U. S. Department of State
Dispatch, Vol. 7, Number 24, June 10, 1996
Bureau of Public Affairs
Articles in this issue:
1. America's Mission in the 21st Century:Building on the Achievements
of the Past -- President Clinton
2. NATO Foreign Minister Meeting: Progress in Ensuring Peace in an
Undivided Europe -- Secretary Christopher, Latvian Foreign Minister
Birkavs
3. Progress and Next Steps In the Balkans Peace Process -- Secretary
Christopher, Agreed Statement
4. Securing and Promoting Open Markets and Societies in the Americas --
Deputy Secretary Talbott
5. U.S. Signs Inter-American Convention Against Corruption -- Deputy
Secretary Talbott
6. Foreign Policy Challenges In a Changing World -- Richard M. Moose
7. Drug Control in the Western Hemisphere -- Robert S. Gelbard
Article l:
America's Mission in the 21st Century: Building on the Achievements of
the Past
President Clinton
Remarks at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy commencement
Groton, Connecticut, May 22, 1996
Thank you very much. Secretary Pena, Commandant Kramek--thank you for
doing such an excellent job, Admiral -- Admiral Versaw, Commander
Wiemer. To the United States Coast Guard Band, thank you today; to the
members of this fine class, your families, and your friends: This is
your day, and I am deeply honored to share it with you.
I am especially indebted to the Coast Guard right now because there are
four members of the White House staff who are Coast Guard officers.
Three of them are graduates of this academy Cmdr. Peter Boynton, Lt.
Matt Miller, Lt. Cmdr. Bob Malkowski. The fourth is not a graduate of
this academy, but she is my Coast Guard military aide, and I'm very
proud of her--Lt. Cmdr. June Ryan. She informed me that every Coast
Guard officer was a supporter of this academy. I am delighted to be here
with all of you.
I must say that I had only one pause when I was invited to be your
commencement speaker, and that was when I heard that the mascot for the
class of 1996 is the guinea pig. Having been in that position more than
once in my life, I was not particularly anxious to take on another one.
But then I remembered what a wonderful reception the "Coasties" gave the
First Lady and our daughter, Chelsea, when they visited here two years
ago, and I told the pilot to go on and hold course for New London.
I am honored to be here today. God has given us a beautiful day, and I
hope you all enjoy it and remember it fondly for the rest of your lives.
We gather before the Coast Guard cutter, Eagle, the largest tall ship
flying the Stars and Stripes. On its decks and its riggings, you cadets
were tested time and again to ready you for the important
responsibilities you are about to assume as Coast Guard officers. I can
look at you and tell that you are ready.
The course you are on will not always be easy, but it will be
exhilarating because you are serving at a time of extraordinary
challenge and change; a time of new risks to our security but also of
real opportunities to make the future brighter for every American,
especially the Americans of your generation and the generations to come.
You will know this by virtue of the work you will be doing, week in and
week out, along the 47,000 miles of America's coastline, lakes, and
rivers from the frigid waters of the North Pacific and the North
Atlantic to the balmy Caribbean and far from home patrolling the Baltic,
the Mediterranean, and the Black Sea with our allies.
Consider the average Coast Guard something I hope the American people
will get to do as a result of this appearance. Most of your fellow
citizens have no idea of the sweep, the scope, the importance of the
work you do. But in the average week, you and your fellow sailors will
seize drugs with a street value of $50 million, stop hundreds of illegal
immigrants from reaching our shores, respond to 260 hazardous chemical
spills, salvage property worth $17 million, conduct 1,250 search-and-
rescue missions, and save the lives of nearly 100 people. That is an
average week. That is a pretty good average, and the American people
should be very, very proud of the United States Coast Guard.
But since you are facing such a heavy load in the future, I think I
should lighten it for now. So as commander-in-chief, I hereby grant
amnesty to all cadets marching tours or serving restrictions for minor
offenses.
To the members of this graduating class: From this day forward, you will
be guardians of America's security. There is no higher calling. So, as
you celebrate today, I ask you just to take a few moments with me to
join in thinking about the future that you will help to shape for your
fellow Americans and for the citizens of the world. What do you want the
future to look like? What do we want the future to look like? How do we
want America to enter the 21st century ? Four years ago, I said that
the answer to that question for me is as straightforward as the path
ahead is full of twists and turns. For me, America must enter the 21st
century as a nation of opportunity for all and responsibility from all;
a nation that is coming together, instead of drifting apart; a nation
that remains the strongest force on earth for peace, freedom, and
prosperity.
For nearly four years, our Administration has pursued that vision with a
strategy that involves making American people more secure, by leading a
powerful movement now sweeping the globe for democracy and peace, by
creating greater prosperity for our people, by opening markets abroad.
That strategy is working. Our military is stronger; our alliances are
deeper; the danger of weapons of mass destruction and the other major
threats to our security are receding. Conflicts long thought to be
unsolvable are moving toward resolution. More markets than ever before
are open to our goods and services. And more markets than ever before
are open to the goods and services of other nations, as well.
The mission before you is to build on these achievements at a time when
the world we live in is going through profound and fast-paced change --
perhaps the fastest pace of change in all human history. In so many ways
this change is clearly for the good, and you have been a part of it.
Democracy and free markets are on the march. The laptops, the CD-ROMs,
the satellites that are second nature to all of you send ideas,
products, money all across our planet in a matter of seconds. Political,
economic, and technological revolutions are bringing us all closer
together and bringing with them extraordinary opportunities for all to
share in humanity's genius for progress.
But we know these same forces also pose new challenges. The end of
communism has opened the door to the spread of weapons of mass
destruction and lifted the lid on religious and ethnic conflicts. The
growing openness we so cherish also benefits a host of equal opportunity
destroyers -- terrorists, international criminals, drug traffickers, and
those who do environmental damage that cross national borders. None of
these problems has any particular respect for the borders of the nation
you are sworn to defend. Because the Cold War is over, some of these
challenges are underestimated, and Americans that typically don't have
much in common -- from the left to the right -- find themselves saying
that it is now time for us to retreat from our global leadership role.
But we cannot withdraw into a fortressed America there is no wall high
enough to keep out the threats to our security or isolate ourselves from
the world economy and other trends in the global society. There are some
who say we should lead; all right, but they would deny us the resources
to do so. To them I also ask, reconsider your position.
One of the most important lessons of the last 50 years is that democracy
and free markets are neither inevitable nor irreversible. They need our
sup- port, the power of our example, the resolve of our leadership. My
job as President is to match the need for American leadership to our
interests and to our values: to act where we can make a difference; to
do so wisely, not reflexively -- relying on diplomacy and sanctions when
we can, force when we must; working with our allies whenever possible,
but alone when necessary; rejecting the call to isolationism, but
refusing to be the world's policeman. It also means, as the Secretary
said earlier, from time to time making some decisions that are unpopular
in the short run. But if you consider some of those, imagine the
alternative. Imagine what the Persian Gulf would look like today if the
United States had not stepped up with our allies in Desert Storm. Then
two years ago, we had to do it again to stop Iraqi aggression. Imagine
the ongoing reign of terror and the flood of refugees to our shore had
we not backed diplomacy with force in Haiti. And, by the way, you ought
to be proud that it was a Coast Guard cutter that led our forces into
Port-au-Prince harbor on that mission. Imagine the shells and the
slaughter we would still be seeing in Bosnia had we not brought our
force to bear through NATO. Imagine the chaos that might have ensued had
we not used our economic power to stabilize Mexico's economy. Imagine
the jobs we would have lost if we had not taken the lead to expand world
trade through GATT and NAFTA and over 200 specific agreements. In each
case there was substantial, sometimes overwhelming, opinion against
America's course. But because we followed the course, Americans are
better off.
For all the new demands on our troops and our treasure, the basic tools
of leadership still require a powerful military and strong alliances.
Those things allowed us to triumph through two world wars and the Cold
War.
And for this new era, we must first sharpen and strengthen these tools.
Our military has never been more ready than it is today - -prepared to
fight and win on two major fronts at once - -to deter aggression and to
defeat it.
Because of our military strength, we can often achieve our objectives by
ourselves or with our allies without a fight. In the last couple of
years, that is why Saddam Hussein pulled his forces back from Kuwait's
border; why the military dictators stepped down in Haiti; and why, after
a bombing but not a ground campaign, the Bosnian Serbs turned from the
battlefield to the bargaining table. We still have the best-trained,
best-equipped, best-prepared fighting force in the world. It is being
strengthened every day. It is also strengthened by strong alliances and
cooperative action with like-minded nations.
As we saw in the Gulf war, in Haiti, and now in Bosnia, there are a lot
of other countries that share our goals and that are willing to share
our burdens - -through NATO, the United Nations, and other coalitions.
The end of the Cold War presented us with a historic opportunity to
broaden our alliances; to build a peaceful and undivided Europe; to
forge a stable community of nations in an increasingly open and
democratic Asia; to draw our own hemisphere closer together in a shared
embrace of democracy and free enterprise. We have seized those
opportunities.
In Europe we have reinforced our ties with our long-time friends and
opened NATO's doors to new democracies, beginning with the Partnership
For Peace. We have worked to support Russia's transition to democracy
and a free market economy. Another national election will soon be held
there. More than 60% of Russia's economy has moved from the heavy grip
of the state into the hands of its people. The cooperation between our
troops in Bosnia proves that we can have a strong partnership with
Russia and with Europe. The main battleground for the bloodiest century
in history, Europe, is finally coming together in peace.
We also have vital strategic and economic interests in Asia, the
fastest-growing part of the world economically. They require new efforts
to maintain stability. I recently returned from a trip to Korea and
Japan, reaffirming our security relationship with Japan, launching a new
initiative to make peace on the Korean Peninsula, committing to maintain
100,000 troops in North Asia, and reaffirming our determination to
engage China in developing a productive security dialogue. These are the
things that you will have to carry out. By living up to the legacy of
American leadership, being steady and strong in the judgments necessary
to advance our interests and our values, keeping our military ready,
deepening our alliances - -we will meet the challenges of your time.
But there is more to be done for America to keep moving forward and to
pass on an even safer and more prosperous world to our children as we
enter this new century and a new millennium. First, we must continue to
seize the extraordinary opportunity to reduce the threat of weapons of
mass destruction. We have set the most far-reaching arms control and
non- proliferation agenda in history, and I am determined to pursue it
and complete it. Already, there are no Russian missiles pointed at our
cities or our citizens. We are cutting our arsenals by two-thirds from
their Cold War height. Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakstan have been
convinced to give up their nuclear weapons. Our diplomacy backed with
force persuaded North Korea to freeze its nuclear program. We have now
secured the indefinite and unconditional extension of the nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty. Sometimes I wonder if people know what that is.
Now I know you do. I wish I could give you a citation.
