October 16, 1997 
This Date's Issues: 1287 •1288 1289

<x-rich>Johnson's Russia List [list two]

#1288

16 October 1997

davidjohnson@erols.com


*******


United States Information Agency

<center>16 October 1997 

<bold><bigger><bigger>NATO ISSUES: ENLARGEMENT COSTS, FRANCE'S PLACE,
RUSSIA'S ROLE 

</bigger></bigger></bold></center>

The cost of NATO enlargement and the prospects for its approval by

Allied national legislatures;

France's announcement Oct. 1 in Maastricht, the Netherlands, that it

will not rejoin the Alliance's

military command; and Russia's jockeying for a place in Europe's

shifting security

landscape--these formed the main threads of recent commentary on

European security issues.


The rifts revealed by the NATO defense ministers' Maastricht meeting

prompted Western

European journalists to fret that bickering over who will pick up the

larger share of the

enlargement tab and the U.S.- French disagreement over an enhanced

European role in the

Alliance was disrupting NATO's "internal balance" just when it should

be benefiting from

post-Cold War peace dividends. No one could predict how the

back-and-forth over the bill for

enlargement would end. However, London's independent Financial Times

warned that, despite

U.S. pressure on Europeans to bear a higher share of costs, "the

amount to be spent...will be

severely limited by constraints on European defense budgets." Other

papers debated the wisdom

of France's isolating itself from NATO's military councils. Paris's

right-of- center Le Figaro

maintained that "it is a pity" that, just as "the future of the

Alliance" is being decided, "France is

acting as if the role it should play in it is of secondary

importance."


Concern over these disagreements was shared by Central European

analysts, particularly in

countries already nominated for membership. They feared that these

clashes would diminish

their countries' chances of joining and would be exploited by Russia,

who they believe is eager to

reassert its influence over former Warsaw Pact members. A Hungarian

pundit, for instance,

complained bitterly that, "for years," Central Europeans applicants

"have been thrown to and

from NATO and the EU like hot potatoes"--solely because of "money."

But it was the prospect

of Russia's profiting from NATO's division that worried observers the

most. These onlookers

were further disturbed by the announcement of the formation of a "new

troika"--France, Germany

and Russia--at last week's Council of Europe gathering in Strasbourg.

Russia, declared Poland's

center-left Zycie Warszawy, is aligning with Bonn and Paris with the

expectation that they might

become "principal actors in making Europe independent of the U.S." and

that the grouping

allows Moscow sway on "all security issues" in Central/Eastern Europe.


Dissent in NATO ranks was not lost on several Russian observers. They

urged the Kremlin to

exploit these divisions and continued to lambast NATO as anti-Russian.

In Moscow's reformist

Segodnya, a member of the Russian Federal Council pointed to the

Maastricht "split on many

issues," calling it a development that "Russia must make better use

of...in defending her foreign

policy interests." Other editorialists, however, insisted that working

with the Alliance would

serve Russia's interest best. They also dismissed the "troika's"

potential for pushing the

Americans out of Europe. "Many in Europe do not like the Americans,"

agreed reformist

Izvestia, "but that does not mean that Western Europe will risk facing

Russia one-on-one."


This survey is based on 48 reports from 13 countries, Sept. 27-Oct.

16.


EDITOR: Mildred Sola Neely 




EUROPE



GERMANY: "Difficult Partner" 


Karl Feldmeyer said in an editorial on the front page of right-of-

center Frankfurter Allgemeine

(10/2): "In Maastricht, France's Defense Minister Richard confirmed

that for the time being,

France will not return to the military apparatus of the Alliance....

However, France's partners in

NATO have become very modest in their expectations of France. Evidence

of this is the

gratitude they showed towards the willingness of their difficult

partner not to block the

establishment of new NATO structures. And, since Paris is willing to

cooperate in those parts of

the military apparatus where missions without U.S. participation are

prepared, nobody wants to

be small- minded and ask France which forces it wants to offer NATO in

return for its

participation in leadership positions, something that is true for all

other members. Even in

NATO, some are more equal than others." 


"French Megalomania" 


Centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (10/2) carried this editorial

under the above headline:

"France will not return to NATO's military integration, but continues

to stick to its great

words.... Megalomania is blurring Paris's views, the total

overestimation of its own power.

