US DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 4, NUMBER 25, JUNE 21, 1993
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:
1. Democracy and Human Rights: Where America Stands -- Secretary
Christopher
2. Fact Sheet: U.S. Draft Human Rights Action Plan
3. America's Partnership With the European Community -- Secretary
Christopher
4. U.S. Leadership After the Cold War: NATO and Transatlantic Security
-- Secretary Christopher
5. NAC Final Communique
6. NACC's Essential Role -- Secretary Christopher
7. Joint Communique on Angola
8. Department Statements
Cyprus Negotiations: Confidence-Building Measures
El Salvador: Recent Violence
El Salvador: UN Statement on Arms Cache
ARTICLE 1:
Democracy and Human Rights: Where America Stands
Secretary Christopher
Address at the World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, Austria, June
14, 1993
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to Secretary General Fall and the
Preparatory Conference Chair Warzazi.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I speak to you as the representative of a nation
"conceived in liberty." America's identity as a nation derives from our
dedication to the proposition "that all Men are created equal and
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Over the
course of two centuries, Americans have found that advancing democratic
values and human rights serves our deepest values as well as our
practical interests.
That is why the United States stands with the men and women everywhere
who are standing up for these principles. And that is why President
Clinton has made reinforcing democracy and protecting human rights a
pillar of our foreign policy--and a major focus of our foreign
assistance programs.
Democracy is the moral and strategic imperative for the 1990s.
Democracy will build safeguards for human rights in every nation.
Democracy is the best way to advance lasting peace and prosperity in the
world.
The cause of freedom is a fundamental commitment for my country. It is
also a matter of deep personal conviction for me. I am proud to have
headed the U.S. Government's first interagency group on human rights
under President Carter, who is with us today. President Carter will be
remembered as the first American President to put human rights on the
international agenda. He has helped to lift the lives of people in
every part of the world. Today, we build upon his achievements--and
those of the human rights movement since its inception.
In this post-Cold War era, we are at a new moment. Our agenda for
freedom must embrace every prisoner of conscience, every victim of
torture, every individual denied basic human rights. It must also
encompass the democratic movements that have changed the political map
of our globe.
The great new focus of our agenda for freedom is this: expanding,
consolidating and defending democratic progress around the world. It is
democracy that establishes the civil institutions that replace the power
of oppressive regimes. Democracy is the best means not just to gain--
but to guarantee--human rights.
In the battle for democracy and human rights, words matter, but what we
do matters much more. What all of our citizens and governments do in
the days ahead will count far more than any discussions held or
documents produced here.
I cannot predict the outcome of this Conference. But I can tell you
this: The worldwide movement for democracy and human rights will
prevail. My delegation will support the forces of freedom--of
tolerance, of respect for the rights of the individual--not only in the
next few weeks in Vienna, but every day in the conduct of our foreign
policy throughout the world. The United States will never join those
who would undermine the Universal Declaration and the movement toward
democracy and human rights.
Securing Freedom After the Cold War
The Universal Declaration enshrines a timeless truth for all people and
all nations: "Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace" on this earth. The
Declaration's drafters met the challenge of respecting the world's
diversity, while reflecting values that are universal.
Even before the Declaration was adopted, the Cold War had begun to cast
a chilling shadow between word and deed. But the framers of the
Declaration hoped that each successive generation would strengthen the
Declaration through its own struggles. It is for each generation to
redeem the promise of the framers' work.
Time and time again since the adoption of the Universal Declaration,
human rights activism has unlocked prison cells and carved out pockets
of freedom for individuals living under repression. Today, the global
movement from despotism to democracy is transforming entire political
systems and opening freedom's door to whole societies.
The end of the Cold War is the most uplifting event for human rights
since the first World Conference met. Not only were the Havels and the
Sakharovs set free, in large measure by their own inspiring examples,
but hundreds of millions of ordinary men and women were also released
from the hold of oppressive governments that controlled their lives.
Now, in country after country, they are turning toward democracy to
secure their newly won freedoms, guarantee their human rights, and hold
their governments accountable.
Nowhere is this great drama playing out on a more central stage than in
the former Soviet Union. Ensuring the success of democracy in Russia,
Ukraine and the other New Independent States is the strategic challenge
of our time. President Clinton is determined to meet that challenge of
leadership--to tip the world balance in favor of freedom. That is why
he has led America into an alliance with Russian reform spearheaded by
President Yeltsin.
The promotion of democracy is the front line of global security. A
world of democracies would be a safer world. Such a world would
dedicate more to human development and less to human destruction. It
would promote what all people have in common rather than what tears them
apart. It would be a world of hope, not a world of despair.
Democracy and Diversity
In 1993 alone, in addition to a massive turnout for democracy in Russia,
we have seen unprecedented free elections in Cambodia, Yemen, Burundi,
and Paraguay. The Truth Commission in El Salvador has completed its
healing work. And the people of South Africa have made dramatic
progress toward non-racial democracy.
Around the world, people are doing the hard, sometimes painful work of
building democracies from the bottom up. They are making democracy work
not just on election day, but every day. They are promoting civil
societies that respect the rule of law and make governments accountable.
Citizens' groups are pressing for social justice and establishing non-
governmental human rights organizations. Women's groups are advocating
equal treatment and fighting the widespread practice of gender-based
violence. Workers are forming free trade unions. Independent media are
giving pluralism its voice. All are creating counterweights to
repression by affirming and asserting fundamental freedoms of
expression, association, and movement.
American support for democracy is an enduring commitment. We know that
establishing and sustaining democracy is not a linear proposition. The
world democratic movement will encounter setbacks along the way. But
with constant vigilance and hard work, democracy will succeed.
Look at the recent example given us by the people of Guatemala. Two
weeks ago, they overcame a coup that had dissolved democratic
institutions. They showed that democracy has a new resilience in the
Americas, with roots extending deep into civil society. The resolve of
the Guatemalan public, backed by the United States and the OAS-led
international community, has resulted in the election of a respected
human rights defender as President of Guatemala.
To those who say democracy is a Western contrivance, I say, you forgot
to tell the people of Cambodia. Ninety percent of them summoned up
courage, in the face of real threats, to re-claim their country by
voting in last month's UN-monitored elections. In what was once a
killing field, democracy is taking root.
Democratic aspirations are rising from Central Asia to Central America.
No circumstances of birth, of culture, or of geography can limit the
yearning of the human spirit and the right to live in freedom and
dignity. Martin Luther King, Mohandas Gandhi, Fang Lizhi, Natan
Sharansky--all came from different cultures and countries. Yet each
shaped the destiny of his own nation and the world by insisting on the
observance of the same universal rights.
That each of us comes from different cultures absolves none of us from
our obligation to comply with the Universal Declaration. Torture, rape,
racism, anti-Semitism, arbitrary detention, ethnic cleansing, and
politically motivated disappearances-- none of these is tolerated by any
faith, creed, or culture that respects humanity. Nor can they be
justified by the demands of economic development or political
expediency.
We respect the religious, social, and cultural characteristics that make
each country unique. But we cannot let cultural relativism become the
last refuge of repression.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the universal principles of the UN Declaration put
all people first. We reject any attempt by any state to relegate its
citizens to a lesser standard of human dignity. There is no
contradiction between the universal principles of the UN Declaration and
the cultures that enrich our international community. The real chasm
lies between the cynical excuses of oppressive regimes and the sincere
aspirations of their people.
No nation can claim perfection-- not the United States nor any other
nation. In 1968, when the U.S. Delegation arrived at the first World
Conference on Human Rights, my country was reeling from the
assassination of Martin Luther King. The murder of Robert Kennedy soon
followed. King and Kennedy were deeply committed to building a more
just society for all Americans. Their valiant work and their violent
deaths left deep imprints on an entire generation of Americans--among
them, a university student named Bill Clinton.
Democracy Can Deliver
Many young democracies contend with the vast problems of grinding
poverty, illiteracy, rapid population growth, and malnutrition. The
survival of these democracies may ultimately depend on their ability to
show their citizens that democracy can deliver--that the difficult
political and economic choices will pay off soon and not just in some
distant, radiant future.
Nations that free human potential--that invest in human capital and
defend human rights--have a better chance to develop and grow. Nations
that enforce the right to seek and obtain employment without
discrimination will become more just societies--and more productive
economies. And nations that are committed to democratic values create
conditions in which the private sector is free to thrive and to provide
work for their people.
States that respect human rights and operate on democratic principles
tend to be the world's most peaceful and stable. On the other hand, the
worst violators of human rights tend to be the world's aggressors and
proliferators. These states export threats to global security, whether
in the shape of terrorism, massive refugee flows, or environmental
pollution. Denying human rights not only lays waste to human lives; it
creates instability that travels across borders.
The Future Lies With Free People
The worldwide prospects for human rights, democracy, and economic
development have never been better. But sadly, the end of the Cold War
has not brought an end to aggression, repression, and inhumanity.
Fresh horrors abound around the world. We have only to think of the
enormous human costs of regional conflict, ethnic hatred, and despotic
rule. We have only to think of Bosnia--just a few hundred miles away
from this meeting hall, but worlds away from the peaceful and tolerant
international community envisioned in the Universal Declaration.
A lasting peace in the Balkans depends on ensuring that all are prepared
to respect fundamental human rights, especially those of minorities.
Those who desecrate these rights must know that they will be ostracized.
They will face sanctions. They will be brought before tribunals of
international justice. They will not gain access to investment or
assistance. And they will not gain acceptance by the community of
civilized nations.
The future lies in a different direction: not with repressive
governments but with free people. It belongs to the men and women who
find inspiration in the words of the Universal Declaration; who act upon
their principles even at great personal risk; who dodge bullets and defy
threats to cast their ballots; who work selflessly for justice,
tolerance, democracy, and peace. These people can be found everywhere--
ordinary men and women doing extraordinary things--even in places where
hate, fear, war, and chaos rule the hour.
We must keep the spotlight of world opinion trained on the darkest
corners of abuse. We must confront the abusers. We must sharpen the
tools of human rights diplomacy to address problems before they escalate
into violence and create new pariah states.
Today, on behalf of the United States, I officially present to the world
community an ambitious action plan that represents our commitment to
pursue human rights, regardless of the outcome of this Conference.
This plan will build on the UN's capacity to practice preventive
diplomacy, safeguard human rights, and assist fledgling democracies. We
seek to strengthen the UN Human Rights Center and its advisory and
rapporteurial functions. We support the establishment of a UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights.
Advancing Women's Rights
The United States will also act to integrate our concerns over the
inhumane treatment of women into the global human rights agenda. We
will press for the appointment of a UN Special Rapporteur on Violence
Against Women. We will also urge the UN to sharpen the focus and
strengthen the coordination of its women's rights activities.
Eleanor Roosevelt and the other drafters of the Declaration wanted to
write a document that would live and last. They were determined to
write a document that would protect and empower women as well as men.
But that remains an unfulfilled vision in too many parts of the world,
where women are subjected to discrimination and bias based solely upon
gender.
Violence and discrimination against women don't just victimize
individuals; they hold back whole societies by confining the human
potential of half the population. Guaranteeing human rights is a moral
imperative with respect to both women and men. It is also an investment
in making whole nations stronger, fairer, and better.
Women's rights must be advanced on a global basis. But the crucial work
is at the national level. It is in the self- interest of every nation
to terminate unequal treatment of women.
Next Steps of Our Own
Beyond our support for multilateral efforts, the United States
recognizes that we have a solemn duty to take steps of our own.
In that spirit, I am pleased to announce that the United States will
move promptly to obtain the consent of our Senate to ratify The
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination. We strongly support the general goals of the other
treaties that we have signed but not yet ratified. The Convention on
the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; The
American Convention on Human Rights; and The International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: All of these will constitute
important advances, and our Administration will turn to them as soon as
the Senate has acted on the racism Convention. We also expect soon to
pass implementing legislation on the Convention Against Torture in
furtherance of the worldwide goal of eliminating torture by the year
2000. To us, these far-reaching documents are not parchment promises
to be held up for propaganda effect, but solemn commitments to be
enforced.
My country will pursue human rights in our bilateral relations with all
governments--large and small, developed and developing. America's
commitment to human rights is global, just as the UN Declaration is
universal.
As we advance these goals, American foreign policy will both reflect our
fundamental values and promote our national interests. It must take
into account our national security and economic needs at the same time
that we pursue democracy and human rights. We will maintain our ties
with our allies and friends. We will act to deter aggressors. And we
will cooperate with like-minded nations to ensure the survival of
freedom when it is threatened.
The United States will promote democracy and protect our security. We
must do both--and we will. We will insist that our diplomats continue
to report accurately and fully on human rights conditions around the
world. Respect for human rights and the commitment to democracy-
building will be major considerations as we determine how to spend our
resources on foreign assistance. And we will weigh human rights
considerations in trade policy, as President Clinton demonstrated last
month.
We will help new democracies make a smooth transition to civilian
control of the military. And we will assist militaries in finding
constructive new roles in pursuit of peace and security--roles that
respect human rights and contribute to international peace.
Working with the UN and other international organizations, we will help
to develop the public and private institutions essential to a working
democracy and the rule of law. And we will continue to support
America's own National Endowment for Democracy in its mission to help
nourish democracy where it is struggling to grow.
A Place To Stand Upon
The international debate now turns less on whether human rights are
appropriate for discussion--and more on how to address them most
effectively. The debate turns less on whether democracy best serves the
needs of people everywhere--and more on how soon their democratic
aspirations will be met.
Two hundred years ago, in his famous Rights of Man, the political
philosopher Thomas Paine wrote this concerning Archimedes' image of the
incomparable force of leverage: "Had we a place to stand upon, we might
raise the world."
Ladies and Gentlemen, the nations of the world do have a place to stand
upon: If we stand upon the bedrock principles of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, if we support the democratic movement on a
worldwide basis, we shall speed the day when all the world's peoples are
raised up into lives of freedom, dignity, prosperity, and peace.
That is where this Conference should stand.
That is where America stands.
Thank you very much. (###)
ARTICLE 2:
Fact Sheet: U.S. Draft Human Rights Action Plan
I. A High Commissioner for Human Rights
An office of High Commissioner for Human Rights should be established in
order to energize UN programs on human rights and ensure human rights
takes its proper place as one of the key pillars of the United Nations
system as set out in its Charter.
The High Commissioner should:
-- Be champion and spokesperson for the promotion and protection of
human rights around the world;
-- Oversee the implementation of decisions of all UN human rights
bodies;
-- Assume responsibility for human rights issues in the areas of peace-
keeping, peace-making, and humanitarian assistance;
-- Coordinate all UN human rights programs, and encourage and
facilitate coordination, cooperation and information sharing among all
UN system and humanitarian organizations including UNDP, UNICEF, WHO,
ILO, and others;
-- Request the Secretary General to bring to the attention of the
Security Council serious violations of human rights when they threaten
international peace and security; and
-- Have independent authority to dispatch special envoys on fact-
finding missions and to undertake other initiatives to promote human
rights.
The High Commissioner should have line authority for the Human Rights
Center.
The High Commissioner should be appointed by the Secretary General for a
fixed term. The position should be at the level of Under Secretary
General.
II. Improving UN Effectiveness in The Field of Human Rights
A. Strengthening Advisory Services
The UN Human Rights Center's advisory services and technical assistance
program should be greatly expanded to enable it to respond promptly and
effectively to requests from states for assistance with human rights
programs.
The Human Rights Center should:
-- Develop expertise on the administration of justice and rule of law,
national institutions in support of democracy, human rights training for
public officials, and human rights education, as part of a program to
strengthen democracy worldwide.
-- Establish special rosters of experts available to advise and assist
requesting governments with specific human rights problems, particularly
torture, conflict resolution, and promoting respect for diversity and
for members of minority groups.
-- Be strengthened so it can respond to requests or proposals from the
treaty bodies and special rapporteurs and from international agencies
for specific assistance to states in need.
The Human Rights Commission should take into account and encourage
awareness and respect for human rights standards and supervisory efforts
of other UN system agencies, particularly basic ILO standards for worker
and human rights, equality, and protection against discrimination,
including those for migrant workers.
B. A United Nations Approach
-- Human rights should be an integrated element of all UN peace-
keeping, humanitarian, conflict resolution, elections monitoring,
development programs, and other activities. The UN's expert human
rights bodies should be fully involved in the planning, implementation,
and follow-up of such activities.
-- All efforts should be undertaken to ensure that the human rights
activities of all UN agencies--and in particular UNDP, UNICEF, ILO,
UNESCO, and WHO--are properly coordinated with the Human Rights Center.
These would also include commissions with human rights concerns, such as
the Commission on the Status of Women and the Crime Commission.
-- Governments, the UN, and regional inter-governmental institutions
should recognize non-governmental organizations as full partners in the
field of human rights.
-- The Human Rights Center should be authorized to place
representatives in UN regional and sub-regional offices.
C. Human Rights and Peace-keeping
-- Human rights work should be included in peace-keeping operations, as
has been done with ONUSAL (El Salvador) and UNTAC (Cambodia).
