Note: This Electronic Research Collection is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
93/09/20 Remarks & Q&A at Columbia Univ. on Peace In Mid-East
Office of the Spokesman
SPEECH
BY
SECRETARY OF STATE WARREN CHRISTOPHER
PLUS
QUESTIONS AND ANSWER SESSION
Columbia University
September 20, 1993
BUILDING PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
[Speech As Prepared for Delivery]
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Thank you, Les Gelb. The Council on Foreign Relations is very fortunate
to have Les Gelb as its new president. As many of you know, I had the
pleasure of working with Les during our last tour in government. He is
one of the nation's leading foreign policy thinkers and writers. His
advice is valued here and around the world.
Thank you, also, President Rupp, for co-sponsoring our get-together
today in this elegant setting. Columbia University is one of this
country's oldest and most prestigious institutions of learning. From
the schoolroom on Lower Broadway where Samuel Johnson taught eight
students in 1754, to this magnificent campus on Morningside Heights,
Columbia has represented the spirit of inquiry and intellectual freedom
that has made America strong.
Columbia has certainly contributed to the strength of the State
Department. Two of our Under Secretaries, Joan Spero and Lynn Davis,
have studied here and taught here. They carry on Columbia's great
tradition of sending women and men into public life with an
international outlook.
My visit here today is one of several I have made and plan to make
around the country to talk about our foreign policy. I believe that
Secretaries of State should spend more time explaining foreign policy to
the audience that really counts--the American people.
A week ago, from a small platform on the south lawn of the White House,
the world took a very big step toward a more peaceful future. That
simple handshake between implacable foes extends a mighty redemptive
power that can help heal the wounds of this too-often-violent century.
Like the collapse of communism before it, the beginning of the historic
reconciliation between the Israelis and the Palestinians confirms our
belief that hope can eventually replace despair, cooperation can
overcome conflict, and peace and freedom can triumph over war and
tyranny.
Today, I will share with you my thoughts on last week's historic
developments in the Arab-Israeli peace process. I will place the events
of last Monday in historical context and describe to you the steps we
must take to ensure that this chance for peace does not slip from our
grasp.
For more than 45 years, Democratic and Republican administrations have
worked tirelessly to break the cycle of violence between Israel and its
Arab neighbors. They did so because they understood that the United
States has enduring interests in this historic and strategic crossroads;
enduring interests in a region where conflict always threatens world
peace; enduring interests in the security and well-being of Israel and
in cooperative relations with the Arab world; and enduring interests in
the region's oil resources, which serve as the lifeblood of much of the
global economy.
These enduring interests have made Middle East peace a constant and
essential goal of U.S. foreign policy. For decades, that goal eluded
us. The region remained a tinderbox, threatening to embroil us in its
deadly wars. This volatility was due in no small part to the existence
of a Soviet Union determined to fuel the forces of radicalism and
conflict. While the Soviets by no means caused the Arab-Israeli
dispute, they did everything in their power to see that the region
remained at a constant boil. Their policies emboldened radicals,
intimidated moderates, and left Israel--save for its friendship with the
United States--in a lonely state of siege.
Throughout the long struggle of the Cold War, only one Arab country--
Egypt--managed to breach the wall of conflict that Moscow had helped to
erect. Egypt braved ostracism and withstood assassination to make peace
with Israel. For fourteen long years that heroic achievement has held
strong. It also stood alone--until last Monday. The Israeli-
Palestinian agreement--in which Egypt's President Mubarak played a
critical role--is a powerful vindication of that nation's courage and
vision.
It was not until the Cold War began to wane that new opportunities arose
to combat rejectionism and promote peace. This was most dramatically
demonstrated during the Gulf War. With the United States and the Soviet
Union working together, Saddam Hussein's radical challenge was
decisively turned back. Without Moscow's patronage, Saddam's "war
option" proved to be no option at all. America's overwhelming display
of power, principle, and leadership helped to tilt the Middle East's
balance of power toward moderation and toward an opportunity for
reconciliation.
