December 14, 1999
AT HELSINKI SUMMIT, EU MAPS OUT STRATEGY FOR BIGGER, STRONGER EUROPE
Last weekend's European Union summit in Helsinki sparked editorial comment from Europe and East Asia. Most European analysts hailed EU decisions to enlarge and strengthen the Union, noting particularly the conditional approval of Turkey's candidacy for membership and the Union's endorsement of a plan for an autonomous defense capability under the rubric of the European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI). Both the "Fifteen's" pledge to outfit a 60,000-strong rapid reaction force by 2003 and their "warning" to Moscow that it "change course on Chechnya or risk economic sanctions"--"a more severe political line than the one prevailing in Washington," some pointedly remarked--were widely seen as evidence of Europe's determination to be a political and military force to be reckoned with on the international scene. "The EU is no longer the dwarf of global politics," insisted a Frankfurt paper. "The message from Helsinki...meant for Washington no less than for Moscow," concluded a leading Italian paper, is that Europe is over its "Kosovo complex" and ready to "reaffirm its new international ambitions." As was the case with pre-summit commentary [See Issue Focus, December 9, 1999], Europe's decision to "provide itself with the military instruments...to support its political ambitions" evoked words of caution in the British press and praise from French media, who put it on par with the creation of the common market and the euro in significance. Meanwhile, some cited the EU's "extending its geographic and cultural boundary" to Asia minor--with a dozen mainly East European countries now able to negotiate membership and Turkey a declared candidate--as further proof of Europe's newfound aspirations. Highlights follow:
'NOW IT'S TURKEY'S TURN': Turkish media of all political stripes applauded their government's decision to accept the EU's offer of candidacy. Mass-appeal Milliyet summed up the predominant sentiment, maintaining, "The candidacy will bring immense responsibilities for Turkey, but at the same time, major advantages." Ankara papers joined others in Britain, Germany and Greece in emphasizing that "Turkey has a steep road ahead to full integration with Europe." Turkey's "main task," according to one Ankara daily, is to "institutionalize" political reform and "respect for human rights." Aside from one Ankara pundit, who complained about the conditions attached to Turkey's candidacy, the only voices of dissent were a reformist Moscow daily and opposition papers in Greece and Bulgaria. Athens's Eleftheros Typos, for example, groused that the Greek government "is going right along with the U.S.-designed plan for a European salute to Turkey's anti-democratic and expansionist policy."
'RAISING THE FLAG FOR EUROPE'S ARMY': French, German, Italian and Belgian papers cheered the move to create a "European armed force" as a "great step forward," while, at the same time, acknowledging that it remains largely "symbolic" at this point. "In Helsinki," said Paris's left-of-center Le Monde, "the EU made a decisive step toward affirming its identity.... It has spectacularly shown its desire to exist on its own, without the help of the U.S." in Kosovo-like situations. British papers, by contrast, adopted a more subdued stance, with one conservative weekly cautioning against "alienating our American benefactor." Another British paper, however, asserted that a "modest shift" in reducing European military dependency would not "fracture NATO." The real "threat" to transatlantic harmony, suggested a few papers in Britain and Belgium, is "Washington's plan to build a national missile shield."
EDITOR: Katherine L. Starr
EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 46 reports from 19 countries, December 8-14. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.
EUROPE
TURKEY: "Military Should Do Its Part"
Cengiz Candar judged in mass-appeal Sabah (12/14): "You cannot guarantee democracy in Turkey without the assistance of the military. The best contribution the military could provide to support Turkey's efforts to become a fully integrated member of Europe would be to remove appropriately the influence of the army on Turkish political life. The military should be well aware that full membership negotiations with the EU cannot start before the democratic process and our democratic institutions are institutionalized."
"EU Candidacy And National Sovereignty"
Semih Idiz judged in the tabloid Star (12/13): "Contrary to common belief, our concept of national sovereignty will not be dissolved after Turkey's EU membership. If deemed necessary, Turkey will just have to deliver part of its authority to EU bodies, but only with the consent of the absolute majority of its parliament--which is nothing new, since Turkey has already done so in some legal areas, such as the acceptance of European Human Rights Court proceedings."
