EUROPE

GERMANY: "Good Vote, Real Concerns"

Dieter Buhl opined in an editorial in left-of-center weekly Die Zeit of Hamburg (5/7), "After great efforts, the (U.S. Senate) voted correctly.... Nevertheless, the opening of the Western Alliance to the East remains controversial.... The concern about isolating Russia and to push it into a dangerous defensive position had accompanied the project right from the start.... This vote also proclaims a reassuring message: The United States remains embedded in Europe. However, this U.S. engagement also means a double burden. The United States must now shoulder a fair share of the costs of the enlargement. And it is up to the United States, more than to another country, to prevent Russia from being marginalized."

"Test Of NATO's Credibility: Baltics"

Karl Feldmeyer wrote on the front-page of right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (5/6), "The 'old NATO' has not yet passed away. This is particularly true for those states which now want to accede.... They mainly want protection against powerful neighbors such as the core land of the former Soviet Union. But this reason is much more obvious among the states for which NATO's doors remain closed for a foreseeable future: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.... The test of NATO's credibility will be its willingness to accept the Baltic states. In this situation, it is to the benefit of the Alliance that Russia's own interest requires Moscow to take advantage of its relations with the West and to extend them. A Russian return to confrontation and self-isolation would be irrational and self-damaging even from Moscow's point of view."

"Greater Support Than We Could Have Hoped For Before"

Werner Adam said in an editorial in right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (5/2), "The support for NATO's enlargement to the East in the U.S. Senate was greater than we could have hoped after the concerns that were raised before.... This vote signals, to quote Poland's Premier Buzek, the U.S. annulment of the post-war order that was once agreed upon in Yalta. After Canada, Norway, Denmark, and Germany sealed this decision in their parliaments earlier, the other NATO members are now likely to follow suit soon.... But one thing is remarkable for the countries which have not yet been accepted in the Alliance: The U.S. Senate rejected a motion that demanded a pause after this first accession round.... This means that, apart from Romania and Bulgaria, the Balts can again have hopes."

"Breathing New Life Into NATO"

Washington correspondent Stefan Kornelius filed the following commentary for centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (5/2), "The U.S. Senate offered a remarkable example of how a parliament can use its authority to breathe new life into an institution. For four days, the senators discussed with expertise and remarkable keenness NATO's enlargement. They gave this key subject of foreign and security policy...a historic thrill.... The senators emphasized the seriousness of their vote with a rare gesture by returning...to their seats in the plenary...to justify their vote. On its path to enlargement, NATO has thus cleared the last difficult obstacle....

"The two motions that were voted down in the Senate pointed to the main issue in the current debate about NATO: Even though the old Alliance is exporting its successes...the new NATO is no alliance against dangers emanating from the post-communist era, against ethnic conflicts, regional skirmishes, against crashes at stock exchanges, or unrest stemming from famines. And even if this enlargement pretends to reflect new momentum and progress, the Alliance will become even more inflexible with each new member.... The U.S. Senate countered this development as follows:

"Yes, we need NATO in its new form and with three new members because the alternative would only be the disintegration of the Alliance."

"Links Closer Between U.S., Europe"

An editorial in centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (5/2) held, "The links between the United States and Europe are getting closer. With overwhelming majority, the powerful U.S. Senate approved the accession of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary to NATO.... Now the course has been set to such a degree that America and Europe will end the 20th century better than it began, namely as partners and allies...and as members of a community that shares the same values and shares its security. The vote in the Senate gives Budapest, Prague and Warsaw one of the things they wanted the most: the U.S. promise to assist in case of an armed conflict.

"President Clinton is right when he speaks of a U.S. sacrifice, but it is for the benefit of the United States as well as for the benefit of the new partners in the Alliance. Those who have doubts about the enlargement should take Vaclav Havel to their heart. He said: It may not pay off at the ballot boxes to vote for NATO's enlargement but future generations will be grateful."

"A Pause Needed In Enlargement"

Lothar Ruehl wrote in an editorial in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (5/5), "A break regarding NATO's further enlargement seems to be necessary for the benefit of NATO's relations with Russia and for the benefit of Europe's security. An 'overall European security structure' which is to include Ukraine, Russia, the three Baltic states and Caucasus is a large-scale project that requires the laying of a sound foundation and supportive pillars for a common roof. At NATO's headquarter in Brussels, nobody wants to submit a proposal for further enlargement that is to be discussed at the Washington summit in April of 1999 in order to prevent an impetuous drive of the candidates that are already waiting in front of NATO's doors. NATO is afraid of a 'stampede' from Eastern Europe...and Germans, French, and Italians, who have openly favored the acceptance of Romania and Slovenia in NATO, should keep in mind the meaning of this term.... The Bundestag doctrine according to which every democratic European country is 'politically and morally legitimized' to become a NATO member should not be exalted to the status of a kind of collective human right of nations to join the Alliance."

"Questions Remain"

Centrist Darmstaedter Echo (4/20) argued: "Important partial problems remain unresolved. NATO did not succeed in leading France back to the military organization of the Alliance, nor has the decisive question of Russian's integration into the European security architecture been resolved despite the Paris Basic Act and the Partnership for Peace. Many organizational questions that go along with the acceptance of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have also still not been settled."

"Prague's Foreign Policy Course Set"

On national radio Deutschlandfunk of Cologne (4/16), Thomas Bittorf commented on the Czech vote for NATO membership: "Much more than any other Western statesman, Havel sees the Alliance as the anchor for a democratic community of common values. His fellow Czechs are not so euphoric. Last fall, not even half of the Czech people were excited about the accession to NATO. By now, the approval rate is 53 percent.... The foreign policy course is set."

"Follow NATO's Enlargement Process"

In the view of right of center Badische Neueste Nachrichten of Karlsruhe (3/27), "No matter which the next coalition government in Germany turns out to be, it will have to follow intensively NATO's enlargement process. In addition to the chances for greater security, there are also risks. It may be that Russia will feel isolated in the future. So far, NATO, but also some other Western European nations, have successfully prevented such kind of thinking. But Moscow's integration must continue. And NATO should not stop where it is right now. The acceptance of further members must signal openness."

"What A New NATO Should Have"

The Bundestag vote sparked this assessment in right-of-center Koelner Stadt-Anzeiger (2/27), "For the future of the Bundeswehr, it will be decisive whether it is able to act as a firefighter. Peace must not be secured against somebody but it must be safeguarded for everybody. In reality--please look at Kosovo--this approach could develop into European-Russian harmony beyond NATO's borders, while the United States continues to play the tough global cop. This is why a new NATO must also include a deepened transatlantic partnership that survives internal crises, too."

"The Rush To Join NATO"

Right-of-center Dresdner Neueste Nachrichten (3/27) held: "The Bundestag voted by a great majority for NATO's enlargement.... NATO has proven to be the currently most successful security club in the world, and an alternative to the military Alliance that also takes over political tasks is not in sight. But it is not NATO that opens the gates and entices other to come in. The process takes place in a reverse manner. More reform states want to join NATO than the Alliance is able to accept. Why should the Germans of all nations not accept this wish?"

BRITAIN: "NATO Expansion, Yes, But Look At Russia"

The independent Financial Times had this lead editorial (4/28) before the Senate vote: "The extension of NATO's security umbrella to countries that were once part of the Soviet orbit is clearly a decision of great moment, implying as it does that American forces are being committed to their defense. Some voices in the United States are urging delay in this decision, or seeking to encumber it with conditions. This would be a mistake. All three countries are eminently qualified for entry on the basis of their democratic systems, their market economies, the civilian control of the military and their desire to assume the burdens as well as the benefits of NATO membership. Denying them accession would leave in disarray the strategy of extending Western Europe's zone of democracy, peace and prosperity eastwards....

"It is important that NATO does not rush into further enlargement. There is no point in needlessly offending Russian sensitivities by an excessively rapid expansion of NATO towards the Russian border. This is not to say that the Russians should be allowed a veto on membership of NATO. But there is a strong case for seeing how well the first new members integrate into the NATO network. More fundamentally, expansion of the Alliance to encompass former parts of the Soviet Union would raise huge political and military questions about NATO's mission which need to be the subject of an important public debate."

RUSSIA: "NATO's Plans Anti-Russian"

Aleksei Pushkov held in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (5/6): "NATO enlargement, basically, is meant to contain Russia. Russia-NATO relations depend entirely on how far NATO and the Eastern Europeans will go in their enlargement drive. If, in the process of integrating Poland,

Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO, military considerations prevail over political ones; if the Alliance, even before establishing normal relations with Moscow, hurries to accept Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, thereby coming directly to the Russian borders; and finally, if the Russia-NATO Council becomes a talking- shop or a fig leaf, hiding America's reluctance to listen to Russia--if all that happens, it will only confirm the anti-Russian character of the enlargement idea."

"How To Make Friends?"

Yevgeny Umerenkov said in reformist, youth-oriented Komsomolskaya Pravda (5/6): "With the U.S. Senate having endorsed the enlargement concept, the last, purely theoretical, chance of having NATO reverse its decision to move eastward is gone. So, what are we to do? One does not brandish one's fists after a fight. The Alliance is already at our doorstep. However reluctantly, we have to make friends with neighbors. Politicians always try to change the borders of blocs. But Europe remains where it used to be. And so does Russia."

"How To Defeat NATO Enlargers"

Historian Aleksandr Yanov in New York wrote for reformist weekly Moskovskiye Novosti (# 17, 5/6): "The only way to deny a victory to American 'patriots' is to get the reaction of Russia's civil society, refuting 'the enlargers'' story about Russians being too busy with their daily concerns to care about their future."

"West Signs Death Warrant For NATO"

Pavel Felgenhauer had this to say in reformist Segodnya (5/5): "By having expanded NATO, the West has virtually signed a death warrant for its military organization. NATO will keep expanding fast. But what kind of organization is it going to be? The NATO vote in the U.S. Senate has brought together the conservatives, who want a stronger military alliance to oppose Russia, and the liberals, who are dreaming of NATO as a collective security system having partner-type relations with Russia. Nobody really knows what aims, structure and competence the Alliance is going to have. In this world full of surprises, the good old 16-member NATO could have become a stability factor but for the winds of change. Western politicians, as they enter a new millennium, are optimistic that Europe's future will give them no headaches except for a few 'peacekeeping operations' against some riff-raff in the South and the East. This is exactly how 'civilized nations' felt 100 years ago, after a successful joint 'peacekeeping operation' against the Boxer uprising in China. At that time Europe looked united. It was the beginning of the fine 20th century."

"NATO: Global Peacekeeper?"

Yury Kovalenko filed from Paris for reformist Noviye Izvestia (4/11): "According to NATO's new strategy, formally to be authored by Secretary General Javier Solana, the Alliance is evidently to come across as a monopolistic planetary peacekeeper performing, under Washington's control, both political and military, including police, tasks. Moscow, of course, can make its opinion known, but it will not make much of a difference."

CZECH REPUBLIC: "Clinton's Foreign Policy Victory"

U.S. affairs analyst Jiri Roskot observed in left-wing Pravo (5/2), "President Clinton's foreign policy concept, under which future security in Europe is based on NATO enlargement, has scored an expected victory in the U.S. Senate. However, the extent of the majority with which it has won--80:19 votes--was unexpected.... Even without Warner's amendment, the entire project of NATO enlargement faces a test period. First of all, nobody--from experts, to diplomats, ministers to parliamentarians--knows how far the Alliance is prepared to go with

enlargement.... Although the U.S. State Department has started to prepare its teams of experts to the Baltics and the Balkans, the complexity of the domestic policy debates on the first wave of NATO enlargement has demonstrated that the matter will be much more complicated in the future. The completed debate in the Senate last Thursday has confirmed that American legislators make a detailed examination of key plans of their government before they support them."

