U.S. Department of State 
Dispatch Volume 7, Number 18, April 29, 1996 
Bureau of Public Affairs 
 
 
 
ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:

1.  The U.S. and Israel: Continuing To Build the Peace in the Middle 
East - President Clinton 
2. Agreement Reached To End Rocket Attacks on Israel - President Clinton 
3. Laying the Foundations for a New American Century - Anthony Lake
4. The Moscow Summit: Nuclear Security and Nuclear Safety - Lynn E. 
Davis
5. U.S. Foreign Policy and the International Financial Institutions - 
Joan E. Spero
6. The United Nations, NATO, and Crisis Management - Madeleine K. 
Albright




ARTICLE 1: 
 
The U.S. and Israel: Continuing To Build the Peace in the Middle East 
President Clinton 
Remarks to the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee Policy 
Conference, Washington, DC, April 28, 1996 (Introductory remarks 
deleted) 
 
Mr. Prime Minister, Ambassador Rabinovich, Secretary Glickman, 
Ambassador Indyk; President Dow, thank you for that wonderful 
introduction; Mr. Grossman, Mr. Sher, Mr. Bronfman, Mr. Levy, Mr. Jack 
Bendheim, who also gave a wonderful introduction; the co-chairs of this 
event, Art Sandler and Betsy Sheerr; to all the young students who are 
here: The Prime Minister referred on two occasions to the opportunity 
that I had on my last trip to Israel to meet with the young people 
there. It was an incredible experience for me. I realized that in some 
ways we have to keep depending on young people to deliver us because 
they remind us that we can break new ground and make tomorrow different 
from yesterday. 
 
Just before the Prime Minister and I came here tonight, we received 
petitions for peace, signed largely by college students, that were 
presented by Jonathan Epstein of Trinity College and Abigail Michelson 
of Brandeis, and I'd like to thank them. I think they are over here. I 
thank them very much for what they did.  
 
I would also like to say a special word of thanks to the Members of 
Congress who are here who have supported our Administration's policies 
in the Middle East. If I miss someone whom I do not see, write me a 
nasty note tomorrow.  But I would like to say a special word of thanks 
to Senator Lautenberg, Congressman Frost, Congressman Engel, 
Congresswoman Lowey, Congressman Waxman, and Congressman Levin. I hope I 
didn't miss anybody; we can't afford to lose any more friends in 
Congress.  
 
When the Prime Minister said that Israel was now spending as much money 
on education as defense, I thought of seeing if I could get him to stay 
another week and just testify before a few committees. And when you, 
sir, said that I had made history for a second time, I can see myself 
being guilt-peddled into the future--I can make history now every year 
from now on until the end of my life.  
 
Since I associate you with the struggle for peace, if you will indulge 
me one really purely personal observation--the last time I appeared 
before this conference before last year was in 1989, when the person who 
was supposed to appear on behalf of the Democratic Party against Lee 
Atwater went to his daughter's college graduation. I thought he had his 
priorities in order,  so when he asked me to replace him, I was glad to 
stand in for Ron Brown. Since he lost his life on another remarkable 
mission of peace, I thought I would share that with you tonight. I hope 
you will remember that and remember him and his family in your prayers. 
 
I am as pleased as the Prime Minister that we can come here tonight with 
the northern border of Israel and the southern border of Lebanon quiet--
no Katyusha rockets firing down on the people of northern Israel. I 
thank the Prime Minister for the tremendous work he did. And in his 
absence--and I hope to goodness he's sleeping right now--I want to thank 
the Secretary of State for his magnificent, Herculean efforts. I also 
thank his partner and great unsung hero, Dennis Ross, for what he has 
done.  
 
As the Prime Minister said, we had an agreement back in 1993, but it was 
not in writing--and it was shattered. For the first time now, there is 
an agreement in writing that will be more effective in preventing 
further outbreaks. The violence has stopped. There is now a monitoring 
mechanism to which Israel and Lebanon can refer complaints. Now it is 
our fond hope that civilians on both sides of the border can resume 
their lives with greater confidence and security. We will not tolerate 
further efforts to disrupt the calm. 
 
When I came into office, I was determined that our country would go into 
the 21st century still the world's greatest force for peace and freedom, 
for democracy and security and prosperity. We have to promote these 
values just as vigorously now as we did during the Cold War. Indeed, in 
some ways, our responsibilities as Americans are now greater.  
 
I know that you agree with that. You have devoted yourselves to 
strengthening the bonds between the United States and Israel, a 
cornerstone of our foreign policy and of our efforts to advance peace 
and freedom and democracy in the Middle East. I thank you for that, and 
I ask you, too, to continue to speak out in a larger sense for America's 
role in the world. It has made a difference--what we have done in the 
Middle East and in Bosnia, in Northern Ireland and in Haiti, and in 
fighting against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and in 
leading the world to take a tougher stand against terrorism. We cannot 
afford to walk away from these responsibilities to the future of our 
children, our children's children, and the children of all the world. 
 
What a difference a year can make. It was at this conference last year 
that Israel's then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said, "from day one 
Israel found itself in a unique alliance with the United States, resting 
on twin pillars of shared values and strategic partnership Well, it's 
still true. Now the United States and Israel still are partners based on 
shared values and common strategies.  
 
I am grateful for the service, the life, and the sacrifice of Prime 
Minister Rabin. But I am also very grateful that the man he called his 
full partner--our friend Shimon Peres--is carrying forward the important 
work of peace with security--from his earliest days when he helped to 
establish Israel's military, up to the very present when he has defined 
a vision of a new Middle East in his remarkable book, which, Prime 
Minister, I have told the whole world I enjoyed reading--I am promoting 
it for you, and I hope I get a certain percentage kickback if it really 
does very well. We just made another agreement. They're just spouting 
out all over. 
 
I said that in jest--to lay the pretext for a serious comment. At least 
the critical mass of American Jews should read that book and become 
familiar with its contents; if you do, it will give you the energy for 
the tasks ahead, because the Prime Minister has been able to imagine 
what the future might be like beyond the history that can be made with 
the other peace signings. That vision is what must drive us all into 
tomorrow.      
 
We have made much progress with the Declaration of Principles of the 
Palestinians, the peace of the Aqaba with Jordan, the interim accord 
that was signed in Washington. I have watched, in these very difficult 
months since Prime Minister Rabin's assassination, Prime Minister Peres' 
rise to this moment. He has been a true and reliable friend of our 
country and a true and   reliable leader of his own. I am proud to say, 
as Yitzhak Rabin said, that he is our full partner for peace and 
security.  
 
This has been a trying time for those who believe that a secure peace is 
the only true hope for Israel and the Middle East. The Katyusha rockets, 
the bloodshed in Lebanon, the suicide bombings in Israel--we grieve for 
the innocent victims and for the Israelis who simply wanted to live 
quiet lives in their own country; for the innocent Palestinians who were 
killed in the suicide bombings in Israel; for the children of our own 
nation--Sarah Dueker and Matthew Eisenfeld--visiting a land they loved; 
for the Lebanese children  in Quana who were caught between--make no 
mistake about it--the deliberate tactics of Hezbollah in their 
positioning and firing and the tragic misfiring in Israel's legitimate 
exercise of its right to self-defense.  
 
I know that in Israel and Lebanon, throughout the Middle East, and 
throughout the world, it would be so easy, after yet another round of 
violence and death, to give up; to think that the very best we could 
expect is a future of separate, armed camps. It is that sort of bunker 
mentality that we fight, indeed, all across the world in different ways 
today. It would be easy to give into it in the Middle East, but it would 
be wrong.  
 
I was asked the other day whether the violence of the last few days was 
not proof that the peace process was dead. I said, no, quite the 
contrary; it was proof that the yearning for peace was alive. The people 
who started the violence were trying to kill the longing for peace. It 
is still alive, and we must not let it die. We must stand up to what 
they tried to do.  
 
We can still achieve a peace if we conquer fear and restore security and 
deal honestly with those with whom we have differences. We know it will 
not be easy. Peace requires, in some ways, more strength than war. And 
we must have the patience to endure a few more setbacks along the way. 
We know that it takes great courage to press forward into an unknown 
future. It is harder than retreating into a familiar past. It takes 
great bravery to reach out to a former enemy. It is easier to stay in 
the false security of isolation.  
 
But I believe that Israel will maintain its resolve for peace. As I 
said, I saw it in the eyes and I heard it in the voices of the children 
of Israel when I was there just last month. I saw it in the eyes of 
those two young Americans who gave Prime Minister Peres and me those 
petitions. I heard it from two boys in Israel--Yuri Tal and Tal Loel--
who were badly wounded in the bombing in Tel Aviv--one even deafened. 
Despite their pain, they wrote to me from their hospital beds, and I 
quote, from their hospital beds they wrote: "Peace is the only true 
solution for this area They showed strength, having lost much even in 
their young years. They showed the ability to overcome adversity that is 
the true genius of the character and history of the Jewish people.  
 
If the Jewish people have endured centuries of exile, persecution, the 
ultimate evil of the Holocaust, flourishing against all the odds, 
surely--surely--together they can throw back their shoulders and raise 
their heads and say, after all this: Hezbollah and Hamas will not 
succeed where others have failed. 
 
Even as the Katyushas were falling, we saw proof of peace taking hold. 
We saw it in the meeting between Prime Minister Peres and Chairman 
Arafat  10 days ago, when they vowed to move ahead on the goals set by 
the accords. We saw it in the Prime Minister's path-breaking trips to 
Qatar and Oman this month. And I salute again the Prime Minister for the 
strength and commitment he has shown in pursuing the peace in this 
difficult period.      
 
Last Wednesday, on the 48th anniversary of Israeli independence, the 
Palestinian National Council finally did change the PLO Charter and 
deleted the hateful clause calling for the destruction of Israel. Now, 
think about that. That symbol of hatred had endured since 1964, even 
before some people in this room were born. It is a moment we have long 
awaited and worked for. The Palestinian leadership followed through on 
its commitments and made a better move to a better day. All friends of 
peace should be heartened  by this and especially by the large margin of 
the vote in support of Chairman Arafat's policy. 
 
Even during the suicide bombings, there was dramatic proof that peace is 
taking root. Remember, Prime Minister Peres said, at the Summit of 
Peacemakers in Sharm el-Sheikh, we had 29 leaders from around the globe, 
and 13 from the Arab world voting and committing themselves for the 
first time not only to condemn, but to work against terrorism in Israel. 
It was a historic moment, and we are following up on it. 
 
I say again--I want to hammer this home, not only to you who know but to 
people beyond this room: This progress for peace is the reason the   
enemies of peace are lashing out. We must restore peace. We must restore 
security. But we must not be diverted from our ultimate goal, or else we 
will hand them the victory that they have sought all along.  
 
We know the circle of peace cannot be closed only by an end to the 
fighting in Lebanon. It can be closed only when the Arab-Israeli 
conflict is truly over, when normalization takes hold in the entire Arab 
world, when Israel's security is completely assured, when Israel is 
fully accepted in every way in the region. The circle of peace will be 
closed only--and I say only--when the people of Israel are confident 
that what they are getting is worth the risks they must take. Peace and 
security are indivisible. And Israel must feel comfort- able and 
confident about both in order to achieve either over the long run.  
 