Had we let it rest there--had we left to others the job of turning
opportunity into reality--last Monday's dramatic event might never have
taken place. Only America could have provided Arabs and Israelis the
assurances they needed to go to Madrid and risk breaking the taboo on
direct negotiations.
Upon his election, President Clinton immediately reaffirmed America's
historic role and enduring strategic interest in Arab-Israeli peace. He
saw the opportunity for an historic breakthrough. On the morning after
the election, he vowed to make the pursuit of Middle East peace a top
priority. That is why he moved so quickly to gain the trust of key
regional parties and to reaffirm America's unstinting support for
Israel's security. And that is why, for my first official trip abroad,
he sent me to the Middle East. His message was clear: the United
States was irrevocably committed to advancing the peacemaking process;
to reinvigorating the negotiations; and to elevating America's role to
that of full partner.
The President's efforts built upon the hard work of his predecessors.
Our victories in the Cold War and in the Gulf created an environment in
which peacemaking became possible. Our intervention at key moments this
year, to resolve crises over Palestinian deportees and over violence in
Lebanon, salvaged the peace process when it teetered on the brink of
collapse. Throughout the last 22 months, under both Republican and
Democratic Presidents, America's sustained political involvement--
whether in presenting a draft declaration of principles or in constantly
pushing to define the parameters of the possible--set the stage for
decision-making in the secret Oslo channel, for which we owe so much to
the Norwegians.
In the end, of course, last Monday's triumph belongs to the parties
themselves--to the Israeli and the Palestinian people--who reached out
to each other. And that is as it should be. Indeed, the basic premise
of the Madrid process has been that face-to-face negotiation between the
parties is essential. From the beginning, the United States has
encouraged communication in as many different channels as possible--both
formal and informal, public and private--with the understanding that the
most durable solution would be one forged in direct negotiation.
It would be a great mistake if America were now to withdraw or shrink
from its full and long-standing partnership in the peace process. Our
leadership is essential if this historic agreement is to realize its
full potential. Today, on behalf of President Clinton, I announce our
intention to lead a wide-ranging effort not simply to give peace a
chance, but to ensure that it will not fail. Just as the United States
organized a successful international coalition to wage war in the Gulf,
we will now organize a new coalition--a coalition to breathe life into
the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration.
As a first step, the United States will convene a Conference to Support
Middle East Peace, building on the Madrid framework. Secretary Bentsen
and I, together with our Russian counterparts, will invite the
Europeans, Japan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, Canada, the Nordic
countries and others--and, of course, the Israelis and the Palestinians.
The World Bank will also be present, and it will play a leading role.
The purpose of this Conference will be to mobilize resources needed to
make the agreement work. The international community must move
immediately to see that the agreement produces tangible improvements in
the security and daily lives of Palestinians and Israelis. If peace is
to be achieved, the agreement must be translated into results quickly
and vividly.
There are varying estimates of the resources required to start building
an economic base in Gaza and the West Bank. The World Bank's initial
estimate is that $3 billion will be needed over the next 10 years. All
agree that we must take immediate steps to address the high rate of
unemployment that robs families of hope and fuels extremism. Housing,
roads, and other permanent improvements must be developed quickly. We
must also act now to provide assistance in public administration, tax
collection, and social services.
Given the number of our international partners, we are confident these
needs can be met. And we will stimulate these supporters by our own
example. Working with the Congress, we expect to assemble a two-year
package worth $250 million.
In this vital effort, we must also involve the private sector. A
significant part of the initial U.S. package will include OPIC loans and
guarantees to spur private sector involvement and economic growth.
There is another resource that America can and should provide. At the
White House last Monday, immediately after the signing ceremony, the
President, the Vice President and I met with a group of Jewish- and
Arab-Americans. This was truly a unique and special event. We were
moved by their shared sense of hope and by their spirit of
reconciliation.
We must draw on their talent, ingenuity, and goodwill. In that spirit,
the President will appoint a task force of Jewish- and Arab-Americans to
help us develop joint projects and private investment in the region. We
also intend to name a senior coordinator for U.S. assistance--much as we
have done in the case of the former Soviet Union.
