US DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 4, NUMBER 7, FEBRUARY 15, 1993
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ISSUES IN THIS ARTICLE:
1.  New Steps Toward Conflict Resolution 
          In the Former Yugoslavia -- Secretary Christopher
2.  Progress on Resolving Israeli Deportation Issue -- Secretary 
Christopher  
3.  US-Canadian Relations -- President Clinton, Prime Minister Mulroney 
4.  Restoring Democracy in Haiti -- Secretary Christopher
5.  Rwandan Violence
6.  1992 Human Rights Report -- Patricia Diaz Dennis
7.  Fact Sheet:  European Community
8.  Treaty Actions


ARTICLE 1:

New Steps Toward Conflict Resolution In the Former Yugoslavia
Secretary Christopher
Opening statement at a news conference, Washington, DC, February 10, 
1993

Today I am announcing a series of new steps that President Clinton has 
decided to take with regard to the former Yugoslavia.  The President 
believes it is time for the United States to become actively and 
directly engaged in the multilateral effort to reach a just and workable 
resolution to this dangerous conflict.

We inherit, at this early point in our Administration, a tragic and 
dangerous situation.  Over the past 2 years, the states of the former 
Yugoslavia have descended into a dark period of terror and bloodshed.  
During that period, the West missed repeated opportunities to engage 
early and effectively in ways that might have prevented the conflict 
from deepening.  As President Clinton stressed during the campaign, an 
early and forceful signal might well have deterred much of the 
aggression, bloodshed, and "ethnic cleansing.''  Because those actions 
were not taken, we now face a much more intractable situation with 
vastly more difficult options.  Yet, now we must address the 
circumstances as we find them, and we are resolved to do so.

Those circumstances have deep roots.  The death of [Yugoslav] President 
Tito and the end of communist domination of the former Yugoslavia raised 
the lid on the cauldron of ancient ethnic hatreds.  This is a land where 
at least three religions and a half-dozen ethnic groups have vied across 
the centuries.  It was the birthplace of World War I.  It has long been 
a cradle of European conflict, [and] it remains so today.

Over the past year, [US Special Envoy] Cyrus Vance and [European 
Community Special Envoy] Lord David Owen have tirelessly pursued a 
negotiated settlement.  While they have made progress, their proposed 
settlement has not been accepted by the parties to the dispute, and the 
killing continues.

This conflict may be far from our shores, but it is not distant to our 
concerns.  We cannot afford to ignore it.  Let me explain why.

We cannot ignore the human toll.  Serbian "ethnic cleansing" has been 
pursued through mass murders, systematic beatings and rapes of Muslims 
and others, prolonged shelling of innocents in Sarajevo and elsewhere, 
forced displacement of entire villages, inhumane treatment of prisoners 
in detention camps, and the blockading of relief to sick and starving 
civilians.  Atrocities have been committed by other parties as well.  
Our conscience revolts at the idea of passively accepting such 
brutality.

Beyond these humanitarian interests, we have direct strategic concerns 
as well.  The continuing destruction of a new UN member state challenges 
the principle that internationally recognized borders should not be 
altered by force.  In addition, this conflict itself has no natural 
borders.  It threatens to spill over into new regions, such as Kosovo 
and Macedonia.  It could then become a greater Balkan war, like those 
that preceded World War I.  Broader hostilities could touch additional 
nations, such as Greece, Albania, and Turkey.  The river of fleeing 
refugees, which has already reached the hundreds of thousands, would 
swell.  The political and economic vigor of Europe, already tested by 
the integration of former communist states, would be further strained.

There is a broader imperative here.  The world's response to the 
violence in the former Yugoslavia is an early and crucial test of how it 
will address the concerns of ethnic and religious minorities in the 
post-Cold War world.  That question reaches throughout Eastern Europe.  
It reaches to the states of the former Soviet Union, where the fall of 
communism has left some 25 million ethnic Russians living as minorities 
in other republics, and it reaches to other continents as well.

The events in the former Yugoslavia raise the question of whether a 
state may address the rights of its minorities by eradicating those 
minorities to achieve "ethnic purity."  Bold tyrants and fearful 
minorities are watching to see whether "ethnic cleansing" is a policy 
[that] the world will tolerate.  If we hope to promote the spread of 
freedom or if we hope to encourage the emergence of peaceful multi-
ethnic democracies, our answer must be a resounding no.

This is why President Clinton has decided to take the following six 
steps.

First, the President has decided [that] the United States will engage 
actively and directly in the Vance-Owen negotiations, bringing the 
weight of American diplomacy to bear.  We know [that] these negotiations 
will not be easy; we know the options have narrowed because of past 
inaction.  We do not expect miracles, but we believe [that] we can make 
a difference.  We strongly support the efforts of the United Nations and 
the European Community, through the Vance-Owen negotiations, to arrive 
at any agreement that would bring peace to Bosnia.  Now, in order to 
ensure the most effective possible communication between us, President 
Clinton has, today, named one of our top diplomats to be our 
government's envoy to those talks, Ambassador Reginald Bartholomew.  Mr. 
Bartholomew has served as our ambassador to Lebanon and Spain and is 
currently the ambassador to NATO.  He is no stranger to crises; he is 
the right person for this task.  Through Ambassador Bartholomew's 
efforts, working with [former US] Secretary [of State] Vance and Lord 
Owen, and through other means, the United States will help explore 
creative solutions to the conflict that we hope all parties can accept.

Second, the President is communicating to the Bosnians, Serbs, and 
Croatians that the only way to end this conflict is through negotiation.  
No settlement can be imposed on the parties, both on grounds of 
principle and on grounds that an imposed settlement would be far more 
difficult to sustain than one the parties have voluntarily embraced.  At 
the same time, we believe that each party must be prepared to accept a 
resolution that falls short of its goals.  Therefore, we are taking 
steps to urge the parties not to hold back from earnest negotiation.  
The responsibility for crafting a workable solution is fundamentally on 
the parties involved, but we will lend our earnest support.

Third, the President will take actions to tighten the enforcement of 
economic sanctions, increase political pressure on Serbia, and deter 
Serbia from widening the war.  We have informed the Serbians that we 
plan to raise the economic and political price for aggression.  We will 
work with our allies, the Russians, and others to achieve this result.  
We remain prepared to respond against the Serbians in the event of 
conflict in Kosovo caused by Serbian action.  In addition, we will work 
to strengthen the international presence in Macedonia.

Fourth, the President is taking steps to reduce the suffering and 
bloodshed as these negotiations proceed.  He is calling on all parties 
to stop the shelling and other violence.  He has communicated to all 
concerned that the no-fly zone over Bosnia should be enforced under a UN 
resolution.  He has urged that humanitarian aid be allowed to flow to 
those in need, and we are considering further actions to promote greater 
delivery of aid.  Moreover, we are putting together a US Government team 
to assess further humanitarian needs on an urgent basis.  The President 
is seeking the urgent creation of a war crimes tribunal at the United 
Nations to bring justice and deter further atrocities.

Fifth, the President has taken steps to make clear to all concerned that 
the United States is prepared to do its share to help implement and 
enforce an agreement that is acceptable to all parties.  If there is a 
viable agreement containing enforcement provisions, the United States 
would be prepared to join with the United Nations, NATO, and others in 
implementing and enforcing it, including possible US military 
participation.  This is a shared problem and must be a shared burden.

Sixth and finally, the President has consulted widely with our friends 
and allies on these actions.  He and I have communicated to dozens of 
world leaders regarding our intentions.  In particular, earlier today 
the President spoke with [Russian] President Yeltsin by phone to convey 
his personal request that both our nations work closely and 
cooperatively in this search for a peaceful resolution.  He is also 
sending Ambassador Bartholomew to Moscow to discuss our approach before 
Ambassador Bartholomew returns to New York for the negotiations.

Let me make clear what we hope to achieve through these steps.  We will 
attempt to help build on the Vance-Owen negotiations in a way that can 
move toward a just, workable, and durable solution.  We will seek to 
preserve the survivability of Bosnia as a state.  We hope that our 
direct involvement in the negotiations, as well as the other steps I 
have announced, will encourage the parties to move quickly to negotiate 
and embrace a solution that is mutually acceptable and that, therefore, 
has a real chance to work.  In particular, we expect that our 
willingness to participate in the enforcement of such an agreement will 
help allay concerns [that] the Bosnian Government and others have 
expressed about an agreement's workability.

