region, are the strongest argument for NATO expansion."

THE NETHERLANDS: "Days Of Blindly Counting On U.S. Over"

Influential, independent NRC Handelsblad had this op-ed by retired Maj. Gen. Schaberg (12/10): "The United States is losing interest in Europe, and mutual irritation over issues such as Kosovo and the 'new strategic concept' are increasing. Europe should pay attention...to its own security policy without neglecting NATO. The French/British initiative comes at the right moment.... The suggestion for stronger European defense activities with a stronger profile within NATO deserves support.... The days of blindly counting on America are over."

"Defining European Views"

Influential, independent NRC Handelsblad opined (12/7): "There is a European discussion about a common European defense policy and there is the NATO debate about a new strategic concept. It is highly unclear what the common defense policy will look like. [On the strategic concept], European ideas about defense against new threats which seem to be developing outside the European continent are also highly unclear."

POLAND: "New Concept, But Old Principle"

Maria Wagrowska wrote in centrist Rzeczpospolita (12/9): "Despite appearances, it is good that Germany proposed the issue of moving away from the first strike concept.... It will give the Americans, British and French the time needed to more precisely analyze NATO's future defense policy and define the role of nuclear weapons--time they would not have had if the issue surfaced just before April 1999 when a [new] strategy for the 21st century is to be endorsed."

"The Ball Is In Our Court"

Krystyna Szelestowska wrote in leftist Trybuna (12/9): "Contrary to expectations, the Brussels summit did not decide with one-hundred-percent certainty that Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary will still be admitted into NATO before the April summit in Washington.... Javier Solana made it clear that the three countries are behind in their preparations.... There is no point in demonstrating disappointment with NATO's decision. We should instead roll up our sleeves...in order to expeditiously meet the requirements.... The ball is now in our court."

"What Alliance We Want To Join"

Jedrzej Bielecki in Brussels wrote in centrist Rzeczpospolita (12/7): "Four months before the Washington Summit, NATO member countries are unable to agree on the Alliance's role in the 21st century. The Americans, supported by the British, want the treaty and its operations to reach far beyond the borders of Western Europe to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and conflicts like the recent ones in Kosovo and Iraq. France and Germany, fearing U.S. domination, prefer to restrict the role of the Alliance to defending the territories of member states.... [Also], for the European Allies, to accept U.S. postulates would mean incurring enormous spending on arms."

ROMANIA: "U.S. Ends Romanian Hopes For NATO"

Leading independent Adevarul front-paged this editorial by Bogdan Chirieac (12/10): "A tombstone fell on Romania's hopes for NATO in Brussels. The United States does not even want Romania to preserve the advantage it had gained in Madrid, where our country had been named for the second round (of enlargement).... Romanians must now ask themselves whether NATO should still be a goal for their country in five years' time.... In Washington next year, the...dream will very likely end for Romania."

"NATO: Policeman Of The World"

Ion Cristoiu's opined in opposition Cotidianul (12/9): "Unfortunately all the bad signs that we have seen until now have been confirmed. Yesterday's NATO session has decided that [at the April meeting] the question of NATO's expansion will be a secondary one.... Now, the Americans have proposed a reduced role for the UN. The UNSC will become an empty shell. The right to military intervention to resolve the world's conflicts should be assumed only by NATO, the Americans say. This is the new NATO that will be created at the Washington summit....

"If the American plan is adopted, the new NATO--the policeman of the world--which could intervene without the consent of the UN and the UNSC, will be one of the most important creations of this century.... Our consolation is that, for now, America considers us to be in its camp."

SLOVENIA: "No Consensus On Most Burning Topics"

Left-of-center Delo had this report (12/10): "Except for a general agreement about a program of assistance to NATO membership candidates--i.e. 'NATO Plus,' which seems to be 'NATO Minus' for Slovenia--because it now has a status equal to other eight candidates, whereas after the Madrid summit, it and Romania were specifically mentioned in the final document--the Foreign Ministers of the Alliance left with no consensus about the most burning topics scheduled for the Washington Summit."

"Justification Of Intervention"

Left-of-center independent Dnevnik opined (12/10): "We have witnessed U.S. attempts to attach moral and legal justification to its military interventions by gaining support from the UN and UNSC.... Because of the prestigious position that the United States holds in NATO...an intervention could be carried out wherever it would suit U.S. political, military, and strategic goals. It would be a one-sided intervention under the wing of Pax Americana.... U.S. efforts to secure its own path in cases of international military-political intervention will most probably strengthen European aspirations for a stronger and more independent role... If the United States follows its egoistic path in NATO, it would generate a question as to how the United States can represent the Western world."

SPAIN: "A NATO International Police?: Think About It First"

Independent El Mundo commented (12/9): "Albright has proposed to turn NATO from a defensive organization into an offensive organization...with a universal, not just Atlantic-European reach, and a new mission: to fight international terrorism and the spread of arms of mass destruction. Faced with the the UK-France iniative to reinforce the defensive coordination of the EU, the American response could appear to be a pirouette or a defensive maneuver. In any case, it merits caution and reflection. Why does Albright want to throw this power of international police to the members of NATO? Shouldn't it, in reality, be the responsibility of the UN, which the United States refuses to fund? It's better both to put the European house in order--not to reinvent a policy of neocolonialist 'gunboats' as a pretext to revitalize NATO--and to reinforce the UN as the genuine world authority."

