SPEECH BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
                           FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS
                      TO CSCE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY
                        HELSINKI, 8TH-9TH JULY 1993

______________________________________________________________

Distinguished Parliamentarians, 
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,


          The British 19th Century liberal, Jeremy Bentham, once
said that "the price of democracy is eternal vigilance".  If this
has ever been true of democracy, it is equally true of the
fundamental prerequisite of democracy, namely the enjoyment of
security.  Security has rarely been the natural state of affairs,
but rather the product of our ability to anticipate shifts in the
strategic environment and devise new solutions to new problems. 
That is the primary preoccupation of the CSCE today, and it is
one that is fully shared by the Atlantic Alliance.

          The Cold War is over, but a new stable and predictable
order has not been established in its place.  A major war in
Europe appears unlikely but regional conflicts of a kind
unthinkable five years ago are on the increase.  

          What does this mean for the Atlantic Alliance?  In an
uncertain world, NATO's raison d'ˆtre to provide security and
stability is clearly as important as ever.  However, this
fundamental task must now be carried out in a different way.  The
emphasis today is on conflict prevention by resolving crises at
an EARLY stage using a wide range of political and military
measures.  This means a more proactive approach that seeks to
shape events as much as to protect ourselves from their
consequences.  The Alliance's primary task will continue to be
to ensure the defence of its members.  But we should recognise
that crisis management and peacekeeping are not simply secondary
tasks or optional extras.  They are key elements in the
Alliance's broad approach to security which is reflected in our
new Strategic Concept, and an important contribution to ensuring
a stable security environment in Europe.

          What are the requirements for a strategy of conflict
prevention and successful crisis management?

     -    First, we must have political and military instruments
          which are suited to the purpose;

     -    Second, we must increasingly interact with other
          security institutions, such as the UN, the CSCE or the
          Western European Union;

     -    Third, we must achieve a redistribution of burdens and
          responsibilities between North America and Europe,
          which corresponds more clearly to the new demands for
          crisis management in multiple theatres.

          During the past three years, NATO has undergone a
radical transformation which responds to all of the above
requirements.  We have not only a new NATO strategy but a new
command structure and a new force structure.  The military
elements of the strategy emphasize mobility, flexibility and
multinational units, which are essential for crisis management. 
The development of the Alliance's new force structure with its
triad of reaction, main defence and augmentation forces, and the
streamlined command structure, is also well underway.  We have
also sought to adjust our political instruments of crisis
management through new types of exercise and more intensive
consultations.  Coping with disorder in Europe means as much
building the basis of long term cooperation among states as
reacting to immediate crisis situations.  Therefore, we have
established a whole new dimension to NATO in the form of the
North Atlantic Cooperation Council, where we meet with 22 states
from Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

          At the same time, the Alliance elaborated at its Rome
Summit a conceptual basis for closer interaction with other
security organisations.  It is essential that we work in close
cooperation and coordination with the United Nations, the CSCE,
and the WEU.  We need a highly integrated approach of all the
security institutions in dealing with real and potential
conflicts in Europe that permits and indeed encourages them to
act simultaneously.

          There is no alternative if we are to build an effective
security system in Europe.  Since the outbreak of the conflict
in the former Yugoslavia, we have seen a particularly significant
development in the shape of a new relationship between NATO and
the United Nations.  This is logical in view of the fact that the
UN, under its Charter, has the primary responsibility for
maintaining international peace and security.

          Despite its new-found authority, however, the UN is
clearly unable to handle all the problems by itself.  It simply
lacks the military capabilities and financial resources, and will
do so for some time to come.  Thus, in my view, the expanding
role of the UN, if it is to prove durable, must be underwritten
by a greater role and capabilities of regional organisations. 
At the same time, peacekeeping is changing in nature.  We are
increasingly entering a grey zone between peacekeeping,
peacemaking and peace enforcement where the UN has to act in
circumstances where neither peace, nor the cooperation of the
parties can be assumed.

          NATO has responded promptly and efficiently to the
requests made to us by the United Nations.  A few weeks ago in
Athens, NATO Foreign Ministers decided, in response to a request
from the UN, to offer protective airpower in case of attack
against UNPROFOR in the performance of its overall mandate in
Bosnia-Herzegovina.  If called upon, the Alliance would be able
to meet further requests from the UN for support with the same
degree of success.  Our offer to help with the implementation of
a UN peace plan for Bosnia, if one can be agreed, remains on the
table.  

          Recently a good deal of criticism has been directed at
the international institutions because of the failure to stop the
conflict in the former Yugoslavia.  The transformation of
institutions to the new environment, and the development of
closer links between them, can achieve little in the long run to
guarantee security in Europe if the member nations of these
institutions are unwilling to play their part as the eventual
enforcers of international will.  In the former Yugoslavia, it
is the United Nations that has the lead.  The task of the
Alliance is to support the United Nations, and this we have been
doing efficiently and will continue to do so.  We will thus take
appropriate measures to enhance communication and coordination
between NATO and the UN, looking to move away from the present
ad hoc arrangements towards establishment of a more structured
relationship.

          Yet no matter how essential the strengthening of the
NATO/UN relationship, this cannot be the only axis around which
a future European security system must revolve.  There is
another, equally important and natural partnership that must be
established:  that between NATO and the CSCE.

