News from the Washington File

(SecState announces new U.S. landmine initiative) (4670)

Washington -- The United States will be taking an aggressive initiative to increase public and private resources devoted to de-mining worldwide, Secretary of State Albright said in a speech October 31.

Some $1 billion per year will be devoted to de-mining efforts and a new presidential envoy will oversee the effort, Albright said at a day-long conference sponsored by the U.S. Agency for International Development entitled "Promoting Democracy, Human Rights, and Reintegration in Post-Conflict Societies."

The purpose of the U.S. initiative, the Secretary of State said, will be "to ensure that civilians in every country on every continent are secure from the threat of landmines by the end of the next decade.

"Our premise is that the best way to protect civilians from landmines in the ground is to pull them out like the noxious weeds they are," Albright said.

"But given the scale and urgency of the problem, we need a massive increase in global resources devoted to identifying and clearing mines. We need to intensify research into better methods of de-mining -- for in this era of technological miracles, the most common tool we have for detecting landmines is still a stick attached to a person's arm."

Heightening awareness among vulnerable populations will be part of initiative, Albright said. She noted that an estimated 100 million mines lay scattered around more than five dozen countries

Assistant Secretary of State Karl F. "Rick" Inderfurth will be appointed to oversee the effort with the title of U.S. Special Representative of the President and the Secretary of State for Global Humanitarian Demining.

Since 1993, the United States has devoted $15 million to removing mines in 14 nations, Albright pointed out.

"Thirty-six years ago, President Kennedy set for our nation the goal of enabling a man to walk on the moon," Albright recalled. "Today, President Clinton is reaffirming the goal of enabling people everywhere to walk safely on the Earth."

Following is the State Department text, as prepared for delivery:

(begin text)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of the Spokesman

October 31, 1997

REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT AT USAID CONFERENCE ON PROMOTING DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND REINTEGRATION IN POST-CONFLICT SOCIETIES

Washington Renaissance Hotel Washington, D.C.

"The United States and Assistance to Post-Conflict Societies"

Thank you Brian, for that introduction and thank you to USAID for hosting this timely and important conference. To all of you, I appreciate your coming and hope you have a very Happy Halloween.

I get quite a number of invitations to speak these days, but I confess I really jumped at this one.

Ever since I became Secretary of State, I have been appearing on TV shows where they spend two minutes asking you a question and then expect a fully comprehensive response in fifteen seconds or less. So you can imagine my delight -- as a former university professor -- when I was told that I could come here and speak for as long as I want.

There is some question in my mind, however, about who should be speaking to whom.

For if there is a manual for responding to post conflict situations, the people in this audience collectively have written it and, in many cases, lived it. You are the experts. And your efforts are helping to shape the history of our era.

For that, I congratulate you. And I take heart in the knowledge that, even if you disagree with some of what I say; as experts, you probably disagree even more with each other. Of course, because of your expertise, I am sure that any disagreements we do have -- can be rapidly de-conflicted.

The subject of this conference is not new, because conflict is not new. People have been striving to ensure that wars, once ended, stay ended since the dawn of human history.

But in our era, the stakes are higher because the weapons are more destructive, and the connections between what happens "over there" and "back here" are more direct.

As we know, the end of the Cold War was accompanied by violence on a massive scale from the Caucasus and the Balkans to Central Africa. Much of this was intra-state violence and most of the victims were civilian.

Some of these conflicts resulted from the pursuit of power or its abuse; others from extreme nationalism or the re-surfacing of long-submerged ethnic grievances. Some were caused by a breakdown in authority aggravated by unrestrained population growth, unplanned urbanization, unchecked environmental degradation or the ready supply of cheap and deadly arms. And some were caused by a combination of these and other factors.

From 1993 until 1996, as America's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, I had a close-up view of international efforts to respond to these conflicts. Today, I will draw on those years at the U.N., but I also want to speak from a broader perspective as Secretary of State.

POST-CONFLICT SOCIETIES AND AMERICAN INTERESTS

In my view, it is possible now to divide the world, very generally, into four categories of countries: those that participate as full members of the international system; those that are in transition and seek to participate more fully; those that reject the rules upon which the system is based; and finally, the states that are unable -- for reasons of under-development, catastrophe or conflict -- to enjoy the benefits and meet the responsibilities that full membership in the system entails.

