U.S. Department of State 
Dispatch Volume 7, Number 8 
February 19, 1996 
Bureau of Public Affairs

1.  The Road From Miami--Joan E. Spero 
2.  IRA Ends Cease-fire; U.S. Reinforces Commitment to Peace--President 
3.  Prospects of Peace With Justice in Bosnia--John Shattuck
4.  Focus on the United Nations: UN Changes for the Better 

The Road From Miami 
Joan E. Spero, Under Secretary for Economic, Business, and Agricultural 
Remarks at the Institute of the Americas'Third Annual Hemispheric Policy 
Forum, Washington, DC, February 14, 1996 
Thank you, Alec, for that generous introduction. I am here today to 
report that the "spirit of Miami" is alive and well. Secretary 
Christopher is about to embark on an extensive visit to the region. And 
Mack McLarty, the President's and Secretary's Special Representative for 
the Summit of the Americas, who is with us today, will be accompanying 
him. In Central and South America and in the Caribbean, the Secretary's 
message will be the strong U.S. commitment to the Goals and Action Plan 
adopted at the Summit of the Americas. So I applaud the Institute of the 
Americas and the other sponsors for providing this forum at a 
particularly opportune time to reflect on where we have come from and 
where we are going.  
U.S. Leadership 
Today, I would like to focus on the economic dimension of the Summit of 
the Americas. Let me begin by looking at U.S. foreign economic policy 
from a broader and longer term perspective. I would like to discuss the 
vision behind our policy and to outline our principal approaches and 
achievements. Then I want to highlight how the Summit of the Americas 
fits in with this approach and why it is such a key component of our 
foreign policy.  
The primary objective of U.S. foreign economic policy is to build a more 
open, market-oriented global economy that will promote economic growth 
and prosperity and strengthen democracy and stability around the world. 
This is in the United States' national interest, but we believe it works 
to the benefit of other nations as well. One of the principal means for 
achieving this goal is to construct and modernize the economic 
architecture for the post-Cold War world. 
After the Second World War, the U.S. supported the international effort 
to create multilateral economic institutions to secure not only 
prosperity, but peace and democracy as well. The Bretton Woods 
institutions--the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the 
GATT--became key components of a stable international monetary system 
and an open international trading system.  
Today, in the post-Cold War environment, we have had to take a fresh 
look at the international system and re-think our relationships and some 
of our institutions. Working with our partners at all levels--
multilaterally, regionally, and bilaterally--we have undertaken to 
construct the new economic architecture. Multilaterally, we helped 
create the World Trade Organization and have been working to strengthen 
the IMF and the World Bank. We are also working regionally and 
bilaterally to achieve more open trade and investment, strong capital 
markets and modern investment, and intellectual property rules. 
This effort is at the leading edge of American foreign policy today. On 
one level, it is part of a strategy to promote a more open and market-
oriented global economy. But it is also a means for the U.S. to remain 
engaged in the world and to maintain its leadership on the new world 
stage. In Asia, the Americas, Europe, and the Middle East, we have 
joined efforts with our regional partners to create new institutions, 
new structures, and new processes to advance our mutual economic and 
security interests. These regional and bilateral initiatives in no way 
imply a wavering of our support for the multilateral system. On the 
contrary, they complement it and strengthen it.  
Our approach in these different regions has certain common features. In 
all of these endeavors, leaders have convened at summits to provide 
vision and direction and to drive the process of change as only leaders 
can. Common goals and concrete plans of action have been adopted. 
Mechanisms have been established to ensure follow-through on 
commitments. And business has been systematically included in our 
The results, I think, have been impressive. 
--  At the U.S.-EU summit in Madrid last December, President Clinton and 
his counterparts adopted a New Transatlantic Agenda which reaffirms our 
ties and commits the U.S. and Europe to cooperate in concrete ways in 
over 100 areas, including opening markets and strengthening the World 
Trade Organization.  
--  In Asia, the third annual meeting of leaders of APEC--the Asia-
Pacific Economic Cooperation forum--last November significantly advanced 
the commitment to achieving free trade in the Asia-Pacific region by 
2010 and 2020. The Action Agenda adopted by APEC sets out principles to 
guide the liberalizing process and includes agreements to liberalize in 
15 key areas.  
--  In the Middle East, we have used economics to support our diplomatic 
efforts to bring peace. Last November, at the Middle East/North Africa 
Economic Summit in Amman, the parties created new regional institutions 
designed to foster public-private partnership to improve the climate for 
peace and to improve the climate for doing business. Among these was an 
innovative Middle East Development Bank. 
--  In our own hemisphere, we joined with our regional partners to 
consolidate political and economic reform, open markets, and spread the 
benefits of prosperity to the poorest.   
The Americas 
Here in the Americas, we have moved from an era in which U.S. economic 
engagement was driven by aid, to an era of broad-based regional trade, 
investment, and capital flows. Most importantly, the change in the 
Americas has come from within. No other region has so completely re-
engineered itself--from state-dominated, closed-market economies to 
open-market democracies. With one exception, dictators and military 
takeovers are relics of the past. Today, there is a shared commitment--
stated explicitly in our summit document--to democracy and social 
progress as the central goals of this hemisphere. 
From these massive changes flowed unprecedented opportunities to move to 
a new era of partnership in the Americas. But our region faced 
challenges as well. Some newly elected governments were fragile. When I 
was involved in the summit consultation process, I heard clearly from my 
counterparts in the region about the need to cement progress on 
democratic institutions and civil society. Economic reforms also needed 
to be consolidated and deepened. The benefits of the new prosperity 
needed to be more widespread. New challenges like drug trafficking and 
terrorism threatened reform. Existing institutions--the Inter-American 
Development Bank and the Organization of American States--we all agreed 
had to be revitalized. 
