94/06/30 Statement Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Washington, DC)  Return to: Index of 1994 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.
                 STATEMENT BY
               BEFORE THE
                JUNE 30, 1994
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I wanted to come here
today to review with you the Clinton
Administration's progress in advancing
America's vital interests in the world.
As you know, the President is about to embark
on a trip that will take him across Europe.  I
will join him in Riga, where we will pay
tribute to the victory of the Baltic peoples
over tyranny and the reintegration of their
nations with the West.  We will go on to
Poland, where we will commemorate the
approaching 50th anniversary of the Warsaw
uprising and discuss with President Walesa our
comprehensive approach to economic and security
cooperation in Europe.
From there, we go to the G-7 summit in Naples,
where we will build on the progress we made
last year in encouraging global growth, open
trade, and Russian reform.  In Germany, we will
discuss with Chancellor Kohl our shared goal of
promoting security and economic recovery in the
East.  And we will pursue that goal at the U.S.-
EU summit in Berlin.  Later this month, I will
go on to the Middle East and Asia.
I thought it important to take this opportunity
to discuss our objectives for these trips and
to offer a broader view of the overall
objectives of our foreign policy.
I know that we will spend much of our time
today discussing immediate crises.  But in my
statement, I will focus on what I believe to be
the most important contribution I can make as
Secretary of State.  That is to help the
President build and maintain long-term
relationships and lasting structures that will
advance America's enduring interests.
We must take advantage of a unique historical
moment when none of the great powers views any
other as an immediate military threat.  It
requires managing effectively our relations
with Russia, Western Europe, Japan, and China.
And it requires strengthening, extending, and
creating the institutions that serve our
overarching strategic objectives.  These
objectives remain: ensuring our security,
reinforcing our prosperity, and expanding the
reach of democracy and free markets.
Since taking office, the Clinton Administration
has made steady and remarkable progress in
advancing these objectives:
-- Eighteen months ago, our budget deficits
were out of control and our international
economic leadership was in question.  With your
help, we have put our economic house in order.
And through NAFTA, GATT, and APEC, we are
building the foundations of a more open world
trading system.
-- Eighteen months ago, the Middle East peace
talks were stalled.  Today, we are helping to
implement a historic agreement between the
Israelis and the Palestinians. Through our
trilateral talks, we are promoting major new
progress between Israel and Jordan.  With our
efforts on the Israeli-Syrian and other
negotiating tracks, we are closer than many
ever thought possible to building a lasting
structure of peace in the Middle East.
-- Eighteen months ago, the United States was
still groping for a comprehensive security
strategy toward Europe.  Today, we are putting
a new strategy into place.  We are transforming
NATO to meet the challenges of the post-Cold
War world. Through the Partnership for Peace
and other initiatives, we are helping new
democracies in Central and Eastern Europe
become our stable partners in diplomacy and
trade.  We have forged a cooperative
relationship with Russia and helped keep that
nation moving toward reform.
The end of the Cold War has given us a unique
opportunity to build a more integrated world.
But the gains of market democracy--in Eastern
Europe, Latin America, and around the world--
will endure only if we have the foresight to
extend to new nations the institutions that
have long served us well.  If we are to lock
into place the gains of the Cold War's demise,
we must now build the economic and security
architecture for the future.  American
leadership is the essential condition for
constructing that architecture.
In my previous visits with this committee, I
set out our strategic priorities.  Today, I
will focus on a few of the most pressing issues
we face in advancing these priorities.
This Administration is committed to building a
secure, democratic, and fully integrated
Europe.  After the Second World War, visionary
leaders on both sides of the Atlantic built the
institutions that ensured the security and
economic strength of the United States and
Western Europe:  NATO and GATT, the OECD and
its predecessor, and ultimately the European
Union.  These institutions helped produce
unparalleled peace and prosperity for half a
century--but only for half a continent.  For
Eastern Europe, the benefits of Western
integration and of post-war reconstruction were
denied by the harsh confrontation of the Cold
Earlier this month, I called on our partners at
the OECD and NATO to help extend to all of
Europe the benefits, and obligations, of the
same liberal trading and collective security
order that have been pillars of strength for
the West.  We are actively working with our EU
partners to expand market access and investment
opportunities for Central and Eastern Europe.
