-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/1e7716cf1151944a6d1209ebeb1ce082.pdf
b3b08ff14d850977a14a323a27939a8e
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number: 2006-0458-F
FOIA
MAR~~~R
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Communications
Series/Staff Member:
Don Baer
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
10140
FolderiD:
Folder Title:
D Day Speeches Reviewed in Preparation for D Day
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
s
90
2
8
1
��Transcript
..
. of Stephen Ambrose's Remarks 5/24/94
:I
'
I
This was the greatest event in history and it was the pivot point
of the 20th century. It was the point at which was decided
whether totalitarianism or democracy would prevail in the 20th
century and as of 1940 it sure looked like the totalitarians were
going to win. The Red Army was on the march, the German army was
on the march, France was gone ••• the United States was sucking its
thumb. And it just looked for sure like the totalitarians owned
the future. Hitler was certain, sure that that was th~ case.·' He
thought that any country that allowed an opposition political
party to exist in wartime was a country that was doomed--that the
Furber principle of unquestioning obedience from the very top
down to the lowest private in industry as well as in the army
would just always prevail over democracies with their squabbling
parliamentary tactics and the inherent disorderliness of
democracy. But when we got into the war--maybe I shouldn't use
this line tonight but it's one that I love and I bring to your
attention--what Dwight Eisenhower called the fury of an aroused
democracy came into play and the teamwork that evolved in the
United States and in Great Britain and in Canada was just an
absolutely remarkable thing that produced these quantities of
goods, weaponry and equipment far beyond anything Germany could
produce. We doubled and then we doubled again and we doubled
once more our industrial plant which had been working at half
capacity as late as 1940. The statistic here is when Roosevelt
called for the production of 4000 planes a month in 1941 people
thought he was just crazy. By '44 they were producing 8000
planes a month.. This was a miracle a triumph for democracy. And
the other miracle of democracy was the creation of the United
States Army from ranking 16th in the world in 1940 to an army of
8 million very well equipped and very well trained men. Hitler's
other bet had been that the sons of democracy would never be
soldiers.
--Hitler used the term the "soft effeminate sons of democracy".
That's right--grown up in the boy scouts, emphasis on individual
liberties and individual freedoms--would just melt in front of
the tough young fanatical kids brought up in the Nazi Youth.
The critical moment of the war came at 08:30 on June 6th at
omaha Beach and you had America troops huddled at the seawall(?),
exhausted, confused, leaderless, many of them weaponless. They
had been told that the battle would begin when they got to the
top of that bluff and all the German defenders on the beach would
be blown away by the B17; and if the B17 didn't get them the Navy
bombardment was gonna get them; and if the Navy bombardment
didn't get them, the tanks were going to get them coming in
swimming beside it. They were briefed to expect that their war
would start when they got to the top of that bluff. They got to
the ?, those that were still alive and nothing they had been told
turned out to be so. The B17s had delayed for a fatal two
seconds before dropping their bombs for fear of hitting their own
men. They killed a lot of cattle, some French civilions. Not one
bomb fell on that beach. The Naval bombardment also went over
--- -
---·
··----
. I
�'
I
Transcripe_of Stephen Ambrose's Remarks 5/24/94
This was the greatest event in history and it was the pivot point
of the 20th century. It was the point at which was decided
whether totalitarianism or democracy would prevail in the 20th
century and as of 1940 it sure looked like the totalitarians were
going to win~ The Red Army was on the march, the German army was
on the march, France was gone ••• the United States was sucking its
thumb. And it just looked for sure like the totalitarians owned
the future. Hitler was certain, sure that that was th~ case.··· He
thought that any country that allowed an opposition political
party to exist in wartime was a country that was doomed--that the
Furber principle of unquestioning obedience from the very top
down to the lowest private in industry as well as in the army
would just always prevail over democracies with their squabbling
parliamentary tactics and the inherent disorderliness of
democracy. But when we got into the war--maybe I shouldn't use
this line tonight but it's one that I love and I bring to your
attention--what Dwight Eisenhower called the fury of an aroused
democracy came into play and the teamwork that evolved in the
United States and in Great Britain and in Canada was just an
absolutely remarkable thing that produced these quantities of
goods, weaponry and equipment far beyond anything Germany could
produce. We doubled and then we doubled again and we doubled
once more our industrial plant which had been working at half
capacity as late as 1940. The statistic here is when Roosevelt
called for the production of 4000 planes a month in 1941 people
thought he was just crazy. By '44 they were producing 8000
planes a month.. This was a miracle a triumph for democracy. And
the other miracle of democracy was the creation of the United
States Army from ranking 16th in the world in 1940 to an army of
8 million very well equipped and very well trained men. Hitler's
other bet had been that the sons of democracy would never be
soldiers.
--Hitler used the term the "soft effeminate sons of democracy".
That's right--grown up in the boy scouts, emphasis on individual
liberties and individual freedoms--would just melt in front of
the tough young fanatical kids brought up in the Nazi Youth.
The critical moment of the war came at 08:30 on June 6th at
Omaha Beach and you had America troops huddled at the seawall(?),
exhausted, confused, leaderless, many of them weaponless. They
had been told that the battle would begin when they got to the
top of that bluff and all the German defenders on the beach would
be blown away by the B17; and if the B17 didn't get them the Navy
bombardment was gonna get them; and if the Navy bombardment
didn't get them, the tanks were going to get them coming in
swimming beside it. They were briefed to expect that their war
would start when they got to the top of that bluff. They got to
the ?, 'those that were still alive and nothing they had been told
turned out to be so. The B17s had delayed for a fatal two
seconds before dropping their bombs for fear of hitting their own
men. They killed a lot of cattle, some French civilians. Not one
bomb fell on that beach. The Naval bombardment also went over
�&
\
Transcrip~_of
Stephen Ambrose's Remarks 5/24/94
This was the greatest event in history and it was the pivot point
of the 20th century. It was the point at which was decided
whether totalitarianism or democracy would prevail in the 20th
century and as of 1940 it sure looked like the totalitarians were
going to win. The Red Army was on the march, the German army was
on the march, France was gone ••• the United states was sucking its
thumb. And it just looked for sure like the totalitarians owned
the future. .Hitler was certain, sure that that was the case.··' He
thought that any country that allowed an opposition poiitical
party to exist in wartime was a country that was doomed--that the
Furher principle of unquestioning obedience from the very top
down to the lowest private in industry as well as in the army
would just always prevail over democracies with their squabbling
parliamentary tactics and the inherent disorderliness of
democracy. But when we got into the war--maybe I shouldn't use
this line tonight but it's one that I love and I bring to your
attention--what Dwight Eisenhower called the fury'of an aroused
democracy came into play and the teamwork that evolved in the
United States and in Great Britain and in Canada was just an
absolutely remarkable thing that produced these quantities of
goods, weaponry and equipment far beyond anything Germany could
produce. We doubled and then we doubled again and we doubled
once more our industrial plant which had been working at half
capacity as late as 1940. The statistic here is when Roosevelt
called for the production of 4000 planes a month in 1941 people
thought he was just crazy. By '44 they were producing 8000
planes a month.. This was a miracle a triumph for democracy. And
the other miracle of democracy was the creation of the United
states Army from ranking 16th in the world in 1940 to an army of
8 million very well equipped and very well trained men. Hitler's
other bet had been that the sons of democracy would never be
soldiers.
·
--Hitler ·Used the term the "soft effeminate sons of democracy".
That's right--grown up in the boy scouts, emphasis on individual
liberties and individual freedoms--would just melt in front of
the tough young fanatical kids brought up in the Nazi Youth.
The critical moment of the war came at 08:30 on June 6th at
omaha Beach and you had America troops huddled at the seawall{?),
exhausted, confused, leaderless, many of them weaponless. They
had been told that the battle would begin when they got to the
top of that bluff and all the German defenders on the beach would
be blown away by the B17; and if the B17 didn't get them the Navy
bombardment was gonna get them; and if the Navy bombardment
didn't get them, the tanks were going to get them coming in
swimming beside it. They were briefed to expect.that their war
would start when they got to the top of that bluff. They got to
the ?, those that were still alive and nothing they had been told
turned out to be so. The B17s had delayed for a fatal two
seconds before dropping their bombs for fear of hitting their own
men. They killed a lot of cattle, some French civilians. Not one
bomb fell on that beach. The Naval bombardment also went over
�the top of the bluff but it was way too short. Of the 35
swimminq tanks, 32 sank. So now you have these American kids,
colleqe kids two years earlier, and Hitler's armies are
overrunninq the earth. ? up the·seawall, had they been Germans,
the junior officers absolutely for certain would have qotten on
the radio and called back to the commandinq ships and said, "What
the hell do we do now?" The American kids, these boy scouts,
they really--couldn't retreat, the plan was kaput, no way in the
world you're qoinq to qet those ?, they're way too heavy to fit
and there were no tanks to follow up. They didn't know the quy,
the private to their left, they didn't know the three ~rivat~ to
their riqht, but they seized the initiative, they took·the
responsibility; they said follow me, and they led these qroups,
five here, ten there, fifteen there, many of these men, Colonel
Dawson was one of the first, the President's qoinq to be meetinq
him, Colonel.Dawson was pne of the first, but by no means a lot
of them are just nameless to us today. Only the soldiers of
democracy could have done it and it was a turninq point in the
20th century and it was an individual takinq responsibility and
realizinq "I, me, Karl Dossen," the other one's name is Spalley,
John Spalley, he was a lieutenant ..•
--Is he still alive?
No, died in 64. Lyn Lamel who is still alive he was a ranqer,
was a seargent, saying "Goddammit, I can make a difference. I
ain't qonna get killed here. I'm qonna take some Germans with me
if I qotta qo. C'mon follow me." And they did. And they came
to those conclusions independently, they didn't have to be told
that. That's one of the thinqs wronq with Zanuck's movie. Gee,
this Colonel Taylor is the one to say it, and accordinq to
Zanuck's movie, he calls that out and everybody hears him and
they all .•• bullshit, they couldn't hear five feet. They had to
decide that on their own. Each one of them, absolutely, hundreds
of them in the end. And they qot up on top of that bluff and
this was the triumph of democracy over totalitarianism--chanqed
the history of the world.
�'
I
Transcript_of Stephen Ambrose's Remarks 5/24/94
This was the greatest event in history and it was the pivot point
of the 20th century. It was the point at which was decided
whether totalitarianism or democracy would prevail in the 20th
century and as of 1940 it sure looked like the totalitarians were
going to win. The Red Army was on the march, the German army was
on the march, France was gone ••• the United States was sucking its
thumb. And it just looked for sure like the totalitarians owned
the future. Hitler was certain, sure that that was the case.·' He
thought that any country that allowed an opposition poiitical
party to exist in wartime was a country that was doomed--that the
Furher principle of unquestioning obedience from the very top
down to the lowest private in industry as well as in the army
would just always prevail over democracies with their squabbling
parliamentary tactics and the inherent disorderliness of
democracy. But when we got into the war--maybe I shouldn't use
this line tonight but it's one that I love and I bring to your
attention--what Dwight Eisenhower called the fury of an aroused
democracy came into play and the teamwork that evolved in the
United States and in Great Britain and in Canada was just an
absolutely remarkable thing that produced these quantities of
goods, weaponry and equipment far beyond anything Germany could
produce. We doubled and then we doubled again and we doubled
once more our industrial plant which had been working at half
capacity as late as 1940. The statistic here is when Roosevelt
called for the production of 4000 planes a month in 1941 people
thought he was just crazy. By '44 they were producing 8000
planes a month.. This was a miracle a triumph for democracy. And
the other miracle of democracy was the creation of the United
states Army from ranking 16th in the world in 1940 to an army of
8 million very well equipped and very well trained men. Hitler's
other bet had been that the sons of democracy would never be
soldiers.
--Hitler used the term the "soft effeminate sons of democracy".
That's right--grown up in the boy scouts, emphasis on individual
liberties and individual freedoms--would just melt in front of
the tough young fanatical kids brought up in the Nazi Youth.
The critical moment of the war came at 08:30 on June 6th at
omaha Beach and you had America troops huddled at the seawall(?),
exhausted, confused, leaderless, many of them weaponless. They
had been told that the battle would begin when they got to the
top of that bluff and all the German defenders on the beach would
be blown away by the Bl7; and if the Bl7 didn't get them the Navy
bombardment was gonna get them; and if the Navy bombardment
didn't get them, the tanks were going to get them coming in
swimming beside it. They were briefed to expect that their war
would start when they got to the top of that bluff. They got to
the ?, those that were still alive and nothing they had been told
turned out to be so. The Bl7s had delayed for a fatal two
seconds before dropping their bombs for fear of hitting their own
men. They killed a lot of cattle, some French civilians. Not one
bomb fell on that beach. The Naval bombardment also went over
�..
\
·f.
the top or the bluff but it was way too short. Of the 35
swimming tanks, 32 sank. So now you have these American kids,
college kids two years earlier, and Hitler's armies are
overrunning the earth. ? up the seawall, had they been Germans,
the junior officers absolutely for certain would have gotten on
the radio and called back to the commanding ships and said, "What
the hell do we do now?" The American kids, these boy scouts,
they really--couldn't retreat, the plan was kaput, no way in the
world you're going to get those ?, they're way too heavy to fit
and there were no tanks to follow up. They didn't know the guy,
the private to their left, they didn't know the three private$ to
their right, but they seized the initiative, they took·the
responsibility; they said follow me, and they led these groups,
five here, ten there, fifteen there, many of these men, Colonel
Dawson was one of the first,. the President's going to be meeting
him, Colonel Dawson was one of the first, but by no means a lot
of them are just nameless to us today. Only the soldiers of
democracy could have done it and it was a turning point in the
20th century and it was an individual taking responsibility and
realizing "I, me, Karl Dossen," the other one's name is Spalley,
John Spalley, he was a lieutenant •..
--Is he still alive?
No, died in 64. Lyn Lamel who is still alive he was a ranger,
was a seargent, saying "Goddammit, I can make a difference. I
ain't gonna get killed here. I'm gonna take some Germans with me
if I gotta go. C'mon follow me." And they did. And they came
to those conclusions independently, they didn't have to be told
that. That's one of the things wrong with Zanuck's movie. Gee,
this Colonel Taylor is the one to say it, and according to
Zanuck' s movie'· he calls that out and everybody hears him and
they all ••• bullshit, they couldn't hear five feet. They had to
decide that on their own. Each one of them, absolutely, hundreds
of them in the end. And they got up on top of that bluff and
this was the triumph of democracy over totalitarianism--changed
the history of the world.
�•
(as prepared for delivery)
Bosnia in Light of the Holocaust: War Crimes Trials
Ambassador Madeleine Albright
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
April 12, 1994
It is both an honor and a challenge to be here with you
tonight. This is not an easy building within which to speak.
Inscribed on its walls are some of the most eloquent
manifestations of language ever recorded. Embedded in its
exhibitions are some of the most monstrous deeds ever
perpetrated. Yet language must confront deed in this living
Museum, which educates beyond words and without compromise;
educates deeply and troubles deeply. There is no more
appropriate a place to discuss the War Crimes Tribunal for
former Yugoslavia.
We all have a stake in the success of this Tribunal.
Tonight, I will discuss why that is true; but I will begin with
the arguments of some who suggest it is not.
There are those who dismiss the War Crimes Tribunal as a
weak substitute for stronger international action; they see it
as a means for expiating guilt for failure to do more, earlier,
to stop the killing in Bosnia.
Others ridicule the Tribunal because it has no guaranteed
means of gaining custody over the principal suspects, even
those we consider most responsible for the atrocities that have
occurred.
Others ask why the conflict in former Yugoslavia merits
special attention. War crimes have been and are being
committed elsewhere; ethnic cleansing is perpetrated elsewhere;
there are other wars with more victims; other wars of
international aggression; other wars where outrages have been
ordered from the top. Why punish crimes in former Yugoslavia
and leave the likes of Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein uncharged?
Finally, some see the Tribunal as an obstacle to peace,
believing that the negotiators will never agree to peace unless
amnesty for war crimes is included.
The U.S. Government does not believe that because ~ war
crimes may go unpunished, all must. We do not believe that the
difficulty of the Tribunal's work should bar the attempt. We
oppose amnesty for the architects of ethnic cleansing. We
believe that establishing the truth about what happened in
Bosnia is essential to--not an obstacle to--national
reconciliation. And we know the Tribunal is no substitute for
other actions to discourage further aggression and encourage
peace.
�•
- 2 -
Two weeks ago, I was in Sarejevo to dedicate the site of
America's new embassy. I found there a new sense of hope mixed
with firm determination.
In central Bosnia, reconciliation between the Government
and the Bosnian Croat faction has ended the deadly siege of
Mostar. The threat of intervention by Croatian troops has
ended. In the embattled east, the airport in Tuzla is now
open. It is becoming easier and safer to move around the
country. We hope that planners will soon be able to
concentrate less on humanitarian relief and more on laying the
groundwork for national reconstruction.
However, the road ahead remains steep. Gains already made
must be consolidated. Ceasefires must be expanded._ Further
aggression in Gorazde and elsewhere must end. Where possible,
the displaced must be allowed to return home. The Bosnian
Serbs must be persuaded to accept peace. And the principle
that the Bosnian people fought for, suffered for, died for, and
lived for must be preserved. Bosnia must remain a multi-ethnic
state.
The work of the War Crimes Tribunal does not and should not
depend on political events. It stands on its own. Its
constituency is the civilized world; its hidden enemy is the
complacency of our world. But complacency is not something one
is born with; it is not an internal organ; it is a choice. And
there is no more appropriate place than here to sound a clarion
call against indifference and towards the harder choice of
dedication to the rule of law.
The War Crimes Tribunal was formally established by the
Security Council last May. Its jurisdiction includes several
categories of serious violations of international humanitarian
law that I have subsumed within the heading of "war crimes" for
convenience tonight. These include grave breaches of the 1949
Geneva Convention, genocide, and crimes against humanity, as
recognized in conventional and customary international law and
in the Charter and Judgement of the Nuremberg Tribunal.
The Tribunal's eleven judges, including Judge Gabrielle
Kirk McDonald of Texas, were elected last fall and are
preparing actively. Rules of evidence and procedure are now in·
place. The UN has approved eleven million dollars in budget
authority for 1994. We believe that this amount, along with
the voluntary contributions received, will be fully adequate to
get the Tribunal off the ground.
The search for a Chief Prosecutor has been long and
frustrating. The Security Council's first choice waited three
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
--
�- 3 -
months before declining formally to accept the position. The
search for a successor has dragged on too long, but we expect
an announcement very soon. I can assure this audience that the
United States has done everything it could to see that this
critical position would be filled. Fortunately, the acting
Deputy Prosecutor--in whom we have great confidence--is hard at
work.
The job of compiling the facts upon which investigations
and prosecutions must be based is well advanced. Thousands of
pages of documentation and testimony are on file. Statements
and reports have been received from victims, witnesses,
governments, UN agencies, international organizations,
nongovernmental organizations and from the European Community's
investigation into crimes against Muslim women. I particularly
want to salute the efforts of the nongovernmental
organizations, which have performed invaluable work in the
cause of justice.
The United States is fully engaged:
o We are working to see that the Tribunal is adequately
funded;
o We are making a special voluntary contribution of $3
million;
o Congress has authorized the President to provide up to
$25 million in goods and services to the Tribunal (last month,
the President approved the first drawdown--about $6
million--from that authority);
o We have assembled a group of about 25 prosecutors,
investigators, area specialists and others to work directly
with the Tribunal, beginning in the next few weeks;
o We are constantly collecting and analyzing information
pertaining to war crimes; and
o We have provided hundreds of refugee interview reports to
the Tribunal and are preparing to provide hundreds more.
These reports were gathered through the diligent efforts of
US Government employees in several parts of the world. Most
are eyewitness accounts of atrocities or ethnic cleansing. As
we speak, a member of my staff is part of a team, operating
under the auspices of the Tribunal Prosecutor's office, that is
interviewing the victims of some of the worst violence of the
war.
�- 4 -
Finally, we have repeatedly asked other governments to join
us in supporting the Tribunal, financially, politically and
legally. Governments must be willing to share information,
interview 'witnesses, comply with Tribunal requests and take
custody of suspects found within their jurisdictions. In this
respect, I note that Germany has arrested a person suspected of
ordering horrible atrocities at a concentration camp in
Bosnia. The Danes also have a suspect under arrest.
The United States will continue to take into account good
faith cooperation with the War Crimes Tribunal by
Serbia/Montenegro and the Bosnian and Croat Serbs in
determining how to sequence any easing or lifting of economic
sanctions imposed by the Security Council on Serbs in the
former Yugoslavia.
We should have no illusions about the obstacles that the
tribunal will face. This is not Nuremberg. The accused will
not be the surrendered leaders of a broken power. It will be
very difficult to gain access to evidence, including mass grave
sites, especially in areas under local Serb control. It will
be difficult to gain custody over many of the accused.
But realism about the Tribunal's prospects must not
engender cynicism about its importance. Although there will be
no trials in absentia, there will be investigations and
findings of fact. The Tribunal is empowered to deliver
indictments and issue arrest warrants. Governments ~ be
obliged to hand over for trial those indicted who are within
their jurisdiction. The Tribunal is empowered to request the
Security Council to take enforcement action against any
government that fails to do so. And indicted individuals will
face the choice of standing trial or becoming international
pariahs, trapped within the borders of their own lands, subject
to immediate arrest should they leave.
One advantage we have now is Nuremberg, itself. Many of
the legal arguments put forward by defendants at Nuremberg were
disposed of in the judgment there. Today, there should be no
question that political and military leaders may be held
criminally accountable if they do not stop atrocities by their
followers or do not punish those respDnsible. A person who
gives the order to commit a war crime is culpable, as is the
person who actually commits it. Conversely, a person acting
pursuant to orders remains responsible, providing a moral
choice was in fact available. Neither "just following orders",
nor "just giving orders" is a tenable defense.
Let me review now the reasons why the U.S. Government
believes the War Crimes Tribunal is so important.
�- 5 -
First, the magnitude of the war crimes committed in former
Yugoslavia demands an international legal response.
The war, itself, is the result of premeditated armed
aggression. Bosnian Serb leaders have sought a "final
solution" of extermination or expulsion to the problem of
non-Serb populations under their control. The means chosen
include murder, torture, indiscriminate bombing, fire,
dismemberment, rape and castration. Half of Bosnia's
population has been displaced. Five percent has been killed.
Abuses have been massive, repeated, deliberate and gross. And
no side is without guilt.
Earlier this year, I visited the mass grave near Vukovar.
What I saw there was a garbage dump; a field of rusted
refigerators and scraps of farm equipment beneath which two to
three hundred human beings are buried
There are no flowers,
no signs or markers, no excavation of the soil. Hannah Arendt
wrote about the banality of evil. There is a sickening evil in
the banality there.
I thought during that same visit of the pictures that I had
seen of the stre~ms of refugees expelled from their homes in
and around Vukovar. The images were eerily familiar.
They
could have come right out of the pictures in this Museum of
families fleeing Warsaw or Minsk or Bucharest or Prague. The
faces were not the same, but the expressions and the movements
were: the slow, stumbling, bewildered pace of uprooted
families, burdened by all their remaining possessions, trudging
down an unfamiliar road towards an uncertain future, the strong
helping the weak until their own strength is drained.
Most of the victims of the war in Bosnia, like the victims
memorialized in this building, are not soldiers. They include
average citizens of every description and of various
nationalities, children, grandparents, doctors, nurses, mental
patients and church officials. The majority were killed not
because they wandered into a crossfire, or were too close to a
military target; these dead were not--in the terminology of the
soldier--collateral damage. They were men and women like you
and me; boys and girls like those we know; intentionally
targeted not because of what they had.done, but for who they
were.
The racialism at the center of Nazi ideology has not been
present in the conflict in Bosnia. This is not the Holocaust.
But there hgyg been crimes of genocide.
In 1939, when Field
Marshall Wilhelm Keitel.ordered the purge of Poland, he called
it "political housecleaning." Today, it's called ethnic
cleansing. But the questions raised are similar:
.··..
�-
6 -
o How do we respond when the authority and resources of a
state are directed towards the destruction of whole categories
of human beings?
o How is it possible for so many people--capable of
generosity and warmth in other contexts--to descend to the
level of beasts?
o How can civilization not respond to crimes of this
magnitude and still call itself "civilized?"
o And how can we calibrate our response so that it leads in
the direction not of revenge, but of justice?
This brings me to a second argument in support of the War
Crimes Tribunal. Even the threat of punishment for war crimes
can save lives.
The prospect of war crimes trials in the latter stages of
World War II caused some Nazi leaders to modify their treatment
of Jews and other prisoners. In former Yugoslavia, each time
the prospect of punishing war criminals has been publicized,
the treatment of detainees has improved and atrocities have
diminished. Today, there are signs that some of the worst
violators of human rights are being deprived of their
authority by one-time protectors who now fear justice under the
law.
In short, the more serious we are about the Tribunal, the
greater the potential deterrent the Tribunal will be. If this
means that one village that would otherwise be attacked is
spared; that one woman who would otherwise be violated is
respected; that one prisoner who would otherwise be executed is
allowed to live--the existence of the Tribunal would be
validated on these grounds alone.
Third, the Tribunal will make it easier for the Bosnian
people to reach a genuine peace.
The scars left on the bodies and in the minds of the
survivors of this war will take time to heal. In too many
places, neighbors were betrayed by nei9hbor and friend divided
from friend ·by fierce and hostile passion. Too many families
have assembled at too many cemeteries for us to say that ethnic
differences in Bosnia do not matter. But responsibility for
these crimes does not rest with the Serbs or Croats or Muslims
as peoples; it rests with the people who ordered and committed
the crimes. The wounds opened by this war will heal much
faster if collective guilt for atrocities is expunged and
individual responsibility is assigned.
�- 7 -
Fourth, the Tribunal can provide a deterrent to other
potential aggressors.
Adolf Hitler once dismissed arguments against killing Jews
with the rhetorical question: ."Who, after all, remembers the
Armenians?"
If the architects of war and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia go
unpunished, the lesson for would-be Milosevic's around the
globe will endanger us all; for today's world is a tinderbox of
open and potential nationalist conflict.
National pride can be the custodian of rich cultural
legacies; it can unite people in defense of a common good; it
can provide a sense of identity and belonging that stretches
across territory and time.
But when pride in "us" curdles into hatred of "them," the
result is a narrowing of vision and a compulsion to violence.
As we saw in Germany a half centu~y ago, as we have seen in
America with the Ku Klux Klan, and as we see in Serbia today~
at the far fringe of ethnic pride is fascism.
There are thousands of self-defined ethnic groups in the
world, more than 100 in the former Soviet Union alone. Not
every one can reasonably expect to have its own flag, currency,
airline and state.
Today, violent separatist movements are gaining strength.
Left unchecked, they may engulf whole chunks of Europe, Asia
and Africa in conflict. History from Sarajevo to Sarajevo
warns us that when small powers fight, big powers are often
drawn in. We have a stake in seeing that the embers of ethnic
conflict are cooled, and models for easing fear, reconciling
ambition and clarifying principle are established.
That is why we will continue to stress our view that
individuals are entitled to basic human rights irrespective of
group identity. It is why we will continue to support the work
of the CSCE and others to enhance respect for the rights of
minorities. It is why we will continue to work through the UN
and regional organizations to settle disputes peacefully. It
is why we should be determined to salvage from the conflict in
Bosnia, if we can, two lessons: first, that aggressors and
outlaws will be called to account, and second that the problem
of minorities cannot be resolved through ethnic cleansing.
And it is why we will continue to view with deadly
seriousness the rise of ultra-nationalist groups in strategic
parts of the globe.
�I
~
-
8 -
Let us never forget that the extreme views of Adolf Hitler
caused many to ridicule him when they should have opposed him.
Today, we may want to agree with the Russian Foreign Minister
that Vladimir Zhirinovsky is less a political problem than a
medical one. But it is disquieting to see bonds build between
radical nationalists in Russia and former Yugoslavia. And
history teaches us that individuals can be deranged and
dangerous at the same time.
Finally, the War Crimes Tribunal can strengthen the fabric
of international law.