The time had come for us and our partners in the hemisphere to develop a 
new framework for regional cooperation. I was very active in 1994 in 
preparing for the Miami summit. I can tell you that the level of 
consultation among all the countries and all the leaders was 
unprecedented. That process, and the summit meeting itself,  promoted a 
remarkable spirit of partnership and shared vision throughout the 
hemisphere. For the first time ever, the United States and the freely 
elected governments of Latin America pledged to work together to achieve 
four shared goals, our vision to:  
-- Bolster democracies;  
-- Reduce poverty; 
-- Encourage preservation of the environment; and, of course,  
-- Expand economic prosperity and the trade that contributes to that 
The Summit of the Americas was historic as a symbol of a region in 
harmony about its common goals and objectives. But it was about much 
more than that. At Miami, the leaders also pledged to take action. While 
much remains to be done, we can be proud   of the progress we have made 
in the 14 months since Miami. 
An Action Program 
The summit produced an action plan with 23 initiatives--strengthening 
democracy and justice systems and education and health services, 
promoting biodiversity, promoting and protecting human rights and 
women's rights, and combating crime and narcotics, to name just a few. 
Together with our partners, we have made steady progress over the last 
year on many of these initiatives.  
The most dramatic and visible symbol of the spirit of Miami was, of 
course, the commitment to negotiate a Free Trade Area of the Americas--a 
$12-trillion market of 850 million consumers--and the agreement to do 
that by the year 2005.  
At Miami, we agreed on a template to achieve hemispheric free trade. We 
agreed to move simultaneously on a broad range of trade and investment 
sectors and issues that were identified in the summit Action Plan. We 
are now rolling up our sleeves and getting to work on the nitty-gritty 
details. This is not glamorous work, but it is key to our success. 
Trade ministers met in Denver last June and created working groups in 
seven areas: market access; investment; customs procedures and rules of 
origin; technical standards; sanitary and phitosanitary procedures; 
subsidies, antidumping and countervailing duties; and smaller economies. 
Much of the initial work in these groups has focused on the necessary 
first step of gathering data and identifying barriers--the necessary 
groundwork that needs to be laid before trade negotiations. 
Work is also underway in other key economic initiatives. For example, 
-- An agreement to liberalize capital markets; 
-- Development of new infrastructure strategies, including telecommuni- 
-- Hemispheric energy cooperation; 
-- Cooperation in the fields of science and technology; and 
-- Measures to eliminate poverty.  
Last December, ministers adopted a hemispheric strategy against money- 
laundering. It called for domestic reform of banking laws and expanded 
information sharing to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. 
Governments, in close cooperation with the World Bank and the Inter-
American Development Bank, are developing a "code of best practices" to 
encourage private investment. The OAS and the IDB have worked together 
on an anti-corruption code. Canada and Brazil have presented an 
ambitious joint plan for carrying out the democracy and human rights 
summit initiatives, including electoral reform, strengthening the 
judiciary, and enhancing the protection of human rights. 
A key element of the success of many of the summit initiatives has been 
strong leadership. In particular, OAS Secretary General Cesar Gaviria, 
President of the Inter-American Development Bank Enrique Iglesias, and 
Director of the Pan American Health Organization Sir George Alleyne have 
shown remarkable vision and commitment to the goals of the summit, and 
they deserve special thanks, as do many others.  
This year, implementation is our watchword, and we have an equally busy 
agenda. Secretary Christopher's upcoming trip launches a series of high-
level meetings culminating in June, when foreign ministers gather in 
Panama for the OAS General Assembly. Among the questions they will take 
up at that time is whether and when there should be another summit 
meeting. Next month, trade ministers will gather in Cartagena to take 
stock of progress and give a push to the free trade agenda. Also in 
Cartagena, business representatives from around the region will meet 
prior to the ministerial. Their conclusions will feed directly into 
governments' discussions as we move forward toward free trade. After 
all, this is all about making it easier to do business in the region. 
Consider the rich harvest that continued economic reform is producing: 
1995 economic growth is estimated at close to 5% in Brazil, Colombia, 
and Bolivia and over 6% in Chile, El Salvador, and Peru. Last year, U.S. 
exports to Latin America and the Caribbean grew by an estimated 6.5%. 
Excluding Mexico, U.S. exports to the region rose dramatically--by 26%. 
Even in Mexico, U.S. exports in 1995 will likely be about 10% above what 
they were in 1993--before NAFTA. Regional inflation is at the lowest 
level in 25 years, and the debt profile continues to improve. There can 
be little doubt that this is a region of opportunity. 
However, no one ever said that achieving our vision would be easy. The 
spirit of Miami was quickly tested by the Mexican peso crisis of last 
year. The resulting financial shockwaves buffeted the markets of 
Argentina and Brazil and echoed in Asia and around the world. Skirmishes 
erupted on the Peru-Ecuador border. More recently, there has been 
concern over U.S. failure to obtain fast-track negotiating authority for 
Chile's accession to NAFTA. But does this mean that the process is no 
longer on track? Definitely not--and let me tell you why. 
In the case of Mexico, the U.S. worked with the countries of the 
Americas and the international community to ensure that the crisis did 
not spread. Back in 1982, Mexico responded to the debt crisis by turning 
inward. In 1995, Mexico recommitted itself to continued economic reform. 
The story was the same in the rest of the region. Governments responded 
by strengthening and even accelerating their reforms, not by back-
Trade liberalization has also continued despite inevitable pockets of 
opposition. The hemispheric movement toward free trade is self-
generating. A mosaic of subregional pacts--more than 20 at last count--
is contributing to the vibrancy of the region. 
