US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 50, December 16, 1991
Title: America and the Collapse of the Soviet Empire: What Has to
Be Done
Baker
Source: Secretary Baker
Description: Address at Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
Date: Dec 12, 199112/12/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Eurasia
Country: USSR (former), United States
Subject: Democratization, Regional/Civil Unrest,
Arms Control, Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
Forty-one years ago this week, while I was in my junior year here
at Princeton and reading the great authors, William Faulkner was
already accepting the Nobel Prize for Literature. In his acceptance
speech, he said the tragedy of the day--indeed, one might say the
challenge of the generation--was "a general and universal physical
fear" and that this fear was so great as to extinguish problems of
the spirit. As he put it, "There is only one question: When will I be
blown up?"
..........For my generation, Faulkner surely posed the right question.
After 1945, one strategic, political, and moral imperative
dominated American policy: to prevent war with the Soviet Union
while upholding Western values and interests.
.........."Better dead than 'Red,' " the saying went. But, in fact, there
was no choice at all. While nuclear war would have destroyed us
physically, Stalinism would have destroyed us spiritually.
Everything else, unfortunately, had to be secondary.
..........To cope with this imperative, George Kennan--an illustrious
son of this university who is with us today--articulated the logic
and concept of containment. Soviet power, to Kennan, was a "fluid
stream," one which moved unwaveringly toward the goal of filling
"every nook and cranny available to it in the basin of world power."
..........Inherently antagonistic to what the West stood for, Stalinism
had to be stopped. And the way to do this was through "patient but
firm and vigilant containment." Containment and a cold war, rather
than rollback and a hot war, might work, argued Kennan, because the
Soviet system was profoundly at variance with human nature and,
therefore, in the long-run, illegitimate. The aim--or more
realistically, the hope--was that containment would turn Soviet
power on itself and hasten its decay. Eventually, the Stalinist
threat would collapse of its own inner contradictions.
..........Four decades later, the simple fact of the matter is that
containment worked. The state that Lenin founded and Stalin built
held within itself the seeds of its demise. And when pressure from
the outside was maintained --and windows to the West were
created--the Soviet state broke up from the inside out.
..........History has now answered Faulkner's question: We will not be
blown up in a war with the Soviet Union. But that is not the end of
the story.
..........Our policy was never solely about preventing a hot war or
defeating Stalinism in the Cold War. What every President and
every Congress have sought is a different world, free from the
shadows of war, of political tyranny, of economic distress. These
were and are our ideals. And these ideals, seasoned by a healthy
sense of realism, must continue to drive our policy toward the
peoples who were our Cold War enemies but now seek our friendship
and support.
..........As a consequence of the Soviet collapse, we live in a new
world. We must take advantage of this New Russian Revolution, set
in motion with the defeat of the August coup, to cultivate
relationships--relationships that can benefit not only America but
the entire world. For unlike the Bolshevik Revolution, this
revolution of 1991 contains the seeds of a brighter future, an
enduring peace. It may even contain the potential for a flowering of
democracy in places so long inhospitable to it.
..........No one, not even those making this revolution, can know the
final outcome or structure or common entities to be defined by
these momentous events. These are being defined by the
participants even as I speak. They, not we or any other outsider,
will determine the outcome.
..........I am very conscious of the fact that events are moving
quickly, altering history's course minute-by-minute. This is, after
all, a revolution we are talking about. By its very nature, it will
move into unforeseen territory. Undoubtedly, questions and
problems will arise that no one can foresee today.
..........So, what I present to you today is not a fixed blueprint.
Rather, it is the principles and approach which together define an
agenda for action in a revolutionary, unpredictable situation--a
situation in which the West can play an important supporting role.
..........We are not the leaders of this revolution, but neither are we
mere bystanders. We are models for its leaders; we are partners in
its progress; and we can be beneficiaries of its success for decades
to come. Yet, the time for action is short.
..........Much as we will benefit if this revolution succeeds, we will
pay if it fails--just as we paid with the collapse of the promising
democratic revolution in Petrograd in February 1917. The pace of
change is unrelenting; the transformation, radical. History is giving
no one a breathing space.
..........So, today, I would like to tell you what's at stake--for my
generation and for future generations--in the collapse of the Soviet
empire. And then, I would like to suggest to you what needs to be
done:
-- What needs to be done so that the weapons of the Cold War
do not become instruments of unintended and incalculable violence;
-- What needs to be done to cultivate democratic values and
tolerance in a region that is undergoing its own enlightenment; and
-- What needs to be done to promote an economy where
individual initiative creates its own reward and hope for a better
future across the former Soviet Union.
Where We Have Been and Where We Are
Almost 3 years ago, President Bush foresaw the new opportunities
in US-Soviet relations when he said it was time to move beyond
containment. His charge to me was clear: Engage with the Soviets
and explore whether the promise of perestroika and new thinking
could create a new reality for sustained US-Soviet cooperation and
the basis for a new era internationally. In the fall of 1989, I called
this process the search for points of mutual advantage.
..........Looking back, I think it's fair to say that this search proved
successful beyond anyone's expectations. Indeed, so successful that
just a year later, in October 1990, I was able to say that the points
of mutual advantage had become pathways of cooperation. In a very
real sense, we and the Soviets had become partners, no longer
competitors across the globe:
-- Partners in facilitating the unification of Germany in
peace and freedom;
-- Partners in seeing Central and Eastern Europe peacefully
liberated from communism's stranglehold;
-- Partners in negotiating radical reductions in conventional
and nuclear weapons;
-- Partners in ending regional conflicts from Central
America to Southern Africa to Cambodia;
-- Partners in reversing Iraqi aggression and, subsequently,
in promoting Arab-Israeli peace; [and]
-- Partners, in short, in ending the Cold War--the dangerous,
but ultimately necessary, confrontation that defined and so badly
distorted international life for my generation.
..........These achievements were possible primarily because of one
man: Mikhail Gorbachev. The transformations we are dealing with
now would not have begun were it not for him. His place in history
is secure, for he helped end the Cold War peacefully. And, for that,
the world is grateful and respectful. The same is true of his
partner, Eduard Shevardnadze. Together new realities have been
created by the new thinking in Soviet foreign and defense policy.
But these policies were, themselves, the product of a parallel, but
potentially far more important, change--the reforms they and other
reformers began that transformed the Soviet Union itself.
..........Whatever the original intentions of perestroika and glasnost,
by early August of this year, the all-powerful Stalinist state was
well on its way to dissolution. A new civil society was breaking
out across the Soviet Union. Democracy was replacing communism;
power was moving from the center to the republics; and the old
centrally planned economy was in the throes of collapse.
..........Then a small group of willful men--the embodiment of the
Stalinist past and its institutions--sought to reverse this
revolution by arresting President Gorbachev and summoning the
tanks. But the Russian people and their courageous leader, Boris
Yeltsin, surmounted those tanks with the will of the people.
..........By their heroic triumph, the Soviet internal revolution, in the
space of 3 days, telescoped history years forward. As Alexander
Yakovlev said to me on the day the coup failed, the coup plotters
sought to kill the revolution, but they succeeded only in
accelerating it. Perestroika, originally initiated for the purpose of
humanizing and revitalizing Marxism-Leninism, ironically ended up
producing its resounding defeat instead.
..........For the failed coup not only sounded the death knell of the
Communist Party; those 3 days shook the Soviet world to its
foundations. And in the 3 months that followed, the foundation
itself has been uprooted. In its wake, the map and politics of
Eurasia are being changed beyond recognition, and with them the
assumptions that have guided American policy since World War II.
What's at Stake
The dramatic collapse of communism in Moscow and the unraveling
of the centralized Soviet state confront the West with great
opportunities as well as ominous dangers. Popularly elected
leaders now run large and strategically important republics,
including Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan. They look to America and
the West for guidance and help in launching genuine, far-reaching
political and economic reform. If they can succeed, the centuries-
old menace posed to the West, first by czarist autocracy and then by
Soviet totalitarianism, will have been permanently altered.
..........The opportunities are historic.
-- We have the chance to anchor Russia, Ukraine, and other
republics firmly in the Euro-Atlantic community and democratic
commonwealth of nations;
-- We have the chance to bring democracy to lands that have
little knowledge of it, an achievement that can transcend centuries
of history; [and]
-- We have the chance to help harness the rich human and
material resources of those vast lands to the cause of freedom
instead of totalitarianism, thereby immeasurably enhancing the
security, prosperity, and freedom of America and the world.
......... .Yet, the dangers are equal in scale to the opportunities.
Economically, the old Soviet system has collapsed,
multiplying every day the threats these reformers face--from
social dislocation to political fragmentation to ethnic violence.
Reconstructing economies that have been devastated by central
planning is even more difficult than reconstructing from the
devastation of war.
