Skip to main content

Full text of "Foreign policy update : hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, November 4, 1993"

See other formats


^ / 

S. Hrg. 103-326 

FOREIGN POUCY UPDATE 



Y 4. F 76/2; S. HRG. 103-326 

Forei§n Policy Update, S.Hr§. 103-3... sJQ. 



BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 
UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 
FIRST SESSION 



NOVEMBER 4, 1993 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 



In Memory of 

Marcia McCord Verville 

1947-1993 




' iit v v.... 



Mr 3 'c- 



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
74-020CC WASHINGTON : 1993 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 
ISBN 0-16-043362-2 



S. Hrg. 103-326 

FOREIGN POUCY UPDATE 



Y 4. F 76/2: S. HRG. 103-326 

Foreisn Policy Update^ S.Hrg. 103-3... sJQ. 



BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 
UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 
FIRST SESSION 



NOVEMBER 4, 1993 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 



In Memory of 

Marcia McCord Verville 

1947-1993 










U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
74-020CC WASHINGTON : 1993 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington. DC 20402 
ISBN 0-16-043362-2 



COMMHTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 
CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island, Chairman 



JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware 
PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland 
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 
PAUL SIMON, Illinws 
DANIEL P. MOYNIHAN, New York 
CHARLES S. ROBB, ViT^inia 
HARRIS WOFFORD, Pennsylvania 
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 



JESSE HELMS, North Carolina 
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 
NANCY L. KASSEBAUM, Kansas 
LARRY PRESSLER, South Dakota 
FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska 
HANK BROWN, Colorado 
JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont 
PAUL COVERDELL, Georgia 
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 



HARLAN MATHEWS, Tennessee 

Geryld B. CHllIsnA^fSON, Staff Director 
James W. Nance, Minority Staff Director 



(II) 



CONTENTS 



Page 

Christopher, Warren, Secretary of State 2 

Prepared statement ' 



(in) 



FOREIGN POLICY UPDATE 



THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1993 

U.S. Senate, 
Committee on Foreign Relations, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 
SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Claiborne Pell 
(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Pell, Sarbanes, Dodd, Kerry, Simon, Robb, 
Wofford, Mathews, Helms, Lugar, Kassebaum, Pressler, Murkow- 
ski, Brown, Jeffords, Coverdell, and Gregg. 

The Chairman. The Committee on Foreign Relations will come 
to order. This morning we meet to receive testimony from the Sec- 
retary of State on an overview of foreign policy issues. Actually, 
this is the Secretary's first appearance before Congress since re- 
turning from his trip to Europe, and since the extensive congres- 
sional debate on the foreign deployment of American troops for 
peacekeeping purposes. 

We look forward to hearing the administration's views on the 
many pressing foreign policy issues that face our Nation, and wel- 
come this opportunity to begin what promises to be a pretty ex- 
haustive congressional review of the role of the U.S. Armed Forces 
in the post-cold war world which the majority leader has asked our 
committee to undertake. 

The lessons of Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia have underscored the 
need for careful examination of the relationship between Congress 
and the President with respect to the use of force. There has heen 
a lot of debate over the operation of the 1973 War Powers Resolu- 
tion; over the respective powers of the President and the Congress 
regarding the use of force outside the United States; and over the 
lack of specific guidelines for participating in U.N. peacekeeping 
operations. 

These matters need to be reviewed by the Senate in a delibera- 
tive manner and in a timeframe allowing for the collective judg- 
ment of Congress and the executive branch to clarify our respective 
roles unimpeded by the heat of the current controversies. 

As the committee of jurisdiction over intervention abroad, dec- 
laration of war, relations with foreign nations generally, we will 
work together on the committee to conduct such a review. 

I will now turn to the ranking Republican member present, Sen- 
ator Kassebaum. 

Senator Kassebaum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will save most 
of my comments for question time and look forward to hearing Mr. 
Secretary. 

(1) 



I would only add that it is a very important time for the adminis- 
tration to speak with a clear voice on foreign policy. I think, Mr. 
Secretary, this gives an important opportunity to you to help us 
understand exactly what the administration's views are on a num- 
ber of very important issues. We certainly welcome your being here 
this morning. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Kassebaum. Sec- 
retary Christopher, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WARREN CHRISTOPHER, SECRETARY OF 

STATE 

Secretary Christopher. Mr. Chairman, members of the commit- 
tee, I am pleased to be here today to talk to you about the strategic 
priorities of American foreign policies. 

The world is moving away from one of the most dangerous con- 
frontations in history, and in that fact lies tremendous opportunity 
for the United States. 

In the cold war world, stability was based upon confrontation. In 
the new world, stability will be based upon common interests and 
shared values. My job as the Secretary of State is to help the Presi- 
dent guide the country through this transition. I welcome that 
challenge. 

At the same time, I understand we must accomplish this transi- 
tion, this transformation, at a time when the definitions, cer- 
tainties, and ground rules of the cold war have disappeared. I has- 
ten to add that I have no regrets about the passing of the cold war. 
Nostalgia for the rigidities can only stem from a kind of amnesia. 
But its demise does mean that we must develop a new domestic 
consensus to sustain active engagement in a more complex and 
interdependent world. 

During this period, the United States must maintain a tough- 
minded sense of our enduring interests, ensuring the security of 
our Nation, the prosperity of our people, and tne advancement 
where possible of democratic values. And it is with those core inter- 
ests in mind that the Clinton administration has defined and is 
pursing overarching priorities of American foreign policy. 

We are renewing and updating our key security alliances while 
also building on the historically unique situation that the major 
powers can be partners cooperating for peace. We are working to 
contain and resolve regional conflicts, particularly where the threat 
of expansion or the risk of proliferation poses a direct danger to the 
United States. 

The United States is working relentlessly to ensure that an ever- 
increasing number of people know the benefits of democratic insti- 
tutions, human rights, and a free market. We are working to ex- 
pand trade, spur growth, and to enhance the economic security of 
every American. 

In this period of transition, crises or even setbacks are inevitable. 
We will work to prevent and manage them, but we will stay steady 
and we will keep on responsible courses that we have set for Amer- 
ica. 

Television is a wonderful phenomenon and sometimes even an 
instrument of freedom, but television images cannot be the North 
Star of U.S. foreign policy. 



Today, I would like to discuss with the committee our efforts 
with respect to several major issues of enduring national interest. 
These are not the exclusive concern for this administration. My 
speeches last spring to the Council of America and the African- 
American Institute described our policy objectives toward Latin 
America and Africa respectively. 

Today, I want to discuss in my testimony some of our current top 
priorities, priorities that address the great challenges of this era. 
This is my job on a day-to-day basis. This is what I do when I come 
to work, address these strategic priorities. 

First, economic security. Security in the post-cold war era will 
depend as much on strong economies as on a strong arsenal. This 
administration understands that America's strength at home and 
strength abroad are interlocking and are mutually reinforcing. 
That is why President Clinton and I have placed economic policy 
at the heart of our foreign policy. I believe that this new emphasis 
is already yielding important results. 

Three events au occurring within the next 40 days will help de- 
termine the strength of our economy and the standard of living for 
our people as we enter the 21st century. These events are the 
NAFTA vote, the decision on the Uruguay Round and GATT, and 
the APEC meeting in Seattle. 

By approving NAFTA the United States will send a powerful sig- 
nal that we support democracy and open markets throughout this 
hemisphere. Rejecting NAFTA would send a chilling signal at a 
time when so many of our neighbors, including Mexico, are genu- 
inely receptive to closer cooperation with us. 

NAFTA is now in our hands, but the United States cannot con- 
clude the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations on our own. I 
want to remind our allies and trading partners in Europe, remind 
them once again that advancing trans-Atlantic security requires 
not only that we focus on renewing the NATO Alliance, but on suc- 
cessfully concluding the GATT negotiations. 

Nowhere is economic growth faster or export opportunities for 
American business greater than in the dj^namic Asia-Pacific region. 
The APEC conference in Seattle later this month, and the historic 
gathering of leaders that President Clinton has called for at the 
conclusion of that conference, those events will enable us to estab- 
lish a framework for regional cooperation and trade liberalization 
throughout the Pacific Rim. 

These 40 days can shape the economic world and shape Ameri- 
ca's future as we look forward to a new role in Asia. With NAFTA, 
GATT, and APEC there is an extraordinary convergence of oppor- 
timities for the United States. 

Our second priority is support for reform in Russia and the new 
independent states. We are placing special emphasis on our sup- 
port for political and economic reform in Russia, in Ukraine and 
the other states of the former Soviet Union, and the new democ- 
racies for central and eastern Europe. President Clinton is seeking 
to build a strategy alliance with postcommunist reformers through- 
out this area. 

I went to Moscow 2 weeks ago, as the chairman said, to reaffirm 
our steadfast support for reform in the wake of the early October 
crisis in Russia. President Yeltsin and Foreign Minister Kozyrev 



reiterated their commitment to reform and their determination to 
hold free and fair elections in December, and to allow press free- 
dom. 

My visit gave me renewed confidence that reform will prevail 
once again. I now look forward to a January summit between Presi- 
dent Clinton and President Yeltsin, a summit we expect will broad- 
en Eind deepen the new cooperative relationship we are forging. 

A third priority is Europe and NATO. The trip I completed last 
week was also designed to renew the NATO Alliance at a time of 
new and different security challenges in Europe. The Alliance must 
embrace innovation or risk irrelevance. The United States is pro- 
posing to transform NATO's relationship with the new democracies 
of the East. 

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

The summit should also initiate practical military cooperation be- 
tween NATO forces and those of the East. To that end we proposed 
a partnership for peace open to all members of the North Atlantic 
Cooperation Council as well as others. 

A fourth prioritv is Asia and the Pacific. The Asia-Pacific region 
contains the world's most d)mamic economies, and it is the most lu- 
crative terrain for American exports and jobs. It is thus crucial to 
the President's domestic agenda. 

The upcoming APEC meeting will elaborate on the President's vi- 
sion of a new Pacific community. The basic outlines of this commu- 
nity are already clear. A more prosperous community through open 
markets and open societies, a more secure community through the 
maintenance of our alliances and forward military presence, non- 
proliferation policies, engagement in rerponal dialog, a freer com- 
munity through advocacy of open society, and regional cooperation 
on global issues. 

The cornerstone of our Asia-Pacific policy remains our relation- 
ship with Japan. The President seeks to shape a durable and com- 
prehensive partnership. We need to place our economic ties on as 
sound and cooperative a basis as we have established on security, 
political, and global issues. 

We are establishing a comprehensive relationship with China, a 
relationship that permits resolution of differences in a broad strate- 
gic context. We are working to make strides in all areas of continu- 
ing concern with China including human rights, nonproliferation, 
and market access. We share with the Congress the need to make 
measurable progress. The clock is ticking. Unless there is overall 
significant progress on human rights the President will not be in 
a position to recommend extension of MEN next spring. 

A fifth priority is the Middle East. The Middle East is a region 
where the United States has both vital interests and the influence 
to protect those interests. The recent breakthrough between the Is- 
raelis and the Palestinians has fundamentally changed the land- 
scape of Arab-Israeli conflict. There is much work to be done to 
transform the declaration of principles into an enduring agreement 
and changed realities on the ground. 



It is absolutely essential that the Israelis and the Palestinians 
implement their declaration in a timely manner. That will show 
that negotiations work, and it will demonstrate that extremists 
cannot stop the march toward peace. 

The Israelis and Palestinians need to be flexible and patient as 
they work through the complicated issues on the table, and the 
international community needs to lend its support. 

It is also essential that we continue our efforts to move toward 
a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East. This means ensur- 
ing that there is progress on the other tracks and that progress on 
the Israeli-Palestinian track will facilitate rather than impede the 
movement and progress on the other tracks. 

Anachronisms such as the Arab boycott and anti-Israeli U.N. res- 
olutions that have been on the books for far too long must both be 
removed. There has been some movement on both of these issues 
and we are working to build greater momentum. 

We are committed to doing everything we can to help secure 
what has been achieved and to push for breakthroughs on other 
fronts. There is much work to be done, but I am very hopeful about 
the prospects for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. 

A sixth priority is nonproliferation. The peace process must be 
accompanied by efforts to stem the spread of weapons of mass de- 
struction in the Middle East as well as in other regions. Prolifera- 
tion of nuclear weapons is the most serious security threat in the 
post-cold war era. 

This administration is working for global enforcement of non- 
proliferation standards. We are pursuing specific strategies in each 
region where there are real risks of proliferation — the Middle East, 
the Korean peninsula, Persian Gulf, south Asia, Russia, and the 
new independent states. 

Last week I returned from visiting Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and 
Belarus where hundreds of old Soviet nuclear weapons remain. In 
1992 those states committed themselves to ratify the START I 
Treaty and to adhere to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as 
nonnuclear states. Belarus has already done so. Kazakhstan has 
ratified START I and has now set a deadline for accession to the 
NPT, a deadline of the end of this year. 

Ukraine has reaffirmed its commitments and their applicabilitv 
to all strategic offensive weapons on Ukrainian soil, but we still 
have hard work ahead with UTcraine, where the opposition remains 
very serious in its statement that that nation would not become 
nonnuclear. 

The United States is prepared to help Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and 
Belarus with their denuclearization and economic assistance, but 
we have made it clear that cooperation on denuclearization and 
nonproliferation is a prerequisite to longer term economic coopera- 
tion and security partnership. 

Let me say a few words about regional conflicts. The end of the 
cold war, while lifting the lid that has smothered fi*eedom for so 
much of the world, has also lifted the lid on regional conflicts. 
Some of them touch our interests or will if they are not checked, 
but other conflicts, other regional conflicts may not. 

Clearly, we need to consider new mechanisms for conflict resolu- 
tion and avoidance, as well as modifying or creating new mecha- 



6 

nisms for peacekeeping. Our own role will be informed by a strict 
assessment of our interests and the interests of others. 

That is what we are doing today in Haiti, Somalia, £md Bosnia. 
These are difficult situations, and some setbacks are inevitable. We 
should learn from them, but we should not overreact because that 
might mean losing possible opportunities for progress or damaging 
our interests elsewhere. 

Haiti demonstrates that temporary setbacks must not prevent us 
from pursing our interests. If democracy is not restored in Haiti re- 
pression, violence, and suflFering will continue causing large num- 
bers of Haitians to flee often at great risk to themselves and to 
Haiti's neighbors, and I think often at great pressure on U.S. immi- 
gration policy. 

Haiti's problems can only be addressed through democratic insti- 
tutions and economic development. We have supported a political 
process culminating in the Governor's Island accord, a process to 
allow democratically elected President Aristide of Haiti to return. 
But now Haiti's military leadership refuses to adhere to the accord 
that they themselves signed and agreed to. 

We are staying on course in Haiti. We remain committed to the 
restoration of democracy and the return of President Aristide. We 
have now reimposed sanctions on oil and arms, and a freeze on as- 
sets of a small group of targeted individuals, and we are prepared 
to increase our pressures on the Haitian military if that turns out 
to be necessary. 

In Somalia the United States is pursuing a noble objective, con- 
sistent with our values and traditions. We have saved literally hun- 
dreds of thousands of lives. We are now firmly set on a political 
track, and we are encouraged by the progress that has been made. 

In order to give this process a chance to succeed American forces 
will remsiin until next March and will, as President Clinton said 
on October 7, work with U.N. forces to open the lines of commu- 
nication and keep pressure on those who would cut off our relief 
supplies. 

We could have simply abandoned the efforts in Somalia after the 
tragic death of servicemen on October 3. We chose instead to pro- 
tect the real gains made in Somalia while improving the prospects 
for future progress. 

American policy toward the terrible conflict in Bosnia- 
Herzegovina responds to our strategic interest in preventing the 
conflict from spreading to neighboring countries, and our humani- 
tarian interest in helping to relieve the suffering people of Bosnia. 
Negotiations offer the only way to a practical solution. 

Although the Geneva talks have not been able to produce an ac- 
ceptable agreement they have made some progress and remain 
alive. We will continue to press the negotiating track, but with the 
Bosnian people at serious risk this winter we must focus our atten- 
tion on humanitarian relief. That includes providing the airlift and 
airdrop support that has been a critical development and a critical 
element in our relief effort. 

We support the work of the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal, and we 
support continued economic sanctions against Serbia and 
Montenegro. At the same time, the United States has made it clear 



in statements by its President and by me that we will not attempt 
to force a settlement on Bosnia militarily. 

If, however, we are satisfied with the conditions for our participa- 
tion, we would be prepared to participate in a NATO implementa- 
tion, a Bosnian settlement if it was agreed to by all parties and im- 
plementation were to begin. 

I want to assure the members of this committee that our policy 
toward any regional conflicL will undergo constant and rigorous 
evaluation. Any situation in which American men and women could 
be put in harms way will always hold the highest priority for me 
and for every member of our administration. 

Mr. Chairm£in, this administration is committed to frequent and 
comprehensive consultations with Congress. When congressional 
hearings begin soon on the relationship between the legislative and 
executive branches we will be responsive. It is in that spirit, Mr. 
Chairman, a spirit of cooperation and steadfastness about enduring 
American interests in a fast changing world that I have come here 
today. 

Mr. Chairman, I have filed with the committee a longer state- 
ment, and I ask that that be made a part of the record. I have tried 
to shorten my statement to allow maximum time for your ques- 
tions. I will be glad now to hear questions and comments. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Christopher follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Secretary Christopher 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: I am pleased to have the opportunity 
to talk to you today about the strategic priorities of America's foreign policy. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can shape the future knowing that the United States is more secure now than 
at any time since early in this century. Democracy is ascendant from Central Amer- 
ica to Central Asia, from South Africa to Cambodia. Free markets are being estab- 
lished in places where they were long forbidden. Millions of people, for the first time 
in their lives, have the chance to enioy politiced freedom and economic opportunity. 
The United States is working relentlessly to ensure that an ever-increasing number 



8 

of people know the beneflts of democratic institutions, human rights, and free mar- 
kets. 

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

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

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

PRIORITIES 

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

1. Economic Security 

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

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

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

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

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

NAFTA will also mark a turning point m the history of our relations throughout 
the hemisphere at a time when democracy is on the march, markets are opening 
and conflicts are being resolved peacefully. By approving NAFTA, the United States 
will send a powerful signal that we support these developments. Rejecting NAFTA, 
on the other hand, would send a chilling signal about our willingness to engage in 



Latin America at a time when so many of our nei^bors — including Mexico — are 
genuinely receptive to closer cooperation with us. 

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

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

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

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

2. Support for Reform in Russia and the NIS 

This Administration is placing special emphasis on our support for political and 
economic reform in Russia and in the other states of the former Soviet Union. Help- 
ing ensure the success of this process is our highest foreign policy priority. That is 
the reason President Clinton is seeking to buUd a strategic alliance with post-com- 
munist reformers throu^out the area. 

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

Mr. Chairman, the House and Senate have recognized the value of this invest- 
ment. With the support of Congress, the United States initially pledged $1.6 biUion 
in bilateral assistance programs to Russia and the New Independent States. In 
Tokyo last July, we proposed a $3 billion special privatization and restructuring pro- 
gram, which our G-7 partners have joined. And in late September, as the crisis in 
Moscow between reform and reaction was approaching its climax, this Congress ap- 
proved the Administration's request for $2.5 billion in additional technical and hu- 
manitarian assistance. 

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

Despite the hardships inevitably associated with a transformation of this mag- 
nitude, the Russian people have chosen reform over reaction. My visit gave me re- 
newed confidence that reform will win their support once again. We now look for- 
ward to a January summit between President Clinton and President Yeltsin in Mos- 



10 

cow — a summit that we expect will broaden and deepen the new cooperative rela- 
tionship we are forging. 

3. Europe and NATO 

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Asia and the Pacific 

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

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

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

• A more prosperous community through open markets and open societies. 

• A more secure conununity through maintenance of our alliances and forward 
military presence, non-proliferation policies, and engagement in regional dia- 
logues. 

• A freer community through advocacy of open societies which contribute both 
to development and peace. 

• Regional cooperation on global issues like the environment, narcotics, refu- 
gees and health problems. 

The Clinton Administration is placing special emphasis on developing regional ap- 

f)roaches so as to construct — with others — a New Pacific Community. But clearly bi- 
ateral ties are also part of this vision. Let me briefly mention two that are central 
to our concerns. 

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



11 

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

5. The Middle East 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



12 

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

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

6. Non-Proliferation and Other Global Issues 

Nuclear weapons give rogue states disproportionate power, destabilize entire re- 

S'ons, and threaten numan and environmental disasters. They can turn local con- 
cts into serious threats to our security. In this era, weapons of mass destruction 
are more readily available — and there are fewer inhibitions on their use. 

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

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

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

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

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

REGIONAL CONFLICTS 

Earlier I noted that the end of the Cold War, while lifting the lid that had smoth- 
ered freedom for much of the world, also lifted the lid on regional conflicts — espe- 
cially along the peripheiy of the former Soviet Union. Troublesome conflicts, often 
spilling across borders, have persisted in Africa. In these conflicts, preventive diplo- 
macy can be employed to great success. 

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

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

Clearly, we will need to consider new mechanisms for conflict resolution and con- 
flict avoidance. The UN structure may have to be supplemented by regional mecha- 
nisms. Organizations such ts the OAU and the OAS can be more effective in conflict 
prevention, peacekeeping, and disaster relief. Institutions like NATO may need to 
assume more of a peacekeeping mission, at least in Europe. Our own role and in- 



13 

volvement will need to be informed by a strict assessment of our interests and the 
interests of others. We must examine every case — asking rigorous questions, and 
giving measured answers — to find the course commensurate with our interests. 
That is what we are doing today in Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia. In each of these 

§ laces, things have not always gone exactly as we had planned or hoped. These are 
ifficult situations, and some setbacks, unfortunately, are inevitable. We should 
learn from them. But we should not overreact, for that may mean either losing pos- 
sible opportunities for success or damaging our interests elsewhere. 

Haiti 

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

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

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

Somalia 

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

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

Bosnia 

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

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

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



74-020 - 94 - 2 



14 

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

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

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

CONGRESSIONAL CONSULTATIONS 

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

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

The Chairman. I thank you for your kindness in shortening the 
statement and your full statement will be put in the record. I 
would turn now to the ranking minority member for his statement, 
and then we will go on with the 10-minute rule for questions start- 
ing with me. 

Senator Helms. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary Christopher. Good morning. Senator. 

Senator Helms. It is good to see you here, finally. I appreciate 
your finding time to come and visit with this committee. 

As you have indicated in vour statement, there are serious prob- 
lems all over the world, and it would have been a little more help- 
ful if this committee could have visited with you a bit more often. 
But we are glad to see you here this morning. 

I might say, Mr. Chgiirman, that the streets and highways in this 
city all seem to be torn up at one time. It reminds me of the foreign 
policy of this country. 

In any case, this past weekend, Mr. Secretarv, Mrs. Helms and 
I drove over to Annapolis with a couple of friends. We do that with 
some regularity, as often as we can work it in, so that we can at- 
tend the Sunday morning services at the Naval Academy's chapel, 
which strikes me as being a cathedral more than a chapel. 

In any case, it is an inspiring experience seeing all those young 
Americans dressed to the nines in their uniforms, singing the Navy 
hymn, marching down that long aisle behind the American flag and 
tne Christian flag. 

It is an emotional experience, especially when you ponder the 
words to the Navy hymn, "Eternal Father, strong to save whose 
arm hath bound the restless way;" we bid it — the mighty ocean 
deep — and so forth and so on. 

If you do not weep when you hear that, you are a pretty stern 
fellow. It makes you think. 



15 

I find myself thinking of those thousands of Americans who this 
morning are at rest in ArHngton National Cemetery and of how 
many of them gave their lives for no reason at all. 

There are very few there, if any, Mr. Secretary, who died for less 
reason than those Americans whose lives were destroyed at 
Mogadishu, for they were sent on a useless mission of — ^what do 
you call it>— nation building, whatever that is. 

Now, equally disturbing is that in high places there are some 
who do not even yet appear to have learned a lesson from 
Mogadishu. 

Then, recently, the matter you discussed with some brevity, the 
United States tried to land 600 Americans in Haiti where there is 
absolutely no justification for risking even one American life. I 
challenge anybody to demonstrate that restoring Aristide to power 
in Haiti is worth one American life. 

So you are boimd to stop and think. And Americans, I assure 
you, are doing this all over this country. Are we so bereft of vision 
that we must defer to an international community before every for- 
eign policy decision? Are we so insecure in our own decisionmaking 
process that, even when bad decisions are made — chasing Aideed, 
trying to land in Haiti, just to name one or two — we are scared off 
by a few, two-bit. Third World gangsters? 

Now one part of what I see as the problem is a growing subser- 
vience to multilateralism. The other part is the process, or lack 
thereof, in the formulation of foreign policy. Now Haiti is the most 
recent example. 

I have been criticized in some circles, particularly in the media, 
for submitting written questions during confirmation hearings. 
But, regardless of £my criticism, I am going to keep on doing that 
because that is about the only way you can hope to get an adequate 
answer to questions. That seems to be the only way to get adminis- 
tration officials on the record. 

Let me give you an example. 

When I asked your Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-Amer- 
ican Affairs on May 5 if Aristide had endorsed the practice of 
necklacing, that is, the placing of a bicycle tire or an automobile 
tire around a victim's neck, dousing it with gasoline, and lighting 
a horrible fire, what was his reply? Rather sarcastically, it occurred 
to me, he said I remember reading something in the press that 
Aristide had made a speech in which it could certainly be inter- 
preted by some people to be condoning necklacing at the very least. 

Double talk. Double talk, Mr. Secretary. 

When I asked if he would agree with human rights activists that 
Aristide incited violence when he was in power, his answer was 
that there might be ample evidence that President Aristide incited 
intimidating or violent behavior among his followers. Yet, we still 
talk about putting this guy back in power and using American 
troops one way or another to do it. 

I have to tell you that the people out there in America-land do 
not agree with anybody who suggests that sort of thing. 

Then, on May 20, during his confirmation hearing, your Human 
Rights Assistant Secretary, Mr. Shattuck, confirmed that, while in 
power, Aristide did incite riots and that Haiti's freedom of the 



16 

press was abridged by violence and intimidation. And yet, we talk 
about restoring democracy in Haiti. 

When, in the hell, Mr. Secretary, did democracy prevail in Haiti? 

I am candid, Mr. Secretary, about that and I am candid about 
this: you knew all of that. You were bound to have known all of 
that. 

It was well-known that Aristide was failing. Yet somebody de- 
cided to return him to power at the risk, if necessary, of American 
lives. 

It did not come off because there was enough protest all around 
to stop there. 

I do not often quote a lady named Mary McGrory, but on October 
14, she wrote: "Haiti, unlike any other foreign policy problems, is 
personal with the President, He also has political motivation for 
doing the right thing. He has told friends that a happy ending 
there will restore him" — that is to say, Mr. Clinton — ^"to the graces 
of the Black Caucus, whose members were outraged by the cashier- 
ing of Lani Guinier, who was shot down as the President's choice 
to head the Human Rights Division at the Justice Department." 

All of this is what Mary McGrory said. 

He is reported to have said he can't give them back social pro- 
grams because, "I just don't have the money, but I can give them 
back Haiti." 

Now this probably will be denied at everv level. But if Mary 
McGrory had it right back in October, then the United States will 
have reached a new low in foreign policy. 

Mr. Secretary, were these reports correct? Was the decision to 
send our ships toward Haiti made by deputy national security ad- 
visers, and was that decision made, as President Clinton himself 
has implied, without his knowledge? 

If so, the question presents itself: who is in charge? 

I regret to say that many Americans, including many Members 
of Congress, cannot answer those questions, and when there is a 
policy, nobody seems to be able to explain it. And if they do explain 
it, it changes the next day. 

A familiar Biblical warning comes to mind: If the trumpet gives 
an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 

President Carter, you may recall, was criticized for blowing an 
uncertain trumpet. But there is nothing in the Bible that I know 
about about an uncertain SEixophone. It may be far worse. 

Thank you, Mr.-Chairman. 

The Chairman. We have heard from the ranking minority mem- 
ber. I think the statements he has made are very strong and will 
be answered as the hearing goes along. 

I would ask my colleagues to limit themselves to 10 minutes 
each. 

I would add here one particular point with regard to the Sec- 
retary's appearances before our committee. It should be noted for 
the record that the Secretary has appeared four times before our 
committee, not including his 2 days of confirmation hearings. 

By contrast, at the same point in the Bush administration. Sec- 
retary Baker had appeared only twice before our committee. 

In total, the Secretary has testified 12 times before various com- 
mittees in the House and Senate, including, of course, our own 



17 

committee. I do not think this bespeaks an unwilHngness to come 
before us. 

I agree that we need to improve the process of consultation, and 
this comes up also in connection with the majority leader's letter 
regarding the use of force abroad. I look forward to that being de- 
veloped. 

Now, to turn to substantive points — and I am sure that my col- 
leagues will respond to some of the individual points that are being 
made by Senator Helms — I noticed in the press today a reference 
to Russia and what seemed to me a new Brezhnev doctrine. This 
is where it said, "Russia shifts doctrine on military use." 

I was just curious what would be your reaction to that statement, 
that we are seeing a new Brezhnev doctrine coming into being. 

Secretary Christopher. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have 
a chance to comment on that. 

The Chairman. Excuse me for interrupting. Also, are there any 
specific points that the minority member made that you wish to re- 
spond to? If so, please do it out of my time, too. 

Secretary Christopher. Thank you. 

Let me first comment on the story in this morning's paper. 

What we are seeing here is Russia coming to grips with the tre- 
mendous changes that have occurred over the past 3 years. Part of 
this, of course, has been a tremendous reduction in the size of the 
Russian military. In virtually every category, including the nuclear 
category, significant cuts have been made. 

What we are seeing here is Russian military doctrine trying to 
catch up with the new reality in Russia. This is a new develop- 
ment, a new doctrine, and, obviously, I am prepared only to give 
you a very preliminary assessment of it. We will be consulting 
closely with the Russians on this in the days ahead, but let me give 
you some preliminary thoughts. 

First, on the question of first use of nuclear weapons, which was 
featured in that story, the Russian Federation has jettisoned 

The Chairman. Could you pull the microphone a tiny bit closer? 
Thank you. 

Secretary Christopher [continuing]. The Russian Federation 
has jettisoned the old doctrine of "no first use." Frankly, the United 
States and its allies never took the old Soviet doctrine as a serious 
indication as to what the U.S.S.R. might actually do with its mas- 
sive arsenal of nuclear weapons. 

In the new doctrine, Russia has said, essentially, that it will not 
use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear weapons states who are 
parties to the NPT. In fact, the nuclear doctrine announced in this 
statement is not very different from our own. 

Let me comment on the aspect of it relating to the deployment 
of Russian troops outside of Russia itself. The new doctrine states 
that the basic objective is to complete the withdrawal of Russian 
forces to Russian territory, in other words, to complete their with- 
drawal from outside of Russia. We welcome this. 

The doctrine also makes provision for Russian troops to operate 
in certain situations, presumably in terms of peacekeeping, along 
the periphery of the old Soviet Union. Our preliminary understand- 
ing is that this new doctrine has a very important proviso, and that 
is that such operations, that is, operations by the military along 



18 

the borders of Russia, will be only in cooperation with the other 
states involved. 

In our diplomatic exchanges with Russia, we have stressed, and 
the Russians have confirmed, that Russian operations outside of 
Russia must conform with all international norms. They must par- 
ticularly conform with the U.N. Charter and the CSCE Final Act. 
They must respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the 
other states of the new independent states. 

In short, Russia must be part of the solution and not part of the 
problem with respect to the regional conflicts. 

Nothing that we have seen in this new doctrine — and, as I say, 
we are just beginning to study it — contradicts that crucial prin- 
ciple. 

On the Baltics, which was also referred to in that story, Mr. 
Chairman, I have already stated that it is our understanding that 
the doctrine includes specific reference to the withdrawal of all 
Russian troops from the neighboring states. That is good news. 

I had assurances during my recent visit to Moscow only about a 
week ago that the Russian Government is committed to reaching 
a prompt agreement with both Latvia and Estonia on the with- 
drawal of Russian troops. It is worth remembering that Russian 
troops are already out of Lithuania. 

Moreover, the Russian Government has reiterated that it does 
not link the troop withdrawal to the situation involving the ethnic 
Russians in those Baltic States. 

I view Defense Minister Grachev's personal comments on this 
subject as a reflection of his own personal concerns, which we have 
heard many times before from him, but not as a change in Russian 
policy. 

And so, Mr. Chairman, I have looked at that new doctrine this 
morning with a great deal of interest, have spent some time think- 
ing about it, and am ^lad to have had an opportunity to comment. 

If I could, Mr. Chairman, on your time, let me respond to Sen- 
ator Helms' comments that he wished I had been here earlier. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Helms, and members, I have been on 
Capitol Hill for meetings with this with Senators 31 times since I 
have been in office, 12 of them in formal hearings, and 19 of them 
have been in briefings where I was invited, frequently by the chair- 
man of this committee or the chairman of the House Foreign Af- 
fairs Committee. 

In addition to that, I have always tried to be available to Sen- 
ators. I have a nlle that I return all calls from Congress within the 
day. I think most of you know that I live up to that rule. If you 
want to talk to me, call me up and let me know, and I'll get right 
back to you. 

I did that with Senator Helms on a matter where he was quite 
right to call me. We have had significant progress based upon his 
call. But I want you all to know that I reanze that I serve the 
American people and I serve the Congress. 

If you want to talk to me, call me up on the telephone because 
I'll call you right back. My 31 appearances here, I think, in the 
time since I have been in office, considering the amount of travel 
that the Secretary of State has to do, has been a good record, one 
I do not apologize for. 



19 

The Chairman. You are not only correct about returning calls, 
you are one of the few people to whom I'm put through directly, 
at the time. So I would concur in what you've said. 

Going back to the Ukraine, do you feel that Grachev's statement 
may have been made because Ukraine has not yet signed up for 
the NPT and it is a way of pressing them in that direction? 

Secretary Christopher. There is no doubt that Russia is con- 
cerned about Ukraine complying with the NPT. We all are. I hope 
they will adhere to it at an early date. But, more broadly, Mr. 
Chairman, I think this is a new statement of nuclear doctrine by 
Russia, just as we are undergoing an interagency review. 

I knew it was part of their process when I was in Russia, and 
I was interested to see it coming out this morning. I think it is to 
be regarded as generalized in nature. 

The Chairman. In your conversations with Kravchuk, I think 
you saw him on your last trip? 

Secretary Christopher. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did he seem very dug-in on his position about re- 
taining those nuclear weapons? What was the general impression 
he gave you? 

Secretary Christopher. The general impression he gave me was 
that he was prepared to see the nuclear weapons dismantled and 
destroyed. They signed, in my presence, the so-called Faith and Se- 
curity Dismantlement Agreement for the dismantlement of nuclear 
weapons. They are starting to dismantle their SS-19's. In conversa- 
tions with me, he agreed that the SS-24's were also covered — ^that 
is the newest nuclear weapons that they have — were also covered 
by the Liston accords. He said that they would go forward and seek 
the ratification of START I. 