For example, MERCOSUR--Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay--is 
implementing its own customs union, and trade is booming. The Andean 
Group and the Central American Common Market are both lowering tariffs. 
Caribbean states are strengthening their links. This growing network is 
strong evidence of evolving free trade. It offers promise for a Free 
Trade Area of the Americas by 2005.  
It is true that in the United States, the Administration's effort to 
obtain fast-track negotiating authority for Chile's accession to NAFTA 
has stalled. I do not intend to raise expectations of the likelihood of 
obtaining fast-track this year. However, as Secretary Christopher said 
in his speech at Harvard on January 18, we "remain committed to 
obtaining fast-track authority to negotiate Chile's accession to NAFTA." 
Chile meets the criteria. It is important to point out that the absence 
of fast track is the result of a debate over trade policy and politics 
in this country. It is not a referendum on Chile or a referendum on the 
The Clinton Administration will continue to work with our partners 
through the Miami process to take concrete steps toward the goals of the 
Summit of the Americas, including a Free Trade Area of the Americas. 
This is not to say it will be constructed seamlessly or overnight. The 
blueprint exists, but we have much construction to do and many 
structural problems to resolve. I can promise you, however, that the 
United States will continue to play a leadership role in building the 
new Americas. 
In this political year, you will hear calls in some quarters for the 
United States to pull back from the world. But let me assure you that 
engagement in the world remains the cornerstone of the Clinton 
Administration's foreign policy. The U.S. vision of a world of open 
societies and open markets is consistent with our goal of regional 
integration. Integration consolidates change. It builds confidence and 
stability, and it ensures that our citizens come to see their prosperity 
as intertwined and dependent on our countries' mutual economic progress. 
As I look at what we are trying to build together, I see more and more 
of the pieces falling into place. Political and economic reform 
throughout the hemisphere are firmly on track. Trade liberalization is 
moving steadily forward as its results become increasingly evident. And 
we are making progress on good governance and on building and 
strengthening the institutions of civil society. In short, I am 
optimistic about where we're headed. 
No country or region has prospered for long in isolation. So let me 
leave you with one more reason I am optimistic today: The United States 
and the democracies of the region are working confidently together on 
constructing a new architecture in this hemisphere--one made up of 
prosperous and democratic nations from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego.  
Thank you. 

IRA Ends Cease-fire; U.S. Reinforces Commitment to Peace 
President Clinton 
Statement upon departure for Iowa City, Iowa, Washington, DC, February 
10, 1996 
Good morning. I have a few words to say  about yesterday's terrorist 
bombing in London, as all of us know, that injured scores of people. Let 
me begin by saying that I know I speak for all Americans who join 
Hillary and me in praying for those who were  hurt and for their speedy 
recovery. We also hope that those responsible for this terrible and 
cowardly act are quickly brought to justice.  
There can be no doubt about the purpose of this attack. This attack was 
aimed at the growing prospects for peace--a just and lasting peace in 
Northern Ireland. I am deeply concerned by reports that the Irish 
Republican Army has announced an end to the cease-fire. The cease-fire 
and the goodwill and hard work of the parties to the Irish conflict have 
given the people of Northern Ireland the greatest gift of all: the 
simple blessings of a normal life.  
Since the cease-fire went into effect a year-and-a-half ago, people of 
all faiths have been able to go about their daily lives without the 
disruption of searches and roadblocks and especially  without fear of 
the bullet and the bomb. We must not turn away from that path now. 
I know that the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ire-
land--Catholic and Protestant alike--want to stay on the path of peace. 
During my visit there last year, I could see for myself that the demand 
for peace was lasting. No one and no organization has the right to deny 
the people of Northern Ireland a peaceful future, and I am determined to 
do all that I can to see that the enemies of peace do not succeed. 
Last night I spoke to the British Prime Minister, John  Major, to 
express our shock and sadness over this event. I also spoke to the Irish 
Prime Minister, John Bruton. I assured both of them that America would 
continue to be committed to work for a negotiated, secure peace. 
Let me say again that this terrible incident reminds me of a lesson I 
have learned in working for peace throughout the world in the last three 
years. The real differences in our world are not between Catholics and 
Protestants, Arabs and Jews, Muslims, Croats and Serbs: They are between 
those who embrace peace and those who reject it; those who look to the 
future and those who are blinded by the hatreds of the  past; those who 
open their arms and those who are determined to keep  clenching their 
We all have to choose. The people of Northern Ireland have chosen peace. 
They do not deserve to have a small group choose bloodshed and violence 
and wreck the peaceful life they long for. And the people of Great 
Britain do not deserve to have this violence wreaked upon them. We will 
not stop in our efforts until peace has been  secured. Thank you. 

Prospects of Peace With Justice in Bosnia 
John Shattuck, Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and 
Statement before the House International Relations Committee, 
Washington, DC, February 1, 1996 
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I am pleased to be here today 
to be able to testify on the human rights situation in Bosnia. Other 
Administration officials have spoken to you before about our broader 
objectives in bringing peace to that war-torn country. The war in Bosnia 
was the worst conflict in Europe since World War II and the biggest 
threat to the cohesiveness and stability of Europe since the Cold War. 
Without the painstaking efforts and leadership of the United States, 
there would have been no peace agreement; continued American leadership 
will be required if the peace is to take root. We believe the success of 
the peace process is integrally related to the successful implementation 
of the human rights provisions of the Dayton accords. For this reason, 
implementing the human rights elements of Dayton is one of the 
Administration's highest priority goals for Bosnia. 
