EUROPE

GERMANY: "Signs Of Crisis For NATO In Eastern Mediterranean"

Lothar Ruehl suggested in an editorial in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (3/12) under the headline above: "NATO's leadership is faced with a new period of crisis in the Middle East, the Mediterranean and in the Balkans. NATO's Secretary General Solana is foreseeing serious problems at NATO's Southeastern flank for the months to come. The Serbs continue to be the 'trailblazers' of the Balkan conflict, while the political opponents within the Alliance, Greece and Turkey, will continue to argue about Cyprus.... And in the background are the French with their, according to all parties involved, 'backward-oriented' view that is dividing the Alliance and driving a wedge between its members. The most prominent example was the French demand for the command over AFSOUTH in Naples....

"The paralysis that is caused by France and the Turkish-Greek antagonism could prevent a military NATO action to contain the Kosovo conflict in the Balkans. In this region, an active NATO crisis management will become necessary.... Outside of NATO, the new 'security partner' Russia is ready to foil any effective intervention of the Allies to resolve the problems in the Balkans.... It is true that cooperation between Moscow and Paris during the latest Iraq crisis contributed to interrupting the confrontation in the Gulf, but, at the same time, it strained relations with Washington. The refusal of the French NATO delegation to confirm the UN resolution on Iraq in Brussels by backing a declaration of the Permanent NATO Council, has in general been interpreted as a looming French veto against any NATO participation in military actions against Iraq. For NATO, this refusal means that Paris would also not support a more active role in such operations by the European NATO partners and that Paris would even distance itself from Washington in case of a conflict.

"In view of this prospect, it will be difficult to adopt an urgently needed new NATO policy toward the Mediterranean and the Middle East. This perspective also burdens the work for the draft of a new 'Strategic Concept of the Alliance' for 1999. This key document is supposed to revise the document from November 1991 and formulate a new policy for the Mediterranean and the Middle and Near Eastern Region, thus giving NATO's Southeastern flank a new profile. But in this respect, a new conflict between Paris and Washington is surfacing again.... The French policy in the Alliance and the possibility of a new Turkish-Greek conflict are already impeding NATO's policy in the Balkans. A constellation is visible in which Turkey and Greece could oppose NATO actions in Macedonia, Kosovo and Albania. This would offer Russia a situation in which it could play off the NATO partners against each other.

"And all this is topped by the Paris demand to open the Alliance for Romania, which in turn would strengthen Russia's opposition to NATO's enlargement and would make it more difficult for NATO to cooperate with Moscow in the Balkans. But for the sake of the 'stabilization' of Eastern Europe, and in order to offer Paris, Rome and Athens a political compensation for NATO's enlargement in Central Europe, Brussels considers an acceptance of Romania and Slovenia to be necessary."

"NATO Must Make Up Its Mind Where Enlargement Will End"

Washington correspondent Stefan Kornelius filed this editorial for centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (3/6), "The critical, at the beginning even negative, front in the U.S. Senate against NATO's enlargement has dissolved, and in Washington, too, the enlargement is now being considered a positive development.... But the approval of the senators also depended on the view that the first round of enlargement was irreversible. With their program of a step-by-step acceptance of new members, NATO partners have almost created a kind of automatic acceptance of additional members.... This is why it is no surprise that the lawmakers are now directing their views to the future.

"They are now raising questions that could be decisive for a second enlargement round. What are the strategic tasks of an enlarged NATO? Will the Alliance that shares the same values turn into a purposeful alliance?... Once NATO has accepted three new members next year, NATO must make up its mind and say where it wants to end its growth."

RUSSIA: "It Reeks Of Cold War"

Nikolai Zimin said from Washington in reformist Segodnya (2/13): "All that hoopla over NATO enlargement reeks of the Cold War. The Eastern Europeans, judging by their tearful petitions, are still afraid. They have been pounding on NATO's door, begging to get in, as if someone were going to attack them. The Americans, too, are very much in the past, seeking recruits from among their former enemies, as new victories in the fight against communism. It is curious to see American politicians juggle arguments in favor of NATO enlargement. A lot has been said about the Alliance's new role as a peacekeeper. But all that proves to be just nice wrappings that get thrown away when the time comes. Greeting NATO's new members at the White House, the U.S. president declared that they made it stronger by adding some 200,000 men to its armed forces. And he continued, 'Enlarged, NATO will better act as a deterrent to aggressors in the future.' What aggressors? Russia? Or Belarus? Or maybe Serbia and Albania?"

