SECRETARY GENERAL WORNER:  "A STRONG NATO IS NOT ONLY IMPORTANT
FOR EUROPE BUT IS ALSO CRITICAL TO AMERICAN SECURITY INTERESTS"
-----------------------------------------------------------------

          WASHINGTON, D.C.:  The Secretary General of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Mr. Manfred Worner, said on
Wednesday that "a strong NATO is not only important for Europe
but is also critical to American security interests".  Addressing
the National Press Club in Washington D.C. he said:  "The United
States cannot prosper amid chaos and conflict", so "it needs the
Alliance more than ever as the most important vehicle of US
influence in Europe and the main instrument of US leadership." 


          Mr. Worner explained the geopolitical, importance of
Europe to the US:  "The US will not be able to pursue domestic
renewal successfully without peace and stability in Europe, a
region where your geopolitical stake remains paramount.  Even
excluding Russia, it embodies the largest collection of military
power and potential.  It is also a key geographical, strategic
and logistical link to the Middle East and Persian Gulf areas."

          He also drew some lessons from history:  "America's
most important stake in Europe is peace.  Here there is one
simple lesson.  Whenever Europe and the United States go separate
ways they pay a terrible price.  Twice in this century the United
States has withdrawn from Europe at its peril.  Twice this
century the Atlantic democracies have been brutally reminded that
their security is indivisible.  These are lessons which we simply
cannot afford to relearn."  The Secretary General therefore
warned against the dangers of isolationism:  "Those voices are
clearly wrong which advise America to declare victory, pack up
and go home.  A superpower simply cannot take a sabbatical from
history, not even a vacation.  We need United States' leadership. 
Without the leadership of the US there will be no leadership at
all and most likely no meaningful action in crisis situations. 
Either you meet crises head-on or they will jump you from behind. 
It is therefore infinitely better to remain in Europe and prevent
wars (with reduced strength of course), than to leave Europe and
have to return to fight again."


          The Secretary General also pointed out the value for
money that the US gets from the Alliance:  "NATO costs the US
proportionately little for great return and those costs are going
down.  Planned US cuts in European-based forces are at least
double the total reductions by all other NATO nations combined. 
By 1995, the burden of stationing US forces in Europe will be cut
more than half from Cold War levels.  What the US appears to 'pay
for NATO' is, in fact, a bargain for US geo-strategic interests
that would require protection with or without the Alliance."

          Mr. Worner pointed the way ahead for a new NATO for a
new era: "This Alliance has changed more than any other
international institution in the last three years and remains a
state-of-the-art model.  We had to accept two new missions to
meet the demands of a vastly changed security environment: 
projection of stability to the East and crisis management.  We
have adopted a new strategy and force posture.  We have started
to strengthen our European pillar.  Most importantly, we have
established close relations with our former adversaries by
creating the North Atlantic Co-operation Council and we have
started participating in crisis management beyond our borders. 
So the slogan 'out of area or out of business' is obviously out
of date.  We are acting out of area and we are very much in
business."  

          The Secretary General saw four main tasks for the NATO
Summit to be held next January:  "The first and most important
area where change must come is in further developing our ability
to project stability to the East.  Security is the oxygen of
democracy:  if we want our new democratic partners in the East
to survive and to flourish, then we must seek to give concrete
meaning to our 1991 declaration in Rome that 'our own security
is inseparably linked to all the other States of Europe'.

          "Second, we must achieve a more balanced sharing of
burdens and responsibilities between the two sides of the
Atlantic.
          "Third, we must further develop the Alliance's
capabilities, forces, structures and procedures for crisis
management, peace-keeping and peace-making.

          "Fourth and finally, we must maintain a significant
level of well-trained and well-equipped armed forces. "

          In conclusion, Mr. Worner told his audience that "to
master each and every major security task of our time, you need
NATO ... this Alliance is not sustained merely by nostalgic
memories or by purely philosophical reflections on common values
and destinies.  It survives, indeed prospers, because it serves
the concrete requirements of its member nations in North America
and Europe."


The full text of Mr. Worner's speech follows:












                  "A NEW NATO FOR A NEW  ERA"
                               
            SPEECH BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF NATO
                      MR. MANFRED WORNER

                            AT THE

                      NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
                   WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A.
                               
                        6 OCTOBER 1993












                   A NEW NATO FOR A NEW ERA

                SPEECH BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL
                  AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
                       WASHINGTON, D.C.
                       6TH OCTOBER 1993



          To say that we are living in the best of times and
the worst of times is undoubtedly an exaggeration.  But it is
a fact that we are confronted with two contradictory
realities: on the one hand, the resurgence of democracy
following the West's historic Cold War triumph, and on the
other a re-emergence of war in the heart of Europe as a
seemingly acceptable instrument of policy.  Thus at the very
moment we should be basking in the glow of success, we are
confronted with nightmare images from Europe's past - images
of "Sarajevo", of the "Balkan powderkeg", and of man's
inhumanity to man.

          A gap is emerging between our vision of a new
international order and these grim realities.  We witness
"peacekeepers" with no real peace to keep;  "non-partisan"
sanctions that favour the aggressor;  mass murder, the
strangulation of cities and the expulsion of people from their
homes.

          And yet, I do not believe we should succumb to
pessimism, any more than we should have been carried away with
euphoria in 1989.  The fact is that we are in a transitional
period between the collapse of an old order and the
establishment of a new one.  Following a period in which
international relationships were virtually frozen, the world
has suddenly become full of possibilities, both good and bad. 
The question is whether we will demonstrate the vision,
courage and leadership of the generation of Truman, Adenauer
and Monnet, or whether instead we will succumb to the risk
avoidance and selfish nationalism which so disastrously
characterized Western leadership following World War I.  This
is the task before us, and history will judge our generation
by how we respond to it.

          We enjoy a tremendous advantage over previous
generations - namely, a structure of international
institutions and an ingrained pattern of international
cooperation which can enable us to build a better and more
peaceful order in the era to come - if we use this advantage
properly.  That remains our challenge - the main challenge of
our times.  We cannot leave the world to the forces of
disorder and limit ourselves to safeguarding our own borders. 
Neither we in Europe, nor you in the US, can afford such
passivity, not only because it goes against our principles but
also because it goes against our national self-interests.  In
the world of today you simply cannot hope to live in security
if you are surrounded by chaos. 

          We cannot meet this challenge without NATO; to
master each and every major security task of our time you need
NATO.  To provide stability in a world that has become more
unstable you need NATO.  To prevent, manage and resolve major
crises and conflicts in the wider Europe you need NATO.  To
prevent Europe from sliding back into renationalisation and
fragmentation you need NATO.  To keep transatlantic relations
working smoothly and effectively you need NATO.  To face the
new kinds of risks emerging from proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, from mass migration and from extremism you
need NATO.

          So this Alliance is not sustained merely by
nostalgic memories or by purely philosophical reflections on
common values and destinies.  It survives, indeed prospers,
because it serves the concrete requirements of its member
nations in North America and Europe.

          I am aware, however, that a different view has been
expressed by some in this country, to whom the international
community's failure to prevent or reverse the conflict in ex-
Yugoslavia is a demonstration of NATO's irrelevance today.
          I reject this argument.  As much as I am personally
disappointed with the way this crisis has been handled, I
think we have to recognize that the international community
was unprepared for the different security environment with
which we would be confronted in the post-Cold War era, just as
the West was initially unprepared for the type of challenge
Soviet power would confront us with in the years immediately
following World War II.  The argument that we should disband
NATO because of Yugoslavia is masochistic in the extreme;  it
is as if we were to banish doctors for the persistence of
illness, or abolish police for the persistence of crime.  What
we need to do, obviously, is to draw the lessons of Yugoslavia
so that there will be no more Yugoslavias.

          It goes without saying that one lesson is that NATO
must be used differently, and indeed that NATO itself must
continue to adapt to a wholly different set of challenges from
those we faced during the Cold War.  That is why we are
holding an important NATO Summit in January, upon the
initiative of President Clinton.  Today, I would like to point
the way towards NATO's agenda for change by addressing three
questions:

          -    Why NATO?

          -    Why the US in NATO?

          -    What kind of NATO do we need for this new era?

I.   Why NATO

          First, in a world full of crises and conflicts where
history moves fast and is full of surprises NATO still serves
its main strategic purpose:  to maintain the common defence
and security of its member countries.  Today it does so with
fewer troops and at lower cost. NATO serves as the insurance
policy against the remaining risks and new dangers.  Once
dissolved an effective Alliance could not be recreated
overnight.

          Second, the transatlantic relationship is the most
stable and valuable geopolitical asset on the globe today,
bringing together the world's two largest trading zones, and
the two regions with the greatest global outreach and sense of
global responsibilities.  How could we seriously hope to
achieve a more stable world without a strategic alliance of
these two major power centres?   Where else but in NATO could
they coordinate their policies and pool their capabilities to
deal with major security challenges, as was done so
successfully in the Gulf War?   Moreover, the countries of
Central and Eastern Europe already rely upon the stabilising
influence which the Alliance exerts around its periphery.  The
end of NATO would increase the risk of conflict in Europe
dramatically.

          Third, one of the greatest achievements of the
Atlantic Alliance has been to put an end to the bad habits of
European power politics.  There was simply no longer any need
for secret pacts and cordial, or not so cordial, ententes. 
The American presence provided for a stable balance between
former rivals and enemies.  It even made possible the
realisation of German unification without a major crisis in
West European politics.  By contrast the dissolution of NATO
or the disengagement of the United States from Europe could
and would undermine the European integration process.  This
would be damaging not only for Western Europe and the United
States, but would also gravely affect the political and
economic transition of the countries of Central and Eastern
Europe which are urgently looking for links to the political,
economic and security institutions of the West.

          Fourth, NATO is the only organization that possesses
the right package of political-military tools for effective
crisis management.  It provides the bedrock of "hard" security
on which any new security order must be based.  Only NATO has
the means to turn political declarations into coherent action,
a fact which the United Nations, after decades of viewing us
with suspicion, has recognized in calling upon NATO to perform
a range of peacekeeping functions in the former Yugoslavia. 
Which other instrument could you turn to in a crisis
situation, assuming the political will was there to act? 
Which other institution could offer the integrated structure
and the political/military consultation mechanism?  

          The Yugoslav crisis demonstrates not NATO's
irrelevance but its vitality and its potential.  For the first
time in our history we are both acting out of area and,
through our commitment to conduct air strikes, poised for
actual combat operations.  NATO has offered its support to the
United Nations and it has done everything the UN has asked;
and the Alliance has done so efficiently.  We are enforcing
the embargo at sea and the no-fly zone in the air.  We have
supplied UNPROFOR with command and control equipment and we
have coordinated our military planning with the United
Nations.  We have also offered the United Nations our
protective air power in case of attack against UNPROFOR and we
are prepared to use air strikes, if necessary, to relieve
strangulation of Sarajevo and other areas.  All of these tasks
are being performed with the professionalism and dedication
you expect from this Alliance.

II.  Why the US in NATO

          A strong NATO is not only important for Europe but
is also critical to American security interests.  The US will
not be able to pursue domestic renewal successfully without
peace and stability in Europe, a region where your
geopolitical stake remains paramount.  Even excluding Russia,
it embodies the largest collection of military power and
potential.  It is also a key geographical strategic and
logistical link to the Middle East and Persian Gulf areas. 
NATO members, including the US, hold six of the seven G7
seats, make up sixteen  of twenty-two members of the IMF and
hold three of the five permanent seats in the United Nations.

          Moreover, America and Europe have never been more
dependent on each other for their economic well-being, and
that dependency is steadily growing.  NATO Allies are
collectively the United States' largest trading partners; 
two-way trade between the US and EC in goods and services was
close to 400 billion dollars last year alone.  US exports to
Europe and European investments in the United States have
created millions of American jobs.

          Since it is obvious that the United States cannot
prosper amid chaos and conflict, it needs the Alliance more
than ever as the most important vehicle of US influence in
Europe and the main instrument of US leadership.  But it is
important to understand that NATO helps protect America's
manifold interests in Europe in return for a relatively small
US investment.  NATO costs the US proportionally little for
great return, and the good news is that those costs are going
down.  Planned US cuts in European-based forces are at least
double the total reductions by all other NATO nations
combined.  By 1995 the burden of stationing US forces in
Europe will be cut by more than half from Cold War levels.  
By being part of an integrated military structure, the US has
secured major weapons contracts and multiplies its defence
investment and capability.  What the US appears to "pay for
NATO" is in fact a bargain for US geostrategic interests that
would require protection with or without the Alliance.

          Indeed, America's most important stake in Europe is
peace.  Here, there is one simple lesson:  whenever Europe and
the United States go separate ways they pay a terrible price. 
Twice in this century the United States has withdrawn from
Europe at its peril.  Twice this century the Atlantic
democracies have been brutally reminded that their security is
indivisible.  These are lessons which we simply cannot afford
to relearn.

          So those voices are clearly wrong which advise
Americans to declare victory, pack up and go home.  A
superpower simply cannot take a sabbatical from history, not
even a vacation.  We need United States' leadership.  Without
the leadership of the US there will be no leadership at all,
and most likely no meaningful action in crisis situations. 
Either you meet crises head-on, or they will jump you from
behind.  It is therefore infinitely better to remain in Europe
and prevent wars (with reduced strength of course), than to
leave Europe and have to return to fight again.

          So what does the US derive from the Atlantic
Alliance?  Security for economic growth, capabilities for
multilateral coalition-building, and influence where it counts
the most.

III.  The Way Ahead:  A New NATO for a New Era

          Contrary to what some have argued, NATO has not
stood still since the end of the Cold War.  This Alliance has
changed more than any other international institution in the
last three years, and remains a state-of-the-art model.  We
have had to accept two new missions to meet the demands of a
vastly changed security environment:  (a) projection of
stability to the East and;  (b) crisis management.  We have
adopted a new strategy and force posture.  We have started to
strengthen our European pillar.  Most importantly, we have
established close relations with our former adversaries by
creating the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, and we have
started participating in crisis management beyond our borders. 
So the slogan "out of area or out of business" is obviously
out of date.  We are acting out of area and we are very much
in business.

          Still, we need to continue to adapt the Alliance to
play its role in stabilising Europe.  Let me list four main
areas which shall be at the top of the Summit's agenda.

          The first and most important area where change must
come is in further developing our ability to project stability
to the East.  Security is the oxygen of democracy;  if we want
our new democratic partners in the East to survive and to
flourish, then we must seek to give concrete meaning to our
1991 Declaration in Rome that "our own security is inseparably
linked to that of all the other States of Europe".

          This means that we must transform the North Atlantic
Cooperation Council to address the real security needs of our
partners, through stepped-up consultations and joint action in
peacekeeping.

          Moreover, we should now open a concrete perspective
for expanded NATO membership.  This will be a lengthy road and
we need to act gradually, carefully and flexibly, but the
important point now is to commit ourselves in principle to
begin travelling down that road.  Doing so, even if
enlargement is not for today, would increase the stability of
the whole of Europe, particularly if we are also willing to
enhance fundamentally our security relationship with Russia. 
The same holds true for Ukraine and other cooperation
partners.  Nobody will be isolated.  We intend to build
bridges and not barricades.

          Second, we must achieve a more balanced sharing of
burdens and responsibilities between the two sides of the
Atlantic.  As Secretary of State Christopher has emphasized,
the choice cannot be between unilateral American action and no
action at all.  Public opinion in the United States can
rightly criticize Europeans for failing at times to defend
adequately their own interests.  The result could be a more
reluctant US leadership and less involvement of the United
States at the very moment when crises and conflicts are
multiplying.  Hence the importance of Western Europeans
clearly demonstrating their willingness and capacity to do
more.  This means that a further development of the WEU as the
European pillar of the Alliance is not a threat to NATO's
survival, but rather the precondition for ensuring its long-
term future.

          Third, we must further develop the Alliance's
capabilities, forces, structures and procedures for crisis
management, peacekeeping and peacemaking.  And we must achieve
a more structured relationship with the United Nations in
order to generate the conditions which are essential for
future crisis management - namely, a clear-cut mandate, a
better coordination between humanitarian and
peacekeeping/peacemaking missions, and a unitary chain of
command.

          We must understand and take to heart the lessons of
our collective failure in the former Yugoslavia:

     -    We must consult among ourselves far in advance about
          potential future conflicts, and undertake the
          necessary planning for such contingencies.

     -    We must intervene with diplomacy backed by force,
          and the credible resolve to use it if necessary, at
          an early stage of crises, so as not to be
          confronted, as we are today in ex-Yugoslavia, with a
          much higher cost of reversing aggression.

     -    We must be willing to contemplate limited military
          options for limited diplomatic objectives, so as not
          to be hamstrung, as we are today, with an all-or-
          nothing mindset.

     -    We must, if we are not willing to help the victim of
          aggression, enable him to defend himself.

     -    We must define the strategic objectives of our
          actions as early and clearly as possible.

     -    We must avoid situations in which our own troops
          become hostages, thereby preventing military action.

     -    And above all, we must possess the will to utilize
          the instruments available, amongst them our
          Alliance.

     Fourth and finally, we must maintain a significant level
of well-trained and well-equipped armed forces.  The
stabilization of defence budgets is now urgent if we are to
avoid a kind of free-fall, structural disarmament which would
rapidly deprive our member nations of meaningful military
capabilities for many years to come and weaken seriously our
conventional deterrence posture.  In handling any crisis, what
you have available very much determines what options you have: 
the fewer deployable forces, then the fewer options for
decision-makers, and the less credibility accorded subsequent
actions.

          I firmly believe that our generation still has a
better opportunity than any other generation ever had in the
long and bloody history of this century:  to build a peaceful
Euro-Atlantic order.  If we fail, this opportunity may never
return.  We can only succeed if we stay together and
understand that our security is indivisible.  Your great and
still vital nation has an enormously important mission of
historic dimensions.  We need your presence and we need your
leadership.  But you also need Europe;  for it is only by
moving forward together that we can hope to shape a better
world and a better future for our peoples.