But we have other things to do. We must continue to help people who will
work with us to safeguard nuclear materials and destroy those nuclear
weapons so they don't wind up in the wrong hands. We have got to stop an
entire new generation of nuclear weapons by signing a comprehensive test
ban treaty this year. We have to ban chemical weapons by ratifying the
Chemical Weapons Convention now. All of these things are focused on
reducing the threat of weapons of mass destruction. But we also have to
be prepared to defend ourselves in the extremely unlikely event that
these preventive measures fail. That is why we are spending $3 billion a
year on a strong, sensible national missile defense program based on
real threats and pragmatic responses. Our first priority is to defend
against existing or near-term threats, like short- and medium-range
missile attacks on our troops in the field or our allies. And we are,
with upgraded patriot missiles -- the Navy Lower and Upper Tier and the
Army THAAD.
The possibility of a long-range missile attack on American soil by a
rogue state is more than a decade away. To prevent it, we are committed
to developing by the year 2000 a defensive system that could be deployed
by 2003, well before the threat becomes real.
I know that there are those who disagree with this policy. They have a
plan that Congress will take up this week that would force us to choose
now a costly missile defense system that could be obsolete tomorrow. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that this cost will be between $30
and $60 billion.
Those who want us to deploy this system before we know the details and
the dimensions of the threat we face, I believe, are wrong. I think we
should not leap before we look. I believe this plan is misguided. It
would waste money. It would weaken our defenses by taking money away
from things we know we need right now. It would violate the arms control
agreements that we have made, and these agreements make us more secure.
That is the wrong way to defend America.
The right way to defend America includes eliminating weapons of mass
destruction, stopping this dread, and building a smart missile defense
system. It also includes continuing the fight against the increasingly
interconnected forces of destruction like terrorism, organized crime,
and drug trafficking.
Believe me, no one is immune to their danger, and you will see them more
in your career: not the people of Tokyo, where the sarin gas attack in
the subway injured thousands of commuters; not the people of Latin
America or Southeast Asia, where drug traffickers wielding imported
weapons have murdered hundreds of innocent people; not the people of
Israel, where hate-mongers have blown up buses full of children; nor the
people of the former Soviet Union and Central Europe, where organized
criminals are undermining new democracies. And, of course, not the
people of our United States, where home-grown terrorists blew up the
Murrah Federal Building in the heart of America and foreign terrorists
tried to topple the World Trade Center, where drug traffickers poison
our children and bring untold violence to our streets.
As Coast Guard officers, you will be on the front lines of this struggle
against these forces of destruction, especially drugs. With every
seizure, such as last summer's record haul of 12 tons of cocaine from
a Panamanian fishing vessel, you are literally saving the lives of
American citizens. Today I pledge this to you: With our military and law
enforcement agencies, you will have the tools you need to get the job
done.
We must cooperate as never before with countries around the world,
sharing information, providing military support, pursuing anti-
corruption efforts, shutting down front companies and money-laundering
operations, opening more FBI training centers.
We have to keep up the funding, the personnel, the training for our law
enforcement agencies. We have to keep the heat on states that sponsor
terrorism or violate international law, with tough sanctions like the
one the international community has imposed on Iraq since the Gulf war.
I would like to take this occasion to congratulate the Coast Guard,
which recently completed its 10,000th boarding in the Persian Gulf in
support of those sanctions. Thank you and congratulations.
Since the forces of destruction never give up, we must never give in.
And your job will be to help America remain vigilant and victorious. We
also have to continue to advance the fight for peace and democracy
faster than before. Nothing can strengthen our security more in the long
run. When people are free and at peace, they are less likely to resort
to violence or to abuse the rights of their fellow citizens. They are
more likely to join with us in a common cause.
We see this so clearly here in our own hemisphere, where the powerful
movement to democracy has produced unparalleled cooperation in dealing
with drugs and illegal immigrants and has brought freedom to every
single country in our hemisphere but one. We see the promise of peace in
Northern Ireland, where negotiations are set to begin next month. We see
it in the Middle East, where a comprehensive, lasting settlement is
within reach. In the last three years alone, Israel and its Palestinian
and Jordanian neighbors have committed to peace, and they are making
good on their commitments, including just a few weeks ago, with Chairman
Arafat fulfilling his pledge to rid the Palestinian Charter of all
references to the destruction of Israel.
We know that many difficult issues remain to be resolved between Israel
and Syria, and between Israel and Lebanon. We know there will be
problems from time to time, as there was in the tragic fighting along
the border between Israel and Lebanon, which I am grateful has been
resolved now. We know that, most importantly, with every step along the
path to peace, the enemies of peace will show their own desperation with
bullets and bombs.
So I say this to the people of Israel: We have been with you every step
of the way for the last three years. As Israel takes further risks for
peace in the future, it can count on further manifestations of American
support. We must be with you every step of the way until there is a
comprehensive, lasting peace in the Middle East. Now is not the time to
turn back, and the United States must do its part.
Finally, we must never forget that the true measure of our country's
well-being and our security not only includes physical safety, but
economic prosperity as well. Decades from now, people will look back at
this period and see the most far-reaching changes in the world trading
system in the 50 years since the end of World War II -- changes that are
making a dramatic difference in the lives of ordinary people: through
the negotiations that produced the GATT and NAFTA agreements; through
the persuasion we had in working with Japan on 21 separate agreements.
Barriers to our products have come down, and our exports have gone up,
creating more than 1 million new jobs in the last three years alone. We
still have a lot to do in the Asia- Pacific region and in other areas of
the world. We have to extend free and fair trade on every continent. We
have the best workers and the best products in the world. If we give
them a fair deal with free trade, they will bring even greater
prosperity home to America. Members of the class of 1996, I want to
leave you with this one, final thought as you go forward: This new era
calls on all of us to rise to different and more difficult challenges
than in the past. I know the rewards of serving on the front lines of
change may seem distant and uncertain from time to time, but you will
succeed if you remember always to measure your success by one simple
standard: Have you made the lives of the American people safer? Have you
made the future of our children more secure? That must remain our
guiding principle for the years ahead.
If it does, we will enter the 21st century with a military whose
fighting edge is sharper than ever; with a peaceful, undivided Europe
and a stable, prosperous Asia; with fewer nuclear weapons in the world's
arsenals and tough new agreements to control chemical and biological
weapons; with terrorists, organized criminals, and drug traffickers on
the run, not on the rampage; with more barriers to American products
coming down; with more people than ever living with the blessings of
peace and democracy.
For 50 years now, our country has been the world's leading force for
freedom and progress around the world, and it has brought us real
security and prosperity here at home. If we continue to lead, if we
continue to meet the peril and seize the promise of this new era, that
proud history will also be your future and the future of your children.
Good luck, God bless you, and God bless America.
(###)
Article 2:
NATO Foreign Minister Meeting: Progress in Ensuring Peace in an
Undivided Europe
Secretary Christopher, Latvian Foreign Minister Birkavs
NATO: The Linchpin of U.S. Engagement in Europe
Remarks by Secretary Christopher to the North Atlantic Council, Berlin,
Germany, June 3, 1996.
Let me begin by thanking and congratulating Secretary General Solana for
the immense contributions he has already made to the Alliance in his
first six months in office. I also want to thank our German hosts, and
Foreign Minister Kinkel in particular, for their hard work in organizing
this historic ministerial -- the first meeting of the North Atlantic
Council in a free and unified Berlin.
That we can come together in an undivided Berlin fulfills one of the
central hopes of the founders of our Alliance. And it reflects our own
aspirations for a Europe in which every nation enjoys the blessings that
the citizens of Berlin can now begin to take for granted: a free Europe
without walls of any kind.
It was here, in the shadow of the Soviet threat, that NATO played its
most visible and important role. But holding the Soviet Army at bay was
not NATO's only achievement, and it was not its only purpose. Our
predecessors created NATO to be a permanent alliance that would meet
emerging threats to our security and deter new ones from arising. They
succeeded.
Today, for the United States, NATO remains the linchpin of our
engagement in Europe and our most effective instrument for political
cooperation and military action with our European allies. For Europe's
new democracies, which have endured so many years of subjugation and
strife, a burgeoning relationship with NATO offers new confidence in a
secure and undivided Europe. For the people of Bosnia, NATO has simply
made the difference between war and peace, life and death. Among all
Western institutions, only NATO had the strength and credibility to
bring the brutal war in their country to an end.
NATO is thriving in the post-Cold War world because we have rejected the
counsel of those who would have us abandon its fundamental strengths.
NATO is the essential and most realistic foundation upon which to build
a secure and undivided Europe. The qualities that have made NATO the
most successful alliance in history -- its core purpose of collective
defense, its integrated command structure, and the transatlantic link --
must and will be preserved. In the real world, there is no substitute
for a real security alliance.
At the same time, with the Soviet threat gone and freedom ascendant
throughout Europe, NATO must not stand still. In January 1994, our
leaders set a far-reaching agenda to renew our Alliance. They called on
NATO to assume new roles and missions in support of European security
and to extend its reach to Europe's emerging democracies. They also
recognized that the Alliance should no longer be organized to meet a
threat that no longer exists, so they decided to adapt NATO's internal
structures to meet new challenges. Since then, we have demonstrated our
resolve to realize each of these goals and more.
NATO has established the Partnership for Peace and begun the process of
enlargement. In Bosnia, we have launched the largest operation in NATO's
history. The United States has maintained our engagement and our forces
in Europe, and we reaffirmed our commitment in the most tangible way by
contributing 20,000 troops to IFOR. Our European allies, who have
provided more than half of IFOR's strength, are taking on new
responsibilities. France has taken a historic step in drawing closer to
the military side of NATO.
Today, we are meeting one of the central challenges in maintaining
NATO's viability for the 21st century: We are taking a dramatic step
forward in NATO's internal adaptation. Our decisions will achieve two
vital goals: They will give NATO the flexibility to meet its new, post-
Cold War responsibilities while preserving its fundamental mission. They
will also strengthen the European dimension within NATO while
maintaining our unity of command and the vital transatlantic link.
Today's agreement gives NATO the means to help provide stability
throughout Europe -- to respond rapidly to crises that are likely to
happen but which cannot now be foreseen. We are establishing a new
Policy Coordination Group for political and military issues. We also are
introducing a new command and control concept -- the Combined Joint Task
Force -- for missions that involve peacekeeping. It builds on the
approach that was so successful during the Persian Gulf war and will
draw on our current experience in Bosnia. It will give NATO a permanent
institutional capacity to plan, to train for, and to deploy complex
operations such as IFOR. It will make it easier for members of the
Partnership for Peace to join with NATO forces when the Alliance
responds to emergencies.
Our decisions also will allow our European allies to take on even
greater responsibilities. Today, we have agreed on a process by which we
can make NATO assets available for military operations led by the
Western European Union, and we will develop European command
arrangements within the Alliance that preserve NATO's transatlantic
foundation. Under President Clinton's leadership, the United States has
strongly supported the development of a European Security and Defense
Identity -- ESDI -- in the Alliance. Indeed, President Clinton has
provided stronger support for the process of European integration than
any other post-war American president. Now we must do the hard work that
is necessary to bring these commitments to life. I am convinced that we
can get the details right while preserving NATO's fundamental strength
and character.