Let me also make clear what we do not intend by these steps.  We do not 
intend to impose a solution on the parties.  We believe the quickest, 
best, and most sustainable way to stop the bloodshed in the former 
Yugoslavia is to help create an environment in which all parties see it 
in their own self-interest to negotiate a political settlement.

The United States is not the world's policeman.  We cannot interpose our 
forces to stop every armed conflict in the world.  Yet, we are the 
United States of America.  We have singular powers and influence.  We 
are committed to Europe's stability.  Our values and interests give us 
reason to help create an international standard for the fair treatment 
of minorities.  Therefore, we have reasons to participate actively in 
this effort.

This is an important moment for our nation's post-Cold War role in 
Europe and the world.  It tests our ability to adopt new approaches to 
foreign policy in a world that has changed fundamentally.  It tests our 
commitment to the nurturing of democracy and the support of environments 
in which democracy can take root and grow.

It tests our willingness and that of our allies to help our institutions 
of collective security, such as NATO, evolve in ways that meet the 
demands of this new age.  It tests what wisdom we have gathered from 
this bloody century and measures our resolve to take early, concerted 
action against systematic ethnic persecution.

In the wake of the devastating struggles of the 20th century, no great 
power today can take lightly the risks of involvement in a Balkan 
conflict.  Yet no great power can dismiss the likely consequences of 
letting a Balkan conflict rage.  Acting now, in close cooperation with 
our friends and allies, offers the best chance to contain these flames 
of conflict before they become an underground fire that could later 
erupt and become all-consuming.  By acting now, we can demonstrate that 
not every crisis need become a choice between inaction and unilateral 
American intervention.  In the face of great suffering and the 
imperative of our own interest, we cannot afford to miss any further 
opportunities to help pursue a resolution of this conflict.  (###)



ARTICLE 2:

Progress on Resolving Israeli Deportation Issue
Secretary Christopher
Excerpts from opening statement at a news conference at the US Mission 
to the United Nations, New York City, February 1, 1993

I have come here on my first trip outside Washington as Secretary of 
State, taking an early opportunity to confer personally with the 
Secretary General of the United Nations [Boutros Boutros-Ghali].

I came here at this early juncture to underscore my support for the role 
of the United Nations at this critical time, and at this time as we 
enter the post-Cold War era.

We're very grateful to the Secretary General for his determined efforts 
to guide the United Nations into this new period.  He's really an 
extraordinary Secretary General, and I look forward to working with him 
during my tenure.

I'm also pleased to be here on the occasion of Ambassador Madeleine 
Albright's first day here at the United Nations.  She's an outstanding 
American who's a long-time friend of mine and a close adviser to 
President Clinton.   His regard for her is such that he has named her to 
be a member of his Cabinet and has asked that she come to Washington for 
all of the critical meetings on the United Nations matters which, I must 
say, include virtually all matters these days.  She'll be a superb UN 
Ambassador, and I look forward to working closely with her during her 
tenure.

We've had a very constructive day here at the United Nations.  I want to 
express my admiration for the Secretary General's efforts to come to 
grips with the pressures placed on the United Nations and its expanding 
role in the world.

As the largest contributor to the United Nations, the United States will 
play an aggressive and strong role in connection with UN affairs.

Now, I do have a specific announcement that I'd like to make with 
respect to the deportation issue, a matter that I discussed at some 
length with the Secretary General this afternoon.

President Clinton and I are pleased to announce that based upon 
intensive efforts and consultations over the last several days, there 
has been a breakthrough in our efforts with respect to the deportation 
issue.

Under the terms of the process that Israel has announced today, Israel 
will permit a significant number of the deportees to return either to 
Israel or to the Occupied Territories within the next several days.

Israel also will reduce the sentences of all other deportees, and, as a 
matter of arithmetic, this means that all the deportees will be able to 
return before the end of this calendar year.

Israel also will maintain an appeals and review process for the 
deportees, which means that some of them may be returned even before the 
end of the calendar year.

And, finally--and this is important to us--the process that Israel is 
announcing assures the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the 
deportees where they are at the present time.

The United States believes that this process, which is being announced 
by Israel today, is consistent with UN Resolution 799 on the deportees.  
As a consequence of the steps that Israel will take, we believe that 
further action by the Security Council is unnecessary and could even 
undercut the process, which is already underway.

The United States will consult further with the Secretary General about 
this matter, but, I repeat, we believe that further steps here in the 
Security Council are unnecessary, and that taking of further steps might 
undercut the process which is underway and which we think is very 
important.

With the steps announced today, the United States believes it's time to 
look ahead and to concentrate our efforts on invigorating and restarting 
the Arab-Israeli peace negotiations.  We reiterate our commitment to 
this negotiating process, and we hope to help bring the negotiations to 
fruition.

The United States and Russia as co-sponsors will be conferring on these 
matters shortly in an attempt to help bring the parties back to the 
table.  The peace negotiations offer the only real opportunity to 
address the underlying problems that give rise to the tension, violence, 
and confrontations among the Arabs, Israelis, and the Palestinians.

. . . I want to emphasize . . . that we believe that the peace 
negotiations are the only practical avenue by which we can attain the 
kind of peace and tranquility which has been so long denied to the 
people of this region. (###)



ARTICLE 3:

US-Canadian Relations
President Clinton, Prime Minister Mulroney
Excerpts from a news conference, The White House, Washington, DC, 
February 5, 1993

President Clinton:  . . . I'm delighted that my first meeting as 
President with a foreign leader is with the Prime Minister of Canada, 
Brian Mulroney.  On the day after I was elected, I spoke of the 
essential continuity of our country's foreign policy.  Our steadfast 
relationship with Canada is an indispensable element of that continuity.  
Prime Minister Mulroney and the people of Canada should know that the 
United States is still their friend and their partner.

It is worth noting that the United States and Canada share the world's 
longest undefended border and that we haven't had a battle between us 
since the War of 1812.  Now, having said that, Mr. Prime Minister, I 
will tell you that I look forward to winning back the World Series.

Canada has long stood as our partner in promoting democracy and human 
rights around the world.  Today, Canada is demonstrating her 
international leadership for peace and freedom through her commitment in 
peace-keeping efforts around the world--in Somalia, in Bosnia, and 
elsewhere.  Canada is our largest trading partner.  Both our nations 
benefit enormously from the immense river of goods and services flowing 
across our border, with an increase of $30 billion just since the free 
trade agreement went into effect.

It is remarkable how relatively few disputes have attended the vigorous 
trading between us.  Yet, it is inevitable that there will be some 
disagreements even among close partners.  And we agreed today to 
maintain high-level attention to that trading relationship to ensure 
that the problems are addressed before they become crises.

The Prime Minister and I discussed the North American Free Trade 
Agreement [NAFTA].  I assured him that my Administration intends to move 
forward with NAFTA while establishing a process to provide adequate 
protection to workers, to farmers, and to the environment.  Canada was 
our partner in working with Mexico to negotiate NAFTA, and Canada will 
be our partner as we move forward to put it and its related agreements 
into effect.  We've made a good start here today in setting the stage 
for working together.

We also discussed the GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] 
agreement, and I reassured the Prime Minister that the United States 
will do what it can to secure an agreement at GATT that all the world 
can be proud of and can be a prosperous part of.

We reviewed a broad range of global issues, including the developments 
in Russia and elsewhere in the former Soviet Union, the crisis in the 
Balkans, the situation in Somalia and [in] Haiti.  We also discussed our 
participation in the Group of Seven [leading industrial nations--G-7] 
and what the United States and Canada might hope to achieve this year, 
and especially this summer when the G-7 [meets] in Tokyo, to help move 
the global economy out of recession and into a strong recovery.

This was a very good beginning.  I want to thank Prime Minister Mulroney 
for coming down from Canada and tell him that he'll always be welcome 
here.  And I look forward to visiting you on your home turf soon.


Prime Minister Mulroney:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I'll simply say 
that, as the President indicated, we had a very full review of quite a 
large number of items in the few hours we spent together and a very 
productive working lunch.  I thought it was a very good meeting and a 
very good beginning of the relationship of Canada with the new 
Administration.