What we have witnessed in former Yugoslavia goes beyond war
to the brutalization of law and civilization, itself. We
Americans, living in a free society, have a deep interest in a
world where acceptable "rules of the game" are observed.
Today, the most severe threats we face come from regimes that
have chosen to operate outside the law. We are determined that
a price be exacted for such behavior, whether in the form of
diplomatic isolation, economic sanctions, military containment
or coercion. The War Crimes Tribunal complements this approach.
For example, it gives life to the principle that the laws
of war should be applied irrespective of battlefield success.
It reinforces the status of rape during armed conflict as a
violation of international humanitarian law.
It recognizes that interference with the delivery of
humanitarian aid is a war crime, something which has broad
implications for future UN missions.
And it clarifies that there is a corollary to the right to
emigrate; and that is what the UN High Commissioner for
Refugees, Dr. Sadako Ogata has called "the right to remain"--a
right directly opposed to ethnic cleansing.
These are key principles. Made concrete, they would shield
the citizens not of one ethnic group in former Yugoslavia, but
of each. And they would provide an extra margin of security to
us all.
Clearly, the War Crimes Tribunal will not revolutionize
human behavior; it will not stop all aggression; it will not
end war crimes; it will not--even in the best case--ensure more
than a measure of justice in former Yugoslavia. But it will at
least place the force and prestige of international law
squarely on the side of the victims of this conflict. It will
enhance the prospects for a durable peace. It will add a
measure of caution to the scales in the minds of would-be
�- 9 -
aggressors. It will strengthen perceptibly the foundations of
civilized society in a perilously unstable world. And it will
rebut the song the New XQ£k Times reports is now popular in
Belgrade: "Daddy is a war criminal, but no one dares take him
to Court."
Tonight, with both the war and the War Crimes Tribunal in
mind, here in this Museum dedicated to memory, let us vow not
to allow the future to be defined by the past.
There are those who say we are all the prisoners of
history; and that the violence that has wracked former
Yugoslavia was but the inevitable aftershock of grievances
incurred decades, even centuries, before.
There are those who feel unaffected by crimes perpetrated
against the people of Bosnia because the victims are so far
away, and because other problems--and other crimes--demand our
attention here at home.
There are those who view the human tragedy and legal
outrage in Bosnia against a broad geopolitical canvas and say
it would be "unrealistic" for us to care very much or for very
long.
There are those so appalled by the savagery of this and
other wars that they despair of human progress, and refuse to
recognize that some measure of justice is preferable to no
justice at all.
There is much within our experience to support each of
these attitudes. There is much within this building to cause
pessimism and despair.
We cannot escape the damnable duality of human nature. We
cannot base our lives or our policies on illusions about human
character.
But we can understand that there will be limits on what we
can accomplish without ourselves limiting what we attempt. We
can accept the reality of cruelty without accepting cruelty.
We can think of Auschwitz and despair.; or we can contemplate
Auschwitz and vow never to allow despair to excuse inaction.
We are the same species as Adolf Hitler, but also Anne
Frank, Oskar Schindler, Raoul Wallenberg and the rebels in the
Ghetto in Warsaw.
�- 10 -
We are the same species as the stranglers of Sarajevo, and
of its defenders; the same as the killers of Bosnia and the
same as the many, including many Bosnian Serbs, who have risked
their lives to save others.
We are the inheritors of a nation that did too little, too
late to stop the Holocaust, and that liberated Buchenwald.
We are a nation that has been hesitant to get involved
directly in Bosnia, and that has done more than any other
nation to inspire hope.
We do not come to this Museum for facile understanding. We
do not come here for reassurance. We come here to learn--not
answers, but questions.
The War Crimes Tribunal for former Yugoslavia is a test of
whether we are asking the right questions. By supporting it
and fighting for it, we can do our part not to be imprisoned by
history, but to shape it; to build a world not without
conflict, but in which conflict is effectively contained; a
world, not without repression, but in which the sway of freedom
is enlarged; a world not without lawless behavior, but in which
the interests of the law-abiding are progressively more
secure.
This Museum demands what life demands; that we choose.
To stand aside as long as we can, or to do as much as we
can.
Let us, in the name of the long and newly dead, and of the
living, and of those to come, do all we can--to stop genocide
and serve life.
Thank you very much.
�•
'
(prepared for delivery)
America and the League of Nations: Lessons for Today
Ambassador Madeleine Albright
The Wilson Center
March 4, 1994
Let me start by wishing a happy 25th birthday to the Wilson
Center. I will never forget my own time here as a Wilson
fellow. Where else can you do truly independent research, meet
scholars from all over the world and get paid for working in a
castle? I have always felt that in a town full of monuments,
the Center is unique because it is a living monument; it
memorializes not only Wilson, but Wilson's lifelong effort--as
educator and President--to map a trail for the future that
would elude the traps of the past.
That effort is especially relevant to the commemoration of
the 75th anniversary of the League of Nations. For although
the League did not survive, many of the controversies
surrounding it are with us still.
Seventy-five years ago, the world was witnessing, as are
we, the end of one historical era and the beginning of another.
Then, too, revolution
change around the world.
empire were clamoring for
Caucasus and the Balkans;
multilateral peacekeeping
in Russia was sending ripples of
Then, too, peoples long-suppressed by
recognition; violence reigned in the
and debate raged about the uses of
and international law.
And then, too, American leaders were challenged to create a
conceptual framework for engagement in a world that appeared to
pose no "clear and present" danger to the American people.
We cannot observe the League's 75th anniversary--or
contemplate the UN's upcoming 50th--without recognizing a
fundamental reality. During this century, we have transformed
utterly the daily environment in which we live. We have
realized many of the dreams--and some of the nightmares--of our
greatest scientists. We can transplant hearts, split the atom,
and dial Mongolia direct. We have reinvented the world, but we
have not re-ordered it as envisioned by President Wilson, or
even by President Bush in his "New World Order" speech of less
than three years ago.
The truth is that we are wrestling with many of the same
questions that bedeviled President Wilson:
o Is collective security the key to world peace; an
illusion that could imperil our own security; or something
inbetween?
�o How do we accommodate the legitimate hopes of
nationalities without encouraging separatism and ethnic
cleansing?
o How do we make economic sanctions a more effective way
of isolating and influencing rogue regimes?
o
How do we generate greater respect for international law?
o How do we forge a consensus within America so that we
can play the leading role we ~ play if international
institutions are to be effective?
To me, as a child growing up in Prague, Woodrow Wilson was
a giant. A free Czechoslavakia had arisen like a phoenix from
the Fourteen Points. The Czech Constitution was modeled on
America's. In almost every town, you could find a train
station or some other public place named after Woodrow Wilson.
Wilson asked all of us to believe in "the people." He felt
that only informed publics could move governments away from
war; away from the stockpiling of arms; and away from an
obsession with the balance of power.
In an era of American exceptionalists, Wilson was no
exception. He affirmed repeatedly that America had a special
place among nations; that we, more than others, took an
expansive and uplifting view of national interest. He had the
confidence to predict that Americans would "take pride
in ... offering every dollar of her wealth, every drop of her
blood, (and) every energy of her people to maintain the peace
upon" a foundation of international law.
Wilson's decision to enter the war, and his vision of a
just peace, established American credentials on the world
stage. But he lost the fight for the League because his view
of American leadership did not account for our age-old caution
about entanglements overseas. He was right wherr-he se~t.d that
without the US, the League would likely fail; he was right that
if the League failed "another attempt would be made to crush
the new nations of Europe"; but he couldn't convince the Senate
that, without the League, us interests would be imperiled.
This fissure between the Executive and Congress did not profit
either side; rather it harmed America and reduced US influence
in a turbulent world.
�Today, we are re-learning both the imperative of American
leadership and the habit of American caution. To avoid past.
mistakes, we must marry purpose with practice, emphasizing not
plans that promise much, but strategies that deliver what they
promise. To that end, I will outline tonight an updated
Fourteen Points; fourteen principles derived from the League of
Nations experience but applied to our own very different day.
Now before your stomachs start growling, I remind you: this is
the Clinton Administration. Points one through seven are the
economy, jobs, trade, health care, welfare reform, crime and
national service. So relax, I'll finish in time for dinner and
start with number eight.
And number eight is simply that the isolationists of today
are as wrong as those of 75 years ago. American leadership in
the world is essential to American interests and inseparable
from American character.
·
Few imagined in Wilson's time that when shots rang out in
Sarajevo, hundreds of thousands of American troops would be
drawn across the Atlantic, many never to return. The linkages
among nations today are far closer. Political borders are
being overrun by everything from refugees to Reeboks to
revolutionary ideas; being overrun, it sometimes seems, .by
refugees in Reeboks with revolutionary ideas.
We have no interest, in Theodore Roosevelt's phrase, in
becoming an "international Meddlesome Matty." We can't play
Dr. Welby to the world. But experience warns us that it is far
more effective, far less expensive and far less risky to treat
the symptoms of global disorder when they appear, then to sit
and wait until the contagious consequences of conflict arrive
at our door. It is in QUX interest to promote cooperative
arrangements that enlarge freedom, prevent strife, control the
spread of nuclear weapons and penalize those who run roughshod
over international law. Nations, in this sense, are like
people. The quality of our life depends not only on the kind
of home we make for ourselves, but on the kind of international
neighborhood in which we live.
The next point--again using Clinton math--is number nine.
We must demolish the myth that effective multilateral
institutions can only be built at the expense of national
sovereignty.
Seventy-five years ago, opponents charged that the League
of Nations would "send Japanese over here to crowd out our
workmen ... seize our homes ... (and) turn our wives and children
(into) beggars ... "
Today, some are accusing the Clinton Administration of
taking its foreign policy marching orders from the UN. The
charges are equally ridiculous.