I am convinced, moreover, that the United States has a vital strategic interest in seizing the opportunity that now exists to strengthen the international system by bringing nations closer together around basic principles of democracy, open markets, law and a commitment to peace.

This conference deals with an important part of that effort -- the restoration, reform and rebirth of societies devastated by conflict or war.

Obviously, providing assistance in post-conflict situations is not the responsibility of the United States alone. It is a multi-national enterprise. It requires the active involvement of the U.N. system and other international organizations. And it benefits from the contributions of a vast network of private voluntary organizations.

But the United States is not just another player.

Looking back, we know that America would not be as strong now if we had not helped the nations of Europe and East Asia to rebuild after World War II.

Looking ahead, we know that we cannot maintain our position of world leadership without doing our fair share to fix the places within the international community that have split apart or broken down.

We do, after all, have a security interest in preventing conflicts from re-igniting, spreading across international borders, drawing in regional powers and creating a risk that our armed forces will have to respond.

We have an economic interest in opening new opportunities for American commerce, and in preventing new demands on the resources we have available for emergency relief and refugees.

We have a budgetary and social interest in helping the people of other countries to build a future for themselves at home, instead of being forced -- out of fear or desperation -- to flee to our shores.

We have a political interest in helping post-conflict societies to embrace democracy and to become part of the solution to global threats such as proliferation, pollution, illegal narcotics and transnational crime.

Finally, we have a humanitarian interest in helping those who have survived the cauldron of war or -- in a case such as Haiti, the cruelty of repression -- to revitalize their societies.

To advance our interests, we will benefit from the opportunities for cooperation created by the Cold War's passing, from the worldwide trend towards democracy, and from the incentives for integration caused by our increasingly global economy.

SOME PRINCIPLES

As we proceed, we must be selective. We cannot want peace or re-integration more than those we seek to help. The leaders and factions in post-conflict nations must meet their commitments and play by the rules. If they do not, the efforts we make will likely be in vain.

We must also bear in mind, even as we discuss past lessons learned, that we cannot shape our peacebuilding efforts with a cookie cutter.

What works in one place may well fail in another.

Assumptions based upon our expectations and our culture need to be examined in light of local history, attitudes and economic and social conditions.

We must maintain a balance among security, political, economic and social objectives.

And we must have the right tools.

When Brian Atwood arrived at USAID four and a half years ago, the United States lacked the ability to respond quickly, flexibly and comprehensively to the crises and opportunities spawned by the Cold War's end.

So in early 1994, with the support of Congress, USAID launched its Office of Transition Initiatives, or OTI, to provide such a capability. And I am pleased to say that -- in cooperation with other donors and organizations -- the three year old has already contributed much.

This past May, for example, I visited Guatemala where OTI had built the demobilization camps that enabled former guerrilla fighters to rejoin civil society.

Earlier this month, I visited Haiti, where OTI has helped consolidate democracy by working to restore community and economic life in every region of the country.

In Angola, OTI has helped create the climate of greater security needed to encourage compliance with the Lusaka Accords.

And in Bosnia, OTI has been at the forefront of efforts to establish an independent and objective press.

PATIENCE, PLANNING, COORDINATION AND MOMENTUM

Although OTI highlights the need to act flexibly when a conflict ends, one of the most important lessons learned in recent years is the parallel need for patience.

Peace agreements are not panaceas. The imperative, during a negotiation, is to persuade the parties to stop the killing. If that goal is achieved, other important issues may be left unresolved. Nor will an agreement, by itself, provide the security, mend the infrastructure, rebuild the hospitals, restore the croplands or create the other conditions needed for a return to normal life.

These tasks may take years even if political and security developments are favorable. If they are not, the risk is that reconstruction will never occur, and that those dissatisfied with the constraints of peace will slip their harnesses and return to war.

Unfortunately, patience is not a quality for which the 1990s are known. It is relatively easy to summon a sense of urgency and commitment at the moment a conflict ends, handshakes are exchanged, and photographs are taken. But it requires a healthy dose of political will to maintain that commitment later, when the ambitious plans designed at the outset face their severest tests.

