US DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 4, NUMBER 20, MAY 17, 1993
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:
1.  Export-Import Bank Plays Key Role In Promoting US Exports -- 
President Clinton 
2.  Start II Treaty Approval Urged -- Secretary Christopher
3.  Situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina -- Secretary Christopher, NATO 
Secretary General Woerner, UNSC Resolution, Madeline Albright
4.  A New Generation and America's Post-Cold War Challenges -- Deputy 
Secretary Wharton
5.  US-Russian Meeting on the Situation in the Former Yugoslavia
6.  Trade Central to America's Future in the World -- Michael Kantor
7.  Fact Sheet:  US National Interests and Cooperation With Mexico
8.  Fact Sheet:  Mexico--A Solid Market Continues To Serve US Companies
9.  Summary of Report on 'Patterns  of Global Terrorism:  1992' 
10.  Statements at Confirmation Hearings
          Douglas J. Bennet
          Elinor G. Constable
          John Shattuck



ARTICLE 1:


Export-Import Bank Plays Key Role in Promoting US Exports
President Clinton
Address at a US Export-Import Bank conference, Washington, DC, May 6, 
1993 (introductory remarks deleted) 

I have thought a good deal about what I wanted to say to you today about 
the subject which brings you here.  I hope you will understand if I ask 
for a few moments to address the situation in Bosnia first, not only 
because the national press is here but because you are very much a part 
of the world which will be affected by what happens there and how that 
impacts our friends and neighbors in Europe and particularly in the 
Mediterranean area.

Over the past week, we saw some very encouraging progress toward a 
negotiated settlement of the tragic conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Two 
of the three Bosnian parties signed the Vance-Owen agreement.  The third 
party, the Bosnian Serbs, signed contingent on approval by their self-
styled parliament.  Progress, unfortunately, was stopped by the Bosnian 
Serb assembly's de facto rejection yesterday of the Vance-Owen 
agreement.  Their action is a grave disappointment to all of us who seek 
an early and peaceful resolution to what has been a very brutal 
conflict.  It abrogates the earlier approval of the peace plan by the 
Bosnian Serb leader Karadzic.

Their call for a referendum on the peace plan can only be seen as a 
delaying tactic to further consolidate the gains they have made because 
of the enormous advantage they have in heavy artillery coming as it does 
from the former Yugoslav army.  It ignores the reality that everybody 
else in the world has recognized--sooner or later, an enduring peace can 
only come from good faith negotiations that lead to a peace plan 
acceptable to all the parties.

The international community, I believe, must not allow the Serbs to 
stall progress toward peace and continue brutal assaults on innocent 
civilians.  We've seen too many things happen, and we do have 
fundamental interests there, not only the United States but particularly 
the United States as a member of the world community.

The Serbs' actions over the past year violate the principle that 
internationally recognized borders must not be violated or altered by 
aggression from without.  Their actions threaten to widen the conflict 
and foster instability in other parts of Europe in ways that could be 
exceedingly damaging.  And their savage and cynical ethnic cleansing 
offends the world's conscience and our standards of behavior.

Therefore, I have this morning directed Secretary Christopher to 
continue to pursue his consultations with our allies and friends in 
Europe and Russia on tougher measures which can be taken collectively--
not by the United States alone but collectively--to make clear to the 
Serbs that we are embarked on a course of peace and they are embarked on 
a costly course.

The vote last night simply makes this Christopher mission more 
important.  Secretary Christopher will be insistent that the time has 
come for the international community to unite and to act quickly and 
decisively.  America has made its position clear and is ready to do its 
part.  But Europe must be willing to act with us.  We must go forward 
together.

Your presence here--your understanding of the importance of exports to 
America's future, to the blending of our nation and our culture and our 
values with those of like-minded persons throughout the world--should 
only reinforce our determination to confine, inasmuch as the 
international community can possibly confine, savage acts of inhumanity 
to people solely because of their ethnicity or their religion; and to 
confine insofar as we possibly can as an international community the 
ability of one country to invade another and upset its borders; and 
certainly to try to confine this centuries-old series of ethnic and 
religious enmities to the narrowest possible geographic boundaries.

That is what we seek.  Not to act alone, not to act rashly, not to do 
things which would draw the United States into a conflict not of its own 
making and not of its own ability to resolve, but simply concerted 
action that the international community can and should take to deal with 
these issues.