�The UN's authority comes tLQm the Member states; it is
servant, not master. Its job is to help governments do
together what they cannot do as easily or as well on their own.
The challenge for us is to judge when working through the
UN serves our interests and when it does not. We do not, for
example, look to the UN to defend our territory, to set the
rules of trade or to define international economic policy. But
the universality of the UN ~ be helpful in, among other
things:
o keeping the· peace, especially where there is a genuine
peace to keep;
o controlling the spread of nuclear arms;
o monitoring elections;
o advocating human rights;
o stopping the spread of disease;
o fighting pollution;
o responding to emergencies;
o caring for the victims of war; and
o we are determined, in prosecuting the criminals of war,
starting with those in former Yugoslavia.
Acting through the UN does not foreclose opportunities to
act on our own. On the contrary, it puts the UN's prestige and
resources at the service of goals that Americans support. This
does not diminish our sovereignty; it strengthens it. It
allows us to contribute to a global system more acceptable than
anything either we or others could achieve alone. And the cost
is not large: a price per capita for us, for everything from
blue helmets for peacekeepers to polio vaccines for babies, of
less than $7 a year. That's about the same as a ticket to see
America's hottest movie, which these days gives you a choice
between "Schindler's List" and "Ace Ventura, Pet Detective."
Point ten is related to point nine. We must recognize both
the potential and the limits of UN peacekeeping.
From our perspective near millennium's end, we can look
back at centuries of international efforts to deter conflict
through a combination of force and law. Before the UN, there
was the League of Nations; before that the Congress of Vienna;
before that the Treaty of Westphalia; before that medieval
nonagression pacts; before that the Athenian League.
�Still, no magic formula has been found. In America today,
there are those from both political parties who would walk away
from UN peacekeeping altogether. There are others, like former
President Reagan, who have called for "a standing UN force--an
army of conscience-- ... prepared to carve out humanitarian
sanctuaries through force if necessary."
The Clinton Administration is navigating a middle course.
UN peacekeeping is a contributor to, not the centerpiece of,
our national security strategy. It is no substitute for
vigorous alliances and a strong national defense. When threats
arise to us or to others, we will choose the course of action
that best serves our interests. We may act through the UN; we
may act through NATO; we may act through a coalition; we may
sometimes mix these tools; or we may act alone. But we will do
whatever it takes to defend the vital interests of the United
States.
We know that past UN peace missions have achieved important
goals in places as diverse as the Middle East, Namibia, El
Salvador and Cambodia. To the extent future missions succeed,
they will lift from the shoulders of American servicemen and
taxpayers a great share of the burden of collective security.
When we intervene alone, we bear all the costs and all the
risks. When the UN intervenes, the bulk of the burden falls to
others. Of the 70,000 peacekeepers now deployed around the
world, the u.s. contribution is less than 5%. Of the total
costs, America bears 30%, and we are going to get that
reduced. Of the more than 1000 UN peacekeepers who have died
on the job, 36 were Americans.
But if UN peacekeeping is to be effective, it must be made
ready for the 21st century. UN peacekeepers need better
planning and organization, reformed budget procedures, more
dependable sources of personnel, better training, better
intelligence, better equipment and more adequate resources. We
are working with the UN and with other member states to achieve
these reforms.
We are also working to bring UN responsibilities into line
with its capabilities. The success of peacekeeping does not
depend on how many operations there are, but on how well each
operation is conducted. So we are insisting that tough
questions concerning mission, resources, risk, scope and
duration be asked before not after new obligations are
undertaken.
I emphasize that the purpose of our policy is not to expand
UN peacekeeping, but to fix it. We want to know that when we
do turn to the UN, it will be able to do the job, at an
acceptable cost, in a finite period of time. We know that
threats that affect our interests will continue to arise. The
world will continue to look to us for leadership. We will
continue to provide that leadership, but we should not bear the
full burden alone. We will be better off if the UN is better
able to prevent and contain international conflict.
�Point Eleven. We must work to make economic sanctions a
more effective instrument of international policy.
One of the designers of the League of Nations predicted
that "the economic weapon (would be) the great discovery and
the most precious possession of the League." But the success
of an international organization depends not on what member
states are pledged on paper to do; but on what they are willing
in reality to do.
And in 1935, when Italy invaded Ethiopia, League members
were not willing to do very much. Sanctions were too gradual,
too limited and too poorly enforced. Mussolini said later that
if the League had embargoed oil, he would have withdrawn his
troops within a week. The League did embargo arms, but
hauntingly in light of our recent experience in Bosnia, to
aggressor and victim alike.
In the UN during the Cold War, superpower rivalry prevented
sanctions, like peacekeeping, from being used very often. More
recently, they have been imposed for generally good cause
against former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Haiti and Libya. As long as
the permanent members of the Security Council continue to
cooperate, sanctions will be an option for responding to
potential crises. But they will be a better option if we are
able to transform them from a blunt instrument into a more
precise tool of policy. That process has only begun.
As I mentioned earlier, we are asking tough questions
whenever a new UN peacekeeping operation is considered. I have
appointed a task force at our mission in New York to recommend
similar questions for when UN sanctions are considered.
Conventional wisdom dictates, for example, that sanctions
should be applied before a resort to military force. That is
logical and in most cases would seem right. But we should at
least ask whether imposing sanctions is preferable in ~ ~
to the use or threatened use of force.
We also need to consult closely with other nations so that
we are clear about objectives. Do we seek sanctions to
protest, to punish, to deter or to compel a government or some
combination of those? Do we seek to bring a target government
down or simply to change its policies? If sanctions don't
work, what are next steps? What must happen before sanctions
are lifted? Can the sanctions be enforced? Might they
boomerang by mobilizing domestic support for an embattled
regime? Might the sanctions create unintended hardships for
neighboring countries or for innocent people within the
targeted state? If so, is there a plan to mitigate those
hardships?
�These and other questions should be considered before
sanctions are imposed. As the Bosnian arms embargo
illustrates, an ill-advised step can be difficult to take
back. Sanctions must be more than a reflex borne of
frustration, a rain dance we perform when we are unable to make
it rain. Unless sanctions are ultimately to add to public
cynicism, they must have clear and achievable goals clearly
explained. Sanctions can be valuable, but they are not
cost-free and they should not be over-sold.
The Twelth Point is no simpler. We must find ways to
accommodate legitimate aspirations for ethnic and national
identity without encouraging separatism. extremism or violence.
My father was a Czech patriot who once served as Ambassador
from what is now the former Czechoslavakia to what is now the
former Yugoslavia. He describ~d nationalism "as a permanent,
vital and influential force for good .and evil."
It was his experience, as it is ours, that national pride
can be the custodian of rich cultural legacies; it can unite
people in defense of a common good; it can provide a sense of
identity and belonging that stretches across territory and time.
But when pride in "us" curdles into hatred of "them", the
result is a narrowing of vision and a compulsion to violence.
As we saw in Germany a half century ago, as we have seen in
America with the Ku Klux Klan, and as we see in Serbia today,
at the far fringe of ethnic pride is fascism.
Throughout history, when great multi-ethnic empires have
broken up, nationalist movements have emerged. That happened
in Woodrow Wilson's time; it is happening today.
The Soviet empire sought to destroy the separate ethnic
identities of its subject peoples--to re-write history, to
manipulate provincial borders, to discourage religion, to
create what Vaclav Havel has called "the monstrous illusion
that we are all the same."
But now, as Havel has observed:
after decades of falsified history ... nothing has been
forgotten. Nations are now remembering their ancient
achievements ... their ancient suppressors ... their ancient
statehoods and their former borders.
There are thousands of self-defined ethnic groups in the
world, more than 100 in the former Soviet Union alone. Not
every one can reasonably expect to have its own flag, currency,
airline and state. President Wilson, who has been called the
father of self-determination, never equated that concept with
ethnicity, nor believed that ethnic and political boundaries
should be the same. Nor can we say that the world would be a
better place if they were the same.
�Clearly, something has to give. Separatist movements today
are gaining strength. Left unchecked, they may engulf whole
chunks of Europe, Asia and Africa in conflict. History from
Sarajevo to Sarajevo warns us that when small powers fight, big
powers are often drawn in. We have a stake in seeing that the
embers of ethnic conflict are cooled, and models for easing
fear, reconciling ambition and clarifying principle are
established.
That is why we support the work of the CSCE and others to
enhance respect for the rights of minorities. It is why we
will continue to work through the UN and regional organizations
to settle disputes peacefully. It is why we will continue to
stress the principle that individuals are entitled to basic
human rights irrespective of group identity. And it is why we
will continue to view with deadly seriousness the rise of
ultra-nationalist groups in st~ategic parts of the globe.
Let us never forget that the extreme views of Adolf Hitler
caused many to ridicule him when they should have opposed him.
Today, we may want to agree with the Russian Foreign Minister
that Vladimir Zhirinovsky is less a political problem than a
medical one. But it is disquieting to see bonds build between
radical nationalists in Russia and those in Milosevic's
Serbia. And history teaches us that individuals can be
deranged and dangerous at the same time.
·
The thirteenth point is basic. Ne must have Congressional
and public support for our policies at the UN.
Woodrow Wilson has been quoted as saying that "I would
rather lose in a cause that will someday win, then win in a
cause that will someday lose." The current Administration
prefers to prevail in a policy that will serve American
interests long and well. That requires understanding something
that President Wilson appears not to have understood
sufficiently. American leadership in international
organizations does not depend on Executive action alone.
