PROSPECTS FOR NATO TALKS WITH RUSSIA 'NOT GOOD'
(Foreign Media Reaction Daily Digest)
As NATO and Russia prepare for talks on a new charter aimed
at securing Moscow's nod on enlargement in time for the
Alliance's July summit in Madrid, the majority of analysts
overseas remained convinced that NATO has not decided which
enticements to offer the Kremlin, that the bargaining will
be difficult and that it might fail. Observers pointed to
a spate of anti-enlargement statements by Russian
officials--notably by Defense Minister Rodionov during his
first visit to Alliance headquarters--as evidence that
Moscow's objections to NATO membership for former Warsaw
Pact countries remain as strong as ever. Centrist Diena of
Riga held, "Moscow has not given in to NATO enlargement, or
to the existence of the Alliance." Referring to Moscow's
argument that European security cannot be anchored to a
NATO that excludes Russia, Ljubljana's left-of-center Delo
concluded, "As long as the interlocutors are on two
separate banks of a river as wide as the discussion of
security in Europe, no quick answers may be expected." A
review of Russian opinion confirmed these gloomy
assessments. Reformist Segodnya reported that the Kremlin
sees no "practical use" in NATO Secretary General Solana's
visit to Moscow later this month, since it believes that
"the current crisis can only be resolved through a series
of meetings President Yeltsin is going to have soon with
Western leaders." Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny
Primakov told official government Rossiyskaya Gazeta that
Russia is "against NATO enlargement" because it "conflicts
with our interests." Reformist weekly Moskovskiye Novosti
warned that "hasty NATO enlargement may trigger a return to
global military confrontation." Centrist Nezavisimaya
Gazeta judged that "Europe is headed for a new split, the
chief reason being NATO expansion." The same paper voiced
skepticism regarding the sincerity behind the Alliance's
offer of a special treaty codifying formal relations with
NATO and declarations that no nuclear arms will be
stationed on the territory of new members. "Russia needs
constantly to remind the West of the promises she managed
to wring from it and try to secure more," it said.
Western and Central European commentators, in turn, were
dismayed by NATO's overtures, fearing that it might make
too many concessions in an attempt to smooth Russia's
ruffled feathers. Grateful that the foreign ministers in
Brussels had turned down a suggestion to refrain from
deploying foreign NATO troops in new member states,
Budapest's influential, liberal Magyar Hirlap stressed
regarding the no-nuclear-weapons, no-foreign-troops
suggestions, "If, at the very beginning of the talks,
Brussels is ready to make two such major concessions to
Moscow, then what are they going to bargain about in the
future?" In Poland, pundits fretted over a "second
Yalta," where deals are made with Russia behind the backs
of Central European candidates. Political/analytical
Polityka newsmagazine of Warsaw declared that a "Yalta
group" exists and that the no-nuclear-weapons pledge is one
of its "successes." Editorialists were troubled by the
prospect of new allies joining what centrist Sueddeutsche
Zeitung of Munich defined as "a two-class NATO. On the
Western side of the Oder, security is guaranteed by U.S.
forces, but on the Eastern side it is guaranteed by
Western paper. On September 1, 1939, the Poles learned
how much this paper is worth: Nothing."
This survey is based on 56 reports from 22 countries, Dec.
12-Jan. 2.
EDITOR: Mildred Sola Neely
EUROPE
GERMANY: "Prospects Not Good For Talks With Russia"
Ruediger Clement told his audience on national radio
Deutschlandfunk of Cologne (12/19): "Again and again, it
is always the same play: Russia's foreign minister is
responsible for the more friendly tones, while the defense
minister makes tougher statements. Obviously, this does
not even change when the people in Moscow change.... It is
again the old tactical game of how the ice can be melted
once the negotiations about the new charter have begun.
The question is whether NATO was well advised in clearing
some problems already in the preparatory talks, since the
Russians made concessions in all previous processes only
if there was no way out. The lessons from the '80s are
still valid. Only after the deployment of medium-range
missiles was Moscow willing to seriously discuss their
elimination. It would be sad if the talks gained in
substance only if NATO has accepted new members.... With
this charter, Moscow pursues a different aim than NATO.
Moscow wants to push NATO back into the second row of the
European peace order. But these are not good prospects for
the talks."
"Two-Class NATO As A Sweetener For Moscow"
Josef Joffe said in an editorial in centrist Sueddeutsche
Zeitung of Munich (12/19) regarding a suggestion by German
Defense Minister Ruehe that NATO offer not to deploy
conventional forces in new NATO countries: "If NATO is now
committing itself to not deploying new forces in Poland
and other new member states, then it will create a two-
class NATO. On the Western side of the Oder, security is
guaranteed by U.S. forces, but on the Eastern side it is
guaranteed by Western paper. On September 1, 1939, the
Poles learned how much this paper is worth: Nothing.
