US DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 4, NUMBER 19, MAY 10, 1993
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:
1.  US Consultations With Allies On Bosnia-Herzegovina -- Secretary 
Christopher
2.  Reaction to Vance-Owen Peace Plan -- President Clinton, Joint US-UK 
Statement 
3.  US Holocaust Museum Dedicated -- President Clinton, Secretary 
Christopher 
4.  Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising -- 
Vice President Gore
5.  Dean Acheson Stamp Dedication Ceremony -- Secretary Christopher 
6.  US Aid and Assistance to the Middle East -- Edward P. Djerejian
7.  Building a Collective Security System -- Madeleine K. Albright
8.  NAFTA:  A Vehicle for Economic Growth -- Lloyd Bentsen
9.  USAID Administrator Confirmation Hearing -- J. Brian Atwood 
10  Cambodian Elections


ARTICLE 1:  US Consultations With Allies On Bosnia-Herzegovina
Secretary Christopher
Opening statement at a news conference, Washington, DC, May 1, 1993

Upon taking office, President Clinton inherited a complex and tragic 
situation in the former Yugoslavia.  This situation has bedeviled the 
international community now for almost 2 years.  It's a problem with 
deep historic roots.  In the post-Cold War period, the former Yugoslavia 
has been the scene of violence, tragedy, and outrageous conduct.

The President has acted to deal with this conflict.  We have undertaken, 
in cooperation with our allies and friends, an intensive diplomatic 
effort in an attempt to solve the crisis and bring some measure of peace 
to this area. 

Our activity to date has been intense along a number of fronts.  These 
include an active diplomatic effort that has helped to bring two of the 
three Bosnian parties into agreement on a peace plan; second, an effort 
to save thousands of lives by way of humanitarian programs, which 
include our airdrop program, which has now furnished more than 2 million 
meals; third, passage of a UN resolution to establish a war crimes 
tribunal; fourth, a UN resolution to enforce a no-fly zone to prevent 
the use of air power by the parties to the conflict; and, fifth, an 
extremely rigorous sanctions resolution at the United Nations that went 
into effect last Monday at midnight.

Under this sanctions regime, Serbia is being treated as a pariah state, 
virtually isolated from the rest of the world.  Yet the outrages have 
continued in the former Yugoslavia area.  In the face of Serbian 
aggression, the President has been rigorously reviewing further options 
for action during the course of the last week.  He has been consulting 
with our allies and friends in the international community, Members of 
Congress, his national security team, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  He 
has been exploring additional actions the international community can 
take to respond to the violence, stop the aggression, and contain the 
conflict.

The President has just completed a meeting with his principal national 
security advisers.  At this meeting the President decided on the 
direction that he believes the United States and the international 
community should now take in this situation.  This direction involves a 
number of specific recommendations, including military steps.  The 
President is sending me to Europe to consult with our allies and friends 
on a course of action.  This problem is at the heart of Europe's future.  
Our efforts will be undertaken with our partners.  We're ready to play 
our part, but others must be as well.

Along these lines, I'll be leaving at 9 pm tonight to engage in these 
consultations.  Over the next week, I'll travel to Britain, France, 
Russia, and Germany.  I'll also be traveling to Brussels, where I'll 
consult with the Secretary General of NATO and the Presidency of the 
European Community.

In these sessions, I'll be conveying the President's determination that 
the international community should take further action.  I'll be 
consulting with our partners on the direction the President believes the 
international community should take together.  We must have a unified 
and cohesive position.

With respect to the specific directions that I'll be discussing in 
Europe, I think you'll understand that prior to the consultations with 
our allies, I cannot discuss them with you here in this public forum.

Let me close with two important points.

First, the President and the United States are pursuing additional 
action with our allies because we believe that the interests of the 
United States and the international community are at stake.  There are, 
of course, issues of conscience and humanitarian concerns at stake in 
this situation.  But fundamentally our actions are also based upon the 
strategic interests of the United States.  All of us seek to limit the 
risk of a widening instability that could lead to a greater Balkan war.

Second, as you know, the parties to the conflict are meeting in Athens 
this weekend with Secretary Vance and Lord Owen.  The Serbs know that 
they exhausted the patience of the international community.  It is in 
their interest to take concrete actions now to reach peace and to do so 
without further delay.

But I must underscore that they must do more than just speak out; they 
must do more than simply give us a signature on a peace plan.  
Unfortunately, we've heard their words and seen the signatures before.  
It will take deeds, immediate concrete action by the Serbs, [and] 
actions on the ground to convince the international community of their 
seriousness and good faith. (###)


ARTICLE 2:
Reaction to Vance-Owen Peace Plan
President Clinton, Joint US-UK Statement

President Clinton May 2, 1993
Statement released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 
Washington, DC.

The developments in the Vance-Owen process are a positive step, but we 
have yet to determine whether the Serbs are serious about peace.  We 
will make that judgement based upon their actions on the ground in 
Bosnia.  As Lord Owen said this morning, "We still have a long way to 
go."

Other agreements in this protracted war have raised hopes but not 
changed behavior.  We will judge intentions by actions.  Accordingly, I 
have instructed Secretary Christopher to continue as planned with his 
consultations through Europe on the measures we will take if the Serbs 
do not act in good faith.

I have spoken in the past 2 days with a number of congressional leaders 
as well as President Yeltsin, Prime Minister Major, Chancellor Kohl, 
President Mitterrand, Prime Minister Mulroney, and Prime Minister-
designate Ciampi.  I will continue such consultations.

We all hope for a true and just peace in Bosnia.  It must include not 
only the provisions of peace on paper but also the practices of peace on 
the ground.


Joint US-UK Statement May 2, 1993
Statement released by the Office of the Spokesman, London, United 
Kingdom.

The United States and the United Kingdom have a common approach towards 
the former Yugoslavia and have agreed today on the following points:

1.  We warmly congratulate Lord Owen and Mr. Cyrus Vance on the 
agreement signed today in Athens.  The Bosnian parties should now show 
their genuine commitment and good faith by coming to a cease-fire and 
implementing the agreement without delay.

2.  We are developing a common position with our partners and allies on 
stronger measures to be taken if the Serbs fail to implement the peace 
settlement.  Several options are under consideration, including military 
steps.

3.  Our Governments plan further consultations with our other partners 
and allies, including a meeting later this week between the EC Foreign 
Ministers and the US Secretary of State.

4.  All existing measures should remain in place.  We shall work with 
other governments to ensure vigorous enforcement of sanctions, to 
maintain humanitarian aid, and to prevent the spread of fighting. (###)



ARTICLE 3:


US Holocaust Museum Dedicated 
President Clinton, Secretary Christopher

President Clinton
April 22, 1993
Address at the dedication ceremony, Washington, DC (introductory remarks 
deleted).

It is my purpose on behalf of the United States to commemorate this 
magnificent museum, meeting as we do among memorials within sight of the 
memorial to Thomas Jefferson, the author of our freedom, near where 
Abraham Lincoln is seated, who gave his life so that our nation might 
extend its mandate of freedom to all who live within our borders.  We 
gather near the place where the legendary and recently departed Marian 
Anderson sang songs of freedom and where Martin Luther King summoned us 
all to dream and work together.

Here on the town square of our national life, on this 50th anniversary 
of the Warsaw uprising, at Eisenhower Plaza on Raoul Wallenberg Place, 
we dedicate the US Holocaust Museum and so bind one of the darkest 
lessons in history to the hopeful soul of America.

As we have seen already today, this museum is not for the dead alone, 
nor even for the survivors who have been so beautifully represented; it 
is perhaps most of all for those of us who were not there at all:  to 
learn the lessons, to deepen our memories and our humanity, and to 
transmit these lessons from generation to generation.

The Holocaust, to be sure, transformed the entire 20th century: sweeping 
aside the enlightenment--hope--that evil somehow could be permanently 
banished from the face of the earth; demonstrating [that] there is no 
war to end all war, that the struggle against the basest tendencies of 
our nature must continue forever and ever.

The Holocaust began when the most civilized country of its day unleashed 
unprecedented acts of cruelty and hatred abetted by perversions of 
science, philosophy, and law.  A culture which produced Goethe, 
Schiller, and Beethoven then brought forth Hitler and Himmler--the 
merciless hordes who, themselves, were educated--as others who were 
educated stood by and did nothing.  Millions died for who they were, how 
they worshiped, what they believed, and who they loved.  But one people-
-the Jews--were immutably marked for total destruction.  They who were 
among their nation's most patriotic citizens, whose extinction served no 
military purpose nor offered any political gain, they who threatened no 
one were slaughtered by an efficient, unrelenting bureaucracy, dedicated 
solely to a radical evil with a curiously antiseptic title:  The Final 
Solution.

The Holocaust reminds us forever that knowledge divorced from values can 
only serve to deepen the human nightmare, that a head without a heart is 
not humanity. 

For those of us here today representing the nations of the West, we must 
live forever with this knowledge:  Even as our fragmentary awareness of 
crimes grew into indisputable facts, far too little was done.  Before 
the war even started, doors to liberty were shut.  And even after the 
United States and the Allies attacked Germany, rail lines to the camps 
within miles of militarily significant targets were left undisturbed.

Still there were, as has been noted, many deeds of singular courage and 
resistance:  the Danes and the Bulgarians, men like Emmanuel Ringelbaum, 
who died after preserving in metal milk cans the history of the Warsaw 
ghetto;  Janusz Korczak, who stayed with children until last breaths at 
Treblinka;  and Raoul Wallenberg, who perhaps rescued as many as 100,000 
Hungarian Jews; and those known and those never to be known, who manned 
the thin line of righteousness, who risked and lost their lives to save 
others, accruing no advantage to themselves but nobly serving the larger 
cause of humanity.

As the war ended, these rescuers were joined by our military forces who, 
alongside the Allied armies, played the decisive role in bringing the 
Holocaust to an end.  Overcoming the shock of discovery, they walked 
survivors from those dark, dark places into the sweet sunlight of 
redemption, soldiers and survivors being forever joined in history and 
humanity.  This place is their place, too--for them as for us, to 
memorialize the past and steel ourselves for the challenges of tomorrow.

We must all now frankly admit that there will come a time in the not-
too-distant future when the Holocaust will pass from living reality and 
shared experience to memory and to history.  To preserve this shared 
history of anguish, to keep it vivid and real so that evil can be 
combated and contained, we are here to consecrate this memorial and 
contemplate its meaning for us; for more than any other event, the 
Holocaust gave rise to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 
charter of our common humanity.  And it contributed--indeed, made 
certain--the long overdue creation of the nation of Israel.

Now, with the demise of communism and the rise of democracy out of the 
ashes of former communist states, with the end of the Cold War, we must 
not only rejoice in so much that is good in the world but recognize that 
not all in this new world is good.  We learn again and again that the 
world has yet to run its course of animosity and violence.

Ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia is but the most brutal and 
blatant and ever-present manifestation of what we see also with the 
oppression of the Kurds in Iraq, the abusive treatment of the Baha'i in 
Iran, the endless race-based violence in South Africa.  And in many 
other places we are reminded again and again how fragile are the 
safeguards of civilization.

So [are] the depraved and insensate bands now loose in the modern world.  
Look at the liars and the propagandists among us:  the skinheads and the 
Liberty Lobby here at home; the Afrikaaners resistance movement in South 
Africa; the Radical Party of Serbia; the Russian blackshirts.  With them 
we must all compete for the interpretation and the preservation of 
history of what we know and how we should behave.

The evil represented in this museum is incontestable.  But as we are its 
witness, so must we remain its adversary in the world in which we live, 
so we must stop the fabricators of history and the bullies as well.  
Left unchallenged, they would still prey upon the powerless; and we must 
not permit that to happen again.

To build bulwarks against this kind of evil, we know there is but one 
path to take.  It is the direction opposite that which produced the 
Holocaust; it is that which recognizes that among all our differences, 
we still cannot ever separate ourselves one from another.  We must find 
in our diversity our common humanity.  We must reaffirm that common 
humanity, even in the darkest and deepest of our own disagreements.

Sure, there is new hope in this world.  The emergence of new, vibrant 
democratic states, many of whose leaders are here today, offers a shield 
against the inhumanity we remember.  And it is particularly appropriate 
that this museum is here in this magnificent city, an enduring tribute 
to democracy.  It is a constant reminder of our duty to build and 
nurture the institutions of public tranquility and humanity.

It occurs to me that some may be reluctant to come inside these doors 
because the photographs and remembrance of the past impart more pain 
than they can bear.  I understand that.  I walked through the museum on 
Monday night and spent more than 2 hours.  But I think that our 
obligations to history and posterity alike should beckon us all inside 
these doors.  It is a journey that I hope every American who comes to 
Washington will take, a journey I hope all the visitors to this city 
from abroad will make.

I believe that this museum will touch the life of everyone who enters 
and leave everyone forever changed:  a place of deep sadness and a 
sanctuary of bright hope; an ally of education against ignorance, of 
humility against arrogance; an investment in a secure future against 
whatever insanity lurks ahead.  If this museum can mobilize morality, 
then those who have perished will thereby gain a measure of immortality.

I know this is a difficult day for those we call "survivors."  Those of 
us born after the war cannot yet fully comprehend their sorrow or pain.  
But if our expressions are inadequate to this moment, at least may I 
share these words inscribed in the Book of Wisdom:

     The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God, and no torment 
shall touch them.  In the eyes of fools, they seem to die.  Their 
passing away was thought to be an affliction, and their going forth from 
us, utter destruction.  But they are in peace.

On this day of triumphant reunion and celebration, I hope those who have 
survived have found their peace.  Our task, with God's blessing upon our 
souls and the memories of the fallen in our hearts and minds, is to the 
ceaseless struggle to preserve human rights and dignity.  We are now 
strengthened and will be forever strengthened by remembrance.  I pray 
that we shall prevail. 


Secretary Christopher
April 21, 1993
Address at luncheon honoring the dedication, Washington, DC.

I am most pleased to welcome you to the Department of State and to have 
an opportunity myself to participate in the events surrounding the 
dedication of the Holocaust Museum.  I can't resist on this solemn 
occasion saying a word about what a great pleasure it is for us here in 
the Department of State to have the presence, I think, probably of the 
largest number of heads of state that have ever been in this room at one 
time.  It is the event that has drawn us together, but it's a signal 
event, and I'm very grateful to all of you for having come to Washington 
to attend this very solemn and very powerful occasion.  None of us can 
know how the history of the 20th century will be judged, but even from 
this close vantage point one thing is certain:  When the book of our age 
is written, its pages will forever be stained by the horror of the 
Holocaust.  Ultimately, the judgment of history will be--indeed, it must 
be--weighed in human terms.  

The Holocaust Museum, which is the occasion for our being together, 
brings home the terrible cost of intolerance and indifference; the cost 
measured in priceless people, lives shattered beyond comprehension, 
communities consumed by the fires of hate.  We properly refer to these 
atrocities as being inhuman.  But we must take great care not to let 
this characterization distance us from the events of the inhumanity.  We 
cannot allow ourselves, even for a moment, to believe that human beings 
are incapable of engaging in such conduct again and again.  We must 
remember those lost lives, and we must remember how they were lost.  

This extraordinary museum which we have come to dedicate compels us to 
reflect on the sanity of our own time, the insanity of another time, the 
sanctity of human life, and on our duty to protect the dignity of all 
human beings.  It represents an eloquent reflection of the growing 
international recognition that respect for human rights is vital to 
international security.  That same realization, the realization that 
human rights are a fundamental part of our foreign policy, has had a 
profound effect upon the conduct of American diplomacy.  

Our State Department here needs to act as America's ears, eyes, and 
voices to the governments around the world.  Today, perhaps in 
contradistinction to an earlier time, we expect our diplomats to do more 
than report events and calculate geopolitical interests.  We, too, as 
diplomats must bear witness.  We must advocate human rights.  In our 
work and in our policies, we must reflect the human and democratic 
values that Americans cherish and that people of good temper around the 
world cherish.  

President Clinton has called the promotion of democratic values one of 
the essential pillars of US foreign policy.  As Secretary of State, I 
intend to do my utmost to ensure that the United States responds to the 
unprecedented opportunities and the unusual challenges that we face as 
we seek to protect and enlarge human freedom.  Building a world of peace 
and freedom fundamentally means that we must all strive together, 
individually and collectively, to create conditions in which human 
dignity is respected and the human spirit can thrive.  In short, we must 
create the essential conditions for hope.

The Holocaust Museum stands as a monument to the millions of lives lost 
in the Holocaust:  fathers, mothers, children, grandparents, whole 
families-- nearly the entire world of European Jewry.  These millions of 
individuals will not be forgotten.  The murdered Jew, the gypsy, the 
dissident, the righteous gentile, and the other victims--they will not 
be forgotten.   The museum also stands as a reminder of the terrible 
cruelty that some human beings are capable of inflicting upon others.  
These unspeakable acts will also not be forgotten, and we must do our 
very best to ensure that they will not be repeated.  Thanks to the 
Holocaust Museum, those lost lives and the acts which took them from us 
will live in our nation's collective memory, just as they must live in 
our collective consciousness.  That memory--the memory of those events--
and our own personal conscience command us to say never again.  The very 
creation of the state of Israel and its survival as a healthy, 
sovereign, and secure nation reflect our collective determination that 
the Jewish people will never again be subjected to the horror of the 
Holocaust.  

In closing, I can think of no more fitting way to pay tribute to those 
lost lives--lives that were once so full of dreams and hopes--than to 
now ask you to join me in a solemn toast, a toast to recommit ourselves 
to responsibility for one another and to a world that has no room for 
hatred, no place for violence.  Please join me.  Thank you.  (###)



ARTICLE 4:


Commemorating the 50th Anniversary Of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
Vice President Gore
Address, Warsaw, Poland, April 19, 1993

We seek words to honor those whose heroism and sacrifice are beyond the 
power of words to express.  A half-century has passed since the Nazis 
set out to destroy the Jewish ghetto here in Warsaw.  Hitler had long 
since decided to exterminate the Jews in a world where few could believe 
that any government could deliberately, methodically, and ruthlessly 
carry out the mass murder of millions.  Indeed, not even the Jews 
themselves could at first grasp the full truth about the horror being 
inflicted upon them.

But the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto fought back, and on this April day 50 
years ago, the Nazis were stunned by the fierce resistance into 
temporary retreat.  For weeks, a few hundred poorly armed freedom 
fighters fought on against impossible odds, with their greatest weapon 
the courage of a righteous cause.

Finally, after almost a month of house-to-house fighting, the Nazis 
torched the entire ghetto.  And even then, some Jews chose the flames 
instead of surrender.  The German ministry of propaganda sent 
photographers to record the procession of survivors who marched out to 
waiting boxcars under the merciless gaze of heavily armed German 
soldiers.  The propaganda ministry decreed that the "triumph" over the 
Jews was to be preserved "for all history."

And so it was.  So it has been.  But in the long testing and trial of 
time, the Nazis leering at their victims are branded in memory with an 
indelible infamy and shame.  The courageous Jews march in our hearts in 
an everlasting procession of honor.

No one with human feeling can contemplate these photographs without a 
welling up of pity and rage.  Before these images of children, of women, 
of old men marching with their hands in the air to their deaths, words 
fail.  We are reduced to silence--a silence filled with the infinite 
pool of feeling that has created all the words for humility, heartbreak, 
helplessness, and hope in all the languages of the world.

How could the human race have allowed such a calamity as the Holocaust 
to fall upon us?  What terrible darkness lies coiled in the human soul 
that might account for this barbarism?  The sorrow rising from such 
questions is deeper than all tragedy and leaves us mute before a mystery 
the human mind cannot penetrate.

And yet the uprising of the Warsaw ghetto shines in our consciousness 
like a pole star of the human spirit.  We remember their courage with 
awe.  They were Jews claiming an ancient heritage.  They were also 
Poles, many still claiming a nation they loved and served to the end.  
They were members of the human race claiming honor and dignity in the 
face of desolation, despair, depravity, and death.

The story of the Warsaw ghetto is sacred text for our time.  It warns us 
of the unfathomable power of evil, the pestilence of the human soul that 
for a time can dissolve nations and devastate civilization.

But the uprising in the ghetto also warns tyrants wherever they rule 
that a fierce, bright light blazes eternal in the human breast and that 
the darkness can never put it out.  Those who seek power through 
violence and oppression rather than the consent of the governed ignore 
the bitter lessons of history.  Tonight, petty tyrants in other lands 
seek to distract their people by finding someone different--a different 
religion, a different ethnic identity, a different heritage of any kind-
-as a target against which to focus fear and hatred and oppression.  
Surely in this new springtime of history we can plant hope and peace in 
Europe and the world and nourish them with the incandescent sunlight of 
the universal demand for human dignity.

Tonight we celebrate the Jewish people and their great flourishing and 
resurgence after the horrors of Naziism.  We celebrate that triumph of 
the human spirit which survived the sacrifice offered here by brave 
people on the altar of humanity.  Centuries ago, after another 
experience of sorrow and captivity, the Psalmist wrote, "They who sow in 
tears shall reap in joy."  The fighters in the Warsaw ghetto sowed the 
seeds of courage and dignity, and we reap their harvest today in solemn 
gratitude.  To truly honor their heroism, we must demand that justice 
and decency form the basis for relations among all nations and peoples.  
And lest we neglect one important specific, we must be vigilant in 
fighting anti-semitism wherever it appears, for it was, after all, anti-
semitism in its most virulent and singularly evil form which created the 
tragedy we remember here tonight.