There is, moreover, never enough money in a post-conflict situation to finance all the good ideas. We live in an era of tight budgets and diminishing enthusiasm for international assistance. It is essential, therefore, that participation in relief efforts be broad; priorities be set with discipline; expectations be realistic and resources be efficiently used.

All this requires sound planning. And one of the key lessons we have learned in recent years is that the more and earlier the planning, the better.

In Cambodia, the peace agreement called for electing a government that would then determine the nation's reconstruction needs. As a result, efforts to repair infrastructure and build institutions were delayed.

In Haiti, the United States had time to organize a comprehensive plan that became operational as soon as the elected leaders of that country were restored. More recently, following the peace accords in Guatemala, donors were well-prepared to begin re-integrating former combatants into society.

This is crucial because once a peace agreement is signed, momentum counts. Speed is essential to show the parties that peace pays. We can't spend years deciding where to put a demobilization camp, or how to turn on the lights in the nation's capital. We have to create from the outset a sense that the decision to lay down arms is irreversible and that the parties must either join the peacebuilding effort or run the risk of being left permanently behind.

BUILDING SECURITY

The immediate challenge after a peace agreement is signed is to create a climate of security so that the fighting can stop and reconstruction can begin. This is often the job of an outside military force assembled by the United Nations, a regional organization or a coalition.

A dilemma in many post-conflict situations is how and when to move from dependency on this outside force to reliance on a local force or forces.

Preparing to take this step is not simply a question of rebuilding a pre-war capability. Wholesale reform is often required.

This may entail establishing a clear separation between the responsibilities of soldiers and police; underlining the primacy of civilians over the military; restructuring and purging security forces; disbanding paramilitary units; and creating what may be entirely new standards for evaluating performance within both the military and police.

That is some list.

As we have seen, most prominently, in Latin America in recent years, democracy may demand of the military nothing less than a 100 percent reassessment of its purpose and place in the country.

But the foundation of true democracy cannot rest on concessions made by the armed forces alone. Civilian leaders must capably perform the tasks they have told the military it can no longer do. And they must demonstrate their own commitment to the rule of law.

International aid to domestic law enforcement has been a growth industry throughout this decade. The specific challenges may vary from teaching the ABCs of police investigation to human rights education to overcoming ethnic rivalry, but the overall goal is the same: to create a force that serves and protects the people, instead of repressing them. In some societies, this idea of police as friend and ally will be novel to citizens and to police alike.

As a result, years may elapse between the signing of a peace accord and the development of a satisfactory police force. Training takes time. And success depends not only on the arrest of criminals, but on their just prosecution and punishment.

However difficult, military, police and judicial reform are indispensable to lasting peace. If ex-combatants do not feel equal under the law and protected by it, they will take measures to protect their own security, and begin the cycle of violence anew.

EXIT STRATEGY

This leads to what is perhaps the most controversial and difficult question facing those of us involved in peacebuilding. When do we know that the international military force sent to a post-conflict country can leave without inviting renewed war?

Obviously, there is no scientific answer to this question. Ordinarily, however, the level of force required to maintain security will decrease as combatants are demobilized, local security forces are stood up and economic rebuilding gets underway.

As we have seen in El Salvador, Haiti and Mozambique; as we are now seeing in Eastern Slavonia; and as we hope to see in Bosnia -- it is possible to move down a continuum from a relatively large military force, to a smaller force, to a predominately civilian mission oriented towards police and judicial training and monitoring human rights.

Such a transition can only be achieved with steady support from international donors and with the commitment of the host government to embrace the rule of law.

The need for an exit strategy for military deployments in post-conflict situations has been the subject of much discussion in recent years.

I believe that an exit strategy is essential. It requires policymakers to give the armed forces a clear sense of mission and mandate. And a target date for completion puts pressure on local leaders to meet their responsibilities.

But an exit strategy cannot be an end in itself. And, in peacebuilding, best case scenarios rarely play out. To be effective, our strategy must be flexible enough to accommodate setbacks and stretchouts, but firm enough to keep the parties moving in the right direction.

DEMOCRACY

In our efforts to help post-conflict societies, we should always bear in mind that democracy provides the best route to long-term reconciliation. In a democracy, former combatants can continue fighting at the ballot box for the principles they once defended on the battlefield. Moreover, the need to win votes, build coalitions and propose concrete programs can have a moderating influence on the extremes. And once the mindset of democratic competition sets in, even threatening a return to past mayhem can become impolitic and thus, unthinkable.

