U.S. Department of State
Dispatch Volume 7, Number 50, December 9, 1996
Bureau of Public Affairs



ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:

1.  The Role of the OSCE in European Security--Vice President Gore

2.  Fulfilling the Founding Vision of NATO--Secretary Christopher



ARTICLE 1: 

The Role of the OSCE in European Security 
Vice President Gore 
Address at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe 
Summit, 
Lisbon, Portugal, December 2, 1996

Thank you my long-time friend, President Nazerbayev. It is an honor to 
join you today to speak on behalf of my President on the subject of how 
best to provide for the future security and well-being of the OSCE 
community of nations.

I would like to begin by thanking our Chairman-in-Office, Flavio Cotti 
of Switzerland, and to congratulate our host, Portugal, for this 
magnificent hospitality and efficiency. In fact, in some ways, there is 
perhaps no better place to have such a discussion than in this beautiful 
city and in this great nation. 

Centuries ago, the Portuguese sailed beyond the familiar blue of the 
Mediterranean to the uncertainty beyond. Undaunted by fear, they boldly 
opened the way to Africa, to Asia, and to the Americas. It is fitting, 
therefore, that we meet in this land of discovery to chart progress on a 
new voyage toward peace, security, and prosperity for our nations and 
our peoples.

The moment for such an undertaking could not be more auspicious. Today, 
for the first time in history, the nations of this region--from the 
shores of the Atlantic to the Urals and the steppes of Central Asia--
have taken upon themselves the obligation to live by demo- cratic 
values. On the eve of a new millennium, we at last can aspire to 
construct a Europe in which the expectation of war has been replaced by 
the expectation of peace; a Europe in which security is based on the 
interaction of free markets, free minds, free peoples, and free nations. 
In this community of states, the security of each country must be 
indivisible from the security of all.

As with any voyage into the unknown, each of us, naturally, has concerns 
about our chances for success. And, very understandably, we also will 
have differences about which course to take. Some of these differences 
will have been settled by the time this meeting ends. The solution to 
others will need further discussion within the OSCE and other 
organizations and among the parties particularly concerned.

But even though there is much work before us, let us not forget the 
remarkable progress we already have made. First of all, we should note 
the degree to which the OSCE has kept faith with the principles 
enshrined in the Helsinki accords, despite the dramatic changes that 
have occurred since those accords were signed more than two decades ago.

Today, as in earlier years, the OSCE continues to be a place where the 
issues that affect the destiny of Europe can be debated on equal footing 
by all governments. The OSCE is unique in this regard. But the OSCE has 
become much more than a great forum of nations, it has become a way for 
nations to join together both in word and deed to address practical 
problems and challenges to those principles which form the core of this 
body.

When the OSCE was founded, the greatest challenge to peace was the 
possibility of conflict between massive alliances of political, 
military, and economic rivals. God willing, those days are gone. Today's 
gravest threats do not arise from clashes between groups of states but 
from discord within.

The OSCE fully recognizes this reality and as a result is sustaining 
missions in regions where the problem of ethnicity has become a central 
challenge to peace and security. These missions--in Nagorno-Karabakh, in 
Abkhazia, and elsewhere--are unprecedented efforts to substitute 
political processes for violent ones, and to help peoples resolve their 
conflicts through the language of mutual respect, confidence building, 
reconciliation, and respect for human rights.

The OSCE's mission in Bosnia represents a particularly dramatic 
adaptation to the challenges that have been presented by the worst of 
these conflicts. Because of our coordinated work together, the guns of 
war in the Balkans at last are silent. A bitter harvest of hatred is 
giving way to a new day of hope. Children are awakening to school bells, 
not mortar shells.

Of course, the story in Bosnia is far from over. But our progress thus 
far is the result of the successful fusion of the OSCE's ability to deal 
with problems of social and political reconstruction  to IFOR's ability 
to enable the parties to carry out the terms of their peace agreement. 
This partnership between OSCE and IFOR is more than just a spectacular 
example of how to bring to bear effective cooperative solutions to deal 
with a specific challenge. On a deeper level, it is an archetype of how 
the security of Europe is being promoted through dynamic new linkages 
between different institutions, including NATO, the WEU, the European 
Union, and the Partnership for Peace--each with an important role to 
play and each with its own strengths, expertise, and contributions to 
offer.