I'll have more to say about it later, but in view of what happened 
today, I thought I ought to say this.

Export-Import Bank's Vital Function 

For 59 years, since President Franklin Roosevelt created it to help 
increase foreign aid and trade with the Soviet Union, the Export-Import 
Bank has assisted United States companies to sell more than $270 billion 
in our exports all around the world.  And now the bank's role in helping 
our economy and helping our exports has never been more important.  You 
are the people who generate an enormous portion of our high-wage, high-
growth jobs.  Without expanding our exports, this country cannot grow--
cannot grow economically and cannot create more jobs.

In the global economy which we now are shaped by, we see [that] a 
critical part of every economy's functioning is related to its level of 
productivity, especially in the export sector.  We also know that 
America has some special problems entirely of our own making without 
regard to what we may or may not think of every aspect of our trade 
policy.  We have relatively low savings and investment.  We have an 
enormous budget deficit, which we ran up [by] not investing in 
productive investments at home that would produce later wealth, but 
largely in increasing consumption.

Indeed, for the last 5 years, the spiraling growth of the government's 
deficit has been related almost entirely to paying more for the same 
health care and to bigger and bigger interest payments on accumulated 
debt.  This is a terrible burden on the economic performance of this 
country as well as on our future.

Finally, we have--as I said earlier, in putting more of our government's 
money to health care--we've also seen more private sector dollars go to 
health care, so that now we are spending 35% more of our national 
treasure on health care than any other nation in the world, imposing 
significant new burdens on American businesses as they seek to compete 
within the American market and beyond the American market.

We now, therefore, face an interesting set of challenges, particularly 
for a country used to looking for simple answers and dealing with one 
issue at a time.  That is, indeed, one of the great debates in which I 
am engaged here.  Some people say, well, you just ought to do one thing, 
just reduce the deficit, no matter what.  For the last 12 years we were 
on a track that, at least at election time, was focused on one thing--
just lower taxes, no matter what.  Never mind what happens to the 
deficit; never mind what happens to the investment of the country; never 
mind what happens to the long-term economic health.

Do we need to reduce the deficit?  Yes, we do.  Do we also need a 
targeted program of investment in the education and training of the 
American work force and in the technologies that will shape this economy 
into the future?  Yes, we do.  Do we have anything so far to replace the 
steep, steep cuts in defense spending which have gone to the very heart 
of a lot of our high-wage, high-tech economy, with many spin-offs 
benefiting the commercial economy to date?  No, we don't.  But we need a 
technology policy and a defense conversion policy that attempts to 
replace that.  So we need to bring down the deficit, and we need a 
target program of investments in jobs, technology, and training.

And thirdly, I would argue that we will never reduce the deficit to zero 
and never restore fundamental health to this economy until we address 
the health care crisis in terms of providing security to Americans and 
controlling the cost.  And that is obviously a big part of what we're 
about up here.

I do not believe we should be forced into the false choice of saying we 
must do one or the other.  In the past, our governments have come to 
people saying, well, we'll just spend money and solve your problems for 
you.  Or we'll just cut taxes and solve your problems for you.  Today, 
we have to have a much more disciplined and coherent approach that says 
we are going to bring the deficit down, we are going to target 
investments and technology and training, and we are going to do 
something abut the health care crisis.  But we must have an economic 
policy that is more than investments, that involves doing the right 
things with technology policy, the right things with defense conversion, 
the right things with the Ex-Im Bank, the right things to expand our 
commitment to exports.  Indeed the economy, I think, must continue to be 
the number one priority of our country, and, therefore, the number one 
priority of this Administration.

Exports Vital to US Economy
The work that exporters and the Ex-Im Bank do to expand jobs and growth 
is fundamentally important, because every time we sell $1 billion of 
American products and services overseas, we create about 20,000 jobs.  
In all, more than 7 million Americans clearly owe their jobs to exports.  
And because those workers in export-related jobs make about 17% more 
than the average worker, we need more of those jobs.

I have this chart here I wanted to show.  It shows that in all 
industries, export-related jobs have average hourly wages of $11.69 as 
compared with $10.02 for non-export-related jobs.  In manufacturing, the 
figures are virtually the same--$11.93 to $10.83.  And in services, the 
margin is even bigger--$11.30 to $9.83.  It is clear, therefore, that 
one of the answers to the wage stagnation which has gripped the American 
economy for almost 20 years now with most hourly wage workers in the 
country working longer work weeks for stagnant or lower wages--one of 
the answers to that is to increase our exports.  