Politically, the dangers of protracted anarchy and chaos are
obvious. Great empires rarely go quietly into extinction. No one can
dismiss the possibility that darker political forces lurk in the
wings, representing the remnants of Stalinism or the birth of
nationalist extremism or even fascism, ready to exploit the
frustrations of a proud but exhausted people in their hour of
despair.
Strategically, both of these alternatives--anarchy or
reaction--could become threats to the West's vital interests when
they shake a land that is still home to nearly 30,000 nuclear
weapons and the most powerful arsenal of conventional weaponry
ever amassed in Europe.
What Has To Be Done
Taken together, these dangers serve as a call to action for America
and the West. This historic watershed--the collapse of communist
power in Bolshevism's birthplace--marks the challenge history has
dealt us: to see the end of the Soviet empire turned into a beginning
for democracy and economic freedom in Russia and Ukraine, in
Kazakhstan and Belarus, in Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and elsewhere
across the former Soviet empire.
..........Here is what the West must do.
..........-- As we organized an alliance against Stalinism during the
Cold War, today, America can mobilize a coalition in support of
freedom.
..........-- Together with our NATO allies, Japan, South Korea, the
other OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development] states, our Gulf coalition partners, and international
institutions, we must pursue a diplomacy of collective engagement.
..........-- Together with the new democrats in the former USSR, we
can help create pathways of hope so that the new Russian revolution
can fulfill the promise of the next generation.
..........-- We, alone, cannot determine whether these new democrats
will succeed. Their success lies in their hands, in the hard choices
they make.
..........But history will count our efforts a success if we help the
democrats hold open opportunities to determine a better future.
This should be a major goal of the West: to help create a climate in
which progress is possible--indeed, to help promote a process
where even limited successes build hope and the authority of
democrats over time.
..........To multiply the value of our efforts, the international
coalition must divide its labors. The wreckage of communism is too
large for any one nation to go it alone or to try and do everything.
Working in concert, we must make use of the comparative
advantages each of us holds.
..........For example, the United States could put to work the
scientists at Los Alamos and Livermore who designed the weapons
of the Cold War to help the Soviets destroy their weapons of mass
destruction now. America--including state governments and
private businesses in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California--
along with Japan and South Korea could help develop the resource-
rich Soviet Far East. The Nordic countries could focus on the
Baltics as well as St. Petersburg. And the IMF [International
Monetary Fund] and World Bank could expand dramatically their
engagement with reform-minded republics and any common entity
to support comprehensive economic reform.
To crystallize this coalition, the President proposes that we
begin by holding a coordinating conference to better divide our labor
and responsibilities to help meet immediate and drastically
increasing Soviet humanitarian needs. The United States will invite
the advanced industrial democracies, the Central and East European
states, the members of the Gulf war coalition, and the international
financial institutions to join us in Washington in early January to
discuss how best to meet ongoing humanitarian needs over the
course of the next year.
..........This conference should work toward helping the Soviet
peoples help themselves to get through the winter and to ensure
that together we take the right steps this winter, spring, and
summer to ensure a better situation next winter. Our work should
focus on critical short-term needs: food, medicine, fuel, shelter. In
the meantime, the United States will continue its ambitious food
and medical assistance program that the President announced a year
ago today.
..........But our collective engagement must extend beyond immediate
humanitarian needs and should be organized around three tasks.
First and foremost, we must help the Soviets destroy and
control the military remnants of the Cold War.
Second, we must help our former adversaries understand the
ways of democracy to build political legitimacy out of the wreckage
of totalitarianism.
Third, we must help free market forces stimulate economic
stabilization and recovery in the lands of the former Soviet Union.
..........Obviously, one of the most vexing questions we face is: Who
is the authority or authorities with whom we can deal? In a
revolution where political authority has diffused and fractured, the
possible interlocutors seem endless. In the face of such
uncertainty, the West should stick to fundamentals and support
those who put into practice our principles and values.
..........This means we will work with those republics and any
common entity which commit to responsible security policies,
democratic political practices, and free market economics.
Fortunately, new leaders are emerging who are committed to these
principles.
..........The three tasks I have outlined represent those areas where
our principles matter most. They also represent the
responsibilities members of the Euro-Atlantic community already
have assumed. By accepting these responsibilities, new political
entities in the former Soviet Union can join in the democratic
commonwealth of nations, gain political acceptance, and justify our
economic support.
..........Clearly, some--Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and
Kyrgyzstan --already are showing their intention to accept the
responsibilities of the democratic community of nations. They
understand that their success depends, above all, on their
commitment to democracy and economic liberty.
..........Clearly, other governments--for example, Georgia--are
showing already that communism can be replaced by governments
that are authoritarian--and equally undeserving of our acceptance
or support.
..........Let me turn now to discuss how these three tasks can serve as
an agenda for action.
Responsible Security
The Cold War left tens of thousands of weapons littering the Soviet
Union, and it created a massive military industrial complex. We
must work with Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, the other
republics, and any common entity to help them pursue responsible
security policies. And that means first and foremost destroying and
controlling the most dangerous vestiges of the Cold War: weapons
of mass destruction.
..........One, we do not want to see new nuclear weapons states
emerge as a result of the transformation of the Soviet Union. Of
course, we want to see the START [Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty] Treaty ratified and implemented. But we also want to see
Soviet nuclear weapons remain under safe, responsible, and reliable
control with a single unified authority. The precise nature of that
authority is for Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and any
common entity to determine. A single authority could, of course, be
based on collective decision-making on the use of nuclear weapons.
We are, however, opposed to the proliferation of any additional
independent command authority or control over nuclear weapons.
..........For those republics who seek complete independence, we
expect them to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as non-
nuclear weapons states, to agree to full-scope IAEA [International
Atomic Energy Agency] safeguards, and to implement effective
export controls on nuclear materials and related technologies. As
long as any such independent states retain nuclear weapons on their
territory, those states should take part in unified command
arrangements that exclude the possibility of independent control.
In this connection, we strongly welcome Ukraine's determination to
become nuclear-free by eliminating all nuclear weapons from its
soil and its commitment, pending such elimination, to remain part
of a single, unified command authority.
At the President's direction, we have begun exchanges
between our experts on nuclear weapons safety, security, and
dismantlement and their Soviet counterparts. This process has
already begun, and we will accelerate it in the coming weeks. This
is just one element of a larger effort to help enhance the safety and
security of Soviet nuclear weapons and rapidly eliminate large
numbers of them in a safe and environmentally sound manner.
I am pleased to announce that the Administration is prepared
to draw upon the $400 million appropriated by Congress to assist in
the destruction of Soviet weapons of mass destruction.
..........If during the Cold War, we spent trillions of dollars on
missiles and bombers to destroy Soviet nuclear weapons in time of
war, surely now we can spend just millions of dollars to actually
destroy and help control those same nuclear weapons in time of
peace. Nothing could be more in the national security interest of
the United States.
..........That's neither charity nor aid; that's an investment in a secure
future for every American. Surely, the American people will be
willing to spend some of our defense budget at a cost of less than
$2 per person in order to begin destroying nuclear weapons aimed at
us.
..........Two, we want to see that proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and destabilizing conventional weaponry does not
spread beyond the borders of the former USSR. While the nightmare
of Orwell's 1984 is past, the terror of 1994 is that a Saddam
Hussein or Muammar Qadhafi will use the black market to buy
weapons from rogue military units or blueprints from unemployed
engineers. We want to ensure that the creative talents of Soviet
scientists and engineers are not diverted to dangerous military
programs elsewhere in the world. And we expect republics and any
common entity to establish strict export control policies and to put
in place strict internal mechanisms capable of implementing those
policies effectively.
The Administration will send a team of experts to brief
republic leaders on what the international community expects in
this area. We will work with the other members of the Nuclear
Suppliers Group, the Australia Group, and the Missile Technology
Control Regime to organize seminars and provide technical
expertise to the republics and any common entity. We should
promote programs in which Soviet scientists and engineers,
possibly working with Western counterparts, can turn their talents
to pressing global problems rather than the creation of new threats.
..........Three, "internal" arms races between former Soviet republics
represent a potentially grave danger to European security. Already,
we are seeing signs that some republican governments--notably
Azerbaijan--are arming themselves for war against other republics.
Those who pursue these misguided and anachronistic policies should
know they will receive neither acceptance nor support from the
West. In this regard, we are encouraged by efforts of Ukraine and
Russia to establish a productive and non-threatening relationship.
We expect to see the CFE [Conventional Armed Forces in
Europe] Treaty implemented by relevant authorities. And we will
propose to broaden the CFE 1A negotiations so relevant republics
will fall under its manpower provisions. Next week in Brussels, I
will discuss with our NATO allies how we might reach out to those
republics and any common entity which pursue responsible security
policies, democratic political practices, and free market economics.