The President has indicated [that] the complex issues that we've touched 
on, tried to deal with, principally, of course--and I think you'll 
understand--the relationship between Canada and the United States 
itself.  The relationship is by far the most important one [that] the 
United States has in the world.  This is the biggest trading 
relationship ever between two nations.  And at the end of the year, the 
important thing is it tends to be in rough balance, which indicates that 
you can have free trade and prosper.

And so we're very concerned about the GATT, and we're very concerned 
about the trading currents generally and very reassured by the 
President's strong commitments and strong positions in respect of the 
manner in which you bring back and re-energize prosperity around the 
world.

So, we covered our bilateral arrangements, and we covered a lot of hot 
spots around the world. . . .


President Clinton:  Let me say that I am committed to restoring 
democracy to Haiti.  I am doing my best to work through the United 
Nations and the Organization of American States with [UN special envoy] 
Mr. [Dante] Caputo.  I am, frankly, disappointed that the Prime Minister 
in Haiti has apparently backed off a little bit of his original 
willingness to let us send in some third-party observers, not just to 
protect the petitions for refugee status but also to try to stabilize 
conditions leading toward a restoration of democracy there.  And we're 
going to talk to Mr. Caputo [to] see where he thinks things are and then 
reassess our position.

But I share the Prime Minister's determination.  The United States and 
Canada should be and are one in our commitment to restoring democracy to 
Haiti.  And we will continue to push ahead either on the course we're 
now on or, if that fails, on a more vigorous course toward that end. 
(###)



ARTICLE 4:

Restoring Democracy in Haiti
Secretary Christopher

February 9, 1993
Statement by Secretary Christopher released by the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary/Spokesman, Washington, DC.

Today, UN and Organization of American States (OAS) Special Envoy Dante 
Caputo announced agreement between all parties on an international 
civilian observer mission for Haiti.

The Clinton Administration is encouraged by this progress.  As the UN 
statement made clear, this is the first step in what must be a 
continuing process to reach a comprehensive political solution to the 
crisis in Haiti.  Still, it is a ray of hope in a country that has known 
little hope for many months.  I applaud the efforts of the UN and OAS 
Special Envoy, Mr. Caputo, and also give credit to all of the Haitian 
parties that made this agreement possible.

It is now crucial that the civilian mission deploy quickly and begin to 
carry out its important mandate throughout Haiti.  We must also move 
forward immediately to begin negotiations on resolving the political 
crisis, provide assistance to strengthen and reform Haitian 
institutions, rebuild Haiti's economy, and restore Haiti's democracy.  
The United States will contribute actively and generously to fulfill 
these important goals.

We believe Haiti must rejoin this hemisphere's democratic community; if 
good will continues on all sides, deployment of the civilian mission can 
be the first step in reaching that vital goal.


February 5, 1993
Excerpts from remarks before a meeting with Haitian President Jean-
Bertrand Aristide, Washington, DC.

As you know, 2 years ago this week, President Aristide was inaugurated 
as the first democratically elected President of Haiti, and that's an 
important anniversary.

Tragically, not long after he was elected, he was overthrown by a coup, 
and, in the period since then, the people of Haiti have been through 
great anguish and suffering.  As a result, I thought it was appropriate 
at the present time, on this anniversary, to ask to see [President 
Aristide] to assure him that the Clinton Administration is strongly 
committed to work through the United Nations and the OAS [Organization 
of American States] to restore democracy in Haiti and to see that he 
returns to finish out his mandate and to have a restoration of democracy 
in Haiti.

The time in Haiti has been a very difficult one.  It's frustrating and a 
very tough situation.  But those who hold illegal power there should 
know that they're swimming against the tide of history and that they 
will not prevail.

And so, on this anniversary, we are very pleased to welcome President 
Aristide here to the State Department and to assure him of our strong 
support for the restoration of democracy in Haiti and for his return 
when that is possible.  (###)


ARTICLE 5:

Rwandan Violence
Statement by State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher, Washington, DC, 
February 9, 1993.

The US Government deplores the outbreak of violence in Rwanda and calls 
upon the Government of Rwanda, leaders of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, 
and Rwandan political leaders to renew their public and private 
commitment to dialogue.

We especially deplore the Rwandan Patriotic Front attacks of February 8   
and 9 in violation of the negotiated cease-fire of August 1, 1992.  
These attacks have caused many of the 350,000 persons displaced by the 
conflict of the last 2 years to again flee and will necessitate even 
greater humanitarian efforts in the immediate future.

As our ambassador and those of other donor nations have stated to the 
President and the Prime Minister and noted publicly in Kigali, we 
condemn the ethnic and political violence, motivated by partisan 
political activists, that has left more than 300 dead and some 4,500 
homeless.  We take note of the decision of the coalition government to 
discipline officials in positions of responsibility.

We call upon the Rwandan Patriotic Front to respect the terms of the 
cease-fire and urge both the front and the Government of Rwanda to 
return to the negotiations at Arusha [Tanzania].  Negotiation and 
dialogue provide the only real prospect for a durable solution to the 
long-standing pattern of violence that has plagued the country in recent 
decades.  (###)



ARTICLE 6:

1992 Human Rights Report
Patricia Diaz Dennis, Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and 
Humanitarian Affairs
Introduction to 1992 report, released January 19, 1993, Washington, DC

The Report to Congress on Human Rights Practices for 1992, released by 
the US Department of State, is available from the Superintendent of 
Documents, US Government Printing Office (#052-070-06851-5).  Electronic 
distribution of the full report is now available through GPO's Federal 
Bulletin Board (see inside back cover for more details.)

Looking back over the past year, the American-led landing of 
multinational armed forces in Somalia on December 8, 1992, marked a 
defining moment in the role that human rights and humanitarian concerns 
play in world affairs.  Created after the UN Security Council accepted 
an American offer of military assistance, these forces were able to 
break the stranglehold of local Somali warlords and bandits on the 
delivery of food, medicine, and other humanitarian assistance.  

Although less dramatic, these reports represent a no less important 
example of this country's continuing and long-standing commitment to 
human rights in the world.  This is the 17th year this Department has 
submitted these reports to Congress.  The reports cover countries that 
receive aid from the United States and countries that are members of the 
United Nations, as required by law.  As in recent years, this volume 
also includes reports on countries which are neither aid recipients nor 
UN members.

These country reports show that, despite the advancement of human rights 
policy evidenced by the world's response to Somalia, the balance sheet 
of human rights practices had many negative entries in 1992.  The hope 
for more widespread respect for human rights--buttressed in previous 
years by the demise of the Soviet Union and by democratic 
transformations elsewhere in the world--was undercut by horrific abuses 
of the most fundamental rights.  In continued ethnic and religious 
conflicts in Europe, Africa, and Asia, hundreds of thousands of people, 
denied humanitarian relief by inhuman governments and warlords, suffered 
and died.  On a scale and scope not seen for half a century, barbarous 
leaders consciously used atrocities of the most vile nature, including 
wholesale rape of women in Bosnia, to drive ethnic populations from 
their homes.  During the past year, false prophets of nationalism and 
"ethnic cleansing" and religious extremists openly flouted the values 
enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  

Although discredited as an ideology, fidelity to Leninism remained the 
pretext for several regimes in Asia and Castro's Cuba to try to justify 
continued denial of their citizens' most basic political and civil 
rights.  Without any serious philosophical pretext, authoritarian 
regimes in far too many other countries continued to deny the inter-
nationally recognized human rights of their peoples.  In several of the 
countries of the former Soviet Union, the process of democratic 
transformation stalled, in part due to the residual influence of old 
regime elites.  

But the multinational humanitarian efforts in Somalia were not the only 
positive entries on the human rights ledger for the year.  While these 
reports document the holdouts, footdraggers and backsliders, the process 
of democratic transformation continued to make significant headway, 
particularly in Africa.  Another example of progress occurred in El 
Salvador, with the ongoing implementation of last year's New Year's Eve 
peace accords.  Ground-breaking, albeit sometimes imperfect, elections 
occurred in several countries, such as Kenya, Kuwait, and Cameroon.  
Democracy was restored in Thailand, and the process of reconciliation 
offered a glimmer of hope in war-torn Mozambique.  Although democratic 
norms did not guarantee consistent respect for human rights, the human 
rights observance trend line remained, on balance, positive.

