U.S. Department of State 
Dispatch Volume 7, Number 13, March 25, 1996 
Bureau of Public Affairs 
 
 
 
ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE: 
 
1.  A Democratic and Undivided Europe in Our Time--Secretary Christopher  
2.  Progress in Implementing The Dayton Accord--Secretary Christopher, 
Agreed Measures  
3.  U.S. Commitment to a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty--Secretary 
Christopher   
4.  The U.S. and the New Independent States Cooperate To Secure a 
Peaceful, Democratic, Undivided Europe--Secretary Christopher, Ukrainian 
President Kuchma, Department Statement  
5.  U.S. Assistance to Ukraine: Overcoming the Tragedy Of Chernobyl--
Secretary Christopher   
6.  U.S.-Czech Republic Relations--Secretary Christopher, Czech Republic 
President Havel    
7.  The U.S. and Russia: Cooperating To Advance Common Interests--
Secretary Christopher, Russian Foreign Minister Primakov  
8.  Advancing U.S.-Russia Effort For Peace in Bosnia--Secretary 
Christopher    
9.  U.S. Provides Urgent Economic Assistance to Bosnia--White House 
Statement, White House Fact Sheet  
10.  Foreign Policy on the Cheap: You Get What You Pay For--Craig 
Johnstone  
11.  Turkey Hosts Conference on Behalf Of the Bosnian Federation--Deputy 
Secretary Talbott    
12.  The United States and the Security of Taiwan--Winston Lord 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 1: 
 
A Democratic and Undivided Europe in Our Time 
Secretary Christopher 
Address at Cemin Palace, Prague, Czech Republic, March 20, 1996 
 
Foreign Minister Zieleniec, fellow foreign ministers, ladies and 
gentlemen: I would like to speak with you today about what we must do to 
fulfill the promise of our time--an undivided Europe of free nations 
stretching from Russia in the east to the Atlantic in the west, with 
this beautiful Czech capital, once again, at its heart.  
 
Yesterday I was flying to Prague from Kiev, and I was reminded of this 
region's painful past of conflict and shifting frontiers. Below me, I 
could see towns and villages that, in this century alone, have been 
Russian, Austrian, Soviet, German, Czechoslovak, Polish, and now 
Ukrainian, Slovak, and Czech. These borderlands have been battlegrounds 
and burial grounds for Europe's great powers. It was here that this 
century's two great wars--and the Cold War--began. Today, it is here in 
this region that the greatest threats to European security must be 
faced.  
 
Yet, it is also here that our century's most inspiring victories for 
freedom have unfolded. These hopeful events also have roots in the long 
history of this region: They are part of a tradition that includes the 
Polish Constitution of 1791, Europe's first written constitution. They 
harken back to the Ukrainian Rada of 1917, the first representative 
voice of an independent Ukraine. They have strong roots right here in 
Prague, where democracy flourished after World War I as fascism rose in 
the west and where freedom flickered ever so briefly after World War II 
as Stalinism was imposed from the east.  
 
That era in Prague was epitomized by Thomas Masaryk, the elected 
president who believed that "for all the evils that may arise from 
political liberty, there is one tried remedy: more liberty." It also 
produced a Czech woman who learned to cherish freedom in her youth and 
who now defends it as America's ambassador to the United Nations: my 
esteemed colleague, Madeleine Korbel Albright.  
 
That democratic spirit endured the demoralizing years of communism. It 
inspired the Prague Spring and the Velvet Revolution. It animated 
coalminers and students, playwrights and electricians from the Berlin 
Wall to the walls of the Kremlin, and it gave them the power to overcome 
a totalitarian system that some thought could never be changed from 
within. Now, thanks to elected leaders like Vaclav Klaus and his 
counterparts, this region is home to the fastest-growing economies in 
Europe. Many nations are resolving old ethnic and border disputes. All 
now have their first real chance to enjoy independence and stability at 
the same time.  
 
Europe's fears and hopes have met in the former Yugoslavia. From the 
first shots that rang out in Sarajevo to the destruction of Vukovar to 
the killing fields of Srebrenica, Europe relived the worst horrors of 
the First and Second World Wars. On the other hand, if we look at Bosnia 
today, we will see something that has never been seen before: soldiers 
from the United States and Russia, from Poland and Lithuania, from the 
Czech Republic and Germany, and from 26 other countries joined in a 
mission of  peace, justice, and reconciliation. This broad participation 
in IFOR is taking NATO's Partnership for Peace to new heights. It is 
showing the world how far the nations of Central and Eastern Europe have 
come and how much they have to contribute as our partners to European 
security. 
 
Europe's future will be shaped by one of two very different paths: 
either by the divisive intolerance that left Bosnia in ruins or by the 
democratic integration to which most nations in this region aspire. For 
the right choice to prevail, there is a challenge you must meet, a 
challenge the United States must meet, and a challenge we must meet 
together.  
 
The first challenge is that each nation in this region must take 
responsibility for building democratic stability from within. Free 
elections and free markets are only the first steps. Building a true 
democratic culture requires not just tolerance but respect for human 
rights and minority views and a willingness to come to terms with 
painful episodes from the past. It requires a free press, free trade 
unions, and a network of private organizations outside government 
control. Likewise, sustaining economic growth requires completing market 
reforms. It calls for privatization and a stable legal framework for 
investment. It requires accountable institutions that effectively 
confront problems like poverty, corruption, crime, and environmental 
damage.   
 
This first challenge falls to a new generation in the new democracies--
to the students, the young entrepreneurs, the young mayors, the young 
teachers who are building their nations anew. Their parents and 
grandparents struggled for many years to give them this opportunity. 
With the power to control their destiny, they have a responsibility to 
safeguard freedom and to use it with wisdom and justice for the common 
good.  
 
The second challenge is for the United States: We must continue to 
engage and to lead in Europe. The Cold War may be over, but American 
leadership is still critical to transatlantic peace, security, and 
democracy. America's efforts helped make possible the smooth unification 
of Germany, the withdrawal of Russian forces from the Baltics, Ukraine's 
decision to give up nuclear weapons, and now the end of the war in 
Bosnia. There are isolationists in my country who would weaken our vital 
historic ties to the continent, but I assure you we will not heed them. 
It is a central lesson of this century that America must remain a 
European power.  
 
The United States has a particular interest in assuring the success of 
Europe's new democracies. We have an interest in your liberty, because 
when you won your freedom, we were liberated from the Cold War. We have 
an interest in your security, because we wish to avoid the instability 
that drew over 5 million Americans to fight in two deadly world wars in 
Europe. We have an interest in your prosperity, because our own 
prosperity depends upon a Europe that is open to our exports, our 
investment, and our ideas.   
 
We know we have an interest in your success, because standing here in 
Prague, we cannot fail to remember history. In 1938, as Hitler 
threatened to conquer Czechoslovakia, many Americans saw his aggression 
as a European problem. Yet no European state would intervene at that 
time in what Neville Chamberlain dismissed as "a quarrel in a far-away 
country between people of whom we know nothing. "  The world paid the 
price for that dangerous short-sightedness. 
 
A half-century later, a war in Bosnia threatened peace and security 
throughout Europe. And, again, it was the United States working together 
with Europe that made peace possible. President Clinton understood that 
only America--the leader of NATO--could step in and make a decisive 
difference.  
 
That is why we went all out for peace at Dayton. That is why I was in 
Bosnia at D-plus-45, the 45th day of the NATO enforcement mission, and 
that is why I met with the three Balkan leaders this week in Geneva. 
Yesterday was D-plus-90, and it is clear that our troops have met their 
first critical challenge. The killing has ended. The armies have 
withdrawn. And in Geneva, the parties agreed to a series of concrete 
steps to pave the way for our next critical test: holding free elections 
this summer. Our work in Geneva provides the foundation for our Contact 
Group meeting to be held at the ministerial level on Saturday in Moscow.  
This series of meetings reflects the fact that much remains to be done, 
that we must stay with the process in Bosnia, stick with it day-in and 
day-out. Only that way will lasting peace be achieved.  
 
In this region, the United States will remain a leader in support of 
democracy and free markets. Total American assistance to Central Europe 
has already topped $10 billion in this post-Cold War period. Our 12 
enterprise funds have capitalized thousands of small businesses. We have 
helped rewrite commercial codes, as we did in Latvia, to create stock 
exchanges, as we did in Hungary, and to prepare the way for foreign 
investment throughout the region.  
 
We are ready to meet a third challenge: the one we must meet together. 
That challenge is to reunite this continent, to erase the outdated 
boundaries of the Cold War. At long last, we must become equal partners, 
with equal responsibilities.   
 
Fifty years ago, when we emerged from World War II, the United States 
forged a permanent alliance with Europe's democratic states. Together, 
we created institutions that gave the West a half-century of peace and 
prosperity. That alliance kept Soviet armies at bay. It also brought 
France and Germany together. It integrated Italy and eventually Spain 
into our community of democracies. It gave shattered economies 
confidence to recover, and they did recover. This alliance remains a 
force for transatlantic unity.  
 
Today, our goal is to extend eastward the same structure of values and 
institutions that enabled Western Europe to overcome its own legacy of 
conflict and division. These institutions--NATO and the European Union 
among them--are not ends in themselves. But history teaches that they 
create the conditions that allow democracy and free markets to flourish. 
 
For Europe's new democracies, integration will bring a new era. With the 
struggle for independence won, we are now able to work together to meet 
the responsibilities that Western nations share. That is what we are 
doing now in Bosnia and what many of you will do as you ultimately 
become full members of NATO and the European Union.  
 
Together, we can build lasting security. We can build a true 
transatlantic marketplace that will deepen America's ties with a broader 
Europe. We can fight terrorism, organized crime, and proliferation, and 
we can protect the environment. We can keep working together in 
peacekeeping missions. We can speak and act together in support of 
freedom around the world, just as others stood with you during the long 
years of communist rule.  
 
We are determined to keep faith with the nations of this region, to open 
the door that Stalin shut when he said "no" to the Marshall Plan. No 
nation in Europe should ever again be consigned to a buffer zone between 
great powers or relegated to another nation's sphere of influence.  
 
To achieve that end, President Clinton has advanced a broad-ranging 
strategy for European security. It includes a revitalized NATO, ready  
for the missions and roles of the next century. It includes support for 
deeper and broader European integration. It includes a strong and 
productive relationship with Russia. 
 
The President's approach is comprehensive. It is far-sighted. And it is 
working.   
 
We began to put this strategy into place two years ago when President 
Clinton proposed the Partnership for Peace--a Partnership that has been 
an extraordinary success, a Partnership that has established habits of 
cooperation that made the effective operation of IFOR possible. It will 
remain a permanent feature of security cooperation in Europe, and we are 
determined to strengthen it further.  
 
Last weekend, I visited NATO's Supreme Headquarters in Mons. 
Paradoxically enough, in a building where the Allies once planned to 
defend Berlin against Soviet attack, Russian officers now work alongside 
NATO's members, alongside former neutral countries, and alongside the 
nations of central and eastern Europe. In the main hall of that 
building, 43 flags fly in alphabetical order, recognizing no artificial 
distinctions between countries. That is our vision for the new Europe 
come to life.  
 
For some nations, the Partnership will also prepare the way to NATO 
membership. NATO enlargement is not a step we will take lightly. It 
involves the most solemn commitments that one nation can make to 
another. New allies will be full members of NATO, with all the benefits 
that entails. But they must be ready to assume the full risks, costs, 
and responsibilities that come with membership.  
 
This year, NATO has entered the second phase of a process that has been 
gradual, deliberate, and transparent. NATO has begun intensive 
consultations with interested partners to determine what they must do 
and what NATO must do and to prepare for enlargement. Based on the 
results, we will decide on next steps in December. We are determined to 
move forward. NATO has made a commitment to take in new members, and it 
must not and will not keep new democracies in the waiting room forever. 
NATO enlargement is on track, and it will happen.  
 
By extending NATO's guarantees to strong, new democracies, we will 
extend the area where conflicts are deterred. This will make it less 
likely that America will ever again have to send its troops to fight in 
this region. Enlargement will help us erase a Cold War-dividing line 
drawn solely by the accident of where the Red Army stopped in 1945. The 
prospect of enlargement has also given every potential member of NATO an 
incentive to maintain democracy and good relations with their neighbors. 
In this way, enlargement will benefit members and non-members alike.  
 