I also want to stress that in a very real sense our progress today was
made possible by France's decision to take part more completely in the
work of NATO. President Clinton and I warmly welcome President Chirac's
historic choice to pursue ESDI within the Alliance. France has now
rejoined the Military Committee. Its Defense Minister now once again
will participate in NATO Defense Minister meetings. Its soldiers are
playing a critical role under NATO command in Bosnia. And it is playing
an indispensable part in our common effort to build a new NATO in a
secure and undivided Europe. I know I speak for all my colleagues in
welcoming the steps France has taken.
It is important to remember that NATO's internal adaptation is not an
end in itself. The point is to strengthen the Alliance so that all its
members can act to make a broader transatlantic community more secure.
That is our fundamental purpose in the years to come, a purpose embodied
by our mission in Bosnia.
When we last met, we agreed that Bosnia posed a defining challenge for
NATO. As we meet today, our forces, under the leadership of General
Joulwan, Admiral Smith, General Walker, and General Heinrich are
deployed for the first time outside the area of the Alliance. I want to
salute them for their immense professionalism and skill.
Our soldiers have come together as a single force to execute an
extraordinarily complex assignment. Now the armies that contested the
war are withdrawing to their barracks, their heavy weapons are being
placed in cantonment, and the land over which they fought has peacefully
changed hands. In less than six months, our troops have already achieved
what the cynics once thought impossible.
Their progress has important implications: First, though Bosnia is still
a troubled country, the prospect that its communities will again seek to
resolve their disputes by force of arms is fading. Second, while IFOR
will stay focused on its main military mission, it now also will be in a
position to expand its presence through all of Bosnia to establish a
safe and secure environment for civilian implementation. Our troops
already have supported hundreds of civilian projects, including road,
rail, and bridge repairs. They will also conduct more visible and
proactive patrols throughout the country. This will improve conditions
for freedom of movement and put war criminals at greater risk of
apprehension.
We also are establishing more hopeful conditions for the people of the
region. Croatia and Serbia have taken important steps to open roads, to
restore communications, and to normalize ties. In Bosnia, IFOR reports
that 10,000 to 15,000 people are crossing the inter-entity boundary
every day. Reconstruction is gaining momentum. Work will soon begin on
the road to Gorazde. This summer, the United States will begin
refurbishing 2,500 homes damaged in the war. Together, we have pledged
over $1 billion to support reconstruction; all of us share a
responsibility to meet our pledges in full.
We have given our forces in Bosnia a precisely defined set of tasks, and
we continue to foresee that they will complete them by the end of this
year. In the meantime, we must all focus on the next critical milestone:
holding free and fair elections throughout Bosnia.
In our talks yesterday in Geneva, the three Balkan presidents joined
together to call for elections in Bosnia by September 14 -- the date
established at Dayton. They also agreed that an exact date should be
announced to provide a focus for the work that remains. This is a
significant agreement. It is the necessary precondition to create a
democratic government for all of Bosnia and its diverse communities. It
will increase pressure on the parties to meet their commitments to
respect freedom of movement and a free media. As the three Presidents
made clear yesterday, ". . . any delay in the elections will risk
widening the divisions which already exist."
I also made it very clear to the parties yesterday that indicted war
criminals must be removed from all positions of authority and turned
over to the War Crimes Tribunal. There is a growing determination in the
international community to see these commitments fulfilled.
This is a difficult process and it will remain difficult. But while the
glass is not yet full in Bosnia, it is filling. Let me assure you that
the United States is determined to stay engaged to push the parties
toward a lasting peace -- the kind of peace I believe can only be built
one step at a time. Our mission in Bosnia is unique in another important
way. The broad coalition we have assembled takes the Partnership for
Peace to new heights. It shows us how far Europe's new democracies have
come and how much they have to contribute as our partners to European
security. Our success in Bosnia will have immensely positive
implications for the future of Europe. This gives us yet another
incentive to succeed.
Today, one of NATO's greatest challenges is to help reunite this
continent, to erase forever the outdated boundaries of the Cold War. To
that end, President Clinton has advanced and NATO has embraced a
comprehensive strategy for European security. It includes a robust and
permanent Partnership for Peace. It includes NATO's steady, transparent
process of enlargement. It includes support for a broader and deeper
European Union and a stronger OSCE. It includes building a productive
relationship with Russia. The Partnership for Peace continues to exceed
all expectations. The Partnership has encouraged and assisted our
Partners to reform their military and defense structures in ways that
are consistent with democratic standards. It has established the habits
of cooperation that made IFOR possible. This year, we are conducting
over 15 major Partnership exercises, from the Black Sea coast of Romania
to the green fields of North Carolina.
Last December in Brussels, we agreed to move forward in five specific
areas to permit the Partnership for Peace and the North Atlantic
Cooperation Council to reach their potential. Although we are making
good progress in each of these areas, we must work hard to implement
these commitments in full.
First, the North Atlantic Cooperation Council should move forward to
develop standards for civilian and democratic control of defense forces.
Second, we should make the Partnership planning and review process
conform more closely to NATO's internal defense planning and review
procedures so that Partner and Allied forces can work even more
effectively together in joint missions and exercises. Third, we should
give Partners greater responsibility for shaping cooperation programs
through our dialogue in the NACC and NATO senior committees. Fourth, we
should continue to encourage greater Partner participation in all stages
of planning exercises. Finally, Allies and Partners alike should
dedicate greater financial resources so that the Partnership for Peace
can meet its goals.
While we fulfill our December commitments, I propose that we consider
several other ways to strengthen the Partnership for Peace in
particular. First, Allies and Partners should apply our experience in
IFOR to future Partnership exercise, planning, and training activities.
Second, we should consider expanding the focus of the planning and
review process beyond its current peacekeeping, humanitarian, and
search-and-rescue tasks. Finally, I am pleased that we have agreed to
involve Partners in CJTF planning for possible missions that do not
involve Article V security guarantees.
For every Partner, these proposals can lead to a deeper long-term
relationship with the Alliance. They will also help prepare some
Partners to share the full responsibilities and benefits of membership
in NATO.
Today, NATO is on track to fulfill its decision to take in new members.
We are now actively engaged in intensive consultations with interested
Partners to determine what they must do and what the Alliance must do to
prepare for enlargement. Based on the results, we will decide on next
steps in December.
Already, the Partnership for Peace and our process of enlargement have
made what was once thought impossible in Europe appear routine. We can
see that in Bosnia, where soldiers from NATO and Europe's new
democracies are cooperating effectively under a unified command. We can
see it in the steady and serious efforts so many of our Partners have
made to place their armed forces under democratic, civilian control and
to bring them up to NATO standards. We can see it in the remarkable
consensus emerging among our Partners: They wish to join our community
of democracies for the same reasons we would never want to leave it.
Most dramatically, we can see it in the steps our Partners are taking to
overcome ancient disputes. Hungary and Slovakia have ratified a treaty
guaranteeing respect for minority rights, and we hope Hungary and
Romania will reach a similar agreement soon. Poland is reaching across
an old divide to build a security relationship with Lithuania and to
establish a joint peacekeeping battalion with Ukraine. As has NATO, our
Partners have recognized that we cannot promote any one nation's
integration at the expense of its neighbors.
Ukraine's emergence as a sovereign and prosperous democracy is
especially important to the security of Europe. That is why we value
Ukraine's participation in IFOR and the Partnership for Peace, and that
is why we want NATO and Ukraine to build an enhanced relationship. As we
speak, we are participating with Russia and eight other nations in a
major military exercise in the western part of Ukraine. In a place that
has come to symbolize central Europe's tragic history of conquest and
shifting frontiers, we will help build a future in which every European
nation is secure enough to shape its destiny.
I want to commend Ukraine for reaching another historic milestone: The
last Soviet-era nuclear warheads have now been removed from its
territory under its trilateral agreement with the United States and
Russia. That is a powerful reminder of the benefits we have already
gained from our cooperation with Ukraine and with Russia as well.
In two weeks, the world will be watching as Russia holds its first
presidential elections in the post-Soviet era. Far from fearing the
result, we should be confident that, in the long run, democracy in
Russia can only benefit Europe, America, and the world. Whatever
Russia's future holds in store, our interests will remain the same: to
keep our people safe and to consolidate the gains for peace and freedom
made possible by the Cold War's end. Our support for the democratic
process in Russia and our cooperation on security issues will be
critical in the months and years ahead.
Many people have doubted whether NATO and Russia could ever work
together. Our forces in Bosnia are proving them wrong every day. At
tomorrow's 16-plus-1 meeting with Foreign Minister Primakov, we will
have an opportunity to strengthen the NATO-Russia relationship further.
Russia can take an important step by providing a positive response to
NATO's proposals for a political framework that includes permanent
consultative arrangements. I also look forward to more intensive
cooperation with Russia in the Partnership for Peace.
Another positive note for our further cooperation came last week with
the resolution of the dispute over equipment levels permitted on the
north and south flanks of the CFE region. This agreement is the
culmination of two years of negotiation -- and I congratulate all who
participated in its resolution. Now our efforts to build European
security will go forward with this crucial treaty strengthened and
setting a stable foundation for us all.
At the outset, I remarked that Berlin is a fitting place from which to
advance our hopes for the future of our transatlantic community. We
should remember that in the long years of the Cold War it was our unity
in the western half of this once-divided city and our unity in the
western half of this once-divided continent that brought us to this
hopeful point in history.
In those years, we stood together in part because our survival depended
on it. Today, we are united in a time of peace, and we are making the
decisions we must to keep it that way for good. There should be no doubt
that NATO is here to stay as a guarantor of transatlantic security and
freedom and that we are determined to renew our alliance for the immense
challenges to come.
Strengthening and Enlarging NATO
Remarks by Secretary Christopher and Latvian Foreign Minister Valdis
Birkavs preceding the Baltic and Central European Foreign Ministers'
meeting, Berlin, Germany, June 3, 1996.
Secretary Christopher: Good evening. I want to welcome my fellow foreign
ministers, my counterparts from the Central European countries and the
Baltics. This is always a very pleasant occasion for me. This is the
sixth time we have gotten together to compare notes and to talk about
progress in NATO. The NATO meeting today, about which I will be briefing
my colleagues, was devoted primarily to what is called "internal
adaptation," in which a European defense identity has been approved by
the North Atlantic Council. This is a new program which essentially
strengthens NATO, makes NATO more flexible, and provides an opportunity
for the European allies to take a greater responsibility if they wish to
do so.
It really follows an initiative that was launched by President Clinton
in January 1994. But in the meeting today, the North Atlantic Council
also referred at some length to the Partnership for Peace -- of which
all these countries are members and what tremendous progress there has
been in the Partnership for Peace; how it has become a permanent
European institution of great advantage as can be seen, of course, in
the enterprise in Bosnia where so many members of the Partnership for
Peace joined NATO and enabled NATO to get up and running much more
rapidly than it otherwise would have.