What was lacking and what is important, Mr. Chairman, is he 
did not give me any timetable for adhering to the NPT. That is 
where the difficulty is and that is what we must press on. I do not 
want to make light of that. 

There are some strong echoes in Ukraine of their desire to hold 
on to their nuclear weapons. I think what we all must make clear 
to them is that they will not be accepted fully into the community 
of nations, not be eligible for our full economic assistance, until 
they adhere to the NPT. 

T^e Chairman. Thank you. My time has expired. Senator Helms. 

Senator Helms. Very well. 

I want to compliment you and your staff. 

I had not finished my statement when a staff member handed 
him a neatly typed response to me. Now that's what you call good 
staff work. 

The Chairman. They are excellent. 

Senator Helms. I think you ought to give them a raise. 

The Chairman. I'm sure they do, too. 

Senator Helms. Yes, sir. [General laughter] 

Out of your pocket. 

When was the last time you were before this committee? I'm not 
going to argue with you about the 31. I don't know how many times 
you went to a closed session in the House and so forth. But when 
was the last time you were before this committee, in this room? 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, I don't have the date, I'm sure. 



20 

Senator Helms. Ill tell you. It was May 11. 

It does not matter how many times you have been up here. What 
does matter is you canceled out on October 15 and October 19, 
when all of us needed to know things. But I am not going to argue 
about that. You have said that you want to consult with us and I 
am going to take you at your word. 

Secretary Christopher. Good. 

Senator Helms. So we will end that thing. 

Now, I realize that the State Department, or our Government, 
for that matter, cannot know about every event that is happening 
in Haiti. It is not fair to expect you to know. But, Mr. Secretary, 
I have a number of serious questions that I want to ask you which 
I believe are on the minds of the American people if I am any judge 
of what they are thinking about with respect to Haiti. 

The State Department's 1992 Report on Human Rights stated: 
"In the case of the killing of Roger Lafontant, the Haitian army of- 
ficer who was the penitentiary commander at the time of 
Lafontant's murder claimed in a 1992 discussion with U.S. Govern- 
ment officials to have received a personal telephone call from Presi- 
dent Aristide on the evening of September 29, 1991, ordering him 
to kill Lafontant." 

Now that is from the State Department's own official report — 
quote and unquote. 

Ij it fair, Mr. Secretary, to assume that you do not dispute this 
part of that report? 

Secretary Christopher. I do not dispute the report. But I do 
know that President Aristide has denied it. 

Senator Helms. I said this part of the report. 

Secretary Christopher. I do not dispute that part of the report. 

Senator Helms. OK. 

Secretary Christopher. But I do know that President Aristide 
has denied it himself. 

Senator Helms. Well, would you confess to it if a charge was 
made to it and you had done it? Of course he denied it. 

But the State Department, and you were not a part of it then, 
nobody has disputed this thing. They are just saying well, we have 
to restore democracy in Haiti. They have not had democracy, and 
you sure as hell ain't going to get it with Aristide back in power. 
So you don't dispute that part of it, but you don't confirm it, either. 
Is that what you are saying? 

Secretary Christopher. That's right. 

President Aristide has denied that. Senator Helms. I might also 
point out to you that the administration of President Bush filed 
that report and supported the return of President Aristide, just as 
we do. So they took that into account and, nevertheless, supported 
his return, based upon the totality of the evidence. That is what 
we do, too. 

Senator Helms. You are not going to make any points with me 
about criticizing George Bush's State Department because I criti- 
cized that State Department, too. 

Now do you believe, in your heart of hearts, that Aristide did 
order the assassination of his chief political rival, Roger Lafontant? 
Do you believe that he did or did not? 



21 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, I do not know. The allegation 
was made and he has denied it. 

Senator Helms. Well, do you have any credible evidence that 
anyone other than Aristide ordered that murder? 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, I have not investigated that 
particular murder. 

Senator Helms. Have you tried to? 

Secretary Christopher. Pardon me? 

Senator Helms. Have you tried to? 

I think it is significant to know about this man. Just because he 
denies something does not give him sainthood. 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, we have a lot of information 
about the situation in Haiti, a lot of information about President 
Aristide. And, based upon all of that evidence, we think he is wor- 
thy of our support. 

Senator Helms. Well, a similar situation exists with respect to 
a Baptist minister by the name of Silvio Claudet — and I think that 
is the way you pronounce it. He was one of Aristide's chief political 
rivals. 

Now there is evidence aplenty in the hands of your State Depart- 
ment, in the hands of this Congress, saying that Aristide ordered 
that killing by necklacing. 

Now you do not have any opinion on that one way or another? 

Secretary Christopher. I do not know about that episode, Sen- 
ator. 

Senator Helms. Are you goin^ to try to find out something so 
that you can have an opinion on it? 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, I have received a lot of infor- 
mation on this subject and, as I say, we have had the benefit of 
a good deal of personal contact with President Aristide since he has 
been here in this country. Based upon that and the totality of the 
evidence, we think he is worthy of our support. 

Senator Helms. Now you know that Mr. Aristide is a defrocked 
Catholic priest. You do know that, don't you? 

Secretary Christopher. Yes, sir. 

Senator Helms. He has been no fi^iend of the Catholic Church. 

I am a Baptist, but I know what he has done to and around the 
Catholic Church. Let me quote one Catholic priest. Father William 
Murphy. He said that "Aristide supporters gutted, burned, and de- 
stroyed the Vatican Embassy in Port-au-Prince, broke the legs of 
the priest serving in the embassy," and the 1991 State Department 
Report on Human Rights provides an almost identical description 
of Father Murphy's account of it. 

Now you still say that well, Aristide has denied that? Is that 
what you say? 

Secretary Christopher. I think the quote you have read. Sen- 
ator, referred to Aristide's supporters. I would say to you, once 
again. Senator, that our support for President Aristide is based 
upon the fact that he won a democratic election in Haiti, which was 
certified to be an open and free election 

Senator Helms. So did Hitler. 

Secretary Christopher [continuing]. With about 70 percent of 
the votes. 

Senator Helms. So did Hitler. 



22 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, we have to base our judgments 
on the basis of what the democratic processes were in an adjacent 
country. As I say, based upon that and our own contact with him, 
why we think he is worthy of our support. 

Senator Helms. Churchill didn't. 

There is an ongoing dispute within the administration as to 
whether the CIA has its facts straight. Are you among those who 
are critical? 

I hope we can have order, Mr. Chairman. 

Are you critical of the CIA? 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, I do not discuss intelligence 
matters in open session. If you would like to talk to me about that 
privately, I would be glad to do so. But I will not talk about intel- 
ligence matters in an open session. 

The Chairman. We are having a briefing this afternoon from the 
CIA, too. 

Senator Helms. I think that the Secretary, what goes on here, 
he can at least say no, I think the CIA did a pretty good job, or 
yes, I have been criticizing it. But, you know, why hide behind this 
classified stuff when the CIA has made public all of this stuff and 
verified it, as far as I'm concerned? 

Is it fair to assume that you have received a CIA briefing about 
human rights abuses during Aristide's rule? 

Secretary Christopher, Senator, I am not going to talk about in- 
telligence briefings that I may have received. I nave indicated to 
you that I would be glad to discuss that with you in private. 

Senator, I have lived quite a while, and a few people have some- 
times misunderstood my courtesy for a lack of resolve. I think they 
have been sorry when they have made that mistake. I want you to 
know that I do not intend to discuss these intelligence matters in 
a public session. 

Senator Helms. That's your choice. 

My time is up. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

I turn now to the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes. 

Senator Sarbanes. First of all, let me say, Mr. Chairman, I think 
the Secretary is absolutely right in the position he has taken not 
to discuss intelligence matters in open session. I think anyone who 
stops and reflects on that, even for the briefest of moments would 
reach the same conclusion. We cannot take matters which are, by 
their nature, classified, and then, for purposes of, in effect, ha- 
ranguing the Secretary, drag them out into the public view. 

Now, Mr. Secretary, I am interested in 

Senator Helms. Mr. Chairman, I dislike and I take offense at 
that, particularly from Senator Sarbanes, who has beleaguered wit- 
ness after witness when the previous administration sent people up 
here. 

You can have your opinion as to whether I'm abusing him or not. 
But he's entitled to— — 

Senator Sarbanes. I didn't say "abused." I said "harangued." 

Senator Helms. Harangued. What's the difference? 

Senator Sarbanes. But "abused" may be an accurate description 
of it as well. [General laughter.] 

I am not going to quarrel over that. 



23 

Senator Helms. Well, quarrel if you wish. It suits me fine. 

The Chairman. Senator Sarbanes. 

Senator Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I was struck by the comment right on the first 
page of your statement, in which you talk about the need to accom- 
plish this transformation at a time when the definitions, cer- 
tainties, and ground rules of the cold war have disappeared. 

It is my perception that one of the problems we have encountered 
in redefining U.S. foreign policy in the post-cold war period is that 
for 45 years we have had an overriding, guiding principle. Every- 
thing was defined in terms of the superpower conflict: containing 
communism, restraining it, and, hopefully, in the end, undermining 
it, as in fact happened. Everything could be related to that objec- 
tive. 

We had a nicely defined framework in which to perceive every 
issue. Now, with the implosion of the Soviet Union, as you point 
out, we are building on the historically unique situation that the 
major powers can be partners cooperating for peace, not competi- 
tors locked in conflict. 

I think, sometimes, as we face the problems of the moment, we 
forget the importance of that fundamental change and the neces- 
sity of sustaining it. 

Now, one of the problems, as I perceive it, at least, is that we 
now have competing objectives. There are a number of principles 
and objectives we are seeking to achieve and, sometimes, they do 
not all work in the same direction. Therefore, we have to balance 
them in each particular situation. 

I take it that, in the administration's view, sustaining the direc- 
tion in which the former Soviet Union is moving — ^in other words, 
toward democracy and markets — and ending to tne cold war stand- 
off by encouraging Russia to be a positive force in international 
dealings, rather than a negative force, is perhaps the single-most 
important olyective on our agenda. How do you perceive that? 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, I agree with you that we are in 
a period where there is no single lodestone, such as a bipolar con- 
flict, that would enlighten all of our decisions. We are in a more 
difficult period of trying to find our way to a new set of principles. 

That is why. Senator, I outlined six priorities that I try to follow 
when I come to work every day. One of those certainly is trying to 
improve the prospects for democracy and free markets in Russia. 

I think this is an overarching requirement for our administration 
and one we are working on constantly. 

It is a unique situation, as you indicated. Senator, where all the 
major powers of the world are in a situation where we are working 
together and we are at peace and, in most instances, in harmony. 

Now great powers, obviously, have differences, as we have dif- 
ferences from time to time with Russia. But we are working them 
out in an atmosphere of cooperation and harmony. We know we 
have people to talk to without having an ideological battle underly- 
ing or transforming the conversation. 

So you are absolutely right. Senator. That is a very high priority 
for this administration. 

I have not sought to tiy to rank the six priorities that I men- 
tioned in any rank order. I would have to say that I think a unique 



24 

part of President Clinton's insight is that economic issues are cru- 
cial to American foreign policy. We put economic issues right at the 
top of American foreign policy. 

So I would rank that along with improving the relations with 
Russia as a very high prioritv. 

Senator Sarbanes. Now the other area where I think there has 
been a fundamental transformation, potentially of enormous con- 
sequence, is in the Middle East. 

What I am concerned about is a tendency to focus on situations 
like Haiti and Somalia which are very difficult, very complex, and 
hard of solution. And we lose sight of the fact that, within a broad- 
er context, some very basic and significant things are transpiring 
in a very positive and constructive direction. 

The implosion of the Soviet Union is one, with all its implica- 
tions. Another, which may have in part flowed from that, is the 
fundamental changes that are taking place in the Middle East and 
the prospects for moving to a comprehensive peace settlement in 
that area. 

To what extent do you think that the implosion of the Soviet 
Union was an important factor in the moving toward peace in the 
Middle East? 

Secretary Christopher. I think it was a very important factor, 
Senator. It changes the context of all the discussion. Some of the 
countries in the Middle East no longer have a patron that they can 
count on. Some of the countries there which previously looked to 
Russia now look to the United States. I think that, as I say, 
changes the context, changes our leverage and our capacity for in- 
fluence. 

All over the world I think the end of the cold war, the end of the 
bipolar conflict and confrontation, has made important changes in 
the way problems are viewed. 

Senator Sarbanes. In that regard, let me say I very much wel- 
come the statement in your submission about ending the Arab boy- 
cott of Israel. It is an abominable anachronism and it needs to be 
brought to an end. I know the administration is working very hard 
in that regard. 

I want to ask you this question. Does your nonproliferation effort 
extend to conventional weaponrv? 

Secretary Christopher. Well, it is focused on weapons of mass 
destruction. But I think we are also conscious of overloading areas 
with very high-tech conventional weapons, burdening economies of 
developing countries. So we do whatever we can to avoid rivalries 
of that kind, especially in areas where there is lots of tension. 

Our nonproliferation policy, though, does focus on weapons of 
mass destruction, not only nuclear but biological and chemical as 
well. 

Senator Sarbanes. Well, of course, some of these conventional 
weapons are very destructive. I guess essentially I am probing to 
find out whether it is your view that the general level of arms 
ought to be brought down. I mean, we are bringing them down in 
this country. Why shouldn't they be brought down everywhere, 
worldwide, nuclear and conventional? 

Secretary Christopher. I think they ought to be. Senator, and 
I think we are pursuing that. That is a difficult thing to do because 



25 

a number of countries have a great stake in their arms manufac- 
turers. But we will keep on working with our allies in the U.N. on 
that project as well. 

Senator Sarbanes. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Lugar. 

Senator Lugar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Christopher, I appreciated your organization of prior- 
ities and I think the priorities that you nave described are correct. 
I would just underline the first priority, economic security. You 
have stated accurately that the next 40 days are crucial for this 
country and our economic security, with the NAFTA Treaty, the 
Uruguay Round of GATT, and the APEC Conference. 

I would just say that I hope all members of this committee would 
work with you and the President in every way for success in each 
of these three ventures. This is because of the downside of failure, 
or, as you have described it, the snowball effect of NAFTA failing, 
affecting GATT, as well as the prestige of the President, as he goes 
to APEC following the NAFTA vote in the House. People have to 
realize the gravity of the situation for our country. 

We are not going to have a whole lot of domestic prosperity next 
year if all the jobs are lost in November and December of this year. 
I think your priority is right on. 

I am more disturbed, however, by what occurred, at least in the 
paper today, in the accounts of the Russian military doctrine. I do 
not have any inside information, and I respect your judgment as 
to how to interpret this. 

But as I read Fred Hyatt's account in the "Washington Post" this 
morning, he said: "Grachev was in an expansive mood as he de- 
scribed the new policy for Russian and foreign journalists. He 
spoke out against NATO accepting any new members and said he 
favors keeping Russian troops in Latvia and Estonia until those 
Baltic States guarantee the rights of their Russian-speaking mi- 
norities." 

Then, as you point out, the doctrine rejects the long-time Soviet 
promise not to use nuclear weapons first, and Grachev said the 
doctrine, likewise, rejects stated Soviet policy that aggression 
should be repulsed only to the point of reestablishing existing bor- 
ders. Instead, the new doctrine approves of Russian troops repel- 
ling aggression and going on the offensive, even beyond the bor- 
ders, and Grachev denied that the Russians had had anything to 
do with the Abkhazia separatist movement. 

Now, maybe so. But I would simply say that I think common 
sense would read this with some apprehension. In other words, as 
you have pointed out, we have devoted a good part of this year and 
a good part of the final year of the last administration in trying to 
establish ways in which we can be helpful to President Yeltsin, Mr. 
Kozjrrev, and other Russian leaders. Frankly, all of this comes as 
a surprise to people who are friendly with them. In other words, 
there is this new assertion at this particular time, as we are com- 
ing up to the NATO summit January 10 and as we have all 
weighed in heavily with regard to the Baltic States. Now we begin 
to see the development of the so-called Russia abroad policy, in 
which there appears to be much more assertiveness by Russia with 



26 

the formerly, and hopefully still newly independent states, with 
great pressure being placed upon these states. This is even so with 
Ukraine, with denial of fuel resources and clearly an attempt, ap- 
parently even by people who are democratic to try to incorporate 
more of the independent states into their orbit. 

Why, at least, is your initial impression of all of this sanguine 
or hopeful? It seems to me this is a bad day and we should call 
time out and ask what is going on here among our friends. Why 
are they making these assertions and why are we surprised about 
it, because, frankly, I am. Maybe you are not. You were over there 
just a while ago. But this seems to me to be not very good news. 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, first let me say that it is worth 
remembering that Grachev is Secretary of Defense in a country 
where there is a dispirited army, dispirited defense forces that are 
being dramatically reduced. 

He, obviously, has a morale situation on his hands. I think his 
oral comments, different from the doctrine itself, need to be read 
in that context. 

With respect to NATO, I can tell you that I heard it directly from 
President Yeltsin that thev are very positive about the partnership 
for peace concept that we nave put forward, which contemplates an 
expansion of NATO in an evolutionary manner. That is the way 
they think it ought to be done. They do not want to be excluded 
from the possibility of joining the West. 

There is a very strong tendency in Russia to want to be part of 
the West. 

So I would put a lot more weight on what President Yeltsin said 
on that. 

With respect to the Baltics, once again, I think it is a good sign 
in the statement of doctrine itself that they intend to withdraw all 
Russian forces back to Russia from all of the new independent 
states. Grachev himself has had a view that Russian forces should 
not be withdrawn from Latvia and Estonia until there is provision 
made for the Russian minorities in those two countries to vote. 