In the last 5 years, exports have accounted for almost half of our 
nation's economic growth.  Goods and services exports made up 10.7% of 
our GDP in 1992, up dramatically from only 7.5% in 1985, just 7 years 
earlier.

Your work is important, because if US technology--whether it is related 
to the environment, energy, transportation, or telecommunications--is to 
secure its pre-eminence, it must have a global reach.  Only with world 
markets can we afford the research and development to stay competitive.  
Export expansion obviously encourages our most advanced industries.  I 
am committed to promoting these exports, and that's where the Ex-Im Bank 
plays an important role.

In FY 1992, the Ex-Im Bank fostered more than 250,000 American jobs that 
were an outgrowth of the bank's support for $14 billion in exports.  
That's pretty impressive, but it won't be enough just to hold our own 
ground.  I know we can top that by strengthening the partnership between 
our government and the private sector through the Ex-Im Bank.  It's 
helped to send abroad everything from machine tools to computer 
software.  It's been at the forefront of the new export industry that 
our Vice President has championed, the environmental industry--one that 
is so important that I have directed Commerce Secretary Ron Brown to 
work with the Ex-Im Bank, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 
Department of Energy to craft a national strategy for environmental 
exports.  These efforts will not only help to clean up the planet, they 
will put a lot more Americans to work.

We have several environmental services exporters with us here today.  
One of them, Harza Engineering of Chicago, helped a rural community in 
Venezuela fight off the threat of cholera and other diseases by 
channeling a fresh water supply.  At the same time, it created more than 
1,000 jobs for Americans.  That's just one case among many.

We want to increase exponentially these successes in all areas of 
exports.  We can also make ourselves more competitive by streamlining 
our programs, an action long overdue.  Right now, there are more than 
150 different export promotion programs in more than 10 agencies.  They 
are tangled like a ball of yarn.  And our goal is to untangle them.

We want to end the duplication and overlap to make sure all these 
programs are customer-driven.  We want our guide to be the needs of the 
exporters and the lenders.

Our vehicle to a coherent export promotion plan will be the Trade 
Promotion Coordinating Committee, an inter-agency group created by the 
Congress largely through the efforts of Senator Don Riegle.  Secretary 
of Commerce Ron Brown chairs the group, which has been meeting daily.  
And once he is confirmed, Ken will also have hands-on involvement in 
that effort.

With the Department of Commerce and the Trade Promotion Coordinating 
Committee, Ex-Im will help lead the way toward developing an export 
mentality throughout our government and throughout our nation.  At the 
same time, the bank will become more of an active, consumer-friendly 
bank, one that will get more attention--give more attention to small and 
medium-sized businesses.  For every applicant, the bank will aim to 
bypass unnecessary red tape.

Right now, it takes the staff about 6 months to process a preliminary 
commitment application, and only one in six such preliminary commitments 
leads to an actual export sale.  But with new procedures, the bank will 
be able to respond to most requests within 7 days.  Now, that's 
reinventing government.  

The staff will be able to process more cases and support more real 
deals.  In short, the Ex-Im Bank will use better management measures to 
do more without spending more.  In these days of deficit reduction, the 
bank will have to live within its means like all other government 
agencies.  But Ken has assured me that he has a number of ways to make 
your tax dollars work harder and more effectively.

What we do domestically and how we do internationally are inseparable.  
As I said earlier in my remarks, as the Ex-Im Bank builds export markets 
abroad, we have to do more to assure that our workers are equipped with 
the skills that they need.  The average worker will now change jobs 
eight times in a lifetime. We have to do a better job of their education 
and training.

We need to become better students of economics.  The old ways of doing 
business simply don't translate into reality today.  One of the first 
things I did when I became President was to establish a National 
Economic Council.  It just made good sense to me.  We had a National 
Security Council that met with the President on a regular basis to deal 
with security issues, but a great deal of our security is in the 
economic area.  And there was no regular discipline mechanism by which 
all the economic decisions were considered in terms of their impact on 
one another and the United States could develop a coherent policy.  
Today, we have that mechanism, and it works.  It works well, and we're 
working hard to make it work better.

One of the reasons I was so gratified to get congressional approval of 
the overall budget plan that I presented in record time--it was the 
first time in 17 years that Congress had passed a budget resolution 
within the legal mandate--which reduces the deficit by over $500 
billion, through spending cuts and tax increases, and there will be not 
be one without the other, I can tell you that.  I'm not about to raise 
your taxes unless the spending cuts are there first--there will be no 
budget without both.  

This is very important in the export area.  I can't tell you how many 
years--you probably know this as well as I do--how many years the United 
States would show up at some meeting of the G-7 or another international 
meeting and all of our trading partners will spend all their time 
telling us that we ought to get our financial house in order, we ought 
to bring our deficit down, we ought to do something to clean up our own 
backyard before we lectured our trading partners about changes in 
policy.

Budget Plan Gives United States an Advantage 
But now we're in a different position.  When I go to the G-7 meeting in 
July in Tokyo, the United States will be a success story in the making.  
For starters, we have a responsible budget plan that does reduce the 
deficit.  Our interest rates, as a result, have fallen in many areas to 
historic lows, allowing American homeowners and businesses to refinance 
with ways that, if we can keep these rates down for a year, virtually 
all economists concede will put $100 billion-plus back into this 
economy, simply because of lower interest rates.

In this room today, I bet there are scores of people who have refinanced 
their home mortgages or been able to have lower business loans as a 
result of these interest rates.  This is the ultimate stimulus for the 
American economy if we can pass the budget that reduces the deficit and 
keep these rates down.  It is very, very important.

When we can point to these accomplishments, it makes it much easier for 
us to work with the Japanese in getting them to stimulate their economy 
and buy more exports.  It makes it much easier for us to argue to our 
friends in Germany that it's a good thing to keep bringing interest 
rates down.  It makes it easier to try to help work together with a 
coordinated economic policy to lift the world out of the economic 
stagnation that we now see in Europe and the Pacific, as well as in 
North America.

These things are very, very important.  But there is more that we have 
to do.  After 7 years of talks, I would very much like to see a 
successful completion of the Uruguay Round of the GATT by December 15.  
World economic prosperity depends on it.  It's the foundation of the 
global trading system.  A few days ago, I met with the finance ministers 
and the central bakers of the G-7 nations, and I told them that the 
United States was prepared to make extraordinary efforts to complete the 
Uruguay Round successfully--that we were willing to go the extra mile in 
doing that, but we needed their help and support.  And I hope we will 
get it.

The GATT agreement would be a blessing for US exporters because it will 
lower foreign tariffs, curb subsidies that tilt the playing field, and 
strengthen the protection of intellectual property, the piracy of which 
costs our companies about $60 billion a year.  In the GATT and in all of 
our trade talks, we have put our trading partners on notice that I 
expect access to their markets comparable to the access we want to 
extend to them.  But we welcome foreign products and services and 
investments here, as long as our products, services, and investments 
have a chance to be welcomed in other countries as well.  It's fair and 
it's good business.

These are the principles that will underscore not only our multilateral 
but our bilateral relationships as well.  With the right markets at home 
and the right rules in the international markets, our export 
opportunities are virtually limitless.

Support for NAFTA
I want to say a special word about our opportunities in our own backyard 
in Latin America.  Latin America is reining in its debt, and what is 
emerging from a more stable economy is a populace clamoring for consumer 
products and entrepreneurs who are shopping for capital goods.  It's a 
market for our exports that is growing at three times the rate of any 
other market in the world.  That is why I strongly support the North 
American Free Trade Agreement, with the supplemental agreements we are 
presently negotiating with Canada and Mexico relating to labor and the 
environment.

NAFTA will help us unlock a market that will create hundreds of 
thousands of high-paying jobs.  And NAFTA, therefore, is a high priority 
for this Administration.  The reason it is so controversial is that the 
American people have seen 12 years in which their wages have gone down 
and 3 years in which we actually have fewer private sector jobs.  And 
everybody is afraid of change.  But the only way a rich country can grow 
richer is by exporting more and by having more partners and economic 
progress.  And if we can make this agreement with Mexico work, then we 
can move forward to the other market economies of Latin America, to 
Chile, to Argentina, to any number of other nations who want to be a 
part of this kind of partnership.  I think it is very, very important.

