-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/88d1645d936ceb6716785d7d70d3a6c7.pdf
c253f3d13788df9f40b6f2415767240e
PDF Text
Text
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
001a. memo
Breakfast with Members of Congress (4 pages)
04/13/1994
P5
001b. talking
points
re: Congressional Meeting on Resources/Peacekeeping (2 pages)
ca.
04/13/1994
P5
001c. paper
The Resource Crisis in Foreign Affairs and Peacekeeping (6 pages)
ca.
04/13/1994
P5
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
National Security Council
Press (Philip J. (PJ) Crowley)
OA/Box Number:
3102
FOLDER TITLE:
United Nations [1]
201 1-0516-S
kh807
RESTRICTION CODES
PrcsidcntiHl Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)l
Freedom of Information Act - |5 U.S.C. 552(b)|
PI
P2
P3
P4
b(l) National security classified information ((b)(1) of the FOIA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency 1(b)(2) of the FOIA]
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute 1(b)(3) of the FOIA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information 1(b)(4) of the FOIA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy 1(b)(6) of the FOIA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes 1(b)(7) of the FOIA]
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions 1(b)(8) of the FOIA]
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
concerning wells 1(b)(9) of the FOIA)
National Security Classified Information |(a)(l) of the PRA)
Relating to the appointment to Federal office 1(a)(2) of the PRA]
Release would violate a Federal statute 1(a)(3) of the PRA]
Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information 1(a)(4) of the PRA]
PS Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors, or between such advisors |a)(5) of the PRA]
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy 1(a)(6) of the PRA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
2201(3).
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
�THE WHITE HOUSE
O f f i c e o f the Press Secretary
(New York, New York)
For Immediate Release
September 27, 1993
ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE 4 8TH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
The United Nations
New York, New York
11:00
A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Mr. President,
l e t me f i r s t congratulate you on your e l e c t i o n as President o f
t h i s General Assembly.
Mr. Secretary General, d i s t i n g u i s h e d delegates and
guests, i t i s a great honor f o r me t o address you and t o stand i n
t h i s g r e a t Chamber which symbolizes so much o f the 20th century
— i t s darkest c r i s e s and i t s b r i g h t e s t a s p i r a t i o n s .
I come before you as the f i r s t American President
born a f t e r the founding o f the United Nations. Like most of t h e
people i n the world today, I was not even a l i v e d u r i n g the
convulsive World War t h a t convinced humankind o f the need f o r
t h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n ; nor during t h e San Francisco Conference t h a t
l e d t o i t s b i r t h . Yet I have f o l l o w e d the work o f the United
Nations throughout my l i f e , w i t h admiration f o r i t s
accomplishments, w i t h sadness f o r i t s f a i l u r e s , and c o n v i c t i o n
t h a t through common e f f o r t our generation can take the bold steps
needed t o redeem the mission e n t r u s t e d t o the U.N. 48 years ago.
I pledge t o you t h a t my n a t i o n remains committed t o
h e l p i n g make the U.N.'s v i s i o n a r e a l i t y . The s t a r t o f t h i s
General Assembly o f f e r s us an o p p o r t u n i t y t o take stock of where
we are, as common shareholders i n the progress of humankind and
i n the p r e s e r v a t i o n o f our p l a n e t .
I t i s c l e a r t h a t we l i v e a t a t u r n i n g p o i n t i n human
h i s t o r y . Immense and promising changes seem t o wash over us
every day. The Cold War i s over. The world i s no longer d i v i d e d
i n t o two armed and angry camps. Dozens o f new democracies have
been born.
I t i s a moment o f m i r a c l e s . We see Nelson Mandela
stand side by side w i t h President de Klerk, proclaiming a date
f o r South A f r i c a ' s f i r s t n o n r a c i a l e l e c t i o n . We see Russia's
f i r s t p o p u l a r l y - e l e c t e d President, Boris Y e l t s i n , leading h i s
n a t i o n on i t s bold democratic journey. We have seen decades o f
deadlock shattered i n the Middle East, as the Prime M i n i s t e r o f
I s r a e l and the Chairman o f the P a l e s t i n e L i b e r a t i o n Organization
reached past enmity and s u s p i c i o n t o shake each other's hands and
e x h i l a r a t e the e n t i r e world w i t h the hope of peace.
We have begun t o see the doomsday weapons o f nuclear
a n n i h i l a t i o n dismantled and destroyed. T h i r t y - t w o years ago,
President Kennedy warned t h i s Chamber t h a t humanity l i v e d under a
nuclear sword o f Damocles t h a t hung by the slenderest of threads.
Now the United States i s working w i t h Russia, Ukraine, Belarus
and others t o take t h a t sword down, t o lock i t away i n a secure
v a u l t where we hope and pray i t w i l l remain f o r e v e r .
MORE
�^• -
- 2 -
I t i s a new era i n t h i s h a l l as w e l l .
The
superpower s t a n d o f f t h a t f o r so long stymied the United Nations'
work almost from i t s f i r s t day has now y i e l d e d t o a new promise
of p r a c t i c a l cooperation. Yet today we must a l l admit t h a t there
are two powerful tendencies working from opposite d i r e c t i o n s t o
challenge the a u t h o r i t y of n a t i o n s t a t e s everywhere and t o
undermine the a u t h o r i t y of n a t i o n s t a t e s t o work together.
From beyond nations, economic and t e c h n o l o g i c a l
forces a l l over the globe are compelling the world towards
i n t e g r a t i o n . These forces are f u e l i n g a welcome explosion of
entrepreneurship and p o l i t i c a l l i b e r a l i z a t i o n . But they also
t h r e a t e n t o destroy the i n s u l a r i t y and independence of n a t i o n a l
economies, quickening the pace of change and making many of our
people f e e l more insecure.
At the same time, from w i t h i n nations, t h e resurgent
a s p i r a t i o n s of ethnic and r e l i g i o u s groups challenge governments
on terms t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l n a t i o n s t a t e s cannot e a s i l y
accommodate.
These t w i n forces l i e at the heart of the challenges
not only t o our n a t i o n a l government, but also t o a l l our
i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . They r e q u i r e a l l of us i n t h i s room
to f i n d new ways t o work together more e f f e c t i v e l y i n p u r s u i t of
our n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s and t o t h i n k anew about whether our
i n s t i t u t i o n s of i n t e r n a t i o n a l cooperation are adequate t o t h i s
moment.
Thus, as we marvel a t t h i s era's promise of new
peace, we must also recognize t h a t serious t h r e a t s remain.
Bloody e t h n i c , r e l i g i o u s and c i v i l wars rage from Angola t o the
Caucasus t o Kashmir. As weapons of mass d e s t r u c t i o n f a l l i n t o
more hands, even small c o n f l i c t s can t h r e a t e n t o take on
murderous p r o p o r t i o n s . Hunger and disease continue t o take a
t r a g i c t o l l , e s p e c i a l l y among the world's c h i l d r e n .
The
malignant neglect of our g l o b a l environment threatens our
c h i l d r e n ' s h e a l t h and t h e i r very s e c u r i t y .
The repression of conscience continues i n too many
nations. And t e r r o r i s m , which has taken so many innocent l i v e s ,
assumes a h o r r i f y i n g immediacy f o r us here when m i l i t a n t f a n a t i c s
bombed t h e World Trade Center and planned t o a t t a c k even t h i s
very h a l l of peace.
Let me assure you, whether the f a t h e r s of those
crimes, or the mass murderers who bombed Pan Am F l i g h t 103, my
government i s determined t o see t h a t such t e r r o r i s t s are brought
to j u s t i c e .
(Applause.)
As t h i s moment of panoramic change, of v a s t
o p p o r t u n i t i e s and t r o u b l i n g t h r e a t s , we must a l l ask ourselves
what we can do and what we should do as a community of n a t i o n s .
We must once again dare t o dream of what might be, f o r our dreams
may be w i t h i n our reach. For t h a t t o happen, we must a l l be
w i l l i n g t o honestly confront the challenges of the broader world.
THat has never been easy.
When t h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n was founded 48 years ago, the
world's nations stood devastated by war or exhausted by i t s
expense. There was l i t t l e a p p e t i t e f o r cooperative e f f o r t s among
nations. Most people simply wanted t o get on w i t h t h e i r l i v e s .
But a f a r - s i g h t e d generation of leaders from the United States
and elsewhere r a l l i e d the world. Their e f f o r t s b u i l t the
i n s t i t u t i o n s of postwar s e c u r i t y and p r o s p e r i t y .
We are a t a s i m i l a r moment today. The momentum of
the Cold War no longer propels us i n our d a i l y a c t i o n s . And w i t h
MORE
�THE WHITE HOUSE
O f f i c e o f the Press Secretary
(New York, New York)
For Immediate Release
September 27, 1993
ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE 48TH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
The United Nations
New York, New York
11:00 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Mr. President,
l e t me f i r s t c o n g r a t u l a t e you on your e l e c t i o n as President o f
t h i s General Assembly.
Mr. Secretary General, d i s t i n g u i s h e d delegates and
guests, i t i s a great honor f o r me t o address you and t o stand i n
t h i s great Chamber which symbolizes so much of the 20th century
— i t s darkest c r i s e s and i t s b r i g h t e s t a s p i r a t i o n s .
I come before you as the f i r s t American President
born a f t e r the founding of the United Nations. Like most of t h e
people i n the world today, I was not even a l i v e during the
convulsive World War t h a t convinced humankind o f the need f o r
t h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n ; nor during the San Francisco Conference t h a t
led t o i t s b i r t h . Yet I have f o l l o w e d the work o f the United
Nations throughout my l i f e , w i t h admiration f o r i t s
accomplishments, w i t h sadness f o r i t s f a i l u r e s , and c o n v i c t i o n
t h a t through common e f f o r t our generation can take the bold steps
needed t o redeem the mission entrusted t o the U.N. 48 years ago.
I pledge t o you t h a t my n a t i o n remains committed t o
h e l p i n g make the U.N.'s v i s i o n a r e a l i t y . The s t a r t of t h i s
General Assembly o f f e r s us an o p p o r t u n i t y t o take stock of where
we are, as common shareholders i n the progress o f humankind and
i n the p r e s e r v a t i o n o f our p l a n e t .
I t i s c l e a r t h a t we l i v e a t a t u r n i n g p o i n t i n human
h i s t o r y . Immense and promising changes seem t o wash over us
every day. The Cold War i s over. The world i s no longer d i v i d e d
i n t o two armed and angry camps. Dozens of new democracies have
been born.
I t i s a moment o f miracles. We see Nelson Mandela
stand side by side w i t h President de Klerk, proclaiming a date
f o r South A f r i c a ' s f i r s t n o n r a c i a l e l e c t i o n . We see Russia's
f i r s t p o p u l a r l y - e l e c t e d President, Boris Y e l t s i n , leading h i s
n a t i o n on i t s b o l d democratic journey. We have seen decades o f
deadlock shattered i n the Middle East, as the Prime M i n i s t e r o f
I s r a e l and the Chairman of the Palestine L i b e r a t i o n Organization
reached past enmity and suspicion t o shake each other's hands and
e x h i l a r a t e the e n t i r e world w i t h the hope of peace.
We have begun t o see the doomsday weapons of nuclear
a n n i h i l a t i o n dismantled and destroyed. T h i r t y - t w o years ago,
President Kennedy warned t h i s Chamber t h a t humanity l i v e d under a
nuclear sword o f Damocles t h a t hung by the slenderest of threads.
Now the United States i s working w i t h Russia, Ukraine, Belarus
and others t o take t h a t sword down, t o lock i t away i n a secure
v a u l t where we hope and pray i t w i l l remain forever.
MORE
�- 3 -
daunting economic and p o l i t i c a l pressures upon almost every
n a t i o n represented i n t h i s room, many of us are t u r n i n g t o focus
g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n and energy on our domestic needs and problems.
And we must. But p u t t i n g each of our economic houses i n order
cannot mean t h a t we shut our windows t o the world. The p u r s u i t
of s e l f - r e n e w a l , and many of the world's l a r g e s t and most
powerful economies — i n Europe, i n Japan, i n North America — i s
a b s o l u t e l y c r u c i a l because unless the great i n d u s t r i a l nations
can recapture t h e i r robust economic growth, the g l o b a l economy
w i l l languish.
Yet, the i n d u s t r i a l n a t i o n s also need growth
elsewhere i n order t o l i f t t h e i r own.
Indeed, p r o s p e r i t y i n each
of our n a t i o n s and regions also depends upon a c t i v e and
responsible engagement i n a host of shared concerns.
For example, a t h r i v i n g and democratic Russia not
only makes the world s a f e r , i t also can help t o expand the
world's economy. A s t r o n g GATT agreement w i l l create m i l l i o n s of
jobs worldwide. Peace i n the Middle East, buttressed as i t
should be by the repeal of outdated U.N. r e s o l u t i o n s , can help t o
unleash t h a t region's great economic p o t e n t i a l and calm a
p e r p e t u a l source of t e n s i o n i n g l o b a l a f f a i r s . And the growing
economic power of China, coupled w i t h g r e a t e r p o l i t i c a l openness,
could b r i n g enormous b e n e f i t s t o a l l of Asia and t o the r e s t of
the w o r l d .
We must help our p u b l i c s t o understand t h i s
d i s t i n c t i o n : Domestic renewal i s an overdue t o n i c .
But
i s o l a t i o n i s m and p r o t e c t i o n i s m are s t i l l poison. We must i n s p i r e
our people t o look beyond t h e i r immediate fears toward a broader
horizon.
Lelpine s t a r t by being c l e a r about where the United
States stands. JThe United States occupies a unique p o s i t i o n i n
world a f f a i r s today. Wo rocogni/p t h a t and-jw.e—w.elGome-art. Yet,
w i t h t h e Cold War over, I know many people ask whether the United
States plans t o r e t r e a t or remain a c t i v e i n the world; and i f
a c t i v e , t o what end. Many^people^are^asking-that' in^our own
-coun-t-ry^as-weil-. Let me answer t h a t question as c l e a r l y and
p l a i n l y as I can.
^'- •
V-'
The United S t a t e s ^ n t e n d s t o remain engaged and t o
lead. We cannot solve every''problem, but we must and w i l l serve
as a f u l c r u m f o r change and a p i v o t p o i n t f o r peace.
I n a new era of p e r i l and o p p o r t u n i t y , our
o v e r r i d i n g purpose must be t o expand and strengthen the world's
community of market-based democracies. During the Cold War we
sought t o c o n t a i n a t h r e a t t o s u r v i v a l of f r e e i n s t i t u t i o n s .
Now
we seek t o enlarge t h e c i r c l e of nations t h a t l i v e under those
free i n s t i t u t i o n s .
For our dream i s of a day when the opinions and
energies of every person i n the world w i l l be given f u l l
expression, i n a world of t h r i v i n g democracies t h a t cooperate
w i t h each other and l i v e i n peace.
With t h i s statement, I do not mean t o announce some
crusade t o f o r c e our way of l i f e and doing t h i n g s on others, or
to r e p l i c a t e our i n s t i t u t i o n s , but we now know c l e a r l y t h a t
throughout the world, from Poland t o E r i t r e a , from Guatemala t o
South Korea, there i s an enormous yearning among people who wish
to be t h e masters of t h e i r own economic and p o l i t i c a l l i v e s .
Where i t matters most and where we can make the greatest
d i f f e r e n c e , we w i l l , t h e r e f o r e , p a t i e n t l y and f i r m l y a l i g n
ourselves w i t h t h a t yearning.
MORE
�- 4 -
Today, there are s t i l l those who claim t h a t
democracy i s simply not a p p l i c a b l e t o many c u l t u r e s , and t h a t i t s
recent expansion i s an a b e r r a t i o n , an accident, i n h i s t o r y t h a t
w i l l soon fade away. But I agree w i t h President Roosevelt, who
once s a i d , "The democratic a s p i r a t i o n i s no mere recent phase of
human h i s t o r y . I t i s human h i s t o r y . "
We w i l l work t o strengthen the f r e e market
democracies, by r e v i t a l i z i n g our economy here a t home, by opening
world trade through the GATT, the North American Free Trade
Agreement and other accords, and by updating our shared
i n s t i t u t i o n s , asking w i t h you and answering the hard questions
about whether they are adequate t o the present challenges.
We w i l l support the c o n s o l i d a t i o n of market
democracy where i t i s t a k i n g new r o o t , as i n the s t a t e s of the
former Soviet Union and a l l over L a t i n America. And we seek t o
f o s t e r the p r a c t i c e s of good government t h a t d i s t r i b u t e the
b e n e f i t s of democracy and economic growth f a i r l y t o a l l people.
We w i l l work t o reduce the t h r e a t from regimes t h a t
are h o s t i l e t o democracies and t o support l i b e r a l i z a t i o n of
nondemocratic s t a t e s when they are w i l l i n g t o l i v e i n peace w i t h
the r e s t of us.
As a country t h a t has over 150 d i f f e r e n t r a c i a l ,
e t h n i c and r e l i g i o u s groups w i t h i n our borders, our p o l i c y i s and
must be rooted i n a profound respect f o r a l l the world's
r e l i g i o n s and c u l t u r e s . But we must oppose everywhere extremism
t h a t produces t e r r o r i s m and hate.
And we must pursue our humanitarian goal of reducing
s u f f e r i n g , f o s t e r i n g sustainable development, and improving the
h e a l t h and l i v i n g conditions, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r our world's
children.
On e f f o r t s from export c o n t r o l t o trade agreements
to peace keeping, we w i l l o f t e n work i n p a r t n e r s h i p w i t h others
and through m u l t i l a t e r a l i n s t i t u t i o n s such as the United Nations.
I t i s i n our n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t t o do so. But we must not
h e s i t a t e t o act u n i l a t e r a l l y when there i s a t h r e a t t o our core
i n t e r e s t s or t o those of our a l l i e s .
The United States believes t h a t an expanded
community of market democracies not only serves our own s e c u r i t y
i n t e r e s t s , i t a l s o advances the goals enshrined i n t h i s body's
c h a r t e r and i t s Universal D e c l a r a t i o n of Human Rights. For
broadly-based p r o s p e r i t y i s c l e a r l y the strongest form of
preventive diplomacy. And the h a b i t s of democracy are the h a b i t s
of peace.
Democracy i s rooted i n compromise, not conquest. I t
rewards t o l e r a n c e , not hatred. Democracies r a r e l y wage war on
one another. They make more r e l i a b l e partners i n t r a d e , i n
diplomacy, and i n the stewardship of our g l o b a l environment. I n
democracies w i t h the r u l e of law and respect f o r p o l i t i c a l ,
r e l i g i o u s , and c u l t u r a l m i n o r i t i e s are more responsive t o t h e i r
own people and t o the p r o t e c t i o n of human r i g h t s .
But as we work toward t h i s v i s i o n we must c o n f r o n t
the storm clouds t h a t may overwhelm our work and darken the march
toward freedom. I f we do not stem the p r o l i f e r a t i o n of the
world's d e a d l i e s t weapons, no democracy can f e e l secure. I f we
do not strengthen the capacity t o resolve c o n f l i c t among and
w i t h i n n a t i o n s , those c o n f l i c t s w i l l smother the b i r t h of f r e e
i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h r e a t e n the development of e n t i r e regions, and
continue t o take innocent l i v e s .
MORE
�- 3 -
daunting economic and p o l i t i c a l pressures upon almost every
n a t i o n represented i n t h i s room, many of us are t u r n i n g t o focus
g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n and energy on our domestic needs and problems.
And we must. But p u t t i n g each of our economic houses i n order
cannot mean t h a t we shut our windows t o the world. The p u r s u i t
of s e l f - r e n e w a l , and many of the world's l a r g e s t and most
powerful economies — i n Europe, i n Japan, i n North America — i s
a b s o l u t e l y c r u c i a l because unless the great i n d u s t r i a l nations
can recapture t h e i r robust economic growth, the global economy
w i l l languish.
Yet, the i n d u s t r i a l nations also need growth
elsewhere i n order t o l i f t t h e i r own.
Indeed, p r o s p e r i t y i n each
of our n a t i o n s and regions also depends upon a c t i v e and
responsible engagement i n a host of shared concerns.
For example, a t h r i v i n g and democratic Russia not
only makes the world safer, i t also can help t o expand the
world's economy. A strong GATT agreement w i l l create m i l l i o n s of
jobs worldwide. Peace i n the Middle East, buttressed as i t
should be by the repeal of outdated U.N. r e s o l u t i o n s , can help t o
unleash t h a t region's great economic p o t e n t i a l and calm a
perpetual source of t e n s i o n i n g l o b a l a f f a i r s . And the growing
economic power of China, coupled w i t h g r e a t e r p o l i t i c a l openness,
could b r i n g enormous b e n e f i t s t o a l l of Asia and t o the r e s t of
the w o r l d .
We must help our p u b l i c s t o understand t h i s
d i s t i n c t i o n : Domestic renewal i s an overdue t o n i c . But
i s o l a t i o n i s m and p r o t e c t i o n i s m are s t i l l poison. We must i n s p i r e
our people t o look beyond t h e i r immediate fears toward a broader
horizon.
Let^me s t a r t by being c l e a r about where the United
States stands. [The United States occupies a unique p o s i t i o n i n
world a f f a i r s today. Wo rocognizp, tha.t-and—w.e_w.elGQme-^irt.
Yet,
w i t h t h e Cold War over, I know many people ask whether the United
States plans t o r e t r e a t or remain a c t i v e i n the world; and i f
a c t i v e , t o what end.
Many^peopTe^are^aski-ng—that^iir~our-own
-eoun-ta?y_aS'-we-l"l---. Let me answer t h a t question as c l e a r l y and
p l a i n l y as I can.
^VDA
The United States^intends t o remain engaged and t o
lead. We cannot solve every^problem, but we must and w i l l serve
as a fulcrum f o r change and a p i v o t p o i n t f o r peace.
I n a new era of p e r i l and opportunity, our
o v e r r i d i n g purpose must be t o expand and strengthen the world's
community of market-based democracies. During the Cold War we
sought t o contain a t h r e a t t o s u r v i v a l of f r e e i n s t i t u t i o n s .
Now
we seek t o enlarge t h e c i r c l e of nations t h a t l i v e under those
free i n s t i t u t i o n s .
For our dream i s of a day when the opinions and
energies of every person i n the world w i l l be given f u l l
expression, i n a w o r l d of t h r i v i n g democracies t h a t cooperate
w i t h each other and l i v e i n peace.
With t h i s statement, I do not mean t o announce some
crusade t o f o r c e our way of l i f e and doing t h i n g s on others, or
to r e p l i c a t e our i n s t i t u t i o n s , but we now know c l e a r l y t h a t
throughout the w o r l d , from Poland t o E r i t r e a , from Guatemala t o
South Korea, t h e r e i s an enormous yearning among people who wish
to be t h e masters o f t h e i r own economic and p o l i t i c a l l i v e s .
Where i t matters most and where we can make the greatest
d i f f e r e n c e , we w i l l , t h e r e f o r e , p a t i e n t l y and f i r m l y a l i g n
ourselves w i t h t h a t yearning.
MORE
�- 5 -
I f we do not nurture our people and our p l a n e t
through sustainable development, we w i l l deepen c o n f l i c t and
waste t h e very wonders t h a t make our e f f o r t s worth doing.
Let me t a l k more about what I b e l i e v e we must do i n
each of these three categories: n o n p r o l i f e r a t i o n , c o n f l i c t
r e s o l u t i o n , and sustainable development.
One of our most urgent p r i o r i t i e s must be a t t a c k i n g
the p r o l i f e r a t i o n of weapons of mass d e s t r u c t i o n , whether they
are nuclear, chemical, or b i o l o g i c a l ; and the b a l l i s t i c m i s s i l e s
t h a t can r a i n them down on populations hundreds of miles away.
We know t h i s i s not an i d l e problem. A l l of us are
s t i l l haunted by the p i c t u r e s of Kurdish women and c h i l d r e n cut
down by poison gas. We saw Scud m i s s i l e s dropped during the Gulf
War t h a t would have been f a r graver i n t h e i r consequence i f they
had c a r r i e d nuclear weapons. And we know t h a t many nations s t i l l
b e l i e v e i t i s i n t h e i r i n t e r e s t t o develop weapons of mass
d e s t r u c t i o n or t o s e l l them or the necessary technologies t o
others f o r f i n a n c i a l gain.
More than a score of nations l i k e l y possess such
weapons, and t h e i r number threatens t o grow. These weapons
d e s t a b i l i z e e n t i r e regions. They could t u r n a l o c a l c o n f l i c t
i n t o a g l o b a l human and environmental catastrophe. We simply
have got t o f i n d ways t o c o n t r o l these weapons and t o reduce the
number o f s t a t e s t h a t possess them by supporting and
s t r e n g t h e n i n g the IAEA and by t a k i n g other necessary measures.
I have made n o n p r o l i f e r a t i o n one of our nation's
highest p r i o r i t i e s . We intend t o weave i t more deeply i n t o the
f a b r i c o f a l l of our r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h the world's nations and
i n s t i t u t i o n s . We seek t o b u i l d a world of increasing pressures
f o r n o n p r o l i f e r a t i o n , but i n c r e a s i n g l y open trade and technology
f o r those s t a t e s t h a t l i v e by accepted i n t e r n a t i o n a l r u l e s .
Today, l e t me describe several new p o l i c i e s t h a t our
government w i l l pursue t o stem p r o l i f e r a t i o n . We w i l l pursue new
steps t o c o n t r o l the m a t e r i a l s f o r nuclear weapons. Growing
g l o b a l s t o c k p i l e s of plutonium and h i g h l y enriched uranium are
r a i s i n g t h e danger of nuclear t e r r o r i s m f o r a l l nations. We w i l l
press f o r an i n t e r n a t i o n a l agreement t h a t would ban production of
these m a t e r i a l s f o r weapons forever.
As we reduce our nuclear s t o c k p i l e s , the United
States has also begun n e g o t i a t i o n s toward a comprehensive ban on
nuclear t e s t i n g . This summer I declared t h a t t o f a c i l i t a t e these
n e g o t i a t i o n s , our nation would suspend our t e s t i n g i f a l l other
nuclear s t a t e s would do the same. Today, i n the face of
d i s t u r b i n g signs, I renew my c a l l on the nuclear states t o abide
by t h a t moratorium as we negotiate t o stop nuclear t e s t i n g f o r
a l l time.
I am also proposing new e f f o r t s t o f i g h t the
p r o l i f e r a t i o n of b i o l o g i c a l and chemical weapons. Today, only a
handful o f nations has r a t i f i e d the Chemical Weapons Convention.
I c a l l on a l l nations, i n c l u d i n g my own, t o r a t i f y t h i s accord
q u i c k l y so t h a t i t may enter i n t o force by January 13th, 1995.