That is not the view of the Russian Government, and there are 
discussions going forward at the highest level between President 
Yeltsin and the Presidents of Latvia and Estonia. So forces have 
been drawn down in the Baltics and I think the statement is con- 
sistent with the fact, the doctrine is consistent with the fact that 
those forces will be out of Latvia and Estonia in the relatively near 
future. 

So, Senator, I am going to study that statement some more. I 
know you will. I look forward to talking with you about it again. 
But I do not read it with the apprehension that, apparently, you 
do this morning. 

The story was perhaps cast in those terms. But I have had re- 
ports from our experts and from our Embassy, and they, think, re- 
gard it as a statement of doctrine not unlike our process here, try- 
ing to adapt the Russian military to the new, post-cold war era. 

I look forward to talking witn you further about that, Senator. 

Senator LUGAR. Very good. 

It just appears to me, getting on to the third priority and NATO, 
that the partnership for peace is an important step forward. I con- 



27 

gratulate you on that and on working with others who are endors- 
ing it. 

I suppose I would still raise the question in the context of the 
last statement, however. I can understand why President Yeltsin 
would make appropriately complimentary statements about it, as 
did Mr. Kozyrev. But I fear, in a way, that we are paying too much 
attention to the Russian view of Western security, of our own secu- 
rity. 

In other words, I would prefer that we were approaching this 
from the standpoint of what was in our best interest in incorporat- 
ing other countries into NATO in a much more rapid or certain 
fashion. 

You pointed out today, correctly, that partnership for peace does 
not have an agenda of countries or timetables or roadmaps. It of- 
fers military exercises that may bring others together with us and 
offers some possibility for incorporation of them, including Russia 
and Ukraine. But, at the same time, it could also be interpreted by 
Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and others as a very great 
disappointment because they may see it as a deferral of their hopes 
for much greater certainty at a time the window is opening. 

Looking at it from their standpoint, as they read the new mili- 
tary doctrine of Russia, they might say the Russians, despite prot- 
estations, are determined to bring back for Russia the boundaries 
that the Soviet Union had. 

It appears to me that we have to take this more seriously, given 
this new Russian military doctrine. Anyone taking a look at what 
has occurred in Georgia, despite the protestations, would have to 
say there is strong evidence that Russia helped destabilize Georgia 
and now Russia is rescuing Georgia. And the independence that 
Greorgia might have expressed is certainly very much less right 
now. The pressure being put on Ukraine is very considerable, and 
the concessions apparently made by President Kravchuk earlier on, 
when he talked about returning the missiles and dividing up the 
Navy, came from that economic pressure. 

Now how do you square what appear to be signs of considerable 
pressures on these newly independent states with a more salutary 
feeling that NATO membership can wait or that there is not 
emerging a boundary of Russia very close to where we were before? 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, first let me go back to one of 
the things you earlier said. 

My obligation is to protect the interests of the American people. 
I have taken an oath to do that. So when I make my decisions, it 
is in those terms. 

I do not want any misunderstanding^ about that. I am not con- 
cerned about Russian reactions or attitudes except as they affect 
American interests. 

Our judgment, my judgment is that the partnership for peace is 
the best approach to protecting American interests and the expan- 
sion of NATO. 

Naturally I am concerned about the possibility of the expansion 
of Russia. But I think President Yeltsin is the best ally we have 
among the choices in Russia today to keep that in bounds. I think 
he respects the territorial integrity of the other newly independent 
states. 



28 

Those who tried to overthrow him on October 3 and 4 had just 
the opposite impression. They wanted to recreate the Russian em- 
pire. Khasbulatov is supposed to have a map in his office which has 
the old Russian empire on it, the old Soviet empire on it. He is said 
to say, "I keep it there because it might come in handy another 
time. ' 

That is not the Yeltsin attitude. 

Clearly, Russia is concerned about conflicts on its borders, as I 
think we might be. It is our job, I think the American job, to re- 
mind them that they should only take those actions in surrounding 
countries in accordance with international norms, in accordance 
with the U.N., in accordance with the CSCE. 

So it is not that I am concerned about it. Senator. It is just my 
judgment and the judgment of the President that it is in the best 
interests of the American people to avoid a reversion in Russia to 
the bad old days of the Communists and their world expansion. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Dodd. 

Senator Dodd. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, let me welcome you here this morning. 

Secretary Christopher. Thank you. Senator. 

Senator Dodd. Let me iust add as well, in addition to your own 
availability, which the chairman has outlined, I would like the 
record to reflect as well that I have found the Secretary's staff and 
the Department have been extremely responsive in a number of 
areas that we have inquired about. I think it is certainly not in 
anyone's interest to spend a great deal of time dwelling on that 
point, except to say that I have certainly been satisfied. 

Let me just join my colleague from Indiana in commendin^^ you 
for your priorities as you have laid them out here. I think it is ex- 
actly the right order. 

I want to underscore what my colleague has said about NAFTA. 
I think it is critically important. There is nothing more important 
to this hemisphere than that issue right now. I could not agree 
more. 

I think it is on the 18th that the President is due, the day after 
the NAFTA vote in the House. I know the administration is doing 
everything possible. Many of us are here as well. But I commend 
you for listing that and the economic security issues. 

Let me just say briefly, as well, that I think it is important to 
place into context vyhat are the large, large issues and what are im- 
portant issues, but not quite as important as others. I think, on the 
large issues, the large issues, the administration is doing a good 
job, in my view — certainly on the economic questions. It is a dif- 
ficult battle up here on some of these issues. But I think you are 
doing a very good job on the Middle East. I think the President got 
high marks, and deservedly so, for the summit with Japan. Cer- 
tamly the President's leadership during the crucial hours, when the 
fledgling efforts with Russia were at stake, I think made a signifi- 
cant difference there. In South Africa and on nonproliferation, on 
these major questions I think you are doing a good job. 

These are difficult days, obviously, in the wake and collapse of 
the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war. These are new wa- 
ters that we are sailing in. I think people ought to step back a little 



29 

bit and take a look at the larger questions in terms of where this 
administration is. I think any objective analysis of that would con- 
clude that we are doing a pretty good job. 

Now we have some other problems which are not insignificant. 
But I do not think they deserve to be kind of on the same level, 
if you will, as the ones I have just mentioned. It has not been an 
all-inclusive list. 

Certainly the problems in Bosnia, in Somalia, and in Haiti are 
important, and tney are ones that are not new to this administra- 
tion. They have been around for a while. You have a lot of different 
pieces of advice from Members of Cong^ress as to what we ought to 
do. But no one that I know of has cornered the market on exactly 
how we ought to deal with those issues. 

So I just generally want to commend you. 

Now let me focus, if I can, a bit on Haiti. Obviously I have a par- 
ticular interest in this hemisphere as I chair the Subcommittee on 
the Western Hemisphere. 

I just want to underscore that members up here can have dis- 
agreements. I have spent over 5 hours now in private briefings, 
closed briefings, with the intelligence community and others, trying 
to learn as much as I could about these issues. I think I have prob- 
ably spent more time than any other single member of this commit- 
tee meeting with President Aristide to talk with him and trying to 
discern where we are. 

Let me just tell you my conclusions, and each one of us csm have 
different ones. 

I think President Aristide is a good man. Whether or not he is 
defrocked and so forth is irrelevant, in my view. He was elected by 
almost 70 percent of the people of his country. 

I know that country. I served in the Peace Corps on the border 
of that country 25 years ago. It has never known a moment's worth 
of peace since its independence in 1804. It has never had a free 
election. There has never been an election in recent time in Latin 
America where, by everyone's calculation, it was free, that a person 
has been elected with the majority that President Aristide was. 

I have listened to all the information that has been raised 
against him as a person. I find on most counts that it is not credi- 
ble, and on some that have been raised here this morning it is 
highly speculative, and there is significant disagreement as to the 
allegations. 

But I do not think we ought to lose sight of things here. This is 
not a debate about a person, necessarily. That may be important. 
But what is important here is this little country has struggled to 
achieve democracy. It did so. Their freely elected President was 
ousted by a group of thugs. 

Now you can go so far as to say here that a lot of the information 
we are getting is from the very same people who in front of the 
world are brutally murdering people. Tney are dragging them out 
of churches, murdering a justice minister in front of the entire 
globe. And we are relying on a lot of those very same people for 
the information we are getting, I will tell my colleagues and others 
here. 

So I think President Aristide is a good person and a good man. 
But, that aside, I think it is in our interest to support democracy. 



30 

We have more democracies today in this hemisphere than at any 
point since the arrival of the European culture on this continent. 
My colleague from Indiana has made that point on numerous occa- 
sions in the past. 

It is a great opportunity and it ought not to be treated lightly. 
No one wants to see the life of an American lost anywhere on the 
globe. But in protecting and defending democracy, that is clearly in 
our interest. If we do not stand up for Haiti, if we are not willing 
to stand up for these people, who will? If not in our own hemi- 
sphere, who will? 

So, Mr. Secretary, I want to tell you that I think you are on the 
right track. Others of my colleagues here may disagree. But I think 
you are basically following the right course. It is not an easy one. 
But when members up here offer comfort, in my view, to the thugs 
who have denied the return of President Aristide and the restora- 
tion of democracy by their statements, it is going to be that much 
more difficult. 

So I want some of those people listening here this morning to 
know that at least one Senator here is not going to tolerate any- 
thing short of allowing democracy to blossom in that country and. 
to give that President a chance to return to his nation. 

Now it may take 1 month, 6 months, 1 year or 2 years. But I 
will never accept anything short of that and I think it is in our in- 
terest to do so. So I commend you for the position you have taken. 

Secretary Christopher. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Dodd. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chair- 
man. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Kassebaum. 

Senator Kassebaum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, to follow Senator Dodd's I think very impassioned 
and eloquent appeal, let me just use that as an example because 
I think, certainly, Mr. Secretary, as you say, there is no single lode- 
stone. The old certainties are not there to frame foreign policy 
today. This makes it even that much more difficult, obviously. 

So you have to have the flexibility that is necessary, given each 
particular situation. But also I would argue that, once policy is 
enunciated, be certain you will stand by that policy. 

I think nothing can be more unsettling than to hear policy enun- 
ciated by the President and then to begin to have to reverse course. 
That I tnink creates a great deal of uncertainty. 

It is much easier, of course, in hindsight to say what should be 
done, and I realize" that. 

I have enormous respect for your integrity and your skills as a 
negotiator. That is not what is being challenged. It is just how we 
deal with, for instance, Haiti. 

I agree with much of what Senator Dodd has said. On the other 
hand, reflecting on history and the U.S. relationship with Haiti, it 
would seem to me that caution should have been used as far as 
making a commitment for the United States to be a participant 
with force because we have been a lightning rod in Haiti for a long 
time. 

I do not want to get sidetracked from my questions, but I think 
it is an example," and I think there are some others, Mr. Secretary. 
Somalia is one, as well. 



31 

There were many of us, both here and I am sure in the adminis- 
tration, who felt a deadhne for our leaving Somalia was a mist^e. 
Nevertheless, there were many here calling for it, obviously, as 
well as when the President announced it. 

We have a limited amount of time to use what weakened lever- 
age we have. I was pleased to see by this morning's paper that we 
are going to now allow our troops to be engaged in keeping key 
roads and lines of communication open, which the President and 
you have stated was important to do. I would certainly second that. 

I can think of no further compounding of the tragedy that has 
occurred there for our forces than to have them withdraw at the 
end of March and really see what started out to be a very success- 
fill, noble mission, end in chaos again. It seems to me we have to 
use this time wisely between now and the end of March in being 
engaged in a constructive and positive way. 

My question is I assume we are going to continue to be visible 
there, Mr. Secretary, and use this opportunity. Are we, with a 
deadline on negotiation for UNOSOM II at the U.N., going to be 
clear in what, indeed, we intend to do? 

When Ambassador Albright was here, she said that the United 
States has advocated that the resolution extending UNOSOM II 
take into account new realities and has encouraged the U.N. to 
focus its attention on a specific number of realistically attainable 
objectives. Can you add any clarity to perhaps what we might hope 
to accomplish between now and the end of March? 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, I think the President chose the 
end of March as a time that would provide a realistic opportunity 
for two things to happen. First is for the political process to evolve 
in a way that gives the various interests in Somalia an opportunity 
to provide a political settlement, a way to provide some governing 
structure for their country. We are working at that with the Presi- 
dents of the adjacent countries, particular^ Ethiopia and Eritrea. 

There is going to be a humanitarian con^rence later this month 
where those issues I think can come to the fore, that is, such as 
what kind of political resolution can there be in Haiti. 

As you know. Ambassador Oakley is in Somalia today, and I 
think he is pushing forward on a political resolution. He will be 
back here in a couple of days and I know he will be meeting with 
members of this committee again. 

Senator Kassebaum. I realize that, Mr. Secretary. 

I think there are a number of Somalians who feel that, in a way 
because of General Aideed's action and the outcome of that, that 
they are being left out now. It seems to me absolutely crucial that 
all other factions are really given the focus of attention and some- 
how be a part of a process of getting together around one table, and 
I think within Somalia. 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, I agree with that completely. 

We need to bring in not Aideed himself, probably, but his clan. 
We must also make sure that the other competing factions there 
are involved. One of the great qualities that Ambassador Oakley 
has, in my judgment, is he has good relationships with all the var- 
ious clans. It would be his strong determination to bring them all 
into the discussion. 



32 

Senator Kassebaum. I agree. I think that it needs to stem from 
Somalia as much as anything and with the leverage that we have 
now. It just cannot rest with Ambassador Oakley himself. I mean, 
there are many players there, and you well know the importance 
of a firmness of purpose in those negotiations. 

Just to continue on a bit about analyzing the situation in Russia, 
does it trouble you that, evidently, President Yeltsin has retreated 
from his pledge for a Jime election? 

Secretary Christopher. I think that story is considerably over- 
stated. Senator. 

What President Yeltsin said is that he is going to propose a Con- 
stitution that will enable the Parliament to determine the time of 
the next election. The Constitution provides that he is eligible to 
continue his term as a whole. But with his instinct for democracy, 
which would seem to come into play in a number of instances, he 
has said that if Parliament establishes the election next Jime, that 
will be fully acceptable to him. So I do not see any retreat from his 
basic statement tnat a June election is satisfactory. 

What I do think we ought to concentrate on. Senator, is the im- 
portance of the election and referendum this December, in which 
the Parliament will be chosen and the Constitution will be acted 
upon. But this would give room for the Parliament to establish the 
election at the time that he had previously said would be satisfac- 
tory to him. 

I do not see that as a retreat from his prior commitment that a 
June election would be satisfactory to him. But it will be up to the 
Parliament and the Constitution, as it ought to be. 

Senator Kassebaum. Well, it is, again, a situation which is going 
to require, obviously, some flexibility. But it seems to me that we 
have to reiterate, and continually reiterate, what we believe is im- 
portant and what we will stand by, no matter what may evolve. 

I think that is a message that others want to hear. It is a focus 
that is important. And, as we get scattered around the world with 
all of these trouble spots, I want to touch on another one. North 
Korea. 

I know that the Secretary of Defense is now there, in the region, 
consulting. It may not be anything you want to speak to in an open 
hearing. But it is an extremely, I think, important area for all of 
us, and there is a great deal of concern that I think I have, which 
I am sure others would share, with what North Korea's attitude is 
regarding the IAEA inspections and what our response will be. 
Certainly, that is" a juggling act, Mr. Secretary. But I think no one 
should be under any misimpression about what positions will be, 
whatever they may be. 

Secretary Christopher. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator KASSEBAUM. You just briefly touched on that in your 
opening statement. 

Secretary Christopher. Let me first comment on your comments 
about Russia. 

In every conversation that I have I remind them that our support 
for them is based on the understanding that they are pursuing 
democratic values. They are very reassuring on this score, both the 
President and Foreign Minister Kozyrev, with whom I deal on a 
very regular basis. But our support is based upon our understand- 



33 

ing that they are pursuing democratic means, and they seem to be 
at every turn. 

With respect to North Korea, without extending my remarks at 
all, I agree with you about the acute sensitivity of the matter. The 
head of the IAEA has not yet found that there is a break in the 
continuity of inspections. If that were to be found, we would have 
to go back to the U.N. and seek sanctions there. 

I have dealt very closely with both the Foreign Minister of Japan 
and the Foreign Minister of South Korea. Their concern is very 
acute about this. I just want to assure you that we are following 
this issue with a great deal of care and concern. It is not an easy 
one to handle. 

Senator Kassebaum. I have some other questions, Mr. Chairman, 
of the Secretary but I will wait for the next round. 

Secretary Christopher. Thank you, Senator. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Kerry. 

Senator Kerry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Christopher. Good morning, Senator. 

Senator Kerry. Mr. Secretary, I want to join in welcoming you 
here this morning. 

I was just reacung your statement, which you did not read in full 
before the committee. I want to congratulate you on it. I think that 
there is a particularly important statement you make in it that we 
all need to keep in mind as we think about where we are going, 
and that is the statement on page 2, where you say, "As I travel 
the world, I see that virtually every nation wants to define its for- 
eign policy in terms relative to the United States, whether in seek- 
ing security assurances or expanding trade and investment." 

I think that it is very important for us, as we measure Somalia, 
Haiti, and Bosnia, but more importantly the Asia-Pacific issue, 
which I am glad to see you have laid out as one of the most impor- 
tant of the areas, and the Middle East and so forth, that that re- 
ality must be incorporated into our thinking as we contemplate our 
approaches to these issues. 

Before I ask you some questions regarding those, I just want to 
make one comment on the issue that Senator Kassebaum and Sen- 
ator Dodd have talked about. 

As a member of the Intelligence Committee as well as of the For- 
eign Relations Committee, I have spent a significant amount of 
time meeting with the briefers and others regarding this issue re- 
lated to Haiti, as has Senator Dodd. 

