SECRETARY GENERAL CLAES:   "IN THE MIDST OF THE
BEWILDERING CHANGES WHICH HAVE SHAKEN THE EUROPEAN
SECURITY LANDSCAPE OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, THERE HAS BEEN
ONE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF STABILITY...AND THAT IS NATO" 


     THE HAGUE:   The Secretary General of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), Mr. Willy Claes, said
on Friday that "NATO's purpose remains what it has been
from the beginning - to guarantee the security of its
members, something which it has done better than any
alliance in history, giving Western Europe an
unprecedented period of peace and prosperity".  Addressing
the 40th General Assembly of the Atlantic  Treaty 
Association in The Hague, in his first major speech since
becoming NATO's Secretary General, Mr. Claes added that
NATO's purpose today is also "to extend those same
blessings to the people of Central and Eastern Europe". 
He described this task as "my number one goal and
responsibility".

     The Secretary General outlined in his speech the
major challenges confronting the Atlantic Alliance in the 
years ahead.  In this respect, he emphasized that the
transatlantic link is "the expression of a shared destiny"
and "basic to our hopes of further developing the
construction of  Europe".  Mr. Claes reminded his audience
that NATO is the only forum enabling North Americans and
Europeans to "develop common views and approaches to
security challenges not only in Europe but indeed on a
global scale as well".  He also underscored the importance
of the transatlantic link for the nations of Central and
Eastern Europe, which saw in that link "an irreplaceable
pledge of security and stability for Europe as a whole and
for themselves in particular".

     Turning to NATO's relations with Central and Eastern
Europe, the Secretary General said that "no one should
underestimate the importance of the Partnership For Peace"
and added that "there is more to Partnership For Peace
than military exercises...We aim to provide our experience
and expertise to the new democracies in creating
democratically organized and politically accountable
Ministries of Defence and military establishments...We
also aim to introduce a planning and review process based
on the force planning system that has played a major part
in enhancing Alliance solidarity and underpinning our
integrated military structure".  At the same time, Mr.
Claes warned his audience that it "will...take time to
develop PFP and it will also take money".  He added that
"Partnership For Peace is not a 
substitute for NATO membership...Our next task is to begin
to examine internally the way ahead, so that we can
prepare the Alliance to accept new members in a way which
enhances European security.  But in the meantime,
countries will have time to prepare themselves for
the major obligations which Alliance membership entails. 
Partnership For Peace is the ideal vehicle for them to do
so". 

     The Secretary General described the partnership
between Russia and the Alliance "with each respecting the
sovereignty of the other, and without any droit de regard"
as "an important companion to the evolutionary expansion
of NATO as we seek to bolster the security of NATO as a
whole".  He added that the Allies "cannot possibly achieve
our vision of a stable and peaceful Europe if there is a
climate of suspicion and misunderstanding between us."  He
noted that "the Alliance and Russia are well on the road
to achieving such a relationship". 

     Mr. Claes also reviewed NATO's r“le in support of the
United Nations in the Former Yugoslavia.  He said that
"basically our co-operation with the United Nations has
gone smoothly" although he acknowledged the "inevitable
ups and downs as two very different international
organisations attempt to work together for the first time
in their history".  The Secretary General pointed out that
"NATO is not a sub-contractor to the United Nations.  We
are a sovereign organisation and we have a duty to discuss
the conditions for our support". 
In this respect he affirmed that "NATO's credibility is
our most valuable asset...we cannot and we will not allow
the credibility of this Alliance to be squandered".

     Finally, Mr. Claes addressed the development of the
European Security and Defence Identity and, in particular,
of the WEU.  He admittted to "some irritation when the
Western European Union is portrayed as a European rival to
NATO.  It is not.  The WEU is the European pillar of
NATO".  In his view "all the elements are in place for the
fruitful, mutually reinforcing relationship we all want to
have.  We need to go forward and it is my intention as
NATO's Secretary General to develop fully the capabilities
of this relationship."