-- The UN Department of Peace-keeping should include a human rights
specialist with close links to the UN Human Rights Center.
-- The Human Rights Center should undertake a comprehensive overview of
the links between peace-keeping and human rights.
-- Attention must be given to what happens when a UN peace-keeping
force withdraws; the Human Rights Center should have a role in follow-up
operations.
III. Providing Resources To Promote Human Rights
Recognizing that a serious obstacle to the UN's ability to further human
rights is the lack of resources, efforts should be made to ensure that
resources apportioned to human rights are in accordance with the
priority given to human rights in the UN Charter. Thus, a substantially
greater portion of UN resources should be devoted to human rights.
-- States should contribute to the UN voluntary funds designed to
promote human rights, particularly the Voluntary Fund for Advisory
Services.
-- The amount of bilateral and multilateral development assistance
devoted to human rights programs and to the strengthening of democracy
should be greatly increased.
-- All multilateral development agencies and specialized agencies--
including in particular, the World Bank, UNDP, UNICEF, UNESCO, and ILO--
should continue to undertake human rights programs and should integrate
human rights concerns into all their activities.
-- Given the strong relationship among human rights, democracy, and
development, donors and multilateral agencies should give priority to
programs in states that promote and protect human rights and democracy.
IV. Strengthening UN Human Rights Mechanisms
A. Improving the Human Rights Treaty System
The effectiveness of the human rights treaty body system should be
improved.
-- Treaty bodies should be encouraged to call for special reports when
emergency situations arise concerning states parties to the treaty.
-- Treaty bodies should be empowered to make recommendations including
proposals for advisory services.
-- Treaty bodies should develop follow-up mechanisms for situations in
which human rights problems continue to occur in states which have not
implemented recommendations of the treaty bodies.
-- Treaty bodies should proceed with information from other sources
when states do not provide required reporting.
-- Non-governmental organizations should be integrated in a more
structured way as sources of information in the work of the treaty
bodies.
-- Matters of gender should be taken into account when reviewing
reports of states parties to all human rights treaties.
B. Improving Reporting Capability
Thematic rapporteurs and other mechanisms should be authorized to
examine country situations on their own initiative and report consistent
patterns of gross violations of human rights.
-- Rapporteurs should be encouraged to meet annually to improve
coordination and exchange views on methods and work.
-- On-site visits should be increased, and joint visits by different
mechanisms should become a regular part of their work.
-- Human rights mechanisms should provide for a sustained follow-up of
their recommendations by their countries concerned.
-- Mechanisms should be granted wider investigative powers and latitude
in making concrete recommendations to specific governments.
-- States identified by two or more thematic mechanisms in
consultations with each other as continuing serious human rights
violators should be considered by the Human Rights Commission for
appointment of a country rapporteur.
-- Human and financial resources for all mechanisms should be
significantly increased.
-- A fully computerized data bank should be established and made
available to all mechanisms.
-- A central documentation center should be established with full and
up-to-date information on thematic and country human rights issues.
-- The UN's confidential procedure for human rights should be
strengthened by: (1) transferring to public scrutiny any state
considered confidentially for 2 years, and (2) ensuring that up-to-date
information is used in making determinations.
C. Human Rights and Refugees
-- The UN should create an early warning system to alert the
international community to deteriorating human rights situations and
potential causes of refugee flows.
-- The Human Rights Center, its special rapporteurs, and other
mechanisms should make periodic reports, including to the Secretary
General, on rapidly deteriorating human rights conditions that have the
potential to create refugee flows. The Human Rights Center, in
cooperation with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, should monitor
and collect human rights information on a world-wide basis to identify
situations that could contribute to refugee flows.
-- The Human Rights Commission should increase the use of human rights
monitors to deter abuse and help prevent refugee-creating situations.
V. Promoting Democracy
-- The UN should increase its ability to assist with free and fair
elections when requested by governments.
-- The UN Human Rights Commission should establish a rapporteur on free
and fair elections.
-- The UN should coordinate with regional organizations to develop
programs to promote democracy.
-- The UN should give priority to developing programs to strengthen
democratic institutions and to improve the administration of justice and
the rule of law.
-- Given that independent worker and employer organizations are key to
the pluralism essential to democracy, the UN system and other agencies
should take due account of and facilitate ILO programs and standards to
assist in creating, protecting, and strengthening such organizations.
-- The UN should compile an extended list of rights that are non-
derogable and must be respected under all circumstances. Priority
should be given to defining minimum protections against arbitrary
detentions and for fair trial during states of emergencies.
VI. Promoting Human Rights
Education
-- Governments, non-governmental organizations, and the Human Rights
Center should actively promote programs aimed at creating a universal
commitment to human rights.
-- The Human Rights Center should establish a center for the training
of UN human rights experts in fact-finding, observation, supervision and
verification of elections, conflict resolution, and other such fields.
-- A more active program should be established to disseminate the texts
of human rights treaties and other human rights standards, principles
and guidelines.
-- The Human Rights Center, in coordination with UNESCO, should develop
more active programs for human rights education, including establishing
a program to train human rights trainers and to develop model human
rights curricula.
VII. Improving Respect For Diversity
-- All states should consider promptly ratifying the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and implement its
provisions.
-- The Human Rights Center should develop and provide advisory services
programs that promote respect for diversity, including the establishment
of special rosters of experts available to advise and assist requesting
governments on issues of diversity and conflict resolution.
-- All states should adopt legislation and programs that prevent
discrimination based on race, religion, or ethnic origin.
VIII. The Rights of Women
-- All UN mechanisms, including those concerning development, should
ensure that rights of women are respected and promoted in all their
activities.
-- The UN Division for the Advancement of Women should oversee the
systematic integration of women's issues into UN human rights programs.
-- The Human Rights Commission should appoint a special rapporteur on
violence against women. The rapporteur should investigate human rights
violations including battering in the family, rape, female infanticide,
"honor killings," "dowry murder," and other violence related to
traditional and customary practices.
-- All UN mechanisms entrusted with protecting human rights should
address equally violations of the human rights of women.
-- UN personnel and independent experts should receive training to
ensure they have the sensitivity and competence to address adequately
human rights abuses based on gender.
-- The United Nations itself must live up to the principles of non-
discrimination against women by encouraging the election or appointment
of women to treaty bodies, as special rapporteurs or as members of other
special missions, and in its own employment practices and those of the
specialized agencies.
IX. Rights of the Child
-- UN Human Rights organs should, in close coordination with the ILO
and UNICEF, establish plans and programs to eliminate child labor.
-- States should pay particular attention to the protection of
children's rights in armed conflict, including prevention of involvement
by children in hostilities.
-- The UN and specialized agencies should direct research and program
resources to the needs and interests of the most vulnerable groups of
children, including: the girl child; working and street children;
indigenous children; children affected by armed conflict; refugee and
internally displaced children; and children at risk or affected by sale
or trafficking, pornography, and prostitution.
X. Eliminating Torture by The Year 2000
-- All states should immediately ratify the Convention Against Torture
and implement its provisions.
-- States should intensify work on the Optional Protocol to the
Convention Against Torture.
-- The Human Rights Center should develop and provide advisory services
programs to train police, prison authorities, prosecutors,
investigators, and security forces to respect human rights.
-- All states should adopt legislation and programs to prevent
incommunicado detention.
-- All places of detention should be open to inspection by independent
medical and judicial investigators.
-- International human rights organs should be able to carry out on-
site inspections of all detention facilities.
-- The international community should ensure that torturers are in all
instances held individually accountable for their acts.
-- UN bodies should develop legal principles clearly establishing that
there is no statute of limitations for torture.
-- States are urged to contribute to and support the UN Voluntary Fund
for Victims of Torture.
XI. Follow-up to the World Conference
The 1998 UN General Assembly should assess progress made in realizing
the principles set forth in the Final Document of the World Conference
on Human Rights, as well as its program of human rights action. (###)
ARTICLE 3:
America's Partnership With the European Community
Secretary Christopher
Statement at the conclusion of the EC Ministerial, Plateau du Kirchberg,
Luxembourg, June 9, 1993
Thank you Mr. Minister. I want to express my thanks to Minister Helveg
Petersen for his leadership during the Danish Presidency of the European
Community.
We have enjoyed excellent cooperation during the Danish Presidency and
we have made a good deal of progress on key issues. We look forward to
working just as closely with the Belgian Presidency starting in July.
This is the first time I have met with the EC Foreign Ministers as a
group and I felt it was important--during our working session this
morning and over lunch--to reaffirm how strongly the new Clinton
Administration views its partnership with Europe.
The United States and Europe are inextricably linked. Our ties could
not be deeper. The United States is absolutely committed to European
security, and to a full range of economic and political interests that
we will pursue together.