By reaching out through NATO, we can reassure republics politically
and dampen their desires to engage in destabilizing arms
competitions with one another.
..........Four, we want to see the demilitarization of the Soviet
economy and the transition to democratic civil-military relations,
free markets, and a balance between social needs and reasonable
and responsible security. Obviously, no one expects total
disarmament, but the fact is that the Stalinist state was a
military-industrial complex which robbed the people to benefit
itself. That complex will continue to strangle democracy and any
hope for economic recovery as long as it commands the bulk of
Soviet resources.
Next Thursday, I will meet with NATO foreign ministers, and
on the following day, together, we will meet with our eastern
counterparts in the first North Atlantic Cooperation Council
meeting. We have proposed that NATO create a defense conversion
working group to facilitate the full range of political, economic,
and social challenges associated with this undertaking. This will
require that we draw upon all the resources at our disposal,
including the participation of multilateral organizations.
Political Legitimacy
The most striking characteristic of the post-coup environment has
been the dramatic shift of power from the center to the republics.
This crisis of legitimacy of the Soviet empire has taken the form of
an anti-communist revolution. But it is being driven by a parallel
revolution of at least equal strength: an anti-imperialist
revolution.
..........Together, the crisis of political legitimacy, the rebirth of
nationalism, and economic collapse are driving Soviet dissolution.
The result has been the severe undermining of central authority and
the devolution of power to the republics, most of which have
declared independence and created new authorities with new
legitimacy. Now they must determine what that independence
means in practice, for both their own peoples as well as for future
inter-republic relations.
..........In the process, newly independent republics will find that
they, too, cannot escape the problems of legitimacy and
nationalism. We are reasonably hopeful that the republics will
follow the democratic path and formulate a new legitimacy from
the ground up. But while they may be better equipped to deal with
these issues than a weakened center, the republics are clearly not
immune to the forces of fragmentation. Even at the republic level,
political authority divorced from the consent of the governed is
being challenged. Likewise, ethnic minorities inside republics are
demanding that their rights be accommodated.
..........Unless republic governments respond by complementing their
independence with democracy and the equal treatment of persons
belonging to minorities, they will soon find themselves suffering
the very same crises of legitimacy, cohesion, and effectiveness
that has caused the centrifugal devolution of power.
..........Without legitimacy, there will never be stability. Without
stability, Western security will never be assured. As I noted when I
laid out our five principles on September 4th, we will welcome into
the community of democratic nations those new political entities
who believe in democratic values and follow democratic practices;
who safeguard human rights, including equal treatment of
minorities; who respect borders and commit to changes only through
peaceful and consensual means; and who will adhere to
international obligations and to the norms and practices of the
Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris. But we will isolate
those who cloak Stalinism or fascism in a facade of nationalist or
liberal or democratic rhetoric.
..........Over a year ago, I called for a broad-based "democratic
dialogue" with all levels of Soviet society. And, to that end, we
have expanded our contacts and relations with republics and local
authorities. Many of these new leaders want to follow us to build
democracy and free markets. To help them, in addition, we propose:
-- To discuss with our CSCE [Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe] colleagues possible ways to integrate into
CSCE those republics and any common entity which subscribe to and
implement our five principles;
-- To send our CSCE Ambassador to visit republics to discuss
how CSCE norms can be put into practice; and
-- To have USIA [US Information Agency] expand its exchange
programs to help states and localities in the United States promote
expanded contacts. A large component of this might include a public
policy training program for republic and local officials.
Economic Recovery
While we work with the Russians, Ukrainians, Kazakhs, and others
to destroy weapons and cultivate democracy, the Russian winter--
just as in 1812, 1917, and 1941--may again influence history's
course. As the economy collapses with no bottom in sight, the
onset of cold weather is exacerbating the situation and creating
acute food, medicine, and energy shortages.
..........To meet these rapidly expanding needs, the United States has
already this year shipped 18 millions tons of food, the largest by
far of any Western country. We've granted $4 billion in CCC
[Commodity Credit Corporation] food and grain credits this year--
$2.3 billion since the coup.
..........Through the President's Emergency Medical Initiative, we have
shipped through Project Hope close to $20 million in medical
supplies. We plan to double this amount over the next 18 months.
These supplies--all donated by American firms and average
citizens--have reached the Soviet peoples where they need them
most: in the Urals and the Aral Sea region of Kazakhstan and
Uzbekistan and the Chernobyl region of Ukraine; and in Armenia,
Moscow, and soon Belarus. Over $8 million of these medical
supplies have gone to the Baltic countries, and with their
independence, the President has created a new and separate program
for them.
To facilitate meeting humanitarian needs, we will deliver or
expend the $165 million in Department of Agriculture grant funds to
meet food shortages this winter, and we will draw upon the $100
million Congress has just authorized to transport humanitarian
assistance.
We are also acting now to send food stocks left over from
Desert Storm to regions in critical need--Armenia, the industrial
cities of the Urals, Moscow, and St. Petersburg. The first shipments
will be delivered by US C-5 military aircraft to St. Petersburg and
Moscow next week.
..........Beyond the humanitarian problems, we know that, at least
over the near term, democracy and free markets are unlikely to
succeed everywhere across the lands of the Soviet Union as we
knew it. There are likely to be "islands" of democracy and free
markets that have to stand as bulwarks against other "islands" of
chaos or authoritarianism, even fascism. In this environment, the
democrats in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and elsewhere
must be able to offer pathways of hope to a better future.
..........We can help them define that path. For they will turn to us--
America and Americans--as inspirations for the future, as sources
of advice, and as partners in their work. And we can engage with
our friends and allies by starting with human capital: people.
..........In this connection, the best way the West can help is to place
Western experts on the ground and to bring Russians, Ukrainians,
Kazakhs, and others here for training. The President has already
approved an effort to put Americans on the ground to solve long-
term food distribution problems; several US firms have offered
their executives and will cover their costs to assist this effort.
..........While much of this effort will have to be done through the
private sector, assisted by organizations like the Citizens'
Democracy Corps, the Administration is proposing several steps to
augment our ongoing USIA efforts and expand the "human" factor:
-- We will work with the Congress to support an expanded
Peace Corps program in at least four republics. I would like to see
at least 250 Peace Corps volunteers on the ground by next winter.
-- We will expand Commerce's SABIT Business Training
Program to accommodate 150 Soviet interns in the coming year.
-- We will work with numerous voluntary organizations to
look into ways they might expand their presence.
..........Clearly, the bulk of responsibility must lie with republic
leaders who have already assumed primary control over economic
policy and resources. They must make the hard choices necessary
for economic recovery. And the choices they make must include
free trade between republics. It would truly be a tragedy if [the]
Stalinist autarky that isolated the Soviet economy were replaced by
republican autarky that will isolate and impoverish individual
republics. Yet where comprehensive reforms are undertaken, we
will work with other Western governments to form public-private
partnerships that can help the democrats create opportunities for a
better future.
..........For the Administration's part, we intend to be a catalyst for
this partnership. We will work with the business community to
help bring American business into Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan,
Armenia, and other reforming republics. As part of this
commitment, we plan to take the following immediate steps.
-- As the President has announced, Deputy Secretary of State
Lawrence Eagleburger will be the US Government coordinator for our
assistance efforts. With the President's full trust and authority,
Deputy Secretary Eagleburger will be the champion of our
assistance efforts.
-- We intend to propose authorizing legislation to the
Congress on its return to facilitate our efforts to provide
assistance and technical cooperation. A major aim of this
legislation will be to promote trade, business, and investment
development by American companies in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan,
and other republics. In addition, the Administration will conduct a
thorough review of barriers to American business operating there to
make it easier for American businesses to join this effort.
-- We will put together in consultation with Congress a
$100-million technical assistance program for the coming calendar
year. Again, a major aim of this program will be to use government
funds to catalyze private sector involvement. This money will, of
course, not come from domestic accounts but from assistance to
other foreign nations. Given the gravity of the situation, there is no
other choice.
-- The President will ask the heads of the Trade and
Development Program, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation,
and the Export-Import Bank to examine the possibility of focusing
some of their efforts on facilitating the work of American business
in the food distribution, energy, and housing sectors. These sectors
are likely to be critical to the success of democracy and free
markets, and while we help the Soviets, we would be supporting
American business, too. The President will also ask them to see
what they can do to facilitate the involvement of American
business in defense conversion efforts.
..........-- But these bilateral efforts must be complemented by the
work of the international community. Through our G-7 initiative,
we're forging a G-7 [Group of 7] debt deferral arrangement to permit
continued flows of capital. To support the international
community's involvement in support of democracy and free markets,
we will support accelerated IMF and World Bank engagement to put
together credible economic plans for those republics which follow
the security and political responsibilities we have identified.
History's Precipice
Let me close by saying this: For the third time this century, we
have ended a war--this time a cold one--between the Great Powers.
