Return to: Index of 1993 Secretary of State's Speeches/Testimonies || Electronic Research Collections Index || ERC Homepage

Note: This Electronic Research Collection is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the State Department homepage.
U.S. Department of State
93/11/04 Testimony before SFRC on Priorities of US Foreign Policy
Office of the Spokesman

                     U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
                      Office of the Spokesman

As prepared for Delivery

                          STATEMENT OF
                       SECRETARY OF STATE
                           BEFORE THE

                        NOVEMBER 4, 1993

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee:

I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk to you today about the 
strategic priorities of America's foreign policy.

The world is moving away from one of the most dangerous confrontations 
in history, and in that fact lies tremendous opportunity for the United 
States.  In the Cold War world, stability was based on confrontation.  
In the new world, stability will be based on common interests and shared 

We stand on the brink of shaping a new world of extraordinary hope and 
opportunity. While I relish the challenge of what lies before us, I am 
also mindful that the new world we seek will not emerge on its own.  We 
must shape the transformation that is underway in a time of great 

My job as Secretary of State is to help the President guide the country 
through this transition.  I welcome that challenge.

At the same time, I understand that we must accomplish this 
transformation at a time when the definitions, certainties, and ground 
rules of the Cold War have disappeared.  I hasten to add that I have no 
regrets about the passing of the Cold War.  Nostalgia for its rigidities 
can only stem from amnesia.  But its demise does mean that we must 
develop a new domestic consensus to sustain our active engagement in a 
more complex and interdependent world.

During this period, the United States must maintain a tough-minded sense 
of our enduring interests:  ensuring the security of our nation; the 
prosperity of our people; and the advancement, where possible, of our 
democratic values.  And it is with those core interests in mind that the 
Clinton Administration has defined and is pursuing the overarching 
priorities of America's foreign policy.

We are renewing and updating our key security alliances, while also 
building on the historically unique situation that the major powers can 
be partners cooperating for peace -- not competitors locked in conflict.  
We must reach out to former adversaries to transform them into partners.  
We are working to contain and resolve regional conflicts, particularly 
where the threat of expansion or the risk of proliferation poses a very 
direct danger to the United States.  And we are working to expand trade, 
spur growth, and enhance the economic security of each and every 

We can shape the future knowing that the United States is more secure 
now than at any time since early in this century.  Democracy is 
ascendant from Central America to Central Asia, from South Africa to 
Cambodia.  Free markets are being established in places where they were 
long forbidden.  Millions of people, for the first time in their lives, 
have the chance to enjoy political freedom and economic opportunity.  
The United States is working relentlessly to ensure that an ever-
increasing number of people know the benefits of democratic 
institutions, human rights, and free markets.

At the same time, new threats to peace and stability have emerged.  The 
unholy marriage of ethnic violence and aggressive nationalism is 
shattering fragile states, creating humanitarian tragedies and raising 
the possibility of wider regional strife.  And the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction multiplies the danger of every conflict.

In this period of transition, crises and even setbacks are inevitable.  
We will work to prevent and manage them.  But we will stay on the steady 
and responsible course we have set.  Television is a wonderful 
phenomenon and sometimes even an instrument of freedom.  But television 
images cannot be the North Star of America's foreign policy.

As I travel the world, I see that virtually every nation wants to define 
its foreign policy in terms relative to the United States, whether 
seeking security assurances or expanding trade and investment links with 
us.  They look to us as the fulcrum for global security and, in many 
cases, for regional security.  They know that American international 
leadership is in their interest.  This gives us unparalleled 
opportunities to influence their conduct.  I am here today to say that 
American engagement and leadership in the world -- that an activist 
American foreign policy -- is most fundamentally in our interest.

Today I would like to discuss with this Committee our efforts with 
respect to several major issues of enduring national interest.  These 
are not the exclusive areas of concern for this Administration.  My 
speeches last spring to the Council of the Americas and the African 
American Institute described our policy objectives toward Latin America 
and Africa, respectively.  Today I want to discuss in my testimony some 
of our current top priorities -- priorities that address address the 
great challenges in this era of change.  Let me begin with the new 
centrality of economic policy in our foreign policy.