I will be telling my colleagues here that the North Atlantic Council
once again reaffirmed that we are on a steady, gradual, deliberate path
toward NATO enlargement, as had long been planned. The year 1996 is
being devoted to rather intensive consultations between NATO and the
members of the Partnership for Peace who are interested in becoming
members. Those consultations will be focused on the December meeting at
which time NATO will determine what next steps are to be taken. We once
again emphasized that no state would gain security at the expense of any
other state.
In short, there is an opportunity for all the members of the Partnership
for Peace to be considered for membership in NATO. I look forward to
meeting with my colleagues. We always have a good session, and we will
have a full discussion of today's NATO meeting as well as tomorrow's,
and I would like to call on my colleague, Mr. Birkavs from Latvia, to
respond on behalf of the other foreign ministers.
Foreign Minister Birkavs:
Thank you. Mr. Secretary Christopher, dear colleagues: I suppose first
of all I would like on behalf of all of you to say thanks, Secretary
Christopher, because these meetings really are very good and very
helpful. If you bear in mind our last meeting and this meeting, it seems
to me that it looks like going from spring of Prague to reunified
Berlin. Taking into account these things, I would like to notice that
six years ago, the allies demonstrated strong political will and
decisiveness which led to the enlargement of NATO -- the first
enlargement of NATO, by reunited Germany. And this year certainly is
very important -- not only for NATO enlargement but for strengthening
security and stability around the world.
First, I would like to stress that the PfP program -- I suppose everyone
would agree with me -- is of great value for us and at the same time the
partnership program, which has proved itself as a permanent feature of
European security architecture, can be and needs to be further
strengthened. The prospective candidate countries -- we are here -- and
NATO have to develop through PfP, and perhaps also through other
mechanisms, the individual character of relationships which would pave a
clear way toward membership in the alliance, and it is important in
relation to the enlargement process.
This process, finally, should proceed in a way that enhances security
for all European nations. I suppose all of us are very interested in
having a very clear European defense identity, and our discussion at the
just-happened NATO meetings certainly will lead us to further
development of that which is important to us. Thank you.
The Partnership for Peace: Contributing to the Cause of Peace
Remarks by Secretary Christopher to the North Atlantic Cooperation
Council, Berlin, Germany, June 4, 1996.
Mr. Secretary General, distinguished colleagues: It is a pleasure to
address this 10th meeting of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council --
the NACC -- here in Berlin. For three decades, Berlin symbolized the
division of Europe. Today, Berlin stands as the symbol of a Europe
undivided and indivisible.
When we last met, I said that we had an unprecedented opportunity not
only to bring peace to Bosnia but to fulfill the hopes of Europeans and
North Americans for a secure transatlantic community. Today we mark
important progress. We have built a historic coalition in IFOR to secure
the peace in Bosnia. NATO's outreach to the east is promoting our goal
of an undivided Europe. The Partnership for Peace has become a key part
of Europe's security structures in its own right. And we are moving
forward with the steady, transparent process of opening NATO to new
members. Let me discuss each briefly.Partners and Allies together have
mounted the largest military operation Europe has seen in 50 years --
and are demonstrating outstanding skill and professionalism every day in
Bosnia. Holding free and fair elections is the next crucial step.
Yesterday in Geneva, the Balkan leaders joined to call for elections in
Bosnia by September 14, the deadline set at Dayton.
The contributions of the Partner countries to IFOR have been
indispensable. Poland and the Czech Republic have contributed troops at
the same per capita level as many Allies. The success of Russian and
American soldiers patrolling together is an encouraging precedent.
Albania and Slovenia have arranged for transit and basing of land and
air forces in support of IFOR. Without this assistance, and particularly
without Hungary's role as a staging-ground for U.S. troops, IFOR could
not have deployed as quickly or effectively. Now our IFOR experience is
allowing us to mount more complex joint training exercises. This year,
there will be at least 15 major Partnership for Peace exercises as well
as a welcome increase in exercises held in the spirit of the
Partnership.
We have made important progress toward implementing the five measures to
strengthen the NACC and the Partnership that the NAC adopted last
December. But as I told the NAC yesterday, both Allies and Partners must
do more to bring these commitments fully to life.
Yesterday, I also proposed new steps to develop the Partnership further.
First, Partners and Allies should conduct a joint study of IFOR, to
apply the lessons we have learned on the ground to our future activities
and exercises. Second, we should consider expanding the Planning and
Review Process beyond its current peace- keeping, humanitarian, and
search-and-rescue tasks. Finally, I am pleased that the NAC agreed to
involve Partners in CJTF planning with NATO committees for activities in
which they would be eligible to participate.
For every Partner, these proposals can lead to a deeper long-term
relationship with NATO. They also will help prepare some Partners to
share the full responsibilities and benefits of membership.
NATO is on track to fulfill its commitment to take in new members. We
will decide on next steps in December, based on the results of intensive
consultations with interested Partners.
Already our comprehensive strategy has changed the face of Europe for
the better. The Baltic states have made important progress in defusing
disputes over their maritime borders. Several Central Asian states are
taking steps to form a joint peacekeeping force. Poland has established
military cooperation with Lithuania and is planning a joint peacekeeping
battalion with Ukraine. These developments are contributing to stability
and confidence among prospective members and all their neighbors,
building a Europe where no country's gains in security come at another's
expense.
Ukraine's strong role in IFOR and its efforts to build close ties with
all its neighbors are also enhancing the security of the whole region.
We value Ukraine's participation in the Partnership for Peace, and we
want NATO and Ukraine to build a strong relationship.
NATO also is committed to strengthening its relationship with Russia,
building on our excellent cooperation in IFOR. We welcome Russia's
participation in Partnership and other joint exercises. I look forward
to more intensive cooperation with Russia in the Partnership for Peace,
and I encourage Russia to respond positively to NATO's proposals for
permanent consultative arrangements.
Let me conclude by expressing my pleasure at seeing so much activity
through the Partnership and the NACC. We can be immensely proud of the
progress we have made together toward securing peace in Bosnia and
ensuring lasting peace across an undivided Europe.
(###)
Article 3:
Progress and Next Steps In the Balkans Peace Process
Secretary Christopher, Agreed Statement
Secretary Christopher
Statement following meetings with Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic,
Croatian President Franjo Tudjman, and Bosnian President Alija
Izetbegovic, Geneva, Switzerland, June 2, 1996.
Good evening. I have just completed my meetings with the three Balkan
leaders. Today's talks are a part of a determined effort by the United
States and the international community to ensure the full implementation
of the Dayton Agreement -- an effort that will certainly continue. Each
time we meet, we come closer to our goal and we make a return to the
past an even more distant prospect. Certainly, today was no exception.
I have said since Dayton that the United States will stay engaged in
this process day in and day out, and I will personally push the process
forward with the parties in seeking a full peace.
As you know, we are approaching D+180 -- the half-way point in IFOR's
mission in Bosnia. I had a full briefing this morning from General
Joulwan and Admiral Smith. I can tell you that our forces have made
really remarkable strides in ensuring the transfer of territory, the
demobilization of troops, and the cantonment of heavy weapons. They have
done this in less than six months -- they have already achieved what the
cynics once thought was impossible.
This progress has important implications: Although Bosnia is still a
troubled country, the prospect that its communities will once again seek
to resolve their difficulties by force is, fortunately, fading. In
addition, IFOR is now in a position to expand its presence throughout
all of Bosnia to establish a safe and secure environment for civilian
implementation.
Our troops will conduct more visible and proactive patrols throughout
the country. This will improve conditions for freedom of movement and
put war criminals at greater risk of apprehension. As General Joulwan
made it clear in our meeting this morning, IFOR considers it an
important part of its mission to apprehend those indicted war criminals
with whom it comes into contact.
We are also establishing more hopeful conditions in the region for the
people of Bosnia. In Bosnia, IFOR reports that 10,000 to 15,000 people
are crossing the inter-entity boundary line every day. Reconstruction is
gaining momentum. General Joulwan told me that work will soon begin on
the road to Gorazde. This summer, the United States will begin
refurbishing 2,500 homes which were damaged in the war. As we announced
last week, President Clinton and I are sending Dick Sklar to Sarajevo to
expedite our assistance there. I am pleased also to announce that the
United States Agency for International Development will soon open an
office in Banja Luka. We strongly believe that all those who support the
peace process should see its benefits on the ground.
In our talks today, we advanced the peace process even further. First
and foremost, the three presidents joined together to call for elections
in Bosnia by September 14th, the date established at Dayton. They also
agreed that an exact date should be announced to provide a focus for the
work that remains prior to the elections. Let me tell you why this is a
very important development.
If we had given in to calls to delay the elections, it would only
entrench the status quo in Bosnia. It would reduce pressure on the
parties to meet their commitments and, in fact, make it less likely that
the conditions on which free elections depend would be established. As
the presidents agreed today, it would risk widening the divisions which
continue to exist in Bosnia.
Holding free and fair elections is the necessary precondition to
establishing a democratic government for all Bosnians and for the
diverse communities there. It gives us another effective way to
eliminate indicted war criminals from government, for they will not be
permitted to run for office. It is the only sure way to give the people
of Bosnia -- all the people of Bosnia -- a real chance to shape their
future. They were denied their voice by five years of war, and the
sooner they regain it, the better.
Of course, to make sure that the elections can achieve their intended
goals, the parties have to meet their commitments to assure freedom of
movement and a free media. There is much work to be done. But today, we
have taken some important steps toward that end.
For the first time, each side agreed to recognize the validity of
identity documents and press credentials issued by other entities -- a
precondition for free and fair elections. They also agreed that any
municipality that fails to constitute local election committees will
risk losing its right to participate in the elections. They agreed to
establish telephone links. They also will support fully the Open
Broadcast Network -- a new television network organized by the
international community.
The Balkan presidents also agreed to instruct their negotiators to
conclude talks on arms control this week, in advance of the June 11
deadline set by Dayton. They reaffirmed the importance of starting
arbitration on Brcko, and they accepted the U.S. offer to help identify
a third arbitrator, after the parties name their two arbitrators, the
Bosnians already having identified theirs.
I made it very clear to the parties today that indicted war criminals
must be removed from positions of authority and turned over to the War
Crimes Tribunal. There is a growing determination in the international
community to see that these commitments are fulfilled.
This process -- the Dayton process and all that it involves -- has been
and will remain a difficult process. And while the glass is not yet full
in Bosnia, it certainly is filling. The United States is determined to
stay engaged to keep the parties moving toward peace -- the kind of
peace that I believe can be built only one step at a time.
Agreed Statement With Annex
Text of agreed statement and annex issued following a meeting of
Presidents Izetbegovic, Tudjman, and Milosevic, Geneva, Switzerland,
June 2, 1996.
Agreed Statement
The three Presidents and signatories of the General Framework Agreement
for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnian President Izetbegovic,
Croatian President Tudjman, and Serbian President Milosevic, met in
Geneva on June 2 at the invitation of Secretary of State Christopher
with the support of the Contact Group governments for a continuation of
their discussions on steps needed to move forward with the peace
process.
