[House Document 105-292]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress 2d Session  - - - - - - - - - House Document No. 105-292


 
                     GOALS OF THE DAYTON AGREEMENT

                               __________

                                MESSAGE

                                  from

                   THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              transmitting

HIS REPORT ON ONGOING EFFORTS TO MEET THE GOALS UNDER WHICH THE DAYTON 
  IMPLEMENTATION CAN CONTINUE WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF A MAJOR NATO-LED 
                             MILITARY FORCE





    July 29, 1998.--Message and accompanying papers referred to the 
     Committee on International Relations and ordered to be printed


To the Congress of the United States:
    Pursuant to section 7 of Public Law 105-174, I am providing 
this report to inform the Congress of ongoing efforts to meet 
the goals set forth therein.
    With my certification to the Congress of March 3, 1998, I 
outlined ten conditions--or benchmarks--under which Dayton 
implementation can continue without the support of a major 
NATO-led military force. Section 7 of Public Law 105-174 urges 
that we seek concurrence among NATO allies on: (1) the 
benchmarks set forth with the March 3 certification; (2) 
estimated target dates for achieving those benchmarks; and (3) 
a process for NATO to review progress toward achieving those 
benchmarks. NATO has agreed to move ahead in all these areas.
    First, NATO agreed to benchmarks parallel to ours on May 28 
as part of its approval of the Stabilization Force (SFOR) 
military plan OPLAN 10407). Furthermore, the OPLAN requires 
SFOR to develop detailed criteria for each of these benchmarks, 
to be approved by the North Atlantic Council, which will 
provide a more specific basis to evaluate progress. SFOR will 
develop the benchmark criteria in coordination with appropriate 
international civilian agencies.
    Second, with regard to timelines, the United States 
proposed that NATO military authorities provide an estimate of 
the time likely to be required for implementation of the 
military and civilian aspects of the Dayton Agreement based on 
the benchmark criteria. Allies agreed to this approach on June 
10. As SACEUR General Wes Clark testified before the Senate 
Armed Services Committee June 4, the development and approval 
of the criteria and estimated target dates should take 2 to 3 
months.
    Third, with regard to a review process, NATO will continue 
the 6-month review process that began with the deployment of 
the Implementation Force (IFOR) in December 1995, incorporating 
the benchmarks and detailed criteria. The reviews will include 
an assessment of the security situation, an assessment of 
compliance by the parties with the Dayton Agreement, an 
assessment of progress against the benchmark criteria being 
developed by SFOR, recommendations on any changes in the level 
of support to civilian agencies, and recommendations on any 
other changes to the mission and tasks of the force.
    While not required under Public Law 105-174, we have sought 
to further utilize this framework of benchmarks and criteria 
for Dayton implementation among civilian implementation 
agencies. The Steering Board of the Peace Implementation 
Council (PIC) adopted the same framework in its Luxembourg 
declaration of June 9, 1998. The declaration, which serves as 
the civilian implementation agenda for the next 6 months, now 
includes language that corresponds to the benchmarks in the 
March 3 certification to the Congress and in the SFOR OPLAN. In 
addition, the PIC Steering Board called on the High 
Representative to submit a report on the progress made in 
meeting these goals by mid-September, which will be considered 
in the NATO 6-month review process.
    The benchmark framework, now approved by military and 
civilian implementers, is clearly a better approach than 
setting a fixed, arbitrary end date to the mission. This 
process will produce a clear picture of where intensive efforts 
will be required to achieve our goal: a self-sustaining peace 
process in Bosnia and Herzegovina for which a major 
international military force will no longer be necessary. 
Experience demonstrates that arbitrary deadlines can prove 
impossible to meet and tend to encourage those who would wait 
us out or undermine our credibility. Realistic target dates, 
combined with concerted use of incentives, leverage and 
pressure with all the parties, should maintain the sense of 
urgency necessary to move steadily toward an enduring peace. 
While the benchmark process will be useful as a tool both to 
promote and review the pace of Dayton implementation, the 
estimated target dates established will be notional, and their 
attainment dependent upon a complex set of interdependent 
factors.
    We will provide a supplemental report once NATO has agreed 
upon detailed criteria and estimated target dates. The 
continuing 6-month reviews of the status of implementation will 
provide a useful opportunity to continue to consult with 
Congress. These reviews, and any updates to the estimated 
timelines for implementation, will be provided in subsequent 
reports submitted pursuant to Public Law 105-174. I look 
forward to continuing to work with the Congress in pursuing 
U.S. foreign policy goals in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

                                                William J. Clinton.
    The White House, July 28, 1998.

                                
