US Department of State 

Dispatch, Vol 3, No 5, February 3, 1992

Title:

State of the Union Address

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Excerpts relating to foreign policy from the State of the Union address to Congress, Washington, DC Date: Jan, 28 19921/28/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Whole World Country: United States Subject: Democratization, Military Affairs [TEXT] I mean to speak tonight of big things; of big changes and the promises they hold, and of some big problems and how together we can solve them and move our country forward as the undisputed leader of the age. We gather tonight at a dramatic and deeply promising time in our history and in the history of man on earth. For in the past 12 months, the world has known changes of almost biblical proportions. And even now, months after the failed coup that doomed a failed system, I am not sure we have absorbed the full impact--the full import--of what happened. But communism died this year. Even as President, with the most fascinating possible vantage point, there were times when I was so busy helping to manage progress, and lead change, that I didn't always show the joy that was in my heart. But the biggest thing that has happened in the world in my life--in our lives--is this: By the grace of God, America won the Cold War. I mean to speak this evening of the changes that can take place in our country now that we can stop making the sacrifices we had to make when we had an avowed enemy that was a superpower. Now we can look homeward even more and move to set right what needs to be set right. I will speak of those things. But let me tell you something I've been thinking these past few months. It's a kind of roll call of honor. For the Cold War didn't "end"--it was won. And I think of those who won it, in places like Korea and Vietnam. And some of them didn't come back. Back then they were heroes, but this year they became what they didn't know they were: victors. The long roll call--all the GI Joes and Janes, all the ones who fought faithfully for freedom, who hit the ground and sucked the dust and knew their share of horror. This may seem frivolous--I don't mean it so--but it's moving to me how the world saw them. The world saw not only their special valor but their special style--their rambunctious, optimistic bravery, their do-or-die unity unhampered by class or race or region. What a group we've put forth, for generations now--from the ones who wrote "Kilroy was here" on the walls of German stalags, to those who left signs in the Iraqi desert that said, "I saw Elvis." What a group of kids we've sent into the world. And there's another to be singled out--though it may seem inelegant. I mean a mass of people called the American taxpayer. No one ever thinks to thank the people who pay a country's bills, or an alliance's bills. But for half a century now, the American people have shouldered the burden, and paid taxes that were higher than they would have been to support a defense that was bigger than it would have been if imperial communism had never existed. But it did; but it doesn't any more. And here is a fact I wouldn't mind the world acknowledging: The American taxpayer bore the brunt of the burden and deserves a hunk of the glory. And so now, for the first time in 35 years, our strategic bombers stand down. No longer are they on 'round-the-clock alert. Tomorrow, our children will go to school and study history and how plants grow. And they won't have, as my children did, air raid drills in which they crawl under their desks and cover their heads in case of nuclear war. My grandchildren don't have to do that and won't have the bad dreams children had once, in decades past. There are still threats. But the long, drawn out dread is over. A year ago tonight, I spoke to you at a moment of high peril. American forces had just unleashed Operation Desert Storm. And after 40 days in the desert skies and 4 days on the ground, the men and women of America's armed forces, and our allies, accomplished the goals that I declared and that you endorsed: We liberated Kuwait. Soon after, the Arab world and Israel sat down to talk seriously, and comprehensively, about peace--a historic first. And soon after that, at Christmas, the last American hostages came home. Our policies were vindicated. Much good can come from the prudent use of power. And much good can come of this: A world once divided into two armed camps now recognizes one sole and pre-eminent power, the United States of America. And they regard this with no dread. For the world trusts us with power-- and the world is right. They trust us to be fair and restrained; they trust us to be on the side of decency. They trust us to do what's right. I use those words advisedly. A few days after the war began, I received a telegram from Joanne Speicher, the wife of the first pilot killed in the Gulf, Lt. Comdr. Scott Speicher. Even in her grief she wanted me to know that some day, when her children were old enough, she would tell them ". . . that their father went away to war because it was the right thing to do." She said it all. It was the right thing to do. And we did it together. There were honest differences here, in this chamber. But when the war began, you put partisanship aside, and supported our troops. This is still a time for pride, but this is no time to boast. For problems face us, and we must stand together once again and solve them and not let our country down. Two years ago, I began planning cuts in military spending that reflected the changes of the new era. But now, this year, with imperial communism gone, that process can be accelerated. Tonight, I can tell you of dramatic changes in our strategic nuclear force. These are actions we are taking on our own--because they are the right thing to do. After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. This weekend, I will meet at Camp David with Boris Yeltsin of the Russian federation. I have informed President Yeltsin that if the Commonwealth-- the former Soviet Union--will eliminate all land-based multiple-warhead ballistic missiles, I will do the following: -- We will eliminate all Peacekeeper missiles. -- We will reduce the number of warheads on Minuteman missiles to one and reduce the number of warheads on our sea-based missiles by about one- third. -- And we will convert a substantial portion of our strategic bombers to primarily conventional use. President Yeltsin's early response has been very positive, and I expect our talks at Camp David to be fruitful. I want you to know that for half a century American Presidents have longed to make such decisions and say such words. But even in the midst of celebration, we must keep caution as a friend. For the world is still a dangerous place. Only the dead have seen the end of conflict. And though yesterday's challenges are behind us, tomorrow's are being born. The Secretary of Defense recommended these cuts after consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And I make them with confidence. But do not misunderstand me: The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next 5 years. By 1997, we will have cut defense by 30% since I took office. These cuts are deep, and you must know my resolve: This deep and no deeper. To do less would be insensible to progress, but to do more would be ignorant of history. We must not go back to the days of "the hollow army." We cannot repeat the mistakes made twice in this century, when armistice was followed by recklessness and defense was purged as if the world were permanently safe. I remind you this evening that I have asked for your support in funding a program to protect our country from limited nuclear missile attack. We must have this protection because too many people in too many countries have access to nuclear arms. There are those who say that now we can turn away from the world, that we have no special role, no special place. But we are the United States of America, the leader of the West that has become the leader of the world. As long as I am President, we will continue to lead in support of freedom everywhere--not out of arrogance, and not out of altruism, but for the safety and security of our children. This is a fact: Strength in the pursuit of peace is no vice; isolationism in the pursuit of security is no virtue. . . . I said my plan has two parts, and it does. And, it is the second part that is the heart of the matter. For it's not enough to get an immediate burst--we need long term improvement in our economic position. We all know that the key to our economic future is to ensure that America continues as the economic leader of the world. We have that in our power. Here, then, is my long term plan to guarantee our future. First, trade: We will work to break down the walls that stop world trade. We will work to open markets everywhere. In our major trade negotiations, I will continue pushing to eliminate tariffs and subsidies that damage America's farmers and workers. And we'll get more good American jobs within our own hemisphere through the North American Free Trade Agreement and through the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative. . . . (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 5, February 3, 1992 Title:

Securing America's Future

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Excerpts from a fact sheet on President Bush's State of the Union address released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Washington, DC Date: Jan, 28 19921/28/92 Category: Fact Sheets Region: Whole World Country: United States Subject: Nuclear Nonproliferation, Arms Control, Trade/Economics, North America Free Trade, OAS, Military Affairs, Security Assistance and Sales, Democratization [TEXT] (introduction deleted).
Securing a New World Order
The President noted the historic American victory in the Cold War and paid tribute to the "roll call of honor"-- the long list of servicemen and -women who fought faithfully for freedom. He also acknowledged the role of the American taxpayer in bearing the brunt of the burden of providing resources to fight the Cold War. While threats still exist, the President observed that Operation Desert Storm demonstrated the good that can come from the "prudent use of power." The President said that, with communism gone, plans for cutting military spending can be accelerated. He announced that he has approved an additional $50 billion in defense savings through FY 1997. The President has told [Russian] President [Boris] Yeltsin that the United States is prepared to respond in kind if Russia eliminates all land-based multiple warhead ballistic missiles and reduces its strategic nuclear forces. Specifically, the United States would eliminate all Peacekeeper missiles and reduce the number of warheads on Minuteman missiles to one. We would also reduce the number of warheads to be deployed on our Trident submarine force by about one-third and would convert a substantial portion of our strategic bombers primarily to conventional use. The President also announced the following steps that the United States will take unilaterally:
Limiting Production of the B-2 Bomber.
After completing the 20 B-2 "stealth" bombers for which airframe procurement has begun, we will stop further production. There were 75 B-2 bombers in the previous plan. Because of the changes in the Soviet threat, America's strategic bomber force is less likely to face the sophisticated air defenses for which the B-2 was designed. Current bomber forces, including B-1B and B-52 aircraft, can be adapted to ensure adequate capabilities for strategic nuclear and conventional missions. Proposed savings are $14.5 billion through 1997.
Canceling the Small ICBM Program.
The small ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] will be terminated. The guidance system for existing Minuteman III missiles will be improved, and the service life of these missiles will be extended. Projected savings are $1 billion through 1997.
Ceasing Production of New Warheads for Sea-Based Ballistic Missiles.
The Department of Energy will cease production of W-88 warheads for Trident missiles. This will be the first time since 1945 that the United States has no nuclear weapons in production.
Halting Purchases of Advanced Cruise Missiles.
Procurement will be terminated after 1992 at a total of 640 missiles instead of the planned 1,000 missiles. This reflects reductions in the strategic target base and in the stra-tegic threat. Projected savings are $1.3 billion through 1997.
Stopping New Production of Peacekeeper Missiles.
For the second year in a row, the President will recommend no funds for the production of additional Peacekeeper missiles. The President noted that he has consulted on these cuts with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and is acting on the recommendation of Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. He observed that, with the proposed cuts, by 1997, we will have reduced defense expenditures by 30% since he took office. The President underscored his resolve to resist further reductions as inconsistent with America's security interests and world leadership responsibilities. He declared that "as long as I am President, we will continue to lead in support of freedom everywhere". . . .
The Trade Agenda
The President said that "we need long-term improvement in our nation's economic position." He proposed the following steps to "guarantee our future."
Expanding Trade and Opening Markets for American Exports.
Open markets around the world mean expanded export opportunities for US entrepreneurs, greater profits for our businesses, new jobs for our workers, lower prices and greater choices for our consumers, and a better standard of living for all Americans.
Concluding the Uruguay Round GATT Negotiation.
A successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round will: -- Reduce tariffs and non-tariff barriers by a third, thereby pumping $5 trillion into the global economy over the next decade; -- Sharply cut the theft of Amer-ica's best ideas--now estimated at $60 billion annually--through the infringement of our patents and copyrights and the counterfeiting of our trademarks; -- Create new opportunities for America's service industries, which export $115 billion annually and create 90% of our new jobs; and -- Expand trade for American farmers, who are already the world's most productive, with more than $40 billion in annual exports.
Negotiating a North American Free Trade Agreement.
The negotiations now underway on a free trade area throughout North America will create one of the world's largest markets, with 360 million producers and consumers and $6 trillion in annual output. Partly because of the promise of the free trade area, US exports to Mexico have doubled since 1986, creating 320,000 additional jobs. Implementing the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative. President Bush introduced the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative in June 1990 to promote continued growth and stability throughout the Western Hemisphere. The initiative stimulates economic reform by encouraging open markets for both trade and investment and by helping to reduce debt burdens in the region. Congressional action is needed to implement this initiative. . . . (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 5, February 3, 1992 Title:

The United Nations: Power To Act For Peace and Freedom

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Excerpt from address before the UN Security Council, New York City Date: Jan, 31 19921/31/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Whole World Country: United States Subject: United Nations, Human Rights, Democratization, Development/Relief Aid [TEXT] Thank you, Mr. President, for your key role in convening this first-ever summit of the UN Security Council. Fellow members and Mr. Secretary General, congratulations to you, sir, as you take office at this time of tremendous challenge and opportunity. And for the United States, it's a high honor to participate, to speak at this history-making event. We meet at a moment of new beginnings for this institution and, really, for every member nation. For most of its history, the United Nations was caught in a Cold War cross-fire. I think back to my days here in the early 1970s as a permanent representative, of the way then [that] polemics displaced peace-keeping. Long before I came on to the scene--and long after I left--the UN was all too often paralyzed by cruel ideological divisions and the struggle to contain Soviet expansion. Today, all that has changed. The collapse of imperial communism and the end of the Cold War breathe new life into the United Nations. It was just 1 year ago that the world saw this new, invigorated United Nations in action as this Council stood fast against aggression and stood for the sacred principles enshrined in the UN Charter. Now, it's time to step forward again, make the internal reforms, accelerate the revitalization, [and] accept the responsibilities necessary for a vigorous and effective United Nations. I want to assure the members of this council and the Secretary General, [that] the United Nations can count on our full support in this task. Today, for these brief remarks, I'll talk not on the economic and social agenda so eloquently addressed by President Borja [Ecuador], but rather I'll mention the proliferation of mass destruction, regional conflicts, destabilizing renegade regimes that are on the horizon, terrorism, human rights--they all require our immediate attention. The world also challenges us to strengthen and sustain positive change. We must advance the momentous movement toward democracy and freedom-- democratization, I believe, Boutros Ghali, our distinguished Secretary General, called this--and expand the circle of nations committed to human rights and the rule of law. It's an exciting opportunity for our United Nations, and we must not allow it to slip away. Right now, across the globe, the UN is working night and day in the cause of peace. Never before in its 4 decades have the UN's Blue Helmets and Blue Berets been so engaged in the noble work of peacekeeping, even to the extent of building the foundation for free elections. Never before has the United Nations been so ready and so compelled to step up to the task of peace-making, both to resolve hot wars and to conduct that forward-looking mission known as preventive diplomacy. We must be practical as well as principled as we seek to free people from the specter of conflict. We recognize every nation's obligation to invest in peace. As conflicts are resolved and violence subsides, then the institutions of free societies can take hold. And as they do, they become our strongest safeguards against aggression and tyranny. Democracy, human rights, rule of law--these are the building blocks of peace and freedom. In the lives of millions of men and women around the world its import is simple--it can mean the difference between war and peace, healing and hatred. And, where there is fear and despair, it really can mean hope. We look to the Secretary General to present to this Council his recommendations to ensure effective and efficient peace-keeping, peace- making, and preventive diplomacy. We look forward to exploring these ideas together. We have witnessed change of enormous breadth and scope--all in but a few short years. A remarkable revolution has swept away the old regimes from Managua to Moscow. But everywhere, free government and the institutions that give it form will take time to flourish and mature. Free elections give democracy a foothold, but true democracy means more than simply the rule of the majority. It means an irrevocable commitment to democratic principles. It means equal rights for minorities. And, above all, it means the sanctity of even a single individual against the unjust power of the state. The will of the majority must never degenerate into the whim of majority. This fundamental principle transcends all borders. Human dignity, the inalienable rights of man--these are not the possessions of the state; they're universal. In Asia, in Africa, in Europe, in the Americas, the UN must stand with those who seek greater freedom and democracy. That is my deep belief. That is the belief of the American people, and it's the belief that breathes life into the great principle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Our changed world is a more hopeful world, indeed, but it is not absent those who would turn back the clock to the darker days of threats and bullying. Our world is still a dangerous world, rife with far too many terrible weapons. In my first address here to the United Nations as President, I challenged the Soviet Union to eliminate chemical weapons and called on every nation to join us in this crusade--His Majesty King Hassan of Morocco, making this point so well right here today. What greater cause for this great body [than] to make certain the world has seen the last of these terrible weapons. So let us vow to make this year the year all nations at long last join to ban this scourge. There is much more to do regarding weapons of mass destruction. Just 3 days ago, in my State of the Union message, I announced the steps--far- reaching, unilateral steps--that we will take to reduce our nuclear arsenal. These steps affect each element in our strategic triad--the land, the sea, and the air. In addition to these unilateral steps, we are prepared to move forward on mutual arms reduction. . . . Tomorrow, in my meeting with President Yeltsin, we will continue the search for common ground on this vitally important issue. He responded with some very serious proposals just the other day. We welcome, the world welcomes, statements by several of the new states that won independence after the collapse of the USSR that they will abide by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And yet, realism requires us to remain vigilant in this time of transition. The danger of proliferation remains. Again, let me single out the earlier remarks by the President of the French Republic, President Mitterrand, on this subject--the clarion call to do something about it. We must act together so that, from this time forward, people involved in sophisticated weapons programs redirect their energies to peaceful endeavors. We'll do more in cooperation with our allies to ensure that dangerous materials and technology don't fall into the hands of terrorists or others, and we will continue to work with these new states to ensure a strong commitment in word and deed to all global nonproliferation standards. Today, the threat of global nuclear war is more distant than at any time in the nuclear era. Drawing down the old Cold War arsenals will further ease that dread. But the specter of mass destruction remains all too real, especially as some nations continue to push to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. Our triumph in the Gulf is testament to the UN's mission. Its security is a shared responsibility. Today, this institution spearheads a quarantine against the outlaw regime of Saddam Hussein. It is the strong belief of my country that we must keep sanctions in place and take the following steps to preserve our common security: -- We must continue to focus on Iraq's capability to build or maintain weapons of mass destruction; and -- We must make clear to the world and, most important, to the people of Iraq, that no normalization is possible so long as Saddam Hussein remains there--remains in power. As on all of the urgent issues I've mentioned today, progress comes from acting in concert, and we must deal resolutely with these renegade regimes, if necessary by sanctions or stronger measures, to compel them to observe international standards of behavior. We will not be blind to the dangers we still face. Terrorists and their state sponsors must know there will be serious consequences if they violate international law. Two weeks ago, this Council, in unity, sent a very strong message to Libya. Let me repeat today Resolu-tion 731--passed unanimously by this body, by the Security Council--calls on Libya to comply fully with the requests of three states on this Council. I would just like to use this meeting today to call on Libya to heed the call of the Security Council of the United Nations. Last year in the Gulf, in concert, we responded to an attack on the sovereignty of one nation as an assault on the security of all. So, let us make it our mission to give this principle the greatest practical meaning in the conduct of nations. Today, we stand at another crossroads. Perhaps the first time since that hopeful moment in San Francisco, we can look at our charter as a living, breathing document. And, yes, after so many years, it may still be in its infancy, requiring a careful and vigilant nurturing [by] its parents, but I believe in my heart that it is alive and well. Our mission is to make it strong and sturdy through increased dedication and cooperation, and I know that we are up to the challenge. The nations represented here, like the larger community of the UN represented by so many permanent representatives here today, have it in their power to act for peace and freedom.(###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 5, February 3, 1992 Title:

UN Security Council Summit

PA Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public Affairs Date: Jan, 31 19921/31/92 Category: Fact Sheets Region: Whole World Country: United States, Zimbabwe, Cape Verde, China, Japan, India, France, United Kingdom, Austria, Belgium, Hungary, Ecuador, Venezuela, Morocco, Russia Subject: United Nations [TEXT] On January 31, 1992, the United Nations Security Council held its first meeting of heads of state and government. The presidency of the Security Council rotates among the members in alphabetical order for 1-month periods. As presiding member for January, the United Kingdom chaired this meeting.
The five permanent members are:
China--Prime Minister Li Peng France--President Francois Mitterrand Russia--President Boris Yeltsin United Kingdom--Prime Minister John Major United States--President George Bush
The 10 non-permanent members are:
Austria--Chancellor Franz Vranitsky Belgium--Prime Minister Wilfried Martens Cape Verde--Prime Minister Carlos Veiga Ecuador--President Rodrigo Borja Hungary--Foreign Minister Geca Jeszenszky (representing Prime Minister Jozsef Antall) India--Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao Japan--Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa Morocco--King Hassan II Venezuela--President Carlos Andres Perez Zimbabwe--Foreign Minister Nathan Shamuyarira (representing President Robert Gabriel Mugabe) Non-permanent members are elected for a term of 2 years by the General Assembly. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 5, February 3, 1992 Title:

US-Russian Relations

Bush Yelstin Source: President Bush, Russian President Yeltsin Description: Excerpts from news conference, Camp David, MD Date: Feb, 1 19922/1/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Whole World Country: United States, Russia Subject: Trade/Economics, Democratization [TEXT]
Review of Bilateral Relations
.
President Bush:
Today, for the first time, an American President and the democratically elected President of an independent Russia have met, and we did so not as adversaries, but as friends. This historic meeting is yet another confirmation of the end of the Cold War and the dawn of a new era. Russia and the United States are charting a new relationship; and it's based on trust; it's based on a commitment to economic and political freedom; it's based on a strong hope for true partnership. So, we agreed here that we're going to pull closer together, economically and politically. I invited President [Boris] Yeltsin to come to the [United] States for a state visit; he accepted. He, in turn, asked me to come to Russia, and I accepted. That will be later in the year. And, he will be coming in the first half of the year; the date to be determined later on. We agreed to cooperate in the safe handling of nuclear weapons, arms reductions, and a wide array of other subjects. So, from my standpoint and the standpoint of the United States . . . we felt it was a very good visit. The only problem was it was very short. But we'll have a chance to follow up at the state visit. And Mr. President, the floor is yours, and welcome once again, even though you're heading off now down to the Hill to see some of the Members of Congress.
President Yeltsin (through an interpreter):
President Bush, ladies and gentlemen, I am very grateful to my friend, George, for the words which he has just spoken, in terms of our meeting and aimed at Russia and toward me. I feel that the meeting was exceptionally positive, necessary, and historic. We discussed a whole range of issues. As a matter of fact, those kinds of issues that have never been exposed and opened [for] many, many years and many decades--issues of economic reform in Russia as well as cooperation and assistance so that this reform [may] not die on the vine, and issues having to do with the Commonwealth of Independent States, economic issues having to do with the military condition now, the condition of the military. And on the initiative of President Bush, and Russia, also we talked about reduction of strategic and technical arsenals, down to the minimum of, say, 2,500 warheads for either side, and in this issue we will now begin very specific and concrete negotiations. The issue of arms sales, of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, issues of the so-called "brain-drain"-- well, then, and a whole series of others. Now [to] some very specific and personal issues, but I think having to do with a relationship which really has a great importance. I'm very satisfied that today one might say that there has been written and drawn a new line and crossed out all of the things that have been associated with the Cold War. Today, we are going to sign a statement or a declaration on the new nature or character of the relationship between the United States of America and Russia. From now on, we do not consider ourselves to be potential enemies as it had been previously in our military doctrine. This is a historic value of this meeting. And another very important factor in our relationship right away today--it's already been pointed out--that in the future there will be full frankness, full openness, full honesty in our relationship. . . . Q: . . . Did you all agree on any sort of timetable for your arms negotiations- -for example, to be coinciding with President Yeltsin's visit in the springtime and your visit, I guess, to Moscow later in the year. President Bush: We agreed that the very next step will be a much more detailed discussion of this matter when Secretary Baker goes, in but 2 weeks, back to Russia. . . .
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 5, February 3, 1992 Title:

Camp David Declaration

Bush Yelstin Source: President Bush, Russian President Yeltsin Description: Camp David, Maryland Date: Feb, 1 19922/1/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Whole World Country: United States, Russia Subject: Trade/Economics, Democratization [TEXT] At the conclusion of this historic meeting between an American President and the President of a new and democratic Russia, we--the leaders of two great peoples and nations--are agreed that a number of principles should guide relations between Russia and America: First, that Russia and the United States do not regard each other as potential adversaries. From now on, their relationship will be characterized by friendship and partnership, founded on mutual trust and respect and a common commitment to democracy and economic freedom; Second, that we will work to remove any remnants of Cold War hostility, including taking steps to reduce our strategic arsenals; Third, that we will do all we can to promote the mutual well-being of our peoples and to expand as widely as possible the ties that now bind our peoples. Openness and tolerance should be the hallmark of relations between our peoples and governments; Fourth, that we will actively promote free trade, investment, and economic cooperation between our two countries; Fifth, that we will make every effort to support the promotion of our shared values of democracy; the rule of law; respect for human rights, including minority rights; respect for borders; and peaceful change around the globe. Sixth, that we will work actively together to: -- Prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and associated technologies and curb the spread of advanced conventional arms on the basis of principles to be agreed upon; -- Settle regional conflicts peacefully; and -- Counter terrorism, halt drug trafficking, and forestall environmental degradation. In adopting these principles, the United States and Russia today launch a new era in our relations. In this new era, we seek a peace, an enduring peace, that rests on lasting common values. This can be an era of peace and friendship that offers hope not only to our peoples but to the peoples of the world. For while our conflict helped divide the world for a generation, now, working with others and with each other, we can help unite the globe through our friendship--a new alliance of partners working against the common dangers we face. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 5, February 3, 1992 Title:

Organizational Meeting for Multilateral Negotiations on the Middle East

Baker Kozyrev Source: Secretary Baker, Russian Foreign Minister Kozyrev Description: News Conference Opening remarks by Secretary Baker and Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev, Moscow, Russia Date: Jan, 28 19921/28/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Whole World Country: United States, Russia Subject: Mideast Peace Process [TEXT]
Secretary Baker:
Let me say a few words, and then, perhaps, Andrei would like to add to or subtract from what I'm going to say. I think we had a good beginning this morning. The interventions of the various ministers and representatives were, on the whole, I felt, complete and moderate in their tone [and] spoke to the real issues for which we are gathered here--which is to look at, consider, and, hopefully, act upon some of the regional problems facing the Middle East as a region. Our desire, of course, is to get agreement here with respect to the formation of working groups and to achieve some consensus, if we can, later this afternoon and tomorrow respecting when those working groups might meet and where they might meet. Having said that, I have to say that--I hope I'm speaking as well for my co-sponsor--that we are disappointed, of course, that the Palestinian delegation chose not to attend. The position of the co-sponsors with respect to this matter is that attendance today should have been pursuant to the formula agreed to and carried out in Madrid and to the formula agreed to and represented in the terms of reference as reflected in the invitation that was extended both for the bilaterals and for this meeting. Let me say that I, personally, think there is merit to the argument that we here are dealing with issues that involve the region as a whole and that, therefore, consideration should be given to expanding the terms of reference in so far as they pertain to the question of Palestinian representation. Over the course of the past several days, and particularly last night and again this morning, we told the Palestinians--in discussion with their representatives--that we, together, would be supportive of representation by diaspora Palestinians in working groups where that representation was appropriate. It is the view of the United States--and again I hope the similar view of Russia--that that representation is appropriate with respect to working groups that were created to discuss, for instance, the question of refugees; that it would be appropriate in connection with working groups that would be considering economic development; and that there might perhaps be other working groups where diaspora representation would be appropriate. That did not suffice to convince the Palestinians to appear today, and for that we are regretful. However, we have a good conference, and there are many things that we can and will accomplish. We believe that the Palestinians are making a mistake by not taking advantage of this opportunity. It represents a real opportunity not unlike that represented by Madrid where they appeared; they made presentations, [and] they were well received by the international community as a whole. The same opportunity is represented here, and we're sorry they are not here.
Foreign Minister Kozyrev:
Let me add that, in addition, efforts should be made to show our willingness to welcome the Palestinian delegation and work within the framework of the Madrid formula. This morning, I called the head of the Palestinian delegation before the meeting was opened. Mr. Baker also took the telephone, and also several other delegations participated in this phone call. I wanted just to stress that here so that everybody understands clearly that, indeed, we really wanted to have full participation in this conference and what formula we should use for future negotiations. I just want to say that the first portion of this conference was very successful. There can be no other way since we really- - under my chairmanship, Russia is doomed to be successful in all of this. And, also, Mr. Baker will take the chair this afternoon. I want you to follow very carefully what happens this afternoon. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 5, February 3, 1992 Title:

Organizational Meeting (Multilateral Negotiations on the Middle East)

Baker Source: Secretary Baker Description: Concluding remarks by Secretary Baker, Moscow, Russia Date: Jan, 28 19921/28/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Whole World Country: United States, Russia Subject: Mideast Peace Process [TEXT] As we approach the end of our first day, let me start my concluding remarks by saying, quite simply, that I am encouraged that this organizational meeting is taking place, because I think that the launching of these multilateral talks is another important milestone in what I referred to earlier as the historic road that we began in Madrid. Many here have demonstrated real creativity and vision in the ideas that have been suggested here today and the comments that have been made here. It was heartening to hear some of my colleagues from the Middle East talk about the rich potential of regional cooperation. And, it is also heartening to hear of the readiness of many countries around this table from outside the region to pitch in and help realize that potential. It should be surprising to no one that we heard today of difficulties as well as possibilities and that we spoke today candidly of problems as well as hopes. It is obvious that enduring regional cooperation will not be possible without progress toward resolving core political disputes that are involved in the multilateral negotiations, and many speakers today have made mention of that. It is obvious that many of the questions discussed today, like arms control and regional security or water, are inherently complex subjects. But it is equally obvious to me, as I mentioned this morning, that systematic consideration of those kinds of issues can be a complement and can be a catalyst for the bilateral talks and for progress in the bilateral talks, and, of course, the bilateral talks remain the heart of the peace- making process. We regret that three of the regional parties invited to attend--Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinians--are not here today. We continue to believe that these three parties could make a significant contribution to the work of these multilateral negotiations, and we encourage them to participate as this process evolves. At the same time, we believe this process can work to their benefit. Palestinians, in particular, we think, have much to gain from such participation. As Minister Kozyrev and I made clear earlier today--publicly and to the Palestinians--we would be supportive of Palestinian requests to include diaspora representatives in appropriate working groups, such as refugees and economic development, after the Moscow meeting. However, the terms of reference for this meeting, as reflected in the original invitations, call for Palestinian representation based on the Madrid formula, and they should not be changed at the last minute if this entire process is to continue to have credibility with all of us. We regret that the Palestinians are not here. They have chosen not to come, and, in my view, they have once again passed up an important opportunity. We also regret that the United Nations, which was invited to attend, is not here. We hope for full UN participation in the working groups as the process moves ahead. UN specialized agencies could play an important role in supporting this process. Now, with the active participation of those here today and with the potential future involvement of others, I think it is time to get to work. And, I think that we have before us a reasonable framework for collective and constructive action. Tomorrow morning at 10:00, we will begin to discuss five initial working groups--working groups in arms control and regional security, economic development, water, environment, and refugees. These discussions will be followed this spring by a range of specific follow-up steps, from missions to the region to seminars and perhaps further meetings. -- The European Community has indicated its willingness to play a leading role in promoting regional economic development. -- Japan is considering a mission to the region to explore possibilities for environmental cooperation in the Gulf of Aqaba. It has also made clear its readiness to help regional parties address some broader environmental challenges. -- The water group will be discussing timing, venue, and possible agenda for a first seminar on regional water cooperation. -- I am pleased to confirm that the United States is prepared to host a seminar on arms control and regional security. -- The refugee group will consider practical ways of improving the lot of people throughout the region who have been displaced from their homes. I am particularly pleased that Canada has indicated its readiness to play a leading role in promoting regional cooperation in this area. In addition, we think consideration should be given to forming an ad hoc steering group. The purposes of such a group would be to provide continuity, to monitor the efforts of the five initial working groups as and when they are formed, and to consider the formation of additional groups. As we prepare for tomorrow's meetings, I think there are several things we should keep in mind. First, I think we ought to all remember, because we've all spoken about it up here, the opportunity created by these multilateral discussions. They offer a real and valuable chance to address issues of major importance that do not lend themselves to discussion of the bilateral framework. Secondly, we should not forget the potential for the multilateral talks to help create a political environment in which the bilateral talks are more likely to accomplish what we all want in the areas of peace, territory, and security. Third, we should take full advantage of the experience, the expertise, and resources of others, both inside and outside the region. Fourth, while keeping our horizons and ambitions broad, it might be best if we were to focus initially on some small, practical steps that provide a foundation on which we can build. Fifth, we should recognize that consensus among all the parties directly concerned is the only sensible way to move ahead in the working groups. Peace is not going to be imposed from the outside; neither can various forms of regional cooperation be imposed. Progress on regional issues requires effort and commitment, particularly by regional parties themselves. No one should expect immediate breakthroughs toward multilateral cooperation in the Middle East, but neither should we neglect the possibilities for cooperation which exist at this unique moment in the history of the region and at this unique moment in the history of the world. Look around you, ladies and gentlemen, at the parties gathered at this table. Who would have imagined 50 years ago that the nations of Europe, many of whom were for centuries the fiercest of enemies, would find lasting common purpose in a vibrant European Community? And, who would have imagined even 5 years ago that the United States would launch a new partnership with a democratizing Russia? Who really knows what kinds of cooperation, however improbable it might seem today, might be possible in the Middle East over the rest of this decade? So, in closing, let me again thank Andrei Kozyrev and his government for their gracious hospitality and for undertaking the logistical difficulties of putting on a conference such as this on short notice. And, my friends, let us all press ahead with renewed determination and renewed energy to make multilateral cooperation a reality in a region which has already known far more than its share of conflict. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 5, February 3, 1992 Title:

Human Rights in 1991

Shifter Source: Richard Schifter, Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs and Human Rights Practices Description: Statement to the press by Assistant Secretary Schifter on the release of the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1991, Washington, DC Date: Jan, 31 19921/31/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Whole World Country: USSR (former) Subject: Human Rights, Democratization [TEXT] If you were to ask me what single event in 1991 most appropriately symbolized the change which the world is undergoing regarding respect for human rights, I would say it is the toppling of the statue of Felix Dzherzhinsky on Dzherzhinsky Square in front of KGB Headquarters in Moscow. The KGB, successor to Dzher-zhinsky's creation, the CHEKA, did not last much longer, and many of its counterparts throughout the world have been disbanded. In many countries there's now less fear of the knock on the door at midnight than there was as recently as 5 years ago. Yet, a great many problems of man's inhumanity to man persist. Though Marxism-Leninism is dead on the continent of its origin, it lives on, as a foreign import, in countries where aging leadership elites cling to the beliefs of their youth, evidently blind to the realities around them. And there are repressive regimes of other stripes, some of them imbued by religious or secular ideologies, such as Iran, Sudan, and Libya. Others are committed to repression without any significant ideological commitment, such as Burma or Iraq. Also largely devoid of ideology are the authoritarian or military dictatorships which have maintained themselves for many years. These, too, however are now in decline, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, where the growth in recent years of respect for human rights has been truly remarkable. There are a number of countries in that region which have now established democratic government. There are others which are in the process of doing so. We must recognize, however, that countries which have no history of democracy and respect for human rights find it difficult to establish and maintain the needed democratic institutions, particularly when they are faced with serious economic challenges. It is for that reason, and in the interest of all of us, that the traditional democracies do their very best to render advice, counsel, and assistance to the new democracies as they seek to build governmental institutions responsive to the wishes of the people. Trying to assist the world's emerging democracies is not the only new challenge in the field of human rights. The diminution in the threat to human rights from oppressive governments is, regrettably, offset by the substantial increase in interethnic and inter-religious strife and the attendant killings and brutalities. Major efforts need to be undertaken by the world community to come to grips with this phenomenon which is in evidence in many places across the globe. Our country can be of significant help in sharing our own experience in intercommunal conflict resolution. Thus, in the period ahead, our government's task in the field of human rights is not only to try to get abuses to stop after they have occurred but to help create institutions and a climate which will prevent them from occurring.
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 5, February 3, 1992 Title:

Excerpt: Human Rights

Shifter Source: Richard Schifter, Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs and Human Rights Practices Description: Text of the introduction to 1991 human rights report Date: Jan, 31 19921/31/92 Category: Reports Region: Whole World Country: USSR (former), China, Burma, Vietnam, Cuba, Zambia Subject: Human Rights, Democratization [TEXT] (Copies of the report will be available for sale from the Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 20402, tel. 202-783-3238; GPO stock no. 052-070-06790-0; price to be issued.) This report is submitted to the Congress by the Department of State in compliance with Sections 116(d)(1) and 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.* The legislation requires human rights reports on all countries that receive aid from the United States and all countries that are members of the United Nations. In the belief that the information would be useful to the Congress and other readers, we also have included reports on the few countries which do not fall into either of these categories and which, thus, are not covered by the Congressional requirement. Congress amended the Foreign Assistance Act with the foregoing sections of law so as to be able to consult these reports when considering assistance programs for specific foreign countries. One of the very important consequences--perhaps unintended--of these legislative provisions is that they have made human rights concerns an integral part of the State Depart- ment's daily reporting and daily decision-making. A human rights officer in an embassy overseas who wants to write a good annual human rights report on the country in which he or she works must carefully monitor and observe human rights developments throughout the year on a daily basis. As a consequence, he or she will report on such developments whenever something of human rights significance happens in the country of assignment. In the past 13 years, the State Department has become decidedly better informed on and sensitized to human rights violations as they occur around the globe. For most of the 20th century, the principal ideological challenge to the cause of democracy and respect for human rights has come from the doctrines laid down and the movement created at the beginning of the century by Vladimir Lenin. The horrors of World War II, devastating as they were to those directly affected, were, as to their impact, limited in time and place. It was Lenin and communism which cast the longest shadow by far, influencing developments across the entire globe decade after decade. Hand in hand with communism's messianic promise came the dreaded secret police apparatus, whose task it was to repress all dissenting views and thus deprive all those under its rule of basic human rights. In these volumes, we have during the last 4 years chronicled the significant changes effected in the state and party created by Lenin [and] the loosening of totalitarian rule under the leadership of Mikhail S. Gorbachev. We need now to take note of the poignant events of 1991, which brought Lenin's social experiment to an end in the very country which gave it birth. In this account of human rights developments, we should take special note of the event on August 22, 1991, when the statue of Felix Dzherzhinsky was toppled from its pedestal in front of the KGB headquarters in Moscow. "Iron Felix," Lenin's secret police chief and the founder of a network of agents of brutal repression which spanned the globe, and which as late as August 20 had tried to impose its will on the Soviet Union, had finally been removed from his place of honor. It was a symbolic act, but it duly marked the end of an era. Yet, far from its place of birth, Leninism, though in decline, still is the faith in whose name people are being repressed. And there are other less traditional challenges to human rights as well as potential new challenges. Now that the Albanian people have put their country on the road to democracy, the set of beliefs which originated on the European continent and which Stalin dubbed Marxism-Leninism has by and large disappeared from Europe. As a foreign import it survives, however, in China, where it controls the lives of one-fifth of humankind, and in four other countries: North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos. The faith which once inspired the movement is long gone. Communism is today more a system for the exercise of power by aging ruling elites, which are increasingly out of touch with the thinking of their subjects but still try to use the power which they possess to suppress all independent thought. Repressive government is, however, not limited to the countries which still espouse Leninist principles. Dictatorships offering unique ideologies of their own, or no ideology at all, continue to exist. Burma, whose imprisoned popular leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, received the Nobel Peace Prize, attracted particular attention in 1991. So did, of course, the one-man dictatorship of Iraq. These are merely two examples of a category of countries in which, either in the name of a religious or a secular ideology or without any ideological commitment, all opposition to the state and all independent institutions are repressed through a pervasive secret police or domestic spy apparatus which instills fear in the citizenry. Between the totally repressive dictatorships, on the one hand, and the democracies, on the other, there is the vast array of authoritarian regimes, regimes which do not seek to control all forms of social interaction in their countries but which will carefully guard their position and prerogatives against any group that seeks to replace them. The number of regimes in this category is in decline, particularly in Africa, where multi-party democracy and free elections have in a growing number of countries replaced one-man rule and rigged elections. Sub-Saharan Africa continued in 1991 as the region in which democracy and respect for human rights are making new strides forward. Zambia, where a long-established one-party regime was overwhelmingly defeated in a free and fair election, is a particularly noteworthy case in point. Although democracy provides the foundation on which a system of government respectful of human rights can be built, the mere fact that the executive and legislative leaders of a country are chosen in free and fair elections does not necessarily guarantee that the fundamental freedoms and human rights of all citizens will be fully protected. This is particularly true in the absence of an independent judiciary capable of safeguarding the rights of citizens against actions by the executive or legislative branches which are in conflict with internationally recognized human rights standards. The ascendancy of democracy throughout the world is unquestionably good news for human rights. We must note, however, that even democratically elected governments can be guilty of serious human rights violations. New democracies, in particular, may not as yet have the institutional safeguards in place which protect against the arbitrary use of executive power, particularly by security forces. The most common such human rights violations are the use of undue pressure or even torture to obtain confessions from persons suspected of having committed serious crimes, particularly those accused of terrorism. The more serious the terrorist threat, the greater the number of incidents of police abuse. (Police abuse and torture are, of course, also commonplace under authoritarian and totalitarian rule.) In the absence of an independent judiciary and solidly rooted democratic popular instincts in the new democracies, the recent advances are by no means secure. The danger of relapses into authoritarian rule are greatest where the expectations for early economic improvements have been disappointed. The challenge to the world's established democracies is to help those new to the fold to sustain themselves. The sharp decline in the influence of the worldwide communist movement has not only spelled the end of Leninist dictatorships in many countries but has also caused violent conflicts and human rights abuses based on political ideology to decline worldwide. At the same time, regrettably, we have witnessed an upsurge on all continents of serious armed clashes and human rights abuse stemming from ethnic and religious differences. The creation of mechanisms to help resolve disputes based on ethnicity and religion and efforts to combat intolerance are undoubtedly in the forefront of the challenges now facing the international community. To sum up, the year 1991 was one of great progress for the cause of democracy and human rights worldwide. But the problems faced by the world in consolidating such progress and dealing with old and new threats to fundamental freedoms must not be underestimated. * Section 116(d)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act provides as follows: "The Secretary of State shall transmit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, by January 31 of each year, a full and complete report regarding . . . "(1) the status of internationally recognized human rights, within the meaning of subsection (a) . . . (A) in countries that received assistance under this part, (B) in all other foreign countries which are members of the United Nations and which are not otherwise the subject of a human rights report under this act." Section 502(B)(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act provides as follows: "The Secretary of State shall transmit to Congress, as part of the presentation materials for security assistance programs proposed for each fiscal year, a full and complete report, prepared with the assistance of the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, with respect to practices regarding the observance of and respect for internationally recognized human rights in each country proposed as a recipient of security assistance."(###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 5, February 3, 1992 Title:

US Opens Embassy in Kiev

Tutwiler Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler Description: Statement released by the Office of the Assistant Secretary/Spokesman, Washington, DC Date: Jan, 29 19921/29/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Eurasia Country: Ukraine Subject: Democratization, State Department [TEXT] On January 23, 1992, the United States of America began official Embassy operations in Kiev, Ukraine. Pending the designation of an Ambassador, Jon Gundersen has been appointed as Charge d'Affaires ad interim of the United States of America. The Embassy is currently operating from offices at Vul. Yuriy Kotsubinskoho 10, Kiev. Phone (044) 279-0188 or (044) 279-1485. The Embassy currently is providing limited consular services to American citizens. Americans in need of emergency services may contact the Embassy. All Americans residing or traveling in Ukraine are urged to register with the US Embassy. Visa services will be provided at Embassy Kiev as soon as appropriate facilities are readied and staff assigned. In the meantime, the US Embassy in Moscow will continue to provide visa services for citizens of Ukraine. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 5, February 3, 1992 Title:

Humanitarian Aid to Haiti

Tutwiler Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler Description: Statement released by the Office of the Assistant Secretary/Spokesman, Washington, DC Date: Jan, 28 19921/28/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Caribbean Country: Haiti Subject: OAS, Refugees, Development/Relief Aid [TEXT] Under OAS [Organization of American States] auspices, a Chilean plane carrying 19 metric tons of powdered milk provided by the US Agency for International Development and 11.5 metric tons of medical supplies provided by the Pan American Health Organization and the Chilean Government left Baltimore-Washington International Airport today for Port- au-Prince, Haiti. The Haitian people are victims of an illegal regime. They have suffered the loss of their freely elected democratic government. The OAS, with the support of the United States, imposed an embargo on Haiti to promote the return of democracy. This shipment is part of an ongoing international humanitarian effort to which the United States is contributing substantially. It is meant to mitigate the suffering of the Haitian people brought on by the failure of those in power to move toward a solution to Haiti's crisis. We call on those in power in Haiti to resume OAS-sponsored negotiations to restore democratic constitutional rule, to approve President Aristide's nomination of Rene Theodore as prime minister, to restrain the security forces from violent acts such as last weekend's attack on a peaceful meeting of political leaders, and to prosecute fully all those responsible for the killing of Rene Theodore's bodyguard. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 5, February 3, 1992 Title:

Plight of Cuban Detainee

Tutwiler Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler Description: Statement released by the Office of the Assistant Secretary/Spokesman, Washington, DC Date: Jan, 24 19921/24/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Caribbean Country: Cuba Subject: Human Rights [TEXT] The US Government is deeply concerned over the plight of Sebastian Arcos, a leader of the Cuban Committee on Human Rights, who Cuban security forces detained on January 15. We understand Cuban authorities intend to charge him with rebellion, which carries a 7-15 year prison sentence. Arcos was detained after Cuban authorities attempted to link him and his brother Gustavo, head of the Cuban Committee on Human Rights, to three persons who were tried and convicted of infiltrating Cuba to carry out sabotage acts. In fact, Sebastian and Gustavo Arcos have been tireless proponents of peaceful, democratic change in Cuba. Sebastian Arcos has worked diligently to monitor the human rights practices of the Cuban regime and has never advocated any form of violence or rebellion. The attempt of the Government of Cuba to link the Arcos brothers to groups advocating violence against the Cuban state is absurd. We call on the Government of Cuba to release Sebastian Arcos immediately. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 5, February 3, 1992 Title:

Deputy Secretary Eagleburger Meets With Serbian Official

Tutwiler Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler Description: Statement released by the Office of the Assistant Secretary/Spokesman, Washington, DC Date: Jan, 28 19921/28/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: E/C Europe Country: Serbia-Montenegro, Yugoslavia (former) Subject: Regional/Civil Unrest, EC [TEXT] Deputy Secretary Lawrence Eagleburger met yesterday with Borisav Jovic, the Serbian member of the rump Yugoslav presidency. This meeting does not change the US view that the rump memberships of Yugoslav federal institutions do not legitimately speak or act for all of Yugoslavia. The Deputy Secretary emphasized to Mr. Jovic that the US expects all sides, including the Serbian leadership and the Yugoslav military, to respect the commitments they made in agreeing to the UN plan governing deployment of UN peacekeepers in Croatia. The US Government fully supports the efforts of the UN and the EC [European Community] to find a peaceful resolution to the crisis in Yugoslavia. The Deputy Secretary underscored to Mr. Jovic that the US, like the European Community, will not accept any outcome of the Yugoslav crisis that would be based on the use of force and intimidation to change the borders of Yugoslav republics. He urged the Serbian Government to take clear and concrete steps to demonstrate its commitment to the UN plan and to the EC-sponsored peace conference chaired by Lord Carrington and to demonstrate that it will respect the territorial integrity of Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, and Macedonia. The efforts of the UN and the EC provide the Serbian leadership the opportunity to demonstrate its readiness to work constructively toward a general political settlement that would respect the legitimate concerns and aspirations of Serbs inside and outside of Serbia. We urge the Serbian leadership to seize that opportunity, to spare the Serbian people and the other Yugoslav peoples the terrible costs of warfare, and to demonstrate their readiness to offer non-Serbs in Serbia the same rights and protections they claim to seek for Serbs outside Serbia. (###)