Let me say to you what I hope you already know: The breakthroughs of the 
past were possible because we built together a bond of trust. I pledge 
to you today that this relationship will remain strong and vital--so 
strong and so vital that no one will ever drive a wedge between us. 
 
Our commitment to Israel's security is unshakable. It will stay that way 
because Israel must have the means to defend itself by itself. In a time 
of shrinking resources, we have maintained our economic assistance. We 
have sought to enhance Israel's security, to lessen the risks it has 
taken and still takes every day for peace.  
 
Israel's qualitative military edge is greater than ever because we have 
kept our word. Earlier today, Prime Minister Peres and Secretary Perry 
signed an agreement to expand our theater missile defense program so 
that we can detect and destroy incoming missiles. That way, Israel will 
have not only the advantage it needs today but will be able to defeat 
the threats of tomorrow. As part of this effort, we are proceeding with 
the third phase of the deployment of the Arrow missile program. The 
United States is committing $200 million to this effort so that the 
children who lived through the Scud attacks of the Gulf War will never 
again face that fear. We also pledge to expand work on the Nautilus 
high-energy laser system, which is designed to destroy Katyushas in 
flight. Our air forces are working together so that the first of the 
F15-Is are delivered as planned next year. We have offered Israel the 
ARAAM--our most advanced air-to-air missile system--so that Israel's air 
power remains unmatched in the region. 
 
Our strategic cooperation is greater than ever. We are continuing to 
help build Israel's high-tech capacity through the sale of 
supercomputers. We are even expanding cooperation in space and are 
preparing to train Israeli astronauts. There may be a few volunteers 
here, Mr. Prime Minister. 
 
We are also working, as the Prime Minister said, more closely than ever 
to defeat terrorism. This week, we will complete the agreement to combat 
extremist violence that we began work on during my visit to Israel last 
month. Almost as soon as we received word of the bombings, we began 
sending new equipment to detect explosives. Now we are committing more 
than $100 million to this program for equipment and training, for 
development of new technologies, and for improved communications and 
coordination. I am very pleased that in the budget I signed just two 
days ago, the first $50 million was included in our common anti-
terrorist efforts.  
 
We all know that Israel should have every tool at its disposal in the 
fight against terror. And we all know that the organized forces of 
hatred and terror threaten people not only in the Middle East but here 
at home and around the world. We saw that in Oklahoma City, at the World 
Trade Center, in the attacks we have thwarted, in the subways of Tokyo, 
in the skies over Scotland. We see it all around the world. Fighting 
terrorism will remain one of our top law enforcement priorities for many 
years to come. In order to be successful, we have to have the tools we 
need here, and we have to work together.  
 
I want to thank the Congress and members in both parties for passing the 
anti-terrorism bill I signed into law just last week. I want to thank 
many of you in this audience in both parties who worked hard and lobbied 
hard for that legislation. It will help us stop terrorists before they 
strike and bring them to justice when they do.  
 
Now we can more quickly expel foreigners who come here to support 
terrorist activities. Our prosecutors can wield new tools and expanded 
penalties against those who terrorize Americans at home or abroad. And 
we can stop terrorists from raising money in the United States to pay 
for their crimes anywhere around the world.  
 
Again, I say, AIPAC has long been a powerful voice in favor of this 
legislation. We may not be able always to stop those who are gripped by 
hatred, but at least now because of your support we will make a real 
difference in the fight against terror. I pledge to you that in America, 
in Israel, and around the world we will not rest from these efforts 
until, in the words of the psalm, "We shall not be afraid of the terror 
by night, nor for the arrow that flies by day." 
 
When I was in Jerusalem last month, I placed a small symbol of the 
extraordinary bond of solidarity between the United States and Israel on 
the grave of my friend, Prime Minister Rabin. It was a little stone from 
the south lawn of the White House where the first accord with the 
Palestinians was signed. I put it there in keeping with the Jewish 
tradition that says one must always add to the memories of those who 
have died and never detract from them. 
 
Well, it falls to us to add more to the memories of all those who have 
given their lives for Israel's security and for the hope of peace. We 
must do this not only with stones but in kind. We must build a peace as 
hard and real as any stone. And in so doing, we will add to the memory 
of every martyr and validate the sacrifice of every martyr and give 
meaning and breath and life to the dreams of so many who have gone 
before.  
 
That is my vision and my pledge to you. And I say to you, and especially 
to you, I will do everything I can to help us achieve it together. 
 
Thank you, and God bless you.  

(###) 


 
Article 2 
 
Agreement Reached To End Rocket Attacks on Israel 
Statement by President Clinton, released by the White House, Office of 
the Press Secretary, Washington, DC, April 26, 1996. 
 
Good afternoon. As you all know, just a short time ago Secretary 
Christopher concluded an agreement with the leaders of Israel, Lebanon, 
and Syria to end the current crisis in southern Lebanon and northern 
Israel and to prevent it from starting again. I spoke with the Secretary 
this morning--shortly after 7:00, and I have just spoken with the 
Israeli Prime Minister, Shimon Peres, who joins me in welcoming this 
achievement. 
 
The agreement will stop Katyusha rocket attacks on northern Israel and 
protect both Lebanese and Israeli citizens. It sets up a mechanism to 
which Israel and Lebanon can refer complaints, composed of those two 
countries, the United States, France, and Syria. Because it is in 
writing, this agreement will be less likely to break down than the 
informal understandings that had been in place since 1993. 
 
I want to congratulate Secretary Christopher and his team for their 
tireless efforts over the past week. Now the civilians on both sides of 
the border can return to their homes and resume their normal lives with 
greater confidence and greater security than in the past. I also want to 
commend Prime Minister Peres, President Asad, Prime Minister Hariri, and 
the representatives of other interested governments, including France, 
for providing leadership which was very much needed to end this crisis. 
 
Now, this agreement will only last if all those who worked with us to 
bring it about now work to make sure it succeeds. We must not and we 
will not tolerate new attempts to disrupt the calm which has been re-
established at such a terrible cost. 
 
I know I speak for all Americans in saying that our thoughts and prayers 
are with the innocent civilians and their families in Lebanon and in 
Israel who have suffered so much during the last two weeks. Now we must 
turn again to the hard work of building a comprehensive and lasting 
peace in the Middle East. 
 
Thank you very much. 

(###) 


 
Article 3 
 
Laying the Foundations For a New American Century 
Anthony Lake, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs 
Address at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, 
Medford, Massachusetts, April 25, 1996 
 
As we near the end of the Clinton Administration's first term, I want to 
talk about the key foreign policy challenges America will face over the 
next four years. Political leaders may change with elections, but 
America's interests do not. The way these challenges are met--or 
ignored--will affect the lives of each and every American and our 
prospects for the century ahead. 
 
Consider the world that we live in today. Halfway between the end of the 
Cold War and the dawn of a new century, our nation is at peace. Our 
economy is strong. The tide of market democracy is rising around the 
world, bringing freedom and the hope of prosperity to more people than 
ever before and new opportunities for us. Yet this promising new era is 
not risk-free. Old threats such as aggression by rogue states have taken 
on new and dangerous dimensions. A host of modern threats--from 
terrorism to the spread of weapons of mass destruction--ignores national 
borders and undermines our security. 
 
In this new world of possibility--but also of peril--America's global 
leadership is more important than ever. That great scholar of diplomacy, 
Woody Allen, once remarked that 80% of life is just showing up. For 
better or worse, simply "showing up" is not enough in foreign policy. To 
lead effectively, our nation must do two things at once.  
 
First is the business of managing crises as they arise. Whether dealing 
with an outbreak of violence in Liberia, trying to promote a Middle East 
cease-fire, or responding to a global 911 like the Kobe earthquake, 
managing crises is fast-paced, high-profile work. Its rewards--or its 
failures--are readily visible and frequently found in the headlines. 
 
It is all-too easy and sometimes all-too tempting to let emergencies 
dictate the agenda. But leadership in foreign policy means more than 
responding to the crisis of the day. That brings me to the second 
crucial aspect of leadership: anticipating problems we will face down 
the road and making the investments that will pay greater benefits-- or 
prevent greater costs--in the future and laying the groundwork for the 
world we want to pass on to our children. Even as we deal with day-to-
day events, we must also focus on long-term, strategic goals. We must 
use our strength to build for the future--anchoring the foundations and 
constructing the frameworks that will make a real difference in 
Americans" daily lives. 
 
This audience knows that foreign policy challenges don't arise in neat 
four-year cycles. Every administration inherits problems it must manage; 
ours was no different. Three of the most urgent were Haiti, Bosnia, and 
Somalia. 
 
Today in Haiti, the dictators are gone, the desperate flow of refugees 
has ended, and the first-ever democratic transfer of power in that 
country took place this year. The last of the U.S. peacekeepers came 
home last week, as promised. 
 
In Bosnia, the four-year slaughter has ceased, as American troops and 
their IFOR partners help give the Bosnian people a chance to make good 
on the peace they have chosen. But the breathing room that our troops 
are providing must be filled with the oxygen of economic reconstruction 
assistance. The sooner the Bosnian people recover the blessings of a 
normal life, the better the chances our troops will leave behind an 
enduring, just peace. 
 
Our ability to deal effectively with Haiti and Bosnia was strengthened 
by the lessons we learned in Somalia--lessons about the importance, in 
peacekeeping operations, of a clear military mission, firm deadlines, 
and an exit strategy. In Somalia, though we saved many lives, we failed 
to set a clear military mission soon enough. We were correcting this 
when the Rangers were killed in Mogadishu. President Clinton refused to 
heed the calls for an immediate, damaging withdrawal and helped complete 
our mission honorably and without further loss of American life. 
 
I am proud that our Administration led the world's response to these 
three problems. But in managing these emergencies, we also tried to keep 
our sights on the importance of acts of construction on the core 
security issues that affect the daily lives of American citizens. I 
believe we are laying the foundation for a post-Cold War world in which 
our interests are protected and our people prosper. Over the next four 
years, whoever leads this country will have a chance and a 
responsibility to build on that foundation.  
 
Just last week, the President returned from Asia, where we have been 
laying the groundwork for a Pacific at peace at a time of profound 
regional change. We signed a new security charter with Japan that 
strengthens our alliance for the 21st century. And we joined with Korea 
in launching a major initiative that we hope will lead to a permanent 
peace between North and South and eventually erase the Cold War's last 
remaining frontier. 
 
We know that Asia will continue to grow and generate jobs and 
opportunities for its people and our own only if peace prevails. That 
same logic holds true around the world--from the Middle East to Northern 
Ireland. If we want to build a future of real prosperity and security--
if we want people to realize their full potential--peace is the 
prerequisite. Without it, none of the long-term "construction projects" 
we're engaged in will be possible. 
 
