a.weu/documents File: 1323lett.van Document 1323 1st July 1992 Information letter from Mr. van Eekelen Secretary-General of WEU on the activities of the intergovernmental organs (23rd March - 19th June 1992) ______ Dear President, The foreign and defence ministers of the nine member states of WEU had a particularly fruitful meeting at the Petersberg, which demonstrated in the clearest possible terms the determination to move ahead energetically with the implementation of the Maastricht Declarations and the development of WEU's activities. The meeting produced a set of texts replete with guidelines for the future: the Petersberg Declaration, the Declaration on relations with the states of Central Europe and two texts on the serious events afflicting the Yugoslav republics and Nagorny-Karabakh. They are all annexed to this letter. Their detail and clarity obviates the need for any paraphrase. I should like therefore to underline for the Assembly the priorities for WEU in the first six months of the Italian presidency. Let it be made quite clear at the outset that the hiccups over the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty should not have any adverse effect on the work of our organisation, even if the current discussions are making a useful contribution to our thinking on procedures for widening and deepening and on closer links with Central Europe, to quote just two examples. The first priority is the implementation of the third part of the Petersberg Declaration. Ministers approved the mandates for discussions with the candidates for accession and with the candidates for associate membership. They also took note of the draft protocol of accession, which is a basic document for the future discussions with the states applying for full membership. The second priority concerns the development and strengthening of WEU's operational role. The Defence Representatives Group has already resumed its work. The senior officials of the planning cell, General Caltabiano and General Roux, have been appointed. Everything will be done so that this cell can be operational in Brussels by next October, provided that all the material and administrative conditions have been met. The same caveat also applies to the complex task of transferring the Permanent Council and Secretariat to Brussels. At all events, the establishment of WEU in Brussels will mark the beginning of new activities geared to the gradual transformation of the organisation into the defence arm of the future European Union. The third and last priority is the development of relations between WEU and eight countries of Central Europe within the framework of a "forum of consultation". It is in the mutual interest of the Nine and the Eight to meet regularly to concert their views on the problems of European security, irrespective of what association arrangements certain countries of Central Europe might have with the Community or the various institutions with responsibilities in the field of European security. In this connection, the afternoon meeting on 19th June represented the combination of two years of fruitful contacts. Clearly, the links with the Community will take on growing importance in the future since they are quite specific without being discriminatory, apart from the fact that they seek to avoid duplication with the NACC or the CSCE. Ministers therefore underlined that, as regards the development of WEU as an integral part of the European Union, relations between the Nine and the Eight would have to take account of the links between the Eight and the Union. The subjects for future consultations would be the CSCE, arms control and the maintenance of stability both in Europe and on its periphery. Stress would be laid on the complementary nature of the NACC's activities and those of the WEU forum of consultation, and they would seek to be mutually reinforcing. These priorities will remain irrespective of whatever other demands may be made by the present extremely worrying situation, especially in the Balkans and the Caucasus. * * * Between 23rd March and 19th June, the Permanent Council met six times (26th March, 8th and 29th April, 13th May, 4th and 10th June). Its work focused on preparations for the Ministerial Council at the Petersberg and on the close monitoring of the Yugoslav crisis. Developments in Bosnia- Herzegovina led to a special meeting being convened on 4th June. On 10th June, the Permanent Council, enlarged to include the political directors and their counterparts from defence ministries, reached broad agreement on the content of the Petersberg Declaration and on the draft protocol and mandates for discussions on the enlargement of WEU to new full members, associate members and possible observers. Several reports to ministers were examined, two concerning the implementation of the Maastricht Declarations: one of these concerned practical measures for co-operation with the European institutions and NATO and the other the transfer of the Permanent Council and Secretariat-General to Brussels. Three reports dealt with the development of WEU's operational role: one on the terms of reference for