United States, 1992

Forty-seven years ago I was a young man of 21, and,

like thousands of others of my generation, I had gone off to war to help keep

freedom alive. Forty-seven years ago this month the war was finally over, and

I was looking forward to peace and the chance to begin my life in earnest:

1945 marked a moment of promise, not just for me, but for all of mankind. A

great struggle against dictatorship had been fought and won. Across the

globe, we all looked forward to a future free of war, a world where we might

raise our children in peace and freedom, and this institution, the United

Nations, born amidst the ashes of war, embodied those hopes and dreams like no

other.

But the hopes and dreams of 1945 remained unfulfilled: communist

imperialism divided the world in two, our hopes for peace and our dreams of

freedom were frozen in the grip of cold war, and, instead of finding a common

ground, we found ourselves at Ground Zero. Instead of living on Churchill's

The President returned to the Chair.

"broad, sunlit uplands", millions found that there was, as Arthur Koestler so

chillingly wrote, "Darkness at Noon". Instead of uniting the nations, this

body became a forum for distrust and division among nations and, in a cruel

irony, the United Nations, created to free the world of conflict, itself

became conflict's captive.

I too lived through those disputes; I sat where you sit, proudly so; I

served in this Assembly and I saw, in my time, the consequences of the cold

war's hot words on the higher missions of the United Nations. Now, 47 years

later, we stand at the end of another war, the cold war, and our hopes and

dreams have awakened again. Driven by its own internal contradictions and

banished by the peoples' undying thirst for freedom, imperial communism has

collapsed in its birthplace, and today Russia has awakened democratic,

independent and free; the Baltic States are free; and so too are Ukraine,

Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and the other independent States joining the

nations of Central and Eastern Europe in freedom.

The fear of nuclear Armageddon between the super-Powers has vanished, and

we are proud to have done our part to ensure that our schoolchildren do not

have to practise hiding under their desks for fear of nuclear attack, as the

generation before them did. I am proud also to salute the courageous leaders

with nuclear responsibilities Presidents Yeltsin, Kravchuk, Nazarbayev,

Shushkevich who joined me in ending the super-Power stand-off that risked

nuclear nightmare. This is the first General Assembly session to seat you as

truly independent and free nations, and to you and the leaders of the other

independent States, I say welcome home: we are now truly united nations.

With the cold war's end, I believe we have a unique opportunity to go

beyond artificial divisions of a first, second and third world to forge

instead a genuine, global community of free and sovereign nations, a community

built on respect for principle, on peaceful settlement of disputes, on

fundamental human rights and on the twin pillars of freedom: democracy and

free markets. Already, the United Nations, especially the Security Council,

has done much to fulfil its original mission and to build this global

community.

United Nations leadership has been critical in resolving conflicts and

brokering peace the entire world over, but securing democracy and securing the

peace in the century ahead will be no simple task. Imperial communism may

have been vanquished, but that does not end the challenges of our age,

challenges that must be overcome if we are finally to end the divisions

between East and West, North and South, that fuel strife and strain and

conflict and war.

As we support the historic growth of democracy around the world, I

believe the community of nations and the United Nations face three critical,

interrelated challenges as we enter the twenty-first century.

First, we face the political challenge of keeping today's peace and

preventing tomorrow's wars. As we see daily in Bosnia, Somalia and Cambodia,

everywhere conflict claims innocent lives; the need for enhanced peace-keeping

capabilities has never been greater; the conflicts we must deal with have

never been more intractable, the costs of conflict higher.

Second, we face the strategic challenge of the proliferation of weapons

of mass destruction, truly the fastest growing security challenge to

international peace and order.

Third, we face the common economic challenge of promoting prosperity for

all, of strengthening an open, growth-oriented, free-market international

economic order while safeguarding the environment.

Meeting these challenges will require us to strengthen our collective

engagement; it will require us to transform our collective institutions; and,

above all, it will require that each of us look seriously at our own

Government and how we conduct our international affairs. We too must change

our institutions and our practices if we are to make a new world of the

promises of today, if we are to secure a twenty-first century peace.

With you today I would like to discuss these three challenges:

peace-keeping, proliferation and prosperity. And I should like to use this

opportunity to begin to sketch how I believe the international community can

work together to meet these three challenges and how the United States is

changing its institutions and policies to catalyze this effort.

Let me begin with peace-keeping. The United Nations has a long and

distinguished history of peace-keeping and humanitarian relief. From Cyprus

and Lebanon, to Cambodia and Croatia, the blue beret has become a symbol of

hope amid all that hostility. And the United Nations has long played a

central role in preventing conflicts from turning into wars, and strengthening

peace-keeping capabilities can help buttress these diplomatic efforts. But,

as much as the United Nations has done, it can do much more.

Peace-keepers are stretched to the limit while the demands for their

services increase by the day. The need for monitoring and preventive

peace-keeping putting people on the ground before the fighting starts - may

become especially critical in volatile regions. This is especially the case

because of the rapid and turbulent change that continues to shake Eastern

Europe and Eurasia. Across the lands that once were imprisoned behind an iron

curtain, peoples are reasserting their historical identities that were frozen

in communism's catacomb.

Where this is taking place in a democratic manner with tolerance and

civility and respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms, this new

democratic nationalism is all to the good. But, unfortunately, we need only

look to the bloody battles raging in places such as the former Yugoslavia to

see the dangers of ethnic violence. This is the greatest threat to the

democratic peace we hope to build with Eastern Europe, with Russia and

Eurasia, even more than economic deprivation. We fully support the efforts of

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Conference on Security and

Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), the Western European Union (WEU), the

Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and other competent regional

organizations to develop peace-keeping capabilities.

We are convinced, however, that enhanced United Nations capabilities are

a necessary complement to these regional efforts, not just in Europe and

Eurasia, but across the globe.

I welcome the Secretary-General's call for a new agenda to strengthen the

ability of the United Nations to prevent, contain and resolve conflicts across

the globe. Today I call upon all Members to join me in taking bold steps to

advance that agenda. I will therefore be discussing with my colleagues the

merits of a special meeting of the Security Council to discuss the

Secretary-General's proposals and to develop concrete responses in five key

areas.

First, robust peace-keeping requires men and equipment that only Member

States can provide. Nations should develop and train military units for

possible peace-keeping operations and humanitarian relief and these forces

must be available on short notice at the request of the Security Council and

with the approval, of course, of the Governments providing it.

Secondly, if multinational units are to work together, they must train

together. Many nations for example, Fiji, Norway, Canada and Finland have

a long history of peace-keeping and we can all tap into that experience as we

train for expanded operations. Effective multinational action will also

require coordinated command and control and inter-operability of both

equipment and communications. Multinational planning, training, field

exercises will be needed. Those efforts should link up with regional

organizations.

Thirdly, we also need to provide adequate logistical support for

peace-keeping and humanitarian operations. Member States should designate

stockpiles of resources necessary to meet humanitarian emergencies, including

famines, floods and civil disturbances. This will save valuable time in a

crisis.

Fourthly, we will need to develop planning, crisis management and

intelligence capabilities for peace-keeping and humanitarian operations.

Fifthly, we must ensure adequate equitable financing for United Nations

and associated peace-keeping efforts.

As I said, we must change our national institutions if we are to change

our international relations. So let me assure you that the United States is

ready to do its part to strengthen world peace by strengthening international

peace-keeping.

For decades, the American military has served as a stabilizing presence

around the globe. And I want to draw on our extensive experience in winning

wars, in keeping the peace, to support United Nations peace-keeping. I have

directed the United States Secretary of Defense to place a new emphasis on

peace-keeping. Because of peace-keeping's growing importance as a mission for

the United States military, we will emphasize training of combat, engineering

and logistical units for the full range of peace-keeping and humanitarian

activities and we will work with the United Nations to best employ our

considerable lift, logistics, communications and intelligence capabilities to

support peace-keeping operations. And we will offer our capabilities for

joint simulations and exercises to strengthen our ability to undertake joint

peace-keeping operations.