In many important respects, these flashes of imagination are 
illuminating the path ahead. Throughout our institutions we see systems 
of cooperation rapidly developing within themselves and between 
themselves. New participants are associating with or joining these 
systems in unprecedented forms to deal with unprecedented new issues. 
Exclusivity is yielding to the principle of inclusiveness. Concerns for 
the increased delineation of these organizations are matched by 
multiplying possibilities for their interaction and evolution.

Yes, the OSCE is evolving rapidly, flexibly, and inclusively. But at the 
same time, the OSCE does not need to be transformed into the only 
orchestrating instrument of European security. We should celebrate the 
special contribution of this community of cooperation and values, rather 
than compressing it into a legalistic framework. Treaties have their 
place, but we believe that the OSCE will succeed best on the basis of 
its flexible political commitments. The United States is ready and 
willing to work on developing cooperative arrangements between OSCE 
members and other organizations such as NATO.

NATO has been and remains a defensive alliance of like-minded democratic 
states. As such, of course, it poses no threat to any other state, 
because there are no reasons for the people of any free and democratic 
nation to fear the desires of those free and democratic countries in 
central Europe for stability and peace. Indeed, the stability that NATO 
can help extend to central Europe is in the interest of all nations. At 
the same time, as NATO enlargement proceeds, NATO wants in parallel to 
build a strong cooperative relationship with Russia and other states. 
That, too, can play a significant role in strengthening security and 
stability in Europe. And today's historic agreement here at the OSCE 
further strengthens this framework for peace and security. In 
particular, it is essential as NATO enlargement proceeds that we work in 
parallel to build a strong and cooperative NATO-Russian relationship. If 
wisdom and statesmanship prevail, NATO, as it takes on new missions and 
members, can contribute to the integration and comprehensive security of 
Europe.

Thanks to the OSCE and the great success of today's meeting, we already 
have developed a general set of principles that will help us in this 
task. The Comprehensive Security Model for Europe for the 21st century 
reflects wisdom that has been purchased at dear cost by whole 
generations. This security model is a message of confidence and hope. It 
is a message that we do have the intellectual and moral capacity to 
provide for the security of this and of untold future generations. 

And I would like to pause to salute those, all those, who have made this 
possible--and particularly, if I may, my friend, Prime Minister Viktor 
Chernomyrdin, with whom I was in close touch on the eve of this meeting-
-for their work in helping to bring this success today about. Let me 
also commend my colleagues for the agreement that we have reached to 
launch negotiations to update the CFE Treaty. This agreement--and the 
cooperative manner with which it has been made--are outstanding examples 
of how a flexible, inclusive, and creative political framework can yield 
real results. Not all our members are CFE states, but all share in the 
increased security and stability that will be provided by a successful 
outcome. And without the OSCE's capacity to encourage innovative ways 
for dealing with evolving and new circumstances, this important step 
could not have been possible.

My friends, here in this room is gathered the leadership of the vast 
region which now comprises the OSCE. Each of us comes here well aware of 
the specialized concerns and interests of our governments. But every 
leader here also is someone who has dreamed thoughts that are larger 
than the binding realities of the day. We know words alone will not be 
sufficient to secure our future. It will take patient, deliberate, 
continuing effort. It will require goodwill, common sense, and true 
cooperation. It will demand a new, inclusive vision of security--a 
vision that encompasses security in all its dimensions, not just 
military, but political, economic, environmental, and moral as well.

And it will demand that each of us hold fast to the sobering lesson of 
the 20th century: Without freedom, the aspirations of people and nations 
for decent lives and for security cannot be realized. That is why I join 
with many others in this room in my concern with the recent actions by 
the governments of Belarus and Serbia, which run against the principles 
of this organization.

Yes, there is much work before us. But as we approach the 21st century, 
we have as never before the capacity, the will, and the stamina to reach 
our goal. It is the goal to which President Clinton is deeply committed. 
America will remain engaged, now as before, as we work with you to build 
a new Europe, undivided and at peace.