Indeed, by encouraging the peaceful resolution of disputes between 
countries like Hungary and Slovakia, NATO has already become a force for 
conflict prevention in this region. The United States and every NATO 
ally looks forward to Slovakia's ratification of its treaty with 
Hungary, and we hope that Hungary and Romania will reach a similar 
agreement soon.  
 
NATO is the linchpin of European security, but other institutions are 
also critical. The OSCE is vital because true stability depends on the 
standards it promotes: respect for an open society and for the rule of 
law. This year, the OSCE will test its new operational role as it 
supervises elections in Bosnia. The Chairman in Office of the OSCE at 
the present time is Switzerland, stepping forward to take new 
responsibilities in a Europe moving toward integration.  
 
The enlargement of the European Union is just as critical to the future 
of central and eastern Europe as is the enlargement of NATO. It will 
tear down what Lech Walesa called the "Silk Curtain"--the artificial 
economic barrier that still divides Europe between east and west. The 
standards the EU establishes will lock in democratic and market reforms 
and give this region's courageous entrepreneurs a fair chance to compete 
in a single European market. The EU must maintain its momentum toward 
enlargement, just as NATO is doing. 
 
Let me make one final, critical comment about our strategy of 
integration. The process will be inclusive. It will not build new walls 
across this continent. It will not recognize any fundamental divide 
among the Catholic, Orthodox, and Islamic parts of Europe. That kind of 
thinking fueled the killing in the former Yugoslavia, and it must have 
no place in the Europe that we are building. 
 
The enlargement of Western institutions will naturally begin with the 
strongest candidates for membership:  If it did not start with them, it 
would not start at all. But our goal is not to help these nations 
"escape" from central and eastern Europe at the expense of their 
neighbors. On the contrary, those who are first have an obligation to 
ensure that their membership keeps the door open for others.  
 
Ukraine's integration with Europe is especially important to stability 
and security in this region. That is why we value Ukraine's 
participation in the Partnership for Peace, why we want NATO and Ukraine 
to build a strong relationship, and why we will participate in a major 
military exercise in Ukraine this summer. Yesterday in Kiev, I 
reaffirmed America's commitment to Ukraine's freedom, independence, and 
prosperity.  
 
It is also critical that Russia take its rightful place in the new 
Europe. Nowhere is it more important that democracy take root than in 
Russia. Russia's reform efforts are under strain, and success is far 
from assured. But we support reform because, in the long run, its 
success benefits not only the Russian people, but Europe and America as 
well.  
 
One of the central issues in the future of Europe will be Russia's 
relationship with its newly independent neighbors. Last week, we were 
confronted with a dark vision of that future when the Russian Duma voted 
in favor of reconstituting the U.S.S.R. Five years ago, millions of 
former Soviet citizens freely chose independence, and the United States 
will continue to support its right and determination to keep it.  I 
applaud President Yeltsin for opposing the Duma resolution. He and most 
Russians understand that Russia's interests lie in treating all its 
neighbors as equals, as sovereign partners in an integrated Europe.  
 
On Friday, I will be meeting with President Yeltsin and Foreign Minister 
Primakov in Moscow to discuss our common interest in the safety of 
nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors and to prepare for the April 
nuclear summit. We will review our efforts on arms control, including 
our goal of a comprehensive nuclear test ban. And we will discuss the 
positive contribution Russia can make to European security. Russia can 
and should develop a cooperative relationship with NATO, in and beyond 
the Partnership for Peace, building on the excellent cooperation between 
Russia and NATO, as well as Russia and the United States, in Bosnia.  
 
We must avoid the danger of three Europe's: a prosperous, stable west; a 
center on its way to NATO and the EU; and an east consigned to isolation 
and crisis. Central Europe's integration will neither determine, nor be 
determined, by events in Russia. But we have an equal interest in 
integrating, not isolating, Russia.  
 
Of course, Russia must not isolate itself. Its integration, like that of 
central Europe, will depend on the choices its leaders and its people 
make. Integration depends on adherence to international norms at home 
and abroad.  
 
Today, every nation in this region can make the choices that lead to an 
undivided Europe-a Europe whose eastern frontiers are determined by 
shared values, not by geography or history. As President Clinton said 
right here in Prague: "Freedom's boundaries now should be defined by new 
behavior, not old history." The West itself must be open to open 
societies and open markets everywhere. 
 
Europe's new democracies were born in a peaceful struggle for dignity. 
That struggle committed millions of Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Romanians, 
Russians, and others to the highest standards of solidarity, civility, 
and courage. It created a generation that, in the words of Pope John 
Paul II, "called good and evil by their name, and did not blur the 
picture." 
 
That special history gives you a special role to play, in partnership 
with the United States, in Europe's future.  For each of us, that role 
must live up to what President Havel has called "the politics of 
responsibility." We must accept the responsibility to uphold the ideals 
that set us free.  
 
So let us rededicate ourselves to an old goal. Let us build a Europe of 
sovereign, equal democracies, united with each other and America by 
shared values and institutions. Let us build a Europe where you can 
always count on us, and we can always count on you.  Let us make this 
vision a reality in our time, not in our children's time.  
 
Thank you very much.

(###)  
 
 
ARTICLE 2: 
 
Progress in Implementing The Dayton Accords 
Secretary Christopher, Agreed Measures 
 
Secretary Christopher 
Opening statement at press conference following meetings to assess 
compliance with the Dayton accords, Geneva, Switzerland, March 18, 1996. 
 
Secretary Christopher. Good evening. We meet today on the eve of D-plus-
90. The critical challenge at D-plus-90 was to complete the transfer of 
the lands over which the parties fought and died during the last four 
years. 
 
I met with Admiral Smith this morning, and it's clear to me that IFOR 
has met that challenge. The killing has ended; the armies have 
withdrawn. This is an extraordinary accomplishment, one that many people 
thought would never be possible.  
 
But when the three presidents of the Balkan countries signed the Dayton 
accords, they did not promise merely to stop fighting in Bosnia. They 
promised to create the conditions that would allow peace to take hold 
and to endure.  
 
So today, after D-plus-90, we will enter a new phase. As IFOR continues 
its mission, the international community will intensify its focus on the 
critical issues of human rights, freedom of the press, war crimes, 
freedom of movement, and reconstruction. And, most importantly, we will 
prepare for the critical next test-the free elections that will be held 
this summer under the auspices of the OSCE. Let me touch on a few of the 
specific accomplishments agreed on today.  
 
First, the Bosnian parties agreed to take a series of concrete steps 
that will make it possible to conduct free and fair elections. By April 
15, the parties will complete a set of standards to ensure that all 
political parties have access to the nationwide electronic media in 
Bosnia.  They have agreed that licenses for radio and television 
stations will be granted on a basis of non-political criteria. They will 
instruct all local officials to facilitate the return of refugees and 
displaced persons, so that all Bosnian citizens have the right to vote 
in their pre-war home if they choose to do so.  
 
Second, the parties, reaffirming their commitment to a multiethnic 
capital, agreed to take steps to deal with the problem of violence, 
destruction, and threats against citizens in areas transferred to the 
Federation, in particular, Sarajevo. We discussed how to deal with this 
problem at some length today with the parties and with Admiral Smith.  
Admiral Smith has agreed that IFOR will immediately intensify its 
patrols in Sarajevo, to stem the looting and arson. Admiral Smith has 
indicated that IFOR will immediately exercise its right to detain 
looters and arsonists for up to 72 hours. The multi-ethnic Federation 
police force will also increase its presence in Sarajevo, with the help 
of the international police force. 
 
Third, today, we advanced the work of the War Crimes Tribunal. Croatian 
authorities have confirmed that General Blasic will submit himself to 
the tribunal at The Hague by the end of the month. The two soldiers now 
in custody in Belgrade in connection with the Srebrenica killings will 
be turned over by the FRY authority to the Tribunal also by the end of 
the month. 
 
Fourth, the parties agreed to accelerate the process of normalizing 
relations. Commercial flights between Sarajevo and Belgrade will resume. 
President Milosevic has agreed to open the Montenegrin port of Bara to 
commercial shipping for Bosnia. Bosnia and the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia will also resume telephone and rail links. This is an 
important human dimension to the process of normalization. After four 
years of war and isolation, these measures will make a tangible 
difference in the daily lives of the people of Bosnia. 
 
Fifth, the parties agreed to take further steps to strengthen the 
Federation, including elimination of over-lapping governmental functions 
such as postal matters, customs, taxes, and police. They also agreed on 
measures to improve freedom of movement within the Federation territory 
and across Federation boundaries.  
 
Finally, the parties agreed to fulfill their commitments in two 
outstanding areas where compliance is called for: first, the release of 
detained persons; and second, the removal of foreign military forces. In 
addition, Croatia has agreed to expeditious approval of requests by 
Krajina Serb refugees to return to their homes.  
 
Our progress on these issues sets the stage for the Contact Group 
ministerial meeting in Moscow this Saturday, and I am convinced that the 
meeting today will improve the prospects for a successful meeting in 
Moscow.  Ultimately, of course, it is up to the leaders, and especially 
these three leaders who joined me here today, to bring the full promise 
of Dayton to life. These leaders have a chance--they expressed it today-
to build more open and tolerant societies--better societies--to confront 
their painful past and to begin to build a better future.  
 
The people of the former Yugoslavia and the international community are 
looking to these leaders to grasp the opportunity that was given to them 
at Dayton and which we have advanced, step by step, but advanced, I 
think, significantly, today. Thank you very much.  

 
Agreed Measures 
 
Text of Agreed Measures on Compliance with the Dayton Accords, released 
in Geneva, Switzerland, March 18, 1996. 
 
The Parties to the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and 
Herzegovina express their determination to provide the political 
leadership necessary to ensure the complete fulfillment of the spirit 
and the letter of the Agreement, which provides a comprehensive 
framework within which to build peace, and of the commitments made at 
Rome on February 18, 1996. Full implementation by all Parties is an 
essential prerequisite for the return of normal, peaceful, and 
democratic life to the region and for the process of reconciliation. The 
Parties' performance on a broad range of implementation issues will be 
considered at the Contact Group Ministerial to be held on March 23 in 
Moscow. 
 
1. The Parties commit themselves to build upon the accomplishments of 
the first three months of implementation to establish conditions for 
free and fair elections by September 1996 as required in the Agreement. 
To fulfill their obligations, the Parties will work closely with the 
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) mission in 
Bosnia and Herzegovina to implement its strategy for democratization.  
 
In particular, they commit themselves to improve compliance with 
provisions that affect the daily life of persons. Basic human rights, in 
particular freedom of movement, freedom of association, and the right of 
resettlement must be honored fully. Access to electronic and print media 
for all recognized political groupings is an absolute prerequisite for 
successful elections and for the building of a viable constitutional 
order. Encouragement of tolerance, respect for rights of others, respect 
for private property, and the suppression of violence against persons 
are major tasks.  
 
The Parties note that a comprehensive compliance review will be provided 
by the High Representative to the Moscow Contact Group Ministerial on 
March 23, based on his report to the U.N. Secretary General. In Moscow, 
Ministers of the Contact Group will discuss appropriate measures in 
cases of non-compliance with the Agreement during the first phase of 
implementation. 
 
2. The Parties share the deep concern expressed by the members of the 
Contact Group participating in this meeting over developments in the 
area of Sarajevo, including violence, destruction, and threats toward 
citizens in areas transferred to the Federation. The High Representative 
will continue his dialogue on the future of Sarajevo within the 
framework of the Joint Civil Commission for Sarajevo, based on the Rome 
Statement of February 18, 1996. These discussions will cover all issues 
that must be solved in order to secure Sarajevo as a city for Bosniacs, 
Serbs, Croats, and others, and as the capital and seat of the future 
common institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 
 
The principles outlined below apply throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina: 
 
-- All those who have departed their homes may return to them. Private 
property will be fully respected and protected. Apartments that are 
"socially owned" will be left available to those who have the right to 
reside in them and who reoccupy them within six months. Necessary 
changes in existing legislation will be made promptly. 
 