"A Rationalized Marriage"
Ahmet Tan had this to say in mass-appeal Sabah (12/13): "Europeans have long ago decided to expand the family of Europe by taking in new countries and young populations. They have also decided to control the periphery--read the Balkans, Caucasus, and the Middle East and Turkey--via new army formations that require younger populations. Europeans realized that excluding NATO's biggest army from the new formation could cause them trouble."
"Now It's Turkey's Turn"
Mustafa Cerid contended in nationalist Ortadogu (12/13): "Turkey must make some necessary adjustments with European norms in the next four years, like reviewing its official etatist ideology, according to contemporary needs. We must bring an end to arbitrary implementations such as torture, and the ban on headscarves, and learn to respect human rights and democracy. We must manage to end the chronic illness of high inflation, and join in a single currency with Europe. The next four years will be crucial in our test of ending the state oppression of the individual."
"Turkey's Growing Importance"
Ahmet Ridvan stressed in ultra-religious Yeni Safak (12/13): "Despite Turkey's economic weakness and its domestic anti-democratic implementations, Ankara's successful foreign policy unexpectedly increased its face value. Certain necessities of the United States' Eurasian policy hinders Washington from imposing sanctions on Ankara. The United States has no other reliable partner but Turkey regarding its policies both on Russia and the Central Asia, and its ESDI concerns as well. EU conditions put in front of Turkey are of no significant importance; Turkey's future is bright, and full membership will be achieved sooner than expected."
"Worthless Candidacy"
Mumtaz Soysal declared in mass-appeal Hurriyet (12/12): "They shouldn't expect us to believe; the implication on clause four is clear: The main disputes will be forwarded to the court in the Hague, latest in 2004. And, according to Finland, there is still a possibility of postponing the Greek Cypriots' candidacy. Well, these are pointless words. If clause four meant as they say, why did they not write as it meant! What puzzles me most, how can the council of ministers be so positive regarding such a decision!"
"It Was Difficult, But The Outcome Is Good"
Sami Kohen concluded in mass-appeal Milliyet (12/12): "The acceptance of Turkey's candidacy was as difficult in Turkey as in Helsinki.... Helsinki's draft was a hot potato for Turkey.... MHP and DSP members criticized the pre-conditions. But, State Minister Irtemcelik's comments, Lipponen's letter to Ecevit, and Solana's visit to Ankara, cleared up most of Ankara's concerns. While some clauses of the draft could be seen as not to Turkey's advantage, in all, there is nothing against Turkey's interests.... This candidacy will bring immense responsibilities for Turkey, but at the same time, major advantages, too."
"What Happens Now?"
Semih Idiz argued in the tabloid Star (12/12): "Turkey will now simply have to start a process of legal adjustment with Europe. The 1996 Customs Union and the latest adoption of international arbitration were initial steps to that end, now Turkey needs legal amendments on various issues such as nuclear energy, the abolishment of death penalty, protection of minority rights, etc. We must set out to work fast, since it is well known that due to economic and political factors, the process of Parliamentary amendments can mean long delays in Turkey."
"A Thorny Path"
Nazmi Celenk judged in nationalist Ortadogu (12/12): "Turkey's integration with the EU points to the year 2010. EU has put heavy conditions in front of Turkey which does not help facilitate our problems with Greece. If there is still no agreement, Turkey and Greece will have to go to The Hague before 2004. Turkey has a steep road ahead to full integration with Europe."
"December 10"
Cengiz Candar opined in mass-appeal Sabah (12/12): "The biggest hurdle in front of Turkey's full integration with Europe is not Cyprus or the Aegean problems. Turkey's main task will be to institutionalize democratic implementations at home, and respect human rights in line with the Copenhagen Criteria. Turkey will have to change since with its current constitution, its structure of political parties, and the influence of military on the regime, it is impossible for Turkey to synchronize with the EU. Turkey has entered a road of no return, and whoever blocks Turkey's 'process of becoming civilized' will have committed a crime against our future."
"Are We Ready For Full Membership?"
Sedat Ergin wrote in mass-appeal Hurriyet (12/10): "Once the full membership process for Turkey commences in Helsinki, Turkey will have to abdicate its concept of national sovereignty, and share authority largely with the EU. Full membership perspective is a statement of intentions to comply with definitive rules. Turkey still resembles a country where irregularities prevail. Although we will not easily appropriate new rules, Turkey will eventually learn to live with them in the new era."
BRITAIN: "Chilly Up There; But Helsinki About More Than Just Beef"
The conservative Times opined (12/13): "Mr. Blair chose to depict the agreement to create a 60,000-strong European defense force as a British achievement; but that boast could come to haunt him, if, as Washington's staunchest Atlanticists fear, it distances America from Europe's defense and weakens NATO.... When this episode in the long-running rows about beef and tax has been forgotten, what deserves to be remembered is that the EU has at last taken decisions that will change the European map and the very nature of the Union as an institution. EU governments are now committed...to admitting a dozen new members.... Equally important for the stability of the continent, Turkey, which has been knocking on the EU's door longer than any other outsider, has at last been formally assigned the status of candidate. It is a wise move. The necessary dialogue on human rights and political reform there can finally proceed in a positive environment. The Turkish government can present this as endorsement of its efforts to modernize. An EU of 28 will necessarily be very different from an EU of 15 members. To make it work, new rules governing the size of the Commission must be devised, the voting rights of its members revised and--most countries insist--the right of veto restricted. This last can be justified only where there is a unanimously agreed common purpose. Because that is not true of taxation or justice, this summer is a mere foretaste of tough battles over the next 12 months."
"The Helsinki Challenge"
The conservative weekly Spectator had this commentary by regular columnist Bruce Anderson (12/10): "The Americans are fully aware that France's interest in a common European defense policy has little to do with defense and a lot to do with anti-Americanism. When the Americans insist that they are in favor of an equal partnership with Europe, they are being disingenuous: they are not as keen on partnership as they would like to claim. But they could learn to cope with it as long as there was equality. At present, however, Europe has no intention of making an adequate contribution to its own defense, and will remain just as dependent on the United States as it has been since 1945. It would be the height of foolishness for Tony Blair to agree to any European initiative which would alienate our American benefactor. In Britain, we take it for granted that the United States will continue to defend Europe, but not every American taxpayer shares our complacency. If the Europeans pretend to have a common European defense policy, some future American administration might pretend to believe us. Then we could be in a real mess."
"Raising The Flag For Europe's Army"
The independent Financial Times had this op-ed commentary by political editor Philip Stephens (12/10): "The Helsinki summit...will seek to have it both ways. The leaders will declare that this is a moment of huge strategic significance. Europe at last will have the means to intervene when the United States wants to stand aside. It will add vital military muscle to its hitherto feeble common foreign policy. In the next breath, the same leaders will vow that the creation of an autonomous European force holds no real consequences for NATO.... But if we assume that the EU is serious in its intent, it must be candid about the ultimate objective. For all the reassurances offered to Washington, the purpose is indeed to reduce European dependency on the United States--to be able to go to war in, say, Kosovo, without waiting for permission from the voters in Peoria. Nothing to be ashamed of there. It is hard to imagine how such a modest shift in the balance of power could fracture NATO. Those casting around for serious threats would do better to focus on Washington's plans to build a national missile shield. A United States that was convinced it had made itself invulnerable to nuclear attack might also one day delude itself that it could decouple its strategic interests from those of the alliance. There lies the wedge to drive the United States and Europe apart."
