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