Jacques Chirac's grand gesture before the Senate in Washington about

the unswerving

partnership with the United States meant nothing. As a matter of fact,

Paris is trying to

distinguish itself at the expense of the United States. Europe and the

Bonn government should

not take part in this nonsensical game. It is true that (the

establishment) of Europe can be

achieved only together with France, but security only together with

the United States."


"A Reform With An Early Date Of Expiry" 


Centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (10/1) carried this editorial

comment: "The reform of

NATO had the aim of renovating the military structures of the Alliance

and to adapt it to the

new situation and to a changing European-Atlantic balance. But then

the Americans and the

French had a fight with each other on the command of AFSOUTH. In this

showdown,

President Chirac suffered a defeat at the NATO summit in Madrid. Thus,

France return to

NATO's military organization failed for the time being.... But it was

part of the original plan of

the reform to integrate France. Only a year ago, Defense Minister

Ruehe spoke of a 'historic

opportunity' to integrate France fully into the new NATO. At that

time, Ruehe even fully

supported Paris in the question of AFSOUTH. 


"But today, he no longer wants to know anything about it. Now his

principle is that not even a

country such as France is able to stop the course of the reform. In

December, NATO's new

foundations will be cast. And if France, some day in the future, wants

to make a second attempt

to return to the military organization of NATO, everything must be

torn down again or a great

number of new positions for the French must be created. You can look

at it from whatever angle

you like, but this reform will not last too long." 


BRITAIN: "Bigger NATO To Be Limited By European Budgets" 


In the view of the independent Financial Times (10/15), "The amount to

be spent by NATO

members on enlarging the Alliance will be severely limited by

constraints on European defense

budgets, despite strong U.S. pressure to spend more, according to the

International Institute for

Strategic Studies.... European countries essentially think that

whatever costs exist for old

members can be contained within existing defense budgets....

Washington has rejected

European assessments that costs of NATO enlargement could essentially

be absorbed."





FRANCE: "France-NATO--Renouncing Has A Price"


Francois de Rose, former French ambassador to the United States,

pointed out in right-of-center

Le Figaro (10/8): "This is not a good time (for France) to be absent

from the Atlantic Alliance....

The decision not to integrate NATO's military structures signals the

death of the European

defense structure.... Today, with the existence of the NATO-Russia

joint council, is it really the

time to stay away from one of the Alliance's structures?... In the

coming months, the future of

the Alliance as the most efficient institution in history will be

decided. It is a pity that France is

acting as if the role it should play in it is of secondary

importance."


"Germany Abandons France" 


Jean-Dominique Merchet wrote in left-of-center Liberation (10/2):

"Belgium is the only

European country left to support France's position on NATO reforms.

While Germany used to

support France's request for 'Europeanization' of the Alliance and the

Southern Command,

General Naumann's declaration that 'France was not speaking for

Europe' leaves France standing

alone." 


ITALY: "Solana-Dini Agreement On NATO" 


According to centrist, influential La Stampa (10/4): "Italy is playing

an active role in the process

of NATO expansion eastwards, and wants to prevent the issue of costs

from creating new

tension among the Allies. This is the result of NATO Secretary General

Solana's short visit to

Rome following the very tense meeting of NATO defense ministers in

Maastricht which touched

on the sensitive issue of costs.... Italian Foreign Minister Dini said

during a roundtable with

Solana that 'NATO expansion reflects the best lessons we can draw from

the post-War period,

and will be a new element of stability and security for Europe.'...

Italy tends to downplay the

dispute over expansion costs, siding with Solana in the difficult

mediation which is under way

among the Allies. Italian Ambassador to NATO Giovanni Jannuzzi claims

that 'both those

Americans who want Europe to take up all costs and those Europeans who

support just the

opposite are wrong,' expressing the hope for an agreement among EU

members that 'will prevent

a revival of the disputes we had years ago about the sharing of NATO

internal costs.'"


"There Is No Free Lunch"


Left-leaning, influential La Repubblica noted (10/3): "The main

concern of NATO defense

ministers at the conclusion of their two-day meeting in Maastricht

seemed to be the costs of

NATO expansion eastwards, which have to be reduced to a minimum and

should be carried

mostly by the new members.... The meeting examined also the adjustment

of military structures

in the three former Communist countries and the expansion of the NATO

defense system to the

new members. But cost was the main issue. U.S. Secretary of Defense

Cohen underlined that

the bulk of the costs has to be borne by the three new member states.

There is no free lunch."


