06 November 1997
The debate in NATO member and would-be member countries on the cost of enlargement and on the preparedness of the candidate nations continued to form the two main strands of comment abroad in the past few weeks. CANDIDATES: WILLING AND ABLE?--In anticipation of the November 16 referendum on Hungary's entry into NATO, the Hungarian media dedicated voluminous time and space to their country's candidacy. Supporters and opponents of membership kept up a lively exchange in Budapest papers, although pro-Alliance voices took heart from several polls indicating that a majority of Hungarians will vote yes on membership. Analysts favoring NATO insisted that admission would safeguard Hungary from slipping "back into the Balkans" and from the "threat of Russian imperialism." On a more positive note, they also argued that Hungary's political and economic integration into Europe hinges on Budapest's acceptance of NATO's "once-in-a-lifetime" offer. Top- circulation Nepszabadsag underlined, "Should Hungary's membership in NATO fail in the referendum, we will not be admitted to the EU." In the Czech Republic, writers dealt with the perception that Prague is not ready to meet "the obligations ensuing" from membership. Right- of-center Mlada fronta DNES explained that "the reluctance of some Czechs...stems either from deeply rooted ideological stereotypes of older generations, or the unwillingness to sacrifice some individual benefits to pay for their own security." Economic Hospodarske novinyurged Czechs to "take real action" to alter this impression and avoid a last-minute rejection by NATO. HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?--Editorialists fretted about the "hostile mood" in the U.S. Senate regarding the price of enlargement, a concern shared by the governments of other Allied countries. "Peanuts!," countered German and Belgian journalists. Centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich judged that, considering the magnitude of the Alliance's task of stabilizing Eastern Europe, the amount involved does amount to not much more than the price of that popular snack. Brussels's independent Catholic De Standaard also described the portion of the U.S. contribution to enlargement as "peanuts" when compared to the total defense budget. A Viennese observer suggested that, even though polls show Austrians as reluctant to pay more to join NATO, they would contribute if they are given all the facts about European security. RUSSIA: ANOTHER QUESTION MARK--The divide among Moscow pundits yawned just as wide on whether NATO poses a threat to Russia. The deputy director of the USA and Canada Institute called for Russia to work "in partnership" with the Alliance to devise a new European security system. Other columnists, however, recycled charges that NATO acts as a vehicle for U.S. domination and quoted Jesse Helms to the effect that the organization serves "to isolate Russia." Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta, after acknowledging the "real change in Russia- NATO relations" brought about by regular consultations and military exchanges, nevertheless pointed out that the Allies persist on talks "on enrolling the Baltic states and Ukraine." This survey is based on 41 reports from 10 countries, Oct. 18-Nov. 6. EDITOR: Mildred Sola NeelyTo Go Directly To Quotes By Region, Click Below EUROPE GERMANY: "Peanuts!" Martin Urban declared in an editorial in centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (11/5), "Among the irritations that do not seriously burden German-U.S. relations, but which occasionally result in misunderstandings, is the question of the costs resulting from NATO's opening to the East.... This is why Foreign Minister Kinkel has armed himself with figures for his visit to Washington. According to German estimates, the figures do not amount to billions but to a few hundred million at best. We must know that 70 percent of NATO's budget is covered by the Europeans, of which Germany pays 22 percent. "Officials in Washington ask what will be the result of the enlargement for NATO and what costs will it produce for the United States. In Bonn, the angle is somewhat different: What must the Western Alliance do to stabilize Eastern Europe? In the industrial sector, Bonn has already invested DM 125 billion for the area of the former Soviet Union and DM 56 billion for the Eastern Europeans. These, too, are investments in joint security, which can no longer be defined militarily. The costs to help integrate the Polish and Hungarian forces into the Alliance will only amount to a fraction compared to economic assistance. In view of the task, to take advantage of the great turnabout in Europe, we are almost tempted to speak of peanuts." "Russia Prepares For Real Test Of Enlargement" According to right-of-center Maerkische Oderzeitung of Frankfurt on the Oder (11/4), "The pragmatists in the Kremlin have realized that the accession of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary can no longer be prevented in the first enlargement round. But the real test is still to come. The catchwords are the Baltic states and Ukraine. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have never tried to hide that they want to join NATO at any cost. It is true that the leadership in Kiev has not yet announced its interest in NATO membership, but there are strong forces for an accession to the Alliance by the year 2000. If this comes true, a world would collapse for nationalistic forces in Moscow in particular. Then, Russia would have only one ally among its Slav neighbors: Belarus. It is already obvious that Moscow is now trying to find an accommodation with the East--evidenced by the visit of the Japanese premier--in order to be armed for the controversies with the West." "Poland Moves Closer To Germany, France" Lothar Ruehl said in an editorial in mass-circulation right-of-center Bild Zeitung of Hamburg (11/4), "Historically, Poland and France were once considered the notorious arch enemies of Germany. Today, the three countries between the Pyrenees and the Polish border River Bug are forming a Central European zone of security, cooperation, and stability. What seemed to be unthinkable 50 years ago is a reality today: German, French and Polish soldiers will together hold joint maneuvers and have discussions in military policy seminars. This is what the defense ministers of the three countries decided in Weimar. Poland, the future NATO partner, is thus moving closer and closer to Germany and France." "Critical Stage Of Enlargement: Costs" Washington correspondent Stefan Cornelius filed this editorial for centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (10/29), "After the decision to accept Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic as new NATO members, the most critical stage of the whole process will begin now with a discussion about the costs of this enlargement.... This question is intensely being discussed in Washington, where the political debate has now begun too late and under a smokescreen of domestic policy prejudices. The Clinton administration is faced with a number of critical senators and must realize that its arguments in favor of enlargement were not very well put. In this situation, it is of no use that Defense Secretary Cohen has corrected cost estimates--the hostile mood in the Senate will certainly surface when it comes to the question of costs. "For a long time, the Senate has thought that the United States has shouldered too big a burden in the Alliance. For a long time, the irritation with the European discord in Bosnia or the controversy about the number of new members has smoldered. But pay day has come now: Whether the price for the enlargement is high or low is only of secondary significance. The European NATO members must adapt to a tough debate about burden sharing. And the senators will certainly also like it that, at the same time, the partners in Bosnia must decide on the future of the mission in the region. A threatening scenario is going to be built up in Washington." ITALY: "NATO Enlargement: Europe Under U.S. Control?" In left-leaning, sensationalist newsweekly L'Espresso, (10/31) foreign affairs commentator Antonio Gambino reiterated his favorite theme, i.e., that the only reason why the United States is pursuing NATO expansion is to maintain its control over Europe. Gambino concluded: "Nobody can say how this story will conclude. What is clear is the interest of an imperial America in controlling the entire territory which reaches the borders of Russia, an interest which is so evident as to make very unlikely a rejection by the U.S. Senate. However, we can already draw an important lesson from this, i.e., that perhaps it will be the United States, owing to its internal quarrels, that will make the project fail--a project which is aimed at perpetuating Europe's semi-subjugated condition and which European leaders, apart from some isolated, weak complaints, instead approve in silence." "Burden Sharing: Revisions?" A report from Brussels in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (10/28) commented on a study by the NATO Senior Resource Board according to which "costs of NATO enlargement to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic will be much lower than expected." The paper noted, "Problems might come from the fact that the Americans, taking advantage of the debate over enlargement costs, have already expressed their intention to rediscuss burden sharing within the Alliance. Today Washington covers about 25 percent of common expenses. Italy about seven percent. A new partition of burdens, notwithstanding the entrance of the new member states, might force Italy to cover a bigger share of the common budget." RUSSIA: "Eastern Europeans To Defend Interests Defined By Others" Anatoly Kurganov pointed out in official government Rossiyskaya Gazeta(11/1): "Once in NATO, Eastern Europeans will have to defend global interests and priorities set by others, and do so thousands of kilometers away from home yet. Russian diplomacy would do well to make the most