Each time I have appeared before this committee in the past, I have 
underscored the importance of human rights issues as a fundamental 
pillar of U.S. foreign policy. Nowhere is this more true than in Bosnia-
Herzegovina, where Europe witnessed its most terrible crimes against 
humanity since the Holocaust. 
Since the onset of the tragic conflict there, the United States has been 
committed to exposing and stopping the horrific violations of human 
rights that were occurring. We brought Bosnia's human rights tragedy 
before the United Nations as early as August 1992. In early 1993, we led 
the effort in the UN Security Council to create a commission of experts 
to investigate war crimes. We subsequently spearheaded the creation of  
the International War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. We have 
been the Tribunal's most important supporter, providing it with 
financing, personnel, political backing, and information. The United 
States was the first to publicize information on mass graves and other 
evidence of war crimes and the first to facilitate Tribunal access to 
witnesses, victims, and sites of atrocities. 
I, myself, have visited Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia on eight separate 
missions to advance our human rights goals. My efforts centered on 
exposing violations of human rights by all parties, seeking free access 
to all parts of Bosnia for international investigators and the media, 
arranging releases of prisoners and detainees, seeking cooperation with 
the International War Crimes Tribunal, and facilitating compliance with 
the peace agreement. I will discuss my own activities further in a 
Four broad goals have guided our approach on human rights in the Bosnia 
First, to end gross violations of human rights; 

Second, to promote institutions to establish individual accountability 
for war crimes so that justice is done; 

Third, to ensure the release of prisoners and detainees and to trace 
missing persons; and 

Fourth, to establish institutional structures that will help ensure a 
peaceful and secure environment in which the people of war-torn Bosnia 
can enjoy their human rights. 
Most of this background is well-known to the distinguished members here 
today. If you wish, however, I will be happy to expand on it and provide 
any additional details you want during the question period. 
What I would like to focus my remarks on today is the Dayton peace 
accords and our work since November to implement that agreement. As you 
know, I was at Dayton and was involved personally in negotiating the 
accords. Since then, I have traveled to Europe and to the former 
Yugoslavia three times to pursue aspects of implementation. I will be 
leaving for the region again tomorrow--accompanying Secretary of State 
Christopher--to continue our work. 
The Dayton Accords 
From a human rights perspective, the Dayton accords are a remarkable 
document. Never before has a peace treaty placed such heavy emphasis on 
human rights concerns. This emphasis reflects our conviction that human 
rights issues are at the core of our effort to bring peace to the former 
Yugoslavia. Let me review for you and expand on some elements of the 
Dayton Agreement. 
-- First, the accords include a new constitution for Bosnia that guaran-
tees all its people the highest level of internationally recognized 
human rights and fundamental freedoms. Bosnia-Herzegovina will continue 
as a single state with two entities--the Federation of Bosnia-
Herzegovina and the Serb Republic. It will have effective federal 
institutions, through which the bulk of international assistance will be 
distributed, including a presidency, a bicameral legislature, and a 
constitutional court one-third of whose members are appointed by the 
European Court of Human Rights. The protection of 15 different 
international human rights instruments are built into the new 
constitution. In particular, the European Convention for the Protection 
of Human Rights and Freedoms will have precedence over Bosnian law in 
all cases. 
The accords create a Commission on Human Rights to safeguard the rights 
guaranteed by the constitution. The commission will have two parts--an 
independent human rights ombudsman and a human rights chamber. 
     --The ombudsman has been appointed by the Organization for Security 
and Cooperation in Europe. She is Gret Haller of Switzerland; she has 
already begun her work. As ombudsman, she has the authority to 
investigate human rights violations, mediate disputes, issue findings, 
and bring proceedings before the Human Rights Chamber. 

     --The 14-member Human Rights Chamber will hear human rights cases 
and complaints brought by or on behalf of citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina 
and by the ombudsman. It will have   the authority to order relief to 
victims and to order parties to cease and desist from any actions it 
finds to be in violation of their human rights commitments. A majority 
of the chamber's members will be appointed by the Council of Europe. 

     --In addition, Bosnia's constitutional court can hear appeals from 
entity courts, including on human rights. Three of its nine judges will 
be appointed by the president of the European Court of Human Rights. 
-- The Dayton accords provide that free and democratic elections are to 
be held throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina in the second half of this year to 
elect a president and legislature of the Federation, the presidents and 
legislatures of the two entities, and, if feasible, local officials. 
     --The Dayton Agreement obliges the parties to create conditions in 
which free elections can be held, by protecting the right to vote 
without fear of intimidation and ensuring freedom of speech, the press, 
and association. The OSCE must certify that conditions exist for free 
     --The preparation of elections will be organized and supervised by 
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This effort 
will be carried out in conjunction with an electoral commission headed 
by an OSCE representative and comprised of international experts and 
representatives of both entities. 

     --Refugees and persons displaced by the conflict will have the 
right to vote in their original place of residence, unless they choose 
to vote elsewhere. All persons 18 years old or older listed on the 1991 
Bosnian census are eligible to vote. 
-- The agreement obligates all parties to release, without delay, all 
civilians and combatants who have been held in relation to the conflict, 
including those in forced labor, and to give the International Committee 
of the Red Cross--ICRC--access to all places of detention. This process 
has begun; I will expand on its status in a moment. 
     --The agreement commits the parties to cooperate with the ICRC in 
finding all missing persons and to grant UN human rights agencies, the 
OSCE, and non-governmental organizations full access to monitor the 
human rights situation. 
-- Finally, the Dayton accords obligate the parties to cooperate fully 
with the International War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in 
its investigations of war crimes and other violations of international 
humanitarian law, and to comply with its orders. 