"Antagonism Between Paris, Washington"


Washington correspondent Ennio Caretto wrote in centrist, top-

circulation Corriere della Sera

(10/2): "Italy and Germany tried to convince France and the United

States to accept a

compromise, proposing a rotation between Americans and Europeans for

the NATO Southern

Command. But U.S. Secretary of Defense Cohen responded with a harsh

'no.'... The meeting in

Maastricht thus underscored on one side the antagonism between Paris

and Washington and, on

the other side, the differences within the Alliance. Europe is paying

the highest cost...showing

disunity when prospects for monetary union require increasing

concurrence...and the

intransigence of the Americans and the French is threatening the

internal

balance and the effort to strengthen the Atlantic Alliance at the most

important moment of its

history. The White House indicated that Cohen and (French Defense

Minister) Richard will

have a series of talks to keep the dialogue open. But the two

governments have opposite

objectives. Washington sees NATO as the vehicle to reiterate its

predominance in Europe,

while Paris considers it the means not only to pose limits to

Washington, but also to balance on

a military level the economic supremacy of Bonn." 


"NATO's 'Magic Year' Ending On False Note"


Leading business-oriented opined Il Sole-24 Ore (10/2): "NATO's magic

year, the year of

expansion eastwards, is ending on a false note, with a courteous but

firm 'no, thanks' from Paris.

France will not rejoin NATO's integrated military structures in

December...as was previously

announced.... Once again, as was the case in 1966 when Charles de

Gaulle decided to withdraw

France from NATO's integrated military command but not from its

political organizations to

protest against 'America's excessive power,' today's 'break' also

stems from differences with

Washington.... But yesterday's 'no' from Paris was softer than the one

by De Gaulle. The French

defense minister, in fact, confirmed that, notwithstanding the failure

to reach agreement on

NATO's European Command, Paris will continue to collaborate with the

Allied military

structures from the outside." 


RUSSIA: "Cold War Against Russia Still On" 


Nationalist opposition Sovetskaya Rossiya (10/16) published an open

letter to U.S. President Bill

Clinton from a group of Russia's Duma deputies: "The decisions NATO's

Council made in

Madrid are stark testimony that the Cold War against Russia never

ended. It only masqueraded

and used propaganda rhetoric to delude the world public. Coupled with

active interference in

Russia's internal affairs and all- out opposition to re-integration

processes within the

Commonwealth of Independent States, NATO enlargement eastward will lay

the foundation of

unfriendly and even confrontational relations between Russia and NATO

member-nations."


"Eastern Europe: Lack Of Enthusiasm For NATO Grows" 


Neo-communist Pravda-Five (10/16) asserted in an editorial: "As the

Eastern European public

learns more about the implications of joining NATO, it grows less

supportive of this idea. For

more and more people there, integration into Europe and the stability

and well-being they expect

from it are associated with the European Union, rather than NATO.

Their leaders being unsure

of public support makes them oppose the idea of national referendums

on NATO membership."


"Make Better Use Of Divisions Within NATO" 


Deputy chairman of the Federal Council's defense and security

committee, Viktor Ozerov, was

quoted as commenting in reformist Segodnya (10/15) on the just-ended

North Atlantic Assembly

session in Bucharest: "The results of the meeting indicate that NATO

is split on many issues. So

Russia must make better use of that in defending her foreign policy

interests. We must also get

over differences on what exactly our response should be to, say, NATO

admitting Baltic states.

Threatening 'adequate measures' does not say much to NATO. We need to

be more specific."


"We Have To Cooperate" 


Oleg Davydov, chief consultant of a center for applied socio-political

and economic studies, said

in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (10/15): "Today NATO, we must admit,

is an instrument of

American influence, often very strong, on political processes in

Europe. Since getting the

Americans out of Europe soon seems impossible, we have to cooperate

and look for ways to

increase mutual trust based on joint agreements."


"Moscow-Paris-Bonn Axis?" 


Nikolai Paklin pointed out in official government Rossiyskaya

Gazeta(10/14): "The forming of a

troika worries some politicians who discern in it a 'triangle' or a

'Moscow-Paris-Bonn axis.'

Journalists have even started talking of a 'Directoire' with claims to

supremacy in Europe."


"U.S. To Stay In Europe" 


Aleksandr Bovin cautioned on page one of reformist Izvestia (10/14):

"It would be unreasonable

to highlight the anti-American aspect of troika meetings. Many in

Europe do not like the

Americans. But that does not mean that Western Europe will risk facing

Russia one-on-one.