the WEU planning cell, and the two others on possible tasks for WEU forces and on armaments co-operation. Several other reports were approved: on WEU's activities in the field of space, on co-operation in the fields of CFE and CSBM verification and the implementation of the open skies treaty, and on the activities of the Mediterranean Sub-Group. On 21st May, the Council of Western European Union held its first official meeting at NATO headquarters in Evere, with the North Atlantic Council meeting in permanent session. This meeting took place pursuant to the Maastricht Declarations and enabled the two Councils to take stock of relations between their respective organisations and to envisage a strengthening of practical co-operation. The Council's Special Working Group (SWG) and Defence Representatives Group (DRG) held a joint meeting on 6th April 1992, to review the progress of the organisation's preparatory work for the ministerial meeting on 19th June. Discussions centred on the implementation of the Maastricht Declarations and relations with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Considerable progress was also made in finalising the documents dealing with relations between WEU and the other European member states of the European Union or the Atlantic Alliance. The SWG also met on 11th and 19th May to continue its work on the draft decisions to be submitted to ministers in these two areas. There was also discussion on the contacts between WEU and the CSCE. On 5th June, the SWG hald a meeting at the Secretariat with the representatives from the diplomatic missions of the countries of Central Europe, at which the draft declaration on relations between WEU and these countries was presented to them. The meeting generated a lively discussion which led to a number of passages in the draft being reworked. Lastly, on 9th June, the SWG met at deputy level to discuss the draft Petersberg Declaration prior to the meeting of the enlarged Council the following day. The Defence Representatives Group (DRG) met on 7th April, 14th and 15th May and 4th June. The meetings provided an opportunity for more detailed consideration of possible tasks to be given to military units answerable to WEU, particularly in relation to combat tasks and the implications as regards command structures and rules of engagement. The DRG reached agreement on the terms of reference and establishment table for the WEU planning cell, which ministers formally set up on 19th June. A Group of Experts met four times (24th April, 14th, 15th and 27th May) to finalise the more technical aspects of this project. Other questions discussed were armaments co-operation and proposals on relations between WEU and the IEPG. The Chiefs of Defence Staff (CHODs) of the WEU member countries held their second meeting of the year in Bonn on 20th May. They exchanged views on developments in the Commonwealth of Independent States in the wake of the Tashkent Summit and on the worsening Yugoslav conflict. They discussed their role as military advisors and their future responsibilities within the WEU framework and they endorsed the proposals submitted to them concerning senior staff for the planning cell. Its functions, particularly as regards the tasks and command arrangements for the multinational and national forces likely to be made available to WEU were also examined at this meeting. The Mediterranean Sub-Group met on 3rd April and 5th June. The group continued its exchanges of view on three topical questions, namely: the situation in the former Yugoslavia, efforts to resolve the problem in Western Sahara and the Cyprus question. The group concluded its work as regards the annotated list of principles likely to contribute to a resolution of security problems in the Mediterranean. It also took stock of progress in the "Five plus Five" process. Lastly, the group approved a draft mandate for future contacts between WEU and the Maghreb countries. As to the analysis of risks likely to affect security in the Mediterranean and in the Gulf region, the group was now in possession of a number of detailed national contributions on security in the Maghreb, and of a study prepared by the WEU Institute for Security Studies on the situation in Algeria and its consequences for the Maghreb and Europe. The Experts Group on the verification of arms control agreements held several working meetings on the implementation of the open skies treaty. On 26th and 27th March, a WEU fact- finding mission visited Moscow to examine the possibility of using a single type of observation aircraft for open skies, as proposed by France. When, in three years' time, the treaty is implemented in full, there will be a need to use specially equipped aircraft. A fleet of between five and eight aircraft should be sufficient for the 200 observation flights planned each year. A solution consisting of developing a single type of observation aircraft which could also be used for CSCE transport missions might be adopted, and would offer major advantages in terms of cost-effectiveness. The Russians taking part in the WEU mission suggested two types of aircraft which might