"U.S. Sense Of Responsibility For Europe's Security Prevails"

U.S. affairs specialist Pavel Posusta commented in right-of-center Mlada fronta DNES (5/2), "The signal from Capitol Hill has many meanings. The most important is the message that the sense of responsibility of America for the security of the Old Continent has prevailed among American legislators over efforts to isolate themselves into a domestic shell. This unambiguous signal is also a positive sign to the remaining NATO member countries to ratify the enlargement.... And, last but not least, Capitol Hill has sent a good message to metropolises of other East European countries that are interested in [NATO] membership: Don't worry, the first round of enlargement is not the last one. The NATO door remains open and you have a chance, too."

"Historic Injustice Set Right"

Left-of-center Slovo's U.S. affairs specialist Ivana Stepankova noted (5/2), "Eighty votes in favor of admission of three countries into NATO is not mere (lip service to the notion that) that 'the U.S. Senate has laid the foundation stone for a decade of European stability and prosperity.' Nobody is in doubt now that ratification will also be successful in the remaining NATO countries and, in this way, the historic injustice will be set right. The Central European countries will rejoin the European West from which they were separated first by Hitler and then by Stalin."

"Well-Deserved Victory For Clinton"

In the view of U.S. affairs analyst Kveta Subrtova in economic Hospodarske noviny (5/4), "The Senate decision is a well-deserved victory for Bill Clinton, who has made admission to NATO of new Central and East European democracies one of his foreign policy priorities."

"Others Could Follow Suit Some Day"

A commentary in centrist Lidove noviny pointed out (5/2), "If the West does not have a bad experience with this move [admission of three countries to NATO], other countries--Slovakia, Romania and perhaps the Baltics--could follow suit some day as well."

HUNGARY: "NATO: Hungary's Best Option"

Top-circulation Nepszabadsag's op-ed piece by Washington correspondent Oszkar Fuzesitled (5/2) read, "Thursday night the only global power, with all the required forces, undertook to defend our territory and our citizens from any outside attacks, any foreign power or influence. Just at the time when--for the first time in this century--none of the major powers are our enemies. What, then, is this protection good for? It is good just so that we will never again have to face the dilemma of a bitter choice between Germany or Russia. It is no exaggeration: The key to our national existence and independence is that we obtain the most security that can be achieved in the circumstances. Alone it is impossible; a policy of swinging between medium-sized European powers has proved life-threatening. The third logical option--to form a separate Danube coalition with the small neighbors (there has been such a plan)--is, because of power relations and historical traditions, an impossibility. What remains is the Western Alliance. It is truly the best: A tested democratic and defense-oriented NATO....

"Enlargement is a consciously open-ended strategy, and while it wants peaceful continuation, it is also prepared for a worst-case scenario. That is why the admission of the Three is logically connected to the Russo-Western partnership. On one hand, it is the first time that Moscow receives a serious offer from the West to integrate, as a democratic medium-sized power, into Europe, retaining its special interests.... On the other hand, the line unmistakably drawn by enlargement is encouraging the reinterpretation of the Russian security concept: One cannot come to Europe by force. And this goes not just for the Russians. Pushing borders, oppressing minorities, stirring up ambitions, and obtaining hegemony are all forbidden in the new world order, the greatest power of which wants, more than anything, peace."

"A Convincing Message"

Bela Dajka said in influential Magyar Hirlap (5/2), "In the strict legal sense, the yes votes of the senators of the United States have brought the three Central European countries just that much closer to NATO membership, the same as the (given or expected) approval of any other member of the Alliance. However, the decision by the only superpower of the world is more than a mere legal step, since it serves as a standard for the legislatures of the other Allied countries, too. The U.S. senators' 'yes' is a convincing message to those who are still viewing the world with a Cold War logic, and it is a decision which contributes to the deepening of peaceful cooperation in a more stable Europe."