          The Alliance has long recognized that a strong CSCE is
in its interests; and indeed a partner in facilitating the
accomplishment of our Alliance's two new missions:  namely to
contribute to crisis management and to project stability as far
as possible into Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. 
The CSCE remains the only forum for political consultation on a
pan-European basis and is the standard bearer of democratic norms
at a time when these are acquiring greater weight in
international relations.  Thus in recent years, and especially
at our NATO Summits in London and Rome, we have not only endorsed
but actively worked for the greater institutionalisation of the
CSCE, including, of course, the establishment of this
Parliamentary Assembly.

          The Alliance has also sought to assist the CSCE in one
of its main functions, to oversee the implementation of arms
control agreements and the negotiation of new confidence and
security-building measures.  In this respect we have made a major
contribution to the new CSCE Forum for Security Cooperation.  We
did a good deal of the detailed, conceptual work in defining the
mandate of this forum and in helping to organize its work. 
Subsequently we tabled proposals on most elements of the
Programme for Immediate Action, including the harmonization of
arms control agreements and approaches for countering
proliferation.

          Meanwhile it has become clear that we can best assist
the further development of the CSCE if we have a closer
institutional relationship with it.  Thus far the Alliance's
participation in CSCE meetings has been at the invitation of the
Chairman-in-office or of the host country.  I believe the time
has now come - and our Alliance Foreign Ministers believe so too
- to have an arrangement between our two organisations that would
permit NATO's participation, on a permanent basis, in those CSCE
bodies that deal with security issues.  I very much hope and
expect that this can be achieved soon.  

          The CSCE's role is now being focused more on early
warning and pre-crisis measures.  Examples are the sending of
monitors and observer missions - such as the long term mission
in Kosovo and other missions in the former Yugoslavia and on the
territory of the former Soviet Union - and the promotion of
voluntary conciliation - as in the Baltics and Moldova.  This is
generally an area which has been "under-explored" by regional
organisations.  The CSCE focus on it can provide us with improved
mechanisms and political emphasis on PREVENTIVE DIPLOMACY.  

          In recognition of this important and rapidly expanding
new role of the CSCE, the Alliance offered at its meeting in Oslo
last year to support CSCE peacekeeping operations with its assets
on a case-by-case basis.  This offer still stands.  However, in
view of the fact that the CSCE is operating mainly in the area
of pre-crisis measures, the Alliance may need to give further
thought on how it can best support the CSCE.  For instance how
we can assist CSCE monitoring and observer missions with
transport, logistic and intelligence support.

          As the CSCE and NATO operationalize further their roles
in crisis management and conflict prevention, it will be all the
more necessary for us to share ideas and experiences to ensure
that our plans are complementary and compatible.  A good example
of such "cross-fertilisation" was the decision of the Stockholm
Ministerial to hold a seminar on CSCE peacekeeping to explore
conceptual and operational issues related to potential CSCE
missions.  Other international organisations, including the
Alliance, were invited to contribute to this seminar which was
held last month in Vienna.

          The Alliance's new role in peacekeeping is by no means
confined to our 16 member states.  We seek the participation of
other CSCE countries, both to enhance the political legitimacy
of such operations as well as to be able to take advantage of the
important contributions that these other countries can make. 
Thus, a major new focus of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council
is cooperation in peacekeeping with our cooperation partners. 
We have initiated discussions with those partners which will lead
in due course not only to the sharing of experiences but also to
practical cooperation in training, exercises and planning.  We
have agreed to a number of conceptual principles related to
peacekeeping.  This allows us to move ahead in carrying out a
programme of practical activities.  This is real progress and it
will also, as it develops, give the CSCE a precious store of
capabilities for peacekeeping missions which will usefully
complement the CSCE's own planning activities in this area.  In
this respect, I am pleased that Finland, Sweden and Austria now
participate in the NACC Ad Hoc Group on cooperation in
peacekeeping.

          When the North Atlantic Cooperation Council was
founded, there was apprehension in some quarters that it may
undermine the CSCE.  Quite the reverse has happened:  while the
CSCE has developed its overall function of supervising the
security situation in Europe and of initiating collective action,
in particular in the area of short-term preventive diplomacy, the
NACC has focused successfully on a more task-orientated long-term
role in dealing with the specific problems of military
restructuring and democratizing military behaviour in post-
Communist societies.  In handling delicate issues like the
reapportionment of military hardware under the CFE treaty among
the new states on the territory of the former Soviet Union, the
NACC enabled the CSCE to proceed with the implementation of the
treaty under its auspices.  Similarly discussions on regional
security issues in the NACC in a frank, open atmosphere can
hopefully assist the CSCE in its peace efforts, for instance the
Minsk conference on Nagorno-Karabakh.  So the NACC and the CSCE
are not rivals but complementary.

          In the transformation the Alliance has undergone in
these past years we have seen the need to increase the weight and
influence of European partners within the Alliance.  Indeed,
creating an Alliance based on a partnership of two equally strong
and action-capable partners is the precondition of NATO's
capacity in the long run to cope with the new challenges.  The
WEU has an important role to play as we work towards this
objective.  A secure Europe and a cohesive Western world need
both a strong Alliance and a more politically integrated and
capable Europe.  The two processes of transatlantic cooperation
and European integration have been interdependent in the past and
will remain so in the future.

          Four years after the demise of communism in Central and
Eastern Europe, only the vague contours of what the future
European architecture may be can be seen.  On the other hand, the
new security challenges that our institutions will have to
overcome if they are to achieve our ultimate vision of a just and
lasting peaceful order in Europe have imposed themselves with
almost brutal clarity.  Despite the serious problems we have to
confront, I believe we have the right instruments to deal with
them, and if our member nations have the political will to use
them in an adequate way, I am confident that we can realize our
aspirations to create a more secure future for all our citizens
in a Europe whole and free.