-- All responsible authorities will take action to prevent unlawful acts 
in transferred territories and to ensure that all residents may remain 
safely in their homes and that the perpetrators of criminal activities 
will be punished promptly. 
 
As of March 18, IFOR has intensified its patrols in Sarajevo. Consistent 
with the February 18, 1996, Rome Statement on Sarajevo, the multi-ethnic 
police force under Federation jurisdiction will increase its security 
presence, with monitoring by the IPTF.  
 
The Republic Srpska will encourage and facilitate the return of Serbs to 
Sarajevo.  
 
3. Before the Contact Group Ministerial on March 23, the Bosnian Parties 
will release all persons still detained in relation to the conflict and 
registered by the ICRC, with the sole exception of those whose detention 
the International Tribunal has requested by then.  
 
4. Representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federation, and the 
Republic Srpska will participate in the Working Group on Missing Persons 
fully, promptly, at high levels, and as directed by the ICRC. 
 
5. Satisfactory compliance with the military aspects of the Agreement 
has established a framework of security and predictability within which 
to build civilian structures. The Parties pledge full respect for all 
provisions, including those pertaining to the presence of foreign 
military forces; this continues to be a requirement for the success of 
the Agreement. The Parties commit themselves to carry out fully the 
additional measures set forth in Annex I--A of the Agreement, including 
the withdrawal of heavy weapons and forces to cantonment and barracks 
areas and the demobilization of forces that cannot be accommodated in 
those areas.  
 
6. Full cooperation with the work of the International Tribunal remains 
an essential condition for a lasting peace. It is expected that by the 
end of the month: (1) the Croatian authorities will arrange for indicted 
General Tihomir Blaskic to submit himself to the Tribunal; and (2) the 
FRY authorities will arrange the transfer to the Tribunal of the two 
persons now detained in the FRY in connection with the mass killings 
near Srebrenica in July 1995. The Parties will facilitate access and 
investigations by the Tribunal and will ensure that mass graves and 
other sites of interest to the Tribunal remain undisturbed. When 
requested, they will provide security and other assistance to facilitate 
the Tribunal's access and ensure the performance of its tasks.  
 
7. To ensure the full support of the media in the election process, 
authorities of the High Representative and the two Entities in Bosnia 
and Herzegovina will by April 15 complete and disseminate under the 
auspices of the OSCE standards ensuring that journalists can perform 
their professional functions. These standards will also ensure that all 
parties, including candidates for office, have access to relevant 
electronic and print media. The Bosnian parties will ensure that 
licenses and frequencies for such media shall be granted expeditiously 
on the basis of objective, non-political criteria.  
 
8. The Parties will accelerate the process of normalization of 
relations. To that end:  
 
--The Governments of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia have agreed to resume commercial air travel between their 
countries and will further conclude cooperative arrangements for trade 
between their countries, transport routes through the FRY into Bosnia 
and Herzegovina, telephone service, and railroads.  
 
--The Governments of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia will at the March 23 Contact Group Ministerial meeting in 
Moscow continue discussions leading toward the establishment of full 
diplomatic relations. 
 
--The Governments of the Republic of Croatia and of the Federal Republic 
of Yugoslavia will build upon the substantial progress made in 
ministerial talks last week toward further normalization of relations 
between the two countries.  
 
9. The Parties will instruct all local officials and governmental 
officers to facilitate the return of refugees and displaced persons to 
each individual's choice of destination. Such returns may not be used to 
affect the result of arbitration concerning disputed areas, as called 
for by the General Framework Agreement. 
 
The Government of the Republic of Croatia and the authorities in Eastern 
Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Sirmium will carry out projects for the 
voluntary return of any person, regardless of ethnicity. The Government 
of Croatia will expeditiously approve requests by Serb refugees from 
Croatia who wish to return to their homes.  
 
The Parties will facilitate the work of the Commission for Displaced 
Persons and Refugees established pursuant to the Dayton Agreement. The 
Commission will meet March 20 in Sarajevo.  
 
10. The Parties reiterated their conviction that the success of the 
Bosniac-Croat Federation is essential to stable peace in the region. 
 
The President and Vice-President of the Federation, supported by the 
President of Croatia and the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 
expressed concern over recent developments in the Federation and 
stressed their determination to implement fully the commitments made at 
Rome. They recognize that the international donor community will be 
motivated to assist in the reconstruction of areas within the Federation 
only if its authorities implement Federation agreements. Cantons and 
municipalities will only be beneficiaries of financial assistance once 
these units have been established and are fully operational. 
 
They agreed that further progress in the Federation requires close 
attention to details at the local and regional levels. In particular, 
steps will be taken to eliminate duplication of governmental 
institutions such as post, customs, tax, and police and to instill 
support for the Federation at all levels of government, including by the 
appointment of officials at all levels who are supportive of the 
Federation. They expressed their determination to improve security in 
Federation territory; to establish routes into the Federation from all 
directions; and to eliminate restrictions on freedom of movement, 
including all checkpoints. They welcome the actions of IFOR near Mostar 
on March 17; such actions will contribute to freedom of movement 
throughout the Federation. 
 
The Federation Parties reiterate their support for the European Union 
Administrator of Mostar and will without delay conduct elections so that 
local officials will be democratically elected. 
 
The Federation Parties welcome the invitation of the Government of 
Germany to meet in Bonn on March 28, where Federation authorities will 
report on the implementation of their commitments and commit themselves 
to regular, high-level meetings under international auspices to take 
further steps on the Federation and to monitor their implementation of 
agreed decisions. 

(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE  3: 
 
U.S. Commitment to a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty 
Secretary Christopher 
Press conference following meetings, Geneva, Switzerland, March 18, 1996 
 
Good morning. I have just come from a series of meetings with the key 
representatives of the Conference on Disarmament, which, of course, is 
the organization negotiating the comprehensive test ban treaty. 
 
I am convinced that now, 35 years after President Kennedy first endorsed 
a comprehensive test ban treaty, we stand on the threshold of being able 
to reach that important goal. This is a historic opportunity; it 
certainly must not be lost. 
 
Together with last year's indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation 
Treaty, the comprehensive test ban will form the cornerstone of our 
efforts to combat nuclear proliferation, which we believe is the most 
pressing strategic threat that the United States and the world face, now 
that we are in the post-Cold War period. That is why President Clinton 
has made a comprehensive test ban one of our highest national strategic 
priorities. That is why I have come here to Geneva to stress to our 
negotiating partners the importance that the United States places on 
achieving a comprehensive test ban, so that the treaty can be open for 
signature this fall. 
 
In order to ensure that the comprehensive test ban meets our non-
proliferation goals, we believe that it must meet three key tests: 
First, it should ban all nuclear explosions, anytime, anywhere, and that 
includes so-called PNEs, or peaceful nuclear explosions; second, it must 
include robust but cost-effective means for monitoring and verification 
to guard against violations; and third, the treaty must command and 
receive acceptance from the broad international community. 
 
My meetings this morning were designed to achieve these three 
objectives, and it is clear to me that real progress has been made here 
at Geneva. 
 
My first meeting was with the other permanent members of the United 
Nations Security Council-France, the United Kingdom, China, and Russia. 
I told them that as nuclear-weapons states our five countries have a 
unique responsibility to achieve a comprehensive test ban, a goal that 
we all committed ourselves to in the review of the Non-Proliferation 
Treaty last year. I made it clear that to reach that goal we must lead 
the way in accelerating the negotiations in Geneva and in synchronizing 
our own approaches to a comprehensive test ban treaty. 
 
My second meeting this morning was with Ambassador Ramaker, who is the 
chairman of this conference. I offered him the full backing of the 
United States in his efforts to accelerate the progress here, and he 
seems to me to be well qualified to move this process along, to help the 
parties achieve the result that all of them indicate they want to 
achieve this year. 
 
My final meeting this morning was with representatives of Egypt, India, 
Indonesia, Mexico, Morocco, and Pakistan--all members of the 21-member 
nonaligned nations group. I stressed the following points to that group.  
 
First, I emphasized that a comprehensive test ban treaty will contribute 
to the disarmament goals we all have. Specifically, a comprehensive test 
ban treaty will help prevent the creation of a new generation of nuclear 
weapons by the existing nuclear powers.  
 
Second, I emphasized that linking the test ban to a fixed timetable for 
nuclear disarmament would be extremely nonproductive--indeed, would be 
counterproductive. Such an approach would only ensure that we would have 
neither disarmament nor a test ban treaty. That would not only be deeply 
tragic but also quite ironic, because the nonaligned movement was among 
the earliest supporters of a Non-Proliferation Treaty, and, of course, 
one of the great leaders of the nonaligned movement, Prime Minister 
Nehru, was among the first to advocate that position. 
 
Finally, I said to the representatives of the nonaligned movement with 
whom I met that in the last few years the United States has taken the 
lead in seeking to reduce nuclear arms and, indeed, is doing so. As a 
result of our negotiations with Belarus and Kazakstan and Ukraine and 
Russia, thousands of nuclear weapons have been dismantled--more than 
9,000 from U.S. stockpiles alone. 
 
The U.S. goal is clear: We want a truly comprehensive test ban treaty 
that will end nuclear testing once and for all. The President and I are 
deeply committed to doing everything we can to help realize this 
objective. We think it is an important objective for the security of the 
United States and the rest of the world. 

(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 4: 
 
The U.S. and the New Independent States Cooperate To Secure a Peaceful, 
Democratic, Undivided Europe 
Secretary Christopher, Ukrainian President Kuchma, Department Statement 
Secretary Christopher, President Kuchma 
Remarks prior to press conference, Kiev, Ukraine, March 19, 1996. 
 
President Kuchma. It is a pleasure to welcome our honorable guest, State 
Secretary Mr. Christopher, here in Ukraine. Right now some events are 
underway in Ukraine, events that will be influential for the future not 
only of Ukraine alone. These events include the pending adoption of the 
new constitution of Ukraine which has reached, at last, its final stage, 
as well as the events in the neighboring countries which would also 
influence the situation in Ukraine. First of all, I mean the forthcoming 
presidential election in Russia. That is why we have a lot of issues to 
be discussed though we had met last only recently. Besides, we face a  
lot of economic problems, and economic issues are to be discussed, for 
we understand that the situation which Ukraine faces now urgently 
requires assistance. We are not going to be beggars; we are speaking 
about the mutually beneficial cooperation which is an obligatory thing. 
So, there are certain matters which require our urgent attention and we 
hope that our discussions will be fruitful. 
 
Secretary Christopher. Thank you, Mr. President. It is very nice to be 
back in Ukraine and to see President Kuchma. I believe it is the third 
time this year that we have met. The last time was in Helsinki, where I 
believe there was as much snow as you have here in Kiev. The many times 
we are meeting is, I think, a good index to the importance of relations 
between our countries.  
 
Under President Kuchma's leadership, Ukraine has embarked on a very 
ambitious program of economic reform and has halted the spiral of 
inflation. The United States very much welcomes Ukraine's recent 
successful consultations with the International Monetary Fund, which are 
very significant for maintaining the momentum of reform.  
 
Our cooperation with Ukraine on security issues is very important to all 
the people of the world. In particular, I call attention to the 
trilateral agreement between the United States, Ukraine, and Russia 
under which Ukraine will be free of nuclear weapons later this year. To 
ensure that this timetable is met, it is essential that all parties 
fulfill their commitments, including compensation to Ukraine for the 
warheads transferred.  
 
Today, we will be discussing a number of matters of mutual interest in 
the nuclear field, including next month's Nuclear Safety Summit in 
Moscow, and the historic agreement with the G-7 to close Chernobyl by 
the year 2000. Later this afternoon, I plan to visit a children's 
hospital here in Kiev. The hospital specializes in treating Chernobyl's 
youngest victims. 
 
We appreciate Ukraine's determination to develop pragmatic relations 
with Russia, based upon mutual respect for each nation's sovereignty. 
Last week's vote in the Russian Duma to reconstitute the Soviet Union 
was highly irresponsible. It was as disturbing to us as it was, I know, 
to Ukraine, for President Kuchma was certainly correct when he said the 
tide of history cannot be turned back. 
 
