EUROPE

FRANCE: "France-NATO: A Symbolic Victory"

Pierre Beylau opined in right-of-center Le Point (4/30): "What should we remember of the NATO summit?... First, that NATO remained united. Trans-Atlantic ties have been consolidated. The United States remains a European power.... Second, that NATO's strategy of strikes against Serbia was not questioned.... Third, that France has for the most part obtained satisfaction and avoided the inclusion of certain notions in the final text regarding international legitimacy and its transfer from the UN to NATO...and therefore, for French diplomacy, the Washington summit was neither a victory nor its Waterloo.... And fourth, that the friendly signal sent by the Washington summit to Europe's defense initiative is highly symbolic."

"After The NATO Summit"

Jean Daniel remarked in left-of-center weekly Le Nouvel Observateur (4/29): "The ceremony is Washington last Sunday affected even the most blase diplomats. The spectacle of a West, certain of its planetary superiority when it submitted to the undisputed sovereignty of the United States, was fascinating.... As soon as the United States has a role to play, conveyed in either fortune or responsibility, it has difficulty in hiding its calm arrogance.... In a unipolar world, the United States is in a promised land.... For the United States, the UN is at best a parliament which costs too much, useful only to promote U.S. interests.... France was the only one to call attention to the emperor's new clothes, to the fact that the United States was too authoritarian and that the UN was our only valid reference."

ITALY: "Why Tony Blair Is Wrong"

Cesare Salvi, head of the DS group in the Senate, signed this commentary in pro-DS (leading government party) L'Unita' (5/3): "The 'new internationalism' repeatedly referred to by Tony Blair...does not convince us of its ideological nature. The idea that a part of the world, formed by the most 'civilized' nations, can be responsible for the respect of human rights in the whole world--resorting, if necessary, to the use of force--does not reflect the truth, and is not viable nor fair if considered from this radical point of view. It is not true because the determination displayed against Milosevic is completely missing in other areas of the world.... The situation in Timor East is similar, and even worse, than the one in Kosovo.... And what about the insistence with which the Clinton administration proposes China's entry in the WTO, without first asking for guarantees as far as human rights are concerned?" Salvi concluded that "if one wants to create a new internationalism, the latter can only begin from a revival of the UN role through reform."

"For East Europeans, A Military Europe Is Born"

An analysis from Warsaw in provocative, classical liberal Il Foglio held (4/30): "Polish Prime Minister Jerzy Buzek...seems to believe that, at the Washington summit, a military Europe was born, at least that is the intention. The fact that this Europe may coincide in some forms with the EU remains to be verified. One has to travel to central and eastern European nations to realize the weakness of EU institutions, which are being put to a hard test by the military intervention against Yugoslavia.... All the more evident to these countries is the dynamism of NATO versus the bureaucracy and slow pace of the EU.... Their goal seems to be a new Europe, born from a plan defined within the Atlantic Alliance, and not stemming from the EU's power of attraction. And Poland and Hungary want to gain a prominent role for themselves in this new Europe, as is shown by their logistical support for the military operations against Serbia."

RUSSIA: "World Order A La U.S."

Neo-communist Slovo (4/30-5/4) editorialized on page one: "The United States has showed most clearly the kind of world order it is going to establish in the coming 21st century. It is a world where force is law. America is committing an outrage against a sovereign country before the whole world. 'Civilized nations' are accomplices in this crime.... We should have known that this might happen. We should have known better than delude ourselves with things like 'meetings without neck-ties,' 'G-8 select club membership,' and hugging 'friends.'"

ARMENIA: "NATO's Family Picture"

Independent Aravot (4/27) published a front-page NATO summit "family picture," showing President Kocharian standing just behind President Clinton and asked "is it just accidental that Armenia's president is standing so close to the U.S. president and so far from the leaders of Russia and Belarus?"

"Armenia At Center Of Russian-NATO Conflict"

Independent Oragir (4/28) published this editorial: "Although NATO is mightier than Russia, it would be a mistake to consider Russia buried. It is an unpredictable country. Georgia and Azerbaijan want to become members of NATO as soon as possible. This position is similar to that of Romania and Bulgaria. They won't be able to join unless the question of Yugoslavia, a Russian enclave, is solved. Armenia looks like a Russian enclave today, in spite of the lack of a common border. It is the only country [in the area] that has both Russian troops and the latest Russian military technology. Armenia is the Yugoslavia of this region and, for this reason, it stands in the way of implementation of NATO's strategic plans in the Caucasus."

BULGARIA: "NATO's New Mission"

Influential weekly Kapital commented (5/1): "Russia's harsh reaction to NATO's new doctrine and the Alliance's enlargement (especially, in the direction of the Baltic States) is another demonstration of the growing mistrust between NATO and Russia. The emergence of a counterbalance to NATO is a mere hypothesis at the moment. Whether this is a tendency or a temporary division of the international community remains to be seen in the near future. NATO has already made its first move by reserving the Euro-Atlantic zone for itself."

"NATO Relies On Nine More Allies"

Center-right Standard observed (4 /29): "The fact that Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania were mentioned in the final documents of the NATO summit in Washington demonstrates the Alliance's new commitment to southeastern Europe. In the short term, this probably means the creation of a 'security buffer' around crisis-laden Yugoslavia. In the long run, this will fortify NATO's southern flank and diminish Russia's geostrategic interests along a clearly defined border."

CROATIA: "Kosovo--Exception Or Rule?"

In Rijeka-based, independent Novi List (4/29), Dane Rosko mused: "It is morally touching indeed when NATO and the United States say that they are ready to defend the Kosovar Albanians with arms...but at the same time, a very important question is whether Kosovo is an exception or a rule in NATO's new strategy, and whether the Allies will be equally firm, but also consistent when it comes to the Kurds....Tibetans, Palestinians, Tutsis, Hutus [or] native Americans."

CZECH REPUBLIC: "What Shall We Do?"

Martin Fendrych and Maciej Szymanowski opined in intellectual weekly Respekt (5/3): "What we have now...is an 'old' and a 'new' NATO. The old one continues to provide security to its members in the world of weapons of mass destruction, expansive dictatorships and terrorism. The new one strengthens common security via cooperation with Russia and Ukraine, and demonstrates openness toward accepting new members. It not only serves the protection of its own members, but also other countries or communities--the evidence of this is the active participation in solving the Kosovo crisis.... [At the summit] the Czechs had their Havel there who was always seen next to Clinton or Solana...and who was perceived as a man accorded the highest possible respect."

KAZAKHSTAN: "NATO Tries The Role Of Peacekeeper"

Independent weekly Novoye Pokoleniye opined (4/30): "The old NATO disappeared...and a new military-political organization appeared under the old title but aiming at completely different global goals.... The entire world becomes the playing field of NATO where any state should wait for 'preventive' strikes if it seems necessary to the Alliance.... In comparison to NATO, the UN couldn't adapt to the new realities...so all the functions (such as peacekeeping) will be taken by NATO."

"Bursting Toward The West"

Independent weekly Novoye Pokoleniye also had this comment (4/30): "At the NATO summit, the Kazakhstani delegation was interested more in the economy and less in the war.... Such an intensive program of meetings and negotiations [of the Kazakhstani president] undoubtedly will, in the near future, bring positive results and positively influence the policy and economics of Kazakhstan. Our president's bilateral meetings in Washington are more important for Kazakhstan than the NATO summit."

POLAND: "A New Wartime World"

Pawel Wronski wrote in liberal Gazeta Wyborcza (4/30): "For the first time NATO and the United States are trying to create a new world order. Over the last decade, most of the problems of the modern world were solved thanks to cooperation between the United States and the former superpower, Russia.... The operation in Yugoslavia, however, is conducted in spite of Moscow's strong objection. For the first time ever it is perfectly clear that, in light of the collapse of the UN, the only organization capable of such actions is NATO.... The bombs that drop on Yugoslavia indicate that the world is slowly shifting back to a situation where the use of force is an instrument of international policy. Which, alas, is the historical norm."

"Successful Debut"

Maria Wagrowska opined in mainstream military weekly Gazeta Zbrojna (4/30): "NATO in Washington showed its strong point: Unity prevailed over difference of opinion, and resolve prevailed over hesitation.... The Alliance presented a picture of unity in the face of such an unprecedented challenge as the Balkan crisis. And the summit has left us with the irresistible feeling that NATO, in spite of dilemmas it faces, is entering another 50 years of its existence strengthened. In spite of the many compromises it has had to make, NATO's prospects are good."

"New Role For The Alliance"

Adam Szostkiewicz wrote in mainstream Catholic weekly Tygodnik Powszechny (4/29): "The Kosovo crisis focused discussion on NATO's functions in the post-Cold War world.

"It turns out that only the Alliance is capable of intervening in defense of principles which are inscribed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights--even though this intervention cannot be convincingly justified in light of existing modern international law. It also turns out that the Alliance is not eager to play the role of 'world policeman.'... NATO's participation in the 1991 war against the Hussein regime, in the war in Bosnia in the mid-90s, and in the air war...against the Milosevic regime clearly stems from the necessity to defend not only the tenets on which Western democracies are based, but also to protect the interests of NATO member states.... Accordingly, the Alliance will not intervene in Tibet, East Timor, the Kongo, Rwanda--the more so not in Chechnya--but only where direct interests of the West are at stake."

ROMANIA: "On Both Ends Of The Rifle"

Azi, the voice for a breakaway faction of the ruling Democratic Party, maintained in a front-page editorial (4/29): "NATO's enlargement has already occurred precisely when (the Alliance) took on objectives that exceed by far the goals of the Alliance in 1949.... The original defensive concept is just the launch pad for objectives out of NATO's area. These objectives are no longer purely military; on the contrary, they are intimately linked to the political, economic and social life of other states, which will stand under the scrutiny of the infrared 'gun sight' of the North Atlantic Alliance. To avoid the risk of ever being targeted by this gun sight, Romania's only chance is to move over and join the Alliance. When a gun is involved, it's not equal which end you are holding!"

SPAIN: "Crossing The Rubicon"

Enrique Gil Calvo commented in liberal El Pais (5/3): "NATO's summit...approved a document called the 'new strategic concept' that could imply crossing the Rubicon.... NATO, facing the need to change the rules of the game for a UNSC that doesn't work, didn't choose reform but rather a break [with the Security Council]. It seems, certainly, more practical, rapid and effective--but only in the short run. In the long run, it's inefficient, generating legal insecurity.... This is Hobbe's dilemma: How do we create a political system capable of overcoming war?... It seems that President Clinton has opted for...political realism. He opposes the International War Tribunal, disobeys the multilateral World Trade Organization, and now he has authorized the de facto abolition of the Security Council."

SWITZERLAND: "A Progressive Precedent"

Markus Somm opined in Zurich's largest, center-left Tages-Anzeiger (4/30): "It is not very progressive when the 'sovereign fanatics' criticize Yugoslavia's violated sovereignty. The sovereignty of a country is the oldest achievement of international law, but this old principle must be put into perspective when it is violated in favor of the collective interests of the international community. It is without doubt questionable who should determine these interests and ascertain when human rights are violated. The UN would be the most suitable candidate, but as long as the Security Council is composed of the large powers chosen after World War II, it will be rare that military action will take place with a UN mandate. NATO's mission could be a precedent-setting case. It is without doubt one of these rare interventions where humanitarian interests really predominate. Somebody who insists on a UN mandate misjudges and weakens the possibilities which lie in this case. From the leftist perspective, it would be progressive if human rights counted more than the sovereignty of a country."

"Unequal Standards"

The Swiss news weekly FACTS (4/29) ran this editorial comment from its correspondent in Turkey, Gunnar Koehne: "If the former defense alliance NATO has now declared itself to be a kind of European human rights policeman, it must accept being reminded of the fate of the Kurds in the NATO country Turkey.

"For fifteen years, desperate refugee faces like those now seen in Macedonia or Albania could be found in Turkey. If NATO does not want to see this, the 'common values' as declared at the Washington anniversary summit are not worth anything."

TURKEY: "A European Security And Defense Identity"

Hasan Unal maintained in religious/intellectual Zaman (4/29): "The United States seems pleased with the EU countries' initiative to establish a defense structure for conflicts in Europe, as Washington demands from the EU more expenditure and investment on defense and security issues. Given this, it seems only natural the Europeans would use NATO resources. But such a European defense capacity could soon turn into a European NATO, and could further encourage Greece to increase its hostilities against us. Of course, the EU can also attempt to build such a capacity outside the confines of NATO, but it would undoubtedly cause a dispute between Europe and the United States. In any case, the consequences resulting from an EU at odds with the United States would benefit Turkey."

UKRAINE: "NATO Punishes Randomly"

Russian joint venture Inter TV aired this comment (4/25): "NATO is eager to become the only military alliance to be tapped by the UN to carry out peacekeeping operations. But the wars against Iraq and Yugoslavia show that NATO doesn't necessarily need UN approval. The organizers of the summit made clear that there is no place for Russia in the Alliance, since it refused to participate in the summit. The war in Yugoslavia demonstrates that the European divisions have just begun.... Nobody can guarantee that dictators like Milosevic will not appear. Without underestimating the importance of fighting dictators, governments will always find defenseless Albanians to protect. Ethnic cleansing in Chechnya, Turkey, Columbia and Indonesia show that NATO punishes randomly, that is, only enemies and only countries that don't have nuclear weapons."

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

HONG KONG: "Let's Get Our Facts Right About NATO"

Columnist Neville de Silva wrote in the independent Hong Kong Standard (4/30): "One fallacy about NATO that has been paraded as gospel is that Washington virtually took by the scruff of the neck some former communist nations which were members of the Warsaw Pact and forcibly made them part of an enlarged NATO. Nothing is farther from the truth.... Far from a Washington-led NATO forcing its way East, swallowing up former Warsaw Pact members, it was some of those former Soviet bloc states that made the initial moves to join NATO. Among them were Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, while others are still knocking loudly on the door."

PHILIPPINES: "A New And Distubing Approach To Keeping Peace"

The liberal Today observed (4/29): "NATO's 50th anniversary summit...will be remembered for a new, albeit disturbing, approach to keeping world peace. In the summit declaration, the NATO leaders reserved the right to carry out pre-emptive strikes in Europe to counter threats to the Alliance's interest.... In doing so, NATO feels no need for any mandate from the UN.... America and its Allies have thus set aside existing norms of international law and relations among nations. NATO's declaration can mean a drastic revision of the whole system of international relations.... So now, the use of force gets virtual primacy in solving conflicts, like the current strife in Kosovo. How soon before the same technique is foisted upon Asia? After all, the U.S. State Department often lambastes the human rights records of China and such ASEAN members as Myanmar and Vietnam. It has accused states like North Korea and Iraq of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction....

"How soon before the next Asian nation becomes a target of a U.S.-led intervention? The developments at the NATO summit should prompt another look at U.S. intentions in the Asia-Pacific region, especially in light of stepped up U.S. moves to expand its security ties with Japan, to promote the theater missile defense project and to get approval for a visiting forces agreement with the Philippines."

VIETNAM: "Violence Keeps Raging"

The lead editorial of Ha Noi Moi (New Hanoi, the newspaper of Hanoi's municipal Communist Party Committee) commented (4/25): "The meaningless violence of the Yugoslav war overshadowed the anniversary of NATO's half-century of existence.... At the age of 50, NATO has abandoned its basic self-defensive principle and is on the long trip to become a regional and international gendarme, a goal that not all NATO members share.... By waging a war in Yugoslavia, NATO is giving rise to humanitarian tragedies rather than carrying out humanitarian relief efforts as it has been alleging so far."

"A Security Mechanism Or An Apparatus Serving Expansionism?"