of that fact." "NATO, Russia Can Reach Agreement" Viktor Kremenyuk, deputy director of the U.S.A. and Canada Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, held in reformist weekly Obshchaya Gazeta (10/31): "No doubt, NATO's decision to move eastward means that Russia has failed the test of democracy and economic reform. If a mere three to four years ago the idea of NATO expansion appealed only to hawks in the West, today there are practically no enthusiasts who believe in Russian democracy.... The Russians' fear of NATO enlargement and their resentment over having been thrown out unceremoniously of a circle of developed, well-to-do nations are understandable and justified. But it would be highly unproductive to build a policy on those feelings alone. That would lead straight to an impasse, a new crisis and a new confrontation.... Keeping NATO in its present form does not conflict with Russia's security interests. With the current NATO, Russia can hope to reach an agreement and maintain equal, partnership-type relations and, in doing so, provide a basis for a new security system in Europe. That such a system is possible in principle has been proven in Bosnia.... A NATO- Russia agreement could help avoid two extremes--NATO expansion or its chaotic disintegration. Therefore, we need to address this question without delay, not in terms of trading the enlargement plans for an as yet vague NATO-Russia accord, but on the basis of new priorities and partnership as the linchpin of European security." "NATO-Russia: A Real Change" Vladimir Katin remarked from Brussels for centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta(10/29) about a visit to NATO Headquarters by the chief of staff of the Russian army, General Anatoly Kvashnin: "It looks as if there has been a real change in Russia-NATO relations. Proof of that is the beginning of regular consultations, contacts at all levels, exchanges of military envoys and what was once top secret information, and joint actions. But we, obviously, must couple our feeling of optimism with quite a bit of the sense of realism and caution. Talking sweetly of their sympathies for Russia and Yevgeny Primakov does not stop NATO leaders from conducting intensive negotiations on enrolling Baltic states and Ukraine." "Enlargement Idea Makes No Sense" Finansoviye Izvestia supplement to reformist Izvestia (10/28) ran this comment by Yevgeny Vasilchuk: "Coming from a spokesman for a world power, a statement by U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright that Russia has resigned herself to NATO enlargement does not sound convincing enough. Russia remains opposed to that idea. It does so not because NATO enlargement poses a danger but because it makes no sense historically. As the time to pay the enlargement bills draws nearer, this will become more apparent to the Western taxpayer. But before it does, the forever 'decadent' American politicians have time to revel in the knowledge that they started this process." "Helms Wants NATO To Isolate Russia" According to Vladimir Kuzar in centrist, army Krasnaya Zvezda (10/24): "Based on the logic of NATO movement eastward, Russia poses a danger to Europe. U.S. Senator Jesse Helms has the other day confirmed this conclusion by stating that NATO enlargement, among other things, must serve to isolate Russia.... An early discussion of NATO's plans in the U.S. Congress showed that U.S. arms manufacturers seek to make ratification dependent on whether new NATO members will buy American arms." "NATO Still 'In'" Alexei Pushkov mused on page one of centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta(10/24): "In the next century arms will be valued not for their quantity and killing power but quality and 'intellect,' which will hardly make the world demilitarized. In that sense, NATO will still be 'in' and the current geopolitical schemes will remain valid. This is why the United States, the leader of all technological revolutions and the world's greatest economic power, has been busy building and updating international alliances. Rather than forsaking NATO, the Americans have been working hard to expand and strengthen it. Geopolitics, though not as powerful as before, are still far from dead." "NATO In Sheep's Clothing" Nikola Jivkovic filed from Berlin for nationalist opposition Sovetskaya Rossiya (10/18): "The German military has always had a bad press, and its image in belles lettres is downright disastrous. Concerned, the Bundeswehr launched a public relations campaign, opening with a presentation for its four-star General Klaus Naumann who heads one of NATO's committees. "Inviting him to Berlin's Esplanade Hotel, the organizers tried to sell him off as a dove and intellectual. Talking about NATO and, particularly, the United States as its leading force, the general was at his most obsequious, using only superlatives. His geopolitical perceptions are stunningly slanted, if not pathetic. To believe him, NATO enlargement is synonymous with peacemaking, and it is Russia's fault that there is still