An old Iberian proverb says "Traveler, there are no roads. Roads are 
made by walking." With high hopes, clear vision, and steady purpose, let 
us begin our journey. As were the explorers of earlier times who set 
forth from this land to navigate unknown paths, let us, too, be bold. 
And let us remember that the magnitude of the historic task ahead will 
be no excuse for failure. 

(###)


ARTICLE 2:

Fulfilling the Founding Vision of NATO
Secretary Christopher

North Atlantic Council
Statement at the North Atlantic Council Ministerial Meeting, Brussels, 
Belgium, December 10, 1996.

Mr. Secretary General, distinguished colleagues: I am honored to speak 
with you once again on behalf of the United States. In my four years as 
Secretary of State, I have had the chance to address the North Atlantic 
Council on nine separate occasions. Because of the importance President 
Clinton and I attach to our partnership with Europe and because of the 
central role NATO plays in ensuring the security of all our nations, 
this has been one of the most critical responsibilities I have had. Our 
allies, too, have been steadfast in their commitment to the 
transatlantic partnership. Time and again, you have reminded Americans 
how important our role in Europe continues to be. I have delivered that 
message to our Congress and to the American people. With their support, 
our alliance has become stronger than ever. 

The distance we have traveled and the achievements we have forged 
together in these four years should inspire confidence in all our 
people. Just think where we were at the beginning of 1993: Think of the 
uncertainties the alliance faced then and the questions we had not yet 
answered.

Many people wondered if America would maintain its commitment to Europe. 
Others questioned NATO's relevance to the post-Cold War world. We all 
agreed on the need to integrate Europe's new democracies, but we had 
agreed on no strategy to actually do it. Russia was just embarking on a 
difficult and uncertain path toward market democracy. The war in Bosnia 
was at the height of its brutality.

We met all these challenges by pursuing our interests together, as 16 
allies, through this great alliance. At their 1994 summit, our leaders 
adopted a strategy to transform NATO and to build an undivided Europe. 
In 1995, NATO acted to end the war in Bosnia and assembled a 
peacekeeping coalition so broad that for the very first time, we could 
say that all of Europe is united under a common flag in a common cause. 
NATO's Partnership for Peace has become a permanent, unifying force in 
Europe. France and Spain took historic decisions to participate more 
fully in NATO. We have stood by democracy in Russia and offered it a 
special partnership with the new NATO. Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakstan 
have rid themselves of nuclear weapons. The OSCE has worked effectively 
to uphold its principles, from Bosnia to the Caucasus. The EU has laid 
the groundwork for its own enlargement and built a stronger partnership 
with the United States.

Because of what we have accomplished, there is really no question today 
that America is staying in Europe. There is no doubt that NATO, the EU, 
and the OSCE work; that they have evolved; that together they provide 
the best hope for building a secure, democratic, integrated continent. 
There is a broad consensus across the Atlantic about the direction we 
are heading. NATO will continue to be the central guarantor of our 
security. NATO's European members will play a more visible role in NATO. 
The alliance will soon have new members. Russia is already our partner, 
from the meeting rooms of Brussels to the muddy fields of Bosnia.

This week, three events symbolize our progress. At the OSCE summit in 
Lisbon, 55 nations adopted a comprehensive security model and approved a 
new approach for conventional arms control in Europe. At the Peace 
Implementation Conference in London, we came together to support 
democracy and reconstruction in Bosnia. Today, we are meeting as NATO 
allies to advance the vision our leaders laid out at their 1994 summit.

At today's meeting, we are approving NATO's Stabilization Force for 
Bosnia. We are approving a major enhancement of the Partnership for 
Peace. We are continuing NATO's internal adaptation. We are declaring 
that in today's Europe, NATO has no intention, no plan, and no need to 
station nuclear weapons on the territory of any new members, and we are 
affirming that no NATO nuclear forces are presently on alert. NATO is 
signaling its readiness to exchange liaison offices with Russia at our 
military commands.

Today, we have agreed that our leaders will meet at a summit in the 
summer of 1997. We will consolidate our progress on the three broad 
goals our leaders set forth in 1994--equipping NATO for new roles and 
missions, reforming its internal structures, and extending its reach to 
new allies and partners.

We will need to continue to set ambitious goals and tackle the hard 
issues head on, both at the summit and beyond. Many important challenges 
still lie ahead. As NATO and the EU grow, we must ensure that their 
doors stay open. We must work hard with our partners in Russia and 
Ukraine to ensure that their nations take their rightful place in the 
new Europe. It will take time to overcome the acute economic disparities 
between east and west and to help the nations of the former Yugoslavia 
rejoin the European mainstream. We have to be vigilant in defending 
human rights and political freedom: As the courageous young people of 
Serbia have shown us and recent developments in Belarus have 
demonstrated, the struggle for democracy is not over in Europe. Of 
course, we must continue to strengthen our transatlantic partnership by 
breaking down barriers between our peoples and economies and by meeting 
global challenges together.

In 1999, our leaders will no doubt come together once again to mark 
NATO's 50th anniversary. The event should be more than a celebration of 
NATO's past, more than a ceremony to welcome new members. It will be the 
moment NATO embarks on its next 50 years. It will be time to chart a 
course for our New Atlantic Community well into the next century. 

Though much has changed since NATO was founded, America's goal will 
remain constant: a deeper partnership with a broader, more integrated 
Europe on this continent and around the world. With that goal in mind, 
let me take a few moments to discuss the issues on our agenda for today, 
the coming summit, and the years ahead.

Our most immediate task today is to finalize our approval of the follow-
on force for Bosnia. In just 10 days, IFOR's mission will come to an 
end. We will then proceed to a new mission, with fewer troops and a new, 
18-month mandate. We can do this because IFOR has succeeded. Let us 
pause for a moment to consider the tremendous debt of gratitude we owe 
to the 60,000 men and women of IFOR. Some came from the most experienced 
armed forces in the world; others came from nations and armies that did 
not even exist a few years ago. They represent long-standing allies and 
former adversaries. All of them proved they are equal to the task of 
building security in Europe under the toughest conditions. All the non-
NATO countries participating in IFOR will remain in the Stabilization 
Force.

We have made progress thus far by taking a step-by-step approach to 
progress in Bosnia. We ended the war. We separated the forces. We 
oversaw the transfer of territory. We supervised democratic elections. 
Now the institutions of a unified Bosnian state are being built. Each 
step has taken Bosnia another step away from war, but our work is not 
done.

IFOR and the High Representative have succeeded admirably in laying the 
foundations for a normal, civil society in Bosnia. Now the parties must 
take a greater share of the responsibility.

They must respect freedom of the press. They must honor arms control 
agreements. They must ensure freedom of movement and permit refugees to 
return home with security. A great effort will be needed from all of us 
to fulfill this requirement of the peace process. They must make their 
joint institutions function effectively. A competent and honest civil 
administration is essential. The OSCE is responsible for supervising and 
organizing municipal elections, which will take place in April. If we 
want the elections to succeed and if we want to see the OSCE play a more 
central and capable role in Europe, we must provide our full financial 
and political support for its efforts.

Justice is also a precondition for lasting peace. There should be no 
doubt about our determination to see war criminals punished. We expect 
the authorities in Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia to arrest war criminals 
and turn them over to the Tribunal in The Hague. But we must also see 
new and effective approaches to this urgent problem.

Our assistance to Bosnia will make a difference only if we insist that 
the parties fulfill their obligations. Reconstruction in Bosnia is not 
an end in itself. Fixing bridges and roads will not advance our goals 
unless people and goods can move freely across them. Economic aid will 
not lead to stable growth unless Bosnia's new institutions work 
effectively to take advantage of it. Reconstruction assistance is meant 
to support the peace process and to speed the fulfillment of Dayton's 
central requirement--a unified, multi-ethnic Bosnia--and it will be 
conditioned on the parties' compliance with that requirement.

We must make clear to Serbia and Croatia, too, that they will rejoin the 
international community only as open, democratic societies. Today, we 
join in condemning the Serbian Government's decision to ignore the 
results of the November 17 elections. That decision must be reversed. 
The people of Serbia deserve what their neighbors in central Europe 
have--clean elections, a free press, a normal market economy. If 
President Milosevic respects their will, Serbia can enjoy the legitimacy 
and assistance it needs. If he seeks to rule Serbia as an unreformed 
dictatorship, it will only increase his isolation and the suffering of 
his people.

The international community must continue to fulfill its 
responsibilities as well. We must accelerate the delivery of 
reconstruction aid to those parties who are fulfilling their 
responsibilities. Pledges must turn into projects on the ground so that 
people will see the benefits of peace. But as President Clinton has 
said, 
it is still up to the Bosnian people to take responsibility for 
rebuilding their country, reconciling with their neighbors, creating a 
democratic national government, and laying the foundation for a self-
sustaining peace.

The mission NATO has undertaken in Bosnia, the breadth of our coalition, 
and our cooperation with organizations such as the OSCE make it plain 
that we have built a new NATO. The challenge we have faced in Bosnia is 
also the kind of challenge a new NATO is more likely to face in the 
post-Cold War world, and it shows us the potential NATO has for assuring 
peace and stability. For years, many people thought of this alliance 
simply as a bulwark against aggression in Europe. Now we understand that 
it is the most potent, effective tool for military coalition-building in 
the world.

That is one reason why we have launched NATO's internal adaptation. It 
is why we introduced the Combined Joint Task Force concept. We want to 
give NATO a permanent capacity to plan, to train for, and to deploy 
complex missions such as IFOR. These reforms also will give NATO's 
European allies a tangible opportunity to play a more visible, 
responsible role in the alliance. Our European allies have unparalleled 
experience in peacekeeping. They will now have the opportunity to use 
NATO assets for WEU-led operations.

We have made significant progress since our Berlin ministerial on NATO's 
internal adaptation--on CJTF, NATO's relationship with the WEU, the 
development of a European Security and Defense Identity, and on command 
structure reform. We should complete that work between now and the 
summit. Our goal is to strengthen NATO's ability to act to meet new 
challenges, while preserving the qualities that have made it so 
successful, including the unified command and the transatlantic link.

We also are moving steadily forward in our effort to bring Europe's new 
democracies fully, finally, and forever into our transatlantic 
community. NATO enlargement must naturally begin with the strongest 
candidates; otherwise, it would not begin at all. The nations we invite 
first should be those that demonstrate most clearly that they can meet 
the responsibilities NATO allies share. As President Clinton has said, 
we also believe the new members should be admitted no later than June 
1999, NATO's 50th anniversary.

As accession talks begin, each of us has a responsibility to make the 
case to our people and our parliaments that enlargement will advance our 
interests. The alliance must also make clear that this process is open-
ended--that NATO's first new members will not be the last. NATO should 
welcome that aspirations of those nations that continue to seek 
membership after the summit and to continue our intensified dialogue and 
consultation with them. The prospect of enlargement has given every 
potential member an incentive to develop a deeper relationship with 
NATO, to uphold democracy at home, and to contribute to regional 
stability; it is in our interest to preserve that incentive for a wide 
group of states. NATO's new members also will have an obligation to help 
keep the door open to others.

We must also ensure that all of Europe's new democracies, whether they 
join NATO sooner, later, or not at all, have a chance to help guide 
Europe's future. That is why we should work with our partners to create 
the Atlantic Partnership Council as soon as possible. The Council will 
be the collective voice of the Partnership for Peace. It will give our 
partners a formal consultative mechanism with the alliance and a 
mechanism for cooperating with each other, not just directly with NATO. 
It will be open to every member of the Partnership and of the North 
Atlantic Cooperation Council, which it would replace.

Most important, the Council will help us shape the future of the 
Partnership for Peace. The Partnership is an extraordinary success. It 
held 16 military exercises in 1996; 25 are scheduled for next year. It 
has made it possible to build the first truly European-wide military 
coalitions. Today, we are taking it to a new level. We have agreed that 
the members of the Partnership should be able to participate in the full 
range of NATO's missions; whenever and wherever NATO acts, our partners 
should have a chance to stand with us. We have agreed to involve our 
partners in the planning, in addition to the execution of the missions 
they join, as well as in the regular peacetime work of NATO's military 
authorities. These steps should be implemented rapidly. I believe NATO 
should also open a liaison office in those Partner countries that 
request one. And we should consider any other enhancements that the 
Atlantic Partnership Council may suggest.