Countries that cannot count on the loyalty of the Alliance
are not reliable partners. A two-class NATO will be a
NATO of secondary importance."
"Relaxed NATO"
Gisbert Kuhn penned the following editorial for centrist
General-Anzeiger of Bonn (12/19), "Rarely has a NATO
ministerial taken such an unspectacular and relaxed course
as this defense ministers' meeting. There was nothing to
decide, and the coming months must show whether NATO's
great concepts of its enlargement and a reshaping of its
relationship with Russia will succeed. The Alliance did
its homework, and that happened because of massive
pressure, mainly from the Germans.... It has been clear
long since that this enlargement to the East will happen
anyway...but the real aim is not to make NATO bigger but to
create a new security system in Europe. And that cannot
be done without Russia."
BRITAIN: "Wooing A Bear"
The independent weekly Economist remarked (12/13): "A grand
summit of NATO heads of government next summer in Madrid
could, if all goes according to plan, give birth to a new
Atlantic alliance and a new set of European security
institutions.... But it is far from certain that Russia
and NATO will manage to have a charter ready for blessing
next summer in Madrid. The Alliance has not yet even
decided what to offer.... But unless NATO offers the
Russians the prospect of a broad range of joint decision-
making, they will probably turn the charter down."
FRANCE: "The War Of The Toast"
Under the headline above, Michel Leclercq filed this AFP
dispatch (12/19): "In the last few months Franco-American
conflicts in matters of diplomacy, the economy and
cultural issues have abounded.... But it is over NATO
that the two nations are battling, with the risk of
blocking the renovation process of the Atlantic
Alliance.... Dominique Moisi of the French
Institute for International Relations comments: `These
tensions can be explained by the new international context
which prevails since the fall of the Communist bloc: There
is no longer a common enemy to force us to work together.'
As the only superpower, the United States has difficulty
in accepting the fact that its supremacy might be
questioned."
"Final Agreement Or Nothing"
Baudoin Bollaert said in right-of-center Le Figaro (12/18):
"Everyone seems to agree on one point: The final agreement
(on NATO) will be global or there will be no agreement at
all. In other words, it appears that the internal
renovation of the Alliance, with the emergence of a
`European pillar,' cannot be separated from its
enlargement to the East."
"Franco-American Differences"
Francois de Rose, French ambassador to Washington, said in
right-of-center Le Figaro (12/17): "The question of the
Southern command is only one aspect of a larger question,
which France rightly asks: that of Europe's position in an
alliance concerned today with its enlargement, its
relations with Russia, the emergence of a European pillar,
the question of Central and Eastern Europe's stability,
the dangers of nuclear proliferation.... It is
unfortunate that the tense relations between Paris and
Washington might compromise the solution to questions which
are urgent and certainly more important for the future of
Europe."
RUSSIA: "Our Reply To Solana"
Under this headline, reformist weekly Moskovskiye Novosti
(# 1, 1/1) published a comment by Denis Baranets: " As for
Moscow starting to woo Tehran and Beijing, this depends on
the West: Such contacts will become possible, if NATO goes
ahead with its expansion plans."
"What Moscow Has Made Clear To Solana"
Pavel Felgenhauer held on page one of reformist Segodnya
(12/31): "According to a Yeltsin aide, NATO's secretary
general, due in Moscow in mid-January, will most likely
come with a familiar set of assurances and general
declarations that do not meet our specific concerns. So
there evidently will be no talks with NATO soon. A lot of
probing has already taken place over the last couple of
years. It has been made clear to Solana that there's no
point in studying each other's positions any more. What is
needed is concrete talks to accommodate Russia's
concerns.... The Kremlin believes its requirements are
minimal and any further major concessions are impossible,
therefore it does not think the January visit will be of
any practical use.... The Kremlin's opinion is that the
current crisis can only be resolved through a series of
meetings President Yeltsin is going to have soon with
Western leaders. If that doesn't work out either, Russia
will have to take a break and see what happens when NATO
starts changing. Any serious military and political
countermeasures are only possible after NATO starts
deploying troops and Western intelligence services start
setting up bases in Eastern Europe. Until then, we still
have time to reach an agreement."
"Hasty Enlargement: Return To Global Confrontation?"
Reformist weekly Moskovskiye Novosti ( # 51, 12/27) stated
in a comment by Alexander Zhilin: "Hasty NATO enlargement
may trigger a return to global military confrontation now
that a weakened Russia, precisely for reasons of being
weak, may be a great deal more dangerous as a would-be
opponent, than the USSR."
"Russia's 'No' Pays Off"
Juan Cobo said in reformist weekly Moskovskiye Novosti (#
51, 12/27): "Of course, being realists, we must admit that
Moscow cannot prevent NATO enlargement. But, as shown by
the latest events, a reasonable 'no' pays off. We still
have time before NATO meets for a summit in July."