no lasting peace and stability in Europe. Unlike Bonn politicians, Naumann did not hide his true views. In his tone, one could hear the triumphant notes that the Germans, the losers in two world wars, had everything they had ever wanted, whereas Russia, the winner, found itself thrown centuries back geopolitically. Hearing that makes you believe what people say about politics being too serious a business to be entrusted to generals." AUSTRIA: "Do Not Put Your Trust In Figures!" Georg Hoffmann-Ostenhof wrote in independent, political quality weekly Profil (10/21), referring first to a recent study carried out by Austrian NATO expert Heinz Gaertner, according to whom Austria's NATO membership would result in a defense budget increase of an annual seven billion schillings, i.e. a rise from an annual 22 to 29 billion schillings. The writer said, "Do not put your trust in figures! They reflect interests rather than realities. The following simple rules can be applied to interpreting enlargement calculations: If someone is against NATO membership or enlargement, his cost estimates will be high. If he wants to sell expensive armament (such as the U.S. weapons industry)...or buy expensive armament (such as parts of the Austrian military, of the People's Party and the Freedom Party), the estimate will be equally high. "At a recent seminar on the eastern enlargement of the Alliance, organized by 'Forum Alpbach' in cooperation with the U.S. think tank 'New Atlantic Initiative'...co-organizer and NATO-fan Andreas Unterberger, editor-in-chief of Die Presse...told representatives of the U.S. strategy establishment that...the Austrian people would hardly accept an increase of their defense budget.... But there is reason to look optimistically into the future. As the European states are growing together, the development of an all-European army is becoming visible on the horizon--an army that cooperates both with the United States, which understands itself as a European power, and with Russia, the third European power.... And, by the way: In a recent opinion poll asking Austrians what they are proud of when they think of the Austrian army, an overwhelming majority replied that it was the foreign missions at the Golan Heights, in Bosnia and Albania. The Austrian people is obviously not as provincial and petty-minded as is generally believed." BELGIUM: "Peanuts In Total Defense Budget?" In the opinion of foreign editor Axel Buyse in independent Catholic De Standaard (10/30), "The membership of the three new countries must be 'ratified' by the parliaments of all 16 Allies. A crucial issue in this is the attitude of the U.S. Senate, which has to give its approval with a two-thirds majority.... American politicians frequently refer to attentive taxpayers who, most of the time, are not interested at all in international politics. Therefore, it is not surprising that many senators are focusing on the cost of the enlargement. The Clinton administration--slightly drifting without control in foreign policy--is also responsible for that. When it was still trying to hold off the enlargement affair in 1994, (the Clinton administration) brandished high cost estimates. In the meantime, it has adjusted its policy--and its estimates. Today, the White House is talking about a U.S. contribution of $150 to 200 million per annum, for 12 years--peanuts in the total defense budget." CZECH REPUBLIC: "Politicians, Hands Off The Military!" An editorial in right-of-center Mlada fronta DNES said (11/5), "The current fight for power (between the ruling right-wing coalition and left-wing Social Democrats) will not disturb our future partners in NATO if it is waged within the framework of democratic rules of the political competition. But they (NATO Allies) would certainly be alarmed if some politicians whose political positions are threatened tried to involve the military in their party politicking." "Prague: Greatest Uncertainty" U.S. affairs analyst Kveta Buschova observed in economic Hospodarske noviny (10/23), "The greatest uncertainty prevails in the case of the Czech Republic and its ability to meet the obligations ensuing from NATO membership. The U.S. Congress follows carefully not only the financial and military aspects (of membership) but it is also concerned over a low public support for NATO membership in the Czech Republic. This signals little readiness to be engaged in safeguarding security of other members of the Alliance and the protection of common values. As current discussions in the U.S. Congress show, it is good that Czech-Americans are trying to promote the Czech Republic's admission and that Czech politicians use their trips abroad to convince their partners about (the need to) admit the Czech Republic. But it would be very improvident for us to rely on an external image without taking real action or even to rely on a Trojan horse in the shape of Madeleine Albright." "Albright, Cohen Defend Enlargement" U.S. and NATO affairs specialist Ivana Stepankova commented in left- of-center Slovo (10/23), "It's only a matter of time before Brussels will ask whether the Czechs are serious about NATO membership. In the meantime, two figures of the highest caliber--Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Defense Secretary William Cohen--fought for NATO enlargement in the Senate. Although both unanimously claimed that the enlargement costs would be lower than predicted last February, senators' doubts still prevail." "Czechs: Lacking In Enthusiasm For NATO?" In the view of U.S. affairs specialist Ivana Stepankova in left-of- center Slovo (10/22), "Czechs complain that they are not sufficiently informed (about NATO) but they are not so keen on seeking information because they are not exposed to an immediate threat and they (are focused on) tightening their belts. On the other hand, Brussels does not know precisely how much the new Allies should pay for membership and what the rules should be for setting the fee. So far, each NATO country has been paying as much (or little) as it was able to argue for. There are basically two options: the imminent issue of the membership fee for new Allies will either make the Alliance set a formula for figuring out the fee (but there is no consensus for it in Brussels), or the status quo will prevail and the newcomers will have to take a tough negotiating position.... "Hearings in the U.S. Senate are in full swing and the senators will want to be assured that the new Allies 'will manage' (to pay a sufficient membership fee). This is the reason why Madeleine Albright says that 'NATO is no scholarship,' and why Washington indicates that Prague is poorly prepared and Czech citizens lacking in enthusiasm. However, this American prodding can also indicate exasperation over the fact that Prague has been resisting pressures exerted by U.S. firms which would like to find a market for their products--either radar systems or aircraft." "Why There Are Those Who Do Not Want (To Join) NATO?" A commentary in right-of-center Mlada fronta DNES (10/20) said, "The reluctance of some Czechs to join the Alliance stems either from deeply-rooted ideological stereotypes of older generations, or the unwillingness to sacrifice some individual benefits to pay for their own security. The second motive seems to be more frequent. It may well be linked to the lack of awareness of the position of our nation. This is not an encouraging statement. Czech membership in NATO is like the institution of democracy: Both are hard to achieve and problematic but there is no other viable option ahead." "Dubious Explanations Of Enlargement Coming To The Fore" An article in Prague's tabloid Blesk (10/20) observed, "The Clinton administration has not given a convincing security justification for NATO enlargement and, therefore, dubious explanations are coming to the fore, such as Senator Helms's view that NATO enlargement will partly result in the isolation of Russia. There is yet another, not very fortunate, idea of a global NATO, advocated by Warren Christopher and William Perry which envisages expanding the purpose of Europe's territorial defense to the defense of common U.S. and European interests worldwide.... It was obvious even before the Madrid summit that the Czech Republic was included in the group of the first three countries to be admitted to NATO according to political rather than military criteria. Our membership in NATO is not certain and the dire state of our military could complicate it even more." "Reasons Why It's Taking Prague So Long" Intellectual news and current affairs weekly Respekt (10/13-19) pointed out, "Albright expressed a major reservation during her recent visit to Prague to a lack of interest on the part of the Czech Republic in joining NATO. She complained of slow changes in legislation, bad personnel policy of the Czech Ministry of Defense, and the generally lukewarm attitude on the issue of NATO membership.... Foreign experts think that the Czech Republic lacks defense planning, which would made it clear how much money the military will need in the next few years.... Americans were at least reconciled a little when they learned that the Czech Defense Ministry had received more funds from the national budget this year than the government promised in the spring.... "American diplomats also point to the fact that the military enjoys the confidence of only 40 percent of the population in the Czech Republic. The Czech General Staff say, though, that neither Poland nor Hungary had to divide their militaries like we had after the split of the Federation. Moreover, Czechoslovakia was a frontline state of the Warsaw Treaty in the West and Czech troops were deployed mainly along its western border. After the fall of communism, these troops had to be redeployed. These moves were time consuming and very costly, the Czech General Staff points out." HUNGARY: "A Historic Chance" Lajos Pietsch observed in conservative, national Magyar Nemzet (11/5), "Hungarian politicians have realized that a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity has opened for Hungary. They have finally