FRANCE: "After The Euro, The Army"
Left-of-center Le Monde opined (12/13): "Defense, along with the euro, is one of the two pillars of Europe's sovereignty. In Helsinki, the EU has made a decisive step toward affirming its identity.... It has spectacularly shown its desire to exist on its own, without the help of the United States, in areas underscored by the wars in former Yugoslavia. After the euro, the army.... Of course, we cannot yet talk of a 'European army'...but the existence of a European military headquarters will be a major signal to change the rules of the game. The Europeans did not give in to the United States on this point.... It is true that for the time being, the objective which has been set is more of a symbol than a reality.... But the war in Kosovo showed once more the great disparity between the United States and European nations. The financial effort needed to close the gap will not easily be met in the near future.... The Helsinki agreement does not speak of either budgets or burden-sharing.... In spite of these uncertainties, which underscore the limitations of the EU's will to build an independent defense structure, the prospects opened in Helsinki go far beyond the present forms of European military cooperation."
"A Bitter Helsinki"
Giles Bridier commented in centrist La Tribune (12/13): "Europe continues to go around in circles. It is true that it has opened the way for its expansion. But when one considers its inability to make headway on the fundamental issues that make a union, one can indeed be skeptical about the construction of an EU with 27 nations when it is already at a standstill with only 15 members. Unless the only thing it becomes is a large common market with its only ambition being free trade: a Europe of trade, in the Anglo-Saxon sense, and far from the political aspirations of those who imagined it."
"The Fifteen Develop Their Military Capability"
Special envoy in Helsinki Pierre Bocev wrote in right-of-center Le Figaro (12/10): "The lessons of the Kosovo war have been learned: in Helsinki, Europe will give itself a new dimension, its defense. This ambition may be compared to the creation of the unique market and the birth of the euro.... The heads of state and government will endorse the idea of giving themselves shared military means, able to manage a crisis close to Europe without having to rely on NATO's goodwill, in short the United States. This major step forward should overshadow other dossiers like the mad cow disease, the savings tax and the attitude towards Russian barbarism in Chechnya."
GERMANY: "A Turkey Summit"
Right-of-center Saechsische Zeitung of Dresden observed (12/13): "Basically, the Helsinki summit was not an enlargement but in reality a 'Turkey summit.'... The EU has now given Turkey the status of candidate.... So what. What has the EU won now? The EU has certainly avoided a crisis. It has not pushed away the strategically important country...from Europe. And there is no doubt that the conditions which Turkey has to meet before its accession will really result in visible improvements also in the field of human rights."
"A Great Step"
Centrist Suedwest Presse of Ulm held (12/13): "We will remember this summit in Helsinki because it made a great step forward in the direction of an independent European security and military policy. If the EU now sets up a rapid reaction force of up to 60,000 men, this will not be an expression of megalomania, but of...responsibility, which has thus far been unloaded on U.S. shoulders.... In this field, EU-Europe shows, unlike with the petty-minded bickering about meat imports and taxation of interests, its cohesiveness.
"The French, British and Germans have obviously learned to differ between important and second-rate things."
"Europe's Franco-German Core"
Right-of-center Neue Ruhr/Neue Rhein Zeitung of Essen (12/13) had this to say: "We have a new Europe.... Europe has now become ambitious. The stage for playing is over.... But Great Britain does not seem to have realized this. With respect to beef and taxes, Tony Blair wore the wrinkled skirt of the 'Iron Lady.' But we owe several things to the Schroeder/Chirac double: the consistent enlargement to the East, a prevented crisis on Turkey, the critical policy towards Russia, which still needs to pass the test. At this summit, Europe came back to the Franco-German core."
"Europe Warns"
Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger penned an editorial in right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (12/13): "In Helsinki, the Europeans called upon Russia to lift its ultimatum to the Chechens to leave their capital Grozny and to stop the arbitrary bombing--and Moscow announced a limited cease-fire. We can now not seriously claim that the Russian leadership has become afraid of the EU...but maybe there are still people in Moscow who do not reject accusations of self-isolation as neo-imperialism and who are not indifferent to an alienation from the Western and the European partners in particular.... This EU is no longer the dwarf of global politics which quietly follows events in its surrounding.... It has now added defense policy to foreign and security policies and a serious will to prevent crisis on its own. It is turning into an important actor. Russia needs this EU as a partner, much more than vice versa."