AUSTRIA: "European Security Identity Without The Americans Does Not Exist"

Hans Rauscher deplored in a commentary in independent Der Standard (3/12), "The chancellor's line has prevailed. Austria is not committed to NATO, but to the development of a European security and defense identity, said the SPO parliamentarian Alfred Gusenbauer on the SPO's security policy course. This decision does not withstand a 'reality check.' A 'European security and defense identity' (without the Americans) does not exist. Neither in the war in Bosnia nor in Kosovo."

"Vienna Cannot Agree On Membership"

The SPO's perceived growing unwillingness to recommend the option of a NATO entry and its nostalgia for the concept of neutrality prompted independent, mass-circulation tabloid Kurier editor Christoph Kotanko to criticize the government's failure to reach an agreement on the country's security policy course. His commentary (3/10) held, "A dozen former Communist countries are pushing toward the North Atlantic pact, which is not only a community in terms of security policy, but also of values and prosperity.... Particularly in the United States, major reservations exist against the idea of more members. The door would be open for one country, though: Austria. It is strategically interesting (as a bridge to Hungary), socially stable and economically strong, but the government in Vienna cannot agree on an application for membership....

"The Social Democrats don't see any reason 'to give up neutrality.'... What neutrality policy are they talking about? Until the breakdown of communism, Austria relied on the fact that NATO would help us in an emergency. In 1991, foreign troops and weapons systems were let in, justified by general decisions of the UN Security Council. Later, Austrian soldiers were placed under NATO command in Bosnia.... The SPO knows all that, of course. The fact that they don't want to touch neutrality is motivated by tactics rather than by substance: The majority of the population is conservative and does not want to be bothered with fundamental questions of security policy. The OVP has committed itself to NATO membership, but failed to launch a comprehensive discussion about neutrality, solidarity, and chances of membership.... As of July, the EU would have a chair who apparently does not know what it is supposed to want."

CZECH REPUBLIC: "Is This Time To Hold Another Referendum?"

A commentary in left-of-center Slovo (2/6) pointed out, "Although the NATO secretary general

was very careful in Prague not to interfere in Czech internal affairs, he managed to make it clear in a diplomatic way that it would be bizarre if Czechs held additional voting on what has been currently in the process of approval in parliaments of NATO member states.... If the Czech ratification process is too complicated, it will provide an argument that will discourage NATO members from leaving the Alliance's door open. We can only hope that Social Democrats will recover from false populism and illogical insistence on (a referendum) at any cost before they come to power."

DENMARK: "Rejection A Slap In The Face For Additional Candidates"

The foreign editor of center-right Berlingske Tidende concluded (3/1), "While the world was busy with the crisis in Iraq, important steps were being taken in Washington concerning another issue, namely, NATO enlargement. The Clinton administration began the final stages of its attempt to get enlargement ratified in the Senate, and it looks like it will achieve majority support during the next few weeks. So far so good, but unfortunately a number of senators led by the Republican, John Warner, are advocating the poor idea of linking their support for enlargement to a three-year moratorium on the next wave of enlargement. They argue that (enlargement) will damage NATO's relations with Moscow, and more specifically affect the possibility of concluding arms control agreements with Russia. Their arguments are just as bad as their idea of a moratorium.... The strongest argument against a moratorium is that it could affect the reform process in Eastern and Central Europe--the whole area from the Balkans to the Baltic. A rejection would be a slap in the face for these countries' reform governments. It would be a vote of no confidence and a clear signal that the West does not trust them. A rejection would weaken the reform momentum in the whole area."

HUNGARY: "Debate In U.S. And Concern For Russia: Just Like Yalta"

Influential Magyar Hirlap (3/13) held, "In the euphoria following the NATO referendum in Hungary, the Hungarian media failed to let their audience know that the New York Times--whose influence is unquestionable--had, for months, been carrying on a peculiar campaign against NATO's expansion. We are witnesses to a new kind of American isolationism...(and) a peculiar distribution of work: The New York Times is opposing expansion with all their might. The Washington Post, on the other hand, is pro-expansion, and closely links security with democracy. The New York Times is scaring its readers with dangers threatening the 'budding' Russian democracy. The paper fails to mention what happens if Yeltsin leaves and 'democrats' of Zhirinovsky's stamp take over.... What the entire controversy--which might really endanger U.S. ratification of NATO's expansion--once again reveals is that Russia is the decisive factor here, and mapping out the 'lebensraum,' the economic room to live, is once again the privilege of one or two superpowers. Just like it was in Yalta."

"Moscow Building Old New Bridges"

Influential Magyar Hirlap remarked on the Primakov visit to Hungary in a piece by foreign affairs editor Csaba Szerdahelyi (2/20), "Moscow's opinion is that Budapest--unlike Warsaw and Prague--is ready to take Russia's interests into account to a large degree. Moscow and Budapest are mutually trying to warm up the political, and in particular the economic, relations, earlier left to cool. Yevgeny Primakov said to Arpad Goncz on Wednesday: At that time, in the early '90s, the Russians were also responsible for closing the door behind them. Approaching the millennium, Boris Yeltsin is not looking for new allies in Central Europe, but for reliable partners. And this is nothing to be ashamed about."