"NATO's Future"

Conservative ABC commented (12/9): "Since its creation, NATO....has been the only military organization which has proven operational for the defense of Western strategic interests... France and Great Britain...resent the hegemonic role the United States plays in the Alliance. Ideally, the EU would have autonomy in defense. But independence from the United States, even if it was limited to the European theater, would be very expensive. What would be just short of suicide would be to argue for a break with the United States and, at the same time, to freeze or even reduce defense spending. A defenseless EU will be a weak EU. Spain thinks that the EU should use the defensive platform of the WEU.... The end of communism doesn't mean the end of threats to peace.... It's enough to remember international terrorism and nationalist violence to prove that point."

SWEDEN: "A New NATO In A New World"

Stockholm's independent, liberal Dagens Nyheter held (12/9): "The United States believes in an expanded role for NATO...and the Alliance could develop into a real preserver of peace.... But many of the European Allies are cold to the idea...and the dominating view in Europe is that all operations outside the NATO territory must be authorized by the UN. Their misgivings are quite understandable. It would be unfortunate if NATO in the future should feel that it has unlimited authority to intervene whenever and wherever it likes."

"When Will NATO Become An Instrument For The U.S.?"

Social Democratic tabloid Aftonbladet held (12/8): "The Atlantic Alliance is not only enlarging eastward. It is also developing from being an Alliance of self-defense to an intervention force which might be used in [out-of-area] conflicts.... Is a 'global NATO' just an overzealous vision? In Europe's capitals one is pondering U.S. intentions. One reads...what official Pentagon reports state on bases in Asia and what Secretary Albright says on NATO 'being a force for peace from the Middle East to Central Africa.' But this is not Europe's vision of NATO.... To Europe the question, brought to a head, is whether its military contributions (ground forces) will serve to fulfill U.S. political goals, i.e. overthrowing African dictators or safeguarding the Mideast oil supply."

EAST ASIA

CHINA: "Debate Over NATO's 'New Strategic Concept'"

Gao Shijun commented in Beijing Morning Post (Beijing Chenbao, 12/10): "NATO's 'new strategic concept' negotiations are likely to be difficult in the coming months. Eventually, their common interests will lead them to a compromise."

JAPAN: "U.S. Cautious About Europe's 'Independent Defense'"

Top-circulation, moderate Yomiuri Shimbun's Washington correspondent Sakamoto observed (12/11): "Washington is cautiously watching the European independent defense initiative.... A high-ranking State Department official noted, 'there is no problem (for Washington) if Europe equips itself with defense capabilities to enable it to intervene in regional conflicts without U.S. participation.' But he also stressed that military actions by Europe must be undertaken within the bounds of NATO and that the United States should keep a veto power vis-a-vis Europe. In light of such experiences as the Bosnian conflict, in which U.S. military power played a key part in bringing peace to the region, it seems that the United States is worried about Europe's conflict-resolution abilities. The biggest U.S. goal with regard to the defense of Europe is to revamp NATO to adapt it to post-Cold War realities, while maintaining the security of Europe with enormous U.S. military power.... Although the United States says it is flexible in reviewing NATO's strategy, it took a very hard stance against German Foreign Minister Fischer's call for NATO to renounce the first use of nuclear arms. Discord may emerge between Europe and the U.S. over the future course of NATO."

SOUTH ASIA

INDIA: "No First Use For NATO"

An editorial in the centrist Times Of India held (11/27): "The Clinton administration's intemperate response to a German proposal that NATO adopt a doctrine of 'no first use' of nuclear weapons has highlighted the extent to which the United States is still obsessed with anachronistic thinking on security matters....

"It is ironic that even as [the United States] hectors India on the virtues of nuclear restraint--this after New Delhi adopted a 'no first use' doctrine--it is unwilling to accept any curbs on its own nuclear arsenal other than minor cuts for cost-reduction purposes.... So long as the United States remains wedded to a maximalist doctrine, the danger of horizontal and vertical nuclear proliferation by others will remain. India, which has a stake in a nuclear-free world, must take the initiative and begin a dialogue with Germany on the need for restraining Washington's nuclear fundamentalism as the first step towards the delegitimization of all atomic weaponry."

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

CANADA: "'First Use' Option Crucial"

According to the new conservative National Post (11/23): "The 'first use' option is crucial to world peace and curbing regional aggressors.... Removing the possibility of nuclear 'first use' in response to a non-nuclear attack simplifies an aggressor's calculations and makes it more likely that he will throw the dice. The nuclear deterrent must be credible if it is to deter.... The presence of U.S. missiles in the European NATO states provides a credible deterrent to chemical or biological attacks on American Allies, and serves to unify U.S. and NATO security interests across the Atlantic.... In a world in which bellicose, unstable states such as Iran and Iraq are building their own nuclear forces, abolishing NATO's existing deterrent is short-sighted, to say the least."

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency

Office of Public Liaison

Telephone: (202) 619-4355

12/11/98

# # #