After World War I, President Wilson--a president of this university
and the inspiration for its School of International and Public
Affairs--struggled in vain to call America to its historical mission.
His cause was right, and his cause was just. And, above all, his
cause was in the best interests of this country. But he was
defeated; isolationism returned, and fascism and war followed.
After World War II, our leaders--the Kennans of that generation--
learned from the defeat of Wilson's vision. Surveying the wreckage
made possible in part by America's isolationism of the 1920s and
1930s, they understood America had to stay engaged
internationally. In a bipartisan way, they committed themselves to
turn the war into an enduring peace.
..........Their work is plain to see, today, for its legacy is still with
us: a democratic Europe and a democratic Japan, both prosperous
and peace-loving. Now, their vision has been realized: We have
skirted Faulkner's question and avoided nuclear war. And we have
seen the demise of Stalinism.
..........Today, after the Cold War, we again stand at history's
precipice. If, during the Cold War, we faced each other as two
scorpions in a bottle, now the Western nations and the former
Soviet republics stand as awkward climbers on a steep mountain.
Held together by a common rope, a fall toward fascism or anarchy in
the former Soviet Union will pull the West down, too. Yet, equally
as important, a strong and steady pull by the West now can help
them to gain their footing so that they, too, can climb above to
enduring democracy and freedom. Surely we must strengthen the
rope, not sever it.
..........From Odessa on the Black Sea to Vladivostok on the Pacific,
the people are tired and hungry, disoriented and confused. These
people must be able to see that democrats and reformers can
deliver the goods, that there is some cause for hope, some sign that
life will get better. For they are coming to grips with the fact that
the ideas that have ruled their lives for 70 years--the ill-conceived
ideas of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin--are not ideas at all but lies. Now
these people who have lived under the lie must learn what it is like
to live under freedom.
..........This will be hard work. It will be painful. And it may seem
easy for them to slip from their commitment to freedom, to turn to
the simplistic solutions of a new demagogue or dictator. And if
they do, their problems will again manifestly become our concerns-
-as the turn of peoples toward fascism in the 1930s became a
threat to our existence.
..........Ladies and gentlemen, what this means for America is that we
face a simple choice: to follow our fears and turn inward, ignoring
the opportunities presented by the collapse of the Soviet Empire, or
to answer the summons of history and lead toward a better future
for all.
..........When Faulkner spoke 41 years ago, he did not succumb to the
paralyzing fear raised by the specter of nuclear armageddon.
Instead, he argued that the basest of all things is to be afraid, that
we must conquer our fear, that man would not merely endure but
prevail.
..........I believe that. I believe that having prevailed over the twin
fears of nuclear war and Stalinism, we can prevail over the tyranny
of the spirit that might threaten reform and democracy and bring
darkness to our lives as well. We can prevail over the fearful
isolationism that threatens to return us to the failures of the
1920s and 1930s. We can prevail over political paralysis to forge a
bipartisan consensus about what has to be done, and then, united at
home, we can join with our allies to form a new coalition: a
coalition for a diplomacy of collective engagement; a coalition to
create pathways of hope; a coalition to make of the end of the Cold
War a new beginning for all the nations of the world. History and
the American people expect no less of us. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 50, December 16, 1991
Title: Political Killings In Burkina Faso
Tutwiler
Source: Statement by Department Spokesman Margaret
Tutwiler
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Dec 11, 199112/11/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Subsaharan Africa
Country: Burkina Faso
Subject: Regional/Civil Unrest
[TEXT]
The United States deplores the murder on Monday, December 9, of
the prominent Burkina Faso politician Oumarou Clement Ouedraogo,
Secretary General of the Workers' Party, and the apparent attempted
assassination of Moctar Tall, Secretary General for External
Relations in the Group of Revolutionary Democrats. In the context
of ongoing efforts to encourage democracy in Burkina Faso, these
tragic events suggest a pattern of intimidation which could, if not
checked, undermine the transition from a military regime to
democratic institutions. The United States expects the Government
of Burkina Faso to undertake a full investigation of both tragic
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 50, December 16, 1991
Title: UN Officials Honored for Role In Release of Hostages
Bush, de Cuellar
Source: President Bush, UN Secretary General Perez de
Cuellar
Description: Remarks on presenting Medal of Freedom to the Assistant
Secretary General and the Presidential Award for Exceptional
Service to the Secretary General, Washington, DC
Date: Dec 12, 199112/12/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Subject: Terrorism
[TEXT]
President Bush: We are so happy--Barbara and I are so happy to be
here for this very special pre-Christmas family occasion at the
White House. The Vice President is here, and I salute him. Members
of our Cabinet: Secretary of State [Baker]; Secretary [of Commerce
Robert] Mosbacher; Secretary of Labor [Lynn Martin]; Tom Pickering,
our able ambassador at the United Nations. We all were just dying
to come.
..........We're joined also by two gentlemen who represent the highest
in humanitarian ideals. And I'm talking, of course, about Javier
Perez de Cuellar, the Secretary General of the United Nations and
the Assistant Secretary General, Giani [Giandomenico] Picco, who is
right here. Let me also welcome to the White House the friends and
the families of five special men returned to freedom. Finally, to
Thomas Sutherland, Alann Steen, Jesse Turner, Joseph Cicippio, and
Terry Anderson, let me simply say, on
behalf of our entire country, welcome home.
..........All over America, people waited for the day your long ordeal
would end. All over America, we share your joy, and we thank God
that you are free.
..........Nothing says it better than, I think, the sign in Norristown,
Pennsylvania, in Thomas Cicippio's front yard. For 5 long years,
that sign served as a constant reminder, with the name of each
hostage and a number counting each cruel day of captivity. And
then, one by one, the numbers gave way to a sign marked "Freed."
Finally, just 9 days ago, came the moment the Cicippio family
prayed for. And over Joseph's name, they nailed not another number
but a sign that read: "Free at last." And that said a lot for all of us.
..........All of you have survived an act of unspeakable, uncivilized
cruelty. Hostage-taking is hell on a human scale, not just for the
innocents held captive, but for the families--for the families that
they left behind. No power on earth can give back the years that
you've lost. Yet, no one can take from you the strength of the spirit
that sustained you.
..........The world is now learning the horrors that you endured. But
we're learning as well--and this is the good news--the story of
your survival, the miracle that you fashioned from the hope your
captors could not take away.
..........We know now you used the language of the deaf to
communicate from cell to cell to speak to one another in silence;
how you managed to learn from one another, laugh with one another,
help each other sustain a stubborn dignity. And you demonstrated
each day in captivity a defiant faith. You believed in your country
and your families and your colleagues and yourselves. You knew
that one day you would go free.
..........Your triumph shines new light on a simple truth: The days and
years apart burn away the trivial things we once thought had value
to reveal what truly matters in life--family, faith, hope, and love.
And seeing freedom through your eyes, even for a moment, frees us
from the petty concerns that so often hold us hostage and distract
us from life's larger joys, larger meaning.
..........The families here, today, are whole again. But for others, the
ordeal is not over--for two German citizens and their families, for
the families of two courageous Americans whose duty sent them to
Lebanon and who died at the hands of their captors. In the name of
the civilized values that we hold dear, I call on those responsible
for these crimes, free Heinrich Struebig and Thomas Kemptner and
return the remains of Rich Higgins and William Buckley and let the
families of these innocent men find peace.
..........The truth is clear. Hostage-taking has failed. From the
beginning in Tehran in 1979, hostage-takers sought to exploit our
system's reverence for the individual. They sought to exploit that
as a weakness. Your captors believed hostage-taking would tie our
hands, and they were wrong. We remained determined to defend
American interests in international principles in the Middle East.
Through Desert Shield and Desert Storm we stood fast against
aggression, and we showed the world that terrorism, in all its
forms, can't succeed. In the end, the hostage-takers did more
damage to their cause than they did to America's resolve, certainly
than they did to your resolve. In the end, each hostage-taking, each
heartless act against innocence announced to the world the
inhumanity of the captors.
..........Tom Sutherland and Terry Anderson, you were right when you
said no to negotiating with hostage-takers. This Administration
has followed a no-negotiation policy since the beginning.
Bargaining serves only to make a currency of human lives and leads
to more of the evil that it seeks to end. I am convinced that this
course remains the world's best hope that no more innocent men and
women will meet your fate; that no family will ever again be forced
to endure your years in agony.
..........This policy was not without risk. Sticking with it wasn't
easy, especially for a country that cares so deeply about every
American held against his will-- that we've learned that it works.
It helped end the agony, and I like to feel that it helped bring you
home.
..........Yes, America did its part. Many men and women in this
country and around the world, most of whom you'll never meet,
worked to secure your freedom. And today, we want to go on. So
many of the family members sitting behind you all and aside of you
did their part, and, boy, did they do it well. And it wasn't just
spouses, it was sisters and brothers and plenty of others I might
single out here.
..........But there are others as well. And today we want to recognize
the selfless efforts of one man who, at great personal risk, helped
bring you to freedom. I might say, parenthetically, that one of the
first words I heard from Terry Anderson was the suggestion that we
honor the man we're about to honor and the other one as well.
..........In his years as Special Envoy at the United Nations, Assistant
Secretary General Giani Picco has sought always to serve peace and
to resolve conflict. Today for his efforts in winning the freedom of
our hostages, we honor Mr. Picco with the Presidential Award for
Exceptional Service.
..........Would you come up here, please, sir? Very proud to have you
here. I will ask the major to read the citation please. Please be
seated.
[The Citation:]
"The United States honors Mr. Picco in recognition of his
distinguished role in facilitating the release of hostages held in
Lebanon. His skillful diplomacy with Middle Eastern governments
and officials and representatives of the hostage holders has
resulted in freedom for many individuals held in the region outside
the due process of law, including six Americans.
..........His personal courage in the face of danger and his dedication
to the mission represent the best tradition of international civil
service."
..........We also honor the man who made your release his personal
responsibility, a man whose life work in service to humanitarian
ideals has won him honor the world over--Javier Perez de Cuellar.
..........Before asking the major to read the citation let me just say
this: He made peace among all nations his mission. He's taken the
principles of the UN Charter as a personal code.
..........He was present at the creation as a delegate to the first
General Assembly of the United Nations back in 1946. And we first
met in 1971 when each of us received the singular honor of serving
our countries as Permanent Representative to the United Nations.
..........My distinguished colleague went on to represent Peru in the
Security Council, and then, of course, as we all know, for the past
10 years he has served the cause of world peace as Secretary
General.
..........His tenure has marked the rebirth --literally--the rebirth of
the United Nations [and] its emergence as a force for peace.
Cooperation now replaces Cold War conflict. Across the globe, the
United Nations now leads the international effort to resolve
conflicts that have caused so much suffering. Peace-keeping
missions have proliferated. Eleven are underway right now, five
begun in the past year alone.
..........And, Mr. Secretary General, I am personally grateful to you for
your strong stand against Iraq's assault on Kuwait [and] your
tireless work to sustain the coalition. In large part because of your
leadership, the United Nations now stands closer to its founding
ideal than at any time in history.
..........Today, then, we honor this architect of peace, a man we are
all proud to call friend--that Barbara and I especially treasure the
friendship for the Perez de Cuellars. Mr. Secretary General, with
great pride, I now present to you the highest civilian honor this
country can bestow, the Medal of Freedom. I will ask the major to
read the citation.
[The Citation:]
"Javier Perez de Cuellar. For 10 years of exceptionally
distinguished service as Secretary General of the United Nations,
Javier Perez de Cuellar presided over the rebirth of that institution.
With wisdom, vision, diplomacy and skill, he forged a UN where
cooperation in reaching common goals is replacing rhetoric and
division."
..........His tireless dedication to conflict resolution, and economic
and social concerns has contributed to a better world and ensured a
strengthened UN more capable than ever of fulfilling its Charter.
..........His service has been marked by a singular devotion to
humanitarian interests, including the life, security and safety of
individual people throughout the world.
..........The United States honors a servant of humankind who has
advanced the cause of freedom and hope.
Congratulations.
..........Secretary General de Cuellar: Mr. President, Mrs. Bush,
Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen: It is a tremendous honor for me
to receive the Medal of Freedom, an award that I shall value all the
more highly because it has been given to me by my old and very dear
friend, President Bush.
..........In my view, it is really more appropriate that this tribute
should be paid to the United Nations as a whole rather than to me
personally. Today, as never before, the organization is being called
upon to fulfill the responsibility entrusted to it by its founding
fathers nearly half a century ago. The circumstances in the
international arena that have made it possible for the United
Nations to carry out this role are deeply gratifying. And much
credit is due to President Bush himself, who has a profound
understanding of the organization and its goals.
..........Mr. President, it gives me special pleasure to attend this
ceremony after having been greeted by a group of brave and
wonderful men who, at this moment, understand more fully than we
possibly can the true meaning of freedom. That these former
American hostages have, at long last, been reunited with their loved
ones and especially during this holiday season makes the efforts
that I and my efficient and loyal assistant, Mr. Giandomenico Picco,
have undertaken these many months all the more worthwhile.
..........At the same time, Mr. President, I cannot but mention with
sorrow an American who was kidnapped while serving the United
Nations--namely, Colonel William R. Higgins--who was, at the time
of his abduction, chief of a peace-keeping observer group in South
Lebanon. It is tragic that the life of this innocent man was lost. I
am doing everything possible to see to it that his body is returned
promptly to his family.
..........As I prepare to leave office, I would like, once again, to thank
President Bush for the cooperation and support he has extended to
me as Secretary General and to the United Nations more widely,
particularly, in helping to ensure that the United Nations may fulfill
the enormous expectations that today exist for greater peace,
stability, and respect, for human rights to all the world. Thank you,
Mr. President. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 50, December 16, 1991
Title: Greek Prime Minister Mitsotakis' Visit to Washington, DC
Bush
Source: President Bush, Prime Minister Constantinos
Mitsotakis
Description: Departure Ceremony, Washington, DC
Date: Dec 12, 199112/12/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Europe
Country: Greece, Cyprus, Yugoslavia (former)
Subject: Democratization, EC
[TEXT]
President Bush: Mr. Prime Minister and distinguished members of
the Greek Government, 5 months ago, I visited Athens--the first
visit by an American President to Greece in more than a generation.
Today, in welcoming Prime Minister Mitsotakis to the White House,
our two countries reaffirm the value of close contact to address
common concern.
..........In the past 3 years, we've witnessed a world transformed, and
your continent has been right at the center of change. America sees
Greece as a partner in meeting many of the challenges that cross
borders and threaten the peace--terrorism, international drug
trade, ethnic conflict.
..........In the Balkans, in the new Europe, in Cyprus, Greece remains a
factor for stability, a champion of human rights --a partner in the
quest to forge a new world order--peaceful, prosperous, and free.
..........The United States continues to be as concerned as we have
been in the past with Greece's security and the sanctity of its
borders. We continue to help Greece strengthen its defenses. We
support the progress your nation has made toward economic reform,
liberalizing trade and investment.
..........Opening Greek markets to investment from the United States
and other nations will mean jobs and better living standards for
Greeks and Americans alike. Our meetings today also focused on
challenges that stand as obstacles to lasting peace in your corner of
the world: the longstanding conflict in Cyprus and Yugoslavia's
fratricidal civil war.
..........Let me start with Yugoslavia. Who can fail to be moved by
these heart-rending images--carnage and suffering on a scale that
recalls the horrors of the Second World War rather than the hopes of
the new era we've now entered. The United States supports the
European Community's (EC) efforts--the EC's efforts--including
economic sanctions, to stop the fighting.
..........We remain convinced that a negotiated settlement--helped
along by the United Nations and the interested international
community is possible, necessary, and certainly long overdue.
..........In the case of Cyprus, I again offer the good offices of the
United States to overcome a source of bitter conflict between two
of our valued allies. We continue to hope for an international high-
level meeting on Cyprus as early as possible in 1992.
..........With good-faith negotiations and the continued efforts of the
UN Secretary General, we can make progress in producing a
settlement acceptable to all parties.
..........Greece holds great meaning for Americans; not only the
millions who trace their own ancestry to your country, but--as
relative newcomers now in our third century of democracy--as a
people who revere Greece as the birthplace of democracy more than
2 millennia ago.
..........It's been a very special pleasure having this opportunity to
meet with you again, to have you and your able team here in
Washington, DC, today, and to wish Greece, on behalf of all
Americans, every blessing for the new year.
..........Prime Minister Mitsotakis: I would like first to express my
heartfelt thanks to President Bush for inviting me to Washington
and receiving me at the White House so warmly. At this moment in
history when democracy's flourishing throughout the world, it is a
great honor for me as Prime Minister of Greece, where democracy
was born 2,500 years ago, to come for an official visit to the United
States, the champion of democracy in our times.
..........The love of freedom and faith in democracy are two of the
important ties that form a unique bond between Greece and the
United States. And I welcome the opportunity this visit has given
me to reinforce our special relationship in this season of hope and
renewal.
..........I am especially pleased that this visit allowed me to continue
my private talks with President Bush and with our delegations to
expand on the substantial and fruitful discussions we had in Greece
last summer.
..........As might be expected, we exchanged views on world
developments and focused closely on what is happening in our
region, the Balkans, where, as you know, Greece is playing an
essential role in promoting peace and stability.
..........We had a lengthy discussion on the Cyprus question, and I
thanked President Bush for his personal commitment to help bring
about a fair settlement that will end the long agony of the Cypriot
people.
