Speech #1040166210

I still remain concerned about the potential for socalled mission creep. Under the terms of the peace agreement. IFor has the authority to "help create secure conditions for the conduct by others of other tasks associated with the peace settlement. including free and fair elections." to "assist the movement of organizations in the accomplishment of humanitarian missions." "to assist the UNHCR and other international organizations in their humanitarian missions." to "observe and prevent interference with the movement of civilian populations. refugees. and displaced persons. and to respond appropriately to deliberate violence to life and person." and to "monitor the clearing of minefields and obstacles." True. these are authorities not obligations as Secretary Christopher has pointed out. True. the mission is defined by the NATO plan and these elements are not in the NATO plan. as Secretary Perry told the Foreign Relations Committee. Nevertheless. these authorities create the potential for expansion of the mission beyond the military tasks cited by administration officials and for increased risk to our troops and those of other nations participating in the operation. They also create an expectation on the part of the local populations and civilian organizations on the ground that IFor will protect and assist them. If refugees are being attacked. can our troops really stand by and watch? Would we want them to? If UNHCR ask IFor to help resettle refugees in a given area. will IFor feel compelled to assist? If Catholic Relief Services asks French troops in Sarajevo to protect a convoy of humanitarian aid going into the city. are they bound to assist? The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE] is responsible for organizing elections in Bosnia in the next year.