The end of the Cold War and our shared victory over communism provides
the United States and Europe with an historic opportunity to pursue a
new agenda. This broad-ranging, positive agenda is based on our common
commitment to democratic values, collective security, human rights, and
free market principles.
Today, I made presentations on five areas of concern to the United
States and Europe. These topics included:
(1) strengthening our economies; (2) intensifying support for democracy
and free markets in Russia and the former Soviet Union; (3) searching
for a settlement of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia and making
sure that it does not spread into a wider Balkan war; (4) achieving a
lasting peace in the Middle East; and (5) curbing the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction.
The Clinton Administration defines American security not only in
political and military terms, but also in terms of economic strength.
The economic relationship that we discussed today not only spans the
Atlantic, but reaches eastward--across Europe to Russia and all the way
to Asia.
I also reviewed President Clinton's economic program. I noted that his
program has already helped push down long-term interest rates in the
U.S. to their lowest levels in two decades. Adoption of the President's
economic program will reduce the U.S. budget deficit and help spur
economic growth.
The strength of America's economy--and the economy of each of our
nations--also depends on opening markets and expanding trade.
Along these lines, we discussed our determination to successfully
conclude the Uruguay Round trade talks by the end of the year. We
noted the significant progress being made on market access agreements.
Our trade relationship already totals almost 200 billion dollars a year
and a broad trade agreement will generate further economic growth and
prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic.
I applauded the steps Europe is taking towards integration and
reaffirmed our support for a strengthened European Community. European
integration can also lead to a strengthened U.S.-EC partnership,
especially as we look eastward.
Second, support for reform in the former Soviet Union. Even at a time
of belt-tightening in the United States, President Clinton has taken a
series of courageous steps to support reform in Russia and the former
Soviet Union. He has made this case to the American people because of
his conviction that nothing is more important to the security of Europe
and North America than the success of economic and political reform in
Russia.
I urged the EC to support three important initiatives announced at the
April G-7 Ministerial in Tokyo: (1) The two billion dollar Special
Privatization and Restructuring Fund; (2) the Nuclear Threat Reduction
Program, modeled on our Nunn-Lugar program; and (3) the establishment of
a G-7 Special Implementation Office in Moscow to monitor assistance and
remove bureaucratic bottlenecks.
We all agreed to redouble our efforts to support Russian reform. If
reform fails, if Russia reverts to dictatorship, the consequences would
be appalling. We would again face the shadow of nuclear confrontation,
increased defense budgets and a major setback for the worldwide movement
towards democracy. We also discussed the importance of political
engagement with Ukraine. I reviewed the trip that Secretary Aspin and
Ambassador Talbott recently made to Kiev.
Third, Bosnia. Our work here and later this week in Athens will focus
on the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 836 establishing
safe areas. This resolution is an intermediate step to help bring the
killing to an end, and contributes to our goal of containing the Balkan
conflict while pressure grows on the warring parties--especially the
Serbs--to enter into negotiations that will lead to a political
settlement bargained in good faith.
I made clear our commitment to provide airpower to protect UNPROFOR
forces on the ground and our commitment to eventually provide ground
forces in connection with an agreement negotiated in good faith by all
the parties. I also stressed the determination of the United States to
take steps in Kosovo and Macedonia that will prevent the spillover of
this conflict elsewhere. On these points, I am sure that there is no
confusion or mistaken impressions.
Fourth, the Middle East. I told my colleagues that the Middle East
Peace Talks will resume in Washington on June 15 under the sponsorship
of the United States and Russia. I believe it will be possible to see
some tangible results emerge.
I am convinced that 1993 can be a breakthrough year, and the United
States will be pursuing intensive efforts to bring the parties together.
I reviewed three immediate objectives we have in fulfilling our role as
a full partner in these talks. First, we are helping the parties to
narrow gaps and draft language to represent emerging areas of agreement.
Second, we are pressing parties to make sustained efforts to improve the
situation on the ground. Security is important, but basic human rights
must also be respected to give people reason to continue their support
for these talks. Third, we are encouraging tangible actions to address
the economic and social needs in the region. I discussed monetary
commitments we have made in this regard and suggested that the EC should
also play a constructive role.
Fifth, the prospects for peace in that troubled region led me to make a
presentation on the long-term threat posed by the most urgent arms
control issue of the 1990s--proliferation.
I departed from the agenda of these discussions to call for strong,
collective action by the U.S. and Europe to deal with the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction, missiles for their delivery, and
sophisticated conventional arms and dual-use technologies.
We need concerted action to deal firmly and creatively with dangerous
states that are contributing to tensions in regions like the Middle
East.
The most worrisome of these countries--and the one that Europe can most
directly influence--is Iran. I suggested that the U.S. and the EC adopt
a collective policy of containment. Iran must be persuaded to abandon
its nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs.
Iran's economy is in trouble. Iran will be vulnerable to concerted
pressure from the West if it is clear that we seek strictly defined
changes in its behavior. The United States has moved, at some cost, to
forgo sales of certain dual-use goods and we have moved to control
exports of certain strategic goods and technologies.
Iran must understand that it cannot have normal commercial relations and
acquire dual-use technologies--while at the same time trying to develop
weapons of mass destruction.
This policy of containment and pressure will work if we pursue it
together with European nations. I called upon the European Community
today to consider a coordinated approach to this important and vital
issue.
Those are the elements of my presentations today in the meetings here in
Luxembourg. I would be happy to take a few questions. (###)
ARTICLE 4:
U.S. Leadership After the Cold War: NATO and Transatlantic Security
Secretary Christopher
Intervention at the North Atlantic Council Ministerial Meeting, Athens,
Greece, June 10, 1993
Mr. Secretary General: I am honored to be here in Athens to take part
in this meeting of the North Atlantic Council. This is the first formal
meeting of the NAC in ministerial session since President Clinton took
office. I therefore want to elaborate upon the basic statement I made
in February in Brussels on U.S. policy toward NATO and, more broadly,
transatlantic security.
But first let me thank Manfred Woerner for his letter setting out the
principal issues for our meeting today. I am impressed with the
soundness of both his analysis and his conclusions.
In meeting with you today, I am following every U.S. Secretary of State
of both political parties over four and a half decades. America's
commitment to the security of Europe is not bound by party, and, like
the Treaty of Washington itself, it is not bound by time.
Among us, we have built the most successful alliance in history. We
should never lose sight of that stunning truth. The values and
interests we share remain in force--and the challenges we face remain
formidable.
Above all, safeguarding the security of our countries and maintaining
stability throughout Europe remains the core responsibility of NATO.
The United States will sustain its unparalleled military strength. We
will continue to maintain substantial, effective forces in Europe--about
100,000 troops--to ensure our ability to meet our solemn security
commitment.
Beyond Europe, we are revitalizing the American economy, forging a new
partnership with Russian reform, working for peace between Israel and
its Arab neighbors, creating a new framework for our relations with
Japan, pressing for reform in China, finding new ways to protect the
global environment, and promoting human rights and democracy worldwide.
The end of the Cold War is making American leadership even more
important--and we accept the challenge.
Along these lines and as I indicated to the Secretary General this
morning, President Clinton proposes that there be a summit meeting with
his fellow NATO Heads of State and Government before the end of this
year. He sees such a meeting as an important opportunity to assess with
his colleagues how to continue to strengthen the alliance, and to adapt
its agenda to the challenges of the post-Cold War world. We would be
interested in hearing your views and discussing how we can obtain
maximum use from such a meeting.
For the past few years, NATO has been setting its course for the future.
But there has been an important continuity in our mission: to keep the
peace; to promote the freedom and security of our member states and
peoples; to reinforce unbreakable links across the Atlantic. And there
is an important new mission: to help the emerging democracies to the
East share in the benefits we have gained from this alliance.
The entire international community continues to search for effective
means to end the killing in Bosnia-Herzegovina, bring about a lasting
and equitable peace, and guarantee that this tragic conflict does not
spread. In pursuit of these goals, the United States and other Security
Council members agreed in Washington on May 22 on a Joint Action
Program. It represents a step forward, seeking to increase pressure on
those who have stood in the way of peace in Bosnia. We all recognize
that these are interim steps, not a comprehensive solution to this
tragic situation. A negotiated settlement--that is agreed by all three
parties and implemented in good faith--remains our goal. And let me
state again that new and tougher measures remain on the table, should
they be needed to reach that goal.
NATO is already supporting the Joint Action Program through enforcement
of the No-Fly Zone and sanctions enforcement in the Adriatic. NATO can
and should make several decisions today to demonstrate unity and purpose
on this issue--including further support of the Joint Action Program.