The Jews of the Warsaw uprising died in affirmation of the justice that 
informs every human conscience that will let itself listen.  Their faith 
blows to us like a gentle wind from their springtime of sacrifice to our 
springtime of hope.  We honor them now with reverent silence and promise 
to remember them and to love them as long as the world stands.  Our duty 
to them was written in the Book of Deuteronomy:

     Only take heed to thy self, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou 
forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from 
thy heart all the days of thy life; but teach them to thy children, and 
thy children's children.  (###)



ARTICLE 5:


Dean Acheson Stamp Dedication Ceremony
Secretary Christopher
Address given at the dedication ceremony, Washington, DC, April 21, 1993

It is a very great pleasure to be here this morning with David Acheson, 
Mary Bundy, Jane Brown, Eleanor Acheson, and other members and friends 
of the Acheson family.  And I would also like to thank the Postmaster 
General, Marvin Runyon, for being with us and the US Postal Service for 
having produced such a fine new stamp.

The day I was nominated to the office I now hold, I began my acceptance 
remarks by invoking George Marshall and Dean Acheson.  In my law school 
days, their examples inspired me to try to have some time in my life for 
public service.  My law school dean, Carl Spaeth, called my attention to 
a 1946 Acheson speech entitled "Random Harvest."  Frankly, I've been 
hooked on Acheson ever since.  I still think about the haunting question 
that he asked in that speech:  "What do I know, or think I know, from my 
own experience and not by literary osmosis?"  That's a good question to 
remember if you should happen to get overconfident some day.

Of course, it was beyond my imagination that one day I would be asked to 
serve in the office that Marshall and Acheson held.  And I must say it's 
tough, four decades later, to seek to follow in their footsteps.  Their 
legacy was immense:  not only the policies they put in place but the 
dynamic forces they set in motion.

The measure of Dean Acheson's greatness is that he took history as he 
found it, and then he made history.  As Under Secretary, Mr. Acheson 
liked to quote a rule which he attributed to Secretary Marshall:  "Don't 
fight the problem.  Decide it."  Dean Acheson didn't flinch; he decided.  
And what he decided preserved our freedom and security.

Mr. Acheson titled his memoir of his years at the State Department too 
modestly.  He was far more than "present at the creation."  He was a 
creator:  a creator of policies that were supported and sustained by 
Presidents of both parties and by both houses of Congress; policies that 
saw their final vindication in the victory of freedom; policies that 
give us, in the last decade of the 20th century, a historic opportunity 
to start afresh.  Because of Dean Acheson and the Presidents he served 
and the people he served with, we have the chance--and the 
responsibility--to create new policies for a different world.

In Acheson's postwar world, the United States stood proudly with its 
Western allies in victory but nearly alone in power.  Americans saw 
European democracies teetering between reinvention and extinction, 
economies lying in ruin, communist dictatorships consolidating their 
hold in Eastern Europe, the Iron Curtain descending, and a Cold War 
chilling the new peace.

An exhausted Europe turned to America for leadership.  And President 
Truman turned to George Marshall and Dean Acheson to shape and execute a 
foreign policy that would defend America's interests and advance the 
cause of freedom.

Together they put the pillars of peace in place:

--  At Bretton Woods, an international economic framework that enabled 
countries to trade, grow, and prosper again;

--  With the Marshall Plan, an investment in peace and prosperity that 
showed America at its soft-hearted and hard-headed best;

--  For Greece and Turkey, military aid that fended off the communist 
threat;

--  Through the founding of NATO, an institution dedicated to collective 
security and the defense of freedom that still is our mainstay.

They put those pillars in place.  And those pillars still stood as the 
Berlin Wall fell.  Communism was contained.  Freedom was defended.  Our 
values were upheld.

Unfortunately, Dean Acheson did not live to see Solidarity on strike or 
the Velvet Revolution in action or to meet a President Walesa or a 
President Havel--or to know an elected President of Russia named 
Yeltsin.  Nor did he witness the ratcheting down of the nuclear threat.  
But it was Dean Acheson's life's work that helped to make these historic 
events happen.

President Truman called Acheson "the top brain man" in his Cabinet.  But 
it was more than a piercing intellect that made him as close to 
indispensable as a public servant can ever be in a democracy.  Acheson 
exemplified what one admirer called "an inner integrity in public life."

Mr. Acheson appreciated the value of working with the loyal opposition.  
The partnership he forged with Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg had 
both practical advantages and a deep patriotic purpose.  It demonstrated 
that bipartisanship can be an indispensable element of a successful 
foreign policy.

Mr. Acheson was a man of character and complexity.  Literate and 
learned, witty and wise, he had style and he had substance.  He had an 
easy elegance and a hard-hitting directness.  He was a patrician and a 
Democrat.  He was compassionate toward people but unsentimental about 
using power on behalf of principle.

For all his elegance, Mr. Acheson had an attractive earthiness.  He was 
fond of the remark that "Statesmen are not architects but gardeners 
dealing with such materials as only nature can provide."  Earthier 
still, he also liked to say, "To hell with the cheese, let's get out of 
the trap."

Even in the jungle of Washington, he practiced a certain etiquette and 
projected a distinct elan.  That's why, when it came time for someone in 
his Administration to move on, President Roosevelt said, "Ask Dean 
Acheson how a gentleman resigns."

Dean Acheson was also a man who knew where he stood and how to stand his 
ground.  As Lord Jenkins, former British Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
wrote recently, "The late 1940s and early 1950s were as dangerous as 
they were creative, and Acheson's nerve as good as his vision."

Today we are starting over again in a changed world without sure 
guideposts or certain guidelines.  We face a post-Cold War period in 
international relations that represents as sharp a break for us as the 
postwar period was for Dean Acheson.

Mr. Acheson showed us that we can act in light of our constant values 
and vital interests without being knocked off our stride by the passions 
and burdens of the moment.  He showed us that as a great nation, the 
United States can make judicious use of its great power on behalf of 
great principles.  Mr. Acheson's life, his service, his work showed us 
that the world can be made a safer, freer, and better place.

Mr. Acheson liked to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes' remark that "the 
United States is the least exclusive club in the world, but it has the 
highest dues."  Mr. Acheson more than paid his dues; and now the United 
States is giving him his due with this handsome stamp.

Thank you, and let us today honor the centennial of the birth of this 
great American and distinguished Secretary of State. (###)



ARTICLE 6:


US Aid and Assistance To the Middle East
Edward P. Djerejian, Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs
Statement before the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East of the 
House Foreign Affairs Committee, Washington, DC, April 28, 1993

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee.  
I am pleased to be with you again to discuss our aid and assistance to 
countries of the Middle East.  Of course, a major portion of that 
assistance goes to support our long-term efforts to bring peace, 
security, and social justice to the peoples and countries of this 
volatile region.  With negotiations having just resumed between Israel, 
its Arab neighbors, and the Palestinians, I would like first to brief 
you on the status of those talks.

Peace Process
I am pleased to report that the Middle East peace negotiations have 
resumed.  The parties got down to work yesterday, and all of them have 
told us of their determination to make substantive progress.  Secretary 
Christopher met with all the delegations yesterday and pledged our best 
efforts to assist the parties to overcome differences and to play the 
role of full partner.

As you know, we worked very hard over the past 3 months to bring about 
the resumption of negotiations.  The Secretary worked closely with Prime 
Minister Rabin and with Palestinians to resolve differences and to find 
answers to the pressing issues they raised.  In this respect, we commend 
all the parties for taking the right decision to return to the talks.

Each party faces political constraints at home.  The Palestinians are 
under great pressures.  They want and need to demonstrate that 
negotiations work and produce results.  Negotiations can help all 
parties address the basic needs of the peoples in the region.  This 
applies across the board.

In the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, serious and meaningful 
Palestinian self-government is possible as an interim stage toward a 
negotiated final status.  Indeed, through these negotiations 
Palestinians can see occupation give way to self-government and the 
emergence of a new relationship between Israelis and Palestinians.  This 
outcome must provide for a peaceful and orderly transfer of authority to 
Palestinians.

The Syrians and Israelis have been addressing the core issues of 
territory, security, and peace.  This is the right track.  But continued 
commitment and hard work are needed from both parties to narrow the 
substantive gaps in their positions and to move forward in negotiations 
leading to a peaceful settlement.

The talks between Israel and Lebanon must continue to focus on 
elaborating a political framework involving land, peace, and security so 
that the security situation on the ground, especially in southern 
Lebanon, can be addressed in a timely manner.  And in the Jordanian-
Israeli talks, we are encouraged to see the sides working on a 
negotiating agenda that addresses key issues and deals with specific 
areas of potential cooperation such as water, energy, and the 
environment.

President Clinton has expressed his personal commitment to "broaden the 
circle of peace" in the Middle East.  This process has always benefited 
from strong bipartisan support, and I know we can count on the House and 
Senate to help sustain this cooperative endeavor.  President Clinton and 
Secretary Christopher are determined to help make 1993 a year of real 
accomplishment in the Arab-Israeli negotiations.  We believe that, with 
sufficient creativity and political will by the parties, this objective 
can be achieved.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like now to discuss in some 
detail the Administration's proposed security assistance programs for 
the Middle East.  I'll begin with our two largest programs--those for 
Israel and Egypt--which represent 77% of the Administration's FY 1994 
security assistance request.

Israel
During Prime Minister Rabin's recent visit, President Clinton reaffirmed 
the special relationship, based on shared democratic values and common 
interests, that exists between Israel and the United States.  President 
Clinton is determined to make the ties binding our two countries "even 
stronger and more resilient," and he has reaffirmed the United States' 
unalterable commitment to Israel's security and its qualitative military 
edge, a commitment based on our recognition of continuing challenges to 
Israel's security.  The President's discussions with Prime Minister 
Rabin in March deepened our strategic partnership with Israel.

US assistance to Israel remains vital not only to Israel's security and 
economic well-being but also to regional stability and progress in the 
peace process.  Israel's security concerns must be fully addressed if 
the ongoing peace talks, co-sponsored by the US and Russia, are to 
succeed.  Prime Minister Rabin has told the President he is prepared to 
take risks for peace.  President Clinton has made clear that, for our 
part, we will do all we can to minimize those risks.  One important 
pillar of this pledge is our security assistance program.

The President's FY 1994 budget maintains current aid levels to Israel, 
and the Administration will make its best effort to maintain those 
levels in subsequent years.  Our security assistance program aims to 
strengthen a free and democratic Israel that shares many of our own 
social and political values.  The FMF program helps Israel maintain its 
capability to defend itself against any likely combination of 
aggressors.  It helps fund Israel's purchase of such major weapons 
systems as F-15 and F-16 aircraft, important to maintaining regional air 
superiority, and SAAR-class missile boats, ensuring an effective Israeli 
navy.