Ukraine and other countries of the former Soviet Union are independent 
and sovereign states. Any unilateral attempt to change their status 
should be rejected by the international community. 
 
The United States supports Ukraine's growing ties with Western and 
European institutions, including the Partnership for Peace, and I must 
say I was delighted to meet a Ukrainian officer in charge of Ukraine's 
efforts on Partnership for Peace when  I visited the Partnership 
building in NATO last Saturday. 
 
Ukraine's participation in the Partnership for Peace is already paying 
off. Ukrainian soldiers are working effectively with their counterparts 
in Bosnia, and there will be military exercises here in Western Ukraine 
this year in which the United States is very much looking forward to 
participating. 
 
You can see that Ukraine is a very important partner of the United 
States. We look forward to working with President Kuchma as we continue 
to strengthen our diplomatic, security, and economic cooperation, all in 
the direction of a peaceful, democratic, and undivided Europe. 
 
Thank you Mr. President. 


 
U.S.-Sponsored Environment Programs in the New Independent States 
Statement by Department Spokesman Nicholas Burns, Kiev, Ukraine,  
March 19, 1996. 
 
In Russia, the United States is pursuing a multi-faceted initiative to 
preserve the Lake Baikal watershed. Activities include promoting 
sustainable agricultural techniques, assisting in land-use planning, and 
helping local governments develop an eco-tourism industry. Each activity 
is designed to demonstrate the very real benefits of pursuing 
environmentally friendly economic development. 
 
Under the auspices of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission-GCC- the United 
States and Russia are developing programs to eliminate lead from 
gasoline and to support the Russian-American Oil and Gas Technology 
Center in mitigating environmental damage to the Russian Arctic. 
 
Also under the GCC, U.S. and Russian experts are developing a 
comprehensive "environmental health" strategy aimed at lessening the 
effects of air and water pollution. Related activities have included 
environmental audits of industrial enterprises and municipal drinking 
water systems. 
 
Cooperation is proceeding in reforestation programs across the New 
Independent States as well as in clean air management projects in 
targeted factories and cities.  
 
In Ukraine, U.S. Government programs center on achieving a successful 
shutdown of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. These efforts, which are 
coordinated with our G-7 partners, involve energy system restructuring, 
energy efficiency, and nuclear safety programs. In addition, separate 
initiatives are underway to improve industrial waste management in 
Donetsk and water quality in Lviv. 
 
In Central Asia, the U.S. Government's major effort has been the Aral 
Sea Initiative. Several million people living in the sea's basin have 
been deprived of access to safe water and   have suffered high death 
rates due to elevated levels of surface-- and ground-water 
contamination. 
 
The Aral Sea Initiative is designed to help meet the urgent need of 
these people for access to safe water by providing recommendations for 
water quality improvements, public health education, and water 
management practices. The Governments of Kazakstan, Turkmenistan, and 
Uzbekistan have joined in working with us on this initiative.  

(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 5: 
 
U.S. Assistance to Ukraine: Overcoming the Tragedy of Chernobyl 
Secretary Christopher 
Remarks at the Okhmadit Hospital, Kiev, Ukraine, March 19, 1996 
 
Good afternoon and thank you so much, Dr. Urin. I have just had a 
tremendously moving tour of this hospital. It brought home to me the 
terrible harm that the Chernobyl tragedy continues to do to the people 
of Ukraine. I particularly want to salute and thank the doctors, nurses, 
and all the staff of this hospital for the dedicated and heroic work 
that they do. As we all know, the Chernobyl tragedy  has caused 
thousands of deaths and severely taxed Ukraine's resources. It continues 
to reach into the future to claim new victims, and, indeed, the specter 
of another Chernobyl continues to hang over this region. 
 
In my brief remarks today I want to speak about what the United States 
is doing to help Ukraine to overcome this terrible tragedy. I want to 
touch more broadly on the environmental crisis in all the New 
Independent States, and I want to explain why these issues are so 
critical to our diplomatic engagement in this region.   
 
During the last two years, the United States has delivered more than 900 
tons of medical supplies to the hospitals of Ukraine. We have helped 
Ukraine to improve the safety of its nuclear power plants, and we have 
also helped it to strengthen its regulation of the nuclear power.  On 
April 26-the 10th anniversary of the Chernobyl tragedy-we will deliver 
another $10 million in aid and medical relief, and we will also provide 
a mobile laboratory that will enable the Ukrainian Government to monitor 
radiation and environmental contamination throughout the country. We are 
working with our G-7 partners to help Ukraine meet its commitment to 
close the Chernobyl reactor by the year 2000-a project that still 
requires a great deal of work and funding.   
 
It is necessary that we remind ourselves that Chernobyl was not a 
natural disaster. It was the product of a closed, authoritarian system 
of government. It was one of the most cruel legacies of communism, a 
system that managed to produce virtually all the evils of 
industrialization with very few of its benefits. One of the surest 
safeguards against another Chernobyl is a skeptical, open, democratic, 
questioning society.   
 
Unfortunately, Ukraine is not the only victim of the communist 
environmental legacy. In Central Asia, massive irrigation has so shrunk 
the Aral Sea that cities built as ports now lie miles and miles from the 
water. In Norilsk, in Russia's Far North, one factory complex annually 
pumps out 2 million tons of heavy metal into the air, polluting the 
entire Arctic. All over the region of the former Soviet Union, 
radioactive and chemical waste have poisoned the soil and the water.  
 
This is the only industrialized part of the world where life expectancy 
is actually declining.  But of course the consequences are not limited 
to the people of a single region. There will be worldwide consequences 
if an ocean is polluted, if there is another nuclear disaster, or if 
Siberia's forests, which are second in size only to Brazil's, are 
depleted. 
 
In a region that derives its wealth from its soil, its minerals, its 
forests, and its water, sustainable economic development is just 
impossible without protecting the environment. Addressing the problem of 
environmental damage is essential to the stability and prosperity of the 
new democracies in this region. For this political and economic reason 
as well as for humanitarian reasons, the U.S. shares a strong interest 
in helping to meet these environmental challenges. That is one reason 
why I have instructed our State Department to fully integrate 
environmental concerns into every aspect of our foreign policy. That is 
why our President and our Vice President have worked so hard to put 
these issues at the center of our agenda with respect to the New 
Independent States.  
 
We are helping the nations in this region use energy more efficiently-
this was one of the principal subjects of our conversation as I met with 
government leaders here today. We have developed programs to eliminate 
lead from gasoline and to mitigate environmental damage in Russia's Far 
North. We promoted reforestation and helped the people who live near the 
Aral Sea gain access to safe water, and in April, the nuclear summit in 
Moscow will help to ensure that there will be no more Chernobyls.  
 
In closing, let me say that it should not take a tragedy like Chernobyl 
to teach us this obvious truth, that we have a responsibility to protect 
public health and to safeguard the resources upon which our prosperity 
as well as our health are based. We must meet that responsibility-for 
the sake of our people, our security and our future.  
 
Let me thank again you, Doctor, and you, Mr. Minister, for accompanying 
me. Let me thank all the doctors and nurses and staff of this hospital. 
It was really quite inspiring and moving to come here. I am very 
grateful to you for enabling me to complete my visit here to Kiev with 
this most inspiring moment.  
 
Thank you so much.  

(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 6: 
 
U.S.-Czech Republic Relations 
Secretary Christopher, Czech Republic President Havel 
Remarks on their bilateral meeting, Prague, Czech Republic, March 20, 
1996 
 
Secretary Christopher. I have just had a very pleasant conversation with 
President Havel. He is one of the true leaders for the world to see and 
know, and I always enjoy my conversations with him. We talked about 
Bosnia, and the President emphasized the importance of our continuing 
with the task of trying to establish and preserve the peace and create 
conditions of stability in that country to draw it back from its 
terrible tragedy in the last four years.  I think our conversation was a 
firm reminder of the many shared values and interests that the United 
States has with the Czech Republic. Of course, we cannot fail to take 
great satisfaction in the progress that has been made here both toward 
democracy and establishing firm democratic values and great economic 
reform. 
 
Without trying to make a catalog of the many things we discussed in our 
approximate hour together, I was very appreciative of the President's 
reference to the Middle East peace process, commending the United States 
action in that regard and strongly urging us to stay the course as we 
continue to assist the parties in achieving a peaceful process in that 
part of the world. Thank you, Mr. President. It was a great pleasure to 
be with you. 
 
President Havel. I think that everyone in the Czech Republic is very 
happy that this meeting of the U.S. Secretary of State with the foreign 
ministers of countries that aspire to become NATO members is taking 
place here in Prague. The Czech Republic is a country that, for many 
good reasons, seeks to become a full member of the North Atlantic 
Alliance. We believe that NATO enlargement is important not only to us, 
but to Europe as a whole. This, of course, has been one of the subjects 
we have discussed with Secretary Christopher just now. I greatly welcome 
that the United States maintains the continuity of its policy  on this 
matter and takes a very fair  and reasonable stand. The discussion of  
this matter has been underway for some time and will certainly continue.  
 
The visit of Secretary Christopher here before his forthcoming trip to 
Moscow represents, in our opinion, an important phase in this ongoing 
dialogue. What we find particularly significant is the fact that 
countries like ours are now treated as equal partners in this 
conversation, that we do not see a repetition of what we knew from our 
past history when the more powerful ones made arrangements about us 
without us. I should like to thank Secretary Christopher for coming to 
visit Prague Castle.   

(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 7: 
 
The U.S. and Russia: Cooperating To Advance Common Interests 
Secretary Christopher, Russian Foreign Minister Primakov 
Opening remarks at a joint press conference, Moscow, Russia, March 22, 
1996 
 
Foreign Minister Primakov. The U.S. Secretary of State, Mr. Warren 
Christopher, has paid an official visit to Russia. We held talks and he 
was received today by President Yeltsin. We held discussions yesterday 
and today and these discussions have confirmed the usefulness of such 
meetings, because we have something to say to each other. The two sides 
discussed fundamental issues of peace and stability in certain areas, 
and, in the first place, we exchanged our views on certain global issues 
in the area of arms control. We also discussed certain problems and drew 
certain conclusions relating to the demarcation of ABM strategic and 
non-strategic missiles, because these issues are necessary for 
ratification of the Start II Treaty.  
 
We also considered such questions as the ban on the production of 
biological weapons and the ban on biological weapons in general and 
their full control and the full regime of verification. We also 
discussed issues of flank limitations pertaining to the CFE Treaty which 
are important for the two countries and especially for Russia.  
 
We also discussed conflict situations around the world which threaten 
the world community and singled out the issue of the crisis in the 
former Yugoslavia-the issue which will be discussed tomorrow at the 
meeting of the Contact Group at the ministerial level. 
 
Naturally, we drew our attention to the preparation of the Moscow summit 
on nuclear safety in April. Because Russia will be one of the cochairmen 
of this Big Eight meeting, we explained our vision of the problems and 
the comprehensive nature of the conference and shared our views with the 
Secretary of State and his associates on the matter. 
 
The discussions that we had dealt with others issues as well-issues on 
which we do not always have common ground. I have in mind primarily the 
question of NATO enlargement. For our part, we expressed our desire to 
find ways which would provide for the interests of all the participants 
in the process. On the whole, the discussions were held in a 
constructive atmosphere, which is characteristic of our relationship. 
Both sides stressed the importance of developing such relations, and I 
believe that our meeting was conducive to this end. Thank you. 

 
Secretary Christopher. Thank you very much. In the interest of time, I 
am going to follow a somewhat different procedure than my new friend 
Yevgeny has followed. I will make my statement in English and then the 
translation will follow. I think we may save a few minutes doing it that 
way.  
 
As the minister has said, he and I just completed a very comprehensive 
and constructive set of meetings. As he also accurately said, I met with 
President Yeltsin this morning for more than an hour. I gave him a 
letter from President Clinton which underscores how much the President 
is looking forward to the Moscow summit and his bilateral meeting with 
President Yeltsin at that time. President Yeltsin and I went on to have 
a very good conversation on a broad range of pressing international 
issues, including the Middle East, Bosnia, and stability in East Asia, 
and we went somewhat beyond the hour that had been scheduled for our 
meeting.  
 
