U.S. Department of State Dispatch
Volume 7, Number 47, November 18, 1996
Published by the Bureau of Public Affairs


ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:

1.  Proposals for New Security Force in Bosnia and Humanitarian Relief 
for Zaire--President Clinton
2.  Charting the Course for Future Civilian Implementation Efforts in 
Bosnia--Secretary Christopher
3.  Dayton and the World: A Look Ahead--Deputy Secretary Talbott
4.  Treaty Actions



ARTICLE 1:


Proposals for New Security Force in Bosnia and Humanitarian Relief for 
Zaire
President Clinton
Remarks prior to press conference, Washington, DC, November 15, 1996

Good morning. One year ago in Dayton, the leaders of Bosnia, Croatia, 
and Serbia turned from the horror of war to the promise of peace. Their 
historic decision came after nearly four years of horrible bloodshed, 
the bloodiest conflict Europe has seen since World War II; after a 
quarter million deaths; after 2 million people were made refugees; after 
countless atrocities that shocked the conscience of the world.

When the Balkan leaders chose peace, I asked the American people to help 
them by supporting the participation of our troops in a NATO-led 
implementation force to secure the Dayton Agreement. I promised that the 
mission would be carefully defined with clear and realistic goals. I 
said it would be completed in about a year.

IFOR has succeeded beyond our expectations. As a result, its mission 
will end as planned on December 20, and every single item on IFOR's 
military checklist has been accomplished. It has maintained the cease-
fire and separated the parties along a new demilitarized zone. It has 
monitored the placement of thousands of heavy weapons and holding areas, 
overseen a massive troop demobilization and the transfer of hundreds of 
square miles of territory from one side to another, and allowed the 
people of Bosnia to vote in free national elections.

That has been a remarkable achievement. In the process we have seen how 
important and effective the NATO Alliance remains. And we have seen the 
possibilities for cooperation with Russia and the other members of the 
Partnership for Peace. Today, the Bosnian people are far better off than 
they were a year ago. Their prospects for a future of peace and freedom 
are much brighter.

Already, the change in the day-to-day lives of the people there is 
dramatic. Marketplaces are full of life, not death; more people have 
roofs over their head, food on their tables, heat and hot water. The 
routines of normal life--going to work, coming home from school--are 
slowly becoming a reality. Bosnia's bitter harvest of hatred, however, 
has not yet disappeared.

For the last 12 months, the killing has stopped, and with time, the 
habits of peace can take hold. This success we owe to IFOR. But its 
achievements on the military side have not been matched, despite all our 
efforts, by similar progress on the civilian side. Quite frankly, 
rebuilding the fabric of Bosnia's economic and political life is taking 
longer than anticipated.

Economic activity is only just resuming. Its pace must be quickened and 
its reach extended. The presidency, the parliament, the constitutional 
court--created by the elections--are still in their infancy. They need 
time to work. Civilian police forces must be better trained. We must 
complete training and equipping the Bosnian Federation military so that 
a stable balance of power can take hold  and renewed aggression is less 
likely. And municipal elections remain to be organized and held.

Let me emphasize that the Bosnian people, with the help of international 
civilian groups, will be responsible for all this work. But for a time, 
they will need the stability and the confidence that only an outside 
security force can provide.

NATO has been studying options to give them the help that time will 
provide by providing a new security presence in Bosnia when IFOR 
withdraws. That study is now complete. I have carefully reviewed its 
options, and I have decided to instruct the United States representative 
to NATO to inform our allies that, in principle, the United States will 
take part in a follow-on force in Bosnia.

For my agreement in principle to become a commitment, however, I must be 
satisfied that the final recommendation NATO adopts and the operational 
plan it develops are clear, limited, and achievable. The new mission's 
focus should be to prevent a resumption of hostilities so that economic 
reconstruction and political reconciliation can accelerate. That will 
require a strong but limited military presence in Bosnia, able to 
respond quickly and decisively to any violations of the cease-fire.

The new mission will be more limited than IFOR and will require fewer 
troops. It will not face the fundamental military challenge of 
separating two hostile armies, because IFOR has accomplished that task. 
It will be charged with working to maintain the stability that IFOR 
created. It will discourage the parties from taking up arms again, while 
encouraging them to resume full responsibility for their own security as 
quickly as possible.