The lead editorial of Quan Doi Nhan Dan (People's Army, the newspaper of the Army's Party Committee and the Ministry of National Defense) held (4/24): "Under the new name of 'the mechanism safeguarding the security' of Europe, NATO has swiftly changed itself to serve the U.S. ambition of expanding its influence.... 'Eastward enlargement' and 'partnership for peace' plans are just the blinders to hide steps toward bringing all of Europe into the U.S. zone of influence, paving a leveled way for the United States to fulfill its greater ambitions in the region in the future.... As each day passes, it gets clearer that 'safeguarding the security for the free and inseparable Europe' must be interpreted as 'safeguarding the American-style freedom in Europe and the continent is inseparable from the U.S. influence.' Anyone that dares to obstruct the implementation of the above concept will be penalized, even by force.... Moreover, by bypassing the UNSC, the United States has officially turned NATO into a mechanism that is to safeguard security in the 21st century."

SOUTH ASIA

INDIA: "A Dangerous New Doctrine"

The centrist Hindu averred (5/3): "A dangerous new doctrine which puts all multi-ethnic, multi-religious nations on notice has been propounded by the sole surviving Western military Alliance. The so-called post-Cold War doctrine of human rights and shared sovereignty adopted by the NATO summit in Washington is gunboat diplomacy given official approval, and military adventurism no more requiring even the myth of international sanction. This is the outcome of a decade in a unipolar world where the United States, the sole superpower...has experimented with various avatars in a self-appointed policeman's role.... The continuing aerial bombardment of Iraq and the earlier attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan...had taught the United States that it was answerable to none. Not certainly to the UN. In the past decade the world has learned one cardinal lesson: The unipolar world as it has emerged is an unstable world without rules. It has also learned that its only collective voice is muted and muffled.... Now comes the dubious 'doctrine of international community,' expanded by Britain's Prime Minister Blair. It fits the scheme of global economic domination through the new order.... The consequences, if such a doctrine is adopted by other countries, can be disastrous. What if Russia decides to go to the rescue of the native majority in Latin America or Cuba, if in a post-Castro era the majority is suppressed?... Sovereignty, international boundaries and other principles will cease to have any sanctity. If in extreme cases such as in a repeat of Nazi Germany or Pol Pot's Cambodia outside intervention is justified, it must be with the sanction of the world body."

"NATO's Nuclear Doctrine"

The centrist Hindu had this analysis by strategic affairs editor C. Raja Mohan (4/30): "Nuclear weapons are here to stay. That is one of the central messages from last week's...summit.... NATO has reaffirmed the centrality of nuclear weapons in its collective security strategy and military doctrine.... While refusing to give up its own nuclear weapons, NATO steps up the rhetoric against the spread of weapons of mass destruction. It declares that 'the principal nonproliferation goal of the Alliance and its members is to prevent proliferation from occurring or, should it occur, to reverse it through diplomatic means.' Recognizing the limits of such diplomacy in preventing the diffusion of weapons, it emphasizes the importance of being able to cope with such military threats from regional adversaries armed with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.... In sum, then, the West is declaring that it will continue to rely on nuclear weapons for its security and will not accept a total elimination.... The West will vigorously oppose the spread of nuclear weapons and be militarily prepared to operate in regional theaters that might have adversaries equipped with weapons of mass destruction. Despite the definitiveness of the NATO's nuclear declarations, the debate is far from over in Europe.... Where does India, one of the new nuclear weapon powers, fit into the new debate? Like NATO, India will insist on maintaining its arsenal to ensure its security. But unlike NATO, New Delhi supports the idea of total disarmament."

"U.S. Stalking Horse"

The centrist Times of India had this editorial (4/29): "So far has NATO drifted from its original stated aim of collective self-defence that the rest of the world has genuine reason to fear its future direction.... Despite the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the 'Soviet threat,' the United States has pushed through the eastward expansion of NATO.... What is the reason behind this frenzied expansion? In reality, NATO is being enlarged--both spatially and doctrinally--in order to ensure U.S. military and political dominance over Europe, Russia and the rest of the world. The new strategic concept adopted by NATO leaders...is suffused with this hegemonic intent. The much-vaunted 'independent' European defence and security identity has been firmly anchored to NATO and hence the United States. And the Alliance's terms of reference have been broadened to include a more muscular approach to missile, biological and chemical weapon proliferation as well as to regional conflicts outside the Euro-Atlantic area. NATO's ongoing aggression against Yugoslavia is the template for the Alliance's redefined mission. For Washington, the stakes in Yugoslavia are enormous. Failure is no longer an option.... But just as the United States cannot afford to lose, the rest of the world cannot afford to let it win. If NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia is allowed to prevail, the Alliance will eventually turn its destructive attention to other 'out-of-area' operations. The Kosovo adventure shows how wrong the world was to be optimistic about NATO reforming itself. Irrationality and hubris continue to dominate the NATO mindset."