Ladies and gentlemen: the real barrier to peace between the Israelis
and Palestinians--the psychological barrier--has already been breached.
Compared to that obstacle, the resource challenge we face can surely be
met. I am convinced that we can succeed.
The implementation of the Israeli-Palestinian agreement represents only
part of our larger task in the Middle East. We must nurture a
comprehensive reconciliation between Israel and the rest of the Arab
world. We must achieve a peace between the people of Israel and the
peoples of Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. In the recent round of bilateral
negotiations between their governments, the discussions were serious and
constructive. Later this month, at the UN General Assembly, I will meet
with my counterparts from Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel to try to
keep these negotiations moving and to discuss further steps. We will
work tirelessly to ensure that all the children of the region can come
to know, in President Clinton's words, "a season of peace."
Another aspect of our effort to promote comprehensive reconciliation is
working to encourage our other Arab friends to act boldly in support of
peace. The core antagonists in this conflict have courageously opted
for mutual recognition and an end to their state of war. This bold step
demands an equally bold response from their regional counterparts.
Jordan's decision to sign a substantive agenda with Israel last Tuesday
is a prime example. The meeting that same day in Morocco between Prime
Minister Rabin and King Hassan was also a promising first step that the
United States applauds. Other nations must also seize the moment for
reconciliation.
Now that Israelis and Palestinians have agreed to work together to
promote their economic well-being, it is illogical for Arab nations to
continue their boycott of Israel. Every moment the boycott remains in
force, those responsible are punishing Palestinians as well as Israelis.
The boycott is a relic of the past. It is a relic that should be
relegated to history -- now.
There is more to peace than the signing of agreements and the gathering
of resources. There is a need for fundamental change in the hearts of
these former antagonists. The leaders of the region must exhort those
who have used violence as a political tool to renounce it without
reservation or exception.
It is also imperative that quick action be taken to remove other
vestiges of a bygone era that only hinder reconciliation. This means
revoking, at the upcoming session of the UN General Assembly, those UN
resolutions that challenge Israel's very right to exist. It also means
acting to approve unanimously Israel's credentials at this year's UN
General Assembly. And in the U.S. Congress, it means amending statutes
that inhibit dealing with the PLO.
I reiterate a simple but profound truth: only an Israel that is strong,
confident, and secure can make peace. Only an Israel that is certain of
its strategic partnership with the United States can take the necessary
risks.
On behalf of President Clinton and the American people, I re-state a
long-standing pledge to the Israeli public: As you and your leaders
continue down the courageous path you have chosen, you should know that
America's commitment to Israel's security and well-being will remain
unshakable.
It is revealing that at this time when the entire world is praising last
week's events, they are being denounced in places like Tehran, Baghdad,
and Tripoli. In response to such intemperate words, let me make clear
that we remain committed to seeing that the forces of moderation in the
region are stronger than the forces of extremism.
To all who are prepared to work with us in building a new Middle East of
peace, security, and prosperity, I say: you have a reliable and
committed partner in the United States. To those who would sow
dissension, intolerance, and violence, I say this: the United States,
its friends, and its allies will take the necessary steps to ensure that
you fail.
Reflections on America's Role This remarkable week for peace in the
Middle East reminds us of the necessity for American leadership in the
world -- especially in regions of vital interest to us.
My colleague Tony Lake will speak tomorrow at the Johns Hopkins School
of Advanced International Studies. He will address the broad outlines
of our foreign policy. His speech reflects broad policy discussions
within the Administration, and I commend it to your attention.
Before concluding today, I want to comment briefly on two issues that
have been the subject of recent public debate. The first is whether
America should pursue an activist foreign policy. The second is whether
America should act alone or together with other nations to protect our
interests abroad.
The first issue is really the latest round in a century-old debate
between engagement and isolationism. The United States chooses
engagement. The alternative--neo-isolationism--can be reduced to a
simple syllogism: the Cold War is over; we won; let's go home and
attend to our problems. We must reject isolationism for the dangerous
argument that it is. We must renew our commitment to internationalism,
which has served us so well for 50 years.