There is room for all countries, large and small, and I hope all will

play a part.

Member States, as always, must retain the final decision on the use of

their troops, of course. But we must develop our ability to coordinate

peace-keeping efforts so that we can mobilize quickly when a threat to peace

arises or when people in need look to the world for help.

I have further directed the establishment of a permanent peace-keeping

curriculum in United States military schools. Training, plainly, is a key

element. The United States is prepared to make available our bases and

facilities for multinational training and field exercises. One such base,

nearby, with facilities is Fort Dix. America used these bases to win the cold

war and today, with that war over, they can help build a lasting peace.

The United States is willing to provide our military expertise to the

United Nations to help the United Nations strengthen its planning and

operations for peace-keeping, and we will also broaden American support for

monitoring, verification, reconnaissance and other requirements of United

Nations peace-keeping or humanitarian assistance operations.

And, finally, the United States will review how we fund peace-keeping and

explore new ways to ensure adequate American financial support for United

Nations peace-keeping and United Nations humanitarian activities. I do

believe that we must think differently about how we ensure and pay for our

security in this new era.

While the cold war may have ended, the super-Power nuclear arms

competition, regional competition, weapons of mass destruction continue. Over

20 countries have, or are developing, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons

and the means to deliver them. At a time when the United States and its

former adversaries are engaged in deep, historic cuts in our nuclear arsenals,

our children and grandchildren will never forgive us if we allow new and

unstable nuclear stand-offs to develop around the world.

We believe the Security Council should become a key forum for

non-proliferation enforcement. The Security Council should make clear its

intention to stem proliferation and sanction proliferators. Reaffirming

assurances made at the time the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear

Weapons was negotiated, I propose that the Security Council reassure the

non-nuclear States that it will seek immediate action to provide assistance,

in accordance with the Charter, to any any non-nuclear-weapon State party to

the non-proliferation Treaty that is a victim of an act of aggression or an

object of threat of aggression involving nuclear weapons.

I also call for the indefinite renewal of the nuclear non-proliferation

Treaty when it is reviewed in 1995. I believe we must explore ways we can

strengthen linkages between the suppliers "clubs", the nuclear-suppliers

group, the Australia Group, the missile-technology control regime and United

Nations specialized agencies.

Here I would like to note the productive efforts of the United Nations

Special Commission (UNSCOM) to dismantle the Iraqi weapons-of-mass-destruction

programme, and the continuing good work of the International Atomic Energy

Agency (IAEA). But as the United Nations organizations adapt to stop

proliferation, so too must every Member State change its structures to advance

our non-proliferation goals.

In that spirit I want today to announce my intention to work with the

United States Congress to redirect the United States Arms Control and

Disarmament Agency (ACDA) to refocus its talents on providing technical

support for non-proliferation, weapons monitoring and destruction, and global

defence conversion. Under the direction of the Secretary of State, ACDA

should be used not only in completing the traditional arms-control agenda but,

just as importantly, in providing technical assistance on our new security

agenda.

Even as we work to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,

we must be realistic and guard ourselves against proliferation that is already

taking place. Therefore, we are working towards a cooperative system for

defence against limited ballistic missile attacks. We fully intend to have

other nations participate in this global protection system.

While expanded peace-keeping capabilities and improved non-proliferation

efforts will be critical for building an enduring peace, shared economic

growth is the long-term foundation for a brighter future well into the next

century. That is why I stated yesterday, during a moment of international

uncertainty, that the United States would be strongly engaged with its global

partners in building a global economic, financial and trading structure for

this new era.

At the same time, I urged that our global responsibilities lead us to

examine ways to strengthen the Group of Seven (G-7) coordination process, and

I affirmed America's support for a European integration that opens markets and

enhances Europe's capability to be our partner in the great challenges that we

face in this new era. While the exact form of integration is, of course, for

Europeans to determine, we will stand by them.

