[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 154 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1892-E1894]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




SPEECH OF DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE STROBE TALBOT TO THE DELEGATIONS OF 
             THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE U.S. CONGRESS

                                 ______


                            HON. TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 29, 1995

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, last evening a delegation of the Members of 
the U.S. Congress hosted a dinner in honor of our colleagues of the 
European Parliament who are here in Washington for the semi-annual 
meetings between delegations of our two legislative bodies. The current 
meeting between our two 

[[Page E 1893]]
delegations is the 44th meeting since this parliamentary exchange began 
not long after the European Parliament was established.
  Last night our two delegations had the honor and pleasure of hearing 
from our distinguished Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbot. His 
remarks were not sugar-coated, and they were not the light fare of an 
after dinner speech.
  Deputy Secretary Talbot gave us a very sober, thoughtful, and 
insightful analysis of the impact and consequences of the various 
appropriations and authorization bills that have been adopted by the 
House and Senate thus far this year. Fortunately, none of these bills 
have yet been approved by both Houses, and none have been enacted into 
law.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important that we fully understand the effect of 
these pieces of legislation before the members of this body 
uncritically vote again for the unfortunate legislation that has been 
approved already by one of the Houses of Congress.
  I ask that Deputy Secretary Talbot's remarks of last night be placed 
in the Record. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely urge my colleagues in the 
Congress to give serious, thoughtful, and careful consideration to 
these views.

   Prepared Remarks by Deputy Secretary Strobe Talbot, Congressional 
              Dinner in Honor of European Parliamentarians

       Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
       Representatives of the European parliament and of the 
     diplomatic corps, members of the House and Senate, friends 
     and colleagues, ladies and gentlemen: it's an honor to be 
     here with you tonight.
       I want to join the rest of you in offering my thanks to Ben 
     Gilman for his hospitality. Mr. Chairman, I bring greetings 
     from Secretary Christopher, who is now at an event honoring 
     the Israeli and Palestinian statesmen who, a few hours ago, 
     took another bold step toward a comprehensive and lasting 
     peace in the Middle East. Today's landmark agreement--like 
     those in September 1993 and August 1994 that preceded it--is 
     in no small measure the result of hard work by European, as 
     well as American, diplomats.
       Today's good news also reflects bipartisan cooperation here 
     in the United States going back over two decades and several 
     Administrations, Republican and Democratic. Leaders from both 
     sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill have played an essential 
     role in securing the funding for the Middle East peace 
     process. I can only hope that in the future the same kind of 
     cooperation--between the two branches of our government, and 
     between our two parties--will be possible on other issues of 
     abiding concern.
       As everyone here knows, the Clinton Administration and the 
     104th Congress have some serious differences, notably over 
     the amount of money that Congress is prepared to allocate to 
     the conduct of American foreign policy.
       There is a lot at stake in how this issue is resolved. If 
     the cuts suggested by Senate appropriators are put into law, 
     the State Department would be forced to close as many as a 
     quarter of our posts worldwide--some 50 embassies and 
     consulates, including in Europe and the Middle East. Other 
     proposed cuts would force the United States to fall even 
     further behind in its payments to international 
     organizations. That would result in clear violations of 
     our international obligations, including our Treaty 
     obligations under the UN charter. These cuts would make 
     all but impossible the kind of initiatives that have 
     supported the Middle East peace process.
       The case for continuing American engagement in the world 
     may be self-evident to everyone here this evening, but I'm 
     not sure that it is obvious to all of your constituents, who 
     include the citizens of Galway, Ireland, and Genoa, Italy, 
     and Regensburg, Germany as well as those of Tampa, Florida, 
     and Middletown, New York, and Bakersfield, California.
       Let me offer an explanation for why some in the United 
     States are flirting with ideas and proposals that are 
     isolationist in their potential consequence if not in their 
     motivation.
       During the Cold War, many Americans defined what we were 
     for--and what we were willing to pay for, and even fight and 
     die for--largely in terms of what we were against. There was 
     a world-class dragon out there for us--if not to slay, then 
     at least to contain in its lair. For most Americans, the 
     principal objective of American foreign policy--and the 
     principal purpose of our diplomatic activity and military 
     presence in Europe--could, quite literally, be reduced to a 
     two- or three-word slogan: ``Contain Communism,'' or ``Deter 
     Soviet aggression.'' There was, on the home front of American 
     foreign policy, little doubt or dispute that we had a vital 
     national interest in supporting institutions, and 
     participating in ventures, that enabled us to protect 
     ourselves and our Allies from the Red Menace.
       Today, the rationale for vigorous American international 
     engagement--and for the resources to support it--will no 
     longer fit on a bumper sticker. But it can fit easily enough 
     into a single paragraph, which might go something like this:
       At the heart of President Clinton's foreign policy--and 
     underlying much of his domestic policy as well--is a 
     recognition that the world is increasingly integrated and a 
     determination to make integration work in our favor. 
     Integration means that, for good or for ill, one nation, 
     region, or continent is susceptible to influences from 
     others. Distances are shorter, borders more permeable. 
     Commerce and culture ride the jet stream, the air waves, an 
     the fiber-optic cables, to the betterment of all of us. But 
     so do crime and terror, to our common peril. Those scourges, 
     along with nuclear proliferation, infectious disease and 
     environmental degradation, are truly international problems 
     that demand international solutions.
       That means we must not only revitalize and enlarge existing 
     institutions and arrangements and habits of cooperation, but 
     we must also put in place new ones. The purpose of such 
     enlargement, revitalization and innovation should be to make 
     sure that the ties that bind us together are positive--that 
     they benefit and strengthen us, individually and 
     collectively; and that they enable us better to deal with 
     common threats and enemies.
       Therefore, it is no less important today than it was during 
     the nearly fifty years of the Cold War that the United States 
     remain engaged in the world--and especially, I stress: 
     especially in Europe.
       I emphasize the transatlantic dimension of America's 
     international role not just because I am speaking to visitors 
     from across that particular ocean. And not just because the 
     ties between the United States and Europe date back to our 
     colonial origins. I do so because what happens in Europe is 
     key to what happens everywhere else.
       The Cold War was a global struggle. But it began in Europe, 
     and it ended there. It is in Europe that, together, we are 
     establishing the guiding principles of the post-Cold War era. 
     It is also there that we are facing the most daunting tests 
     of our ability to concert our energies and our wisdom--and 
     thus to defeat the most serious threats to our common 
     interests and our shared goals.
       As Secretary Christopher said last June in Madrid, ``every 
     generation must renew the [Transatlantic] partnership by 
     adapting it to meet the challenge of its time.'' The 
     challenge for our generation is in large part economic and 
     commercial. As leading economic powers, the United States and 
     the nations of Europe share an interest in a vibrant open 
     trading system. That means that we must apply to the 
     elimination of trade barriers the same far-sightedness and 
     sense of common purpose that we applied to tearing down the 
     Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain. And there still are such 
     barriers, both between Western and Central Europe, and 
     between the European Union and the United States . The need 
     to eliminate these barriers takes on added importance in 
     light of the worrisome long-term economic trends that the 
     transatlantic community faces--stagnant income growth in 
     North America, and stubborn unemployment in Europe. We can 
     certainly do better--and that means better by our own 
     people--if we further open our markets to one another.
       Let me, if I may, now speak about integration and 
     cooperation in the realm of our common political values and 
     our common security interests. The goal of peace, stability 
     and cooperation among nations is as near fulfillment in 
     Europe as it is anywhere on earth; but it is also in Europe 
     that this goal faces one of its greatest dangers. That may 
     sound paradoxical, but it is actually quite natural, since 
     Europe has been the site of both the best and the worst in 
     human history, especially in this century. Europe is, 
     after all, both the birthplace and the graveyard of 
     fascism and communism. The political culture that 
     nurtured, if that's the word, the monstrosities 
     perpetrated in the name of Kark Marx and in the careers of 
     Hitler and Mussolini also made possible the realization of 
     the dream of Jean Monnet.
       So it is understandable that Europe today, as this century 
     comes to an end, should provide the most promising and 
     advanced example of integration--dramatized by the very 
     existence of a European Parliament--while, simultaneously, it 
     confronts us, in the former Yugoslavia, with the most vexing 
     and dangerous example of disintegration.
       Over the past four years, the tragedy and horror in the 
     Balkans has occasioned a good deal of finger pointing back 
     and forth across the Atlantic. That is as understandable as 
     it is regrettable. After all, when it seems too hard to fix a 
     problem of this magnitude, it is all too easy to fix the 
     blame on someone else.
       But in recent months, and particularly in recent weeks and 
     days, the situation, while still perilous, has become more 
     hopeful. A turning point came, I believe, at the London 
     Conference in late July. That gathering of seventeen nations 
     crystallized the resolve of the international community to 
     back diplomacy with force, and it streamlined the mechanism 
     for doing so.
       The day before yesterday, Secretary Christopher, Assistant 
     Secretary of State Holbrooke, and EU special envoy Carl Bildt 
     announced another breakthrough in the negotiations over the 
     constitutional underpinnings of a Bosnian peace settlement. 
     As we speak, Ambassador Holbrooke is flying back to the 
     region for more negotiations.
       When future historians write the history of this episode--
     the worst conflict in Europe since the end of World War II 
     and the first major threat to peace on the Continent in the 
     post-Cold War era--they may give us credit for getting it 
     right, although they will unquestionably regret that we took 
     so long to do so. I, for one, will settle for that verdict.
       But I also hope that future historians will note that we 
     drew the right lessons. And first among these is the need for 
     the United States to work with individual European 

[[Page E 1894]]
     governments as well as with collective European institutions to prevent 
     such conflicts in the future, and to increase our capacity to 
     resolve them if they do occur.
       There are many organizations that have vital roles to play 
     in this regard, notably the OSCE. But as we are now seeing in 
     the Balkans, the two most important institutions are, and 
     will continue to be, the EU and NATO. The EU is the 
     foundation for future economic growth and prosperity across 
     the continent, while NATO is the bulwark of transatlantic 
     security and the linchpin of American engagement in Europe. 
     Let me say a word about why both should take in new members.
       Over the past six years, virtually all of the peoples of 
     Central Europe and the former Soviet Union have undertaken 
     dramatic reforms. They have toppled communist dictatorships, 
     liberalized command economies, and begun the hard work of 
     building stable, secure, independent, democratic, market-
     oriented and prosperous states, at peace with their own 
     populations and at peace with their neighbors. But those 
     reforms are not guaranteed to continue or succeed. All of 
     these countries, whether they have gained their freedom for 
     the first time or recovered the sovereignty that they lost 
     earlier in the century, are embarked on a difficult 
     transition that will take years, if not decades, if not a 
     generation or more. It is in our interest as well as their 
     own that they succeed.
       That is why the United States is counting on the European 
     Union to expand. Only the EU can offer the newly liberalized 
     economies of these newly liberated nations the markets they 
     need to continue and complete their evolutions. Only EU 
     membership can lock in the essential political, economic and 
     social reforms that these emerging democracies are now 
     implementing.
       We understand the political difficulties involved in 
     expansion. We know that the candidate members will have to 
     work hard to meet the conditions of membership. But we also 
     hope that current EU members will approach the question of 
     expansion with an open mind, understanding the benefits to 
     all.
       Now, a few words about NATO-an organization that includes 
     twelve members of the EU but that also serves as an anchor of 
     American and Canadian commitment to the Continent's security. 
     Earlier today, NATO Secretary General Willy Claes held a 
     briefing in Brussels for representatives from twenty-six 
     nations in Central Europe and the former Soviet Union on the 
     rationale and process of NATO enlargement. This morning, as 
     part of President Clinton's commitment to full consultations 
     with Congress, we provided staff members with that same 
     briefing.
       As today's briefings make clear, the enlargement of NATO 
     will bolster democratization and regional stability in the 
     region that used to be the domain of the Warsaw Pact. But 
     this process is going to require skill and steadiness in many 
     respects. We must--pursue the goal of NATO enlargement in a 
     way that genuinely and comprehensively advances the larger 
     one of integration; that does not, in other words, create a 
     new division in Europe.
       With that imperative in mind, the Alliance is well on its 
     way to developing new ways to promote cooperation with the 
     armed forces of the non-NATO European states. Under the 
     banner of the Partnership for Peace, nations that have been 
     enemies in the past are now conducting joint peacekeeping 
     exercises: Albanians and Greeks, Bulgarians and Turks, 
     Hungarians and Romanians. In August, soldiers from three 
     Allied and fourteen Partnership countries trained together at 
     Fort Polk in Louisiana; another set of exercises will begin 
     in Vyskov in the Czech Republic this weekend; and starting on 
     Monday there will be a maritime training maneuver in the 
     Skagerrak Channel off the north coast of Denmark.
       In order to ensure that NATO enlargement does indeed serve 
     the larger cause of post-Cold War integration, the Alliance 
     is prepared, in parallel with the process of bringing in new 
     members, to conduct a dialogue, and eventually to develop a 
     more formal relationship, with the Russian Federation. That 
     way, all parties will be assured that the emergence of the 
     new security order in Europe respects, and enhances, their 
     legitimate interests.
       This goal may sound rather abstract, but we have, in the 
     work that our governments are doing with the Russian 
     Federation today, an opportunity to make cooperation between 
     NATO and Russia concrete, practical, productive and 
     promising, both for the immediate cause of peace in the 
     Balkans and for the long-range one of European security and 
     integration.
       Earlier today, President Clinton and Foreign Minister 
     Kozyrev met in the White House and agreed that Russia and the 
     members of NATO have a shared interest in cooperating closely 
     in implementing the settlement that will, we all hope, emerge 
     from the current negotiations. Of course, any U.S. 
     participation in a peace implementation plan will be under 
     NATO command and control, and we are committed to full 
     consultations with the Congress as the planning unfolds.
       So the paradox of the former Yugoslavia can, I believe, 
     still be turned to a net advantage for the future of Europe: 
     the most immediate and dangerous challenge we face offers a 
     historic opportunity for pan-European and Transatlantic 
     cooperation. In the relatively near future, peacekeepers from 
     NATO and former Warsaw Pack countries could be working side-
     by-side to implement a peace settlement.
       Let me close with reference to a European city that is not 
     represented by any of you here tonight: Sarajevo. In 1914, 
     its citizens heard the first shot of what became known as the 
     Great War, the conflagration that plunged Europe into 
     darkness. Seventy years later, another generation of 
     Sarajevans were the hosts of the 1984 Olympic Games. They 
     distinguished themselves, however briefly, in the eyes of the 
     world as a model multi-ethnic, multifaith community. Serbs 
     and Croats--Orthodox, Catholics, Jews and Muslims--lived 
     together in harmony.
       For most of the past four years, this same city has been 
     besieged; its citizens struck down by snipers and torn limb 
     from limb by mortars; its outskirts the site of mass graves 
     for the victims of genocide.
       But there is now some hope that this same city could, 
     before this year is out, be universally recognized, including 
     by Serbia and Croatia, as the capital of a unitary state of 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina. In which case it would be, once 
     again, as it was during the Olympics eleven years ago, a 
     symbol of Europe's--and the world's--noblest aspirations.
       We might dare to imagine that a politician from Sarajevo 
     may, in the not-too-distant future, take a seat in the 
     European Parliament. In that capacity he or she might even 
     have the honor, as I have tonight, of addressing a meeting of 
     this biannual interparliamentary gathering.
       Of course, that will happen only if the current 
     negotiations stay on track, and that's a very big if indeed. 
     So it's appropriate, Mr. Chairman, that at the end of the 
     evening tonight, you'll be serving us coffee and not 
     champagne. It's too early to celebrate a victory or 
     congratulate ourselves on success. There's plenty of hard 
     work ahead. But it's not too early to see where we want to go 
     and to reaffirm our determination to get there together.

                          ____________________