Congress, like the President, must play an important role
because Congress, like the President, is accountable to the
people.
There will always be some on both sides of the political
spectrum with whom agreement is--shall we say--difficult. In
its day, the League was assailed from the left as "a capitalist
scheme" and from the right as a plot hatched by "Negroes
and ... mulattoes." There are some in our day who see every UN
issue through a narrow, partisan lens. But most Members of
Congress are looking for a formula that will allow them to
further American objectives at the UN, without wasting American
dollars.
�Such a formula was suggested in a recent study headed by
Representative Lee Hamilton and Senator Nancy Kassebaum. It
includes:
o reforms to eliminate waste and professionalize management
at the UN;
o changes in the financing of UN peacekeeping operations,
including a reduction in the share of costs to be borne by the
United States;
o an appropriate Congressional role in US decisions about
UN peace operations; and
o a Congressional commitment to full payment of UN
assessments.
Clearly, if the UN is to succeed, it IID!§..t. enter a "season
of reform"; it must become more accountable, more professional,
more equitable in its sources of funding and more
service-oriented in its outlook. At the same time, our
leadership at the UN will be undermined if the US falls too far
behind in paying its bills. What we need is a comprehensive
approach perhaps along the lines suggested by the
Hamilton-Kassebaum study. That is precisely what the
Administration is now exploring at the UN and with the Congress.
Finally, the fourteenth point--encompassing all of the
others. We must not allow the future to be defined by the
;Q.all.
There are those who say that we are the prisoners of
history; that we can do little to contain ethnic violence
because the scars of past grievance are too often too deep.
There are those who say that we will never succeed in
enlarging democracy or extending free markets or relieving
poverty or enhancing human rights because too many cultures are
impervious to change.
There are those who say that Cold War I will inevitably be
followed by Cold War II.
And there are those who say that international institutions
are doomed to fail.
There is much within our experience to support each of
these grim conclusions. This evening, I have cited puzzles
that have resisted solution from Woodrow Wilson's time to our
own. It is no wonder that there is a pessimistic and
despairing side to us all. But let us not, in studying
history, get our lessons wrong.
�Eleanor Roosevelt once said that "within all of us there
are two sides. One reaches for the stars, the other descends
to the level of beasts."
We honor Woodrow Wilson precisely because he spoke to the
other, more hopeful side of our nature; to the side that
Jefferson spoke to in the Declaration of Independence and
Lincoln in his Second Inaugural Address; to the side that
liberated Buchenwald, resisted apartheid, marched on Washington
and faced down tanks in Tiananmen and Prague. He spoke to the
side of our nature that prompted two bitter rivals to shake
hands last September on the White House lawn; and that created
the United Nations, not because human society is capable of
perfection, but because it is not.
Make no mistake, there is purpose to our efforts in the
world today; to weave out of the varied threads of
peacekeeping, sanctions, human rights, international law and
military resolve a tapestry that will brighten the tomorrows of
QYI people and of ~ people.
That purpose is redeemed daily
in the eyes of Cambodian children, the dreams of entrepreneurs
in Poland, the courage of political prisoners in Burma, the
pride of American servicemen and women wherever they serve and
in the stubborn will to survive of people ~ 1ikg ~ who
happen to live in Srebrenica and Mostar.
In his final public speech, Woodrow Wilson acknowledged
that there can be no "absolute guarantee against the errors of
human judgment or the violence of human passion." But we have
a responsibility in our time, as others have had in their's,
not to be imprisoned by history, but to shape it; to build a
world not without conflict, but in which conflict is
effectively contained; a world, not without repression, but in
which the sway of freedom is enlarged; a world not without
lawless behavior, but in which the interests of the law abiding
are progressively more secure.
That is our mission as we enter this new era. And that is
a future that we can bequeath with pride to our children and to
theirs.
Thank you very much.
~----~-------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
�MOSCOW DEPARTURE STATEMENT
President William J. Clinton
l
Nine months ago, when President Yeltsin and I first met in
Vancouver, we committed ourselves to strengthening the growing
partnership between our two nations. Today we took important
steps to do just that.
In our discussions today I reaffirmed my Administration's support
for Russian reform during this extraordinary transformation to
markets and democracy. President Yeltsin and I agreed today that
Russia must continue apace in its economic reforms -- including
privatization and controlling inflation
while also helping
those most vulnerable to the conversion of the economy.
Today I also congratulated President Yeltsin on the creation of
Russia's first post-Soviet constitution. He and I share the
conviction that the December elections, by establishing the rule
of law in Russia, closed the door on the Soviet era of governance
and laid strong foundations for continued reform.
As you know, earlier this week I attended the NATO summit in
Brussels. At that summit NATO established the Partnership for
Peace, a plan to bring Russia and other states of the former
Soviet Union and Eastern and Central Europe into closer
cooperation with NATO.
[President Yeltsin's views]
I believe that we have the opportunity today to build a durable
democratic peace across a broader Europe -- and that such a peace
begins with the efforts of Russia and America. Our two nations
continue to work together to reduce our nuclear arsenals. At the
same time, we have worked to ensure that [Ukraine tk].
In the
Middle East, Russia and the U.S. remain dedicated to promoting a
just and lasting peace.
Together, we are pursuing objectives that are in the national
interests of both Russia and the United States. As I have said
before, America has a strategic alliance with Russian reform.
It
was in that spirit of realistic friendship and shared long-term
interest that President Yeltsin and I held our very productive
meetings today.
Let me close simply by thanking President Yeltsin and the Russian
people for their hospitality. When I came to Moscow as a student
twenty four years ago, I was moved by the courage and the faith
of the Russian people. Today, Russia's greatness is evident once
again in your journey to freedom.
It is with deep admiration and
appreciation that I leave Russia today. Thank you.
�REMARKS TO U.S. EMBASSY STAFF IN MOSCOW
President William J. Clinton
I want to thank you all for the outstanding work you have done to
make my visit such a success.
I am especially grateful for your
extraordinary performance over the last several months -especially, and I will say more about this in a few moments, the
heroism of the Marine detachment here.
Three months ago, the world watched as a bloody clash erupted
between the forces of reform and reaction in Russia.
For two
days, Russia teetered on the brink of civil chaos, while you and
your families were forced to take refuge in this gymnasium. As
millions of Americans watched events unfold on television, we
feared for your safety. But never did we doubt your courage.
For even as the Embassy buildings shook from the rumble of cannon
fire outside, even as protestors stormed the Moscow mayor's
office, the Embassy staff provided us in Washington with steady
reporting on the confrontation.
More recently, you had the opportunity to witness a drama of a
different and far better variety.
You have literally been
present at the creation of a new Russia, ruled by law, governed
by a constitution of the people's own making.
Both the events of October and the elections last month reminded
Americans why we must do all we can to strengthen our strategic
alliance with Russian reform.
They reminded us that we support
freedom here and around the world not only because doing so
resonates with our values; but because it advances our interests.
That is why expanding our partnership with a free democratic
Russia is my Administration's highest priority. And that is why
the work you do here every day is so important.
During my visit here, I had the opportunity to discuss a wide
range of issues with President Yeltsin.
[more on results of
meetings]
I know that Moscow in January is not always an easy place to be.
But I also know that under the leadership of Tom Pickering, it is
one of the best places to be in the foreign service. Ambassador
Pickering's dedicated public service brings to mind others who
have represented America here: Averell Harriman, George Kennan,
Charles Bohlen, Bob Strauss. And if some of the names on that
distinguished roster are a guide, there is a junior officer in
this gymnasium who will return to Moscow someday as Ambassador.
I would like to close by expressing my deepest gratitude -- and
that of the nation -- for the United States Marines who serve at
our embassy here. During those days of crisis three months ago,
this unit was the only line of defense between the embassy
compound and the unpredictable violence outside.
The Marines of Embassy Moscow did not flinch.
Your uncommon
valor ensured the safety of your colleagues. And it confirmed
the faith that America has in you.
Let me say too that the
nation's prayers are with Corporal McClain Bell, who narrowly
�escaped death by a sniper's bullet while on patrol October third.
In recognition of your sacrifice and service, I now present this
Marine Security Guard detachment with the following Meritorious
Sevice Citation: [read citation as appropriate].
Thank you very much.
�STATE DINNER TOAST
Hall of Facets, Kremlin, Moscow
President William J. Clinton
Mr. President, Mrs. Yeltsin, distinguished guests:
Tonight, this wondrous hall sparkles with the many facets of your
nation's freedom. You, Mr. President, deserve so much credit for
the progress all of Russia has made toward renewal.
For under your leadership, Russia is constructing a market
economy amid the ruins of the old command system. Russia is
building a great multi-ethnic democracy, joined by the mortar of
freedom and faith. And last month, the Russian people performed
the miracle of creating a constitution. In the words of Pushkin,
you have "married sacred liberty with mighty law."
Not far from here, at the corner of Red Square, stands the Kazan
Cathedral. This ancient sanctuary was recently rebuilt with new
materials. But it still stands on its old foundations. In the
same way, Mr. President, Russia today is creating a new society,
inspired by universal aspirations for freedom, yet grounded in
the greatness of your history and people.
Sometimes, especially on such an occasion, in such a magnificent
setting, politicians like us are tempted to think that the
world's changes are solely our doing. But that is not the case.
It is the people of our nations whose strong hands and broad
shoulders shape this new world. Though our moment in power shall
one day pass, the free citizens we represent shall forever remain
sovereign.
So it is with deep humility and great admiration that I raise my
glass in a toast -- to you, Boris Nikolayevich, to the great
peoples of Russia and America, and to the bright and enduring
promise of freedom that illuminates our common future.