be suitable. All the practical arrangements for technical co- operation were considered during the discussions in order to provide experts with the necessary information for subsequent feasibility studies on the pooling of aircraft and/or sensors. At an informal meeting in Vienna on 29th April of heads of delegation, these exploratory talks on co-operation with Russia were continued and other options were discussed, such as a common WEU pool with national aircraft being used in rotation. Then, on 13th May, experts met in London at the WEU Secretariat to hear a presentation on the German national study and to prepare the activity report for ministers. The CFE and CSBM Verification Experts Group met on 7th May to take stock of the current stage reached in the CFE Treaty ratification process. As of that date, 17 countries had deposited their instruments of ratification, including France on 24th March and Italy on 22nd April. Spain was ready to deposit its instrument of ratification in the very near future. The experts discussed several aspects of practical co- operation between the member states concerning the implementation of the treaty: rules for the operation of multinational teams, training of inspectors and bilateral inspection exercises. The ad hoc Sub-Group on Space met in Madrid on 9th April to hear a report from the Director on the setting-up of the WEU satellite centre and to review progress made by the team investigating medium- and long-term studies. The satellite centre project team, for its part, met twice, on 24th March and on 19th and 20th May. Lastly, on 6th May 1992, a ceremony took place at the headquarters of the firm Dornier GmbH in Friedrichshafen to mark the signing of the contract for the first phase of the main system feasibility study. The aim of this study is to investigate the functional and programme aspects of a complete system. * * * Since the signature of the Paris Charter in November 1990, considerable progress has been made in developing the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe as one of the key elements in Europe's emerging security architecture. The security aspects of the CSCE follow-up conference regularly feature on the agenda of the Council and its working groups. WEU member states favour the strengthening of the CSCE's capabilities for conflict prevention and crisis management. The WEU Council has welcomed the various initiatives of H.E. Mr. J. Dienstbier, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, in his capacity as Chairman-in-Office of the CSCE Council, to promote increased co-ordination between European security organisations. Several steps have been taken in order to initiate fruitful co- operation between WEU and the CSCE. Following an invitation by H.E. Deputy Prime Minister J. Dienstbier, Ambassador Horst Holthoff, Deputy Secretary-General, attended the Prague Council of Ministers on 30th-31st January 1992, as my personal representative. On 1st-3rd April, Ambassador Holthoff participated in the plenary session of the CSCE Helsinki follow-up meeting 1992 where, on 3rd April, he made an initial contribution on behalf of WEU on the subject "the role of Western European Union and the architecture of European security". From 4th to 6th March, Mr. Paolo Casardi, Director of Political Affairs, attended the seminar on armed forces in democratic societies, organised in Vienna by the CSCE Conflict Prevention Centre. The Berlin meeting in June 1991 of the CSCE Council of Ministers encouraged the exchange of information and relevant documents among CSCE and the main European and transatlantic institutions. As a first concrete step towards increased contacts and co-operation between the CSCE and the main European and transatlantic institutions, the participating states of the CSCE agreed to initiate this exchange of information and relevant documents. Since February 1992, public documents have been exchanged on a regular basis between the WEU Secretariat- General and the CSCE Secretariat in Prague. A request made on 29th April 1992 by the Chairman-in-Office of the CSCE Council for WEU to give serious thought to the idea of possible WEU assistance to the CSCE in the event of a CSCE monitor mission to be dispatched to Nagorny-Karabakh, was discussed by the Permanent Council. Should the CSCE decide to send a monitor mission to Nagorny-Karabakh under its reponsibility, WEU member states would duly consider a request to contribute to this effort. According to the WEU Council, a mission to monitor a ceasefire in Nagorny-Karabakh would be subject to an effective and lasting ceasefire in the region as well as to the formal consent of the parties involved. At its Prague meeting on 30th-31st January, the CSCE Council resolved to send rapporteur missions to the new CSCE member states. The aim of these missions was to evaluate whether commitments entered into under the CSCE had been fulfilled. Following an invitation by the Czechoslovak presidency of the CSCE for a representative of WEU to participate in the fifth and last mission, I was authorised by the Permanent Council to make available a representative of the WEU Secretariat-General for participation in the CSCE rapporteur mission to Georgia. I designated Mr. C. Bruch from the Policy and Planning Section of the Political Division to participate in the mission which visited Georgia from 18th-22nd May 1992. On 2nd June, Mr. Bruch also represented the Secretariat-General at a special meeting of Working Group 3 (Human Dimension) of the Helsinki CSCE follow-up meeting dedicated to the discussion of the CSCE rapporteur missions to the new member states, the respective reports as well as a general evaluation of those missions. Here is a short summary of the mission's findings during its stay in Georgia: generally, the mission had the impression that in Georgia the will to reform was real, both at the institutional and legislative levels. It transpired from all the talks and discussions which it had with the competent authorities that it was the aim of present office-holders to build the future Georgian society on democratic principles, ideas and values. Nevertheless, the mission could not fail to emphasise in its report that there was at present no working parliament, that legislative decrees were being promulgated without the consent of elected popular representatives and that continuation of martial law limited, at least partly, the enjoyment by the population of basic human rights. Consequently, the mission expressed the hope that the present transitory period would be short and that CSCE principles would become fully applicable as soon as possible. The mission found the Georgian authorities generally committed to ensuring respect for human rights. Under the present state of emergency, however, the situation remained tense. Several factions had weapons at their disposal. Of serious concern especially were interethnic relations in Georgia. Though the mission concluded that there was full freedom of religion in Georgia, it should not be overlooked that there are signs of religious intolerance which may cause difficulties in the future unless steps are taken to encourage an open dialogue and tolerance on both sides. The mission found no signs of serious curtailment of freedom of expression or information. Under the present state of emergency, freedom of assembly is limited. While the situation has much stabilised since the consolidation of the new provisional government, the continuing demonstrations neverthless sometimes result in harsh intervention by the security forces, occasionally with the loss of life. Under Soviet rule, three autonomous entities were formed on the territory of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic: the Abkhaz Autonomous (Soviet Socialist) Republic, the Adzhar Autonomous (Soviet Socialist) Republic and the South Ossetian Autonomous Region (Oblast). Tension has been building up in South Ossetia for nearly three years. Numerous violent clashes between Ossetians and Georgians have occurred in South Ossetia since 1989. Due to a personal initiative and a visit to South Ossetia by the Chairman of the Georgian State Council, Mr. Shevardnadze, a dialogue between the two parties has recently started. However, it has been marred by repeated violations of the provisional ceasefire, including the taking of hostages and attacks against civilians. On the day before the mission's visit to the South Ossetian centre of Tskhinvali, a very serious incident occurred, in which 36 Ossetians, including women and children, were killed. The Georgian authorities immediately condemned the atrocity the pledged to bring the perpetrators - who are still unknown - to justice. The incident deeply affected the circumstances under which the visit by members of the mission to Tskhinvali took place. The mission also visited the Abkhazian capital of Sukhumi. Due to the Abkhaz' campaign for the secession of their Autonomous Republic from Georgia and its attachment to the Russian Federation, the situation remains tense. The predominantly Muslim Abkhaz - as the titular nationality - constitute only 17.8% of the half million inhabitants of their Autonomous Republic, and Georgians account for 45.7% of its total population. In its meetings with the representatives of the factions represented in the Supreme Soviet of Abkhazia, the mission emphasised the need for all parties concerned to collaborate in the search for solutions to problems, the potential danger of which should not be underrated. As far as economic issues are concerned, the mission concluded that Georgia's economy is in deep crisis. Indeed, the disintegration of the economic structures and the loss of trade links on the territory of the former USSR are having painful consequences, as Georgia is wholly dependent on energy imports and also imports 80-90% of raw materials for its industry. Georgia is not a member of the Commonwealth of Independent States and has taken the position that it does not wish to participate in the unified CIS military structures. The CIS troops stationed in Georgia are now under Russian jurisdiction and the High Command of the former USSR Transcaucasian military district remains located in Tbilisi. Georgia is currently actively seeking to establish its own