I have probably gotten more briefings about it than I think any 
other Member of Congress, specifically on what has been floating 
around lately. 

The Chairman. If the Senator would yield, we will have a brief- 
ing in the Foreign Relations Committee at 5 o'clock this afternoon. 

Senator Kerry. Yes, there is another briefing coming up this 
aflemoon, Mr. Chairman. I realize that. 

But what I want to say is. No. 1, it is very clear to me that a 
very concerted and dangerous effort has been engaged in by some 
people within the framework of the CIA. I want to be very careful 
here. I do not brand the entire CIA nor am I saying that this is 
a broad CIA effort. But there is no doubt that individuals within 
that agency are engaging in a separate foreign policy and that they 



34 

have sought purposefully, beyond any doubt whatsoever in my 
mind, to place certain information in certain hands in an effort to 
run a course counter to the policy of this country. 

That is a very perfidious, dangerous undertaking. It is not their 
responsibility to engage in their own foreign policy. 

Now I have read in the newspaper reports about their involve- 
ment. I do not know whether they are true or not. If they were to 
be true, then, clearly, there are credibility issues about their cur- 
rent involvement that are very significant, and each Member ought 
to undertake to ascertain that truth before coming to conclusions. 

Finally, it is not our job, as Senators, to form, I think, individual 
opinions that run counter to elections of other countries. It is cer- 
tainly our job to make judgments about what lengths we might be 
willing to go to in terms of the use of American military force with 
respect to leaders or countries. That is fair game. 

But what is not fair game is any effort to alter the election, fair, 
open, and free, of another nation. 

So I join in the message of Senator Dodd without any judgments 
whatsoever. There are legitimate questions in my mind as to some 
things. But without any judgment, it is clear that democracy is the 
goal in Haiti, and this Nation must be clear about our commitment 
to that goal. This Nation must be clear about our unwillingness to 
tolerate thugs who murder people in open, visible, measurable 
ways. We cannot tolerate those kinds of thugs being left to thwart 
democracy, regardless of personalities. 

This Nation had better be resolute and clear about our unwilling- 
ness to accept that. 

So I think we need to refocus this debate. 

While I might have some reservations about what options are 
available to us down the road, I have no reservations about what 
our goal ought to be with respect to Haiti. 

Now, Mr. Secretary, turning to issues of importance that we face 
here, one of the questions that comes before us now regarding the 
use offeree in various parts of the world is the relationship we now 
have to the U.N., which becomes far more important in this entire 
process. I suppose the exercise we went through on Somalia in a 
sense is a good one, reminding us of the need to be a little more 
clear about how we are going to bring Congress and the President 
together in creating the consensus necessary to back up our 
choices. 

Might you more-clearly define for us today whether or not, before 
an Ambassador votes at the U.N. to commit us to a particular 
project that may involve American forces in peacekeeping, peace- 
making, or nation-building, the Congress should first be part of 
that decision? Or is there some other method by which you feel we 
can maintain the independence and integrity of the President to 
conduct foreign policy but the Congress to build the bipartisan con- 
sensus necessary to follow through with that policy? 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, I think we are in a period here 
where we are learning from the experiences we have had. Unques- 
tionably, there needs to be the widest and most comprehensive 
kind of*^ consultation with the Congress. I think the new procedures 
that are being proposed, where we brief Congress on a periodic 
basis, that is, the highest officials of the government brief key lead- 



35 

ers of Congress on a periodic basis so that the Congress is aware 
of what is going on, I think that ought to contemplate letting the 
Congress know when we are considering voting for a U.N. resolu- 
tion that might involve the implications of U.S. forces. 

Senator, one of the lessons that we have learned out of this pe- 
riod, certainly that I take away, is that the involvement of U.S. 
military men and women is a very serious step. It requires the 
deepest thought on the part of the administration and consultation 
with the Congress, because you have an important stake in it. 

Exactly what the modalities are for that consultation I think we 
are working through at this period. But, unquestionably, one of the 
things we team from Somalia and the other events of recent days 
and months is that the use of U.S. troops in a combat role is one 
where it must not be taken lightly. It is one that has the greatest 
gravity because the American people will insist on it, and they 
ought to. 

Senator Kerry. Well, I think it ought to be pointed out that vou 
and the Clinton administration have not yet placed troops or asked 
us to place them in any place. This is a hang-over of a Bush place- 
ment of troops and policy. 

You have already said that you are going to come to us before 
you go to Bosnia. So I take it, precedentially, you believe that we 
ought to vote before we commit troops in these situations. Is that 
accurate? 

Secretary Christopher. Yes. It is very hard to make a rule for 
all seasons. With respect to Bosnia, let me just say that I think the 
realities are that troops will not be committed there without a vote 
of this body. 

It is hard for me to imagine the commitment of a substantial 
number of American troops in a comparable situation without a 
vote of this body. 

Senator Kerry. And if I could ask you just quickly on another 
subject, because the time goes awfully fast, about China. There are 
many people who have questions about our policy in China now. 
China has exploded nuclear weapons. Secretary Shattuck has come 
back. The human rights issue remains of concern. We do not seem 
to have gained a great deal in the last 12 years, really, in many 
regards. 

Yet we have had an Assistant Secretary of Defense, Mr. Free- 
man, who has now met with the Chinese. Reports seem to indicate 
a shift in policy here. 

I wonder if you could clarify for us whether there is now a new 
hope, a new opening, a sense that this is a new policy, or maybe 
it is not a new policy at all. I would like to ask you just to clarify 
the administration's approach on China. 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, we want to have a comprehen- 
sive relationship with China so that we can meet with them in var- 
ious aspects of our mutual interests, all the way across the board. 
We think that offers the best hope to have a solid relationship with 
them in the future. 

A very important time is coming ahead with respect to China. 

As you know. President Clinton will be meeting with President 
Jiang Zemin of China in Seattle, around the edges of the APEC 
meeting. That is one of the good things about President Clinton's 



36 

decision to invite the leaders of the various APEC countries to 
come to Seattle. It gives him an opportunity. This will be the first 
time our President has met at the Highest levels with China. 

I will be meeting with the Foreign Minister there, and we will 
be reminding them that this is a year of very important decision 
for them. 

As I said in my statement, I do not believe we can sustain an- 
other year of MFN without some substantial improvement. 

So, Senator, there is no dramatic change in policy, but just a de- 
sire on our part to have a comprehensive relationship with them 
that will touch all the areas of our mutual interest. China is a vast 
coimtry, growing rapidly, with an economy that is improving in the 
most dramatic fashion. 

I think that one of the principal challenges of our foreign policy, 
as I indicated in the listing of my priorities, is to try to develop a 
sound relationship with China. 

Senator Kerry. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, 

Secretary Christopher. Thank you. 

Senator Kerry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I just want to be sure. Can people in the back 
of the room hear adequately? [Pause.] 

Good. Senator Pressler. 

Senator Pressler. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairmgui. 

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary Christopher. Good morning, Senator. 

Senator Pressler. I have been listening with great interest to 
the exchange between you and Senator Helms. There is a dilemma 
here because in working on foreign policy with the State Depart- 
ment there is always this business of things being classified. Some 
things should be classified. But, as a Senator trying to be a part 
of it, there is this dilemma in that the administration, be it Repub- 
lican or Democratic, tends to classify a lot of things. 

Many years ago, when I was a young, government lawyer, I was 
on a team. We were working on getting less things classified. It 
was one of the great reforms of 1970. 

But about every 2 or 3 years the classification goes up again. 
Now I can see the need for some of it, but then it puts us in a box 
because, in asking questions here, we do have a democracy, and it 
is necessary that we have an open forum and open discussion. 

If we have heard something in a briefing, but it is also publicly 
known, we really are not supposed to ask about it. I find the same 
dilemma when I "travel to foreign countries. If I go into the Em- 
bassy and take the briefing in a classified room, they tell me many 
things that I already know. But they have told me, then, that they 
are classified, and I have the dilemma then of not being able to ask 
the foreign government about them. So I have almost reached the 
point of not taking briefings sometimes. 

I am saying this in a very sincere matter. 

Now in the case of Aristide, there have been a lot of things that 
have gotten into the public domain. Maybe they got there improp- 
erly. I don't know how they got there. But these are things like the 
murder, and his reaction, his management of crises and the way 
he has reacted, and so on and so forth. We are told there is no dis- 
agreement about these things in the intelligence community. Yet, 



37 

in a public forum such as this, where we have the Secretary of 
State — and I am glad that you are here — and people in our country 
want to participate in democracy, they want to know the facts, we 
are told that we will discuss that in a closed meeting. 

Is that a dilemma in the formulation of foreign policy? How do 
we resolve that in this case, and particularly in the Aristide case? 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, I agree with you that there is 
overclassification, frequently, of information. I try to struggle 
against it in the State Department, urging people to make as much 
known to the public as they possibly can. 

I did not classify myself the document with respect to President 
Aristide. That was done by another agency, the agency that we rely 
on I suppose most for keeping our secrets, or having them. It is 
hard for me to imagine something that would be more highly clas- 
sified than that document. 

So I would say that in the generality I agree with you, but in 
this specific case I simply will decline to discuss that in open ses- 
sion. I emphasize that over and over again. 

Senator Pressler. But I would carry this a step further. I know 
that maybe being constituent-oriented sounds parochial on this 
committee. But we go home and explain to our constituents what 
we are doing on foreign policy and sometimes something is known 
to them that we cannot discuss. 

The point that I am making is that I think things are 
overclassified — in my judgment. The administration does put out 
things. President Clinton, after his jog one morning, said the CIA 
briefing said this and this favorable about such ana such. So he at 
least released part of the CIA briefing. 

The point is I think we have overclassified this Aristide thing. A 
lot of us in good faith are trying to work closely with you and are 
put in a box. 

How do I, as a Senator, trying to follow all the rules, talk to my 
constituents and explain what I am doing? How do I resolve that 
in this case when they have information from the airwaves that I 
am not supposed to be able to respond to their questions on? 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, I don't know that I can resolve 
that for you. You might talk to them in this afternoon's briefing. 
As I say, I did not classify that document. But it is hard for me 
to imagine anything more sensitive than personality profiles of for- 
eign leaders. That has a high degree of sensitivity. 

I doubt that I will ever be prepared to talk about comparable 
documents in a public forum, and I am not today. 

Senator Pressler. Also, there were several secret cables regard- 
ing the maneuvering on the request for armor in Somalia that 
many people have asked me about. They write letters to me about 
it. I am in a dilemma because it is in the papers, and I just think 
that the administration has to be forthcoming with this in forums 
such as this. 

You have received a CIA briefing on Aristide, is that right? 

Secretary Christopher. Senator I said before that I just do not 
want to get into discussion of intelligence matters. I will meet with 
you privately. I will do anjrthing you want in a way that does not 
compromise my obligations with respect to intelligence matters. I 
have had the full range of information about President Aristide 



38 

from top to bottom, and based upon the information I have and my 
own personal contacts with him, I think he is worthy of our sup- 
port, based, in a considerable degree, on the fact that he is elected 
with about 70 percent of the votes in the country of Haiti. 

But I just do not want to open the door to a discussion. When 
you begin with a question, have you received the intelligence brief- 
ing, I know where that begins, out I also have a pretty good idea 
where it leads to, and I do not want to start down that road. 

Senator Pressler. Let me ask about the chain of command and 
how it works. Are there principals meeting? Back in the old days 
there was deputies — that when a foreign policy decision was formu- 
lated, there were the deputies meetings, and they would get to- 
gether from the CIA and the Joint Chiefs, the State Department, 
Defense Department, and the White House, and then they would 
make a recommendation to the principals meeting. Do you still op- 
erate in such a formalized way? 

Secretary Christopher. Generally, Senator, that is right. There 
is an assistant secretaries group that is below the deputies group. 
They frequently start the process, and then it goes to the deputies 
^oup and then to the principals group. So, in general, your concept 
is exactly right. Senator. 

Senator Riessler. Now, I have been told that the principles 
group did not always include the Joint Chiefs during the Somalia 
thing, and it did not always include the CIA during the Aristide 
thing. Is that correct? 

Secretary Christopher. Not in my recollection. Senator. My 
recollection is very strong that in the meetings involving Somalia 
and the meetings involving Haiti, there was representatives both 
of the CIA and me Joint Chiefs. 

Senator Pressler. After the principals meeting, who takes the 
recommendation to the President, under the current situation? 

Secretary Christopher. Well, the National Security Adviser if 
the President himself has not been involved in them. That is his 
job. 

Senator Pressler. Can you describe for us on both — on Somalia, 
it seemed as though the Joint Chiefs, their recommendations did 
not reach the highest level. And it seems to me, to this Senator, 
that the CIA's information on Aristide did not reach the principals 
or the President until very late in the process. 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, I just dispute your premise. I 
think the views of both the CIA and the Joint Chiefs were known 
to all of us as we went through this process, including the Presi- 
dent. 

Senator Pressler. Well. I am asking these things as a friendly 
Senator who is trying to be a part of this, and I am just hitting 
a stone wall all the time. But we do have to explain to our people 
what is going on and how the process works. 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, this is not a stone wall. I tell 
you that my recollection is that they both participated in the meet- 
ings and that the President heard their views. 

Senator Pressler. Now, in a recent interview with the Post the 
President claimed to have been unaware of the change in the So- 
malia mission Operation Restore Hope to UNOSOM II. To whom 
does the responsibility fall to keep the President of the United 



39 

States informed of situations in which U.S. troops, under the aus- 
pices of the U.N., are involved in combat missions? 

Secretary Christopher. Well, all of us, I think, who are high of- 
ficials in the Government. The National Security Adviser, the Sec- 
retary of Defense, and I as Secretary of State, we all have an obli- 
gation to keep the President informed. 

Senator Pressler. I do have an amendment in the State Depart- 
ment authorization bill — I think that Senator Kerry's question re- 
ferred to it in a sense — that would require notification — congres- 
sional notification before the Security Council. Well, first of all, are 
you in support of that? I think we are going to be considering that. 
Here it is a strange thing, we are passing the authorization bill 
after the appropriations bill, but we do very strange things in the 
U.S. Senate. 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, could you describe your amend- 
ment a little further? I did not quite grasp it from the way you put 
it. 

Senator Pressler. It would require congressional notification be- 
fore our delegation makes a commitment at the U.N. in the Secu- 
rity Council, essentially. 

Secretary Christopher. Well, I think one of the roles that we 
ought to have — our Ambassador there, as well as the State Depart- 
ment, ought to keep you fully informed as to what is going on be- 
fore we take any major commitment at the U.N. 

Senator Pressler. Well, I just wanted to ask and get in one 
more quick question. The United States voted for the resolution 
that authorized the Somalia step. Did we contribute to the drafting 
of the resolution? Who in the administration was responsible, if the 
President was not? Did the NSC adviser approve it without con- 
sulting the President? 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, which resolution are you 
speaking of? 

Senator Pressler. That was the resolution on Somalia. 

Secretary Christopher. Well, there were a number of resolu- 
tions about Somalia. 

Senator Pressler. UNOSOM II. 

Secretary Christopher. I do not know the details of that, but I 
would be sure that the National Security Adviser was informed and 
he keeps the President very fully informed. 

Senator Pressler. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman. Senator Simon. 

Senator Simon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Christopher. Good morning, Senator. 

Senator Simon. Good morning. We welcome you here. And let me 
agree with my colleague. Senator Dodd, that on the large issues it 
seems to me the administration has been doing well. And we have 
confidence in your ability and your competence, Mr. Secretary. 

I would also like to underscore, though, by the nature of things, 
when we have questions you hear not the areas we agree with, but 
the areas where we have concerns. I would like to underscore the 
NAFTA measure also. It is clearly in our economic best interests 
to have a thriving Mexico next door, but I would also add I think 
it is in our security interests, talking about defense security. Mex- 
ico today has 90 million people. Mexico will eventually have some- 



40 

where around 200 million people. There are defense concerns here 
also, and if NAFTA is rejected I think it is — we are building in the 
wrong direction. 

If I may comment briefly on Somalia. Senator Kassebaum com- 
mented, and I agree with her, I think the March 31 date is unfortu- 
nate. But I recognize the administration was pushed into that by 
Congress. I do not fault the administration on that, though I think 
it is — I think the danger is that any mischief-makers will say we 
are going to keep quiet until March 31 £ind then we can do what 
we want to. 

I would ask that the administration consider having Ambassador 
Oakley there on a more permanent basis. I think that March 31 
is going to roll around very, very quickly. And I have great con- 
fidence in his skills, and I think that is one where there should be 
consideration of that. 

In your prepared remarks where you mention your priorities, Af- 
rica, with the exception of Somalia, does not get onto that priority 
list. And I know you cannot go into every area, but Africa, alone 
among the continents, is experiencing a declining standard of liv- 
ing. And when I combine that with the proposed legislation of the 
Department, that the Development Fund for Africa would not have 
any earmarked funds. And you may have been out of the country 
when the Washington Post had an editorial questioning the wis- 
dom of that. 

I am concerned about whether Africa is getting the kind of prior- 
ity it should receive in the State Department, you may want to 
comment on that. 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, I want to stress the importance 
that I attach to Africa. I went out to the African-American Institute 
recently and made an entire address devoted to Africa. 

Senator Simon. And you were the first Secretary of State to do 
that, I might add, and I appreciate that. 

Secretary Christopher. Thanks. It reflects the kind of priority 
that I give to it. You will find in the longer statement other ref- 
erences to Afi'ica. Indeed, Afi*ica is very much on our mind these 
days, because it is a source of a number of the regional conflicts 
that are of great concern: Sudan, Angola, Mozambique, Burundi. 
That is constantly on our plate and is a matter of concern for us. 

