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