We w i l l also seek t o strengthen the b i o l o g i c a l
weapons convention by making every nation's b i o l o g i c a l a c t i v i t i e s
and f a c i l i t i e s open t o more i n t e r n a t i o n a l students. I am
proposing as w e l l new steps t o thwart the p r o l i f e r a t i o n of
b a l l i s t i c m i s s i l e s . Recently, working w i t h Russia, Argentina,
Hungary and South A f r i c a , we have made s i g n i f i c a n t progress
toward t h a t goal. Now, we w i l l seek t o strengthen the p r i n c i p l e s
of the M i s s i l e Technology Control Regime by transforming i t from.
MORE
�- 6 -
an agreement on technology t r a n s f e r among j u s t 2 3 nations t o a
set of r u l e s t h a t can command u n i v e r s a l adherence.
We w i l l also reform our own system of export
c o n t r o l s i n the United States t o r e f l e c t the r e a l i t i e s of the
post-Cold War w o r l d , where we seek t o e n l i s t the support of our
former adversaries i n the b a t t l e against p r o l i f e r a t i o n .
At the same time t h a t we stop deadly technologies
from f a l l i n g i n t o the wrong hands, we w i l l work w i t h our partners
t o remove outdated c o n t r o l s t h a t u n f a i r l y burden l e g i t i m a t e
commerce and unduly r e s t r a i n growth and o p p o r t u n i t y a l l over the
world.
As we work t o keep the world's most d e s t r u c t i v e
weapons out of c o n f l i c t , we must also strengthen the
i n t e r n a t i o n a l community's a b i l i t y t o address those c o n f l i c t s
themselves.
For as we a l l now know so p a i n f u l l y , the end of the
Cold War d i d not b r i n g us t o the millennium of peace. And,
indeed, i t simply removed the l i d from many cauldrons of e t h n i c ,
r e l i g i o u s , and t e r r i t o r i a l animosity.
The philosopher, I s a i a h B e r l i n , has s a i d t h a t a
wounded n a t i o n a l i s m i s l i k e a bent t w i g forced down so severely
t h a t when released i t lashes back w i t h f u r y . The world today i s
t h i c k w i t h both bent and r e c o i l i n g twigs of wounded communal
identities.
This scourge of b i t t e r c o n f l i c t has placed high
demands on United Nations peacekeeping forces. Frequently the
blue helmets have worked wonders. I n Namibia, E l Salvador, the
Golan Heights and elsewhere, U.N. peacekeepers have helped t o
stop the f i g h t i n g , r e s t o r e c i v i l a u t h o r i t y , and enable f r e e
elections.
In Bosnia, U.N. peacekeepers, against the danger and
f r u s t r a t i o n of t h a t continuing tragedy, has maintained a v a l i a n t
humanitarian e f f o r t . And i f the p a r t i e s of t h a t c o n f l i c t take
the hard steps needed t o make a r e a l peace, the i n t e r n a t i o n a l
community i n c l u d i n g the United States must be ready t o help i n
i t s e f f e c t i v e implementation.
I n Somalia, the United States and the United Nations
have worked together t o achieve a stunning humanitarian rescue,
saving l i t e r a l l y hundreds of thousands of l i v e s and r e s t o r i n g the
c o n d i t i o n s of s e c u r i t y f o r almost the e n t i r e country.
U.N.
peacekeepers from over two dozen nations remain i n Somalia today.
And some, i n c l u d i n g brave Americans, have l o s t t h e i r l i v e s t o
ensure t h a t we complete our mission, and t o ensure t h a t anarchy
and s t a r v a t i o n do not r e t u r n j u s t as q u i c k l y as they were
abolished.
Many s t i l l c r i t i c i z e U.N. peacekeeping, but those
who do should t a l k t o the people of Cambodia, where the U.N.'s
operations have helped t o t u r n the k i l l i n g f i e l d s i n t o f e r t i l e
s o i l through r e c o n c i l i a t i o n . Last May's e l e c t i o n s i n Cambodia
marked a proud accomplishment f o r t h a t war-weary n a t i o n and f o r
the United Nations. And I am pleased t o announce t h a t the United
States has recognized Cambodia's new government.
U.N. peacekeeping holds the promise t o resolve many
of t h i s era's c o n f l i c t s . The reason we have supported such
missions i s not, as some c r i t i c s i n the United States have
charged, t o subcontract American f o r e i g n p o l i c y , but t o
strengthen our s e c u r i t y , p r o t e c t our i n t e r e s t s , and t o share
among nations the costs and e f f o r t of pursuing peace.
Peacekeeping cannot be a s u b s t i t u t e f o r our own n a t i o n a l defense
e f f o r t s , but i t can s t r o n g l y supplement them.
MORE
�- 5 -
I f we do not nurture our people and our p l a n e t
through sustainable development, we w i l l deepen c o n f l i c t and
waste the very wonders t h a t make our e f f o r t s worth doing.
Let me t a l k more about what I b e l i e v e we must do i n
each of these three categories: n o n p r o l i f e r a t i o n , c o n f l i c t
r e s o l u t i o n , and sustainable development.
One of our most urgent p r i o r i t i e s must be a t t a c k i n g
the p r o l i f e r a t i o n of weapons of mass d e s t r u c t i o n , whether they
are nuclear, chemical, or b i o l o g i c a l ; and the b a l l i s t i c m i s s i l e s
t h a t can r a i n them down on populations hundreds of miles away.
We know t h i s i s not an i d l e problem. A l l of us are
s t i l l haunted by the p i c t u r e s of Kurdish women and c h i l d r e n cut
down by poison gas. We saw Scud m i s s i l e s dropped during the Gulf
War t h a t would have been f a r graver i n t h e i r consequence i f they
had c a r r i e d nuclear weapons. And we know t h a t many nations s t i l l
b e l i e v e i t i s i n t h e i r i n t e r e s t t o develop weapons of mass
d e s t r u c t i o n or t o s e l l them or the necessary technologies t o
others f o r f i n a n c i a l gain.
More than a score of nations l i k e l y possess such
weapons, and t h e i r number threatens t o grow. These weapons
d e s t a b i l i z e e n t i r e regions. They could t u r n a l o c a l c o n f l i c t
i n t o a g l o b a l human and environmental catastrophe. We simply
have got t o f i n d ways t o c o n t r o l these weapons and t o reduce the
number of s t a t e s t h a t possess them by supporting and
strengthening the IAEA and by t a k i n g other necessary measures.
I have made n o n p r o l i f e r a t i o n one of our nation's
highest p r i o r i t i e s . We intend t o weave i t more deeply i n t o the
f a b r i c o f a l l of our r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h the world's nations and
i n s t i t u t i o n s . We seek t o b u i l d a world of increasing pressures
f o r n o n p r o l i f e r a t i o n , but i n c r e a s i n g l y open trade and technology
f o r those s t a t e s t h a t l i v e by accepted i n t e r n a t i o n a l r u l e s .
Today, l e t me describe several new p o l i c i e s t h a t our
government w i l l pursue t o stem p r o l i f e r a t i o n . We w i l l pursue new
steps t o c o n t r o l the m a t e r i a l s f o r nuclear weapons. Growing
g l o b a l s t o c k p i l e s of plutonium and h i g h l y enriched uranium are
r a i s i n g t h e danger of nuclear t e r r o r i s m f o r a l l nations. We w i l l
press f o r an i n t e r n a t i o n a l agreement t h a t would ban production of
these m a t e r i a l s f o r weapons forever.
As we reduce our nuclear s t o c k p i l e s , the United
States has also begun n e g o t i a t i o n s toward a comprehensive ban on
nuclear t e s t i n g . This summer I declared t h a t t o f a c i l i t a t e these
n e g o t i a t i o n s , our nation would suspend our t e s t i n g i f a l l other
nuclear s t a t e s would do the same. Today, i n the face of
d i s t u r b i n g signs, I renew my c a l l on the nuclear s t a t e s t o abide
by t h a t moratorium as we negotiate t o stop nuclear t e s t i n g f o r
a l l time.
I am also proposing new e f f o r t s t o f i g h t the
p r o l i f e r a t i o n of b i o l o g i c a l and chemical weapons. Today, only a
handful o f nations has r a t i f i e d the Chemical Weapons Convention.
I c a l l on a l l nations, i n c l u d i n g my own, t o r a t i f y t h i s accord
q u i c k l y so t h a t i t may enter i n t o force by January 13th, 1995.
We w i l l also seek t o strengthen the b i o l o g i c a l
weapons convention by making every nation's b i o l o g i c a l a c t i v i t i e s
and f a c i l i t i e s open t o more i n t e r n a t i o n a l students. I am
proposing as w e l l new steps t o thwart the p r o l i f e r a t i o n of_
b a l l i s t i c m i s s i l e s . Recently, working w i t h Russia, Argentina,
Hungary and South A f r i c a , we have made s i g n i f i c a n t progress
toward t h a t goal. Now, we w i l l seek t o strengthen the p r i n c i p l e s
of the M i s s i l e Technology Control Regime by transforming i t from
MORE
�- 7-
Today, there i s wide r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t the U.N.
peacekeeping a b i l i t y has not kept pace w i t h the r i s i n g
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and challenges. Just s i x years ago, about
10,000 U.N. peacekeepers were s t a t i o n e d around the world. Today,
the U.N. has some 80,000 deployed i n 17 operations on f o u r
c o n t i n e n t s . Yet, u n t i l r e c e n t l y , i f a peacekeeping commander
c a l l e d i n from across the globe when i t was n i g h t t i m e here i n New
York, t h e r e was no one i n the peacekeeping o f f i c e even t o answer
the c a l l . When l i v e s are on the l i n e , you cannot l e t the reach
of the U.N. exceed i t s grasp.
As the Secretary General and others have argued, i f
U.N. peacekeeping i s t o be a sound s e c u r i t y investment f o r our
n a t i o n and f o r other U.N. members, i t must adapt t o new times.
Together we must prepare U.N. peacekeeping f o r the 21st century.
We need t o begin by b r i n g i n g the r i g o r s of m i l i t a r y and p o l i t i c a l
a n a l y s i s t o every U.N. peace mission.
I n recent weeks i n the S e c u r i t y Council, our n a t i o n
has begun asking harder questions about proposals f o r new
peacekeeping missions: I s there a r e a l t h r e a t t o i n t e r n a t i o n a l
peace. Does the proposed mission have c l e a r objectives? Can an
end p o i n t be i d e n t i f i e d f o r those who w i l l be asked t o
p a r t i c i p a t e ? How much w i l l the mission cost? From now on, t h e
United Nations should address these and other hard questions f o r
every proposed mission before we vote and before the mission
begins.
The United Nations simply cannot become engaged i n
every one o f the world's c o n f l i c t s . I f the American people are
t o say yes t o U.N. peacekeeping, the United Nations must know
when t o say no. The United Nations must also have the t e c h n i c a l
means t o run a modern world-class peacekeeping operation.
We support the c r e a t i o n o f a genuine U.N.
peacekeeping headquarters w i t h a planning s t a f f , w i t h access t o
t i m e l y i n t e l l i g e n c e , w i t h a l o g i s t i c s u n i t t h a t can be deployed
on a moment's n o t i c e , and a modern operations center w i t h g l o b a l
communications.
And the U.N.'s operations must not only be
adequately funded, but also f a i r l y funded. Within the next few
weeks, t h e United States w i l l be c u r r e n t i n our peacekeeping
bills.
I have worked hard w i t h the Congress t o get t h i s done. I
b e l i e v e t h e United States should lead the way i n being t i m e l y i n
i t s payments, and I w i l l work t o continue t o see t h a t we pay our
b i l l s i n f u l l . But I am also committed t o work w i t h the United
Nations t o reduce our nation's assessment f o r these missions.
The assessment system has not been changed since
1973.
And everyone i n our country knows t h a t are percentage o f
t h e world's economic p i e i s not as great as i t was then.
Therefore, I believe our rates should be reduced t o r e f l e c t the
r i s e o f other nations t h a t can now bear more o f the f i n a n c i a l
burden. That w i l l make i t easier f o r me as President t o make
sure we pay i n a t i m e l y and f u l l fashion.
Changes i n the U.N.'s peacekeeping operations must
be p a r t o f an even broader program of United Nations reform. I
say t h a t again not t o c r i t i c i z e the United Nations, but t o help
t o improve i t . As or Ambassador Madeleine A l b r i g h t has
suggested, the United States has always played a t w i n r o l e t o the
U.N. — f i r s t f r i e n d and f i r s t c r i t i c .
Today corporations a l l around the world are f i n d i n g
ways t o move from the I n d u s t r i a l Age t o the I n f o r m a t i o n Age,
improving s e r v i c e , reducing bureaucracy and c u t t i n g costs. Here
MR
OE
�- 8 -
i n the United States, our Vice President A l Gore and I have
launched an e f f o r t t o l i t e r a l l y r e i n v e n t how our government
operates. We see t h i s going on i n other governments around the
world. Now the time has come t o r e i n v e n t the way the United
Nations operates as w e l l .
I applaud the i n i t i a l steps the Secretary General
has taken t o reduce and t o reform the United Nations bureaucracy.
Now, we must a l l do even more t o r o o t out waste. Before t h i s
General Assembly i s over, l e t us e s t a b l i s h a s t r o n g mandate f o r
an O f f i c e of Inspector General so t h a t i t can a t t a i n a r e p u t a t i o n
f o r toughness, f o r i n t e g r i t y , f o r e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Let us b u i l d
new confidence among our people t h a t the United Nations i s
changing w i t h the needs of our times.
U l t i m a t e l y , the key f o r reforming the United
Nations, as i n reforming our own government, i s t o remember why
we are here and whom we serve. I t i s wise t o r e c a l l t h a t the
f i r s t words of the U.N. Charter are not "We, the government,"
but, "We, the people of the United Nations." That means i n every
country the teachers, the workers, the farmers, the
p r o f e s s i o n a l s , the f a t h e r s , the mothers, the c h i l d r e n , from the
most remote v i l l a g e i n the world t o the l a r g e s t m e t r o p o l i s , they
are why we gather i n t h i s great h a l l . I t i s t h e i r f u t u r e s t h a t
are a t r i s k when we act or f a i l t o a c t . I t i s they who
u l t i m a t e l y pay our b i l l s .
As we dream new dreams i n t h i s age when miracles now
seem p o s s i b l e , l e t us focus on the l i v e s of those people, and
e s p e c i a l l y on the c h i l d r e n who w i l l i n h e r i t t h i s world. Let us
work w i t h a new urgency, and imagine what k i n d of world we could
create f o r them i n the coming generations.
Let us work w i t h new energy t o p r o t e c t the world's
people from t o r t u r e and repression. As Secretary of State
Christopher stressed a t the recent Vienna Conference, human
r i g h t s are not something c o n d i t i o n a l , founded by c u l t u r e , but
r a t h e r something u n i v e r s a l granted by God.
This General Assembly
should create a t long l a s t , a h i g h commissioner f o r human r i g h t s .
I hope you w i l l do i t soon and w i t h v i g o r and energy and
conviction.
(Applause).
Let us also work f a r more a m b i t i o u s l y t o f u l f i l l our
o b l i g a t i o n s as custodians of t h i s p l a n e t , not only t o improve the
q u a l i t y of l i f e f o r our c i t i z e n s and the q u a l i t y of our a i r and
water and the Earth i t s e l f , but also because the r o o t s of
c o n f l i c t are so o f t e n entangled w i t h the roots of environmental
neglect and the calamity of famine and disease.
During the course of our campaign i n the United
States l a s t year, Vice President Gore and I promised the American
people major changes i n our nation's p o l i c y toward the g l o b a l
environment.
Those were promises t o keep, and today the United
States i s doing so.
Today we are working w i t h other n a t i o n s t o b u i l d on
the promising work of the U.N.'s Commission on Sustainable
Development. We are working t o make sure t h a t a l l nations meet
t h e i r commitments under the Global Climate Convention.
We are
seeking t o complete n e g o t i a t i o n s on an accord t o prevent the
world's deserts from f u r t h e r expansion. And we seek t o
strengthen the World's Health Organization's e f f o r t s t o combat
the plague of AIDS, which i s not only k i l l i n g m i l l i o n s , but also
exhausting the resources of nations t h a t can l e a s t a f f o r d i t .
Let us make a new commitment t o the world's
c h i l d r e n . I t i s t r a g i c enough t h a t 1.5 m i l l i o n c h i l d r e n died as
a r e s u l t of wars over the past decade. But i t i s f a r more
MORE
�- 7-
Today, there i s wide r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t the U.N.
peacekeeping a b i l i t y has not kept pace w i t h the r i s i n g
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and challenges. Just s i x years ago, about
10,000 U.N. peacekeepers were s t a t i o n e d around the world. Today,
the U.N. has some 8 0,000 deployed i n 17 operations on f o u r
c o n t i n e n t s . Yet, u n t i l r e c e n t l y , i f a peacekeeping commander
c a l l e d i n from across the globe when i t was n i g h t t i m e here i n New
York, t h e r e was no one i n the peacekeeping o f f i c e even t o answer
the c a l l . When l i v e s are on the l i n e , you cannot l e t the reach
of the U.N. exceed i t s grasp.
As the Secretary General and others have argued, i f
U.N. peacekeeping i s t o be a sound s e c u r i t y investment f o r our
nation and f o r other U.N. members, i t must adapt t o new times.
Together we must prepare U.N. peacekeeping f o r the 21st century.
We need t o begin by b r i n g i n g the r i g o r s of m i l i t a r y and p o l i t i c a l
analysis t o every U.N. peace mission.
I n recent weeks i n the S e c u r i t y Council, our n a t i o n
has begun asking harder questions about proposals f o r new
peacekeeping missions: I s there a r e a l t h r e a t t o i n t e r n a t i o n a l
peace. Does the proposed mission have c l e a r objectives? Can an
end p o i n t be i d e n t i f i e d f o r those who w i l l be asked t o
p a r t i c i p a t e ? How much w i l l the mission cost? From now on, t h e
United Nations should address these and other hard questions f o r
every proposed mission before we vote and before the mission
begins.
The United Nations simply cannot become engaged i n
every one o f the world's c o n f l i c t s . I f the American people are
t o say yes t o U.N. peacekeeping, the United Nations must know
when t o say no. The United Nations must also have the t e c h n i c a l
means t o run a modern world-class peacekeeping operation.
We support the c r e a t i o n o f a genuine U.N.
peacekeeping headquarters w i t h a planning s t a f f , w i t h access t o
t i m e l y i n t e l l i g e n c e , w i t h a l o g i s t i c s u n i t t h a t can be deployed
on a moment's n o t i c e , and a modern operations center w i t h g l o b a l
communications.
And the U.N.'s operations must not only be
adequately funded, but also f a i r l y funded. W i t h i n the next few
weeks, t h e United States w i l l be c u r r e n t i n our peacekeeping
b i l l s . I have worked hard w i t h the Congress t o get t h i s done. I
b e l i e v e the United States should lead the way i n being t i m e l y i n
i t s payments, and I w i l l work t o continue t o see t h a t we pay our
bills in full.
But I am also committed t o work w i t h the United
Nations t o reduce our nation's assessment f o r these missions.
The assessment system has not been changed since
1973. And everyone i n our country knows t h a t are percentage o f
the world's economic p i e i s not as great as i t was then.
Therefore, I b e l i e v e our rates should be reduced t o r e f l e c t the
r i s e o f other nations t h a t can now bear more o f the f i n a n c i a l
burden. That w i l l make i t easier f o r me as President t o make
sure we pay i n a t i m e l y and f u l l fashion.
Changes i n the U.N.'s peacekeeping operations must
be p a r t o f an even broader program of United Nations reform. I
say t h a t again not t o c r i t i c i z e the United Nations, but t o help
t o improve i t . As or Ambassador Madeleine A l b r i g h t has
suggested, the United States has always played a t w i n r o l e t o the
U.N. — f i r s t f r i e n d and f i r s t c r i t i c .
Today corporations a l l around the world are f i n d i n g
ways t o move from the I n d u s t r i a l Age t o the I n f o r m a t i o n Age,
improving s e r v i c e , reducing bureaucracy and c u t t i n g costs. Here
MR
OE
�- 9 -
u n f o r g i v a b l e t h a t i n t h a t same p e r i o d , 40 m i l l i o n c h i l d r e n died
from diseases completely preventable w i t h simply vaccines or
medicine. Every day — t h i s day, as we meet here — over 30,000
of the world's c h i l d r e n w i l l d i e of m a l n u t r i t i o n and disease.
Our UNICEF D i r e c t o r , Jim Grant, has reminded me t h a t
each of those c h i l d r e n had a name and a n a t i o n a l i t y , a f a m i l y , a
p e r s o n a l i t y , and a p o t e n t i a l . We are compelled t o do b e t t e r by
the world's c h i l d r e n . Just as our own n a t i o n has launched new
reforms t o ensure t h a t every c h i l d has adequate h e a l t h care, we
must do more t o get basic vaccines and o t h e r treatment f o r
curable diseases t o c h i l d r e n a l l over the world. I t ' s the best
investment w e ' l l ever make.
We can f i n d new ways t o ensure t h a t every c h i l d
grows up w i t h clean d r i n k a b l e water, t h a t most precious commodity
of l i f e i t s e l f . And the U.N. can work even harder t o ensure t h a t
each c h i l d has a t l e a s t a f u l l primary education — and I mean
t h a t o p p o r t u n i t y f o r g i r l s as w e l l as boys.
And t o ensure a h e a l t h i e r and more abundant world,
we simply must slow the world's explosive growth i n p o p u l a t i o n .
We cannot a f f o r d t o see the human race doubled by the middle of
the next century. Our n a t i o n has, at l a s t , renewed i t s
commitment t o work w i t h the United Nations t o expand the
a v a i l a b i l i t y of the world's f a m i l y planning education and
services. We must ensure t h a t t h e r e i s a place a t the t a b l e f o r
every one o f our world's c h i l d r e n . And we can do i t .
At the b i r t h of t h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n 48 years ago,
another time of both v i c t o r y and danger, a generation of g i f t e d
leaders from many nations stepped forward t o organize the world's
e f f o r t s on b e h a l f of s e c u r i t y and p r o s p e r i t y . One American
leader d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d said t h i s : " I t i s time we steered by
the s t a r s r a t h e r than by the l i g h t of each passing ship." His
generation picked peace, human d i g n i t y and freedom. Those are
good s t a r s , they should remain the highest i n our own firmament.
Now h i s t o r y has granted t o us a moment of even
greater o p p o r t u n i t y , when o l d dangers and o l d w a l l s are
crumbling, f u t u r e generations w i l l judge us, every one of us,
above a l l , by what we make of t h i s magic moment. Let us resolve
t h a t we w i l l dream l a r g e r , t h a t we w i l l work harder so t h a t they
can conclude t h a t we d i d not merely t u r n w a l l s t o rubble, but
instead l a i d the foundation f o r great t h i n g s t o come.
Let us ensure t h a t the t i d e o f freedom and democracy
i s not pushed back by the f i e r c e winds of e t h n i c hatred. Let us
ensure t h a t t h e world's most dangerous weapons are s a f e l y reduced
and denied t o dangerous hands. Let us ensure t h a t the world we
pass t o our c h i l d r e n i s h e a l t h i e r , safer and more abundant than
the one we i n h a b i t today.
I b e l i e v e — I know — t h a t together we can extend
t h i s moment of miracles i n t o an age of g r e a t work and new
wonders. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
END
11:40 A.M.
EDT
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
May 5, 1994
STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY
President Clinton Signs New Peacekeeping
Policy
On May 3, 1994, President Clinton signed a Presidential
Decision Directive establishing "U.S. Policy on Reforming
Multilateral Peace Operations". This directive i s the product of
a year-long interagency policy review and extensive consultations
with dozens of Members of Congress from both parties.
The policy represents the f i r s t , comprehensive framework for
U.S. decision-making on issues of peacekeeping and peace
enforcement suited to the r e a l i t i e s of the post Cold War period.
Peace operations are not and cannot be the centerpiece of
U.S. foreign policy. However, as the policy states, properly
conceived and well-executed peace operations can be a useful
element in serving America's interests. The d i r e c t i v e prescribes
a number of s p e c i f i c steps to improve U.S. and UN management of
UN peace operations in order to ensure that use of such
operations i s selective and more effective.
The Administration w i l l release today an u n c l a s s i f i e d
document outlining key elements of the Clinton Administration's
Policy on Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations.
# #
#
�The Omton Administration's
Policy on Reforming
Multilateral Peace Operations
May 1994
�EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Clinton Administration's
Policy
on Reforming M u l t i l a t e r a l Peace Operations
Last year, President C l i n t o n ordered an inter-agency review of
our nation's peacekeeping p o l i c i e s and programs i n order t o
develop a comprehensive p o l i c y framework s u i t e d t o the r e a l i t i e s
of the post-Cold War period. This p o l i c y review has r e s u l t e d i n
a P r e s i d e n t i a l Decision D i r e c t i v e (PDD). The President signed
t h i s d i r e c t i v e , f o l l o w i n g the completion of extensive
c o n s u l t a t i o n s w i t h Members of Congress. This paper summarizes
the key elements of t h a t d i r e c t i v e .
As s p e c i f i e d i n the "Bottom-Up Review," the primary mission of
the U.S. Armed Forces remains to be prepared t o f i g h t and win
two simultaneous regional c o n f l i c t s . I n t h i s context,
peacekeeping can be one useful t o o l to help prevent and resolve
such c o n f l i c t s before they pose d i r e c t t h r e a t s to our n a t i o n a l
s e c u r i t y . Peacekeeping can also serve U.S. i n t e r e s t s by
promoting democracy, regional s e c u r i t y , and economic growth.
The p o l i c y d i r e c t i v e (PDD)
and improvement:
1.
addresses s i x major issues of reform
Making d i s c i p l i n e d and coherent choices about which peace
operations t o support — both when we vote i n the S e c u r i t y
Council f o r UN peace operations and when we p a r t i c i p a t e i n
such operations w i t h U.S. troops.
To achieve t h i s goal, the p o l i c y d i r e c t i v e sets f o r t h
three i n c r e a s i n g l y rigorous standards of review f o r
U.S. support f o r or p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n peace operations,
w i t h the most s t r i n g e n t applying t o U.S. p a r t i c i p a t i o n
i n missions t h a t may i n v o l v e combat. The p o l i c y
d i r e c t i v e a f f i r m s t h a t peacekeeping can be a u s e f u l
t o o l f o r advancing U.S. n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y i n t e r e s t s i n
some circumstances, but both U.S. and UN involvement i n
peacekeeping must be s e l e c t i v e and more e f f e c t i v e .
2.
Reducing U.S. costs f o r UN peace operations, both the
percentage our n a t i o n pays f o r each o p e r a t i o n and the cost
of the operations themselves.