It is clear to me that both President Clinton and President Yeltsin 
continue to place a very high priority on the U.S.-Russian relationship. 
Both men understand that the more the United States and Russia can 
cooperate to advance our common interests, the more secure our countries 
and the world will be. That was evident just 10 days ago in Sharm el-
Sheik where our presidents stood shoulder to shoulder to combat 
terrorism and bolster the peace process. It also can be seen in Bosnia 
where U.S. and Russian troops are working together to help end Europe's 
bloodiest conflict in half a century. Tomorrow, the Minister and I will 
host an important--I'm sorry, tomorrow the Minister will host an 
important contact group ministerial focused on how we are going to meet 
the very difficult challenges of civilian implementation.  
 
Foreign Minister Primakov (in English). I invite you to be the chairman.  

 
Secretary Christopher. I guess I just nominated myself. In any event, we 
are working together to make the meeting successful, building on the 
meetings that I had in Geneva on Monday. 
 
Another major accomplishment of the U.S.-Russian relationship is our 
cooperation in the area of nuclear non-proliferation and in the 
reduction of nuclear weapons. All of our people are more secure as a 
result of this cooperation. Today we advanced further our mutual goal 
for a safer world. We had an excellent discussion on a comprehensive 
nuclear test ban with, as the Minister said to me, excellent results. 
The United States and Russia support a truly comprehensive test ban. 
This mutual position provides an enormous boost for our common efforts 
to achieve a CTB in time for signature this fall. The United States and 
Russia will work together to accelerate this effort with our P-8 
partners in connection with the upcoming nuclear summit here in Moscow.  
 
As the Minister said, we had a candid discussion on European security. 
We do share a common commitment to an undivided and secure Europe, and I 
believe we are determined to manage whatever differences we have in this 
area as constructively as possible, as the Minister said.  
 
We covered a long list of topics, and I am not going to try to list them 
all. But they included, as the Minister said, biological and chemical 
weapons, the CFE Treaty, the prospects for ratification of Start II by 
the Duma, Russian restrictions on U.S. poultry exports, and our joint 
efforts to bring peace to Nagorno-Karabakh. Last month, after our first 
meeting, I said that I felt the Minister and I were off to a good start. 
Here in Moscow, we continue to press ahead to manage the complex but 
very important relationship between the United States and Russia. Our 
cooperation over the years has benefited our people enormously and has 
created tremendous opportunities to strengthen international peace and 
security. I look forward to continuing my work with the Minister to 
promote our common interests at next month's summit and for a long time 
after. Thank you very much.  

(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 8: 
 
Advancing U.S.-Russian Effort For Peace in Bosnia 
Secretary Christopher 
Remarks at the Contact Group Ministerial Meeting on Bosnia, Moscow, 
Russia, March 23, 1996 
 
 
Foreign Minister Primakov, distinguished foreign ministers, Prime 
Minister Bildt, General Joulwan, distinguished international 
representatives:  I am honored to join you today in Moscow as we advance 
our common effort to help Bosnia achieve lasting peace, justice, and 
reconstruction. 
 
I want to begin by thanking Foreign Minister Primakov for hosting this 
Contact Group Ministerial.  Russia has been our full and indispensable 
partner in Bosnia.  From the very start, Russia has worked with us as a 
member of the Contact Group and then as a co-chair of the Dayton 
negotiations.  And, of course, today, Russian troops are in Bosnia 
standing with soldiers from every power and region of Europe and around 
the world in the cause of peace. 
 
When I was in Tuzla in February, I could not help but be thrilled to see 
soldiers from Russian and Europe's other new democracies working so 
closely and effectively with out troops.  Our soldiers are showing us 
all that there are no obstacles and no divisions that cannot be overcome 
when we work together to advance shared interests.  Our success in 
Bosnia will have immense positive implications for the future of Europe, 
and that gives us yet another incentive to succeed. 
 
This week, we marked D-plus-90, the 90th day of IFOR's mission.  Our 
forces have succeed beyond our expectations.  A year ago, when shells 
were still falling on  Sarajevo, few people thought that Bosnia's 
warring parties would ever peacefully give up the land over which they 
had fought.  Now the war is over.  We are in a new phase. Our challenge 
is to help the parties create the conditions for lasting peace. 
 
I see several specific challenges in the days and months ahead.  First, 
it is vital that free and fair elections be held in Bosnia.  As Prime 
Minister Chernomyrdin said that is our next critical milestone.  
Successful elections will require respect for free speech and 
independent media and the return of displaced persons so that Bosnian 
citizens can vote in their pre-war homes if they choose. 
 
In addition, we must accelerate the momentum of reconstruction.  The 
Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina must fulfill its potential as an 
effective and accountable multiethnic institution.  The Federation 
parties simply have not done enough to give practical, substantial 
content to the Federation.  War criminals must also be brought to 
justice.  Yesterday's indictments by the War Crimes Tribunal demonstrate 
the even-handed and determined approach Judge Goldstone has taken. 
 
The meeting we held with the Balkan leaders in Geneva made progress in 
all these areas, but there is still much to be done. 
 
We must also realize that the Dayton accords were not just meant to end 
the fighting in Bosnia.  They were designed as the foundation of peace 
throughout the former Yugoslavia.  Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia have an 
equal obligation to build more open, tolerant, and democratic societies; 
to resettle refugees' to build constructive ties with their neighbors; 
and to establish military stability.  By doing this, they will achieve 
their stated goal of integration with a broader Europe.  And they will 
make it possible for the United States to develop normal, constructive 
ties with all the nations of this troubled region. 
 
The primary responsibility for achieving peace in its fullest sense lies 
with the parties.  The international community has given them an 
opportunity that they must seize.  But all the members of the Contact 
Group must stay engaged with this process. 
 
We will stick with this effort day in and day out.  Every national 
gathered here has an interest in not permitting these terrible 
atrocities to happen again.  We have an interest in maintaining 
stability and security in Europe.  And we have an interest in realizing 
the promise that our coalition in Bosnia represents: the promise of an 
integrated Europe at peace. 
 
Thank you very much.  

(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 9: 
 
U.S. Provides Urgent Economic Assistance to Bosnia 
White House Statement, White House Fact Sheet 
Quick Impact Assistance Package For Bosnia Nears Completion   
Statement by White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry, Washington, DC, 
March 20, 1996. 
 
The "Quick Impact" package of urgent assistance to Bosnia-Herzegovina 
that President Clinton announced at the Paris signing of the Dayton 
Peace Agreement three months ago is beginning to show results. Nearly 
all of the $85.6 million pledged by the President has been awarded, and 
most projects have been successfully completed or are well underway. 
Further support for civilian implementation of the Bosnian peace 
agreement is awaiting congressional approval of urgently needed funds 
and activities for the region.  
 
The $85.6-million Quick Impact package announced by President Clinton in 
Paris on December 14, 1995, funds 36 projects relating to humanitarian 
assistance, urgent reconstruction, and immediate rebuilding of key 
infrastructure. Of these projects, 15 have been completed, and another  
15 are either near completion or ongoing as scheduled. Grants are 
pending, and sites are being selected for the balance of the projects.  
 
The Quick Impact package has helped millions of Bosnians through the 
harsh winter months and the early stages of their country's 
rehabilitation. 
 
--Emergency food and clothing have been delivered;  
 
--Home heating and electricity have been restored;  
 
--Emergency building and infrastructure repairs have been carried out;  
 
--Employment-generating activities have begun; and  
 
--Efforts to strengthen the Bosnian Federation and repair the human 
fabric of local communities have been initiated. 
 
Only when the people of Bosnia can readily see the results of peace will 
they come to believe that their investment in peace is worthwhile, said 
President Clinton.  
 
We must work hard in the early phases of implementation to ensure that 
all Bosnians see that peace brings immediate and tangible awards. I am 
gratified to see that the Quick Impact package I announced only three 
months ago is bearing quick results. 
 
The Quick Impact package is designed to jump-start the recovery process 
and represents the first part of a longer term international effort to 
assist in the reconstruction and recovery of Bosnia. On February 21, the 
President requested $200 million to fund civilian implementation efforts 
outlined in the Dayton peace accords. This request, which awaits 
congressional approval, includes funds for reconstruction, demining, and 
police monitors and training. Activities funded by the request will 
focus on areas within the U.S. IFOR sector and Sarajevo. 
 
Significant Projects Included In $85-Million "Quick Impact" Package 
White House fact sheet released by the Office of the Press Secretary, 
Washington, DC, March 20, 1996.  
 
Food Aid. Began providing emergency food aid totaling 93,000 metric tons 
to 1.9 million Bosnians. Reopened bakery that will serve Sarajevo, 
Tuzla, and other cities--more than 100 million loaves of bread baked. 
Provided funds to feed 60,000 elderly citizens in Tuzla and Zenica. 
 
Food Production. Funded supplies to resume agriculture planting, 
livestock production, and food processing. Will benefit 250,000 people 
in Sarajevo, Tuzla, Zenica, and Mostar. 
 
Clothing. Funded project to produce 15,000 winter coats for children in 
Sarajevo and Gorazde. 
 
Heating. Completed rebuilding 17 of 23 boiler houses in the Sarajevo gas 
system and replaced 6,000 residence gas connections. More than 120,000 
residents benefited. 
 
Water Systems. Repaired water pumps and equipment in Sarajevo, restoring 
regular water service to 180,000 residents. 
 
Reconstruction. Signed agreement with contractor to begin mass 
replacement of glass in Sarajevo homes and businesses--more than 752,000 
square feet in 6 months. Projects on residential building repairs also 
underway in Sarajevo suburb of Dobrinja and multiethnic town of 
Busovaca. 
 
Hospital Repairs. Completed repairs on hospitals in Sarajevo, including 
major winterization work, and began repairs on health facilities in two 
towns. 
 
Road Work. Replaced road signs in Tuzla and set plans for repaving roads 
in spring. 
 
School Repairs. Began project to renovate elementary schools in 
Bihacarea--fix pipes, windows, and heating.  
 
Radio Station. Repaired radio station "Kameleon" in Tuzla region. 
Station operates 24 hours a day and broadcasts Voice of America, Radio 
Free Europe, and local public service programs.  


(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 10: 
 
Foreign Policy on the Cheap:You Get What You Pay For 
Ambassador Craig Johnstone, Director, Resources, Plans, and Policy 
Address to Town Meeting, Lexington, Kentucky, March 12, 1996 
 
President Wethington, Dr. Stempel, Congressman Mazzoli: I am delighted 
to be here today. I suppose that I should start by telling you that I 
come originally from Washington State, not from Washington, DC--a 
distinction it appears important to make these days. In Washington, my 
grandfather was a stationmaster for Northern Pacific Railroad, and as a 
kid I traveled around the country on free railroad passes. I kept a map 
on my wall and would shade in the states I visited. By the time I was 
16, I had visited 47 of the then 48 states--which shows you how old I 
am--and the only state I had not visited was Kentucky. Well, it has 
taken a long time, but, thanks to you, I have finally made it--saved the 
best for last. 
 
Let me also thank the Public Affairs Bureau of the Department of State 
for letting me out of Washington, DC, again despite all the problems I 
have created for them--they needed someone to go to Pittsburgh to talk 
about the foreign aid budget, but when I got there I didn't have the 
heart to talk to those nice people about a budget. So we talked instead 
about creating jobs in America. They let me go to Florida to talk about 
the budget, and we ended up talking about Vietnam and Cuba. In Seattle, 
when I was supposed to talk about the budget, we spent our time talking 
about the disturbing global trends in sperm counts. 
 
So, you see, I was surprised that they let me out again. I had to 
promise that I would stick to this budget talk, but they knew I 
wouldn't, so I won't.  
 
Now, what shall we really talk about? I would like to spend a little 
time telling you what I have had on my mind these past few weeks.  
 
In January, I lost a friend to cancer. His name was Graham Brown. He was 
a young and brilliant journalist. He left his wife--a Foreign Service 
officer--and two beautiful children--six and almost two years old. 
Graham didn't have long between the shock of his diagnosis and his 
passing. But we did have the opportunity to talk together about life and 
death, about God, and about his children and his concerns about their 
futures, growing up in a very uncertain world. I suppose it's not 
surprising that I have spent some time since Graham's death thinking 
about the future of his children, my own, yours. What kind of a life are 
they going to lead?  
 