The United States is sure to stay there for a while militarily and

politically. Both Kohl and the

occasionally dissenting Chirac realize that only too well. Closer

contacts with Moscow increase

their tactical possibilities. But that does not work the other way

round. The Americans play their

own game. Friend Bill will not miss a chance to tread on friend

Boris's pet corn. Boris can do

the same. But the Americans have fewer pet corns than we. Besides,

Europe isn't the best of

places to educate friend Bill. Being irritated is a poor aide in

politics."


"Who Needs To Die For Danzig?" 


Under this headline, reformist, youth-oriented Moskovskiy

Komsomolets(10/9) ran a report by

Melor Sturua in Minneapolis commenting on the ongoing NATO enlargement

debates in the

United States: "Those who are ready to sacrifice their compatriots'

lives refer to the past when

American isolationism encouraged the aggression of Nazi Germany and

Stalin's Soviet Union.

But with Europe free of those two, the best guarantee of the freedom

and independence of

Danzig and other European cities would be not American boys' readiness

to die but a stronger

peace and democracy in Europe itself, including Germany and Russia as

its chief dominants.

With no one around wishing to attack Danzig, no one needs to defend

it."


"NATO Doesn't Give A Damn About Russia" 


An editorial in reformist, youth-oriented Moskovskiy Komsomolets(10/9)

commented, "In its

dealings with Russia, NATO remains slightly wary and cautiously

amused. Unwilling to quarrel

with Russia, it tries in every way to show respect, treating her as

almost 'one of us,' a good friend

and 'PFP partner.' But in reality, it, naturally, doesn't give a damn

for her."


"Russia's Views Of NATO, West Changing"


Oleg Fomichev commented on page one of centrist army daily Krasnaya

Zvezda (10/3): "Today

there is no reason to see any opposed poles of influence on the

European strategic field. It is this

fact that determines Russia's priorities in shaping up a new system of

European security, a system

based on respect for the interests of every European nation regardless

of size, geography,

economic potential or membership of military-political alliances. That

is why Russia's views of

the West and NATO are gradually changing. It should also be borne in

mind that our country

made substantial cuts in its armed forces, pulled its troops out of

the Central and Eastern

European countries and the Baltic states with unprecedented swiftness

and withdrew all its

nuclear weapons within its national borders. Finally, we have begun to

energetically reform the

armed forces and are revising our military doctrine to fully adapt

them to the new situation with

the security of Russia and that of our friends and allies. But Russia

expects the same from

NATO and has the right to demand it."


"Friendship With Anti-American Slant" 


Andrei Smirnov observed in reformist Segodnya commented on the French

President Jaques

Chirac's visit to Moscow for talks with President Yeltsin (9/27): "The

talks revealed no


differences on a key political issue, a new security system in Europe.

Paris and Moscow, it

appears, see eye to eye on that one, too. Yeltsin's reiterating strong

opposition to NATO's

enlargement had a pronounced anti-American slant and was obviously

meant for the French as an

opponent of the Americans inside NATO." 


"What's Good About NATO Enlargement" 


Sergei Lunev mused in reformist weekly Obshchaya Gazeta (10/2): "A lot

has been said about

why NATO enlargement is bad. Trying to determine what is good about

it, I found that, one,

with the West acting the way it has been acting, we may finally reach

the cohesion we have

sought for so long; two, we may finally get rid of what illusions we

still have about the

gentlemanly West; and three, NATO enlargement will greatly weaken the

West, making it

possible to start playing upon North-South differences. Today Russia

would benefit most by

following the ideas of 'democratic' Eurasians who insist that, as

Russia seeks closer relations in

Asia, it should further cooperation with the United States, Germany

and other European nations

which may help in case of a military threat from the South. It is time

for us to admit that we are

no longer a global power. And we must behave accordingly, trying to

find advantages in any

situation and learning to use differences between the North and the

South, between Europe and

the United States, among Europeans, etc."


AUSTRIA: "'Uncle Boris' And Not Uncle Sam?"