     --This obligation binds all parties, including Serbia, Croatia, 
Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the Serb Republic. 
     --The obligation to cooperate with orders of the War Crimes 
Tribunal is  also enshrined in the new constitution of Bosnia-
Herzegovina. All parties must give the Tribunal unrestricted access to 
all sites and persons. They are obligated to cooperate with the 
Tribunal's investigators and to surrender suspects in detention whenever 
the Tribunal requests them to do so. 
     --The agreement stipulates that individuals indicted for war crimes 
who do not comply with the Tribunal's orders cannot run for or hold 
elected or appointed office in Bosnia-Herzegovina. 
     --The sanctions suspension resolution adopted by the Security 
Council following Dayton includes provisions that will assist in 
enforcing compliance with these provisions. Upon the recommendation of 
the Commander of IFOR or the High Representative, if parties are found 
to be "failing significantly" to meet their obligations, sanctions will 
be reimposed, unless the Security Council decides otherwise.
     --In addition, an "outer wall" of sanctions will remain available, 
if necessary, in the form of denying access by noncompliant parties to 
international organizations, international financial institutions, and 
foreign assistance. We have discussed and agreed with our European 
allies that economic assistance to the parties will be conditioned, in 
part, on their human rights performance. 
     --Finally, Security Council resolutions make cooperation with the 
Tribunal a binding obligation on all nations, which can, if necessary, 
be enforced by further Security Council action. We are very pleased that 
Section 1342 of the Department of Defense authorization bill will bring 
the U.S. into compliance with its international obligation to cooperate 
with the War Crimes Tribunal. We appreciate the broad, bipartisan 
support in the Congress for this provision, and we hope it will 
encourage others to follow our example. 
I think you will agree, therefore, that the Dayton accords include very 
strong provisions on human rights. The accords are far more than a 
statement of principle, they establish new structures for the protection 
of human rights; they obligate the parties to take a variety of major 
steps to comply; and they provide for international supervision of human 
rights performance. 
The challenge facing us since Dayton has been to put its provisions into 
practice. We are making good progress, although we still face 
substantial hurdles. We need to overcome the tremendous distrust and ill 
will that permeates the political atmosphere in the aftermath of a 
horrible war. There are likely to be problems and setbacks as we try to 
move forward. Still, we are determined to make this process work. We 
have been putting a major effort into implementation. 
I would like to comment now on several elements of the implementation 
Prisoner Releases. The release of prisoners of war and civilian 
detainees is one of the highest priorities on our implementation agenda. 
Under the Dayton accords, all prisoners were to be released by January 
19. The releases were not completed by the target date. Since then, 
however, there has been substantial progress, and most of the first 
group of prisoners who have been identified and visited by the ICRC have 
now been released. 
The International Committee of the Red Cross has registered a total of 
938 prisoners held by the parties. Of these, 225 were released on 
schedule on January 19. Another 612 have been released since. Our best 
information is that 101 individuals registered by the ICRC remain in 
custody. Of these, 17 are held by the Bosnian Government, 30 by the 
Bosnian Serbs, and 54 by the Bosnian Croats. Each side asserts that some 
of the individuals it is holding are war criminals. The Dayton accords 
do require the parties to cooperate extensively with the International 
Tribunal so as to help bring about the arrest, detention, and surrender 
of persons who would otherwise be released but who are accused of 
violations within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 
My trip to Bosnia last week centered to a considerable extent on 
breaking the logjam and putting into place a system to ensure compliance 
with prisoner-release obligations. I met with President Milosevic and 
urged him to press the Bosnian Serbs to move forward with releases. I 
also met several times with President Izetbegovic and pressed him to 
comply with his Dayton obligations by releasing immediately and 
unconditionally all prisoners and detainees. U.S. Ambassador Galbraith 
in Croatia met with Bosnian Croat officials and with Federation 
President Zubak to make the same points with them. 
The Bosnian leadership was especially concerned that with thousands of 
its citizens missing, it could not complete releases of Serbian 
prisoners without some assurance that its people would be fully 
accounted for. I stressed that the releases could not be conditioned on 
any other development but that the issue of the missing would be 
addressed urgently. Our view is that all prisoners and detainees must be 
released immediately and unconditionally. This includes not only those 
in prisons and detention camps, but also individuals held under "work 
To meet Bosnia's legitimate concerns about missing persons, however, I 
worked with the International Committee of the Red Cross to structure a 
system for identifying and preparing for the release of any remaining 
persons held in relation to the conflict. We established a working group 
led by the ICRC, which will also include representatives of the High 
Representative, the UN, the OSCE, and other relevant parties. 
Prisoner releases and accounting for missing persons remain crucial 
issues for the success of the entire peace process. In view of this, I 
have proposed that we detail a senior U.S. official to help advance the 
effort. In addition, I will continue to give personal attention to the 
prisoner release issue. As one element of this process, I spent several 
hours earlier this week with Cornelio Sommaruga, President of the ICRC, 
to coordinate our joint efforts on releases. The ICRC is, as always, 
working diligently in difficult circumstances and deserves our full 
support. I will be leaving for the region tomorrow with Secretary 
Christopher; further prisoner releases and the tracing of missing 
persons will be among the issues on our agenda. 
The War Crimes Tribunal. The United States made a major commitment to 
the International War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. A 
central element of the effort to bring about peace and reconciliation in 
Bosnia must be the creation of institutions to pursue truth and justice 
about the terrible crimes committed during the course of the conflict. 