I listen to the budget cutters on Capitol Hill arguing that because of 
runaway government spending we are mortgaging our children with a 
crushing debt that they will not be able to pay. They say we cannot let 
this happen, and I have to agree with them. They say that government 
programs should be focused on protecting the interests of the American 
people and that we can't afford giveaways either at home or abroad, and 
again I agree. The fact is, we owe it to our children and theirs to 
bring spending under control and to not saddle them with the debts 
incurred by our excesses. 
 
So, in deference to my friend Graham and his children, Richard and 
William, and your kids and mine, let's start with the premise that our 
first responsibility is to pass on to our children the opportunity to 
live a life as good or better than our own. And let's use that as the 
basis for evaluating whether your tax dollar is being well spent on 
international affairs. 
 
Now, I want you to open your minds. Because if you don't, I don't have a 
chance. Erase your preconceptions, because things are often not what 
they seem to be. I have lived in Washington, DC, long enough to bear 
witness to that.  
 
Just how much are we spending on international affairs? The University 
of Maryland conducted a poll that shows that, on average, Americans 
believe we are spending 18% of the federal budget on foreign aid. Well, 
50 years ago that wouldn't have been a bad guess. Coming out of World 
War II, with the Marshall Plan in Europe, we did spend 16% of the 
federal budget on foreign aid. But those days are long gone. The 
International Affairs Budget has been dropping steadily. It has dropped 
50% in real dollars in the past 10 years. Today, the total of all 
spending on international affairs comes to 1.2% of the federal budget--a 
little over 1 out of your tax dollar.  
 
The same University of Maryland poll says that the average American 
thinks we should be spending 6% of the federal budget on international 
affairs--6%. And we spend only 1.2%, and we are having trouble getting 
that. That 1.2% will yield a budget request for international affairs of 
$19.2 billion in 1997. I know its hard to get a sense of just how much 
money this is. Let me give you a hand: The amount we are requesting next 
year amounts to 1/25 of what Americans will spend on gambling in the 
same period.  
 
If you thought that we were the most generous providers of foreign 
assistance, think again. Of the 21 OECD countries--the wealthiest 
countries in the world--we rank dead last in the percentage of our 
wealth that we give in foreign aid. 
 
The Washington Post did its own poll and found that the American people 
think we spend more on foreign aid than on Medicare. The fact is that 
Medicare costs more than 20 times the amount we spend on all of 
international affairs. So what does this tell you? It tells you, among 
other things, that we have a terrible public affairs problem. Which is, 
of course, why I am here, and why these nice public affairs people keep 
letting me out of Washington, despite the things I talk about. 
 
So drop any preconceptions you may have. Let's take a look at the facts 
and apply them to the criterion we established earlier: Are we doing 
what we can to make a better life for our children?  
 
The International Affairs Budget is divided into six objectives--you 
see, Jennifer, we did get back to the budget. 
 
Prosperity
 
The first goal is to help build a more prosperous America by encouraging 
free trade and increasing exports. The President's International Affairs 
Budget for 1997 includes $834 million toward this objective. Over the 
past three years, our increase in exports has been the driving force of 
our economic recovery. Today, one in seven jobs in this country is 
export related, accounting for 10% of our GDP. The $834 million we spend 
in the International Affairs Budget to promote exports accounts for $15-
$20 billion in exports and up to 300,000 American jobs. 
 
This does not tell you the whole story. Businesses pay for the services 
they receive. The reflows go to the Treasury, and the exports generate 
taxes. The total receipts generated by these programs are greater than 
the cost of the programs themselves. These efforts actually reduce the 
deficit.  
 
So now let's go back to our basic question: Which is better for your 
children and mine and the future of America--to continue to grow 
American exports and jobs with programs that end up reducing the budget 
deficit, or to eliminate the programs that create these jobs and 
exports? This one is a no-brainer. If anything, we should be expanding 
these programs. 
 
Now, I know what you're thinking. These programs aren't foreign aid. 
These programs are designed to help American exports and jobs. How about 
the rest of what we spend? 
 
Democracy
 
The second international affairs objective is to advance our 
geopolitical interests in key areas by promoting democracy and market 
reform. In the 1997 request, this will cost taxpayers $1.3 billion. This 
money funds the programs we use to consolidate the gains we made in the 
Cold War, to bring market reform and democracy to the remnant pieces of 
the old Warsaw Pact. Fighting the Cold War cost us not millions or 
billions but trillions of dollars. We won the war, but we have not yet 
won the winning. How utterly foolish it would be to have fought so long 
and at such risk only to squander our unique opportunity to nail down 
our victory. With each passing day, we make it less likely that these 
regions will ever again return to the path of totalitarianism. Each day 
makes it a little less likely that we will once again face the nuclear 
specter we faced for most of the period since World War II. For this we 
spend a little over $1 billion. We spend $150 million of it in Russia. 
Americans spend almost 50 times that much each year on cruise ship 
vacations. Where is our sense of priorities? In the big scheme of 
things, these are small sums being spent to ensure major gains on behalf 
of the American people. These are not giveaway programs or charity. 
These are hard-headed programs designed to keep you and me safe and 
free. They are cost-effective, and they are working. 
 
And what happens when we apply our test to this part of the budget? I 
grew up in a nation of fallout shelters, Sputnik, and the Cuban missile 
crisis. Maybe I am older than you are. I remember sitting in the school 
hallway with my hands over my head in the nuclear war exercises of the 
1950s. How soon we forget. Isn't it worth spending $.60 per American per 
year to try to avoid returning to a Cold War confrontation with Russia? 
Isn't this an investment we should be willing to make for our children? 
 
Again, you might argue that this really is a prudent geostrategic 
investment, not really foreign aid. You would be right. Let's turn to 
our next objective and see what we have there. 
 
Sustainable Development development will cost us $3.8 billion in 1997--
about half of IBM's annual profits. 
 
I spend a lot of my time talking to Members of Congress and their 
staffs. They find it frustrating-sometimes I do, too. Many of them hate 
foreign aid, and when they say that they want to cut this or that 
program I tell them what the consequences are going to be. And the 
consequences are always bad for America, bad for Americans. They keep 
looking for the "foreign aid" in the foreign aid budget. Well, I am here 
to tell you it isn't there. 
 
Peace
 
Our fourth objective is promoting peace. This is our primary 
responsibility. In 1997 we will be requesting $6.4 billion. 
 
Now, just because we no longer have a Cold War doesn't mean that we 
don't have geopolitical interests and objectives. On the contrary, at 
least some of the burden for handling these issues has moved from the 
Department of Defense to the international affairs agencies in the post-
Cold War era. 
 
The biggest cost is designed to ensure peace in the Middle East. 
Countries such as Egypt, Israel, and Jordan seem a long way away from 
Lexington--until you have a crisis; until you or your children are 
fighting in a Gulf war; or until we have an oil crisis, such as we had 
in the 1970s that cost us not $5 billion but hundreds of billions of 
dollars. When these things happen, the Middle East is right next door.  
 
Against all odds, we have made remarkable progress in the Middle East 
over a span of two Republican and two Democratic administrations. We are 
on the edge of major breakthroughs which will have profound significance 
for our future with this strategic region. This is not the moment to 
waver in our support--a fact that is well understood, I am pleased to 
say, in the Congress. 
 
Our peace budget also includes the funds necessary for international 
peacekeeping assessments, which are likely to cost us about $200 million 
in 1997 plus anything we manage to pay for our arrearages. You have to 
shake your head at the debate on this issue. Look at the facts: We use 
peacekeeping to advance our geostrategic interests. In most cases, we 
don't have to risk the lives of American kids. I have a 16-year-old boy. 
I like this program, and I am willing to pay the $.90 it is going to 
cost me as an American to keep it going in 1997. I like the fact that we 
save American lives and get other countries to pick up 75% of the costs. 
The problem is that the Congress won't even pay our 25%: We are $800 
million in debt to the UN on peacekeeping. And we are accusing them of 
fiscal irresponsibility--not a situation of which we can be proud. 
 
What else is in the peace account? This budget pays to prevent nuclear 
weapons proliferation. The agreements which will keep North Korea from 
developing a nuclear weapons capability will cost us $25 million next 
year. Compare this with the $4 billion the Japanese and South Koreans 
are putting up! Compare this with costs we will pay if the effort fails 
and North Korea develops nuclear weapons with which to blackmail the 
world. What would it cost us if North Korea decided to provide nuclear 
weapons to friends in Iraq and Libya? The team that negotiated this deal 
for us deserves medals. And the Congress is unhappy at having to come up 
with the $25 million!  
 
Do you think we can't afford foreign assistance because we have to fight 
crime and drugs? What budget do you suppose pays for our country's fight 
against international crime and drug cartels? You got it. What about 
terrorism? This budget funds our anti-terrorism effort at a level equal 
to 1% of the cost to New York City of the World Trade Center bombing. 
 
Humanitarian Assistance
 
Our fifth goal is one of which we can all be proud: In 1997, we will 
spend $1.7 billion on humanitarian assistance. Now, here is something we 
pay for that really is foreign aid. Money to help refugees, to feed 
starving people, to help the victims of disasters. Here, you might say, 
is the one budget which does not relate directly to the economic or 
geostrategic interests of the American people--though I might give you 
an argument on that. Interestingly, this is the one budget category that 
enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support in the Congress and, of course, 
within the Administration. It is a paradox. Members of Congress complain 
about foreign aid, yet they are virtually unanimous in their support for 
the one part of the International Affairs Budget that could be 
considered foreign aid. When it comes to feeding starving people, we are 
united. 
 
As you probably have guessed, I could go on all night with these 
examples of how international affairs affect virtually every minute of 
your lives and mine and how these effects are going to be felt by our 
children. I apologize if I seem to be hammering them at you. I really 
believe there is a lot at stake here.  
 
Advancing Diplomacy
 
Let me stop at one last category. We call it advancing diplomacy. This 
is the part of our budget that funds the organizations and people that 
get the job done. The entire effort will cost us $5.3 billion in fiscal 
year 1997. The first five objectives were devoted to the programs we 
manage. This part is devoted to the people who manage those programs and 
who get done 95% of what gets done in the conduct of American foreign 
policy.  
 
In this part of the budget we fund the United Nations--or I should say, 
we partially fund our share of the United Nations. We used to pay our 
international bills and criticize those who did not. Lately we have not 
been paying our bills, building up our arrearages to the UN and other 
organizations. I know the perception in this country is that we are 
propping up the UN with fistfuls of dollars. But the fact is, we are 
dragging it down with unpaid bills. Our country owes the UN and other 
international and multilateral organizations over $2 billion in overdue 
bills. While you weren't looking, we became the world's number-one 
deadbeat. 
 
This part of the budget also funds the combined efforts of our 
Department of State, USAID, and USIA Foreign Service personnel overseas 
and their home-based support. These are the people who give you your 
passports--5 million last year. When you get in trouble overseas and are 
desperate for help, these are the people who come to your assistance--
1.7 million times last year. When there are tough negotiations to deal 
with China and the Straits of Taiwan, with Bosnia, or with the Japanese, 
or on myriad trade issues; when we as a nation need to know and 
understand what is going on in this place or that, these are the people 
who get the job done.  
 
You won't find a more dedicated group; they serve in the most remote 
corners of the world. The pay isn't great. The living conditions can be 
super--if you get lucky and are sent to Paris--or abysmal if you are at 
many of the 250 other places they are stationed around the world.  
 
The risks are substantial. Before you sign up for the Foreign Service or 
you let your kids sign up, walk into the State Department and look at 
the memorial plaques in the front hall. I did and I still do. I joined 
the Foreign Service in 1965 when there were 72 names on that wall of 
Foreign Service officers who were killed in action, covering American 
history since 1780. Today, 30 years later, there are 185 names on the 
wall. When you join the Foreign Service, your chances of being killed 
are greater than those you face if you join the Army. There have been 
more ambassadors killed since World War II than generals.  
 