The international community was more responsive to widespread violations 
of human rights, adopting unprecedented means to alleviate them in 
several instances in addition to Somalia.  The UN Human Rights 
Commission is becoming more active in dealing with human rights crises.  
Its rapporteur for the former Yugoslavia periodically reported to the 
Secretary General, laying the groundwork for real time responses to 
human rights abuses.  For the first time, at US initiative, the 
Commission met in extraordinary session, again allowing it to confront a 
humanitarian crisis within a time frame for practical responses.  The 
Security Council mandated extraordinary responses, not only in Somalia, 
but to crises in the former Yugoslavia and Iraq, as well.  The General 
Assembly passed a resolution that other African governments widely 
supported expressing concern about the serious human rights situation in 
Sudan.

The donor community increasingly linked financial aid to human rights 
performance.  The donor countries more effectively coordinated their 
responses to major problems as in Malawi.  Legislation requiring the 
United States to oppose loans to the most serious human rights abusers 
was amended to cover IMF [International Monetary Fund] loans.  This 
action strengthened an important tool we use to encourage greater 
respect for human rights abroad.  Human rights advocates here and abroad 
warmly welcomed the Senate's approval of the Administration-backed 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  

So now we look forward to next year--the United States will continue to 
nurture respect for human rights through strengthening fledgling 
democracies, supporting the growth of the rule of law and promoting 
individual liberties.  We will have an historic opportunity to further 
these three fundamental cornerstones of civil and political rights when 
the World Conference on Human Rights convenes in June 1993.  We can all 
hope [that] next year's country reports, when reviewing 1993, will mark 
it a milestone year and that the human rights ledger will have more 
positive than negative entries.  (###)



ARTICLE 7:

Fact Sheet:  European Community

Institutions
Since July 1967, the three communities have functioned with common 
institutions.  The main EC institutions are:  the Council of Ministers, 
which has final decision-making authority; the European Commission, 
which formulates policies and legislation and implements decisions of 
the Council; the European Parliament, which advises the EC on policy 
development and proposals emanating from the Commission; and the 
European Court of Justice, which interprets the EC treaties and 
legislation.  Other EC institutions are the Court of Auditors, which 
oversees financial management of the Community, and the Economic and 
Social Committee, an advisory body.  Member states have agreed to 
relinquish a degree of national sovereignty to EC institutions and to 
cooperate in the joint administration of these powers.

The European Commission.  The Commission, headquartered in Brussels, is 
made up of 17 commissioners appointed by common agreement of the   12 
governments.  Each country is represented.  The United Kingdom, France, 
Germany, and Italy each supply two commissioners.  According to the 
treaties, members of the Commission act independently of their 
governments and of the Council and represent the interests of the 
Community as a whole.  Each member has responsibility for one or more 
policy areas.

The Commission's major responsibility is to oversee the implementation 
of the EC treaties and applications of decisions by Community 
institutions.  The Commission has investigative authority and can take 
legal action against persons, companies, or member states that violate 
Community rules.   The Commission initiates EC policy by making 
proposals to the Council of Ministers and steers its proposals through 
the Council.  These may include measures beyond the scope of trade and 
commerce, such as education, public health, consumer protection, the 
environment, research and technology, and aid to developing countries.  
The collection and disbursement of EC funds is a third important 
Commission responsibility.  

The 1987 Single European Act gave the Commission authority to implement 
Council decisions; for example, the commissioners may negotiate trade 
agreements with non-member states on behalf of the Community.  The Com-
mission's independence and its "right of initiation" of policy account 
for much of its supranational authority.  To balance that independence, 
the Commission is subject to censure by the Parliament, which can force 
the entire Commission to resign as a body by a two-thirds majority vote.   
(This action never has been taken.)

The President of the Commission is appointed to a renewable 2-year term 
by the Council of Ministers.   The Com-mission's administrative staff of 
16,700 is divided into 23 Directorates-General.  In 1995, the terms of 
the commissioners will be expanded to 5 years to correspond to the terms 
of members of the European Parliament.

Council of Ministers.  The Council of Ministers is the primary decision-
making body of the Community.  It is composed of ministers representing 
national governments.  Each member state serves as Council President for 
6 months in rotation.  The presidency country presides at all meetings 
of the member states and serves as spokesman in dealing with countries 
on inter-governmental matters, including efforts to coordinate the 
foreign policies of the member states.  A member state's foreign 
minister is regarded as its principal representative in the Council.  
Foreign ministers deal with the most important and wide-reaching topics, 
while more specific decisions are made by the ministers of agriculture, 
finance, industry, energy, social affairs, and others, depending on the 
issue to be  discussed.

EC members have the following votes in the Council:  Germany (10), 
France (10), Italy (10), United Kingdom (10), Spain (8), Belgium (5), 
Greece (5), Netherlands (5), Portugal (5), Denmark (3), Ireland (3), and 
Luxembourg (2).   The 1987 Single European Act created a less 
restrictive decision-making process by allowing most voting in the 
Council by qualified majority (54 out of a total of 76 votes), rather 
than unanimity especially in areas relating to the internal market.  
Exceptions include certain health and safety and taxation proposals.  
The various ministerial groups meet monthly.  A Committee of Permanent 
Representatives, consisting of member country ambassadors to the 
Community in Brussels, and the Council Secretariat assist the Council.

European Council.  The Single European Act formally established the 
European Council, which had met on a regular basis since 1975.  The 
European Council includes the Heads of State and Government and the 
President of the Commission.  It meets at the end of each member's 
council presidency to discuss general problems regarding the Community, 
the progress of political cooperation, and foreign policy issues.

European Parliament.  The European Parliament is the only EC institution 
that directly represents European citizens.  It serves as a public forum 
to debate issues of importance to the Community.  The Commission must 
consult the Parliament before proposals are forwarded to the Council of 
Ministers for decision.  The Parliament has significant power over 
budgetary matters and can amend or reject the budget as well as approve 
its adoption.  Since 1987, it also has had the right to amend or reject 
certain legislation approved by the Council, which can overrule the 
Parliament only by a unanimous vote.  Although it cannot veto individual 
ministers, the Parliament has the power to pass a vote of no-confidence 
in the Commission by a "motion of censure," which would require the 
entire Commission to resign.  The Parliament also may approve or 
disapprove applications of non-member countries to join the Community as 
well as new association agreements.

The European Parliament has been elected by universal suffrage since 
1979.  Previously, deputies had been nominated by national legislatures.  
The 518 deputies of the Parliament are elected to 5-year terms and are 
grouped by political affiliation, rather than by nationality.  They 
include Socialists, Christian Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, 
Communists, and Greens.

Many of the Parliament's specialized committees have emphasized 
development of truly European policies in areas such as the internal 
market, energy, industrial restructuring, and regional development 
funding.  Direct elections ensure full public representation in the 
Community, and important tasks for the deputies include promoting the 
Community's work within their constituencies and increasing public 
support for an integrated Europe.

The Parliament meets monthly in week-long plenary sessions in 
Strasbourg.  The Secretariat staff of 3,500 is located in Luxembourg; 
most committee and political group meetings are held in Brussels.

Court of Justice.  The Court is the final authority for the 
interpretation of EC laws as embodied in its treaties, regulations, and 
directives.  Complaints about member-state treaty violations may be 
lodged by other member states or by the Commission.  Member governments, 
EC institutions, and individuals have the right to contest Commission 
and Council actions in the Court.  

The Court resolves conflicts between Community and national laws.  EC 
judgments in the area of EC law overrule those of national courts.  The 
Court's decisions are binding on all parties and are not subject to 
appeal.   Court decisions generally have tended to strengthen EC 
institutions and promote integrated EC policies.

Member governments appoint 13 justices, one from each member state plus 
a president of the Court for renewable 6-year terms.  The judges are 
assisted by six advocates-general.  Court decisions are reached by a 
simple majority.  The Court meets in Luxembourg.

The Single European Act introduced a new Court of First Instance, which 
essentially serves as a lower court.  It has jurisdiction in matters 
covered by the treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community 
(ECSC), in the field of competition law, and in actions brought by EC 
officials. 

Economic and Social Committee.  
This advisory body of 189 members represents various economic and social 
sectors, including labor, employers, and other interest groups such as 
consumers, agriculture, and professional associations.  The Committee 
enables a broad spectrum of groups to be represented in EC decision-
making.  Through a mandatory consultation process, the Committee submits 
its opinions on EC policies and legislative proposals to both the 
Council of Ministers and the Commission.

Budget
Since 1975, the Community has been fully funded from its own resources.  
These are derived from customs duties levied under the Common Customs 
Tariff, levies on agricultural imports from non-member states, and a 
1.4% value-added tax collected on the goods and services consumed in 
member countries.  Faced with the additional costs associated with the 
implementation of the 1992 single market program, in 1988, the Council 
approved the introduction of a fourth source of revenue, based on a 
percentage of member countries' gross domestic product.

Budget expenditures are principally for agricultural support, regional 
and social measures, development assistance to Third World countries and 
to Central and Eastern Europe, and administrative costs.  The Commission 
prepares the preliminary draft of each year's EC budget.  The Council 
discusses the preliminary report and then submits a draft budget to the 
Parliament, which can amend or reject the budget and is responsible for 
its final adoption.

The approved EC budget for 1992 is $86 billion.  The largest budget 
item, accounting for about two-thirds of the total, is agricultural 
expenditures under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).  Other major 
budget items are energy and industrial programs, research, and 
development assistance to poorer regions of the Community, Central and 
Eastern Europe, and Third World nations.

Path to European Integration
Peaceful union of European countries had been a dream for centuries, but 
not until the period following World War II did the process of economic 
and political integration begin.  After the economic chaos of the war, 
governments sought ways to rebuild their economies and avoid future 
conflict.  The Brussels Pact of 1948 created the first post-war European 
intergovernmental organization.  The United Kingdom, France, Belgium, 
Netherlands, and Luxembourg agreed to establish a common defense system 
and to consult on economic and cultural matters.  Since governments 
remained reluctant to cede authority to a supranational body, the 
organization was based on cooperation rather than on formal integration.  
The military aspects of the pact were soon overshadowed by the creation 
in 1949 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), an expanded 
military alliance including the United States and Canada. In the 
political sphere, the Council of Europe--organized the same year by the 
five members of the Brussels Pact with Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Italy, 
and Sweden--had as its goal greater European unity and the protection of 
human rights.  However, all decisions were made by unanimous agreement, 
which weakened the Council.

In May 1950,  French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman proposed that 
French and German coal and steel production be managed by a common 
authority within an institution open to other European countries.  
Ratified by the Governments of France, the Federal Republic of Germany, 
Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg (the Six), the European Coal 
and Steel Community began functioning in 1952.  It was the first 
international organization with an integrated federal governing body, 
the ECSC High Authority.  Members of the High Authority were independent 
of national governments, and decisions were binding on member states.  A 
long-term objective of both Schuman and ECSC President Jean Monnet was 
to establish a structure for the eventual political unification of 
Europe through economic integration. 

With Europe's immediate defense problem met by NATO, efforts were 
concentrated on economic questions.  Under the direction of Belgian 
Foreign Minister Paul Henri Spaak, the foreign ministers of the Six met 
to discuss proposals for an integrated economic system and a common 
structure for the development of nuclear energy.  In 1957, the Six 
agreed to establish the European Economic Community (the EEC or Common 
Market) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM).  The two 
treaties formally establishing the new communities to work with the ECSC 
were signed by the Six in Rome on March 25, 1957.  The EEC and EURATOM 
began operating on January 1, 1958.  The wide-reaching EEC was given 
less supra-national authority than the ECSC, although economic union was 
viewed as a prerequisite for eventual political integration.

In 1973, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Ireland were admitted, 
creating the EC Nine.  The Government of Norway also had agreed to 
accession, but membership was rejected in a referendum.  Greece joined 
the Community in 1981, and Spain and Portugal became members in 1986, 
creating the EC Twelve.  In 1990, the five states of the former German 
Democratic Republic entered the Community as part of a united Germany.

The primary aim of the Paris and Rome treaties establishing the European 
Communities was to remove the economic barriers that divided the member 
countries as the first steps toward political unity.  To accomplish 
this, the treaties called for members to establish a common market, a 
common customs tariff, and common economic, agricultural, transport, and 
nuclear policies.  The institutions and policies established by the 
treaties provided a framework within which the 12 EC members agreed to 
integrate their economies and eventually consider forming a political 
union.

Customs Union.  The authors of the EC treaties recognized that the 
economic keystone of unity would be a customs union permitting the free 
movement of goods, services, capital, and people within member states.  
In 1958, the Community began the difficult process of eliminating all 
trade barriers among its members.  Ten years later, all member-to-member 
duties were abolished, and a common external tariff of the Six was 
established.  By 1977, this union was extended to include the new EC 
members--the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Ireland.  

The common external tariff is key to the customs union.  Each EC member 
charges the same duty on a given import from a non-member country.  
Agricultural imports are subject to the Common Agricultural Policy, 
which places variable levies on agricultural imports  to raise their 
prices to those of EC-produced commodities.

Although tariffs have been eliminated within the Community, several 
kinds of non-tariff barriers still exist.  Some member states maintain 
protectionist measures that the Community has not yet been able to 
eliminate entirely, such as limiting public works contracts and adopting 
unilateral technical or safety standards that restrict trade.  Numerous 
health and safety barriers to agricultural trade still exist.  
Individual firms and governments can register trade restriction 
complaints with the Commission, which attempts to eliminate the barriers 
through binding judicial action.

In 1991, exports among Community members were $859 billion, while 
external exports were $522 billion, accounting for 17.1% of world 
commerce.  This makes the EC the world's largest trading unit.  EC 
imports from third countries in 1991 were $812 billion, mostly raw 
materials and unprocessed goods.  Most EC exports are processed goods 
such as machinery and vehicles.

As provided for in Article 113 of the Treaty of Rome, all member states 
adhere to a common EC commercial policy.  It provides for major 
decisions on trade policy to be taken by the Council of Ministers by 
majority vote and assigns to the Commission considerable executive and 
negotiating authority.  The Community's trade policy is based on the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), to which all community 
members are contracting parties.

Single European Act and EC '92.  The establishment of a customs union 
among the Six resulted in an expansion of trade which grew from $7 
billion in 1958 to $60 billion in 1972.  The enlargement of the 
Community to include Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom in 1973 
marked the beginning of a period of limited growth, inflation, and high 
unemployment.  By the mid-1980s, the Community recognized that, despite 
progress in many areas, its aim of creating a true common market (the 
dismantling of all barriers within the Community restricting the free 
movement of people and trade) had not been realized.  In March 1985, 
Jacques Delors, President of the EC Commission, outlined to the European 
Parliament the "single market" program, designed to chart a course for 
completion of an integrated market by the end of 1992.  A Commission 
White Paper in June 1985 listed legislative measures needed to eliminate 
all physical, technical, and fiscal barriers to the completion of a 
unified economic area with free movement of persons, goods, services, 
and capital.  By October 31, 1992, the Commission had tabled 282 
proposals.  Of these, 216 have been approved by the European Council and 
the European Parliament.  However, only 68 have been implemented in all 
12 EC member states. 

On July 1, 1987, after ratification by member governments, the Single 
European Act (SEA) came into force.  The act contained revisions in the 
treaties necessary to assure completion of the 1992 program.  It 
extended the principle of qualified majority voting in the Council of 
Ministers (thus streamlining the decision-making process).  It also gave 
the Community new responsibilities (in the areas of social policy, 
promotion of research and technological development, and improvement of 
the environment) and increased support for the least developed member 
states.  Budgetary measures adopted in February 1988, which placed 
limits on the growth of agricultural spending and doubled the allocation 
for structural funds (resources targeted for regions that are 
underdeveloped or affected by industrial decline or unemployment), 
signaled the commitment of member states to implement these provisions.

In addition to defining an action program for achieving the single 
market, the SEA endorsed the objective of economic and monetary union, 
including a  single currency.  Institutional decisions in this area 
would continue to be subject to unanimity in the Council and 
ratification by member states.  The SEA also formalized procedures for 
cooperation in foreign policy among member states and renewed support 
for the objective of European political union.