As the President emphasized in his October speech on the occasion of the 
50th anniversary of the Nuremburg Tribunal:  
No peace will endure for long without justice, for only justice can 
break finally the cycle of violence and retribution that fuels war and 
crimes against humanity. Only justice can lift the burden of collective 
guilt. . . . Only justice can assign responsibility to the guilty and 
allow everyone else to get on with the hard work of rebuilding and 
The War Crimes Tribunal is moving ahead well with its work, under the 
able leadership of its Chief Prosecutor, Justice Richard Goldstone. It 
has handed down 52 indictments to date. The prosecutor's investigative 
work is proceeding well given its resource constraints, which have been 
a recurring issue for the Office of the Prosecutor. As a result of the 
Dayton accords, however, investigators are now better able to interview 
The United States is providing strong support to the Tribunal. To date, 
we have contributed more than $14 million in cash and kind to the 
Tribunal and have provided 22 U.S. Government personnel to assist in its 
work. We continue to provide the tribunal with broad diplomatic support. 
We continue to be the Tribunal's strongest supporter in the UN and other 
multilateral fora. Secretary Christopher will reiterate this support 
when he travels to Zagreb, Sarajevo, and Belgrade this weekend. 
One additional aspect of our support for the Tribunal which requires 
special mention is information sharing. We have provided the Tribunal 
with all appropriate information available to us from a wide variety of 
sources, including classified information, on events within its mandate. 
I have met with Justice Goldstone on this issue, as have the Secretaries 
of State and Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence. On his 
most recent visit to Washington, Justice Goldstone pronounced himself 
fully satisfied with our efforts. 
On my trip to the region last week, a major issue was gaining access for 
the Tribunal to the sites of atrocities and mass murders that occurred   
during the war. We decided to make Srebrenica--site of one of the worst 
such massacres--a test case of access and freedom of movement under the 
Dayton accords. To do this, the U.S. pressed President Milosevic to work 
with the Bosnian Serbs in granting access and security protection for my 
team. I informed President Milosevic and the Bosnian Serbs that I would 
be accompanied on my visits by two investigative officials of the 
Tribunal and that I would have to be guaranteed unimpeded access as 
required by the Dayton accords. I did not disclose in advance the sites 
I wished to visit. My team was, in fact, given full and unimpeded access 
to all sites we wished to visit. The Tribunal investigators   who 
accompanied me filmed sites and collected evidence that will be used in 
prosecutions. Although this visit was only the beginning of what needs 
to be done, the cooperation and assistance my mission received was an 
important test of the willingness of one of the parties to meet its 
In the wake of my visit to Srebrenica, I met in Sarajevo with NATO 
Commander Adm. Leighton Smith and Justice Goldstone, who agreed on ways 
to coordinate their respective missions under the Dayton accords. 
Admiral Smith is satisfied that IFOR will be able to provide appropriate 
assistance to ensure area security for Tribunal teams carrying out 
investigations and activities at mass grave sites. Admiral Smith agreed 
to accept an offer by Justice Goldstone to have a Tribunal official 
liaise with IFOR, and has agreed to a request by Justice Goldstone to 
avoid public discussion of details related to future Tribunal requests 
for IFOR assistance. Justice Goldstone stated during the meeting that he 
is satisfied with the level of support offered by Admiral Smith and 
agreed that IFOR support should be provided within the limits of its 
mandate and available resources. 
Before moving to other issues, I should say a few further words on my 
visit to Srebrenica, which was the most moving and grueling experience I 
have had in eight trips to the region. I visited seven sites which 
echoed with the horrors of the conflict: a school and gymnasium near 
Karakaj where non-Serbs had been herded, then taken in groups of 30 to a 
field two kilometers away and murdered; an intersection at Konjevici 
where victims, told to find a free place to stand, had been lined up in 
rows and shot by armored personnel carriers; a soccer field in Kasaba 
where as many as 2,000 Bosnians had been herded before being taken away 
and killed; two mass graves in Glogova where evidence of human bones and 
clothing remained; a house in Potocari where Muslims were separated and 
herded onto buses; and the town of Srebrenica itself, now decimated, 
where the onslaught began. The starkest site of all was a large 
warehouse in Kravica--bloodstained and riddled with bullet holes and 
evidence of grenades--where thousands of innocent civilians were 
murdered in cold blood. 
Each site I visited corroborated fully the accounts and detailed 
descriptions given to me in Tuzla in late July by survivors of the mass 
executions in Srebrenica. There can be no doubt, whatever, after such a 
visit that truly horrendous war crimes did occur. The evidence is clear 
and compelling. We are paying careful attention to what is happening at 
these sites, and we have made clear that any attempts to tamper with 
evidence would be futile. On this matter, as on all others, we will be 
rigorous and even-handed in insisting that each party adhere fully to 
the Dayton accords. 
I want to reiterate, before I move on to other issues, the importance we 
attach to the Tribunal and its work. As we have said on many occasions, 
there can be no lasting peace without justice. Only when the guilty are 
called to account will the people of Bosnia be able to turn their full 
energy to building a new and better future. 
Elections and Human Rights Activities. Finally, but not least, I'd like 
to outline for you some of the many human rights activities underway on 
the civilian side of Dayton implementation. Civilian implementation, of 
course, did not get off to as quick a start as the military operation. 
Unlike the military side, entirely new civilian structures must be 
created and put into place. That takes time--and resources. 
Nevertheless, civilian structures are beginning to fall into place, and 
work is underway. 
Overall coordination of civilian implementation, including human rights 
and elections, is carried out by the High Representative, as called for 
in the Dayton accords. The High Representative's office has established 
a Human Rights Task Force to coordinate civilian human rights work in 
The OSCE is charged with organizing and overseeing free and fair 
elections throughout Bosnia within six to nine months of signature of 
the peace accords. It has fielded two visits by an electoral assessment 
team, in December and again in mid-January. The team has prepared a 
preliminary planning document, which has been provided to the parties. 