The ESF program helps Israel reduce inflation, sustain its market 
economy's growth, and maintain an acceptable standard of living for its 
people in the face of heavy domestic demands, high levels of 
immigration, and high defense expenditures.  The ESF program currently 
helps Israel finance imports of goods and services from the US, service 
debt owed to the US, and ameliorate the balance-of-payments gap.  
Together with the recently implemented $10-billion loan guarantee 
program, it helps Israel implement its economic reform program.

Loan guarantees.  We will provide up to $10 billion in loan guarantees 
over the next 5 years to assist Israel's efforts to absorb immigrants 
from the former Soviet Union, Ethiopia, and other countries.  Israel 
recently syndicated the first $1 billion in financial markets.

Over the 5-year period, most of the funds will be made available as 
foreign exchange to the commercial banking system to support increased 
business sector activity.  The Government of Israel will also use some 
of the funds to support specific infrastructure projects to promote 
long-term economic growth and job development in the private sector.

The Government of Israel is committed to decrease government 
expenditures for non-security activity in the occupied territories.  The 
Government of Israel is also committed to US businesses sharing the 
benefits of the economic growth supported by the guaranteed loans.  To 
this end, we expect to see a substantial increase in Israel's purchases 
of US goods and services in the coming years.  We take these commitments 
seriously.  We will review progress in these areas through our bilateral 
economic dialogue.

We also will review the economic and financial measures Israel will take 
to accommodate the increased debt burden that will result from the 
guaranteed loans.  We attach much importance to resuming the dialogue on 
economic reform we began with Israel in the mid-1980s.

Economic reform.  Our assistance to Israel also aims to give the 
government the financial backing to undertake difficult reforms.  Prime 
Minister Rabin came into office committed to reducing government 
involvement in the economy and stimulating private sector growth.  The 
government has taken a number of steps in this direction, but political 
and institutional obstacles continue to slow the pace of economic 
reform.

The Israeli Government has made the most progress in the area of 
financial and capital market reform.  The 1993 budget anticipates a 
deficit of about 4.5% of GDP, roughly half the level of recent years.  
In 1992, for the first time in 23 years, inflation dropped to single 
digits.  Progress on reforms has been slowest in the areas of labor 
markets, competition policy, and privatization.  Such reforms are slowed 
by Israel's difficulty in breaking from its past record of heavy state 
involvement in the economy and opposition from groups which have a 
vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

We are encouraged by the Rabin government's commitment to implement 
serious economic reforms.  But, as Israelis themselves acknowledge, much 
remains to be done.  In our high-level contacts with the Government of 
Israel, we will continue to make clear our support for further progress 
in this area.

Egypt
Our security assistance investment in Egypt over the past decade has 
paid off handsomely.  Egypt has used our assistance to strengthen its 
military and economy, enhancing its important role in contributing to 
stability in the Middle East and furthering US objectives in the region.  
We expect that future assistance will pay off as well.  The President's 
FY 1994 budget maintains current aid levels to Egypt, and the 
Administration will make its best effort to maintain those levels in 
subsequent years.

Egypt has provided essential support for the US military presence in the 
Middle East.  The importance and strength of the bilateral military 
relationship with Egypt was demonstrated throughout the Gulf crisis.  
Strong Egyptian leadership paved the way for active Arab participation 
in the coalition, and over 35,000 Egyptian troops constituted the next 
largest foreign force to our own.

Egypt is our key Arab partner in efforts to achieve an Arab-Israeli 
peace and bolster moderate forces in the volatile Middle East.  Egypt 
was the first Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel, which is 
the cornerstone of the Arab-Israeli peace process.  Egypt has also been 
extremely helpful in the current negotiations between Israel and its 
other Arab neighbors.  The Egyptians have used their good relations with 
all the parties to facilitate progress in the negotiations.

Foreign Military Financing.  Prior to 1979, Egypt's primary supplier of 
military equipment was the Soviet bloc.  Our FMF program has allowed the 
Egyptian military to move from reliance on outdated Soviet equipment to 
a more efficient deterrent force built around high-tech US weapon 
systems.

Egypt is in the middle of a long-term military modernization program 
which emphasizes quality over quantity.  Its primary emphasis at present 
focuses on several major programs:  co-production of the M1A1 tank and 
procurement of F-16s and Apache helicopters.

In addition to improving the over-all quality of the Egyptian military, 
Egypt is also improving its ability to work in close cooperation with US 
forces.  The value of this inter-operability was demonstrated during the 
Gulf war.  Moreover, Egypt plays an important part in UN peace-making 
and peace-keeping operations in Somalia, Bosnia, Western Sahara, and 
Angola.  Our military assistance helps make it possible for Egypt to 
undertake these important efforts.

Economic Support Fund.  Our economic assistance to Egypt has made a 
tremendous difference in that country and is an important source of 
support for the current Egyptian comprehensive economic reform program.  
Our programs have also developed Egypt as a major market for US 
products, especially agricultural products.  Egypt has become our third-
largest foreign market for wheat.

The many accomplishments of our ESF over the last decade include helping 
Egypt to substantially increase agricultural productivity, decrease 
infant mortality by 43%, bring down the population growth rate from 
about 3% to about 2.3%, provide schools in which some 925,000 students 
are being educated, provide sanitary sewage and potable water facilities 
for the people of Cairo and other major cities, and provide electricity 
and telecommunications services for Egypt's increasing population.

Even more important than these direct results, we have used our 
assistance to promote the difficult reforms which will make the Egyptian 
economy capable of sustained growth.  Sectoral programs have been 
conditioned on specific reforms, and, more recently, we have begun to 
provide cash transfers in support of agreed reforms.  In FY 1992, the 
sector grant program tied disbursement of $200 million to implementation 
of more than 20 specific reforms including, for example, allowing 
foreign banks to participate fully in the domestic banking system and 
bringing five public sector enterprises to the point of sale.

In 1991, Egypt, working with the IMF and World Bank, launched a major 
initiative to promote private sector growth. Over the past 2 years, the 
Government of Egypt has freed exchange and interest rates, made deep 
cuts in consumer subsidies, and reduced the government budget deficit.  
Although these reforms have been successful, private investors are not 
yet convinced of government commitment to the completion of the reform 
process and have yet to make the investments needed for job growth.

Despite progress on economic reform, Egypt continues to face daunting 
economic challenges:  Unemployment is about 20%, up from single digits 
in the early 1980s; economic growth is slow; population growth, although 
declining, is still too rapid; and the Egyptian people have seen their 
standard of living deteriorate significantly over the past 5 years.  The 
stagnant economy is also a factor contributing to the recent increase in 
extremism, and extremist terrorism has exacerbated economic problems by 
striking against tourism and threatening foreign investors.

Egypt is now entering negotiations with the IMF on the next phase of its 
reform program.  Over the past few weeks, it has put 24 public 
enterprises up for sale.  Our economic assistance helps the Government 
of Egypt implement the extensive economic reform program which is needed 
to establish a base for economic growth and political stability.

Other Countries and Programs
As I mentioned, security assistance programs are an important part of 
the United States' long-standing support for the Middle East peace 
process.  These funds help the countries meet legitimate security needs, 
encourage economic reform and growth, and promote democratic values, 
social justice, and respect for human rights.  Besides Israel and Egypt, 
we request funds for Jordan, Lebanon, West Bank and Gaza residents, and 
cooperative programs involving Arabs and Israelis.

Jordan.  Jordan has taken very significant steps toward democracy over 
the past 4 years.  This is one of the least appreciated success stories 
in the Middle East.  Thus, maintaining stability in Jordan as part of 
our overall support for democratization is more important than ever.

Our assistance also helps sustain Jordan's very positive role in the 
Arab-Israeli peace process and its commitment to guaranteeing the 
security of its border with Israel.  Since our last security assistance 
submission, King Hussein has also significantly improved enforcement of 
UN sanctions against Iraq.  In our close contacts with Jordanian 
officials, we continue to emphasize the importance we attach to their 
good faith efforts in maintaining the UN sanctions regime.

A country with limited natural resources, Jordan has a mixed economy 
heavily dependent on regional trade.  The strict enforcement of 
sanctions burdens the economy, which was strained even before the Gulf 
crisis.  Jordan still has a staggering debt and needs help from external 
creditors over the medium term.  Our support is crucial.  We expect to 
begin consultations soon on the release of $50 million in FY 1992 
security assistance.  FY 1993 funds remain frozen as we continue to 
monitor Jordan's performance on democratization, the peace process, and 
sanctions enforcement.

Lebanon.  The US is committed to a unified, sovereign, and independent 
Lebanon, free from non-Lebanese forces and armed militias.  Our support 
assists efforts to rebuild the independent, non-sectarian Lebanese Armed 
Forces (LAF), responsive to civilian control and respectful of human 
rights. Humanitarian aid channeled through private voluntary 
organizations and aid to educational institutions demonstrates US 
concern about the fate of Lebanon and its people.

The government of Prime Minister Hariri has undertaken the difficult 
task of economic development and reconstruction.  There is no doubt that 
our assistance of his government has a significant and positive impact 
on his ability to extend the authority of the central government 
throughout Lebanon.  Thus, our assistance to the Lebanese Armed Forces 
is an important contribution to the Lebanese re-establishing greater 
control over their country.

West Bank and Gaza Strip.  This program demonstrates US concern for the 
economic and social well-being of the 1.7 million Palestinians in the 
Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.  It helps Palestinians cope 
with the severely depressed economy resulting from long-standing 
conflict in the region.  The focus is on efforts to promote self-
sustaining economic growth, expand employment and the private sector, 
and improve selected health and welfare services.

Middle East Multilaterals.  To support the peace process, we have 
requested a specific fund for the five multilateral working groups:  
economic development, water, refugees, environment, and arms control and 
regional security.  This will help fund activities agreed upon in the 
groups and augment progress in the bilateral peace negotiations.

Middle East Regional Cooperation (MERC).  The MERC program promotes 
mutually beneficial cooperation between Israel and neighboring Arab 
states.  Scientific and technical exchanges aim to strengthen ties by 
demonstrating that peaceful cooperation can yield tangible benefits to 
all involved.

Bahrain and Oman.  In pursuit of the broader US goal of strengthening 
security relations with allies and friends in strategic regions, it is 
important that we provide support, albeit modest, to Oman and Bahrain.

Bahrain has been a friend of the United States for over 20 years.  
Through its security assistance program to Bahrain, the US enhances its 
ability to maintain access for the US Navy to Bahraini port and onshore 
facilities, helps ensure freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf, and 
bolsters the security and stability of friendly countries in the region.  
The signing of a US-Bahrain defense cooperation agreement in 1991 opens 
the way to pre-positioning needed materiel and facilitates military 
exercises.