1.  Economic Security

Security in the post-Cold War era will depend as much on strong 
economies as on strong arsenals.  This Administration understands that 
America's strength at home and its strength abroad are interlocking -- 
and mutually reinforcing.  That is why President Clinton and I have 
placed economic policy at the heart of our foreign policy.  And I 
believe that this new emphasis is already yielding results.

The President's approach was apparent at the successful July summit 
meeting of the G-7 nations in Tokyo.  For more than a decade, our major 
industrial allies and trading partners complained that we were not 
serious about reducing the growth of our budget deficit.  By working 
with the Congress to enact an historic deficit reduction program, 
President Clinton sent a clear message to the world:  America is back as 
a responsible manager of its own economy and as a dependable leader for 
global economic cooperation and growth.

Armed with that new credibility in Tokyo, President Clinton won a market 
access agreement to move the Uruguay Round forward.  He was also able to 
win new pledges for multilateral assistance to Russia, and an agreement 
to negotiate a new economic framework to correct our unacceptable trade 
imbalance with Japan.  This Administration attaches as high a priority 
to improving our economic and trade ties with Japan as it does to 
maintaining our important security and political links.

Let me briefly turn your attention to three events -- all occurring 
within the next 40 days -- that together will help determine the 
strength of our economy and the standard of living of our people as we 
enter the 21st century:  the vote on NAFTA, the deadline for GATT, and 
the meeting of the APEC forum.  Each event is also a foreign policy 
challenge with enormous consequences for our global leadership.

I have been making the case for NAFTA repeatedly in recent weeks, and I 
believe that there is increasing recognition that NAFTA is one of the 
great foreign policy opportunities of this generation.  For the United 
States, Canada and Mexico, NAFTA is about more than tariffs and trade, 
growth and jobs.  It will also build a new cooperative relationship with 
Mexico.  Approval of NAFTA will increase Mexico's capacity to cooperate 
with us on a wide range of vital issues such as illegal immigration, 
cross-border pollution and narco-trafficking.

NAFTA will also mark a turning point in the history of our relations 
throughout the hemisphere at a time when democracy is on the march, 
markets are opening and conflicts are being resolved peacefully.  By 
approving NAFTA, the United States will send a powerful signal that we 
support these developments.  Rejecting NAFTA, on the other hand, would 
send a chilling signal about our willingness to engage in Latin America 
at a time when so many of our neighbors -- including Mexico -- are 
genuinely receptive to closer cooperation with us.

There is no good time to defeat NAFTA -- but there could be no worse 
time than when the GATT negotiations are in their final crucial days 
leading up to the December 15 deadline.  At this delicate, decisive 
stage of the Uruguay Round, the United States must maintain maximum 
leverage -- and exercise maximum leadership.  A setback on NAFTA would 
compromise both.  Rejecting NAFTA would create the perception that 
America is not prepared to act on behalf of its global economic 
interests at a time when those interests are so clearly at stake.

NAFTA is now in our hands, but the United States cannot conclude the 
Uruguay Round on its own.  The EC, Japan, the ASEAN nations, and others 
must also move.  None of the remaining trade-offs in goods, services or 
agriculture will be easy for any nation -- but they must be made.  I 
want to remind our allies and trading partners in Europe once again that 
advancing transatlantic security requires us not only to focus on 
renewing the NATO Alliance but also on successfully concluding the GATT 
negotiations.  The Uruguay Round is critically important to the revival 
of the world economy, not only to our major industrial allies, but to 
developing countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia that are seeking 
sustained growth and sustainable development.