Just listen to this:  Exports to Canada already support 1.5 million 
American jobs.  And in the past 5 years, the number of American jobs 
tied to Mexico has grown from 300,000 to 700,000 jobs, almost 
exclusively because of the unilateral reduction of trade restrictions by 
Mexico, which have allowed the volume of trade two-way to go up and the 
trade deficit to be erased.  These are very encouraging signs.  We 
project another 200,000 good jobs if we can have a successful 
implementation of the NAFTA process.

Mexico is a valued customer for another reason.  We also believe that 
this new economic thinking, if it works, will help to spread all across 
the developing world.  We know that there is an impressive array of 
political and economic leaders in Mexico, and I know that Secretary of 
Finance Pedro Aspe is with us today.  I want to welcome him and extend 
my best wishes to President Salinas for our emerging partnership.

Emerging Countries in Asia
Outside this hemisphere, I think we have to look increasingly to the 
newly industrializing countries of Asia.  I know we have someone here 
from Indonesia.  Indonesia is the fifth- biggest country in the world.  
Indonesia is now the leader of the non-aligned nations.  They have a 
resolution on Bosnia actually being debated in the United Nations today.  
Maybe they can figure out how to do a better job with this.

We have enormous opportunities there.  When I go to the G-7 meeting in 
Japan, I'm going to meet with the President of Indonesia to send a 
signal to the nonaligned nations, to the emerging nations of the world, 
that the United States wants to be their partner in new trade relations, 
that there are all kinds of things that we can continue to do that we 
have not done before.

Finally, let me say just a little word about Russia.  The bank is now 
setting out to do what it was originally set up to do because Russia may 
be able to absorb its efforts.

To date, the bank has approved $205 million in final commitments to 
Russia.  It's working on an oil and gas agreement framework that could 
support as much as $2 billion in American goods and services for 
Russia's energy sector.  As I told President Yeltsin when we met in 
Vancouver, the United States once had a famous citizen named Willie 
Sutton who was asked why he as devoting his entire life to robbing 
banks, and he said because that's where the money is.  In Russia, energy 
is where the money is.  If we can work it out, we can make a huge 
partnership there in ways that are enormously beneficial for the 
American economy and good for the Russians as well.

Conclusion
At different junctures in this century, our country has shown itself to 
be a catalyst for global reform.  We have faced off fascism and 
communism.  We helped to build the international institutions after 
World War II that made so many good things happen in the non-communist 
world, and now, because of the collapse of communism, are coming into 
their own with real potential to fully flower.

The world of tomorrow will reward those of us who not only have the 
values which made these institutions possible but which behave in ways 
that will be rewarded in the hard glare of international economic 
competition.

I just saw today another set of figures showing that in the first 
quarter of this year, there was another huge increase in productivity in 
the American manufacturing sector.  We want those manufacturers who are 
increasing their productivity.  We want their workers who are the source 
of that increased productivity to be rewarded.  I am convinced that the 
only way we can do it is by opening markets to the United States and 
giving the American people the chance to enjoy the benefits, the fruits 
of their labor, and giving other countries the chance to grow through 
mutual trade and development.

You are on the front lines of that.  I came here to salute you and to 
assure you that through the Ex-Im Bank and every other means at this 
Administration's command, we will do our best to have the kind of trade 
policy that will grow the American economy and benefit the entire world. 
(###)



ARTICLE 2:


START II Treaty Approval Urged
Secretary Christopher
Statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC, 
May 11, 1993

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.  Thank you for the 
opportunity to speak to you today about the START II Treaty.  As you 
both have said, few tasks of the Senate are as important as your 
constitutional duty to give advice and consent to the ratification of 
treaties, especially this treaty.  Today, as the committee and the 
Senate begin their consideration of the START II Treaty, we have entered 
a new era of US-Russian relations.  This historic arms control 
achievement, if ratified, would have the paradoxical but positive effect 
of moving the arms control process away from the center of the stage in 
our relations.

Now, the two former Cold War adversaries are forging a new partnership, 
based upon common interests and marked by increasing political and 
economic cooperation.  This new relationship is what made the START II 
Treaty possible.  Prompt ratification of the START II Treaty will, in 
turn, strengthen and deepen both our national security and US-Russian 
relations.