Each of us, each of our partners, and many  other nations are also 
members of the OSCE. It is a vital pillar of America's engagement in 
Europe. Its importance will grow as long as we uphold the principles it 
promotes: respect for human rights and an open society. Of course, the 
OSCE has become much more than a standard-setter. It has supported 
elections across Europe. It was on the ground throughout the war in 
Chechnya promoting dialogue and reconciliation. It is the inclusive and 
necessary complement to the other institutions of our New Atlantic 
Community. Bosnia is a case in point: We could not have secured the 
peace there without NATO; we cannot build democracy--the key to lasting 
peace--without the OSCE.

At the OSCE summit, we agreed on the scope and parameters of 
negotiations to adapt the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. 
Negotiations should begin immediately in the new year. We are poised to 
eliminate old divisions between groups of states, to update the treaty's 
system of limitations, and to enhance stabilizing measures and 
verification. Our goal is early progress. To that end, the alliance 
should prepare and table a comprehensive negotiating proposal early next 
year.

Russia, too, should play a vital role in every institution and every 
undertaking of our New Atlantic Community. This is possible today 
because of the progress Russia has made under President Yeltsin's 
leadership: Elections have become a fact of life; free market ideals are 
ascendant. It is essential because we can only build a new Europe free 
of tyranny, division, and war if Europe's largest nation is our full 
partner.

We seek a fundamentally new relationship between the new Russia and the 
new NATO. To achieve this goal, NATO must remain firm in moving forward 
with its overall strategy; we must continue to avoid any suggestions of 
uncertainty, ambiguity, or delay. At the same time, NATO must signal its 
readiness to develop with Russia the details and substance of a truly 
cooperative relationship.

The potential of that relationship is already on display in Bosnia. Maj. 
Gen. Montgomery Meigs, who commands the task force in which American and 
Russian soldiers serve in Tuzla, said it best: Today, "an attack on 
Russian members of Task Force Eagle is no different than an attack on 
U.S. troopers." Russian and NATO soldiers in Bosnia trust each other, 
depend on each other, defend each other. They have been sharing common 
tasks for the last year; they will be for the next 18 months. Our job is 
to establish a permanent framework that extends their spirit to other 
joint endeavors and keeps it thriving long after the last foreign 
soldier has left Bosnia.

This relationship should be expressed in a charter between NATO and 
Russia. Russia and the alliance should establish a formal framework for 
cooperating, consulting, training, and responding to crisis together. We 
are not seeking a rigid, legalistic treaty but rather a process of 
consultation and a regular pattern of security cooperation. There is 
broad agreement that such a relationship is possible and in the interest 
of both NATO and Russia. And we are now ready to move to a new stage on 
every aspect of our security strategy. We look forward to working 
closely with Russia to develop this vital element, so that Russia can 
have the voice on European security matters that it deserves and Europe 
needs.

I believe that Ukraine, too, can be, must be, and will be fully part of 
the European mainstream. Ukraine has made immense progress in overcoming 
a painful and difficult history. It has made it clear that it will do 
its part to help build a secure and integrated Europe. Today, we have 
decided to move forward to define an enhanced relationship between 
Ukraine and NATO. We should also encourage Ukraine to continue building 
close ties with all its neighbors. The new Polish-Ukrainian peacekeeping 
battalion, for example, is a tangible step in erasing Europe's division. 
It should become an integral part of the Partnership for Peace so that 
it can be employed in future missions such as IFOR.

In all these areas, I have often remarked that our great challenge is to 
carry forward the work that our predecessors began when they built our 
alliance after World War II. They launched the transatlantic partnership 
and designed it to grow. We are strengthening our partnership and 
extending to the newly free nations of Europe what history denied them 
in 1945. It is not often that people have a chance to revisit the great 
opportunities they did not grasp in the past. We do--and we are seizing 
it.

Today, we remember the achievements of Schuman, Bevin, Sforza, Pearson, 
Acheson, and Marshall; we do not often think about the countless 
obstacles, large and small, that stood in their way. Few remember the 
understandings they had to reach before our leaders could meet at 
Bretton Woods, in Washington, in Rome to launch the institutions of the 
postwar period. Future generations may not remember the details of our 
discussions here, either. But if we stay focused on what truly matters, 
they will remember this: This was the time we fulfilled the founding 
vision of NATO; this was the time we finished the half-century task of 
building a free and secure Europe, but this time with no divisions and 
no one left out. 