Oman's strategic location on the Strait of Hormuz makes it critical to 
US interests in the Persian Gulf.  US operational access to Omani 
military facilities was essential to support our operations in the Gulf, 
notably during Operation Desert Storm and Operation Restore Hope.  The 
1980 access agreement with Oman, renewed in 1990 for 10 years, grants 
the US limited peacetime and contingency wartime use of these 
facilities.

That concludes my opening statement, Mr. Chairman.  I will be happy to 
answer the committee's questions. (###)



ARTICLE 7:


Building a Collective Security System
Madeleine K. Albright, US Permanent Representative to the United Nations 
Statement before the Subcommittees on Europe and the Middle East and on 
International Security, International Organizations, and Human Rights of 
the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Washington, DC, May 3, 1993

Messrs. Chairmen and distinguished members of the subcommittees:  I take 
particular pleasure in appearing before you today to discuss collective 
security.  You have given me an opportunity to examine this critical 
issue, not only because I am US ambassador to the United Nations and a 
member of the National Security Council but also because of my 
perspective as a former professor and student of international 
relations.

If you were to search for one term that best describes the challenge 
confronting the new era, it is "collective security."  Every day we 
witness this challenge of collective security on television--some call 
it the "CNN effect"--and hear of it on the broadcasts of National Public 
Radio.  Aggression and atrocities are beamed into our living rooms and 
cars with astonishing immediacy.  No civilized human being can learn of 
these horrid acts occurring on a daily basis and stand aloof from them.  
But then, few of us want to respond alone.  Collective security offers a 
means both to respond to these injustices and to protect our vital 
interests.  But we have a long way to go before collective security 
becomes a truly workable system.

So, Mr. Chairmen, you have steered your subcommittees into the eye of 
the storm.  That storm will not abate soon, but we must all do our best 
today to navigate through some of the toughest conceptual and 
operational implications of collective security.

Today, when collective security is mentioned, many think of the 13 UN 
peace-keeping operations currently underway in various parts of the 
world.  I will be happy to answer your questions about any of these 
operations, but I wanted to focus my opening remarks today on the 
broader conceptual question of collective security.

Defining Collective Security
Let's start with a modern definition of collective security.  What sets 
this concept of international order apart from others at the close of 
the 20th century?  First, we need to understand that collective security 
is not another term for alliance.  An alliance requires of each of its 
members that they respond if any alliance member is attacked from 
outside the alliance, typically by a common enemy.  The North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization is the most successful alliance in history.  The 
common enemy of the United States and Western Europe was the Warsaw 
Pact.

In a system of collective security, the enemy is a threat to regional or 
international peace and security.  That threat can originate anywhere in 
a region or, if the collective security system is international in its 
reach, anywhere on the globe.  Any nation within the regional or 
international system that commits aggression, imperils the peace, or 
grossly exceeds the bounds of civilized behavior violates the norms of 
that collective security system and is subject to enforcement action.  
No nation is excluded from the responsibility of maintaining peace and 
security regardless of where, within its collective security system, the 
threat originates.  Nor are the responsibilities of membership in a 
collective security system avoided because of the ideological character 
of a government, its grievances against other governments, or its 
military power.

Collective security can be triggered another way.  A threatened nation, 
exercising its inherent right of collective self-defense, can call on 
others for help.  Collective security is the institutional way in which 
other nations respond to defend a nation under siege.  If it works 
properly, collective security is a far more potent weapon for deterring 
aggression and maintaining international peace and security than is the 
traditional right of self-defense standing alone.

When the League of Nations was created after World War I, the collective 
security system that emerged was fatally flawed.  The League covenant 
did not outlaw war.  Its members simply pledged, rather than obligated 
themselves, to confront aggression.  No real institution of collective 
security was created that could organize enforcement actions.  The most 
powerful enforcer, the United States, never joined the League.  The 
reason lay in an unfortunate and, I would argue, avoidable breach that 
occurred between President Wilson and the Senate.  If we have learned 
anything from the League days, it is that collective security requires a 
new kind of partnership between the executive and legislative branches 
of not only this government but also others.

After World War II, the new United Nations tried again to establish a 
collective security system.  The UN Charter represents a best-efforts 
basis in 1945 to establish the fundamental principles and organization 
precepts of collective security.  But before those principles and 
precepts could be tested and refined, the alliances of the Cold War 
gridlocked world politics and controlled the world's military arsenals.  
Many provisions of the UN Charter and organs of the United Nations, for 
all practical purposes, faded away.  Scholars and policy-makers alike 
wrote the obituaries on Chapter VII, the enforcement provisions, of the 
charter and on the Military Staff Committee.  Do any of you even recall 
any serious discussion of collective security as late as the 1980s?  
Anyone who professed the wisdom of realpolitik derided collective 
security as the phantom of a Wilsonian age long since departed.

Yet the idea of collective security was kept alive during the Cold War 
by the evolution of a concept more intriguing than anyone dared imagine.  
It was UN peace-keeping.  Nowhere in the charter is "peace-keeping" 
identified or explicitly authorized.  But it emerged by sheer invention 
during the earliest years of the United Nations, particularly as a tool 
to monitor cease-fires and assist in efforts to achieve the peaceful 
settlement of disputes.  Dag Hammarskjold, the UN Secretary General 
during the 1950s, pioneered the concept when he played a critical role 
in establishing the first peace-keeping force in response to the Suez 
crisis of 1956.  Through the years, the Security Council and the member 
states of the United Nations have learned much about working together to 
maintain international peace and security through the instrument of 
peace-keeping.  The record is by no means devoid of superpower rivalries 
and less-than-successful missions.  But the lessons derived from four 
decades of UN peace-keeping are now guiding us into a new era of 
collective security.

America's Stake in Collective Security
I want to focus on this new era of collective security.  What does 
collective security have to do with American security?  Plenty.  In the 
aftermath of the Cold War, the security of the United States is no 
longer defined by the size and strength of our nuclear arsenals and 
military deployments on the front lines of the Iron Curtain.  President 
Clinton has spoken often of this nation's security being defined by the 
strength of our economy, the adaptability of our armed forces to the new 
threats of the 1990s, and the spread of democratic government in the 
world.

The security threat to America--a threat that only collective security 
can ultimately manage--is a world where weapons of mass destruction 
proliferate and ethnic and regional conflicts trigger massive refugee 
flows, enormous economic dislocations, unacceptable human rights 
atrocities, environmental catastrophes, and the senseless killing and 
maiming of millions of civilians.  That world has already arrived.  
Unless we face up to it and create the institutions and resources 
necessary to share the burden of restoring international order, the 
United States will stand exposed to an endless raid on its resources, 
its goodwill, its soldiers, and, finally, its territorial integrity or 
the territorial integrity of its allies.

Anyone in this room or elsewhere in this country who thinks that what 
occurs in Bosnia or Somalia or Cambodia is too distant to concern 
Americans--or has nothing to do with US security--has a very narrow view 
of economics, politics, and morality and has not learned the lessons of 
history.  The costs of these conflicts are staggering, and, ultimately, 
we end up paying large shares of those costs.

Economic Costs of Inaction.  Consider for a moment the enormous expense 
of responding to massive refugee migrations triggered by ethnic or 
interstate conflicts.  Hundreds of billions of dollars are required to 
restore collapsed economies and rebuild devastated towns and cities.  
What will it cost the international community to restore the Bosnian 
economy some day?  The Somali economy?  The Cambodian economy?  Consider 
the impact on regional and international trade each time an ethnic 
conflict flares up and disrupts thousands of commercial relationships.  
Not only are existing trading relationships broken, but potential trade 
and investment is killed off.  The loss of potential business alone--for 
American companies and individuals--has to be a staggering figure.

I do not know of any study that really calculates what ethnic and 
regional conflicts cost Americans or the American economy.  But common 
sense tells you that when trade is shut down with a defiant regime like 
the one in Belgrade or the Gulf war erupts with repercussions throughout 
the world economy, there are economic impacts that can stretch all the 
way to Main Street, USA.  How many California businesses have lost 
business--real or potential--because of the miserable state of affairs 
in Cambodia?  How many New York companies have lost business because of 
the conflicts in the Balkans or in the Middle East?  How much business 
is being lost today because of conflicts in India, Africa, or Haiti or 
regional threats on the Korean Peninsula or from Castro's regime on 
Cuba?

When you start to add up the loss of ongoing and potential business, 
trading, and investment opportunities for Americans because of 
proliferating armed struggles in this decade, the cost must be colossal.  
I might suggest that it would be an interesting study for the Congress 
to undertake.  Far more immediate and calculable are the millions and 
billions of dollars--and thousands of American soldiers--that the United 
States commits when it launches a massive military intervention to 
restore peace and security and, in some cases, reverse the failure of a 
society like Somalia.  If we let anarchy or ethnic conflict fester too 
long, if we permit either to spin out of control, the cost will always 
be much higher in the end to restore order.  The burden will always be 
more unilateral.  The cost of preventive measures applied collectively 
and early to quell a society's self-destructive instincts will always be 
much cheaper.  I share Secretary of State Warren Christopher's belief, 
expressed recently, "that millions spent now on preventive diplomacy and 
peace-keeping can save hundreds of millions of dollars later in defense 
and international relief."

Political Costs of Inaction.  The political cost of ignoring far-off 
conflicts also mounts with each passing day.  Much of our credibility as 
a superpower--if, indeed, we want to remain one--will depend upon our 
ability to influence and bring pressure to bear on the belligerents of 
the post-Cold War world.  Our nuclear arsenal means nothing to the 
Bosnian Serbs or the Khmer Rouge.  The most effective way we bring our 
influence to bear on these conflicts early and effectively is through 
the instruments of collective security.  The petty tyrants and defiant 
warlords have to know that they stand alone, that the world community 
speaks with one voice and acts collectively to thwart their ambitions.  
If the United States acts unilaterally to stop them, then they have 
found their propaganda tool--their so-called imperialist enemy to fight.  
Alternatively, if defiant rulers know that the United States has 
withdrawn from world politics and thus crippled collective security, 
they will pursue their ambitions unchallenged.

Moral Consequences of Inaction.  Finally, the moral consequences of 
these conflicts are inescapable.  American values simply will not permit 
us to stand aloof from massive human suffering, whether caused by 
natural or man-made sources.  Nor do the fundamental principles set 
forth in the UN Charter or in international human rights treaties permit 
us to ignore the plight of so many others.  Yet, we cannot possibly 
implement these principles alone.  Nor should we.  Collective security 
offers a means by which to share the burden and provide the opportunity 
for millions of innocent human beings to live in peace.  In particular, 
the United Nations needs us, and we need it to reach and then implement 
multilateral strategies.  There simply is no other way.