To achieve t h i s goal, the p o l i c y d i r e c t i v e orders t h a t
we work t o reduce our peacekeeping assessment
percentage from the c u r r e n t 31.7% t o 25% by January 1,
1996, and proposes a number of s p e c i f i c steps t o reduce
the cost of UN peace operations.
�-23.
Defining c l e a r l y our p o l i c y regarding the command and
c o n t r o l of American m i l i t a r y forces i n UN peace operations.
The p o l i c y d i r e c t i v e underscores the f a c t t h a t the
President w i l l never r e l i n q u i s h command of U.S.
forces. However, as Commander-in-Chief, the President
has the a u t h o r i t y t o place U.S. forces under the
o p e r a t i o n a l c o n t r o l of a f o r e i g n commander when doing
so serves American s e c u r i t y i n t e r e s t s , j u s t as
American leaders have done numerous times since the
Revolutionary War, i n c l u d i n g i n Operation Desert Storm.
The greater the a n t i c i p a t e d U.S. m i l i t a r y r o l e , the
less l i k e i t w i l l be that the U.S. w i l l agree t o have
a UN commander exercise o v e r a l l o p e r a t i o n a l c o n t r o l
over U.S. forces. Any large scale p a r t i c i p a t i o n of
U.S. forces i n a major peace enforcement operation
t h a t i s l i k e l y to involve combat should o r d i n a r i l y be
conducted under U.S. command and o p e r a t i o n a l c o n t r o l
or through competent regional organizations such as
NATO or ad hoc c o a l i t i o n s .
4.
Reforming and improving the UN's
operations.
c a p a b i l i t y t o manage peace
The policy recommends 11 steps to strengthen UN
management of peace operations and directs U.S.
support for strengthening the UN's planning,
l o g i s t i c s , information and command and control
capabilities.
5.
improving the way the u s, government manages and funds
peace operations.
t
The policy directive creates a new "shared
responsibility" approach to managing and funding UN
peace operations within the U.S. Government. Under
this approach, the Department of Defense w i l l take
lead management and funding responsibility for those
UN operations that involve U.S. combat units and those
that are l i k e l y to involve combat, whether or not U.S.
troops are involved. This approach w i l l ensure that
m i l i t a r y expertise i s brought to bear on those
operations that have a s i g n i f i c a n t m i l i t a r y component.
The State Department w i l l retain lead management and
funding responsibility for t r a d i t i o n a l peacekeeping
operations that do not involve U.S. combat units. In
a l l cases, the State Department remains responsible
for the conduct of diplomacy and instructions to
embassies and our UN Mission in New York.
�-36.
Creating b e t t e r forms of cooperation between the Executive,
the Congress and the American p u b l i c on peace operations.
The p o l i c y d i r e c t i v e sets out seven proposals f o r
increasing and r e g u l a r i z i n g the flow of i n f o r m a t i o n
and c o n s u l t a t i o n between the executive branch and
Congress; the President believes U.S. support f o r and
p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n UN peace operations can only succeed
over the long term w i t h the b i p a r t i s a n support of
Congress and the American people.
�Key Elements of the Clinton Administration's Policy
on Reforming M u l t i l a t e r a l Peace Operations
Introduction:
The Role of Peace Operations i n U.S.
Foreign P o l i c y
1
Serious t h r e a t s to the s e c u r i t y of the United States s t i l l e x i s t
i n the post-Cold War era. New t h r e a t s w i l l emerge. The United
States remains committed to meeting such t h r e a t s .
When our i n t e r e s t s d i c t a t e , the U.S. must be w i l l i n g and able to
f i g h t and win wars, u n i l a t e r a l l y whenever necessary. To do so,
we must create the required c a p a b i l i t i e s and maintain them ready
to use. UN peace operations cannot s u b s t i t u t e f o r t h i s
requirement.
Circumstances w i l l a r i s e , however, when m u l t i l a t e r a l a c t i o n best
serves U.S. i n t e r e s t s i n preserving or r e s t o r i n g peace. I n such
cases, the UN can be an important instrument f o r c o l l e c t i v e
a c t i o n . UN peace operations can also provide a " f o r c e
m u l t i p l i e r " i n our e f f o r t s to promote peace and s t a b i l i t y .
During the Cold War, the United Nations could r e s o r t to
m u l t i l a t e r a l peace operations only i n the few cases when the
i n t e r e s t s of the Soviet Union and the West d i d not c o n f l i c t . I n
the new s t r a t e g i c environment such operations can serve more
o f t e n as a c o s t - e f f e c t i v e t o o l to advance American as w e l l as
c o l l e c t i v e i n t e r e s t s i n maintaining peace i n key regions and
create g l o b a l burden-sharing f o r peace.
T e r r i t o r i a l disputes, armed e t h n i c c o n f l i c t s , c i v i l wars (many
of which could s p i l l across i n t e r n a t i o n a l borders) and the
c o l l a p s e of governmental a u t h o r i t y i n some s t a t e s are among the
c u r r e n t t h r e a t s to peace. While many of these c o n f l i c t s may not
d i r e c t l y t h r e a t e n American i n t e r e s t s , t h e i r cumulative e f f e c t i s
s i g n i f i c a n t . The UN has sought to play a c o n s t r u c t i v e r o l e i n
such s i t u a t i o n s by mediating disputes and o b t a i n i n g agreement to
cease-fires and p o l i t i c a l settlements. Where such agreements
have been reached, the i n t e r p o s i t i o n of n e u t r a l forces under UN
auspices has, i n many cases, helped f a c i l i t a t e l a s t i n g peace.
L
- For s i m p l i c i t y , the term peace operations i s used i n t h i s
document t o mean the e n t i r e spectrum of a c t i v i t i e s from
t r a d i t i o n a l peacekeeping to peace enforcement aimed at defusing
and r e s o l v i n g i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t s .
�-2UN peace operations have served important U.S. n a t i o n a l
i n t e r e s t s . I n Cambodia, UN e f f o r t s led t o an e l e c t i o n protected
by peacekeepers, the r e t u r n of hundreds of thousands of refugees
and the end of a d e s t a b i l i z i n g r e g i o n a l c o n f l i c t . I n E l
Salvador, the UN sponsored e l e c t i o n s and i s helping t o end a
long and b i t t e r c i v i l war. The UN's supervision of Namibia's
t r a n s i t i o n t o independence removed a p o t e n t i a l source of
c o n f l i c t i n s t r a t e g i c southern A f r i c a and promoted democracy.
The UN i n Cyprus has prevented the outbreak of war between two
NATO a l l i e s . Peacekeeping on the Golan Heights has helped
preserve peace between I s r a e l and Syria. I n Former Yugoslavia,
the UN has provided badly-needed humanitarian assistance and
helped prevent the c o n f l i c t from spreading t o other p a r t s of the
region. UN-imposed sanctions against I r a q , coupled w i t h the
peacekeeping operation on the Kuwait border, are c o n s t r a i n i n g
Iraq's a b i l i t y t o threaten i t s neighbors.
Need f o r Reform
While serving U.S. i n t e r e s t s , UN peace operations continue t o
require improvement and reform. C u r r e n t l y , each o p e r a t i o n i s
created and managed separately, and economies of scale are
l o s t . Likewise, f u r t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l changes at UN
Headquarters would improve e f f i c i e n c y and e f f e c t i v e n e s s . A
f u l l y independent o f f i c e of Inspector General should be
e s t a b l i s h e d immediately. The U.S. assessment r a t e should be
reduced t o 25 per cent.
Since i t i s i n our i n t e r e s t at times t o support UN peace
operations, i t i s also i n our i n t e r e s t t o seek t o strengthen UN
peacekeeping c a p a b i l i t i e s and t o make operations less expensive
and peacekeeping management more accountable.
Similarly, i t i s
i n our i n t e r e s t t o i d e n t i f y c l e a r l y and q u i c k l y those peace
operations we w i l l support and those we w i l l not. Our p o l i c y
establishes c l e a r g u i d e l i n e s f o r making such decisions.
Role i n U.S. Foreign P o l i c y
UN and other m u l t i l a t e r a l peace operations w i l l at times o f f e r
the best way t o prevent, contain or resolve c o n f l i c t s t h a t could
otherwise be more c o s t l y and deadly. I n such cases, the U.S.
b e n e f i t s from having t o bear only a share of the burden. We
also b e n e f i t by being able t o invoke the voice of the community
of nations on behalf of a cause we support. Thus, establishment
of a c a p a b i l i t y t o conduct m u l t i l a t e r a l peace operations i s part
of our National S e c u r i t y Strategy and National M i l i t a r y Strategy.
While the President never r e l i n q u i s h e s command of U.S. f o r c e s ,
the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of U.S. m i l i t a r y personnel i n UN operations
can, i n p a r t i c u l a r circumstances, serve U.S. i n t e r e s t s .
First,
U.S. m i l i t a r y p a r t i c i p a t i o n may, at times, be necessary t o
persuade others t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n operations t h a t serve U.S.
i n t e r e s t s . Second, U.S. p a r t i c i p a t i o n may be one way t o
�-3exercise U.S. i n f l u e n c e over an important UN mission, without
u n i l a t e r a l l y bearing the burden. T h i r d , the U.S. may be c a l l e d
upon and choose t o provide unique c a p a b i l i t i e s t o important
operations that other countries cannot.
In improving our c a p a b i l i t i e s f o r peace operations, we w i l l not
discard or weaken other t o o l s f o r achieving U.S. o b j e c t i v e s . I f
U.S. p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a peace operation were t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h
our basic m i l i t a r y s t r a t e g y , winning two major r e g i o n a l
c o n f l i c t s nearly simultaneously (as e s t a b l i s h e d i n the Bottom Up
Review), we would place our n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t uppermost. The
U.S. w i l l maintain the c a p a b i l i t y t o act u n i l a t e r a l l y or i n
c o a l i t i o n s when our most s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r e s t s and those of our
f r i e n d s and a l l i e s are at stake. M u l t i l a t e r a l peace operations
must,therefore, be placed i n proper perspective among the
instruments of U.S. f o r e i g n p o l i c y .
The U.S. does not support a standing UN army, nor w i l l we
earmark s p e c i f i c U.S. m i l i t a r y u n i t s f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n UN
operations. We w i l l provide i n f o r m a t i o n about U.S. c a p a b i l i t i e s
for data bases and planning purposes.
I t i s not U.S. p o l i c y t o seek t o expand e i t h e r the number of UN
peace operations or U.S. involvement i n such operations.
Instead, t h i s p o l i c y , which b u i l d s upon work begun by previous
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s and i s informed by the concerns of the Congress
and our experience i n recent peace operations, aims t o ensure
t h a t our use of peacekeeping i s s e l e c t i v e and more e f f e c t i v e .
Congress must also be a c t i v e l y involved i n the c o n t i n u i n g
implementation of U.S. p o l i c y on peacekeeping.
I.
Supporting the Right Peace Operations
i.
Voting f o r Peace Operations
The U.S. w i l l support w e l l - d e f i n e d peace operations, g e n e r a l l y ,
as a t o o l t o provide f i n i t e windows of o p p o r t u n i t y t o allow
combatants t o resolve t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s and f a i l e d s o c i e t i e s t o
begin t o r e c o n s t i t u t e themselves. Peace operations should not
be open-ended commitments but instead l i n k e d t o concrete
p o l i t i c a l s o l u t i o n s ; otherwise, they normally should not be
undertaken.
To the greatest extent p o s s i b l e , each UN peace
o p e r a t i o n should have a s p e c i f i e d timeframe t i e d t o intermediate
or f i n a l o b j e c t i v e s , an i n t e g r a t e d p o l i t i c a l / m i l i t a r y s t r a t e g y
w e l l - c o o r d i n a t e d w i t h humanitarian assistance e f f o r t s , s p e c i f i e d
troop l e v e l s , and a f i r m budget estimate. The U.S. w i l l
continue t o urge the UN S e c r e t a r i a t and S e c u r i t y Council members
to engage i n r i g o r o u s , standard evaluations of a l l proposed new
peace operations.
�-4The A d m i n i s t r a t i o n w i l l consider the f a c t o r s below when deciding
whether to vote f o r a proposed new UN peace operation (Chapter
VI or Chapter V I I ) or t o support a regionally-sponsored peace
operation:
UN involvement advances U.S. i n t e r e s t s , and there
i s an i n t e r n a t i o n a l community of i n t e r e s t f o r
dealing w i t h the problem on a m u l t i l a t e r a l basis.
There i s a t h r e a t to or breach of i n t e r n a t i o n a l peace
and s e c u r i t y , o f t e n of a r e g i o n a l character, defined
as one or a combination of the f o l l o w i n g :
International aggression, or;
Urgent humanitarian disaster coupled with
violence;
Sudden interruption of established democracy or
gross violation of human rights coupled with
violence, or threat of violence.
There are clear objectives and an understanding of
where the mission f i t s on the spectrum between
t r a d i t i o n a l peacekeeping and peace enforcement.
For t r a d i t i o n a l (Chapter VI) peacekeeping operations,
a ceasefire should be in place and the consent of the
parties obtained before the force i s deployed.
For peace enforcement (Chapter V I I ) operations, the
threat to international peace and security i s
considered s i g n i f i c a n t .
The means to accomplish the mission are available,
including the forces, financing and a mandate
appropriate to the mission.
The p o l i t i c a l , economic and humanitarian consequences
of inaction by the international community have been
weighed and are considered unacceptable.
The operation's anticipated duration i s t i e d to clear
objectives and r e a l i s t i c c r i t e r i a for ending the
operation.
These factors are an aid in decision-making; they do not by
themselves constitute a prescriptive device. Decisions have
been and w i l l be based on the cumulative weight of the factors,
with no single factor necessarily being an absolute determinant.
In addition, using the factors above, the U.S. w i l l continue to
s c r u t i n i z e c l o s e l y a l l existing peace operations when they come
�-5up f o r regular renewal by the S e c u r i t y Council to assess the
value of continuing them. I n appropriate cases, the U.S. w i l l
seek v o l u n t a r y c o n t r i b u t i o n s by b e n e f i c i a r y nations or enhanced
host n a t i o n support to reduce or cover, at least p a r t i a l l y , the
costs of c e r t a i n UN operations. The U.S. w i l l also consider
v o t i n g against renewal of c e r t a i n long-standing peace operations
that are f a i l i n g to meet established o b j e c t i v e s i n order to free
m i l i t a r y and f i n a n c i a l resources f o r more pressing UN missions.
ii.
P a r t i c i p a t i n g i n UN and Other Peace Operations
The A d m i n i s t r a t i o n w i l l continue to apply even s t r i c t e r
standards when i t assesses whether to recommend to the President
t h a t U.S. personnel p a r t i c i p a t e i n a given peace o p e r a t i o n . I n
a d d i t i o n to the f a c t o r s l i s t e d above, we w i l l consider the
following factors:
Participation advances U.S. interests and both the
unique and general risks to American personnel have
been weighed and are considered acceptable.
Personnel, funds and other resources are a v a i l a b l e ;
U.S. p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s necessary f o r operation's
success;
The role of U.S. forces i s tied to clear objectives
and an endpoint for U.S. participation can be
identified;
Domestic and Congressional support e x i s t s or can
marshalled;
Command and control arrangements are
be
acceptable.
Additional, even more rigorous factors w i l l be applied when
there i s the p o s s i b i l i t y of s i g n i f i c a n t U.S. participation in
Chapter V I I operations that are l i k e l y to involve combat:
There e x i s t s a determination to commit s u f f i c i e n t forces to
achieve c l e a r l y defined objectives;
There e x i s t s a plan to achieve those objectives decisively;
There e x i s t s a commitment to reassess and adjust, as
necessary, the size, composition, and disposition of our
forces to achieve our objectives.
Any recommendation to the President w i l l be based on the
cumulative weight of the above factors, with no single factor
necessarily being an absolute determinant.
�-6II.
The Role of Regional Organizations
In some cases, the appropriate way t o perform peace operations
w i l l be t o involve regional o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The U.S. w i l l
continue t o emphasize the UN as the primary i n t e r n a t i o n a l body
w i t h the a u t h o r i t y t o conduct peacekeeping operations. At the
same time, the U.S. w i l l support e f f o r t s t o improve r e g i o n a l
o r g a n i z a t i o n s ' peacekeeping c a p a b i l i t i e s .
When regional organizations or groupings seek to conduct
peacekeeping with UNSC endorsement, U.S. support w i l l be
conditioned on adherence to the principles of the UN Charter and
meeting established UNSC c r i t e r i a , including neutrality, consent
of the conflicting parties, formal UNSC oversight and f i n i t e ,
renewal mandates.
With respect to the question of peacekeeping i n the t e r r i t o r y of
the former Soviet Union, requests for " t r a d i t i o n a l " UN
blue-helmeted operations w i l l be considered on the same basis as
other requests, using the factors previously outlined (e.g., a
threat to international peace and security, clear objectives,
e t c . ) . U.S. support for these operations w i l l , as with other
such requests, be conditioned on adherence to the principles of
the UN Charter and established UNSC c r i t e r i a .
III.
Reducing Costs
Although peacekeeping can be a good investment for the U.S., i t
would be better and more sustainable i f i t cost l e s s . The
Administration i s committed to reducing the U.S. share of
peacekeeping costs to 25% by January 1, 1996, down from the
current rate of 31.7%. We w i l l also inform the UN of Congress's
l i k e l y refusal to fund U.S. peacekeeping assessments at a rate
higher than 25% after F i s c a l Year 1995.
The Administration remains concerned that the UN has not
r e c t i f i e d management i n e f f i c i e n c i e s that result i n excessive
costs and, on occasion, fraud and abuse. As a matter of
p r i o r i t y , the U.S. w i l l continue to press for dramatic
administrative and management improvements i n the UN system. In
p a r t i c u l a r , the U.S. i s working hard to ensure that new and
on-going peace operations are cost-effective and properly
managed. Towards this end, the U.S. i s pursuing a number of
finance and budget management reforms, including:
immediate establishment of a permanent, f u l l y
independent o f f i c e of Inspector General with oversight
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y that includes peacekeeping;
unified budget for a l l peace operations, with a
contingency fund, financed by a single annual
peacekeeping assessment;
�-7standing cadre of p r o f e s s i o n a l budget experts from
member s t a t e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y top c o n t r i b u t i n g
c o u n t r i e s , to a s s i s t the UN i n developing c r e d i b l e
budgets and f i n a n c i a l plans;
enlargement of the r e v o l v i n g peacekeeping reserve fund
to $500 m i l l i o n , using v o l u n t a r y c o n t r i b u t i o n s ;
Required status of forces/mission agreements t h a t
provide p r e f e r e n t i a l host n a t i o n support to
peacekeeping operations;
p r o h i b i t UN "borrowing" from peacekeeping funds to
finance cash s h o r t f a l l s i n regular UN a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
operations;
revise the s p e c i a l peacekeeping scale of assessments
to base i t on a 3-year average of n a t i o n a l income and
r a t i o n a l i z e Group C so t h a t higher income c o u n t r i e s
pay t h e i r regular budget r a t e .
Moreover, the U.S. w i l l use i t s voice and vote i n the F i f t h
Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations to
c o n t a i n costs of UN peace operations once they are underway.
IV.
Strengthening the UN
I f peace operations are to be e f f e c t i v e and e f f i c i e n t when the
U.S. believes they are necessary, the UN must improve the way
peace operations are managed. Our goal i s not t o create a
g l o b a l high command but to enable the UN t o manage i t s e x i s t i n g
load more e f f e c t i v e l y . At present each UN operation i s created
and managed separately by a s t i l l somewhat u n d e r s t a f f e d UN
Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO). As a r e s u l t ,
support to the f i e l d may s u f f e r , economies of scale are l o s t ,
and work i s d u p l i c a t e d . Moreover, the UN's command and c o n t r o l
c a p a b i l i t i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n complex operations, need
s u b s t a n t i a l improvement. S t r u c t u r a l changes at UN Headquarters,
some of which are already underway, would make a p o s i t i v e
difference.
A. The U.S. proposals include the r e c o n f i g u r a t i o n and
expansion of the s t a f f f o r the Department of Peacekeeping
Operations to create:
Plans D i v i s i o n to conduct adequate advance planning
and p r e p a r a t i o n f o r new and on-going operations;
I n f o r m a t i o n and Research D i v i s i o n l i n k e d to f i e l d
operations to o b t a i n and provide c u r r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n ,
manage a 24 hour watch center, and monitor open source
m a t e r i a l and non-sensitive i n f o r m a t i o n submitted by
governments;
�-8Operations D i v i s i o n w i t h a modern command, c o n t r o l and
communications (C3) a r c h i t e c t u r e based on commercial
systems;
L o g i s t i c s D i v i s i o n t o manage both c o m p e t i t i v e
commercial c o n t r a c t s (which should be r e - b i d r e g u l a r l y
on the basis of p r i c e and performance) and a
c o s t - e f f e c t i v e l o g i s t i c s computer network t o l i n k the
UN DPKO w i t h l o g i s t i c s o f f i c e s i n p a r t i c i p a t i n g member
nations. This system would enable the UN t o request
p r i c e and a v a i l a b i l i t y data and t o order m a t e r i e l from
p a r t i c i p a t i n g states;
Small Public A f f a i r s c e l l dedicated t o supporting
on-going peace operations and disseminating
i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h i n host c o u n t r i e s i n order t o reduce
the r i s k s t o UN personnel and increase the p o t e n t i a l
f o r mission success;
Small C i v i l i a n Police C e l l t o manage p o l i c e missions,
plan f o r the establishment of p o l i c e and j u d i c i a l
i n s t i t u t i o n s , and develop standard procedures,
d o c t r i n e and t r a i n i n g .
B. To e l i m i n a t e lengthy, p o t e n t i a l l y d i s a s t r o u s delays
a f t e r a mission has been authorized, the UN should e s t a b l i s h :
— a rapidly deplorable headquarters team, a composite
i n i t i a l l o g i s t i c s support u n i t , and open,
ore-negotiated commercial c o n t r a c t s f o r l o g i s t i c s
support i n new missions;
— data base of s p e c i f i c , p o t e n t i a l l y a v a i l a b l e forces
or c a p a b i l i t i e s t h a t nations could provide f o r the
f u l l range of peacekeeping and humanitarian operations;
— t r a i n e d c i v i l i a n reserve corps t o serve as a ready,
e x t e r n a l t a l e n t pool t o a s s i s t i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,
management, and execution of UN peace operations;
— modest a i r l i f t c a p a b i l i t y a v a i l a b l e through
pre-negotiated c o n t r a c t s w i t h commercial f i r m s or
member s t a t e s t o support urgent deployments.
C. F i n a l l y , the UN should e s t a b l i s h a p r o f e s s i o n a l Peace
Operations T r a i n i n g Program f o r commanders and other m i l i t a r y
and c i v i l i a n personnel.
D. Consistent w i t h the s p e c i f i c proposals o u t l i n e d above,
the U.S. w i l l a c t i v e l y support e f f o r t s i n the F i f t h Committee of
the General Assembly t o redeploy resources w i t h i n t h e UN t o
enable t h e e f f e c t i v e augmentation of the UN DPKO along t h e l i n e s
o u t l i n e d above. I n a d d i t i o n , the U.S. i s prepared t o undertake
the f o l l o w i n g , p r i m a r i l y on a reimbursable b a s i s :
�-9d e t a i l appropriate numbers of c i v i l i a n and m i l i t a r y
personnel t o DPKO i n New York i n advisory or support
roles;
share i n f o r m a t i o n , as appropriate, w h i l e ensuring
p r o t e c t i o n of sources and methods;
full
o f f e r t o design a command, c o n t r o l , and communications
systems a r c h i t e c t u r e f o r the Operations D i v i s i o n ,
using commercially a v a i l a b l e systems and software;
o f f e r t o a s s i s t DPKO t o e s t a b l i s h an improved,
c o s t - e f f e c t i v e l o g i s t i c s system t o support UN
peacekeeping operations;
o f f e r t o help design the database of m i l i t a r y forces
or c a p a b i l i t i e s and t o n o t i f y DPKO, f o r i n c l u s i o n i n
the database, of s p e c i f i c U.S. c a p a b i l i t i e s t h a t could
be made a v a i l a b l e f o r the f u l l spectrum of
peacekeeping or humanitarian operations. U.S.
n o t i f i c a t i o n i n no way implies a commitment t o provide
those c a p a b i l i t i e s , i f asked by the UN;
d e t a i l p u b l i c a f f a i r s s p e c i a l i s t s t o the UN;
o f f e r t o help create and e s t a b l i s h a t r a i n i n g program,
p a r t i c i p a t e i n peacekeeping t r a i n i n g e f f o r t s and o f f e r
the use of U.S. f a c i l i t i e s f o r t r a i n i n g purposes.
V.
Command and Control of U.S. Forces
A. Our P o l i c y : The President r e t a i n s and w i l l never
r e l i n q u i s h command a u t h o r i t y over U.S. f o r c e s . On a case by
case basis, the President w i l l consider p l a c i n g appropriate U.S.
forces under the o p e r a t i o n a l c o n t r o l of a competent UN commander
f o r s p e c i f i c UN operations authorized by the S e c u r i t y Council.
The greater the U.S. m i l i t a r y r o l e , the less l i k e l y i t w i l l be
t h a t the U.S. w i l l agree t o have a UN commander exercise o v e r a l l
o p e r a t i o n a l c o n t r o l over U.S. forces. Any large scale
p a r t i c i p a t i o n of U.S. forces i n a major peace enforcement
mission t h a t i s l i k e l y t o i n v o l v e combat should o r d i n a r i l y be
conducted under U.S. command and o p e r a t i o n a l c o n t r o l or through
competent r e g i o n a l organizations such as NATO or ad hoc
coalitions.
There i s nothing new about t h i s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s p o l i c y
regarding the command and c o n t r o l of U.S. f o r c e s . U.S. m i l i t a r y
personnel have p a r t i c i p a t e d i n UN peace operations since 1948.
American forces have served under the o p e r a t i o n a l c o n t r o l of
f o r e i g n commanders since the Revolutionary War, i n c l u d i n g i n
World War I , World War I I , Operation Desert Storm and i n NATO
since i t s i n c e p t i o n . We have done so and w i l l continue t o do so
when t h e President determines i t serves U.S. n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s .
�-10Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. m i l i t a r y personnel have
begun serving i n UN operations i n greater numbers. President
Bush sent a large U.S. f i e l d h o s p i t a l u n i t to Croatia and
observers to Cambodia, Kuwait and Western Sahara. President
C l i n t o n has deployed two U.S. i n f a n t r y companies to Macedonia i n
a monitoring capacity and l o g i s t i c i a n s to the UN operation i n
Somalia.