Clearly, elections are necessary to provide legitimate and representative government, maintain stability and promote progress. But although elections must be part of a post-conflict strategy, they are not a sufficient strategy.

Nations come to democracy at their own speed. In the early stages of a transition, an interim coalition government may work better and do more for the cause of reconciliation than a weak elected one.

But whether elections are held sooner or later, the international community should strive from day one to help assemble the core ingredients of democracy -- a free press, political parties, equal rights for women and minorities, and even a new constitution if one is needed.

REFUGEES

Nothing provides a more visible symbol of healing after a conflict than the safe return of refugees and displaced persons to their pre-war homes. Through the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, the international community has developed a system for protecting refugees that has saved countless lives.

Today, however, that system faces some significant challenges.

For example, the recent events in Central Africa underline the need to ensure that the refugees who seek shelter from conflict are not used as cover by the initiators of conflict.

Countries of asylum have primary responsibility for the protection of refugees and for separating armed elements from the refugee population.

Unfortunately, the government of former Zaire had neither the will nor the ability to perform these functions with respect to the refugees who flooded across its borders in the wake of the Rwandan genocide three years ago. Ultimately, the camps were broken up forcefully at a high cost in lives and principle. If such episodes are not to be repeated, the international community must devise effective and realistic strategies for ensuring that refugee camps are not misused as military bases or as hideouts for war criminals.

Second, the problem of sexual abuse against displaced and refugee women needs to be addressed further. This is a problem both for women on the road and in camps. The challenge is not simply to care for the victims of such violence, but to prevent the violence and exploitation in the first place.

And third, for economic and social reasons, female ex-combatants and war-affected families -- often headed by women -- have particular difficulty re-establishing themselves in society after conflict. Their problems should be incorporated in a broader strategy for community re-integration. Two projects in this category are the UNHCR's Rwandan Women's Initiative and the Bosnian Women's Initiative, which strive to create economic opportunity for returning women refugees.

LAND MINES

Finally, one of the cruelest legacies of conflict in our era is ground made deadly by the presence of land mines. Today, an estimated 100 million mines lay scattered around more than five dozen countries; each mine a threat to life and limb, each an obstacle to economic recovery and the return of refugees, each a reminder that the costs of war continue long after the guns of war fall silent.

During the past several years, I have met with mining victims on four continents. I have watched little children without legs propel themselves on wagons through the streets; seen old men fitted with prosthetic limbs; and watched mothers tether their children to trees to prevent them from straying into nearby mine-infested fields.

Like other Americans, I have been heartened by the recent dramatic increase in support for protecting civilians from the danger of landmines.

I am appreciative of the contributions made to this cause by leaders such as Senators Patrick Leahy and Chuck Hagel, and by the Nobel Prize-winning International Campaign to Ban Landmines.

And I am proud that today, America is the leader in humanitarian de-mining.

Since 1993, we have devoted $153 million to this purpose; our experts are helping to remove mines in 14 nations; they have trained and equipped about one quarter of those engaged in demining around the world; and we are continuing to increase our commitment. But still, there is much more that we, and others in the international community, can and must do.

Accordingly, I am pleased that, later today, I will join Secretary of Defense William Cohen in announcing a major new Presidential initiative.

The purpose of that initiative will be to ensure that civilians in every country on every continent are secure from the threat of land mines by the end of the next decade.

Our premise is that the best way to protect civilians from landmines in the ground is to pull them out like the noxious weeds they are.

But given the scale and urgency of the problem, we need a massive increase in global resources devoted to identifying and clearing mines. We need to intensify research into better methods of de-mining -- for in this era of technological miracles, the most common tool we have for detecting landmines is still a stick attached to a person's arm.

And we need to expand efforts to heighten awareness among vulnerable populations, so that when we achieve our goal of eliminating landmines that threaten civilian populations, the children of the world will be there to witness it.

The initiative we are announcing today is intended to increase public and private resources devoted to de-mining worldwide by approximately five-fold to $1 billion a year. The initiative will be coordinated by Assistant Secretary of State Karl F. "Rick" Inderfurth, who is today being asked to serve as the U.S. Special Representative of the President and Secretary of State for Global Humanitarian Demining.