..........I am certain that with the strong support of the President, the
new Secretary General of the United Nations, building on the
achievements of his worthy predecessor, will be able to lead the
efforts of all of us to a speedy and successful conclusion on Cyprus.
..........I want to stress that our talks marked one more milestone in
the improving relations between our two countries, which, as you
know, have made spectacular progress in the past
2 years.
..........The ties between Greece and the United States are strong and
special. We fought in two world wars together and waged a joint
struggle to stop the spread of totalitarianism. But what
makes it such a profound pleasure for all Greeks who come to the
United States is that we recognize the highest ideals of this nation
as native to our own. I am very confident that the special
relationship between Greece and the United States, which reflects
the common values of our two peoples and the strong friendship
they have fostered will grow even stronger in the years ahead.
..........Let me conclude by wishing everyone in the United States a
very happy holiday season.(###0
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 50, December 16, 1991
Title: Press Briefing: Greek Prime Minister Mitsotakis' Visit to
Washington, DC
NIles
Source: Ambassador Thomas Niles, Assistant Secretary for
European and Canadian Affairs
Description: Excerpt from a press briefing, Washington, DC
Date: Dec 12, 199112/12/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Europe
Country: Greece, Cyprus, Yugoslavia (former), Albania,
Romania, Bulgaria, USSR (former)
Subject: Democratization, Regional/Civil Unrest
[TEXT]
Ambassador Niles: Both of the leaders agreed that relations
between the United States and Greece are excellent--as good, if not
better, than ever before. There was a discussion of a number of
international issues, starting off with the Cyprus issue. As Prime
Minister Mitsotakis said in his statement after the meeting, he
welcomed the President's initiative, the President's involvement in
seeking a solution to the Cyprus problem, and hoped that the United
States would continue to play an active role in this process. The
President assured him that we would and that we continue to hope
that this longstanding dispute between two close allies of the
United States could be resolved.
..........There was also an extensive discussion of the situation in
Yugoslavia. There, the United States and Greece have very similar
views. We support strongly the efforts by the Secretary General's
special representative, former Secretary of State [Cyrus] Vance, to
achieve a cease-fire, and, after that, to deploy a UN peace-keeping
force in Yugoslavia. We also both strongly support the efforts of
former British Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington, supported by the
European Community, to arrange a peaceful solution longer term
peaceful solution to the crisis in Yugoslavia.
..........We both agree that recognition of any of the republics of
Yugoslavia's independent countries at this time would not be
conducive or would not contribute to a successful resolution of the
crisis.
..........There was also discussion of the situation--somewhat briefer
discussion of the situation in several other countries in Central and
Eastern Europe; Albania, Romania, Bulgaria were also mentioned.
And then there was a fairly extensive discussion of developments in
the Soviet Union. The President presented some thoughts on the
situation there and how the United States proposed to react. The
Prime Minister expressed agreement with the approach taken by the
United States and stressed the need for humanitarian assistance to
the Soviet Union in view of shortages in certain sectors, certain
areas of both foodstuffs and medicines. Overall, they had a very
good session and broad areas of agreement between the United
States and Greece. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 50, December 16, 1991
Title: Fact Sheet: North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Date: Dec 16, 199212/16/92
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: Europe
Country: United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Belgium,
Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Greece, Turkey,
Germany, Spain
Subject: NATO, Arms Control
[TEXT]
NATO Today
The Rome Declaration on Peace and Cooperation issued after the
meeting of the North Atlantic Council in November 1991 signaled
the vitality of the alliance in adapting to security needs in a post-
Cold War world. While NATO continues to adhere to a comprehensive
approach of political and military efforts to create a just and
lasting peaceful order in Europe, future opportunities for achieving
alliance objectives through political means are recognized as being
greater than ever before.
..........To build increased understanding and confidence among all
European countries, the new NATO security policy reflects a greater
reliance on elements of dialogue and cooperation in addition to the
commitment to maintain an effective, collective defense capability.
Regular diplomatic liaison and military contacts with the countries
of Central and Eastern Europe will reinforce stability by affording a
means to exchange information on respective security concerns.
Greater cooperation among the countries of Europe will lessen
political, economic, or social divisions that might lead to future
instability and threaten security. Given the transformed nature of
the risks facing the alliance, establishing patterns of consultation
with the countries of Eastern Europe will be critical in the
management of potential crises. Although the political approach to
security will continue to grow in importance, the maintenance of an
adequate military capability will remain central to the alliance's
security objectives.
..........Secretary Baker has praised NATO as "a sturdy cornerstone
and initiator of cooperative structures of security for a Europe
whole and free." The Secretary has encouraged the alliance's move
to adjust its strategic concept to meet changing times and its
decision to open a new agenda with Central and Eastern Europe and
the evolving Soviet Union. Calling this the "time to set new goals,
which go beyond the concept of balance and begin to establish a
basis for a real cooperative security," he emphasized that "NATO
has a key role to play in bringing about a Europe and trans-Atlantic
community that includes the Soviet Union and is truly whole and
free." On the eve of the Rome summit, he looked forward to the
opening of "a new chapter in the history of the alliance, a time for
genuine peace and partnership."
..........The New Strategic Concept underlines the essential purpose of
the alliance: to safeguard the freedom and security of all its
members by political and military means in accordance with the
principles of the UN Charter and to work for the establishment of a
just and lasting peaceful order in all of Europe. It will continue its
role in defending member states against any threat of aggression,
preserving the strategic balance within Europe, and serving as a
transatlantic forum for allied consultations on issues affecting
their vital interests.
..........In an environment of uncertainty and unpredictable challenges,
NATO will continue to fulfill a mission in building the architecture
of an undivided Europe. The initiative undertaken by the allies in
London in 1990 to reach out to the emerging democracies of the
East has culminated in an invitation for high-level representatives
from Eastern Europe, the Baltics, and the Soviet Union to attend a
ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council in December. As
NATO members affirmed in Rome in November 1991: "In a world
where the values which we uphold are shared ever more widely, we
gladly seize the opportunity to adapt our defenses accordingly; to
cooperate and consult with our new partners; to help consolidate a
now undivided continent of Europe; and to make our alliance's
contribution to a new age of confidence, stability and peace.
..........President Bush has characterized the NATO allies as
"confronting the forces of change liberated by our own success" and
has emphasized the importance of their future agenda:
"In North America, in Western Europe, and even in the East, the
alliance is rightly viewed as the core of European--indeed, world--
stability. As its stewards, it is up to us to give the alliance
direction and to employ its towering strengths toward noble ends."
US-NATO Relations: "The Transatlantic Partnership"
The decision of the United States after World War II to participate
in a regional peacetime defensive alliance represented a
fundamental change in American foreign policy. The United States
recognized that its interests no longer could be confined to the
limits of the Western hemisphere: US security was linked
inextricably to the future of the West European democracies.
Concepts of individual liberty and the rule of law, coupled with
those of a common heritage and shared values, provided the
foundation for the NATO alliance. These ideals, as well as the
ongoing goal of each member country to achieve a just and lasting
peaceful order in Europe, continue to link the fate of America to
that of its NATO allies.
..........The history of US-NATO relations has been one of commitment
by America and its allies to reduce tensions in Europe and to
improve East-West relations. They have pursued a series of
initiatives designed to lower levels of manpower and equipment and
increase mutual confidence, while adhering to a policy of political
cohesion and military strength. Arms control measures aimed at
enhancing stability have included the Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces (INF) Treaty in 1987 and the Treaty on Conventional Armed
Forces in Europe (CFE) in 1990.
..........NATO's "dual-track" policy and its determination to station US
long-range INF missiles in Europe, despite substantial negative
public opinion, made possible the successful conclusion of the first
treaty designed to reduce, rather than merely limit, increases in
armaments. Efforts to achieve these agreements attest to NATO's
cohesion and solidarity in carrying out long-term negotiations
designed to reduce nuclear and conventional weapons systems and
to establish effective verification procedures.
..........At the North Atlantic Council ministerial meeting in
Copenhagen in June 1991, Secretary Baker underlined the durability
of the trans-Atlantic link: "The fundamental principle that should
guide our efforts . . . is that Europe's security is indivisible from
that of the United States and Canada. The Gulf war is only the most
recent test of how closely our security needs are linked. In this
century, two hot wars and one Cold War have proven this." Despite
recurrent debate over issues such as levels of defense expenditures
or deployment of US cruise and Pershing missiles on European
territory, Western political unity has been a crucial factor in the
attainment of long-term NATO objectives.
..........President Bush has emphasized that the United States
supports the development of a European security identity and
defense role, a step that the United States views as strengthening
the integrity and effectiveness of NATO. At the NATO summit in
Rome, he extended strong American support to the prospect of a
European political union and defense identity but expressed the
continuing need for NATO as the provider of America's defense and
Europe's security. The United States would not, he stated, abandon
its responsibilities, its interests, and its place in Europe." The
alliance's New Strategic Concept also reaffirmed the essential
nature of the trans-Atlantic partnership, recognizing the
indivisibility of security of all members.
..........The North Atlantic alliance and the American presence in
Europe have helped keep peace for more than 40 years. The
continued existence of the alliance, as President Bush emphasized
on his departure for the Rome summit, is vital for the new order.
Having forged successful policies toward the Soviet Union since its
foundation, the alliance must play a central role in building the
framework of the new Euro-Atlantic architecture.
NATO Strategy
NATO collective security strategy was based on the principle of
deterrence. Defense capabilities were created to deter military
aggression or other forms of pressure. Parties to the treaty agreed
to consult whenever the territorial integrity, political
independence, or security of any party was threatened. They further
pledged to maintain their individual and collective capacity to
resist armed attack and, should such deterrence fail, to defend the
territory of the alliance. As a purely defensive alliance, NATO
would maintain only a level of military strength sufficient to be
credible. Given the marked inferiority of allied conventional
strength in Europe, the NATO guarantee would rest primarily on the
nuclear superiority of the United States.
..........At the conclusion of a 1967 comprehensive review of NATO
strategy, the alliance adopted a revised approach to the common
defense, based on a balanced range of responses, conventional and
nuclear, to all levels of aggression or threats of aggression. This
reassessment of the nature of the potential threat to member
countries prompted the realization that the alliance must
increasingly look to the dangers of more limited forms of
aggression beyond the possibility of a massive Soviet attack. The
basis of this new concept of "flexible response" was the belief that
NATO should be able to deter and counter military force with a
range of responses designed to defend directly against attack at an
appropriate level, or, if necessary, to escalate the attack to the
level necessary to persuade an aggressor to desist.
..........At the same time, the alliance accepted the recommendations
of the Harmel report, titled "Future Tasks of the Alliance," which
outlined the need to work toward the achievement of disarmament
and balanced force reductions. The maintenance of adequate
military forces would be coupled with efforts at improving East-
West relations.
..........Soviet deployment of new mobile theater nuclear missiles
(SS-20s) called into question the accepted NATO strategy of
deterrence based on the concepts of forward defense and flexible
response and led to a decision in 1979 to modernize its defensive
capability. The resulting "dual-track" decision by the alliance
combined pursuing arms control negotiations with responding
appropriately to the increased imbalance created by the new Soviet
systems. Alliance governments agreed to deploy US ground-
launched cruise missiles in Western Europe.
..........The successful conclusion of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces (INF) Treaty in 1987, while eliminating all Soviet and US
land-based, intermediate-range missiles, required a new appraisal
of NATO policy. In response, the alliance developed its
"Comprehensive Concept of Arms Control and Disarmament," which
provided a framework for alliance policy in nuclear, conventional,
and chemical fields of arms control, and tied defense policies to
progress in arms control.
..........The "London Declaration on a Transformed North Atlantic
Alliance," issued by North Atlantic Council in July 1990,
inaugurated a major transformation to adapt to the new realities in
Europe. Recognizing the contribution of NATO as an agent of change,
the ministers pledged to intensify political and military contacts
with Moscow and other Central and East European capitals and to
work not only for the common defense but to build new partnerships
with all the nations of Europe. To foster a continuation in the
improving political and security environment, they underlined the
need to undertake broader arms control and confidence-building
agreements. To further enable the alliance to adapt to an improved
security environment, the ministers mandated a fundamental review
of the alliance's political and military strategy.
..........The "New Strategic Concept" was outlined at the meeting of
the North Atlantic Council in November 1991. The threat of a
massive full-scale Soviet attack, which had provided the focus of
NATO's strategy during the Cold War, had disappeared after the end
of the political division of Europe. The alliance recognized that the
risks to its security, such as proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and acts of terrorism and sabotage, were now less
predictable and beyond the focus of traditional concerns. The new
strategy adopts a broader approach to security, centered more on
crisis management and conflict prevention.
..........Although the changed environment in Europe does not render
the collective security functions of the alliance obsolete, the new
strategy addresses the reductions in nuclear arsenals and armies
following the withdrawal of Soviet forces and the implementation
of arms control agreements limiting conventional forces in Europe.
In the context of these changed circumstances, the alliance will
maintain a mix of nuclear and conventional forces based in Europe,
although at a significantly lower level. To ensure effectiveness at
reduced levels, alliance forces will be increasingly mobile to
respond to a range of contingencies. Forces will be organized for
flexible buildup to respond to aggression and crises. Collective
defense arrangements will rely increasingly on multinational forces
within the integrated military structure. Nuclear forces will
continue to play an essential role in allied strategy but will be
maintained at the minimum level sufficient to preserve stability.
..........The new strategy reaffirms the principle of common
commitment and mutual cooperation in support of the indivisibility
of security for all its members and underscores the essential
political and military link between European and North American
members provided by the presence of nuclear forces in Europe.
NATO Background
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed against the
backdrop of emerging post-war tensions engendered by fears of
Soviet expansionism and concern over economic instability in
Western Europe. On April 4, 1949, in Washington, DC, the Foreign
Ministers of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom, and
United States signed the North Atlantic Treaty, the political
framework for an international alliance designed to prevent
aggression, or, if necessary, to resist attack against any alliance
member. In 1952, Greece and Turkey acceded to the treaty,
followed by the Federal Republic of Germany in 1955 and by Spain in
1982.
..........This alliance of sovereign states pledges, through a
combination of political solidarity and military force, to preserve
its mutual security. Reaffirming faith in the principles of
individual and collective self-defense embodied in the UN Charter,
the parties to the treaty pledge to defend the common heritage and
civilization of their peoples and to promote stability and well-
being in the North Atlantic area. While recognizing the need to
maintain adequate military strength to safeguard the security of its
members, the alliance also resolves to work toward the
establishment of a just and lasting peaceful order in Europe. (###)
NATO Structure
North Atlantic Council
The Council is the highest political and military authority in the
alliance. It provides the forum for consultation and cooperation
between governments on all issues affecting security. Its decisions
are based on consensus, with each member having an equal right to
express its views. Each government is represented on the NATO
Council by a permanent representative with ambassadorial rank.
The Council meets on a weekly basis, with meetings at the
ministerial level twice a year. The NATO Secretary General is
chairman.
Committees and Planning Groups
Defense Planning Committee (DPC): Composed of representatives of
all countries except France; deals with overall issues of defense.
Like the Council, it meets regularly at ambassadorial level and
twice yearly, when member countries are represented by their
defense ministers.
..........Nuclear Planning Group: Has authority for nuclear matters. All
countries except France participate. Iceland participates as an
observer.
..........Military Committee: The highest military authority in the
alliance; is composed of the chiefs of staff of each country except
France, which is represented by a military mission. Iceland, which
has no military forces, is represented by a civilian member. The
Military Committee advises the Council and the DPC on military
measures necessary for the common defense and provides guidance
to the NATO commanders.
Regional Commands
The strategic area covered by the North Atlantic treaty is divided
into three regional commands: Allied Command Europe, Allied
Command Atlantic, and Allied Command Channel, with a regional
planning group for North America. With the exception of France and
Iceland, all countries assign forces to the integrated military
command structure. The NATO Defense area covers the territories
of member countries in North America, the Atlantic area north of
the Tropic of Cancer, and Europe, including Turkey. However, events
occurring outside the area that affect the preservation of peace and
security in the treaty area also may be considered by the Council.
Rome NATO Summit: Reaching Out to the East
As part of efforts to adapt the NATO alliance to the needs of post-
Cold War Europe, and after the decision taken at the July 1990
London summit to develop a new, cooperative relationship with
former adversaries, the allies agreed to develop a more
institutional relationship of cooperation with the emerging
democracies of the East.
..........The liaison program is designed to foster security and
confidence in the East and to help these countries transform their
societies and economies. It also will help make democratic changes
irreversible.
..........The alliance agreed to:
..........-- Establish the North Atlantic Cooperation Council as the
centerpiece of its efforts to enhance liaison with the countries of
Central and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union;
..........-- Hold annual meetings at the ministerial level between the
16 allied foreign ministers and their nine counterparts from Central
and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. The first such meeting
will take place in Brussels on December 20;
..........-- Hold periodic meetings with the North Atlantic Council at
the ambassadorial level;
..........-- Hold additional meetings at the ministerial or the
ambassadorial level, as warranted;
..........-- Hold regular meetings with various NATO civil and
military committees.
..........Through these interactions, the allies are prepared to offer
their experience and expertise in defense planning, democratic
concepts of civilian-military relations, civil/military coordination
of air traffic management, and the conversion of defense production
to civilian purposes. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 50, December 16, 1991
Title: Historic Steps Toward Unity By European Community
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Released by the Office of the White House Press
Secretary, Washington, DC
Date: Dec 11, 199112/11/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Europe, E/C Europe
Subject: NATO, EC
[TEXT]
We welcome the historic steps toward economic and political union
agreed to by the leaders of the European Community [EC] in the
Netherlands. Four and a half decades after the destruction of World
War II, Western Europe stands prosperous and free: a model of what
cooperation, democracy, and the free market can yield and a beacon
to those in the East struggling to secure their liberty and well-
being.
..........The results of the EC summit in Maastricht represent a
milestone which we celebrate along with our European partners.
The United States has long supported European unity because of our
strong conviction that it was good for Europe, good for the Atlantic
partnership, and good for the world. I have made clear from the
outset of this Administration my view that a strong, united Europe
is very much in America's interest. A more united Europe offers the
United States a more effective partner, prepared for larger
responsibilities.
..........Europe's steps toward unity will strengthen our renewed
Atlantic alliance. NATO's endorsement at the Rome summit of a
"European pillar" underscores the additional responsibility which
the European allies are assuming in the protection of shared vital
interests and values. At Maastricht, the EC requested the Western
European Union, whose members are in both NATO and the EC, to
serve as the vehicle for increased European responsibility on
defense matters. We are pleased that our allies in the Western
European Union in turn decided to strengthen that institution as
both NATO's European pillar and the defense component of the
European union. NATO will remain the essential forum for
consultation among its members and the venue for agreement on
policies bearing on the security and defense commitments of the
allies under the Washington [NATO] treaty.
..........A strengthened EC has a vital role to play in assuring a stable
and prosperous Europe and a humane world order. Already, today,
the European Community and its member states are taking a major
role, working with us, to help the citizens of Central and Eastern
Europe transform their societies. Our Atlantic partnership is
equally essential in supporting the movement toward freedom and
democracy in what we have known as the Soviet Union. But our
cooperation with the new Europe goes farther. The European
Community stands with us as a partner in the search for peace in
the Middle East and, against difficult odds, it continues to labor
with our support for a peaceful solution to the war in Yugoslavia.
..........The evolving monetary unity and single market of the EC
promised new economic vitality for Europe. With this comes new
investment possibilities and markets for American business as well
as new competition. We welcome these developments, but we also
expect that the new Europe will assume new responsibilities for
maintaining and strengthening the world economic system. This
means working with us to bridge our bilateral differences, to
expand an open global trading system by successfully concluding the
Uruguay Round [of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade], and
to avoid the dangers of protectionism.
..........America can take pride in its contributions to Europe's
success. The US engagement on that continent has yielded many
benefits for the Europeans and for us. Those benefits remind us
that our interests do not stop at our shores. We are intimately
connected to what happens in Europe and beyond. Now we are
getting an even stronger European partner. I, therefore, speak for
all of America when I send best wishes to the members of the
European Community for their new steps toward integration. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 50, December 16, 1991
Title: Current Treaty Actions
Date: Dec 16, 199112/16/91
Category: Treaties/Agreements
Country: Albania, Brazil, Costa Rica, Estonia, France,
Guyana, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Venezuela
Subject: International Law, State Department,
Democratization, Trade/Economics, Narcotics,
United Nations, Science/Technology
[TEXT]
Multilateral
Consular Relations
Vienna convention on consular relations. Done at Vienna Apr. 24,
1963. Entered into force Mar. 19, 1967; for the US Dec. 24, 1969.
TIAS 6820.
Accessions deposited: Albania, Oct. 4, 1991; Estonia, Oct. 21, 1991.
Optional protocol to the Vienna convention on consular relations,
concerning the compulsory settlement of disputes. Done at Vienna
Apr. 24, 1963. Entered into force Mar. 19, 1967; for the US Dec. 24,
1969. TIAS 6820.
Accession deposited: Estonia, Oct. 21, 1991.
Defense
Treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe, with Protocols and
Annexes. Done at Paris Nov. 19, 1990. Entered into force
provisionally Nov. 19, 1990, for certain provisions.1
Senate advice and consent to ratification: Nov. 25, 1991.2
Diplomatic Relations
Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. Done at Vienna Apr. 18,
1961. Entered into force Apr. 24, 1964; for the US Dec. 13, 1972.
TIAS 7502.
Optional protocol to the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations
concerning the compulsory settlement of disputes. Done at Vienna,
Apr. 18, 1961. Entered into force Apr. 24, 1964; for the US Dec. 13,
1972. TIAS 7502.
Accession deposited: Estonia, Oct. 21, 1991.
Finance
Articles of agreement of the International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development, formulated at the Bretton Woods Conference July
1-22, 1944. Entered into force Dec. 27, 1945. TIAS 1502.
Articles of agreement of the International Finance Corporation.
Done at Washington, May 25, 1955. Entered into force July 20,
1956. TIAS 3620.
Articles of agreement of the International Development
Association. Done at Washington Jan. 26, 1960. Entered into force
Sept. 24, 1960. TIAS 4607.
Acceptance deposited: Albania, Oct. 15, 1991.
Convention establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee
Agency (MIGA) with annexes and schedules. Done at Seoul Oct. 11,
1985. Entered into force Apr. 12, 1988. Ratifications deposited:
Albania, Oct. 15. 1991; Bolivia, Sept. 26, 1991; Dominica, Aug. 2,
1991; Ethiopia, Feb. 21, 1991; Luxembourg, June 4, 1991; Papua New
Guinea, Oct. 29, 1990.
Labor
Instrument for the amendment of the constitution of the
International Labor Organization. Dated at Montreal Oct. 9, 1946.
Entered into force Apr. 20, 1948; re-entered into force for the US,
Feb. 18, 1980. TIAS 1868.
Acceptance deposited: Lithuania, Oct. 4, 1991.3
Narcotics
United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances, with annex and final act. Done at
Vienna Dec. 20, 1988. Entered into force Nov. 11, 1990.
Ratifications deposited: Cameroon, Oct. 28, 1991; Pakistan, Oct. 25,
1991.
Patents--Plant Varieties
International convention for the protection of new varieties of
plants of Dec 2, 1961, as revised. Done at Geneva Oct. 23, 1978.
TIAS 10199.
Accession deposited: Czechoslovakia, Nov. 4, 1991.
United Nations--Privileges and Immunities
Convention on the privileges and immunities of the United Nations.
Done at New York Feb. 13, 1946. Entered into force Sept. 17, 1946;
for the US Apr. 29, 1970. TIAS 6900.
Accession deposited: Estonia, Oct. 21, 1991.
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
Constitution of the United Nations Industrial Development
Organization, with annexes. Done at Vienna Apr. 8, 1979. Entered
into force June 21, 1985.
Accession deposited: Lithuania, Oct. 17, 1991.
BILATERAL
Albania
Investment incentive agreement. Signed at Washington Nov. 19,
1991. Enters into force on date on which Albania communicates to
the US that its constitutional or other legal requirements have been
fulfilled.
Brazil
Agreement amending and extending the agreement of Feb. 6, 1984,
as extended, relating to cooperation in science and technology.
Signed at Brasilia Nov. 14, 1991. Enters into force on date both
parties have notified each other that their respective requirements
have been fulfilled.
Costa Rica
Memorandum of understanding on cooperation in management and
protection of national parks and other protected natural and
cultural heritage sites. Signed at Vail, Colorado Oct. 8, 1991.
Entered into force Oct. 8, 1991.
Estonia
Investment incentive agreement. Signed at Indianapolis Oct. 28,
1991. Entered into force Oct. 28, 1991.
France
Agreement amending the agreement of Feb. 23, 1987, as amended, on
mutual logistic support. Signed at Paris and Stuttgart-Vaihingen
Aug. 19, and Sept. 11, 1991. Entered into force Sept. 11, 1991.
Guyana
Postal money order agreement. Signed at Georgetown and
Washington Sept. 23 and Oct. 10, 1991. Entered into force Nov. 15,
1991.
Latvia
Investment incentive agreement. Signed at Indianapolis Oct. 28,
1991. Entered into force Oct. 28, 1991.
Lithuania
Investment incentive agreement. Signed at Indianapolis Oct. 28,
1991. Enters into force on date on which Lithuania communicates
to the US that its constitutional or other legal requirements have
been fulfilled.
Malta
International express mail agreement. Signed at Valletta Aug. 20
and Oct. 29, 1991. Entered into force Dec. 2, 1991.
Venezuela
Agreement concerning maritime matters. Effected by exchange of
notes at Caracas Oct. 15 and 17, 1991. Entered into force Oct. 17,
1991.
Supersedes the memorandum of understanding of Jan. 14, 1983
(TIAS 10633).
1Definitively not in force.
2With conditions and declarations.
3With statement. (###)