independent armed forces. Georgian officials repeatedly expressed their grave concern at the ongoing conflict over Nagorny-Karabakh. In this context, they expressed the fear that this conflict could rapidly escalate with devastating consequences for the Transcaucasus in general, and Georgia in particular. The mission stressed the overriding importance of general parliamentary elections to be held on 11th October 1992, as announced by the State Council of Georgia. By holding these elections in accordance with accepted democratic standards, legitimacy should be fully restored. In order to ensure the objectivity and credibility of these elections in a multiparty system, international monitoring of the election campaign and the elections themselves should take place. The mission also felt that co-ordination should be organised among CSCE member states and international organisations, such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the European Community, the Council of Europe and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe to offer co-operation and expertise in banking, financial and economic matters, the organisation of the judiciary and the civil service and the reform of key areas of legislation. Practical measures to ensure implementation should also be devised. The mission also felt it necessary strongly to urge the parties to co-operate in halting and reversing the dangerous proliferation on Georgian soil of weaponry held by various political factions and ethnic groups, with a view to defusing political tension and interethnic strife. * * * Since Maastricht, it is more important than ever to keep senior American and Canadian officials, the press, radio and television and academics in these two countries regularly informed about WEU activities. During recent visits to the United States, I took every opportunity to explain to a very varied American public the importance of strengthening WEU and the European pillar of the alliance for the future of transatlantic relations: - on 23rd March, I spoke to students at the National Defense University in Washington D.C. on the role of WEU after Maastricht; - the same day, I spoke at a lunchtime debate organised in Washington by the Atlantic Council on the subject "Towards a European defence - and what that really means"; - later on that day, in Washington, I gave a talk on the European pillar of the alliance as part of a programme organised by the World Affairs Council of Washington D.C.; - on 24th March, in Norfolk, Virginia, I took part in a conference entitled "COMDEF 92 -international symposia and exhibition on common defence", this year's theme being sustaining public support for defence spending in the 90s. I spoke about the problems of European security and the role of WEU; - on 25th March, I gave an address on the European pillar to students of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princetown University (New Jersey); - on 24th-26th April, I took part in a symposium on issues and challenges of verification, at the Southern Methodist University in Dallas, and I gave a paper on European perspectives of arms control in the new international environment; - on 27th April in Atlanta, I gave an address at the Center for International Strategy, Technology and Policy of the Georgia Institute of Technology on the subject "European security and the new world order: the role of Western European Union"; - on 28th April, in Monterey, California, I spoke about WEU to students at the Naval Postgraduate School; - from 30th April to 1st May, I took part in a symposium at Georgetown University of Washington (D.C.), the theme of which was "the troubled partnership in transition". This event had been co-sponsored by the following bodies: Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, Department of National Defence (Canada), Center for German and European Studies, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy (Georgetown University). The subject for my talk was Western European Union and the European Union; - on 5th June, I gave an address on the role of the European security and defence identity in the development of transatlantic relations during a symposium organised by the West Point Military Academy on "the United States and the Atlantic Alliance". These visits also gave me an opportunity to hold detailed exchanges of view with several representatives of the administration and to explain to them Europe's common defence objectives and the new tasks facing WEU. They also provided an opportunity to explain the demarche underlying initiatives such as the establishment of a Franco-German corps. * * * In the field of public relations and information on the role and current and future tasks of WEU, my colleagues and I also attended the following events: - from 2nd-3rd March in Athens, I took part in a conference organised by the magazine "Greek economy", the theme of which was "defence-space: economic opportunities for Greece". I gave a paper on co-operative defence and space programmes: WEU in the constellation of future developments; - on 4th March, Ambassador Holthoff met the members of the European