Since the President's trip to Asia and our efforts at peace in the 
Middle East have seized recent headlines, I would like to focus today on 
three other "construction projects" for the next four years: building an 
undivided, democratic Europe; building a stronger shield against the 
forces of destruction; and building a new global trading system. 
 
Building an Undivided Europe 
 
History has taught us that when Europe is in turmoil, America suffers, 
and when Europe is peaceful and prosperous, America can thrive as well. 
Today, with the Cold War over, a peaceful, democratic, undivided Europe 
is within reach. But it will not take shape by itself. As President 
Clinton said in Brussels two years ago,  
 
It is. . . time for us to join in building the new security for the 21st 
century. . . . The new security must seek to bind a broader Europe 
together with a strong fabric woven of military cooperation, prosperous 
market economies, and vital democracies. 
 
 
We have worked hard to lay the groundwork and strengthen the 
institutions that will turn that vision into reality. First, we have 
reinforced our ties with our long-time allies in Europe--not only 
through common action in Bosnia but in common efforts to improve our 
peoples" lives: promoting freer trade, protecting the environment, and 
fighting crime and disease. 
 
We also have worked to make possible Europe's integration. We have 
helped the nations of central Europe and the former Soviet Union  
strengthen the lifeblood of democracy: fair elections, a free media, and 
an independent judiciary. We have helped them rebuild their shattered 
economies by providing assistance, technical support, and debt relief--
supporting central Europe's integration into the European Union and the 
OECD and sharing our expertise, from training commercial bankers in 
Slovakia to helping Russia revamp its tax code. 
 
These efforts are paying off. Many central European nations are moving 
from aid to trade. Some--such as Poland and the Czech Republic--are 
among Europe's fastest-growing economies. Today, America is Russia's 
largest private investor, and our total trade with Russia has grown 65% 
in the last three years. More trade and investment in Europe's new 
democracies, with their millions of new consumers, means more jobs and 
higher wages at home. 
 
Also, we are deepening security cooperation with all who share our 
values and our vision of peace. A key part of this process is NATO's 
enlargement. NATO can do for Europe's east what it did 50 years ago for 
Europe's west: prevent a return to local rivalries, strengthen democracy 
against future threats, and provide the conditions for fragile market 
economies to flourish. 
 
Two years ago, the United States laid a cornerstone of the new Europe by 
initiating the Partnership for Peace. From the Black Sea waters of 
Romania to the bayous of Louisiana, Partners and allies are building 
bridges of cooperation. For some countries, the Partnership will be the 
path to NATO membership. For others, it will be an active link to the 
alliance. For all, it is a powerful incentive to deepen democracy, 
establish civilian control of the military, and be responsible members 
of the global community. 
 
Already, we are seeing results. Right now in Bosnia, soldiers from at 
least 13 Partner states are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with NATO 
troops. One of those Partners, Hungary, is the major staging ground for 
America's contribution to the NATO force. 
 
Over the next four years, we must lock in these gains for the 21st 
century. This means moving NATO enlargement forward on the same steady, 
transparent track we have followed since the start. NATO membership 
brings rights and essential responsibilities. Calls to move more quickly 
risk setting back rather than accelerating the process that our nation 
has done so much to create, by compromising the consensus within the 
alliance on bringing in new members. But those nations that are ready to 
add to NATO's strength must not be kept in limbo. Delaying enlargement 
would destroy the momentum that we have built and dispirit the new 
democracies that have worked so hard to reform. 
 
As enlargement moves forward, we must also work to make the NATO-Russia 
relationship a full-fledged partnership. Our teamwork in the Contact 
Group and with our troops in Bosnia has shown that such a partnership is 
both possible and productive. It is a harbinger of the undivided Europe 
that lies before us if we all have the vision and determination to 
achieve it. 
 
Forging a Stronger Shield Against The Forces of Destruction 
 
Just as the fall of the Iron Curtain revealed a window of opportunity in 
Europe, so did it clear the way to build a safer, more secure world by 
stepping back from the nuclear precipice and reducing the chance that 
rogue states or terrorists could acquire nuclear weapons. 
 
Of course, maintaining a strong defense must always be our first 
priority. Today, at The George Washington University, Secretary of 
Defense Perry is highlighting the importance of our missile defense 
program in reducing the risk of a nuclear, chemical, or biological 
attack from rogue nations. This program maintains the missile defenses 
that we now have to protect our troops in the field and focuses on 
getting better defenses into the field as soon as possible. At the same 
time, it will give us the capability to protect against a rogue missile 
threat to our nation, if such a threat should arise. But we are doing 
all we can to make sure that it never does. Rather than simply focus on 
what one analyst called 'the last 15 minutes of the problem"--the time 
it takes for a distant warhead to reach America's shores--we have worked 
hard in the here and now to reduce the chance of attack. 
 
Our strategy has two interconnected aims: first, decreasing and 
dismantling existing weapons and, second, preventing weapons of mass 
destruction from falling into the wrong hands. This is complex and 
painstaking work. It is also often unheralded. People rarely notice when 
a crisis is prevented. But few achievements have a greater impact on the 
safety of our citizens. 
 
Today, because of our steady engagement with Russia and the other New 
Independent States, America's cities and families are no longer targeted 
by Russia's missiles. Kazakstan has given up the nuclear weapons left on 
its soil, and Ukraine and Belarus are doing the same. Together, START I 
and START II, which we hope the Russian Duma will soon approve, will 
slash by two-thirds the nuclear arsenals that we and the former Soviet 
Union held at the height of the Cold War. And from Moscow to Almaty, 
scientists who once built nuclear weapons aimed at American cities are 
now working with us to dismantle them safely and securely. 
 
On another front, after a difficult period of determined diplomacy, the 
North Korean nuclear program has been frozen and ultimately will be 
reversed. Our global diplomacy also helped secure the indefinite and 
unconditional extension of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty--the 
cornerstone of global efforts against the spread of nuclear weapons. And 
we are working more closely than ever with our friends and allies to 
combat nuclear smuggling. 
 
We made important progress last week in Moscow, first at the Nuclear 
Summit and then in President Clinton's meeting with President Yeltsin, 
to improve the security of nuclear materials; make safer the civilian 
use of nuclear power; distinguish between antiballistic missile systems 
that are limited by the ABM Treaty and theater missile defenses, which 
are not; and achieve signature this September of a comprehensive test 
ban treaty. 
 
But if we want to ward off future threats, we must build on this solid 
foundation. Treaties and agreements are only as good as their 
implementation, and when a lump of plutonium the size of a soda can is 
enough to make an atomic bomb, we had better do all we can to implement 
them. 
 
We must fulfill our arms control agenda--strengthening the Biological 
Weapons Convention, concluding and signing a comprehensive test ban 
treaty, and ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention--CWC. Even as I 
speak, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is meeting to consider 
ratification of the CWC, which will reduce the threat of chemical 
weapons proliferation and use, including by terrorists. We are urging 
the Senate to approve this important treaty without delay. 
 
We must also complete the global ban on the production of fissile 
material, strengthen safeguards on existing nuclear material, fully 
implement the Agreed Framework with North Korea, and strive to persuade 
China to be a full partner in international non-proliferation efforts. 
 
Nuclear smuggling is just one of a growing network of threats that prey 
on open societies--from terrorism to drug trafficking to organized 
crime. Today, groups that once operated in only one country or region or 
engaged in only one type of criminal activity are becoming global and 
diversified. Left unchecked, these transnational syndicates of crime 
distort free economies, derail fragile democracies, and tear at the 
fabric of our societies. 
 
No nation is immune to such threats, and none can defeat them alone. 
That is why we have worked so hard to forge a shield of international 
cooperation--from helping to train and equip customs officials around 
the world to fighting the smuggling of drugs, guns, and nuclear 
materials, to opening FBI offices in Hungary and Russia, to working more 
closely than ever with other nations. 
 
Our strategy is paying off. We've foiled terrorist attacks on New York 
City and on American jumbo jets. We've extradited and arrested more 
terrorists than all previous administrations combined. With Colombian 
officials, we've cracked down on the cartels that control the world's 
cocaine market and put the kingpins behind bars, although the 
organizations they created survive.  
 
Just as we've worked with our friends abroad, we've also done our part 
at home: increasing resources, training, and personnel for law 
enforcement; giving our nation's new "drug czar" a strong mandate to 
fight narcotics; and now, with yesterday's anti-terrorism legislation, 
providing law enforcement important new tools to track down, crack down 
on, and shut down terrorists. 
 
But more must be done. Last year at the United Nations, President 
Clinton called on the global community to join in common cause against 
these common threats. Now we must turn our goals into action--starting 
by identifying the banking safe havens where criminal cartels stash 
their illegal gains, working with other nations to outlaw such 
activities, and considering sanctions against recalcitrant nations. We 
must break up these international criminal conglomerates that have grown 
so big that they threaten even governments and emerging democracies. 
 
If we do these things, we can look forward to a world in which the 
forces of destruction are on the defensive--more likely to be deterred, 
to be caught, and to be punished. If a disaster strikes five years from 
now, we don't want to look back and say we didn't do all we could to 
prevent it. 
 
Building a New Global Trading System 
 
The two "construction projects" I've discussed so far--building an 
undivided Europe and forging a stronger shield against the forces of 
destruction--have an obvious impact on the security of the American 
people. But we define "national security" in terms of people's daily 
lives, and that means not just the military security of our nation but 
our citizens" economic well-being as well. In an era where goods and 
ideas are traded all over the world and where millions of dollars can 
flash across the planet at the stroke of a computer key, it is clear 
that our economic welfare is tied to the rest of the world. 
 
That is why we have worked so hard to build a new global trading system. 
Through painstaking negotiation and hard-headed persuasion, we are 
opening markets to American goods and services and creating new 
opportunities for American companies and workers. Now, with regional 
efforts such as NAFTA, APEC, and the Summit of the Americas; global 
accords such as the Uruguay Round; and tough, bilateral negotiations 
such as the U.S.-Japan auto agreements, barriers are coming down and our 
exports are going up--creating more than 1 million good, high-paying 
jobs in just the last three years.  
 
You can see the results of our strategy in the progress we've made in 
Japan. There is more hard work ahead, but, in the last three years, our 
two nations have signed 21 separate trade agreements, covering 
everything from medical supplies to computers. Our exports in those 
sectors are up about 85%--meaning more jobs and better pay for American 
workers and lower prices and greater choice for Japanese consumers. 
 
We also created America's first National Export Strategy, helping our 
firms walk through the doors we opened with trade agreements. Ron Brown 
symbolized the commitment we put into this project--mobilizing leaders 
at every level of government to fight for American business. With our 
support, American firms have won more than $57 billion in foreign 
business contracts since November 1993. 
 
To sustain this performance and strengthen prosperity into the 21st 
century, our nation must enforce existing trade agreements, including 
the more than 180 agreements concluded by the Clinton Administration. We 
must transform our vision for free trade in the Americas into concrete 
results, including by expansion of NAFTA to Chile. And we must build on 
our blueprint for free trade in the Asia-Pacific region--the fastest-
growing market in the world. 
 