First and foremost, START II is in the national security interest of the 
United States.  By eliminating the most destabilizing weapons facing the 
United States, it will reduce tensions and contribute significantly to 
US security.  It will solidify the broader cooperative relationship that 
the United States and Russia are now building.  It will bolster the 
partnership between the United States and Russia by encouraging Russia 
to strengthen democratic institutions and free markets rather than 
focusing on maintaining large and unnecessary nuclear arsenals.

START II is also in Russia's interest.  I do not mean to suggest, of 
course, that all of our interests and Russia's will converge in all 
cases.  We will, of course, on occasion disagree, just as we sometimes 
disagree with our other friends.  But with respect to the ratification 
of START II, United States and Russian interests converged to a striking 
extent.

Evolving Relations Between the United States and Russia
While the era of confrontation has ended, the central importance of 
Russia to US foreign policy continues.  No development outside our 
borders will do more to help ensure a peaceful and prosperous world than 
for Russia to continue the process of democratization and economic 
reform.

All of us who support Russian democracy and reform were heartened by the 
outcome of last month's referendum in Russia.  The substantial turnout 
was also compelling evidence that Russian democracy is taking hold and 
that the Russian people are prepared to continue the difficult task of 
reform.

As President Clinton reaffirmed to President Yeltsin in Vancouver, the 
United States stands ready to do its part to help reform and democracy 
succeed.  That kind of support is fundamentally in America's interest.  
No relationship is more important to the long-term security of the 
United States than our strategic relationship with Russia.

We have seen the development of a cooperative and constructive 
relationship with Russia in many areas.  Last week, I was in Moscow for 
consultations on the crisis in Bosnia.  During these discussions, Russia 
pledged that it would participate in the implementation of a negotiated 
settlement in Bosnia if an agreement can be reached.  The prospect of US 
and Russian forces working together as peace-keepers demonstrates how 
far this relationship has come.

Ultimately, the success of democracy in Russia and the transformation to 
a market economy are the best guarantees of international strategic 
stability.  The Congress has done much to encourage Russia's movement to 
a free market democracy governed by the rule of law.  I urge you to 
continue that support as the Russian people and their government face 
even greater challenges in the months ahead.

START II and the US National Interest
While arms control is only one element of our new relationship with 
Russia, it remains a very important one.  START II, along with the 
initial START Treaty, remains in our interest as we move into the post-
Cold War era.  It offers enhanced stability, it fosters transparency and 
openness, and it eliminates the first-strike capabilities and strategies 
of a bygone era.  Its formal, binding structure undergirds the political 
elements of our relationship.  And the cooperative work necessary to 
implement the sweeping reductions will lead to collaboration on other 
security issues.

As we consider this treaty, we must be mindful of our former adversary's 
capability, in case, by some tragic miscarriage of history, their 
intentions should change.  This treaty meets that important test.  
Should the era of confrontation return, the provisions of START II will 
significantly increase stability and, thus, reduce the risk of war.

START II mandates reductions in the strategic forces of the two sides 
that would have been unthinkable even 2 years ago.  By January 1 of the 
year 2003, strategic forces will be cut to one-third of their current 
levels.  Indeed, if we and the Russians are able to agree on a program 
of US assistance in dismantling the strategic offensive arms, these vast 
reductions could come even earlier--by the end of the year 2000--which 
would be an encouraging milestone for the new millennium.

Mr. Chairman and members, more important than the reductions themselves 
is the elimination of the MIRVed ICBMs, especially the heavy ICBMs, the 
most dangerous and destabilizing legacy of the era of nuclear 
confrontation.  Under START II, all of the Russian SS-18 heavy missiles 
will be destroyed and all of their silos will be destroyed or converted.  
No single act better symbolizes the end of the superpower nuclear arms 
race.  While economic pressures may well have required Russia to reduce 
its strategic offensive weapons in a drastic way, it is the START II 
Treaty that will ensure that Russia actually reduces and does so in a 
stabilizing way.  And it is the START II Treaty that will remove the 
issue of strategic force size from the Russian political debate.

As the Chairman has said, START II completes the work of the first START 
Treaty.  Where the first START Treaty discouraged MIRVed ICBMs, START II 
bans them.  Where the first START Treaty eliminated half the heavy ICBM 
launchers, START II eliminates all of them--and their missiles as well.  
At the same time, START II preserves the US force structure needed for 
deterrence, and it allows us to adapt our bomber force to our future 
needs.