IFOR plowed the field in which the seeds of peace have been planted. 
This new mission will provide the climate for them to take root and the 
time to begin growing.

Our military planners have concluded that this new mission will require 
fewer than half the number of troops we contributed to IFOR--about 
8,500. There will be an American commander and tough rules of 
engagement. Every six months we will review whether the stability can be 
maintained with fewer forces. By the end of 1997, we expect to draw down 
to a much smaller deterrent force--about half the initial size--and we 
will propose to our NATO allies that by June of 1998 the mission's work 
should be done and the forces should be able to withdraw.

The United States cannot and should not try to solve every problem in 
the world, but where our interests are clear and our values are at 
stake, where we can make a difference, we must act and we must lead. 
Clearly, Bosnia is such an example. Every American should be proud of 
the difference the United States has already made in Bosnia, ending a 
terrible slaughter, saving thousands of lives, securing countless 
futures. We have a responsibility to see that commitment through, to 
give the peace America helped to make in Bosnia a chance to grow strong, 
self-sufficient, and lasting.

Earlier this week, I also decided that, in principle, the United States 
should take part in an international humanitarian effort to be part of a 
release force that Canada will lead in Zaire. Two years ago, following 
genocide in Rwanda, more than 1 million Rwandans fled for Zaire. 
Recently, their plight has worsened as fighting among militant forces 
has driven them from their camps. Violence has begun to spiral out of 
control, preventing relief agencies from providing food and medicine to 
the refugees who are now vulnerable to starvation and to disease. The 
world's most powerful nation must not turn its back on so many desperate 
people and so many innocent children who are now at risk.

The mission Canada proposes to lead, and that I believe America should 
take part in, would provide security for civilian relief agencies to 
deliver the aid these people must have; and to help the refugees who so 
desire to return home to Rwanda.

America's contribution to such a force would match our special 
capabilities, such as providing security at the Goma airfield and 
helping to airlift allied forces. Neither the new security force in 
Bosnia nor the humanitarian relief effort in Zaire will be free of risk. 
But I will do everything in my power to minimize the risks by making 
sure both missions are clear and achievable before I give the green 
light. American leadership places a special burden on the men and women 
of our armed forces and their families. We ask a lot from them, and 
without fail, they deliver for us.

Now, as we contemplate calling on them again, I ask us, first of all, to 
remember the astonishing job they have done, remarkably free of violence 
in Bosnia. And I ask that every American keep them in their thoughts and 
prayers.

(###)



ARTICLE 2:


Charting the Course for Future Civilian Implementation Efforts in Bosnia
Secretary Christopher
Statement at the Paris Peace Implementation Council Steering Group 
Working Session, International Conference Center, Paris, France, 
November 14, 1996

I want to thank Foreign Minister de Charette for hosting this important 
meeting. Let me express my gratitude to France for the vital part it has 
played in the effort to secure peace with justice for the people of 
Bosnia. Today's Steering Board meeting is another important step in that 
long-term effort.

One year ago today, we were beginning the final week of the talks that 
ended the war. I remember that we were tantalizingly near to closure and 
potentially just as near to closing down. The world was watching, 
waiting, to see if the parties, with the support of the international 
community, could break through the mistrust. We proved the doubters 
wrong then, and we have many times since.

We have made tremendous strides together in the year since Dayton. We 
have separated the warring armies. Railways and airports are reopening, 
and people are resuming normal lives. Elections have given the people of 
Bosnia a say in their future. The three members of Bosnia's new 
Presidency have met together seven times, and each time their dialogue 
has become more substantive.

For all of the progress that we have made over the last year, much more 
remains to be done. Our task today is to chart the course for our future 
civilian implementation efforts in Bosnia. 

Today, we have before us Guiding Principles that we have agreed to for 
the Civilian Consolidation Plan for the next two years. The Plan 
includes a 13-point Action Agenda dealing with such key issues as 
respecting human rights, building institutions, and ensuring freedom of 
movement. In particular, I want to highlight the Action Agenda's call 
for full cooperation by the parties with the War Crimes Tribunal and for 
indicted persons to be surrendered without delay.