Conclusion 
 
Even as we lay the foundation for the new century--dealing with today's 
crises and building tomorrow's framework for stability, security, and 
prosperity--the tools we rely on are the same as ever: diplomacy where 
we can, force where we must; working with others where we can but alone 
when we have to; keeping our military strong while adapting our 
alliances to new demands; and maintaining constructive relations with 
the world's great powers--those nations that have the greatest ability 
to help or hinder us in our efforts. 
 
Just as we rely on time-proven tools, so we are fulfilling a timeless 
mission. In many regions, the roots of the democratic society--
pluralism, tolerance, liberty--are not yet firm. Now, as before, our 
special role in the world is to safeguard and strengthen the community 
of democracies and open markets. 
 
Enlargement of democracy is central to all of the challenges I have 
mentioned today. A democratic Europe is more likely to remain at peace 
and to be a strong partner in diplomacy, security, and trade. Democratic 
nations are less likely to go to war against one another--and more 
likely to join us in promoting arms control, fighting proliferation, and 
combating the forces of destruction. And democracy under-girds the open 
markets that promote prosperity, because the rule of law helps guarantee 
that contracts are respected just as the searchlight of free media helps 
expose corruption. 
 
But all of these tools and all of these goals demand resources. Yes, 
leadership has a price. But wouldn't you rather invest in an undivided 
Europe, in arms control, in open markets today than suffer the cost of 
future Bosnias, nuclear terrorism, and stagnating wages tomorrow? Isn't 
it smarter to help put the United Nations on sound financial footing and 
strengthen rather than weaken its peacekeeping capacities than to face 
the same dilemma-- acting by ourselves or not acting at all--every time 
a global crisis strikes. Doesn't it make more sense to provide the 
foreign assistance that helps other nations help themselves than to wait 
until they fall apart--and then face pressures to intervene at a much 
higher cost in resources, risk, and human lives? 
 
At the end of the day, our security and prosperity and our outlook for 
the future depend on our ability to shape the post-Cold War world. 
Previous generations spent trillions of dollars to protect America's 
security during the Cold War. We have a responsibility to make sure that 
their victory isn't frittered away by short-sighted, nickel- and-dime 
policies. 
 
Over the next four years, we have a chance to pave the way to a bright 
new century in which central Europe--where two world wars began--becomes 
an anchor of stability in an undivided, democratic Europe; in which we 
work with our allies and friends in the Asia-Pacific region to sustain 
our security and build a future of growing prosperity; in which the dark 
cloud of nuclear destruction gives way to the sunshine of peace; in 
which open societies flourish, linked and invigorated by open markets; 
in which our children and children everywhere can make the most of their 
talents and dreams. That is America's challenge on the eve of the 
millennium. America can--and must--meet it. I think we will. 

(###) 


 
Article 4 
 
The Moscow Summit:  Nuclear Security and Nuclear Safety 
Lynn E. Davis, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International 
Security Affairs 
Address to the American Bar Association, Washington, DC, April 24, 1996 
 
The last time I had the pleasure of meeting with you, we focused on 
North Korea's ongoing nuclear program. That program posed the 
possibility that by the end of this decade, the North Koreans could have 
produced a sizable nuclear weapons stockpile.  
 
Today, as a result of the Agreed Framework, signed in October 1994, the 
North Korean nuclear program is frozen and that freeze is being closely 
monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency--IAEA. North Korea's 
existing spent nuclear fuel is being stored under IAEA safeguards and 
eventually will be removed. As part of the framework, North Korea will 
receive two light-water reactors, to be built and largely financed by 
South Korea, to replace its existing nuclear program. 
 
Implementing the Agreed Framework will take many years, and we have 
ahead of us some critical tasks, including most importantly: 
 
-- Getting the North-South Dialogue underway as the means of achieving 
the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula; and 
 
-- Gaining D.P.R.K. full compliance with its IAEA safeguards agreement. 
 
But the Agreed Framework is in place, and its implementation is on 
track. This sets the stage for removing the nuclear threat to regional 
and global stability posed by North Korea. 
 
NPT and CTB Treaty 
 
Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons is one of President 
Clinton's highest priorities. And the Administration has some 
significant further accomplishments. 
 
Just a year ago, we achieved the renewal of the Non-Proliferation 
Treaty--NPT--both indefinitely and unconditionally. The NPT is now a 
permanent feature of the international landscape. 
 
The NPT parties also agreed to give priority in 1996 to negotiating a 
comprehensive test ban treaty. That effort was given an important boost 
over the weekend in Moscow, when the P-8 countries--France, the United 
Kingdom, Italy, Canada, Germany, Japan, the U.S., and Russia--agreed to 
support a truly comprehensive test ban treaty and to work toward its 
signing this September at the United Nations.  
 
The comprehensive test ban treaty will ban any nuclear explosion, 
including weapons-test explosions. It will serve our disarmament goals 
by constraining the development of new or improved nuclear weapons by 
the nuclear powers. It will serve our non-proliferation goals by gaining 
the agreement of the nuclear threshold states to forego any nuclear 
testing. U.S. leadership was critical in achieving the Agreed Framework 
with North Korea and in extending the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It will 
be essential if we are to conclude a comprehensive test ban treaty in 
1996. 
 
Moscow Summit: Nuclear Security 
 
Over the past few years, we have succeeded in achieving dramatic 
reductions in nuclear weapons. But as a result, we have rendered excess 
hundreds of tons of weapons-usable uranium and plutonium. 
 
At the Moscow Summit, we agreed among the P-8 to work more closely to 
keep nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands. Prevention is 
the most important first step. The P-8 called for greater international 
cooperation to strengthen physical security for nuclear materials and to 
put effective accounting systems in place. U.S. assistance provides the 
foundation for this cooperation.  
 
This year, the U.S. will spend some $85 million for security 
improvements at nuclear facilities in Russia and the other states of the 
former Soviet Union. These facilities include some highly sensitive 
Russian weapons laboratories. The Russians are installing everything 
from upgraded locks and video monitors to sophisticated computer-based 
radiation detection systems.  
 
Our assistance also will help improve the security of the nuclear 
materials themselves by:  
 
-- Moving forward with construction of a safe, secure storage facility 
for material removed from nuclear weapons. This project is now on track, 
thanks in part to intensive high-level attention;  
 
-- Helping Russia, Ukraine, Kazakstan, and Belarus update laws, improve 
export licensing, enhance border control, and upgrade law enforcement 
capabilities; and 
 
-- Supporting the International Science and Technology Centers in Moscow 
and Kiev to provide non-weapons-related employment for former weapons 
scientists. 
 
The summit attendees also agreed to create a joint program to fight 
trafficking in nuclear materials, including greater cooperation and 
exchanges of information among law enforcement, customs, and 
intelligence authorities. Starting from the P-8, we will seek to involve 
others in this program, and at the summit, Ukraine announced its 
adherence. 
 
This "action plan" caps a year of activities, demonstrating that our 
cooperation is already underway. One example of such activities is a 
recent meeting of P-8 law enforcement experts to discuss forensic 
laboratory procedures to help identify the origin of nuclear materials 
seized as evidence in criminal cases. Another example is a program 
sponsored by the U.S. Customs Service with countries in central Europe 
and with the New Independent States, in which the U.S. has provided 
training and nuclear-detection equipment to help detect smuggling closer 
to the source. 
 
Over the longer term, we must reduce the large stockpiles of excess 
nuclear materials to reduce the risk both of proliferation and of 
illicit nuclear trafficking. Under a bilateral U.S.-Russian agreement to 
purchase low-enriched uranium derived from 500 tons of highly enriched 
uranium--HEU--extracted from former Soviet nuclear weapons, Russia 
delivered  six tons--on the order of 250 warheads--in 1995. This 
represents the first-ever use of weapons-HEU for peaceful purposes.  
 
In Moscow last week, we achieved Russia's final approval of transparency 
measures that will give us confidence that the material provided under 
this contract originated from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons. Let me 
note that implementing this HEU contract has been highly complex, 
involving financial and trade law considerations, as well as sensitive 
national security issues. The deal is now on track and functioning, to 
the benefit of both the United States and Russia. 
 
Disposing of excess plutonium will be harder still, since there is no 
viable commercial market for this material. At the summit, the P-8 
leaders took the first step toward multilateral cooperation to deal with 
the hundreds of tons of excess plutonium now accumulating.  
 
Working together on small-scale technology demonstration projects and in 
an experts" meeting scheduled for October 1996, the P-8 countries will 
explore options for the safe and secure long-term disposition of 
plutonium. Some countries--particularly Russia--favor burning plutonium 
in civilian power reactors--the so-called mixed oxide fuel, or MOX, 
option. The U.S., while not ruling out this option, is also actively 
evaluating the possibility of mixing plutonium with high-level 
radioactive waste to create a material similar to the spent fuel from 
nuclear power plants that already exists in large quantities. We will 
use the upcoming P-8 conference to ensure that all reasonable technical 
possibilities are looked at carefully, with due regard to non-
proliferation, security, environmental, and economic considerations. 
 
Moscow Summit: Nuclear Reactor Safety 
 
In Moscow, the P-8 took important steps to make the civilian use of 
nuclear energy safer and to prevent another tragedy such as Chernobyl 
from happening. The anniversary reminds us of the danger--as do reports 
today of fires erupting in the areas surrounding Chernobyl.  
 
At the summit, Russia announced its adherence to the International 
Nuclear Safety Convention, and, for the first time, Russia joined the G-
7 in asserting the importance of 'safety first" in nuclear power 
operations. It committed to the highest internationally recognized 
safety level for construction, operation, and regulation of nuclear 
power facilities.  
 
The summit preparations led both Russia and Ukraine to take the 
necessary steps to join the Vienna Convention on Third Party Nuclear 
Liability. Thus, if another accident takes place, they recognize their 
responsibility to compensate victims even beyond their borders.  
 
The P-8 also endorsed the importance of the efforts ongoing through the 
IAEA in Vienna to draft an international convention on the safe 
management of nuclear waste. Russia joined in affirming the importance 
of stopping all dumping of nuclear material in the ocean.  
 
In an additional important step, Russia supported the G-7 agreement to 
close the Chernobyl reactor by the year 2000. We also agreed with 
President Kuchma to tackle one of the most severe safety problems 
Ukraine faces-- the threat of a sarcophagus collapse--and to do this 
based on an international experts" study, which will be completed by 
year's end. 
 
At the same time, we have more to do with Russia in this area of nuclear 
reactor safety. Russia maintains that its reactors can be raised to 
internationally acceptable standards and continues to press the West to 
help them fix rather than shut down their older reactors. We have, 
nevertheless, achieved some Russian recognition of the problems their 
reactors represent and have agreed to expand our cooperation with them 
on reactor safety projects in Soviet-designed reactors in central Europe 
and the NIS. And we will continue to press the Russians to agree to 
concrete steps toward decommissioning their older reactors. 
 
The Security Agenda With the Russians 
 
Following the P-8 summit, President Clinton and President Yeltsin met to 
pursue their bilateral agenda, which focused in part on security and 
arms control issues. Let me turn just briefly to some of these.  
 
We continue to urge the Russians to ratify the START II Treaty. But it 
is clear that nothing will happen until after the Russian election. At 
the same time, we were able to make important progress in distinguishing 
between antiballistic missile systems that are limited by the ABM Treaty 
and theater missile defenses which are not. We will send our negotiators 
back to Geneva next month with the aim of concluding an initial 
demarcation agreement covering low velocity systems this June. Such an 
agreement will ensure that we maintain the integrity of the ABM Treaty--
in our view the cornerstone of strategic stability--and the ability to 
go forward with all of our planned TMD programs. 
 
In the case of the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, we moved 
closer to a solution to the flank issue, within the framework that has 
been agreed among the 30 parties--namely, a map change and limits on 
equipment in areas removed from the flank. We hope to be able to reach 
an agreement acceptable to all parties prior to the upcoming treaty 
review conference in mid-May. 
 
But we still have differences with the Russians, and an important one 
has to do with their continuing nuclear cooperation with Iran. The 
President made clear that we believe that any such cooperation 
contributes to Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and that it 
should end. 
 
Conclusion 
 
Let me conclude with a few brief observations. As President Clinton 
noted in Moscow this weekend, the work that we did is a "part of my most 
important duty as President--increasing the safety and security of the 
American people." We took some important steps. 
 
Perhaps the most important step was the public recognition on Russia's 
part that there are serious nuclear security and safety problems that 
need to be addressed, and they agreed to cooperate with the G-7 to deal 
with them. Just a few years ago, Russia was resisting giving serious 
attention to these problems.  
 
Our critics suggest that these nuclear security and safety problems are 
not being given sufficient priority. I take exception. We are addressing 
the full range of potential dangers involving nuclear security and 
reactor safety, and the United States has made major commitments of 
effort and resources within those that are realistically available. 
 
We cannot promise that the dangers are over. Indeed, much more still 
needs to be done. These are problems that will require attention and 
resources for many years to come. 
 
The Moscow Summit was a critical step--indeed, a turning point in 
gaining Russian cooperation. American leadership was critical to the 
success of the Moscow Summit. Our leadership will be required in the 
years to come if we are to meet these important challenges. 

(###) 
 

Article 5:

U.S. Foreign Policy and the International Financial Institutions
Joan E. Spero, Under Secretary for Economic, Business, and Agricultural 
Affairs 
Statement before the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary 
Policy of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, 
Washington, DC, April 25, 1996

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the 
opportunity to speak to you today about a subject of great importance to 
the State Department and to American leadership in the world. The 
International Financial Institutions--the World Bank, the International 
Monetary Fund--IMF, and the regional development banks--are long-
standing pillars of American influence. We had a strong hand in creating 
them. We have a major stake in them. And we rely on them to support our 
foreign policy objectives, to foster stability, growth, sound policies, 
and open markets essential to the success of American firms overseas, 
and to promote the values that Americans cherish open societies, 
transparent and accountable government institutions, responsible 
stewardship of the environment, the eradication of poverty, and the 
opportunity for every person to reach his or her fullest potential.

Our contributions to the International Financial Institutions are not 
just about money. They are about effective American leadership and 
influence in these institutions and elsewhere. Under Secretary Shafer 
has laid out the Administration's plan for honoring our commitments to 
the International Financial Institutions. 

In particular, I want to strongly endorse the administrations request 
for the International Development Association--IDA, the IMF's Enhanced 
Structural Adjustment Facility--ESAF, the African Development Bank--
AfDB, and the Middle East Development Bank--MEDB. Our plan for 
contributing to these institutions sets responsible priorities for using 
our scarce resources. But more importantly, it is the minimum required 
to maintain our leadership--leadership which has a profound impact on 
our ability to achieve our foreign policy goals and to maintain our 
influence in other forums.

In both industrialized and developing countries, people take for granted 
our preeminent position in the IMF and World Bank. The two premier 
global financial institutions, located just blocks away from America's 
leaders, are virtually synonymous throughout the world with U.S. power 
and influence. But we cannot take our position for granted: If we do not 
lead, there are others who will step in. And we must be clear: What is 
at stake is not the existence or even the influence of these 
institutions; they enjoy virtually universal support from donors and 
from the countries which benefit from their resources and expertise. 
What is in danger is our voice and influence in these institutions and, 
thus, our ability to use them to serve our foreign policy goals.

The International Financial Institutions Are a Critical Element Of U.S. 
Foreign Policy

The International Financial Institutions provide critical support to our 
foreign policy objectives. From my position in the State Department, I 
am struck that, time and time again, we call on the World Bank, the IMF, 
and regional development banks to assist us with crucial elements of our 
objectives. Beginning with the reconstruction of Europe after World War 
II and up to the present, if you look at American foreign policy 
priorities, you will find the International Financial Institutions. 
Today in Bosnia, Mexico, Haiti, Africa, Russia, and the New Independent 
States, these institutions are key instruments and partners in executing 
our foreign policy. 

I would like to give you my view- point on the contributions of the 
International Financial Institutions in several areas where I have seen 
their work up close:  the Inter-American Development Banks --IDB--
importance to our Summit of the Americas initiative; the role of the 
Asian Development Bank--ADB--in promoting free markets and our ambitious 
agenda in APEC; European Bank for Reconstruction and Development--EBRD-- 
and World Bank support for the transition from communism to free 
markets; and the role of the World Bank--and the soon-to-be-created 
Middle East Bank--in supporting the Middle East peace process.

But, first, I would like to point out that our ability to advance U.S. 
values and interests in these countries and regions depends critically 
on demonstrating that the U.S. is committed to supporting IDA. Support 
for IDA has become the "litmus test" for our allies in judging whether 
the U.S. is committed to multilateral cooperation. Why has IDA support 
become so critical? It is critical because IDA is universally recognized 
as the most effective tool we have for delivering assistance to the 
poorest countries and their poorest citizens. This support is consistent 
with fundamental American values of helping the poor help themselves. 
Our allies also recognize that cutting IDA is penny-wise and pound-
foolish. If we don't support effective development now, we will face 
enormously higher costs to deal with future humanitarian needs.

With strong U.S. leadership, the International Financial Institutions 
have proved remarkably adaptable and effective in responding to evolving 
development needs. History would judge us particularly harshly if we 
began walking away from the International Financial Institutions just at 
the time when, under the effective leadership of Jim Wolfensohn, Michel 
Camdessus, Jacques de Larosiere, and the other presidents, they have 
become indispensable partners in development around the globe. While 
these are not perfect institutions, the current leadership has gone a 
long way toward improving management, making their operations more 
efficient, developing new lending techniques, and maximizing the use of 
their resources.

In this hemisphere, for example, President Iglesias has placed the IDB 
at the center of efforts to implement the goals enunciated by President 
Clinton and the other Western Hemisphere leaders at the Summit of the 
Americas. The summit process is the centerpiece of U.S. policy in Latin 
America and the Caribbean. Through it, we are working with the other 
countries in the region to strengthen democracy, promote economic 
prosperity, eradicate poverty and discrimination, and guarantee 
sustainable development. In addition to moving forward on its specific 
summit mandates in the fields of health and education, the IDB is 
dedicating staff, resources, and expertise to support summit initiatives 
aimed at achieving hemispheric standards and intensifying cooperation on 
capital markets, infrastructure development, sustainable energy use, 
environmental protection, and microenterprise development. The IDB, 
along with the Organization of American States and the UN's Economic 
Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, is providing essential 
support to governments as we move toward a Free Trade Area of the 
Americas in 2005. It is fair to say that the IDB has played a key role 
in helping us move summit initiatives along a productive path. Without 
IDB support, that task would have been substantially more difficult.

The Asian Bank is playing a similar role in Asia, complementing our work 
with APEC as we intensify our relations with the Pacific Rim. The Asia- 
Pacific region holds tremendous economic opportunity for us, and we have 
made it a central focus of our foreign policy. The Action Agenda agreed 
to by APEC leaders last year provides a road map for achieving free 
trade by 2010 and free investment by 2020. Though not formally linked, 
there is an important synergy between the ADB and APEC on a range of 
issues from development project-identification to trade liberalization 
to environmental protection. By helping to establish the right economic 
foundation for sustainable economic growth, the ADB helps create the 
common ground on which APEC can build regional relationships. The ADB's 
work in Asia over the past 30 years has set the stage for the formation 
of APEC's "community of Asia-Pacific economies." Ultimately, APEC and 
the ADB are important tools of our policy in support of American 
business. By expanding access and ensuring a level playing field, we 
assure that our companies enjoy the conditions to compete successfully 
in these growing markets.
 
In Africa, as well, the International Financial Institutions are 
important partners in achieving our policy goals. Africa's importance 
lies in its potential: With over half-a-billion people and abundant 
natural resources, Africa holds prospects for American exporters and 
investors that we have only begun to explore. At the same time, many 
African countries are struggling to provide the most basic needs and 
services to their citizens. Africa is now undergoing a transformation as 
a growing number of countries abandon statist policies and undertake 
market-based economic reforms, striving to achieve economic growth 
through a more responsible and efficient use of resources. The World 
Bank and the AfDB are working with us to bring sorely needed expertise 
and advice to these countries as they reform. The U.S. led a strong push 
for reform in the African Development Bank, which has resulted in new 
leadership and reforms. We now expect the AfDB, as a regional 
institution, to play a unique role in supporting governments as they 
adopt necessary but often painful measures to turn their economies 
around. At the same time, these institutions especially through the 
African Development Fund and IDA remain important to alleviating the 
sub-standard conditions affecting millions of people across the 
continent.

The International Financial Institutions Support the America Desk

Let me turn to the role the International Financial Institutions play in 
creating a favorable environment for U.S. exporters and investors. 
Secretary Christopher believes that support for American business is one 
of the State department's core functions, symbolized by his commitment 
to an "America Desk." Making that a reality has been one of my top 
priorities.  Through their work, the International Financial 
Institutions have laid foundations that make my efforts and those of our 
officers overseas more effective.

First, the International Financial Institutions support free markets and 
open economies. With the end of the Cold War, there are now close to 5 
billion people living in market economies. But many are still struggling 
to overcome the vestiges of restrictive, statist economic policies. We 
continue to be the standard bearer for the new global consensus in 
support of free market economies. The International Financial 
Institutions are more essential than ever if we are going to solidify 
the gains we have made. The nations of the world look to them for 
expertise in reforming and developing their economies. And through them 
they learn the principles we advocate: how to open their markets, how to 
attract international investment, and how to create greater 
opportunities for individuals and private companies. Their influence is 
clear: American exports are growing 12% annually in those countries that 
reform their economies along free market lines.

Second, the International Financial Institutions are developing new ways 
to stimulate private sector led growth. As the world economy grows and 
official resources dwindle, it is more important than ever to ensure 
that the private sector moves to the front lines of our development 
efforts. Government led, statist development models don't work. The 
International Financial Institutions have intensified their work on 
developing alternatives that promote the private sector. Co-financing 
arrangements, loan guarantees, and special private-sector lending 
windows are just some of the ways the development banks are reaching out 
to the private sector. The European Development Bank has thoroughly 
integrated private sector lending into its mandate, and the IDB has 
since followed suit with a new private sector window. From Russia to 
India to Bolivia, the World Bank has been an expert adviser and partner 
to countries seeking to privatize inefficient state-owned industries, 
turning them from a drag on government resources into productive 
economic actors.

Third, the International Financial Institutions help promote our 
commercial interests by encouraging a level playing field. They help 
develop and diffuse international standards. They encourage countries to 
lower tariffs and non-tariff barriers. They help reform and strengthen 
legal and judicial systems, government regulatory institutions, and 
financial systems. All of these activities are helping to create markets 
in which American companies can compete fairly and thus successfully. To 
give just one example, the World Bank and the IDB are now carrying out 
judicial reform programs in several Latin American countries, which help 
establish fair, transparent, and efficient procedures that will benefit 
Americans doing business in these countries.

Finally, we depend on the International Financial Institutions to help 
maintain international stability. Both for our national security 
interests and for the interests of countless American investors, this is 
an invaluable function. Look, for example, at the biggest challenge to 
the world economy in recent decades the transition of former Soviet bloc 
countries to market economies--and the International Financial 
Institutions were in the lead, providing resources and expertise when 
they were critically needed. The International Financial Institutions 
have supported government efforts to establish macroeconomics stability-
-an essential foundation for a successful transition to a market 
economy. They have also been at the forefront of promoting structural 
reform.

For example, the World Bank and the ABRADE, in partnership with the U.S. 
and other donors, have been deeply involved in privatization and 
financial sector modernization, two of the greatest challenges facing 
the economies in transition. While imposing "tough" standards for loans, 
the Inter- national Financial Institutions have remained mindful of the 
significant short-term social costs of restructuring. From Albania to 
Poland to Russia, the World Bank has helped ease the transition through 
loans to rehabilitate decaying infrastructure and social sector credits 
that target the most vulnerable, while the ABRADE contributes to 
achieving higher living standards through innovative financial tools 
such as restructuring funds and venture funds that help newly privatized 
firms make much-needed capital investment and support the emergence of 
new small- and medium-sized enterprises.

The International Financial Institutions cannot stop a government deter- 
mined to go wrong, but they are often critical to the success of 
governments committed to reform. Through ESSAY and other IMF programs, 
through structural adjustment loans and credits from the World Bank, 
through sectional reform loans provided by the multilateral development 
bank MDBs, these governments receive resources and expertise which may 
mean the difference between chaos and the stability necessary for 
growth.

The International Financial Institutions Promote Basic American Values

More broadly still, the International Financial Institutions play a 
critical role in promoting basic American values. The International 
Financial Institutions encourage environmentally sustainable 
development. Over the last decade, we have become increasingly aware 
that mismanagement of the environment, wherever it occurs, has direct 
implications for Americans. That is why Secretary Christopher has placed 
the environment at the top of our foreign affairs agenda. The 
International Financial Institutions have come a long way, too. With 
strong U.S. leadership, they have become an effective tool for 
convincing governments of the need to protect and enhance the 
environment. All the MDBs have moved to integrate environmental concerns 
into their projects and programs. They are working with individual 
countries to create strong environmental institutions, encourage sound 
resource management, and develop urgently needed programs to deal with 
rampant pollution of air and water. Through new institutions such as the 
Global Environment Facility and the North American Development Bank, we 
are tackling head-on some of the toughest environmental problems we 
face, whether they are along our own borders or thousands of miles away.

Second, the International Financial Institutions promote good governance 
and open societies. We now have a fuller understanding of the important 
link between successful development and governments that are 
transparent, accountable, and participatory. In the wake of that 
understanding, the development banks are moving beyond their traditional 
role to deal with these issues. The ADB recently became the first to 
develop a policy on governance, and all the MDBs are rapidly expanding 
their work in this area. They are working with non-governmental 
organizations--NGOs--to strengthen civil society. The World Bank, for 
example, is now committed to staffing each country office with a person 
dedicated to working with NGOs and other civil-society organizations. 
The MDBs are working with legislatures to streamline their operations 
and increase their contacts with civil-society organizations to make 
them more effective, responsive, and transparent. And they are working 
with governments to strengthen institutions, enhance efficiency, and 
reduce corruption. 

Third, the International Financial Institutions work to alleviate 
poverty. Some 3 billion people live on $2 a day or less. Americans have 
a long tradition of generosity and caring for those less fortunate--both 
at home and abroad. The development banks are an extension of that 
concern, providing tangible assistance to people in need. As our 
bilateral resources become increasingly strained, the International 
Financial Institutions remain an important means of providing relief to 
people living without adequate food, shelter, sanitation, and health and 
education services. Our support for IDA and other concessional lending 
windows provides assistance which would otherwise be unaffordable, 
assistance which provides benefits to the poor both in the short term 
and in the longer term--as these institutions work with developing 
countries to raise standards of living and distribute the benefits of 
growth more equitably.

Most recently, we have turned to the International Financial 
Institutions for help in fighting the scourge of the drug trade. The 
MDBs have resources far exceeding our own, which can be brought to bear 
in providing financially viable alternatives to drug crops for farmers 
in drug-producing countries. The IDB, for example, is developing 
alternative development programs for drug-producing regions in Colombia 
and Bolivia. In other countries, the World Bank and IDB are financing 
roads and other infrastructure essential to the success of our own 
alter- native development programs.

Leveraging Our Leadership

Clearly, the International Financial Institutions support our interests. 
But that solid support stems in large measure from the strength of our 
leadership. In his fourth State of the Union address, President Clinton 
reaffirmed his commitment to continued American leadership in the world. 
He stressed that we must lead "by working with others to share the risk 
and the cost of our efforts."  Our commitment to the International 
Financial Institutions is the epitome of this type of leadership.

Our participation gives us access to resources far greater than those we 
can provide bilaterally. MDBs provide over $40 billion in assistance 
annually, on the basis of a U.S. contribution of less than $2 billion. 
As a result of their ability to leverage funds, these institutions can 
address critical needs with resources that dwarf what the U.S. can 
provide alone. Without the International Financial Institutions, the 
U.S. would face additional costs--costs that at times would undoubtedly 
prove more than we are willing to bear. For example, they steered over 
$26 billion to former Soviet bloc countries between 1990 and 1994, and 
they channeled more than $110 billion to debt-crisis countries in the 
1980s. Today, private enterprise and free markets are growing throughout 
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, while Latin American 
countries have embraced economic reform. 

The International Financial Institutions leverage not only our money but 
also our influence. With their international membership, our partnership 
with the International Financial Institutions in achieving our goals 
creates a multilateral consensus for action, enhancing the effect of 
U.S. efforts and leadership. In the AfDB, for example, we can deal with 
economic policymakers in Africa on the difficult development problems 
facing them, in concert with other concerned donors and in the context 
of regional development, in addition to our own bilateral efforts.

The Middle East Development Bank

I would like to close by talking about the Bank for Economic Cooperation 
and Development in the Middle East and North Africa. I believe this bank  
epitomizes the importance of the International Financial Institutions to 
our foreign policy. I know some of you are wondering why we need to 
create a new institution for this region. We confronted these same 
questions head-on 18 months ago when the key parties of the Middle East 
peace process--Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians--came to 
Washington to advance the idea of an MEDB, their first joint proposal of 
any kind. Everyone, of course, was struck by the historic nature of the 
moment--of former adversaries coming together with a request for help in 
building a truly regional, cooperative institution, just as we had been 
urging them to do for decades.

But we went well beyond the political atmospherics of this proposal. Mr. 
Chairman, I believe that from day one our negotiations on the creation 
of the MEDB have been in the best tradition of "hard-minded" thinking. 
We laid out tough standards before we agreed to help lead negotiations 
on the bank, and I am glad to report that those standards have been met 
in each and every case.

First and foremost, we have a bank that is being created explicitly to 
support regional parties committed to the Madrid peace process and to 
taking effective measures, including the removal of boycotts, to promote 
regional economic cooperation. Membership in the bank is open only to 
those supportive of the peace process. Pariah states such as Iran and 
Iraq are outside the charter of the bank, and the U.S., with our 
proposed 21% voting share, is in an unambiguous position to ensure that 
they remain so.

We have designed a bank that is uniquely tailored to meet the special 
needs of the Middle East in a very cost-effective way. The bank has 
three very specific objectives: to assist the private sector, to promote 
regional projects, and to advance regional economic policy dialogue.

In its concentration on the private sector, the bank will operate more 
like a merchant bank than a traditional regional development bank. It 
will be small, both in terms of capital and staff. The bank will have 
only $5 billion in capital, compared to $12 billion for the EBRD and $40 
billion for the ADB. But, again in the spirit of a merchant bank, the 
MEDB will, through co-financing, use its relatively modest capital base 
to leverage both private capital and funds from other public 
institutions. In addition to direct lending, the bank will be able to 
participate in equity financing, offer guarantees, and organize 
technical assistance.

We also have been clear about what the bank will not do. It won't 
duplicate what the World Bank is already doing. It will not offer 
concessional financing of its own. It won't engage in policy-based or 
structural adjustment lending.  And it will not do lending for the 
social sector. It also won't offer marble lobbies, and it will have a 
non-resident board. Financing decisions will be firmly in the hands of 
the non-borrowing shareholders in the MEDB. My bottom line is that it 
will be "lean and mean."

Development of regional infrastructure is another essential area needing 
attention in the Middle East. The history of political conflict has left 
a legacy of economic fragmentation. While pursuing integration into the 
global economy, the region must also establish regional linkages. 
Improved regional systems for water, electricity, transportation, and 
telecommunications are all vital underpinnings for a healthy regional 
economy. The MEDB will seek innovative ways to promote regional 
projects, especially by bringing in private sector participation 
whenever possible.

The third element in the bank's unique mandate is promotion of regional 
economic cooperation. This will be accomplished through the policy forum 
associated with the MEDB. It will be under the guidance and control of 
the regional parties themselves. It is designed to allow them to 
solidify and deepen the regional economic dialogue that has begun as a 
result of the peace process. The activities of the forum will be 
directly relevant to the success of bank operations. For example, 
projects of regional benefit in sectors such as electricity or 
telecommunications require regional policy harmonization. The forum will 
be available to help regional members resolve technical and policy 
questions necessary for the project's success.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that when you have finished reviewing our proposal 
for the Middle East Development Bank, you will conclude with us that it 
is both a politically compelling and financially reasonable investment 
in the Middle East peace process.

Maintaining Our Leadership

The Middle East Development Bank is the newest manifestation of a long 
tradition of American leadership in international economic affairs. And 
as with the other International Financial Institutions, it will play an 
integral role in advancing our foreign policy in the region. By 
supporting these institutions we support our own security and commercial 
interests, provide ourselves with a valuable tool for pro- moting our 
values around the world, and strengthen American leadership in the 
global economy.