European Monetary System.  In 1970, the Werner Report (named after the 
Luxembourg Prime Minister) proposed a plan for economic and monetary 
union within the Community.  As a first step in harmonizing policy, the 
currency "snake" (a set of upper and lower limits of exchange rates) was 
established in 1972.  Central banks of participating countries pledged 
to intervene in the currency market to keep the value of their 
currencies within fixed limits.

In 1979, the European Monetary System (EMS) replaced the snake in an 
effort to reduce exchange rate fluctuations.  The EMS provides for 
frequent discussions among central bankers and for intervention in 
foreign exchange markets to maintain the value of each currency within a 
narrow range (generally 2.25%) of the European Currency Unit (ecu).  All 
Community members belong to the EMS, though not all participate in the 
system's exchange rate mechanism.  In addition to currency swap 
arrangements for defense of currency parities, the EMS includes a 
reserve fund.

The EMS created the ecu in 1979.  It is the Community's budget and 
accounting unit, created by member states depositing 20% of their gold 
and US dollar reserves with the European Monetary Cooperation Fund.  It 
is a combination of differing proportions of 12 member currencies, 
reflecting the size of their economies.

Economic and Monetary Union.  The concept of economic and monetary 
union, characterized by irrevocably fixed exchange rates, a single 
currency, a single monetary authority, and a common monetary and 
exchange rate policy, was a natural corollary to the completion of the 
internal market.  At the December 1991 summit in Maastricht, 
Netherlands, EC heads of government reached agreement on a draft treaty 
on European economic and monetary union (EMU).  The EMU treaty provides 
a timetable for moving to full economic and monetary union.


Stage 1 (1990-93).  Involves strengthening economic coordination, 
bringing all EC members' currencies into the exchange rate mechanism of 
the European Monetary System, and lifting restrictions on internal EC 
capital flows.

Stage 2 (1994-96).  A transitional period, will involve increased 
economic convergence (in terms of inflation, fiscal policy, interest 
rates, and exchange rate stability) and creation of a transitional 
European monetary authority.

Stage 3.  In 1997, if a majority of EC members are politically willing 
and economically prepared for full EMU, exchange rates will be 
irrevocably fixed, monetary powers will be transferred from national 
central banks to a European central bank, and a single currency will be 
created.  (If the move to Stage 3 does not occur in 1997, it will start 
definitely by January 1, 1999, for those countries which have met the 
treaty's economic convergence criteria.)


EMU will not go into effect until the Maastricht Treaty package is 
ratified by all 12 member states.  As of January 1993, the ratification 
process was still underway.

Political Cooperation
The original EC treaties give the Community wide economic powers but 
little political authority.  As the Community has begun to consolidate 
economic and monetary union, it also has re-examined its political 
responsibilities.

The Single European Act underlined the commitment of Community members 
to achieving "European Union."  At a landmark summit held in Maastricht, 
Netherlands, in December 1991, the heads of state and government agreed 
to further amendments in the EC treaties to move the Community toward 
greater political union, including more unified foreign and defense 
policies.  The Maastricht treaty increased the scope of the Commission's 
authority to include the areas of environment, consumer and health 
protection, education, and culture.  It established a  "citizenship of 
the union," giving an EC citizen the right to live anywhere in the 
Community and vote in local and European elections.  It committed member 
states to work for common rules regarding immigration and asylum policy 
and to exchange information on terrorism and drug trafficking.  The 
treaty also proposed an economic "cohesion" fund to channel re-sources 
to poorer countries and expanded language on protection of workers' 
rights.

Although coordination of foreign policy was not included in the original 
EC treaties, it has been undertaken voluntarily since 1970, when a 
limited form of European political cooperation, based on regular 
meetings of foreign ministers, began to occur.  The 12 foreign ministers 
now meet regularly to coordinate broad lines of members' international 
policies.  These meetings take place in the context of European 
political cooperation, which also includes regular meetings of EC 
political directors, who oversee numerous working groups made up of 
officials from all EC states, responsible for geographic and functional 
areas of foreign policy.  

Under the Maastricht treaty, the Council of Ministers, after 
consultation with member states, the Parliament, and the Commission, 
would approve common foreign policy and security measures by unanimous 
vote.  A new defense dimension will be added to the scope of the 
Community's activities by expanding the role of the Western European 
Union (WEU), an alliance of 10 EC countries (Denmark and Ireland are not 
members), to provide for a European defense alliance.  The WEU will 
implement EC decisions with defense  implications.

The Maastricht treaty must be approved by all EC countries prior to 
implementation.  Ratification ran into difficulties when the treaty was 
rejected by the Danes in a referendum in June 1992.  Ratification in the 
United Kingdom has been delayed until Danish objections are overcome, 
unlikely before mid-1993.  An intergovernmental conference scheduled to 
take place in 1996 will evaluate progress toward political union.

Third World Relations
Improving relations with developing countries in Africa, the Caribbean, 
and the Pacific area has been a high priority for the Community since 
its creation.   The Community has concluded cooperation agreements with 
more than 100 Third World countries.  In addition to its desire to 
contribute to the economic and social advancement of less developed 
countries, the Community seeks reliable supplies of primary products and 
markets for its exports.  The European Community has become one of the 
major providers of Third World assistance with programs such as food 
aid, rural development, and refugee relief.  In 1991, assistance was 
about $7.3 billion.  (The EC program is separate from assistance 
programs provided by member states.)

The Community's most notable accomplishment has been the creation of a 
series of conventions creating a framework for development cooperation 
with more than 60 African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) states, most of 
which were former colonies of the EC states.  Launched in Yaounde in 
1963 and 1968 and expanded at Lome in 1975, the agreements provide aid 
for development projects, free access to EC markets for almost all ACP 
manufactured imports, and incentives to promote European investment in 
the developing states.  The conventions were renewed in 1979, 1985, and 
in 1989 for a 10-year period beginning in 1990.  The most recent 
agreement (Lome IV) puts greater emphasis on market-oriented economic 
reform in recipient countries and on human rights.  About 40% of EC aid 
is directed to the ACP states.  Since 1978, 40% of ACP exports have gone 
to the Community, which imports about 10% of its raw materials from the 
Lome signatories.  Community exports to ACP markets enjoy most-favored-
nation treatment.

One of the most important and innovative aspects of the Lome Convention 
is Stabex (export receipts stabilization system).  A kind of insurance 
policy against poor trade years, Stabex provides currency transfers to 
countries heavily dependent on a small number of commodities for export 
earnings in years when export receipts drop significantly because of 
poor harvests or low world prices.  Lome IV is designed to encourage 
diversification to other crops.  The Lome Convention provides a similar 
export receipts stabilization system, Sysmin, to cover mineral export 
earning losses.

The EC has been an active participant in the multilateral side of the 
Middle East peace process.  It is a co-organizer of working groups on 
economic development, water resources, refugees, and the environment.

The Community is linked with almost all the countries of the 
Mediterranean by a network of agreements which provide duty-free access 
for industrial products and some agricultural products as well as direct 
grants and loans from the European Investment Bank.  Turkey, Cyprus, and 
Malta have applied for EC membership.

The Community's ties to the developing countries of Asia and Latin 
America are less structured.  These usually take the form of bilateral 
agreements, which allow for preferential trade treatment under the 
Community's Generalized System of Preferences and certain types of 
development aid.

Relations With EFTA Countries
Relations with the group of countries participating in the European Free 
Trade Association (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Switzerland, and 
Austria) are strongly influenced by the progress of the single market 
program.  Founded in 1960 as an alternative to the Community, EFTA is 
now the Community's largest trading partner.  Free trade agreements were 
concluded between the Community and each of the EFTA countries in 1972-
73, after two EFTA members, Denmark and the United Kingdom, joined the 
EC (Portugal followed in 1986). 

The EC and EFTA countries signed an agreement to create a European 
Economic Area (EEA) in February 1992.  The agreement will create an 
enlarged single market in which goods, services, capital, and persons 
move freely between all member states.  EC and EFTA countries also will 
expand cooperation in research and development, environmental issues, 
education, and social policy.  EFTA states will have to adopt certain EC 
regulations relating to the single market but will not be able to 
participate in the EC legislative process.  The treaty also contains 
provision for the establishment of an EEA court, council of ministers, 
and joint committee.  Once it is ratified by all 19 national parliaments 
and by the European Parliament, the EEA will create a trading zone of 
495 million people.  It was scheduled to enter into force on January 1, 
1993.  However, in a December 1992 referendum, Switzerland rejected 
participation in the EEA, requiring the other countries to adjust the 
conditions of the agreement.