ITALY: "Strong Voice, Weak Body"
Andrea Bonanni commented on the front page of centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (12/11): "The EU leaders sent signals to Moscow regarding the Chechen crisis...and their 'foreign minister'--Javier Solana--dashed to Ankara to outline EU conditions for Turkey's membership.... This is the first time that the Europeans have used their economic strength and their ability to attract others in order to condition the behavior of other countries.... The commitment by EU chiefs of government to provide their countries with autonomous military capability by 2003...certainly shows the EU's willingness to provide itself with the military instruments that are necessary to support its political ambitions."
"New European Ambitions"
Franco Venturini's analysis from Helsinki in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera read (12/11): "On Chechnya, the EU does not hesitate to distinguish itself from America, and goes so far as to bypass it, expressing a more severe political line than the one prevailing in Washington. The punishment promised to Yeltsin and Putin thus confirms the new European ambitions on the international scene, as EU expansion is in the works and the coordinates of a common defense are being drawn.... Europe has meant to show that it is not affected by the ' Kosovo complex,' and has taken the opportunity of the humanitarian tragedy in Chechnya in order to reaffirm its new international ambitions.... This is the message coming from Helsinki. And it is meant for Washington no less than for Moscow."
"The Two New Faces Of The Union"
Federico Rampini filed from Helsinki in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (12/11): "The EU joint communique on Chechnya is a crucial step in EU efforts to grow on the international scene.
"In addition to the tough condemnation of the Russian military's ultimatum to Grozny...the Union went one step further by announcing concrete pressure on the Russians--something that Clinton preferred to avoid.... The basis for a more incisive EU role on the international scene has been laid in Helsinki.... But a cruel contrast remains between the above progress and the litigious atmosphere in Helsinki on issues like the 'mad cow' disease."
RUSSIA: "EU Rose In Defense Of Chechnya, But Went No Further"
Gennady Sysoyev judged in reformist, business Kommersant Daily (12/11): "The EU leaders...who gathered for their summit in Helsinki yesterday decided not to punish Russia. They simply warned that if Russia does not stop the hostilities in Chechnya it will be subjected to sanctions. But the EU is not likely to really take this step; economic isolation of a nuclear power is not the best way of ensuring security.... While not daring to take tough economic measures against Russia the EU still found some political means of expressing its displeasure. It is well known how upset Moscow is about the situation with the rights of the Russian-speaking population in Latvia. It this circumstance that had always prevented the EU from immediately starting the consideration of Latvia's candidacy for membership in united Europe. Now Latvia was included in the list of candidates without a murmur.... At the same time it was decided to start a dialogue with Turkey.... This decision is really a mockery of Russia, considering that Turkey has been waging a war against Kurds for many years--a war no less cruel than the Chechen one."
BELGIUM: "The Beginning Of A Common Force"
Rachel Crivellaro noted in conservative Catholic La Libre Belgique (12/14): "European defense was given a boost last week. At the Helsinki summit, the Fifteen have decided to create a rapid reaction force which will be operational by 2003. This decision should arouse comments at the NATO foreign ministers meeting.... The decision taken by the Fifteen to create an autonomous common defense is of concern to the United States, which is used to orchestrating operations in the Atlantic Alliance."
"Difficult Relations"
Bart Beirlant commented in independent Catholic De Standaard (12/11): "Two acronyms...threaten to disturb like grains of sand the trans-Atlantic security wheel-work: ESDI and NMD. The fifteen EU heads of state and government leaders decided in Helsinki to finally make something of the concept of the European Security and Defense Identity.... The United States has insisted for years that Europe must bear a larger part of the defense burden and applaud that evolution in the EU. However, the recent European initiatives also cause nervousness in American government circles. Washington has not only warned against duplication of means, but it also fears that the role of NATO--and the United States--may be undermined in the long term. The American fear of a kind of parallelism between the EU and NATO may be premature, given the fact that a lot of water will flow to the sea before Europe is mature in the defense field: Armies will have to be restructured and defense budgets will have to be increased while mergers of military-industrial companies must take place. As long as that is not the case, the EU will remain dependent on NATO and, thus, the United States.... The American plans [on NMD] cause a lot of concern among the European allies who point to its risks. The issue is on Wednesday's semi-annual NAC agenda. The creation of such a missile shield could blow apart the ABM Treaty--not a nice prospect for Europe--especially not with a Russia...increasingly opting for confrontation. Moreover, some European leaders fear that the United States will seek shelter behind that shield and abandon the principle of shared risk."