"Hungary And Neighbors In Their Right Places"

An editorial in influential Magyar Hírlap (2/19) held, "Primakov has not come up with any important or ground-breaking message to the world after his Budapest visit.... But his Budapest visit can not simply be considered a completed chore. Given that Russia is a leading power, as

long as Hungary is a small East European country, their relations are not unimportant.... Those who think that Primakov's general kind of message caused any disappointment are wrong. One does not hear nowadays that Moscow needs the Central European countries as a bridge, but it does not mean that the region is written off in Moscow, either. What it rather indicates is the fact that Hungary and its neighbors are now in their right places. And there is more good than bad about it."

LITHUANIA: "Russia And Baltics' Aspirations"

Liberal Respublika (2/11) said in an editorial: "Seven years ago, the crisis in the Gulf allowed the collapsing Soviet Union to flood Vilnius's streets with tanks. This time, a direct tank attack does not seem likely, however, indirect attacks have started already. This is a sort of rule of the political echo. When the United States starts to demonstrate its strength in one corner of the world, Russia immediately wants to emphasize its own apparent power.... The Russian president has declared publicly that he does not like the Baltic states' relations and their political treaties with the United States. He especially does not like the Baltic states' aspirations to join NATO....

"It seems that the problems of Lithuania's annexation and occupation in 1940 have been forgotten. Russia has admitted it officially and even has apologized for it. However, an official statement of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, stating that there was no annexation, has suddenly appeared, further asserting that European international norms have never recognized such a term. And that Lithuania's incorporation into the former Soviet Union was legal, because it was requested by official parliamentarians at that time.... The old communist bureaucracy in Moscow still thinks in old categories of zones of influence and 'the near abroad.' The same bureaucracy still occupies key political posts. Younger Russian democrats have influence in economic issues, but have no influence in Russian foreign policy."

NORWAY: "NATO's New Allies"

According to conservative Aftenposten on the ratification of NATO expansion by the Norwegian parliament March 3 (3/4), "The decision to approve NATO expansion was a historical event.... The new members have some distance to cover to catch up with the political and economic development of the old members. Many countries are still on the outside knocking on NATO's door. They still feel unsafe, arguing that they're operating in a security policy vortex. This is not hard to understand. With the many security policy instruments we have today--the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, PFP, OSCE--however, we have other ways to counteract security fears among non-NATO countries."

"NATO Is To Expand By Three New Member Countries"

Jan Petersen, leader of the Norwegian Conservative Party, stressed in conservative Aftenposten (3/3) "Today, the (Norwegian) parliament will vote in favor of including three new members into NATO: Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. This is a historical event because NATO expansion confirms that these three countries once again belong to the Western democratic community.... While many people use cost as an argument against expansion, the situation is completely the opposite. For these countries to build their defenses on their own would cost them much more than what it will within the NATO framework."

POLAND: "Guarantees Of Security For Poland Are Guarantees Of Peace For America"

Centrist Rzeczpospolita (3/12) featured this piece by Jan Skorzynski, "The liberal New York Times, which with a stubbornness deserving of a better cause is trying to thwart the admission of the Central European countries into NATO, has unexpectedly found an ally in its efforts. The project to include Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary in the Alliance was attacked yesterday by the Washington Times--a newspaper from the opposite end of the U.S. political

scene.... Pat Buchanan, comparing the admission of Poland into NATO to the guarantees Great Britain gave Poland in 1939, concludes in the Washington Times that this commitment resulted in a world war...clearly suggesting that America will be similarly faced with a war should the U.S. Senate give NATO guarantees to Poland.

"Whereas U.S. politicians may not be obliged to know history, they should be experts in geo-politics.... If in 1939 Poland had had the guarantees of such a powerful organization as today's NATO, war might not have broken out. And, if the Alliance expands the Western zone of freedom and peace to [include] the countries of Central Europe...it [war] will never occur. In short, guarantees of security for Poland are guarantees of peace for America."

"What Will Count: Our Stance Toward Euro-Atlantic Cooperation"

Maria Wagrowska said in centrist Rzeczpospolita (3/10), "The real reason for the currently recurring tensions between the United States and Western Europe is the division of responsibility for military missions outside NATO [auspices].... The threat of U.S. withdrawal from Europe does exist: Not as a result of the European countries' policy to take over responsibility for their own defense, but as a penalty for the lack of support for U.S. policy towards Iraq, or, presumably, in some other part of the world....

