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