"Russia To Face NATO Military Super-State"
Dmitry Gornostayev predicted on page one of centrist
Nezavisimaya Gazeta (12/27): "It looks as if Europe is
headed for a new split, the chief reason being NATO
expansion, of course. Try as Western Europeans and
Americans would to assure Russians that the West means no
harm, Moscow knows what this is all about: The Alliance
seeks to contain the successor of the former superpower and
weaken it politically. As the Kremlin begins to fight
back, the West tends to view its reaction as 'imperial
ambition.' Nobody is accusing NATO of 'imperial ambition'
as it plans to build a military super-state extending from
Vancouver to Warsaw, instead of keeping its promise to
create a security zone from Vancouver to Vladivostok."
"There's No Guarantee Against Chaos In Russia"
Vladimir Abarinov said in reformist Segodnya (12/27):
"Having to respond to Defense Minister (Rodionov's) anti-
American and anti-NATO ranting is boring, indeed. Yes,
Europe does see Russia as a source of danger, but its fears
are not over a stable and strong Russia but over the chaos
which might engulf this country due to actions by
irresponsible politicians. Neither Rodionov, Yeltsin nor
any charter can guarantee Europeans that no such thing will
ever happen."
"NATO Stimulates Moscow-Beijing Rapprochement"
Vsevolod Ovchinnikov, commenting on the Chinese premier's
current visit to Moscow, stated in official government
Rossiyskaya Gazeta (12/27): "Nearsighted plans for NATO
expansion eastward and an anti-China bloc in the Asia-
Pacific region objectively push Moscow and Beijing into
each other's arms. Though the two deny they intend to
revive their old military-political alliance, the emergence
of new dividing lines in Europe and Asia can ultimately
result in confrontation, that is, a new version of the Cold
War."
"Last Chance For NATO"
Under this headline, centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (12/26)
ran a comment by Alexei Arbatov, deputy chairman of the
Duma Defense Committee: "Despite the signs of stabilization
in 1996, brought about by Yeltsin's and Clinton's electoral
victories and the progress of peace in Chechnya and
Yugoslavia, the year 1997 may well close the period which
came immediately after the Cold War and opened an era of
new divisions and confrontations in Europe.... All the
consolation prizes offered to Russia will not work, unless
they are tied to resolving the principal issue, that of
NATO expansion. The only solution that seems possible
under the circumstances is for NATO to invite Russia
individually to join the Alliance on conditions to be
worked out via negotiations in keeping with a 16-plus-one
formula."
"Time For New Russia-NATO Ties"
Centrist, army Krasnaya Zvezda (12/20) front-paged this
comment by Mikhail Pogorely, "The Rodionov visit to NATO
headquarters proved wrong those who had expected it to end
Russia's 'struggle' against NATO expansion. In a sense,
though, Rodionov's speech and bilateral meetings did mark
the end of a whole period of Russia-NATO relations. It
also started a new
period, one of specific decisions and formulas of true
cooperation to provide for an account of the interests of
both sides."
"Relations With Nato Only Part Of European Security
Problem"
Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Nikolai Afanasyevsky
explained in reformist, business weekly VEK (# 49, 12/20):
"It is not only that the expansion of NATO's military
structure will pose new dangers for Russia. More
importantly, NATO enlargement will create new dividing
lines and accentuate differences in levels of security for
different countries.... We see a wide spectrum of areas in
which Russia and NATO can cooperate.... We do not rule out
the possibility of a formal agreement on the principles of
NATO-Russia relations, provided the other side takes real
steps to meet our concerns. Relations between Russia and
NATO are important, of course. But they are only part of
the problem of European security. Its general architecture
matters most."
"Moscow: 'Absolute (?) Consensus' On NATO"
Vladimir Abarinov commented in reformist Segodnya (12/19):
"A member of the Rodionov team told an INTERFAX
correspondent in Brussels that Russia's negative attitude
toward NATO's plans remained unchanged, and he indicated
that there was not just a consensus but an 'absolute
consensus' in the Russian leadership on this matter.
Funny, this brings to mind a story by a famous Russian
author whose hero claimed he had drunk not just Veuve
Cliquot, but a vintage Veuve Cliquot."
"Primakov: Russia Is No Second-Rate Nation"
Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov said in an
interview for official government Rossiyskaya Gazeta
(12/17): "Yes, we are against NATO enlargement; no, we have
no right of veto to stop it, nor do we claim this right.
But we must protect our interests in this difficult
situation. We insist on our negative attitude toward NATO
enlargement, as we believe that it conflicts with our
interests, and this is certainly not unfounded. We favor a
dialogue with NATO because we realize that this
organization is a real factor to be reckoned with, and we
need to maintain relations with NATO. In the course of the
dialogue, we aim not just to maintain some kind of
relations with NATO but actively seek to have our concerns
assuaged and the negative effects of NATO's activities
minimized.... There is no solving European security
problems without Russia being involved. Our view is that
priority in this matter must be given not to NATO but to a
broader organization, the one which was set up to deal
expressly with European problems. It is the OSCE. The
future rests with it."