"A History Lesson?"

Second highest circulation Nepszava's Ferenc Kepecs opined (5/2), "Well, the history of the 20th century has shown that what happens in Europe does not fail to move Washington.... There might also be some truth behind those who say that the priority given to Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic is a sort of tribute to our 1956 revolution, to the Prague Spring in 1968, and to Solidarity of 1980."

POLAND: "The Best Moment To Improve Ties With Russia"

Center-left weekly Polityka's editor-in-chief Jerzy Baczynski pointed out (5/9), "Poland's admission into the powerful, elite alliance should finally scare away the phantoms of the past. The U.S. Senate's decision...also puts upon us a shared responsibility for the security of all NATO members, for this region of Europe in particular. Politically and psychologically, this is the best moment to improve our relations with Russia. It is a vital task for Poland's diplomacy which has already displayed remarkable efficiency and foresight in its endeavors for NATO membership. The U.S. decision--for which words of gratitude should go to President Clinton, U.S. senators, and Polish Americans--restores one's faith in justice and the sense of history."

"Today We Have Reason To Celebrate And Feel Proud"

Liberal Gazeta Wyborcza front-paged this editorial by editor-in-chief Adam Michnik (5/2-3), "Today we have reason to celebrate and feel proud. We have not wasted the most favorable circumstances [Poland has ever had for 300 years]. [Poland's] consistent foreign policy--begun by the breakthrough of 1989 and the round table compromise, then carried out by all the [subsequent] governments and presidents--resulted in good relations with neighbors, a strong position in Central and Eastern Europe and, lastly, Polish admission to NATO.

"Let us reiterate that it is not an act against Russia. Russia will remain a strategic partner for Poland. One would wish now for extending cooperation with Russia, needed by the two countries. We believe that NATO enlargement will serve peace and stability well on the entire continent."

"Opening The Road To Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic"

Washington correspondent Bartosz Weglarczyk stressed in liberal Gazeta Wyborcza (5/2-3), "The U.S. Senate's decision opens the road for Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary to NATO.... NATO enlargement must be still ratified by 11 more countries, but it hardly can be imagined that any of them would vote no after the U.S. decision.... The senators also left the door open for the next [aspirant] countries. In a year, invitations may be extended to two: Slovenia and Romania."

"Democracy And Peace Have Won Their Victory"

According to Kazimierz Dziewanowski, former Polish ambassador to the United States, in centrist Rzeczpospolita (5/2-3), "World War Two is finally over with the end of the Yalta order which excluded Poland from the commonwealth of democratic nations, and left Poland--against her wish--on the eastern side of the dividing line. The U.S. Senate's decision to enlarge NATO and admit Poland brings us into the most powerful defensive organization in history, one which has no match in the world.... By entering NATO, Poland obtains security.... Democracy and peace have won their victory."

"Other NATO Members Will Follow In U.S. Footsteps"

From Washington, Jacek Kalabinski reassured readers of centrist Rzeczpospolita (5/2-3), "The ratification must be passed in the 11 remaining NATO member states, but the decision of the U.S. Senate is a breakthrough of historic significance.... The other NATO countries will soon follow in the U.S. footsteps and ratify the Madrid decision on expanding the Alliance."

"The Beginning Of The Struggle"

Tomasz Wroblewski remarked in rightist Zycie (5/2-3), "Security guarantees, ratified by the U.S. Senate yesterday, are no different from the guarantees given to Denmark or Germany. Any historical speculations on the possibility of the recurrence of the scenario of 1939--i.e. failing to keep again the promises given by foreign powers to Poland--are sheer fiction. But fears that there might be two categories of NATO members...are not groundless. Fears of a...division between those whose demands and ambitions will be treated as sacrosanct, and those who will have to be satisfied with the mere declaration of security....