People's Party (EPP) in Brussels and gave a presentation on WEU; - from 6th-8th March, I took part in a seminar in Ebenhausen devoted to the fifth review on the future tasks of the Atlantic Alliance: between indifference and engagement - roles for the Atlantic Alliance within the evolving system of multi-institutional crisis management. This seminar had been organised by the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik; - on 12th March, I took part in a seminar entitled "Heeft Nederland nog een eigen buitenlandse politiek bij een verdergaande Europese integratie?" (Does the Netherlands still have its own foreign policy as European integration moves ahead?). This event was organised in Utrecht by the Studentenvereniging voor Internationale Betrekkingen; - on 15th March, at the invitation of the European Club of the Netherlands, I spoke in Maastricht on the role of Western European Union: including East or defencing West?; - on 17th March, I gave a talk in Utrecht on Visies op de West Europese Unie na Maastricht: heeft de NAVO de EG verslagen? (Prospects for Western European Union after Maastricht: has NATO defeated the EC?). This event had been organised by the Netherlands Association of Young Europeans for Security; - on 19th March, I took part in a seminar on the new European security policy architecture, organised in Bolkesjo (Norway) by the Norwegian Advisory Council for Arms Control and Disarmament. I spoke about the role of WEU; - on 23rd-26th March, Ambassador Holthoff, Deputy Secretary- General, was in Ebenhausen to monitor the work of the fourth European session for advanced defence studies during which he spoke on the role of WEU and the architecture of European security; - on 27th March, at the Secretariat-General, I gave a briefing on WEU to students from the City University in London; - on 30th March, in Brussels, I gave an address entitled "Security of the new Europe" at a conference organised by the Institut des Relations Internationales de Belgique; - from 6th-8th April, my colleague, Mr. P. Casardi, Director for Political Affairs, took part in a Eurogroup seminar in Lisbon entitled "Europe - a new era" at which he spoke on European security institutions: adaptation and development - a WEU perspective; - on 7th April in Brussels, Mr. A. Jacomet, Head of the Policy and Planning Section of the Political Affairs Division, gave a paper entitled "WEU after Maastricht" to a meeting at the Centre for Defence Studies of the Institut Royal Superieur de Defense; - from 10th-11th April in The Hague, I took part in the seventh round table conference on the subject "Preventing instability in post-cold war Europe: the institutional responses of NATO, WEU, the EC, the CSCE and the United Nations", which had been organised by the Netherlands Atlantic Commission. I spoke about WEU's potential role in crises outside Europe; - from 13th-15th April, I took part in a round table on the new Europe - from self-determination to integration, organised in Vienna by the Runder Tisch - Europa Association. I spoke about WEU's role post- Maastricht; - on 15th April, I spoke about WEU's activities and future direction post-Maastricht during a dinner-debate organised in Paris by the Institut Francais des Relations Internationales; - on 23rd April at Wilton Park, I took part in a seminar on planning for security in the changing international environment. I spoke about NATO and WEU: changing roles and responsibilities; - on 7th May at the Secretariat-General, Mr. A. Jacomet and Mr. C. Bruch outlined WEU's activities and future direction to a group of senior officials from the Swiss Defence Ministry; - from 7th-8th May at Casteau, I took part in SHAPEX 92, the theme of which was future European security - the changing scene; - on 8th May, at the invitation of SHAPE, I gave a paper on the development of WEU to chiefs of defence staff from Central Europe on the occasion of their visit to Casteau; - from 11th-13th May in Budapest, Ambassador Holthoff, Deputy Secretaty-General, and Mr. R. Tibbels, Committee Secretary, took part in the third seminar of the WEU Institute for Security Studies, which brought together diplomats and Defence Ministry representatives from WEU countries and several countries of Central Europe; - on 14th May, at the Secretariat-General, I outlined the future direction of WEU's work following Maastricht to a group of senior officials from the Federal Republic of Germany who were studying security policy and who were on an official visit to the United Kingdom; - from 15th-18th May, Ambassador Holthoff, Deputy Secretary- General, represented the Secretariat at the spring session of the North Atlantic Assembly in Banff (Canada); - on 18th May in Groningen, I spoke about WEU at the Congres van de Studentenvereniging voor Internationale Betrekkingen & Europa Dispuut, the theme of which was Europa, verbreding of verdieping? (Europe: widening or deepening?); - on 22nd May in Brussels, I spoke about WEU's activities post-Maastricht to leaders of the Comite d'Action pour l'Europe; - on 1st June, during a seminar on "la defense de la France et la securite de l'Europe", organised