Thirty-six years ago, President Kennedy set for our nation the goal of enabling a man to walk on the moon. Today, President Clinton is reaffirming the goal of enabling people everywhere to walk safely on the Earth.

This conference is about rebuilding post-conflict societies. I can think of no better contribution to that cause than to mobilize public and private resources from around the world to see that landmines are removed forever from the ground on which our children tread.

RECONCILIATION

The issues I have discussed so far relate to the creation within a post-conflict society of what I would call the nuts and bolts of normalcy: the ability of people to go about their daily business free from violence, in hopes of increased prosperity, in communities where the trains are running and basic services are being provided.

This is how the physical scars of war are healed and it is important and necessary to the rebuilding process.

But it is not enough. For many of the wounds that war inflicts are not against land or body but mind and spirit.

During the past five years, I have met with victims of war from the Caucasus to Cambodia to Kigali to Quiche. I have talked to people no different than you or whose lives have been turned wrongside out by ethnic cleansing and murder.

I have spoken to grandparents in Georgia who have been driven from the homes in which they had lived their entire lives, and to women in Rwanda now raising children conceived in rape by the murderers of their husbands.

And I have met with the widows of Vukovar and Srbrenica who will not believe their loved ones are dead -- because they have seen no bodies, because they have no faith in what anyone tells them and because even steel would lose a test of strength compared to human hope. I suspect many of you have had similar conversations.

No international program, no matter how generous or well-planned, can erase the bitterness created by war. That is beyond mortal power.

But we do have tools available to provide a degree of help and this matters, not only for humanitarian reasons, but because it is hard to build a democratic community on a foundation of unresolved anger and grief.

These tools include such programs as the International Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture; counseling programs run by private voluntary groups; and self-help projects organized by survivors themselves.

Donors can also help to locate and identify the remains of the missing, search out and care for unaccompanied children and aid in re-uniting families.

And we have a particular responsibility to support reconciliation through the prosecution of war crimes, a truth commission or other appropriate means. These are imperfect instruments, but they can provide at least a measure of closure and accountability to past outrages, so that their repetition is less likely, and so that the families of victims do not feel their suffering has been ignored.

CONCLUSION

Fifty years ago tomorrow, President Truman summoned Congress to a special session for the purpose of approving post-conflict aid to the people of war-torn Europe.

Later, on the first day of that session, the President told the American people that he saw "an opportunity -- unmatched in history -- to (help)...men and women all over the world...move out of the shadows of fear and war and into the light of freedom and peace."

"We have learned," said Truman, through "the costly lessons of two world wars that what happens beyond our shores determines how we live our own lives... The best way to prevent future wars is to work for the independence and well-being of all nations."

Much has changed over the past five decades, but the relevance of those words to our future and to the future of American leadership has not.

For almost as many years as I have been alive, the United States has played the leading role within the international system, not as sole arbiter of right and wrong, for that is a responsibility widely shared, but as pathfinder -- as the nation able to show the way when others cannot.

Now, we have reached a point in history when no nation need be left out of the global system, and every nation that seeks to participate and is willing to do all it can to aid itself will have America's help in finding the right path.

Like the leaders of a half century ago, we are present at the creation of a new era full of opportunity but imperiled, as well, by new dangers.

The good news, in which our own nation has always believed, is that human security and prosperity and freedom are dynamic, not finite; if we plant the seeds and till the soil, they will grow.

This view is not based on any illusions. Relief and development professionals, especially, have seen far too much of poverty and suffering to indulge in sentimentalism. But we live in a nation and a world that has been enriched immeasurably by the survivors, by those who have emerged from the ravages of war to rebuild their lives, recreate their communities and renew the progress of their nations.

It has been said that all work that is worth anything is done in faith. Let us all keep the faith that each child saved, each refugee returned, each institution reformed, each barrier to justice brought down and each landmine removed will build our confidence in each other and expand outward the limits of what is possible on this earth.

Thank you once again for your attention.

And thank you Brian Atwood and USAID.

(end text) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State.)

This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State. Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

TEXT: ALBRIGHT REMARKS AT USAID CONFERENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS