U.S. Department of State Dispatch Volume 6, Numbers 50, 51, 52 Bureau of Public Affairs Notice to readers: The production schedule for Dispatch Magazine was disrupted by the federal government furlough that began on December 16, 1995. This Dispatch issue, therefore, combines the contents of Volume 6, issues 50, 51, and 52 ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE: 1. Turning From the Horror of War to the Promise of Peace in the Balkans - President Clinton 2. Peace in Bosnia: A Dividend of American Leadership - President Clinton 3. NATO: Reaching Out to New Partners and New Challenges - Secretary Christopher 4. NATO Foreign and Defense Ministers Hold Meeting on Bosnia - Secretary Christopher 5. NATO: Building a New Security Structure for Europe - Secretary Christopher, Secretary of Defense Perry 6. Working To Engage a Relationship Between Russia and NATO - Secretary Christopher, Russian Foreign Minister Kozyrev 7. NATO Alliance Advances the Goal of European Integration - Secretary Christopher 8. Ministerial Meeting of the North Atlantic Council: Final Communique 9. Recent Achievements in Europe and Their Implications - Secretary Christopher 10. Renewing the Middle East Peace Process - President Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Peres 11. American Leadership and the New Europe: Implementing the Dayton Peace Agreement - Deputy Secretary Talbott 12. The OSCE's Role in Building an Undivided Europe - Deputy Secretary Talbott 13. The OSCE in Bosnia - Deputy Secretary Talbott 14. State Department Support for AIDS-Awareness Programs - Deputy Secretary Talbott 15. International Crime-Fighting Strategies - Robert S. Gelbard 16. Protecting the Earth's Ozone Layer 17. Rethinking Proliferation in the Post-Cold War Era: The Challenge Of Technology - Thomas E. McNamara 18. Treaty Actions ARTICLE 1: Turning from the Horror of War to the Promise of Peace in the Balkans President Clinton Remarks at the signing of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Paris, France, December 14, 1995 President Chirac, President Izetbegovic, President Tudjman, President Milosevic, Secretary General Boutros-Ghali, Secretary General Solana, Representative Bildt, Prime Minister Filali, Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, Prime Minister Major, Prime Minister Gonzales, Chancellor Kohl: Let me begin, on behalf of the people of the United States, by thanking all of those whose labor and wisdom helped keep hope alive during the long, dark years of war--the humanitarian relief workers, the United Nations forces from Europe and beyond. Had it not been for their dedication and their sacrifice, the toll of the war in Bosnia would have been even greater. And I thank those whose work helped make this moment of peace possible, beginning with our host, Prime Minister Chirac, for his vigor and determination; Prime Minister Major, who was a full partner in the development of the rapid reaction force and our NATO cooperation; and our friend, Chancellor Kohl, who has taken in so many of the refugees and who now is sending German troops beyond his borders in this historic, common endeavor. I thank the leaders of the strong NATO and the determined negotiating team of Russians, Europeans, and Americans. All of you have brought us to this bright new day, when Bosnia turns from the horror of war to the promise of peace. President Izetbegovic, President Tudjman, President Milosevic: By making peace, you have answered the call of your people. You have heard them say, "Stop the war, end the suffering, give our children the blessings of a normal life." In this chorus for peace today we also hear the hallowed voices of the victims--the children whose playgrounds were shelled in the killing fields, the young girls brutalized by rape, the men shot down in mass graves, those who starved in the camps, those who died in battle, the millions taken from their homes and torn from their families. Even from beyond the grave, there are victims singing the song of peace today. May their voices be in our minds and hearts forever. In Dayton, these three Balkan leaders made the fateful choice for peace. Today, Mr. Presidents, you have bound yourselves to peace. But tomorrow you must turn the pages of this agreement into a real-life future of hope for those who have survived this horrible war. At your request, the United States and more than 25 other nations will send you our most precious resource--the men and women of our armed forces. Their mission: to allow the Bosnian people to emerge from a nightmare of fear into a new day of security, according to terms you have approved in a manner that is evenhanded and fair to all. The international community will work with you to change the face of Bosnia: to meet human needs; to repair and to rebuild; to reunite children with their families and refugees with their homes; to oversee democratic elections, advance human rights, and call to account those accused of war crimes. We can do all these things, but we cannot guarantee the future of Bosnia. No one outside can guarantee that Muslims, Croats, and Serbs in Bosnia will come together and stay together as free citizens in a united country sharing a common destiny. Only the Bosnian people can do that. I know that the losses have been staggering, that the scars are deep. We feel even today that the wounds have not healed. But Bosnia must find a way, with God's grace, to lay down the hatreds, to give up the revenge, to go forward together. That is the road--indeed, that is the only road--to the future. We see, from Northern Ireland to the Middle East, from South Africa to Haiti, people turning from hatred to hope. Here in Europe, countries that for centuries fought now work together for peace. Soon the Bosnian people will see for themselves the awesome potential of people to turn from conflict to cooperation. In just a few days, troops from all over Europe and North America and elsewhere--troops from Great Britain, France, and Germany; troops from Greece and Turkey; troops from Poland and Lithuania; and troops from the United States and Russia--former enemies, now friends--will answer the same call and share the same responsibilities to achieve the same goal--a lasting peace in Bosnia where enemies can become friends. Why would they do this? Because their hearts are broken by the suffering and the slaughter; because their minds recoil at the prospect of a needless, spreading war in the heart of Europe. But they--we--do so in the face of skeptics who say the people of the Balkans cannot escape their bloody past, that Balkan hearts are too hard for peace. But let us remember this war did violence not only to Bosnia's people but also to Bosnia's history, for Bosnia once found unity in its diversity. Generations of Muslims, Orthodox Catholics, and Jews lived side by side and enriched the world by their example. They built schools and libraries and wondrous places of worship. Part of the population laid down their tools on Friday, part on Saturday, and part on Sunday. But their lives were woven together by marriage and culture, work, a common language, and a shared pride in a place that then they all called home. Now, if that past is any guide, this peace can take hold. And if the people of Bosnia want a decent future for their children, this peace must take hold. Here in this City of Light, at this moment of hope, let us recall how this century--marked by so much progress and too much bloodshed, witness to humanity's best and humanity's worst--how this century began in Bosnia. At the dawn of the century, when gunfire in Sarajevo sparked the first of our two world wars, the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Gray, said these words: "The lamps are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetimes." But they were lit again, by an extraordinary generation of Europeans and Americans. The torch of freedom they carried now shines more brightly than ever before on every continent. That torch can shine on Bosnia again, but first it must warm the hearts of the Bosnian people. So I say to all the people of the Balkans on behalf of all of us who would come to see this peace take hold: You have seen what war has wrought. You know what peace can bring. Seize this chance and make it work. You can do nothing to erase the past, but you can do everything to build the future. Do not let your children down. (###) [Box Item] The texts of the agreement and related documents will be printed in Dispatch Supplements Vol. 6, No. 5 and Vol. 7, No. 1, and will be available on "U.S. Foreign Affairs on CD-ROM" (USFAC) in the March 1996 release. One-year subscriptions to USFAC, a quarterly archive of U.S. foreign policy information, are available through the U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954, tel: (202) 512-1800. The cost is $81 (domestic) and $101.25 (foreign); payment can be made by check (payable to the Superintendent of Documents), GPO Deposit Account, or Visa or MasterCard (include account number, expiration date, and authorized signature) [Box End]. (###) ARTICLE 2: Peace in Bosnia: A Dividend of American Leadership President Clinton Remarks to the Committee for American Leadership in Bosnia, Washington, DC, December 6, 1996 I want to welcome this distinguished group of Americans to the White House. Each of you has worked very hard throughout your career to preserve and to project America's leadership around the world. Today you have joined across partisan lines to make a strong case for America's leadership in Bosnia, and I thank you for that. I welcome the support that you and others, including Presidents Bush and Ford, have shown for our troops and our efforts to secure peace in Bosnia. All of you represent a spirit that has helped keep our country strong. Regardless of party or political differences, you've stood up for America's leadership on behalf of our interests and our values. Many of you have been working for peace in Bosnia since that terrible war began. Now that the Balkan leaders have made a commitment to peace, you know that we must help that peace take hold. You understand the importance of our action and the costs of our failure to act--something, I might add, that has been under-discussed in the public arena in the last few weeks. Our conscience demands that we seize this chance to end the suffering, but our national security interests are deeply engaged as well. Europe's security is still inextricably tied to America's. We need a strong Europe as a strong partner on problems from terrorism to the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Europe's stability is threatened as long as this war burns at its center. We have to stand with the Europeans on Bosnia if we're going to stand with them--and if we expect them to stand with us--on the whole range of other issues we clearly are going to face together in the years ahead. Our engagement in Bosnia is also essential for the continued viability of NATO. All the parties there--all the parties--asked for NATO's help in securing this peace. If we're going to be NATO's leader, we have to be part of this mission. If we turn our backs on Bosnia now, our allies will do the same; the peace will fail, the conflict could spread, the slaughter will certainly resume. NATO would be shaken to its core. Its ability to shape a stable, undivided Europe would be thrown into doubt, and our leadership in Europe and around the world would pay a terrible, terrible price. For 50 years, the bipartisan consensus for our leadership in the world has been a source of America's progress and strength. At the dawn of the post-Cold War era, that consensus is being questioned. But I believe that vision and unity are still called for. During my recent trip to Europe, everywhere I went and every person with whom I talked--from people on the street to prime ministers--said the very same thing: American leadership matters. American leadership is welcome. American leadership is necessary. But leadership is not a spectator sport. In Bosnia, our leadership can make a difference between peace and war. It demands our participation. I have to tell you that I knew how the European leaders felt, and I thought I knew how the people in the street felt. But the personal expression of support for America's willingness to help broker this peace agreement in Dayton and then to participate in the peace mission in Bosnia was more intense, more persistent, and more urgent than I had imagined--from the Prime Minister of Great Britain to the Prime Minister of Germany, to the Prime Minister of Spain, to the Prime Minister of Ireland, and everyone else I talked to. This is a very, very, very important thing in terms of our relationships with Europe and what we expect in terms of a partnership with Europe in the years ahead. Let me say to those of you who come here from both parties: I understand that bipartisanship in foreign policy has never meant agreement on every detail of every policy. And while we may differ from time to time on the specifics of our policies, we still must agree--and we have never fundamentally disagreed on purpose--to defend our interests, to preserve peace, to protect human rights, to promote prosperity around the world. That does not mean that we can solve every problem; we cannot be the world's policeman. But when our leadership can make a difference between war and peace and when our interests are engaged, we have a duty to act. We have seen the dividends from the Persian Gulf to the Middle East, from North Korea to Northern Ireland to Haiti. American leadership can also produce those dividends and more in Bosnia, because we can make a difference there. I'm convinced that this mission is clear and it's achievable. Our troops will have strong rules of engagement. They will operate under an American general, and they will be fully trained and heavily armed. Our commanders have done all they can to minimize the risks and to maximize their ability to carry out a clearly defined mission with a clear end point. There will be no "mission creep." The peace agreement has given these parties a real opportunity to have a peaceful future. But they can't do it alone, and they're looking to us to help. America is seen by all of them as an honest broker and a fair player. Each of you has played a role in creating that image, and I want to thank you for that as much as anything else. The thing that has constantly impressed me as I have dealt with people all around the world is that people believe we are a nation with no bad motives for them or their future. That is what has made this moment possible in Bosnia, and that is what has also imposed upon us our responsibilities at this moment. For all that you have done to bring that about and for your support today, I thank you very, very much. (###) ARTICLE 3: NATO: Reaching Out to New Partners and New Challenges Secretary Christopher Intervention at the North Atlantic Council Ministerial Meeting, Brussels, Belgium, December 5, 1995 Mr. Acting Secretary General, distinguished colleagues: It is an honor to speak to you on behalf of the United States. Let me begin by congratulating Javier Solana on his selection as our new Secretary General. Minister Solana has made a signal contribution to Spain's leadership role in Europe and its distinctive role in securing the peace in Bosnia. He and Prime Minister Gonzalez also have demonstrated leadership by making a strong transatlantic relationship such a high priority of Spain's EU presidency. I have been honored to serve with him as a fellow NATO foreign minister. I am confident he has the vision and the strength to guide NATO at this time of unprecedented challenge. For NATO this is, without exaggeration, a moment worthy of being called "historic." In fact, we have just heard an announcement that