However, our combined arrears to these institutions have mushroomed to 
over $1.5 billion, with serious consequences for our leadership. With 
increasing resonance, we are hearing other donors propose ways to 
restrict our influence: arrangements that exclude us, limitations on 
procurement opportunities for our businesses, or adjusted voting shares. 
And as we fight off these proposals, we expend our political capital 
merely to hold on to what we have. As a result, we find it more 
difficult to build consensus in support of new foreign policy 
initiatives. With existing commitments unfulfilled, we are finding other 
donors more and more willing to go ahead without us, as was the case 
with IDA.

We will not lose our leadership overnight. Nor will we see the effects 
of our short-sightedness at every turn. But if our commitment to these 
institutions falters, if we do not provide the resources we have 
promised and make the new commitments necessary to ensure support for 
our objectives, we will see our position erode. And, ultimately, we will 
find less support for issues of importance to us, not only in the 
International Financial Institutions, but in other forums where we are 
accustomed to being heard.

We must remember that what is at stake here is not the existence of the 
International Financial Institutions; they will continue to be 
influential economic actors whether we lead them or not. What is at 
stake is American leadership in these vital global institutions--
institutions which form an important pillar of our influence in the 
world--and our ability to direct their efforts toward promoting the 
values and interests that are important to us. 

(###)

Article 6
 
The United Nations, NATO, And Crisis Management 
Madeleine K. Albright, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United 
Nations 
Address at the SHAPE-EX 1996 Conference, Brussels, Belgium, April 25, 
1996  
 
Thank you, General Joulwan, for that kind introduction. I am honored to 
participate with such distinguished company in such a distinguished 
program.  
 
For half a century, NATO has kept us free. But the history of this 
alliance has completed only its opening chapter. Today, we look ahead. 
 
I have been asked to discuss the United Nations, NATO, and crisis 
management. It is a tribute to this organization that, while others are 
just beginning to plan for the 21st century, the Supreme Allied Command 
is preparing for the next millennium.  
 
I was tempted, therefore, in preparing for this event, to consult the 
world's most acclaimed model for cooperative third-millennium conflict 
resolution. Unfortunately, Security Council debates and reruns of Star 
Trek tend to occur at the same time. 
 
We do not, like the starship Enterprise, have to cope with villains from 
outer space--or at least not yet. This conference is timely, 
nevertheless. For although the Cold War has ended, the relevance of 
NATO's motto has not. Vigilance is still the price of freedom. All 
around us, the stress of global transition is evident. We are beset by 
squabbles magnified by weapons that are more deadly and more available 
than ever before.  
 
The threats we face are not as predictable as they once were. But we 
know from history and our own experience that small wars can grow into 
big ones; that unrest provides targets of opportunity for aggressors, 
criminals, and terrorists; and that broken societies are a drain on the 
world's economic and humanitarian resources. We also know that 
lawlessness is a contagious disease.  
 
If we want our children to grow up in a world of civility and peace, we 
must shape history--not be prisoners of it. We must build flexibility 
into our institutions and attitudes. And we must work as partners to 
prevent crises when we can and confront them directly when we cannot. 
One means of partnership is the United Nations. 
 
During the Cold War, the UN's value in managing crises was real, but it 
was circumscribed. With the early exception of Korea, the Security 
Council could not act unless East and West agreed. As a result, UN 
activities were often limited to what former Secretary General Dag 
Hammarskjold called the "power vacuum between the (two) main blocs." 
 
However, when superpower tensions eased and this era of cooperation 
dawned, new opportunities arose for settling conflicts. Many saw in the 
UN a relatively cost- and risk-free solution to the job of maintaining 
world order. In response to member requests, the Secretary General 
spelled out an agenda for peace that went far beyond the traditional, to 
include humanitarian relief, disarming troops, repatriating refugees, 
and laying the groundwork for national reconstruction. The UN's 
Department of Peacekeeping Operations was transformed into a 24-hour- a-
day operation with special units focused on training, civilian police, 
demining, and financial management. The number of UN peacekeepers rose 
from 10,000 in 1991 to 75,000 in 1994 before dropping back to fewer than 
30,000 today. 
 
The results of this activity has been mixed. On the plus side are 
Namibia, Cambodia, El Salvador, Kuwait, Mozambique, and Haiti. In 
Somalia and Bosnia, as I will discuss later in more detail, UN missions 
saved thousands of lives but could not fully accomplish their mandates 
because underlying political problems were not resolved. And in Rwanda, 
peacekeepers sent to monitor a peace were overwhelmed when one faction 
went on a genocidal rampage. The peacekeepers were not equipped to stop 
them, although a number from our host country--Belgium-- died bravely in 
the attempt.  
 
Overall, the evidence of the past five years is that UN peacekeepers can 
accomplish much where the local parties have grown weary of war, but 
they have great difficulty where one or more of the parties remains more 
interested in conquest than coexistence. 
 
Today, efforts to improve UN capabilities continue. The U.S. Government 
is stressing, in particular, the need for a rapidly deployable UN 
headquarters unit.  
 
To guard against over-reach, the Security Council is applying rigorous 
guidelines to the start of any new peace operation. The goal is to 
design mandates that are tailored to local conditions and that reflect 
not simply what members would like to see but what members are prepared 
to do. 
 
Increasingly, when relatively robust action is required, the Council 
seeks to identify a "core contributor." This is a nation or alliance 
willing and able to lead either a blue-helmeted or a coalition 
operation. Typically, the core contributor will command the mission, 
provide the majority of headquarters staff, supply many of the troops, 
and do much of the recruiting and planning. The virtues of this approach 
compared to a traditional UN operation include less complicated command 
and control, cleaner accountability, better recruitment, quicker 
deployment, and--to use a SHAPE term of art--more military "oomph." 
Examples include first the U.S. and now Canada in Haiti, Belgium in 
eastern Slavonia, and NATO in Bosnia. 
 
The core contributor concept leads us directly into a discussion of 
NATO's role in crisis management. That role derives from the need, as I 
have indicated, to identify in some cases a force for peace powerful 
enough to cause recalcitrant factions to embrace peace.  
 
The evolution of NATO doctrine reflects both its willingness and its 
ability to accept new challenges. Its primary mission--to defend 
alliance members--continues. But NATO planners understand that, in this 
new era, crisis management and peacekeeping will sometimes be necessary 
to protect members" security.  
 
Accordingly, NATO attention is now directed to risks derived from 
political instability, economic breakdown, arms proliferation, ethnic 
violence, and terrorism. New emphasis is being placed on responding to 
regional crises. And, as this conference illustrates, new thought is 
being given to effective crisis management procedures and cooperative 
action through the Partnership for Peace.  
 
Obviously, when NATO decides to focus on the management of a particular 
crisis, it tends to concentrate the minds of those responsible for that 
crisis. NATO is the big kid on the block. Its military capabilities are 
unmatched. Unlike the UN, it has an integrated military command. Force 
recruitment is not generally a problem. Members of the alliance have 
political clout and large--although not unlimited--economic resources 
with which to support a comprehensive solution.  
 
Despite all this, NATO cannot be the answer to every problem. It is, 
after all, a continental--not a global--alliance. It cannot and should 
not police the world. As with the UN, NATO is a community of nations. 
Action depends upon agreement within that community about what action to 
take. Finally, despite the defensive nature and history of the alliance, 
it cannot be insensitive to concerns that others in the region might 
have. 
 
In responding to crises, then, both the UN and NATO can contribute much, 
but neither is without its limitations. When an emergency has many 
dimensions--and most today do--a division of labor will be required. 
That division may extend far beyond these two organizations. In the best 
case, crisis planners will develop an integrated approach that moves 
ahead on many fronts. In the worst case, we will see crippling confusion 
and delay.  
 
Effective emergency response begins with an understanding of what each 
participant brings to the table. A military coalition or alliance, 
especially a strong one such as NATO, will bring discipline, quality 
planning, standardized procedures, and the collective firepower of its 
members. UN agencies, such as the High Commissioner for Refugees, bring 
global legitimacy, experience in responding to crises, and a variety of 
needed skills. Private voluntary organizations, which grow in importance 
each year, bring dedication, experience, and a readiness to work under 
adverse conditions. Finally, policy- makers and diplomats bring 
expertise in resolving the underlying causes of an emergency. It is 
their job to find common ground among the factions--to stop the killing 
and to make the jobs of the relief agencies easier and those of the 
security forces unnecessary. 
 
Fitting all these pieces together is not a simple task. As General 
Shalikashvili has said: 
 
The military are solution-oriented. When force is used, we have a strong 
preference that its use result in achieving that state we call victory. 
When we fight, our first recourse is to apply overwhelming force to 
achieve a rapid and decisive conclusion. 
 
Diplomats, on the other hand, will look for the line in the sand that 
leaves all sides least dissatisfied. They are likely to see force--or 
its threat--as a means for achieving a precise negotiating purpose and 
will want to calibrate its use. 
 
PVOs and UN relief agencies prize their independence. They have their 
own standards, priorities, and modes of operating. Often, they will 
arrive earlier and stay longer than the warriors or diplomats. To 
operate safely, they may have to be both neutral and perceived as 
neutral. In consequence, they may distance themselves from military 
activities that are viewed by one side or another as hostile. 
 
These differences in perspective can lead to disagreements about 
priorities, tactics, and judgments about when a job is done. But all the 
various actors would not be participants in an emergency response unless 
they had much in common. All contribute courage, dedication, and skill. 
And all want to see peace restored and reconstruction commenced. 
Prospects for success will be highest when political leaders have 
articulated clear and attainable goals. If participants understand and 
accept the mission, they will cooperate--and where necessary compromise-
-in fulfilling it.  
 
Looking back, we can see the truth of this. In the success stories, such 
as Namibia, Haiti, and Cambodia, goals were clearly explained, broadly 
accepted, and consistently pursued. In Somalia, on the other hand, there 
were complaints from the start that the military was not doing enough to 
provide long-term security, that relief organizations were undercutting 
political goals, and that development needs were being overlooked. 
Despite efforts to resolve these problems, the various mandates never 
jelled. 
 
In the Balkans, a crisis that should have been dealt with from the 
beginning primarily by NATO was shunted instead to the UN. The Security 
Council adopted ambitious political mandates that went beyond what 
members had the will to achieve. The so-called "dual key" process for 
authorizing NATO air strikes did more to obscure accountability than to 
aid diplomatic objectives. Local factions felt they could commit war 
crimes, engage in ethnic cleansing, and block relief shipments with 
impunity. Ultimately, UN peacekeepers were themselves taken hostage.  
 
The UN received much of the blame for these shortcomings, some of it 
deserved. But the greater weakness was a lack of political agreement 
among the major powers not only of the appropriate response but of the 
nature of the conflict itself. This divergence blunted military efforts 
and damaged the credibility of both the UN and NATO.  
 
These experiences generate lessons which apply whether a crisis is being 
managed by a global organization, a regional alliance, or an individual 
country. 
 