"Will The Union Remain Efficient?"
European affairs writer Andre Riche analyzed in independent Le Soir (12/13): "In Helsinki, Europe has shown that it remained open, by inviting six countries to negotiate their accession and by recognizing Turkey as a candidate. But will the Union remain efficient? Will it one day be able to constitute a coherent political entity...if it continues to endlessly enlarge without reinforcing its institutions, without actually enforcing a king of common 'governance,' not only economic but also political?... A Union with thirty or thirty-five countries will probably be inevitable, but also unmanageable if the 'common house' is not built on a political project which would be clearly stated, agreed on by all, and implemented with efficient institutions."
"Symbolic For Now"
Military affairs writer Mon Vanderostyne wrote in independent Catholic Het Nieuwsblad (12/13): "A European army is only one aspect of the European defense policy. It is Europe's interest that we do not allow the agenda to be determined in Washington alone. It is in the interest of both the United States and Europe that the Old Continent makes a contribution to a more stable world. A contribution of its own also implies a joint action in the areas of conflict of today: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Caucasus. The creation of a European armed force of 60,000 troops four years from now remains, to a large extent, symbolic without American strategic intelligence and means of transportation."
BULGARIA: "Europe Bows To U.S. Favorite"
Opposition Duma maintained (12/13): "Europe has decided to grant Turkey EU candidate status. On the other hand, Ankara decided to show Europe that there's nothing to be thankful for, and that Europe's leaders should abide by its conditions. Turkey was asked not to spoil the celebrations in Helsinki and to demonstrate some tact and elementary gratitude after the United States lived up to its promise to exert pressure on the EU. As a result, the EU had to overlook Turkey's conduct, which was largely incompatible with Europe's fine manners. Now Europe has to get used to the new strong man and the new center of gravity now being formed. Europe has to take its demands into consideration, and if necessary, to put up with them. Again, the big Atlantic patron will have the final say. And it's no secret that Turkey is its favorite."
DENMARK: "A Milestone In European Cooperation"
Center-right Berlingske Tidende asserted (12/13): "The Helsinki summit represents a milestone in European cooperation. A unified Europe sent a very sharp warning to Russia regarding its brutal campaign in Chechnya. Russia will have to change course on Chechnya or face economic sanctions. This appears to have made Russian leaders reevaluate their Chechen campaign.... But the EU's openness regarding the possibility of Turkish EU membership was the most dramatic and surprising event to come out of Helsinki.... For the first time Turkey has accepted the conditions of membership."
GREECE: "Beneficial For All Three of Them"
Thessaloniki daily Makedonia carried a commentary by Vangelis Spiridonidis arguing that the EU candidacy of Turkey can prove beneficial for both Greece and Turkey and their societies (12/12): "The day after the Helsinki summit finds Greece in a familiar condition. The government presents it as a triumph and the opposition as a defeat. The same of course goes for Turkey and the EU. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. The Helsinki decision to include Turkey as a candidate state is historic and will prove beneficial for all three parties (Greece, Turkey and the EU). The Greek-Turkish differences are now Euro-Turkish differences. The Turkish people will also benefit from the criteria Turkey has to meet, as well as those who wish the European perspective for the country.
"And of course the EU and United States will not have any grounds to pressure Greece towards resolving problems with Turkey."
"Helsinki Decision Was The Right Thing"
Independent, center-right Kathimerini said in its lead editorial (12/14): "The Helsinki decision was the right thing, and that it will contribute to substantial progress in Turkish society: The reactions in both the EU and Turkey after the granting of EU candidate status to Turkey vindicate those who maintained that Greece should not exercise its veto power. Ankara's road to EU accession will be long and difficult but the most critical element is that Turkey's harmonization with European values and political activity principles means a radical reorganization, if not toppling of the current power structure [in Turkey] and a drastic reduction of the omnipotent role of the military."