Why do these people do it? They do it because they believe in our 
country. They want to make a difference. They want to serve. Today, more 
than ever before, what they do impacts on you--your job, your physical 
security, your freedoms, your safety, the air you breathe. And, most 
importantly, they are on the front lines of defining the kind of world 
in which your children and grandchildren are going to live. They are 
there to support you. And to support you, they need your support. Each 
day we add new demands to our foreign policy. You can't meet these 
demands running a foreign policy on the cheap. If you try, you, and more 
importantly, your children, will end up getting what you paid for. 

(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 11: 
 
Turkey Hosts Conference on Behalf of the Bosnian Federation 
Deputy Secretary Talbott 
Remarks at the Train and Equip Donor's Conference for the Bosnian 
Federation, Ankara, Turkey, March 15, 1996 
 
On behalf of Ambassador Grossman, Principal Deputy  Under Secretary 
Lodal, and the rest of the American delegation, I would like to thank 
Under Secretary Oymen and the Turkish Government for so generously 
hosting this important conference. 
 
It is appropriate that the subject of this conference should bring us 
together in Ankara today. Turkey has long served as a bridge between the 
community of Muslim nations and the market democracies of the West. 
Turkey's four-decade partnership with the other nations of Europe and 
with the United States has proved, time and time again, how productive 
cooperation among "the peoples of the book" can be. 
 
With the end of the Cold War, such partnerships are both more feasible 
and more necessary than ever before. There are still far too many 
violent conflicts in the world, too many rogue states and outlaw 
organizations, and too many countries and regions that are dangerously 
unstable.  
 
But the international community--notably including the 32 nations and 
five international organizations represented here today--has 
demonstrated a new ability and a new resolve to respond to these threats 
in a unified and effective manner. 
 
That consensus first became apparent five years ago, when we 
successfully banded together to meet what was the most immediate 
challenge to international security in the post-Cold War era. I am 
speaking, of course, about Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. The 
multinational coalition that acted to such good effect in Operations 
Desert Shield and Desert Storm continues today through Operation Provide 
Comfort, through the web of security alliances in the Gulf, and through 
a United Nations sanctions regime that is designed to encourage Iraq to 
rejoin the community of law-abiding nations. 
 
We saw another impressive display of this new international consensus 
two days ago in Sharm el-Sheikh. Many heads of state--from the Middle 
East, from Europe, from East Asia, and around the globe--stood shoulder-
to-shoulder to say "no" to terrorism and to show their solidarity with 
those who have taken risks for peace. Shimon Peres and Yasir Arafat will 
be relying heavily on all of our support in the weeks and months to 
come, as they seek to put the Middle East peace process back on track. 
 
We are all here today because the Balkan peace process requires the same 
high level of sustained commitment as the Middle East peace process. Let 
me echo and generalize what Foreign Minister Gonensay said a moment ago. 
"When the Balkans are in turmoil, every nation represented here feels-- 
and fears--the negative, indeed dangerous consequences." 
 
After four years of brutal conflict, the different communities in Bosnia 
are finally willing to take risks for peace. They are doing so because 
they have come to believe that the international community is prepared 
to back them up. They are relying on IFOR to monitor the separation of 
the former combatants and to patrol the new boundaries between them 
during a much-needed cooling-off period. They are also relying on the 
OSCE, the European Union, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, 
and other international civilian organizations to monitor human rights, 
supervise elections, and assist in economic reconstruction. And they are 
relying on the international community as a whole to ensure that there 
will be a stable military balance within Bosnia and among the states of 
the former Yugoslavia in the years to come. That brings me--and us--to 
the subject of this conference. 
 
Part of the cause for the catastrophe in the former Yugoslavia was 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 depends 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. 
 
With our encouragement, the parties signed a far-reaching agreement on 
confidence--and security-building measures in January. The comprehensive 
arms reduction talks now underway in Vienna will conclude in mid-June, 
with the new force levels to go into place at that time.  
 
But we must be realistic. While this ambitious arms control agenda is at 
the core of our policy, arms control alone will not be enough to achieve 
a stable balance of forces. It is in the interest of peace in the region 
that the Bosnian Federation develop an effective, professional military 
force--one that will be capable of providing deterrence and defense of 
the Federation's population and territory after the international force 
departs. That means that the Federation armed forces need military 
training and equipment. And they need it as quickly as possible. 
 
While the formal pledging session will take place this afternoon, I want 
to inform you now that the United States has identified $60 million-
worth of light equipment to deliver within the next three months, and 
$40 million-worth of heavy equipment for delivery later in the year. I 
know that several other nations have also agreed to make generous 
contributions, and very much hope that more will follow. 
 
The success of the train and equip program will depend primarily upon 
the leadership and people of the Bosnian Federation; it is premised on 
continued cooperation between the Muslim and Croat members of that 
Federation.  
 
The program will also be contingent on the withdrawal of radical foreign 
forces from Bosnia. There are still those, in Iran and elsewhere, that 
would like to see this entire process fail. But success will also depend 
on support from the international community, represented by all of you 
in this room.  
 
So thank you again for coming, and let's wish us all success in a 
venture that is in the interests of us all.  

(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE  12: 
 
The United States and the Security of Taiwan 
Winston Lord, Assistant Secretary for East Asian And Pacific Affairs 
Statement before the Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific of the 
House International Relations Committee, Washington, DC, March 14, 1996 
 
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: I welcome the opportunity to 
appear before you today to discuss one of the United States' most urgent 
and central policy issues in Asia. It is also one of the most difficult. 
I commend you for addressing these questions at this time.  
 
My testimony will discuss the present security situation in the Taiwan 
Strait area. I will begin by addressing the issue that is of immediate 
concern to all of us: the current P.R.C. military exercises near Taiwan. 
Then, I will explain why the policy of the United States serves the 
interest of all parties concerned in maintaining peace and stability. I 
will describe the dangers to our interests which would result from 
conflict in the area. And I will urge that we--both the Administration 
and Congress--move cautiously and cooperatively to maintain the 
successful balance that successive Administrations have achieved. 
Precipitate actions by any of the interested parties could have 
unintended consequences that might exacerbate the situation. 
 
Recent Developments
 
In the decades since a series of crises threatened to embroil the U.S. 
in the Taiwan Strait in the late 1950s, peace and stability have 
prevailed as a result of wise policies on all sides. However, since the 
visit of Lee Teng-hui to the U.S. last summer, tough political rhetoric 
in Beijing and a series of military exercises by the People's Liberation 
Army have combined to increase tension in the region.  
 
The Administration has responded to large-scale military exercises in 
the Taiwan Strait by the P.R.C. with a very clear message: These 
activities are provocative and dangerous. We have reminded the P.R.C. 
that U.S.law--the Taiwan Relations Act--explicitly declares any effort 
to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means to be of 
grave concern to the United States. Peaceful resolution of the Taiwan 
question is also a premise of our three joint communiques with the 
P.R.C. During the past several weeks, the President and his advisers 
have expressed our strong concerns in a number of private and public 
messages. Last week, all our top national security officials met with a 
senior P.R.C. official and urged his government to exercise restraint 
and caution. We have made clear that any military attack on Taiwan would 
have grave consequences. We also have taken a number of prudent, 
precautionary steps, including certain naval deployments in 
international waters near Taiwan, to underscore our interests, deter the 
use of force, and prevent any miscalculation. We have been closely 
consulting with other countries in the region--many of whom have 
expressed their own concerns directly to Beijing. 
 
Despite our concerns, we have not concluded that there is any imminent 
threat to Taiwan. The P.R.C. wishes to influence Taiwan's presidential 
election, and more fundamentally, to restrain Taiwan's international 
activities. The P.R.C. does not, in our judgment, intend to take direct 
military action against Taiwan. We understand the Taiwan authorities 
have reached the same conclusion. While the P.R.C. is bent on 
intimidation and psychological warfare, they know that resorting to 
force would severely damage their own interests. Nonetheless, their 
recent actions clearly carry the risk of accidents or miscalculation 
that could lead to escalation. We have underlined to Beijing that, 
whatever its intentions, its provocative moves are risky, indeed. 
 
P.R.C. authorities have stated publicly, as well as to us in diplomatic 
exchanges, that there is no change in their intention to seek a peaceful 
resolution of the Taiwan question. They have not, however, ruled out the 
use of force in certain circumstances. We believe that Beijing leaders 
fully understand our views and our policies.   
 
Although neither Taiwan nor the P.R.C. wants a military confrontation, 
there is a danger that misunderstandings and strong emotions on both 
sides could lead to a further increase in tensions and even 
unanticipated conflict. Democratic development in Taiwan has permitted 
the free expression by a portion of the Taiwan populace of a desire for 
a separate Taiwan identity--a desire largely suppressed under the 
previous political leadership in Taiwan.  
 
Recent P.R.C. demonstrations of military strength are designed to send a 
message to the Taiwan authorities to curb what the P.R.C. regards as 
efforts to establish an independent Taiwan. Recent Taiwan policies, 
including last June's private visit to the U.S. by President Lee Teng-
hui, have been interpreted by the P.R.C. as a step toward independence. 
The Chinese position, acknowledged by us, is that Taiwan is a part of 
China, and the P.R.C. interprets these developments in Taiwan as a 
challenge to the acceptance of a "one China" policy by Taipei. Beijing's 
leaders are especially sensitive on this issue, which involves questions 
of sovereignty and national integrity.  
 
While urging restraint by Beijing, we have also made clear to Taiwan's 
leaders that restraint is in their interest. We oppose provocation by 
either side. We strongly urge both sides to resume their high-level 
dialogue.  
 
Taiwan Reaction
 
The people on Taiwan and their leaders have reacted calmly and with 
restraint to the rise in tensions. For example, the premier, Lien Chan, 
who is also Lee Teng-hui's vice presidential running mate, announced 
that Taiwan's military will maintain a state of alert, but he urged the 
public to remain calm. He reaffirmed that Taiwan's presidential election 
will proceed as scheduled on March 23. He reiterated that Lee  
Teng-hui's administration "is adamant in its pursuit of national 
reunification and strong opposition to Taiwan independence . .the 
outcome of this election will not alter our government's steadfast 
pursuit of national reunification." For his part, Lee Teng-hui continues 
to reiterate his commitment to reunification in his speeches on the 
campaign trail.  
 
Let me take a moment to congratulate the people of Taiwan on their 
upcoming elections. Since martial law ended less than 10 years ago, the 
people of Taiwan and their leaders have achieved a democratic "miracle" 
that matches their economic miracle of the past decades. 
 
Taiwan's economic minister has stated that he expects the current 
tensions will not significantly affect Taiwan's trade. We agree that 
Taiwan's economy remains very strong. Statistics show that Taiwan's 
exports this January and February increased almost 15% over the same 
period last year. Moreover, Taiwan's trade with the P.R.C. in 1995 
increased more than 25% over the previous year. As the American Chamber 
of Commerce in Taipei has noted, "Taipei and Beijing maintain a 
stronger, more economically mature relationship than the political 
rhetoric suggests."  The chamber also finds that "the current political 
tensions can be managed by the two sides themselves and that the U.S. 
Government should encourage mutual restraint and a resumption of 
dialogue"--as we have, in fact, been doing.  
 
On the other hand, heightened tensions have already had some impact on 
Taiwan's economy and caused minor inconveniences to air and sea traffic 
in the area. If tensions are prolonged or escalated, there surely would 
be a serious impact, not only on cross-Strait economic cooperation, but 
on the region's economy as well. 
 
The people of Taiwan are clearly concerned by the P.R.C.'s heavy-handed 
attempts to influence their behavior. There is some evidence of this 
concern in fluctuations in the stock market and suggestions of some 
capital outflow. But all things considered, these provocative exercises 
are being taken in stride. 
 
Overall, the international community in Taiwan is also reacting calmly  
to the P.R.C.'s actions. Many American citizens have come to the 
American Institute in Taiwan--AIT--asking for advice on their security. 
The United States Government takes its responsibilities regarding the 
welfare and safety of American citizens overseas with the utmost 
seriousness. As always, AIT has welcomed those Americans who wished to 
register their presence in Taiwan. American citizens have also been told 
that we have no evidence that the P.R.C. has the intention to attack 
Taiwan. This view is shared by the Taiwan authorities. 
 