                The full text of Mr. Claes' speech
follows:


                 THE 40TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
                THE ATLANTIC TREATY ASSOCIATION
                  THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS


                 ADDRESS BY WILLY CLAES
                SECRETARY GENERAL OF NATO
                FRIDAY, 28TH OCTOBER 1994


          I am very pleased to be with you at your 40th
General Assembly and to deliver my first major address as
NATO Secretary General before such a distinguished
forum.  The Atlantic Treaty Associations have played a
vital role in explaining and promoting the Atlantic
Alliance in our member countries.  The challenge of
maintaining public supp ort for NATO is perhaps greater
now than at anytime in the history of this Alliance. 
Thus, I salute your work and encourage you even to
re-double your efforts in the years to come.

          In the midst of the bewildering changes which
have shaken the European security landscape over the past
few years, there has been one essential element of
stability and continuity with the past, and that is NATO. 
And yet, while instinctively recognising that the Alliance
must be preserved, many of our citizens understandably
wonder what is NATO's purpose today now that Russia has
become our friend and partner, and there appears to be no
obvious threat to Western Europe.

          The answer, which I would like to expand upon
today, is really quite simple:  NATO's purpose remains
what is has been from the beginning - to guarantee the
security of its members, something which it has done
better than any alliance in history, giving Western Europe
an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity.  But that
is not all.  Our purpose today is equally to extend these
same blessings to the people of Central and Eastern
Europe.  As I said when I took office two weeks ago,
working to build this wider security community I regard as
my number one goal and responsibility during my tenure as
Secretary General of this Alliance.

          I am not a pessimist by nature.  I would prefer
to call myself a realist.  And so as I look ahead to the
rest of this decade, I see plenty of reason to hope that
we are indeed on the verge of achieving a Europe which is
truly whole and free, and at peace with itself.  But I
also see dangers - the growing threat of weapons of mass
destruction; the situation across the Mediterranean; the
still fragile experiment in democracy to our east; the
persistence of conflict in the Balkans; and even the
danger that within our midst the ties of solidarity that
bind the members of this Alliance could weaken, and our
commitment to maintaining and modernising our defence
forces falter.

          And so I am firmly convinced that we need NATO,
both to consolidate what we have achieved over the past
forty-five years, and to project stability in the wider
Europe and undertake the range of post-Cold War missions
which we have recently assumed.  I expect the final years
of this decade to be very demanding ones for NATO,
particularly as we move to implement the various
initiatives launched by the Summit in January.

          Today, I would like briefly to describe the
challenges facing the Alliance as I see them.

          First and foremost, our task over the next few
years is to ensure that the transatlantic link between
Europe and North America continues to flourish.  Its
strength had been questioned by some, particularly last
year during the GATT negotiations.  But at the Summit,
NATO leaders described the transatlantic link as an
expression of a shared destiny.  I agree, and have always
agreed, with that idea.  I am a European and an
Atlanticist.  I see the transatlantic link as basic to our
hopes of further developing the construction of Europe.

          But the need for strong transatlantic ties is
not based on sentiment alone. 
Rather, North Americans and Europeans have strategic
interests as well as democratic values in common, and NATO
is the only forum enabling them to consult and develop
common views and approaches to security challenges, not
only in Europe, but indeed on a global scale as well.  For
example, without NATO, we would have lacked the solidarity
and even the mechanisms which allowed the United States
and its NATO partners to cooperate effectively in the Gulf
War and in more recent crisis situations elsewhere in the
world.

          But the transatlantic link is vital to others
besides Western Europeans.  It is also the expressed wish
of the new democracies to our East that the United States
and Canada continue their direct involvement in the
security of Europe.  They see in the transatlantic link an
irreplaceable pledge of security and stability for Europe
as a whole and for themselves in particular.

