U.S. Scrambles to Defend NATO Plan : Europe: White House won’t commit to quick acceptance into alliance sought by ex-Warsaw Pact nations. Dispute could mar Clinton’s trip to Continent.

Four days before President Clinton leaves for his first European summit meeting, the White House scrambled Tuesday to defend its new blueprint for East-West security and to mute East European criticism that threatens to mar the coming week’s events before they begin.

Facing eleventh-hour complaints from Polish President Lech Walesa and others, the White House mobilized Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman John M. Shalikashvili and other senior officials to elaborate on details of the “Partnership for Peace” plan for gradually expanding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to accept some former antagonists.

Officials insisted that the plan, which sets no timetable and few specific conditions for membership, is the best way to integrate Warsaw Pact countries into Europe without provoking an aggressive reaction from nationalist elements in Russia.

Swifter acceptance--preferred by Hungarian, Czech and Polish officials--would redivide Europe, heighten tensions and “could become a self-fulfilling prophecy of pessimism about Russia,” Anthony Lake, Clinton’s national security adviser, told reporters.

Clinton, speaking to reporters, said he will stop in the Czech capital of Prague after the NATO meeting in Brussels to dispel misunderstandings. “We’re going to work hard to make everybody feel good about this approach,” he said.

The late-hour White House blitz underscored the fact that many issues remain still unresolved days before a trip that could be crucial for the President’s foreign policy. With this long-delayed debut European visit, Clinton must overcome European leaders’ doubts about his commitment to their continent and his vision of how to ensure its stability.

Among other unsettled issues is whether Clinton will meet with Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk in Moscow and which members of the newly elected Russian Parliament he can see without straining his relationship with Russian President Boris N. Yeltsin. There were indications Tuesday that a meeting with Kravchuk may take place.

But the most urgent question remains how to avoid a lukewarm East European endorsement of the NATO plan, which could begin Clinton’s nine-day outing with embarrassment. Coming at a moment when Clinton needs to demonstrate leadership, “that could be a very big problem,” said Benjamin C. Schwarz, an analyst at the Santa Monica-based RAND Corp. think tank.

The White House marketing for the plan also includes pre-summit trips to Eastern Europe by Shalikashvili, U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright and National Security Council aide Charles Gati. The officials will meet with their counterparts in the capitals of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia.

East Europeans’ complaints about the plan have grown after Russian elections last month showed the strength of Vladimir V. Zhirinovsky, the neo-fascist politician who has vowed to restore Soviet superpower status to Russia and has made belligerent remarks about European nations and leaders. The Germans have also argued for extension of security guarantees.

The most dramatic reaction came this week from Walesa, who called the NATO plan “short-sighted and irresponsible” and urged the West to give security guarantees to the East European countries in six months. In an interview with the Washington Post, the Polish president said the plan, by permitting instability, could lead to “another Yugoslavia” in Europe or a repeat of the expansionism of 1939.

President Michal Kovac of Slovakia voiced similar sentiments Tuesday. He proposed that NATO accept his country and Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic as “political members,” and provide immediate security guarantees, according to reports.

But Clinton Administration officials argued that only with a plan that avoids dividing allies from adversaries could the West encourage economic and political integration in Eastern Europe.

“We cannot simply move the Berlin Wall a few hundred miles eastward,” said Shalikashvili. “It is important that we are very clear that . . . we are not building a system that is against someone, because otherwise . . . we would just be fueling the paranoia that might exist.”

The NATO plan is careful not to set any timetables for admissions. Officials refer to it as an “evolutionary process.” It does not specify conditions for entry that might identify likely members from others. To become a member, a country would need to show a commitment to democracy, peaceful settlement of disputes, civilian control of the military, defense budgets open to public scrutiny and development of military forces that could operate alongside NATO forces.

Such applicants would have only weak claims for asking NATO countries to defend them in case of attack. In such circumstances, the country would have “a formal promise that they are not alone, that they can consult with NATO as an alliance about that threat,” as one official put it.

The countries would join military exercises with NATO, including search and rescue, humanitarian aid and peacekeeping operations. An official said that such consultations would “enable the new democracies to develop the habits of cooperation, the routines of consultation and the kind of operating procedures that would prepare them for membership.”

Privately, U.S. diplomats have been telling the Poles, Hungarians, Czechs and Slovaks that--if they take part in the plan--they could begin building military ties that could scare off potential aggressors, even if they would not have automatic call on NATO military aid.

Earlier in the year, some senior U.S. officials supported the East European desire for quick integration. But Yeltsin raised objections, probably because he believed this step might increase frictions with his military officers, who believe the Russian president has not done enough to prevent erosion of Russian power.

U.S. officials developed the “Partnership for Peace” plan, and released it in October.

An Administration official predicted that the complaints from Eastern Europeans could work in Clinton’s favor. By the time of the summit, he forecast, they would agree to the plan and their support would seem a turnaround victory for the United States. “This sets up a major Clinton foreign-policy victory,” he said.

Also Tuesday, U.S. officials acknowledged that there is growing likelihood Kravchuk will be invited to talks in Russia because of progress in joint U.S.-Russian-Ukrainian negotiations on dismantling of Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal. Still under discussion are how much the Ukrainians will receive in compensation from the West for dismantling their warheads and what steps still need be taken.