�r
I
SPASO HOUSE REMARKS
(
President William J. Clinton
'7
l
I want to thank our hosts, Ambassador and Mrs. Pickering, for
having us here this evening.
Spaso House is a wonderful venue
for this occasion.
I am told this House has seen its share of memorable gettogethers. Sixty years ago, I'm told, at a Christmas Eve party
here, three trained seals went berserk in the ballroom. A year
later, a small bear borrowed from the Moscow Zoo spoiled the
occasion -- by spoiling a Soviet general's uniform.
I am glad
that today, the expression "party animals" has a different
meaning.
I don't want to keep you from your conversation for too long, but
I do want to say this:
I am excited and privileged to be among
so many representatives of the new Russia here tonight.
Today your nation is undergoing history's greatest peaceful
revolution. The changes that have swept across Russia are aweinspiring.
In America we're trying to reform a health care
system that comprises one-seventh of the economy. But you are
working to reform seven-sevenths of your economy. And on top of
that, you face the creation of a new political order, the repair
of decades of economic and spiritual damage done by Soviet
communism.
But while the scope of the challenges is different in Russia and
America, the essential tasks we face are similar. For the
hardest thing in the world is to persuade people to give up the
certainty· of muddling through for the uncertain promise of a
better life. That's why I have nothing but admiration for those
of you with the courage to realize your bold vision of Russia's
future.
You are truly moving a nation.
Your endeavors express all that is great about the Russian
people.
They resonate with the values we Americans hold so
dear -- freedom and opportunity. And they are helping build a
world for both our peoples that is safer and more prosperous than
any of us might have imagined possible only a few short years
ago.
That is why America stands with you in your heroic effort to
remake Russia. That is why I urged your nation today to stay the
course with reform.
That is why I wanted to join each of you
tonight to celebrate the wider importance of your work.
Your presence here tonight reminds us all that change is not some
abstract force; that individuals -- people like you -- make it
happen.
For as in my own country, the currents of change in
Russia are being fed by countless tributaries of individual
courage and initiative:
by citizens casting votes; by hard
working men and women forming trade unions; by young
entrepreneurs starting businesses; by visionary artists
committing the bright hopes of a generation to canvas; by public
leaders denouncing intolerance; by,parents and neighbors taking
responsibility for the well-being of their communities.
�Tonight, let us celebrate your efforts. Let us celebrate
Russia's rebirth. And let us dedicate ourselves to the success
of the velikiy podvig -- the great feat -- that the Russian
people have begun.
�MOSCOW ARRIVAL STATEMENT
President William J. Clinton
..
~~
~
0 .
~~
It is a great pleasure to be here.
Ever since I came to Moscow
as a student a quarter century ago, my imagination has been
captivated by the rich history and deep pride of the Russian
people.
Today, that greatness is amplified by your achievements
of the last two years.
As you know, I have just come from a NATO Summit and a meeting
with my colleagues in the European Union. Our discussions
yielded some important policy decisions. But they also followed
a larger purpose:
to seize the opportunity created by the end of
the Cold War; to build a durable peace among former adversaries.
Such a peace begins, of course, with America and Russia.
I have
come to Moscow today to strengthen the growing partnership
between our two great nations, a partnership made possible by
your astounding transformation to democracy and free markets.
One month ago today, the Russian people voted to govern
themselves in peace, though a parliament and a constitution of
their own making.
By doing so, you have closed the door on the
Soviet era and laid strong foundations for continued reform.
But the success of that reform faces many more obstacles still.
While the changes in your society have generated incredible
opportunity for countless Russians, for some they have also
caused uncertainty and dislocation.
So let me make clear to you
today that America remains steadfast in its support for Russia's
transformation to markets and democracy.
During our meetings, President Yeltsin and I will be discussing
specific proposals that will assist the reform process. We will
also discuss a wide range of security issues, including the
Partnership for Peace just adopted at the NATO Summit.
The Partnership for Peace will create the opportunity for Russia
and other nations of Central and Eastern Europe to engage in
closer cooperation with NATO. And it will therefore create a
more stable security environment for all of Europe.
Ultimately, whatever we undertake here in the spirit of
cooperation must arise first from the national interests of both
Russia and the United States.
It is in that spirit of realistic
friendship that I have come to Moscow.
This magnificent hall, resplendent in the gilded glory of the
Order of Saint George, testifies to Russia's heroism.
Today, I
stand here as the first American President to visit a free
democratic Russia.
And I know that because of your heroism, I
will not be the last.
I am looking forward to the important work we have ahead of us in
the days ahead and in the years to come. Thank you.
�I
I
~
REMARKS TO U.S. EMBASSY STAFF IN PRAGUE
President William J. Clinton
Thank you, Ambassador Basora, and my deepest thanks to all of you
on the embassy staff.
I know you have all put in long hours to
make my visit here such a great success. And as I stand here
ready to depart, I imagine the smiles on your faces are smiles of
genuine relief.
You are blessed to be serving at this wonderful post. This city
is bathed in the luxuriant hues of history. But Prague is also
vibrant with hope for the future.
From the avant-garde dancers
at the Magic Lantern Theater to the frenzied young entrepreneurs
running businesses out of their apartments, Prague is constantly
in motion.
Five years ago the world witnessed a miracle here, as the brittle
Iron Curtain gave way to a lush Velvet Revolution.
That miracle
has been repeated across this ancient region, renewing the faith
of its people and filling the eyes of Americans with wonder.
But you here at the embassy have been more than witnesses. You
have played a major role in the historic transformation from
communism to freedom.
In your daily work, you have strengthened
the bonds of friendship between America and the Czech Republic
a relationship that reaches from Antonin Dvorak to Madeleine
Albright.
At the same time, you have done important work here to promote
democracy and facilitate American business efforts in this
country.
Every time you provide support for our democratization
programs here, you nurture the seeds of a flourishing civil
society. And every time you help an American businessperson
crack the Czech market, you help advance economic growth at home.
The work you do is rooted firmly in America's larger strategy for
engagement in Central and Eastern Europe.
During my visit here,
I had the opportunity to meet with the leaders of the Visegrad
nations and to discuss with them the Partnership for Peace just
adopted by NATO.
This proposal goes to the heart of the
challenge we face as we build a new security for a new Europe.
As I walked around Prague last night with President Havel, I was
reminded of my visit here as a student in 1969. That was only a
year after the Prague Spring, and I remember how the saints of
Charles Bridge stood over a city smothered by oppression.
Today, those saints still stand there in quiet reverie. But the
city and the people they watch over are free.
So as you walk
through Prague's spired streets, remember the power of their
faith -- and of our dedication to freedom's success.
�PRAGUE ARRIVAL STATEMENT
President William J. Clinton
Thank you for your warm welcome.
It is a great pleasure to be
back in Prague, and a delight to be at this glorious castle.
It
was twenty-four years ago this week that I came here as a
student.
Prague was under the cloud of communist oppression.
Faint stirrings of freedom had been brutally stifled, and the
prospects for Czech freedom any time soon were bleak.
Today, because of your vision and leadership, President Havel,
and because of the courage of the Czech people, Prague is once
again the shining capital of a thriving democracy.
Tonight,
President Havel and I will be walking across the Charles Bridge
and through the spired streets of this city. My reunion with
Prague is made possible by Prague's reunion with freedom.
When World War II ended, only half the promise of the Allied
victory over fascism was realized.
The other half, as you know
so well, was caught captive behind Europe's walls of division.
But five years ago the brittle Iron Curtain gave way to a lush
Velvet Revolution.
That miracle has been repeated all across
this ancient region. And now, at last, we have the opportunity
to realize the full promise of a durable democratic peace across
a broader Europe.
to~ize
I came to Europe this week
that opportunity, and I am
delighted that I will be meet1ng here with the leaders of Poland,
Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.
Just today, I left Brussels, where I attended summits with both
NATO and the European Union. My message at both summits was
clear -- and it is the message I send today:
Europe's western
half cannot thrive if its eastern half is struggling. We must
integrate Central and Eastern Europe into a broader transAtlantic partnership.
I believe we took a major step toward that goal on Tuesday [ck]
when NATO established the Partnership for Peace, designed to
enlarge the Alliance without drawing new lines in Europe. And
that is why yesterday, I urged the members of the European Union
to join the U.S. in opening their markets to the goods produced
in Europe's east.
During the next two days, I will meet with the leaders of the
four Visegrad states. We will be exchanging views on the
Partnership for Peace, as well as our shared commitment to
expanding Europe's economic integration. We will also discuss
American initiatives to support the historic transition these
nations are making to democracy and market economies.
1
My nation understands that freedom's gains cannot be taken for
granted. We are committed to supporting Central and Easte·rn
Europe during this period of sweeping and sometimes difficult
change.
I look forward to working with Presidents Havel, Walesa,
Goencz and Kovac as we build a new security for a new Europe.
Thank you very much.
�EU SUMMIT PRESS STATEMENT
President William J. Clinton
6
I have just come from a very productive session with President
Delors and Prime Minister Papandreou, as well as an excellent
meeting with members of the European Union Commission and
Presidency.
I came to Brussels because I believe that now is the time for us
to build a new security for a broader, more integrated Europe.
At the heart of this new security is the economic vitality of the
trans-Atlantic relationship.
That is one reason my Administration strongly supports European
integration. We believe that a strong and more unified Europe
makes for a more effective economic and political partner. That
was certainly made clear by our combined efforts in leading the
world to a new GATT agreement.
