November 27, 2002
PRAGUE SUMMIT:
NATO REINVENTED FOR NEW THREAT AND AS 'TOOL' FOR U.S.
KEY FINDINGS
** Global opinionmakers concluded that the
Prague Summit had "buried" the Warsaw Pact and given NATO a "new
mission" in a supporting role in the U.S.-led fight against terrorism.
** Many reflected that the significance of
admitting former members of the Eastern bloc had been eclipsed by the focus on
Iraq and the "reorganization" of the U.S., Russia and Europe.
** European writers either praised NATO
enlargement for strengthening the alliance or complained that it had been
retooled to serve U.S. interests first.
** Others derided NATO for becoming a
"political club" instead of a military alliance.
MAJOR THEMES
NATO needed and found its post Cold War 'raison
d'etre'--
European papers were in large part relieved that Prague had breathed "new
relevance" into NATO and agreed that the Alliance had no choice but to
adapt to the new threat of global terrorism.
Though some found America's "mugging" of the Alliance
"deplorable," they came to terms with the "brutal truth"
that the old NATO had ceased to exist.
Pristina's leading independent Koha Ditore recognized that it was
time for NATO to "look beyond the Balkans" and "face the new
challenges." "Pragmatism
won" at Prague, as Berlin's right of center Die Welt declared:
"It is better to have a dynamic NATO under control than an Alliance that
embarks on the sad road of dying bureaucracies."
Critics complain NATO has turned into an
'instrument' of the U.S.-- Mostly liberal and left-leaning dailies in NATO outlets
along with observers elsewhere suggested that the alliance had been relegated
to America's "toolbox." They
claimed that the U.S. had taken advantage of the summit to "lobby"
allies to support the campaign against Iraq.
Some echoed Cairo's leading Al Ahram's charge that NATO was
nothing more than a "political garage to be used, whenever necessary, by
the U.S." Some editorials reflected
Europe's sense of inferiority, that "NATO is nothing without the
U.S." They lamented that Europe's
failure to speak with one voice left it without the "capacity to influence
Washington." Others, including a
Brazilian writer, held that NATO suffered from an "identity
crisis." Moscow's reformist Izvestiya
chided that "NATO members have yet to decide what they are, U.S. partners
or an alternative to U.S. hegemony."
NATO's new 'recruits' and standards of admission
meet with skepticism-- Although most writers
in newly inducted NATO states were cautiously optimistic about accession, some
recognized they would be used, in the words of Bulgaria's leading Trud,
as "service personnel at best."
A Canadian daily insisted that the U.S. pushed for the "militarily
feeble" states because it needed their bases as "waypoints" to
U.S. bases in the Mideast. Belgrade's
influential Politika asked: "Isn't it a little bit too easy to
enter the NATO alliance? Also questioning the "vague geographic
requirements," a Tel Aviv paper argued that with the threat of
"militant Islam," Israel fits the "new NATO mold" better
than its newest members.
EDITOR: Irene Marr
EDITOR'S NOTE:
This analysis is based on 94 reports from 41 countries,
11/18-11/27. Editorial excerpts from
each country are listed from the most recent date.
EUROPE
BRITAIN:
"America's Warning Shot"
The conservative Daily Telegraph offered this view
(11/22): "The division of Europe
that followed Yalta has vanished.
However, while the political significance of its passing is obvious, the
military benefit is less so. The three
newcomers in 1999 have not lived up to their commitments and similar
difficulties can be expected from the next lot of entrants.... That said, membership has changed Cold War
patterns of subservience and enhanced democratic civilian control of the armed
forces and intelligence services. To be
effective, the proposed rapid reaction force should not have to depend on
unanimous approval for its deployment....
Its success also hangs on the Europeans improving their military
capabilities.... The rapid reaction
force is a lifeline offered by Washington to an alliance now facing the
unpredictable threats of the age of terror. Without greater investment in
defence, Europe will fall behind America to the extent that joint operations
become impossible.... The lesson is
clear: either the Europeans remedy their
operational deficiencies or the alliance will become irrelevant."
"NATO Has Lost An enemy And Is Searching
For A Rule"
Peter Ridell, wrote in the conservative Times
(11/21): "The rapid growth of
American defence spending...[has] left European countries struggling to keep in
touch. This capabilities gap has
reinforced a growing difference in strategic thinking. America's reliance on air power...[has]
produced a reluctance to commit ground troops.... By contrast, the Europeans believe in being
more engaged on the ground and more involved in later peacekeeping.... Hence the suggestion that the Americans do
the hard stuff, and the Europeans do the clearing up afterwards.... The Europeans worry that they have little
influence on American decisions.... The
practice, as opposed to the rhetoric, is more complex, as shown by the
negotiations leading to the recent UN resolution. The Bush administration has wanted allies,
but on its own terms. The choice for
Europe is simple. It cannot compete
militarily on the same scale, or technical sophistication, as the United
States.... But unless European countries
spend more and develop rapidly deployable forces, they will not be listened to
in Washington."
"NATO Is Not Dead, But Missing In
Action"
Gerard Baker observed in the independent Financial
Times (11/21): "Not even the
most determinedly faithful would try to revive a marriage by adopting seven new
family members. In Prague today, the
members of NATO will do just that.