And last week, we welcomed Russia to the
Partnership for Peace, the most important
strategic initiative NATO has undertaken since
its creation.  By widening NATO's reach, we are
asserting that Europe cannot be split into
zones of stability and insecurity.
After centuries of great power conflict in
Europe, we are building the first security
partnership that can encompass all the nations
of the continent.  Twenty-one countries have
joined the Partnership for Peace.  In
September, Poland will host the first joint
exercise on the soil of a former Warsaw Pact
As the President said in Prague, the question
now is not whether, but when and how NATO will
admit new members.  We are committed to NATO
expansion.  And that process begins with
developing deep cooperative relationships
through the Partnership for Peace.
The war in Bosnia, Mr. Chairman, remains a
threat to European security and integration. We
have a strategic interest in seeing that the
war does not spread.  And certainly, we have a
humanitarian interest in ending the violence
and in easing the plight of its victims.
In February, when I last came before this
committee, two wars were being fought on
Bosnian territory.  In March, we brokered an
agreement between Bosnia's Muslims and Croats
to end one of those wars.  We helped end the
shelling of Sarajevo, and the exclusion zones
NATO has enforced around that city and around
Gorazde have largely held.  But violence
continues, making it vital that the parties
agree to a political settlement.
We have been working with Russia and our other
European partners in the Contact Group on a
proposal that can form the basis for a
negotiated settlement.  We are now discussing
the final contours of that proposal and the
consequences should any of the parties reject
it.  In our view, this must include a credible
threat to increase pressure on the Serbs if
they say no.
This is a moment of opportunity on Bosnia.
Although we may well reach the point where the
international community lifts the arms embargo,
it would be a tragic mistake to undermine the
settlement process by unilaterally lifting the
embargo now.  That would break the cohesion of
the NATO Alliance.  It could lead to the
general collapse of UN sanctions as an
effective instrument in international affairs.
And it could undermine our efforts in
situations such as Iraq and Libya.
Mr. Chairman, with respect to Russia, this
Administration believes that supporting that
nation's reforms and its integration with the
West is the best investment we can make in our
security.  That investment continues to yield
solid returns for America.  It has made our
nation and the world safer.  It has allowed us
to dedicate more resources to domestic renewal.
-- In January, the United States, Russia, and
Ukraine signed a historic accord to eliminate
nuclear weapons from Ukraine's soil.
-- In the last three weeks, in addition to
joining the Partnership for Peace, Russia
signed an economic partnership with the
European Union and a cooperation agreement with
the OECD.
-- Last week, we agreed to help Russia develop
oil and gas reserves in its far east.  And
Russia agreed to close its plutonium production
-- At the Naples summit, President Yeltsin will
join us for the first time in the G-7 Plus One
format.  In September, Presidents Clinton and
Yeltsin will hold their third summit.
Integration into Western institutions will
bring benefits to Russia, including expanded
trade, greater investment, and military
cooperation with NATO.  It also will require
Russia to accept the obligations Western
nations share:  to pursue sound economic
policies, uphold democracy, and respect the
rights of other countries.  Integration will
serve the interests of the United States and of
all the nations of Europe, particularly those
that so recently won their freedom from
communist rule.
The successful transformation of the Soviet
empire into a community of sovereign,
democratic states is a matter of fundamental
importance to America and Europe.  In
particular, a prosperous, non- nuclear Ukraine
is vital to European stability. We are helping
Ukraine try to reverse the deterioration of its
economy, which poses the most immediate threat
to its future.  This Administration also has
worked hard to achieve the full and timely
withdrawal of Russian troops from the Baltic
Let me be clear:  a rhetorical commitment to
the independence of new democracies will not
suffice.  It will require a determined effort,
backed by resources.  It will require the
steady support of this Congress.
Another distinctive imprint of the
Administration's foreign policy is the high
priority we assign to economic security. In
this respect, I have not hesitated to challenge
foreign policy orthodoxy.  It used to be said
that balance-of-power diplomacy and arms
control were "high politics" and economics was
"low politics." I reject that distinction and
not because times have changed.  When our
predecessors created the Bretton Woods system
50 years ago this summer, when they launched
the Marshall Plan and established the GATT,
they knew that political and economic diplomacy
are indivisible.