Also attending the gathering were High Representative Carl Bildt, OSCE
Chairman-in-Office, Swiss Foreign Minister Flavio Cotti and OSCE Mission
Head Robert Frowich, Supreme Allied Commander General George Joulwan and
IFOR Commander Admiral Leighton Smith, and representatives of Contact
Group countries and international organizations participating in
implementation of the Agreement.
Noting that this was one of a series of meetings that will take place
during June, including the Berlin Contact Group Ministerial, the
Florence Mid-Term Review Conference and the Lyon Summit, which will
provide added impetus to the peace process, the Presidents and the
representatives of the entities welcomed the continued, active
engagement of the Contact Group and the international community. They
also expressed full support for the work of the High Representative and
the Implementation Force.
Joined by representatives of the two Bosnian entities, the Presidents
emphasized that the most important next step in the peace process will
be to hold free and fair elections within the time period established by
the Agreement. They recommitted themselves to the task of establishing
the necessary conditions for these elections under the supervision of
the OSCE. Delay in the elections risks widening the divisions which
continue to exist.
The Presidents and Entity representatives stressed that free and fair
elections will provide a democratic mandate for the governmental
institutions to be established within the Entities and at the level of
Bosnia and Herzegovina. They stressed their common conviction that rapid
establishment of these institutions is essential if the process of
building a democratic society which enjoys the support of all the people
of Bosnia and Herzegovina is to succeed.
Having consulted with the OSCE Chairman-in-Office and OSCE Mission Head,
the three Presidents and the Entity delegations endorsed the
announcement of a date on which elections will be held on the basis of
the conditions specified by the OSCE and the Agreement. In their view,
establishment of a specific date will provide a focus for the work
remaining to achieve the full standards established by the OSCE.
Achievement of these standards is essential for the holding of free and
fair elections.
The Presidents and Entity representatives also agreed to a series of
concrete steps to help meet the standards established by the OSCE. They
agreed that full respect for the rules and regulations established by
the Provisional Election Commission on the basis of the peace agreement
will be necessary if the elections are to meet these standards and
welcomed the assistance of the OSCE and other international
organizations in providing assistance to the parties in creating the
conditions for elections.
In recognition of their responsibility for creating momentum for peace,
the Presidents and Entity representatives, along with the other
participants, also agreed that establishment of a lasting peace in
Bosnia and Herzegovina requires full implementation of all provisions of
the Agreement, in addition to those concerning elections. They committed
themselves to building confidence among the communities and peoples of
Bosnia and Herzegovina in the peace process and agreed to refrain from
any statement or action which might undermine implementation of the
peace agreement.
They noted in particular:
-- The obligations of all Parties to fully cooperate in the
investigation of war crimes and prosecution of all persons indicted for
war crimes and to abide by the prohibition on persons indicted by the
War Crimes Tribunal for war crimes seeking and holding an appointive,
elective or other public office in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
-- The need for more concerted efforts to ensure freedom of movement and
facilitate the return of refugees, recognizing that the right to move
freely and without fear throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina is a
cornerstone of elections and of a lasting peace. Toward this end, they
agreed to work strictly within the UNHCR guidelines to make more
substantial progress in this area, cooperating closely with UNHCR, IFOR,
and the International Police Task Force. They noted the agreement signed
on May 29, 1996 by Croatia, Slovenia, Austria, Switzerland, and Germany
relating to the terms of refugee return.
-- The obligation to provide free and equal access to the media in
compliance with relevant OSCE regulations, not only for effective
conduct of the elections but also for the establishment of a democratic
society throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina and the region as a whole.
-- The necessity of commencing the Brcko Area Arbitration as stipulated
in Annex II, Article 5 of the Agreement and the value of securing an
early solution in the interests of a lasting peace. They welcomed the
appointment of the arbitrator from the Federation and undertook to
encourage agreement on the other two arbitrators quickly.
-- The importance of concluding Arms Control talks under Article IV of
the Agreement. The Presidents underscored the urgency of achieving an
agreement in advance of the June 11 deadline and have directed their
negotiators to reach an agreement this week.
-- The importance of the international community's economic
reconstruction program in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They welcomed the
efforts made by the international community thus far, looked forward to
full implementation of the reconstruction program and urged an
acceleration of the realization of pledges.
Annex to Agreed Statement
In order to fully realize the undertakings contained in the agreed
statement, the three Presidents and Entity representatives, committed to
implement the following steps:
Freedom of Movement
1. The Parties recognize that the right and ability to move freely and
without fear throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina is an essential
cornerstone of elections and of a lasting peace. They acknowledge that
it is the Parties themselves, at both the local and Entity level, who
bear primary responsibility for the security of all individuals in areas
under their authority.
2. The Parties pledge to provide security for inter-entity bus service
and to ensure that such service is not impeded in any way.
3. They also welcome the support of the Implementation Force and the
International Police Task Force in continuing the provision of a secure
environment so that Freedom of Movement can be fully realized by the
citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. They pledge to fully cooperate with
both of these forces as well as the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees to ensure full compliance.
4. The Parties agreed that a delegation from the Bosnian Federation
would visit Belgrade to discuss the normalization of railway and air
traffic, cooperation in heavy industry, postal, telegraph and telephone
services, and in other fields relevant to the development of economic
cooperation.
Media Access
1. Taking note of the agreement on media access reached at Blair House
by Federation authorities, the Parties agree to extend these measures
throughout the country.
2. The parties agree to support fully the Open Broadcast Network project
and other media support projects being coordinated through the Office of
the High Representative and the OSCE.
Administrative and Confidence-Building Measures
1. In order to ensure that election preparations are conducted as
smoothly as possible, the Parties have committed to take the following
specific actions:
-- Constitute remaining Local Elections Commissions within the districts
determined by the OSCE and provide them with appropriate office space
and administrative staff. The Parties would welcome the financial
support of the international community in the establishment of these
offices.
-- Comply with the recent agreement of relevant ministers under the
auspices of the Joint Civilian Commission to recognize the validity of
drivers' licenses, license plates, automobile registration, and
automobile insurance issued by either entity; subsequently reach
agreement on a uniform license plate within three months; and ensure
that local authorities implement these agreements fully.
-- Ensure that local authorities cease confiscating identity documents
issued by either entity.
-- Recognize without conditions press credentials issued by either
Entity, IFOR or OSCE.
-- Reestablish telephone connections between the Entities making use of
all available technical assistance.
-- Allow all candidates and parties to engage in political activity and
campaign freely and without obstruction in both Entities.
2. The Presidents of Serbia and Croatia agree that refugees who wish to
vote in person will be allowed unimpeded transit of the FRY and Croatia.
They also undertake to work closely with the OSCE and other
international organizations to facilitate voting by refugees present in
their territory.
3. The Parties agree to ensure the passage and implementation of amnesty
laws which meet international standards for non war crimes-related
offenses.
4. The Parties agree to report on implementation of the above measures
at the Florence Mid-Term Review Conference.
Mostar
1. The Parties also welcome the decision of the European Union
Administrator for Mostar to hold municipal elections in Mostar on June
30 and provide for the participation of refugees and displaced persons
in those elections.
2. The Presidents of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federation
agree to take steps to ensure unimpeded and unharrassed crossings
between east and west Mostar.
(###)
Article 4:
Securing and Promoting Open Markets And Societies in the Americas
Deputy Secretary Talbott
Plenary address before the General Assembly of the Organization of
American States, Panama City, Panama, June 3, 1996
It is appropriate that we are meeting in Panama. The site of our
gathering is a classic case of geography, reinforcing not just the
diplomacy of today but a shared vision of the future. This isthmus and
this nation have long symbolized the link between North and South
America. Panama has also provided a key link between East and West -- a
path between the seas connecting the people of the Atlantic and
Caribbean with those of the Asia-Pacific region.
Panama is doing an outstanding job in maintaining the Canal as one of
the hemisphere's greatest assets. The 1977 treaty between the United
States and Panama stipulate a transition that will continue through the
end of this decade, but, in practical terms, Panama is responsible for
the Canal's day-to-day operations. More than 90% of all Canal employees,
over half of its managers and supervisors, most of the Canal pilots, and
the Administrator of the Canal Commission are now Panamanian. And all
this at a time when the Canal is experiencing the heaviest traffic in
its 85-year history.
This good-faith cooperation is emblematic of a new era in hemispheric
relations. Shaking off a long history of misunderstanding and mistrust,
the nations of the Americas are now consolidating one of the most
decisive regional transformations of this century. In just a few years,
we have built the world's most expansive zone of democracy and free
trade, and we have opened our borders, our societies, and our markets to
the free flow of goods and services, ideas, and people. Orlando
Patterson, a scholar from Jamaica who is now at Harvard University,
calls the Americas the vital source of the world's first truly global
culture.
At the heart of this culture is a deep, abiding respect for the
principles of political and economic freedom. I would like, if I may, to
concentrate my remarks on how we can strengthen our shared commitment to
securing and promoting open markets and open societies across the
Americas.
In June of 1991, in Santiago de Chile, at the 21st Regular Session of
the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, our nations
made a historic and ambitious pledge to support representative
government and the rule of law in our hemisphere. After careful
deliberation, we adopted Resolution 1080, which calls for an immediate
response to any interruption of constitutional democratic processes in
the hemisphere.
Four times since, this organization has moved decisively to defend
democracy when it was in peril. In all four cases -- Haiti, Peru,
Guatemala, and most recently, six weeks ago in Paraguay -- our joint
actions made an important and positive, even decisive difference. And in
all four cases, the long-term benefits for the entire hemisphere are
already apparent.
In Guatemala, our action also set the stage for ending Central America's
most intractable internal conflict. Thanks to President De Leon Carpio's
and President Arzu's courageous leadership, Guatemala's 35-year-old
civil war is finally nearing an end. A broad cross-section of the
Guatemalan people have participated in the process of reconciliation;
many have joined the political process for the first time. The social
and economic accords that the parties signed last month are important
steps toward a truly comprehensive settlement. I know that I speak for
all of us when I say that President Arzu and the Guatemalan people have
our full and enthusiastic support as they seek a just and lasting peace.
The case of Paraguay is also remarkable. When a politically aggressive
military commander threatened democracy and the constitutional order in
Paraguay on April 22, we responded immediately. Within hours, Secretary
General Gaviria, the Foreign Ministers of Argentina and Uruguay, and the
Deputy Foreign Minister of Brazil flew to Asuncion. The OAS and
MERCOSUR, with the strong support of the United States, brought to bear
the full weight of the hemisphere. By its decisive action, MERCOSUR
reaffirmed our hemispheric consensus that economic integration and
democracy go hand-in-hand; they are mutually reinforcing.
There is also reason for great hope in Haiti. When I was in Port-au-
Prince a few days ago, I was impressed by the progress that the people
of Haiti have made over the past several months. For the first time in
Haitian history, one democratically elected leader, President Preval,
has succeeded another, President Aristide, in a peaceful and
constitutionally mandated manner. Equally encouraging is the emergence
of Haiti's Parliament as a vital and serious forum for debate and
deliberation. These accomplishments are a tribute to the Haitian people
themselves and to their determination for political freedom. But the
international community, in general, and the OAS and CARICOM, in
particular, can also be proud of the role that we have played in Haiti
over the past several years.
