Vilnius: In meeting on Thursday, April 21, in Lithuania, one of the three Baltic States long considered by Moscow to be the last part of a Russian sphere of influence that has been reduced by enlargements of the European Union and NATO, the Atlantic alliance's foreign affairs ministers symbolically confirmed the redrawing of Europe's geopolitical map.

This reality was underlined by the intensification of the partnerships the Alliance has made, on one hand with Russia and on the other with Ukraine, and even more by the diplomatic offensive led, from Vilnius, by Condoleezza Rice, the American Secretary of State, toward the last former Soviet Republic on which Moscow can still count, Byelorussia.

This was also the first transatlantic meeting since the Munich conference in mid-February, during which German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder stated that NATO is no longer the vehicle for trans-Atlantic dialogue. The hope that it becomes so once more expressed by the United States and by NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, was partially fulfilled through the organization of a debate on the Middle East.

Though the idea of this exchange of views was unanimously approved, veiled differences surfaced concerning a possible role for NATO in guaranteeing any Israeli-Palestinian agreement, a hypothesis envisaged by Washington and the NATO secretary general. The French position was firmly recalled by French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier, who believes it is up to the Quartet (United States, European Union, Russia and the U.N.) to deal with a political settlement in the Middle East.

"TRANSATLANTIC FORUM"

For France, the "NATO flag," which the Arab countries associate with the United States, would not be favorably received in the Middle East, but France is also aware that a possible military role for the E.U. would not be well-received by Israel. Germany has a more open position. "It is too early to speak of the involvement or engagement of NATO, but it cannot be excluded in terms of stability and security," stressed German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer.

The E.U., like NATO, is interested in the Middle East: advisors to Javier Solana, the E.U.'s high representative for external policy and security, were sent to the Palestinian Authority, and a representative of the U.N. secretary general will soon meet both Palestinians and Israelis.

Ms. Rice insisted on this point: "We are all in agreement in saying that the most important task is to succeed in the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza," she prudently said.

The American Secretary of State was more explicit concerning Darfur (western Sudan), where the African Union plans to double the size of its peacekeeping force, while the U.N. has, for its part, approved in principle sending a force of 10,000 men to monitor the agreement meant to end the civil war there.

If there were a request by the African Union for logistical support, "I hope NATO would respond positively," Condoleezza Rice stressed.  On the other hand, [French Foreign Minister] Michel Barnier sees more interest in "a role and a usefulness" of an E.U. intervention, in terms of logistics and financing, and even training of African peacekeepers. But he doesn't rule out the idea that NATO might offer its strategic transport and planning capabilities.

The examples of the Middle East and Darfur highlighted the traditional Franco-American differences on the role of NATO: wary of the United Nations, the United States is inclined to play the multilateralism card within NATO, where it benefits from a dominating influence.  

"We intend to use NATO more efficiently as a trans-Atlantic forum," insisted Ms. Rice.

France would like to cut short any attempt by NATO to play the 'policeman of the world,' because it wants to preserve the growing role of European defense. There cannot be a NATO "guardianship"over or "subordination" of the European Union. "No one has contested the principle of the European Union's autonomy," insisted Mr. Barnier, for whom NATO has no say in subjects like the military embargo of China or Iranian nuclear matters.

Americans and Europeans are, however, using a single voice to temper the ambitions of Ukraine and Russia with regard to the Atlantic Alliance. For the first, which would like to join NATO as soon as possible, the foreign ministers offered, in Vilnius, an "intensified dialogue" in the framework of a joint NATO-Ukraine commission.

This is not yet an admission ticket, but it is one more step in this direction, which allowed Boris Tarassiouk, Ukraine's foreign minister, to confirm that his country would be ready in 2008. Because the rapprochement between Ukraine and the Alliance is so severely criticized by Moscow, the signing of an agreement on the "status of military forces" (between the Alliance and Russia), reaffirming the importance of NATO-Russia relations, was very well timed.