Nowhere is economic growth faster-- or the export opportunities for 
American business greater-- than in the dynamic Asia-Pacific region.  In 
two weeks, I will go to Seattle to host a meeting of the Asia-Pacific 
Economic Cooperation forum.  The APEC conference-- and the historic 
gathering of leaders that President Clinton has called at its 
conclusion-- will enable us to establish a framework for regional 
economic integration and trade liberalization among 15 economies that 
now account for nearly half the world's GNP.  It will expand America's 
economic presence in a region to which our future is increasingly 

These are 40 days that can shake the economic world and shape America's 
future position in it.  With NAFTA, GATT, and APEC, there is an 
extraordinary convergence of opportunities for the United States.  I 
view each of these challenges, along with the President's deficit 
reduction program and successes in Tokyo last summer, as integral 
elements of the most ambitious international economic agenda that any 
President has undertaken in almost half a century.  And as Secretary of 
State, I see each as a foreign policy as well as an economic policy 
opportunity-- because in the post-Cold War world, our national security 
is inseparable from our economic security.

2.  Support for Reform in Russia and the NIS

This Administration is placing special emphasis on our support for 
political and economic reform in Russia and in the other states of the 
former Soviet Union.  Helping ensure the success of this process is our 
highest foreign policy priority.  That is the reason President Clinton 
is seeking to build a strategic alliance with post-communist reformers 
throughout the area.

If the people of Russia succeed in their heroic struggle to build a free 
society and a market economy, the payoffs for the United States will be 
transforming: a permanently diminished threat of nuclear war; lower 
defense budgets; vast new markets; and cooperation on the global and 
regional issues that once divided us.  Helping democracy prevail in 
Russia remains the wisest-- and least expensive-- investment that we can 
make in America's security.

Mr. Chairman, the House and Senate have recognized the value of this 
investment.  With the support of Congress, the United States initially 
pledged 1.6 billion dollars in bilateral assistance programs to Russia 
and the New Independent States.  In Tokyo last July, we proposed a three 
billion dollar special privatization and restructuring program, which 
our G-7 partners have joined.  And in late September, as the crisis in 
Moscow between reform and reaction was approaching its climax, this 
Congress approved the Administration's request for 2.5 billion dollars 
in additional technical and humanitarian assistance.

As you know, I went to Moscow two weeks ago to reaffirm,  on behalf of 
President Clinton, our steadfast support for reform in the wake of the 
early October crisis.  I made the case that the credibility of 
December's parliamentary elections -- and the prospects for Russian 
democracy -- depend on open dissent and a free press.  President Yeltsin 
and Foreign Minister Kozyrev reiterated their commitment to reform and 
their determination to hold free and fair elections -- and to allow 
press freedom.

Despite the hardships inevitably associated with a transformation of 
this magnitude, the Russian people have chosen reform over reaction.  My 
visit gave me renewed confidence that reform will win their support once 
again.  We now look forward to a January summit between President 
Clinton and President Yeltsin in Moscow-- a summit that we expect will 
broaden and deepen the new cooperative relationship we are forging.

3.  Europe and NATO

The trip I completed last week was designed not only to reinforce our 
partnership with Russia, but to help renew the NATO alliance at a time 
of new and different security challenges in Europe.  The United States 
has an enduring political, military, economic and cultural link to 
Europe that must be preserved.  The European Community is our largest 
single trading partner, and we have a powerful stake in the collective 
security guaranteed by NATO.  This Alliance of democracies -- the most 
successful in history -- can lay the foundation of an undivided 
continent rooted in the principles of political liberty and economic 

To meet the new challenges in Europe, the Alliance must embrace 
innovation, or risk irrelevance.  Accordingly, the United States is 
proposing to transform NATO's relationship with the new democracies of 
the East.

The January summit should formally open the door to an evolutionary 
process of NATO expansion.  This process should be non-discriminatory 
and inclusive.  It should not be tied to a specific timetable or 
criteria for membership.

The summit should also initiate practical military cooperation between 
NATO forces and those to the East.  To that end, we have proposed a 
Partnership for Peace.  The Partnership would be open to all members of 
the North Atlantic Cooperation Council as well as others.  It excludes 
no nations and forms no new blocs.

Our idea is to build the Partnership for Peace over time, at a pace 
geared to each Partner's interest and capabilities.  The Partnership 
would involve tangible cooperation and would channel members' defense 
efforts toward the ability to participate with NATO in a range of 
multinational missions.  This Partnership for Peace would play an 
important role in the evolutionary process of NATO expansion, creating 
an evolving security relationship that could culminate in NATO 

This Partnership is a first step by the Alliance to help fill the vacuum 
of insecurity and instability that was created in Central and Eastern 
Europe by the demise of the Soviet empire.  It reflects our strong 
belief that the reform movements in Eastern Europe must be bolstered by 
the prospect of security cooperation with the West.  Reaction to this 
proposal has been positive - from Allies, from NATO Secretary General 
Woerner, from Central and East European countries (including the Baltic 
States) and from Russia and the New Independent States.

4.  Asia and the Pacific

No area of the world will be more important for American interests than 
the Asia-Pacific region.  This region contains the world's most dynamic 
economies, and it is the most lucrative terrain for American exports and 
jobs.  It is thus crucial to the President's domestic agenda.  We have 
vital security stakes in an area where we have fought three wars in the 
past half-century and where major powers intersect.  And we seek to 
promote our values in the world's most populous region, where democracy 
is on the move yet repressive regimes remain.

The stakes in Asia are therefore high for America.  That is why 
President Clinton travelled there on his first trip overseas.  That is 
why I have been there three times as Secretary.

The upcoming APEC meeting will elaborate the President's vision of a New 
Pacific Community which he set forth in July in his statements in Tokyo 
and Seoul.  The basic outlines are already clear:

--   A more prosperous community through open markets and open 

--   A more secure community through maintenance of our alliances and 
forward military presence, non-proliferation 

policies, and engagement in regional dialogues.   A freer community 
through advocacy of open societies which contribute both to development 
and peace

--   Regional cooperation on global issues like the environment, 
narcotics, refugees and health problems.

The Clinton Administration is placing special emphasis on developing 
regional approaches so as to construct -- with others -- a New Pacific 
Community.  But clearly bilateral ties are also part of this vision.  
Let me briefly mention two that are central to our concerns.

The cornerstone of our Asia-Pacific policy remains our relationship with 
Japan.  The President seeks to shape a durable and comprehensive 
partnership as we head toward the next century.  As I have emphasized, 
we need to place our economic ties on as sound and cooperative a basis 
as we have established on security, political and global issues.

We are working out a comprehensive relationship with China that permits 
resolution of differences in a broad strategic context.  As I have made 
clear on previous occasions, we have continuing concerns with China, 
including human rights, proliferation, and market access.  We are 
actively working to make strides in each area, and share with the 
Congress the need to make measurable progress.  The clock is ticking on 
next Spring's decision on MFN renewal.  Unless there is overall 
significant progress on human rights, the President will not be in a 
position to recommend extension.

5.  The Middle East

The Middle East is a region where the United States has both vital 
interests and the influence to protect those interests.  This fact was 
powerfully demonstrated in our successful leadership in stemming 
aggression in the Persian Gulf.  Nowhere is this intersection between 
interests and influence more apparent than in the Arab-Israeli peace 
process. For four decades we have been involved in the search for Middle 
East peace not only because it is the right thing to do, but because our 
interests and those of our friends demand it.  The pursuit of peace 
cannot guarantee stability in the region.  But it can reduce the dangers 
of war and enhance the well-being of our allies -- Israeli and Arab 
alike.  This in turn will help preserve our political and economic stake 
in one of the world's most important strategic regions.

In the Middle East, the recent breakthrough between Israelis and 
Palestinians has fundamentally changed the landscape of the Arab-Israeli 
conflict.  There is much work to be done to transform the Declaration of 
Principles into an enduring agreement and changed realities on the 

The challenge now is to reinforce this breakthrough and broaden it to 
achieve a comprehensive settlement that will last.  We will continue to 
work very closely with the parties themselves in pursuit of three goals.

First, it is essential that Israelis and Palestinians implement their 
Declaration of Principles in a timely manner.  Implementing the accord 
will build the strength of the peace constituencies.  It will show that 
negotiations work and demonstrate that extremists cannot stop the march 
toward peace.  This accord must succeed.  This means that Israelis and 
Palestinians need to be flexible and patient as they work through the 
complicated issues on the table.  It also means that the international 
community needs to lend its support.  That effort began with the October 
1 Conference to Support Middle East Peace, which we organized.  It will 
continue this week in Paris when the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee meets to 
coordinate assistance to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.  We 
must work to make the recent turning point for peace irreversible, as we 
work to make the benefits of peace irresistible.

Second, it is also essential that we continue our efforts to move toward 
a comprehensive settlement.  This means ensuring that progress is 
achieved on the other tracks, and that progress on the Israeli-
Palestinian negotiations facilitates rather than impedes movement on the 
others.  On the Israeli-Syrian track, there are complex issues relating 
to peace, withdrawal, and security that continue to separate the 
parties.  These issues should be amenable to a negotiated settlement, 
and we are prepared to play our role as a peace partner with both the 
Israelis and Syrians.  Israelis and Lebanese are focused on trying to 
find a way to meet their respective needs on the same three issues.  And 
Jordan and Israel, having concluded an historic agenda in Washington, 
are in the process of organizing their negotiations in a practical 
manner on key issues.

We are committed to a comprehensive settlement, and we believe the 
parties are, too.  Our Special Middle East Coordinator, Dennis Ross, 
came back from his recent trip to the region with the strong view that 
all parties are committed to this process and to working with us to find 
ways to overcome the gaps that separate them.  And we will be unflagging 
in this effort.

Third, we are trying to create the proper environment for peace in the 
region.  As the implementation of the Declaration of Principles moves 
forward, we are encouraging Israelis and Palestinians to reach out 
toward one another and create an atmosphere on the ground that 
facilitates their work at the negotiating table.  At the same time, we 
are asking the Arab states to do their share.  Tunisia's decision to 
host the refugee working group last month was significant, as was the 
Qatari Foreign Minister's meeting with Israeli Foreign Minister Peres.  
Oman has offered to host the next working group meeting on water.  Egypt 
will host the next working group meeting on the environment.  Morocco 
hosted Prime Minister Rabin on his return from the September 13 signing 
ceremony in Washington.  Arab and Israeli business people are talking 
about translating the potential for regional economic growth into 

But more needs to be done.  Anachronisms such as the Arab boycott of 
Israel must end, and anti-Israeli UN resolutions that have been on the 
books for too long must be removed.  There has been some movement on 
both of these issues, and we will work to build greater momentum.

Working at times as a catalyst, as a facilitator, or as a source of 
reassurance -- and, when needed, as an intermediary -- the United States 
is committed to doing everything we can to help secure what has been 
achieved and push for breakthroughs on other fronts.  The President and 
I will stay actively involved.  I will travel to the region when 
appropriate to promote the sustained progress that I believe is within 
reach.  There is much work to be done, but I am very hopeful about the 
prospects for a comprehensive peace.

6.  Non-Proliferation and Other Global Issues

Nuclear weapons give rogue states disproportionate power, destabilize 
entire regions, and threaten human and environmental disasters.  They 
can turn local conflicts into serious threats to our security.  In this 
era, weapons of mass destruction are more readily available -- and there 
are fewer inhibitions on their use.

This Administration is working for global enforcement of non-
proliferation standards.  We are also pursuing specific strategies in 
each region where there is a real potential for proliferation.  We lead 
the international effort to persuade North Korea to adhere to the 
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to its nuclear safeguards 
obligations.  We are working to ensure that Iran does not acquire 
nuclear weapons, and that Iraq does not restore its former capabilities.  
We have sanctioned China and Pakistan for China's transfer of ballistic 
missile components to Pakistan.

Let me describe the progress made on non-proliferation and 
denuclearization during my trip to Russia and the NIS.  I visited 
Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Belarus, where hundreds of old Soviet nuclear 
weapons remain.  In 1992, these former Soviet states committed 
themselves to ratify the START I treaty and adhere to the NPT as non-
nuclear states.  We have taken significant steps forward.  Belarus has 
already fulfilled its commitments.  In Kazakhstan, which has ratified 
START I, President Nazarbayev for the first time set a deadline for 
accession to the NPT -- the end of this year.

Ukraine reaffirmed its commitments and their applicability to all 
strategic offensive arms on Ukrainian soil.  President Kravchuk has 
pledged to press the Ukrainian parliament to ratify START I during its 
November session.  We still have hard work ahead with Ukraine, where 
opposition remains to that nation becoming "non-nuclear."

The United States is prepared to help Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Belarus 
to destroy or dismantle their nuclear weapons.  But we have made it 
clear that action on these matters is a pre-requisite to longer-term 
economic cooperation and security partnerships.

We are also bringing transnational issues such as the environment, 
population growth, refugees, terrorism, and narcotics where they belong 
-- in the mainstream of American foreign policy.  If we ignore these 
issues, they will return -- compounded, more costly, and sometimes 
threatening to our security.  That is why the United States is a leader, 
not a laggard, on global environmental issues.  As part of this 
commitment, we have signed the biodiversity and climate change treaties.  
This Administration is placing an unmistakable emphasis on these 
pressing global concerns.


Earlier I noted that the end of the Cold War, while lifting the lid that 
had smothered freedom for much of the world, also lifted the lid on 
regional conflicts -- especially along the periphery of the former 
Soviet Union.  Troublesome conflicts, often spilling across borders, 
have persisted in Africa.  In these conflicts, preventive diplomacy can 
be employed to great success.

Realism must guide U.S. policies toward these conflicts.  Some touch our 
interests -- or will, if they are not checked.  But we must accept that 
other conflicts may not.

In testifying before the Committee, Madeleine Albright addressed the 
importance of taking stock together with the Congress as we look at 
regional conflicts and the ever-increasing demands on peacekeeping.  
Ambassador Albright spoke eloquently of the need to preserve a 
bipartisan consensus as we address our role in UN peacekeeping 
operations.  I completely agree.

Clearly, we will need to consider new mechanisms for conflict resolution 
and conflict avoidance.  The UN structure may have to be supplemented by 
regional mechanisms.  Organizations such as the OAU and the OAS can be 
more effective in conflict prevention, peacekeeping, and disaster 
relief.  Institutions like NATO may need to assume more of a 
peacekeeping mission, at least in Europe.  Our own role and involvement 
will need to be informed by a strict assessment of our interests and the 
interests of others.  We must examine every case -- asking rigorous 
questions, and giving measured answers -- to find the course 
commensurate with our interests.

That is what we are doing today in Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia.  In each 
of these places, things have not always gone exactly as we had planned 
or hoped.  These are difficult situations, and some setbacks, 
unfortunately, are inevitable.  We should learn from them.  But we 
should not overreact, for that may mean either losing possible 
opportunities for success or damaging our interests elsewhere.Haiti

Haiti demonstrates that temporary setbacks must not prevent us from 
pursuing our interests.  If democracy is not restored, repression, 
violence, and suffering will continue.  More instability may cause large 
numbers of Haitians to flee, at great risk to themselves and to Haiti's 
neighbors -- including the United States.

Haiti's problems can be addressed only through democratic institutions 
and economic development.  We have supported a political process, 
culminating in the Governor's Island accord, that provides for the 
restoration of democracy.  But now Haiti's military leadership refuses 
to adhere to the accord.

We are staying on course.  We remain committed to the restoration of 
democracy and the return of President Aristide.  The sanctions imposed 
in June brought the Haitian military to the negotiating table.  We have 
now re-imposed sanctions on oil and arms, and a freeze on assets of 
targeted individuals.  These are selective sanctions, designed to compel 
the military leadership to fulfill its obligations, while sparing, as 
much as possible, the people of Haiti.  We are prepared to increase the 
pressures on the Haitian military, if that is necessary.  Once the 
accord is implemented, we want to make it possible for Haiti to sustain 


The United States is pursuing a noble objective in Somalia, consistent 
with its finest values and traditions.  We have saved literally hundreds 
of thousands of lives.  After the attack on Pakistani peacekeepers in 
June, significant efforts and resources were dedicated to the military 
and security aspects of the mission.  Not enough attention was given to 
efforts to achieve political reconciliation, which is essential to 
prevent Somalia from returning to famine and anarchy.  We are now set 
firmly on the political track and are encouraged by the progress being 
made.  In order to give this process a chance to succeed, American 
forces will remain until next March and will, as President Clinton 
stated on October 7, work with UN forces to keep open lines of 
communications and keep pressure on those who would seek to cut off 
relief supplies.

To be sure, we could have taken the easy, and perhaps popular, way out: 
simply abandon the effort in Somalia after the tragic deaths of American 
servicemen on October 3.  The President chose another path, one that 
seeks to protect the real gains made in Somalia while improving the 
prospects for further progress.  This will give the Somalis a reasonable 
chance to sort out their differences and also permit the United Nations 
to prepare for our departure.


American policy toward the terrible conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina 
responds to our strategic interest in preventing the conflict from 
spreading to neighboring countries and our humanitarian interest in 
helping to relieve the suffering of the people of Bosnia.

Negotiations offer the only way to a practical solution.  Although the 
Geneva talks have not been able to produce an acceptable agreement, they 
have made some progress and remain alive.  The negotiators have also 
explored the option of a "global solution" that would embrace Croatia, 
Kosovo, and other areas of conflict in the region.  The United States 
has played an active role in support of these diplomatic efforts and 
will continue to do so.

Unfortunately, none of these efforts provides any assurance that an 
agreement can be reached this winter.  We will continue to press the 
negotiating track, but with the Bosnian people again at serious risk, we 
must focus attention on humanitarian relief.  The United States has 
worked very hard to respond to humanitarian needs.  We are the single 
largest country donor of humanitarian aid (more than 370 million dollars 
since 1991).  With 6,000 flights over 500 days, the Sarajevo airlift has 
gone on longer than the Berlin airlift of 45 years ago.  Air drops of 
humanitarian relief to the enclaves have delivered more than 10 million 
meals since February.  American planes have made 80 percent of airdrop 
flights.  We remain committed to the relief effort, both by air and 
overland, where we are working with the UN and EC on ways to resolve 
immediate problems of secure land access for relief convoys, now 
suspended because of intense fighting in central Bosnia.

We strongly support the work of the UN's War Crimes Tribunal, and 
continued economic sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro.  We are 
determined to prevent the conflict from spreading, and we have deployed 
U.S. forces to Macedonia as part of an international effort to deter a 
wider conflict.

At the same time, the President has made it clear that the United States 
will not attempt to force a settlement on Bosnia militarily.  No imposed 
settlement would endure.  Before committing American troops anywhere in 
the world, we must ask a series of rigorous and searching questions.  If 
we are satisfied with the conditions for our participation, we would be 
prepared to participate in a NATO implementation of a Bosnian 
settlement.  Those conditions would include good-faith agreement to a 
settlement by all the parties, and evidence of good-faith 
implementation.  Any such action by the United States would require the 
fullest consultation with Congress.

I want to assure the Members of this Committee that our policy toward 
any regional conflict will undergo constant and rigorous reevaluation.  
We will constantly reassess our own assumptions to be sure they are 
truly validated by events.  And any situation in which American men and 
women may be put in harm's way will always hold the highest priority for 
me and for every member of this Administration.


Mr. Chairman, this Administration is committed to frequent and 
comprehensive consultations with the Congress.  When Congressional 
hearings begin on the relationship between the Legislative and the 
Executive Branch on foreign policy, we will be responsive.

It is in that spirit, Mr. Chairman -- a spirit of cooperation and 
steadfastness about enduring American interests in a fast-changing world 
-- that I have come here today.  Now I would be pleased to respond to 
your questions and hear your views.


To the top of this page