Austria, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland have applied for 
membership in the EC.  Accession negotiations with all except 
Switzerland will start on February 1, 1993.

Relations With Central And Eastern Europe
Between 1988 and 1990, the EC established limited economic and 
cooperation agreements with all the countries of Central and Eastern 
Europe.  Since then, the Community has designed a new type of 
association agreement which goes beyond economic cooperation.  In 
addition to a phased approach to free trade between the EC and each 
nation (whereby the Community will reduce its tariff and other import 
barriers more rapidly than association countries), these agreements 
consist of industrial, technical, and scientific cooperation; financial 
assistance; and political dialogue.

In December 1991, association agreements were signed between the EC and 
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland.   As a result of the dissolution of 
Czechoslovakia on January 1, 1993, the Czechoslovak agreement is being 
renegotiated with the successor states, the Czech Republic and the 
Slovak Republic.  Agreements with Bulgaria and Romania were concluded in 
late 1992.  Pending ratification of these agreements by the parliaments 
of all participants and the approval of the European Parliament, the 
Community's generalized system of trade preferences has been extended to 
these countries on an ad hoc basis.  The EC also signed trade and 
cooperation agreements with Albania, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in 
May 1992.  These agreements provide for reduction of quantitative trade 
restrictions, reciprocal most-favored-nation treatment, and economic 
cooperation.  In November 1992, the EC concluded a similar pact with 
Slovenia.

The Commission provides substantial assistance to the countries of 
Central and Eastern Europe.  Grant technical assistance is provided 
through the PHARE program (Poland and Hungary--Assistance with 
Restructuring the Economy), which has been extended to Albania, the 
Baltics, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Romania, and 
Slovenia.  Its aim is to strengthen the process of political and 
economic reform, with special emphasis on developing and improving the 
private sector. 

In addition to the Community's bilateral efforts, after the economic 
summit of industrialized countries in 1989, the EC Commission began 
coordinating aid to Central and Eastern Europe by the Group of 24 (G-24) 
countries--the EC, EFTA, US, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and 
Turkey.  The Community also was instrumental in the creation of the 
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, a multilateral 
endeavor to support investment and development of market economies in 
these countries.

Relations With the New Independent States
In January 1992, the Community announced its plan to negotiate 
partnership and cooperation agreements with the states of the former 
Soviet Union to replace the trade and cooperation agreement signed by 
the EC and the Soviet Union in 1989.  This agreement had included most-
favored-nation status as well as financial aid and was prompted by the 
introduction of efforts at political and economic reform.  The new 
agreements would provide for close political and economic relations, 
including trade, economic, and financial cooperation, political 
dialogue, and cultural cooperation.  Negotiations will begin first with 
Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan.  

EC officials have indicated that assistance to the new independent 
states in their transition to democratic institutions and free market 
economies is an important priority, and the Commission ranks among the 
top donors to the new states.

US-EC Relations
The United States continues to support European efforts to achieve 
economic and political integration.  The United States and the Community 
maintain a continuing dialogue on political and economic issues of 
mutual interest and engage in direct negotiations on trade and 
investment issues.  While the US has expressed its support for the EC's 
efforts to develop an integrated market, it is concerned that the 
economic and business opportunities offered by the single market not be 
offset by the introduction of new trade barriers.  The US holds regular 
meetings with the EC to discuss aspects of the Single Market program and 
to resolve differences, many concerning agriculture. 

The "Declaration on US-EC Relations" of November 23, 1990, identifies 
common goals and principles of the US-EC partnership.  It 
institutionalizes regular consultation and cooperation on economic, 
scientific, educational, and cultural matters and establishes a 
framework for regular and intensive consultation. 

Biannual consultations between the US President and the President of the 
European Council and the President of the Commission take place every 6 
months.  The US Secretary of State and the 12 EC Foreign Ministers also 
meet on a biannual basis to discuss foreign policy issues; ad hoc 
consultations between the foreign minister of the presidency country or 
the foreign ministers of the Troika (the current presidency country and 
its immediate predecessor and successor) and the US Secretary of State 
are scheduled as necessary.  Delegations from the US House of 
Representatives and the European Parliament meet twice yearly to discuss 
US-EC relations.  Close consultation is further maintained through the 
US Mission to the European Communities, headed by an ambassador in 
Brussels, and through the delegation of the European Communities in 
Washington, DC, headed by the EC ambassador.

The US has an important economic relationship with the EC.  As a bloc, 
the EC is America's largest trading partner.  Total US-EC trade exceeded 
$190 billion in both 1990 and 1991.  In 1991, US imports from the EC 
were $86 billion and represented 18% of total US imports.  US exports to 
the EC were $103 billion and represented 24% of total US exports.  In 
1991, the US trade surplus with the EC rose to $17 billion, up from $6 
billion in 1990.  EC exports to the United States consist mainly of 
machinery, precision equipment, iron and steel, and other manufactured 
products.  US exports to the EC include machinery and transportation 
equipment, agricultural products, chemicals, and mineral fuels.  The US 
and the Community also have significant ties in the area of direct 
investment.  By the end of 1991, the EC had invested $232 billion in the 
US, while the US had invested $189 billion in the EC.

The United States and the Community cooperate closely in several 
multilateral organizations, including GATT, OECD, and the 
"Quadrilaterals" (periodic meetings of the EC, US, Japan, and Canada).  
The US is hopeful that progress will continue in the GATT multilateral 
trade negotiations and that both sides will succeed in resolving 
differences on agricultural policies.  The Community's CAP has allowed 
the EC to become self-sufficient in many agricultural commodities and 
has provided stable incomes to the European farming population.  
However, through its complicated network of protection, price supports, 
and subsidies, it has created large surpluses of many agricultural 
products, displaced some US farm exports, and increased prices to 
European consumers.  The global   reform of agricultural policies, 
including the CAP, remains an important US objective. 

The need to provide financial and technical aid to the new emerging 
democracies in Eurasia led to a new phase of cooperation between the 
Community and the US.  Through the G-24 process, the 1992 coordinating 
conferences on assistance to the former Soviet Union, and the 
international financial institutions (the International Monetary Fund, 
the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the 
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development), the EC and the US 
assist those countries committed to achieving democracy and market 
reform.

Diplomatic Representation
The United States maintains close relations with the Community through 
its mission in Brussels.  The US Mission is directed by Ambassador James 
F. Dobbins and is located at 40 Boulevard du Regent, B-1000, Brussels, 
Belgium; Tel. 32-2-513-4450; Telex 846-21336.

The EC Delegation to the United States is headed by Ambassador Andreas 
Van Agt.  Its Press and Public Affairs Office is located at 2100 M 
Street, NW, 7th floor, Washington, DC, 20037; Tel. 202-862-9500.  The EC 
Press and Public Affairs Office in New York City is at Three Dag 
Hammarskjold Plaza, 245 East 47th Street, New York, NY 10017; Tel. 212-
371-3804. 

Future Developments
Since its foundation as a customs union, the EC's authority and 
influence have expanded greatly as its role in managing the process of 
integration has evolved.  The possibility of a united Europe, once only 
an ideal, is now closer to reality than ever before.  Spurred by 
revolutionary political change and the continued success of its efforts 
to achieve economic and monetary integration, the Community now faces a 
new agenda, quite different from the challenges it has confronted in the 
past.  Of the measures required to complete the internal market, some of 
the most complicated issues--such as tax harmonization, border controls, 
and social policy--have not yet been reviewed by the Council of 
Ministers, and many have not yet been ratified by member states.  
Meeting the 1992 deadline and implementing the reforms outlined in the 
Single Act will test the commitment of EC members to the principle of 
true integration.

Austria, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Malta, and Cyprus have applied 
for EC membership.  No decision has been reached on Turkey's long-
standing application for EC membership.  Possible enlargement of the 
Community to 16 or more members may require reform of EC institutions, 
especially the Presidency and the Parliament.  The eventual expansion of 
the Community to include the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and 
possibly some of  the new independent states of the former Soviet Union 
also must be considered, although no decision is expected before the end 
of the decade.

A major intergovernmental conference scheduled for 1996 will evaluate 
progress in economic and monetary union and consider greater 
coordination of foreign policy and security matters.  (###)



ARTICLE 8:

Treaty Actions

Multilateral

Copyrights
Berne convention for the protection of literary and artistic works of 
Sept. 9, 1886, as revised at Paris on July 24, 1971, and amended on 
Sept. 28, 1979.  Entered into force for the United States Mar. 1, 1989.
Accession deposited:  The Gambia, Dec. 7, 1992.

Finance
Convention establishing the multilateral investment guarantee agency 
(MIGA), with annexes and schedules.  Done at Seoul Oct. 11, 1985.  
Entered into force Apr. 12, 1988.
Ratification deposited:  Uruguay, Dec. 9, 1992.

Genocide
Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide.  
Adopted at Paris Dec. 9, 1948.  Entered into force Jan. 12, 1951; for 
the US Feb. 23, 1989.
Succession deposited:  Bosnia-Herzegovina, Dec. 29, 1992.
Accession deposited:  Latvia, Apr. 14, 1992.

Investment Disputes
Convention on the settlement of investment disputes between states and 
nationals of other states.  Done at Washington Mar. 18, 1965.  Entered 
into force Oct. 14, 1966.  TIAS 6090; 17 UST 1270.
Ratification deposited:  People's Republic of China, Jan. 7, 1993.

Judicial Procedure
Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction.  Done 
at The Hague Oct. 25, 1980.  Entered into force Dec. 1, 1983; for the US 
July 1, 1988.  [Senate] Treaty Doc. 99-11.
Accession deposited:  Romania, Nov. 20, 1992.

Labor
Instrument for the amendment of the constitution of the International 
Labor Organization.  Dated at Montreal Oct. 9, 1946.  Entered into force 
Apr. 20, 1948.  TIAS 1868; 62 Stat. 3485.
Accession deposited:  Armenia, Nov. 26, 1992.

Patents
Patent cooperation treaty, with regulations.  Done at Washington June 
19, 1970.  Entered into force Jan. 24, 1978.  TIAS 8733; 28 UST 7645.
Accessions deposited:  Niger, Dec. 21, 1992; Vietnam, Dec. 10, 1992.

Prisoner Transfer
Convention on the transfer of sentenced persons.  Done at Strasbourg 
Mar. 21, 1983.  Entered into force July 1, 1985. (TIAS 10824).
Signature:  Czechoslovakia, Feb. 13, 1992.
Ratifications deposited:  Czechoslovakia, Apr. 15, 1992; Norway, Dec. 9, 
1992.1,2

Refugees
Protocol relating to the status of refugees.  Done at New York Jan. 31, 
1967.  Entered into force Oct. 4, 1967; for the US Nov. 1, 1968.  TIAS 
6577; 19 UST 6223.
Accessions deposited:  Albania, Aug. 18, 1992; Cambodia, Oct. 15, 1992; 
Republic of Korea, Dec. 3, 1992.

Weapons
Convention on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain 
conventional weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or 
to have indiscriminate effects, and Protocols I, II, and III.  Adopted 
at Geneva Oct. 10, 1980. Entered into force Dec. 2, 1983.3
Accession deposited:  Niger, Nov. 10, 1992.


Bilateral

Argentina
Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling of certain debts 
owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the US Government and its 
agencies, with annexes. Signed at Washington Jan. 13, 1993.  Enters into 
force on the later date of an exchange of letters in which the parties 
notify one another that all necessary domestic legal requirements have 
been fulfilled.

Agreement regarding the reduction of certain debts related to foreign 
assistance owed to the Government of the United States and its agencies, 
with appendices.  Signed at Washington and Buenos Aires Jan. 13 and 15, 
1993.  Enters into force upon the exchange of written notice that all 
necessary domestic legal requirements have been fulfilled.

Armenia
Agreement regarding cooperation to facilitate the provision of 
humanitarian and technical economic assistance.  Signed at Yerevan Dec. 
15, 1992.  Entered into force Dec. 15, 1992.

Cameroon
Agreement relating to the employment of dependents of official 
government employees.  Effected by exchange of notes at Washington May 
7, 1992 and Jan. 15, 1993.  Entered into force Jan. 15, 1993.

El Salvador
Agreement regarding the reduction of certain debts related to foreign 
assistance owed to the Government of the United States and its agencies, 
with appendices.  Signed at San Salvador Dec. 15, 1992.  Enters into 
force upon agreement between El Salvador and the International Monetary 
Fund (IMF) on El Salvador's 1993 fiscal targets and receipt by El 
Salvador of written notice from the US that all necessary domestic legal 
requirements have been fulfilled.

Agreement regarding the reduction of certain debts related to 
agriculture owed to the Government of the United States and its 
agencies, with appendices.  Signed at San Salvador Dec. 15, 1992.  
Enters into force upon agreement between El Salvador and the IMF on El 
Salvador's 1993 fiscal targets and receipt by El Salvador of written 
notice from the US that all necessary domestic legal requirements have 
been fulfilled.

France
Agreement extending the interim agreement of Feb. 24, 1987 relating to 
the employment of dependents of official government employees.  Effected 
by exchange of notes at Paris Dec. 31, 1992.  Entered into force Dec. 
31, 1992.

Japan
Agreement amending the agreement of Mar. 31, 1989, as amended, 
concerning the acquisition and production in Japan of the SH-60J and UH-
60J aircraft.  Effected by exchange of notes at Tokyo Jan. 8, 1993.  
Entered into force Jan. 8, 1993.

Agreement concerning the acquisition and production in Japan of the 
Multiple Launch Rocket Systems and related equipment and materials.  
Effected by exchange of notes at Tokyo Jan. 8, 1993.  Entered into force 
Jan. 8, 1993.

Luxembourg
Agreement concerning the reciprocal exemption from income tax of income 
derived from the international operation of ships and aircraft.  
Effected by exchange of notes at Luxembourg Apr. 11 and June 22, 1989.
Entered into force:  Jan. 8, 1993.

Morocco
Agreement amending the agreement of Mar. 31, 1961, as supplemented, 
relating to investment guaranties.  Effected by exchange of notes at 
Rabat Sept. 21 and Nov. 30, 1992.  Entered into force Dec. 3, 1992.

Netherlands
Agreement regarding mutual cooperation in the tracing, freezing, 
seizure, and forfeiture of proceeds and instrumentalities of crime and 
the sharing of forfeited assets.  Signed at Washington Nov. 20, 1992.  
Enters into force thirty (30) days after the Parties have notified each 
other in writing that their constitutional requirements have been met.

Philippines
Agreement relating to the Export-Import Bank of the United States 
supplementing the agreement of Feb. 25, 1965 and Aug. 15, 1966 (TIAS 
6111; 17 UST 1557) which supplemented the investment guaranties 
agreement of Feb. 18 and 19, 1952 (TIAS 2517; 3 UST 3878).  Signed at 
Manila Jan. 5, 1993. Entered into force Jan. 5, 1993.

Romania
Agreement concerning the provision of training related to defense 
articles under the US International Military Education and Training 
(IMET) program.  Effected by exchange of notes at Bucharest Nov. 23 and 
Dec. 7, 1992.
Entered into force Dec. 7, 1992.

Russian Federation
Treaty on further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms, 
with memorandum of understanding, protocols, and exchanges of letters.  
Signed at Moscow Jan. 3, 1993.  Enters into force on the date of 
exchange of instruments of ratification, but not prior to entry into 
force of the START Treaty.  Article II(8) applied provisionally from 
date of signature.

Tunisia
Memorandum of understanding concerning the operation of the INTELPOST 
service, with details of implementation.  Signed at Tunis and Washington 
Dec. 19, 1989 and Oct. 3, 1991.
Entered into force:  Feb. 1, 1993.


1  With declarations.
2  Territorial application:  Bouvet Island, Peter I's Island, Queen Maud 
Land.
3  Not in force for the US. (###)

END OF DISPATCH VOL 4, NO 7