Setting aside their differences for the sake of the children, Western
Europe and the United States will renew their old vows and admit a clutch of
eastern European countries.... To the
bigger question of what this partnership is really for in the 21st century,
there will be deafening silence.... The
most recent events suggest that neither side is really prepared, even at
critical moments to take NATO seriously....
A disdainful refusal even to respond to a genuine offer of support from
close allies at the time of America's most serious crisis in decades--spoke
volumes about its attitude to the alliance.
In Europe too, recent events suggest some of the most important
countries regard NATO as at best an irrelevance, at worst another opportunity
for the United States to antagonize them....
NATO is not dead.... But if the
Bush administration's national security strategy....is to be the defining
feature of U.S. defence strategy for the next 50 years, most Europeans do not
want anything to do with it. And, for
all the fanfare, it is getting harder to disguise the views of policymakers on
both sides."
"What Is NATO for?"
The liberal Guardian held (11/19):
"The NATO meeting will focus primarily not on the long-anticipated
decision to admit seven new east European members, but on a Bush adminstration
to transform NATO into an alliance tasked with fighting WMD proliferation and
terrorism.... Despite surprisingly little public debate, Prague is expected to
approve the plan. The main overarching argument in favor is that this
rededication of NATO to George Bush's 'war on terror' will give it a relevance
it has lacked since the cold war's end....
But the disadvantages for Europe are serious. A green light in Prague will inevitably be
seen as a political endorsement of Mr. Bush's aggressive global security
strategy.... Such free-range militarism
may quickly come into conflict with the UN system, collective European
interests and, perhaps, European security priorities such as Balkan
peacekeeping. The basic,unresolved issue
remains a united Europe's long term need to provide for its own defense and
security, in concert with the U.S. perhaps, but not under its direction."
FRANCE:
"Bush, Putin, NATO and Iraq"
Right-of-center Les Echos editorialized
(11/25): "No sooner the NATO summit in
Prague over, President Bush ran to Saint Petersburg to confirm to Vladimir
Putin that NATO's expansion is a peaceful endeavor which in no way threatens
Russia.... Since Sept. 11 Russia and the
U.S. have discovered they have a common enemy: terrorism. While NATO has just set down the guidelines
for its new mission by approving the creation of the rapid reaction force, the
American President has gone further in his gesture towards Putin: he has
absolved the Russian President for his forceful resolution of the Moscow theatre
hostage situation.... Russia, like NATO,
has reminded the U.S. it must conform to the UN resolution on Iraq.... But the U.S. is in a position of strength.
President Bush has promised Russia to protect its oil interests in Iraq in the
post-Saddam era."
"Fighting Terrorism With NATO"
Gilles Delafon observed in right-of-center Le
Journal du Dimanche (11/24): "George W. Bush has a pretty clear idea of
what the future NATO should be: the Pentagon's Foreign Legion.... The NATO summit has once again underscored
the philosophical gap between the U.S. and Europe when it comes to handling
world affairs.... President Bush would
love to turn NATO into an instrument to be used in his war against terrorism.... But terrorism must be fought with information
and intelligence gathering, and this is one area in which Washington does not
like to share with NATO."
"A Hold-Up On NATO"
Left-of-center Le Monde editorialized (11/22): "If NATO does not adapt its means to
tomorrow's threats, it will condemn itself to a slow death even while
continuing to expand. This is why the
U.S. is pressing its allies to increase its military budgets, to reform its
armies and to acquire military equipment which is technologically compatible
with its own. Otherwise the allies will
become useless allies for Washington, maybe even cumbersome ones. But such a plan would be more convincing if
it were the result of a concerted effort founded on a common analysis of the
risks and the solutions. Unfortunately
this is not the case. For Washington,
NATO must serve America's policies. We
cannot help but deplore America's mugging of the Alliance. But as long as the Europeans remain incapable
of making themselves heard, Europe's protest will remain useless."
"Bush Wins NATO's Political Support On Iraq"
Jacques Hubert-Rodier wrote in right-of-center Les Echos
(11/22): "George Bush has obtained at
least one important thing from his NATO allies, and that is a firm political
commitment on the last UN resolution on Iraq.... On the other hand, the U.S. was not able to
convince all of its allies to participate in the preparations for a military
intervention in Iraq.... France
considers that 'the moment has not yet come,' even if it does not consider the
request premature. All in all the NATO
declaration on Iraq is considerable because it reaffirms Washington's interest
in the Alliance.... The U.S. has also
scored elsewhere: the NATO summit has approved, at least in principle, the
plans for a rapid reaction force."
GERMANY: "Changes"
Jochen Thies commented on national radio station
DeutschlandRadio of Berlin (11/23): "The Prague summit was important for
Central Europe and the Baltic states.
NATO will admit new members and expand eastward to the gates of St.
Petersburg. The brutal truth, for
Germany and western Europe, is that the old NATO, which was a stable political
factor for the past fifty years, has ceased to exist. Washington has created an alliance based on
specific needs with which it will cooperate according to its own purposes. A race for U.S. goodwill has begun among
Alliance members. The German chancellor
will soon have to decide whether he will embrace realpolitik, which would be
good for Germany, or whether he will stick to his campaign promise and keep
Germany out of a war on Iraq."