"Theory Of The Lesser Evil
Opposition-affiliated, sensationalist Eleftheros Typos held (12/14): "Greek reactions to national issues can be characterized by the theory of the lesser evil: There are many people who, although they understand that serious national concessions took place in Helsinki, adopt the view that it is possibly better this way. The times are difficult, the New Order very strict with those who refuse to comply with suggestions, and consequently it is better for us to satisfy some of Turkey's demands so it will not raise more. The climate of resignation on a national level in which we are being trained does not solve problems, it increases the risks. U.S. guarantees prove non-existent in difficult moments, and control of the Turkish aggression cannot be achieved through the commendation of the most extremist Turkish nationalists. It is time for us to stand on our feet."
"Simple Battle Of Impressions"
Opposition-affiliated, sensationalist Eleftheros Typos said in a lead editorial (12/8): "The government of Greece has accepted the European upgrade of Turkey at the expense of Greece's national interests. The Simitis government is going right along with the American-designed plan for an European salute to Turkey's anti-democratic and expansionist policy."
HUNGARY: "Helsinki 2"
Brussels correspondent Zoltan Gyevai opined in influential, liberal Magyar Hirlap (12/13): "Another outstanding achievement of Helsinki is that, by setting up a rapid reaction force in 2003, it has laid the foundation for an independent European defense policy. Consequently, the increased responsibility the European Union feels for the stability of the continent may also be manifest in the future in being capable of crisis managment actions on the [European] continent without U.S. patronage. Today, the European defense identity is a rather theoretical issue, since it is hard to imagine a conflict in the settlement of which the United States would not want to be involved, or the settlement of which would not require America. Setting up the EU defense pillar also requires extreme circumspection so as not to upset NATO's cohesion. Or else--as many observers point out--the [European] continent might maneuver itself into a situation where there is neither a strong European defense, and even NATO is deficient in strength."
IRELAND: "Extending The Family"
The moderately conservative Irish Times (12/13): "The Helsinki summit had an ambitious agenda to initiate the process of adaptation and all told succeeded admirably in the task.
"Undoubtedly its most dramatic achievement was to add Turkey to the list of candidate countries for EU membership, extending the geographical and cultural boundary of Europe.... The summit endorsed plans to develop a common European policy on security and defense through the creation of a crisis-management capability.... As the summit conclusions point out, this does not imply the creation of a European army.... But it signified a determination not to see a repetition of the Kosovo crisis in which Europe was so dependent on U.S. military leadership and resources. The summit's willingness to go beyond rhetorical posturing on Chechnya by reviewing its aid programs to Russia is further evidence of that fact."
"Growing Up"
The conservative Irish Independent observed (12/13): "At the Helsinki summit, the EU leaders took not so much a single great leap forward as an epochal triple jump. They agreed to the role of a 60,000-strong rapid reaction force. They approved the opening of membership negotiation with six countries--two of them in the Balkans--to follow the current talks with four Central European countries and Cyprus. Their third decision, acceptance of Turkey as a candidate country, [is] startling."
THE NETHERLANDS: "Historic Step"
Conservative De Telegraaf made these observations (12/13): "The European leaders made a historical step this weekend in Helsinki. Twelve countries in Eastern Europe and Turkey have been granted the status of candidate-member of the European Union. Particularly Turkey's candidacy is a breakthrough. EU membership of Turkey could be very important to increase political stability in the southeastern part of Europe. The EU did the right thing by setting strict conditions on the status of candidate-member.... The conditions concern the basics for a democratic Europe. These conditions should be set for each EU country including Turkey that is so important for more stability in Europe. The EU should stick to the conditions for human rights even if this would be a reason for Turkey never to become a member."