One of the OSCE's high priorities is to establish a Provisional Election 
Commission, which will be chaired by an American with experience in the 
region and on OSCE issues, Ambassador Robert Frowick, who also serves as 
the OSCE's chief of mission in Bosnia. The seven-member commission was 
named on January 30. Ambassador Frowick will soon announce the criteria 
which will have to be met before he can recommend to the OSCE that 
certification should proceed for holding the elections. Ambassador 
Frowick has named a senior deputy to assist with preparations for 
The OSCE is steadily building up its effort. It is opening five field 
offices throughout Bosnia and will deploy 30 delegations around the 
country. The field offices will be staffed initially by the European 
Commission Monitoring Mission and eventually by additional monitors 
currently being recruited. Several countries, including the U.S., are 
working on the recruitment effort. The total number of OSCE monitors--
both for elections and human rights monitoring--will be 250, of which 
the U.S. will provide 40-60. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights 
in Geneva is also engaged. The total cost of OSCE activities in Bosnia 
is estimated at $25 million, of which the U.S. will contribute about 
$2.25 million. 
The OSCE recognizes, quite rightly, the close relationship between human 
rights conditions in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the ability to certify and 
hold elections; for this reason, it intends to place a strong emphasis 
on promoting human rights improvements in the region. Ambassador Frowick 
is expected soon to appoint a senior deputy for human rights. The OSCE-
appointed ombudsman, Gret Haller, also will play an important role in 
protecting human rights in the region, in conjunction with the 
ombudsman's office created under the federation constitution. 
Beyond our support for these multilateral efforts, the U.S. sees a 
critical need for civil society and rule of law programs in Bosnia. Some 
immediate civil society programs are planned with SEED funds, to be 
administered by USAID. When we have been able to make a comprehensive 
assessment  of the current state of the legal and judicial systems in 
Bosnia, we will be able to consider measures to strengthen the rule of 
A key to establishing the rule of law and a secure and peaceful 
environment in Bosnia will be the reconstitution of a civilian police 
force. Anticipating this need, the Dayton accords create an 
International Police Task Force as a UN civilian police operation to 
oversee local police operations. The IPTF will monitor, advise, and 
train local, civilian police forces. Most importantly, from a human 
rights standpoint, the IPTF will accompany the police as they carry out 
their duties, providing them with on-the-job training, including respect 
for human rights, and acting as a check on any potential abuse of police 
power. The IPTF has already begun its work with almost 200 officers in 
the field. It remains far short, however, of its goal of 1,700 officers; 
achieving this level will require a substantial infusion of 
international resources. 
The U.S. has pledged to provide 200 of the police officers needed, with 
some portion of that total dedicated to the parallel effort of 
peacekeeping in Eastern Slavonia. To date, however, we have been unable 
to transfer the funds necessary for this effort from the Defense 
Department. I urge Congress to take prompt action of the 
Administration's $200 million transfer request, some $50 million of 
which would be dedicated to the IPTF. 
Immediate Next Steps. I will depart tomorrow morning with Secretary 
Christopher for my ninth mission to the region. We will have a full 
agenda there, and I can assure you that human rights issues will be at 
the top of the list. In particular, I intend to continue our efforts on 
the three key sets of issues I outlined for you today: pursuing prisoner 
releases and accounting for the missing; ensuring access for and 
cooperation with the war crimes tribunal; and pressing ahead with 
implementation of the Dayton Agreements on human rights monitoring and 
elections. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Focus on the United Nations: UN Changes for the Better 
Begin Quote 
The UN must be able to show that the money it receives supports saving 
and enriching people's lives, not unneeded overhead. Reform requires 
breaking up bureaucratic fiefdoms, eliminating obsolete agencies, and 
doing more with less. The UN must reform to remain relevant and to play 
a still stronger role in the march of freedom, peace, and prosperity. 
President ClintonOctober 22, 1995 
End Quote 
Commitment to UN Renewal  
Management and structural reforms are needed within the UN system to 
restore the 50-year-old institution's value as a force for international 
peace and prosperity. The Clinton Administration has taken the 
initiative in reshaping the UN system to make it more efficient, more 
focused on key priorities, and more accountable to its members. 
Recognizing the valuable contributions that UN organizations and 
programs have made since World War II in many areas--such as disaster 
relief, refugee assistance, and disease control--the Administration 
places a high priority on strengthening the UN's ability to address the 
challenges of the 21st century. At the same time, the Clinton 
Administration is committed to ensuring that the minor portion of the 
federal budget--less than one-quarter of one percent--that goes to the 
UN system is well spent. 
Recent Progress 
Over the past year, progress has been made on oversight and management 
reforms that will make a substantial contribution to the UN's ability to 
deliver value for money. The establishment of an Office of Internal 
Oversight Services (OIOS) in the UN Secretariat in late 1994 was an 
important step taken with strong U.S. backing. This office is 
effectively uncovering and correcting waste, fraud, and abuse within the 
Secretariat. In its first year, the OIOS recovered $4 million in 
overpayments and unjustified expenses for the UN's coffers. 
An American, formerly the CEO of a major international accounting firm, 
became UN Under Secretary General for Administration and Management in 
1994. Focused on establishing standards for management accountability 
and overhauling personnel, procurement, and planning systems, he is 
creating a modern management structure for the UN. The initial 
management reforms adopted over the past year are expected to reduce 
costs by $35 million in 1996 and 1997. 