adds to the history being made this week. Let me be the first of our ministers to welcome what Minister de Charette has just said. The steps he has announced bring France more directly and fully into important aspects of the military side of the Alliance. It is particularly significant that now France will again be a full member of the Military Committee. It is also most welcome that Defense Minister Millon's presence in meetings such as this will become the rule, not the exception. Always a strong and loyal ally, France has been playing an important role in NATO's adaptation to its new post-Cold War tasks. Today, France has taken a further critical step, one that will increase the strength and effectiveness of the Alliance. The Alliance also has just approved its largest and most significant operation ever, and it has done so in the cause of peace. The mission in Bosnia will help ensure the stability of Europe by helping to end the worst European conflict since NATO's creation. It will unite more than two dozen nations in Europe and North America, including Russia, in a coalition of power and principle that only NATO could bring together, in a mission that only NATO could undertake. Today, the Alliance also will take the next step in its gradual but steady process of outreach and enlargement to the east. This process will encourage and consolidate the remarkable democratic gains that our new partners are making. It will help us move toward a Europe in which brutal conflicts, such as the one we are now resolving in Bosnia, become a thing of the past. Today's decisions reaffirm our conviction that NATO remains fundamental to stability and to peace on this continent. By acting on that conviction, we will ensure that, for the United States, for Europe, and for the alliance that unites our strength, the next 50 years will be as successful as the last. NATO was formed in the shadow of the Soviet threat. Meeting that threat was its primary goal for almost half a century. But its founders also created NATO to be a permanent alliance that would meet emerging threats to our security and deter new ones from arising. Likewise, our predecessors did not see NATO as a static institution. The Alliance always has been open to new members that share its principles and that could contribute to its goals. It always has been dedicated to the integration of as much of Europe as would eventually become free. Our Alliance helped assure the victory of democracy throughout Europe-- but that is not all it has done. In its first half-century, it helped reconcile nations that had long been divided by conflict, thus making European integration possible. It provided a secure environment for war-torn economies to rebuild. And it grew from its original 12 members to 16, bringing new nations into our transatlantic community of democracies. What NATO did to strengthen the bonds within our community complements what it did to protect our community. Today, NATO is fulfilling its enduring mission by meeting new challenges. It is helping us overcome what are now the most immediate threats to the stability of Europe: the fragility of democratic institutions in Central Europe and the former Soviet Union, the potential resurgence of old territorial disputes, and the exploitation of ethnic and religious tensions. It is in the former Yugoslavia that these new threats have appeared in their most dangerous and deadly form. And among all Western institutions, only NATO has had the strength to bring the brutal war in this region to an end. Without NATO's determined efforts, including its air campaign, there would not have been a peace agreement in Dayton. Moreover, the parties made it clear that they would reach a settlement only if NATO agreed to lead a peace implementation force. In less than two weeks, the Presidents of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia will gather in Paris to sign the peace settlement. Shortly thereafter, our soldiers will begin to deploy to Bosnia by land and by air, so that the parties will have the confidence they need to carry out the agreement. Advance teams are already on the ground to prepare for the arrival of the main force. NATO rightly refused to fight a ground war in Bosnia. But now we have a chance to secure the peace, and we are seizing that chance. This will be a noble mission, unique in the history of Europe. It will be a defining challenge for this alliance. It will have profound consequences for our interests today and for our hopes for the future. Most immediately, it means that the killing in Bosnia can stop for good. It means that the children of a European country will be able to walk to school and play in the streets without having to fear a sniper's bullet or a falling mortar shell. NATO's mission is precisely defined and realistic--to implement the military aspects of the Dayton Peace Agreement. It will not be NATO's job to guarantee Bosnia's recovery from four years of violence. But our troops can give Bosnia an opportunity to rebuild, an opportunity to find justice, an opportunity to flourish as a single, sovereign state. The deployment of IFOR means that this terrible war will not spread. Ever since the violence began, we have faced the real possibility that it would destabilize a region where shifting frontiers and ethnic tensions have long been a cause of conflict among great powers. A wider war would directly threaten those members of the Alliance that border this volatile region. As a threat to Europe's security, it would also be a threat to America's security. Ending such a war would be far more costly and dangerous than the operation we are launching today. The deployment of IFOR also meets a fundamental challenge to NATO and to its mission of protecting Europe from war. It brings an end to a war that for four years has been an affront to the values and a threat to the interests of each member of the Alliance. Our NATO troops in Bosnia will be joined by soldiers from many of our new partners to the east. In the last two years, we have held numerous exercises together under the Partnership for Peace. We have marveled that soldiers who once trained to fight each other in war were training together to prepare for missions of peace. Now, that training is paying off in a real mission with enormous stakes. We are determined that NATO will continue to reach out to new partners and new challenges. That is the future of our Alliance in a Europe that must become more integrated. Our comprehensive strategy, from the Partnership for Peace to the process of enlargement, to our new relationship with Russia, is not an abstract vision. It is meant to help us deal with real-world problems such as the war in Bosnia. Our mission in Bosnia will be its first true test. It is important and gratifying, for example, that Russia is playing a role in IFOR. The U.S. Secretary of Defense, William Perry, has met with Russian Defense Minister Grachev four times in the last seven weeks to hammer out the operational details of Russia's participation. In Bosnia, we will demonstrate in the most tangible way possible that NATO and Russia can work together constructively on behalf of stability in Europe. And we will reaffirm the inclusiveness of our approach to European security. We must continue to strengthen the NATO-Russia relationship. The Partnership for Peace offers strong prospects to continue building cooperation with the Russian military and civilians alike. We look forward to Russian and Allied troops participating in joint exercises-- while IFOR is in Bosnia, and beyond. And we welcome General Grachev's recent expressions of support for an enhanced Russian role in the partnership. NATO has also developed a political framework for its future relationship with Russia. I want to encourage Russia to respond positively. This relationship is vital to building an integrated Europe at peace. Last May, we recognized also that Ukraine is a linchpin of European security. As a result, NATO is also developing a relationship with Ukraine that will be similar to the ties we are developing with Russia. I am pleased that Ukraine has participated in several major land and sea exercises in 1995 and that Ukraine has declared its willingness to serve with us in IFOR. At last December's NAC, we launched the first phase of NATO's enlargement. The NATO enlargement study, which the Alliance recently completed, will form the foundation of our enlargement effort. The study confirms that potential members must meet the same obligations as each existing member of the Alliance. We have made it clear to interested partners that they will be admitted to NATO only if they continue to consolidate democratic institutions, establish firm civilian control over their militaries, and respect international norms at home and abroad. By participating in IFOR under NATO command, many will begin to demonstrate that they are willing and able to meet NATO's considerable obligations. Our strategy is producing many other positive results. From Romania to the Baltics, the prospect of NATO membership has been a powerful argument for continued democratic reform. It was an important incentive for Hungary and Slovakia to sign a treaty guaranteeing respect for borders and minority rights--a treaty we expect to be fully carried out. These results demonstrate the wisdom of our course. Indeed, to lock in these kinds of gains, enlargement must move forward. Today, we begin the second phase of the process of NATO enlargement. Beginning in early 1996, those partners who wish to pursue membership will hold intensive consultations with the Alliance. Their countries will learn quite specifically what will be expected of them and their armed forces if they become members. And NATO will assess what each potential member will be able to contribute. At the same time, the Alliance will consider what internal measures it will take to prepare for enlargement. In particular, we will examine the resource and staffing implications. We believe that this process should take us through all or most of next year. We should take on the question of the next steps at our North Atlantic Council meeting in December 1996. What is important is that we remain on our steady, deliberate course. We also will take new steps to strengthen the Partnership for Peace. The Partnership will be a critical proving ground for partner countries wishing to join NATO. We will adopt a program of practical work that will strengthen ties. For some countries, this program will be a work plan toward membership. For others, it will deepen their long-term partnership with the Alliance. The Partnership for Peace will remain a permanent and significant part of Europe's new security architecture. Since its launch nearly two years ago, the Partnership has exceeded all expectations. In 1995, 10 major exercises were conducted in locations as diverse as the Black Sea waters of Bulgaria and Romania, off Denmark's Jutland coastline, the plains and forests of the Czech Republic and Hungary, and the bayous of Louisiana. At least a dozen major Partnership exercises of increasing complexity are scheduled for 1996, drawing on the land, sea, and air capabilities of virtually every Alliance and partner country. NATO also is taking a set of steps to strengthen the Partnership for Peace and the North Atlantic Cooperation Council in all their dimensions. I am pleased that this ministerial will agree to move forward in five specific areas, consistent with the proposals I set forth in Noordwijk last June: First, we will complete work with our partners through the North Atlantic Cooperation Council--NACC--on principles for civilian and democratic control of the military. Through the Partnership for Peace, we will develop concrete guidelines and actions to implement them. Progress in this area will help interested partner countries prepare for NATO membership, while making an important contribution to democracy across the region. Second, we have agreed to establish a joint defense planning and review process committee to foster deliberative consultations between Allies and partners. We will encourage partners to apply the planning and review process to all elements of their armed forces, not just those performing peacekeeping and humanitarian tasks. We hope that the committee can contribute to the interoperability of partner and NATO armed forces and to the adaptation of partner military doctrines to NATO's. Third, we will establish a stronger, more substantive role for partners in the planning of partnership exercises. Such a role will now become a standard, permanent feature of the exercise planning process. It will help us conduct more complex and challenging exercises that meet partners' needs while improving our capability for joint action. Fourth, we will involve partners more routinely in the substantive activities and consultations of the North Atlantic Council--NAC--and NATO senior committees. This will help us extend the kind of consultative and practical cooperation undertaken in the planning and review process to non-military areas of the Partnership. It will also advance our goal of deepening the Partnership's political as well as its military character. Finally, we have agreed to increase our bilateral funding and improve its coordination in support of the Partnership. I placed a special emphasis on the urgency of additional resources at our last ministerial, and I am pleased that we have agreed to move forward. Although partners will remain responsible for making their own contributions to ensure their participation, it is essential that NATO members do more to sustain the Partnership's success. I also look forward to the report due next spring that will recommend ways to realign NATO budgets and staff to meet future Partnership needs. Let me stress the importance of helping our partners achieve greater compatibility with the Alliance. We should encourage other partner countries to build on the examples set by Poland and Hungary by developing "national NATO compatibility plans." These plans would focus their efforts to reform military and defense structures in ways that are consistent with Alliance standards. Developing and implementing such plans will be of clear benefit to countries wishing to prepare for NATO membership. It will also strengthen the ability of other partner nations to participate in peacekeeping and other joint missions. The United States is determined that the Partnership for Peace sustain the remarkable momentum it has achieved since its inception. The durability of the Partnership can be complemented by giving greater vitality to the NACC as a political framework for relations between the Alliance and its partners. The NACC should move beyond its solely consultative role to become a more results-oriented forum. Besides setting guidelines for civilian control of the military, the NACC could also work to encourage good neighborly relations between partner countries. This could lead to joint Partnership exercises designed to complement the confidence-building measures underway through the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Political cooperation of this kind can be another way to help prepare partner countries for membership in NATO and for all partner countries to deepen their security. Let me turn briefly to another issue that we must resolve if we are to solidify the comprehensive new European security architecture we are building. The Conventional Forces in Europe--CFE--Treaty is a landmark model for security cooperation, and it is critical to a stable and secure Europe. Under the treaty, more than 50,000 pieces of military equipment already have been destroyed. Confidence has been boosted by this reduction in arms and by the openness with which it has been achieved. Indeed, the