"The End Of The Old NATO"
Karl Feldmeyer noted in a front-page editorial
in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (11/23): "NATO's new
structure grants the United States even more power than before, and that will
have an impact on European attitudes.
The Europeans have to realize that they are not equal partners anymore but
dependents. This will create
problems. While the NATO Council still
needs the support of all members to initiate Alliance action, the weight of
U.S. power will be the decisive factor in the end. The German government had to acknowledge this
reality in Prague when it came to voting on the Iraq resolution. There was no alternative to backing the
resolution. The damage done to
U.S.-German relations was obvious in Prague.
Much depends on whether the current tension remains an isolated incident
or whether it leads to permanent transatlantic changes. NATO's ability to
expand without too many problems has a lot to do with Putin's willingness to
embrace a new realism in foreign policy after September 11. The Russian president used the attacks as an
opportunity to redefine U.S.-Russian relations in the context of the
international fight against terrorism.
The reorganization of relations between the United States, Russia, and
Europe came to a first end in Prague."
"With A Smile"
Clemens Wergin stated in an editorial in
centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (11/23): Rarely has a NATO summit
been dominated by the United States as much as Prague. The rules for NATO are the same that apply to
Germany: anyone who does not play along, at least a little bit, will become
insignificant. This is the price that
Europe has to pay for Germany's escapades.
It was impossible to build up a meaningful European opposition based on
Germany's refusal to take military action against Iraq even under UN mandate. Now there is hardly any European resistance
to Bush. A whole continent has backed
down."
"Ready For Intervention"
Center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine argued (11/22): "In Prague, the Warsaw Pact was
buried.... The division of Europe, which
is linked to other names, Yalta and Potsdam, has now been overcome, and this
happened in a quiet way that does not really show how profound this process
was.... When NATO invited the first
central-European states to accede to the Alliance five years ago, Moscow was
still ravaged by imperial after-pains and threatened a new ice-age. But this did not happen, new trenches were not
dug. The enlargement of the Atlantic
zone of security and stability to the north and the southeast is no longer
considered a strategic threat, since Russia itself has gained privileged access
to NATO in the meantime. And since NATO
wants to keep its doors open, those European nations that are not members of
the first group of acceding countries need not panic. If they continue to go along on the path of
democracy, reduce internal and external conflicting potential and meet military
requirements, they also have a chance to join the Alliance."
"Without A Mandate Of Peoples"
Left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau editorialized
(11/22): "The term that was we
heard all over in Prague was the term transformation. But this is a deliberate attempt to mislead. The new NATO Response Force (NRF) is not part
of a historically necessary transformation, but it is the first step to a
deliberately planned new foundation of the Alliance.... Political honesty would make it useful to
return the debate to the people over how and in which format we want to defend
ourselves militarily to new challenges.
Those who want the NATO whose first steps were made in Prague, must
negotiate a new Atlantic Treaty. This
will be difficult and in the end, it may be possible that some members will
leave the Alliance. It is a bad sign
that NATO is dodging such a debate over principles and sticks to the illusion
of historical continuity. The Alliance
seems to forget that its strength is based on the approval of peoples which is
the basis for the need of defense. Those
who like NATO embark on such a profoundly new path must get the approval [of
the peoples]. Or the understanding of
what is necessary will dwindle. And with
it the power of the Alliance."
"NATO's Rescue"
Katja Ridderbusch editorialized in right-of-center Die Welt
of Berlin (11/22): "The rebirth of the
Alliance, which augurs declared dead after September 11, took place only with
massive--some may say violent--assistance of the biggest partner. In Prague, pragmatism won: It is better to have a dynamic NATO under
control than to have an Alliance that embarks on the sad road of dying
bureaucracies. In Prague, the United
States urged NATO to approve a Response Force made up of European elite
soldiers. Despite all prophecies of doom
that the Americans would use the new NATO force as a kind of 'foreign legion,'
the new NATO designed by the Americans may, in the end, even inspire the
Europeans to set up their own Rapid Reaction Force, since the European will
need those military capabilities for their plans which the Americans demanded
from them in Prague. Optimists may say
that the United States woke NATO in Prague with a kiss."
"NATO Reshaped According To U.S.
Notions"
Joerg Schoenenborn commented on ARD-TV's
(national channel one) late evening newscast (11/20): "For months, it seemed that the United
States would go its own way...but this is no longer the case. The common military response force that will
be agreed upon in Prague, is a kind of political re-assurance for the United
States. If the Europeans back this
force, they will also back the idea behind it.
Those who set up a response force will also intervene in case of a
worst-case scenario. President Bush
knows what he wants, and he is obviously able to learn.. Despite all their
military strength, the Americans decided to embark upon the path of political
alliances. This offers the Europeans the
chance to co-shape it. France and
Britain took advantage of it, while Germany only played the role of a spectator over the past few weeks. It is
still a long way to get out of its isolation."
ITALY: "Neither Winners Nor Losers In
Prague"
Elite, classical liberal Il Foglio
commented (11/25): "What are the
tangible results of the Atlantic Council in Prague, and what are the
consequences, especially for Europe?
NATO expansion to include seven new members was taken care of in a
matter of minutes, and almost by acclamation: something inconceivable until a
couple of years ago, but made possible by the September 11 attacks and by the
recent rapprochement between NATO and Russia.