"NATO's Proposals May Prove False"
Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (12/15) ran this comment by
Dmitry Gornostayev: "The results of the talks Foreign
Minister Primakov had at NATO Headquaters produce a dual
impression. On the one hand, Russia, without backing away
from its opposition to NATO's enlargement, has received a
sort of guarantee of non-deployment of nuclear weapons in
would-be new NATO member-nations and a proposal of
consultations on a Russia-NATO agreement. On the other
hand, both proposals may prove false, after all.... Russia
needs constantly to remind the West of the promises she
managed to wring from it and try to secure more."
BELGIUM: "Belgium's Stance On Southern Command"
Conservative Catholic La Libre Belgique (12/24) ran an
interview with Belgian Defense Minister Jean-Pol Poncelet,
during which Michel Rosten asked Poncelet about Belgium's
position in the French-American quarrel over NATO's
Southern Command. Poncelet answered: "It amounts
to asserting much more clearly Europe's presence in the
Alliance's defense effort. I consequently believe that for
the Southern Command--as well as for the northern one--we
cannot accept the position of principle adopted by the
United States which wishes to impose its command
unconditionally.... Of course, no one demands that the
American admiral leave tomorrow. What we want, when the
time comes for the internal adaptation, is an
acknowledgment of the principle that regional commands
should not necessarily be American. As for the problem of
the Sixth Fleet, a solution can be found by puttting it
directly under the command of the SACEUR."
BULGARIA: "Russia, NATO In Season Of Big Bargains"
According to ruling Socialist Party Duma (12/13), "For the
first time, Moscow is not insisting that NATO should give
up the idea of expansion before the start of negotiations.
Primakov...implied that Russian diplomacy was ready to use
all its instruments for negotiations and that it was
inclined to discuss the security document. So, sticking to
its position against NATO's expansion, the Kremlin managed
to receive the assurance that nuclear weapons won't be
deployed close to its borders."
CANADA: "NATO Pushes East, But Too Late"
In the conservative Ottawa Sun (12/15), foreign affairs
analyst Eric Margolis wrote: "NATO...has finally mobilized
the collective courage to cross the Rubicon and advance
into the no-man's-land of Eastern Europe.... Russia, of
course, is filled with fury and concern over these
developments.... As Russia grows stronger and more
assertive, NATO's resolve to press east will flag. By
failing to move NATO into Eastern Europe more swiftly and
decisively, the West has lost an epic opportunity to avert
an inevitable, dangerous confrontation over the region with
a reinvigorated Russia in the early 21st century."
"Perils Of Expanding NATO"
In the view of the leading Toronto Globe and Mail (12/16),
"The bad news from the meetings of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization last week is that the Alliance has
reaffirmed its intention to expand eastward.... The good
news is that the Russians are not apoplectic about this
ill-conceived impulse to bring the Alliance to their
borders and realign the balance of security in Europe--at
least not yet.... But there is another option here.
Forget expansion. Broaden other more modest security
arrangements, such as the Partnership for Peace....
Support Russia's admission to the World Trade Organization
and eventually, to the European Union. Foster trade.
Encourage commerce. Invest in prosperity. Ultimately,
trust and confidence will bring security to Europe, for
both the Russians and us."
CROATIA: "A Step Closer To Partnership"
Fran Visnar's column on MPRI, which appeared under the
headline above, occupied pride of place in state-
controlled, national Vjesnik (12/12)--the upper right-hand
corner of the front page. The signing of a new contract
between the Croatian Ministry of Defense and MPRI (the U.S.
company advising the ministry), in Visnar's opinion, serves
as a response to "the frequent conclusions that American-
Croatian cooperation is undergoing a crisis and is in a
state of decline.... The new contract continues the
already existing cooperation with Croatian military forces,
which is now moving to a higher level. Croatia is not
sitting idle before entering WEU and NATO." After
discussing Croatia's military modernization program, which
is to be realized with the help of MPRI, Visnar concluded:
"When this program is completely implemented, Croatia will
be able to enter at least the Partnership for Peace."
DENMARK: "Best Reason Why NATO Should Be Expanded"
The foreign editor of center-right Berlingske Tidende
(12/29) described 1997 as a crucial year in the development
of NATO, adding, "Europe is extremely sensitive to new
threats in comparison to the United States. This is partly
because medium-range missiles can hit Europe and partly
because Europe needs to maintain free access to oil
supplies from the Middle East. Despite this, the United
States has been more willing to use force to neutralize
such threats. It is uncertain whether the United States
will continue to carry the burden of responsibility....
NATO expansion will hopefully cement political and military
cooperation between the United States and Europe....
Russia is against the expansion of NATO. It is working
toward reducing American influence in Europe. That in
itself the best reason why NATO ought to be expanded."