POLAND: "Bad News"
Arkadiusz Dawidowski wrote in right-of-center Zycie (12/13): "An [EU] decision to allow another six countries plus Turkey to the negotiating table will slow down the process of [membership] negotiations. No one in his right mind can imagine that the bureaucratic machine of Brussels will move faster when new applicants join the line to EU membership.... Summit decisions are so general that they can be interpreted in all possible ways. It appears that Brussels behaves like a hesitant fiancee: on the one hand, it says that [EU] expansion is its most crucial task, but on the other hand it does not do anything to make the integration easier for the candidates.... In fact, further expansion is as profitable for the EU as for Poland.... So what is it all about? Money. Some EU members do not intend to provide for 'poor' Poland. But keeping too many guests in its ante-chamber will not positively affect the stabilization in Europe."
PORTUGAL: "The Brave New World Of The Military"
University of Reading (UK) strategic studies analyst Miguel Monjardino wrote this op-ed centrist Diario de Noticias (12/10): "For Portugal, the political repercussions...and the new 'military convergence criteria' are considerable.... The bulk of the [Portuguese] national armed forces continues to be immobile, with very few means of acting outside of the national territory.... National commentators who are up in arms against 'pax Americana' and Washington's terrible strategic sins tend to ignore this problem.... The number of Portuguese who still believe that 'dulce et decorum est pro patria mori' gets smaller and smaller.... In these circumstances, recruiting, training and retaining highly trained and specialized military forces will be an enormous challenge for the ministry of defense and the military hierarchy."
SPAIN: "Towards A Greater Europe"
Liberal El Pais opined (12/11): "The Council of Europe which met in Helsinki has complied with an historic moral duty by opening the doors of the EU to all countries aspiring to join, including Turkey.... As of today, none of the candidate countries meet all the political and economic criteria for admission, but then, neither is the EU prepared at this time to incorporate 12 new members, which together represent 33% of its population but only 9% of its GNP, to illustrate how unequal the two groups are.... Helsinki has bought a blueprint, but an architect remains to be contracted."
"One Army For A United Europe"
Independent El Mundo commented (12/12): "With virtually no discussion, the 15 members of the EU agreed in Helsinki on the creation of a rapid intervention Euroforce within the next three years.... The decision has also been applauded, albeit less enthusiastically, by American military leaders. In their view, the creation of a Euroforce will be a success so long as its mission remains complementary to NATO's.... Once military cooperation in Europe begins, however, logic will drive the EU toward the creation of a European army because a united Europe will require one army."
EAST ASIA
CHINA: "EU Wants To Break Away From The U.S."
Zhang Zhengdong, Xi Shuangtao and Zheng Huanqing wrote in official Beijing municipal Beijing Daily (Beijing Ribao, 12/13): "The Helsinki summit is a pivotal step for the European countries toward mutual defense and security, as well as an important move to break away from military reliance on the United States. It reflects the European countries' desire to play an independent role in the military and security fields."
INDONESIA: "Self-Reform Is Turkey's Homework In Order To Join EU"
Leading, independent Kompas held (12/14): "If it is serious about joining the influential European trade bloc, Turkey must be willing to enact broad political and economic reform. Signs thus far indicate such a step will gain support from ruling elites. Given this, the Turkish military--still strong politically--must be willing to accept the new reality. The EU has specifically called upon Turkey to shift the military's role in political affairs and to reorganize the structure and control of the influential National Security Council."
VIETNAM: "EU Determined To Overcome Obstacles To Turkey's Admission"
Minh Uyen commented in Sai Gon Giai Phong (Liberated Saigon-the mouthpiece of Ho Chi Minh City's Communist Party, 12/13): "By admitting Turkey as a formal candidate, the EU has expanded its influence in terms of geography, religion, culture and demography. This must be considered a great effort by the EU to overcome disparities within the Union and to build a stronger alliance.... Facing such difficulties as the Chechnya issue and the trade dispute with the United States, the fact that the EU wishes to admit more new members, including Turkey, is a step that its members hope that will strengthen this bloc and create a more powerful EU in the international arena."
##
For more information, please contact:
U.S. Department of State
Office of Research
Telephone: (202) 619-6511
10/29/99
# # #
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