First, clear lines of authority are essential. There should be no doubt 
about who is in charge and who will be held accountable. The flow chart 
should be as simple as possible. 
 
Second, both the purpose and the limits of a mission must be understood. 
It is better to leave somebody disgruntled than to leave anybody con- 
fused. In peacekeeping, a local party who miscalculates may get both you 
and himself killed.  
 
Third, communications should be extensive. In Rwanda, thousands of lives 
were saved because the U.S. provided timely information to UN agencies 
regarding the movement of refugees.  
 
Fourth, emergency response participants must plan and train together. We 
should know--not have to read--each other's minds. This is vital if we 
are to act quickly and cooperatively when crises arise. 
 
Fifth, for every mission, there should be a plan not only of how to get 
in but of how to get out. The purpose of a peacekeeping force, after 
all, should be to give factions the confidence they need to achieve 
reconciliation, not the excuse they may seek to avoid tough choices. 
Sooner rather than later, local parties must take responsibility for 
their own affairs. 
 
But an exit strategy alone is no strategy at all. There must also be a 
political strategy that will heal the wounds of war while the dogs of 
war are leashed. Elections may be required to produce legitimate 
leaders. Police training may be needed to ensure the rule of law. 
Economic help may be necessary to make tangible the benefits of peace. 
Ideally, a continuum of activities will lead from initial intervention 
to the full return of stability. For this, the coordination of military 
and civilian efforts is crucial.  
 
But perhaps the most important "lesson learned" in recent years is that 
effective peacekeeping requires something more than a cookie-cutter 
approach. We cannot assume that what has worked in one place will work 
in another. Cambodia is not Haiti is not Rwanda is not Bosnia. We must 
develop a flexible response by matching what we prescribe to the 
symptoms we perceive. We must select the tools that work best while 
making sure that every tool in the box is ready. And we must be 
conscious of the role played in every crisis by history, personality, 
and the endless variety of local circumstances. 
 
Today in the former Yugoslavia, we are striving to apply these lessons. 
Our job is to implement a truly complex and difficult peace. This task 
will test the ability of NATO--the world's greatest military alliance--
and the UN--the world's most ambitious political experiment--to work 
together. And it will challenge these two institutions to coordinate the 
efforts of others.  
 
The stakes are high. We know that our ancestors allowed disputes in this 
region to ignite global conflict. We know that terrible massacres 
occurred here as recently as last summer. We know that the exploitation 
of national feeling that proved so devastating here must be controlled 
if our hopes for Europe and, indeed, the world are to be realized. And 
we know that the success of our mission is by no means assured. 
 
In keeping with the current trend, management of the Balkan crisis 
requires a division of labor. UNPROFOR is gone, but the UN still has 
operations in Croatia and The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and 
it is responsible for the International Police Task Force--IPTF--in 
Bosnia. 
 
NATO is the leader of IFOR, which is the dominating military presence in 
Bosnia. But NATO's influence also is felt strongly in eastern Slavonia, 
where the UN peacekeeping operation is led by Belgium and IFOR air 
support and emergency extraction help have been pledged. 
 
In addition, High Representative Carl Bildt is coordinating civilian 
implementation. The OSCE is preparing elections. UN humanitarian and 
development agencies are engaged in their specialties, as are many PVOs. 
And the International Tribunal is seeking to hold war criminals 
accountable. If this team is to function successfully, each player must 
acknowledge the validity of other perspectives. The diplomats must think 
a little like generals. The military commanders must be at their most 
diplomatic. All must focus on the goal of a durable peace. And together, 
we must meet and surmount a series of tests. 
 
First, the injection of economic assistance into Bosnia is essential. 
The success of the donors" meeting two weeks ago, in which more than $1 
billion was pledged, is a tremendous--but belated--boost. This 
assistance will help most if it is injected rapidly and in a way that 
contributes to the integration of Bosnia, both internally and with its 
neighbors, so that the center grows stronger and the violent extremes 
grow weaker over time. 
 
Second, through the OSCE and other organizations, we must help the 
parties conduct free and fair elections. No element of Bosnia's future 
is more essential than legitimate national and local leadership. In this 
connection, IFOR must do all it can, consistent with its primary 
missions and resources, to facilitate the successful conduct of these 
elections. 
 
Third, we must encourage the Federation to survive and grow in strength. 
Bosnians must understand that the important issue in forging a country 
is not the color of uniforms or the division of political spoils. It is 
about building institutions that will help ensure the stable balance of 
military forces envisioned by the Dayton Agreement and that will protect 
all Bosnians equally. That is why the meeting today in Petersburg on 
ways to strengthen the Federation is so welcome and why its outcome is 
so important.  
 
A fourth test for our efforts in Bosnia is the police. This is the UN's 
job. But IFOR can help. In successful peacekeeping, security is the name 
of the game. But earlier this year, in the suburbs of Sarejevo, we saw a 
breakdown in security. Civilians were terrorized and large amounts of 
property destroyed. The local authorities did little in response and, in 
some cases, contributed to the violence. The IPTF either were not 
effective or were not deployed. IFOR was slow to get involved. The 
result was a serious setback for Dayton. 
 
Why did this happen? A major cause was the gap in planning. Military 
preparations for implementing a Bosnia peace accord began more than a 
year ago. The police monitoring and training operation was not put 
together until after the agreement was achieved. This contrasts with 
Haiti, where the civilian component was ready for deployment on day one. 
 
There is also a mandate gap. Neither the UN nor IFOR wants to play 
street cop in Bosnia. But clearly, the social contract between citizens 
and local authorities there has broken down. Mending that contract will 
take time as well as the creation of an environment in which those 
seeking to build peace feel secure. IFOR can assist by providing a 
robust backup to police and the IPTF. Success here is central to the 
peace implementation process and would diminish both the need for and 
the risks to military personnel. 
 
It is also necessary, if peace is to endure, that each party meet its 
obligation to cooperate with the War Crimes Tribunal. Access to 
witnesses, information, and evidence must be granted. And those indicted 
must be turned over to the Tribunal for trial. The U.S. Government 
strongly supports IFOR's decision to provide security and other support 
for the Tribunal when and where it can. 
 
Finally, we must understand--and the parties must understand--that none 
of our efforts in Bosnia come with a guarantee. Together, we have opened 
a window of opportunity, but neither IFOR nor the UN can impose true 
democracy or ensure a lasting peace. Ultimately, a sea change is needed 
in the attitudes of hatred and mistrust that are both the parents and 
the unwanted children of this unwelcome war.  
 
For that to happen, it will be necessary for the people of Bosnia of all 
ethnicities to open their eyes and see. In their midst is a force that 
has gathered from more than 30 countries around the world; a force that 
includes individuals from virtually every religion, race, culture, and 
background; a force that is working together to help bring the people of 
Bosnia together in a climate of security and greater justice. Surely, if 
the people of the world can join in support of a Balkans peace, so can 
the people of the former Yugoslavia. 
 
The United States is committed to making this bold effort a success, and 
we believe it will be a success. We also believe that the IFOR 
experience will take the Partnership for Peace to a higher level. 
Already, it has intensified cooperation and allowed partners to move 
beyond theory, exercises, and training. 
 
Today, the troops of partner nations are learning the habits that will 
enable many to become full members of the alliance. They are carrying 
out complex air and ground operations, learning how to work within 
NATO's command structure, and validating the central tenets of PFP, 
including civilian control of the military.  
 
As a result, NATO's relationship with the new democracies of Europe has 
reached a more advanced stage. We should build on this, preserving the 
consultative mechanisms developed for IFOR and proceeding to broader 
discussions of strategy and goals. 
 
There is, moreover, an important historical aspect to this effort. IFOR 
is a post-Cold War watershed. All of Europe is working together to bring 
stability to a region that has, in the past, rent Europe asunder. IFOR 
does not reflect spheres of influence or balance-of-power theories. It 
is the antithesis of politics based on ethnic identification. It is the 
product of a common understanding of how a common sense of security may 
be achieved. It is helping to reunite this continent and to erase 
outdated, Cold War divisions. Every nation participating in IFOR and 
every nation cooperating with it will be able to take pride in what it 
is able to accomplish. And every nation will depart from IFOR with a 
broader sense of its own national interests. 
 
I am privileged to be here today representing the United States, but I 
am a child of Europe. And like so many of you, the direction of my life 
was determined by the division of Europe--beginning with the Second 
World War. 
 
That conflict, which ended so long ago, seemed then that it would never 
end. It was a war fought in cold and mud and blood and darkness, in 
which the flower of a generation was plunged almost overnight into a 
cauldron of dive bombers, torpedoes, and artillery. It was a war born of 
appeasement and depravity, waged gallantly over fields blanketed now by 
rows of white crosses and Stars of David. The entire spectrum of human 
possibility was encompassed by that war--from Buchenwald and Auschwitz 
to the selfless patriotism of brave, brave men. 
 
In its aftermath, in a speech delivered 50 years ago last month, Winston 
Churchill urged his generation to join together, to reject division and 
to build in Europe a "temple of peace." He said that the temple must be 
built by "workmen from all countries" sharing tools and tasks, working 
together as partners. 'The safety of the world," he said, "requires a 
new unity in Europe from which no nation should be permanently outcast." 
The mission that Churchill set for his generation now is ours to 
complete. 
 
As Secretary of State Christopher said in Prague last month, the promise 
of our time is "an undivided Europe of free nations, stretching from 
Russia in the East to the Atlantic in the West." 
 
Making this promise real is a joint responsibility. The United States 
must remain engaged in Europe--and we will. The new democracies must 
safeguard and do justice to their new-found freedom. Together, we must 
broaden and deepen our partnership, recognizing our differences not as 
sources of division but as resources that, added to the whole, diversify 
our capabilities and make us stronger still. 
 
A half-century ago, President Truman pointed out that history had not 
ended with Hitler's defeat: 
 
It is easier to remove tyrants and destroy concentration camps than it 
is to kill the ideas which gave them birth. . . Victory on the 
battlefield was essential, but it was not enough. For a good  [or] . . . 
lasting peace, the decent peoples of the earth must remain determined to 
strike down the evil spirit which has hung over the world. 
 
Today, the challenge of building a good and lasting peace is in our 
hands. Together, we must ensure that on this continent fascism and 
totalitarianism will never again arise. We must see that nationalism 
receives its outlet in the celebration of culture and accomplishment, 
not aggression toward or persecution of others. And we must remain 
united, for success will depend not on the exertions of any single 
nation but on the will and courage of proud-hearted people everywhere.  
 
In this collective effort, we will heed the wisdom of Jean Monnet that 
"nothing is lasting without institutions." We will adapt our 
organizations and strategies to match the demands of this new era.  
 
And we will draw inspiration and strength from the memory of past 
sacrifice, the extraordinary dignity of ordinary citizens, and the 
ennobling vision of freedom that inspired NATO and that has caused us to 
assemble here, on the threshold of a new millennium, as partners in 
peace. 

(###)
[END OF DISPATCH VOL. 7, NO. 18]

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