The oversight and management reforms cited above will translate into 
significant savings within the UN Secretariat and the programs and 
projects it manages. But the UN system encompasses a highly varied group 
of affiliated organizations and programs; many are autonomous 
intergovernmental agencies. Some of these are in need of reform but are 
not subject to the control of the UN Secretariat or the General 
Assembly. Where needed, the U.S. is pursuing reforms within such 
organizations and pushing for the establishment of independent 
inspection offices. 
Considerable progress has been made toward greater efficiency and 
effectiveness within some relatively independent components of the UN. 
For instance, the UN Development Program over the past two years has cut 
its administrative budget by 10%, reduced headquarters staff by 25%, 
reduced the number of top executive positions by 15%, and tightened its 
focus on poverty eradication. 
Holding the Line 
The U.S. has been using its influence throughout the UN system to 
contain the size of bureaucracies. Some parts of the UN system are 
staffed beyond reasonable needs. The U.S. is looking for a 10%-15% 
reduction in overall staff over the medium term. In almost every UN 
organization, including the Secretariat, the U.S. opposes annual budget 
increases. For the 1996-97 biennium, the UN General Assembly approved a 
budget that was below the level expended during 1994-95. 
The U.S. also opposes the further scheduling of major UN conferences. 
Beyond large-scale meetings already scheduled for 1996--the World Food 
Security Summit in Rome and Habitat II in Istanbul--UN member states 
need to focus on implementing the worthwhile goals comprehensively 
defined by recent conferences instead of planning new gatherings. 
Revisiting Economic and Social Functions 
As a result of U.S. initiative, the world's leading industrial nations 
agreed at the Halifax summit in June 1995 to work together toward reform 
of the UN's economic and social programs. Common goals include 
establishment of a stronger policy-setting role for the UN's Economic 
and Social Council; re-evaluation of the mandates of UN entities to 
ensure that they make sense; and a consolidation of the numerous 
overlapping agencies and programs in the areas of humanitarian relief, 
development assistance, and statistical reporting. The adoption of such 
an agenda will require broad-based support within the General Assembly. 
Toward this end, the U.S., through participation in a high-level UN 
working group on reform, is helping to craft an economic and social 
reform program to submit to the General Assembly in 1996. 
Peacekeeping Improvements 
The U.S. is helping to improve the UN's ability to manage and support 
international peacekeeping operations. Every U.S. administration of the 
past 50 years has recognized that UN and other multilateral peacekeeping 
operations, at times, offer the best way to prevent, resolve, or contain 
conflicts that could otherwise be more costly or deadly. And though most 
of the 35 UN peacekeeping operations undertaken since 1945 have helped 
contain regional conflicts, promoted democracy, and bolstered human 
rights, a few have fallen short and thereby drawn attention to areas for 
Begin Quote 
For all their limitations, UN peace operations have proven their 
ability, in the right circumstances, to separate adversaries, maintain 
cease-fires, facilitate the delivery of humanitarian relief, enable 
refugees and displaced persons to return home, demobilize combatants, 
and create conditions under which political reconciliation may occur and 
free elections may be held. 
Amb. Madeleine K. Albright
June 15, 1995 
End Quote 
A Presidential directive (PDD 25) in mid-1994 established a tighter 
framework for making decisions on whether the U.S. should participate in 
peacekeeping operations and laid out goals for improved management of 
the operations that go forward. In line with those goals, the UN has 
finalized plans to modernize its Department of Peacekeeping Operations 
information management system. Efforts are also underway to strengthen 
the UN's logistical support of peacekeeping operations and to enable the 
UN to respond quickly to crises that demand a speedy international 
response. Such initiatives will result in substantial savings, more 
rational use of UN resources, and more effective peacekeeping 
Security Council Expansion 
The U.S. holds that the UN Security Council--the body which oversees 
political and security issues--should continue to reflect the intent of 
the UN Charter as well as current economic and political realities. The 
U.S. is willing to consider changes to the Council that preserve its 
effectiveness, strengthen its capacity, and enhance its representative 
character. The U.S. supports Japan and Germany for permanent membership 
on the Security Council (current permanent members are the U.S., U.K., 
France, Russia, and China). The U.S. sees further scope for a modest 
expansion of the Security Council to enable fair representation of all 
the world's regions. Underlying the U.S. position on Security Council 
expansion is a firm requirement that any changes should not reduce the 
Council's effectiveness, and that the prerogatives of the current 
permanent members should be maintained. 
An Indispensable Endeavor 
Among its many accomplishments, the UN has helped heal nations torn by 
brutal civil wars, such as Cambodia, Mozambique, and Nicaragua. It has 
promoted democracy, monitoring elections in nearly 50 countries. It has 
saved tens of millions of lives by eradicating diseases such as 
smallpox, and by immunizing most of the world's children. It has helped 
to establish and maintain standards for international aviation and 
shipping, telecommunications, postal systems, and food safety--things we 
all rely on but generally take for granted. And it has helped the U.S. 
garner international support for several critical U.S. foreign policy 
concerns, as in the Korean and Gulf wars and in the extension of the 
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But just as successful national 
governments and corporations are tightening their belts and looking for 
ways to do their jobs better, so too must the UN. Key to enabling 185 
member nations to better address complex global challenges, UN 
revitalization is gaining considerable momentum with strong support from 
the U.S.  


To the top of this page

Index of Dispatch Magazine Archives 1996 Issues|| Index of Dispatch Magazine Archives|| Index of "Briefings and Statements"
Index of Electronic Research Collections ERC Reference Desk || Alphabetic Index || Sitemap || ERC Homepage
Last modified: Jun. 8, 1999