recognized that the issue of joining [NATO] cannot be subordinated to partisan political interests, and that election considerations must also be disregarded." "High Percentage Of Voters Will Favor NATO" Business Vilaggazdasag, in a piece by Mihaly Bak, said (11/4), "According to the latest polls, the percentage of those who will vote yes in the referendum might be as high as 70-75 percent. All in all, the government's propaganda can be considered successful. It succeeded in making the majority of society accept that belonging to the Western Alliance would be unanimously advantageous. From the point of view of Hungary's economic development--in order to maintain and carry on stability--the only way lies through membership in NATO. Since the West obviously keeps putting off [Hungary's] EU membership, the quick admission of the three into NATO can be conceived as some sort of a compensation." "Hungarian Doubts Could Reinforce U.S. Tendency To Isolation" Janos Avar warned in conservative Magyar Nemzet (11/1), "The, historically always strong, American inclination for isolation would obviously be reinforced if there were a European country which did not want the protection of the superpower. Avalanches are started by snow balls: The manifestation of an open Hungarian doubt would give rise to a series of doubts concerning first our region, then NATO's role in Europe." "What Happens If We Miss Joining NATO?" Second largest circulation, national Nepszava warned in a piece by well-known Hungarian writer Akos Kertesz (10/30): "What happens if, as a consequence of our game-playing, we miss joining NATO? The train will leave without us, and we will slip back to the Balkans, from there to Asia, into the hands of the Russian, Ukrainian, Chechen and other mafias, exposing the country once again to the threat of Russian imperialism." "A Chance For A Cheaper Defense" Very conservative Uj Magyarorszag's op-ed piece by Laszlo Daroczi concluded (10/28), "In addition to bringing up the idea of seemingly tempting neutrality, the most sensitive area of our march into NATO is the issue of costs. Many still believe it is possible to establish a neutral zone in Europe, between Russia and Germany, and that the superpowers would indeed guarantee the security of the neutrals. This concept, however, is based on a misunderstanding, since even if Moscow--understandably--would be inclined to such a solution (as it has recently made an offer to that effect to the Baltic states), the West and the United States have absolutely no interest in promoting an Austria-patterned Central European neutrality in a changed international political situation. Consequently, what is left is NATO, which is not only offering the chance for our country to be on the winners' side for once, but all in all, it is offering a cheaper defense." "Fighting Over Referendum Unlikely To Enhance Hungary's Image" Political scientist Endre Bilecz wrote in top-circulation Nepszabadsag(10/24), "At the moment, the opposition believe themselves to be 'winners,' and therefore are pushing for a joint referendum on NATO and the land issue...in November. The government is obviously looking for a compromise by proposing a single-issue referendum on NATO. The partisan fights surrounding the referendum are certain to continue, perhaps until both sides are exhausted. Hungary's international reputation will hardly be enhanced by our domestic party games. It is not NATO that needs us, but rather the opposite. Hungary's policy is undoubtably Europe-friendly; however, the sympathy and understanding of the Western public can be lost." "Who Would Not Want Hungary's Security Guaranteed?" Readers of influential Magyar Hirlap (10/24) saw this analysis by Gabor R. Kallai, "One is not really taking any risks with the question on NATO, since there is not a single person who would not want the country's security guaranteed, and that we finally be anchored at the cost of the developed and rich West, where we have been trying to belong for a thousand years. Of the opponents to joining, the far right has no support among the masses, not to mention the fact that their opposition has militaristic undertones. The influence of the pro-neutrality Workers' Party might be greater, but limited, just like those of the pacifist and (new) leftist organizations. In consideration of the tendencies in world politics, a possible 'no' to joining NATO would not compel the inviter to withdraw in a huff, but rather would inspire a new bargain: All opinions to the contrary, it is in the strategic interest of NATO, that is, the United States and Western Europe, that they strengthen their political-economic influence in Europe with a military presence." "Land Issue More Important Than NATO Membership" Very conservative Uj Magyarorszag (10/22) held in a piece by academician Janos Banos, "For us and for all nations, the land issue is a hundred times more important than the NATO one, because arable land is a national strategic posession. The possibility of NATO membership did not even emerge five years