The pied pipers of isolationism misread the history of this century.
They mistake the future of our economy. They minimize the threats to
our security. And they misjudge the character of our people.
The end of the Cold War has not ended history. Nor has it severed the
links between Americans and the world. But it has left the United
States with a continuing responsibility -- and a unique capacity -- to
provide leadership.
Why, you may ask, must we remain engaged? First, because it is in our
economic interest to do so. We live in a technologically interconnected
age. Vast amounts of information and dollars can be transmitted around
the world at the speed of light. In such a world, how will we enhance
our prosperity if we do not work to open and expand international
markets? How will we promote the global growth necessary to our
prosperity if we do not successfully complete the Uruguay Round
negotiations of the GATT? And how will we create high-paying jobs for
Americans if we are not willing to create export opportunities through
NAFTA?
Second, we must remain active and assertive for the sake of our
security. Were it not for sustained American involvement over the last
four decades, we would not be on the road to peace in the Middle East.
American engagement is also essential in other regions where our vital
interests are at stake. Indeed, in key regions, the United States is
the fulcrum on which peace and security rest.
If democracy reverts to dictatorship in the former Soviet Union,
Americans are likely to pay a severe price in a revived nuclear threat
and increased defense budgets. If ethnic conflict in Europe widens; if
security is threatened in Asia; if terrorism spreads; if the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is not checked--if any of
these things comes to pass--then our own security and ability to focus
on domestic renewal will be directly put at risk.
In short, we must remain engaged not out of altruism, nor out of what
one scholar has called the "imperial temptation," but because there are
real American interests that will suffer if we are seduced by the
isolationist myth.
The second issue under recent debate is whether America should exercise
its power alone or with others--to use the customary jargon,
unilaterally or multilaterally. That issue, as framed, creates a false
polarity. It is not an "either-or" proposition.
The central purpose of our foreign policy is to ensure the security of
our nation and the economic prosperity of our people -- and to promote
democratic values.
In protecting those interests, the United States must maintain its
military strength and reinvigorate its economy so that we can retain the
option to act alone, when that is best for us. Let no one doubt the
resolve of the United States to protect its vital interests.
Yet in protecting our vital interests, we should not ignore the value of
working with other nations. From the Gulf War to the international
campaign to aid democracy in Russia, we have seen how collective action
can advance American foreign policy goals. It can bolster our efforts
to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to knock down
barriers to global trade, and to protect the environment. We have also
seen that collective action requires--and cannot replace--American
leadership.
No other nation possesses our military might, economic strength, and
moral authority. These assets give us the ability to act alone when
necessary. When appropriate, we can also leverage our might by sharing
the burden with other nations. But we should remember that our ability
to generate effective multilateral responses will often depend upon our
willingness to act alone.
We have seen in the Middle East a classic example of effective
collective action--the Gulf War coalition organized by the United
States. We are now assembling a coalition for peace, much as we did for
war. Whether this new coalition succeeds as well as the last one will
depend upon U.S. leadership and on a clear understanding that collective
action is but one instrument that can serve peace.
Let me be clear: multilateralism is a means, not an end. It is one of
the many foreign policy tools at our disposal. And it is warranted only
when it serves the central purpose of American foreign policy: to
protect American interests. This country will never subcontract its
foreign policy to another power or person.
While this largely tactical debate on the means of American engagement
has proceeded, President Clinton has been meeting key foreign policy
tests: recognizing that domestic economic renewal is fundamental to
America's foreign policy; mobilizing critical and timely support for
Russian democracy as an essential investment in our national security;
calling for a NATO Summit to adapt the Alliance to meet the security
challenges of a new Europe; advancing a New Pacific Community while
negotiating a new framework for our economic and trade relations with
Japan; and leading the global effort to curb the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction.
CONCLUSION I will suggest to you another measure of our leadership:
how the world sees us. Last week in Washington, Israeli Foreign
Minister Shimon Peres paid an unusual tribute to our country.