As you know, last Friday the UN Security Council enacted Resolution 836,
creating "safe areas." Resolution 836 authorizes UN member states to
use air power to support UNPROFOR troops in implementing the safe areas.
I believe NATO should join us in protecting UNPROFOR personnel with air
power if they are attacked and request assistance. The United States is
already committed to this, and we want to join our efforts with those of
other allies in a NATO operation. Such an operation should be based on
the structure already in place for No-Fly Zone enforcement.
As an additional contribution, the United States is prepared to provide
airlift to nations contributing troops to UNPROFOR's safe area
operations if they need this assistance.
Further, as a means to increase pressure for a settlement, we should
press our Eastern partners for enforcement of the UN sanctions against
Serbia. We should strongly endorse all efforts to enforce sanctions in
the region.
These sanctions must be unrelenting. Everyone should understand that
the United States will insist on the isolation of Serbia and Montenegro
from the community of nations until all UN requirements are met. Pariah
status is the price that must be paid for the aggression that is taking
place. Sanctions are also possible against Croatia if it supports
aggression and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
We recall well the pledge trumpeted by the Belgrade authorities to close
the frontier with Bosnia-Herzegovina. The world wants them to live by
their word--and is watching with growing disappointment as they conduct
business as usual.
Long-term pariah status must also be attached to those guilty of
atrocities. We intend to pursue vigorously the indictment and
prosecution of those who have committed war crimes in the former
Yugoslavia. Those who have committed such atrocities must pay for their
crimes.
This conflict must not be allowed to spill over. We must prevent a
wider Balkan war, which would threaten NATO allies and several emerging
democracies. It is essential that everyone in the region understand
that aggression against the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia would
have grave consequences. The United States will support an increase in
the international presence in that Republic.
I am pleased to announce today that we have offered the UN a reinforced
company team to augment the UN contingent already in the Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia. These troops underscore the seriousness of our
warning to Belgrade and the Bosnian Serbs. This offer of U.S. troops to
the UN has both symbolic and tangible significance.
Neither can we permit a crackdown in Kosovo that could lead to an
expansion in the conflict. The U.S. has made it clear to the Serb
authorities that such a move will not be tolerated. NATO should also
support an increase in the CSCE long duration missions in the former
Yugoslavia, particularly in Kosovo. I plan to discuss this with the
CSCE Chairman-in-Office and Secretary General when I visit Vienna next
Monday. Together these steps underscore the seriousness of our warnings
to Belgrade.
Today we must also reconfirm NATO'S readiness to assist the United
Nations in implementing a negotiated peace settlement. Credible
provisions for implementing such a peace settlement will be fundamental
to its prospects for success. The United States reaffirms its
commitment to participate with the UN and NATO in implementing and
enforcing that agreement, including the possible use of ground forces.
Finally, I believe we all recognize that the West missed opportunities
to head off this horrible problem. I hope we learn that we must work
together earlier to help prevent conflicts before they erupt. We must
develop mechanisms to deal more quickly and creatively with crises.
Further, we must give high priority to the development of peacekeeping
capabilities.
Mr. Secretary General, we have been preoccupied with Bosnia. But we must
also create the basis for tomorrow's security in the North Atlantic area
and throughout Europe.
This alliance can succeed only if we make our political and economic
linkages as strong as our military ties. We must strengthen bonds
between North America and the European Community. Indeed, European
security today is a compound of political, economic, social, and
military efforts. Preserving common security across the Atlantic
requires us to focus not only on renewing NATO, but also on concluding
the GATT Round. Transatlantic relations cannot be overly
compartmentalized--either in substance or, increasingly, in
institutions.
In this new era, we must show our parliaments and peoples that we share
burdens as we share risks. The drastically diminished threat after the
Cold War leads us to reduce our military spending. But if any of us
cuts spending to the point of imperiling the common needs of the
alliance--even worse, if there is a free-fall in defense spending--then
the alliance faces not only a crisis of confidence but a corrosion of
capability. The United States will maintain its military commitment and
responsibilities in Europe. But President Clinton and I must be able to
show the U.S. Congress that the allies are doing the same. Sharing must
be a visible NATO principle: sharing of burdens; sharing of
responsibilities; sharing of decisions.
Mr. Secretary General, I believe that between now and our next meeting,
which I hope will be a Summit, we need to achieve progress in five
important areas.
First, we must strengthen the unique qualities of NATO cooperation.
Never before have so many nations joined together to confront common
challenges. Never before have the military forces of so many countries
worked together so effectively, both in NATO's integrated command and in
informal arrangements. Never before have the defense industries of so
many countries adopted the same standards and made possible such a
multiplication of military strength. These achievements must not be
squandered. We must maintain our ability to act when our interests are
challenged.
Despite the grave situation in the former Yugoslavia, there is no
fundamental challenge to the political order in Europe that could
produce a new Continent-wide war. Sustaining that achievement will
depend in part on reinforcing our alliance, our practices of
cooperation, our robust military defenses and command structures.
If the cooperative linkages among our defense industries are permitted
to erode as defense budgets fall, each member nation and the whole
alliance can lose the benefits of this special "force multiplier."
That's why the Defense Trade Code of Conduct is so important. We must
also continue updating NATO's common infrastructure program to ensure
that we invest in assets essential to meeting new challenges.
Second, we must help to make and keep the peace in Central and Eastern
Europe. For many countries, the "unfreezing of history" has vastly
complicated the transition from Communism to democracy.
Peacemaking and peacekeeping are most effective when they are preceded
or accompanied by timely political efforts to reduce tensions and settle
disputes. NATO must be able to take political decisions for early,
sustained, and credible engagement. Its military leaders must have
confidence in the ability of this Council to provide timely and
effective political direction.
Different member states will approach situations with different
political sensitivities in mind, and with different peacekeeping
structures that they might prefer. But we should also work to develop
core NATO peacekeeping procedures that will balance political
acceptability and military effectiveness. We don't need to "reinvent
the wheel" each time NATO's peacekeeping capabilities are needed. These
capabilities are especially important to help new democracies succeed--
and to draw our NACC partners firmly to the West.
Third, we must work more effectively with other institutions with goals
similar to NATO's. The U.S. commitment to European security will
continue to be expressed first and foremost through NATO. We reaffirm
that "the alliance is the essential forum for consultation among its
members, and the venue for agreement on policies bearing on the security
and defense commitments of allies under the Washington Treaty."
But while NATO is central to our common purposes, it is not alone in
pursuing goals consistent with the broadest definition of security. The
UN, CSCE, EC, the NACC, the WEU and the Council of Europe have valuable
roles to play--and each should be energized. Important progress has
been made in developing complementary, interlocking institutions. But
NATO needs to build more effective links for crisis prevention,
management and communication among them to meet new challenges to
European security.
With the United Nations, we should extend planning beyond ad hoc
arrangements to a more systematic relationship. We must also seek to
ensure that NATO states that are not members of the UN Security Council
are nonetheless more engaged in reaching decisions that affect their
interests. The United States supports the idea of establishing a
contact group consisting of key contributors to peacekeeping activities.
The United States welcomes the development of a European security and
defense identity. This will make our own commitment even more
effective. Such an identity can also sustain and build popular support,
in Europe, for meeting European commitments and responsibilities. We
also welcome the opportunity to work even more closely with France in
alliance defense activities, and we look forward to expanding that
cooperation.
NATO must develop closer ties with the WEU. But we should also recall
our declared intention "to preserve the operational coherence we now
have and on which our defense depends." And we must act on the premise
that although the military capabilities of the two institutions are
separable, they must not be seen as separate.
Fourth, we must create the basis for continent-wide security. In
declarations of the North Atlantic Council since 1990, we have accepted
the mandate for developing a system and practices of security that span
the continent. All states need to implement reductions already placed
on Cold War weaponry and further reduce any residual risks. And states
left outside the security system could in time pose dangers to it.
Outreach activities with NACC partners--and work with the CSCE--are
vitally important. CSCE's innovative work on crisis management and
conflict prevention is one of the most promising security experiments
underway in Europe today.
Securing the full benefits of ending the Cold War depends on
consolidating the place of the post-Communist states in the community of
democratic nations. Western Europe has succeeded in replacing a
thousand years of strife and turmoil in Europe with a new approach to
security grounded in basic human values and the rule of law. Now the
great test is whether it can be achieved in the East.
At an appropriate time, we may choose to enlarge NATO membership. But
that is not now on the agenda.