The paradox, if any, is that the seven new Central European allies have
finally become members of an Alliance that already is (and will increasingly
become) much different from the one that they were dreaming to join five or
three years ago. And this is the second
true development of the Prague summit: a 26-member NATO, with the United States
less and less committed on the European front and less and less interested in
involving the Alliance, as such, in its most relevant military operations, and
with Russia no longer an open enemy or an invisible participant, but rather an
external interlocutor and even a partner in certain fields. Furthermore, a NATO that is planning to equip
itself with a multinational special force, properly trained and capable to
intervene anywhere in the world, tuned on the Pentagon's wavelength rather than
that of NATO headquarters in Mons. There
is no doubt that discussions will continue in Brussels to bring agreement among
the allies, but it is as if a long-time mission has been completed and new,
still vague deadlines have been presented to a 'club' whose new members have
not quite understood yet how they should behave."
"Europe's Right Image"
Mario Platero wrote in leading business Il Sole-24 Ore (11/25): "In Prague, we witnessed the materialization
and the identification of a new mission for NATO. And last Friday, during the rapid but intense
summit with Putin, Russia and the United States formalized an agreement,
finding a unifying element in the fight against a common enemy,
terrorism--something that overcomes the barriers over the enlargement of the
Atlantic Pact. Even Putin admitted that,
if NATO's mission is, indeed, to fight terrorism, Russia would be able to work
together with NATO. While everybody
agrees on the basic principles that inspire the war on terrorism, however,
there is no agreement over priorities.
Let's take Iraq. Everybody agrees
that disarmament is the goal, but differences remain over the methods to
achieve it.. The disputes over how to
interpret U.N resolution 1441 will continue: there is no doubt that the
resolution of the Iraqi problem will become determining also for the debate
over the centerpoint of Europe's politics."
"Bush Pockets A Double 'Yes' From
Putin"
Mario Platero reported from St. Peterburg in
leading business Il Sole-24 Ore
(11/23): "Perhaps Bush Bush
expected something more on the Iraqi front, and perhaps Putin was looking for
support to identify at least some of the Chechen political leadership with
terrorism. Yet, during their seventh
summit, Putin and Bush achieved at least one important compromise: the war on global terrorism prevails over the
differences regarding NATO enlargement..
In sum, if terrorism defines the new NATO mission, it also defines Russia's
new relationship with NATO, namely with the United States.. Putin, however, asked America not to
undertake a unilateral action against Iraq and said he is not certain that Iraq
possesses mass destruction weapons."
"The Risks Of The Alliance: Diluted And
Increasingly 'American'"
An analysis by Franco Venturini, writing from
Prague in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (11/23): "The
general satisfaction voiced by participants in the NATO summit and the general
welcome given to the new former enemies and now new members have not succeeded
to mask completely the unknown factors that weigh on the renovated
Alliance. The enlargement that has taken
NATO as far as Russia's borders adds little to its military capability.. The
effectiveness of the Alliance, in fact, is jeopardized by a long-time problem,
revived by new roles: the growing gap between the financial-technological
involvement of the United States and that of its traditional European allies."
"A Shadow Over The Alliance's Celebrations: The
War Against Iraq"
Maurizio Molinari wrote from Prague in centrist,
influential La Stampa (11/21):
"Thirteen years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, NATO is expanding to
include seven former members of the Warsaw Pact and is dealing with the
terrorism emergency by creating a 'rapid reaction force' on the global
level. But there is no agreement on
Iraq: America is asking the allies for troops and materiel while Paris refuses
to go beyond support for UN inspections.
And Berlin remains silent....
Agreement among NATO partners over NATO reform appears to be possible
without too many difficulties, while Iraq remains a problem."
"Bush's Requests Amid The Allies'
Doubts"
Andrea Bonanni commented in left-leaning,
influential La Repubblica (11/21):
"Like the Roman Empire 18 centuries ago, right at the time of its
maximum territorial expansion and the virtually unchallenged hegemony of its
values, the NATO alliance is also experiencing the germs of decline and the
emergence, under the crust of routine self-celebrations, of the fault of a
growing internal split between its Western and Eastern souls. So much so that it would be legitimate to
wonder whether NATO's ultimate goal may have become that of keeping its pieces
together under a single leadership--American leadership, of course, thus
preventing each of the two souls to autonomously decide on its fate.... President Bush, who yesterday, right at the
time when he should have drawn the Alliance's future objectives, preferred to
launch a general appeal to about 50 'friendly' nations for a new ad hoc
military coalition against Saddam Hussein's Iraq.... With an expansion that is similar to that of
the European Union, and with a series of initiatives that seem to prevent EU
initiatives in the military field, NATO is increasingly turning into a
symmetrical creature with respect to the European Union: a 'clone' that, by
anticipating Europe's moves, jeopardizes its autonomous growth and preserves
American leadership."
"RUSSIA: "Twenty To Grow To Twenty-Seven"
Vadim Markushin said in centrist army Krasnaya
Zvezda (11/26): "The words and gestures George Bush has said and made
over the last few days (i.e., during his meeting with Vladimir Putin in St.
Petersburg) highlight certain things regarding NATO-Russia relations. Obviously, the United States values them not
less than admitting new recruits to NATO.