GEORGIA: "Vital Importance Of Caucasus And NATO Expansion"
Independent Resonance's journalists Lika Basilaia and Lasha
Tugushi speculated on how the decision on NATO expansion
would affect, directly or indirectly, the national
interests of Georgia (12/3): "Russia is sending dangerous
signals. Profoundly irritated with NATO's expansion,
Russia attempts to release itself from the 'tentacles' of
the (CFE) treaty. For Russia, the proposed expansion of
NATO is a perfect pretext. The West is willing to
compromise. It is not surprising that despite 'the vital
importance of the Caucasus region' [for the United States]
as an oil transit region, we hear that 'the decision on the
military bases should be taken by Russia and Georgia.'
[Quote from Ambassador Collins press-conference in
Tbilisi.]"
HUNGARY: "NATO Enlargement: 1997's Most Interesting
Issue In Europe"
Top-circulation Nepszabadsag's London correspondent filed
(1/2), "In 1997 NATO enlargement will be the most
interesting issue in Europe. The United States will
continue to exert pressure on its European allies; NATO
itself, since it will be less occupied with Bosnia, will
concentrate more on its reform.... Enlargement is a
political issue and it will most certainly end in a
compromise which will, however, not be easy to reach: It
is very hard to imagine that the Greek or the Turkish
parliaments will ratify the membership of the Visegrad
countries.... There is a great contradiction in the
enlargement process: While the real security challenges in
Europe are the Baltics and the Balkans, NATO is only
considering inviting Central European states. What it
really boils down to is that 'the more a country needs
security the less chance it has to be admitted.'...
"It would be a grave mistake to annoy Russia with the
possibility of all former Warsaw Pact countries being
admitted to the Alliance. New members, on the other hand,
must not view their membership as a victory and they should
not expect NATO as a whole to represent their interests;
various interest groups will be formed within the Alliance
and Visegrad countries will have to fight for their entry
in these groups."
"Hungarian Membership In NATO: In Our National Interest"
An op-ed piece by a deputy state secretary at the
Hungarian Ministry of Defense, Istvan Gyarmati, appeared in
second largest-circulation Nepszava (12/27), "Those who
consider the pursuit of Hungarian national interests to be
the most important goal of Hungarian foreign policy must
admit that being a member of NATO means no less than the
chance to be finally not only objects, but instigators of
decisions significantly influencing our lives. Therefore,
our membership in NATO is clearly in our national
interest.... We must meet the conditions of integration
primarily not because we want to be members, but because
meeting them is an essential condition of stabilizing
democratic law and order in this country.... It is also
clearly in the national interest to establish stable
relations...primarily with our neighbors....
"Those who are seriously concerned about the security of
the country, and accept that to guarantee it requires
military force, cannot deny that Hungary is only able to
guarantee [its security] as a member of NATO.... The
argument that membership in NATO is less suitable to
guarantee the security of the country than neutrality, or
some other, independent solution, reflects either complete
ignorance--which I doubt--or else covers hidden political
intentions."
"Second-Class Compartments In NATO's Train?"
Largest circulation Nepszabadsag ran this op-ed piece
(12/20), "NATO officials last week in trying to ease
Russian concerns on the enlargement of the Alliance went
as far as stating that no nuclear arms will be placed on
the territories of the new members and also hinted that
foreign troops will not be deployed either. Eastern
European commentators, hearing these statements, became
suspicious and started asking the question whether NATO,
in order to ward off Russian misgivings, wants to put
second-class compartments on the NATO train and push
former Warsaw Pact states into these compartments. What
will the new NATO be like if it deploys neither nuclear
arms nor foreign troops on the territories of the new
members but at the same time makes considerable
concessions to Moscow, its 'strategic partner'? Who will
benefit from such enlargement besides Western arms
manufacturers?
"We must make it clear that the new states are not going to
be second-class members: In fact, in most NATO member
states no nuclear arms or foreign troops are deployed
today. In other words, today's NATO does not consist of
'first-class compartments' only and still every country
feels safe and secure within the Alliance. What NATO
officials must make sure now is that their train does not
collide with the Moscow express."
"What Would Be Left?"
Influential, liberal Magyar Hirlap (12/19) commented, "Last
week, NATO foreign ministers made a gesture to Russia: They
stated that the Alliance does not wish to deploy nuclear
arms on the territories of new members. For some days it
seemed that this ' sentence' would be concluded by the
defense ministers in Brussels yesterday, by stating that
NATO does not want to deploy foreign troops in the new
member states. NATO finally decided not to do this favor
to the Russians and it is easy to understand why. If, at
the very beginning of the talks, Brussels is ready to make
two such major concessions to Moscow, then what are they
going to bargain about in the future?"