In the history books, he said:
"Nobody will understand the United States . . . . You have so much
force and you didn't conquer the land of anybody. You have so much
power and you didn't dominate another people. You have problems of your
own and you have never turned your back on the problems of others." And
Shimon Peres said: "Thank you so much for being what you are."
To those who question the need for American engagement, I say, ask
Shimon Peres.
Let these indelible events of the past few years--the handshake at the
White House; the Berlin Wall falling and the Soviet Union crumbling;
Nelson Mandela walking out of prison to build a new South Africa--let
all these point us toward asserting and not abdicating our international
role.
Let that shining moment last week on the White House lawn light the way
for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East--and illuminate the need
for America's continued leadership in the world.
MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I'd like to thank you on behalf
of all of us. As Americans everywhere ponder and argue about the paths
that lie ahead, all of us are grateful, sir, that you are at our foreign
policy helm, someone of your experience, utmost integrity, and genuine
wisdom. We thank you, sir.
(Applause)
MODERATOR: I noted at the outset that the Secretary has kindly agreed
to take a few questions. And in keeping with local house rules, I get
to ask the first one.
Mr. Secretary, one of the consistent themes in the Administration's
foreign policy -- and you touched on it today -- is the notion of
multilateralism and, particularly, what Madeleine Albright has described
as "assertive multinationalism." With regard to "assertive
multinationalism," it isn't clear whether our allies know exactly what
that means or, if they do know what it means, whether they agree with
it. They sometimes give the appearance of using the principle of
multilateralism to impede assertiveness. Somalia and Bosnia both come
to mind.
Would you have a comment on that, Mr. Secretary?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Thank you very much.
Well, first, let me thank you for that very nice reception. I
appreciate it very much, and perhaps I ought to quit while I'm ahead.
(Laughter) But I won't. (Laughter)
I think the principal reaction I have to that very good question is to
say again what I said in my speech, and that is the importance of United
States leadership. One of the lessons of the first eight months in
office is that although there are many opportunities for multilateral
responses, very frequently they require the leadership of the United
States. Unless we show a determined leadership, in many instances
others will not follow.
In addition, frequently, I think that having others share the burden
with us comes about only if we're prepared to act alone. I do not fault
our allies -- each one of them has its own set of problems -- but it's a
reminder of the role of the United States in the world that our
leadership is necessary, in most instances, to carry out multilateral
responsibilities. As I said in my remarks, multilateralism is an
important tool for us; but we always must be prepared to act alone when
necessary, to provide leadership -- which will almost always be
necessary to try to engage others in these endeavors where they have an
interest and stake as well -- but not to forget the primary
responsibility that the United States bears for our own security and
well-being.
QUESTION: Why hasn't the United States been more effective in stopping
the genocide in Bosnia?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Well, that's a question that almost always
comes, and it's certainly something that has been central to our
concerns over the last eight months.
Let me say several things to you about that.
First, we were dealt a fairly bad hand. I doubt that anyone would say
that this matter could not have been handled better if it was handled in
l992 rather than 1993. But we are in office, and my policy of not
whining about matters doesn't cause me to dwell on that.
Second, I think that it's a worthwhile thing that some mistakes have
been made over the period of time. Looking back on it, the arms
embargo, which was adopted unanimously, had quite an unintended effect.
The law of unintended consequences has never been more directly
illustrated than here, for the arms embargo froze in a tremendous
imbalance in favor of the Serbs.
I think it was also probably a mistake for the West -- and I mean all of
the West -- to have clung so long to the artificiality of Yugoslavia as
an entity. In some instances, rhetoric got ahead of what the realistic
choices were.
Coming down to the United States and why we have not been more
effective, I would say that a fundamental decision was taken, and that
was that we could not force a decision on the parties without imposing
costs that we were not prepared to take. The imposition of a solution
on the parties there would probably have required a massive use of
large amounts of U.S. force, and President Clinton decided early on that
United States national interest would not warrant the use of large
amounts of American ground troops, which would have been necessary to
impose a decision.