"NATO's New Doctrine"

The Mumbai-based, pro-BJP Daily averred (4/29): "It is a pity and rather shocking that NATO on its 50th anniversary is striking a military and aggressive posture.... [The summit] resolutions may sound quite scary. NATO has resolved to intervene in regional conflicts and combat militarily the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery.... This new doctrine is definitely a threat to international security and peace. NATO should have second thoughts about its new doctrine and change its mindset. Maybe it is better to go back to its original philosophy of self-defence and political unity among its members, and work with the UN around the world."

PAKISTAN: "NATO's New Nuclear Realpolitik"

Riffat Hussain had this op-ed piece on NATO's new strategy in the centrist, national News (5/2): "A nuclear-armed NATO, which is committed to undertaking "crisis management operations" outside the UN framework, will naturally evoke suspicions and fears among all those who fall outside the Euro-Atlantic community. NATO's nuclear posturing and doctrines will neither reassure those who disagree with the Alliance on issues of principle, nor will it contribute to the creation of a genuinely peaceful and stable environment."

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

CANADA: "Just Say No To NATO"

Columnist R. Cort Kirkwood commented in the conservative Ottawa Sun (4/28): "If any nation can join NATO, then membership won't mean anything. The more members it has the less willing it will be to carry out the very mission it has contrived. Estonia, for instance, is unlikely to permit NATO's globocops to use its territory to stage an attack against terrorists in neighboring Lithuania, which means NATO might have to use force against one of its own members to use force against another of its members. We don't need any of those problems. NATO doesn't need a new anything, meaning new members or a new mandate to meet the 'security challenges of the new century.' With the evil empire dead in its grave, NATO's mission is done. If Europeans want to revitalize NATO, bully for them. For us, it's purpose has been served. It's time the United States said good-bye too."

ARGENTINA: "NATO's Coup D'Etat"

Julio Barboza wrote in pro-government La Prensa (5/2): "If we had to talk about a coup d'etat without a world state, we would be talking about NATO's new 'strategic concept.'... The new authority will be exercised in a broad framework: the territory of NATO's 19 members plus 25 members of its appendix--the Association for Peace--i.e. ranging from Alaska to Vladivostok.... At the same time, it took over new missions which include the fight against genocide, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, which lead to intervention for humanitarian reasons. It also gave itself new rules and announced an oil blockade on Yugoslavia of dangerous consequences.... Therefore, this is a coup. Fearing a Russian veto regarding the Kosovo operation--which would paralyze the Council's action--NATO did not hesitate in launching this Napoleonic (invasion)...of potentially huge consequences.... NATO serves Clinton to maintain a powerful influence on a tribal Europe which lacks foreign and common defense policies."

HONDURAS: "NATO's Overextension"

Mario R. Argueta judged in conservative El Heraldo (4/29): "Where does the UN fit in?... It seems that NATO is growing and transforming itself into a global police force, ignoring the role of the UN. Are we facing the 21st century with a unipolar 'European-American peace?' The Old World certainly has legitimate security concerns...but this projecting itself onto a world stage is something different all together. This overextension represents...new paradigms over what constitutes international law and national sovereignty.... It's true that UNSC initiatives sometimes fall prey to Russian and Chinese vetoes, but it is better to reach a consensus, in the difficult give and take of reciprocal concessions, than to take unilateral actions."

JAMAICA: "NATO's Challenge And New Goals"

The moderate, influential Daily Gleaner held (4/27): "NATO's anniversary celebrations ended up beinq rather muted.... Having lost its chief enemy, NATO has taken a more aggressive approach to maintaining security.... NATO served the purpose for which it was created after WWII. Yet, if it is to survive into the next century, it will have to adopt different goals."

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency

Office of Public Liaison

Telephone: (202) 619-4355

5/3/99

# # #