"West Won't Be Able To Persuade Russia About NATO"
This assessment was published in liberal Magyar Hirlap
(12/16): "Western diplomats are trying hard to convince the
Russian leadership that NATO enlargement is not against
their own interests. I am sure that this is not going to
work. The fact that the borders of a military alliance
with which Russia had an inimical relationship for decades
will move several kilometers closer to Russian borders runs
counter to Russia's interests. The most the world can
achieve is to make Russians understand that they cannot
prevent NATO enlargement. It would be cynical to expect
them to rejoice over it.
"All of this puts Hungarian diplomacy in a very delicate
situation: Leaders of the country have to prove our
maturity to join the Alliance, convince Russians that our
entry to NATO does not pose a threat to them nor does it
erect a new division line in Europe and they also have to
convince the Hungarian public that NATO membership has no
alternative. Journalists also have a great responsibility
in getting the message to the people that since we are
living in a very fragile peace, our security can only be
guaranteed by a strong military alliance."
"Moscow Finally Said Yes To Dialogue"
Second highest circulation Nepszava opined (12/13), "To
NATO's great relief Moscow finally said yes. Not to the
enlargement but to continuing the dialogue with the
Alliance. It was obvious that pragmatic Russian diplomacy
would sooner or later acknowledge that it cannot prevent
expansion. The only question was when the bargain will
take place and what Russia will demand in return for
letting its former Warsaw Pact allies join the Alliance."
LATVIA: "Baltics' Gloomy Prospects Tied To Money"
Janis Freimanis wrote for centrist Diena (12/18), "Recently
there have been a number of discussions on an international
level on Baltic inclusion in NATO and, in as much as can be
concluded by the West's gradual 'surrender' to Russia's
pressures, our prospects of getting what we want are
becoming ever gloomier. It turns out, for example, that
NATO's problem with the Baltic states...is not so much
Russia's valiant opposition but money--little green pieces
of paper that are accepted in all countries.... The
security of the Visegrad countries alone will cost $125
million; part of that sum will have to be covered by the
former Warsaw Pact countries, but the largest portion--by
everyone else!...
"As long as Western diplomats are able to talk to
Russia...about its 'peaceful' intentions and
'understandable' geopolitical interests, for strictly
financial reasons Baltic inclusion in NATO expansion will
not happen. Realistically, the Baltics as an economic area
for the West are much less important than the Visegrad
countries.... Therefore our desire for NATO (membership)
must be defended with economic, not military arguments."
"Moscow Has Not Given In To Enlargement"
Foreign affairs commentator Aris Jansons said in centrist
Diena (12/13), "In reality, Moscow has not given in to NATO
enlargement, or to the existence of the Alliance. Russia
will certainly never cease to claim that European security
must be indivisible, meaning in this case a concentration
of the continent's security structure under OSCE
supervision. This week has only served to show that
Russia's pragmatic leadership recognizes NATO as a
realistic force and will count on it as such, while at the
same time continuing to condemn the...enlargement project
and will not deny the opportunity to grant the
organization epiteths from its Cold War collection."
NORWAY: "The New NATO"
Former Norwegian Ambassador to the U.S. Kjeld Vibe observed
in conservative Aftenposten (12/16), "After Clinton's
election victory, the road is open for establishing a
successor to IFOR in Bosnia. In an increasingly more
unpredictable world, NATO must maintain its core functions.
However, the types of conflicts NATO will be involved with
in the future will mainly be limited armed clashes caused
by ethnic and national disputes.... In the sharing of the
workload between NATO and the WEU, the WEU is expected to
take responsibility for handling crises, peacekeeping, and
humanitarian aid efforts where the United States and Canada
are not involved. In such operations, the WEU should be
able to use and deploy NATO's resources."
POLAND: "How To Respond To Anti-NATO Enlargement Voices"
The numerous articles that have appeared in the American
press warning about the enlargement of NATO sparked this
piece in leftist Trybuna (12/23) by Zygmunt Slomkowski:
"A wave of voices opposed to the enlargement of NATO, soon
after the most recent decisions taken by the foreign
ministers in Brussels, is a development that cannot be
ignored.... They portend a fierce political struggle.
Their goal, for opponents of NATO enlargement, is--if not
giving up this idea--at least delaying its implementation.
We have no direct influence on this. But we are able to
prevent giving ammunition to the opponents of Polish
aspirations. If, for instance, we make a laughing stock of
democracy and identify it with anarchy, then Richard
Cohen--who expressed his skepticism about new democracies
in Central Europe in the columns of the Washington Post,
and contemptuously conceded that his shoes were older than
those republics--will be given arguments against the
enlargement of the Alliance. If some [Polish] politicians,
who aspire to power, still build their ideology on
atavistic hatred of Russia, and roundly abuse all actions
aiming at creating Polish-Russian cooperation, then the
arguments of those in the United States who say that
Moscow can be afraid of NATO expansion, can gain
credibility."