Collective Security:  More Than Military Remedies
If there is one overall theme that I want to stress today, it is that 
collective security has broadened in theory and practice to encompass 
far more than military remedies to keep the peace.  We know that 
collective security is a potent means to impose tough economic sanctions 
on defiant regimes, be they found in Baghdad or Belgrade.  The success 
of sanctions is often debated, but there is no doubt that they are 
becoming a means by which the international community can act in unison 
and thwart the designs of aggressor regimes.

Collective security has increasingly become an essential ally in many 
humanitarian relief operations.  Increasingly, we are fusing peace-
keeping and peace enforcement operations with the delivery of 
humanitarian assistance to civilian populations trapped in the 
hostilities.  That is a mission best done through collective means.  
These are missions that must be undertaken for the sake of common 
humanity.  The international community must be organized to respond 
quickly and effectively to get humanitarian aid delivered when and where 
it is needed.  There will be many instances when the United States need 
not participate on the ground, but we will need to support the 
organization that undertakes the mission.  That kind of support is, 
increasingly, an integral element of collective security.  The work of 
UNPROFOR in Croatia and Bosnia represents how a peace-keeping force can 
provide critical support in trying to get humanitarian aid through 
belligerent lines.  Our intervention in Somalia under UN authority shows 
how a Chapter VII operation can be essential in saving millions from 
starvation.

Another dimension of collective security today is state-building 
operations.  There is simply no way the United States or any other 
nation could unilaterally undertake the rescue of failed societies.  But 
a viable collective security system can provide authority and, when 
necessary, military muscle to achieve democratic aims that are 
unquestionably in our best interests.  The United Nations has become an 
agent in support of democratic change in Namibia, the Western Sahara, 
Haiti, El Salvador, Angola, Mozambique, Cambodia, and Somalia.  In each 
of these cases, UN peace observer, peace-keeping, or enforcement 
operations have facilitated or will soon help in building democratic 
governments.  The work is by no means finished in some of these 
countries, and there have been setbacks.  But the role of a modern 
collective security system in facilitating democracy has been and will 
continue to be essential.

A further dimension of collective security is its vital role in 
protecting human rights, particularly the rights of ethnic minorities 
and other groups of peoples.  Atrocities continue with maddening 
frequency in our time.  Bosnia stands out starkly.  But I must tell you 
that at the United Nations, I hear of atrocities in other parts of the 
world on an almost daily basis.  The only realistic way of dealing with 
this tragic proliferation of human rights injustices is through a system 
of collective security.

Preventive Diplomacy
In all of these dimensions of collective security, we need to focus much 
more attention on what regional organizations can accomplish in their 
own backyards.  We also need to improve regional abilities to take care 
of the victims of regional conflicts.

President Clinton and Secretary Christopher have spoken often of the 
need to develop better instruments of preventive diplomacy.  We 
desperately need to prevent ethnic disputes, in particular, from 
spinning out of control--as they did in the former Yugoslavia.  I want 
to stress this morning that collective security must be complemented by 
preventive diplomacy if the system of collective security is not to be 
overwhelmed.  Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali reinforced this in 
his report last year, "An Agenda for Peace."  We would be deluding 
ourselves if we thought that collective security is only the convening 
of Security Council meetings and the marshalling of armies to restore 
international peace and security.  It first and foremost must be the 
determined application of diplomacy to prevent armed conflicts and 
humanitarian catastrophes.  If preventive diplomacy falters, then 
subsequent steps may include non-military instruments of persuasion, 
followed, if necessary, by military action.  But the Clinton 
Administration is committed to preventive diplomacy as the lynchpin of 
collective security.

Other Initiatives Required To Strengthen Collective Security
Finally, I want to speak about some of the other initiatives that will 
be required to strengthen collective security in the years ahead.

Financing and Budgeting UN Peace-keeping Operations.  The United States 
and other member states of the United Nations need to establish a much 
sounder basis for financing and budgeting peace-keeping operations.  The 
current system is inefficient, lacks transparency and accountability, 
and does not provide an adequate basis for rapid response to fast-
breaking peace-keeping needs.  In addition, the distribution of 
financial responsibilities is so outdated that it does not spread the 
burden equitably among member states.

On the operational side, our concerns are equally serious.  Since 1988, 
we and our Security Council colleagues have tasked the United Nations 
with peace-keeping missions of enormous size and complexity and 
extraordinarily difficult goals.  On a per-mission basis, the cost of 
peace-keeping has increased as a reflection of these new and ambitious 
assignments.  Yet, despite the fact that the UN will very shortly have 
some 90,000 blue helmets in 13 missions, the resources available to lead 
and manage them have hardly grown at all.  Indeed, the peace-keeping 
system is now so over-stretched that, I must tell you, we are at a point 
of dangerous and unprecedented stress.  It will, therefore, be a top US 
priority this year to work with the UN Secretariat and key peace-keeping 
contributors to ensure that the UN is equipped with a robust capacity to 
plan, organize, lead, and service peace-keeping activities.  In this 
regard, we welcome the recent Russian proposal to convene a Security 
Council ministerial later this month in order to give a strong impetus 
to peace-keeping reforms.

Creating a UN Military Combat Capability.  There is also much work to be 
done in creating a UN military capability to engage in combat 
operations.  There are plans under discussion that seek to strengthen 
the UN's ability to respond forcefully and in a manner that spreads the 
burden of military enforcement among many nations.  This will be one of 
our greatest challenges in building a collective security system.  
Congress will be the critical partner as we explore the options.  I 
expect your subcommittees, in particular, will be deeply involved in 
this important exercise.

Keeping Russia Engaged.  A third challenge to collective security in the 
coming months is how we keep the Russian Government fully engaged as a 
partner in peace-keeping and enforcement operations.  As you well know, 
Moscow is experiencing a severe shortage of foreign exchange.  Russia 
now has surpassed the United States as the largest debtor at the United 
Nations.  In short, it is finding great difficulty in paying its bills.  
UNOSOM II, the next phase of the UN's operations in Somalia, was almost 
jeopardized because of Russia's shortage of funds to pay its peace-
keeping assessment.  So we need to work very hard with the Russians and 
other major or influential contributors to peace-keeping to strengthen 
the capabilities of the United Nations and various regional bodies.

Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, the subject of collective security invites much more 
detailed discussion.  But I think if we turn now to your questions, I 
can expand more on the themes I have raised in my prepared remarks and 
discuss issues of particular concern to you.  

Let me close, though, by saying that not a day passes without the United 
States being called upon to take the lead at the United Nations, whether 
it be to preserve or restore the peace, uphold the rule of law, save the 
environment, or rescue failing societies.  If the previous era was one 
of containment, the new era is one of engagement in a global agenda of 
immeasurable complexity and diversity.  The United States cannot 
possibly rise to this challenge without a viable system of collective 
security that lifts some of the burden from our shoulders and provides a 
means for us to lead other countries in truly collective responses to 
the tragic conflicts of the new era.  I believe that is our 
responsibility as a superpower, and we must not shirk from it. (###)


ARTICLE 8:


NAFTA:  A Vehicle for Economic Growth
Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury
Address before the Council of the Americas, Washington, DC, May 3, 1993

I recall talking with the council up on Capitol Hill about this time 2 
years ago.  At the time we were discussing fast-track authority, the 
Enterprise for the Americas program, and the GATT and NAFTA 
negotiations.

I've changed jobs since then, but those are still my concerns.  And so 
is the pace of domestic and international growth.  I'd like to talk 
about my new concerns, but first I'd like to emphasize our commitment to 
a solid partnership with our neighbors in the hemisphere.  The 
Enterprise for the Americas Initiative is a bipartisan effort to focus 
on trade, investment, debt, and the environment.

If you followed my testimony on Capitol Hill, you know that the Clinton 
Administration has asked Congress for additional money for debt relief 
and the Multilateral Investment Fund.  We intend to continue and build 
on these efforts to improve the quality of life for all our people 
through hemispheric growth.

All our nations are now so closely tied together economically that 
nothing any one nation does truly happens in a vacuum.  That's 
particularly true for an economy as large as ours.  For example, our 
interest rate decline will shave $2 billion a year off debt service for 
Latin America.  And when we grow, it affects the growth of the rest of 
the world, particularly that of our closest neighbors.

In dealing with growth in a global sense, we must look at more than just 
our own economy.  We just concluded an important series of meetings of 
the G-7 finance ministers and the committees of the World Bank and the 
IMF.  We talked extensively about how we can encourage international 
economic growth.  Some encouraging steps have been taken toward getting 
all economies to grow and prosper.

For instance, the United States and Canada are working to get our 
deficits down and increase investment and savings.  Interest rates are 
coming down in Europe.  And Japan has announced a stimulus aimed at 
improving domestic demand and reducing external imbalances.  We're 
seeing some progress in our efforts.  But we cannot rest.  We must do 
more to create growth and jobs.

I'm sure you saw the World Bank forecast that said our economy--the US 
economy--is going to help lead world growth this year and next.  That 
report said world growth itself is going to be lackluster, about 2.2%.  
The fact that our economy is likely to grow faster than the global 
economy underscores the importance of our aggressive effort in this 
country to break free of recession.  Let me just remind you that we 
calculate that a decline in first quarter exports shaved almost a full 
point off our first quarter GDP figure.  That sort of figure only 
magnifies the argument that we have a large stake in faster economic 
growth elsewhere.

These growth figures also remind us that NAFTA--and the jobs and 
stronger growth it can bring--is important, particularly for the long-
term outlook for our region.  Now, grant you, it'd be a challenge to get 
it passed now before we get the supplemental agreements finished.  I 
wrote an article last August about NAFTA.  I said then that we had 
concerns about labor and environmental issues.  These are issues of 
interest to all Americans.  Now those concerns are being met.  We're 
improving NAFTA.  We are working for meaningful and effective 
supplements to the agreement on those issues.

In addition, we're getting our message to the Hill on the benefits of 
NAFTA.  We're explaining how it fits in our strategy of improving our 
competitiveness.  We're explaining how it will create more net jobs.  
True, some jobs will be lost, but it's a small number in relation to our 
work force.  I won't minimize the personal suffering involved.  But 
these jobs are at risk not because of NAFTA but because of the global 
challenge to our competitiveness.  You don't stay competitive by turning 
your back on competition and new markets.  We're responding to a 
changing world, and we're going to train our workers to meet that 
challenge.

I think once Congress understands how we're making NAFTA better, they'll 
agree it should be approved.  This is an important agreement.  It's 
important to our national interests.  It is important to Canada and to 
Mexico.  It's important over the long run to every nation in the 
hemisphere because of the growth it can help generate.  I strongly 
support NAFTA, and we're working hard to have it adopted this year.