So I did allude to it in my statement of priorities on page 4, but 
I tried to reference it by going back to the major speech I had made 
on that subject. It is clearly a continent of great concern to us. 

Senator SiMON. Let me shift to another area where I have been 
pushing the State Department for some years with less than over- 
whelming success, and that is on the language competence matter. 
The Inspector Greneral's report of July — let me just cite a few 
things here. It says personnel at one model language post, the Con- 
sulate General in Sao Paulo, had no knowledge of the Department's 
model language program or that their post was included in it. 

Second, only 57 percent of language-designated positions in the 
Foreign Service in 1993 were filled by personnel who had the nec- 
essary language qualifications. There were no foreign language 
qualification standards for the Department's many civil servants 
who regularly conduct foreign policy. 



41 

And then finally, despite clear deficiencies, funding of post-lan- 
guage programs, which aim to remedy our shortfalls Here, has fall- 
en from $1.1 milHon in 1989, to $610,000 in 1990, to $594,000 in 
1993. We continue to have the only Foreign Service in the world — 
you can get into the Forei^ Service wiwiout the knowledge of a 
foreign language. And this is an area where I really believe we are 
hurting ourselves by not having stronger programs. 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, I agree with much of what you 
say. I would attach very high priority to that. Only about a month 
ago. Senator, I spoke at the dedication of the National Foreign Af- 
fairs Training Center, which is a marvelous center that was initi- 
ated through work by Secretary Schultz many years ago, and it has 
really come into its full flower now, fortunately here during the 
time when I am in the State Department. 

They teach 63 languages there. They have new facility, new ca- 
pacity to teach languages. And I talked to the director of the insti- 
tute or of the center, and I think he realizes the importance of lan- 
guage. We do not do as well as we should. Senator. But I must say, 
in my travels in the new independent states of the former Soviet 
Union, I was very impressed with the language competence of our 
officers in Kazakhstan and in Belarus. We have been able to reach 
deep into our Foreign Service and bring to all of those newly inde- 
pendent states people with language competence that enables them 
to work effectively. 

I also happened. Senator, to go to one Embassy that was a mani- 
festation of your very good idea of having an Embassy where every- 
body was language competent in the country. It is a very important 
idea. I just wish we had more funds to work more effectively with 
language training. 

Senator Simon. And if I may just add in that connection, the 
model posts in foreign languages, I got that adopted over the objec- 
tion of the State Department. But I would be happy to fight with 
you for more funding for that kind of thing. I think it is absolutely 
essential that we do it. 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, I know you did not mean it — 
it was not over my objection. 

Senator Simon. No, it was not over you. It happened some years 
prior to your being Secretary of State. 

You mentioned Asia. You did not mention one part of the Asian 
problem that I think is a major concern, or should be a major con- 
cern, and that is the one area where the nuclear threat remains 
a very real possibility. And I think it will not get resolved unless 
we have Pakistan, India, China, Russia, and the United States 
working together here. Are we making any headway? Is that mov- 
ing toward the front burner in terms of a priority within the State 
Department? 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, iii preparing the statement 
today I thought the committee was owed a full statement of what 
I am doing, what my work is, what I see my job as being, and I 
tried to lay that out. And I think in longer statement — I did not 
try to read the long statement here — I refer to south Asia as being 
one of the areas of real concern about nuclear proliferation. 

We have established, with the cooperation of Congress, I believe 
at the insistence of Congress, a South Asia Bureau. And I have 



42 

charged that Bureau and the new Assistant Secretary that the 
highest priority is trying to do something about the nuclear con- 
frontation or the potential confrontation of India and Pakistan. So, 
yes, that is an area of very deep concern for us. It is one of the 
proliferation areas that I think has to be right on the top of the 
list of concerns. 

Senator Simon. If I may just follow through here. Are we making 
any headway in pulling the five nations together to talk about this? 
And if we are not, is there any one nation that particularly is recal- 
citrant in this? 

Secretary Christopher. Well, let me put that in a positive vein. 
Senator. There is now a new government in Pakistan, and I hope 
that that new government will be responsive to the kind of con- 
versations that are necessary in the five nations group. I also hope 
that China will be willing to participate. 

Senator Simon. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

The Chairman. Senator Murkowski. 

Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Christopher. Good morning, Senator. 

Senator Murkowski. Good morning. I wonder if the Secretary 
would be willing, at a time convenient to the chairman and a time 
that could be scheduled on his schedule as well, to brief us on as- 
pects surrounding his inability to comment particularly on the 
Aristide-Haiti issue which he has declined, relative to having re- 
ceived or not received a briefing from the CIA and some of the oth- 
ers, since there is no point going into those questions here as he 
has declined to comment in an open session. 

My question is, would he be willing at some time to address 
these with us; both sides obviously? 

Secretary Christopher. Yes, Senator, I would be very glad to do 
that at a time convenient to the Chair. I do not know whether you 
were here. Senator. I did say that I do not lack information on this 
subject. 

Senator Murkowski. I understand. I was here. 

Secretary Christopher. And based upon all of that information, 
I said what I said. 

Senator Murkowski. That would suffice for this Senator, and I 
would assume that the staff, with the chairman, would proceed in 
some matter of form on that, unless there is disagreement. I thank 
the Chair. 

I am heartened, Mr. Secretary, by your emphasis on economic 
policy as being the heart of foreign policy. I am a little concerned, 
however, with the Pacific Rim. Your emphasis clearly was on 
APEC, but there were a couple of countries that were left off. Viet- 
nam was not mentioned, and clearly that is a responsibility of the 
State Department with the President's recent announcement that 
there is a relaxation. 

There is a formula out there somewhere, that the private sector 
is still waiting to receive, regarding how they can do business in 
conjunction with the International Monetary Fund and the World 
Bank. It is my understanding that that is held up down at the 
White House pending a release soon. I would hope that there would 
be an understandable formula, so that American business can par- 



43 

ticipate, and we just do not leave this out in the open for an ex- 
tended period of time. 

I am also concerned about the fact that Taiwan is not mentioned 
in your statement; not that you could necessarily mention every- 
thing. And I am also concerned with the manner in which the ad- 
ministration is pursuing its policy toward China, which may or 
may not be a new policy. 

But to be more specific, Mr. Secretary, I think we are all aware 
that there is a certain amount of uneasiness among the Asian Pa- 
cific countries over the realization that the PRC's advanced tech- 
nology related to armaments proliferation is continuing to grow. 
Have we put together an assessment, a threat assessment on the 
People's Republic of China, and what criteria is the Government 
using to assess whether China's modernization and power projec- 
tion constitutes a threat to Taiwan or other Asian nations? 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, if I could, just let me go back 
to a comment you made at the beginning of your remarks. I recall 
now that various State Department officials nave been involved in 
meetings with members of this committee on President Aristide 
and the classified information involving him. I think there may be 
representatives of the State Department at the meeting this after- 
noon. So I would just say to you. Senator, that if the participation 
by the other State Department officials does not satisfy you, of 
course I will be avEiilable to you, as I always will be. 

Senator Murkowski. I think that would be appropriate. 

Secretary Christopher. I would like to say that I hope you will 
assess whether or not you need me after you hear from other State 
Department officials on this, but I will be available if you want me. 

Senator Murkowski. I think it is fair to say, so far, after hearing 
from other State Department officials, it is the opinion of this Sen- 
ator that we do need you. 

Secretary Christopher. With respect to the threat assessment 
on China, that is certainly something that our intelligence agencies 
are constantly involved in. It is one of the reasons why we are con- 
cerned about proliferation policy, the degree to which they are as- 
sembling and assessing and having available weapons of mass de- 
struction. That is, once again, a subject that I do not think you 
would want me to talk about in this open session, the degree to 
which they may have perfected various kinds of devices, but I can 
tell you it is certainly a lively issue in our intelligence community. 

Senator Murkowski. Well, that is reassuring, Mr. Secretary. I 
recognize time is very limited. I would like to go into these even 
further, but I obviously cannot. 

I am concerned with the interpretation of the State Department 
with regard to our relations witn Taiwan. And as you and I both 
know, the Taiwan Relations Act is the law of the land, and it states 
that the United States will make available to Taiwan such defen- 
sive articles as they may need for their defense. 

We have got a joint communique that came through in 1982 be- 
tween the United States and China, which is a little different, be- 
cause the act is between the United States and Taiwan. The com- 
munique is a policy statement. It was never ratified by Congress. 
We have had inconsistencies, of course, in the manner in which we 
have an understanding with regard to increasing arms sales to Tai- 



44 

wan, yet the threat of the PRC potentially is greater as thev 
achieve more offensive capability. My Question is whether this ad- 
ministration agrees that tne Taiwan Relations Act is the law of the 
land and takes primacy over the policy statements set forth in the 
communique? 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, I am sorry to keep going back, 
but I did not want to avoid your question on Vietnam, and that is 
certainly a subject that is our responsibility, along with the Presi- 
dent, and we are pursuing that. You know, the President has given 
highest prioritv to making sure that we get all available informa- 
tion on the POWs and the MIA's. We have been moving sequen- 
tially, as you indicate, and we are going to continue to study that 
and hope that we can make progress toward normalization there, 
but it will depend upon the assessment of the progress on the 
POWs and the MIA's. 

With respect to the Taiwan Relations Act and China, when I was 
in Government before. Senator, I was involved in working with 
Congress on the enactment of the Tciiwan Relations Act. Our China 
policy is governed by the three communiques of the Taiwan Rela- 
tions Act. I do not see any reason to determine at this point the 
precedents of the Taiwan Relations Act. I think that kind of legisla- 
tion would call into question our China policy in a way that would 
not be helpful. 

We are going to continue to try to provide Taiwan with weapons 
that enable them to maintain a military capability, but as far as 
legislation that would try to take a stand in that delicate balance 
between the three communiques which are the basic constitution of 
our relations with modem China and the Taiwan Relations Act, I 
would not be in favor of trying to define that very delicate relation- 
ship in legislation that says one takes precedence over the other. 
I think they can be harmonized. 

Senator Murkowski. Well, I understand, Mr. Secretary. Par- 
tially, your business is diplomacy. But Taiwan is our sixth largest 
trading partner. We have an extraordinary relationship that we 
have made work, and I think that we are playing smoke and mir- 
rors in the sense the F-16 sale was considered outside the bucket. 
That was a matter of convenience. U.S. sales to Taiwan are in jeop- 
ardy now because they must be cleared through the State Depart- 
ment on an individual basis, while sales from the French continue. 

And I would hope that the folks down at the State Department 
would look favorably at a letter that Chairman Lee Hamilton and 
myself have sent -over to your office with regard to sales of 
nonlethal weapons. They are nonlethal, and clearly we are going to 
lose those sales, we are going to lose those jobs to the French or 
others, and they are for use on third-party platforms. 

I would encourage you, Mr. Secretary, on the Vietnam issue, to 

fo as far as you can go now within the authority of the President 
y simply spelling out the formula so that U.S. Dusinesses cannot 
do business but within the limitation of our participation in the 
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. And I would en- 
courage, finally, for U.S business. I come from a banking back- 
ground. I want to know the mechanics of how U.S. businesses go 
over there and make a contribution and a profit. And we need to 
have the State Department focus in more. 



45 

And I am very disappointed regarding U.S. policy toward Greor- 
gia. We have U.S. firms trying to come into Georgia. They are not 
receiving the help fi'om the State Department, from the Ambas- 
sador over there, and it is very discouraging to U.S. business. And 
I would respectfully urge you to focus in on the necessity of estab- 
lishing and assisting U.S. businesses in that regard. 

I have several other questions which I would pose in writing. I 
wish you a good day and commend you on a very difficult job. I 
think you have made great progress with regard to Japan's market, 
opening it up for U.S. businesses of late. I think Vice President 
MondaTe deserves a lot of credit. But we have to look out, because 
as we deal with Japanese trade the devil is in the details, as you 
know. Thank you. 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, I will get back to you on all of 
those three things that you mentioned, as well as your other writ- 
ten questions. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Senator Wofford. 

Senator Wofford. Mr. Secretary, your good statement this 
morning, with priorities and perspective and a world vision for 
American foreign policy, reminds me of Toynbee's conclusion after 
going through his-— doing his 13 volumes on the history of civiliza- 
tion, that the urgent is the enemy of the important. That was his 
conclusion after looking at the fall of civilizations. 

And, indeed, the urgent issues of Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti are 
before us, and rightly so. And yet you contributed again today, as 
you did in your major presentations in other forums in the last 9 
months, in raising our sights to the important. I do not agree with 
every one of the policies that you or the President have rec- 
ommended, but I have confidence in the perspective and the sense 
of priorities that you have given us today and in the past, espe- 
cially since after your six major ones you have now, with Senator 
Simon, confirmed that Africa is a seventh priority. 

And, of course, the Western Hemisphere is one, as you have 
shown by your testimony today. I want to strongly join Senator 
Dodd, wnose leadership on Western Hemisphere affairs on our 
committee and over the years has been so important. I stand with 
him on everything he said about our holding fast to the course in 
Haiti. 

In that connection, I would like to ask to what extent we are 
dealing with tightening the embargo on materials coming from the 
Dominican Republic? 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, we are trying to tighten the 
embargo with respect to the subjects that it covers — that is, arms 
and oil. And we realize that porous border there is a risky place, 
and we have been in touch with the Dominican Republic Govern- 
ment on that subject. 

As far as further tightening, I think you know that that is a mat- 
ter of balance. We want to do what is necessary to leave no doubt 
in the mind of the military that we are going to pursue this very 
aggressively. On the other hand, we want to try to avoid more 
harm, more hurt to the poor people of Haiti than is absolutely nec- 
essary. So we will be trying to go forward with more sanctions, tar- 
geted sanctions, but taking into accoimt the need to balance. 



46 

Senator Wofford. I understand the balance. I hope the going 
forward is done with strength so that as soon as possible the thugs 
who have displaced the elected regime in Haiti are themselves out. 
And I want that maximum tightening to occur with all deliberate 
speed. 

On the question of the Arab boycott, you said some movement 
has been made, and Assistant Secretary Djerejian said substantial 
progress has been made, yet Saudi Arabia has sent the largest 
number of letters to American companies in the last period, from 
July to September, 314. Can you give us any encouragement for so 
many of us who are impatient with the lack of progress over the 
years on this, on how soon, as part of this vital peace process in 
the Middle East, that boycott can be lifted? 

Secretary Christopher. Well, I am impatient too. Senator. We 
have had a substantial lifting in the sense that the secondary and 
tertiary boycott has been lifted by a number of countries there in 
practice, if not in formal statement. We also saw a very interesting 
development. Senator, just a few days ago when they attempted to 
hold a meeting of the Arab countries to discuss the boycott. And 
a number of them declined to attend, I think indicating that they 
are not prepared to discuss any expansion of the bovcott or, indeed, 
I think indicating hesitation on the part of a number of the coun- 
tries, especially in the gulf, with respect to the pursuance of the 
boycott. 

I do not know that I can give you a timetable, but I can say that 
it will be closely attuned to our other progress in the Middle East. 
One of the arguments that we are making that I think is really hit- 
ting home. Senator, and that is the argument that the boycott, at 
the present time, is likely to hurt the Palestinians because of their 
joint activities with the Israelis. So the boycott is hurting the very 
country or the very group of people that it was initially designed 
to help, that is the Palestinians, and I think that argument is hit- 
ting home. 

Senator, without wanting to predict with any precision, I guess 
I would urge you to watch for informal breaking down of the boy- 
cott. That IS the way the secondary and tertiary boycotts initially 
broke down themselves. And I would think that the boycott against 
Israel will begin to break down in that way, and I see some signs 
of that already happening. 

Senator Wofford. My last question is related to our Western 
Hemisphere and Peace Corps Relations Subcommittee. You may re- 
call that 19 members of this committee have urged you to transfer 
$15 million from the major program to assist in reform in the 
former Soviet Union to Peace Corps programs in that region. I do 
not know whether the decision has been made yet, but it seems to 
me that would be a very constructive thing that would enable also 
the Peace Corps to respond to the urgent need of Eritrea and Ethi- 
opia, to return to those countries. 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, I am sorry, I know that pro- 
posal and I do not know the exact status of it, but I will get back 
to you on that. 

Senator Wofford. And, Mr. Chairman, I also want to join Sen- 
ator Kerry in his concern that, once again, it appears that parts of 
the CIA have been embarking on an effort to conduct their own for- 



47 

eign policy, as we have seen with such sad results in the past. And 
in due course, I think we should look into that. 

The Chairman. Thank vou very much. Senator Brown. 

Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I 
would like to start off, if I could, simply by addressing you and re- 
sponding to your letter. As you know, I, with a number of other 
members of this committee, had asked that the Secretary of De- 
fense come before the committee to review the events that have 
happened in Somalia. We had followed up with a letter in that re- 
gard and had passed on the floor a resolution calling for an inves- 
tigation of the October 3 military disaster in Somalia. 

You were kind enough to repty promptly. You indicated that you 
did not feel an appearance by the Secretary of Defense before this 
committee was appropriate. And, Mr. Chairman, I have great re- 
spect for you and your integrity. I simply wanted to mention this. 
As I read the rules on the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign 
Relations it lists. No. 11, interventions abroad and declarations of 
war, and No. 18, U.N. and its affiliated organizations. Our activi- 
ties in Somalia were under the guide of in some areas, and in con- 
junction with the U.N. very direct. Particularly the conduct of mili- 
tary operations were part of a U.N. command. 

I, for one, find that a great lack of facts has come out as to what 
happened in Somalia on October 3. We have not been able to get 
answers to our letters to the Secretary of Defense. When the Under 
Secretary of Defense was here in this room, he refused to answer 
a number of our questions that were put to him directly. He has 
refused to answer the followup questions that I sent to them. 