With support from this Congress, President
Clinton is advancing the most ambitious
international economic agenda of any President
since Harry Truman.
With the Uruguay Round, we broke global
gridlock to complete the most comprehensive
trade agreement in history.  The Uruguay Round
is an investment in a more stable and
integrated world in which open societies are
linked and invigorated by open markets. Its
approval by Congress this year, so that it can
take effect next January, is a top priority for
this Administration.
When Congress approved NAFTA, we built a
platform for greater American prosperity and a
bridge to greater trade and investment
throughout the Americas.  We recognized our
overriding national interest in Mexico's
stability, prosperity, and democratic
development.  Last year, I was gratified to
make the foreign policy case for passing NAFTA.
As we seek fast track authority, I look forward
to making a similar case for liberalizing trade
and investment with other fast-growing markets,
beginning with Chile.
When the President hosted the successful
meeting of APEC leaders in Seattle, we deepened
our economic integration with the dynamic Asia-
Pacific region.  Already, more than 40% of
American trade is with Asia, supporting 2.5
million U.S. jobs.
Our commitment to promoting a secure,
prosperous, and democratic Asia requires that
America remain a stabilizing power in the Asia-
Pacific.  Instability and conflict in Asia
would undermine global economic growth,
threaten democracies, and encourage
This Administration has consistently identified
North Korea's nuclear program as a threat to
America's vital security interests.  North
Korea's actions threaten peace on the Korean
Peninsula and endanger our treaty ally, South
Korea.  They threaten the strategic stability
of the entire region and could spur a nuclear
arms race in Asia.  And they threaten our
global efforts to prevent proliferation.  Left
unchecked, rogue regimes or terrorist groups
could one day be a cargo ship away from
acquiring a nuclear capability.
We always have preferred to address this
problem, and to protect these interests,
through negotiations.  We now have a new
opportunity to conduct on favorable terms a
third round of discussions between the United
States and North Korea.  But should North Korea
use dialogue for the purpose of delay, we are
prepared to move the issue back to the Security
Council, pursue sanctions, and take whatever
steps are appropriate to resolve the issue.
We look forward to broad and thorough
discussions with the North on a full range of
security, political and economic issues. And we
welcome the upcoming meeting between the
Presidents of North and South Korea. Our
objectives are the same: a nuclear-free Korean
Peninsula, a secure Asia, and a strong non-
proliferation regime.  Our resolve to achieve
these objectives is undiminished.
Mr. Chairman, we have accomplished a great deal
in the last 18 months.  But I am concentrating
on our agenda for the future. We will be
addressing a number of important challenges,
-- Ratification of the Uruguay Round and
initiatives to open new markets in Latin
America and Asia.
-- An expanded NATO that advances the
integration and security of a wider Europe.
-- A comprehensive peace in the Middle East,
with Israel secure and fully integrated in the
region's political and economic life.
-- A strong non-proliferation regime, including
indefinite extension of the NPT, a
comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and a ratified
Chemical Weapons Convention.
-- A United Nations better able to respond
effectively and rapidly to crises.
-- An Africa in which an increasing number of
democracies cooperate to resolve conflicts and
achieve sustainable development.
-- International action on population and
global climate change.
spoken about my deep respect for two of my most
distinguished predecessors, George Marshall and
Dean Acheson.  We still admire the way they
managed the crises they faced.  But most of
all, we remember them for the enduring
institutions they left behind.  Their portraits
hang today in my office as a reminder of what
determined American leadership can accomplish.
Much has changed in the world since Truman,
Marshall, and Acheson forged America's post-war
foreign policy.  But I continue to be struck by
the similarities.  They met the challenge of
reconstruction in post-war Western Europe.  We
are meeting the challenge of reconstruction in
post-Cold War Eastern Europe.  They were
present at the outset of the Arab-Israeli
conflict.  We are helping achieve its
resolution.  They faced a crisis in Korea.  We
are working to avert one.
We are the world's largest military and
economic power.  Our nation and its founding
principles still occupy a special place in the
imagination of people all over the world.  And
we still have the institutions the post-war
generation left us.  With the Cold War past, we
now have the power to expand the reach of these
institutions and to extend the security,
prosperity, and democracy that they helped
preserve for us.
To the top of this page