We all know that Haiti still faces immense challenges that require long-
term solutions and long-term support. The pace of democratization will
depend both on the commitment of Haiti's leadership and on the continued
engagement of the international community. For these reasons, the United
States strongly urges the OAS this week to approve a resolution that
calls for continued economic assistance by the international community
and that unambiguously endorses the Haitian Government's request for a
continued international security presence in that country.
Mr. Chairman, the next step in institutionalizing our support for
democracy is to put into effect the Protocol of Washington. That measure
would create a formal mechanism by which any member country whose
democratically elected government has been overthrown by force can be
suspended from active participation in this organization. Sixteen
countries, including my own, have ratified the protocol, but at least
seven more are needed to put it into effect.
As our Secretary General put it in his opening address this morning,
democracy is the irreplaceable foundation of the hemispheric consensus.
In this regard, I cannot help but mention that one of the few
controversies engendering disagreement among us today would disappear if
all the states of the hemisphere were democracies rather than all but
one. Where we surely, unanimously, agree is that democracy is the right
of all the people of the Americas; the day of the dictator is over.
In the long run, however, democratic governments will succeed only if
they are able to deliver tangible benefits and realistic hopes to their
citizens. We must demonstrate to our people that elected officials can
implement the tough reforms and bold initiatives that will improve the
lives of ordinary citizens and improve the prospect of better lives for
our children and grandchildren.
We are now preparing the ground for negotiations for a Free Trade Area
of the Americas through working groups in key areas like market access
and intellectual property rights. We commend Colombia for the excellent
job it did as host of the Cartagena Trade Ministerial, and we welcome
Brazil's leadership in agreeing to convene the next trade ministerial in
Belo Horizonte in 1997.
The preliminary steps for FTAA negotiations take time, energy, and
fortitude. The OAS and IDB are making a great contribution by preparing
countries for these negotiations. The task ahead of us is daunting. But
we should not forget that there were years of hard work and sometimes
difficult disagreements leading up to the North American Free Trade
Agreement and the establishment of the World Trade Organization. The
eventual achievement of the FTAA, too, will reward our patience and
persistence.
Mr. Chairman, we must also address the problem of entrenched poverty.
For all the progress we have seen, the region's rapid economic growth
has not bridged the divide between rich and poor. Privatization, open
markets, and foreign investment have only begun to improve the lot of
the disadvantaged and the dispossessed. We need to invest in all our
people, including the least fortunate by providing access to health
care, education, and basic public services.
Then there are the issues of peace and security. Political scientists
often make the point that democracies don't go to war with one another.
But here in our democratic hemisphere, we must ensure that this theory
holds true in fact.
Take, for example, the long-simmering border dispute between Peru and
Ecuador. President Clinton has personally engaged on this issue in
recent days. He has noted that we are fortunate to have in the 1942 Rio
Protocol a legal instrument with the international standing and
flexibility required to form the basis for resolving this dispute once
and for all. In 1995, the Rio Guarantors- -the United States, Brazil,
Argentina, and Chile -- helped to broker an end to the fighting. We
should make 1996 the year for an enduring settlement. With that
objective in mind, we hope for a breakthrough at the meeting between the
Foreign Ministers of Peru and Ecuador in Buenos Aires on June 18.
Like many of the member states whose representatives spoke yesterday
afternoon, my country is increasingly concerned with the proliferation
of conventional weapons and the resulting injuries and deaths to
civilians. To end this carnage, the United States will aggressively
pursue an international agreement on a global ban of the use,
stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel landmines. The
U.S. welcomes the OAS resolution on this important subject.
We must also address together, cooperatively, a whole host of issues
that were once considered purely domestic, internal issues, such as
crime, terrorism, and environmental degradation. With more open borders,
increased trade, and new technologies in communication and
transportation, these have become international problems. The Inter-
American Convention Against Corruption that I signed on behalf of the
United States yesterday is an outstanding example of the kind of
progress we can make by working together. But we all know that much more
remains to be done.
Secretary Christopher recently announced his intention to further
incorporate environmental concerns into U.S. foreign policy. That
initiative was inspired by his visit to Latin America earlier this year.
Whether it is facing up to the costs of climate change or the impact of
deforestation on economic growth, addressing these issues is in all of
our interests. For that reason, we very much look forward to the Summit
on Sustainable Development in Bolivia later this year.
Let me conclude by noting that, during the years when it was under
construction, many skeptics dismissed the Panama Canal as an
unrealistic, impossibly difficult project. Now, eight decades later,
there are many naysayers who disparage the common cause of hemispheric
integration and who counsel us to content ourselves with less ambitious
ventures. But the political, economic, commercial, and legal structures
and arrangements that we are now constructing will be just as important
to our hemisphere in the 21st century as the Canal has been in the 20th.
Like the path between the seas that runs past us outside this hall, the
interlocking connectors of the OAS, FTAA, PAHI, and IDB will help bind
us together -- north and south, east and west -- and provide access to a
better life for all of us for generations to come.
Thank you.
(###)
Article 5:
U.S. Signs Inter-American Convention Against Corruption
Deputy Secretary Talbott
Panama City, Panama, June 2, 1996.
When this hemisphere's heads of state and government met in Miami 18
months ago at the Summit of the Americas, they agreed that corruption is
a threat to democracy and free markets. They recognized that, as
business has become globalized, so too corruption knows no borders. In
today's increasingly interdependent world, the fight against corruption
requires international cooperation as well as domestic vigilance.
The Inter-American Convention Against Corruption marks an important and
historic step in our collective efforts on behalf of open markets and
open societies. This Convention will help bring to justice those who
flout the rule of law, by facilitating extradition, the seizure of
assets, and the gathering of evidence.
It sets up common principles of government ethics, and lets the people
of the hemisphere know what they have a right to expect from their
public officials. It calls for regular financial disclosures by senior
government officials and more transparent bookkeeping practices by
publicly traded corporations. This Convention is a powerful statement by
the governments of the hemisphere that corruption will no longer be
considered business as usual.
Over the past two months, this document has attracted great interest in
the United States. The business community, federal agencies, and other
organizations have recognized it as a ground-breaking treaty. It will
serve as an outstanding, indeed, unique role model for similar efforts
around the world.
Speaking on behalf of President Clinton and Secretary Christopher, I
want to congratulate President Caldera and the Venezuelan Government,
and Edmundo Vargas Carreno, the Chilean Chairman of the OAS Committee,
for their forward-looking leadership. Working along with Secretary
General Gaviria, they kept us all focused on this vital issue. Every
nation in the hemisphere will be better off because of For all those
reasons, ladies and gentlemen, friends and colleagues, I am pleased and
honored to sign the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption on
behalf of the Government of the United States of America.
(###)
Article 6:
Foreign Policy Challenges in a Changing World
Richard M. Moose, Under Secretary for Management
Address to the Dallas Town Meeting, Dallas, Texas, May 30, 1996
This is where my foreign affairs career began, in a way. I took my
examination to enter the Foreign Service here in Dallas 40 years ago.
I was still in the Army then and thinking about going back to Arkansas.
People in my hometown, when I told them I might go to work for the State
Department, warned me that I wouldn't like it down there in Little Rock!
I was pretty nervous when I finished my exam. While the examiners
deliberated, I decided to go down to the bar -- it was the Adolphus
Hotel -- to fortify myself with a drink. But first I put on my Western
hat; it seemed the right thing to do in Dallas. I told the bartender I
wanted a bourbon and water, but she replied: "Cowboy, I don't know where
you come from, but you can't order nothin' stronger'n a beer here in
Dallas!"
Then I drove through Texas to Mexico to my first Department of State
"overseas" assignment. While I was there, I got to know the border
pretty well -- from Brownsville to Tijuana.I understood the Texas-Mexico
connection in the terms of the day, but never in my wildest dreams would
I have imagined a NAFTA.
Yet, we in the American embassy in Mexico City believed the two
countries would draw closer over the years, so we worked at improving
relations. Our partners in those days were almost exclusively Texans.
They understood what we were talking about better than we did, and that
hasn't changed much over the years.
We learned how much a smoothly functioning border meant to you last year
when we wanted to close our consulates in Matamoros and Hermosillo --
among 25 other posts -- after it appeared that our budget would be
slashed. Members of the Texas congressional delegation from along the
border were quick to point out to us the error of our ways.
Elsewhere around the world, wherever we turned to try to cut, we found
concerned Americans who didn't want us to. This should have made me feel
great, but it didn't. I felt like the guy who loses a little on every
transaction but expects to make it up on volume.
A Broader International Agenda
As the single uncontested world power, the U.S. Government's position is
an immediate point of reference on every world issue. As Clinton said in
his State of the Union in January,
By keeping our military strong, by using diplomacy where we can and
force where we must, by working with others to share the risk and cost
of our efforts, America is making a difference.
As has been demonstrated in Bosnia and in the Middle East, only the
United States has the capacity to broker major international agreements
spelling the difference between peace and war. Much of our new foreign
policy agenda is nontraditional, with nontraditional players. Diplomacy
has historically been a government-to-government affair, operating in
bilateral channels. Now we have governments plus CNN, non-governmental
organizations, economic interest groups, and new focus on issues like
the environment, where if you are concerned at all, you recognize that
the problem must be tackled globally. As a result of these new players
and interests, State's policy agenda is more directly linked to domestic
priorities than ever before.
Yet, paradoxically, we find ourselves at the Department of State
struggling harder than ever to explain to the Congress why our mission
matters enough for the Congress to give us money to keep it running.
Some of us were discussing this phenomenon yesterday, and they urged me
to say a few words here today about what sometimes appears to be a
mismatch between what we at the State Department believe we should be
doing and what you would prefer us to be doing.
Talking to America -- And Listening, Too
An examination of this subject requires a trip through a minefield where
I should have more sense than to go. Still, a brief discussion of our
differing roles and perceptions might do more toward furthering
understanding between us than all the things I had prepared for you.
I recognize that many times my colleagues and I appear to start from the
premise that the need for the Department of State is self-evident and
that there is something wrong with people who don't accept that fact.
We discovered over the past few years that this approach did not work
with the public. The Congress noticed it, too, and our budget was cut
because we did not appear as relevant in the post-Cold War world as
before.
Indeed, the attitude we used to project reminded me of my last job with
a major travel and financial services company: When share price
plummeted, we lectured those who carried our card, as well as merchants
who accepted it, about the error of their ways. What we needed to do was
to listen to our customers, not lecture them. That is why meetings like
this are great: By bringing us together, they offer an opportunity to
understand one another better -- for us to hear what's on your mind.
Border Consulates: "It's the Economy," You Said
Twice, recently, I've been powerfully surprised to have the public tell
me, first, that the State Department mattered more to them than I
recognized, and second, that the sense in which we mattered to them was
not what I thought it was.