Most important, we should intensify and expand the work program for the
NACC and broaden its mandate. This institution has already proved its
worth in involving post-Communist states with the West. It can and must
become much more. For example, the NACC states should step up joint
consultations, joint activities on peacekeeping, exchange of personnel,
training in civil-military relations and joint exercises. We are once
again prepared to contribute $500,000 to the NATO budget to support NACC
activities, provided other allies contribute a proportionate share.
By our next meeting, we should agree upon an expanded NACC agenda,
designed to draw post-Communist states more closely into the structure
of security for the heart of Europe. At the same time, we should
develop new ways for those European nations not in the NACC to
participate in NATO work.
As Secretary of Defense Aspin reported to the Defense Planning Committee
(DPC) two weeks ago, the United States is developing a strategic
partnership with Russia, agreed upon by Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin
at Vancouver. We want to build similar relationships, based on commonly
shared values and principles, with all the new post-Communist states.
In building more partnerships, we will of course work closely with our
NATO allies. We do not see these relationships as mutually exclusive or
as a substitute for other bilateral or multilateral relationships.
President Clinton is also initiating a strategic partnership with
Ukraine. Of course, it remains important that Ukraine fulfill its
Lisbon Protocol commitments, ratify START I, and accede to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear state. Ukraine and other
newly independent states of the former Soviet Union must also be
integrated into European institutions--such as the NACC and CSCE--as the
best assurance of their independence, security, and territorial
integrity. I would be glad to report to you on Secretary Aspin's and
Ambassador Talbott's recent trip to Ukraine in detail during the
discussion period after lunch.
In recent years, the West has created a series of ad hoc means of
coordinating policy toward the post-Communist states in a number of
areas, especially economic policy. But as yet, we have no shared
strategic framework to link nations across the old East-West divide. We
should strengthen the NAC--along with the NACC--as a central forum to
discuss broad strategic policy. We need to ensure that we develop an
approach that reaches out to Russia and all the new states of the
region.
Fifth and finally, just as we recognize the importance of extending
NATO's role eastward on the continent, we must intensify cooperation on
threats to allied interests arising from beyond Europe. We have learned
that we must act against other threats to our common security from
outside the North Atlantic area--whether or not the allies act together
or through the institutions of the alliance.
We face no more urgent security threat than the potential spread of
weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them. NATO
governments must work to achieve the unconditional and indefinite
extension of the NPT at the 1995 Review Conference. But we must do even
more. Proliferation is the emerging arms control agenda of the
Nineties--and we must be prepared collectively to take stronger action.
States seeking to threaten the peace by acquiring these weapons must
know that we will oppose them.
Our proliferation agenda must also encompass new partners. Above all, we
should cooperate with Russia and the NIS. All NATO governments have a
direct interest in the rapid and safe dismantling of the former Soviet
Union's nuclear forces. This task is beyond the means of any one
nation. And it will involve much greater costs if we do not combine our
efforts to accelerate denuclearization now.
Mr. Secretary General, between now and our next meeting, let us work
together to achieve concrete results in each of these five areas. Let
us take specific steps to maintain NATO's strength, improve peacemaking
and peacekeeping, cooperate more closely with other institutions, extend
security cooperation eastward, and respond to threats from beyond the
Continent.
President Clinton has nominated a top-flight individual, Dr. Robert
Hunter, to be the new U.S. Ambassador to NATO. We are eager to have him
join the allies on the Council very soon. I have asked him to work
closely with you in these key areas so that we can register progress at
our next meeting.
Mr. Secretary General, I know that I have proposed an ambitious agenda
for the North Atlantic Council during the next several months. But I
believe it is an agenda appropriate to the challenges. We seek not to
find new tasks to justify an old alliance, but to use this enduring
alliance to face new tests. This agenda demonstrates that the North
Atlantic Alliance is vital to us all.
Thank you. (###)
ARTICLE 5:
NAC Final Communique
Issued at the Ministerial Meeting of the North Atlantic Council (NAC),
released by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Athens, Greece, June
10, 1993
1. Our meeting in Athens takes place against the background of the most
violent conflict that our continent has witnessed in more than a
generation. The ongoing fighting and cruelties pose a formidable
challenge to the whole international community. We have today consulted
first and foremost on the security problems of the Balkans--on ways to
bring peace to the former Yugoslavia and to prevent spillover of
conflict into other areas. We are determined, individually and as an
Alliance, to support the efforts of the United Nations and other
institutions to end this war.
2. It must be understood by all concerned that spillover of the
conflict would have grave consequences. In that connection, we support
proposals to increase the number of CSCE monitors, particularly in
Kosovo. We also welcome the US offer of troops to augment the UN
contingent already in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
3. We support the establishment of safe areas in Bosnia-Hercegovina for
the protection of the civilian population, as defined in UNSC
Resolutions 824 and 836. In response to UNSC Resolution 836 and the
expanded UNPROFOR mandate related to safe areas, we offer our protective
airpower in case of attack against UNPROFOR in the performance of its
overall mandate, if it so requests. We have asked the NATO Military
Authorities, who have already undertaken preliminary work, to proceed
rapidly with detailed planning for the air support that we are ready to
provide, in coordination with UNPROFOR and other participating states.
The establishment of safe areas is a temporary measure leading towards a
negotiated settlement based on the principles of the Vance-Owen plan
which guarantee the full sovereignty, territorial integrity and
political independence of the Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina. In that
context, we also welcome the measures set forth in the Joint Action
Programme signed in Washington, DC on 22 May 1993. NATO remains ready
to contribute to the implementation of such a settlement in concert with
others and under the authority of the UN Security Council. We will
continue rigorously to enforce UN embargoes in the Adriatic, together
with the WEU, and the UN-declared no-fly zone over the Republic of
Bosnia-Hercegovina. We do not exclude any options in support of new and
tougher measures decided by the UN.
4. In the CSCE area, other regional conflicts continue. They threaten
the process of peaceful change and the emergence of a new order of
cooperative security that our Alliance is seeking to achieve. In line
with the core functions of the Alliance, we are determined to consult
fully within NATO on these new challenges. Conflict prevention, crisis
management and peacekeeping will be crucial to ensuring stability and
security in the Euro-Atlantic area in the years ahead. Our Alliance
continues to have a key role in the security of Europe. While
reaffirming that the primary goal of Alliance military forces is to
guarantee the security and territorial integrity of member states, we
will contribute actively to these new tasks in order to enhance our
security and European stability.
The Transatlantic Link
5. The transatlantic partnership remains vital for European security
and stability. The promotion of peaceful change in Europe needs a
strong and dynamic Atlantic Alliance. The challenges we face in
building democracy and security by cooperation throughout Europe cannot
be comprehensively addressed by Europe or North America alone but only
through broad and thorough joint efforts. In order for NATO to fulfil
its mission of collective defence and its new tasks as referred to
above, not least in support of peacekeeping, and to enable it to
cooperate with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and Central
Asia, a strong transatlantic dimension is essential. The substantial
presence of US armed forces in Europe and the continuing political and
military commitment and active engagement in European security of both
the United States and Canada will remain indispensable.
Alliance's Role in Support Of Peacekeeping
6. The Alliance has demonstrated its readiness to support UN or CSCE
peacekeeping operations, which place new demands on it. The forces,
internal structures and procedures of the Alliance are being adapted to
the new security environment. The Alliance will carry this process
further to enable us also to respond more quickly and effectively to
requests to support peacekeeping operations and fully to involve all
Allies in the Alliance's new role in peacekeeping, recognising that
national participation will remain subject to national decision. We
underline the importance of providing adequate resources, both to
maintain an effective military contribution to the common defence and to
ensure the implementation of NATO's new tasks.
Cooperation With the Countries of Central and Eastern Europe and Central
Asia
7. We are developing with our partners in the North Atlantic
Cooperation Council a common understanding on conceptual approaches to
peacekeeping. In order to improve the ability of our forces to interact
effectively when carrying out peacekeeping tasks together, we are
enhancing our cooperation in this field. Associating non-Allied
countries with the Alliance in this way underscores the extent of the
Alliance's transformation and will be an important factor in building
confidence and cooperative security in Europe. This effort complements
that of the CSCE, which has been associated in this undertaking through
Sweden as its Chairman-in-Office.
8. The building of durable democratic institutions and the pursuit of
effective political and economic reforms in our North Atlantic
Cooperation Council (NACC) partner countries remain of utmost importance
for European stability. In this connection, we welcome the results of
the Russian referendum in April which have clearly indicated the desire
of the Russian people to move ahead with reform and not to return to
discredited formulas of the past. Cooperation with the countries of
Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia, particularly in the
framework of NACC, is a key element of the Alliance's strategy for
protecting peace and promoting progress through constructive joint
efforts. Development of cooperation in peacekeeping is substantively
enhancing our cooperative activities and reflects our shared commitment
to peace. Concrete cooperation among our countries is developing
further through the implementation of the 1993 Work Plan.