U.S. Policy
 
It is vital to keep in mind U.S. interests both with respect to the 
Taiwan issue and in our relations with the P.R.C.  Our fundamental 
interest on the Taiwan question is that peace and stability be 
maintained and that the P.R.C. and Taiwan work out their differences 
peacefully. At the same time, we will strictly avoid interfering as the 
two sides pursue peaceful resolution of differences.  
 
The Taiwan Relations Act--TRA--of 1979 forms the legal basis of U.S. 
policy regarding the security of Taiwan. Its premise is that an adequate 
defense in Taiwan is conducive to maintaining peace and security while 
differences remain between Taiwan and the P.R.C. Section 2(b) states: 
 
It is the policy of the United States   to consider any effort to 
determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including 
by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the 
Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States; to 
provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character; and to maintain the 
capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other 
forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or 
economic system, of the people on Taiwan. 
 
Section 3 of the TRA also provides that: the United States will make 
available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such 
quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient 
self-defense capability. 
 
It further directs the President to: inform the Congress promptly of any 
threat to the security or the social or economic system of the people on 
Taiwan and any danger to the interests of the United States arising 
therefrom. The President and the Congress shall determine, in accordance 
with constitutional processes, appropriate action by the United States 
in response to any such danger. 
 
However serious, the present situation does not constitute a threat to 
Taiwan of the magnitude contemplated by the drafters of the TRA. The 
P.R.C. pressure against Taiwan to date does not add up to a "threat to 
the security or the social or economic system" of Taiwan.  
 
It is our understanding that the Taiwan authorities agree that the 
present exercises constitute an attempt to influence Taiwan's behavior 
and its upcoming elections, rather than an attempt to threaten Taiwan's 
security. 
 
We will continue to carefully monitor the situation. We have testified 
before the Congress and informally consulted with many members and their 
staff. We will continue to work closely with you. If warranted by 
circumstances, we will act under section 3(c) of the TRA in close 
consultation with the Congress.  
 
Overall U.S. China policy, including toward the Taiwan question, is 
expressed in the three joint communiques with the P.R.C. as follows. 
 
--The United States recognizes the Government of the P.R.C. as "the sole 
legal Government of China." 
 
--The U.S. acknowledges the Chinese position that "there is but one 
China and Taiwan is part of China." In 1982, the U.S. assured the P.R.C. 
that it has no intention of pursuing a policy of "two Chinas" or "one 
China, one Taiwan." 
 
--Within this context, the people of the U.S. will maintain cultural, 
commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan. 
 
--The U.S. has consistently held that resolution of the Taiwan issue is 
a matter to be worked out peacefully by the Chinese themselves.  
 
I reiterate the above passages from the TRA and the joint communiques 
because they precisely express the governing principles of our policy. 
They serve U.S. interests today just as well as they have in past 
decades. They have been followed by successive administrations of both 
political parties. 
 
Let me now call attention to an aspect of the August 17, 1982, Joint 
Communique between the United States and the People's Republic of China 
that is extremely important to Taiwan's security. In this document, the 
P.R.C. stated that its "fundamental policy" is "to strive for a peaceful 
resolution to the Taiwan question."  Based on that P.R.C. assurance, the 
United States Government made reciprocal statements concerning our arms 
sales to Taiwan--that we would not increase the quantity or quality of 
arms and, in fact, intend gradually to reduce these sales. At the time 
the Joint Communique was issued, we made it clear that our intentions 
were premised on the P.R.C.'s continued adherence to its fundamental 
policy of striving for peaceful reunification with Taiwan. Our judgment 
is that the P.R.C. has not changed this policy, and we have abided by 
our commitments.  
 
Taken as a whole, our China policy has been unequivocally successful in 
obtaining our fundamental objective for the security of Taiwan--peace 
and stability in the Taiwan Strait. Along with the earlier U.S.-P.R.C. 
communiques, the TRA and the 1982 communique have been complementary 
elements. The TRA has provided for our continued support for Taiwan's 
self-defense capability, while the 1982 communique forms the basis for 
our understanding with the P.R.C. that any resolution of the differences 
between Taiwan and the mainland must be achieved peacefully. U.S. arms 
sales to Taiwan have been consistent with these documents. We will 
continue to provide for Taiwan's legitimate self-defense needs. 
 
Taiwan's weapons systems are not offensive in character but constitute a 
credible deterrent to military action. With the addition of several new 
defensive systems purchased or leased from the U.S. in the past few 
years, Taiwan's self-defense capability will be as strong as at any time 
since 1949. Those systems include various types of military aircraft, 
ships, and air-defense and anti-ship missiles. In addition, the U.S. has 
provided significant technical support for Taiwan's own production of 
the Indigenous Defense Fighter and PERRY-class frigates. We believe that 
Taiwan's basic inventory of equipment will be sufficient to deter 
significant military actions against Taiwan. 
 
While our arms sales policy aims to enhance Taiwan's self-defense 
capability, it also seeks to reinforce regional stability. We will not 
provide Taiwan with capabilities that might provoke an arms race with 
the P.R.C. or other countries in the region. Indeed, decisions on the 
release of arms made without consideration of the long-term impact both 
on the situation in the Taiwan Strait and on the region as a whole would 
be both dangerous and irresponsible. Any transfer of a complicated 
modern weapons system generally requires years of lead time before the 
capability is fully in place. Each new system, moreover, demands a U.S. 
commitment for continuing support in order to remain effective.  
 
The Stakes
 
If armed conflict were actually to break out in the Taiwan Strait, the 
impact on Taiwan, the P.R.C., and the region would be devastating. The 
P.R.C. has enjoyed positive relationships with the United States and 
other industrialized countries that have allowed it to carry out the 
program of reform and opening to the outside world that has propelled 
the P.R.C.'s economic modernization. Taiwan capital--over $20 billion--
has fueled P.R.C. economic progress, large numbers of Taiwan residents 
have visited the P.R.C., and the mainland has become one of Taiwan's 
largest export markets. 
 
All of these achievements, as well as prospects for a smooth Hong Kong 
transition, would be immediately put at risk in the event of conflict in 
the Strait. If such a conflict were precipitated by Beijing there would 
be severe damage to a wide range of P.R.C. interests--political and 
diplomatic as well as economic. The entire Sino-American relationship 
would be put at risk. China's ties with Japan and all its other Asian 
neighbors would suffer grievously as would its overall international 
standing. 
 
Conflict would also be costly to the United States and to our friends 
and allies in the region. Hostilities between the P.R.C. and Taiwan, 
however limited in scale or scope, would have a destabilizing effect and 
constrict the commerce which is the economic life-blood of the region. 
It would force their neighbors to re-evaluate their own defense 
policies, possibly fueling an arms race with unforeseeable consequences. 
It would seriously affect the tens of thousands of Americans who live 
and work in Taiwan and the P.R.C.  
 
What would the U.S. do if commitments to peaceful settlement appeared to 
weaken, if hostilities appeared likely, if there appeared to be a threat 
to Taiwan's security or economic and social system? The Administration 
would immediately meet its obligations under the TRA to consult with the 
Congress on an appropriate response. The nature of our response would, 
of course, depend on the circumstances leading to a breakdown in 
relations across the Strait. But I hardly need remind this committee 
that the people of the United States feel strongly about the ability of 
the people of Taiwan to enjoy a peaceful future. This sentiment must not 
be underestimated. We have conveyed it to Beijing in unmistakable 
fashion through our statements and our actions. 
 
Some have questioned the Administration's policy of not setting out in 
advance the details of our response to the use of force against Taiwan. 
Providing such details would be very unwise. Significantly, during the 
1979 consideration of the TRA, Congress determined that we should not 
make an advance commitment to respond in a specific manner. As the House 
of Representatives observed in its report on the TRA:  
 
What would be appropriate action, including possible use of force in 
Taiwan's defense, would depend on the specific circumstances. The 
committee does not attempt to specify in advance what the particular 
circumstances or response might be. 
 
Agreeing with this prudent policy, the Senate report noted that no 
mutual security treaty to which the U.S. was a party requires the U.S. 
automatically to introduce armed forces into hostilities. We should take 
careful account of this sound counsel from those who drafted the TRA. 
 
We have stated that grave consequences would flow from a use of force 
against Taiwan, and we have spelled out our determination to see that 
the future of Taiwan is worked out in a peaceful manner. We cannot and 
should not be more precise in advance about hypothetical scenarios.  
 
I am confident our message is clear. A resort to force with respect to 
Taiwan would directly involve American national interests and would 
carry grave risks. There should be no ambiguity about our posture in 
Beijing, Taipei, or anywhere else. 
 
The Challenge
 
Our policy must be consistent and must encourage both sides to find a 
peaceful and durable solution. We will continue to make clear this 
position to the P.R.C. and to Taiwan. We have used and will continue to 
use all of our channels, including our military-to-military relationship 
with the P.R.C., to communicate our concerns directly to Chinese 
civilian and military leaders. We have consulted extensively with other 
countries with interests in the region. They, too, have counseled 
Beijing to show restraint. 
 
On our side, we must also avoid unwarranted actions that could add to 
tensions. We should maintain our present prudent and effective policy of 
arms sales, within the framework of the TRA and the three joint 
communiques. We have an enormous stake in preserving stability in Asia 
and maintaining a productive relationship with the P.R.C. We will 
continue to engage the Chinese Government on issues of mutual interest 
and encourage the P.R.C.'s positive participation in the international 
community. We seek engagement, not confrontation, but this effort must 
be reciprocated by the P.R.C. We have also told the Taiwan authorities 
that we expect them to avoid any actions that put at risk the interests 
of all parties concerned. In recent days, we have reaffirmed these 
themes to both parties. The United States strongly opposes both 
aggression and provocation. 
 
It is critical to recognize that the U.S. does not unilaterally have the 
capability to impose a solution which would guarantee peace and 
stability in the Taiwan Strait. A lasting peace requires Taiwan and the 
P.R.C. eventually to find a common framework for addressing their 
relationship. Both sides need to avoid provocative political or military 
actions that have the potential to destabilize the situation. They must 
together actively seek ways to address their differences peacefully. 
This is the only long-term guarantee of Taiwan's security. It is also a 
necessary element in guaranteeing long-term peace and stability in East 
Asia. 
 
Only the resumption of positive dialogue directly between Beijing and 
Taipei can lead to a peaceful and lasting settlement. We understand that 
the Taiwan authorities are prepared to resume cross-Strait talks. The 
P.R.C. has also indicated its willingness to expand ties with Taiwan in 
a number of areas as long as the Taiwan authorities continue to embrace 
the principle of "one China."  We hope the two sides will agree as soon 
as possible to take up again the dialogue that was suspended last June.  
 
As we forthrightly seek to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan 
Strait, we must also remember that  our national interests are served by 
a constructive relationship with Beijing. The P.R.C. is a nuclear power; 
a Perm-5 UN Security Council member; and a major player on issues such 
as Korea, Cambodia, and arms control. It is also central to the solution 
of a host of global problems such as environmental degradation, 
narcotics trafficking, and refugees. The P.R.C. is the fastest-growing 
economy in the world, supporting one-fifth of all humankind. Not only 
has its development dramatically altered the economic lives of its 
people for the better, but its success or failure will have enormous 
consequences for us and everyone else. As I indicated before, a 
constructive U.S.-P.R.C. relationship is a fundamental element in 
Taiwan's security and well-being. 
 
Mr. Chairman, six administrations of both parties have understood that 
comprehensive engagement with Beijing--not confrontation, isolation, or 
containment--represents the best way both to promote our interests and 
to encourage a positive and constructive P.R.C. role with the world. 
This policy has served the interests of the United States, the P.R.C., 
Taiwan, and regional security and prosperity. It has enabled us to 
pursue engagement with China and strong, unofficial ties with Taiwan. It 
has enabled Taiwan's people and leaders to maintain their security, 
produce one of the world's economic miracles, and consolidate the 
democracy so richly symbolized in next week's elections.  
 
We intend to pursue the course I have outlined in this statement. We 
call on Beijing and Taipei to exercise restraint and resume the dialogue 
that will lead toward a peaceful resolution of the issues between them. 
And we urge bipartisan support in the Congress that will send a strong 
signal of American purpose and resolve. We will work closely with you 
toward this goal. 
 
Thank you.  

(###) 
 
 
[END DISPATCH VOL 7, NO. 13]

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