I also want to see NAFTA approved because of the importance of trade to 
our entire region.  Let's examine some of those numbers, because there's 
so much focus on our trade with Japan that the business we do with one 
another in this hemisphere tends to be obscured.

If you look at just Latin America and the Caribbean, our exports to 
these areas went up from $43 billion in 1987 to more than $75 billion 
last year.  That's real growth, and it means jobs for Americans.  And 
last year we exported about 1.5 times more to Latin America than we did 
to Japan.

Look at the trade relationship we have with Canada.  The Canadians are 
our largest trading partner.  Last year, we exported over $100 billion 
in goods and services to Canada.  In turn, we bought $100 billion of 
Canadian goods.  Canadian exports to the United States account for 
nearly one-quarter of Canada's GDP.  Free trade, obviously, is a good 
deal for everyone.

I also want to see NAFTA up and running by the first of the year because 
we have in President Salinas a man who has done some remarkable things.  
He has shown political courage in opening the Mexican economy to foreign 
trade and investment.  He's lowered tariffs--substantially--but there is 
no guarantee that whoever succeeds him will have the same idea.

You know, we once had a trade deficit with Mexico, but now we have a 
substantial surplus, a $5 billion surplus.  We sold them over $40 
billion dollars of goods last year.  That's up from $15 billion in 1987.  
Many people lose sight of the fact that Mexico is our third-largest 
trading partner.  They buy more from us on a per capita basis than the 
more affluent Europeans.

The importance of NAFTA as a vehicle for growth is also reinforced by 
the fact that we've just come out of the decade of debt in the region, 
and we're putting it behind us.  We can already see substantial 
progress.  Let me give you an example.  Many of the largest debtors in 
the region have moved beyond that problem and now face the challenge of 
properly managing a new influx of capital.  The dramatic inflow of 
capital we see now has been in response to the very encouraging steps 
many nations have taken--countries like Mexico, Chile, Argentina, and 
others.  This capital can support projects that will create jobs, 
improve productivity, and assist regional growth.  Obviously, I think 
NAFTA's a good idea.  We have an excellent opportunity to make a 
contribution to our region and to its growth with this agreement.

If you look around the Americas, free trade agreements are breaking out 
all over.  Nations are adopting free trade agreements or expanding on 
them.  One of the problems we have seen in Latin America has been too 
little trade amongst one another.  Free trade agreements help with that 
and contribute to the growth we all want.  Let me give you an example.  
One Latin finance minister told me the other day that before his nation 
and another reached a trade agreement, there were seven flights a week 
between the two capitals.  Today, a year later, there are five or six 
times as many flights.  The lesson there is obvious.

Now, I also want to discuss growth on a larger scale.  Just as we in the 
Americas are linked economically, the United States is similarly linked 
to the rest of the world's economies.  What we do to improve our economy 
can affect others.  That World Bank report suggesting rather 
unimpressive growth overall pegged our growth in the United States at 
about 3.2%.  Our internal forecast is about the same, 3.1%.  A rate like 
that will let us start chipping away at unemployment by creating new 
jobs faster than our labor force grows.

Our last quarterly growth figure was poor, but my feeling is our economy 
is stronger than what the 1.8% figure suggests.  I believe our March 
storm had something to do with it.  The number that came out last 
Thursday is a winter pothole in our road to recovery, but it's not going 
to give us a flat.

Our economic plan is an aggressive effort to deal with our deficit and 
at the same time make the kinds of investments in our infrastructure and 
citizens that will pay us dividends for years to come.  Simultaneously, 
we will also be encouraging the kind of investments by the private 
sector that produce growth for our economy and a more competitive, 
profitable economy.  The reason we're doing this is [that] we want to 
change the status quo.  Twice before we've seen our economy coming out 
of recession.  The previous Administration in all sincerity decided to 
stick with the status quo.  They believed the recession was over.  But 
they went 0-for-2.  We drafted our plan to make certain we don't go 0-
for-3.

I think the economic signs we've been seeing these past few months just 
reinforce our decision to start taking these long-term steps to make 
major changes in our economic direction.  It's not something that's 
going to happen overnight.  You can't turn the US economy on a dime.  I 
think most Americans understand that it will take time to have a lasting 
impact on our economy.  The important point here is that we're taking 
action to change the status quo.

We've convinced Congress to pass the budget resolution in record time up 
on Capitol Hill.  It has put us on the path toward nearly $500 billion 
in deficit reduction.  That's the largest deficit reduction package ever 
advanced.  We sent a full budget to Congress this year, something that's 
unheard of for a new administration.  We have proposed 200 specific 
budget cuts for Congress.  They affect every department and every area 
of government.  We've even proposed making cuts in entitlement programs-
-what I like to call the third rail in American politics.

We have a very fair revenue package.  It includes provisions to ensure 
that we collect what is due from foreign-owned enterprises doing 
business in the United States.  It is only fair that if we ask our 
citizens and corporations to pay additional taxes that we make 
absolutely certain we have international compliance reforms.

It's an ambitious plan but one we think will bring long-term change to 
the American economy.  Change is a topic that has been getting a lot of 
comment these past few days.  People ask what change the Clinton 
Administration has managed to effect in its first 100 days in office.

We have some major accomplishments.  Long-term interest rates are down 
substantially.  Rates came down by about a full percentage point by mid-
April.  They're back up a bit now, but fluctuations are normal, and the 
bottom line is rates are down and saving all of us money.  Consumers are 
saving.  Businesses are saving.  And our government is saving billions.

Our deficit reduction plan has cleared its first hurdle, and our budget 
proposals are on the table on Capitol Hill.  This is the earliest in my 
memory that Congress has passed a budget resolution.  It used to be that 
the budgets were dead on arrival when they got to the Hill or that a 
majority of Republicans voted against a Republican president's budget.  
That's not the case now.

We've taken steps to eliminate the credit crunch.  That will lead to 
increased access to credit for the small and medium-sized businesses 
that are going to be creating the jobs in our economy.

Our willingness to advance a realistic economic program has strengthened 
our leadership in the international economic arena.  We now talk about 
balance sheets, not the balance of power, at our international meetings.

And the other thing we've accomplished is we've changed attitudes in 
Washington.  There is now an acceptance that change will come, that the 
status quo will not continue.  People accept that there will be health 
care reform, and they see Democrats cutting the deficit, and cutting, 
and cutting.  Now that's a change.  This is a new administration, with 
an agenda for change, and we're making it happen.  Thank you very much.  
(###)



ARTICLE 9:


USAID Administrator Confirmation Hearing
J. Brian Atwood, Administrator-designate, US Agency for International 
Development
Statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC, 
April 29, 1993 

It is an honor to be appearing before you as President's Clinton's 
nominee for the second time this year.  The Administration wanted to do 
something significant on its 100th day; I hope I am not it.

I very much appreciated this committee's support for my nomination as 
Under Secretary of State for Management.  Now I have been asked by the 
President to take on an even larger task as Administrator of the Agency 
for International Development. And I need your support and understanding 
even more than I did before.

At the height of the Cold War, President John F. Kennedy signed the 
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.  He spoke of our obligations as a "wise 
leader" to provide economic and political support to the developing 
world.  He told us then that:

     To fail to meet those obligations now would be disastrous; and, in 
the long run, more expensive.  For widespread poverty and chaos lead to 
a collapse of existing political and social structures which would 
inevitably invite the advance of totalitarianism into every weak and 
unstable area.  Thus our own security would be endangered and our 
prosperity imperiled.  A program of assistance to the underdeveloped 
nations must continue because the nation's interest and the cause of 
political freedom require it.

Thirty-two years later, despite changes in circumstances, these words 
continue to be relevant.  True, we no longer need fear the inexorable 
march of a force into weak and unstable areas.   But we should fear new 
threats to our interests and the world's stability:  burgeoning 
populations migrating to avoid conflict or find work; environmental 
disasters that know no borders; national bankruptcies that deplete the 
coffers of international financial institutions and private banks; 
poverty that breeds anarchy and all its attendant features--ethnic 
conflict, terrorism, mass starvation, disease, decay, and destruction.

But these are more than fears.  They are the core of our foreign policy 
agenda for the next decade.  It is an agenda that responds not only to 
our fears but to our hopes for a more peaceful and prosperous world.  
And that agenda, I would submit to you, is not radically different from 
the agenda we face here at home.  We must empower people in south-
central Los Angeles as well as Somalia; we must create the kind of 
infrastructure and training and economic policy that will create jobs in 
Rhode Island as well as Russia;  we must build the kind of respect and 
human understanding that brings peace to Detroit as well as to Bosnia.

In that sense, the mission of USAID is not fundamentally different from 
the mission we face here at home.  And the reasons for accepting that 
mission do not differ all that much either. 

In purely negative terms, we know what the failure to act will bring:  
poverty, civil strife, ethnic tension--all threats to our national self-
interest as well as to our sense of ourselves as a people, whether they 
happen here at home or whether they happen abroad. It is hard to solve 
our problems here; it is even more difficult to solve them abroad.  But 
both must be addressed because they are interrelated.

The challenge we face is simple:  We must avoid these terrible human and 
financial costs by joining with other nations in a long-term development 
effort.  The benefits of that effort are, in my mind, obvious:  more 
jobs for Americans, cleaner air and water, stable populations that can 
care for their own children, and more democratic governments working in 
partnership with the United States.  USAID should be at the center of 
that effort.  And it can be if changes are made.

President Clinton and Vice President Gore are committed to making a 
change.  So are Secretary Christopher and Deputy Secretary Wharton.  So 
am I, and so are the men and women who work for and with USAID.  As we 
establish the credibility of our commitment and our capacity to produce 
results, I hope and expect that the Congress will support the structural 
changes that should be made at USAID.

If you confirm me for this post, I will work to assure this committee, 
the Congress, and the country that USAID is promoting our national 
values and interests; that it is undertaking programs designed to 
achieve meaningful results; and that it is eager to be measured against-
-and held accountable to--a set of clear, straightforward goals.

Four Goals for a Foreign Policy Consensus
In that context, I want to work with you--Democrats and Republicans 
alike--in forging a new national consensus in support of a foreign 
policy that acknowledges our global interdependence and our 
responsibility to future generations.  I believe that consensus can be 
built on four goals.

First, as a nation we have profound moral, political, and security 
interests in helping the developing world respond to the growing demand 
for democracy, social justice, and human rights.  A democratic, 
pluralistic, market-oriented world is a safer and better world for our 
country and for our children.

Second, we have an abiding interest in joining with other industrial 
powers in promoting sustainable development.  This does not require--and 
is not consistent with--an international welfare program; this does not 
require--and is not consistent with--investments in societies whose 
governments do not take the steps necessary to help themselves.