"A Yalta Group"
Political/analytical Polityka newsmagazine (12/21)
commented in an article by Marek Ostrowski, "At the start,
Warsaw lost a game. A petty but important one. Prime
Minister Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz loudly and courageously
suggested: 'First an enlargement of NATO, then a special
NATO charter with Russia.' Today, it is already known that
the sequence will be the reverse.... 'We will be closely
watching NATO's negotiations with Russia. We will demand
that we be informed about the course of those negotiations
so that a game resulting in a new Yalta will not be played
again. There is no danger of a new Yalta,' said Foreign
Minister Rosati. Perhaps there is no danger, but the
Yalta group does exist and it has successes. One of the
successes is that part of the Brussels communique which
says that nuclear weapons will not be deployed on the
territory of new member nations.... Undoubtedly, it is a
bow to Russia.... The real success of the Yalta group,
however, is the intensification of voices in America that
an enlargement of NATO is a bad idea. Obviously, these are
not Bill Clinton nor Defense Secretary William Cohen's
voices. Yet Warsaw will not arrange the admission to NATO
with Clinton or Cohen, but--in its final stage--with the
American Senate, where, as we once calculated, the
proponents of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary can
be in short supply."
"Russia Is Angry And Threatens"
Brussels correspondent Malgorzata Alterman filed for
center-left Gazeta Wyborcza (12/19), "Russian Defense
Minister Igor Rodionov vehemently opposed yesterday
[December 18] the enlargement of NATO to the East.
Alliance representatives were surprised by his sharp note,
so different from Yevgeny Primakov's pragmatism shown
recently on this issue.... (He repeated that) Hungary,
Poland, and the Czech Republic are too important a buffer
zone to lose. Should NATO enlarge, Moscow will have no
other choice but to take appropriate political, military
and economic measures. Rodionov did not specify what
these measures would be. He did not rule out, however,
difficulties in ratifying the already signed disarmament
treaties [START II], and possible problems with new
treaties [CFE]."
"Is Russia Ready To Conclude Accord With NATO?"
Center-right Zycie pointed out (12/17), "Russia declares a
provisional readiness to conclude an agreement with NATO.
The Russian side demands, however, that Russia's fears of
NATO enlargement be dispelled. Meanwhile, the new war
doctrine provides a possibility of triggering a nuclear
war.... Russia's war doctrine provides the possibility of
the Russian armed forces making first use of nuclear
weapons against a possible aggressor. Russia can also make
first use of nuclear weapons should a regional conflict
turn into a war on a large scale--said Nezavisimaya
Gazeta, referring to a draft document of the Defense
Council, in which the main assumptions of the compiled
text of the new doctrine were presented. In an interview
for the same paper, Russia's Defense Minister Igor Rodionov
said that 'nuclear deterrence' was a priority direction of
development of the Russian armed forces."
PORTUGAL: "Consensus On NATO Quarrels--At Whose Expense?"
Center-left, lead circulation weekly Expresso (12/21)
commented in an editorial by Luisa Meireles, "The quarrels
at the heart of NATO that have now crystallized around
France and the United States are merely the most visible
tip of an iceberg of a vast number of differences on both
sides of the Atlantic. From a NATO in the process of
restructuring has emerged the old question of a European
identity, that in the past few years has has gone through a
number of fits and starts. And if many see in France's
attitude just one more example of traditional Gaullist
capriciousness, what is actually at stake is a good deal
more than that: It is the proper affirmation of Europe as
an entity capable of self-governance in areas as sensitive
as defense or security....
"But Europe [also] cannot sidestep the United States, on
which it continues to depend in many areas of the military
sector--and it is this dependence that the United States
is not above exploiting. By the time of the next [NATO]
summit, in the summer, a compromise no doubt will have
been reached. It remains to be seen if it will be by
consensus, or [otherwise] at whose expense."
SLOVENIA: "Enlargement Won't Be As Easy As You Think"
According to left-of-center Delo's Brussels correspondent
(12/19), "NATO speaks a lot about its increasingly good
relations with the Partnership for Peace members...but it
would above all prefer to have better relations with
Russia.... Although it has been said that (NATO) will not
consider anyone else's opinion--not even Russia's--the
present situation is far from simple.
"Conversations with the Russian ministers of defense and
foreign affairs (reveal)...that (Russia) cannot tolerate
the process of NATO enlargement because there are other
means of maintaining peace and cooperation in Europe...such
as OSCE. As long as the interlocutors are on two separate
banks of a river as wide as the discussion of security in
Europe, no quick answers may be expected.... (NATO)
defense ministers keep stressing the importance of their
decision to hold a summit in Madrid.... Nevertheless,
considering the statements by the Russian Defense Minister
... one can doubt that the process (of expansion) will be
an easy one--even if the newly confirmed negative viewpoint
of Russia is disregarded.... Some of Russia's arguments
will be hard to refute."