Today, the Steering Board has also agreed to several other critical 
steps that must be taken to move ahead with civilian implementation. 

-- We will hold the parties to an increasingly greater level of 
responsibility for the functions, such as assuring freedom of movement 
and resettlement of refugees, now undertaken or coordinated by the 
international community.
--  We have made it clear to the parties that the Security Council will 
consider imposing measures if they fail to significantly meet their 
obligations under the peace agreement.
--  We will link economic reconstruction assistance to the 
implementation by the parties of the agreement, including cooperation 
with the War Crimes Tribunal.
--  We have agreed that the OSCE will prepare and conduct the municipal 
elections in 1997. 

The Guiding Principles we have agreed to today clearly establish the 
commitments that must be met and the responsibilities that must be 
undertaken if we are to achieve success over the next two years.

We must recall that the heart of the Dayton Agreement is the effective 
functioning of joint institutions for a unified state. That goal is not 
yet fully achieved. I understand how difficult this has been. But now is 
the time to put aside procedural disputes and to concentrate on shared 
interests. It is vital that you move forward with the selection of the 
Council of Ministers. Bosnia's Parliamentary Assembly must also meet and 
start doing business. All the representatives to the Constitutional 
Court must be appointed. You have a responsibility to the people who 
have elected you, to the process you embraced, and to future generations 
to make these institutions work.

In the coming months, the civilian side of implementation and the 
efforts of the High Representative will take on even greater importance. 
The international community must strengthen our support for his efforts, 
just as Bosnia's leaders must cooperate in good faith. In particular, we 
must speed up the pace of reconstruction assistance. We must translate 
pledges into money and money into projects on the ground, so that people 
can see the tangible benefits of peace and gain a stake in preserving 
them. We must also strengthen the International Police Task Force. We 
need a high-caliber force that has the authority to respond effectively 
as problems arise.

Cooperation with the War Crimes Tribunal is also crucial. For Serbia, 
Croatia, and each entity within Bosnia, it is an essential condition for 
rejoining the international community. I am pleased that the Bosnian 
Serb leaders have taken steps to remove indicted war criminals, 
including General Mladic, from positions of authority. But they will not 
meet their obligations until these war criminals are turned over to the 
Tribunal.

In the months ahead, we will face these and many other practical 
challenges together. We must at all times remember that our purpose is 
to help build a peaceful, democratic, and unified Bosnia. We can only 
assist the process if Bosnia's elected leaders continue to move toward 
that goal. A minimum condition for U.S. reconstruction assistance to 
each entity is that it participates, fully in good faith, in creating 
and running joint institutions. Each must also cooperate with the 
international community to hold successful municipal elections in 1997. 
We expect nothing less than full cooperation with the OSCE between now 
and the elections.

Everything we are doing has a straightforward purpose. It is to 
implement the Dayton Agreement in letter and in spirit. That is the only 
option we can consider, the only goal we can support, the only way to 
achieve a lasting peace in Bosnia. It is why we have all come to Paris 
this week. And it is what we will continue to move forward when we come 
together again next month in London.

Our goal is for Bosnia and its neighbors to rejoin Europe as stable, 
democratic, and tolerant states. Our goal is for Bosnia to emerge as a 
European nation in the Balkans, not as a Balkanized nation on the 
periphery of Europe.

We have our roadmap. We know the direction in which we are heading, and 
we have long ago decided that there is no turning back. Let us continue 
to travel the road to peace together. Thank you very much.

(###)



ARTICLE 3:


Dayton and the World: A Look Ahead
Deputy Secretary Talbott
Remarks at a Town Meeting celebrating the one-year anniversary of the 
Dayton accords, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, November 
19, 1996

Thank you, General Farrell. This base, like this city, has been home to 
my family for a long time. My grandfather--Brigadier General Nelson 
Talbott of the Air Materiel Command--had an office here at Wright-Pat 
during the Korean war. Let me also say a word about the Dayton World 
Affairs Council. This is the second time since I've been in government 
that the council has given me a chance to return to my birthplace. My 
parents, Bud and Jo Talbott, along with my great-uncle George Mead and 
his daughter, my dear friend Louise Walker, helped found the council in 
1947. That was the year after I was born. Mom, Dad, and Louise are all 
here today. So, too, in spirit, I'd like to believe, is Uncle George. My 
folks have been active in the Cleveland Council on World Affairs, and 
Louise is a moving force behind the Committee on National Security, a 
national outfit of great distinction, energy, and effectiveness that 
educates the public about arms control.