I referred earlier in my remarks to the opposition that arose to our
intention to close consulates at Matamoros and Hermosillo. One day I sat
for two hours while citizens of Arizona explained to me why the State
Department and our consulate at Hermosillo mattered to them. Their
congressional delegation listened, too. Then we worked together.
You let us know that the value of these two posts was not so much
geopolitical as commercial. Their border locations were also major
transportation arteries into the southwest, routes aggressively
developed by state and local government. Closing these offices would
divert truckers hundreds of miles to the next closest U.S. consulate for
visa services, drastically changing the flow of commerce into the
region. Surprise! The consulates remain open. And the congressional
delegation helped us open a new funding source.
Economic Interests Go Global
Last night, I listened to World Affairs Council board members explain
what matters about foreign policy to business people in the Dallas-Fort
Worth metroplex. Then I went back to my very comfortable room here in
the Fairmont Hotel and discovered that the business people in this 12-
county area are not focused solely on Mexico; that their market is the
world; that the metroplex trades:
-- Twice as much with Japan as with Mexico;
-- More with Taiwan than with Mexico;
-- Almost as much with mainland China as with Mexico -- and
-- That Europe is moving up fast, as is all the rest of Asia.
So in Dallas-Fort Worth's world, foreign policy isn't "Mexico," and it
isn't "foreign" to them either. It's about promoting America's
interests.
We are very proud of what our embassy economic sections do around the
world. Phil Yun talked this morning about our tremendous opportunities
in Asia. Al Larson outlined some of our successes around the world. So
where is the foreign policy challenge here?
All we need to do is break down barriers, open markets, and everything
will be all right? Not entirely.
Managing Competing Interests
Sometimes there are countervailing considerations which we in Washington
must take into account. At breakfast this morning, we discussed several
examples of the application of trade sanctions as a policy tool.
China is a case in point. Widespread public outrage followed Tiananmen
Square -- outrage that resulted in legislation constraining China's
most- favored-nation status, which in turn, clouded the future of our
trade relations.
This was not the initiative of pointy-headed foreign policy experts.
This was the political expression of American values by enough of its
citizenry to result in a law which the executive branch is bound to
obey; in this instance, running headlong into the desire of America's
business community to sell into the booming China market.
There is the foreign policy challenge: to manage often-conflicting
priorities; to explain to you what we are doing; to find a way to help
you and at the same time marshall your support for the broader agenda.
My particular piece of this China challenge is to position our
diplomatic establishment there for political and economic engagement,
and, hopefully, some collaboration in the coming century.
To sell into this market, to gain Chinese cooperation on regional
security issues, we need human and material infrastructure in place to
support our objectives. This takes resources that we do not have, so I
am looking around for ways to do this without appropriations.
Resources From New Places
Some of you may have seen a TV news program last night about grand
buildings which the State Department owns abroad, asking why we don't
sell them all.
Well, we are selling quite a few, and that is how we hope to build in
China and at the same time save tax dollars -- by managing our assets,
selling vacant lots in Bangkok, and using the proceeds to build
townhouses for U.S. representatives in Shanghai, instead of renting
apartments in a seller's real estate market.
There are other non-traditional foreign policy challenges I'd like to
tell you about.
Border Security: Our Reach Is America's First Line of Defense
The State of Texas and the State Department share a special interest in
border security. We both know a border should, first, make it easy for
the flow of legitimate travelers and commerce but, second, make it hard
for drugs to be smuggled or for people to cross illegally.
Like Texas, the State Department faces these problems every day, at
every one of our 250-odd embassies and consulates. We are the outermost
line of defense, except our border security starts long before the Rio
Grande.
Last year, our embassies issued 5.6 million visas to foreign visitors.
These visas helped legitimate visitors come here to engage in business
and tourism to the great benefit of the U.S. economy.
-- We made it easier and faster for our embassies to do name checks of
visa applicants.
-- We are working on a way to share information between our consular
officers and the law enforcement community so we can keep foreign
criminals out of the United States.
-- We are also improving customer service: We just inaugurated a project
in El Paso and Ciudad Juarez, where INS sends information electronically
to embassies instead of mailing thick paper files around the world as
we do now. It's faster, more accurate, and cheaper.
These improvements in border security help us make wise decisions about
travelers well before they reach the border. And that makes everyone's
job easier -- from the INS to the Border Patrol to the FBI. Who benefits
most of all? You do.
That's a pretty good use of taxpayer money, I'd say. Except this is one
aspect of State Department operations that taxpayers don't pay for
anymore. Foreigners do. We charge a $20 fee to foreigners who apply for
the new visa, with the proceeds funding our border security program.
Diplomacy and Law Enforcement: A Match is Struck
One of the most urgent items on our broadened agenda relates to our role
in law enforcement. I will have to take you back to February 26, 1993 --
the day the World Trade Center was bombed. The suspected mastermind,
Omar Abdul Rahman --the "Blind Sheik" --was a radical fundamentalist
living in New Jersey.
Look on your tables. There are some matchbooks there. They are not
regular matches; these have quite a story to tell. Besides the sheik
himself, the guy authorities wanted most of all was the engineer behind
the bomb's construction -- one Ramzi Ahmed Yousef. Trouble was, Yousef
had long since fled the United States --gone without a trace. He was
thought to be somewhere in Pakistan.
Our security officers launched a media blitz. They set up a "hotline"
for tipsters to call the American embassy. They stuck Yousef's picture
on books of matches, announcing a $2-million reward. They blanketed
police stations, bus stops, and taxi stands with hundreds of thousands
of matchbooks.
Tips flooded into the hotline. A year later, nothing had panned out. But
people loved the matchbooks. In the developing world, matches are not a
throwaway item. In remote villages, we kept passing them out, and people
kept taking them.
Then in February last year, two years after the bombing and a year-and-
a-half after the matchbook campaign started, we got the one lead we
needed, and we had him. His trial opened today in New York.
That kind of cooperation is becoming a regular part of our work:
-- Economic officers now work with law enforcement to protect
intellectual property rights, such as those protecting software;
-- Our political sections work with other governments to address the
rise of extremist movements which may one to help identify foreign
criminals and terrorists.
You can keep those matches -- as a token of how diplomacy and law
enforcement smoked out a fugitive.
International Affairs: A Small Investment Yields Big Returns
Now, if I were the governor of Texas and I told you the state's budget
was tight, and that Texas couldn't afford any overseas involvement right
now, you would tell me I was crazy. Like Texas' interests, American
interests are inseparable from the rest of the world.
International affairs is 1.2% of federal spending, and the operations of
the State Department represent only about one-tenth of that. That is a
tiny fraction of the amount we earn from exports or the amount our
nation is forced to spend when foreign crises erupt into war. This small
investment protects the interests of the American people and allows the
United States to lead.
As the executive and legislative branches cut our budgets, I am
competing against the downward slope of a declining real budget in the
out years.
Meanwhile, we have learned to manage smarter. We have benchmarked our
practices with leaders in various industries, including some represented
in this room.
I tell our managers to think of our outyear budget projection as the
equivalent of a competitor's cost structure: Either we stay under it, or
we go out of business. Our good managers understand that way of
thinking, and they respond to the challenge.
We Need Your Support
I want to close by telling you a little bit about the people in the
Foreign and Civil Service at the Department of State. They are our
lifeblood. We have had to cut back our intake of junior officers because
of budgetary stringency, but we need to keep interest alive and broaden
awareness among young people in the work of the Foreign Service.
We need a Foreign Service that looks more like America. Diversity is
among America's most valuable but too often unrealized assets. Help us
find those young people who want to join us in advancing American
interests all over the world.
We will give the Foreign Service exam this fall right here in Dallas. I
will tell you now, we get well over 100 people applying for every
opening we have. The pay isn't great; the risks are substantial.
So why do these people do it? They do it because they believe in our
country. They want to make a difference. You won't find a more dedicated
group anywhere.
More than ever before, what they do impacts on you - -your job, your
physical security, the freedoms you enjoy, the air you breathe. And,
most importantly, they are on the front lines defining the kind of world
in which you and your grandchildren are going to live. They are there to
support you. And to support you, they need your support.
Thank you very much.
(###)
Article 7:
Drug Control in the Western Hemisphere
Robert S. Gelbard, Assistant Secretary for International Narcotics and
Law Enforcement Affairs
Statement before the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the House
International Relations Committee, Washington, DC, June 6, 1996
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss our drug
control efforts in this hemisphere. I would particularly like to review
the progress we have made on our source country strategy and why it is
critical to do more now. As I am sure you all have guessed, this is a
topic about which I feel very strongly. It is a sentiment born of the
strong conviction that measurable success in the counter- drug effort
not only is achievable, but is very much within our reach.
Let me add a cautionary note that I always stress: This effort must be
sustained. Success in a single year is not necessarily permanent. You
might ask yourselves why we have asked for so little money to combat the
drug trade overseas when the magnitude of the threat is so great. The
answer, I believe, is that our request for fiscal year 1997, provided it
is sustained and incrementally increased over time, provides insurance
for drug control programs with measurable results. I know, from my
experience in this job and as Ambassador to Bolivia, that uneven funding
from year to year produces uneven results.
Before I discuss the source country strategy in depth, however, I would
like to put U.S. budget figures into perspective. Our entire
international counter-drug budget in fiscal year 1995, including
military and Coast Guard support, came to about $850 million -- 6% of
the total $13.3-billion anti-drug budget. At this low price tag, it
remains an important demonstration of how U.S. international engagement
pays real, cost-effective dividends to our citizens. The U.S.
international drug-control budget is the equivalent of 8.5 metric tons
of cocaine, given its street value of about $100 million per metric ton.
Single cargo flights into Mexico have carried more cocaine than that.
The approximately 130 metric tons of cocaine that Latin American and
Caribbean nations seized with our help last year have a street value as
great as our government's total anti-drug budget. In other words, the 6%
of the budget that we invested in international programs last year
provided a return of over 1,500%.
When put into that context, the President's 1997 budget request for
international drug programs seems not only reasonable, but highly cost-
effective. When you consider the costs to the U.S. of drug-related
illnesses, crime and violence, and lost productivity -- an estimated $69
billion a year -- the potential pay-off on this investment in drug
control and demand reduction programs becomes even more impressive.
Funds appropriated to the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs -- INL -- the portion of the budget which is
invested directly in crop control, alternative development, and support
to law enforcement and judicial institutions -- represent a very small
percentage of the total. In fact, INL's 1997 budget request for
international drug and crime control programs totals only $213 million -
- just over 1% of the total federal drug control budget request. We are
most appreciative, Mr. Chairman, for this committee's strong support of
our budget in the past and as we look to the future.
Why A Source Country Strategy?
President Clinton's 1993 decision to adopt the source country strategy
was, in my view, inevitable. This government had spent some 10 years
confronting a growing, increasingly sophisticated and violent group of
largely Colombian drug-trafficking organizations. Our efforts were, at
first, piecemeal. As we began to understand the threat better,
coordination improved.