In our discussions today, we agreed that the U.S. and the EU must
now build on the momentum generated by the successful conclusion
of the Uruguay Round. We intend now to make a concerted effort
not only to implement the agreement but to resolve our
differences in those sectors left unfinished in December.
We also discussed measures to help all our economies adjust to
the structural changes in the global economy. Those changes are
causing rising unemployment and sluggish growth in many European
nations. We look forward to pursuing this dialogue on economic
growth at the G-7 Jobs Summit, to be held in the U.S. in March.
There was· agreement today that one of the most important
challenges we face is the integration of the new market
democracies of Europe's eastern half into the trans-Atlantic
community.
This morning NATO took an historic step toward that goal by
establishing the Partnership for Peace. And this afternoon, we
discussed steps to open our markets to the nations of Central and'
Eastern Europe.
During today's meetings, we also exchanged views and insights on
a wide range of other issues, including Russia's democratic and
market reforms and our common efforts to build on the historic
breakthroughs toward peace in the Middle East.
In closing, let me not~that this trip is but the first of three I
will make to Europe in the first part of 1994 alone.
I will be
returning in June for the 50th Anniversary commemoration of DDay, and then again in July for the G-7 meeting. This agenda,
and the productive meetings we have had today, are proof that
America's commitment to the trans-Atlantic relationship is as
strong -- and as fundamental to our mutual security and
prosperity -- as it has ever been.
Thank you very much.
�~
I
\
**Draft 8l1January 7, 1994**
I
REMARKS OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
Intervention for the North Atlantic Council Summit
January 10, 1994
Mr.
Secretary General,
distinguished leaders and guests:
I
am
honored to join the North Atlantic Council this morning, as eight
other
Presidents
compelling reason:
have
done
before
me.
Each came
here
for
a
The security of the North Atlantic region is
vital to the security of the United States.
This remains as true
today as it was in this century's two world wars or during the
"long twilight struggle" of the Cold War.
Our North Atlantic ties
are the bedrock of American engagement abroad.
The founders of this Alliance sought to enlarge the common security
of free peoples by banding together at a time of nominal peace.
They created the greatest military alliance in human history.
was a bold undertaking.
It
We have come together this week because
history calls on us to be equally bold once again.
During the years that followed the signing of the North Atlantic
Treaty,
this Alliance laid the foundation for the most hopeful
development on this Continent in a thousand years -- the fact that
lti~Lol
nations of Western Europe have ii!-Belished war among themselves.
Alliance forged unbreakable links across the Atlantic.
our victory in the Cold War.
The
It secured
NATO kept alight the spark of freedom
for hundreds of millions of people who suffered under communism
and five years ago, that spark touched off a peaceful explosion of
freedom all across this continent.
�'
2
**Draft 83•January 7, 1994**
Now we no longer fear attack from an implacable enemy.
But if our
common adversary has vanished, our common dangers have not.
With
the Cold War over, we must confront the destabilizing consequences
of the unfreezing of history.
The threat is not of advancing
armies, but of creeping chaos.
The best strategy against that threat is to integrate the former
communist states into our fabric of liberal democracy,
prosperity and military cooperation.
generation
will
be
shaped
by
economic
For our security in this
whether
reform
in
these
states
succeeds in the face of economic frustration, ethnic frictions and
intolerant nationalism.
The reactionary vote in Russia's elections
reminds us of the strength of democracy's opponents.
The ongoing
slaughter in Bosnia tallies the price when those opponents prevail.
If we do not meet our new challenge, then most assuredly we will
once again face our old challenges.
If democracy in the east
fails, then violence and disruption from the east will once again
haunt us and other kindred democracies.
Our generation's stewardship of this grand alliance will be most
critically judged by whether we succeed in integrating the nations
to our east within the compass of Western security.
been granted an opportunity without precedent:
security on new historic principles,
For we have
to recast European
grounded on faith in human
�3
**Draft #l1January 7, 1994**
potential and the pursuit of economic and political freedom.
We
must succeed, for this opportunity will not soon, if ever, recur.
All democracies
ultimately depend
for
their survival
on
their
citizens voting their long-term interests in the face of immediate
pressures.
So it is with democratic alliances.
Over the past few
years, the world watched to see if NATO could adapt to new times
in the absence of a clear and present danger, and in the presence
of pressures in each of our nations to focus only on domestic
needs.
In effect, the world wondered whether we have the foresight
and courage our predecessors had to act on our long-term interests.
I am confident the steel in this Alliance has not rusted.
nations proved that by joining with others to defeat a
danger in the Gulf War.
Our
common
We proved it anew this past year by
helping the world to reach a
new GATT agreement.
Now we are
proving our mettle once again.
To seize the great opportunity before us, I proposed that we forge
a new Partnership for Peace,
open to all the states of Europe,
including the former communist states of Central and Eastern Europe
and the new states of the former Soviet Union.
Partnership will
plan,
train
and
exercise
together on missions of common concern.
The members of this
together,
and work
They should be invited to
work directly with NATO, both here and in a Planning Cell in Mons.
�4
**Draft #3•January 7, 1994**
This Partnership will prepare the NATO Alliance to undertake new
tasks that the times impose on us.
The Combined Joint Task
Force~~~
~ -v-c..
will let us act both effectively and with dispatch in ~~
make and keep the peace.
Alliance to meet new threats,
We must also ready this
notably that from weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them.
Building on
NATO's
creation of
the
North Atlantic
Cooperation
Council two years ago, the Partnership for Peace set in motion a
process that leads to the enlargement of NATO.
Alliance with twelve members.
We began this
Today we have sixteen.
strengthened by each addition.
Indeed,
We were
our Treaty has always
looked to the addition of new members who shared the Alliance's
purpose and who could enlarge its orbit of democratic security.
Thus, in leading us toward the addition of these eastern states,
the Partnership for Peace does not change NATO's original vision;
it realizes NATO's original vision.
The Partnership for Peace draws inspiration from NATO's founding.
At that time, courageous peoples, rebuilding from the carnage of
World War II, sought association across the Atlantic to bolster
confidence in the possibilities of their own efforts.
Today, many
countries that have emerged from communism are asking to join our
Alliance for much the same reason.
our
hard -earned
knowledge
that
We must answer them based on
security
on
this
continent
is
�..
5
indivisible.
**Draft j3,January 7, 1994**
"we share
Let us say to peoples in Europe's east:
with you a common destiny; we are committed to your success."
At the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty, Harry Truman compared
the original members of this Alliance to a group of homeowners who
"decide to express their community of interests by entering into a
formal association for their mutual self -protection."
Now the
democratic community has grown, and it is time to begin welcoming
the newcomers into our neighborhood.
As Allies, let us be clear among ourselves about certain assumptions
and consequences.
First,
moving forward in this manner
.JIJ_
requires that we mutually reaffirm~f ettr bonds of Alliance-- our
compact of mutual trust and security.
commitment to this
common purpose.
maintain roughly 100, 000 troops
expressed wishes of our Allies.
America pledges its enduring
As
President,
in Europe,
I
pledge to
consistent with the
,...,
As was true at every critical
moment in this century, the peoples of ~e can count on America.~~
J
~..1
JII4J: ~.
,,.j~J ~,..(~ a,.,..l'c--1
1/D /L ~ Nn rTA -?w.., 1 :Z. lkA"""' "
- t au;asea rl .;.,..:4( ~ ,lfll~ 'f ~·~,._~
wl/·
Second, we must recognize that our new security challenges require
a
range of responses.
That is why my Administration supports
Europe's efforts to advance its security in other ways beyond NATO.
We supported the Maastricht Treaty.
We support the commitment of
the European Union to a Common Foreign and Security Policy.
And we
support your efforts to refurbish the Western European Union so
that it will assume a more vigorous role in keeping Europe secure.
�..
6
Consistent with that goal,
**Draft iJ1January 7, 1994**
we have proposed making NATO assets
available to WEU operations in which NATO itself is not involved.
All these efforts will show all our peoples and legislatures a
renewed purpose in European institutions and a better balance of
responsibilities within the trans-Atlantic community.
Finally,
in adopting the Partnership for Peace, each of us must
willingly assume the burdens to make it succeed.
is not a
gesture.
It is not a
security initiative.
forum.
This Partnership
It is a military and
There must be a somber appreciation that
expanding our membership will mean extending commitments that must
be supported by military strategies and postures.
Adding new
members entails not only hard decisions but also hard resources.
Three days
after the North Atlantic Treaty was
Lippman wrote these prophetic words:
signed,
Walter
"The pact will be remembered
long after the conditions that have provoked it are no longer the
main business of mankind.
For the treaty recognizes and proclaims
a community of interest which is much older than the conflict with
the Soviet Union and, come what may, will survive it."
This meeting has proved him right.
The Soviet Union is gone, but
our community of interest endures.
Now, acting in unison, as we
have always done, we have reaffirmed those interests, strengthened
our
community and
signalled our determination
security for a new generation of free peoples.
to
build
Thank you.
a
new
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Don Baer
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Communications
Don Baer
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1994-1997
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36008" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7431981" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0458-F
Description
An account of the resource
Donald Baer was Assistant to the President and Director of Communications in the White House Communications Office. The records in this collection contain copies of speeches, speech drafts, talking points, letters, notes, memoranda, background material, correspondence, reports, excerpts from manuscripts and books, news articles, presidential schedules, telephone message forms, and telephone call lists.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
537 folders in 34 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
D Day Speeches in Preparation for D Day
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Communications
Don Baer
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0458-F
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 29
<a href="http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/2006/2006-0458-F.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7431981" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
1/12/2015
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
42-t-7431981-20060458F-029-006-2014
7431981