B. D e f i n i t i o n of Command: No President has ever
r e l i n q u i s h e d command over U.S. forces. Command c o n s t i t u t e s the
a u t h o r i t y t o issue orders covering every aspect of m i l i t a r y
operations and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . The sole source of l e g i t i m a c y
f o r U.S. commanders o r i g i n a t e s from the U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n ,
f e d e r a l law and the Uniform Code of M i l i t a r y J u s t i c e and flows
from the President to the lowest U.S. commander i n the f i e l d .
The chain of command from the President t o the lowest U.S.
commander i n the f i e l d remains i n v i o l a t e .
C. Definition of Operational Control: I t i s sometimes
prudent or advantageous (for reasons such as maximizing m i l i t a r y
effectiveness and ensuring unity of command) to place U.S.
forces under the operational control of a foreign commander to
achieve specified m i l i t a r y objectives. In making this
determination, factors such as the mission, the s i z e of the
proposed U.S. force, the r i s k s involved, anticipated duration,
and rules of engagement w i l l be c a r e f u l l y considered.
Operational control i s a subset of command. I t i s given for a
s p e c i f i c time frame or mission and includes the authority to
assign tasks to U.S. forces already deployed by the President,
and assign tasks to U.S. units led by U.S. o f f i c e r s . Within the
l i m i t s of operational control, a foreign UN commander cannot:
change the mission or deploy U.S. forces outside the area of
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y agreed to by the President, separate units,
divide their supplies, administer d i s c i p l i n e , promote anyone, or
change their internal organization.
D. Fundamental Elements of U.S. Conwanfl Always Apply: i f
i t i s to our advantage to place U.S. forces under the
operational control of a UN commander, the fundamental elements
of U.S. command s t i l l apply. U.S. commanders w i l l maintain the
capability to report separately to higher U.S. m i l i t a r y
authorities, as well as the UN commander. Commanders of U.S.
m i l i t a r y units participating in UN operations w i l l refer to
higher U.S. authorities orders that are i l l e g a l under U.S. or
international law, or are outside the mandate of the mission to
which the U.S. agreed with the UN, i f they are unable to resolve
the matter with the UN commander. The U.S. reserves the right
to terminate participation at any time and to take whatever
actions i t deems necessary to protect U.S. forces i f they are
endangered.
�-11There i s no i n t e n t i o n to use these c o n d i t i o n s to subvert the
o p e r a t i o n a l chain of command. Unity of command remains a v i t a l
concern. Questions of l e g a l i t y , mission mandate, and prudence
w i l l continue to be worked out "on the ground" before the orders
are issued. The U.S. w i l l continue to work w i t h the UN and
other member states to streamline command and c o n t r o l procedures
and maximize e f f e c t i v e c o o r d i n a t i o n on the ground.
E. P r o t e c t i o n of U.S. Peacekeepers: The U.S. remains
concerned t h a t i n some cases, captured UN peacekeepers and UN
peace enforcers may not have adequate p r o t e c t i o n under
i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. The U.S. believes t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s captured
while performing UN peacekeeping or UN peace enforcement
a c t i v i t i e s , whether as members of a UN force or a U.S. force
executing a UN Security Council mandate, should, as a matter of
p o l i c y , be immediately released to UN o f f i c i a l s ; u n t i l released,
at a minimum they should be accorded p r o t e c t i o n s i d e n t i c a l to
those afforded prisoners of war under the 1949 Geneva Convention
I I I (GPW). The U.S. w i l l g e n e r a l l y seek to incorporate
appropriate language i n t o UN S e c u r i t y Council r e s o l u t i o n s t h a t
e s t a b l i s h or extend peace operations i n order to provide
adequate l e g a l p r o t e c t i o n to captured UN peacekeepers. I n
appropriate cases, the U.S. would seek assurances t h a t U.S.
forces a s s i s t i n g the UN are t r e a t e d as experts on mission f o r
the United Nations, and thus are e n t i t l e d to appropriate
p r i v i l e g e s and immunities and are subject to immediate release
when captured. Moreover, the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n i s a c t i v e l y
involved i n n e g o t i a t i n g a d r a f t i n t e r n a t i o n a l convention at the
United Nations to provide a s p e c i a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l s t a t u s f o r
i n d i v i d u a l s serving i n peacekeeping and peace enforcement
operations under a UN mandate. F i n a l l y , the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n w i l l
take appropriate steps to ensure t h a t any U.S. m i l i t a r y
personnel captured w h i l e serving as p a r t of a m u l t i n a t i o n a l
peacekeeping force or peace enforcement e f f o r t are immediately
released to UN a u t h o r i t i e s .
VI.
Strengthening U.S.
Support for M u l t i l a t e r a l Peace Operations
Peace operations have changed since the end of the Cold War.
They are no longer l i m i t e d to the i n t e r p o s i t i o n of small numbers
of passive, unarmed observers. Today, they also include more
complex and sometimes more robust uses of m i l i t a r y resources to
achieve a range of p o l i t i c a l and humanitarian o b j e c t i v e s .
The post-Cold War world has also witnessed the emergence of
peace enforcement operations i n v o l v i n g the t h r e a t or use of
f o r c e . These missions have been considerably more challenging
than t r a d i t i o n a l peacekeeping operations, yet the U.S. and the
UN are only now beginning to change s u f f i c i e n t l y the way they
manage peace operations. The expansion of peacekeeping
operations without a commensurate expansion of c a p a b i l i t i e s has
c o n t r i b u t e d t o n o t i c e a b l e setbacks.
I f the U.S. i s t o support
the f u l l range of peace operations e f f e c t i v e l y , when i t i s i n
�-12our i n t e r e s t s t o do so, our government, not j u s t the UN, must
adapt.
I t i s no longer s u f f i c i e n t t o view peace operations solelythrough a p o l i t i c a l prism. I t i s c r i t i c a l also t o b r i n g a clear
m i l i t a r y perspective t o bear, p a r t i c u l a r l y on those missions
that are l i k e l y to involve the use of force or the p a r t i c i p a t i o n
of U.S. combat u n i t s . Thus, the Department of Defense should
j o i n the Department of State i n assuming both p o l i c y and funding
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r appropriate peace operations. We c a l l t h i s
p o l i c y "shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . "
A. Shared R e s p o n s i b i l i t y : DOD w i l l assume new
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r managing and funding those UN peace
operations t h a t are l i k e l y t o involve combat and a l l operations
i n which U.S. combat u n i t s are p a r t i c i p a t i n g . The m i l i t a r y
requirements of these operations demand DOD's leadership i n
c o o r d i n a t i n g U.S. oversight and management. Professional
m i l i t a r y judgment increases the prospects of success of such
operations. Moreover, w i t h p o l i c y management r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
comes funding r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
DOD w i l l pay the UN assessment f o r those t r a d i t i o n a l UN
peacekeeping missions (so c a l l e d "Chapter V I " operations,
because they operate under Chapter V I of the UN Charter) i n
which U.S. combat u n i t s are p a r t i c i p a t i n g , e.g Macedonia. DOD
w i l l also pay the UN assessment f o r a l l UN peace enforcement
missions (so c a l l e d "Chapter V I I " o p e r a t i o n s ) , e.g. Bosnia and
Somalia. State w i l l continue t o manage and pay f o r t r a d i t i o n a l
peacekeeping missions i n which there are no U.S. combat u n i t s
p a r t i c i p a t i n g , e.g. Golan Heights, E l Salvador, Cambodia.
When U.S. m i l i t a r y personnel, goods or services are used f o r UN
peace operations, DOD w i l l receive d i r e c t and f u l l
reimbursement; reimbursement can only be waived i n exceptional
circumstances, and only by the President.
Our Shared R e s p o n s i b i l i t y p o l i c y s t a t e s : "Unless the President
determines otherwise, at the request of one of the P r i n c i p a l s :
2
The State Department w i l l have lead r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
for the oversight and management of those t r a d i t i o n a l
2
Lead r e s p o n s i b i l i t y r e f e r s t o the c o o r d i n a t i o n of interagency
oversight of the day-to-day conduct of an on-going peace
o p e r a t i o n . The lead agency w i l l c h a i r the interagency working
group (IWG) e s t a b l i s h e d t o coordinate p o l i c y r e l a t e d t o a
p a r t i c u l a r operation. The lead agency determines the agenda,
ensures cohesion among agencies and i s responsible f o r
implementing decisions.
�-13peacekeeping operations (Chapter VI) i n which U.S.
combat u n i t s are not p a r t i c i p a t i n g . The
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n w i l l seek t o fund the assessments f o r
these operations through the e x i s t i n g State
Contributions f o r I n t e r n a t i o n a l Peacekeeping
A c t i v i t i e s account, and;
The Defense Department w i l l have lead r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
for the oversight and management of those Chapter VI
operations i n which there are U.S. combat u n i t s and
for a l l peace enforcement (Chapter V I I ) peace
operations. The A d m i n i s t r a t i o n w i l l seek t o fund the
assessments f o r these operations through the
establishment of a new account w i t h i n DOD e s t a b l i s h e d
to pay UN assessments. Once such an account i s
established, DOD may receive d i r e c t reimbursement from
the UN f o r c o n t r i b u t i o n s of goods, services, and
troops t o UN peace operations."
The A d m i n i s t r a t i o n w i l l submit l e g i s l a t i o n t o Congress c r e a t i n g
a new peacekeeping assessment account f o r DOD and implementing
the shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y concept. The l e g i s l a t i o n w i l l
s t i p u l a t e t h a t , i n a l l cases, the agency w i t h lead
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a given operation w i l l be responsible f o r
assessments associated w i t h t h a t operation.
Since peace operations are n e i t h e r wholly m i l i t a r y nor wholly
p o l i t i c a l i n nature, c o n s i s t i n g instead of m i l i t a r y , p o l i t i c a l ,
humanitarian and developmental elements i n varying degrees, no
one agency alone can manage a l l facets of an operation
e f f e c t i v e l y . Therefore, the designated lead agencies w i l l
engage i n f u l l and regular interagency c o n s u l t a t i o n as they
manage U.S. support f o r peace operations.
In a l l cases. State remains responsible f o r the conduct of
diplomacy and i n s t r u c t i o n s t o embassies and our UN Mission i n
New York. DOD i s responsible f o r m i l i t a r y assessments and
a c t i v i t i e s . NSC f a c i l i t a t e s interagency c o o r d i n a t i o n .
B. Reimbursements from the UN: Under the shared
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y p o l i c y , and the proposed accompanying l e g a l
a u t h o r i t i e s , DOD would receive and r e t a i n d i r e c t reimbursement
for i t s c o n t r i b u t i o n s of troops, goods and services t o the UN.
An important advantage w i l l be t o l i m i t any adverse impact on
DOD Operations and Maintenance funds, which are e s s e n t i a l t o
U.S. m i l i t a r y readiness. As our d r a f t l e g i s l a t i o n s t i p u l a t e s ,
the U.S. w i l l seek f u l l reimbursement from the UN f o r U.S.
c o n t r i b u t i o n s of troops, good and services. The U.S. w i l l f i r s t
apply reimbursements against DOD incremental costs. Any
remaining excess a f t e r the Services have been made whole would
be c r e d i t e d t o DOD's proposed peacekeeping account when i t i s a
DOD-led operation or t o State's CIPA account when i t i s a
S t a t e - l e d o p e r a t i o n . The President may choose t o waive UN
reimbursement only i n exceptional circumstances.
�-14C. U.S. Funding of UN Peace Operations:
I n the short
term, the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n w i l l seek Congressional support f o r
funding the USG's projected UN peacekeeping a r r e a r s . Over the
long run, we view the shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y approach o u t l i n e d
above as the best means of ensuring improved management and
adequate funding of UN peace operations. Moreover, the
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n w i l l make every e f f o r t to budget f o r known
peacekeeping assessments and seek Congressional support to fund,
i n the annual a p p r o p r i a t i o n , assessments f o r c l e a r l y a n t i c i p a t e d
contingencies.
D. U.S. T r a i n i n g : The Armed Services w i l l include
appropriate peacekeeping/emergency humanitarian assistance
t r a i n i n g i n DOD t r a i n i n g programs. T r a i n i n g U.S. forces to
f i g h t and d e c i s i v e l y win wars w i l l , however, continue to be the
highest t r a i n i n g p r i o r i t y .
VII.
Congress and the American People
To s u s t a i n U.S. support f o r UN peace operations, Congress and
the American people must understand and accept the p o t e n t i a l
value of such operations as t o o l s of U.S. i n t e r e s t s . Congress
and the American people must also be genuine p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the
processes t h a t support U.S. decision-making on new and on-going
peace operations.
T r a d i t i o n a l l y , the Executive branch has not s o l i c i t e d the
involvement of Congress or the American people on matters
r e l a t e d to UN peacekeeping. This lack of communication i s not
d e s i r a b l e i n an era when peace operations have become more
numerous, complex and expensive. The C l i n t o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n i s
committed to working w i t h Congress t o improve and r e g u l a r i z e
communication and c o n s u l t a t i o n on these important issues.
S p e c i f i c a l l y , the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n w i l l :
Regularize r e c e n t l y - i n i t i a t e d p e r i o d i c c o n s u l t a t i o n s
w i t h b i p a r t i s a n Congressional leaders on f o r e i g n
p o l i c y engagements t h a t might i n v o l v e U.S. f o r c e s ,
i n c l u d i n g possible deployments of U.S. m i l i t a r y u n i t s
i n UN peace operations.
Continue r e c e n t l y - i n i t i a t e d monthly s t a f f b r i e f i n g s on
the UN's upcoming calendar, i n c l u d i n g c u r r e n t , new,
and expanded peace operations.
Inform Congress as soon as possible of u n a n t i c i p a t e d
votes i n the UNSC on new or expanded peace operations.
Inform Congress of UN command and c o n t r o l arrangements
when U.S. m i l i t a r y u n i t s p a r t i c i p a t e i n UN operations.
�-15Provide UN documents to appropriate committees on a
t i m e l y basis.
Submit to Congress a comprehensive annual report on
peace operations.
UN
Support l e g i s l a t i o n along the l i n e s of t h a t introduced
by Senators M i t c h e l l , Nunn, Byrd and Warner to amend
the War Powers Resolution to introduce a c o n s u l t a t i v e
mechanism and to e l i m i n a t e the 60-day withdrawal
provisions.
*
* *
*
Conclusion
Properly c o n s t i t u t e d , peace operations can be one u s e f u l t o o l to
advance American n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s and pursue our n a t i o n a l
s e c u r i t y o b j e c t i v e s . The U.S. cannot be the world's policeman.
Nor can we ignore the increase i n armed ethnic c o n f l i c t s , c i v i l
wars and the collapse of governmental a u t h o r i t y i n some s t a t e s —
c r i s e s t h a t i n d i v i d u a l l y and cumulatively may a f f e c t U.S.
i n t e r e s t s . This p o l i c y i s designed to impose d i s c i p l i n e on both
the UN and the U.S. to make peace operations a more e f f e c t i v e
instrument of c o l l e c t i v e s e c u r i t y .
�DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 10161
Bureau of International Organization Affairs
Released May 1994
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
May 5,
1994
i
PRESS BRIEFING BY
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TONY LAKE
AND DIRECTOR FOR STRATEGIC PLANS AND POLICY GENERAL WESLEY CLARK
The Briefing Room
3:12 P.M.
EDT
MS. MYERS: One quick announcement. At 4:00 p.m. we'll
do a backgrounder on the Roosevelt Room on the subpoena which you are
a l l aware of. We'll make arrangements for that when t h i s i s over.
F i r s t , we w i l l hear from Tony Lake, whom you a l l know as
the National Security Advisor; and Lieutenant General Wesley Clark,
who i s the Director for Strategic Plans and Policy for.the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They w i l l make opening statements, which w i l l be
for sound and camera,, and then five minutes of questions for sound
and camera. Then, the cameras w i l l be shut off, but the entire
briefing w i l l be ON THE RECORD.
MR. LAKE: Thank you, Dee Dee. This week, President
Clinton signed the f i r s t comprehensive U.S. policy on m u l t i l a t e r a l
peace operations suited to the post-Cold. War era. This policy has
the f u l l support of the entire administration. I t benefited very
greatly from the work that had been done i n the previous
administration on t h i s issue and from very detailed consultations in
the Congress with dozens,of key l e g i s l a t o r s . In fact, i n drafting
the f i n a l policy, we incorporated many very useful contributions by
members of Congress.
The central conclusion of the study i s that properly
conceived and well-executed, peacekeeping can be a very important and
useful tool of American foreign policy. Our purpose i s to use
peacekeeping s e l e c t i v e l y and more e f f e c t i v e l y than has been done in
the past.
The post-Cold War era i s , as we see every day, a very
dangerous time. I t s defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s that c o n f l i c t s in
t h i s era take place now more within s o c i e t i e s within nations than
among them. And t h i s makes i t a p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t time, both
conceptually and p r a c t i c a l l y , for us a l l i n the international
community to come to grips with questions of when and how and where
w i l l use force.
Some of these internal c o n f l i c t s challenge our
interests, and some of them do not. But the cumulative effect of a l l
of these internal c o n f l i c t s around the world i s s i g n i f i c a n t . We have
a l l , over the l a s t year, you and I and the others i n the
administration, spent a great deal of time working on various
c o n f l i c t s of t h i s kind, whether in Somalia, or Rwanda, or H a i t i , or
Bosnia or elsewhere.
The further problem here i s that these kinds of
c o n f l i c t s are' p a r t i c u l a r l y hard to come.to grips with and to have an
effect on from outside because, b a s i c a l l y , of course, t h e i r origins
are in p o l i t i c a l turmoil within these nations. And that p o l i t i c a l
turmoil may not be susceptible -to the efforts of the international
community. So, neither we nor the international community have
either the mandate, nor the resources, nor the p o s s i b i l i t y of
resolving every c o n f l i c t of t h i s kind.
MORE
�When I wake up every morning and look at the headlines
and the s t o r i e s and the images on t e l e v i s i o n of these c o n f l i c t s , I
want to work to end every c o n f l i c t . I want to work to save every
c h i l d out there. And I know the President does, and I know the
American people do.
But neither we nor the international community have the
resources nor the mandate to do so. So we have to make distinctions.
We have to ask hard questions about where and when, we can intervene.
And the r e a l i t y i s that we cannot often solve- other people's
problems; we can never build t h e i r nations for them.
So the policy review i s intended to help us make those
hard choices about where and when the international community can get
- 2 involved; where and when we .can take,part with the international
community i n getting involved; and where and when we can make, thus,
a positive difference.
Let me emphasize again that, even when we do take
action, the primary responsibility for peace rests with the people
and the parties to the c o n f l i c t . What the international community
can do i s to offer a kind of a breathing space for the people
involved to make and preserve t h e i r own peace.
That's the principle, for example, that we have employed
in recent months i n Somalia. And we continue to urge the Somali
people to take advantage of the breathing space that we helped
provide for them, and to seize t h i s opportunity to resolve t h e i r
differences peacefully. While we are hopeful, and there are hopeful
signs that they can do so, there are also disturbing signs i n Somalia
in recent weeks, and we do not know what the outcome w i l l be. But we
did our job, we believe, i n providing that breathing space,, and we
believe that the more than 15,000 U.N. personnel there are doing
t h e i r s today.
So we must be selective, as I have j u s t said, and we
must also be more effective. The U.S. i s committed to strengthening
U.N. peacekeeping c a p a b i l i t i e s , because effective peacekeeping serves
both American and the world's c o l l e c t i v e interests. ' I t can produce
c o n f l i c t resolution and prevention, as on the Golan or i n E l
Salvador; i t can promote democracy as i t has i n Namibia and i n
Cambodia and, again, i n E l Salvador; and i t can serve our economic
interests as well, as for example i n the Persian Gulf.
And peacekeeping i s burden-sharing, which i s certainly
in our i n t e r e s t s . We pay l e s s than one-third of the costs of the
U.N. troops and U.N. operations, and l e s s than one percent of U.N.
troops i n the f i e l d are, i n fact, American.
While there are l i m i t s to peacekeeping, and even setbacks, as we'have seen i n Rwanda i n recent days, we have to be
careful never to overlook the impressive successes and the personal
courage that has been shown and i s being shown today by U.N.
peacekeepers around the world.
Since 1948, over 650,000 men and women from a l l over the
world have served i n U.N. missions, and over 1,000 have given t h e i r
l i v e s . For example, some 2 00 i n Southern Lebanon, over 70 in Bosnia,
100 i n Somalia, over 150 i n Cyprus. In Cambodia, Bulgarians and
Japanese and Chinese and Bangladeshis and others were victims of the
Khmer Rouge when.they attacked the U.N. peacekeepers trying to
oversee the elections there and make them possible. There were
s t o r i e s that I'm sure some of you. r e c a l l of v i l l a g e r s stuffing
messages into the b a l l o t boxes in Cambodia, thanking the U.N.
peacekeepers for what they were doing and imploring them to stay on.
In the Bosnian town of Bakovici, some of you may
remember that there were 100 patients i n a mental hospital that were
MORE
'
•
�v*.
- 3 -
trapped there without heat or e l e c t r i c i t y over the winter, and U.N.
peacekeepers were going i n , back and forth, bringing i n supplies to
the mental hospital across the l i n e s and getting f i r e d at from both
sides.
My point i s that i t i s easy for a l l of us, when there i s
a setback, to dismiss the U.N. and the peackeepers as a whole, and we
;must not do i t because i t does a disservice to the courage that they
are showing today and to the s a c r i f i c e s they have made i n the past.
Even so, because the needs for peacekeeping have outrun the resources
for peacekeeping, i t ' s important that we ask the tough questions
about when and where we w i l l support or participate i n such .
operations. And we are the f i r s t government, I believe, and t h i s i s
the f i r s t time i n the history of the U.S. government, I believe, that
we have cared and dared enough to do so and to ask those questions..
but i t i s
forces i s
fight and
and to do
Peacekeeping i s a part of our national security policy,
not the centerpiece. The primary purpose of our military
to fight and win wars. As i n our bottom-up review, to
win two major regional contingencies nearly simultaneously,
so u n i l a t e r a l l y when necessary.
I f peacekeeping operations ever conflicted with our
a b i l i t y to carry out those operations, we would p u l l put of the peace
operations to serve our primary military purposes. But we w i l l , as
the President has said many times, seek c o l l e c t i v e rather than
u n i l a t e r a l solutions to regional and intrastate c o n f l i c t s that don't
touch our core national interests. And we'll choose between
u n i l a t e r a l and c o l l e c t i v e approaches between the U.N. or other
coalitions depending on what works best and what best serves American
interests.
The policy review address s i x major issues. F i r s t ,
ensuring that we support the right operations; second, that we reduce
the cost of peacekeeping operations; t h i r d , that we improve U.N.
peacekeeping c a p a b i l i t i e s ; fourth, that we ensure e f f e c t i v e command
and control of American forces; f i f t h , that we improve the way the.
American government manages the issue of peacekeeping; and, sixth, to
enhance the cooperation between the Congress and the Executive
Branch.
,
Let me say j u s t a word about each. F i r s t , ensuring that
we support or participate only i n the right types of peacekeeping
operations. Not a l l such operations obviously make sense. We, as I
said, I believe, are the f i r s t nation to ask the tough questions now
at the U.N. before committing to costly new peacekeeping operations.
The President said that we would do so i n h i s General Assembly speech
l a s t f a l l , and we are, indeed, doing j u s t that.
We've developed two sets of questions i n the study to
determine when the United States f i r s t should vote for such
operations, and, secondly, when we should participate i n them. In
the u n c l a s s i f i e d document we've handed out, we have a complete l i s t
of those questions. They include such questions as: Does the
mission advance American interests? I s there a threat to
international peace and security? Does i t have a very c l e a r mandate?
does i t have.clear objectives? and, Are the forces and the funds
actually available for such an operation?
Secondly, we believe that we have to reduce the
peacekeeping costs both to the United States and for the United
Nations. Peacekeeping simply costs too much right now.
I t can be a
very good investment for us, but i t can be an even better investment
i f i t were l e s s costly. So, f i r s t , we are working to reduce the
American costs here. As the President has said, we are committed to
reducing our peacekeeping assessment to 25 percent by January, 1996,
and we believe that other newly r i c h countries should pay t h e i r f a i r
share.
MORE
�-4
- .
And, secondly, we a l l save when the costs of U.N.
peacekeeping operations are reduced generally. And we proposed i n
the study, have proposed already i n a number of cases, numerous
finance and budget management reforms to make U.N. peacekeeping
operations more e f f i c i e n t and cost-effective. For example, we would
l i k e to see a unified U.N. peacekeeping budget,, we would l i k e to see
better procurement procedures, and as a top p r i o r i t y and something we
are working on right now, we would l i k e to see a wholly independent
office of an inspector general with oversight over peacekeeping.
Third, we think we have to improve the U.N.'s
peacekeeping c a p a b i l i t i e s , and we are committed to doing t h i s . So
we're going to work with the U.N. and member states on steps to
improve the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations and i t s f i e l d
missions. For example, enhancing planning, l o g i s t i c s , procurement,
command and control, public a f f a i r s , intelligence, c i v i l i a n police
c a p a b i l i t i e s . And we w i l l lead an effort i n the U.N. to t r y to
redeploy resources within the U.N. system to fund these reforms.
Fourth — and t h i s i s tremendously important — we have
to ensure that there i s . e f f e c t i v e command and control of American
forces when they are engaged in peacekeeping operations. And I w i l l
ask General Wes Clark to address t h i s for a moment.
GENERAL CLARK: There has been a great deal of
discussion on the issue of command and control, and so l e t me begin
by laying out the definitions that are relevant here. F i r s t of all.,
by command what we're speaking of i s the constitutional authority to
establish and deploy forces: issue orders, separate and move units,
resupply, provide medical support, d i s c i p l i n e . The President w i l l
never relinquish command of United States forces; that i s inviolable.
Operational control i s a subset of command. Operational
control can be given for a s p e c i f i c time frame, for a s p e c i f i c
mission i n a p a r t i c u l a r location. Operational control may be the
assignment of tasks to already-deployed forces led by U.S. o f f i c e r s .
We may place the U.S. forces under the operational control of foreign
commanders. That's the d i s t i n c t i o n that's i n t h i s peace operations
document.
Now the involvement with foreign commanders, I would
t e l l you i s nothing new. In fact, that's the news of t h i s document,
i s that from the perspective of command and control, there i s nothing
new.
I n World War I , World War I I , throughout our experience with
NATO, i n operation Desert Storm, we've always had the a b i l i t y to task
organize and place some U.S. units under foreign operational control,
i f i t was advantageous to do so.
This PDD policy preserves our option to do that. We
w i l l be able to place U.S. forces under foreign op con when i t ' s
prudent or t a c t i c a l l y advantageous. I would t e l l you that as we look
at i t , the greater the U.S. military role, the more l i k e l y that the
operations involved e n t a i l combat, then the l e s s l i k e l y we are to
place those forces under foreign operational control.