          This brings me to what I consider to be NATO's
second major challenge: working with our Central and East
European partners to develop a cooperative approach to
security and indeed a widening of the Western security
community.

          Achieving this goal above all means that we must
exploit the potential inherent in the Partnership for
Peace to the fullest.  Indeed, the Partnership is our
premier instrument for building closer relationships
between Allies and the new democracies.  This initiative,
rightly so, was welcomed as a major step in the right
direction by our friends in Central and Eastern Europe
when it was launched last January.  So far 23 Partner
countries have joined and we are now developing individual
work programmes with them to allow each country to draw
closer to the Alliance at a pace and in areas of its own
choosing.

          No one should underestimate the importance of
Partnership for Peace. 
Through it we seek to build the familiarity, trust and
habits of cooperation which the Allies have developed
among themselves for many decades.  Much of the
cooperation will be in the military sphere.  Countries
will be nominating forces and assets which they will
contribute to the Partnership.  Together, we will develop
common ideas and approaches for peacekeeping and
humanitarian support operations to which those forces may
be assigned, thereby greatly increasing the pool of
trained and NATO-compatible assets which we may draw upon
in future Bosnia-type contingencies.  Thus, it is clear
that PfP is a two-way street, with the Alliance deriving
as much benefit as our partners.  And we are moving
quickly:  already, three exercises have taken place this
fall, including one here this week in The Netherlands
which I had the pleasure to witness yesterday.

          But there is more to Partnership for Peace than
military exercises.  As it develops, PfP will bind Allies
and Partners in a closer pattern of activity covering a
very wide range of security-related matters.  For
instance, we aim to provide our experience and expertise
to the new democracies in creating democratically
organised and politically accountable Ministries of
Defence and military establishments.  We also aim to
introduce a planning and review process based on the force
planning system that has played a major part in enhancing
Alliance solidarity and underpinning our integrated
military structure.  It will, of course, take time to
develop PfP; and let me also stress here that it will also
take money. But this will be a very well spent investment
with a major pay-off down the road for both Allies and
partners alike.

          One point I should make clear.  Partnership for
Peace is not a substitute for NATO membership.  Nor was it
designed to delay the moment when the Alliance should
take on new members.  At the January Summit, the Allies
made clear they expect and would welcome enlargement.  Our
next task is to begin to examine internally the way
ahead, so that we can prepare the Alliance to accept new
members in a way which enhances European security.  But in
the meantime, countries will have time to prepare
themselves for the major obligations which Alliance
membership entails.  Partnership for Peace is the ideal
vehicle for them to do so.

          I wish also, as Secretary General, to develop
very close relationships of trust and mutual benefit
between NATO and Russia.  The dramatic progress we have
already made in this respect is one of the great legacies
of my predecessor, the late Manfred W”rner.  When NATO
formally extended the hand of friendship to Russia in
1990, it was Manfred W”rner who travelled to Moscow to
convey this message with his customary vigour and
commitment.  He created a very solid foundation for our
future relationship. And he dreamed that a strategic
partnership between NATO and Russia would become the
cornerstone of a new European security architecture.

          Why is cooperation between NATO and Russia so
important?  Because we cannot possibly achieve our vision
of a stable and peaceful Europe if there is a climate of
suspicion and misunderstanding between us, or if we do not
create a Europe free from fear as well as free from war. 
In other words, security in the new Europe has to be
indivisible; the price of security for some cannot be
insecurity for others.  Thus, a partnership between
Russia and the Alliance -- with each respecting the
sovereignty of the other, and without any droit de regard
-- is an important companion to the evolutionary expansion
of NATO as we seek to bolster the security of Europe as a
whole.

          I am pleased to say that the Alliance and Russia
are well on the road to achieving such a relationship.  At
the signing ceremony of Russia's entry into the
Partnership for Peace in June, we agreed to set in train
the development of a far-reaching dialogue and cooperation
between NATO and Russia, including beyond the PfP
framework.  Our current task is to define and develop with
our Russian friends the content of this dialogue and
partnership, and I am confident of success.

          Partnership for Peace is an example of what NATO
is doing to create more friendly relations between
countries in Europe.  Its effects will be felt over time
in greater trust, fewer misunderstandings and fewer still
occasions for conflict.  But NATO also has to be ready to
deal with crises which happen when trust breaks down and
conflict breaks out.

          NATO is currently playing, as you know, an
important role in Bosnia.  For the first time in its
history, NATO is acting outside its geographic area.  For
the first time in its history, NATO forces have engaged in
combat.  And we have been effective, especially when we
forced compliance with our ultimatums on Sarajevo and
Gorazde earlier this year.  Even more effective has been
the enforcement of the embargo at sea, which surely
contributed to Mr. Milosevic's decision to accept the
latest peace plan, and to isolate the Bosnian Serbs.

          I should add, however, that we are not acting
independently in Bosnia.  We are doing so in support of
the United Nations both to assist their humanitarian
mission and to underpin efforts to achieve a peaceful
settlement.  Basically, our cooperation with the
United Nations has gone smoothly.  There have been
inevitable ups and downs as two very different
international organisations attempt to work together for
the first time in their history.  But we are united in a
desire to achieve a peaceful settlement in former
Yugoslavia, and we are laying the groundwork for perhaps
more fruitful cooperation in the future.

          However, I should like to clarify that NATO is
not a sub-contractor to the United Nations.  We are a
sovereign organisation and we have a duty to discuss the
conditions for our support, which is why a NATO team has
again visited UN headquarters in New York this week to
urge a more effective use of our air power.  In the final
analysis, NATO's credibility is our most valuable asset. 
It is the fruit of four decades of effort and vigilance
during the Cold War, and it remains essential to the
preservation of peace in the wider Europe.  Therefore, we
cannot - and we will not - allow the credibility of this
Alliance to be squandered.

          So far, I have spoken about NATO.  Let me
briefly turn to the Alliance's relationship with the
Western European Union.  There remain unnecessary doubts
about this relationship.  No one should have any doubts
that NATO is, and will remain, the guarantor of its
members' security.  Its collective defence capabilities
are unique, and without NATO both Europeans and North
Americans would be less secure.  All NATO's sixteen
members agree on this without a shade of a doubt. 
Therefore, I must admit to some irritation when the
Western European Union is portrayed as a European rival to
NATO.  It is not.  The WEU is the European pillar of NATO
and all European members of NATO, including Iceland,
Norway and Turkey, are represented in it in one way or
another.  As Belgian Foreign Minister, I attended meetings
of NATO and the WEU.  At every step of the WEU's
development the Atlantic perspective has to be taken into
account and it is taken into account.  The principles of
the relationship are clear:  transparency, complementarity
and no duplication of military structures.  We have
developed close relations and our Councils meet regularly
together.  All the elements are in place for the fruitful,
mutually reinforcing relationship we all want to have.  We
need to go forward and it is my intention as NATO's
Secretary General to develop fully the capabilities of
this relationship.

          In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, it is clear
that we are facing an ambitious agenda.  NATO is changing
more profoundly, perhaps, than any other organisation in
the world.  We have moved out of area in former
Yugoslavia; we are Mediterranean as a new horizon; and we
are beginning to confront a range of potential new tasks
and missions in the fields of peacekeeping, crisis
management, and the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction.  All of this while we continue to fulfil our
traditional mission of defending our members' security,
and as we seek now to extend the blessings of security
eastwards.

          Ironically, we are forced by economic realities
to do more today with less in the way of resources.  It is
the same burden you yourselves are facing in the Atlantic
Treaty Association.  You, too, must gear your efforts to
the east, even as you continue your vital work among our
member nations.  But I am confident that the ATA will be
able to adapt to these new challenges, just as I am
supremely confident in the future of this Alliance.