"The formal admission of Poland into the Treaty next year will be just the beginning of the struggle. All will depend now not only on how soon we can adjust our armed forces, but also on how fast the transformation of the entire state will proceed. In broad terms, in time Poland's security will be increasingly less dependent on task forces from North Carolina or Pershings launched from Germany, but more and more often on how fast Poland will conduct reforms in education and health sectors. In other words, how soon Poland will join--not only formally, but also practically--the club of the privileged."

"Credit Should Go To Clinton"

In a front-page editorial, Jacek Potocki concluded in center-left Zycie Warszawy (5/2-3), "The credit for such an outcome of the vote should go to President Bill Clinton, who from the very outset engaged his authority to foster the expansion of NATO with the three former Warsaw Pact members."

"How Far We Still Have To Go"

Readers of leftist Trybuna (5/2-3) saw this by front-page editorial by Wieslaw S. Debski, "This success is also a serious commitment. Among the traits a NATO member should exhibit are a

developed market economy, a well functioning welfare system, democratic supervision over the armed forces. And, above all, certain standards observed in politics, such as respecting views of political opponents, admitting the opposition to preparations of strategic projects and decisions, and...an almost pious adherence to the law.... Seeing the activities of the coalition currently ruling in Poland...and examples of political hooliganism we could witness yesterday [May Day clashes between the left and the right], we become acutely aware how far we still have to go to be a full-fledged member of NATO, one that meets all the standards and norms of the Alliance."

"NATO's--And U.S.'--Commitment To Poland"

According to Krzysztof Czabanski and Krzysztof Wyszkowski in right-of-center Zycie (4/6), "From the Polish perspective, the crucial question is whether the West anticipates that in the event Russia (or any other country) invades Poland, will NATO troops move in to defend the whole of Poland's territory, or, for example, only its western part?... In light of the dominant role of the United States in NATO, the [security] guarantees do not obligate all NATO members but just the United States--which will each time analyze the scale of its support for Poland in Poland's [potential] disputes with Russia from the point of view of [vital] U.S. state interests.... [Therefore,] Poland will have guarantees of security from NATO only when permanent NATO bases with American troops and complete strategic armaments (missiles with nuclear warheads!) are located along Poland's eastern border.... It is in Poland's interest to change European and world realities in such a way that a Russia planning future expansions would be aware that an assault on Warsaw would be the same as attacking New York, Paris or Berlin."

"Poles, Germans: Like Brothers To Each Other"

Kazimierz Dziewanowski, former Polish ambassador to the United States, said in centrist Rzeczpospolita (3/28-29), "NATO enlargement ratification by the Bundestag...gives rise to the best hopes. Polish-German reconciliation--aside from French-German reconciliation--is the cornerstone of a peaceful Europe, the cornerstone of a new order much better than anything Europe has experienced in over a thousand years."

SPAIN: "Czechs Want Into NATO"

Barcelona's centrist La Vanguardia noted (4/16): "The Czech Chamber of Deputies yesterday approved by a wide margin the country's historic accession to the Atlantic Alliance, with only Communists and ultra-right-wing Republicans dissenting.... Through enlargement, NATO will no longer be merely an organization of the West, it will rather become a new continental security system--a new NATO for a new international scene. Pending only ratification of NATO enlargement by the legislatures of its 16 current members, the step taken now by the Czechs signals the beginning of a new era for security and cooperation in Europe."

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

CHINA: "Outcome Of Clinton Administration's Lobbying"

Yuan Bingzhong pointed out in the official, Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao, 5/3), "The U.S. Senate's endorsement of NATO enlargement is the outcome of the Clinton administration's lobbying and has enjoyed tremendous support from American arms dealers.... Analysts say NATO enlargement is a vital step for the U.S.' two oceans strategy.... But some worry that the enlargement will threaten European peace and stability and even impair the U.S.' own interests."

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency

Office of Public Liaison

Telephone: (202) 619-4355

5/12/98

# # #