SPAIN: "Stability Will Improve With Enlargement"
International analyst Dario Valcarcel wrote (12/26) for
conservative ABC: "The incorporation of the three Central
European countries into NATO is a change which will have
important consequences. The stability of both Europe and
Russia will improve with the new Allies. The new member
countries will not store nuclear weapons in their
territories, and there will not be any new troops deployed
to the border with the former Soviet Union. NATO will try
to convince Russia about expansion. Russia has some
leverage: If NATO is expanded...it will become more
difficult to sign new treaties (with Russia). Russia will
also try to play its cards against NATO expansion by
freezing START II and any other agreements on nuclear or
conventional disarmament."
EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC
CHINA: "NATO Enlargement Urgent For U.S., Not European
Allies"
Comparing the relative haste in enlarging NATO to the
slower pace of the EU, Wei Wei stressed in the official,
Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao, 12/27),
"Russia has accepted EU enlargement. Therefore, the EU plan
can proceed slowly, calmly and deliberately.
"But Russia strongly opposes NATO enlargement and is
relatively weak. NATO wants to seize this opportunity to
carry out the enlargement plan at a time when Russia can be
made to swallow its bitter fruit. Therefore...the speed of
enlargement of the EU and NATO is entirely determined by
the strategic interests of the two organizations. The
United States, not its European allies, sees NATO
enlargement is an urgent matter. Europeans think that, in
addition to remaining on guard regarding Russia, the United
States also wants to proceed with the enlargement plan in
order to safeguard the U.S.' leading position in European
affairs."
JAPAN: "Should Expansion Of NATO Be Hurried?"
Under the headline above, moderate Tokyo Shimbun commented
editorially (12/25), "The United States, which aims to
expand NATO toward the East and Russia, which opposes the
idea, are not likely to come to terms. The final and only
resolution may be the inclusion of Russia in NATO....
"Is European and international security possible when
Russia, a superpower, is being isolated? Russia is still
in political and economic chaos, and an anti-Western leader
may win power after Yeltsin. The difficulty of this issue
is apparent because the debate over this same issue has
been ongoing for some years. The only resolution may be
either seeking a new way to (ensure) European security or
including Russia in NATO and reorganizing NATO."
SOUTH ASIA
INDIA: "Madrid Summit Opportunity For India To Unveil Its
Nuclear Plans"
An analysis in the centrist Pioneer by strategic affairs
analyst Brahma Chellaney asserted (1/2): "The nation can
no longer put off critical decision-making on its security
options. One cold war ended between 1989-91, another is
set to begin in 1997 as the U.S.-led NATO expands to the
doorsteps of Russia.... As East European countries
scramble to be among the first to come under NATO's nuclear
and collective security umbrella, India should exploit the
NATO-expansion summit to unveil its own nuclear security
plans.... In the months leading up to the NATO summit,
India should ready its prototype warheads and delivery
vehicles. There is only one way India can declare itself a
nuclear weapons state; let its capabilities speak for
themselves. The NATO summit in Madrid will present the
most favorable setting for India to begin a limited series
of warhead tests and demonstrate its deterrent power to the
world.... By the end of 1997, India's nuclear ambivalence
should have dissipated."
MIDDLE EAST
EGYPT: "The New Threat For NATO"
Kamal Habib, contributor for Islamist-leaning, opposition
Al Shaab (12/24), declared: "In a harsh tone, Nicholas
Burns said that NATO will expand eastward despite Russia's
objection.... This was an American tone of warning to
Russia and encouragement for the countries that seek to
join NATO for which Russia has to accede.... NATO will
seek new bases for a stable relationship with Russia,
which will secure NATO's eastern front. The remaining
part, combining North African Islamic countries and Egypt,
is regarded by NATO and the United States as the coming
danger.... This confirms the saying about the green
threat and the alternate enemy formulated by Western
strategists."
LATIN AMERICA
ARGENTINA: "Cautious Approach To Enlargement"
An editorial in pro-government La Prensa (12/17) read, "One
can hardly question the legitimate desire of Poland, the
Czech Republic and Hungary to integrate into the Atlantic
Alliance.... They are (now) trying to feel safe vis-a-
vis Russia, which still offers few guarantees of
stability....
"Nevertheless, the Russian perspective cannot be ignored.
In the past six years it has lost control over Eastern
Europe, first, and over the Soviet republics later. All in
all, these nations do not represent a military threat to
Russia. NATO's eventual expansion, however, would bring
closer to Moscow a military alliance which, in the Soviet
era, was its enemy and now, even though it is not an
enemy, is not an ally either. Even though the perspective
of a military confrontation seems more than remote--if not
practically impossible--the fragile current political and
institutional situation in the Russian Federation calls for
a cautious approach to an issue of such a delicate
nature."
##
For more information, please contact:
U.S. Information Agency
Office of Public Liaison
Telephone: (202) 619-4355
1/2/97
# # #
.