When I was last here in March 1995, I gave a speech at the University of 
Dayton--good to see you again, Brother Fitz. I used that occasion to try 
to make the case for vigorous American engagement in a changing world. 
Now, over a year-and-a-half later, that case is even more compelling. 
That's true in no small measure because of the historic event we are 
here to commemorate today.  

As a native Daytonian--albeit one who long ago went astray--I share your 
pride in our hometown. I'm proud of the role it played in ending the 
worst, most ignominious, the most shameful, the most dangerous outbreak 
of violence in Europe since the end of World War II. 

To underscore the magnitude of what occurred here a year ago, let me 
remind you of what was happening in Bosnia eight months earlier, when I 
met with many of you. In March 1995, the time of my last visit, Bosnian 
Serb militias were strangling the life out of Muslim communities. They 
were making a mockery of the United Nations' designation of those 
enclaves as "safe areas." The Serbs were bent  on establishing a Greater 
Serbia--a Serbia for Serbs--and God help anyone else. Their instruments 
for doing so were mass murder, mass rape, mass deportation. When NATO 
threatened reprisals, the Serbs used UN personnel as human shields. From 
the siege of Gorazde to the killing fields of Srebrenica and Brcko, the 
conflict made obscure Balkan place names into household words around 
kitchen tables in the heartland of America. The war had also already 
added a new phrase to the glossary of this century: "ethnic cleansing," 
inscribed right there next to "final solution," as an administrative 
euphemism for genocide.

Then, to make a long and difficult story short, we--we the United 
States, we the international community--got our act together. We did so 
not as soon as we should have or as soon as we would have liked, but we 
did it very effectively, nonetheless. Secretary Christopher and Dick 
Holbrooke, along with John Kornblum, Phil Goldberg, Rosemarie Pauli, 
Miriam Sapiro, and others--some of whom are here today--brought the 
warring parties together at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. 

Three weeks later, on November 20, our country contributed a new word of 
its own to virtually every language on earth: "Dayton." It didn't mean 
just-- or to most people even mainly--a lovely city in the Miami Valley 
of southern Ohio; it meant American commitment to peace in far corners 
of the world where U.S. national interests and values are at stake; it 
meant American willingness to back diplomacy with force; in short, it 
meant--and it continues to mean--American leadership.

John Kornblum outlined for you before lunch the serious problems that 
remain and what we're doing to solve them. He explained President 
Clinton's decision last week to support a new international force. 
Crucial to the success of this new mission and of the current one is 
Ambassador Robert Frowick, the chief representative in Bosnia of the 
Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe. He is not just a 
fine American public servant, but in his current capacity, a great 
international one as well. His willingness to keep serving in Bosnia 
increases our optimism for success. Quite simply, we must stay in Bosnia 
because the implementation of the Dayton accords is unfinished business-
-it's a work in progress.

The same can be said of numerous other projects that bear the stamp of 
American leadership and that advance the cause of American security. Let 
me give you only the most obvious examples:

Russia. We have years--or more to the point decades--of work ahead of us 
if we are going to succeed in helping Russia complete its transition to 
democracy, to the free market, and to full integration with the outside 
world. 

Central Europe. We have opened the doors of NATO to the vibrant new 
democracies that have emerged from what used to be, only a few years 
ago, the Soviet empire. But we have a continuing challenge ahead of us 
to make sure that the process of NATO enlargement goes forward in a way 
that enhances the security and stability of Europe--and Eurasia--as a 
whole. 

Haiti. We have made it possible for that neighboring nation to climb out 
of the pit of violence, poverty, and despair, where it had wallowed for 
over 200 years. But the Haitian people, with our help, have only begun 
the long, hard work of developing a viable democracy and a viable 
economy.

Mexico. It was the United States that took decisive action to extend 
loans during the peso crisis of December 1994. That rescue operation was 
crucial in saving from financial and political collapse a very large and 
populous country with which we share a 2,000-mile border. The Mexican 
Government is now repaying those loans ahead of schedule. But we can't 
let up in our efforts to be a good neighbor and good friend to Mexico--
for our own sake as well as for Mexico's.