We helped producing countries build interdiction forces to target
production and transportation centers. At the same time, we expanded our
own resources in the Caribbean in the hopes of stopping the rising tide
of cocaine before it reached U.S. shores. By the early 1990s, we had
engaged Mexico in the interdiction effort to bolster our own domestic
efforts to strengthen our border defenses -- notably with the creation
of the Northern Border Response Force.
This strategy produced some significant seizures but, more importantly,
disrupted trafficking operations and forced constant changes to evade
Mexican interdiction activities.
Ultimately, despite successes, it became clear that we would never be
able to stem the flow of drugs from South America or Mexico by focusing
on interdiction alone -- the traffickers would always be able to put
another shipment in the air or in the water.
The adoption of the source country strategy was in no sense an
abandonment of interdiction or the transit zone. Interdiction in the
transit zone remains a critical element of the overall strategy, as can
be seen in the vigorous bilateral efforts underway with Mexico. PDD-14
recognized, however, that our resources were finite and were too widely
dispersed to have a major impact on trafficking. The President,
therefore, directed us to focus on the drug crops, the kingpins, and
their organizations, and the production and trafficking networks in the
heartland of the trade -- the three Andean source countries of Colombia,
Peru, and Bolivia. For this reason, during my tenure, we have
concentrated 60% to 65% of our annual budget on these countries.
INL: Laying Foundations For Long-Term Success
The ultimate objective of our source country strategy is to stem the
flow of drugs to the U.S. Our most effective means of achieving and
maintaining positive results are training and assistance programs that
help the source countries develop strong legal frameworks and help build
credible democratic institutions. Strong institutions will be better
prepared to eradicate and control cultivation, to dismantle top crime
and drug syndicates through investigation and prosecution, and to
interdict drug shipments.
Our other key weapon is eradication of both coca and opium poppy, which
provides the means to eliminate the source of this illegal trade
completely. In the key source countries, eradication must be combined
with sustainable alternative development in order to ensure that
producers have viable means of supporting themselves once they abandon
the trade. Without this carrot, governments, especially fragile ones,
cannot wield effectively the stick of eradication. Even against the
backdrop of very limited resources for alternative development in 1995,
some substantial strides were made. Colombia continued its U.S.-
supported aerial eradication program, eliminating an estimated 9,000
hectares of mature coca and up to 4,000 hectares of opium poppy. Bolivia
manually eradicated almost 5,500 hectares of mature coca and destroyed
seedbeds and new planting. New planting offset the gains in both
countries, but support for eradication has increased, and new plantings
are far more fragile than the mature coca that was destroyed. In
Bolivia, a successful alternative development program -- legal crops in
the Chapare now cover double the hectarage of coca -- is providing a
strong counter-balance to coca. Peru, the world's leading supplier of
coca, has yet to adopt a large-scale eradication program, but the
government has begun to eradicate all new coca. Mexico made respectable
strides against opium poppy cultivation, effectively eradicating over
60% of the 13,500 hectares cultivated in 1995.
Strong Institutions Breed Success
In Colombia, with U.S. support and training, the Anti-Narcotics Police -
- or DANTI -- has become one of the region's most skilled units of its
kind. The DANTI has spearheaded Colombia's efforts to dismantle the
production and trafficking infrastructure of the world's most productive
traffickers. The National Police's capability will be upgraded further
by the June 2 delivery of six additional UH-1H helicopters for use
primarily in support of eradication. The Medellin drug syndicate has
been virtually dismantled, and almost all of the top Cali traffickers
are dead or in jail. The Prosecutor General's office is building cases
against the drug lords and pursuing a wide-ranging investigation of
narco-corruption that reaches to the highest levels of Colombian society
and government.
Within the next few days, the Colombian Chamber of Deputies will issue a
judgment, on the basis of evidence provided by the Prosecutor General,
on whether or not President Samper should be tried by the Colombian
Senate on charges that narco-traffickers contributed several million
dollars to his 1994 presidential campaign. We have expressed our concern
about the credibility, impartiality, and thoroughness of the Accusations
Commission, which has recommended to the Chamber the President's
exoneration. Only a full and transparent review of the charges by the
duly elected representatives of the Colombian people could put an end to
the current political crisis in the country.
In the meantime, we are reviewing Colombia's cooperation on the counter-
drug front and our policy options for securing better cooperation. We
will discuss with the Colombian Government this month our expectations
for progress this year, in the context of a mid-year review of
objectives for certification. President Clinton made it very clear on
March 1 that he wanted to see improved Colombian cooperation and would
reserve the option for applying additional sanctions if Colombia's
counter-drug performance did not improve.
In Peru, the enhanced police and military interdiction operations --
made possible in large part because of U.S.-provided helicopter assets
and intelligence support -- have successfully disrupted air smuggling
and raised the cost of trafficking operations. Peru followed through on
a threat to shoot down trafficker aircraft that violated its airspace.
In so doing, the Government of Peru disrupted the so-called "air bridge"
between Peru and Colombia. Consequently, the business in Peru's coca
markets has suffered.
Coca prices dropped last year because pilots were reluctant to fly, and
stocks accumulated. The Government of Peru National Drug Plan calls for
a 50% reduction in coca by the year 2000. We are supporting this
ambitious goal by making Peru's case for additional resources before the
international donor community and pressing the GOP to accelerate its
coca reduction plans. Peru has recently created a separate, new court
system to deal with drug offenses.
In Bolivia, U.S.-supported rural police, intelligence, riverine, and air
units have substantially disrupted the trade -- putting behind bars many
of the Colombian traffickers that directed the trade there -- and now
are targeting Bolivian organizations which supply cocaine products to
Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, and directly to markets in Europe. At the same
time, they carried out an unprecedented campaign to prevent new coca
planting in support of the government's reinvigorated eradication
efforts. Special investigative units focus on the trade in pre- cursor
chemicals used to process cocaine, and a group of special prosecutors
now is dedicated solely to dealing with drug-related crimes in Bolivia.
Political Will -- The Key Intangible
A less tangible, but no less important factor to the success of the
source country strategy is the will and strength of governments in the
region to weather the political backlash that effective anti-drug
measures inevitably trigger. Political will is the most difficult
component of the strategy to generate and the hardest to measure.
Despite some setbacks in the last few years, however, I am willing to
argue that we have never had a more important opportunity than we do now
to advance our counter-drug agenda in the hemisphere.
I do not know a single drug expert who, five years ago, would have been
willing to predict the downfall of the Medellin drug syndicate, let
alone the progress that has been made throughout the hemisphere in
dismantling the Cali organization. Eradication campaigns in Bolivia and
Colombia have shown that it is possible to restrict significant
expansion of the coca crop, and both governments now acknowledge that
the elimination of the drug crop is critical to their national security.
In fact, in April of this year, the Bolivian Drug Secretary delivered an
unprecedented speech at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs emphasizing
the necessity of eradication. Meanwhile, despite ill-founded criticism
over its force-down policy, Peru stayed the course and produced an
interdiction breakthrough which we must now exploit. We must convince
the Government of Peru to follow up by containing and reducing the coca
grown within its borders.
Maximizing Our Opportunity
U.S.-supported crop control efforts, training, and assistance under the
source country strategy have created policy and operational environments
ripe for even greater success. The goal of significantly reducing the
supply of illegal drugs is attainable -- but not without a sustained
commitment. Specifically, we will be unable to fully capitalize on the
successes of 1995 without adequate resources to:
-- Broaden crop control and interdiction programs;
-- Enhance support in Bolivia and Peru for alternative development; and
-- Expand training and assistance to the beleaguered judicial and law
enforcement institutions charged with implementing and enforcing hosts
of new laws.
Drug crop control remains pivotal to the ultimate success of the source
country strategy. Eradication, particularly aerial eradication, has the
potential to be our most effective tool. The drug crop represents a key
vulnerability to the trafficking groups. The crops are detectable and
destroyable -- tactically easier to target than airplanes or cargo
vessels loaded with cocaine -- and they are critical to the industry's
survival. Current research shows that roughly 200 hectares of coca
eradicated deprives the system of up to a metric ton of cocaine. These
factors demand that eradication -- and related alternative development
projects -- remain central to our source country strategy.
INL's resources will be devoted to supporting aerial and manual
eradication -- and to programs designed to develop income-generating
alternatives for coca growers to abandon their crops. We will continue
to support aviation, police, and riverine units that form the backbone
of interdiction forces in the Andes, and will enhance our regional
training efforts in order to expand cooperation among the source
countries. DoD, by lending consistent support to broad interdiction
efforts, has been critical to building cooperation among the Andean
nations -- some of which have long been adversaries. Continued and
expanded support for the interdiction infrastructure -- in terms of
radars, communications, and training -- remains central to the success
of our efforts.
In addition to our primary focus on the source countries, we face
significant new challenges. Our 1997 budget request reflects our plans
for addressing them. Successes in the Andes, particularly against the
Cali Cartel in Colombia, have produced shifts in the trade, and have
created new opportunities for Mexican, Peruvian, and Bolivian
trafficking syndicates, among others.
In this regard, I want to highlight recent Mexican counternarcotics
efforts. Under the leadership of ONDCP Director Barry McCaffrey and
Mexican Attorney General Lozano, we have launched an effort to develop a
comprehensive bilateral strategy to attack the trafficking groups which
move the bulk of the cocaine destined for U.S. markets across our shared
border. These trafficking groups, which once served Cali and Medellin,
now aspire to succeed them. They have not only begun to contract their
own multi-ton shipments from Andean suppliers, but are further
diversifying their trade with methamphetamines. Mexican-dominated
distribution groups now dominate the manufacture and sale of this
destructive substance in the U.S. and are expanding their role in the
sale of cocaine and other illicit substances.
Combating these transborder organizations, which have strong footholds
in both the U.S. and Mexico, will require even greater bilateral
cooperation between the U.S. and Mexican Governments. It will require
intense legal cooperation, as we achieved with the January arrest and
expulsion by Mexico of Juan Garcia Abrego, notorious leader of the Gulf
Cartel based in Matamoros, Mexico, but whose empire spread across Mexico
and the United States. It will also require increased material and
logistics support to interdiction forces, as well as stepped-up training
and assistance for law enforcement and judicial institutions in Mexico.
We are implementing a new heroin control strategy and must respond to
the President's requirement, expressed in PDD-42, for a comprehensive
international crime control strategy which places special attention on
the money laundering and financial crimes which enable all of these drug
and crime syndicates to continue to operate.
All of these efforts require the commitment of U.S. resources. But as I
said at the start, our real investment is small given the long-term
payoffs of the source country strategy. Our investment of time and money
and the provision of U.S. training reap the added benefit of
strengthening these often very new democracies. The institutions we
support are less vulnerable to corruption, especially as their leaders
see for themselves the benefits of ridding their countries of this
corrosive threat. Such changes not only will produce success in
eliminating the drug threat in this hemisphere, but will ensure these
countries remain viable allies and trading partners.
I know this committee is attuned to the challenges we face. I am
confident that, with your help, we can continue to show dramatic
results.
(###)
[End of Dispatch Vol. 7, No. 24]
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