Cooperation With Other Institutions
9. Our Alliance's objective of coping with regional conflicts and of
contributing to security and stability in Europe can be accomplished
only through close cooperation with other institutions in the framework
of our concept of mutually reinforcing institutions:
-- The conflict in the former Yugoslavia has given rise to the
implementation by NATO of a number of Resolutions of the United Nations
Security Council which has the primary responsibility for international
peace and security. Relations between both organisations have developed
very substantively and effectively. The Alliance has responded to the
invitation of the Secretary General of the United Nations to suggest
ways in which the Alliance might generally contribute to the realisation
of the concept developed in his "Agenda for Peace." The Secretaries
General of the two organisations have established direct contact and we
would welcome further contacts at various levels. Communication and
coordination between NATO and the United Nations need to be further
enhanced. We have asked the Secretary General to propose to the Council
in Permanent Session appropriate measures to that end.
-- The work of the CSCE will continue to have our active support. We
look forward to continued discussion of European security issues in the
CSCE Forum for Security Cooperation with the goal of achieving timely
results in all the areas currently under consideration in the Forum.
The CSCE has a central role to play in preventive diplomacy. Security
and stability in Europe are decisively advanced by the prevention of
conflicts. We welcome the important contribution of the CSCE to
conflict prevention and efforts to achieve a peaceful settlement of
disputes. We encourage the further development of the CSCE's capacities
in this area. In this respect we welcome decisions taken by the CSCE to
strengthen its operational capabilities through structural reforms and
the appointment of a Secretary General. We welcome the arrangements
which allow NATO to participate in the work of the CSCE and to cooperate
with it. We will strive to develop further the interaction and
cooperation between NATO and the CSCE.
-- The WEU's move to Brussels has contributed to enhancing interaction
and close day-to-day working relations between NATO and the WEU in the
spirit of transparency and complementarity to which we are both
committed. The participation of the Secretaries General in respective
Council meetings has been valuable. The two organisations have
contributed in close cooperation and in a complementary manner to the
efforts by the international community to deal with the conflict in the
former Yugoslavia. This is demonstrated clearly by the Sharp Guard
operation in the Adriatic. The two organisations have decided to
reinforce their cooperation in the Adriatic by forming a single command
structure for their participating vessels, under the joint direction of
the Councils of both organisations. We welcome the common initiative of
the WEU and Riparian States to strengthen the enforcement of the United
Nations' sanctions on the Danube.
Regional Issues
10. We discussed a number of regional issues, in particular the
conflict being dealt with by the CSCE Conference on Nagorno-Karabakh and
other sources of tension on the territory of the former Soviet Union, as
well as the need for the expeditious completion of the withdrawal of
foreign forces from the Baltic States. We will also consult tomorrow
with our Cooperation Partners in the North Atlantic Cooperation Council
on all these issues.
The Mediterranean
11. Security in Europe is greatly affected by security in the
Mediterranean. Consequently, we encourage all efforts for dialogue and
cooperation which aim at strengthening stability in this region. The
example of our improved understanding and cooperative partnership with
the countries of Central and Eastern Europe could serve to inspire such
efforts.
Non-Proliferation, Arms Control and Disarmament
12. We remain determined to pursue our arms control objectives, in
particular in the field of non-proliferation and with respect to full
implementation of existing Agreements. In this regard:
-- We reiterate our strong support for the Treaty on Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons, and for its unconditional and indefinite extension
in 1995. We shall be working for a strengthened verification regime.
We welcome Belarus's decision to adhere to the Treaty, and urge
Kazakhstan and Ukraine to fulfil without delay their commitment to
accede to it as non-nuclear weapon States. We also urge all countries
that have not yet done so to become parties to the NPT as non-nuclear
weapons states. We call on North Korea to revoke its stated intention
to withdraw from this Treaty, and to comply with its IAEA safeguards
obligations.
-- We welcome the START II Treaty and look forward to the early
ratification by all parties and entry into force of both START
Agreements. In this context, we welcome the ratification of START I by
Belarus and Kazakhstan. We call on Ukraine to ratify START I and to
allow its provisions to be implemented, and for START II to be ratified
and implemented. We expect Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to implement
fully their commitments to eliminate all nuclear weapons from their
territories as soon as possible. The Allies intend to continue to offer
support to ensure the rapid, safe and secure elimination of former
Soviet nuclear weapons, in accordance with current agreements;
-- We stress the critical importance of the CFE Treaty and of its full
implementation for European security. We call upon all other
signatories to comply fully with the Treaty's provisions. In
particular, we attach great importance to the timely fulfilment of
reduction obligations, including the provision of coordinated reduction
liability data by the CFE successor states to the Former Soviet Union in
accordance with the Oslo Final Document.
We intend to consult on these and other arms control and disarmament
issues tomorrow with our Cooperation Partners in the North Atlantic
Cooperation Council.
Conclusion
13. Three years after the revolutionary changes in Europe we can
register important achievements. But more needs to be done. The
Alliance's long-standing and ultimate goal of a just and lasting order
of peace in Europe remains far from being reached. We will,
individually and as an Alliance, pursue with vigour and determination
our commitment to overcoming the resurgent quarrels and to building
mutual understanding, peace and cooperation.
We thank the Hellenic Republic for its gracious hospitality.
Our Autumn North Atlantic Council meeting will be held in Brussels on 2
December 1993. (###)
ARTICLE 6:
NACC's Essential Role
Secretary Christopher
Statement before the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, Athens, Greece,
June 11, 1993
Mr. Secretary-General, it is a pleasure to attend my first North
Atlantic Cooperation Council Ministerial. I want to begin by conveying
President Clinton's commitment to building a positive relationship with
all the countries of Europe dedicated to democracy, prosperity,
security, and peace. The United States will fulfill its continuing
responsibilities in Europe, as I made clear in my comments at
yesterday's North Atlantic Council (NAC) meeting.
The NACC is becoming a central element in the growing web of security
ties that binds us together. It is tangible proof that the security of
NATO members is linked to that of all other states in Europe. It
reflects, above all, our concern for the security of the new
democracies.
We are pleased with the progress that the NACC has made in promoting
these goals. But as demonstrated by the conflicts and tensions in
Nagorno-Karabakh, Georgia, Moldova, and Tajikistan, we still have far to
go. Our ties must deepen. We must develop a new cooperative security
order in Europe. That new security order will depend on mutually
reinforcing institutional and bilateral relationships. And it will
succeed by developing new capabilities to address common problems.
I propose, therefore, that we work together in preparation for our next
ministerial to broaden the mandate of the NACC and intensify and expand
its work program.
I believe the NACC should step up its consultations on political and
security issues--and improve its ability to promote solutions. We
should also develop further programs for exchanges of civilian and
military personnel. Our goal should be a shared strategic framework and
active cooperation to link nations across the old East-West divide.
To meet the new challenges of the post-Cold War era, the international
community needs to develop more effective tools for crisis prevention
and management. I would like to commend the efforts of several of the
states represented here to enforce United Nations sanctions against
Serbia. We recognize the hardships this has entailed. Nonetheless, I
want to urge still greater efforts to enforce the sanctions and to
increase the pressure on Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs to come to a fair
settlement and end the bloodshed.
I am pleased that today's communique reflects the support of NACC states
on behalf of our common efforts in the former Yugoslavia. I am also
pleased that the communique reflects a broad range of agreement on steps
we should take together in encouraging the spirit of partnership we seek
to build.
We strongly support the NACC's program of cooperation on peace-keeping.
This sends a powerful signal of the resolve of the Euro-Atlantic
community to respond effectively to new threats to peace, stability, and
human rights.
NACC cooperation should focus on specific activities with direct
application to UN and CSCE peace-keeping. In particular, I would stress
the importance of joint planning, training, and exercises. Our aim
should be to develop a joint capability to act together in future peace-
keeping operations. Therefore, we should today direct the NACC's Ad Hoc
Group to implement quickly the initial recommendations it has made, and
to continue to develop concrete new activities. We view this program as
the first step toward the unprecedented degree of military cooperation
that will be essential to building a new cooperative security order in
Europe.
For its part, the United States is prepared to make available the
facilities of the newly inaugurated Marshall Center in Garmisch,
Germany, as a forum and training center for NACC activities and other
efforts to address the defense and security issues of the post-Cold War
era. We have agreed to sponsor a workshop at the Marshall Center to
address issues concerning joint peace-keeping exercises. I would also
like to invite and encourage your respective governments to appoint an
appropriate "senior civilian" to participate on the advisory board of
the Marshall Center.