CFE Treaty provides dramatic evidence that the Cold War is over. But the continued and complete fulfillment of all CFE obligations is essential to strengthening the security of all states party to the treaty. The United States has welcomed the agreement reached last month in Vienna by all 30 CFE states specifying the elements of a solution to the flank problem. We must finalize a solution to the flank issue in the next several months. We should intensify our work in Vienna and agree to send policy-making officials--with decision-making authority from national capitals--no later than mid-February. These officials should press for a cooperative solution that reinforces the integrity of the treaty and the security of all the states party to it. Finally, let me reaffirm the importance the United States attaches to a stronger European defense identity that will support greater operational flexibility for European operations and greater burden-sharing between European and North American allies. We support improving coordination and cooperation between NATO and the Western European Union. And we continue to support the concept of combined joint task forces--and we hope to reach final agreement on it soon. Making progress on these fronts will contribute to the process of European integration, which the United States has supported for half a century and will continue to support as we approach a new century. I observed at the outset that this is a time of defining challenge for this alliance and its future. More than that, it is a positive turning point for the United States and Europe and for the relationship that we are destined to share. Over the past year, some have questioned whether we would drift apart--whether the ties that bind us would inevitably fray in the post-Cold War world. The events of the end of this fateful year prove them wrong--profoundly wrong. Two weeks ago, we reached the agreement in Dayton--an agreement that we would not have reached without steadfast military and diplomatic cooperation between the United States and its European allies. On Sunday, President Clinton completed his fifth trip to Europe as president--a trip on which he reaffirmed our ancestral ties to Britain and Ireland, reinvigorated the peace process in Northern Ireland, and reinforced the determination of our Bosnia-bound soldiers training in Germany. On Sunday in Madrid, he stood with the Prime Minister of Spain and the President of the European Commission to launch an ambitious agenda of cooperation between the United States and the European Union. And next week, the eyes of the world will be on Paris when the settlement of the bloodiest war in a half-century of European history is signed. We can be proud of these achievements. We can be proud of the commitment and cooperation that made them possible. We have demonstrated once again to ourselves and to the world that our common effort makes this a better world. Today, as we move forward together, let us have confidence in this great Alliance and in the common purpose that unites our two continents. (###) ARTICLE 4: NATO Foreign and Defense Ministers Hold Meeting on Bosnia Secretary Christopher Intervention at sixteen-plus-sixteen meeting of NATO foreign and defense ministers on Bosnia, in Brussels, Belgium, December 5, 1995 Mr. Acting Secretary-General, distinguished colleagues: It is a great privilege for Secretary Perry and me to speak with you today on behalf of the United States and President Clinton. For the first time in NATO's history, all 16 of our foreign ministers and all 16 of our defense ministers are meeting together. As we prepare to launch this historic mission in Bosnia, our alliance has never been more united. We are united because our mission is deeply rooted in NATO's fundamental purpose: to combine our strength in the defense of peace. That purpose was conceived by NATO's founders a half century ago in the wake of the two most destructive wars in human history. They created this permanent alliance to ensure we would never have to fight a third great war. In its first half century, our Alliance met its greatest test. As a result, we have reached the most hopeful period in the modern history of Europe. Thanks to NATO, Western Europe emerged from the Cold War more secure and united than ever before. Thanks to NATO, Central Europe was able to win its freedom, and the barbed wire that once divided this continent has been discarded for good. Thanks to NATO, the partnership between the United States and Europe is indissoluble, and we can pursue our shared interests and values effectively together. The Cold War is over, but we still have great challenges to meet. Such a challenge is clearly posed by the war in the former Yugoslavia. In the first shots that rang out in Sarajevo, we heard an ominous echo of the origins of World War I. In the killing fields and concentration camps of Bosnia we have seen our most terrible memories of World War II come to life again in the heart of Europe. This summer, the war in Bosnia reached a point of crisis. NATO faced the prospect of withdrawing UN troops from Bosnia under fire. But in these terrible events, we saw a chance to change the course of the war. Together, we agreed to take decisive action to protect Bosnia's remaining safe areas. Without NATO's determined use of force, our diplomacy could not have brought the parties to the table. Without the prospect of a NATO implementation force, the parties would not have had the confidence to reach--and to implement--a comprehensive settlement. Without NATO, there would be no peace and no hope in Bosnia. The Dayton Peace Agreement has given us our best hope to achieve a lasting peace. We wanted an agreement that addressed all the fundamental issues that divided the parties, with no short cuts or ambiguities, and that is what we obtained. We wanted Bosnia to remain a single state, and it will. We did not want Sarajevo to be divided as Berlin once was, and it will not be. As we negotiated, we constantly insisted on an agreement that our troops could implement and enforce safely and effectively. Each part of the agreement was carefully constructed to take the needs of our armed forces into account. The three Balkan presidents have provided formal assurances for the safety of our troops. We expect them to take the necessary steps to ensure that this and every other commitment made at Dayton is fully honored. NATO has approved a detailed operational plan to implement the agreement. This plan meets two tests that President Clinton laid out in his address last week to the American people. First, the mission is "precisely defined--with clear, realistic goals that can be achieved in a finite period of time." NATO can provide a respite from fear and a chance to start rebuilding, but only the people of Bosnia can finish the job. Second, our troops will have the strength and authority to protect themselves and to fulfill their mission. I am confident this plan will have the support of the American people and our Congress. For each of our nations, deploying troops is always a difficult and solemn choice. But President Clinton has made clear that the United States is determined to carry out the responsibilities of leadership. Meeting that responsibility is profoundly in the interest of our nation and the world. Last weekend in Ireland, President Clinton reminded us that European soldiers have stood shoulder to shoulder with America far from European shores, most recently in the Persian Gulf and in Haiti. Nowhere is it more important that we stand together than in Europe, where our common security interests are so great. We designed NATO to secure these interests effectively and to share the risks of our collective effort. Our 16 nations will form the critical core of the NATO force in Bosnia. But equally important, we will be joined by our new partners from Central Europe and the New Independent States, who will serve side by side with NATO troops for the very first time. The breadth of this coalition is not unique just in NATO's history. In all of modern European history, this is the first time that soldiers from every European power will serve together in a common military operation. Think of it: soldiers from France and Germany, Britain and Spain, Greece and Turkey, Poland and Sweden, Russia and the United States all sharing the same risks on the same soil, under the same banner, at the same time. Never before could we say with such conviction that our only remaining enemy is war itself. We are closer than ever to fulfilling the dream that Harry Truman expressed upon the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty. "If there is anything inevitable in the future," he said, "it is the will of the people of the world for freedom and peace." Because of the mission we launch today and because of our strategy of integration, the entire continent can one day share the blessings of peace that unite our community of free nations. As we strive with our partners to overcome the division of Bosnia, we can also help overcome the remaining division of Europe. Bosnia, once the symbol of Europe's post-Cold War disintegration, can be the proving ground for a broader and deeper transatlantic community. These are goals that the United States and Europe can and will achieve as allies, as partners, and as friends. Winston Churchill's immortal words remain our guidepost: "Let us move forward together." Thank you. (###) ARTICLE 5: NATO: Building a New Security Structure for Europe Secretary Christopher, Secretary of Defense Perry Opening remarks at a press conference, NATO Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium, December 5, 1995 Secretary Christopher. Good afternoon. Secretary Perry and I have just taken part in what can accurately be called a historic day here at NATO. For the first time, all 16 NATO foreign ministers and all 16 NATO defense ministers met together. This was a clear demonstration of the unity and common purpose that NATO has as we prepare to launch our mission in support of peace in Bosnia. In addition, today, we heard welcome news that France intends to participate more fully in the military aspects of NATO. We also confirmed the selection of Foreign Minister Javier Solana of Spain as the next Secretary General of NATO. We launched a new phase in NATO's enlargement program. And we have taken steps to strengthen the Partnership for Peace. Not a bad day's work, as far as NATO goes. NATO's deployment in Bosnia will help to ensure the stability of Europe by helping to end the bloodiest conflict in Europe since NATO's creation. Without NATO's air campaign, we could not have brought the parties in Bosnia to the negotiating table. Without the prospect of a NATO Implementation Force, it is clear to me that there would have been no peace agreement in Dayton. As my colleagues made very clear to us, also, without United States leadership, without United States participation in the Implementation Force, NATO would be not able to carry out the important mission which will be launched by today's meeting. Today, at our meeting of defense and foreign ministers, we heard a briefing from the NATO commander--the American George Joulwan--who gave us a briefing on the NATO mission plans. His briefing makes it clear that the mission is precisely defined, with clear, realistic goals that can be achieved in about a year. Our troops will have the strength and the authority to carry out their mission with maximum safety. More than two dozen countries are united in a coalition of power and principle to help the parties in Bosnia in their courageous decision for peace. In all the modern history of Europe, this is the first time that soldiers from virtually every major European power will serve together in a common military operation. Think of it: soldiers from France and Germany, Britain and Spain, Greece and Turkey, Poland and Sweden, Russia and the United States, all sharing the same risks on the same soil, under the same banner, and at the same time. Today, the Alliance also began the next phase in the process of enlargement, a process that was launched by President Clinton at the NATO summit in January 1994. Beginning in early 1996, those partners who wish to pursue membership in NATO will hold extensive consultation with the Alliance on what would be expected of them if they became members. NATO, in turn, will consider what it needs to do to prepare for enlargement--what would be the responsibilities and consequences if an enlargement decision were taken. This process will take us through all or most of next year. We will then consider steps to be taken thereafter at our meeting next December. We also agreed today to take new steps to strengthen the Partnership for Peace. This includes a program of practical work, which will be a work plan toward membership for some countries, and for other countries, a means of strengthening their long-term relationship with NATO. I am pleased that the ministers also adopted measures to strengthen the Partnership in five respects, as I had proposed last spring. In closing, let me simply say that today's actions demonstrated the vitality and continuing importance of the Alliance as a force for peace and stability in an integrated Europe. Thank you very much. Secretary Perry. Secretary Perry. For 50 years, NATO prepared for war, and our vigilance helped deter the very war that we feared. Now we are preparing to implement a peace in Bosnia. It is both ironic and wonderful that the largest military operation in NATO's history will be to forge a peace, not to fight a war. All the qualities that we developed for war--unity of command, discipline, and a shared vision of a secure Europe --all of these qualities will make us effective in peace. Today's meeting made it clear that NATO is approaching the challenge in Bosnia with remarkably strong unity and a clear, common vision. My favorite motto is the Latin phrase carpe diem--"seize the day." What we have seized this day is more than an opportunity to secure peace in Bosnia. We have seized the opportunity to build a new security structure for Europe, a structure which will last well into the 21st century. We are also seizing the opportunity to advance the NATO-Russia pragmatic partnership, an opportunity to resolve our differences and pursue our common causes in a spirit of comity and cooperation. I met with Minister Grachev four times in the last seven weeks. We dealt with very difficult problems, but we did succeed in hammering out an agreement in principle. This agreement called for Russian participation in the peace Implementation Force. The NATO staff is now working with the Russians to make this agreement final. It is clear that this arrangement-- both in achieving it and in implementing it--will have its challenges. But our ability to establish this arrangement will demonstrate that there is a new NATO-Russian partnership at work. In effect, this agreement casts a long shadow on how we deal with all other security issues in Europe for decades to come. We are drawing a circle which includes Russia inside the circle working with us rather than outside the circle working against us. This is a moment of truth for our Alliance, a moment when we can and must secure peace in Bosnia and build a better Europe in the process. During the Cold War, President Kennedy voiced his hopes for the Atlantic Alliance. We are on the brink of realizing his hopes today. He said, “We must seek a world where peace is not a mere interlude between wars, but an incentive to the creative energies of humanity”. Let it not be said of this Atlantic generation that we left our ideals and visions to the past. Indeed, I believe that by our actions today, this Atlantic generation will carry our ideals and visions well into the future. (###) ARTICLE 6: Working To Engage a Relationship Between Russia and NATO Secretary Christopher, Russian Foreign Minister Kozyrev Opening remarks at press availability, Brussels, Belgium, December 6, 1995 Secretary Christopher. Good morning. It is always a pleasure to meet with my friend, Andrei Kozyrev. Of course, I am looking forward to doing that today. It is a good opportunity for us to review events since we were last together and to discuss this important NATO meeting. With respect to Bosnia, one thing I want to emphasize is that Russia has been our partner--and a very good partner--from the very beginning as a member of the Contact Group and then as one of the co-chairmen at Dayton. Naturally, both the Foreign Minister and I have considerable satisfaction with the comprehensive agreement that was reached at Dayton, and we are equally committed and determined to see that it is effectively implemented. Soon, American and Russian troops will be serving together in the implementation force--the first time we have served together since World War II. Last month, our soldiers trained together in a mock peacekeeping mission in Fort Riley. In Bosnia, we will demonstrate in the most tangible way that the United States and Russia can work together in a NATO operation, working constructively on behalf of peace and stability--an arrangement that was worked out through very careful conversations between American officials and Russian officials. I think it is our determination that we continue to work together to engage a relationship between Russia and NATO. NATO has developed a political framework for that relationship, and I will be encouraging the Foreign Minister to respond positively during his visit here. We will also discuss the important steps that the Alliance agreed to take yesterday with respect to the Partnership for Peace and the North Atlantic Cooperation Council--the NACC. We very much welcome the recent indication from Russia that they want to play an enhanced role in the Partnership for Peace which, of course, has turned out to be such a positive and strong organization. I expect to talk briefly with the Foreign Minister about NATO's process of enlargement and to emphasize that we are continuing on the steady, deliberate course that we have been on from the first--neither faster nor slower than we have indicated in the past. Finally, I look forward to discussing with the Foreign Minister the period ahead when we have a great deal of work to do in common and some problems to work through in common, such as the CFE matter. But I think the relationship here, in connection with Bosnia, is a symbol of the value of the United States-Russia relationship and it shows the prospect of an overarching relationship between Russia and NATO. So, Andrei, as always, I welcome you. It is very nice to see you again. Foreign Minister Kozyrev. First, thank you for the welcome. I share with you that our two countries are following the path that was established by the two presidents in Hyde Park. Yesterday, I had a telephone conversation with the President and he reminded me that he is going to strictly follow this path. As for the Bosnian issue, we will continue our endeavors in the spirit of political settlement and in accordance with our Partnership agreements. The military are continuing their work on the issues of military implementation but I think, more importantly, that it is to ensure right away a civilian settlement in the Balkans in order to find a proper solution for the civilian reconciliation in the Balkans. Concerning NATO, we will continue to study the content of yesterday's NATO document. Yesterday, the President had determined briefly but quite consistently our attitude toward these problems. It can go down to a formula--as yes to the Partnership and no to the enlargement. I welcome the fact that the communique of the NATO Council contains the mention of a model formula--of a model of European security, and I hope that this forum here in Brussels and next month in Budapest will be marked as an event of Russian-American cooperation in working out this new model. For us, this is a priority. I am glad that NATO's communique contains a mention of the substantial role of the OSCE, the essential role of the OSCE, and, in this spirit, we will continue our endeavors in Budapest. In a few words, our partnership is gaining momentum and the most important thing now is to fulfill it right to the point, to sustain it, to defend it. Finally, I agree with the Secretary of State that we have before us an agenda on the arms limitation and reduction concerning Europe and nuclear testing, as well as the strengthening of the ABM treaty, which will fasten the ratification of the START II treaty. In other words, I think that we will continue our work in a spirit of partnership between Russia and the United States. Finally, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his friendly attitude and for establishing a good tradition, and I think that this is right that we meet with the Secretary of State in the very beginning-- before or on the eve of any official function. (###) ARTICLE 7: NATO Alliance Advances the Goal of European Integration Secretary Christopher Remarks prior to meeting with foreign ministers from the Baltic and Central European countries, Brussels, Belgium, December 6, 1995 Good afternoon. I am pleased to continue the tradition of meeting with the foreign ministers of Europe's newly democratic states. This is the fourth such meeting. One of the most rewarding features of my job as Secretary of State is the chance to work with Europe's new democracies to help them become our close partners as we build an undivided Europe. Our meeting today comes at a defining moment for NATO, for our new partners, and for European security. This week, NATO approved its largest and most significant operation ever--and its first operation in which Central European and Baltic soldiers will be deployed on an actual mission with NATO troops under NATO command. The participation of these and other countries in our mission in Bosnia will make IFOR one of the most remarkable coalitions in European history. It vindicates the choice that NATO made two years ago to reach out to new partners, and it has important implications for the future. The Alliance is determined to advance the goal of European integration by bolstering the Partnership for Peace and pursuing a steady, deliberate policy of enlargement. We designed the Partnership for Peace to prepare our partners to work with NATO on concrete security problems. That is why we have held 10 major joint exercises in 1995 alone. Far sooner than anyone imagined, the Partnership is paying off--in a real mission with real stakes. Yesterday, NATO agreed to strengthen the Partnership further. This includes a program of practical activities, which will be a work plan toward membership for some countries and, for other countries, a means of strengthening their long-term relationship with NATO. Last year, at President Clinton's initiative, we launched the first phase of NATO's enlargement process. The enlargement study that the Alliance recently completed confirmed a number of important principles which will guide our future discussions. Yesterday, NATO launched the second phase in the process. Beginning early next year, those partners who wish to pursue membership will hold intensive consultations with the Alliance. They will learn quite specifically what will be expected of them and their armed forces if they become members. We expect to consider the question of the next phase at our NATO ministerial in December 1996. In the process of enlargement, potential members will be judged on a case-by-case basis. What matters is a commitment to NATO's goals and the ability to meet them. The process of enlargement will stay on course. Our approach will be steady and deliberate. For the United States, this process offers the prospect of peaceful integration on a continent where our own security is deeply engaged. Step by step, it gives us the opportunity to build a partnership with Europe as a whole. Those are the goals we will pursue today and in the days ahead. (###) ARTICLE 8: Ministerial Meeting of the North Atlantic Council: Final Communique Text of final communique issued by the North Atlantic Council, NATO Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium, December 5, 1995. 1. Today, we are pleased to appoint Mr. Javier Solana as the new Secretary General of the Alliance and Chairman of the North Atlantic Council. We express our deep appreciation for the outstanding contribution and service rendered to our Alliance in this challenging time by Secretary General Willy Claes. 2. We meet as the Alliance is preparing itself for the implementation of the military aspects of the peace agreement for Bosnia-Herzegovina under NATO command and with the participation of other countries. This confirms the key role of the Alliance in ensuring security and stability in Europe, in line with the Alliance's New Strategic Concept. The ongoing transformation and restructuring of our Alliance, which we are determined to carry forward in 1996, has prepared us better to meet this new challenge. The Alliance's cohesion and solidarity, together with a strong transatlantic link and partnership, are essential to our ability to perform NATO's core functions as well as to undertake an operation of this kind. We reiterate our firm commitment to this partnership, strengthened through a developing European pillar reflecting the emerging European Security and Defence Identity. We welcome the decisions announced by the French Foreign Minister at our meeting expressing France's strong commitment to engage more fully in a changing Alliance and its further transformation, as well as in the development of its European pillar. We also welcome the Transatlantic Initiative of the EU and the U.S. to broaden the foundations of the partnership. In 1996, the Alliance will continue the steady, measured and transparent progress leading to eventual enlargement. 3. Today, there is genuine hope that a lasting peace can be established in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Decisive action by the Alliance in support of the United Nations in the Former Yugoslavia, together with a determined diplomatic effort, broke the siege of Sarajevo and made a negotiated solution possible. We pay tribute to the men and women involved in Operations Sharp Guard, Deny Flight and Deliberate Force. We welcome the agreement initialled in Dayton for peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We are looking forward to the conferences in London, Paris and Bonn. We underline the importance of the civil-military interface in the implementation of the peace agreement. Quick and effective implementation of the peace agreement will be crucial for creating the conditions for the restoration of normal life in this war-torn country. We expect the parties to honour their commitments. The basic agreement on Eastern Slavonia and its rapid implementation are vital contributions to stability in the region. Later today, we will be meeting with our Defence Ministers for a detailed discussion of arrangements for the implementation of the military aspects of a peace plan in Bosnia-Herzegovina and will issue a separate statement. 4. We are pleased that Russia will contribute to the multinational force established to implement the military aspects of the peace agreement for Bosnia-Herzegovina. We attach great importance to this cooperation between NATO and Russia, which will not only help to ensure the successful implementation of the peace settlement but will also assist in building lasting cooperative security structures in Europe. We remain convinced that the construction of such a cooperative European security architecture, with the active participation of Russia, is in the interest of both NATO and Russia, as well as of all other states in the OSCE area. We welcome the agreement in principle reached between Secretary Perry and Minister Grachev on a political consultative mechanism on IFOR operations. We look forward to its being confirmed in a formal agreement between Russia and the Alliance. We reaffirm our commitment to close, cooperative and far-reaching relations between NATO and Russia, including mutual political consultations and practical security co-operation building on Partnership for Peace and our enhanced dialogue beyond PfP. We have initiated with Russia a dialogue on the future direction our relationship should take. To that end we put forward proposals in September on a political framework document elaborating basic principles for security cooperation as well as for development of permanent mechanisms for consultation. We look forward to a Russian response to our suggestions in carrying forward our fruitful dialogue on these subjects. Relations should be transparent, reflect common objectives, and be rooted in strict compliance with inter- national commitments and obligations. We are pleased that important consultations have taken place in a 16+1 format. In the course of recent months, we discussed a range of issues related to the situation in the Former Yugoslavia, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the safe and secure dismantlement of nuclear weapons, the CFE Treaty, and the enhancement of our relationship. We are committed to making full use of the potential of existing NATO-Russia agreements and invite Russia to do likewise. In this context, we would especially welcome strengthened and increased Russian participation in NACC and PfP activities. We affirm our strong support for the ongoing political and economic reforms in Russia. We will improve our information activities in order to promote better understanding of the Alliance, in particular its role in strengthening stability and security in Europe. 5. Democracy, independence, economic development and territorial integrity in all newly independent states are of direct concern to us. They constitute essential factors for stability and security in Europe. We will therefore continue to support actively the endeavours of these states and to develop further our cooperative relationships with them bilaterally as well as through the Alliance's initiatives. In this context, we reaffirm our support for an independent, democratic and stable Ukraine. We are pleased with the new impetus which was given to NATO-Ukrainian relations during the course of this year. We note with satisfaction Ukraine's active participation in the Partnership for Peace programme and in the North Atlantic Cooperation Council. Reflecting Ukraine's importance and role in European security and stability, we are developing an enhanced relationship in accordance with the objectives agreed during the visit of the Ukrainian Foreign Minister to Brussels in September 1995. We are looking forward to Ukraine's participation in the implementation of an agreed peace plan for Bosnia-Herzegovina, which will contribute significantly to the deepening of our practical cooperation. 6. We intend to continue to develop the North Atlantic Cooperation Council and the Partnership for Peace as permanent features of the evolving European security architecture. They will continue to play an important role in forging strong, lasting links between NATO and all its Partners. By deepening interaction and developing common habits of behaviour, both NACC and the Partnership contribute increasingly to security and stability throughout Europe. We are pleased that, in less than two years, Partnership for Peace has become firmly established and attracted widespread participation. Building on this momentum, the Alliance should ensure that the Partnership achieves its full potential. With the aim of expanding the scope of the Partnership, we are committed to: -- Working with Partners to strengthen the PfP's political-military dimension and current programmes of military cooperation; -- Further broadening and deepening the PfP planning and review process; -- Providing opportunities for Partners to assume greater responsibilities for shaping their cooperation programmes; -- Encouraging greater Partner participation in exercise planning, including the involvement of Partner Liaison Officers from the Partnership Coordination Cell; -- Increasing information exchange on bilateral programmes which support PfP. We welcome steps already taken to develop, broaden and deepen the PfP planning and review process, in particular, proposals to individualise and refine the interoperability objectives and opportunities for Partners to bring a greater part of their forces into the planning and review process. We encourage all Partners to take advantage of this process. We encourage Partners to develop individual, national plans that cover all aspects of Partnership, including civil-military relations, interoperability, defence policy and planning, etc. These plans would serve to give direction to the reform and restructuring of Partner defence establishments so as to make them more compatible with those of NATO. While these would be national plans, we stand ready to provide advice and assistance to our Partners. To ensure that appropriate resources are available to support the evolution of the Partnership, we have tasked the Council in Permanent Session to provide before our Spring Ministerial a report on the resource and staffing requirements for the Partnership, in the context of the overall report on Alliance budgetary management, structures and procedures which we have already requested. We are looking forward to tomorrow's meeting with our Partners in the North Atlantic Cooperation Council to discuss the state of our cooperation and to consult on current European security issues. In order to enhance the effectiveness and utility of the NACC, we have instructed the Council in Permanent Session to generate, together with our Partners, a more focused and result-oriented approach to those issues which are central to our cooperation programmes including developing common political objectives where appropriate. Within the NACC framework, we attach particular importance to programmes designed to give increased emphasis to the development of civil-military relations and the democratic control of armed forces and to the promotion of good neighbourly relations. Building on the dialogue already underway in PfP, we look forward to working with Partners to develop common objectives to assist them in ongoing reform efforts. We welcome the first steps taken to streamline and harmonise NACC and Partnership structures and procedures, in line with our remit of Noordwijk. 7. We note with satisfaction the progress achieved through NATO's enlargement study, the briefings to our Partners, and Partners' positive responses to our presentations. The study will remain a valuable foundation for the enlargement process. We have considered the issues raised by Partners which now need to be addressed in greater detail. Accordingly, we have decided that in 1996 the enlargement process will consist of three elements: -- With those Partners who so wish, we would pursue, on an individual basis, intensive bilateral and multilateral consultations, building on the foundation of the enlargement study and the presentations made during the first phase. Any interested Partner would be able to pursue an intensified, individual dialogue with the Alliance; -- Through further enhancement of the Partnership for Peace, the Alliance will adopt a programme of practical work that will strengthen ties between the Alliance and all of our Partners; For some Partners these activities will facilitate their ability to assume the responsibilities of membership, while for others they will serve to strengthen their long-term partnership with the Alliance; -- The Alliance will consider what internal adaptations and other measures are necessary to ensure that enlargement preserves the effectiveness of the Alliance. In particular, we must examine the resource and staffing implications of enlargement. These three elements will constitute the next phase of the enlargement process which NATO began in January 1994. Intensified dialogue will work in two directions. Interested Partners will learn more about the specific and practical details of Alliance membership; they can review their efforts in terms of the various precepts and principles included in the enlargement study. NATO, in turn, will learn more about what individual Partners could or could not contribute to the Alliance and could begin to identify areas for additional work. Participation in this next phase would not imply that interested Partners would automatically be invited to begin accession talks with NATO. We have tasked the Council in Permanent Session, with the advice of the NATO Military Authorities, to develop and implement each element of this next phase starting early in 1996, taking into account the conclusions of the study and an assessment of the briefing process. This phase will continue through 1996; we will assess progress at our December 1996 Ministerial and consider the way forward. 8. We affirm the need to continue the efforts initiated by our Heads of State and Government to adapt the political and military structures of the Alliance to take account of the full range of Alliance missions, the admission of new members into the Alliance and the emerging European Security and Defence Identity. We welcome the progress made, while recognising that much remains to be done to complete this important task. Key to these efforts is the finalisation of the CJTF concept, which is a means to provide separable, but not separate military capabilities that could be employed by NATO or the WEU, including in operations with participating nations outside the Alliance. We are very encouraged by the significant progress that has been made recently within the Alliance and consider that we now have a good basis on which to proceed to final agreement in the near term. We have tasked the Council in Permanent Session to complete, as a matter of urgency, the detailed work necessary to finalise the concept to the full satisfaction of all Allies. We welcome the WEU's continuing readiness to intensify cooperation with NATO on these matters and look forward to further close consultations between the two organisations. 9. We note with satisfaction the increasing ties between NATO and the WEU and are determined to strengthen further our relations and cooperation on the basis of agreed principles of complementarity and transparency. We support the improvement of WEU's operational capabilities, which would strengthen the European pillar of our Alliance and enable the European Allies to take greater responsibility for shouldering their share of the common security and defence. We therefore direct the Council in Permanent Session to expedite implementation of the decisions taken in this regard at the Brussels Summit. We attach importance to the dialogue that has been established between the two organisations, including in Joint Council meetings, on subjects of common concern and are determined to develop them further. In this connection, we have tasked the Council in Permanent Session to identify, in consultation with the WEU, additional areas of our respective activities on which exchanges of information, consultations and cooperation would be of mutual benefit. We also expect a deepening of mutually beneficial NATO-WEU cooperation in the areas of intelligence, strategic mobility and logistics, which would help in developing the WEU's operational capability. We noted the establishment of EUROFOR and EUROMARFOR by Italy, Portugal, Spain and France and of the France-British Euro-Air Group. We welcome the prospect of all of these multinational capabilities becoming available to NATO as well as to the WEU, in keeping with the existing NATO commitments of participating nations, and we look forward to the early definition of the relationship of EUROFOR and EUROMARFOR to NATO. We note Luxembourg's decision to participate in the EUROCORPS and the new operational status, as of 30th November 1995, of the EUROCORPS, which will contribute to the greater operational capability of the European pillar of the Alliance. We further welcome the "Common Concept of the 27 WEU Countries on European Security," adopted at the WEU Council in Madrid, which represents an important contribution by the WEU to the process of developing the new European security architecture. We note with particular attention the "WEU Contribution to the 1996 European Union Inter-Governmental Conference," which is an important contribution for the development of a European Security and Defence Identity and therefore of great relevance to the Alliance. We reiterate our support for the development of this identity, which will strengthen the European pillar of the Alliance and thus the Alliance itself. We expect that further NATO-WEU discussion of these matters will be helpful in attaining this goal. 10. The OSCE has an essential role in European security and in promoting stability on the Continent. We continue to be committed to furthering its comprehensive approach to security and to strengthening its effectiveness, particularly in conflict prevention, management and resolution. From an Alliance perspective, widening the process of democratic development throughout Europe is essential to maintaining security for all of its members. Arms control and confidence-building measures are central elements for further developing cooperative security in Europe, as are the development of norms and standards for democratic control and use of armed forces. The OSCE will be a valuable partner of the Alliance in the implementation of a peace settlement in Bosnia. We look forward to working together with the OSCE in this endeavour. Its role in the elections process, in monitoring human rights, and in establishing confidence- and security-building measures and arms control in the Former Yugoslavia is central to the peace process. The implementation of the peace settlement will be one promising test ground for cooperation in many areas between our two organisations. We note the proposal to consider the convening of a regional table, in the context of the OSCE "Pact on Stability." We support the continued efforts of the Minsk Group to achieve a political settlement of the conflict in and around Nagorno-Karabakh, which would, along with other conditions, allow the deployment of an OSCE multinational peacekeeping force, as agreed at the Budapest Summit. We welcome the ongoing efforts of the OSCE assistance group for Chechnya, which is assisting the civilian population, monitoring the human rights situation, and supporting a political settlement of the conflict under OSCE auspices. We urge the parties to pursue meaningful negotiations seeking an end to hostilities and to the continued suffering among the civilian population. We warmly welcome the recent meeting of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office with the North Atlantic Council and will continue our efforts to improve the pattern of contacts between NATO and the OSCE, including through senior representation at Ministerial meetings and, on a more routine basis, through the International Staff. We will continue to coordinate our contributions to the development of an OSCE Security Model for the 21st Century, which aims at the coherent development of a European security architecture including all participating states. 11. We attach great importance to the full implementation and continued integrity and effectiveness of the CFE Treaty. The Treaty is a cornerstone of European security. The reduction period, completed on 17th November, has resulted in the remarkable, unprecedented destruction of about 50,000 pieces of military equipment in Europe. Transparency and enhanced cooperation between armed forces have been important features of this process, to which NATO has made a major contribution. However, we note with concern all cases of failure by States Parties to fulfil their Treaty obligations, among them the problem of Russia's flank obligations. We stress that compliance with legally binding obligations is a necessary foundation for good overall relations. We welcome the 17th November Decision by the Joint Consultative Group, in which the 30 CFE States reconfirm their commitment to the Treaty and agree to find a cooperative solution to the flank problem, which does not diminish the security of any State. In this context, we specially urge all States Parties who have failed to comply with their obligations, to intensify their efforts to reach as quickly as possible such a cooperative solution acceptable to all. These problems should be addressed through an open-minded and constructive dialogue. This will provide a firm basis for the successful outcome of the Review Conference next year and the continued integrity and viability of the Treaty. 12. We reiterate our conviction that security in Europe is greatly affected by security and stability in the Mediterranean. We are satisfied with the talks held this year with a number of Mediterranean non-NATO countries (Egypt, Israel, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia) in order to explore the possibilities for a permanent dialogue with countries in the region. In light of the interest shown, we have decided to pursue further the dialogue, with the aim of fostering transparency and achieving a better mutual understanding with the countries to our South, and with a view to contributing to strengthening stability in the Mediterranean region. We welcome the extension of the dialogue to Jordan. Our initiative complements without duplicating other international efforts aimed at fostering stability in this region, in particular the Euro-Mediterranean Conference held in Barcelona in November 1995. 13. The Alliance's continuing success in addressing the political and defence aspects of proliferation, furthered by the work of the Senior Politico-Military Group on Proliferation and Senior Defence Group on Proliferation, demonstrates NATO's resolve to work together on common security concerns and is an important aspect of the Alliance's ongoing adaptation. We welcome and endorse this work as a contribution to enhancing NATO's ability to safeguard the security of its members states in the face of direct risks posed by NBC proliferation. We also welcome the consultations with Cooperation Partners on proliferation issues. We reiterate our conviction that the indefinite extension of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons constitutes a decisive step towards the strengthening of the international non-proliferation regime and of international security. We appeal to all states not yet party to the Treaty to accede to it at the earliest date. We fully support the ongoing efforts in the Conference on Disarmament towards achievement as the highest priority in 1996 of a global ban on all nuclear testing. We believe that the conclusion of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) are important elements in strengthening the international non-proliferation regime, of which the cornerstone is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In this respect, we welcome the decision taken by France, the United Kingdom and United States in favour of a treaty prohibiting all nuclear weapon test explosions and all other nuclear explosions, which will facilitate the adoption of a total and complete test ban. We welcome the ongoing implementation of the START I Treaty. We note the importance of an early entry into force of the START II Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Open Skies Treaty. We support the ongoing work to strengthen confidence in compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention. We are pleased that the Review Conference of the UN Weaponry Convention in Vienna was able to agree on a new protocol on control of blinding laser weapons, and look forward to it reaching agreement on a substantially strengthened protocol on landmines as the Conference reconvenes in Geneva. 