This might mean, for instance, that Latvia has to take a new look at its
being NATOized, and that having good-neighborly relations with Russia is good
for it, meaning that it should solve the problem of the Russian-language
minority. Similarly, the Baltic States
should abide by the CFE agreement. The Twenty must grow to Twenty-Seven. That says it all."
"NATO Can Only Have Russia As Enemy"
Vasiliy Safronchuk argued on page one of
nationalist opposition Sovetskaya Rossiya (11/26): "Pro-American
politicians in this country allege that NATO poses no military danger to
Russia, that it has set out to transform and adapt itself to new threats and
challenges, and that it views international terrorism, not Russia, as its chief
enemy now. Why then spend more than $500
billion annually on arms buildup? Why
keep tens of thousands of tanks and aircraft?
Clearly, a formidable war machine like NATO can only have Russia as an
enemy. It is not that present-day
Russia is no longer an ideological opponent.
The sociopolitical systems of Nazi Germany and Japan were similar to
those of the so-called Western democracies.
That did not stop the war.... In
a future war to redivide the world, the United States is sure to face Russia, a
major repository of the world's resources. Otherwise, we might have been
admitted to NATO."
"It's Like Afghanistan"
Valeriy Panyushkin opined in reformist
business-oriented Kommersant (11/26): "Never help the weak, but
seek help from the strong is one rule that has been followed by politicians at
all times. What is happening to
Georgia once happened to Afghanistan.
Nobody wants to make friends with it. Nobody shows respect for it. And nobody will as long as terrorists feel
free to set up training camps in parts of its territory it cannot
control.... That Georgia is trying for
NATO is bad for Russia. That NATO is
playing an 'admission' game with Georgia, while certainly having no intention
to admit it, is bad for NATO. Left out
in the cold, Georgia is certain to become a rogue state."
"U.S. May Want To Set Up A New
Alliance"
Aleksey Lyashchenko commented on page one of
centrist army Krasnaya Zvezda (11/23): "Weighed down with a load of
passengers, who are as poor and unsure of themselves as they are ambitious, the
NATO juggernaut is very slow, so slow it can stall. Also, it takes the White House a lot of
effort and time to keep the juggernaut on the right track. Washington is increasingly irritated with
the EuroNATO allies being reluctant to invest much in military programs and the
renovation and development of their military potential. Under the circumstances, Washington,
analysts say, may find it much easier to form a new alliance, with close trade
and economic ties among its members. It
might keep its membership to a minimum but whoever might be admitted would
support the Chief Ally's ideas and goals without demur. Russia might join the
new alliance on certain conditions, too.
This country was the first to identify with the United States' war on
international terrorism and is a great military power with considerable weight
and influence in the world. It must
figure quite big in the United States' policy."
"NATO At Crossroads"
Fyodor Lukyanov opined in official government Rossiyskaya
Gazeta (11/22): "Time runs
ahead of the wildest of predictions.
Who knows, one of the next summits on NATO's enlargement may take place
in the Kremlin. In a sense, the current
summit is make-it-or-break-it. NATO may
get its second wind or continue on its downslide precipitously. Some believe that Prague is the last chance
for NATO as a determining international force.
Washington may not offer Europe another one. But the Europeans may not like all of the
Americans' recipes with regard to NATO's survival. Even London, though with some reservations,
along with Paris and Berlin, the key players in Europe, does not want NATO to
become the world's policeman, an instrument to help the United States gain
global hegemony.... Russia, while not
objecting to NATO's enlargement in public, continues to consider it a
mistake."
"They Pined For Old NATO"
Georgiy Bovt stated on page one of reformist Izvestiya
(11/21): "The truth is that former
Warsaw Pact members yearned for a quite different NATO, a bloc that was run,
managed and financed by America alone and that had a common bugaboo, a myth
about a reviving Russian empire. Now as
the rookies get into NATO, they will find that it is different. The U.S. media's reaction to the summit is
quite indicative--they are skeptical through and through and do not believe in
the European allies' fighting spirit, power, and more importantly, ability to
make at least one coherent decision....
The Euro NATO members have yet to decide what they are, the United
States' partners or an alternative to the United States' hegemony. The Americans, it seems, have ultimately
been disillusioned with NATO over their war plans against Iraq. Aside from the British, no one has supported
them."
"NATO Makes No Sense"
Andrey Lebedev observed on page one of reformist
Izvestiya (11/21):
"Sometimes it looks like NATO has been enlarging through
inertia. Once a decision is made, it has
to be seen through.... Having lost a
potential enemy...the Alliance does not seem to make much sense."
AUSTRIA:
"NATO, The US And Europe"
Security affairs writer Alexander Purger commented in centrist Salzburger
Nachrichten (11/22): "The NATO
summit in Prague clearly shows it is not the European Union, but NATO that's
pushing European unification.... On top
of that, NATO is nothing without the U.S. None of the European NATO members
have the political and military potential that would make the U.S. take them
seriously. Europe becoming an equal partner of the Americans would require a
division of military tasks among European countries. But neither the EU nor
NATO will be able to pull that off."