Conservative Die Presse's senior foreign affairs writer Burkhard

Bischof said (10/15), "Of

course, the new troika France-Germany- Russia, which was called into

being a few days ago in

Strasbourg, is not directed against the Western leadership of the

United States, as Paris and

Moscow assure unanimously...and of course, the United States has to

assume that a troika

consisting of the America-critics Paris and Moscow is supposed to

counter Washington's

influence on the Old Continent.... One thing is for sure: In recent

years, the foreign policy of the

superpower U.S. in the era of Bill Clinton, which has been quite

clumsy in many fields, has

made the number of U.S. critics and enemies grow worldwide. Moscow

knows that. That's why

Boris Yeltsin calls for a Europe that does not need an 'uncle;' of

course he was talking about

Uncle Sam. Did the president imply that Europe would be better off if

'Uncle Boris' had a say

in the matters of the continent, too?... 


"Europe will continue to need Uncle Sam--take Bosnia and Herzegovina--

even if he acts in a

rather stubborn and uncomprehending way at the moment. But also the

uncle from Russia could

be very useful for this Europe (and the other way round). Moscow,

however, ought to keep the

proven rules of Western Europe--instead of constantly pointing out its

special role.'"


BELGIUM: "Tallying The Costs"


>From Maastricht, Pierre Lefevre wrote for independent Le Soir (10/3):

"For the time being, it is

mainly the problem of presenting (the bill for NATO enlargement) which

is confronting the

ministers vis-a-vis public opinion, which is expecting the dividends

of peace rather than

increases in defense budgets. The American Cohen, for his part, is

obsessed by the reaction of

the U.S. Congress. Too low an estimate will not be taken seriously,

and a too high one will

frighten them, he told his colleagues. The amount of the bill will

depend to a large extent on the

force requirements NATO will set for each of its members, and

consequently on its strategic

concept.... Ambiguity already prevails about the cost issue. 'It would

be a financial catastrophe

if the European countries really had to achieve the force requirements

assigned to them,' admits a

diplomat close to NATO. 'The Belgian parliament, for instance, would

simply refuse to pay.' In

the absence of a foreseeable enemy, in fact, NATO has time to adapt."





BULGARIA: "Russia's Absence"


The Southeastern Defense Ministerial held in Sofia on October 3 with

the participation of

Secretary Cohen sparked this editorial in leading circulation tabloid

24 Chassa (10/5), "Russia's

absence, which was long commented upon as a failure, wasn't

dramatized. It is true that Russia's

defense minister had nothing to do in Sofia. He would have felt quite

uncomfortable among his

counterparts, who regard NATO as a major instrument for guaranteeing

security in the region."


"Bulgaria's Interest In NATO"


Readers of Bulgarian Socialist Party Duma (10/4) saw this, "The man

from the United States

(Secretary Cohen) was impressed with a recent poll indicating that

Bulgarians have a very high

opinion of the United States, yet they are more questioning about the

level of interest on the part

of the United States in Bulgaria. He is well aware that his hosts'

interest is to integrate their

country into NATO. However, no one asks the question whether this

coincides with the

Bulgarian nation's interests. Nevertheless, it is not a problem that

would worry the gentleman

from the Pentagon. In contrast to us, he knows his (country's)

interests anywhere in the world."


"Bulgaria's 'Neighborhood' Problems"


Socialist Party Duma (10/6) observed, "It is more than clear that the

foreign political orientation

of Bulgaria's current politicians confronts the country with nations

who disagree with NATO's

expansion and who question the United States' new policy in the

Balkans.... Bulgarian foreign

policy joins a game with lots of non-Bulgarian dimensions.... The

problem, Europe vs. Russia, is

not a Bulgarian one. It has been fabricated in foreign headquarters

and is a source of conflicts

which are quite unfavorable to Bulgaria's future." 


CZECH REPUBLIC: "Albright Urged Senate To Ratify NATO Enlargement" 


Czech media covered the secretary of state's Senate hearing on NATO

enlargement extensively

but without commentary. A Czech News Agency (CTK) (10/15) article

stressed: "Albright

emphasized that admission of the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary

served vital U.S.

interests. An enlarged NATO will make America safer, the Alliance

stronger, and Europe more

peaceful and united, she stressed." 


"Senators Say Clinton Has Given Unsatisfactory Explanation For

Enlargement"


A report in leftist Pravo (10/15) quoted the Washington Post, "U.S.

senators criticized Albright

on the grounds that the Clinton administration has not done enough to

explain why a stable and

smoothly functioning military Alliance should be enlarged and what

strategic threat the Alliance

faces. None of the senators rejected admission of the Czech Republic,

Poland and Hungary

explicitly, but almost all expressed reservations regarding the

necessity, costs and consequences

of enlargement for future relations with Russia." 


