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. (###)