Rather, we recognize that sustainable development is most likely to take 
place within relatively stable political systems and sound economic 
policy structures.  It is in such an environment that we can expand 
markets among entire populations rather than just ruling elites.  It is 
in such an environment that we can recruit fully functioning members of 
the global economy and the international political system.  It is in 
such an environment that we can reap the benefits of greater stability 
abroad and increased economic growth here at home.

Third, we have an immediate and urgent need to assist the developing 
world in coping with global or trans-national issues--those vast 
challenges to international well-being that know no borders and 
recognize the sovereignty of no state.  We want to help developing 
nations curb the destruction of tropical forests, prevent the pollution 
of oceans and rivers, and clean up the air.  We want to help them 
achieve these goals because they are our goals as well.  As last year's 
UN conference in Rio de Janeiro reconfirmed, there is an inextricable 
link between development and our environmental security.

In that context, we also have a direct and measurable stake in 
developing and implementing sound population programs.  The world's 
environment and natural resource base are already sorely strained by the 
demands of over 5 billion people.  If the world's population reaches 12 
or 13 billion, as projected within the next 50 years, the consequences 
are both predictable and catastrophic.  Most importantly, though, is the 
fact that those consequences can be prevented if we act now.

Fourth, we will continue to reflect in our mission the humanitarian 
impulses of the American people to relieve human suffering.  We see that 
suffering in stark detail on our television screens, we feel it in our 
hearts, we need to respond to it with the best efforts our minds can 
conceive.

But we need to do more than provide disaster relief--food and shelter--
we need to help societies that have fallen into conflict and anarchy to 
repair their governmental institutions.  USAID needs a rapid-response, 
nation-building capacity to fulfill this need in concert with the UN or 
our own peace-keeping forces.

I cannot tell you in good conscience that USAID is ready today to pursue 
these four objectives efficiently and effectively.  But I can tell you, 
in good conscience, that I believe we can be ready.

Preparing USAID for the Nation's Foreign Policy Agenda
As Under Secretary of State for Management, I have worked closely with 
Deputy Secretary Wharton in his examination of the Agency's structure.  
We have confirmed what other studies have concluded:  USAID is burdened 
by a surfeit of goals and objectives, encumbered by excessive red tape, 
and beaten down by poor morale.

These problems will not be cured overnight, nor will we be able to 
achieve all of our international developmental goals simply by solving 
our internal problems.  But we must begin.

It will not be business as usual at USAID if I am confirmed for this 
position.  The changes I will be proposing will be radical departures 
from past practices.  In my view, radical changes are the only way to 
regain the faith of the Congress and the country in an enterprise which 
is central to our nation's international agenda.  We cannot afford to 
fail--and I do not intend to.  Let me share with you some preliminary 
thoughts about what needs to be done.

First, we need strong leadership.  But leadership requires more than a 
USAID Administrator who knows how to manage.  It requires a team that 
will respond.  If confirmed, I intend to recommend to President Clinton 
the strongest possible team to rebuild and restore the credibility of 
the Agency.

I have been impressed by the many talented and dedicated career people 
within USAID.  I want to draw on their experience and insights.  And I 
want to support them with a leadership team that will listen to their 
suggestions and act on them.

Second, we need to take realistic risks.  The four policy goals I have 
described should do more than influence the boxes on an organizational 
chart.  They should empower USAID to free itself of the forces that have 
sapped it of so much strength and creativity.  I want the people of 
USAID to take risks in an effort to produce results; I want them to 
expect to be recognized and rewarded for the results they produce; and I 
want them to know that they will have a role in defining the way we will 
measure "results." 

Third, our development strategies should be focused, integrated efforts 
based upon USAID field analysis of political, economic, and cultural 
realities and our government's global priorities.  Our objectives should 
be clearly rather than narrowly defined.  Sustainable development cannot 
be achieved if we believe that every challenge lends itself to the same 
solutions.  We cannot put our strategic planners into a budgetary 
straightjacket.  We cannot be all things to all people. 

We cannot be everywhere.  In particular, we can no longer afford to be 
in countries where corruption, authoritarianism, or incompetence makes 
development doubtful.  What is important is achieving results.  If money 
cannot be productively used in a particular situation, it should not be 
spent.

Fourth, our relationship with Congress must change. I hope the Congress 
will agree to hold us accountable for development results and not just 
for expenditures.  Today you know, in great detail, how much USAID has 
spent--but with few exceptions you do not know whether the funds have 
been wisely spent.  We are in a cycle of restraint and retreat:  
Congress, with increasing doubts about its efficacy, appropriates money 
for tens of worthwhile goals; and USAID, with increasing doubts about 
its efficacy, rushes to obligate money before fiscal years come to an 
end.  Somewhere along the line, we have lost sight of those national 
objectives on which we can all agree.  And somewhere along the line we 
have forgotten to ask whether we are succeeding in doing anything 
meaningful or simply succeeding in spending and accounting for the money 
that was appropriated.

Fifth, we need to emphasize participatory programs. This Administration 
believes in putting people first in reaching both our domestic and 
international goals.  USAID needs to draw more actively upon the 
energies and information of individuals working at the community level 
to guide the design and implementation of projects.

In that context we will not, of course, ignore governments.  
Participatory programs and indigenous non-governmental organizations 
must work with the more established structures.  Changes in governance--
the way governments make decisions and relate to society--are integral 
to ensuring participation.  Building institutions-- both economic and 
political--is the key to allowing governments to govern effectively.  
Without effective governance, economic growth cannot be sustained.  But 
governmental institutions must be transparent; they must be accountable 
to, and infected by, the aspirations of people.

As we work with groups in the field, I also believe we need to work more 
effectively with US non-governmental organizations and foundations.  US 
non-governmental organizations and private voluntary organizations have 
a wealth of experience that we need to draw on as we plan programs as 
well as implement them.  I intend to do just that.

Sixth, we must seek and secure international cooperation in our efforts.  
We need to work in concert with other bilateral donors and multilateral 
organizations.  We need to reassert American leadership in these areas.  
We need to leverage our scarce resources by convincing others to work 
with us.  I intend to strengthen the leveraging function by creating a 
special office, reporting directly to the Administrator, that will 
actively seek donor support for jointly conceived development plans.  I 
will also work closely with Secretary Christopher and the State 
Department in identifying opportunities for creating consortiums of 
nations with common interests in resolving developmental challenges.  We 
have done that with the G-7 in conceiving a package of support for 
Russian democracy; we can do it in other areas as well.

I plan to apply these concepts to both new and existing commitments.  I 
pledge to you that the new USAID team and I will review all significant 
USAID programs to determine whether or not they serve identifiable and 
achievable interests in promoting sustainable development.  We want 
programs that work for people.  If they don't work for people, we should 
drop them, because they won't work.

This will be more than a paper exercise.  It is central to my view of 
what we must do.  Programs that are not producing sufficient results to 
justify the dollars they spend will be canceled or restructured.  Funds 
will be shifted to new and higher priorities.

At the same time, we need to carry out a top-to-bottom examination of 
the organization and structure of USAID and its management practices.  I 
want to assure you of my commitment to adequate financial control and 
accountability.  I know this is an area that concerns the Congress, the 
GAO, the OMB, and the USAID Inspector General.  You have all said we 
need to do a better job.  And I intend to do just that.

However, I must say in all candor that our failures in the past have 
produced overregulation in the present.  We have spent more time on 
paperwork than people work.  USAID personnel have become more concerned 
with process than development. 

The first thought that should come to the mind of a USAID project 
officer should not be "have I filled the forms out right?"  It should be 
"what will this project achieve?"  After that question is answered, we 
should then turn to accountability--and we should be accountable.

The Clinton Administration is committed to reforming and streamlining 
all federal bureaucracies.  As you know, Vice President Gore is chairing 
a task force to "reinvent" federal government and to change the 
bureaucratic culture.  Certain bureaus and offices are to be identified 
for selection as demonstration projects or "reinvention labs."  I want 
to do more than choose an office.  I am going to propose the entire 
Agency for International Development as a reinvention lab.

Mr. Chairman, some have said my challenge is to "save a troubled 
agency."  I do not view my mission that way.  I agree that there are 
troubles at USAID.  But I also recognize the agency's strengths.  I 
firmly believe that if USAID did not exist, we would have to invent it; 
its work is that central to our foreign policy agenda and that critical 
to our ability to preserve our national interest.

USAID is carrying out programs in the former Soviet Union that are vital 
to the success of economic and political reform.  USAID relief efforts 
are playing a key role in Bosnia and Somalia.  USAID is doing more than 
any other organization internationally to provide family planning 
services and combat AIDS.  USAID agricultural and environmental programs 
are helping to protect against ecological disaster and starvation.  
USAID is funding democracy programs throughout the post-communist and 
developing worlds.

USAID does not need saving.  It needs rejuvenating.  USAID employees 
need to get up in the morning with a feeling of excitement about coming 
to work--with a sense that what they are doing matters to our nation and 
the people they are serving.  They need to be imbued with a simple 
notion:  the notion that by putting in an extra effort, they can make an 
extraordinary difference.  In my view, that is what makes public service 
so rewarding.  That is all a servant of the people should want.  It is 
what I want.  And I want to work with you to make sure that every 
employee at USAID can have that feeling. (###)



ARTICLE 10:


Cambodia Elections
Statement by Department Spokesman Richard Boucher, Washington, DC, 
April 30, 1993.

The Cambodian Constituent Assembly election is scheduled for May 23-27.  
More than 95% of eligible Cambodians and 20 political parties have 
registered to participate in the UN-supervised election.  The campaign 
period began on April 7 and will go on until May 19, with an end to 
campaign activities 4 days before the polling begins.  The Paris accords 
signatories, including the United States, declared their firm 
determination to support the electoral process underway in Cambodia.  
They also express support for the UN Transitional Authority in 
Cambodia's (UNTAC) efforts to create and maintain a neutral political 
environment conducive to the holding of a free and fair election.

In this regard, we are concerned about continued reports of political 
intimidation, harassment, and assassination against political parties 
and candidates in Cambodia.  We call upon all Cambodian parties, 
especially at this crucial juncture in the electoral process, to do 
everything they can to ensure that the election will, indeed, be free 
and fair.  We call especially on responsible Phnom Penh authorities to 
cooperate fully with UNTAC to prevent further acts of political 
intimidation and violence and to guarantee that all political parties 
have fair and balanced access to the media and are permitted to move 
freely and campaign freely throughout the country.  We also call on all 
parties to take positive steps to assure the Cambodian people that they 
have the right to vote for whomever they want without fear of 
retribution. (###)

END OF DISPATCH VOL 4, NO 19

To the top of this page


Index of Dispatch Magazine Archives 1993 Issues|| Index of Dispatch Magazine Archives|| Index of "Briefings and Statements"
Index of Electronic Research Collections ERC Reference Desk || Alphabetic Index || Sitemap || ERC Homepage
Last modified: Jun. 3, 1999
Designed by: Lin Dou