Middle East. For all its problems, that region is safer, more stable 
today than it was four years ago. The 18-year-old peace between Israel 
and Egypt is holding. There is now peace between Israel and Jordan, as 
well. There is also, crucially, a process of reconciliation underway 
between Israel and the Palestinians. Since the death of Prime Minister 
Rabin just over a year ago, we've been a steadying presence in the 
region, and we've been working hard to keep alive the achievement and 
the dream to which he dedicated the last years of his life. 

Let me mention another dramatic example of dedication. Secretary 
Christopher, who is in China today, recently returned from his 21st 
visit to the Middle East. He is retiring next month, so that mission 
will probably turn out to be his last to the region as Secretary of 
State. There is no issue to which he has devoted more of his personal 
energy and skill--and believe me, that's saying a lot. He has left his 
successor a solid basis for a lasting and comprehensive peace in the 
region. 

Beyond these specific, geographically definable trouble spots, there are 
also global challenges requiring our constant attention. The strength of 
our domestic economy depends on open markets and support for American 
businesses abroad. One in seven jobs in our country is export-related. 
Those jobs pay 15% more than the average wage. Ohio's own exports grew 
by nearly 10% last year. As the city with the most patents per capita in 
the United States, Dayton is emblematic of the ingenuity that makes our 
economy the most productive in the world. 

But to fulfill its potential, our economy must also be the most 
competitive. That's where your State Department comes in. Dayton 
companies like NCR, Robbins and Myers, and Systran Corporation all 
depend on American diplomats to negotiate trade agreements that open 
markets for American products.

Let me give you another example of what we're doing abroad on behalf of 
this and other U.S. cities. One of many factors that will, over time, 
affect the safety of Dayton's streets is our ability to track drug 
kingpins in Latin America, eradicate opium-poppy crops in Southeast 
Asia, and prevent the laundering of drug money around the world. 

And then there's the environment, which Secretary Christopher has vowed 
to make a mainstream issue for U.S. foreign policy. The quality of air 
you breathe and the water you drink will, in the years to come, depend 
increasingly on our ability to achieve and implement international 
agreements that blunt ecological threats from toxic chemicals, climate 
change, acid rain, and the depletion of the ozone layer.

I could keep going, citing numerous other examples of how American 
engagement and American leadership serve to advance American interests 
and values. But let me instead use my few remaining minutes to make a 
more general point--a somber point and, I believe, an urgent one. Our 
involvement abroad requires money, more than we as a nation seem now 
willing to pay. It's that simple. The legislative branch of our 
government has put our foreign policy on a starvation diet. Too many 
members of the 104th Congress, which adjourned in October, thought that 
the United States could be a superpower on the cheap. In real-dollar 
terms--that is, adjusted for inflation--they cut international affairs 
spending by over 14%.  

Those draconian cuts of the last two years--which President Clinton 
strongly resisted--came on top of a steady decline over the previous 
decade. Since 1985, again in real-dollar terms, our international 
affairs budget has plummeted by 50%--50%! And that was during a decade 
when the world became a more complicated place, when the end of the Cold 
War brought both new opportunities and new dangers, when the American 
investment in the world--both literal and figurative investment--was 
going up, our willingness to underwrite that investment in our own 
future security went down. We cut it in half. Back in Washington, I'd 
call that short-sighted and counterproductive. Here, I'd call it just 
plain nuts. 

Cutbacks of the magnitude made by the last Congress have threatened our 
ability to pursue every one of the goals I outlined above--and many, 
many more, as well. Today, we're barely able to conduct arms control 
negotiations and peacemaking and peacekeeping; we're barely able to 
maintain our foreign-assistance programs; we're barely able to provide 
adequate consular and commercial services to Americans abroad. 

Every time a crisis occurs, whether it's in the Middle East or Africa or 
Latin America, we find ourselves scrambling for the funds necessary to 
keep a local conflict from becoming a regional one. All too often we 
have to rob from Peter to pay Paul--underpay Paul, I might add. Our 
country is the loser; the American people are worse off. 

Over the last four years, we've had to close 30 embassies and consulates 
around the world. As Secretary Christopher said in a speech at West 
Point last month, "We cannot advance American interests by lowering the 
American flag."  

Ladies and gentlemen, let me stress: I'm laying this on thick because it 
matters to each and every one of you. This is not just an inside-the-
Beltway budgetary issue. It's an urgent matter of national interest and 
national security, and it deserves attention and debate all across the 
home front. To put it simply, starkly, and, I believe, indisputably, the 
foreign policy of the United States is so woefully underfunded that the 
safety and prosperity of the American people will suffer if we don't 
take urgent corrective action. 

Penny-wisdom and pound-foolishness in the present will add to the burden 
that the students here today from Kettering Fairmont High School will 
have to bear when they take over the leadership of this country in the 
not-too-distant future.

We must all hope that the 105th Congress reverses the trend that the 
104th so seriously exacerbated. Dayton's congressional district is 
represented in Washington by Tony Hall, who has consistently supported 
adequate funding for foreign affairs, and he's been a real leader on the 
issues of world hunger, health, and children's issues. I want to 
emphasize that this is not, in its essence, a partisan issue. There are 
Democrats who need better to understand the importance of American 
engagement abroad, and there are Republicans--like Senator Dick Lugar of 
Indiana--who have been eloquent and persuasive on that subject, and who 
believe that we must do enough to meet the challenges and opportunities 
of international leadership.

So while we have an uphill struggle ahead of us on Capitol Hill, we do 
have allies up there--allies in both parties. They and you and we 
together--enlightened citizens and responsible public servants--must 
intensify our efforts to make the case for American engagement in the 
world. Then we must take that case directly to the American people. In 
part this will require countering demagogically inspired misperceptions 
about how much money we actually spend on foreign affairs. For example, 
recent surveys suggest many Americans think we spend about 18% of the 
federal budget on our foreign assistance programs, and that it should be 
no more than 8%. In fact, a mere 1.2% of the budget covers all our 
foreign affairs spending--from foreign assistance to the cost of keeping 
our consulates and embassies around the world open for business. That's 
less than one-tenth of what we spend on defense.

Speaking of which--here at Wright-Pat, the men and women of the United 
States Air force talk about--and, more important, do something about--
the need to preserve what they call "military readiness." By that 
phrase, they mean keeping our powder dry; keeping our planes in flying 
order; keeping our air crews fully trained and healthy and ready to go 
if their nation calls. Ask General Farrell what military readiness 
means. It means being able bravely and expertly to defend our nation and 
carry out the orders of the commander in chief. It means being able, in 
General Farrell's case, to log 2,500 hours and fly 196 combat missions--
and then to come home alive to his wife Victoria and his children Sean 
and Kelly.

Well, ladies and gentlemen: We need to start thinking about what might 
be called "diplomatic readiness." That means keeping our embassies open; 
it means making sure that we have trained personnel around the world to 
deal with the needs of our citizens and our entrepreneurs; it means 
maintaining our relations with the other great powers, participating 
fully in international organizations, supporting U.S. business overseas, 
and advancing goals that benefit our national interest. It means having 
the wherewithal to maintain programs that help the nations of the former 
Soviet Union get rid of their nuclear weapons and continue their 
transitions from dictatorship to democracy. 

But there's something else that "diplomatic readiness" also means. It 
means providing decent physical and financial security for our foreign 
policy professionals like John Kornblum, Phil Goldberg, and Rosemarie 
Pauli, who work hard and selflessly on your behalf, often in hardship 
posts and dangerous conditions around the world. My most melancholy duty 
as Deputy Secretary of State has been to go to Andrews Air Force Base 
outside of Washington and participate in homecoming ceremonies for the 
caskets of Foreign Service officers and civil servants who have given 
their lives for our country.

A little over a year ago, one of those caskets bore the remains of 
General Farrell's brother-in-law, Joe Kruzel, a key member of Dick 
Holbrooke's peace team who died on the road to Sarajevo. Nothing makes 
me angrier than hearing diplomats and other foreign policy professionals 
caricatured derisively as cookie-pushers who are living it up in cushy 
posts overseas.

By the way, there's a direct connection between diplomatic and military 
readiness: If we don't maintain the former, we're more likely to have to 
test the latter. Diplomacy, in a very real sense, is our first line of 
defense against threats to our vital national interest. Our foreign 
policy professionals spend a lot of their time averting crises or 
keeping them from getting out of control. If diplomacy fails us because 
of inadequate funding, we're more likely to have to use armed force; 
we're more likely to have to scramble planes at bases like this one. And 
the use of force is almost always more costly in American dollars and 
very likely in American lives as well. 

The Dayton accords, which represented a diplomatic success backed-up by 
the threat of force, are a perfect example of how foreign policy at its 
best is the result of skillful diplomacy combined with a strong 
military. 

So to all of you, my fellow Daytonians, I make an appeal. For 48 years, 
you've extended your hospitality to the keepers of the peace at Wright-
Pat. A year ago, you extended your hospitality to the makers of the 
peace that reigns in Bosnia today--a peace that bears the name of our 
city. Therefore, I hope the people of Dayton will continue to set an 
example for the rest of our country--an example of grassroots support 
for American leadership in a changing world. Thank you very much. 

(###)



ARTICLE 4:


Treaty Actions
Multilateral

Children
Convention on protection of children and cooperation in respect of 
intercountry adoption. Done at The Hague May 29, 1993. Entered into 
force May 1, 19951. 
Signature: Sweden, Oct. 10, 1996.

Prisoners of War
Geneva convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war. Done at 
Geneva Aug. 12, 1949. Entered into force Oct. 21, 1950; for the U.S. 
Feb. 2, 1945. TIAS 3364; 6 UST 3316. 
Accession: Palau, June 25, 1995.

Racial Discrimination
International convention on the elimination of all forms of racial 
discrimination. Adopted by the UN General Assembly Dec. 21, 1965. 
Entered into force Jan. 4, 1969; for the U.S. Nov. 20, 1994. [Senate] 
Ex. C, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 
Accessions: Azerbaijan, Aug. 16, 1996; Malawi, June 11, 1996.

Red Cross
Geneva convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded 
and sick in armed forces in the field. Done at Geneva Aug. 12, 1949. 
Entered into force Oct. 21, 1950; for the U.S. Feb. 2, 1956. TIAS 3362; 
6 UST 3114. 
Accession: Palau, June 25, 1995.

Geneva convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded, 
sick, and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea. Done at Geneva 
Aug. 12, 1949. Entered into force Oct. 21, 1950; for the U.S. Feb. 2, 
1956. TIAS 3363; 6 UST 3217. 
Accession: Palau, June 25, 1995.

Geneva convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time 
of war. Done at Geneva Aug. 12, 1949. Entered into force Oct. 21, 1950; 
for the U.S. Feb. 2, 1956. TIAS 3365; 6 UST 3516.  
Accession: Palau, June 25, 1995.

Protocol additional to the Geneva conventions of Aug. 12, 1949, and 
relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts 
(Protocol I), with annexes. Done at Geneva June 8, 1977. Entered into 
force Dec. 7, 19781. 
Accessions: Dominica, Apr. 25, 1996; Palau, June 25, 1995; Sao Tome and 
Principe, July 5, 1996.

Protocol additional to the Geneva conventions of Aug. 12,1949, and 
relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed 
conflicts (Protocol II). Done at Geneva June 8, 1977. Entered into force 
Dec. 7, 19781. 
Accessions: Cyprus, Mar. 18, 1996; Dominica, Apr. 25, 1996; Palau, June 
25, 1995; Sao Tome and Principe, July 5, 1996.

Refugees
Convention relating to the status of refugees, with schedule and annex. 
Signed at Geneva July 28, 1951. Entered into force Apr. 22, 19541. TIAS 
6577.

Protocol relating to the status of refugees. Done at New York Jan. 31, 
1967. Entered into force Oct. 4, 1967; for the U.S. Nov. 1, 1968. TIAS 
6577; 19 UST 6223. 
Accession: Kyrgyzstan, Oct. 8, 1996.


Bilateral

Argentina 
Arrangement for the exchange of technical information and cooperation in 
[nuclear] regulatory and safety research matters, with addendum. Signed 
at Vienna Sept. 17, 1996. Entered into force Sept. 17, 1996.

Bahamas
Agreement concerning a cooperative shiprider and overflight drug 
interdiction program. Effected by exchange of notes at Nassau May 1 and 
6, 1996. Entered into force May 6, 1996.

Canada 
Agreement on a full and final settlement of all claims for costs of 
environmental clean-up at former U.S. military installations in Canada. 
Effected by exchange of notes at Washington Oct. 7 and 9, 1996. Entered 
into force Oct. 9, 1996.

Czech Republic 
Air transport agreement, with annexes. Signed at Prague Sept. 10, 1996. 
Entered into force Sept. 10, 1996.

Georgia
Express mail agreement, with detailed regulations. Signed at Tbilisi and 
Washington Aug. 16 and Sept. 3, 1996. Entered into force Nov. 1, 1996.

Greece 
Agreement extending the air transport agreement, with annex, of July 31, 
1991. Effected by exchange of notes at Athens June 13 and 19, 1996. 
Entered into force Aug. 1, 1996.

Hungary 
Arrangement for the exchange of technical information and cooperation in 
nuclear safety matters, with addenda. Signed at Vienna Sept. 16, 1996. 
Entered into force Sept. 16, 1996.

Israel 
Agreement for technology research and development projects, with annex. 
Signed at Washington and Tel Aviv Aug. 22 and Sept. 3, 1996. Entered 
into force Sept. 3, 1996.

Japan
Agreement concerning a program for the cooperative research of eyesafe 
laser radar. Effected by exchange of notes at Washington Sept. 20, 1996. 
Entered into force Sept. 20, 1996.

Agreement concerning reciprocal provision of logistic support, supplies, 
and services between the Armed Forces of the United States of America 
and the Self-Defense Forces of Japan, with annex. Signed at Tokyo Apr. 
15, 1996. Entered into force Oct. 22, 1996.

Luxembourg
Agreement concerning cooperation in the Global Learning and Observations 
to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) Program, with appendices. Signed at 
Luxembourg Oct. 10, 1996. Entered into force Oct. 10, 1996.

Mexico
Memorandum of cooperation for research and development of the Global 
Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). Signed at Mexico July 11, 1996. 
Entered into force July 11, 1996.

Netherlands
Agreement concerning a cooperative project for the measurement and 
analysis of the infrared celestial background. Signed at Washington and 
The Hague June 24 and Sept. 16, 1996. Entered into force Sept. 16, 1996.

Russia
Agreement amending the agreement of Sept. 2, 1993, concerning the 
provision of material, services, and training relating to the 
construction of a safe, secure, and ecologically sound storage facility 
for fissile material derived from the destruction of nuclear weapons. 
Signed at Washington Sept. 6, 1996. Entered into force Sept. 6, 1996.

Sierra Leone 
Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling of certain debts 
owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the United States Government, with 
annexes. Signed at Freetown Aug. 7, 1996. Entered into force Oct. 16, 
1996.

Switzerland 
Air transport agreement, with annexes. Signed at Washington June 15, 
1995. Entered into force Sept. 27, 1996.

Agreement for promotion of aviation safety. Signed at Washington Sept. 
26, 1996. Entered into force Sept. 26, 1996.

United Kingdom
Arrangement for the exchange of technical information and cooperation in 
nuclear safety matters, with addendum. Signed at Vienna Sept. 18, 1996. 
Entered into force Sept. 18, 1996.

Memorandum of understanding relating to information exchange on short 
range air-to- air missile technologies and systems. Signed at Washington 
and Bristol Sept. 16 and 30, 1996. Entered into force Sept. 30, 1996.

United Nations 
Agreement extending the agreement concerning the provision of assistance 
on a reimbursable basis in support of the United Nations operations in 
Haiti. Signed at New York Sept. 18, 1996. Entered into force Sept. 18, 
1996.

Agreement concerning the provision of assistance on a reimbursable basis 
in support of United Nations operations in Central Africa. Signed at New 
York Aug. 20, 1996. Entered into force Aug. 20, 1996.


1 Not in force for the U.S.

(###)


[END OF DISPATCH VOLUME. 7, NUMBER 47]

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