in Paris by the Forum du Futur, I spoke during the round table on "France and its alliances"; - from 11th-14th June, I took part in the ninth NATO workshop on political military decision-making at Vouliagmeni (Greece); - on 18th June in Brussels, I described the orientation of WEU's work to the Security and Disarmament Sub- Committee of the European Parliament in Brussels; - on 20th June in Strasbourg, I spoke about transatlantic relations at an international colloquy on 1992: Europe and North America, the dialogue of the new solidarities, organised by the Council of Europe. Over these three and a half months, I have continued to have regular contacts with the press, radio and television and with academic circles both in London and on the occasion of other engagements. These meetings have given me an opportunity to clarify the direction of WEU's work post-Maastricht. * * * At the request of the Permanent Council, the Secretariat prepares notes on how the international press has reacted to WEU's activities and the debates about its role. The notes for March, April and May 1992 are summarised below. (a) During the month of March, WEU was mentioned several times in connection with the publication of an internal Pentagon document, according to which the United States wanted to prevent the emergence of exclusively European security systems. When questioned on this subject, the WEU Secretary-General, Mr. W. van Eekelen, stated that if such a policy orientation were to be confirmed, it would be at odds with the alliance's recognition of the European identity. The question of setting up a peace-keeping force to be used by the CSCE was raised in Helsinki on 24th March. This initiative attracted the attention of analysts as regards the respective roles of NATO and WEU in carrying out such missions. Furthermore, WEU was mentioned in connection with the open skies treaty which authorises access to the air space from Vancouver to Vladivostock for flights to monitor military activities. Finally, there was some comment in the Belgian press about the transfer of the WEU Council to Brussels. (b) During the month of April, WEU was frequently mentioned along with NATO and the CSCE in articles assessing the rivalry and complementarity between the various European security institutions. The establishment of a peace-keeping force under WEU auspices began to attract comment in the European press. Some commentators questioned WEU's ability to be able to call on sufficient military manpower and a command and control system which would enable it to execute a peace-keeping operation. Other commentators, however, recalled WEU's role during the Gulf war and advocated its participation in the deployment of such a force. At the end of the month, a number of commentators mentioned the possibility of WEU countries becoming involved in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The issues at stake in the ratification of the Maastricht agreements drew increasing comment in the press, frequent references being made to the WEU declarations and the prospect of its enlargement. Several articles were devoted to the position of Turkey, the specific problems of neutral countries and relations between WEU and the countries of Central Europe. The establishment of the WEU satellite centre at Torrejon attracted much detailed comment in the Spanish press. (c) During the month of May, the plan to set up a Franco- German army corps drew much attention in the press. There continued to be several question marks about the future links between WEU's operational structures and the Franco-German corps. Some commentators recommended that it should be placed exclusively under the control of WEU, whereas others took the view that it should above all be made available to the alliance. In this connection, several articles underlined the danger of competition between the two organisations. The willingness signalled by Paris and Bonn to open up the corps to other member states of WEU prompted cautious reactions. The favourable reaction of Belgium and the interest shown by Luxembourg and Spain were duly reported. Commentators paid particular attention to the strengthening of WEU's operational cability, WEU intervention occasionally being mooted in connection with the conflict in Bosnia- Herzegovina. WEU's operational role figured prominently in the comments generated by the first keynote speech by Mr. M. Rifkind on 14th May in London in his new capacity as Secretary of State for Defence. Indirect references to WEU appeared in some articles in the French press concerning the future of the IEPG and the proposed European Armaments Agency. ------- For information, please contact: Yves ROBINS, Press Counsellor _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ | ASSEMBLY OF WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ | 43, avenue du President Wilson _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ | F-75775 Paris cedex 16 France _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ | Tel 331-47235432; Fax 331-47204543 _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ | E-mail: 100315.240@Compuserve.com