Economic growth is not a zero-sum process. All of us will benefit from

the expanded trade and investment that comes from a vibrant, growing world

economy. To ensure that the benefits of this growth are sustained and shared

by all, fair and open competition should be the fuel for the global economic

engine. That is why the United States wants to complete the Uruguay Round of

the negotiations within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) as

soon as possible, and to create a network of free-trade agreements, beginning

with the North American Free Trade Agreement.

At the same time, we need to recognize that we have a shared

responsibility to foster and support the free-market reforms necessary to

build growing economies and vibrant democracies in the developing world and in

the new democratic States. This should be done by promoting the private

sector to build these new economies, not by fostering dependency with

traditional Government-to-Government foreign aid.

After the Second World War, foreign assistance often served as a weapon

in the cold war. Obviously, we will still use critical foreign-assistance

funds to meet legitimate security needs. And, as our humanitarian operations

in Somalia and northern Iraq, Bosnia and the former Soviet Union will testify,

we will continue our robust humanitarian assistance efforts to help those

suffering from man-made and natural disasters.

But foreign aid as we have known it needs to be transformed. The notion

of the handout to less developed countries needs to give way to cooperation

and mutually productive economic relationships. We know this: the more a

nation relies on the private sector and free markets, the higher its rate of

growth; the more open to trade it is, the higher its rate of growth; and the

better a country's investment climate, the higher its rate of growth.

To move from what I would call aid-dependency to economic partnership, we

propose to alter fundamentally the focus of United States assistance

programmes to building strong, independent economies that can become

contributors to a healthy, growing global economy. That means that our new

emphasis should be on building economic partnerships among our private sectors

that will promote prosperity at home, and abroad also. Working with our

Congress I will propose a top-to-bottom overhaul of our institutions that plan

and administer foreign assistance, drastically reducing the bureaucracy that

has built up around Government-based programmes, streamlining our delivery

systems and strengthening support for private-sector development and economic

reform.

The Agency for International Development (AID), another institution born

during the cold war, needs to be fundamentally and radically overhauled.

Promoting economic security, opportunity and competitiveness will become a

primary mission of the State Department. Our assistance efforts should not be

charity. On the contrary, they should promote mutual prosperity. Therefore,

using existing foreign-affairs resources, I will propose creating a $1 billion

growth fund. The fund will provide grants and credits to support United

States businesses in providing expertise, goods and services desperately

needed in countries undertaking economic restructuring.

I will also support significantly increasing the programmes of the

Export-Import Bank to ensure that United States products and technology

promote investment in world-wide economic growth.

The United States will work with its global partners, especially the G-7

nations, to enhance global growth at this key point in world history, as we

end one era and begin another.

None of us can afford insular policies. Each of us must contribute,

through greater coordinated action, to building £ stronger world economy.

I realize that what I have outlined today is an ambitious agenda. But we

live in remarkable times: times when empires collapse, ideologies dissolve

and walls crumble; times when change can come so fast that we sometimes forget

how far and how fast we have progressed in achieving our hopes for a global

community of democratic nations.

And in the face of today's changes, with the loss of so much that was

familiar and predictable, there is now a great temptation for people

everywhere to turn inward and to build walls around themselves walls against

trade, walls against people, walls against ideas and investment, walls against

anything at all that appears new and different.

As the Berlin Wall fell, these walls too must fall. They must fall

because we cannot separate our fate from that of others. Our peace is so

interconnected, our security so intertwined, our prosperity so interdependent,

that to turn inward and retreat from the world is to invite disaster and

defeat.

At the threshold of a new century we can truly say a more peaceful, more

secure, more prosperous future beckons to us. For the sake of our children

and our grandchildren, for the sake of those who perished during the cold war

and for the sake of every man, woman and child who kept freedom's flame alive

even during the darkest noon, let us pledge ourselves to make that future

real, and let us pledge ourselves to fulfil the promise of a truly United

Nations.

Thank you and may God bless you all.