"A Quiet Sensation"
Foreign affairs writer Christoph Winder opined in liberal Der
Standard (11/22): "The fact
that this second round in NATO's enlargement process could proceed so smoothly,
is not only due to Russian President Putin's pragmatism. Especially the
anti-terror alliance formed between Washington and Moscow has done a great deal
to guarantee that Putin does not intend to make a fuss over the critical issue
of the Baltic states. A quiet sensation
and a clear sign of how quickly things can change."
"No
Power, No Voice"
Foreign editor Livia Klingl opined in
mass-circulation Kurier (11/21):
"Since the United States' defense budget is more than double the
amount of what Washington's European NATO allies spend on defense, nothing will
change with regard to U.S. predominance.
Consequently, Bush's policy isn't going to change course either. He will continue to work along the lines of
'If you don't assist us in the anti-terror war, we'll just go it alone.' Which means the United States will make the
decisions and fight the wars. But it
will be up to the Europeans to pay for the reconstruction efforts.'
BELGIUM:
"One Big Family"
Foreign editor Frank Schloemer observed in
independent De Morgen (11/23):
"Officially, Russia no longer has a problem with NATO's eastward
enlargement, although Moscow has asked not to use it to flare up anti-Russian
feelings. That remark was directed at
the Baltic republics, in particular, where major Russian minorities
live.... However, now that the
enlargement summit is over, NATO is one big family of 26 members who have
drafted new tasks for themselves. The
new members will have to seek their place in the Alliance and they will have to
spend much money to meet the NATO requirements.
Soon, the citizens of the new member states will wonder whether their
country shouldn't have spent that money more effectively."
"Differentation In Burden-Sharing Will Lead
To Different Assessments Of Crises"
Foreign affairs writer Marc Reynebeau wrote in
liberal weekly Knack (11/21):
"The new threats require a different kind of defense and NATO wants to
force the member states to do something in that field.... In the end, NATO is a crucial channel through
which the Untied States can have a say in Europe--including its military
dimension. That is why the creation of a
NATO Response Force is high on the agenda.
It will have 'only' 21,000 troops but they will be capable of carrying
out a much wider variety of tasks than the EU's Rapid Reaction Force. As usual, it is said that one initiative will
not hinder the other initiative, that such intervention forces must be formed
with troops that the members states are willing to provide and that everything
will depend on the task that NATO or the EU are willing to take upon their
shoulders. Of course, rivalry between
both forces must be avoided. That is
obvious--until things real matter, of course."
"A Useful Toolbox"
Foreign affairs writer Jean Vanempten in
financial De Financieel-Economische
Tijd (11/21): "More and more the
Americans view NATO as a useful toolbox.
Depending on their needs, troops can be deployed to stop conflicts when
they start or to exercise control. Just
like the UN is being pushed into a secondary role, NATO seems to become an
instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Every
criticism on the United States triggers a grumpy response.... The American president is clearly heading
for one goal: a war against Iraq--verbally for the time being. His statements in Prague leave little to
imagination. For the rest of the world
the UN resolution on the arms inspections in Iraq is a 'last chance' for
Iraq. For the United States it is only
an obligatory diplomatic intermission.
Bush does not need NATO for this plans regarding Iraq. He will choose his partners in function of
their loyalty and obedience. The
British--faithful as a dog--are already putting their troops on the alert."
BULGARIA:
"NATO Requirements"
Center-left daily Sega commented
(11/25): "The government should
realize and make it clear that NATO will require much more from Bulgaria during
the membership ratification stage. The
political class has another problem if it wants to have public opinion on its
side. It will have to preserve the
dignity of the nation and negotiate beneficial terms in return for Bulgarian
cooperation with NATO. Bulgaria is not
rich enough to give away presents. But
judging from the actions of the major Bulgarian political players, it looks
like Bulgaria is ready to give it all away and the people will not understand
that."
"After The Champagne, We Should Get To
Work"
Center-right, Western-oriented Dnevnik observed
(11/22): "It's good to keep in mind
that the invitation to join NATO became a reality due to political factors
outside of Bulgaria--the Kosovo crisis, 9/11, the global war on terrorism and
the Iraq problem. Why is it important to
know that? The Bulgarian government
should spare us any manipulative statements that the invitation is a fact
because the military, the prosecution, and all Bulgarian institutions are up to
NATO standards. We all know that this is
not true and the people over the Atlantic Ocean know that, too."
"No Time For Fanfare"
Largest circulation Trud editorialized (11/22): "The NATO invitation is a fact. However, the government should not start
singing the 'Ode to Joy' now. Quite the
contrary, the invitation is an historic nod of approval, but the difficulties
before the real accession still lie ahead....
This sort of country would be hard-pressed to be an equal ally to the
Great Powers. Its population will become
the Alliance's service personnel, at best.
And that wasn't really the point of all this, was it?"
"After Prague, On To Beijing"
Centrist, largest-circulation Trud opined
(11/20): "After zigzagging and slipping, and sliding for the last 13
years, Bulgaria will finally join the cream of the civilized world. This way, we will put an end to a
century-long dependence on Russia, half of the time spent under a Soviet-type
of regime. It would be a bad idea to go
to the other extreme and slam the door to the East, because precisely as
members of the Atlantic club we could maintain wonderful economic, cultural and
all other kinds of ties with Moscow, just like France, Germany and Greece and
many other NATO members do.... The other
side of the coin is that many people are under the false impression that NATO
membership will be the magic wand that will fix all of Bulgaria's problems.... Even years after the Prague Summit it is
questionable whether the country's economic situation would improve.... Where to after Prague? The answer is--on to China. In 20 years only the Asian dragon will become
the world's giant. This is why we must
start building bridges to Beijing now."
CZECH REPUBLIC: "About What the Alliance
Has Forgotten"
Filip Pospisil commented in center-right Lidove Noviny
(11/25): "World statesmen had to solve a range of delicate issues at the
NATO summit in Prague....They tried to satisfy Americans and issued the
statement on Iraq, but they didn't pledge to anything particularly important in
that sense.... But there were a few
important issues that have not been touched upon during the diplomatic whirl. Under the slogan of new threats, the summit
discovered new methods of fighting international terrorism and fighting against
the spread of weapons of mass destruction, but it has not mentioned the
uncontrolled spread of conventional arms....
There were talks about new capabilities, but it was forgotten that new
arms acquisitions usually brings about sales of old arms to destabilized,
third-world countries.... Also, 'new members' became the main motto of the
summit, but no new initiative were passed leading towards new members handling
their arms export controls more responsibly....
The finished meeting didn't pass any important document relating to the
fight against the irresponsible sale of conventional arms. The Prague summit
could contribute to international security and a true fight against terrorism,
but this opportunity was missed. Everything suggests that it was an intentional
omission."
DENMARK:
"NATO's Future"
Center-right Berlingske Tidende carried
the following op-ed by FM Per Stig Møller (11/21): "The enlargement of
NATO is much more than the end of a sorry chapter in European history. It is important to remember that Prague is a
beginning and the enlargement process will crucially bolster the Alliance's
ability to safeguard peace and stability."
FINLAND: "Changing NATO And Finland"
Leading independent Helsingin Sanomat ran
international security affairs expert Max Jakobson's op-ed (11/20): "It is...the duty of the media to convey a realistic picture of
what NATO will gradually become. Many
misconceptions regarding this exist among Finns. The issue on membership is a political one:
do we want to be part of the decision
making that takes place both among NATO members and between NATO and Russia, or are we going to
remain outside? Staying outside would not be fatal, but might in due course
lead to a situation where we would lose the political advantages that we have
achieved by our active contribution in the Union decision making."
GEORGIA:"Georgia's Accession to NATO Will
Be Event -driven"
Georgia's independent liberal opposition 24
Hours observed (11/25): "General Myers' answer to the question if the
U.S. would use Georgia's military bases in the case of war on Iraq was the one
that Georgian and Russian journalists were most eager to hear: 'The United
States has not made the decision with respect to Iraq so far. The Iraqi regime has to comply with the UN
resolution first. As for U.S.-Georgia
cooperation in case of war, its up to the Georgian Government to make a
decision. I have already mentioned that
we have not discussed this possibility during the meetings.' Like General
Myers, Georgian officials claim that the use of Georgia's military bases in
case of war against Iraq is not yet on the agenda. Even though there is some theoretical probability
for Americans to consider using Georgia's bases, the likelihood is very little
due to the poor condition of their infrastructure."
HUNGARY:
"What Has Changed and What Has Not"
Foreign affairs writer Balazs Pocs wrote in leading Nepszabadsag
(11/25): "NATO's mission and the
number of its members have changed. But
one thing has not changed. The United
States is not only the main military force of the alliance but the key player
who sets the organization's political agenda.
After 9/11 it attained that the other members of the alliance invoked
Article 5. Later, beyond NATO, the U.S.
went ahead to act alone in Afghanistan.
In the case of Iraq the United States was threatening to act, again,
unilaterally. Then, later it included its allies in the settlement
process. Now it requests concrete
military contribution from them. In
other words: new members, new mission, old (balance of) powers."
"Atlantic Metamorphosis"
Senior columnist Janos Avar judged in weekend Vasarnapi Hirek
(11/24): "It is time to reform
NATO. But as says the French proverb
'the more things change, the more they remain the same.' NATO has practically no 'outside' enemy
today. But it does not mean that there
are no 'outside' threats either. But
NATO's main goal has not changed: to protect Europe's peace. The most practical tool of fulfilling this
goal today is to admit as many as possible European countries to the alliance
so that they don't even think of bearing a grudge against each other."
"Historic Moment"
Liberal Magyar Hirlap editorialized (11/22): "We must
rejoice over the further enlargement without any reservations. Let us see that the countries whose commitment
was often questioned before will now be accepted into this club that conditions
the strengthening of stability and democracy.
It is true even if many say that not all of the invitees meet the
criteria of membership, and they can primarily thank Washington's interests for
the invitation made in Prague.... The
summit in the Czech Republic is a historic moment for NATO, too. The alliance has been being buried for years,
its true role doubted in the shadow of America, as well as its capability of
effective action among the changed--now more faceless and geographically
unidentifiable--threats. Now [NATO] has been given another--perhaps
last--chance. It will be bigger and
stronger, and its leaders have made a commitment to its modernization, too."
IRELAND: "Bigger NATO
May Not Be In Better Shape To Fight Terror"
The liberal Irish Times' foreign affairs
editor Deaglán de Bréadún held (11/25): "NATO has failed to answer serious
questions about its future role in enhancing world security.... There were
still some nagging questions and concerns.....The summit saw a renewal of vows
in the war against terrorism. But al-Qaeda was hardly trembling in its
shoes....Happily, the terrorists did not strike at the NATO summit. But NATO's enemies scored a victory of sorts
in that they obliged the authorities to close down a whole city....
Sensitivities about our neutrality meant that...the Irish seat was occupied by
a non-Cabinet member, the Minister of State for European Affairs, Mr Dick
Roche.... Whether NATO is capable of
being transformed into the kind of instrument suitable for dealing with future
Muhammad Attas and their fanatical followers, is ...open to some serious doubt.
If, as many expect, there is another '9-11', it will come where we least expect
it and at our most vulnerable point. In this doomsday scenario, gatherings of
smiling politicians remote from the ordinary people and bunkers full of
missiles with no target to aim at probably won't be much help."
"U.S. Wants To Fit Allies Into Their Grand Scheme Of World
Order"
Ann Cahill commented in the centrist Irish Examiner wrote
(11/21): "Washington has been
attempting to find a suitable role for NATO and has stepped up earlier efforts
to force its European allies to increase spending on arms and become a more
streamlined organization.... The series
of reforms that have been largely formulated by the Americans in an effort to
fit NATO into their grand scheme for world order. There are three major
reforms-to purchase military equipment that will be compatible for all members;
to streamline military structures, and to create a NATO rapid response
force.... The growing sense of
insecurity among the NATO allies has been heightened by the growing willingness
of the U.S. to act alone and their insisting on their interpretation of the war
on terrorism."
KOSOVO: "Without An 'Exit Strategy'"
Independent Zëri had this comment by its
publisher Blerim Shala (11/22): "In Prague there is no need of mentioning
Kosovo but as a story of success. In fact, without NATO troops in Kosovo and
Bosnia the war would not stop, the peace would not be maintained and a hope
giving political process for the stabilization of the region would not be
carried. From this perspective, Kosovo, Bosnia and Macedonia are special
countries: for the moment these cannot imagine themselves being in NATO but
NATO itself is more present in these than in any other countries that have
accessed or will access NATO. However,
it's clear that the long term deployment of NATO in Kosovo and the region
requires that these countries join NATO. Therefore, one cannot talk about NATO
'exit strategy' from Kosovo and the region."
"What Kind Of NATO Mankind Needs
Today"
Brussels correspondent of the leading
independent, mass circulation Koha Ditore, Augustin Palokaj opined
(11/18): "Although in the Prague Summit it will reconfirm its commitment
to complete its mandate in the Balkans...the time has come for NATO to look
beyond the Balkans.... NATO must prepare
now to face new challenges that are not anymore in the form of Soviet Union
attacks by tanks, nor human rights abuses, ethnic cleansing and Milosevic-ian
genocide. Challenges are less predictable and the enemy undefined. Created to
protect the Western Europe from a possible attack from the former Soviet Bloc,
it was only when this Bloc disappeared that NATO became militarily active to
intervene in Kosovo. This NATO, which is obsolete now, is looking beyond Kosovo
and heralds its greatest transformation in its history to face new
challenges. Despite there are many NATO
foes that already gather in Czech's capital to protest...today the mankind
needs a strong NATO. The fact that the Russian President goes to Prague now as
a participant of a meeting with NATO representatives and not as a member of a
dictatorial state that colonized this beautiful city for years, and the fact that
Prague is now the capital of a NATO member state and Russia is its partner,
tells best how much NATO and the reason of its existence have ."
LITHUANIA:
"Lithuania On 'Western Civilization Time'"
Largest national Lietuvos Rytas commented (11/22): "Yesterday will be noted in the
Lithuanian history textbooks as a day when Lithuania was invited to become a
member of NATO. However, we keep hearing
from the Western and Middle European media, that maybe NATO has become less
useful, if they accepted seven new members from the former Soviet bloc without
long discussions. But NATO has proved
not once, that they are able to adjust to new conditions, not only without
losing the importance, but also making themselves stronger. We cannot forget that the U.S. military
generals have always taken all of their political promises very seriously. Their readiness to fulfill these promises is
not a matter of doubt today, not even for U.S. enemies..... We can state, that Lithuania's invitation to
NATO has become a final accent in the long fight for independence. The history clock has started ticking real
Western civilization time."
MOLDOVA:
"Will The OSCE Guard Dog Ever Bark?"
Kishinevsky Obozrevately published an article by
Vladimir Socor (11/21): "With NATO
present on the ground in the Western Balkans, the OSCE can and often does
perform effectively. Those countries are
still some years away from NATO membership, but are already evolving or
beginning to evolve as part of the Western world. When left to face Russia in what the latter
considers its ex-Soviet sphere of influence, however, the OSCE is consistently
failing in its tasks. The OSCE is being
largely paralyzed by its consensus rules, which give Russia effective veto
power over the organization's decisions.
When the admission into NATO of the formerly Soviet-ruled countries
proved unstoppable, Mr.Putin apparently no longer felt it necessary or useful
to show respect for the OSCE; indeed, he has felt free to repudiate Russia's
own signature on some key OSCE decisions."
