U.S. Department of State Dispatch 
Volume 7, Number 39, September 23, 1996 
Published by the Bureau of Public Affairs 
 
 
 
ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE: 
 
1.  Addressing Security Threats Through International Cooperation-- 
President Clinton 
 
2.  The Bosnian Elections: A Major Step for Peace--Secretary Christopher 
 
3.  The U.S. and Japan Reaffirm Their Security Partnership--Secretary  
Christopher, Secretary of Defense Perry, Japanese Foreign Minister  
Ikeda, Japanese Defense Minister Usui 
 
4.  The UN, the U.S., and the World--Madeleine K. Albright 
 
5.  Treaty Actions 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 1: 
 
 
Addressing Security Threats Through International Cooperation 
President Clinton 
Address at the 51st UN General Assembly, New York City, September 24,  
1996 
 
 
Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, heads of government, foreign  
ministers, ambassadors, your excellencies, distinguished guests: Three  
years ago, I had the honor of being the first American President born  
after the founding of the United Nations to address you. In its 51st  
year, the United Nations has not yet realized all its founders'  
aspirations, but the ideals of the UN Charter--peace, freedom,  
tolerance, prosperity--now touch more people in more nations than ever  
before. 
 
Now we find ourselves at a turning point in history, when the blocks and  
barriers that long defined the world are giving way to an age of  
remarkable possibility; a time when more of our children and more  
nations will be able to live out their dreams than ever before. 
 
But this is also an age of new threats: Threats from terrorists, from  
rogue states that support them; threats from ethnic, religious, racial,  
and tribal hatreds; threats from international criminals and drug  
traffickers, all of whom will be more dangerous if they gain access to  
weapons of mass destruction. 
 
The challenge before us plainly is twofold--to seize the opportunities  
for more people to enjoy peace and freedom, security and prosperity, and  
to move strongly and swiftly against the dangers that change has  
produced. This week in this place, we take a giant step forward. By  
overwhelming global consensus, we will make a solemn commitment to end  
all nuclear tests for all time.  
 
Before entering this hall I had the great honor to be the first leader  
to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I did so with some pride with  
this pen, for this pen is the very one that President Kennedy used to  
help bring the Limited Test Ban Treaty to life 33 years ago. 
 
This Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will help to prevent the nuclear  
powers from developing more advanced and more dangerous weapons. It will  
limit the ability of other states to acquire such devices themselves. It  
points us toward a century in which the roles and risks of nuclear  
weapons can be further reduced, and ultimately eliminated. 
 
I want to thank all of those who helped to bring us to this day,  
especially the Chairman of the Comprehensive Test Ban Negotiating  
Committee, Netherlands' Ambassador Ramaker, and the Government of  
Australia, which took the lead at the UN. I thank the Secretary General  
for the remarks he made this morning in establishing the criteria and  
standards and support of the United Nations as a depository of the  
treaty.  
 
The signature of the world's declared nuclear power--the United States,  
China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom--along with those of the  
vast majority of its nations, will immediately create an international  
norm against nuclear testing, even before the treaty formally enters  
into force. 
 
The CTBT is the shared work of hard negotiation. Some have complained  
that it does not mandate total nuclear disarmament by a certain date. I  
would say to them, do not forsake the benefits of this achievement by  
ignoring the tremendous progress we have already made toward that goal.  
 
Today, there are no Russian missiles pointed at America, and no American  
missiles pointed at Russia. Through the START treaties we are cutting  
our nuclear arsenals by two-thirds. Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakstan are  
giving up the nuclear weapons left on their land after the Soviet Union  
dissolved. We are working with the New Independent States to improve  
security at nuclear facilities and to convert nuclear weapons to  
peaceful uses. 
 
The United States and other nuclear weapons states have embraced the  
South Pacific and African Nuclear Free Zones. Now, half the world's land  
area is nuclear free by international agreement. And the world community  
extended indefinitely the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 
 
Yet, some of the very changes that have made this progress possible have  
also created new risks. The breakup of the Soviet Union left nuclear  
materials dispersed throughout the New Independent States. As barriers  
have come down around the world, the danger of nuclear smuggling has  
gone up. So even as we reduce the global stockpiles of weapons of mass  
destruction, we must also reduce the danger that lethal materials could  
wind up in the wrong hands, while developing effective defenses for our  
people if that should happen. 
 
The United States has six priority goals to further lift the threat of  
nuclear weapons destruction and the threat of weapons of mass  
destruction, and to limit their dangerous spread. 
 
First, we must protect our people from chemical attack and make it  
harder for rogue states and terrorists to brandish poison gas by  
bringing the Chemical Weapons Convention into force as soon as possible.  
 
I thank the nations here that have ratified the Chemical Weapons  
Convention. I deeply regret that the United States Senate has not yet  
voted on the Convention, but I want to assure you and people throughout  
the world that I will not let this treaty die and we will join the ranks  
of nations determined to prevent the spread of chemical weapons. 
 
Second, we must reduce the risk that an outlaw state or organization  
could build a nuclear device by negotiating a treaty to freeze the  
production of fissile materials for use in nuclear weapons. The  
Conference on Disarmament should take up this challenge immediately. The  
United States, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom already have  
halted production of fissile materials for weapons. I urge other nations  
to end the unsafeguarded production of these materials pending  
completion of the treaty.  
 
Third, we must continue to reduce our nuclear arsenals. When Russia  
ratifies START II, President Yeltsin and I are ready to discuss the  
possibilities of further cuts, as well as limiting and monitoring  
nuclear warheads and materials. This will help make deep reductions  
irreversible.  
 
Fourth, we must reinforce our efforts against the spread of nuclear  
weapons by strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. We should  
give the International Atomic Energy Agency a stronger role and sharper  
tools for conducting worldwide inspections. Our law enforcement and  
customs officials should cooperate more in the fight against nuclear  
smuggling. And I urge all nations that have not signed the NPT to do so  
without delay. 
 
Fifth, we must better protect our people from those who would use  
disease as a weapon of war, by giving the Biological Weapons Convention  
the means to strengthen compliance, including on-site investigations  
when we believe such weapons may have been used, or when suspicious  
outbreaks of disease occur. We should aim to complete this task by 1998.  
 
Finally, we must end the carnage caused by antipersonnel land mines, the  
hidden killers that murder and maim more than 25,000 people a year. In  
May, I announced a series of actions the United States would take toward  
this goal. Today, I renew my appeal for the swift negotiation of a  
worldwide ban on the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of  
antipersonnel land mines. Our children deserve to walk the Earth in  
safety. 
 
Thirty-three years ago, at the height of the Cold War, President Kennedy  
spoke at American University in Washington. Peace was the topic of his  
address, but not an abstract ideal of peace. Instead, he urged us to  
focus on, 
 
"a more practical, attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in  
human nature, but on a gradual evolution in human institutions; on a  
series of concrete actions and affirmative, effective agreements which  
are in the interests of all concerned." 
 
It was in that same speech that he announced that talks would shortly  
begin in Moscow on a comprehensive test ban treaty. President Kennedy's  
vision exceeded the possibilities of his time. But his words speak to us  
still. As we sign our names to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the  
longest-sought, hardest fought prize in arms control history, let us  
summon the confidence of earlier pioneers and set our sights on the  
challenges of the new century.  
 
Over the past three years we have moved in the right direction in  
meeting those challenges. In Bosnia, where the war is over and just 10  
days ago its people went to the polls in peace, we have moved in the  
right direction. Now we must help Bosnia build a unified, democratic,  
and peaceful future. In Haiti, where the dictators are gone, democracy  
is back and the exodus of refugees has ended, we have moved in the right  
direction. Now we must help the Haitian people seize the full benefits  
of freedom and forge a more prosperous future.  
 
In the Middle East and in Northern Ireland, there is progress toward  
lasting peace, and we are moving in the right direction. Now we must  
support continued progress between Israel and Palestinians, and we must  
broaden the circle of peace to include more of Israel's neighbors. We  
must help to give the children of Belfast a chance to live out normal  
lives.  
 
In the fact that democracies opened markets and peace is taking hold   
around the world, we are moving in the right direction. Here in the  
Americas, every nation but one has raised freedom's flag. In Central  
Europe--in Russia, Ukraine, and the other New Independent States--the  
forces of reform have earned all our respect and will continue to have  
the support of the United States. Now we must begin to welcome Europe's  
new democracies into NATO, strengthen NATO's partnership with Russia,  
and build a secure and undivided Europe. 
 
In Asia, South Korea, Japan, China, and America, working together,  
persuaded North Korea to freeze its nuclear program under international  
monitoring. Now, in the wake of provocative actions by North Korea, we  
must pursue a permanent peace for all the Korean people.  
 
Our planet is safer because of our common efforts to close Chernobyl, to  
address the challenges of climate change, and to protect the world's  
forests and oceans. Now we must uphold our duty as custodians of our  
environment, so that our children will inherit an even healthier planet.  
 
All of us must continue our historic efforts to build a better, more  
global trading system for the 21st century. We have made remarkable  
progress, but there is more to do in opening markets, in creating  
millions of new jobs for all our people.  
 
In this time of challenge and change, the United Nations is more  
important than ever before, because our world is more interdependent  
than ever before. Most Americans know this. Unfortunately, some  
Americans, in their longing to be free of the world's problems and  
perhaps to focus more on our own problems, ignore what the United  
Nations has done, ignore the benefits of cooperation, ignore our own  
interdependence with all of you in charting a better future. They ignore  
all the United Nations is doing to lift the lives of millions by  
preserving the peace, vaccinating children, caring for refugees, sharing  
the blessings of progress around the world. They have made it difficult  
for the United States to meet its obligations to the United Nations. But  
let me reassure all of you that the vast majority of Americans support  
the United Nations, not only because it reflects our own ideals, but  
because it reinforces our interests. We must continue to work to  
manifest the support that our people feel.  
 
For the 51st year in a row, the United States will be the largest  
financial contributor to the UN. We are paying our dues, and I am  
committed to paying off our accumulated obligations. However, we also  
support the process of reform, which has done great work in reforming  
and streamlining the bureaucracy and reining in the budget, and it  
should continue. 
 
We also believe that all of us, the nations of the world working  
together, must do more to fight terrorism. Last year, I asked the  
nations assembled here to commit to a goal of zero tolerance for  
aggression, terrorism, and lawless behavior. Frankly, we have not done  
that yet. Real zero tolerance means giving no aid and no quarter to  
terrorists who slaughter the innocent and drug traffickers who poison  
our children, and to do everything we can to prevent weapons of mass  
destruction from falling into the wrong hands.  
 
Real zero tolerance requires us to isolate states that refuse to play by  
the rules we have all accepted for civilized behavior. As long as Iraq  
threatens its neighbors and people, as long as Iran supports and  
protects terrorists, as long as Libya refuses to give up the people who  
blew up Pan Am 103, they should not become full members of the family of  
nations.  
 
The United States is pursuing a three-part strategy against terrorists-- 
abroad, by working more closely than ever with like-minded nations; at  
home, by giving our law enforcement the toughest counterterrorism tools  
available; and by doing all we can to make our airports and the  
airplanes that link us all together even safer.  
 
I have requested more than $1 billion from our Congress to meet these  
commitments, and we are implementing the Vice President's Aviation  
Security Plan to make those traveling to, from, and within the United  
States more secure.  
 
There are other steps we must take together. Last year, I urged that,  
together, we crack down on money-laundering and front companies; shut  
down gray markets for guns, explosives, and false documents; open more  
law enforcement centers around the world; and strengthen safeguards on  
lethal materials. In each of these areas, we have made progress--through  
the UN, at the Summit of Peacemakers in Sharm-el Sheikh, at the Paris  
Terrorism Conference, and individually.  
 
Now, we should adopt the Declaration on Crime and Public Security I  
proposed last year. It includes a no-sanctuary pledge, so that we can  
say with one voice to the terrorists, criminals, and drug traffickers:  
You have no place to run, no place to hide.  
 
I call on every member to ratify 11 international conventions that would  
help prevent and punish terrorism and to criminalize the use of  
explosives in terrorist attacks. To every nation whose children fall  
prey to drugs, and every nation that makes those drugs, we must do more  
to reduce demand and to take illegal drugs off the market and off the  
streets. 
 
The United States will do its part. Next week I will target more than  
$100 million worth of defense equipment, services, and training to  
Mexico, Colombia, and other South American and Caribbean countries.  
These resources will help our friends stop the flow of drugs at the  
source. Now I ask every nation that exports the chemicals needed to make  
illicit drugs to create an informal group whose members will work to  
deny these chemicals to drug producers. We must not let more drugs  
darken the dawn of the next century. 
 
Our duty to fight all these forces of destruction is directly linked to  
our efforts to reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction. We all  
know we are not immune from this. We saw it when our friends in Japan  
were subject to the murderous power of a small vial of sarin gas  
unleashed in a Tokyo subway. We know a small lump of plutonium is enough  
to build a nuclear bomb. We know that more dangerous people have access  
to materials of mass destruction because of the rapid movement and open  
borders of this age. The quest to eliminate these problems from the  
world's arsenals and to stop them from spreading has taken on a new and  
powerful urgency for all of us. 
 
So let us strengthen our determination to fight the rogue states, the  
terrorists, the criminals who menace our safety, our way of life, and  
the potential of our children in the 21st century. Let us recommit  
ourselves to prevent them from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.  
Let us work harder than ever to lift the nuclear backdrop that has  
darkened the world's stage for too long now. Let us make these solemn  
tasks our common obligation, our common commitment. If we do, then,  
together, we will enter the 21st century, marching toward a better,  
safer world; the very better, safer world the United Nations has sought  
to build for 51 years. Thank you very much.  
 
(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 2: 
 
 
The Bosnian Elections: A Major Step for Peace 
Secretary Christopher 
Statement on Bosnian elections, Washington, DC, September 18, 1996 
 
 
Good afternoon. As you probably know, Ambassador Frowick has announced  
the preliminary results of the elections in Bosnia. First, I want to  
congratulate the people of Bosnia who have taken responsibility for  
shaping their future in a peaceful and democratic manner. It is a major  
step forward for peace in Bosnia. 
 
Let me also congratulate President Izetbegovic, who received the largest  
number of votes and who will, therefore, chair the Presidency of the  
unified Bosnia state for the next two years. 
 
I called President Izetbegovic about an hour ago to congratulate him,  
and in response he stressed the importance of strong United States  
involvement and support as he proceeds to form the national government.  
I am looking forward to meeting President Izetbegovic next week--next  
Thursday, I believe--at the UN General Assembly meeting in New York. 
 
The United States has followed this process with great determination  
ever since the Dayton agreement. I said at that time that we would have  
to work on it on a day-by-day and week-by-week basis, and we certainly  
have done so. I assured President Izetbegovic that we would continue to  
do so. 
 
This election is a major victory for the democratic process. It was  
contested, as you know, by dozens of political parties. The large  
turnout demonstrated that the Bosnian people were clearly determined to  
go to the polls. The balloting was orderly and calm, free of violence.  
This is really a remarkable achievement for a country that experienced  
four years of war following a half-century of communism. 
 
It vindicates the international community's determination to support the  
Bosnian people's wish to move forward with the election on a timely  
basis. 
 
This election has at last given the people of Bosnia the central role  
that they deserve in their search for peace. For four years, their fate  
was debated by outsiders and overshadowed by the war. Now the Bosnian  
people will have their own democratic say. This is a worthy goal in and  
of itself, because the only peace that can last in Bosnia is the peace  
that the people of the country freely choose. 
 
The election was a milestone in the Dayton process. It is now possible  
to establish the joint national institutions without which there could  
be no single Bosnian state. Of course, these results reflect the  
divisions that continue to exist within the Bosnian society. These  
divisions will not be overcome overnight. 
 
But the central structures created by Bosnia were designed to ensure  
that each ethnic group would see that its interests can and will be  
protected within a unified Bosnia. 
 
It is in this way, and only in this way, that it is possible to build a  
consensus for unity within Bosnia. 
 
The election is a critical advance. But as we have always said, it is  
only one step in a long process. We must now move forward with both  
speed and determination. 
 
The national institutions that the election created must be quickly  
established. We will work hard with the parties to make sure that they  
function effectively. We will continue to accelerate the necessary  
process of reconstruction within Bosnia. And we will continue to insist  
that Bosnia's newly elected leaders meet their obligations--the  
obligations that they assumed at Dayton which include the obligation to  
maintain a unified Bosnia.   
 
(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 3: 
 
 
The U.S. and Japan Reaffirm Their Security Partnership 
Secretary Christopher, Secretary of Defense Perry, Japanese Foreign  
Minister Ikeda, Japanese Defense Minister Usui  
Remarks following the U.S.-Japan Security Consultative Committee 2-Plus- 
2 Conference, Washington, DC, September 19, 1996 
 
 
Secretary Christopher. [introductory remarks deleted] Secretary Perry  
and I are very pleased to welcome Foreign Minister Ikeda and Minister  
Usui to Washington. Today's second cabinet-level meeting of the U.S.- 
Japan Security Consultative Committee reflects the fundamental  
importance of the security partnership between our two great nations. 
 
Today, we covered a broad range of subjects of great mutual interest-- 
bilateral, regional, and global subjects. We reaffirmed our support for  
the work of the Joint Special Action Committee on Okinawa. Secretary  
Perry will describe that in more detail. 
 
We discussed our cooperation in Japan's production of the F-2 fighter  
jet. We also discussed a number of issues of great regional interest:  
the situation between the United States and South Korea and North Korea;  
and Japan's strong leadership in the Korean Peninsula Energy Development  
Organization--KEDO. 
 
We also had time to discuss Iraq and Bosnia at some length. Japan has  
steadfastly supported U.S. actions to counter the threats in the Middle  
East region, including the most recent threats by Iraq's Saddam Hussein.  
And certainly Japan has contributed very significantly both in the  
Middle East  and in Bosnia to financial efforts of reconstruction in  
Bosnia as well as in Gaza and the West Bank. 
 
We greatly appreciate Japan's assistance in all these matters. I want to  
emphasize also that our working together on a Common Agenda has been one  
of the major developments of recent years where we worked together on  
such issues as the environment, population, and AIDS. 
 
The renewal of our security partnership has been at the heart of the  
strengthening of our overall relationship. This, of course, includes as  
well our trade relations where we have reached 22 market access  
agreements during the last three years. The importance of this basic  
relationship will be underscored once again by a meeting of President  
Clinton and Prime Minister Hashimoto at the UN General Assembly meeting  
in New York next week. 
 
I welcome the two ministers and all their colleagues here to Washington  
for what has been a splendid meeting--a reflection of the strong  
partnership between our two countries which, over the last several  
years, has grown rapidly in strength and dimension. Mr. Minister. 
Minister Ikeda. [through interpreter]  Thank you very much. In today's  
meeting of the SCC, we were engaged in the discussion of how to deepen  
the security cooperation between the two countries which were given  
direction by the earlier joint declaration on security issues between  
Japan and the United States. 
 
We discussed in this context the reduction, realignment, and  
consolidation of the U.S. forces' areas and facilities in Okinawa, as  
well as the review of guidelines for the defense cooperation between the  
two countries. Also, we had an extended discussion over international  
issues of mutual interest, including the situation in the Korean  
Peninsula as well as the situation in Iraq. 
 
With regard to the process of a Special Action Committee on Okinawa, we  
reviewed the progress which has been made since the issuance of the  
interim report earlier, and we renewed our firm commitment to engage in  
an ever-vigorous joint effort to bring about a successful conclusion of  
the process in November. 
 
As for the alternative heliport considered for the take-over functions  
of Futenma Air Station, we have agreed to establish a special working  
group to discuss and consider three possibilities, including the  
construction of a floating officer facility, which was earlier suggested  
by the U.S. side. And we have agreed to continue on our very vigorous  
joint effort in this regard. 
 
In closing, I would like to express my deep appreciation for all the  
efforts which have been put in on the U.S. side for this cooperation,  
especially the roles played by Secretary Christopher and Secretary  
Perry. And I believe, as Secretary Perry mentioned earlier, that such a  
cooperative relationship between the two countries will not only benefit  
both of us, but it will be deepened further in the context of a global  
cooperation. And I do hope that the meeting today will have made some  
contribution in that direction. Thank you very much.  
 
 
Secretary Perry. The security relationship between the United States and  
Japan is the foundation of peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific  
region. We maintain about 100,000 troops in Asia; nearly half of them  
are stationed in Japan. In light of the recent incorrect press reports,  
I want to state clearly that we have no plans to change our troop levels  
in Japan. 
 
In April, President Clinton and Prime Minister Hashimoto reaffirmed the  
continued presence of U.S. military forces in the region. They also  
reaffirmed the importance of the Mutual Security Treaty, and they  
charted a course for the future. 
 
The first step is a review of the U.S.-Japan defense guidelines. This is  
a significant step in adapting our alliance for the 21st century. The  
guidelines were drafted almost 20 years ago during the Cold War. So, we  
have begun the process of producing an updated blueprint for future  
defense cooperation between the U.S. armed forces and Japan's self- 
defense forces. 
 
The revised guidelines will lead to increased cooperation in the  
framework of our security treaty and in the framework of the Japanese  
constitution. The course they will set supports stability and peace in  
the region, a goal that is important not just to the United States and  
Japan, but also to China and to other nations in the region. 
 
Second, it was clear at our meeting a year ago that the road to a  
stronger alliance leads through Okinawa. We take our commitment to the  
Special Action Committee on Okinawa seriously because we are determined  
to be good neighbors. That is why we have been working very hard since  
last November--well before the recent referendum--to relieve the burden  
of our military presence on Okinawan communities, while, at the same  
time, maintaining our full operational readiness and capabilities. 
 
We are committed to and fully expect to complete the process  
successfully, including agreement on relocating the Futenma Air Base on  
schedule by the end of November. 
 
To that end, we made the decision today to conduct intensive studies of  
three possible solutions. 
 
Alternative One. Incorporate a heliport into Kadena Air Base. 
Alternative Two. Construct a heliport at Camp Schwab. 
Alternative Three. Develop and construct a floating off-shore facility,  
using advanced technology and engineering. 
 
We discussed cooperation in other areas as well. The F-2 fighter  
aircraft program is just one example. Japan will spend over $10 billion  
producing the F-2, with over $4 billion going to American companies and  
creating American jobs. The F-2 is an important bilateral achievement of  
which both Japan and the United States can be proud. 
 
We also agreed to study two new initiatives. The first is to study  
measures to enhance consultations about urgent situations through the  
use of new technologies, such as secure video systems. The second study  
will explore new areas for increasing training opportunities. 
 
I want to thank Foreign Minister Ikeda and Minister Usui for coming to  
Washington for this 2-Plus-2 meeting. And I look forward to continuing  
our dialogue. 
 
 
Minister Usui. [through interpreter]  I think the very fact that this  
SCC meeting had been able to take place with full ministerial  
participation points to the very thoughtful consideration given to this  
very important meeting on the part of Secretary Christopher, Secretary  
Perry, and all those involved in the process. 
 
As was explained earlier from Secretary Perry, there were very  
constructive discussions over a wide range of issues, including some of  
the proposals which were explained to you earlier by Secretary Perry in  
a very warm atmosphere. 
 
I was very much impressed that this process has brought together the  
hearts of all of us who have been involved in it. 
 
On the issue of the U.S. bases in Okinawa and their realignment,  
consolidation, and reduction, we recommitted ourselves to the move  
forward, mindful of the burden which is shouldered by the local  
community and with a long-term perspective of maintaining a solid  
alliance between Japan and the United States. 
 
As was mentioned earlier, we have agreed to discuss and consider three  
possibilities suggested for the relocation of functions of Futenman Air  
Station. We have also recommitted ourselves to make an utmost joint  
effort between the two countries as we approach the issuance of a final  
report of the cycle expected in November. 
 
Concerning a review of the guidelines for defense cooperation between  
the two countries, I am very happy to note that we have been able to  
agree on the need to promote further the cooperation between the two  
countries in defense areas so as to provide for the transparency, or the  
process with which we are engaged in the review of the guidelines. We  
are happy to present to you the progress report on this matter which, I  
hope, would help to facilitate the understanding on the part of the  
public-at-large on the process which we have been and are engaged in. 
 
I hope that this kind of frank exchange of views sustaining the solid  
alliance between the two countries will be continued. I would like to  
express my commitment to continue in a very serious and genuine joint  
effort in this area. 
 
(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 4: 
 
 
The UN, the U.S., and the World 
Madeleine K. Albright, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United  
Nations  
Remarks at a town meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, September 12, 1996 
 
 
Good morning. I am delighted to be here. Over the past three years, I  
have participated in a number of these foreign policy town meetings and  
I think they are terrific. In a democracy, a successful foreign policy  
must have public support; and it will not have that support unless it is  
explained in honest and understandable terms.  
 
Today, my assignment--which I welcome--is to discuss with you the United  
Nations and why our leadership there matters. To put the issue most  
bluntly, when it comes to the United Nations--what's in it for us? 
 
The starting point is basic. America is a global power with global  
interests. Our economy depends on trade. Our workers, farmers, and  
students compete with those from around the world. Our families are  
vulnerable to threats that originate outside our borders, including  
illegal drugs, pollution, and disease. And our security is threatened by  
the possibility that small conflicts could spread, by the chance that  
nuclear weapons may fall into the wrong hands, and by the deadly and  
cowardly forces of international terrorism.  
 
As a nation, and as individuals, we will do better and be safer in an  
environment where our values are widely shared, markets are open,  
military clashes are constrained, and those who run roughshod over the  
rights of others are brought to heel. However, we cannot create this  
kind of environment on our own. 
 
Certainly, to safeguard our most vital interests, we need to keep our  
armed forces strong--and as President Clinton has pledged--we will. 
 
We need to conduct vigorous diplomacy in strategic areas of the world,  
and--under the direction of Secretary of State Christopher--we are. 
 
But we also need to strengthen institutions--such as the UN--that  
provide a means for countries to work together to solve world problems. 
 
The UN performs many important functions, but its most conspicuous role- 
-and the primary reason it was established--is to help nations preserve  
peace. 
 
We saw a historic demonstration of that two days ago when the UN General  
Assembly fulfilled John Kennedy's dream of more than three decades ago,  
and approved a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.  
 
This agreement will prohibit nuclear test explosions of any size, in any  
place, at any time. It will make it far more difficult for any nation to  
begin a nuclear weapons program or for an existing nuclear power to  
build more devastating and dangerous arms.  
 
This means that the current generation of nuclear weapons could be the  
last, and it brings down the curtain on the costly and perilous arms  
race with which we have lived since the dawn of the nuclear age. There  
could be no greater gift to the future, and no better start to a new  
century. 
 
The UN also contributes to our security through the International Atomic  
Energy Agency--IAEA--one of its specialized agencies. IAEA inspectors  
work to prevent nuclear materials from being stolen or diverted into the  
construction of nuclear arms. Their success in that effort--especially  
in countries such as North Korea and Iran--is vital to us all. 
 
UN peacekeeping operations also serve our interests by helping to  
prevent and end dangerous conflicts. 
 
Earlier this decade, the UN supervised a landmark election that ended  
decades of civil war and in which more than 90% of eligible voters went  
to the polls.  
 
In El Salvador, the UN brokered a peace agreement between the government  
and rebel forces, and made it possible for democratic institutions to  
take root. 
 
In Namibia and Mozambique, the UN helped to end decades of civil strife;  
a similar effort is underway now in Angola. 
 
And, in Haiti, the UN has continued the work a U.S.-led multinational  
force began by monitoring the first fully democratic transfer of power  
in the history of that country. Last February, I was in Port-au-Prince  
for the inauguration of the new president. And as I looked around the  
crowd, I could not help but ask myself how many of those cheering people  
would have ended up on leaky rafts headed for our shores if we, and the  
UN, had not acted to restore democracy. 
 
Although UN peacekeepers have accomplished much, there is a limit to  
what we can expect them to do. As the examples of Somalia and Bosnia  
demonstrate, the challenge of keeping a peace is far simpler than that  
of creating a peace. The UN is essentially a committee, and committees  
are not usually very good at managing robust military operations. It is  
vital, therefore, that we tailor UN missions to UN capabilities, and  
that we be prepared to say "no" or "not yet" to prospective operations. 
 
That is why the United States now insists that the Security Council  
apply rigorous guidelines to the start of any new peace operation. We  
are demanding good answers to questions about cost, size, risk, mandate,  
and exit strategy before--not after--we vote. 
 
We are also working with other countries to improve the UN's ability to  
respond rapidly to emergency situations. This serves our interests,  
because when the United States intervenes alone, we pay all of the costs  
and run all of the risks. When the UN acts, we pay one-fourth of the  
costs and others provide the vast majority of troops. So the more  
capable the UN becomes, the less likely it is that we will have to send  
our own forces overseas. 
 
The UN's role in responding to conflicts and other emergencies is  
especially important now, when we have so many of them. Like other eras  
of historical transition, ours is beset by political upheaval. The human  
costs are high. Over the past decade, the number of regional conflicts  
has quintupled and the population at risk is up 60%.  
 
Americans are a generous people, but we could not begin to cope with  
such a crisis alone. Today, 27 million people are under the care of the  
UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Last year, more than 57 million  
people were fed by the World Food Program. Working with the Red Cross  
and private voluntary organizations, UN agencies provide the shelter,  
food, medicine, and protection that help families displaced by violence  
or disaster to get back on their feet and resume normal lives.  
 
The UN is also on the frontlines of the battle against the permanent  
emergencies caused by poverty and disease. Each year, the child  
immunization programs of UNICEF make the difference between death and  
life for three million boys and girls. The UN Development Program is  
coordinating efforts to increase economic and educational opportunities  
for women. And the citizens of every country are safer because the World  
Health Organization has won the war against smallpox, is winning the war  
against polio, and has begun an all-out war against AIDS. 
 
There are times when we forget that the UN is not about bureaucrats  
giving speeches, but about people reaching out to each other. Over the  
past several years, I have been to some very desperate corners of the  
world.  
 
I have spoken to families uprooted by violence from the homes in which  
they had lived for generations.  
 
I have seen urban neighborhoods constructed out of tin and cardboard,  
wedged into ravines, where nothing grows except the appetites of young  
children.  
 
I have seen mothers desperate with worry that their sons or daughters  
would wander too far from the front gate and detonate a landmine.  
 
I have seen volunteers working day and night trying to reassemble the  
skeletons of those victimized by genocidal violence in Rwanda so that  
the murderers may be brought to trial.  
 
The UN is one instrument that we use to make this world a little less  
inhumane, a little less brutal, a little less unfair than it otherwise  
would be. Americans care about this, and we should, because we know that  
desperation is a parent to violence, that democratic principles are  
often among the victims of poverty, and that lawlessness is a contagious  
disease. 
 
This brings us to another important--and basic--function of the United  
Nations. That is its role in creating a global consensus about what is  
right and what is wrong. 
 
At the simplest level, this means setting standards that facilitate  
international communication and trade. You may think you have never  
benefited personally from the UN, but if you have ever traveled on an  
international airline or shipping line; or placed a phone call overseas;  
or received mail from outside the country; or been thankful for an  
accurate weather report--then you have been served directly or  
indirectly by one part or another of the UN system. 
 
A more dramatic example of the UN's norm-setting role is its use of  
economic sanctions against rogue states. 
 
For example, since the end of the Persian Gulf war, strict economic and  
weapons sanctions have been in place against Iraq. Our purpose has been  
to prevent that country from once again developing weapons of mass  
destruction or threatening its neighbors with aggression.  
 
By and large, those sanctions have succeeded. Saddam Hussein's most  
cherished weapons programs are being dismantled. Missiles and missile  
launchers have been destroyed. And a major biological weapons factory  
near Baghdad has been demolished. 
 
Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein is a very slow learner. Last month, he  
launched a brutal assault against a city in northern Iraq that is  
populated by members of Iraq's Kurdish minority. Then, he sent in his  
secret police to track down and execute opposition leaders.  
 
President Clinton responded by expanding the so-called "no-fly" zone  
over Iraq and by authorizing military strikes against Saddam's air  
defense facilities. As a result, Iraq's ability to train its military or  
to mount any kind of attack against Persian Gulf oil fields has been  
further reduced.  
 
It should be clear by now to all that Saddam Hussein does not understand  
the language of law, diplomacy, morality, or simple human decency. All  
he seems to understand is the language of force. His problem is that we  
will not be intimidated. We will continue to insist that he meet his  
obligations to the international community. We will not let him resume  
building nuclear or biological weapons. We will not allow him to  
threaten Iraq's neighbors. And we will ensure that he pay a price  
whenever and wherever he steps outside the boundaries of acceptable  
behavior. 
 
Saddam's complaints about the unfairness of all this remind me of the  
story about the schoolboy who came home with his face damaged and his  
clothes torn. When his mother asked him how the fight started, he said:  
"It started when the other guy hit me back."   
 
The UN's role in bolstering justice and the rule of law is evident also  
in the work of the UN Commission on Human Rights, in the establishment  
of War Crimes Tribunals for Rwanda and the Balkans, and in the forum it  
provides for gaining agreement on matters as fundamental as child labor  
and the need to prevent the exploitation of women and girls. 
 
Taken as a whole, UN contributions are important to us; they are among  
the building blocks of a safer and more just world. And yet, we each pay  
less than $7 a year--or about the price of a movie ticket--for the  
entire UN system, for everything from blue helmets for peacekeepers to  
polio vaccines for babies.  
 
Now, there is a myth propagated by some that the United States is  
running around the world doing the bidding of the UN. In New York, most  
of my foreign counterparts would argue that the reverse is closer to the  
truth.  
 
Under the UN Charter, the only body with the power to compel a nation to  
do something is the Security Council, and as one of five permanent  
members of the council, we have great influence over what it decides.  
 
For example, Security Council support was vital in enabling President  
Bush to organize the multinational coalition that won the Persian Gulf  
war. More recently, the Security Council helped President Clinton gain  
agreement from others to participate in restoring democracy to Haiti,  
and joined us in deploring the illegal shootdown by Cuba of two U.S.  
civilian aircraft. 
 
Opponents of American participation and leadership in the UN should  
understand: We do not face a choice between acting only through the UN  
or only alone. We want--and need--both options. If you're building a  
house, for some jobs you'll need a wrench, for some a hammer, for some a  
screwdriver, for some all three. So in diplomacy, an instrument like the  
UN will be useful in some situations, useless in others, and extremely  
valuable in getting the whole job done. 
 
Despite all this, we know that some Americans are simply never going to  
be comfortable with the UN. Either they fear it will evolve into a world  
government, which is nonsense; or they are upset by the fact that it is  
full of foreigners, which really can't be helped. There are, however,  
more serious criticisms.  
 
Here in Georgia and throughout our country, citizens are demanding a  
dollar's worth of value for every tax dollar we spend. Our contributions  
to the UN should be no exception. Unfortunately, the UN developed  
wasteful habits during the Cold War that have yet to be fully cured.  
 
Part of the problem is that the UN, because it has so many members, is  
inherently hard to manage. I have often compared it to a business with  
185 members of the board; each from a different culture; each with a  
different philosophy of management; each with unshakable confidence in  
his or her own opinions; and each with a brother-in-law who is  
unemployed. 
 
As a result, the UN bureaucracy has grown to elephantine proportions.  
Now that the Cold War is over, we are asking that elephant to do  
gymnastics. That is why the Clinton Administration, with strong support  
from both parties in Congress, has been pushing so hard for UN reform. 
 
That effort has already produced results. A UN Inspector General has  
been appointed to crack down on fraud and waste.  
 
The UN's Undersecretary General for Management is a former CEO of Price- 
Waterhouse who is applying lessons in efficiency learned in the  
corporate world.  
 
Last December, the General Assembly approved a "no-growth" budget that  
will result in a 10% reduction in the number of UN Secretariat staff. A  
new efficiency board has been created. A high-level group on reform has  
been charged with developing a blueprint for the UN of the 21st century.  
And we have proposed a host of additional steps to make the UN smaller,  
better organized, and more productive. 
 
It is becoming clear, however, that we will not be able to gain support  
from other countries to make the kind of far-reaching changes we want  
unless we are able to pay our own UN bills. Currently, we are about $900  
million behind.  
 
As a result, when I have tried to focus my colleagues on the reform  
agenda, I have often found instead that the United States has become the  
agenda. Whenever I talk about how we can make the UN more efficient, or  
about the importance of electing a new Secretary General to succeed the  
current one, I am told by friendly and not-so-friendly nations alike: If  
you want the UN to work better, why don't you pay what you owe?   
 
The situation is so bad that the British Foreign Secretary--in a  
soundbite his countrymen have been waiting 200 years to use--recently  
accused us of seeking "representation without taxation."   
 
While there may be some in Congress who will never support funding for  
the UN, I am convinced that the majority would like to see us pay what  
we owe. As one Senate Committee chairman told me, "the sanctity of  
contracts is fundamental to Republican philosophy. It's only those  
liberals who think you can have something for nothing." 
 
Accordingly, we are asking Congress to approve this year a five-year  
plan for paying our arrears to the UN. As we expect Congress will  
insist, the actual payment of those funds would occur as the UN reforms,  
keeps its budget down, and cuts unnecessary staff. We will also be  
asking UN members to reduce from 25% to 20% the U.S. share of the UN's  
regular budget. The way the UN works, this would have the effect of  
reducing our peacekeeping rate to no more than 25%. 
 
The result of all this for the UN would be a more equitable and reliable  
system of financing. And for the American people, it would assure our  
continued leadership within a more effective UN at a reduced cost  
consistent with our effort to balance the budget. In other words, this  
is a true "win-win" proposition.  
 
Especially now that the Cold War is over, the UN has become a valuable  
contributor to goals that are at the heart of U.S. foreign policy,  
including peace, democracy, and human rights. In pursuit of these  
objectives, it gives us military and diplomatic options we would not  
otherwise have. And it helps us to influence events without assuming the  
full burden of costs and risks.  
 
That is why former President Reagan urged us to "rely more on  
multilateral institutions." It is why former President Bush said  
recently that we should "pay our debts to the UN." And it is why the  
Clinton Administration will continue to place a high priority on our  
leadership there. 
 
We should never forget that the UN emerged not from a dream, but a  
nightmare. In the 1920s and 1930s, the world squandered an opportunity  
to organize the peace. The result was Kristalnacht, the invasion of  
Manchuria, the conquest of Ethiopia, the betrayal of Munich, and the  
devastation of world war.  
 
The generation that won that war viewed the horror, and said "never  
again." They vowed to save future generations from the scourge of war.  
They recognized that, in the atomic age, people would have to learn to  
live together or they would not live at all. 
 
These were not naive people. They understood well the frailties of  
humankind and the yawning gap between how we would like the world to be  
and how it is; between promised behavior and reality.    
 
When Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg returned to Washington from  
the convention in San Francisco where the UN Charter was drafted, he was  
challenged by those who thought it too idealistic, even utopian. He  
replied that:  
 
"You may tell me that I have but to scan the present world with  
realistic eyes in order to see the fine phrases (of the Charter) . . .  
reduced to a shambles . . . I reply that the nearer right you may  be .  
. . the greater is the need for the new pattern which promises . . . to  
stem these evil tides. " 
 
The Truman-Vandenberg generation understood that although the noble  
aspects of human nature had made the UN possible, it was the ignoble  
aspects that had made it necessary.  
 
It is up to us in our time to do what they did in their time--to accept  
the responsibilities of leadership; to defend freedom; and to build and  
revitalize institutions like the UN that help keep the peace, extend the  
rule of law, promote social progress, and protect American interests  
around the world. Toward that end, the Clinton Administration has  
pledged its best efforts. And in that endeavor, we ask your help and  
support. Thank you.  
 
(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 5: 
 
 
Treaty Actions 
 
 
Multilateral 
 
 
Arbitration 
Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral  
awards. Done at New York June 10, 1958. Entered into force June 7, 1959;  
for the U.S. Dec. 29, 1970. TIAS 6997; 21 UST 2517. 
Accessions: Brunei Darussalam, July 25, 1996; Mauritius, June 19, 1996. 
 
Chemical Weapons 
Convention on the prohibition of the development, production,  
stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction, with  
annexes. Done at Paris Jan. 13, 19931. [Senate] Treaty Doc. 103-21.  
Ratification: Saudi Arabia, August 9, 1996. 
 
Defense 
Agreement among the United States, Australia, Canada, France, Italy, the  
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom concerning a  
cooperative project for the establishment, operation, management, and  
support of the NATO Insensitive Munitions Information Center (NIMIC), as  
amended. Signed at Brussels, London, and Paris Mar. 29, Apr. 2, 9, 16,  
18, 22, 30, and June 13, 1996. Entered into force June 13, 1996. 
 
 
Bilateral 
 
 
Benin 
Agreement on the establishment of a joint commission for military  
cooperation. Signed at Cotonou Jan. 19, 1996. Entered into force Jan.  
19, 1996. 
 
Canada 
Memorandum of cooperation for mutual cooperation in the area of civil  
aviation research, engineering, and development, with annex. Signed at  
Washington and Ottawa May 6 and July 9, 1996. Entered into force July 9,  
1996. 
 
Administrative arrangement for cooperation and the exchange of  
information in nuclear regulatory matters, with appendices. Signed at  
Ottawa Aug. 15, 1996. Entered into force Aug. 15, 1996. 
 
Croatia 
Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling of certain debts  
owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the United States Government and  
its agencies, with annexes. Signed at Zagreb Feb. 1, 1996. Entered into  
force July 23, 1996. 
 
European Union 
Agreement for the conclusion of negotiations between the European  
Community and the United States under Article XXIV:6 [GATT 1994], with  
annexes and exchanges of letters. Signed at Geneva July 22, 1996.  
Entered into force July 22, 1996. 
 
Fiji 
Agreement for the reciprocal exemption with respect to taxes on income  
from the international operation of ships and aircraft. Effected by  
exchange of notes at Suva June 19 and Aug. 12, 1996. Entered into force  
Aug. 12, 1996; effective Jan. 1, 1996, and during all prior years for  
which the relevant statute of limitations remains open on that date. 
 
Greece 
Agreement concerning mutual logistic support, with annexes. Signed at  
Papagos Camp (Greece) and Patch Barracks (Germany) June 28 and Aug. 5,  
1996. Entered into force Aug. 5, 1996. 
 
Hong Kong 
Agreement extending the agreement of Nov. 23, 1990, as extended,  
concerning the confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds and  
instrumentalities of drug trafficking. Effected by exchange of letters  
at Hong Kong July 18, 1996. Entered into force July 18, 1996; effective  
Jan. 18, 1997. 
 
Israel 
Memorandum of agreement concerning the tactical high energy laser (THEL)  
advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD). Signed at Washington  
and Tel Aviv July 12 and 18, 1996. Entered into force July 18, 1996. 
 
Japan 
Agreement relating to the production of the Support Fighter (F-2) Weapon  
System. Effected by exchange of notes at Tokyo July 30, 1996. Entered  
into force July 30, 1996. 
 
Agreement concerning cooperation on the Balloon-Borne Superconducting  
Magnet Spectrometer Program. Effected by exchange of notes at Washington  
Aug. 1, 1996. Entered into force Aug. 1, 1996. 
 
Agreement concerning the Mike Mansfield Fellowship Program. Effected by  
exchange of notes at Tokyo Aug. 21, 1996. Entered into force Aug. 21,  
1996. 
 
Mexico 
Agreement modifying the framework agreement of Feb. 21, 1995 for Mexican  
economic stabilization. Signed at Washington and Mexico Aug. 5, 1996.  
Entered into force Aug. 5, 1996. 
 
Letter approving and modifying the oil proceeds agreement of Feb. 21,  
1995 (Annex A to the framework agreement). Signed at Washington, Mexico,  
and New York Aug. 5, 1996. Entered into force Aug. 5, 1996. 
 
Moldova 
Agreement to treat the agreement of June 19, 1995, among the states  
parties to the North Atlantic Treaty and other states participating in  
the Partnership for Peace regarding the status of their forces as  
binding between the United States and Moldova. Effected by exchange of  
notes at Chisinau Aug. 1, 1996. Entered into force Aug. 1, 1996. 
 
Netherlands 
Memorandum of understanding for the tip vortex cavitation project, with  
annexes. Signed at Washington and The Hague Apr. 25 and July 15, 1996.  
Entered into force July 15, 1996. 
 
New Zealand 
Agreement concerning certain mutual defense commitments. Effected by  
exchange of notes at Washington July 16, 1996. Entered into force July  
16, 1996. 
 
Russia 
Memorandum of understanding on cooperation in natural and man-made  
technological emergency prevention and response. Signed at Moscow July  
16, 1996. Entered into force July 16, 1996. 
 
Trinidad & Tobago 
Agreement for cooperation in the Global Learning and Observations to  
Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) program, with appendices. Signed at Port  
of Spain July 16, 1996. Entered into force July 16, 1996. 
 
Turkey 
Acquisition and cross-servicing agreement, with annexes. Signed at  
Ankara and Stuttgart July 26 and Aug. 12, 1996. Entered into force Aug.  
12, 1996. 
 
United Kingdom 
Agreement amending the memorandum of understanding  of Oct. 17, 1986,  
for the procurement of the RN ship-launched harpoon weapon system for  
the Royal Navy  (TIAS 11381). Signed at Washington and Bath June 24 and  
July 9, 1996. Entered into force July 9, 1996. 
 
Agreement extending application of the agreement of Feb. 9, 1988, as  
amended, concerning the investigation of drug trafficking offenses and  
seizure and forfeiture of proceeds and instrumentalities of drug  
trafficking to Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Bailiwicks of Jersey  
and Guernsey. Effected by exchange of notes at London June 19 and July  
26, 1996. 
 
Memorandum of understanding for the cooperative development of  
technology upgrades to the AN/MSR-3(V) TACJAM-A electronic support (ES)  
Subsystem (Catalyst), with annexes. Signed at Washington and London July  
26 and Aug. 15, 1996. Entered into force Aug. 15, 1996. 
 
Memorandum of understanding concerning the framework for advanced  
concept technology demonstration (ACTD) cooperation, with annex. Signed  
at Washington and London Aug. 12 and 16, 1996. Entered into force Aug.  
16, 1996. 
 
 
1 Not in force. 
 
(###) 
 
 
[END OF DISPATCH VOLUME 7, NUMBER 39]

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