I am grateful for the opportunity to have played my part in this 
enterprise, and I know President Clinton is determined to see it 
through.


North Atlantic Cooperation Council
Statement to the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, Brussels, Belgium, 
December 11, 1996.

Mr. Secretary General, distinguished colleagues: It is an honor to speak 
with you on the fifth anniversary of the creation of the North Atlantic 
Cooperation Council. I want to take a few moments to discuss NATO's 
efforts to bring Europe together and the implications our progress will 
have for this body and its members.

As Secretary of State, I have been to Moscow, to Riga, to Warsaw, to 
Kiev, to Prague, to Budapest, to Almaty. The scars of history are still 
evident in all the new democracies I have visited. But in the ways that 
truly matter, it is clear that an undivided Europe is coming together 
before our eyes. Free markets are thriving. Free elections are becoming 
a matter of course. New treaties, new understandings, and new forms 
of cooperation among nations and militaries are erasing old divides. 
Thirteen Partner countries have participated in IFOR, the broadest 
military coalition in European history. We are grateful that all will 
remain in the Stabilization Force.

When the NACC was launched, democratic and free market institutions were 
only beginning to take hold in central and eastern Europe. NATO had not 
yet defined the roles it would play or the missions it would undertake 
in a Europe without divisions. But we already knew our alliance could 
not stand still and that its Cold War frontier should not be sustained.

The NACC was the first bridge NATO constructed over Europe's old divide. 
Until the 1994 NATO summit, it was the only structure for cooperation 
between NATO and Europe's new democracies. It laid the groundwork for 
all we have accomplished together since.

Those accomplishments have been remarkable. In 1994, NATO launched the 
Partnership for Peace. It has been a tremendous success. Thanks to the 
Partnership, our soldiers already train, plan, and serve together. In 
1994, NATO also began a steady, deliberate process of enlargement, which 
is well underway. NATO is also adapting itself to meet new challenges; 
its readiness to take on new missions is clearly on display in Bosnia.

Thanks to the progress you have made and the progress NATO has made, our 
cooperation can be far deeper today than it was when the NACC was 
created. Today, we are striving toward nothing less than the integration 
of Europe. NATO, along with other European institutions, will continue 
to play a central role in this effort.

Since 1994, we have been pursuing three tracks--equipping NATO for new 
roles and missions, reforming its internal structure, and extending its 
reach to new allies and partners. Today, NATO is ready to take each of 
these elements to a new level. Our partners will be able to participate 
in the full range of NATO's new missions. Those partners that are ready 
to meet the responsibilities of NATO membership will soon have a chance 
to be considered for membership. All our partners--whether they join 
NATO sooner, later, or not at all--will have an opportunity to help 
shape a secure and democratic Europe.

Yesterday, NATO took important steps forward. We approved the follow-on 
force for Bosnia. We approved a major enhancement of the Partnership for 
Peace. We declared that in today's Europe, NATO has no intention, no 
plan, and no reason to station nuclear weapons on the territory of any 
new members. NATO signaled its readiness to develop a fundamentally new 
relationship with Russia.

We agreed that our leaders should come together at a summit in Madrid on 
July 8 and 9, 1997. The summit will invite some of our partners to begin 
negotiations to enter NATO by 1999. NATO also pledged that it will 
remain open to additional members.

The alliance also will work with you to create the Atlantic Partnership 
Council, which would replace the NACC. The Atlantic Partnership Council 
will be the collective voice of the Partnership for Peace. It will give 
its members a formal consultative mechanism with the alliance and a 
mechanism for cooperating with each other, not just directly with NATO. 
Most important, it will help shape the future of the Partnership. The 
Council will be open to every member of the Partnership and of the NACC. 
I am pleased that so many members of the NACC have expressed their 
support for this idea.

We have traveled an enormous distance together in the last five years. 
Seeing our partnership take shape has been one of the most gratifying 
results of my tenure as Secretary of State. I can tell you that 
President Clinton is determined to build on our progress, and I am 
confident that together we will take the next logical steps in building 
a free and undivided transatlantic community. 

(###)


[END OF DISPATCH VOL 7, NO 50]
(###)

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