Now, in the context of that decision -- that is, our unwillingness to
unilaterally take the steps necessary to impose a decision -- the United
States has done, I think, a number of significant things. Our
humanitarian effort has no doubt saved many lives in that terrible
situation. We've flown in more than ten million meals. Daily, planes
are taking food and other equipment into Sarajevo.
We led the way to a "no-fly" zone. We were very active in causing NATO
for the first time to be prepared to take action so-called "out of area"
-- that is, to threaten air strikes, which I think has had a favorable
effect with respect to somewhat reducing the pressure on Sarajevo. We
sponsored the War Crimes Tribunal at the United Nations.
So we have taken a number of steps, but I would be quick to say that
they've not by any means been satisfactory. I hope that we'll be seeing
a settlement in that troubled area in the relatively near future.
Negotiations are proceeding very rapidly, and I hope they'll come to a
favorable conclusion.
Perhaps the most important thing for us to do is to try to learn the
lessons from that experience. As I say, it has not been a textbook
operation for the West as a whole, and as we go into this fall -- as we
approach the NATO summit and the other meetings with our allies -- I
think we must ask ourselves how to avoid a repetition of the tragic
situation that has occurred in Bosnia and how we can take steps now to
minimize the effect of this tragedy.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, what U.S. vital interests are at stake in
Somalia that are not also at stake in the Sudan?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Let me first talk for a minute or two about
Somalia. As you know, President Bush ordered our forces into Somalia
last year. The first phase of that operation -- that is, the
humanitarian phase for which the United States was responsible -- I
think can be judged a very considerable success. Hundreds of thousands
of lives were saved. Order was restored in much of the country except
for south Mogadishu.
Now, we are in the transition to the second phase of nation-building
there, which is a stage for which the United Nations has responsibility.
The transition from Phase I to Phase II is not a sharply demarked line,
but I think that the United States is going about making that. As
President Clinton said last Friday, we think it's time for a new
political initiative. So I wanted to lay before you my view about
Somalia before turning to the Sudan.
Sudan is a situation where there are very serious humanitarian problems,
very grave human rights violations. But a fundamental difference is
that there is still a government in the Sudan. There's a government
that maintains some degree of control over the people of the country,
and I think that the international community must try to work with that
government to try to bring it back to the point of not depriving the
country as a whole of food and sustenance.
I see distinctions between the two areas. I also see distinctions as to
the possibilities of effective international action. But I do not in
any way underestimate the importance of the situation in the Sudan.
It's something that we're going to be watching, dealing with, and seeing
if we can be helpful. But at the present time the Government of Sudan
has taken such an extreme set of views that the United States has
relatively little basis for taking action there, and we can only appeal
to the world community to try to put pressure on the Government of Sudan
to deal with the humanitarian problems, especially in south Sudan.
QUESTION: The Administration wants to advance the cause of human rights
in China. But to do that, are you prepared to put our overall
relationship with China at risk?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: The situation in China is one that has been a
matter of great concern to us through the eight months that we've been
in office.
As you know, the President agreed to condition Most Favored Nation
treatment for China on improvements in the human rights field, and so
we're going through a year of important watching and testing. The
President is committed to evaluate the matter again, in the late spring
of next year, and determine whether or not Most Favored Nation treatment
will be recommended for China again next year.
We have important relationships with China. China, of course, is one of
the important emerging powers in the world, and our relationships with
them are many. We have deep trade relationships with them. They are a
principal trading partner; and, of course, they have a tremendous trade
surplus with the United States.
We are going to be following the human rights situation very carefully.
I think, to answer the question directly, I think the President's action
in conditioning Most Favored Nation treatment on improvement in the
human rights field indicates that we're prepared to engage with them
very significantly to see human rights improvements. We've seen some
modest improvements in the release of dissidents in the last few days.
On the other hand, there have been a number of steps taken by China
since the President took his decision that will cause us to look at the
situation very carefully. It's a period, as I say, of testing and
watching.
Thank you all very much. You've been a wonderful audience. I wish I
could stay longer.
(###)