14. International terrorist crimes cannot be justified under any circumstances. They constitute a serious threat to peace, security and stability which can threaten the territorial integrity of states. We reiterate our strong commitment to combat this scourge. We condemn all acts, methods and practices of international terrorism regardless of their origins, causes and purposes. 15. We reaffirm our commitment to the Alliance's common-funded programmes. We consider these programmes vital elements in underpinning our military structures, providing essential operating capability and strengthening Alliance cohesion. We need to ensure that resources are targetted at those programmes which will have the highest priority. We note that work is continuing on the examination of Alliance budgetary management, structures and procedures, and look forward to reports on progress by the time we next meet. 16. The Spring 1996 meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Ministerial Session will be held in Berlin, Germany, on 3rd June. (###) ARTICLE 9: Recent Achievements in Europe and Their Implications Secretary Christopher Opening statement at a news conference, Washington, DC, December 8, 1995 (introductory remarks deleted) I wanted to share some thoughts with you this morning on what was a genuine watershed week in Europe--a watershed week for American leadership. Across Europe, from Northern Ireland to the Balkans to the Baltics, last week's events have brought us closer to the goals America has sought in Europe for half a century--peace, stability, prosperity, and an undivided continent. These events demonstrate once again that American leadership in Europe is essential. Our commitment to provide that leadership is unequivocal. Any thought that the United States and Europe should be allowed to let their historic ties wither is simply misguided and wrong. After returning from my recent trip, I'm more convinced than ever that our nation has a vital interest in European security. For 50 years, we have stood with Europe, and Europe has stood with us. Walking away now is not an option. It would be shortsighted and damaging to American interests and American values. Nowhere is it more critical that Members of Congress take the long view than in connection with Bosnia. I've been around for a long time, and I've heard many debates about America's role in Europe. For 50 years, our bipartisan choice for leadership and engagement has brought us great security and immense prosperity. I hope that the Members of Congress, especially the younger members, will recall this history. I urge them to reflect on the responsibilities and benefits of leadership. The plain fact is that if we don't lead this peace mission now, war will return to Bosnia and American leadership will erode. The President had quite an extraordinary trip to Europe. In London, Dublin, Belfast, and in talking with our soldiers in Germany, his words resonated all through the continent. I heard this over and over again as I traveled in Europe. He was the first sitting President to visit Northern Ireland where his personal involvement helped bring that troubled land much closer to peace. In Madrid, the President signed the Transatlantic Agenda between the United States and the European Union which commits us to joint action across the full range of common interests. Two days later in Brussels, responding to the President's initiative for Bosnia, NATO launched the largest-single operation in its history, and it did so with a clear demonstration of unity and purpose. In addition, NATO ministers began the second phase of the NATO enlargement process, which remains on a steady, deliberate, careful course. We also took steps to strengthen the Partnership for Peace, an initiative which has exceeded all of its expectations and has earned for itself a permanent place in Europe. Finally, we welcomed a new Secretary General of NATO, Javier Solana, to help us meet the challenges of the future and to guide NATO at one of the most critical periods of its history. These were the achievements of the last week or so. Let me reflect on their implications, especially those of the mission in Bosnia. In the next few months, our most important challenge will be to implement the Dayton Peace Agreement while minimizing the risks to our troops. But in Brussels, my counterparts and I were also very much aware that this is a defining moment for NATO. First, there can no longer be any doubt that NATO is here to stay as the guarantor of transatlantic security. Without NATO, it is clear that there would be no peace in Bosnia. Without a unified NATO-led force on the ground, the parties would not have the confidence to implement the peace agreement. That is one reason why France has now agreed to participate more fully in the military aspects of NATO and why troops from the formerly neutral countries of Europe, such as Finland and Sweden, will serve in Bosnia under NATO command. Second, it is widely recognized in Europe, and especially among our NATO allies, that American leadership is essential. In fact, in Brussels my colleagues made it clear that without American leadership and participation, we would not have this chance for peace, and NATO would not be able to carry out its mission in Bosnia. Asserting our leadership in Bosnia puts us in a stronger position to advance our interests all through Europe. It will have enormously positive consequences for our interests in European security and integration. It will make us more effective in asserting our global priorities in such diverse areas as arms control, trade, and environmental protection. Third, the very nature of our coalition in Bosnia has historic implications. Russia will contribute 2,000 troops. Nearly every country from Central Europe will participate. Indeed, since the rise of the nation-state in Europe, this is the first time that soldiers from virtually every European power will serve together in a common military endeavor. Never before have we been able to say with such confidence that our only remaining enemy in Europe is war itself. NATO is able to work with its new partners so effectively because two years ago President Clinton had the foresight to propose the Partnership for Peace. Now all the joint exercises and exchanges and training that we've had in the last two years will pay off in a real mission with real stakes. That mission will enhance our ability to work together. It will show that NATO and Russia can cooperate constructively in this kind of a mission. It will give some of our partners a chance to show that they can meet the obligations of NATO membership and will be a step in that deliberate path that we're following. Before leaving Europe, I met with the Foreign Ministers of the Central European and Baltic countries, as is my new tradition to do. I was struck by their appreciation of American leadership, their confidence in the NATO mission in Bosnia, and their commitment to participate in it. As we work with them to overcome the terrible division of Bosnia, we can also advance the President's concept of the importance of an integrated, unified Europe. IFOR must succeed, first and foremost, of course, for the sake of peace in Bosnia. But we should understand that another goal is within sight-- an alliance that has evolved to meet the challenges of a new Europe. That is, of course, all the more reason to strive for success in the mission in Bosnia. (###) ARTICLE 10: Renewing the Middle East Peace Process President Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Peres Opening remarks at a press conference, Washington, DC, December 11, 1995 President Clinton. Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to welcome Prime Minister Peres back to the White House. For as long as there has been a prospect of peace in the Middle East, Shimon Peres has stood at the forefront, striving to bring a new day of security and harmony to the people of Israel and to all the people of the region. From his early years as one of the architects of Israel's defense, he has devoted himself to ensuring the security of his nation. From his first term as Prime Minister in the mid-1980s, through the negotiations that led to the signing here of the Declaration of Principles with the Palestinians, to the peace of the Araba with Jordan, to the Interim Accord ceremony just 21/2 months ago, Shimon Peres has been a visionary for peace. He has seen the way. He has been a leader on the path to peace. And time and again he has been proven right. One of the very last things Yitzhak Rabin said was that Shimon Peres was his full partner in forging peace. With those words and the memory of my friend in mind, let me renew now the pledge I first made to Prime Minister Rabin at the beginning of my presidency. Mr. Prime Minister, as Israel continues to take risks for a lasting and comprehensive peace the United States will stand with you to minimize those risks and to ensure your success. I pledge to you personally, Shimon, that I will be your partner in peace. Until an assassin's bullet cut short his life, Prime Minister Rabin rose time and again to the challenges of peace. The United States knows that, just as he has in the past, Prime Minister Peres will do so as well. It is a measure of how much has changed in the Middle East that on his journey here the Prime Minister met with King Hussein, President Mubarak, and Chairman Arafat, and that on his trip home he will visit with King Hussein of Morocco. I have been especially encouraged to hear the Prime Minister talk about the progress in redeploying forces. He reviewed for me his meeting with Chairman Arafat, who reaffirmed his commitment to building upon and implementing the Declaration of Principles and the Interim Agreement. The key to a lasting settlement in the Middle East is achieving peace between Israel and Syria, and Israel and Lebanon. Today, Prime Minister Peres and I agreed to redouble our efforts to achieve these goals. We agree that to close the circle of peace it will take more intensive and more practical negotiations. Each side will need to make a greater effort to take account of the others' concerns. The United States stands ready to help bring the parties together and work with them in the negotiations. Peace is our mission. The Prime Minister and I are determined that nothing--nothing--will deter us from this task in the weeks and the months ahead. Today, I have also spoken with President Asad of Syria about our talks here in Washington. President Asad told me he was committed to do his best to move the peace process forward and to reach an early agreement between Syria and Israel. He also agreed to my proposal that Secretary Christopher travel to the region next week to consult with him on the next steps we will take together. We, of course, recognize that the differences will not disappear immediately. Great hurdles must be overcome, but an Israel-Syria settlement is worth our every effort. It would end the Arab-Israeli conflict. It would establish a comprehensive peace. It could transform the face of the entire Middle East and the lives of all its inhabitants. That was Yitzhak Rabin's dream. Here at the White House, that soldier of peace said, "enough of blood and tears." The United States is heartened that Shimon Peres will carry on. Together, we will work to fulfill Yitzhak Rabin's legacy. Mr. Prime Minister, as you go forward, the United States will go with you, and proudly. Prime Minister Peres. Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Secretary of State, ladies and gentlemen: Let me say from my heart that we are so moved by the American participation in our great sadness when Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated. Mr. President, you have led a most unusual delegation that moved our heart: the President himself, two former presidents, the Secretary of State, two former secretaries, the leaders of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, and important--of journalists, of leaders. There was greatness in the sadness as Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated because he was right, not because he was wrong. And may I say, ladies and gentlemen, that President Clinton did something most unusual. He has added an expression to the Israeli dictionary--shalom, chaver. It is a very unusual combination. And for ones who don't understand Hebrew, let me say, the Russians are saying, "a comrade," which I know exactly what it is; the Americans are saying "a friend," which I understand what it is; but the Israelis are saying "chaver," which means togetherness. And since the President has used this word, we feel more together. We feel that we have an enriched dictionary among ourselves, and between the United States of America and us. Believe me, I speak on behalf of all the Israelis for this enrichment of expression and feelings. So I should really start by saying, shalom, chaver. These, your farewell words to Prime Minister Rabin echoed throughout our land. The people of Israel will never forget your moving demonstration of solidarity in a moment of grief, of shock, of disbelief, and determination. For us, you're a leader; you're a friend. I stand beside you, Mr. President, in the footsteps of my partner, a great captain of peace, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Together with you-- and I know how much he trusted you-- we scaled the trail from the depths of hostility to the highlands of promising peace. Indeed, together, we shall stay the course and, with firm resolve, reach a destiny of lasting and secure peace. A peace for the whole of the Middle East--Arabs and Jews, Jews and Arabs--this was Yitzhak Rabin's quest. It is my commitment. Your leadership and devotion to the cause of peace are manifestly clear to Israel and to its neighbors as well. This is a constant direction, not a point of passing. May I say that as Bosnia reeled in agony, you offered a compass and a lamp to a confused situation, ending blood, offering hope, as in the Middle East. It is time to put an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict. With you, Mr. President, in the forefront, by our side, it may become possible, as it did in the past, bringing, thereby, peace, security, and prosperity to all people. Prophecy may meet reality again and again. Since your presidency and through our partnership, the Middle East has already undergone an unbelievable change. Here at the White House on September 13, 1993, we came to grips with the heart of the problem. The Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles created a road map by means of which the Palestinians, alongside Israel, are becoming masters of their destinies. Palestinian elections are a new promise that reflects the interaction between peace and democracy. Nothing is a better guarantee for peace than democracy. Israel and Jordan are displaying its fruits day in and day out. Peace with Egypt remains a cornerstone of the peace process, for, by it, regional war is no longer the justification of policies that leaves lands deserted rather than flourishing. Today, we seek an opening of a new, maybe a final, chapter: the end of war in the Middle East in its totality. Peace between Syria and Israel and between Lebanon and Israel will leave no reason whatsoever for the continuation of belligerency. Syria, together with us, stands in a unique position to contribute to a peaceful Middle East. The conflict between us has been bitter, complicated. The land that gave birth to prophecy can now give birth to yet a new vision. President Asad and myself can, with the assistance of your leadership, Mr. President, and the assistance of your administration and Congress, build a new equation of genuine peace and security to end terror, to begin a market economy. I speak of boundaries of permanent peace. I speak of lands of new and great opportunity. Peace between us must indeed put an end to the conflict that has mired our region for so long. The President, the Secretary of State, and their peace team will continue to create with us the architecture for peace in the region. We welcome you. Today, I discussed the possible new opportunity with President Clinton. I find a warmth and an openness in our discussion, and I am very grateful. Mr. President, we are proud to be partners with you in working to make this prospect become a reality. It is my hope that President Asad will join us soon on this historic journey. To my fellow Israelis, I can say we have in you, Mr. President, a true friend and a true partner. There is no time now for political vacation. We don't intend to rest. We intend to continue the momentum, full-speed ahead, in the name of all Israelis. And, I think all Israelis, they will tell you, Mr. President, toda, chaver--thank you, chaver. (###) ARTICLE 11: American Leadership and the New Europe: Implementing the Dayton Peace Agreement Deputy Secretary Talbott Address to the World Affairs Council, Pittsburgh, PA, December 14, 1995 Thanks, Jerry [Dempsey]. Let me begin by adding my own condolences to the family and many friends of George Oehmler, who did me the honor of introducing me when I appeared before this group in 1991. Let me also thank Peter Stephans, Judy Nees, and everyone associated with the World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh for giving me the opportunity to be here today. I'd also like to thank George Savarese, who has been my host, traveling companion, and interviewer during my visit here. Denny Rusinow, who was my friend and mentor and neighbor in Yugoslavia 20-some years ago, has told me about the splendid work that this organization does in keeping your community informed about the vital issues that face our country and the world as a whole. It is certainly a fine tribute to George Oehmler, and I am pleased to be able to play a small role in honoring him today. Your invitation has given me what those of us who work in Washington so often need: a chance to get out into the real world. I'm particularly glad to be in this part of the real world, which is not far from where I grew up, in Cleveland. Now, that may sound like a segue into some good- natured observations about the NFL rivalry between your home town and mine. But given what's happening to the Browns this season--and I don't mean just losing games to the Steelers--I think I'll just move on to other subjects. And when we get to the question-and-answer period, you can ask me about anyone or anything on earth no matter how disagreeable- -Muammar Qadhafi, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein--just don't ask me about Art Modell, okay? Actually, I didn't move to Cleveland until I was six years old. I was born south of there, in Dayton, Ohio. Now, that's a reason for hometown pride--and, I might add, national pride! Twenty-three days ago, on November 21, American diplomats--principally my boss, Warren Christopher, and my old friend, Dick Holbrooke--brokered, in Dayton, a settlement to end the war in Bosnia. About seven hours ago, the Secretary, Dick Holbrooke, and President Clinton were at the Elysee Palace in Paris, where they witnessed the signing of the Dayton accords. But, as all of you know, the relief and satisfaction that all Americans feel over the prospect of peace in the former Yugoslavia has been mixed with apprehension, skepticism--in some cases outright anger--over the prospect of the United States' armed forces taking part in the implementation of that peace. My principal purpose in meeting with you today is to explain why President Clinton is convinced that the American military role in Bosnia is in the vital interest of our country--and why it therefore deserved the support it received from the United States Congress yesterday. To drive that point home, I would like to spend a few minutes on President Clinton's strategic vision for building an undivided Europe--a Europe united by a shared commitment to democracy, civil society, and the free market. Pittsburgh is a good place to emphasize that point, since this city is a microcosm of our nation, which owes much of its strength and identity to the many nations of Europe. I was reminded of this last evening, driving in from the airport, emerging from the Fort Pitt Tunnel and seeing all those church spires on your skyline. There are more than 2,400 houses of worship in and around this city, and many of them serve to keep alive your citizens' roots in one Old Country or another-- especially in countries that have suffered, through much of this century, under communism. There's the Immaculate Heart of Mary, a center of the Polish Hill community; there's St. John the Baptist, where Ukrainian Americans gather every Sunday on the South Side; there's Temple B'nai Emunosh, on Squirrel Hill, a congregation which includes many recent immigrants from the former Soviet Union; and then there are the two St. Nicholases--the Croatian Catholic Church in Milvale and the Serbian Orthodox Church in Monroeville. The last time I was here, I visited the Nationality Rooms and Inter- cultural Exchange Program at the Cathedral of Learning on the campus of the University of Pittsburgh. I remember that these 23--soon to be 24-- classrooms are decorated with the murals and furniture of the many faraway lands to which this city's citizens can trace their origins. The point is, we owe Europe a lot. But it owes us a lot, too. Three times in this century, Americans have come to Europe's rescue-- twice in hot wars, once in a cold one. And each time we did so for reasons that reflected not just our national generosity and our sense of international obligation but also for a hard-headed, forward-looking recognition of our vital self-interest. We, the United States, have had to keep sending our armies "over there," across the Atlantic, because we--Americans and Europeans alike--have had so much difficulty defining and putting in place a set of rules and institutions that would keep the continental peace on which transatlantic security and prosperity, to a large extent, depend. In short, we've had a lot of trouble in the 20th century getting it right in Europe. Fifty years ago, in the spring of 1945, most of the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe ended up on the wrong side of the dividing line marked by the westward advance of the Red Army. That was the real beginning--and the primary cause--of the Cold War. Now that great struggle is over. With its end, it is not only possible but imperative that we extend to all of Europe the benefits and responsibilities of the political and economic partnerships that have been such a source of strength for the West. That is why our Administration has focused so much of our country's foreign policy resources on political and economic assistance programs for the emerging market democracies of Central Europe and the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union. That's also why President Clinton has renewed the U.S. commitment to NATO, the anchor of American engagement in Europe and the linchpin of transatlantic security. Now that the Cold War has ended, we must work with our NATO allies to bring the new democracies of Central Europe and the former Soviet Union into a new European security order. Thanks to President Clinton's determined leadership over the past three years, NATO expansion will be a key part of that process. NATO remains vital to the national security of the United States because the end of the Cold War has left us with a formidable array of security challenges, in Europe as elsewhere around the globe. Perhaps the most serious of those threats are those posed by aggressive nationalism and ethnic conflict--and nowhere have these threats arisen more starkly than in the former Yugoslavia. For the past four years, we have witnessed in that troubled region the greatest carnage and the worst atrocities in Europe since World War II. Thanks to the persistent efforts of American and European diplomats, there is now a peace agreement. As we debate how to implement the peace--which is really a question of whether to implement it--we should consider the alternatives--which is to say, the consequences of refusal or failure. The alternative to the Dayton Peace Agreement is surely a wider, even more terrible conflict. If warfare were to break out anew in Bosnia, it could spread to other nations--to the north, south, and east. Albania could intervene to protect the ethnic Albanians who live in the southern Serbian province of Kosovo. Fighting there could cause a massive flow of refugees into Macedonia, destabilizing that fragile, newly independent country and, perhaps, drawing in, on opposite sides, Greece and Turkey. Meanwhile, the entire Islamic world is watching. Muslims everywhere are waiting to see whether their co-religionists in Bosnia will be accorded the same rights and protections as other Europeans. We must not let the Balkans give radical elements from the Middle East a foothold in the heart of Europe. Then there is the fate of NATO itself. A resumption of the war would threaten the viability of an organization that is vital to us and to Europe. If we were to adopt a posture of standing aside with our fingers crossed behind our backs, we would discredit the alliance as a whole and our leadership of it. The alliance can no more ignore the conflagration in the Balkans than an architect can ignore a fire raging in one wing of a building on which he is working. The United States is the leader of the Alliance; therefore, the United States must lead in Bosnia. Merely hoping that the fire there will burn itself out or that someone else will come along with enough buckets of water to put it out is not just wishful thinking. It would be, if it were the basis for policy, extremely irresponsible and deeply harmful to our national interests. Another point: If the fighting in Yugoslavia resumes--and if it escalates and spreads--it would put increasing strain on relations between the United States and Russia, and it would do so at a time of ferment and uncertainty in Russian domestic politics. In short, a new eruption of fighting in the Balkans would undermine our twin strategic objectives in Europe. Those are, first, to advance integration between East and West and, second, to restrain post-communist disintegration in the East. So those are the stakes. High stakes justify--indeed, require--bold action. We must, of course, be hard-headed in assessing the costs and risks. And our troops who will be deployed as part of the Bosnia peace implementation force will, indeed, face risks. But President Clinton; Secretary of State Bill Perry; and Gen. John Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are doing absolutely everything in their power--which is considerable--to reduce those risks. They are doing so in four ways: First, the Implementation Force is being deployed only now that the parties to the conflict have agreed to a real peace. We are not sending them into a shooting war, as we did in World War I and World War II, not to mention Vietnam, Lebanon, or Somalia. Second, the force will be militarily formidable. It will be more than capable not only of defending itself but also of compelling the parties to the peace agreement to live up to the commitments embodied in the peace settlement. Third , we will be sharing the burden--as well as the risk and the cost. Only a third of the implementation force will be American. Our NATO allies--France, Great Britain, and the rest--will provide tens of thousands of troops. And while this will be a NATO-led operation, other nations that are not members of the Alliance will participate as well. Virtually all of the nations of Central Europe--including Poland, Hungary, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Lithuania, and Ukraine--have agreed to contribute troops. Russia will send some 2,000 soldiers, making this a most concrete example of U.S.-Russian military cooperation in the post-Cold War era. Fourth, the role which our soldiers are being asked to play is carefully defined and circumscribed. Its main responsibilities will be monitoring the separation of the former combatants and patrolling the new boundaries between them during a much-needed cooling-off period. In short, there will be no "mission creep" from purely military tasks into "nation-building." We have a clear exit strategy. We believe that 12 months is an accurate estimate of how long it will take for the military implementation force to accomplish its mission. Non-military tasks, such as policing, election and human rights monitoring, and economic reconstruction will be the responsibility of international civilian and non-governmental organizations. The larger job of building a stable, democratic, and prosperous multi- ethnic society in Bosnia will, of course, take much longer than 12 months; it will take years if not decades. That task will be on the shoulders of the people of the region, but they will have to rely heavily on support from the European Union, the United Nations, and other international institutions and organizations. The non- governmental sector also has a vital role to play--from the International Red Cross and Medicins Sans Frontiers to grass-roots support from communities around the globe. In this regard, Pittsburgh is exemplary. The Croatian Fraternal Union and the Serbian National Federation, both of whose national headquarters are located in this city, have played important roles in providing humanitarian relief to the region over the past four years. So, too, have the local chapter of the United Jewish Fund and the Islamic Center in Oakland. For all those reasons, we are confident that we can get the job done in Bosnia--and that we can manage and minimize the risks to our troops. At the same time, as we conduct our national debate over this policy, we must be just as tough-minded in recognizing the costs and risks that we would incur if, instead of taking action, we were to choose inaction-- particularly inaction or inadequate action in the face of atrocities such as mass rape, concentration camps, massacres, and forced deportations. The term "ethnic cleansing" has already been inscribed into the glossary of this century--right here next to "final solution" as an administrative euphemism for genocide. The phenomenon of "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans, by that or any other name, is not only an issue of moralpolitik, it is also an issue of realpolitik. Even when the phrase ethnic cleaning means "merely" mass deportation rather than mass murder, it captures the essence of what is most insidious--and most contagious--about the catastrophe that has befallen the former Yugoslavia. If aggressive nationalism triumphs there, it will not only be devastating in that region, it will be ominous elsewhere as well, especially to the north and to the east. Throughout the former Soviet empire, dark forces similar to those that have convulsed the Balkans are vying with those of freedom and tolerance to fill the partial vacuum left by the collapse of communist rule. Just to cite one example: The lethal syndrome that we often call Balkanization could just as well be termed Caucasus-ization. Over the past four years, the peoples of Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia have suffered in much the same way as the people of the Balkans. If there is to be a post-Cold War peace in Europe--and not a cold peace but a real one--it must be based on the principle of multi-ethnic democracy. The United States is one of the first and one of the greatest examples of that principle, not least because it is home to cities such as Pittsburgh. Therefore it is right and natural--and in our national interest--that the United States should champion that principle elsewhere. And it should do so, among other reasons, because multi-ethnic democracies are more likely to be good trading partners, good neighbors, good citizens of the international community. I realize that there is a lot of skepticism about whether the values and institutions associated with multi-ethnic democracy can ever take hold in the former Yugoslavia. Listen carefully to the current debate about our policy and the forthcoming deployment of U.S. troops, and you will often hear the suggestion that the conflict among Serbs, Croats, and Muslims is, quite simply, insoluble; that the region is a permanent and hopeless quagmire--a word intended to have, in our ears, cautionary echoes of Vietnam. You will sometimes hear a hint that there's something in the air or the water of the Balkans that dooms those "wretched" people to slaughter each other. That's often the subliminal message, I believe, of the cliche about "ancient hatreds." As I mentioned earlier, my wife and I lived in Yugoslavia for two years at the beginning of our careers as journalists, around the corner from Denny, Mary, and Allison Rusinow, who are here today. We saw how the South Slavs could live harmoniously with each other, notably including in Bosnia. There was nothing predestined about the horror that has been raging in the Balkans for the past four years. It was foolish, demagogic local politics, along with short-sighted international diplomacy that helped trigger, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the third Balkan war of this century. By the same token, it will take sound, far-sighted diplomacy, including plenty of American leadership and statesmanship, to head off a resumption and escalation of that war now. As we go forward, we should avoid stereotypes about national character, particularly ones that would, if they become the basis of our policy, consign whole peoples to tyranny or civil war or unending chaos on the perverse theory that that is the fate they deserve, or that that fate is encoded in their genes. Just as there were wise, brave champions of freedom in Gdansk and Prague in the 1970s--men such as Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel, who went from being persecuted dissidents to being the presidents of their countries--there are individuals in Belgrade and Zagreb and Sarajevo today whose basic humanity may, with our help, ultimately prevail over the rapacity of some of their countrymen. Serbs and Croats and Muslims have lived peacefully together in Sarajevo, just as they have in Pittsburgh, and they can do so again. In 1915, the great British historian Norman Angell said that every England has its Ireland and every Ireland has its Ulster. Angell was diagnosing what has been a very European malignancy, particularly in this century: aggressive, intolerant nationalism. But, even as we experience our own fin de siecle recurrence of the disease, we are having some success with the cure. Take Ulster itself. Not too long ago, that place name, like Bosnia today, stood for a murderously insoluble problem. Yet, today, the people of Northern Ireland are finally within reach of peace--that's thanks mostly to themselves. But it's also thanks to their desire to belong to an increasingly integrated Europe, and it's thanks as well to American statesmanship. Similarly, other regions that we not long ago thought were doomed to permanent conflict are proving otherwise: the Middle East and Southern Africa. Now that same, more favorable, more hopeful wave of history has reached the Balkans. The leaders of the former Yugoslavia have agreed on a peace. With the Dayton accords and the Elysee signing now behind us, the tough work of implementation begins. The parties to the conflict and our NATO allies have made clear that they are counting on significant U.S. participation in the implementation force. Without our being there, the force as a whole won't be there, in which case there will be no peace, and we will face the array of consequences that I have outlined here. Let me conclude by acknowledging what we all recognize: The conflict in the former Yugoslavia has gone on for far too long; it has been the cause of far, far too much carnage and destruction, too much misery, too much frustration, too much tension between us and our partners--old and new. All of us wish that something like the Dayton talks could have taken place a year ago, better yet two years ago--better still, three or four. But we are where we are, and we must make the best of what we have before us today. And what we have, as President Clinton has been saying for three years, is a historic opportunity to build, for the first time in history, a Europe that is undivided and increasingly united by a shared commitment to the values that have made our own country great and strong. This time we must get it right. Taking advantage of this opportunity will require steadfastness in our diplomatic efforts and in our military commitment. But success will also require public support. And to muster and sustain that support, we had better have the best possible answers to the toughest possible questions--starting with yours right now. (###) ARTICLE 12: The OSCE's Role in Building an Undivided Europe Deputy Secretary Talbott Intervention at the OSCE ministerial meeting, Budapest, Hungary, December 7, 1995 Good morning. Mr. Chairman, Excellencies, colleagues, ladies and gentleman: We meet at a decisive moment--for peace in the Balkans, for the future of Europe, and for this organization. The end of the Cold War has given all of us--every country represented here today--the opportunity to participate in building an undivided Europe--a Europe increasingly free, increasingly secure, increasingly prosperous, increasingly integrated. That goal has been one of President Clinton's highest priorities from the start of his Administration. But in addition to presenting us with a historic opportunity, the end of the Cold War has also confronted us with a formidable array of security challenges. The most dangerous and immediate of those is the threat posed by aggressive nationalism and ethnic conflict of the kind that have wreaked such havoc in the former Yugoslavia. I look forward to our discussion of that issue tomorrow. It is a starting point for American policy that we must address this, and other challenges, together. That means pooling our resources, strengthening and redefining existing institutions and arrangements, and creating new mechanisms where necessary. The OSCE has a special role to play in the evolution of a new European security architecture. The capacities and common purposes that made the CSCE a bridge between East and West during the Cold War make the OSCE essential today. The organization's broad membership shares a conviction that European security and stability depend on institutionalized respect for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, as well as arms control and conflict resolution. The outgoing Chairman-in-Office, Foreign Minister Kovacs, and his staff, especially Deputy State Secretary Erdosz and Ambassadors Gyarmati and Krasznai, deserve our gratitude for the initiative and statesmanship that they have brought to their work over the past 14 months. We now look forward to working with the incoming Chairman, Foreign Minister Cotti, to build on all that this organization has accomplished over the past year. The OSCE assistance group in Chechnya, formed in April, has provided solid, neutral ground for negotiations between the Russian Government and Chechen representatives. Regrettably, those talks are now stalled and the fighting continues. Nonetheless, as today's developments announced by the Chairman make clear, the OSCE remains committed to helping in any way it can to promote a settlement, monitor human rights, renew implementation of the military agreement, and ensure free and fair elections. Moreover, the OSCE's involvement has confirmed an important proposition: that international engagement in a conflict within a sovereign state is taken by the world as a sign of health in an emerging democracy, not as a sign of weakness. We should also recognize the importance of the work that the OSCE is doing in Nagorno-Karabakh. In accordance with what our leaders resolved here in Budapest last year, Minsk Group negotiators have stepped up their efforts to resolve this tragic conflict. Now, for the first time, Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders are conducting a direct dialogue, and a fragile cease-fire continues to hold. We must do all that we can to ensure that this process continues. In Moldova, again underscoring what our Chairman has said today, we welcome the reaffirmation of the importance of the troop withdrawal agreement and of continued offers of OSCE assistance. The other OSCE missions are equally deserving of our strong support. Meanwhile, arms control remains vital both to European security in general and to the work of this organization in particular. A case in point is the treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, which came about under this organization's auspices and which has made a substantial contribution to regional security. As the chairman stated, the 30 parties to this agreement have already eliminated some 50,000 heavy weapons. That said, CFE compliance is unfinished business. We have yet to resolve the difficult flank issue. As Secretary Christopher indicated at the NAC meeting on Tuesday, we should intensify our efforts to resolve this problem by sending policy-making officials with decision- making authority to Vienna, no later than mid-February. I want to stress, as Secretary Christopher did in Brussels, that any solution we reach must preserve the integrity of the treaty and not diminish the security of any state. Over the last year, our discussions on a Common and Comprehensive Security Model for the 21st century have given OSCE member states the opportunity to set forth their goals and their concerns for the future of European security. In discussions leading up to next year's Lisbon summit, we should look for concrete measures that states can take now to improve our common security. During the Cold War, the CSCE was the rallying point for courageous men and women who, often at great personal risk, confronted tyranny to win the fundamental freedoms set out in the Helsinki Final Act. CSCE gave heart to reformers in states that eventually liberated themselves and their countries from the burden of totalitarianism and set forth on the road toward market democracy and civil society and full participation in an increasingly integrated world community. We owe those men and women, as well as this organization, an enduring debt of gratitude. It is our generation's responsibility to carry on this great work by ensuring that the ideals articulated first by CSCE and now by OSCE undergird the future of the continent. That's the best possible legacy we could leave for our children and our children's children. (###) ARTICLE 13: The OSCE in Bosnia Deputy Secretary Talbott Intervention at the OSCE Ministerial, Budapest, Hungary, December 8, 1995 Good morning. We agreed yesterday that this organization faces a moment of truth, a moment of testing. That is especially true in the former Yugoslavia where, in the last four years, Europe has witnessed the greatest carnage and the worst atrocities since World War II--and where the alternative to the peace now at hand is surely a wider, even more terrible war. There are several organizations that have the opportunity and the obligation to implement the peace in Bosnia. The United Nations, NATO, the Partnership for Peace, the European Union, the Council of Europe, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the international financial institutions, and non-governmental organizations all have their roles to play. They will apply themselves to the task in Bosnia individually and, to an unprecedented extent, in concert with each other. But as previous speakers made clear, at the very center of this collective enterprise is the OSCE. That is as it should be. For two decades, this organization has stood for the principles that must be re- established in the former Yugoslavia if there is to be peace in this region and on this continent--respect for international borders, respect for national minorities, respect for basic human rights. Moreover, OSCE comes to its newest, most daunting assignment with a number of assets. These include a solid track record in conflict resolution and election- monitoring, and a consensus-based, consultative decision-making process. Another asset of this organization is the trust that this body has accumulated over the years, which ensures its efficacy as an honest broker. It was with all this in mind that the sponsors and the signatories of the Dayton Peace Agreement asked the OSCE to take the lead in four areas--each vital to the implementation of the peace: confidence- building, arms control, elections, and human rights. Let me say a word about all four. Part of the cause for the catastrophe in the former Yugoslavia is that for too long there were too many weapons, too many inequities, and too little trust among the parties to the conflict. The restoration of peace and stability will depend on better communications, including more face-to-face contacts, across the cease-fire lines. Peace will also depend on establishing, sooner rather than later, rough military parity among the parties--parity at the lowest possible level, consistent with the parties' legitimate defense requirements. Therefore, the OSCE will be responsible for overseeing a series of confidence-building and arms-reduction negotiations. A first round of talks will begin among the Bosnian parties within seven days of the Paris signing ceremony. The parties in Dayton have, with the Contact Group's support, also asked the OSCE to support follow-on negotiations that will lead to regional arms control talks, with the goal of enhancing the stability and security of all the nations in south central Europe. Now a word about elections. Democracy is key to the durability of an equitable peace in Bosnia, and free and honest elections are key to democracy. The OSCE will prepare for and supervise voting throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina within six to nine months. To accomplish this task, the OSCE will need to establish an election commission and, in cooperation with other international organizations, deploy observers in several dozen field offices across the country. Finally, the OSCE must move rapidly to help the Bosnian Government protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all its citizens. The Dayton Peace Agreement calls for the creation of a Bosnian commission for human rights issues, including a network of investigators and advocates headed by an independent, human-rights ombudsman. We would all hope, I'm sure, that this organization will act quickly to appoint and support the ombudsman. Preserving and promoting human rights in the aftermath of war will be a major challenge. We will need to draw upon a broad range of resources from the international