We need to explore new ways to engage the capabilities of NACC, CSCE,
and other bodies to address regional insecurities before they escalate
into conflict. We have a particular opportunity to contribute
effectively to CSCE initiatives in conflict prevention and crisis
management.
For the NACC to reach its full potential, we need to raise the level of
participation by all our countries. We hope that all NACC partners will
soon be represented by permanent missions in Brussels. We hope that
more NACC activities can be scheduled in partner states. We are
interested in re-examining the prospect of establishing NATO information
offices in Cooperation Partners' capitals. We should consider providing
temporary assistance to those states facing the greatest barriers to
participation. I also want to note that at the NAC, I reiterated the
U.S. offer to contribute additional funds to the NATO budget to increase
support for NACC activities--provided that our other allies contribute a
proportionate share.
The fact that we can gather here as friends and partners reminds us of
the great progress made in the past few years. Yet we are also reminded
of the great challenges that remain for the NACC and its agenda of
cooperation, transparency, and the peaceful resolution of disputes.
This Council is a central element in forging the cooperative security
order emerging in Europe. As the heirs of the two blocs that faced off
during the Cold War, we should use this unique and innovative forum to
its fullest potential, with the emphasis on practical cooperation.
(###)
ARTICLE 7:
Joint Communique on Angola
Text of the Joint Communique on Angola, released by the Office of the
Assistant Secretary/Spokesman, Washington, DC, June 8, 1993.
The delegations of Portugal, the Russian Federation and the United
States of America, led respectively by the Secretary of State for
Cooperation Jose Manuel Briosa e Gala, Director of the African
Department Grigoriy B. Karassine, and Assistant Secretary of State for
African Affairs George E. Moose, met in Washington, D.C. the 8th of June
1993 in order to review the latest developments in Angola and to
consider ways to reestablish peace.
The delegations reaffirmed that a political solution offers the only
prospect for ending the post-electoral crisis in Angola. In this
regard, deep disappointment was expressed regarding UNITA's refusal to
initial the set of principles in the Abidjan Protocol, which could have
led to an immediate cease-fire in place, a phased withdrawal of UNITA
forces and the simultaneous and gradual insertion of UN personnel to
monitor the cease-fire. The delegations reiterated their support for UN
Security Council Resolution 834 of June 1, 1993 which unanimously
condemned UNITA's actions and urged all states to refrain from providing
any form of direct or indirect military assistance or other support to
UNITA inconsistent with the peace process. It was also agreed that the
United Nations continues to have an essential role in the search for a
lasting solution to the present crisis.
The delegations observed that the intensification of hostilities by
UNITA since the May 21 suspension of the peace talks, its continuing
efforts to seize additional territory and its destruction of economic
assets and infrastructure critical to the welfare of the people of
Angola, strongly contradict UNITA's declarations that it is seeking a
peaceful solution. These actions call into serious question UNITA's
intention to reach a negotiated settlement. The delegations stressed
that UNITA's continuing threats against nationals and property of their
respective countries are seriously undermining the efforts of the
observers to facilitate future negotiations that could lead to peace.
Within this context, the observers reiterate their strong support for UN
Security Council Resolution 804 of January 29, particularly paragraph 11
which demands that UNITA immediately release foreign nationals taken
hostage.
The June 3 donors' conference in Geneva welcomed the agreement by the
Government of the Republic of Angola to allow humanitarian deliveries
wherever the need exists. The delegates call upon UNITA to accept the
proposed UN plan immediately and begin implementation as soon as
logistical arrangements can be completed. The observers call upon the
international community to respond generously to the June 3 UN appeal.
The observers discussed potential actions that could be taken should
UNITA continue to fail to respond to appeals that it end its military
actions and return to the negotiations. At the same time the observers
reiterated their full support for UN Security Council Resolution 811 of
March 12, including paragraph 12 which appeals to all member states to
render economic, material and technical assistance to the Government of
Angola for the reconstruction and development of the country. The
observers will hold discussions with other UN member states prior to the
July 15 deadline for the renewal of the mandate of UNAVEM II to
coordinate possible actions within the UN.
The observers also reaffirmed that the key principles of the Bicesse
Peace Accords, whose validity has been confirmed on numerous occasions
by the Government of the Republic of Angola and UNITA, as well as the
additional principles contained in the draft Memorandum of Understanding
of the Abidjan Protocol to reinforce the Accords, are the best basis for
a peaceful settlement. The observers expressed their readiness to:
-- reactivate the monitoring and guarantee mechanisms of the Peace
Accords,
-- support the reinforcement of the role of the United Nations once
agreement is reached on a comprehensive settlement, and
-- consider means to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches all
people in need throughout Angola in a timely manner.
The delegations of Portugal and the Russian Federation would like to
express their gratitude to the Government of the United States of
America for its hospitality. (###)
ARTICLE 8:
Department Statements
Cyprus Negotiations: Confidence-Building Measures
Statement by Acting Department Spokesman Joseph Snyder, Washington, DC,
June 8, 1993.
At the June 1 session of the latest round of talks in New York,
Ambassador Walker commended the UN Secretary General for his work with
the two Cypriot communities, which produced an evenly balanced package
of confidence-building measures designed to improve the atmosphere for
the Cyprus talks.
We support the Secretary General's package, including his proposals for
Varosha and the Nicosia International Airport. We believe that these
proposals are fair and balanced and offer real economic and practical
benefits to both sides.
We supported the short recess recommended by the Secretary General to
permit the Turkish-Cypriot side to consult and consider the Secretary
General's confidence-building proposals. Mr. Denktash has given
assurances that he will use this time constructively to promote the
Secretary General's proposals.
We believe that Turkey should be helpful in ensuring an agreement on
this package, since its troops control the fenced area of Varosha and
Turkish-registry planes would be permitted to use the Nicosia
International Airport under the UN's proposal.
We believe that the package of confidence-building measures, including
the proposals for Varosha and Nicosia International Airport should be
accepted quickly and in their entirety, and we are confident that
acceptance of the package will improve the atmosphere for talks on the
political issues contained in the UN "set of ideas" for a fair and
permanent solution to the Cyprus problem.
El Salvador: Recent Violence
Statement by Acting Department Spokesman Joseph Snyder, Washington, DC,
June 10, 1993.
The United States Government is deeply concerned about recent violence
in El Salvador, particularly the murder of four military officers, two
police officers, and a demonstrator in separate incidents in the last
month.
On May 24, a group calling itself the Salvadoran Revolutionary Front
(FRS) claimed responsibility for three of these murders as part of its
campaign to target military and police officials in retaliation for the
death of a demonstrator during a protest at the Presidential Palace on
May 20.
Such violence can only undermine the progress that has been made as a
result of the Salvadoran peace accords. We condemn it.
The Salvadoran Government and the UN mission in El Salvador (ONUSAL) are
investigating these incidents. We urge a thorough investigation, and we
urge that those found responsible be held accountable. If any group
currently benefiting from programs funded by the U.S. Government is
found to be involved in organized violence, assistance to that group
will be terminated immediately.
El Salvador: UN Statement On Arms Cache
Statement by Acting Department Spokesman Joseph Snyder, Washington, DC,
June 11, 1993.
Today the President of the UN Security Council, Ambassador Juan Antonio
Yanez of Spain, issued a statement regarding the discovery of an arms
cache belonging to the FMLN in Nicaragua on May 23.
He calls "the maintenance of clandestine arms . . . the most serious
violation to date of the commitments assumed under the Peace Accords."
We agree with the President of the Security Council. We condemn this
grave violation of the peace accords.
The maintenance of this cache calls into serious question the strength
of the FMLN's commitment to peace. This commitment can be proven only by
full and transparent compliance with the peace accords. The FMLN must
immediately demobilize all combatants, including urban commando units;
present a detailed list of all arms currently being held both within El
Salvador and beyond its borders; and deliver these arms to the competent
authorities. To do less threatens the peace accords.
The statement of the UN Security Council President is a clear indication
of the gravity with which the international community views this FMLN
violation. The credibility of the FMLN is now on the line before the
international community. We call on the FMLN to demonstrate its
commitment to democracy and the rule of law by acting quickly and
decisively to bring itself into full compliance with the peace accords.
(###)
END OF DISPATCH VOL, NO 25
To the top of this page
Index of Dispatch Magazine Archives 1993 Issues||
Index of Dispatch Magazine Archives||
Index of "Briefings and Statements"
Index of Electronic Research Collections
ERC Reference Desk ||
Alphabetic Index ||
Sitemap ||
ERC Homepage
Last modified: Jun. 3, 1999
Designed by: Lin Dou