Mr. Chairman, my focus is not partisan, and you know that. I 
first began to raise a fuss about Somalia when President Bush 
committed our troops last December. And I believe, at least con- 
cerning the Secretary of Defense point of view, that we have not 
had cooperation in getting the information. So while I am dis- 
appointed that we will not oe calling the Secretary of Defense, and 
I feel we are not fulfilling our responsibility in that regard, I cer- 
tainly respect your position. While I disagree with your response, 
I appreciate your promptness and your frankness. 

The Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate very much your 
thoughts and words. And I would say that it is also a question of 
appropriateness. I think if the Armed Services Committee asked 
the Secretary of State to appear before them, that would be a little 
out of their jurisdiction, and that is part of the thinking that I had. 
But I appreciate very much your interest. And you are quite right, 
you have been concerned about what goes on in Somalia for longer 
than many of us. Thank you. 

Senator Brown. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I did have some questions for the Secretary of 
State. 

Secretary Christopher. Thank you. Senator. 

Senator Brown. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your coming and I 
hope the questions that have been raised about your appearance 
here are not misinterpreted either by you or for others who might 
listen. As you know, the concern in this committee was your cancel- 
ing out of an appearance that we had been advised had been sched- 
uled. In addition, there was a feeling of some urgency, by many of 



48 

our members, because of the rapidly unfolding events. Further- 
more, there were reports that other activities that seemed much 
less important, occupied your schedule. 

I want you to know, nonetheless, that we appreciate your respon- 
siveness and your follow up. And, indeed, the accolades that you 
have heard from the committee are widely felt. 

I did want to offer this observation, with regard to President 
Aristide. As you are well aware, there have been printed public re- 
ports questioning his mental stability, questioning his involvement 
in human rights abuses. As a matter of fact, those have actually 
been detailed in, I believe, our State Department reports. 

While I can appreciate that you do not want to discuss confiden- 
tial information or classified information in public, it does seem to 
me that before we commit U.S. troops to assist Aristide to regain 
power, these concerns are legitimate ones and need to be ad- 
dressed. Whether it is in this forum or other public forums, the 
American people need to know if these reports are accurate or not, 
especially if we are going to go to war and risk our troops' lives. 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, let me say a couple of things. 
First, I appreciate your comment about my attendance. I did ask 
to have canceled an appearance here. It was on either the day or 
2 days before I was getting ready to leave for a 7-day trip to the 
former Soviet Union. I was urgently trying to get ready and, frank- 
ly, I thought it might be more useml if I appeared after I returned 
rather than at that time. I thought I might have more to offer, and 
I have tried to provide some of that today. 

But I want to emphasize to you. Senator, what I said before, and 
that is I hope you will call me and not hesitate to ask me to come 
up to your office or whatever. I looked through my calling records, 
and I could not find a single instance in which you had called me 
during the 9 months I have been in office. My recollection is a little 
different than that; I think we talked one time. 

But in any event, the point I want to make is I am available to 
you. I am not just available to the majority members. I am avail- 
able to any member of the committee, and I hope you will call so 
we can touch on matters. I know that the formal hearings have a 
certain place, but I do enjoy contact with the committee members 
and I hope you will call. 

On the other points you raise, I do agree with you that the Amer- 
ican people deserve to be fully informed as to our decisionmaking 
with respect to the support of President Aristide. I have told you, 
I think, all I feel free to say in an open session. 

That is that, first, I came into office with the prior administra- 
tion having supported President Aristide, despite some contrary in- 
formation about him. We looked at the matter. We began to meet 
with him. I met with him several times myself, at least two times, 
and talked with him on the telephone. Other members of the ad- 
ministration met with him. And so we have to feed those personal 
impressions in along with these charges and countercharges that 
have been made. 

But I could not agree more that the American people are entitled 
to the fullest exposition of this. I am just not in a position to go 
beyond what I have said here today, that my own judgment, based 
upon the contacts that I have had, the contacts my colleagues have 



49 

had, my watching his performance, as well as studying all this 
other mass of information, that he is worthy of our support. But 
if there can be found some way to more fully inform the American 
people, I would support that. I am not — I am rather helpless on 
this subject, because what I know in that regard is highly classified 
and I have got a lot of respect for that classification. 

Senator Brown. I understand. I appreciate your response. And 
I think you also, perhaps, appreciate the point I tried to make with 
regard to the heightened interest with regard to potential U.S. in- 
volvement. 

Secretary Christopher. I do. 

Senator Brown. Mr, Secretary, I, for one, and I suspect others, 
are concerned about our potential involvement in Bosnia. And as 
I understand it, we, as a country, have made representations that 
we would participate with up to 25,000 troops should a peace 
agreement be achieved there. U.S. troops would be involved in the 
enforcement of an agreement, should it come to pass. 

In earlier testimony by members of the Defense Department and 
State Department, I was unable to get assurances that if U.S. 
forces were deployed, and were attacked, that we could be assured 
that we would go after the people who attacked them. And I would 
like to renew that question. If American forces are sent to Bosnia 
in a peacekeeping effort and they are attacked by Serbian forces, 
will we bomb the supply depots of the Serbs, will we cut off the 
bridges where they bring in the arms that attack our troops? Can 
we be assured the United States will do all it can to protect those 
troops? 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, I assure you we will do all we 
can to protect those troops. I would not think of recommending that 
we go into Bosnia without rules of engagement that permitted our 
forces to respond — all of our forces to respond. I do not want to get 
into any — ^you know, give away a particular operational thing that 
we will bomb here or bomb there, but I tell you that if American 
forces go into Bosnia, they will only go under rules of engagement 
that enable them to be protected. At least, I would never rec- 
ommend otherwise. 

Senator Brown. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Senator Jeffords. 

Senator Jeffords. Good morning, Mr. Secretary. It is a pleasure 
to have you here. 

Secretary Christopher. Good morning. Senator. 

Senator Jeffords. First, I want to reinforce Senator Simon's 
comments about Africa. And I am especially concerned about the 
Development Fund. I do support the fact that you are giving Africa 
a priority of a sense there. 

I would like to switch more to a broader question that I do not 
think has been suggested yet, and that is that the administration 
has articulated a policy of greater reliance upon multilateral mech- 
anisms for taking care of problems around the world and mainte- 
nance of international security. 

One of the great problems I see developing, however, in the U.S. 
foreign policy is a lack of public support for the U.N. and its role 
in international peacekeeping, peacemaking, and conflict resolu- 



50 

tion. This comes, in part, from the many inefficiencies and inad- 
equacies of the U.N., I recognize. I agree that these must be ad- 
dressed before the U.N. will be capable of doing the tasks to which 
we would like to see it assigned. 

But developing public support for the U.N. takes a commitment 
on the part of the administration for public education and dedica- 
tion of time and resources to explain why that can be of value to 
us in the future. I am concerned, for instance, that a simple signal 
would be to urge or seek or do something about full funding of the 
U.N. from our commitments for it, which we have not made. 

I also think that we have many ways in which we can dem- 
onstrate, hopefully, to the public that for the future — not nec- 
essarily the distant future, but also the immediate future, that the 
support for the U.N. and international involvement will have real 
positive benefits to this Nation. The ability to enhance our trade 
and hopefully result in less military involvement around the world 
and less foreign aid, et cetera. 

I just do not see that there has been any real effort by the ad- 
ministration, recognizing that they are dominated right now by do- 
mestic problems. But it seems to me we have to build up support 
for our actions. Right now, I think the polls are still 2 to 1 against 
any kind of involvement outside of immediate national security. 

I wondered what you have in mind to trv and turn that public 
attitude, which is very very dangerous to all of us as far as world 
peace and our Nation's economic security go? 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, I agree with you. There is a 
real danger that there may be a wave of isolationism that comes 
from the concern about our participation in some of these events. 
We must not lose sight of the fact that in many instances working 
through the U.N. enables us to accomplish things of much greater 
effectiveness than we would be if we tried to do it alone. Just look 
at some of the principal cases where U.N. resolutions are very im- 
portant to us: Iraq, Libya, Haiti, and in Bosnia itself the resolu- 
tions placing sanctions on Serbia are important. 

So that is only one of the many instances where doing things to- 
gether with other nations is significant. On the other hand, I think 
we need to recognize that the American people will always be con- 
cerned if American troops are involved, if thev are not under the 
operational command of American military leaders. 

So I think we need to be able to educate in terms of the impor- 
tance of the U.N. and the importance of working with other na- 
tions, and at the same time recognize that the American people 
need to have reassurance that if American troops are involved in 
a combat role, that they will be led by Americans. I think that is 
the key to it. Senator, and I do think that we need to get through 
this period without endangering the public reputation of the U.N., 
and then seek to rebuild confidence in the U.N. 

President Clinton's speech at the U.N. had many passages about 
the need to reform some U.N. procedures. That was a portion of the 
speech that is unusual, and talking about those kinds of efforts do 
not get very much public attention. But much work needs to be 
done there. I think that is another key to improving public opinion 
with respect to the U.N.; that is trying to dispel these stories that 
there is maladministration there by correcting the administration. 



51 

Senator Jeffords. Well, I would hope, also, that certainly we 
can get into lessons of the past and what happens when we have 
an isolationist approach. Some recall after World War I, and all of 
those kind of things, because to me we have to give a positive feel- 
ing to the people of this country that economically it is going to be 
to their advantage to do this, or some reason otner than being a 
hero to the world nations. We have to show that our self-interest 
and improving our standard of living, all those things are con- 
nected with our ability to be able to be out in the world. 

I think we need a real education program. We are seeing that in 
NAFTA now. Why this is going to be a negative impact on my peo- 
ple in my State, and why should I support NAFTA? The same feel- 
ing is out there for everything, and it is a very disturbing thing for 
me. And I just urge the administration to be much more positive 
in making people understand why it is to our advantage to do these 
things. 

Secretary Christopher. Take two areas. Senator, the population 
area and the environmental area. Those are two areas wnere we 
will never be effective if we try to act alone. We really need to work 
through other countries. 

To give you another example, quite a different one that comes to 
mind, look how important coalitions are in saving us money. The 
war, Desert Storm effort on our part was virtually all reimbursed 
by other countries because we worked through a coalition. So it 
would be very unfortunate to overlearn the lesson of this period. It 
is very important for us to work with other nations when we can 
do so compatible with our own national interests. 

Senator Jeffords. Let me turn now to a more specific question, 
the Chinese missile sanction, and the concern that I have about 
what the administration is going to do with respect to defining 
what will be a sanction and the probable or possible exclusion of 
the satellite, the weather satellite aspects as being excluded from 
the sanctions. It seems to me that that would really make very in- 
effective the sanctions. 

Secretary Christopher. Well, as I understand MTCR, the mis- 
sile technology control regime, it has rigorous definitions as to 
what can be included and what is to be excluded. And I think we 
will be very careful not to make available any equipment that will 
compromise our security or, indeed, any equipment that keeps 
those sanctions from being effective. 

Senator, it is a highly technical area, and one in which I do not 
purport to be an expert, but I have talked to our experts within the 
last few days, trying to make sure that our sanctions will be effec- 
tive as well as to ensure that we do not make available equipment 
or technology that will be against our interests. 

Senator Jeffords. Well, I think it is more of a question of 
whether or not it will be effective as far as being a real detriment, 
to indicate the seriousness of the situation of the actions of China, 
rather than any security or aspects of that as far as our technology 
goes. It is just that it would undercut any effectiveness of the sanc- 
tions against those weapons transfers to China. 

Finally, with Burundi, I would like to focus on Africa just for a 
moment. A small country which suffered, as you know, a coup by 
military officers ending a very brief period of democratic leadership 



52 

there, with the murder of the President and widespread kilHng. 
What is the United States doing to assist the countries of the re- 
gion and in trying to deal with the flood of refugees? And are we 
working with the Organization of African Unity and regional gov- 
ernments to end the ethnic strife and support a return to democ- 
racy in Burundi? 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, we read the reports from our 
Ambassador and others there. We are concerned about the situa- 
tion. 

We have been in touch with the Organization of African Unity, 
as well as the leaders of countries adjacent to Burundi. We think 
that they should be given a primary opportunity to try to be effec- 
tive in that situation; but it is a terrible situation, creating the 
usual refugee flows. 

I can only tell you that we have given that lots of attention in 
the State Department. I think our present evaluation is that the 
best solution to this, as it so often is, is to work through the re- 
gional organization and try to energize it. 

We have also made available — I cannot remember the figures. 
Senator, and will furnish it to you — ^funds from our very dwindling 
supplies, to try to assist in the refugee situation. 

Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Coverdell. 

Senator Coverdell. Good morning, Mr. Secretary. It is good to 
see you again. 

Secretary Christopher. Good morning. Senator Coverdell. 

Senator Coverdell. I would just say very quickly that I share 
the Secretary's concern about classified information; and have not 
been altogether pleased, as a Member of the Senate, about the 
manner in which some of the information has been distributed. 

I would like to pursue several questions that originated in our 
hearing with Ambassador Albright, and that relate to the state- 
ment that Senator Kerry mentioned. 

When you talk about definition, learning and the importance of 
this period of the post-cold war, I think it is very, very important. 
We almost hang on the various nuances of statements that are 
being made by various members of the administration; and I ask, 
I read a statement by Morton Halperin, who is the administration's 
designate for Assistant Secretary of Defense for Democracy and 
Peacekeeping. 

First let me ask, this is a new Department for the Department 
of Defense, and it seems to have an overlap with your venue. Have 
you been advised on this new Department, and is there a vehicle 
of coordination with it? Or 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, Secretary Aspin has decided to 
try to organize his Department so as to reflect a number of the 
Presidents priorities. There is no reason why there should be an 
exclusivity about pursuing matters as important as democracy. And 
so I think that one of the responsibilities that assistant 
secretaryship will have is the pursuit of democracy. You can see 
the importance of that in the funds that the Defense Department 
has to expend for peacekeeping purposes, as well as for other pur- 
poses. 



53 

I do not know Mr. Halperin myself, but I understand that he has 
been nominated for that position. 

Senator Coverdell. Thank you. I read this quote from Mr. 
Halperin, which was made in, I think, the summer of this year, to 
the Ambassador. I will share it with you. 

He said that the United States "snould explicitly surrender the 
right to intervene unilaterally in the internal affairs of other coun- 
tries, by overt military means or by covert operations. Such self-re- 
straint would bar interventions like those in Grenada and Panama, 
unless the United States first gained the explicit consent of the 
international community, acting through the Security Council or a 
regional organization." 

I asked Ambassador Albright if she shared this view. She said 
she did not. And I asked the same question of Secretary Slocombe, 
who said he did not. And I wondered, you have probably been told 
of this statement? 

Secretary Christopher. No, I have not been told of it; but nor 
do I. 

Senator Coverdell. Well, we now are three for three, and I am 
very pleased at that. It is very important to clarify this, because 
this is the kind of thing — and in responding to your question from 
Senator Jeffords, you were speaking to a problem that I think has 
undermined some of our hopes for the U.N. 

This is my second question. It is in this definitional that I re- 
main very, very interested. You said, we strongly support, and that 
word has come up repeatedly, interaction. "We strongly support the 
work of the U.N.'s War Crimes Tribunal, and continued economic 
sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro." 

And I was reading in a — I have noticed with increasing fre- 
quency, statements like this. This is from Madame Albright. Gov- 
ernments," she went on, "will — will be obliged to hand over for trial 
those indicted, who are within their jurisdiction." Persons in some 
other State. "If they refuse, the States may be subject to sanction, 
and the indicted will become international pariahs. 

There is a lot of difference — ^let me mention another one that I 
noted here. This is on November 1, from U.N. Special Envoy Dante 
Caputo, on the issue that has been talked about a great deal here. 
He warned "that an attempt to oust Aristide from office would be 
a flagrant violation of the internationally mandated transition to 
democracy," and he said it would "trigger a complete U.N. commer- 
cial embargo." 

There is considerable discussion that the change in the mission 
in Somalia was driven, in large part — I know it is very controver- 
sial — was driven in large part by the U.N. agenda. We are begin- 
ning to hear almost a tone of sovereignty from the U.N. itself, 
statehood. 

And I wondered if you would comment on the nuances that are 
very different, between "support" and language, "will" and "man- 
date" and "subject," "implement"? 

Secretary Christopher. Well, Senator, it is easier for me, per- 
haps, to do that with some specificity, rather than generality. 

Take the War Crimes Tribunal. I believe deeply in the impor- 
tance of establishing international standards of justice. And, if the 
War Crimes Tribunal is created as it has been by the U.N., subject 



54 

to a vote of the nations of the U.N,, then I think the countries that 
are committed to that process are committed to follow through on 
it. And, once the U.N. has adopted the War Crimes Tribunal, it 
needs to have the kind of sanction of the countries that supported 
it. 

So, if a countrv is a part of that regime, and they are harboring 
somebody that the War Crimes Tribunal wants to call to account, 
then I think the country involved is reallv in a position of needing 
to support the regime set up by the War Crimes Tribunal. 

I find that quite a different thing than, in some way, surrender- 
ing any sovereignty to the U.N. I am very much opposed to the 
United States surrendering its sovereignty. As I said earlier, my 
job is the protection of the American interests. 

I think that we need to preserve our right to take unilateral ac- 
tion. We need to preserve our right to protect our interests as we 
define them ourselves, with the help of Congress. 

So, although the U.N. has a very important role, as I said in the 
conversation with Senator Jeffords, because it so often enables us 
to do some things that we cannot do ourselves at all, nevertheless 
I do not in any way want to give support to the notion that the 
United States would be surrendering its right to take actions to 
protect its own vital interests. 

Senator Coverdell. I think these comments that you are mak- 
ing are very, very important, and will go a long way toward easing 
some of the tensions as they are know, that are developing in the 
country about just exactly wnat our relations are with the U.N. 

Very quickly, one last question: Are vou familiar with this? The 
minority leader has raised questions about the denial of food and 
medicine in Bosnia; and has called on the GAO for a report on that. 
Is there any light that you can shed on that question that has come 
up just today? 

Secretary Christopher. No, I am sorry, Senator. I did not see 
the question. But we will give you a report on that, as soon as we 
have had a chance to analyze it. 

Senator Coverdell. I appreciate that very much. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Gregg. 

Senator Gregg, Am I the end of the line? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Senator Gregg. Well, good afternoon, Mr, Secretary. ^ 

Secretary Christopher, Thank you. 

Senator Gregg. I certainW appreciate your patience, Mr, Sec- 
retary, and the diplomacy of^^your answers; and I can understand 
why you are serving in the position you are, from having sat 
through this long morning. You are so courteous. 

I would like to ask a series of questions and I would hope that, 
to the extent possible, you could answer them sort of in a yes or 
no framework. 

Secretary Christopher. I will try. 

Senator Gregg. I recognize that that may be difficult, consider- 
ing your training and your present position. But it is my natural 
tendency, being from New England, to be terse and to the point, 
I guess. 

A number of people on the other side, I guess Senator Kerry and 
Senator Wofford, have said, that, to quote Senator Kerry's words, 



55 

that they perceive the CIA, not "perceive," they **feel the CIA or 
members within the CIA are pursuing a separate foreign poHcy, 
their own foreign poHcy." Do you feel that that is the case? Yes? 
No? 

Secretary Christopher. I have no information and no basis to 
make an evaluation on that, one way or the other, Senator. 

Senator Gregg. How much is it costing us, how much is the total 
cost to date in Somalia, including direct and indirect costs? Have 
you a number on that? 

Secretary Christopher. No, I do not. We will certainly furnish 
that to you. 

When we came into office, Senator, there were almost 26,000 
American troops there. I know, from other estimates that I have 
heard, how much it takes to array that many forces that far away; 
that it is a very expensive endeavor. As I say, it was at its high 
point the day we took office. 

Senator Gregg. Do you anticipate that it would be the American 
position that, if you felt you could reach a total settlement in the 
Middle East with Syria and Israel's other neighbors, that it would 
be an American position that the Golan Heights should be re- 
turned? 

Secretary Christopher. No, it would not be an American posi- 
tion. That needs to be worked out between the parties, Senator. I 
am doing my best to shorten this answer. That is not subject to a 
yes or no answer. 

Senator Gregg. I cannot imderstand why. [Laughter.] 

Secretary Christopher. We are trying to facilitate those talks; 
we are acting as a intermediary when the parties ask us. But we 
do not have a position on that very sensitive issue. 

Senator Gregg. Do you feel that the election, the recent Jerusa- 
lem election, where there now is mayor of Jerusalem who has said, 
and campaigned on the position, that he would in no circumstances 
tolerate being anything other than part of Israel, and being gov- 
erned as part of Israel, that that is going to slow the peace process 
there? 

Secretary Christopher. Prime Minister Rabin himself indicated 
yesterday that he did not think it was a favorable development. 
But I have confidence that there is momentum behind the peace 
process and that, based upon what I hear of Israeli public opinion, 
they want to pursue the peace process; and that election should not 
be read in a way to impede it. 

Senator Gregg. On another subject, and this I recognize is going 
to come from a New England perspective and therefore, right 
field 

Senator DoDD. Speak for yourself [Laughter.] 

Senator Gregg. Well, those parts that we still consider New 
England. [Laughter.] 

Senator Dodd. That is Connecticut and Rhode Island. 

Senator Sarbanes. It is going from bad to worse here. [Laugh- 
ter.] 

Senator Gregg. If the party Quebecois, or the bloc Quebecois, 
pursues its course, which is the separation of Quebec from Canada, 
and does it in a framework of the Dominion separating imder an 



56 

agreement, would you expect the United States to recognize Que- 
bec? 

Secretary Christopher. I would not be in favor of a breakup of 
Canada; and I do not want to try to answer a hypothetical ques- 
tion. Because I think that the United States believes there is great 
advantage in continued, continuation of Canada in its present 
form. Obviously, this is the decision for the Canadians to make. If 
they make it, we will act in accordance with international law. 

But as I say, my own feeling is that the Canadians are, it is a 
wonderful country as it is; and I do not want to try to answer a 
hypothetical question as to what our recognition policy would be, 
looking down the line toward a result that I hope will not happen. 

Senator Gregg. Well, that was not yes or no, but it was dip- 
lomatically accurate, and I appreciate it. 

On another area, if you look at Georgia and Azerbaijan £ind Ar- 
menia as a group, and all the other separate, all the other Repub- 
lics in that region, do we have a policy that is uniquely directed 
at that region of the world, other than that we want to see democ- 
racy survive? 

I mean, each of those nations appears to be subdividing within 
subdivisions, into ethnic differences. Do we have a stated policy as 
to which nations we will step into, when we will step into them, 
and why we will step into them, amongst those, amongst that arc 
that appears to be such a force for disarray within that part of the 
world, and that is drawing a lot of other parts of the world into 
it? 

Secretary Christopher. No, we do not have any one, overarching 
policy with respect to all of them. We support the territorial integ- 
rity and independence of all the new independent states, but I do 
not think you or other Members of the Congress would want to 
have us, have a commitment to intervene or act in connection with 
those countries, on some hypothetical basis. We will have to judge 
each one of them as they come up. 

But it is a long, long ways from the United States, and we would 
have to define whether or not we had sufficient vital interests to 
be involved there; and we would have to ask a lot of very hard 
questions. 

Senator Gregg. That should be the test, should it not? That 
there is a vital American interest, prior to getting involved in na- 
tions like, that have those deep ethnic problems and deep religious 
problems? 

Secretary Christopher. Absolutely. And — absolutely. 

Senator Gregg. What do you see happening, on another issue, 
with the religious confrontation that is occurring in India, and the 
potential that that has, for being a conflict of proportions so im- 
mense that it would dwarf the proportions of Bosnia or anything 
else that is going on in the world right now? 

Secretary Christopher. Well, religious conflicts seem to have a 
quality of emotion and sustained violence about them that exceeds 
almost anything else in the world. And I only hope and pray, for 
India, that they will find some way to quiet the emotions there that 
seem to be fueling the situation. It would certainly be a tragic step 
backward for that country to not accommodate, in a very positive 
way, the minority religions. 



57 

That is a worldwide problem, Senator, that we seem to have lost, 
so many countries, the capacity to deal sensitively with minorities. 
Here in the United States, we are so fortunate that we have grown 
up with a sense of realizing the contribution that is made by our 
minorities all over this country. But other countries seem to be 
going in the opposite direction, of a failure to be sensitive to mi- 
norities in their country, and recognize how much they contribute 
to their country. 

Senator Gregg. I appreciate that. I think that is absolutely true. 
Does the State Department have an assessment of what the 
present Indian situation or status is, as to their capacity to handle 
this? This conflict predates, obviously, their independence. It was 
part of the Kashmir issue at the time of their independence. 

Secretary Christopher. I would like to arrange for you to have 
a briefing, or to call you myself, to give you an up-to-date assess- 
ment. I have been reading the reports on it, but I do not know ex- 
actly where we would predict it will go from here. 

Senator Gregg. Were you familiar with the — my time is about 
up, but let me ask you — were you familiar with the on-the-ground 
situation that occurred when these 18 American troops were killed, 
and the 78 were wounded, in Somalia? How long they were on the 
ground, and what the back pattern was that led to their death? 

Secretary Christopher. No, it was a military operation. Senator. 
I saw reports of it afterward, but it was a military operation and 
it was being supervised by others than the State Department, obvi- 
ously. 

Senator Gregg. In any of the reports that you saw — there have 
been representations that the primary reason that the deaths oc- 
curred, and that the casualties were so high, was that the people 
on the ground were not resupplied, and did not, ran out of ammu- 
nition. In any of the reports that you saw, was that a factor that 
was cited? 

Secretary Christopher. No, Senator. But I want to be careful on 
this. That is out of the area of my principal responsibility, and I 
am not a student of those afler-action reports. I really think that 
question needs to be directed elsewhere. 

Senator Gregg. Well, we would like to, but we have not had a 
chance to speak to others. Thank you very much. I appreciate your 
patience for sitting here for almost 4 hours. I appreciate that. 

Secretary Christopher. Thank you. Senator. 

Senator Gregg. Three hours, I guess. 

The Chairman. It is still, "Good afternoon," not "Good evening." 
[Laughter.] 

I would just like to emphasize my support of the comments by 
Senators Dodd and Kerry regarding Haiti. Our objective, our con- 
cern here is not with individuals; it is for the promotion of democ- 
racy and human rights in that countiy. 

/Gid, just as one Senator, I would like to go on record as not sup- 
porting the concept of sending half the troops into Bosnia, if that 
ever occurred. I think the ratio should not be more than 1 out of 
5. Just a personal view. 

I would turn now to Senator Kassebaum. 

Senator Kassebaum. Mr. Secretary, I hate to prolong this, but I 
did want to raise something. 



58 

Because, one — I, like many others here, as a strong supporter of 
the North American Free IVade Agreement, I was pleased to see 
your No. 1 priority was the strong economies that you feel are im- 
portant. 

But I have become — and trade policy is not really, you are not 
the trade negotiator — but it is something that cuts across many 
lines in the administration; and I am increasingly troubled by what 
seems to me some real inconsistencies in our trade policy. 

On the one hand, we are pursuing free trade with Mexico; and 
yet we are cutting side deals, which really impose barriers. I do not 
have sugar in my State, or peanuts, or citrus fruit — and I realize 
how important it is to get votes for the North American Free Trade 
Agreement — but I think this can have repercussions on our nego- 
tiations in the Uruguay Round. 

And I think that it is terribly important for us to be able to try 
and delineate, again, a consistent trade policy that — I realize con- 
sistency is the hobgoblin of little minds — but I think that, when we 
are wanting others to give up trade barriers and subsidies, we have 
to be able to deal with it from the standpoint of being able to prac- 
tice it ourselves. And I just would like to send that message. 

Secretary Christopher. Thank you. Senator. You have. 

Senator Kassebaum. And one other thing, and again, because of 
the message it sends, I was a little surprised to see in your state- 
ment regarding China, "The clock is ticking on next spring's deci- 
sion on MFN renewal." And this, "Unless there is overall signifi- 
cant progress on human rights, the President will not be in a posi- 
tion to recommend extension." 

Again, that is a significant threat. We are all concerned about 
human rights. But we do not, we want to be careful we do not get 
into a box, from which it may be difficult to have the President ac- 
tually take that position. 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, those words were not ones that 
originated with me late last night. Those words are drawn from the 
President's statement, when he extended MFN for another year 
and said that it would only be extended further, if that test was 
met. So I was really just parroting the President's own statement 
on it. That does not break any new ground. 

Senator Kassebaum. And I realize that. But again, I guess it is 
a word of caution, that I think we have to be careful and do, do 
what we say we are going to do, if indeed that is something that 
we said. Thank you very much. 

Secretary Christopher. Thank you. Senator. 

The Chairman. I will recognize Senator Dodd. 

Senator Dodd. Very quickly. Mr. Secretary, I commend you for 
your responses today. First, I want to underscore the issue, the 
Peace Corps issue, that has been raised by Senator Wofford. 

Senator Coverdell and I, along with others, have sent a letter on 
October 4 to the administration, regarding the Peace Corps' pres- 
ence in Russia. There were about 25 or 30 members of the Senate 
who were on that letter. I will not go into it now; I would just bring 
your attention to it. 

Secretary Christopher. Thank you. 



59 

Senator Dodd. The second matter is, I recently spent a couple of 
days, as you know, in Nicaragua. I met with a broad spectrum of 
political elements in that country. 

I must tell you, I am not — ^there has not been the kind of signifi- 
cant, and I use the words carefully, significant progress that I 
would have hoped, in a number of areas that have been raised in 
the past with the administration. There has been some progress, on 
a couple of important areas. 

Rather than ask you to respond to this right now, let me just 
that if, I would recommend that we release the funds that have 
been authorized and appropriated, although I am not as satisfied 
as I would like to be. But I do not know of any other alternative, 
at this particular point. 

We have 60 percent unemployment in that coimtry, and a birth 
rate of 3.8 percent, the highest in the world. It is tragic and sad, 
what has happened; that the political elements in that country that 
achieved election only a few years ago, seem unwilling or unable 
to come together on some questions they should be able to resolve 
amongst themselves. 

Again, if someone said to me, "Are you entirely happy?" The an- 
swer is no. But I do not have much of another choice for you at 
this juncture, than to try and do what we can to see if we can buy 
some time, so those elements may come together. 

That will not be universally endorsed, what I am recommending, 
but I have no other recommendation to give you; and I would asK 
you to take a look at that. 

Secretary Christopher. Thank you, Senator. We appreciate very 
much your commitment to inter-American issues, and the contribu- 
tion that you have made on a number of issues like that. So I ap- 
preciate your advice on that. 

Senator Dodd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. We are about to wrap up, and I see the Senator 
from Virginia has arrived. Do you have a particularly burning 
question? 

Senator Robb. Mr. Chgiirman, thank you. I would inquire as to 
whether the Secretary has had an opportunity to respond on ques- 
tions with respect to the IAEA deadline that passed on Pyongyang; 
and whether or not the State Department had any particular com- 
ment on the positions expressed by Japan and South Korea, on our 
inactivity in response to that? 

If that has been covered, I apologize. I have been over in a con- 
ference on the Defense authorization bill, and on the crime bill on 
the floor. 

The Chairman. Parts of it have been and parts of it have not 
been covered. 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, I am glad to see you and I 
would be glad to talk with you about it if you want to. 

Senator Robb. Mr. Chairman, may I just ask for one brief com- 
ment on that question? I will not extend the hearing and I apolo- 
gize. 

Secretary Christopher. Not at all. 

Senator Robb. I was concerned that the hearing might have con- 
cluded before I got here and I was going to respond for the record. 



60 

Mr. Secretary, there is concern, as you know, with respect to the 
negotiations that have been taking place, and Secretary Grallucci 
and others have been attempting to resolve this particular ques- 
tion. There is a great deal of concern over the failure of the North 
Koreans, in this particular instance, to observe the deadline for the 
replacement of batteries and film and what have you with respect 
to the monitoring devices, and no progress at all with respect to the 
special inspections that have been called for, and advice from our 
allies in South Korea as well as from Japan that we continue to 
delay taking any activity that would involve sanctions and what 
have you. 

And I would be pleased with any response that you might give 
on that question, and how this would impact our relationships with 
others like Libya and others who might view what they might re- 
gard as vacillation in this area. 

Secretary Christopher. Senator, the situation with North Korea 
is a very delicate one at the present time. Hans Blix, the Director 
of the IAEA, has given a report as you know in which he said that 
the continuity of safeguards had not been broken even though he 
was disappointed by the lack of the inspection opportunities that 
he wanted. 

If he were to so conclude, that is that the continuity of safe- 
guards had been broken, then I would think we would have no 
choice but to go to the U.N. and seek sanctions. But while he con- 
tinues to hold out the possibility and the hope that they will permit 
inspections before that continuity is broken, I think we will pursue 
that course, and we are being strongly urged to pursue that course 
by the neighboring countries that have the most at stake, as you 
know. South Korea and Japan. 

We are following that on an almost hourly basis because of our 
concern about the situation and the desire that we have. They as- 
sure us that there are inspection procedures that would let us 
know what is being developed in that country. 

I do not think I can say much more than that, Senator. We de- 
pend very highly on the expert ability of IAEA and they, may I say, 
have indicated that the safeguard regime continuity has not been 
broken. Until that happens I think that we would not be in a posi- 
tion to seek sanctions. Sanctions, as I said before in this very 
forum, will be difficult but not impossible. 

Senator RoBB. Mr. Secretary, I recognize that you cannot go into 
any detail or specificity in an open forum, but are you confident 
that the, "continuity can be monitored with sufficient accuracy," I 
guess that is the way I ought to say it in this forum, "to allow us 
to make that judgment?" 

Secretary Christopher. Relying very heavily on the expert judg- 
ment of Mr. Blix, I think that we feel there has been no com- 
promise yet of the regime, but we are getting very close. 

Senator Robb. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Chairman, I thank 
you and I apologize for coming in late. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. The record will stay open 
until the close of business tomorrow for the receipt of any questions 
or insertions from my colleagues. 



61 

And I congratulate the Secretary on his excellent statement and 
activity here, and turn now to Senator Sarbanes for a sad duty that 
he has. 

Senator Sarbanes. Mr. Chairman, it is with very great sadness 
that I report to the committee the death this morning of Marcia 
Verville, who served for almost 7 years with great distinction on 
the staff of this committee. Previously she had worked for a decade 
and a half for our colleague, Senator Eagleton. 

There is much important legislation that was shaped by Marcia 
Verville in the course of her work here and elsewhere in the Sen- 
ate, and our Nation's values and interests have been enhanced by 
her efforts for more than 20 years as a very able staff person in 
the Senate. 

It was a privilege to have worked with her. She was unmatched 
in her dedication and effectiveness, and admired and respected by 
all. I know we all join in sending our profound sympathies to her 
husband, Dick, her daughter, Alexandra, and the other members of 
her family. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that when the committee adjourns 
today, it do so in memory of and tribute to Marcia Verville. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Senator Sarbanes, that 
will be done, and we adjourn in memory of Marcia Verville. 

[Whereupon, at 1:12 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene 
subject to me call of the Chair.] 

O 



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 

, llilliiiilllii 

3 9999 05982 097 5 



ISBN 0-16-043362-2 



9 780160"433627' 



90000