"Even if U.S. concerns over the European Allies' readiness to cooperate seem exaggerated...they assert that major differences between partners from both sides of the Atlantic do not bode well for our integration into NATO. They indicate that what will count during the Senate debate over the admission of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary into the treaty will be our countries' present and possible future attitude toward Euro-Atlantic cooperation [from the American perspective]."

"No Place For Doubts"

In the view of Konrad Kolodziejski in right-of-center Zycie (3/6), "There is a lingering myth on the consensus of all political forces in Poland on major objectives of the country's foreign policy. As useful as it is for the perception of Poland abroad, it is not entirely true. Truly, everybody agrees that we must enter NATO. There is no such consensus, however, when it comes to the question of whether U.S. troops or nuclear weapons should be deployed in Poland. And without Poland's readiness for such decisions, Poland's membership in NATO will be incomplete.... Now, on the eve of a ratification debate in the U.S. Senate, all such questions are of special significance. At this moment, with proposals to delay the debate until June, there should be no place for doubts."

"Fellow Travelers From The New York Times"

Center-left Zycie Warszawy's Kazimierz Pytko complained under the headline above (3/4), "The powerful and influential New York Times, with a stubbornness reminiscent of the Communist faction in the Russian Duma, has been leading a crusade aimed at blocking the admission of Central European countries into NATO. Their motives...are not entirely obvious. Let us assume that it is not the Russian or anti-Polish lobbies that are behind them, but that the only reason is 'left-eye blindness' and a fascination with Moscow so typical of some intellectual elites in the West.... [Like the New Republic in the 1930s], New York Times journalists today have become 'fellow travelers' by their own will. Let us hope that...U.S. politicians will prove to have more foresight than [left-leaning] American intellectuals."

"It's Up To U.S. Senate"

Leftist Trybuna (2/27) held in a piece by Krystyna Szelestowska, "Although the admission of the three countries must be ratified by all 16 countries belonging to the Alliance, it is public knowledge that the success of this historic undertaking is in the hands of the U.S. senators....

U.S. politicians believe that NATO enlargement will receive the required majority in the Senate.... Let us hope it will be so. The condition is that we make sure in the coming days that nothing impairs the image of Poland as a country which is stable, democratic, dynamically developing and maintaining good relations with its neighbors. Then we can say we have both feet in NATO."

SLOVENIA: "Don't Hold Your Collective Breath?"

Left-of-center Delo (2/27) maintained in an editorial: "The visit to Ljubljana by the secretary general of NATO...may tempt the Slovene public into having its hopes raised for membership in NATO. The favorably disposed Solana always gives a flattering assessment, although he is typically exhaustive when discussing principles and cautiously brief when talking about the concrete.... It is true that the philosophy of NATO's open door has been generally accepted, but the date of the second round of expansion has not been set and the list of invitees not made. Slovenia's relying on it having been mentioned in the Madrid Declaration--which ranks us among the first line in NATO's waiting room--is futile. There can be no more illusions that the attitude of the United States--whose word is the only decisive one--is not one of significant engagement; neither does it consider the Madrid Declaration binding. On the other hand, Europe does not know what Slovenia will do in NATO, much less what the West will gain (with its membership)."

LATIN AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN

CUBA: "NATO Enlargement: Profitable For U.S. Military Industry"

Elson Concepcion Perez charged in Cuban Central Communist Party Granma (3/3): "The enlargement idea stems from the need to consolidate, from the economic...military and strategic points of view, the countries in Eastern and Central Europe, following the Western victory in the Cold War. Something worthy to take into account is also the way in which the transition to capitalism is occurring, mainly in the Balkan area and the former Soviet republics, where wars and domestic conflicts prevail. With the historic backward leap of the East European states--the numerous social and economic problems gathered, plus the return of old ethnic-nationalistic quarrels--NATO has found the reasons and the right time to grow stronger and bigger, instead of disappearing, as some people prophesied.... The current enlargement process is slowly confirming that weapons and the renewal and modernization of the military industry are the foundations of the political philosophy of the U.S. and its Allies. Summing up: Both the enlargement and the new structure to emerge will be another profitable business for the military industry, inseparable from U.S. supremacy and hegemony."

HAITI: "Restarting The Arms Race"

Ronald Saint-Jean wrote for centrist Le Nouvelliste (2/25-3/1), "The United States has initiated in Europe the massive destruction of weapons that it did not produce (through the treaty on conventional weapons). At the same time, through NATO, [it has] imposed the massive purchase of its own weapons. The overall result is a reinitiation of the arms race, the key objective of which is to benefit the American arms industry."

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency

Office of Public Liaison

Telephone: (202) 619-4355

3/16/98

# # #