Even were we to do so, fundamental elements would s t i l l
apply. The chain of command w i l l be inviolate. A l l of our
commanders w i l l have the capability to report to higher U.S.
authority. They'll report i l l e g a l orders or orders outside the
mandate that they've been authorized to perform to higher U.S.
authority i f they can't work those.out with the foreign commander on
the ground.
Of course, the President retains the authority to
terminate participation at any time to protect our forces. There's
no intent i n t h i s language to subvert an operational chain of
command. What we're trying to do i s achieve the best balance between
MORE
�- 5-
cohesive, trained, well established U.S. chains of command, and unity
of command i n an operation involving foreign forces i n a coalition or
some other grouping.
So that's the intent behind t h i s . And as I say, i t i s
no change from the way we've operated i n the past. I would also t e l l
you that our military has played a major role i n defining the command
and control aspects of t h i s PDD. I t ' s been thoroughly vetted i n the
Joint Chiefs of Staff system. I t ' s been reviewed and approved by the
Chiefs of Staff of our services, and by the commanders and chiefs of
our forces overseas.
Thank you.
MR. LAKE: Not done. More to come.
you ,into submission yet. (Laughter.)
I have'not bored
We've done four, we have two to go.
Also, we think i t i s important that we improve the
American government's management of peacekeeping. We think that
because peacekeeping — as we have seen, i s both important and
complex and dangerous — that the perspective of our m i l i t a r y and
defense leaders should be brought more to bear i n i t . So we
concluded that the Department of Defense should j o i n State i n the
State Department i n assuming both policy and f i n a n c i a l responsibility
for appropriate peace operations — what we c a l l shared
responsibility.
You w i l l not be surprised to know that each was more
anxious for the policy responsibility than the f i n a n c i a l
responsibility, but i t has been worked out, we think, very well.
The State Department w i l l both manage and pay for
t r a d i t i o n a l , non-combat peacekeeping operations, i . e . , under Chapter
Six of the c h a r t e r — when there are not American combat units
involved, and t h i s represents, by far, the greatest number of such
operations.
The Defense Department w i l l manage and pay for a l l peace
enforcement operations under Chapter Seven of the charter. For
example, i n Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, and Kuwait now, and those
t r a d i t i o n a l peacekeeping operations under Chapter Six i n which there
are American combat units.
We believe that t h i s shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y w i l l not only
mean better management, but w i l l help us to solve the long-term
funding problem that we face i n peacekeeping. , e s t i l l have an
W
immediate arrears problem i n our peacekeeping debts, and without new
funding, the American arrearage w i l l be over $1 b i l l i o n by the end of
t h i s f i s c a l year, the end of September. And the President i s very
committed to paying off t h i s debt, and he and we are working very
closely with the Congress now to devise means for doing so.
And, f i n a l l y , i n the study, we have worked to recognize
the need to improve the relationships and the consultations between
the Executive Branch and the Congress on peacekeeping operations.
And we're going to take a number of steps to improve the information
flow between the administration and the Congress on these issues.
In short, the policy i s designed to impose more
d i s c i p l i n e on the U.N. and on ourselves so that peacekeeping w i l l be
a more effective c o l l e c t i v e security tool for American foreign
policy. This i s a new era, we are a l l learning how to come to grips
with the new problems that i t presents to us. But there i s no doubt
in my mind that peacekeeping offers a very important way of making
sure that today's problems don't become tomorrow's c r i s e s , because
MORE
�- 6 -
those c r i s e s w i l l cost us a l o t more in the long run than the
peacekeeping does right now.
This i s an important — not the most important, but an
important part of our national security policy, and i t i s very, very
important that the United Nations and that we get i t right, and
that's what t h i s study i s about.
Q
I s there a big difference now between the policy
you've enunciated and one we've been following? How does i t apply to
Bosnia and Haiti?
MR. LAKE: The essence of the policy i s what we have
been following since approximately I say l a s t f a l l , late l a s t summer
when we began to ask the harder questions at the U.N. and to try to
work more closely with the Congress, et cetera. And many of the
reforms that we're talking about at the U.N. in fact are already
underway, as i n t h e i r having established a situation center which
allows now the U.N. for 24 hours ^a day to be i n touch with i t s
peacekeeping operations, which i s not the case before.
So many of these things we've been doing before. This
p u l l s i t a l l together, lays i t out in more d e t a i l , and I think
expresses also a philosophy of doing t h i s that we have been talking
about, but not in as coherent, I think, a fashion before.
Q
How would t h i s apply to H a i t i vs. Rwanda, l e t ' s
say? How do your principles apply in practice? And can you respond
to Bob Dole who made a speech about a half-hour ago, arguing very
forcefully against U.S. military action in Haiti?
MR. LAKE: The question of American military action in
H a i t i remains a hypothetical one, and I would prefer not to turn t h i s
into a discussion of that. Let me, though, use Haiti as an example
of one d i s t i n c t i o n here, because I think there's been some confusion
about i t .
When the effort was made l a s t f a l l to send in a training
mission into H a i t i , i t was not a peace enforcement operation. I t was
not an e f f o r t to fight our way into Haiti i n order to bring peace to
H a i t i , i t was a U.N. peacekeeping operation designed to t r a i n the
Haitian military, which required the consent and, in fact, i t had the
request of the Haitian military to go i n . And.then when they changed
t h e i r mind, i t was not an invasion for a — fight i t s way .ashore.
Today we read in the papers of two different kinds, now,
of p o s s i b i l i t i e s before us. One i s that same U.N. mission, perhaps
reconfigured in ways to make i t relevant to what H a i t i could look
l i k e a f t e r we make progress towards a p o l i t i c a l settlement, and the
other to what Haiti could look l i k e after we make progress towards a
p o l i t i c a l settlement. And the other would be a m i l i t a r y action of
some kind to bring about the change in H a i t i that would allow then
such a U.N. mission to get on board.
And, as I said, the — both of them right now are
hypothetical and certainly the option of a forceful move into Haiti
has not been ruled out by the President. But equally, he has not
made a decision to do so.
Q
But the question was how does t h i s policy help you
to distinguish between H a i t i and Rwanda i n terms of U.S. interests?
MR. LAKE: Well, the policy cannot t e l l you what
American interests are in every situation around the world, or t h i s
would be the Manhattan telephone book. What the policy can do i s to
t e l l you very c l e a r l y the kinds of questions — questions, not the
answers necessarily — but the questions that we should be asking
ourselves as we consider whether to take part in a U.N. operation, or
MORE
�- 7-
indeed, in many ways, whether to act u n i l a t e r a l l y . And those
questions are l a i d out for you i n the document that we have handed
out, and they are questions that we are asking ourselves as we think
about the issue, and I have no doubt they are questions that you w i l l
asking us.
Q
How does t h i s help you to draw a d i s t i n c t i o n
between the command and operational control i n a s i t u a t i o n such as
you,have i n Bosnia where a U.N. o f f i c i a l on the ground stops the U.N.
and NATO from acting when they wanted bombing support and couldn't
get i t ? I'd l i k e to have t h i s on camera.
MR. LAKE:
Q
Want to try again?
Just answer.
I'm not worried about the
question.
MR. LAKE: What t h i s document refers to i s the question
of command and operational control of American forces when they are
under the operational control of a non-American commander. And that
i s not the case in Bosnia —
Q
We've got NATO forces working for the U.N. —
MR. LAKE: No, the NATO forces do not work for the U.N.,
The NATO forces are acting pursuant to U.N. authorities, but the
chain of both operational control and command of the American forces
involved -- which are our a i r forces — are under NATO command, not
U.N. command — or under NATO operational control and under American
command, and as i t happens, the NATO commanders who exercise that
operational control are, for most of the chain of command, Americans.
So that i s not a case that applies, in answering your question about
U.N. operational control over American commanders.
Q
The U.N. frustrates the use of force i n that
situation.
MR. LAKE: The;U.N.?
Q
Frustrated-the use force in that s i t u a t i o n .
MR. LAKE: Weil, we believe that the procedures within
the U.N. i n t h i s peacekeeping operation have improved over the l a s t
few months. And I think i f you compare the requests for close a i r
support that were made l a s t February and March, i t took a l o t longer
for the U.N. to decide than i t has recently.
There was a case in Gorazde, arid there have been some
t a c t i c a l cases — one or two since — in which NATO said, we are
prepared to act, and the U.N. said, the l o c a l U.N. o f f i c i a l s said for
t h e i r own reasons, and they could be good or bad — we disagreed i n
one case — that i t would better not to use the NATO a i r s t r i k e s now.
As you w i l l r e c a l l , then Boutros-Ghali, Secretary
General Boutros-Ghali made a statement saying that i f the Bosnian
Serbs were to v i o l a t e i n s i g n i f i c a n t ways the Gorazde or other U.N.
zones, that he would c a l l for the a i r s t r i k e s . And you may also
r e c a l l that i f there i s a disagreement now at the l o c a l l e v e l , then
that disagreement can be kicked up the chain of command u n t i l higher
authorities can resolve i t .
So we believe that t h i s w i l l not be a major problem in
the future, even when there may be a t a c t i c a l disagreement.
Q
Could you please t e l l me, as you mentioned only one
percent of —
MR. LAKE:
Did you have anything else?
MORE
�• f
•
- 8 -
Q
No, I think that's a l l .
Q
— i n general as well, only one percent of
Americans now serve as peacekeepers.
MR. LAKE:
Well, one percent of peacekeepers that are
Americans.
Q
— peacekeepers are now Americans,
to increase as a result of the PDD?
I s that l i k e l y
MR. LAKE: Let me f i r s t make another distinction,
because, i n fact, i f you look not at the U.N. peacekeeping operations
per se, but at a range of operations around the world that are
pursuant to U.N. resolutions, then you have some 65,000,
I believe - - i s that right — 69,000 — okay. They've got uniforms.
Anyway, between 65,000 and 69,000 Americans serving i n such
operations and provide comfort or — around the world.
So there's already a^significant number of — i n
Korea — Americans doing t h i s . As a r e s u l t of the study, I can
honestly not give you an answer to that, because I think i t depends
on the operations, on frankly how we do f i n a n c i a l l y i n gaining the
resources from the Congress for such operations, which the President
feels very strongly about, and i n whether the kinds of c o n f l i c t s we
look at over the coming years f i t or do not f i t the kind of c r i t e r i a
that we lay out here.
This study i s not a. c r y s t a l b a l l , i t i s a roadmap. I t
t e l l s you how to think about these issues so that you know how we, as
we release t h i s now, are thinking and what the c r i t e r i a are that
we'll be using, and I think that's a s i g n i f i c a n t contribution.
Q , I f , indeed, you have l a i d out these new c r i t e r i a
for when the United States w i l l approve the peacekeeping operations,
could you j u s t t e l l us of the 18 existing peacekeeping operations
which, i f any of them, would currently qualify under t h i s new U.S.
criteria?
of the —
don't —
MR. LAKE: I think that most of them certainly do. One
and I don't want to decide from here which do and which
Q
Please do, because i t ' s very germane.
MR. LAKE: What we have been doing — what we have been
doing i s to say that — t h i s i s not the i n t e l l e c t u a l climate
what
we have been doing i s to say that i n new peacekeeping operations or
when existing peacekeeping operations are rolled over that we want to
see some sort of sunset provisions i n them. What we. are saying i s
that we want to have either terminal points or —
Q
What have you done?
(Laughter.)
MR. LAKE: — l i s t e n , we'll do anything to keep you
a l e r t — ( l a u g h t e r ) — terminal points or clear c r i t e r i a for how to
decide i n the terms of that mention when i t s end point has been
reached. And i n terms of taking a hard look at them, there are a
number of cases already, for example, i n which a hard look has led to
a change i n how the operation w i l l be continued, for example, i n
Mozambique when we said, okay, i f you want to increase the police
component i n the Mozambique peacekeeping operation, then to keep i n
the same general f i n a n c i a l parameters you have to reduce the military
component.
So I think i t ' l l tend to be s p e c i f i c to each operation.
The important thing i s that i n the terms of each operation i n
r e f l e c t i n g these questions that we have before we go i n or before we
. MORE
�- 9-
sign up for an extension, that we know when i t w i l l end or how we
w i l l know that i t has ended. And we could go over each one and
discuss those different ones.
Q
I wanted to ask about the f i n a n c i a l aspect of i t .
You talked about moving the budgeting under both departments. I s
there some thought that you'll have an easier time getting money i f
i t ' s called Defense money than State Department money? I s that what
you're saying?
MR. LAKE: No, t h i s was not designed to find easier ways
on the H i l l , because both kinds of money are pretty hard to come by
now. I t i s designed to have a more rational system, both of managing
and funding these operations. I t ' s going to take hard work on the
H i l l , and one of the reasons why the President called i n
congressional leadership a couple of weeks ago was to t a l k
s p e c i f i c a l l y about the importance to American foreign policy,
providing the resources not only for the defense budget generally i n
which he has fought hard, but on peacekeeping s p e c i f i c a l l y .
Q
Do you'have any figures on how much of a s h i f t i s
involved here? How much additional money would the Defense
Department need into t h e i r budget to carry out peacekeeping
operations that they do not now have to carry out?
MR. LAKE:
million a year.
Probably run on the order of more than $.500
Q
What's your response to Republicans who, i n fact,
say that you're using the Defense Department as — you're reducing
defense spending to s h i f t what amounts to State Department spending
into the defense budget — t h i s i s a charge being made by Dole,
Gingrich, others, that t h i s i s a suspicious ploy by the White House
to make i t look l i k e you r e a l l y have a decent defense budget when
you're gutting true defense to put i n mushy peacekeeping —
MR. LAKE: Not exactly the way I was putting i t . Well,
I think he's wrong. What t h i s w i l l do i n the out years i s to have up
front the creation of a so-called "CIPA," for the Defense Department
into which peacekeeping money w i l l go. Everybody w i l l know what i t
i s , i t w i l l be appropriated by the Congress. I n fact, i t w i l l be a
better way of not slipping money around.
Let me state to you absolutely, c l e a r l y , that the
President of the United States has said that one.of h i s top
p r i o r i t i e s as he fights for no further cuts i n the defense budget i s
to preserve the readiness of our forces. And we w i l l not repeat the
mistakes of the 1970s and do anything that w i l l lead to a hollow
army. That would be a tremendous mistake.
Let me r e c a l l for you what I said i n my statement, which
i s that the central mission of our Armed Forces i s to be prepared and
able to fight and win wars, and to fight them and win them
u n i l a t e r a l l y when our direct interests are challenged and that i s
required; and we are not going to do anything to change that.
Q
Were you saying i n response-to B i l l ' s question that
the l a t e s t directive r e a l l y doesn't apply i n the case of Bosnia, that
-- because of the altered chain of command?
MR. LAKE: No, no, I was saying not at a l l that i t
doesn't apply to Bosnia, of course i t does. I t applies to a l l
current and potential peacekeeping operations. . What I was saying was
that i t didn't give an answer to the s p e c i f i c question of the command
relationship or the relationship between NATO and the U.N. i n Bosnia,
which i s a much larger question than the one addressed here of
whether Americans participate or we support these things.
MORE
�I J'
- 10 -
Q
Given that, and given what I suppose you might
argue, but the limited success of the peacekeeping operation in
Bosnia, would you ask for changes?
MR. LAKE:
or
In t h e i r command and control structures,
—
Q
In the peacekeeping operation i n Bosnia i n general,
to r e f l e c t the new directive.
MR. LAKE: Well, we have been pleased, for example,
because Bosnia was one of the cases, Somalia was another, where i t
bothered us that before they had the 24-hour situation center, that
there were l i t e r a l l y times when the local people could not reach the
U.N. i n New York because nobody was answering the phone.
Now, the phones are answered. We think that has been an
improvement. I f you look at the — and i t was a serious problem
because they needed the authorities from New York often to act. I f
you look at the behavior of UNPROFOR forces on the ground now, you
w i l l see, I believe, a more vigorous pattern of action than we —
we're seeing i f you.compare i t , for example, with a year ago. A
Danish unit was attacked by Bosnian Serb gunners a few days ago, and
the Danish tanks responded very vigorously, i n f l i c t e d casualties on
the Bosnian Serbs, acquitted themselves well, and protected
themselves. And they — a l l U.N. peacekeepers, whether under Chapter
6 or Chapter 7, have the r i g h t of self-defense, and they exercised
it.
Q
Could I please follow? Are you saying, then, that
the limited effectiveness of the operation i n Bosnia should be judged
as changing now because of the actions of past few days or weeks,
sir?
MR. LAKE:
I'm sorry, I don't understand.
Q
The Serbs have run amok i n that country. Are you
saying that now we should judge i t on the basis of the Danish
peacekeepers having fought back over the past few days or weeks?
MR. LAKE: I ' l l make t h i s brief, because you've heard me
on t h i s subject before. I would ask you to compare the situation on
the ground i n Bosnia today and the situation on the ground i n Bosnia
five months ago. And i f you look at the situation around Sarajevo,
around Mostar, around Tuzla, around Maglaj, i t i s f a r better than i t
was then. That i s a fact. There are, as the President said the
other day, there are people a l i v e today i n Sarajevo,, i n Mostar, i n
Maglaj and elsewhere, who would not be a l i v e today i f the situation
had not improved. And i t improved because the President and the
United States pushed and led NATO into taking actions that i t had not
previously taken, never before i n i t s history, to push for those
improvements.
I s i t a l l the improvements that we would l i k e ? No. But
i t i s progress. And that progress on the ground, we hope, i n a very
— s t i l l a very uncertain, unsettled and dangerous situation. But
that progress on the ground, we hope, can then lead to progress i n
diplomacy, which can f i n a l l y bring a settlement to t h i s t e r r i b l e
problem.
Q
Can I ask you a question about the case i n
Singapore? The President said on three separate occasions that he
didn't want to see that kid caned. And, yet, when Singapore went
ahead and did i t , the response from the State Department was.to
express disappointment. Why the lack of a more robust response to
what amounts to a rebuff to the President, or i s another shoe going
to f a l l here?
MORE
�i t
- 11 -
MR. LAKE: I ' l l work hard on the connection to
peacekeeping here but — i n any case, I think the State Department
addressed that. They went, I believe, beyond the issuance of a
simple statement.
Q
Can you t e l l me the circumstances under which
American troops would be under t h i s plan i n combat under foreign
command?
MR. LAKE: Never under foreign commanders. I can
foresee p o s s i b i l i t i e s , certainly, into which they are under foreign
operational control. That may sound l i k e a shocking statement, but
in fact that has happened repeatedly i n Desert Storm, i n Korea, World
War I I , World War I ; and indeed, I'm told, that at Yorktown,
Americans were under the operational control of French commanders;
and right now i n Macedonia with the Nordics, so —
MS. MYERS:
MR. LAKE:
THE PRESS:
We have to go, so thank you.
Thanks very much.
Thank you.
END
3:55 P.M. EDT
�THE WHITE HOUSE
O f f i c e o f t h e Press S e c r e t a r y
(New York, New York)
For Immediate Release
October 22, 1995
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY
General Assembly H a l l
U n i t e d Nations Headquarters
New York, New York
10:30
A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. P r e s i d e n t , Mr. S e c r e t a r y General,
e x c e l l e n c i e s , d i s t i n g u i s h e d guests. This week t h e U n i t e d N a t i o n s
i s 50 years o l d . The dreams o f i t s founders have n o t been f u l l y
r e a l i z e d , b u t i t s promise endures.
The v a l u e o f t h e U n i t e d
N a t i o n s can be seen t h e w o r l d over -- i n t h e n o u r i s h e d bodies o f
o n c e - s t a r v i n g c h i l d r e n ; i n t h e f u l l l i v e s o f those immunized
a g a i n s t disease; i n t h e eyes o f s t u d e n t s eager t o l e a r n ; i n t h e
environment s u s t a i n e d , t h e refugees saved, t h e peace k e p t ; and
most r e c e n t l y , i n s t a n d i n g up f o r t h e human r i g h t s and human
p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f women and t h e i r c h i l d r e n a t t h e B e i j i n g
Conference.
The U n i t e d Nations i s t h e p r o d u c t o f f a i t h and knowledge:
F a i t h t h a t d i f f e r e n t peoples can work t o g e t h e r f o r t o l e r a n c e ,
decency and peace; knowledge t h a t t h i s f a i t h w i l l be f o r e v e r
t e s t e d by t h e f o r c e s o f i n t o l e r a n c e , d e p r a v i t y and a g g r e s s i o n .
Now we must summon t h a t f a i t h and a c t on t h a t knowledge t o meet
the c h a l l e n g e s o f a new era.
I n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s some people ask, why should we b o t h e r
w i t h t h e U.N.; America i s s t r o n g ; we can go i t alone. W e l l , we
w i l l a c t i f we have t o alone. But my f e l l o w Americans s h o u l d n o t
f o r g e t t h a t our values and our i n t e r e s t s a r e a l s o served by
w o r k i n g w i t h t h e U.N.
The U.N. helps t h e peacemakers, t h e care p r o v i d e r s , t h e
defenders o f freedom and human r i g h t s , t h e a r c h i t e c t s o f economic
�p r o s p e r i t y , and t h e p r o t e c t o r s o f our p l a n e t t o spread t h e r i s k ,
share t h e burden and i n c r e a s e t h e impact o f our common e f f o r t s .
Last year I pledged t h a t t h e U n i t e d States would c o n t i n u e
t o c o n t r i b u t e s u b s t a n t i a l l y t o t h e U.N.'s f i n a n c e s .
H i s t o r i c a l l y , t h e U n i t e d States has been, and today i t remains,
the l a r g e s t c o n t r i b u t o r t o t h e U n i t e d Nations.. But I am
determined t h a t we must f u l l y meet our o b l i g a t i o n s , and I am
w o r k i n g w i t h our Congress on a p l a n t o do so.
A l l who c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e U.N.'s work and care about i t s
f u t u r e must a l s o be committed t o r e f o r m
t o ending b u r e a u c r a t i c
i n e f f i c i e n c i e s and o u t d a t e d p r i o r i t i e s .
The U.N. must be able t o
show t h a t t h e money i t r e c e i v e s supports s a v i n g and e n r i c h i n g
people's l i v e s , n o t unneeded overhead. Reform r e q u i r e s b r e a k i n g
up b u r e a u c r a t i c f i e f d o m , e l i m i n a t i n g o b s o l e t e agencies, and doing
more w i t h l e s s . The U.N. must r e f o r m t o remain r e l e v a n t and t o
p l a y a s t i l l s t r o n g e r r o l e i n t h e march o f freedom, peace, and
prosperity.
We see i t around t h e w o r l d i n t h e Middle East and N o r t h e r n
I r e l a n d -- people t u r n i n g from a v i o l e n t past t o a f u t u r e o f
peace; and South A f r i c a and H a i t i -- l o n g n i g h t s and f e a r s have
g i v e n way t o new days o f freedom. Throughout t h i s hemisphere,
every n a t i o n except one has chosen democracy, and t h e goal o f an
i n t e g r a t e d , p e a c e f u l and democratic Europe i s now w i t h i n o u r
reach f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e . I n t h e Balkans, t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l
community's d e t e r m i n a t i o n and NATO's r e s o l v e have made p r o s p e c t s
f o r peace b r i g h t e r than they have been f o r f o u r long years.
Let me s a l u t e t h e U.N.'s e f f o r t s on b e h a l f o f t h e people
of Bosnia. The n a t i o n s t h a t took p a r t i n UNPROFOR kept t h e t o l l
of t h i s t e r r i b l e war and l i v e s l o s t , wounds l e f t unhealed,
c h i l d r e n l e f t unfed from being f a r graver s t i l l .
Next week, t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e war i n Bosnia w i l l meet i n
Dayton, Ohio, under t h e auspices o f t h e U n i t e d States and our
Contact Group p a r t n e r s -- Russia, t h e U n i t e d Kingdom, France and
Germany -- t o i n t e n s i f y t h e search f o r peace. Many fundamental
d i f f e r e n c e s remain.
But I urge t h e p a r t i e s t o s e i z e t h i s chance
f o r a s e t t l e m e n t . I f they achieve peace, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s w i l l
be t h e r e w i t h our f r i e n d s and a l l i e s t o h e l p secure i t .
A l l over t h e w o r l d , people yearn t o l i v e i n peace. And
t h a t dream i s becoming a r e a l i t y .
But our time i s n o t f r e e o f
p e r i l . As t h e Cold War gives way t o t h e g l o b a l v i l l a g e , t o o many
people remain v u l n e r a b l e t o p o v e r t y , disease and
underdevelopment. And a l l o f us who are exposed t o e t h n i c and
r e l i g i o u s h a t r e d , t h e r e c k l e s s aggression o f rogue s t a t e s ,
�t e r r o r i s m , o r g a n i z e d crime, drug t r a f f i c k i n g , the p r o l i f e r a t i o n
o f weapons o f mass d e s t r u c t i o n .
The emergence of the i n f o r m a t i o n and t e c h n o l o g y age has
b r o u g h t us a l l c l o s e r t o g e t h e r and g i v e n us e x t r a o r d i n a r y
o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o b u i l d a b e t t e r f u t u r e . But i n our g l o b a l
v i l l a g e , progress can spread q u i c k l y , but t r o u b l e can, t o o .
Trouble on the f a r end of town soon becomes a plague on
everyone's house. We can't f r e e our own neighborhoods from
d r u g - r e l a t e d crime w i t h o u t the h e l p o f c o u n t r i e s where t h e drugs
are produced.
We can't t r a c k down t e r r o r i s t s w i t h o u t a s s i s t a n c e
from o t h e r governments. We can't prosper or p r e s e r v e our
environment unless s u s t a i n a b l e development i s a r e a l i t y f o r a l l
n a t i o n s . And our v i g i l a n c e alone can't keep n u c l e a r weapons
s t o r e d h a l f a w o r l d away from f a l l i n g i n t o the wrong hands.
Nowhere i s c o o p e r a t i o n more v i t a l than i n f i g h t i n g the
i n c r e a s i n g l y i n t e r c o n n e c t e d groups t h a t t r a f f i c i n t e r r o r ,
o r g a n i z e d crime, drug smuggling and the spread o f weapons o f mass
d e s t r u c t i o n . No one i s immune -- not the people o f Japan, where
t e r r o r i s t s unleash nerve gas i n the subway and p o i s o n thousands;
not the people of L a t i n America or Southeast A s i a , where drug
t r a f f i c k e r s w i e l d i n g i m p o r t e d weapons have murdered judges,
j o u t n a l i s t s , p o l i c e o f f i c e r s and i n n o c e n t passersby; not the
people o f I s r a e l and France, where hatemongers have blown up
buses and t r a i n s f u l l o f c h i l d r e n w i t h s u i t c a s e bombs made from
smuggled e x p l o s i v e s ; not the people o f the former S o v i e t Union
and C e n t r a l Europe, where o r g a n i z e d c r i m i n a l s seek t o weaken new
democracies and prey on decent, hard-working men and women. And
not the people o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s , where homegrown t e r r o r i s t s
blew o f . a f e d e r a l b u i l d i n g i n the h e a r t o f America and f o r e i g n
t e r r o r i s t s t r i e d t o t o p p l e the World Trade Center and p l o t t e d t o
d e s t r o y the v e r y h a l l we gather i n today.
These f o r c e s j e o p a r d i z e the g l o b a l t r e n d toward peace and
freedom, undermine f r a g i l e new democracies, sap the s t r e n g t h from
d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s , t h r e a t e n our e f f o r t s t o b u i l d a s a f e r , more
prosperous w o r l d .
So today I c a l l upon a l l n a t i o n s t o j o i n us i n the f i g h t
a g a i n s t them. 'Our common e f f o r t s can produce r e s u l t s .
To reduce
the t h r e a t o f weapons o f mass d e s t r u c t i o n , we are w o r k i n g w i t h
Russia t o reduce our n u c l e a r a r s e n a l s by t w o - t h i r d s .
We
s u p p o r t e d Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus i n removing n u c l e a r
weapons from t h e i r s o i l .
We worked w i t h the s t a t e s of the former
S o v i e t Union t o safeguard n u c l e a r m a t e r i a l s and c o n v e r t them t o
p e a c e f u l use. N o r t h Korea has agreed t o f r e e z e i t s n u c l e a r
program under i n t e r n a t i o n a l m o n i t o r i n g . Many o f the n a t i o n s i n
�t h i s room succeeded i n g e t t i n g t h e i n d e f i n i t e e x t e n s i o n o f t h e
nonproliferation treaty.
To stem t h e f l o w o f n a r c o t i c s and stop t h e spread o f
o r g a n i z e d crime, we are c o o p e r a t i n g w i t h many n a t i o n s , s h a r i n g
i n f o r m a t i o n , p r o v i d i n g m i l i t a r y support, i n i t i a t i n g
a n t i c o r r u p t i o n e f f o r t s . And r e s u l t s are coming. With Colombian
a u t h o r i t i e s , we have cracked down on t h e c a r t e l s t h a t c o n t r o l t h e
world's cocaine market. Two years ago, they l i v e d as
b i l l i o n a i r e s , beyond t h e law; now many are l i v i n g as p r i s o n e r s
behind b a r s .
To take on t e r r o r i s t s , we m a i n t a i n s t r o n g s a n c t i o n s
a g a i n s t s t a t e s t h a t sponsor t e r r o r i s m and defy t h e r u l e o f law,
such as I r a n , I r a q , Libya and Sudan. We ask them today again t o
t u r n f r o m . t h a t p a t h . Meanwhile, we i n c r e a s e our own law
enforcement e f f o r t s and our c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h o t h e r n a t i o n s .
N o t h i n g we do w i l l make us i n v u l n e r a b l e , b u t we c a l l a l l
can become l e s s v u l n e r a b l e i f we work t o g e t h e r . That i s why
today I am announcing new i n i t i a t i v e s t o f i g h t i n t e r n a t i o n a l
o r g a n i z e d crime, drug t r a f f i c k i n g , t e r r o r i s m and t h e spread o f
weapons o f mass d e s t r u c t i o n -- i n i t i a t i v e s we can take on our own
and o t h e r s we hope we w i l l take t o g e t h e r i n t h e form o f an
i n t e r n a t i o n a l d e c l a r a t i o n t o promote t h e s a f e t y o f t h e w o r l d ' s
citizens.
F i r s t , t h e steps we w i l l t a k e : Yesterday, I d i r e c t e d our
government t o i d e n t i f y and p u t on n o t i c e n a t i o n s t h a t t o l e r a t e
money l a u n d e r i n g . C r i m i n a l e n t e r p r i s e s are moving v a s t sums o f
i l l - g o t t e n gains t h r o u g h t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l f i n a n c i a l system w i t h
a b s o l u t e i m p u n i t y . We must n o t a l l o w them t o wash t h e b l o o d o f f
p r o f i t s from t h e s a l e o f drugs from t e r r o r o r o r g a n i z e d crimes.
Nations should b r i n g t h e i r banks and f i n a n c i a l systems i n t o
c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l antimoney- l a u n d e r i n g
standards.
We w i l l work t o h e l p them t o do so. And i f t h e y
r e f u s e , we w i l l consider a p p r o p r i a t e s a n c t i o n s .
Next, I d i r e c t e d our government t o i d e n t i f y t h e f r o n t
companies and t o f r e e z e t h e assets o f t h e l a r g e s t drug r i n g i n
the w o r l d -- t h e C a l l C a r t e l -- t o c u t o f f i t s economic l i f e l i n e s
and stop our own people from d e a l i n g unknowingly w i t h i t s
companies.
F i n a l l y , I have i n s t r u c t e d t h e J u s t i c e Department t o
prepare l e g i s l a t i o n t o p r o v i d e our o t h e r agencies w i t h t h e 'tools
they need t o respond t o o r g a n i z e d c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y .
�But because we must win t h i s b a t t l e t o g e t h e r , I now i n v i t e
every c o u n t r y t o j o i n i n n e g o t i a t i n g and e n d o r s i n g a d e c l a r a t i o n
on i n t e r n a t i o n a l crime and c i t i z e n s a f e t y ; a d e c l a r a t i o n which
would f i r s t i n c l u d e a no sanctuary pledge, so t h a t we c o u l d say
t o g e t h e r t o o r g a n i z e d c r i m i n a l s , t e r r o r i s t s , drug t r a f f i c k e r s and
smugglers, you have nowhere t o run
and nowhere t o h i d e .
Second, a c o u n t e r t e r r o r i s m p a c t , so t h a t we would t o g e t h e r
urge more s t a t e s t o r a t i f y e x i s t i n g a n t i t e r r o r i s m t r e a t i e s , and
work w i t h us t o shut down the grey markets t h a t o u t f i t t e r r o r i s t s
and c r i m i n a l s w i t h f i r e a r m s and f a l s e documents.
T h i r d , an a n t i n a r c o t i c s o f f e n s i v e . The i n t e r n a t i o n a l drug
t r a d e poisons people, breeds v i o l e n c e , t e a r s at the moral f a b r i c
of our s o c i e t y . We must i n t e n s i f y a c t i o n a g a i n s t the c a r t e l s and
the d e s t r u c t i o n of drug crops. And we, i n consumer n a t i o n s l i k e
the U n i t e d S t a t e s , must decrease demand f o r drugs.
Fourth, an e f f e c t i v e p o l i c e f o r c e p a r t n e r s h i p .
I n t e r n a t i o n a l c r i m i n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s t a r g e t n a t i o n s whose law
enforcement agencies l a c k the experience and c a p a c i t y t o s t o p
them. To h e l p p o l i c e i n the new democracies o f C e n t r a l Europe,
Hungary and the U n i t e d States e s t a b l i s h e d an i n t e r n a t i o n a l law
enforcement academy i n Budapest. Now we should c o n s i d e r a
network o f c e n t e r s a l l around the w o r l d t o share the l a t e s t
c r i m e - f i g h t i n g techniques and t e c h n o l o g y .
F i f t h , we need an i l l e g a l arms and deadly m a t e r i a l s
c o n t r o l e f f o r t t h a t we a l l p a r t i c i p a t e i n . . A package t h e s i z e o f
a c h i l d ' s l u n c h bag h e l d the poison gas used t o t e r r o r i z e Tokyo.
A lump o f p l u t o n i u m no b i g g e r than a soda can i s enough t o make
an atomic bomb. B u i l d i n g on e f f o r t s a l r e a d y underway w i t h t h e
s t a t e s o f t h e former S o v i e t Union and w i t h our G-7 p a r t n e r s , we
w i l l seek t o b e t t e r account f o r , s t o r e , and safeguard m a t e r i a l s
w i t h massive d e s t r u c t i v e power. We should s t r e n g t h e n t h e
B i o l o g i c a l Weapons Convention, pass the comprehensive t e s t ban
t r e a t y n e x t year, and u l t i m a t e l y e l i m i n a t e the deadly scourge o f
l a n d mines. We must press o t h e r c o u n t r i e s and our own Congress
t o r a t i f y the Chemical Weapons Convention, and t o i n t e n s i f y our
e f f o r t s t o combat the g l o b a l i l l e g a l arms network t h a t f u e l s
t e r r o r i s m , equips drug c a r t e l s , and p r o l o n g s deadly c o n f l i c t s .
This i s a f u l l and c h a l l e n g i n g agenda, but we must
complete i t and we must do i t t o g e t h e r .
F i f t y years ago, as the conference t h a t gave b i r t h t o t h e
U n i t e d N a t i o n s got underway i n San F r a n c i s c o , a young American
war hero recorded h i s impressions of t h a t event f o r a newspaper.
"The average G.I. i n the s t r e e t doesn't seem t o have a v e r y
�c l e a r - c u t c o n c e p t i o n o f what t h i s meeting's about," wrote t h e
young John F. Kennedy. But one bemedaled Marine sergeant gave
the g e n e r a l r e a c t i o n when he s a i d , " I don't know much about
what's g o i n g on, b u t i f they j u s t f i x i t so we don't have t o
f i g h t anymore, they can count me i n . "
W e l l , t h e U n i t e d Nations has n o t ended war, b u t i t has
made i t l e s s l i k e l y , and helped many n a t i o n s t o t u r n from war t o
peace. The U n i t e d Nations has n o t stopped human s u f f e r i n g , b u t
i t has healed t h e wounds and lengthened t h e l i v e s o f m i l l i o n s o f
human b e i n g s . The U n i t e d Nations has n o t banished r e p r e s s i o n or
p o v e r t y from t h e E a r t h , b u t i t has advanced t h e cause o f freedom
and p r o s p e r i t y on every c o n t i n e n t . The U n i t e d N a t i o n s has n o t
been a l l t h a t we wished i t would be, b u t i t has been a f o r c e f o r
good and a bulwark a g a i n s t e v i l .
So a t h e dawn o f a new c e n t u r y so f u l l o f promise, y e t
plagued by p e r i l , we s t i l l need t h e U n i t e d N a t i o n s . And so, f o r
another 50 years and beyond, you can count t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i n .
Thank you v e r y much.
(Applause.)
END
11:44 A.M.
EDT
�THE WHITE HOUSE
O f f i c e of the Press Secretary
(New York, New York)
For Immediate Release
September 26, 1994
ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT THE 4 9TH SESSION OF THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY
The United Nations B u i l d i n g
New York, New York
11:00 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT:
Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General,
d i s t i n g u i s h e d delegates.
F i r s t , l e t me congratulate you, Mr.
President, on your e l e c t i o n as President of the 49th General
Assembly. The American people look forward t o working w i t h you t o
celebrate the United Nations 50th anniversary.
We meet today i n a time of great hope and change. The end
of the Cold War, the explosion of technology and trade and
e n t e r p r i s e have given people the world over new o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o
l i v e up t o t h e i r dreams and t h e i r God-given p o t e n t i a l . This i s an
age of hope.
Yet, i n t h i s new world, we face a contest as o l d as h i s t o r y
-- a s t r u g g l e between freedom and tyranny,- between tolerance and
b i g o t r y ; between knowledge and ignorance; between openness and
isolation.
I t i s a f i g h t between those who would b u i l d free
s o c i e t i e s governed by laws and those who would impose t h e i r w i l l
by force.
Our s t r u g g l e today, i n a world more high-tech, more
fast-moving, more c h a o t i c a l l y diverse than ever, i s the age-old
f i g h t between hope and fear.
Three times i n t h i s century, from the trenches of the
Sotnmes t o the i s l a n d of Iwojima, t o the shattered w a l l of B e r l i n ,
the forces o f hope were v i c t o r i o u s . But the v i c t o r s of World War
I squandered t h e i r triumph when the turned inward, b r i n g i n g on a
global depression and a l l o w i n g fascism t o r i s e , and r e i g n i t i n g
global war.
A f t e r World War I I , the a l l i e s learned the lessons of the
passed. I n the face of a new t o t a l i t a r i a n t h r e a t and the nuclear
menace, great nations d i d not walk away from the challenge of the
moment. Instead they chose t o reach out, t o r e b u i l d , and t o lead.
They chose t o create the United Nations, and they l e f t us a world
stronger, s a f e r , and f r e e r .
�Our generation has a d i f f i c u l t task: The Cold War i s over,we must secure the peace. I t f a l l s to us to avoid the complacency
that followed World War I without the spur of the imminent threat
to our s e c u r i t y t h a t followed World War I I . We must ensure that
those who fought and found the courage to end the Cold War, those
from both East and West who love freedom, d i d not labor i n vain.
Our sacred mission i s t o b u i l d a new world f o r our c h i l d r e n
-- more democratic, more prosperous, more free of ancient hatreds
and modern means of d e s t r u c t i o n . That i s no easy challenge, but
we accept i t w i t h confidence.
A f t e r a l l , the w a l l s t h a t once
d i v i d e d nations i n t h i s very chamber have come down. More nations
have chosen democracy than ever before; more have chosen free
markets and economic j u s t i c e ; more have embraced the values of
tolerance and l i b e r t y and c i v i l society that allow us a l l to make
the most of our l i f e .
But while the i d e a l s of democracy and free markets are
ascendant, they are s u r e l y not the whole story. T e r r i b l e examples
of chaos, repression and tyranny also mark our times.
The 20th century proved t h a t the forces of freedom and democracy
can endure against great odds. Our job i s to see t h a t i n the 2 l s t
century these forces triumph.
The dangers we face are less stark and more d i f f u s e than
those of the Cold War, but they are s t i l l formidable -- the ethnic
c o n f l i c t s that d r i v e m i l l i o n s from t h e i r homes,- the despots ready
to repress t h e i r own people or conquer t h e i r neighbors; the
p r o l i f e r a t i o n of weapons of mass d e s t r u c t i o n ; the t e r r o r i s t s
w i e l d i n g t h e i r deadly arms; the c r i m i n a l syndicates s e l l i n g those
arms or drugs or i n f i l t r a t i n g the very i n s t i t u t i o n s of f r a g i l e
democracy; a g l o b a l economy that o f f e r s great promise, but also
deep i n s e c u r i t y and i n many places, d e c l i n i n g o p p o r t u n i t y ; diseases
l i k e AIDS that threaten t o decimate nations,- the combined dangers
of population explosion and economic decline which prompted the
world community t o reach the remarkable consensus at the Cairo
Conference; global and l o c a l environmental t h r e a t s t h a t demand that
sustainable development becomes a p a r t of the l i v e s of people a l l
around the world; and f i n a l l y , w i t h i n many of our nations, high
rates of drug abuse and crime and f a m i l y breakdown w i t h a l l t h e i r
t e r r i b l e consequences. These are the dangers we face today.
We must address these threats to our f u t u r e . Thankfully,
the end of the Cold War gives us a chance t o address them together.
In our e f f o r t s , d i f f e r e n t nations may be a c t i v e i n d i f f e r e n t
s i t u a t i o n s i n d i f f e r e n t ways.
But t h e i r purposes must be
consistent w i t h freedom, and t h e i r practices consistent w i t h
i n t e r n a t i o n a l law.
Each n a t i o n w i l l b r i n g t o our common task i t s
p a r t i c u l a r strengths -- economic, p o l i t i c a l , or m i l i t a r y .
own
Of
�course, the f i r s t duty of every member of the United Nations i s t o
i t s own c i t i z e n s , to t h e i r s e c u r i t y , t h e i r welfare, and t h e i r
i n t e r e s t s . As President of the United States, my f i r s t duty i s t o
the c i t i z e n s of my country. When our n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y i n t e r e s t s
are threatened, we w i l l act w i t h others when we can, but alone i f
we must. We w i l l use diplomacy when we can, but force i f we must.
The United States recognizes that we also have a special
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n these common endeavors that we are t a k i n g -- the
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y that goes along w i t h great power, and also w i t h our
long
h i s t o r y of democracy and freedom. But we seek to f u l f i l l
t h a t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n cooperation w i t h other nations. Working
together increases the impact and the legitimacy of each of our
actions, and sharing the burdens lessons everyone's load. We have
no desire to be the world's policemen, but we w i l l do what we can
to help c i v i l s o c i e t i e s emerge from the ashes of repression, t o
s u s t a i n f r a g i l e democracies, and t o add more free markets to the
world -- and, of course, to r e s t r a i n the d e s t r u c t i v e forces that
threaten us a l l .
In every corner of the globe, from South A f r i c a to Asia,
to Central and Eastern Europe, t o the Middle East and L a t i n
America, and now t o a small i s l a n d i n the Caribbean, ordinary
c i t i z e n s are s t r i v i n g to b u i l d t h e i r own future. Promoting t h e i r
cause i s our generation's great opportunity, and we must do i t
together.
A c o a l i t i o n f o r democracy -- i t ' s good f o r America.
Democracies, a f t e r a l l , are more l i k e l y to be stable, less l i k e l y
to wage war.
They strengthen c i v i l society. They can provide
people w i t h the economic and p o l i t i c a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s to b u i l d t h e i r
f u t u r e s i n t h e i r own homes, not t o f l e e t h e i r borders.
Our e f f o r t s to help b u i l d more democracies w i l l make us a l l
more secure, more prosperous, and more successful, as we t r y t o
make t h i s era of t e r r i f i c change our f r i e n d and not our enemy.
In our n a t i o n , as i n a l l of your nations, there are many
people who are understandably r e l u c t a n t to undertake these e f f o r t s ,
because, o f t e n , the distances are great or the c u l t u r e s are
different.
There are good reasons f o r the caution t h a t people
feel.
Often, the chances of success or the costs are unclear.
And, of course, i n every common endeavor there i s always the
p o t e n t i a l f o r f a i l u r e and, o f t e n , the r i s k of loss of l i f e .
And,
yet, our people, as we have seen i n the remarkable g l o b a l response
to the t e r r i b l e c r i s i s i n Rwanda, genuinely want t o help t h e i r
neighbors around the world and want to make some e f f o r t i n our
common cause.
We have seen that progress can be made as w e l l .
The
problem i s deciding when we must respond and how we s h a l l overcome
�our reluctance. This w i l l never be easy; there are no simple
formulas. A l l of us w i l l make these decisions, i n p a r t , based on
the distance of the problem from our shores, or the i n t e r e s t s of
our n a t i o n , or the d i f f e r e n c e we t h i n k we can make, or the cost
required, or the threat t o our own c i t i z e n s i n the endeavor. Hard
questions w i l l remain and cannot be erased by some simple formula.
But we should have the confidence that these e f f o r t s can
succeed, whether they are e f f o r t s t o keep people a l i v e i n the face
of t e r r i b l e tragedy, as i n Rwanda; or our e f f o r t s t o avert a
tragedy, as i n the Horn of Africa,- or our e f f o r t s t o support
processes t h a t are l i t e r a l l y changing the f u t u r e of m i l l i o n s .
History i s on our side.
We should have confidence about t h i s . Look a t the march
of freedom we have seen i n j u s t the l a s t year alone. Who, a decade
ago, would have dared p r e d i c t the s t a r t l i n g changes i n South
A f r i c a , i n the Middle East, i n I r e l a n d ; the stunning triumph of
democracy and m a j o r i t y rule,- the redemption of the purpose of
Nelson Mandela's l i f e , - the brave e f f o r t s of I s r a e l and i t s Arab
neighbors t o b u i l d bridges of peace between t h e i r peoples,- the
earnest search by the people of Northern I r e l a n d and Great B r i t a i n
and I r e l a n d t o end centuries of d i v i s i o n and decades of t e r r o r .
In each case, c r e d i t belongs t o those nations' leaders and t h e i r
courageous people.
But i n each instance, the United States and
other nations were p r i v i l e g e d t o help i n these causes.
The growth of cooperation between the United States and the
Russian Federation also should give us a l l great cause f o r
confidence. This i s a partnership t h a t i s rooted i n democracy,- a
partnership t h a t i s working; a p a r t n e r s h i p of not complete
agreement, but genuine mutual respect.
A f t e r so many years of nuclear t e r r o r , our two nations are
taking dramatic steps t o ease tensions around the world. For the
f i r s t time since World War I I , f o r e i g n troops do not occupy the
nations of Central and Eastern Europe,- the B a l t i c nations are free.
Russian and American m i s s i l e s no longer t a r g e t each other's people.
Three of the four nuclear members of the former Soviet Union have
agreed t o remove a l l nuclear weapons from t h e i r s o i l . And we are
working on agreements t o h a l t production of f i s s i l e materials f o r
nuclear explosives, t o make d i s m a n t l i n g of nuclear warheads
transparent and i r r e v e r s i b l e , and t o f u r t h e r reduce our nuclear
weapons i n d e l i v e r y vehicles.
The United States and Russia also recognize that we must
cooperate t o c o n t r o l the emerging danger of t e r r o r i s t s who t r a f f i c
i n nuclear m a t e r i a l s .
To secure nuclear m a t e r i a l s a t t h e i r
sources, we have agreed w i t h Russia t o stop plutonium production
by the year 2000,- t o construct a storage f a c i l i t y f o r f i s s i l e
m a t e r i a l s and buying up stocks of weapons-grade f u e l ; and t o combat
the c r i m i n a l s who are t r y i n g t o smuggle materials f o r nuclear
�explosives.
Our two nations and Germany have increased cooperation and
engaged i n j o i n t t e r r o r i s t t r a i n i n g .
Soon, under the leadership
of our Federal Bureau of I n v e s t i g a t i o n , we w i l l open a law
enforcement t r a i n i n g academy i n Europe, where p o l i c e w i l l learn how
to
combat more e f f e c t i v e l y t r a f f i c k i n g of nuclear weapons
components as w e l l as the drug trade, organized crime and money
laundering.
The United States w i l l also advance a wide-ranging
n o n p r o l i f e r a t i o n agenda, a global convention t o h a l t production of
f i s s i l e m a t e r i a l s , e f f o r t s t o curb North Korea's nuclear ambitions,
transparent procedures f o r dismantling nuclear warheads, and our
work to ban t e s t i n g and extend the Nuclear N o n p r o l i f e r a t i o n Treaty.
And today, I am proposing a f i r s t step toward the eventual
e l i m i n a t i o n of a l e s s - v i s i b l e , but s t i l l deadly t h r e a t : the world's
85 m i l l i o n antipersonnel land mines -- one f o r every 50 people on
the face of the Earth.
I ask a l l nations to j o i n w i t h us and
conclude an agreement t o reduce the number and a v a i l a b i l i t y of
those mines. Ridding the world of those often hidden weapons w i l l
help t o save the l i v e s of tens of thousands, of men and women and
innocent c h i l d r e n i n the years t o come.
Our progress i n the l a s t year also provides confidence that
i n the post-Cold War years we can adapt and construct global
i n s t i t u t i o n s t h a t w i l l help t o provide s e c u r i t y and increase
economic growth throughout the world.
Since I spoke here l a s t year, 22 nations have j o i n e d NATO's
Partnership For Peace.
The f i r s t j o i n t exercises have been
conducted, h e l p i n g t o give Europe the chance t o become a more
u n i f i e d continent i n which democratic nations l i v e i n secure
borders.
I n Asia, s e c u r i t y t a l k s and economic cooperation w i l l
lead t o f u r t h e r s t a b i l i t y . By reducing nations' fears about t h e i r
borders and a l l o w i n g them t o spend less on m i l i t a r y defenses, our
c o a l i t i o n f o r democracy can give nations a t r a n s i t i o n -- i n
t r a n s i t i o n a b e t t e r chance t o o f f e r new freedoms and o p p o r t u n i t i e s
to t h e i r own people.
I t i s time that we t h i n k anew about the s t r u c t u r e of t h i s
global economy as w e l l -- t e a r i n g down walls that separate nations
instead of h i d i n g behind them.
At the Group of Seven meetings i n Naples t h i s year we
committed ourselves to t h i s task of renewal - - t o reexamining the
economic i n s t i t u t i o n s t h a t have served us so well i n the past. In
the i n t e r e s t of shared p r o s p e r i t y , the United States a c t i v e l y
promotes open markets.
Though s t i l l i n i t s infancy, the North
American Free Trade Agreement has d r a m a t i c a l l y increased trade
�between the United States and Mexico, and has produced i n the
United States alone an estimated 200,000 new jobs. I t o f f e r s a
model t o nations throughout the Americas which we hope t o b u i l d
on.
And t h i s week, I w i l l send l e g i s l a t i o n t o the Congress t o
implement the General Agreement on T a r i f f s and Trade, the l a r g e s t
trade agreement i n a l l of h i s t o r y .
GATT and i t s successor, the
World Trade Organization, hold the promise f o r a l l of us of
increased exports, higher wages, and improved l i v i n g standards.
And i n the months and years t o come, we w i l l work no less t o extend
the
reach of open markets, s t a r t i n g w i t h the Asian P a c i f i c
Cooperation Forum and the Summit of the Americas l a t e r t h i s year.
Here, a t the United Nations, we must develop a concrete
plan t o meet the challenges of t h e next 50 years, even as we
celebrate the l a s t 50 years.
I b e l i e v e we should declare next
year's 50th anniversary not j u s t a year of c e l e b r a t i o n , but a year
of renewal. W c a l l on the Secretary General t o name a working
e
group so t h a t , by the time we meet next year, we w i l l have a
concrete a c t i o n plan t o r e v i t a l i z e the U.N.'s o b l i g a t i o n s t o
address the s e c u r i t y , economic, and p o l i t i c a l challenges ahead - o b l i g a t i o n s we must a l l be w i l l i n g t o assume.
Our o b j e c t i v e s should i n c l u d e ready, e f f i c i e n t and capable
U.N. peacekeeping forces. And I am happy t o report that, as I
pledged t o you l a s t year, and thanks t o the support i n the United
States Congress, $1.2 b i l l i o n i s now available from the United
States f o r t h i s c r i t i c a l account.
We must also pledge t o keep U.N. reform moving forward, so
t h a t we do more w i t h less.
And we must improve our a b i l i t y t o
respond t o urgent needs. Let me suggest that i t i s time f o r the
members of t h i s Assembly t o consider seriously President Menem's
suggestion f o r the c r e a t i o n of a c i v i l i a n rapid response c a p a b i l i t y
f o r humanitarian c r i s e s .
And l e t us not lose s i g h t of the special r o l e t h a t
development and democracy can play i n preventing c o n f l i c t s once
peace has been established.
Never before has the United Nations been a t a b e t t e r
p o s i t i o n t o achieve the democratic goals of our founders. The end
of the Cold War has freed us from decades of p a r a l y z i n g d i v i s i o n s ,
and we a l l know that m u l t i l a t e r a l cooperation i s not only necessary
to address the new t h r e a t s we face, but possible t o succeed.
The e f f o r t s we have taken together i n H a i t i are a prime
example. Under the sponsorship of the United Nations, American
troops, now being j o i n e d by the personnel of an ever-growing
i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o a l i t i o n of over two dozen nations, are g i v i n g the
people of H a i t i t h e i r chance at freedom -- creative diplomacy, the
�influence of economic power, the c r e d i b l e t h r e a t of m i l i t a r y force.
A l l have c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h i s moment of o p p o r t u n i t y .
Essential c i v i l order w i l l be restored.
Human r i g h t s
v i o l a t i o n s w i l l be curbed. The f i r s t refugees are r e t u r n i n g w i t h i n
hours on t h i s day. The m i l i t a r y leaders w i l l step down; the
democratic government w i l l be restored. President A r i s t i d e w i l l
r e t u r n . The m u l t i n a t i o n a l mission w i l l t u r n i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
over t o the United Nations mission, which w i l l remain i n H a i t i
throughout 1995 u n t i l a new president i s elected.
During t h i s time, a m u l t i n a t i o n a l development e f f o r t w i l l make
a v a i l a b l e more than $1 b i l l i o n t o begin helping the Haitians
r e b u i l d t h e i r country.
In the s p i r i t of r e c o n c i l i a t i o n and r e c o n s t r u c t i o n ,
President A r i s t i d e c a l l e d yesterday f o r the immediate easing of
sanctions so t h a t the work of r e b u i l d i n g can begin immediately.
Accordingly, I intend t o act e x p e d i t i o u s l y w i t h i n the Security
Council Resolutions 917 and 940, t o enable us t o r e s t o r e health
care, water and e l e c t r i c a l services, c o n s t r u c t i o n m a t e r i a l s f o r
humanitarian
efforts,
and communications, a g r i c u l t u r a l and
educational m a t e r i a l s .
Today I am also announcing that the United States w i l l
suspend a l l u n i l a t e r a l sanctions against H a i t i except those that
a f f e c t the m i l i t a r y leaders and t h e i r immediate supporters. This
w i l l include r e g u l a r l y scheduled a i r f l i g h t s when the a i r support
becomes a v a i l a b l e , f i n a n c i a l transactions and t r a v e l r e s t r i c t i o n s .
I urge a l l other nations t o do the same.
In H a i t i , the United States has demonstrated t h a t i t would
lead a m u l t i n a t i o n a l force when our i n t e r e s t s are p l a i n , when the
cause i s r i g h t , when the mission i s achievable, and the nations of
the world stand w i t h us. But H a i t i ' s people w i l l have t o muster
the s t r e n g t h and the patience t o t r a v e l the road of freedom. They
have t o do t h i s f o r themselves. Every new democratic n a t i o n i s
f r a g i l e , but we w i l l see the day when the people of H a i t i f u l f i l l
t h e i r a s p i r a t i o n s f o r l i b e r t y and when they are once again making
genuine economic progress.
United Nations actions i n Bosnia, as those i n H a i t i ,
demonstrate t h a t progress can be made when a c o a l i t i o n backs up
diplomacy w i t h m i l i t a r y power. For the f i r s t time ever, NATO has
taken, since we met l a s t year, m i l i t a r y actions beyond the
t e r r i t o r y of i t s members. The t h r e a t of NATO a i r power helped t o
e s t a b l i s h the exclusion zone around Sarajevo and t o end the Bosnian
Serbs' s p r i n g o f f e n s i v e against Gorazde.
And NATO's February
ultimatum boosted our mediation e f f o r t s which helped t o end the war
between the Bosnian government and the Bosnian Croats, and forged
a f e d e r a t i o n between those two communities.
The s i t u a t i o n i n Bosnia, t o t h a t extent, has improved. But
�8
i n recent weeks, the s i t u a t i o n around Sarajevo has d e t e r i o r a t e d
s u b s t a n t i a l l y , and Sarajevo once again faces the prospect of
s t r a n g u l a t i o n . A new resolve by the United Nations t o enforce i t s
r e s o l u t i o n s i s now necessary t o save Sarajevo.
And NATO stands
ready t o a c t .
The s i t u a t i o n i n Bosnia i s y e t another reminder of the
greatest irony of t h i s century we are leaving; t h i s century so f u l l
of hope and o p p o r t u n i t y and achievement has also been an age of
deep d e s t r u c t i o n and despair.
We cannot help but remember the m i l l i o n s who gave t h e i r
l i v e s during two world wars and the h a l f - c e n t u r y i n s t r u g g l e by men
and women i n the East and West who u l t i m a t e l y p r e v a i l e d i n the name
of freedom. But we must also t h i n k of our c h i l d r e n and the world
we w i l l leave them i n the 21st century.
H i s t o r y has given us a very rare o p p o r t u n i t y -- the chance
to b u i l d on the greatest legacy of t h i s century without r e l i v i n g
i t s darkest moments. And we have shown that we can c a r r y forward
humanity's ancient quest f o r freedom:
t o b u i l d a world where
democracy knows no borders, but where nations know t h e i r borders
w i l l always be secure; a world that gives a l l people the chance t o
r e a l i z e t h e i r p o t e n t i a l and t o l i v e out t h e i r dreams.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
END
11:32 A.M. EDT
�THE WHITE HOUSE
O f f i c e o f the Press Secretary
(New York, New York)
For Immediate Release
September 27, 1993
ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE 4 8TH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
The U n i t e d Nations
New York, New York
11:00
A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Mr. President,
l e t me f i r s t congratulate you on your e l e c t i o n as President o f
t h i s General Assembly.
Mr. Secretary General, d i s t i n g u i s h e d delegates and
guests, i t i s a great honor f o r me t o address you and t o stand i n
t h i s g r e a t Chamber which symbolizes so much o f the 20th century
— i t s darkest c r i s e s and i t s b r i g h t e s t a s p i r a t i o n s .
I come before you as the f i r s t American President
born a f t e r the founding o f the United Nations. Like most o f t h e
people i n the world today, I was not even a l i v e d u r i n g the
c o n v u l s i v e World War t h a t convinced humankind o f the need f o r
t h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n ; nor d u r i n g t h e San Francisco Conference t h a t
l e d t o i t s b i r t h . Yet I have f o l l o w e d the work o f the United
Nations throughout my l i f e , w i t h admiration f o r i t s
accomplishments, w i t h sadness f o r i t s f a i l u r e s , and c o n v i c t i o n
t h a t through common e f f o r t our generation can take the bold steps
needed t o redeem the mission e n t r u s t e d t o the U.N. 48 years ago.
I pledge t o you t h a t my n a t i o n remains committed t o
h e l p i n g make the U.N.'s v i s i o n a r e a l i t y . The s t a r t o f t h i s
General Assembly o f f e r s us an o p p o r t u n i t y t o take stock of where
we are, as common shareholders i n the progress of humankind and
i n the p r e s e r v a t i o n o f our p l a n e t .
I t i s c l e a r t h a t we l i v e a t a t u r n i n g p o i n t i n human
h i s t o r y . Immense and promising changes seem t o wash over us
every day. The Cold War i s over. The world i s no longer d i v i d e d
i n t o two armed and angry camps. Dozens of new democracies have
been born.
I t i s a moment o f miracles. We see Nelson Mandela
stand s i d e by side w i t h President de Klerk, proclaiming a date
f o r South A f r i c a ' s f i r s t n o n r a c i a l e l e c t i o n . We see Russia's
f i r s t p o p u l a r l y - e l e c t e d P r e s i d e n t , Boris Y e l t s i n , leading h i s
n a t i o n on i t s bold democratic journey. We have seen decades o f
deadlock shattered i n the Middle East, as the Prime M i n i s t e r o f
I s r a e l and the Chairman o f the P a l e s t i n e L i b e r a t i o n Organization
reached past enmity and s u s p i c i o n t o shake each other's hands and
e x h i l a r a t e the e n t i r e world w i t h the hope of peace.
We have begun t o see the doomsday weapons o f nuclear
a n n i h i l a t i o n dismantled and destroyed. T h i r t y - t w o years ago,
President Kennedy warned t h i s Chamber t h a t humanity l i v e d under a
nuclear sword o f Damocles t h a t hung by the slenderest o f threads.
Now the United States i s working w i t h Russia, Ukraine, Belarus
and o t h e r s t o take t h a t sword down, t o lock i t away i n a secure
v a u l t where we hope and pray i t w i l l remain f o r e v e r .
MORE
�- 2 -
I t i s a new era i n t h i s h a l l as w e l l .
The
superpower s t a n d o f f t h a t f o r so long stymied the United Nations'
work almost from i t s f i r s t day has now y i e l d e d t o a new promise
of p r a c t i c a l cooperation. Yet today we must a l l admit t h a t there
are two powerful tendencies working from opposite d i r e c t i o n s t o
challenge the a u t h o r i t y of n a t i o n s t a t e s everywhere and t o
undermine the a u t h o r i t y of n a t i o n s t a t e s t o work t o g e t h e r .
From beyond nations, economic and t e c h n o l o g i c a l
forces a l l over the globe are compelling the world towards
i n t e g r a t i o n . These forces are f u e l i n g a welcome e x p l o s i o n of
entrepreneurship and p o l i t i c a l l i b e r a l i z a t i o n . But they also
t h r e a t e n t o destroy the i n s u l a r i t y and independence of n a t i o n a l
economies, quickening the pace of change and making many of our
people f e e l more insecure.
At the same time, from w i t h i n nations, the resurgent
a s p i r a t i o n s of ethnic and r e l i g i o u s groups challenge governments
on terms t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l n a t i o n states cannot e a s i l y
accommodate.
These t w i n forces l i e at the heart of the challenges
not only t o our n a t i o n a l government, but also t o a l l our
i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . They r e q u i r e a l l of us i n t h i s room
to f i n d new ways t o work together more e f f e c t i v e l y i n p u r s u i t of
our n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s and t o t h i n k anew about whether our
i n s t i t u t i o n s of i n t e r n a t i o n a l cooperation are adequate t o t h i s
moment.
Thus, as we marvel at t h i s era's promise o f new
peace, we must also recognize t h a t serious t h r e a t s remain.
Bloody e t h n i c , r e l i g i o u s and c i v i l wars rage from Angola t o the
Caucasus t o Kashmir. As weapons of mass d e s t r u c t i o n f a l l i n t o
more hands, even small c o n f l i c t s can t h r e a t e n t o take on
murderous p r o p o r t i o n s . Hunger and disease continue t o take a
t r a g i c t o l l , e s p e c i a l l y among the world's c h i l d r e n .
The
malignant neglect of our g l o b a l environment threatens our
c h i l d r e n ' s h e a l t h and t h e i r very s e c u r i t y .
The repression of conscience continues i n t o o many
n a t i o n s . And t e r r o r i s m , which has taken so many innocent l i v e s ,
assumes a h o r r i f y i n g immediacy f o r us here when m i l i t a n t f a n a t i c s
bombed t h e World Trade Center and planned t o a t t a c k even t h i s
very h a l l of peace.
Let me assure you, whether the f a t h e r s of those
crimes, o r the mass murderers who bombed Pan Am F l i g h t 103, my
government i s determined t o see t h a t such t e r r o r i s t s are brought
to j u s t i c e .
(Applause.)
As t h i s moment of panoramic change, of v a s t
o p p o r t u n i t i e s and t r o u b l i n g t h r e a t s , we must a l l ask ourselves
what we can do and what we should do as a community o f n a t i o n s .
We must once again dare t o dream of what might be, f o r our dreams
may be w i t h i n our reach. For t h a t t o happen, we must a l l be
w i l l i n g t o honestly c o n f r o n t the challenges of the broader world.
THat has never been easy.
When t h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n was founded 48 years ago, the
world's n a t i o n s stood devastated by war or exhausted by i t s
expense. There was l i t t l e a p p e t i t e f o r cooperative e f f o r t s among
n a t i o n s . Most people simply wanted t o get on w i t h t h e i r l i v e s .
But a f a r - s i g h t e d generation of leaders from the United States
and elsewhere r a l l i e d the world. Their e f f o r t s b u i l t t h e
i n s t i t u t i o n s of postwar s e c u r i t y and p r o s p e r i t y .
We are a t a s i m i l a r moment today. The momentum of
the Cold War no longer propels us i n our d a i l y a c t i o n s . And w i t h
MR
OE
�- 3 -
daunting economic and p o l i t i c a l pressures upon almost every
n a t i o n represented i n t h i s room, many o f us are t u r n i n g t o focus
g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n and energy on our domestic needs and problems.
And we must. But p u t t i n g each of our economic houses i n order
cannot mean t h a t we shut our windows t o t h e world. The p u r s u i t
of s e l f - r e n e w a l , and many o f the world's l a r g e s t and most
p o w e r f u l economies — i n Europe, i n Japan, i n North America — i s
a b s o l u t e l y c r u c i a l because unless t h e great i n d u s t r i a l nations
can r e c a p t u r e t h e i r robust economic growth, the g l o b a l economy
w i l l languish.
Yet, t h e i n d u s t r i a l nations also need growth
elsewhere i n order t o l i f t t h e i r own. Indeed, p r o s p e r i t y i n each
of our n a t i o n s and regions also depends upon a c t i v e and
r e s p o n s i b l e engagement i n a host o f shared concerns.
For example, a t h r i v i n g and democratic Russia not
only makes t h e world s a f e r , i t also can help t o expand t h e
world's economy. A s t r o n g GATT agreement w i l l create m i l l i o n s o f
jobs worldwide.
Peace i n t h e Middle East, buttressed as i t
should be by t h e repeal o f outdated U.N. r e s o l u t i o n s , can help t o
unleash t h a t region's g r e a t economic p o t e n t i a l and calm a
p e r p e t u a l source of t e n s i o n i n g l o b a l a f f a i r s . And t h e growing
economic power of China, coupled w i t h greater p o l i t i c a l openness,
could b r i n g enormous b e n e f i t s t o a l l o f Asia and t o t h e r e s t o f
the w o r l d .
We must help our p u b l i c s t o understand t h i s
d i s t i n c t i o n : Domestic renewal i s an overdue t o n i c . But
i s o l a t i o n i s m and p r o t e c t i o n i s m are s t i l l poison. We must i n s p i r e
our people t o look beyond t h e i r immediate fears toward a broader
horizon.
Let^me s t a r t by being c l e a r about where t h e United
States stands. [The United States occupies a unique p o s i t i o n i n
w o r l d a f f a i r s today. We—recognize, that-and-jw^-welGoma-art. Yet,
w i t h t h e Cold War over, I know many people ask whether t h e United
States plans t o r e t r e a t o r remain a c t i v e i n the world; and i f
a c t i v e , t o what end. Ma«y^p^ple^re,-asking-that'"in'~our own
- count r.y__as-'Wel-r. Let me answer t h a t question as c l e a r l y and
p l a i n l y as I can.
The United S t a t e d intends t o remain engaged and t o
lead. We cannot solve every^problem, b u t we must and w i l l serve
as a f u l c r u m f o r change and a p i v o t p o i n t f o r peace.
I n a new era o f p e r i l and opportunity, our
o v e r r i d i n g purpose must be t o expand and strengthen t h e world's
community o f market-based democracies. During the Cold War we
sought t o c o n t a i n a t h r e a t t o s u r v i v a l of free i n s t i t u t i o n s . Now
we seek t o enlarge t h e c i r c l e of nations t h a t l i v e under those
free i n s t i t u t i o n s .
For our dream i s of a day when the opinions and
energies o f every person i n the world w i l l be given f u l l
expression, i n a world o f t h r i v i n g democracies that cooperate
w i t h each other and l i v e i n peace.
With t h i s statement, I do not mean t o announce some
crusade t o f o r c e our way o f l i f e and doing things on o t h e r s , or
t o r e p l i c a t e our i n s t i t u t i o n s , but we now know c l e a r l y t h a t
throughout t h e world, from Poland t o E r i t r e a , from Guatemala t o
South Korea, there i s an enormous yearning among people who wish
t o be t h e masters of t h e i r own economic and p o l i t i c a l l i v e s .
Where i t matters most and where we can make the greatest
d i f f e r e n c e , we w i l l , t h e r e f o r e , p a t i e n t l y and f i r m l y a l i g n
ourselves w i t h t h a t yearning.
MORE
�- 4 -
Today, t h e r e are s t i l l those who c l a i m t h a t
democracy i s simply not a p p l i c a b l e t o many c u l t u r e s , and t h a t i t s
recent expansion i s an a b e r r a t i o n , an accident, i n h i s t o r y t h a t
w i l l soon fade away. But I agree w i t h President Roosevelt, who
once s a i d , "The democratic a s p i r a t i o n i s no mere recent phase of
human h i s t o r y . I t i s human h i s t o r y . "
We w i l l work t o strengthen the f r e e market
democracies, by r e v i t a l i z i n g our economy here a t home, by opening
w o r l d t r a d e through the GATT, the North American Free Trade
Agreement and other accords, and by updating our shared
i n s t i t u t i o n s , asking w i t h you and answering the hard questions
about whether they are adequate t o the present challenges.
We w i l l support the c o n s o l i d a t i o n of market
democracy where i t i s t a k i n g new r o o t , as i n the s t a t e s of t h e
former Soviet Union and a l l over L a t i n America. And we seek t o
f o s t e r the p r a c t i c e s of good government t h a t d i s t r i b u t e the
b e n e f i t s of democracy and economic growth f a i r l y t o a l l people.
We w i l l work t o reduce the t h r e a t from regimes t h a t
are h o s t i l e t o democracies and t o support l i b e r a l i z a t i o n of
nondemocratic s t a t e s when they are w i l l i n g t o l i v e i n peace w i t h
the r e s t of us.
As a country t h a t has over 150 d i f f e r e n t r a c i a l ,
e t h n i c and r e l i g i o u s groups w i t h i n our borders, our p o l i c y i s and
must be rooted i n a profound respect f o r a l l the world's
r e l i g i o n s and c u l t u r e s . But we must oppose everywhere extremism
t h a t produces t e r r o r i s m and hate.
And we must pursue our humanitarian goal of reducing
s u f f e r i n g , f o s t e r i n g sustainable development, and improving t h e
h e a l t h and l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r our world's
children.
On e f f o r t s from export c o n t r o l t o trade agreements
t o peace keeping, we w i l l o f t e n work i n p a r t n e r s h i p w i t h o t h e r s
and through m u l t i l a t e r a l i n s t i t u t i o n s such as the United Nations.
I t i s i n our n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t t o do so. But we must not
h e s i t a t e t o act u n i l a t e r a l l y when t h e r e i s a t h r e a t t o our core
i n t e r e s t s or t o those of our a l l i e s .
The United States b e l i e v e s t h a t an expanded
community of market democracies not only serves our own s e c u r i t y
i n t e r e s t s , i t also advances the goals enshrined i n t h i s body's
c h a r t e r and i t s Universal D e c l a r a t i o n of Human Rights. For
broadly-based p r o s p e r i t y i s c l e a r l y the strongest form of
p r e v e n t i v e diplomacy. And the h a b i t s of democracy are the h a b i t s
of peace.
Democracy i s rooted i n compromise, not conquest. I t
rewards t o l e r a n c e , not hatred. Democracies r a r e l y wage war on
one another. They make more r e l i a b l e partners i n t r a d e , i n
diplomacy, and i n the stewardship of our global environment.
In
democracies w i t h the r u l e of law and respect f o r p o l i t i c a l ,
r e l i g i o u s , and c u l t u r a l m i n o r i t i e s are more responsive t o t h e i r
own people and t o the p r o t e c t i o n of human r i g h t s .
But as we work toward t h i s v i s i o n we must c o n f r o n t
the storm clouds t h a t may overwhelm our work and darken the march
toward freedom. I f we do not stem the p r o l i f e r a t i o n of the
world's d e a d l i e s t weapons, no democracy can f e e l secure. I f we
do not strengthen the capacity t o resolve c o n f l i c t among and
w i t h i n n a t i o n s , those c o n f l i c t s w i l l smother the b i r t h of f r e e
i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h r e a t e n the development of e n t i r e regions, and
continue t o take innocent l i v e s .
MORE
�- 5 -
I f we do not nurture our people and our p l a n e t
through sustainable development, we w i l l deepen c o n f l i c t and
waste t h e very wonders t h a t make our e f f o r t s worth doing.
Let me t a l k more about what I b e l i e v e we must do i n
each of these three categories: n o n p r o l i f e r a t i o n , c o n f l i c t
r e s o l u t i o n , and sustainable development.
One of our most urgent p r i o r i t i e s must be a t t a c k i n g
t h e p r o l i f e r a t i o n of weapons of mass d e s t r u c t i o n , whether they
are n u c l e a r , chemical, or b i o l o g i c a l ; and the b a l l i s t i c m i s s i l e s
t h a t can r a i n them down on populations hundreds of miles away.
We know t h i s i s not an i d l e problem. A l l of us are
s t i l l haunted by the p i c t u r e s of Kurdish women and c h i l d r e n cut
down by poison gas. We saw Scud m i s s i l e s dropped d u r i n g the Gulf
War t h a t would have been f a r graver i n t h e i r consequence i f they
had c a r r i e d nuclear weapons. And we know t h a t many n a t i o n s s t i l l
b e l i e v e i t i s i n t h e i r i n t e r e s t t o develop weapons o f mass
d e s t r u c t i o n or t o s e l l them or the necessary technologies t o
others f o r f i n a n c i a l gain.
More than a score of nations l i k e l y possess such
weapons, and t h e i r number threatens t o grow. These weapons
d e s t a b i l i z e e n t i r e regions. They could t u r n a l o c a l c o n f l i c t
i n t o a g l o b a l human and environmental catastrophe. We simply
have got t o f i n d ways t o c o n t r o l these weapons and t o reduce the
number o f s t a t e s t h a t possess them by supporting and
s t r e n g t h e n i n g the IAEA and by t a k i n g other necessary measures.
I have made n o n p r o l i f e r a t i o n one of our nation's
h i g h e s t p r i o r i t i e s . We intend t o weave i t more deeply i n t o the
f a b r i c o f a l l of our r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h the world's n a t i o n s and
i n s t i t u t i o n s . We seek t o b u i l d a world of i n c r e a s i n g pressures
f o r n o n p r o l i f e r a t i o n , but i n c r e a s i n g l y open trade and technology
f o r those s t a t e s t h a t l i v e by accepted i n t e r n a t i o n a l r u l e s .
Today, l e t me describe several new p o l i c i e s t h a t our
government w i l l pursue t o stem p r o l i f e r a t i o n . We w i l l pursue new
steps t o c o n t r o l the m a t e r i a l s f o r nuclear weapons. Growing
g l o b a l s t o c k p i l e s of plutonium and h i g h l y enriched uranium are
r a i s i n g t h e danger of nuclear t e r r o r i s m f o r a l l nations. We w i l l
press f o r an i n t e r n a t i o n a l agreement t h a t would ban production of
these m a t e r i a l s f o r weapons f o r e v e r .
As we reduce our nuclear s t o c k p i l e s , the United
States has also begun n e g o t i a t i o n s toward a comprehensive ban on
nuclear t e s t i n g . This summer I declared t h a t t o f a c i l i t a t e these
n e g o t i a t i o n s , our nation would suspend our t e s t i n g i f a l l other
nuclear s t a t e s would do the same. Today, i n the face of
d i s t u r b i n g signs, I renew my c a l l on the nuclear s t a t e s t o abide
by t h a t moratorium as we negotiate t o stop nuclear t e s t i n g f o r
a l l time.
I am also proposing new e f f o r t s t o f i g h t the
p r o l i f e r a t i o n of b i o l o g i c a l and chemical weapons. Today, only a
h a n d f u l o f nations has r a t i f i e d the Chemical Weapons Convention.
I c a l l on a l l nations, i n c l u d i n g my own, t o r a t i f y t h i s accord
q u i c k l y so t h a t i t may enter i n t o force by January 13th, 1995.
We w i l l also seek t o strengthen the b i o l o g i c a l
weapons convention by making every nation's b i o l o g i c a l a c t i v i t i e s
and f a c i l i t i e s open to more i n t e r n a t i o n a l students. I am
proposing as w e l l new steps t o thwart the p r o l i f e r a t i o n o f
b a l l i s t i c m i s s i l e s . Recently, working w i t h Russia, Argentina,
Hungary and South A f r i c a , we have made s i g n i f i c a n t progress
toward t h a t goal. Now, we w i l l seek t o strengthen the p r i n c i p l e s
of the M i s s i l e Technology Control Regime by transforming i t from
MORE
�- 6 -
an agreement on technology t r a n s f e r among j u s t 2 3 nations t o a
set of r u l e s t h a t can command u n i v e r s a l adherence.
We w i l l also reform our own system of export
c o n t r o l s i n the United States t o r e f l e c t the r e a l i t i e s of the
post-Cold War w o r l d , where we seek t o e n l i s t the support of our
former adversaries i n the b a t t l e against p r o l i f e r a t i o n .
At the same time t h a t we stop deadly technologies
from f a l l i n g i n t o the wrong hands, we w i l l work w i t h our partners
t o remove outdated c o n t r o l s t h a t u n f a i r l y burden l e g i t i m a t e
commerce and unduly r e s t r a i n growth and o p p o r t u n i t y a l l over the
world.
As we work t o keep the world's most d e s t r u c t i v e
weapons out of c o n f l i c t , we must also strengthen the
i n t e r n a t i o n a l community's a b i l i t y t o address those c o n f l i c t s
themselves.
For as we a l l now know so p a i n f u l l y , the end of the
Cold War d i d not b r i n g us t o the millennium of peace.
And,
indeed, i t simply removed the l i d from many cauldrons of e t h n i c ,
r e l i g i o u s , and t e r r i t o r i a l animosity.
The philosopher, I s a i a h B e r l i n , has s a i d t h a t a
wounded n a t i o n a l i s m i s l i k e a bent t w i g forced down so severely
t h a t when released i t lashes back w i t h f u r y . The world today i s
t h i c k w i t h both bent and r e c o i l i n g twigs of wounded communal
identities.
This scourge of b i t t e r c o n f l i c t has placed high
demands on United Nations peacekeeping forces. Frequently the
blue helmets have worked wonders. I n Namibia, E l Salvador, the
Golan Heights and elsewhere, U.N. peacekeepers have helped t o
stop the f i g h t i n g , r e s t o r e c i v i l a u t h o r i t y , and enable f r e e
elections.
I n Bosnia, U.N. peacekeepers, against the danger and
f r u s t r a t i o n of t h a t continuing tragedy, has maintained a v a l i a n t
humanitarian e f f o r t . And i f the p a r t i e s of t h a t c o n f l i c t take
the hard steps needed t o make a r e a l peace, the i n t e r n a t i o n a l
community i n c l u d i n g the United States must be ready t o help i n
i t s e f f e c t i v e implementation.
I n Somalia, the United States and the United Nations
have worked t o g e t h e r t o achieve a stunning humanitarian rescue,
saving l i t e r a l l y hundreds of thousands of l i v e s and r e s t o r i n g the
c o n d i t i o n s of s e c u r i t y f o r almost the e n t i r e country.
U.N.
peacekeepers from over two dozen nations remain i n Somalia today.
And some, i n c l u d i n g brave Americans, have l o s t t h e i r l i v e s t o
ensure t h a t we complete our mission, and t o ensure t h a t anarchy
and s t a r v a t i o n do not r e t u r n j u s t as q u i c k l y as they were
abolished.
Many s t i l l c r i t i c i z e U.N. peacekeeping, but those
who do should t a l k t o the people of Cambodia, where the U.N.'s
operations have helped t o t u r n t h e k i l l i n g f i e l d s i n t o f e r t i l e
s o i l through r e c o n c i l i a t i o n . Last May's e l e c t i o n s i n Cambodia
marked a proud accomplishment f o r t h a t war-weary n a t i o n and f o r
the United Nations. And I am pleased t o announce t h a t the United
States has recognized Cambodia's new government.
U.N. peacekeeping holds the promise t o resolve many
of t h i s era's c o n f l i c t s . The reason we have supported such
missions i s not, as some c r i t i c s i n the United States have
charged, t o subcontract American f o r e i g n p o l i c y , but t o
strengthen our s e c u r i t y , p r o t e c t our i n t e r e s t s , and t o share
among nations the costs and e f f o r t of pursuing peace.
Peacekeeping cannot be a s u b s t i t u t e f o r our own n a t i o n a l defense
e f f o r t s , but i t can strongly supplement them.
MORE
�- 7-
Today, there i s wide r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t the U.N.
peacekeeping a b i l i t y has not kept pace w i t h the r i s i n g
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and challenges. Just s i x years ago, about
10,000 U.N. peacekeepers were s t a t i o n e d around the world. Today,
t h e U.N. has some 80,000 deployed i n 17 operations on f o u r
c o n t i n e n t s . Yet, u n t i l r e c e n t l y , i f a peacekeeping commander
c a l l e d i n from across the globe when i t was n i g h t t i m e here i n New
York, t h e r e was no one i n the peacekeeping o f f i c e even t o answer
t h e c a l l . When l i v e s are on the l i n e , you cannot l e t the reach
of the U.N. exceed i t s grasp.
As the Secretary General and others have argued, i f
U.N. peacekeeping i s t o be a sound s e c u r i t y investment f o r our
n a t i o n and f o r other U.N. members, i t must adapt t o new times.
Together we must prepare U.N. peacekeeping f o r the 21st century.
We need t o begin by b r i n g i n g the r i g o r s o f m i l i t a r y and p o l i t i c a l
a n a l y s i s t o every U.N. peace mission.
I n recent weeks i n the S e c u r i t y Council, our n a t i o n
has begun asking harder questions about proposals f o r new
peacekeeping missions: I s there a r e a l t h r e a t t o i n t e r n a t i o n a l
peace. Does the proposed mission have c l e a r o b j e c t i v e s ? Can an
end p o i n t be i d e n t i f i e d f o r those who w i l l be asked t o
p a r t i c i p a t e ? How much w i l l the mission cost? From now on, t h e
U n i t e d Nations should address these and other hard questions f o r
every proposed mission before we vote and before the mission
begins.
The United Nations simply cannot become engaged i n
every one o f the world's c o n f l i c t s . I f the American people are
t o say yes t o U.N. peacekeeping, the United Nations must know
when t o say no. The United Nations must also have the t e c h n i c a l
means t o run a modern world-class peacekeeping o p e r a t i o n .
We support the c r e a t i o n o f a genuine U.N.
peacekeeping headquarters w i t h a planning s t a f f , w i t h access t o
t i m e l y i n t e l l i g e n c e , w i t h a l o g i s t i c s u n i t t h a t can be deployed
on a moment's n o t i c e , and a modern operations center w i t h g l o b a l
communications.
And the U.N.'s operations must not only be
adequately funded, but also f a i r l y funded. W i t h i n t h e next few
weeks, t h e United States w i l l be c u r r e n t i n our peacekeeping
bills.
I have worked hard w i t h the Congress t o get t h i s done. I
b e l i e v e t h e United States should lead the way i n being t i m e l y i n
i t s payments, and I w i l l work t o continue t o see t h a t we pay our
bills in full.
But I am also committed t o work w i t h the United
Nations t o reduce our nation's assessment f o r these missions.
The assessment system has not been changed since
1973.
And everyone i n our country knows t h a t are percentage o f
t h e world's economic p i e i s not as great as i t was then.
T h e r e f o r e , I b e l i e v e our rates should be reduced t o r e f l e c t the
r i s e o f o t h e r nations t h a t can now bear more o f the f i n a n c i a l
burden. That w i l l make i t easier f o r me as President t o make
sure we pay i n a t i m e l y and f u l l fashion.
Changes i n the U.N.'s peacekeeping operations must
be p a r t o f an even broader program of United Nations reform. I
say t h a t again not t o c r i t i c i z e the United Nations, but t o help
t o improve i t . As or Ambassador Madeleine A l b r i g h t has
suggested, the United States has always played a t w i n r o l e t o the
U.N. — f i r s t f r i e n d and f i r s t c r i t i c .
Today corporations a l l around the world are f i n d i n g
ways t o move from the I n d u s t r i a l Age t o the I n f o r m a t i o n Age,
improving s e r v i c e , reducing bureaucracy and c u t t i n g costs. Here
MR
OE
�- 8-
in the United States, our Vice President Al Gore and I have
launched an e f f o r t to l i t e r a l l y reinvent how our government
operates. W see t h i s going on in other governments around the
e
world. Now the time has come t o reinvent the way the United
Nations operates as well.
I applaud the i n i t i a l steps the Secretary General
has taken to reduce and to reform the United Nations bureaucracy.
Now, we must a l l do even more t o root out waste. Before t h i s
General Assembly i s over, l e t us establish a strong mandate for
an Office of Inspector General so that i t can a t t a i n a reputation
for toughness, for integrity, for effectiveness. Let us build
new confidence among our people that the United Nations i s
changing with the needs of our times.
Ultimately, the key for reforming the United
Nations, as in reforming our own government, i s to remember why
we are here and whom we serve. I t i s wise to r e c a l l that the
f i r s t words of the U.N. Charter are not " e the government,"
W,
but, "We, the people of the United Nations." That means in every
country the teachers, the workers, the farmers, the
professionals, the fathers, the mothers, the children, from the
most remote v i l l a g e in the world to the largest metropolis, they
are why we gather i n t h i s great h a l l . I t i s t h e i r futures that
are a t r i s k when we act or f a i l to act. I t i s they who
ultimately pay our b i l l s .
As we dream new dreams in t h i s age when miracles now
seem possible, l e t us focus on the l i v e s of those people, and
e s p e c i a l l y on the children who w i l l inherit t h i s world. Let us
work with a new urgency, and imagine what kind of world we could
create for them i n the coming generations.
Let us work with new energy to protect the world's
people from torture and repression. As Secretary of State
Christopher stressed at the recent Vienna Conference, human
rights are not something conditional, founded by culture, but
rather something universal granted by God. This General Assembly
should create at long l a s t , a high commissioner for human rights.
I hope you w i l l do i t soon and with vigor and energy and
conviction. (Applause).
Let us also work f a r more ambitiously to f u l f i l l our
obligations as custodians of t h i s planet, not only to improve the
quality of l i f e for our c i t i z e n s and the quality of our a i r and
water and the Earth i t s e l f , but also because the roots of
c o n f l i c t are so often entangled with the roots of environmental
neglect and the calamity of famine and disease.
During the course of our campaign i n the United
States l a s t year, Vice President Gore and I promised the American
people major changes in our nation's policy toward the global
environment. Those were promises to keep, and today the United
States i s doing so.
Today we are working with other nations to build on
the promising work of the U.N.'s Commission on Sustainable
Development. We are working t o make sure that a l l nations meet
t h e i r commitments under the Global Climate Convention. W are
e
seeking to complete negotiations on an accord to prevent the
world's deserts from further expansion. And we seek to
strengthen the World's Health Organization's e f f o r t s to combat
the plague of AIDS, which i s not only k i l l i n g m i l l i o n s , but also
exhausting the resources of nations that can l e a s t afford i t .
Let us make a new commitment to the world's
children. I t i s t r a g i c enough that 1.5 million children died as
a r e s u l t of wars over the past decade. But i t i s f a r more
MORE
�- 9 -
u n f o r g i v a b l e t h a t i n t h a t same p e r i o d , 40 m i l l i o n c h i l d r e n d i e d
from diseases completely preventable w i t h simply vaccines or
medicine. Every day — t h i s day, as we meet here — over 30,000
of the world's c h i l d r e n w i l l die of m a l n u t r i t i o n and disease.
Our UNICEF D i r e c t o r , Jim Grant, has reminded me t h a t
each of those c h i l d r e n had a name and a n a t i o n a l i t y , a f a m i l y , a
p e r s o n a l i t y , and a p o t e n t i a l . We are compelled t o do b e t t e r by
the world's c h i l d r e n . J u s t as our own n a t i o n has launched new
reforms t o ensure t h a t every c h i l d has adequate health care, we
must do more t o get basic vaccines and o t h e r treatment f o r
curable diseases t o c h i l d r e n a l l over the w o r l d . I t ' s the best
investment w e ' l l ever make.
We can f i n d new ways t o ensure t h a t every c h i l d
grows up w i t h clean d r i n k a b l e water, t h a t most precious commodity
of l i f e i t s e l f .
And the U.N. can work even harder t o ensure t h a t
each c h i l d has a t l e a s t a f u l l primary education — and I mean
t h a t o p p o r t u n i t y f o r g i r l s as w e l l as boys.
And t o ensure a h e a l t h i e r and more abundant w o r l d ,
we simply must slow the world's explosive growth i n p o p u l a t i o n .
We cannot a f f o r d t o see the human race doubled by the middle of
the next c e n t u r y . Our n a t i o n has, at l a s t , renewed i t s
commitment t o work w i t h the United Nations t o expand the
a v a i l a b i l i t y of the world's f a m i l y p l a n n i n g education and
services. We must ensure t h a t t h e r e i s a place a t the t a b l e f o r
every one o f our world's c h i l d r e n . And we can do i t .
At the b i r t h of t h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n 48 years ago,
another time of both v i c t o r y and danger, a generation of g i f t e d
leaders from many nations stepped forward t o organize the world's
e f f o r t s on b e h a l f of s e c u r i t y and p r o s p e r i t y . One American
leader d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d said t h i s : " I t i s time we steered by
the s t a r s r a t h e r than by the l i g h t of each passing ship." His
generation p i c k e d peace, human d i g n i t y and freedom. Those are
good s t a r s , they should remain the h i g h e s t i n our own firmament.
Now h i s t o r y has granted t o us a moment of even
g r e a t e r o p p o r t u n i t y , when o l d dangers and o l d w a l l s are
crumbling, f u t u r e generations w i l l judge us, every one of us,
above a l l , by what we make of t h i s magic moment. Let us r e s o l v e
t h a t we w i l l dream l a r g e r , t h a t we w i l l work harder so t h a t they
can conclude t h a t we d i d not merely t u r n w a l l s t o rubble, but
instead l a i d t h e foundation f o r great t h i n g s t o come.
Let us ensure t h a t the t i d e o f freedom and democracy
i s not pushed back by the f i e r c e winds of e t h n i c hatred. Let us
ensure t h a t t h e world's most dangerous weapons are s a f e l y reduced
and denied t o dangerous hands. Let us ensure t h a t the world we
pass t o our c h i l d r e n i s h e a l t h i e r , safer and more abundant than
the one we i n h a b i t today.
I b e l i e v e — I know — t h a t t o g e t h e r we can extend
t h i s moment o f miracles i n t o an age of g r e a t work and new
wonders. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
END
11:40 A.M.
EDT
�THE WHITE HOUSE
O f f i c e of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
A p r i l 22, 1994
STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY
Appointment of Joseph Connor as UN Undersecretary General
President C l i n t o n welcomes the appointment of Joseph E.
Connor as United Nations Undersecretary General f o r
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Management, e f f e c t i v e May 1, 1994.
United
Nations Secretary General Boutros-Ghali announced Mr. Connor's
appointment Wednesday.
Mr. Connor-, who c u r r e n t l y i s Distinguished Professor of
Business at Georgetown U n i v e r s i t y , w i l l b r i n g exceptional
business and managerial e x p e r t i s e t o t h i s job. As former
Chairman of Price Waterhouse USA and Price Waterhouse World Firm,
Mr. Connor has managed both the domestic and i n t e r n a t i o n a l
operations of one of the world's leading accounting firms and was
responsible f o r the firm's r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h some of i t s biggest
c l i e n t s . Mr. Connor has also served as President of the
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Chamber of Commerce and i s former Chairman of the
United States Council f o r I n t e r n a t i o n a l Business. .
As the UN's l a r g e s t f i n a n c i a l c o n t r i b u t o r , the United States
places a high p r i o r i t y on the UN achieving genuine, l a s t i n g
management reforms. The A d m i n i s t r a t i o n remains f i r m l y committed
to such reforms as the immediate establishment of a f u l l y
independent inspector general and the reduction of our
peacekeeping assessment t o 25 percent. We view Mr. Connor's
appointment as an important step ensuring improved UN management
i n such areas as personnel, procurement, finance and budgeting.
We look forward to working w i t h Mr. Connor i n his new capacity.
# # #
�Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
DATE
SUBJECT/TITLE
04/13/1994
Breakfast with Members of Congress (4 pages)
001 a. memo
RESTRICTION
P5
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
National Security Council
Press (Philip J. (PJ) Crowley)
OA/Box Number:
3102
FOLDER TITLE:
United Nations [1]
2011-0516-S
kh807
RESTRICTION CODES
Prcsiclenlial Records Acl - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)l
Freedom of Information Act - |5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
PI
P2
P3
P4
b(l) National security classified information 1(b)(1) of the FOIA|
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency 1(b)(2) of the FOIA]
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute 1(b)(3) of the FOIA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information 1(b)(4) of the FOIA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy 1(b)(6) of the FOIAj
h(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes 1(b)(7) of the FOIAj
h(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions 1(b)(8) of the FOIAj
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
concerning wells |(b)(9) of the FOIAj
National Security Classified Information 1(a)(1) of the I'RA]
Relating to the appointment to Federal office 1(a)(2) of the PRA|
Release would violate a Federal statute 1(a)(3) of the PRA|
Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
rmancial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors, or between such advisors |a)(5) of the PRA|
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy 1(a)(6) of the PRA|
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
2201(3).
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
�. •. . . . . . 7 ^
.
• :'.
•:
• •; '• Y .v. ••
�Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
001b. talking
points
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
re: Congressional Meeting on Resources/Peacekeeping (2 pages)
ca.
04/13/1994
RESTRICTION
P5
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
National Security Council
Press (Philip J. (PJ) Crowley)
OA/Box Number:
3102
FOLDER TITLE:
United Nations [
2011-0516-S
kli807
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act -144 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - |S U.S.C. 552(b)|
PI National Security Classified Information 1(a)(1) of the PRA|
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office 1(a)(2) of the I'RA]
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute |(a)(J) of the PRA|
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information 1(a)(4) of the PRA]
PS Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors, or between such advisors |a)(5) of the PRA]
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy 1(a)(6) of the PRA|
b(l) National security classified information 1(b)(1) of the FOIA)
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency |(b)(2) of the FOIA|
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute |(b)(3) of the FOIA)
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information 1(b)(4) of the FOIA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy 1(b)(6) of the FOIA|
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA)
b(S) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions 1(b)(8) of the FOIA]
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
concerning wells 1(b)(9) of the FOIA)
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
2201(3).
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
�:
' •' ''''
• ••
.... •
•
•..
�Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
001c. paper
DATE
SUBJECT/TITLE
The Resource Crisis in Foreign Affairs and Peacekeeping (6 pages)
ca.
04/13/1994
RESTRICTION
P5
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
National Security Council
Press (Philip J. (PJ) Crowley)
OA/Box Number:
3102
FOLDER TITLE:
United Nations [1
2011-0516-S
kh807
RESTRICTION CODES
PrcsidcntiHl Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)|
Freedom of Information Act - |5 U.S.C. 552(b)|
PI
P2
P3
P4
b(l) National security classified information 1(b)(1) of the FOIA)
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency 1(b)(2) of the FOIA|
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute 1(b)(3) of the FOIA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information 1(b)(4) of the FOIA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy 1(b)(6) of the FOIA)
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes 1(b)(7) of the FOIA]
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions 1(b)(8) of the FOIA]
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
concerning wells 1(b)(9) of the FOIA|
National Security Classified Information |(aHI) of the PRA|
Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA|
Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA|
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(S) of the PRA|
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy 1(a)(6) of the PRA|
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
2201(3).
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
�. •• •
iv.
.•
; :•
v. i-
: .
T.-:..
J-
�N.Y. TIMES POLL SHOWS CONTINUED PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR U.N.:
59% OF AMERICANS URGE U.S. TROOPS IN U.N. PEACEKEEPING
THE NEW YORK TIMES, SATURDAY, APRIL 2, 1994
The four-nation poll involved The
New.- York Times, ;The.;,Guardian
newspaper in Britain, Jwr Spiegel
magazine in Germany atlcT the Asahi
Shimbun newspaper in Japan. Each
news organization conducted the poll
in its Home country, using identical
questions. Each news organization independently analyzed the results of
all four polls.
Support for U.N.
The poll revealed resounding support for the United Nations and for
sending United Nations troops to enforce peace in the world's trouble
spots.; :
.
Over the years, many Americans
have criticized the United Nations as
a bloated, expensive bureaiiracy, but:
Americans polled said, by a margin
of 77 to 21, that the organization has
contributed to world peace^jtehty-;'
nine percent said it was important to
cooperate with other countries by
working through the United Nations. •
Americans said, by a 59-to-31margin, that the United States"has a
responsibility to contribute "military
troops to enforce peace plans in trouble spots around the world when it is
asked by the United Nations."
v
�PROGRAM ON i N T E R N A n O N A l P Q U C ^
Uhool ol Public AHvn. Umvf0/
MiryUt*
NEWS RELEASE
For release: Immediate
Re NEW POLL ON
UN PEACEKEEPING
For further information:
please contact Steven Kull
at 202-'>32-7500
Date: February 18. 1994
i
^™' »^uR^^
C 8 U P P 0 , , T
College Park MO: A new pel. of 700 Americans carried out F«b>u.<y 9-13 by th.
L The verwhel ing majority of respondents support UN peacekeeping in
0
•
m
principle.
2
, The majority is ready to support higher .evels of spending on UN _
•
^
peacekeeping.
3. A piuraiity i s inn g t
o
^
spend on taxes ^ support of UN peaceKeepms.
^
^ .......
^
4 The majority feeis the US should pay its UN peacekeeping dues in fuU.
More details follow.
"; .;'
'• ''v-'' • [:..'
." •
;
. . -"^'^"-^
CAMPV^OfUCE:
r v OFFICE'
„
O u p o n t C ' C t * . SW
uj..h.n/fo«:DC.ooio
CiSSM. School 0/Public Aff-.«
r .f„.ft.k
n
VjVjnd.'QNJ-W"
.oj-a.o-
�==
= = = = = = = = POU- U D T = = = = = = = = = """
PAE
P
o
U
conducts Karch 4 - J / " / ' ^
( 0 )
and Bob Teeter ( >
*
FEELINGS T W R
OAD
WflXTIVB./ ,
^
B i l l Clinton
.-J'J
/
26*
Al Gore
. ^
/
33*
H i l l a r y R. Clinton -47%
/
,
Bob Dole ;
J " .
/
21*
United nations
/
14*
NATO
30*
/
*
Oliver North
V
2 8
3 8
3 0
Council f r B ^
110 Maryland AvenueJN.t.
. Washington, D.C. 20002
q
�R.c.nt PoU. on MultiULr.1 P.«c.k»4plng
/ , V
U - J c»
b asked to b« pah of » Unitad N^tJona .
to oth«f coun&'i«?
93% Not Sura • 6
%
Takap&rt-?^ Uav« Job to oth«» • 23*
^- b iha i-Mtod Sutas should or should not
Should • 63%
Should net-3.
-
••
-;.
<
,
. No opinion-W
rtf HisaDQfova of American troops
A
^
^
.
0 ^ ^ . 3 7 %
Q-2 Cooperate Fully
With the UN .
Agree Disagree
Date
.
^
Times Mirrof
10/21-24/93 .
4/93
Potomac .
•: 10/91 ••
- 4/8S
•/
4/85
64%
71
28%
22 ,
NO opinion- 4K
0-4 Concentrate On
Domestic Problems
Disagree
Agree
0-3 Go Our Ovm Way
Internationany
Disagree
. A9
r M
Not Asked
79%
Not Asked
63%
34%
'66
70
'
67
• 66 • •
r' 62 • •.
67 y;
: 67
72
'-'72 70
29 .
26 .
28 ;
26 r
"29 :
23
' i32
22
23
19
18%
16
34
-26
'^30;:
22
78
17
,60
77
35
68
66
61
58 ... 32
28
^73
' V.- 2/80:. ^ ; •59
: 18 i
41
46
71
'• V- 5/78
:.i4 •
30
; 56
77
. .8/75 '.
20
20
73
66
1/74 •"
V31
28
63
'-' 60
6/72
"32
21
' 66
•• 72
• • •:' 1968 "••
16
72
" . 1964
^
. .
, /i n ^ ^e^V Please ten me which of the fonowng v
^: •
yRT/WAn SL Journal (10/22-26/93]. netac
.,
.
,
" s'utements comes closer to your vew.
r
,-3 "".^Siit-s •:
:
F
;
r
:
solving
7%
internaliona! crises and confticts.
Both (Vol.) Not sure
�1. The overwhelming majorfty of respondents support UN peacekeeping In
principle.
'."
Asked whelher they "favor or oppose the idea of UN peacekeeping operations."
84% said they favored it (46% strongly) while 13% were opposed.
Respondents were then asked to evaluate different types of UN peacekeeping
operations in prino'ple. The numbers that supported UN peacekeeping operations were:
- in a civil war when the combatants want help
- 67% (39% strongly)
. - in the event of large-scale atrocities
- 83% (63% strongly)
- in the event of gross humanrightsviolations
- 8 1 % (58% strongly)
Consistent with these principles. 91% favored contributing US troops, to .UN
peacekeeping operations, with 49% favoring it "in most cases" and 42% "only in
exceptional cases that directly affect US interests."
2. The majority is ready to support higher levels of spending on UN peacekeeping.
•Half of the respondents were asked "how many tax dollars would you feel
comfortable paying personally each year toward UN peacekeeping?" The median
response was $10.00. They were then told that the average taxpayer spends about
54.00 in taxes each year on UN peacekeeping. Sixty-two percent said this amount was
lower than it should be.
'
'. .
The other half sample was asked, if UN peacekeeping were to be paid through
the defense budget what percentage of the defense budget should be devoted to UN .
peacekeeping. • The median response was 10%.-40 times present spending levels. ;
When informed that presently the US spends the equivalent of about one quarter of one
percent on UN peacekeeping. 58% thought this amount was lower than it should be.
Sixty-two percent said they would be willing to cut spending in some other area of the .:V \: v::/;,;
defense budget so as to increase spending on UN peacekeeping.'^ •:••'./^ *•. ^ ^ i - . ^ J ; '•' '-vJXf
;
V Thesefindings,though; are tempered by another. B e f o r e _ ; t e s f ^ ^ t ^ ' - ^ p ' ^ / ^ ^ . "
asked the above questions, they wete'asked whether the US \ s s ^ ^ n g \ 6 d ; r ( \ ^ ' ' 6 ( y j ^ i ^ '
too little on UN peacekeeping and 59% said •too much*":;But this response seems to be
predicated on a misperception of the amount being spent/ When informecTqf the actual :?
;
amount the'number saying "too much" dropped to 39%. Also, when respondenis were : \.~::~ *r'.
informed about how much was being spent in terms'.of the average taxpayer.and the '..:'./4~i%'
defense budget. 74% and 69%. respectively, said this -amount was"joywr^thart ^they"^'^J.'.
expected, with most saying "much lower."
^ ; •:' ;;•: ;
'
>\ :-i
:
J
:
:
i
:
�na
3 A plurality 1 willing to eubsUntlatly Increase tho amount they p«rso "y
$
on taxes In support ot UN peacekeeping.
Though .he above data suggests, thal^
^
^
^
^
fi
en
P^
'
^
To address this ,ues,ion.
^ ^ J ^ j S ^ ^ ^ W .
.axpayer spends on UN P e a « £ W ^ L p p T r t o. UN peacekeepingr Forty
would you be wiling lo pay in mcreaseo raxes.in SUJF
^ c e n , said no.hing. ^ V f t t c r e ^ e T h e i r a T s ^ s StO-a 250% increase over
S i f e v ^ S g t m ^ who": n^'Uth to increase u «
-dian as
SI 00-a 25% increase over present levels.
T h e
m e d i a n
w
4. The majority feels the US should pay its UN peacekeeping dues In full.
•
rtie
fhA ilS should pay H UN peacekeeping
s
shbuld nolpay any of its dues.
Thirtyfour percent fee, that t h e s i s
.
^
Mked'to imagine how ^eaver^e
av
average American would ! °'
^
^
^
I
^
t
.
^
^
. ^ s J ^ a s s u m e ^ ^
^"f"™^
^
^
ma°the^^verage American would favor
^
• 'HoW the Poll Was Conduced.;
Ar a ^
™
standard poHmg proceoures. oy ^«
. 13. The margin of error was +M /o. ^
^
^ ^ . ^ ^ ^
^mnr^hensive report on this poll wilt be forthcoming.
FoTa ^P^onhe report or for further informat.on can
fhe P r ^ m on International Policy AttHudes at
(202)232-7500.
&
__^„
T
�
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
Office of Press and Communications - Philip J. “P.J.” Crowley
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
National Security Council
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36076">Collection Finding Aid</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2011-0516-S
Description
An account of the resource
This collection consists of White House press releases from the files of P.J. Crowley. Crowley served as Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and Senior Director of Public Affairs the National Security Council from 1997–1999. The press releases are arranged by subject or, as in the case of the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, by date.
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.
370 folders in 33 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
United Nations [1]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
National Security Council
Office of Press and Communications
Philip "PJ" Crowley
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2011-0516-S
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 15
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/id/7585702"></a>
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36076">Collection Finding Aid</a>
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
7585702
42-t-7585702-20110516s-015-003-2015
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: NSC Cable, Email, and Records Management System
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.
Preservation-Reproduction-Reference