ago and who knows whether it will still be a topic 10 years hence." "No NATO, No EU" Leading journalist Endre Aczel stressed in top-circulation Nepszabadsag (10/21), "There is an unwritten, but very tough Western consensus on only admitting NATO member countries into the EU. If the West is ready to pay the price for the expansion of its integration organizations (which for the EU will cost incomparably more than for NATO), it expects something in return. And that is increased security, freeing investments from all political and military risks. I would like to believe that Hungarian politicians are thoroughly aware of that, and they are instructing their voters to that effect. Should Hungary's membership in NATO fail in the referendum, we will not be admitted to the EU." SPAIN: "NATO Bubble Breaks" Pablo Sebastian, writing in independent El Mundo, opined (11/6): "The defense of the Canaries without direct Spanish control...is only part of the problem [overshadowing] Spain's participation in the Alliance's integrated military structure.... Also unresolved are the [defense of the Spanish enclaves in Morocco], Ceuta and Melilla, and the Gibraltar question...[none of which are being resolved in Spain's favor]. Some outcome after the pomp and circumstance of the NATO summit in Madrid. All in all, a fiasco for which Solana and Aznar share responsibility." "NATO: The French Model Beckons" An editorial in independent El Mundo underlined (11/6): "Sources at [the presidential palace of] Moncloa described defense of the Canaries under Spanish command as an unwaivable condition [for Spanish entry into NATO's military structure].... [N]egotiations with NATO remain open, as everyone knows...[but] those negotiations [must result] in [Spanish] military integration under politically acceptable conditions. If these are unobtainable...Aznar should follow the French government's example." "Imperialism" Otto de Habsburgo opined in conservative ABC (11/5): "[T]he first meeting of the NATO General Council with Russia was utilized by Foreign Minister Primakov to declare that Russia should be consulted before any NATO operation is undertaken in Bosnia.... The West has been too lenient in its dealings with Russia...[which] would never permit the West to intrude in situations such as [Kaliningrad] or [the Dniester region of Moldova].... Peace can never result from hegemony, rather from equilibrium." "Spain Slighted By NATO" Independent El Mundo groused (11/5): "The NATO military committee believes that 'ceding' control of the Canaries to Spain would set a dangerous precedent that...other countries [e.g., Greece and Turkey, would seek to emulate]. On the other hand, the committee fears that excessive 'nationalization' of the commands could adversely affect the present structure, which finds American generals occupying key Alliance operational posts.... Understanding and in disagreement with all this, the French government made it clear months ago that it will not participate in the new NATO military structure. In the light of the new NATO military committee proposal, the Spanish government will have to reconsider its concurrence in the [restructuring] plans now underway." EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC CHINA: "NATO Targeting Outer Caucasus" According to Wang Jiabo in the official, Chinese Youth Party China Youth Daily (Zhongguo Qingnianbao, 10/29), "The high frequency of visits to outer Caucasus countries by NATO officials indicates that NATO is increasingly expanding and deepening it's association and cooperation with outer Caucasus nations. Moreover, people have good reasons to believe that NATO's eastward enlargement will by no means stop only at Central and Eastern Europe." "Arms Trade: U.S. Cashes In On NATO Expansion" The official, English-language China Daily (10/25) asserted, "Eastward expansion of NATO has placed Eastern Europe in a new spotlight in the world arms trade. Dominating the Eastern European arms market is very significant for the United States. It will bring in staggering profits and further consolidates the U.S. leading position in Europe. Secretly, the United States and its European counterparts are attempting to win more orders by any measures necessary." SOUTH ASIA SRI LANKA: "NATO Gives High Priority To Russia" Mervyn de Silva commented in the English-language, independent Sunday Times (10/26), "New agreements and alliances, some already operational, continue to be the dominant post-Cold War pattern. The world of the two superpowers is no more. Thus each state seeks security in formal pacts or loose flexible arrangements.... All these members of the now U.S.-dominated Western Alliance give high priority to Russia, and see President Yeltsin as a welcome force for European peace and stability. The Russian leader, on the other hand, is far from happy over NATO's approach to Eastern Europe, the former members of the Moscow-led Warsaw Pact." ## For more information, please contact: U.S. Information Agency Office of Public Liaison Telephone: (202) 619-4355 11/6/97 # # #