HUNGARY: "Embarrassing"


Influential Magyar Hirlap's assessment (10/9) was, "It is

embarrassing, a little bit ridiculous, and,

most of all, annoying, that in the United States sometimes more people

are canvassing for the

expansion--because it is their deep conviction that, in the vicinity

of unstable Eastern Europe, it

is a great political and military advantage to be inside the Alliance.

At the same time it is

incomprehensible that in Budapest the justification for the linking of

the two referendums was to

save money. Because in this case, the HUF 2-3 billion (although a huge

sum in itself) does not

even compare with the significance of Euro-Atlantic integration." 



"Referendum Degrades Both Issues"


Miklos Apati noted in very conservative Uj Magyarorszag (10/9), "The

opposition parties are

clearly aware of the danger: The hurried referendum conducted by the

government degrades the

issues themselves--those of joining NATO, and arable land. The

decision on when to hold the

referendum is now in President Goncz's hands. He might wait for the

interpretation of the

constitutional court whether it is the parliament's mandate to decide

about the government's

proposal, or whether they are obliged to wait until the authenticity

of the citizens' signatures

demanding differently worded questions is verified."


"Danger: Referendum Ahead"


Very conservative Uj Magyarorszag (10/9) concluded, "The government's

move carries the risk

that the NATO issue will be put in danger by the November 16

referendum. One can hardly

comment on risking such an incorrigible historical mistake by the

government."


"Reservations About Hungary Joining NATO"


Influential Magyar Hirlap (10/8) carried a NATO related letter to the

editor, which said, "In a

relatively calm, or thought to be calm, period of peace we

enthusiastically join a center of

military force, not thinking that such a premature move might, as

early as the next decade, push

the country into a fatal conflict.... The government's acceptance of

the idea of a binding

referendum is to be praised, but they could only prove they are not

afraid of the people's opinion

if they stopped the one-sided NATO propaganda in the media.... Instead

of expanding NATO,

Europe's security would best be served by NATO being isolated from

Russia by as many neutral

countries as possible."


"Alliance Against Phantom Enemy"


Leading circulation Nepszabadsag's letter to the editor read (10/7),

"The only reassuring thing for

me is that, at the moment, we are forming an alliance against a

phantom enemy. One cannot take

it for granted that the situation would never change."


"Cost: The Hot Potato"


Sunday weekly Vasarnapi Hirek (10/5) remarked, "With his close-fisted

senators in mind,

Clinton's administration wasted no time letting know that most of the

burden would have to be

carried by the joiners and the European members; after all, they are

the ones who need U.S.

protection. Of course, this debate has not started today: For years,

applicants have been thrown

to and from NATO and the EU like hot potatoes. Certainly, the

political will is not lacking; if

only it did not cost money! Or, as the poet wrote: He would take many

of our problems and

sorrows to his heart; but to take it on his shoulders, he is no fool."


POLAND: "Tensions Between U.S., Allies Could Complicate Poland's NATO

Entry"


Maria Wagrowska opined from Strasbourg for centrist

Rzeczpospolita(10/13), "Tensions

between the United States and its West European Allies with respect to

relations with Russia

could complicate the integration of Poland and other countries into

NATO. This is the most

essential reason why Central Europe should be concerned over the

planned

French-German-Russian cooperation [triangle] set up in Strasbourg....


"Moscow has played its part masterfully. Yeltsin accepted without

reservations all the

resolutions issued by the Council of Europe, which include: respect

for human rights, abandoning

the death penalty [by all countries], fighting torture, racism,

antisemitism, and intolerance,

protecting national minorities, and banning cloning.... Still when the

summit


debated...the chairman of Russia's Duma pledged that the [Russian]

parliament would work on

the ratification of the Council's conventions on European norms for a

law-abiding and

democratic state. And what the West wants above all is to have Russia

democratic and stable."

"Substantial Shift In Our Favor In Senate"


Centrist Rzeczpospolita (10/11-12) ran this commentary by Kazmierz

Dziewanowski, "The

congressional hearings in Washington on NATO enlargement...indicate

there is a substantial shift

in our favor in the U.S. Senate, which has a decisive voice....

Therefore, I would not care

much...that although 63 percent of Americans are for NATO enlargement,

and merely 18 are

against it...only one out of 10 knows well what countries are meant

[to participate in the

enlargement process.] What the senators will take into account when

voting is whether the

majority of voters is for or against enlargement, not whether they

know geography. Poles in

general also do not know where Wyoming or Utah lies--what they do know

is that they want to

be under the NATO umbrella."


"Senate's Ratification Of Crucial Importance"


Bartosz Weglarczyk filed from Brussels for center-left Gazeta

Wyborcza(10/8), "It is of crucial

importance that the U.S. Senate ratify the treaty as soon as possible

because this would be a clear

signal to the parliaments of the other countries [to follow.]...

Meanwhile, Poland may expect

unpleasant surprises on the part of at least four NATO members.... The

parliaments we must

most closely observe are those of France, Belgium, the Netherlands,

Turkey and Greece....

Should any one parliament not manage to ratify the treaty by the 50th

anniversary of NATO

establishment, it would not only be a blow to Poland's prestige--it

would also postpone our entry

into the Alliance by several months." 


"France's Position To Poland's Advantage?"


Jacek Potocki observed in center-left Zycie Warszawy (10/2): "The

French decision to stay out

of the Alliance's military structures may have concrete advantages for

Poland--it means

[potentially] more positions [for Polish officers] and more resources

that could be used for the

process of adapting to NATO [standards.] Also, the absence of Paris

could have substantial

political significance. Namely...the French look rather unwillingly

on...Poland's coming

membership in NATO--the point is that they consider Poland...to be

'very pro-American.' [From

the French perspective] Warsaw's shift towards Washington...is in the

long run disadvantageous

for Paris and may weaken its policy of 'Europeanization.'" 


"Russia Attempting To Undermine Global Status Of U.S."


Jacek Potocki remarked in center-left Zycie Warszawy (10/9), "Russia

is attempting to

undermine the global status of the United States. Its negative

position on NATO enlargement is

not so much opposition to the Alliance itself but to the prospect of

the release of Central and

Eastern European countries from Russia's historical sphere of

influence. Moscow's assessment

is that such a development would negatively change its geo-strategic

position in Europe....


"Russia is increasing special relations with France and Germany with

the view that the two

countries might be the principal actors in [the process of] making

Europe independent of the

United States. Moscow's aim is that all security issues in the

[Central and East European] region

be settled with its participation.... [Moscow] strives for

establishing and strengthening

influential pressure groups in...the region which might counteract the

pro-Western orientation of

the countries in Central and Eastern Europe--a region perceived by

Moscow as the 'battlefield'

between Russia and the West for strategic domination over the

continent."




ROMANIA: "U.S. Understanding Of Romania's Role In Balkans"


Opposition Jurnalul National (10/6) was the only newspaper to carry an

editorial article on the

significance of Assistant Secretary of State Marc Grossman's October

4-5 visit to Bucharest. It

opined, "The United States is more focused on the Balkans than on

Romania, but one must not

play down the U.S. administration's better understanding of the role

(Romania) can play in this

region.... No political calculation could continue overlooking

Romania's role in the Balkans, for

historical reasons and because of the immediate, burning realities of

the present.... Romania's

next steps, including in the strategic partnership with the United

States, depend on the need to

maintain its internal stability. In other words, Romania's credibility

abroad is built on its internal

achievements." 


SPAIN: "NATO: Second-Tier Partners" 


Independent El Mundo maintained (10/2): "In the next century, the EU

will have a common

currency, but will continue to have at least 15 armies. The

contradictions in European defense

came to light again with full intensity yesterday at the NATO meeting

in Maastricht in which

France remained isolated in its policy to Europeanize the Alliance....

France did not find any

support except from Belgium.... Just as in 1966, when De Gaulle

confronted the United States,

France is alone, but the reasons that France brandishes are not

whimsical. Europe cannot

continue to be a second-tier partner to Washington in matters of

defense.... The United States

provides 75 percent of the NATO budget and does as it pleases within

the Alliance. The distrust

among the Europeans reinforces this hegemony which is out of place

after the fall of the Berlin

Wall and the changes in the East."


##


For more information, please contact:


U.S. Information Agency

Office of Public Liaison

Telephone: (202) 619-4355


10/16/97


*********

---

David Johnson

phone: 202-862-0700

fax: 202-862-0708

email: davidjohnson@erols.com

home address:

1647 Winding Waye Lane

Silver Spring MD 20902 

USA

</x-rich>