The benefits of START II extend well beyond the United States and 
Russia.  The deep reductions in US and Russian forces well below START I 
levels enhance the security of the other START I parties--Ukraine, 
Kazakhstan, and Belarus.  START II also supports our efforts to gain 
universal adherence to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

When coupled with START I, the START II Treaty will lead to a world in 
which nuclear weapons have been eliminated from all of the states of the 
former Soviet Union except Russia.  It will also lead to a world in 
which the strategic forces of Russia are dramatically reduced and 
restructured.  START II will complement the political integration of 
Russia into the family of nations by codifying a strategic relationship 
appropriate for an era of cooperation, not confrontation.

START II and Russian Interests
Enduring treaties must be in the interest of both parties. START II is 
such a treaty.  I have already mentioned the advantages of the treaty 
for the United States, but I've also noted START II is in Russia's 
interest as well.

Let me just mention some of the ways in which START II will serve our 
mutual interests.  START II will bring economic benefits to Russia.  It 
will allow Russia to avoid the future burden of large strategic arsenals 
and the need to invest significant resources to maintain modern 
strategic forces at or near current levels.  In this way, START II will 
facilitate Russia's shift from a military-dominated economy to a free 
market economy dedicated to meeting the needs of the Russian people--a 
free market economy that also serves as a potential US market.  As a 
reflection of the new cooperative relationship between our two nations, 
START II also represents a political symbol of great importance.

Finally, the START II Treaty will move both Russia and the United States 
toward more stabilizing force structures.  One of the main 
accomplishments is the elimination of the MIRVed ICBMs, traditionally 
regarded as a major threat to strategic stability.  The less-threatening 
forces that will result from the treaty will increase stability and 
improve Russia's political relationships with its neighbors as well.

Status of Ratification in the Former Soviet Union
Mr. Chairman, in inviting me to appear today, you specifically asked 
that I discuss the remaining obstacles to ratification of the START I 
Treaty by Ukraine and the adherence to the NPT Treaty by Kazakhstan and 
Ukraine.  These developments are crucial, since START II cannot enter 
into force until START I has been brought into force first.

The legislatures of Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan have already 
consented to START I ratification.  In approving START I, the Russian 
parliament imposed a condition that Russia would not exchange 
instruments of ratification until Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine each 
accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as non-nuclear-
weapon states parties.  Thus far, only Belarus, as you mentioned, has 
approved both treaties.  Kazakhstan has ratified START I, and we expect 
the Kazakhstani legislature to authorize accession to the NPT Treaty in 
the near future.

The Ukrainian parliament has begun hearings on the START I Treaty and 
the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Although some Ukrainians are urging delay 
in joining the NPT, the Government of Ukraine remains committed both to 
START I and to a non-nuclear Ukraine.  We have taken a number of steps 
to meet the concerns Ukraine has expressed and are looking forward to 
having both Ukraine and Kazakhstan complete action on START and the NPT 
soon.

Mr. Chairman, just before I came up here this morning, I talked on the 
telephone to Strobe Talbott, who is in Moscow today, having returned 
from Ukraine.  He reports that his conversations in the Ukraine were 
encouraging.  He was received by the President of the country, who 
reaffirmed the intention of the leadership of that country to proceed 
with the ratification of START I and accession to the NPT.

Mr. Talbott indicated that the tone of the discussions, he thought, was 
improved, although the parliament there continues to have some 
difficulties.  I was encouraged to find that President Kravchuk will 
continue to press for ratification of START I and accession to the NPT 
Treaty.

I know that many Members of Congress--of this committee, in particular--
are concerned over the delay.  I share these concerns, but I'd like to 
put that delay in context for just a moment.  I think that all Americans 
would rather see a free debate than the rubber-stamped approval of the 
Soviet-style legislature.  There is a time, however, we all feel, for 
debate and discussion, and a time for action.  I hope that the time for 
action is soon going to arrive in Ukraine for the approval of these two 
treaties.  Then our two governments can work together on the broader 
agenda for cooperation and partnership that we will wish to establish 
with Ukraine, a major European nation.

That's essentially the message that Mr. Talbott brought to the 
Ukrainians, that we can get over this hurdle of ratification and 
accession which was promised in the Lisbon protocols.  The relationships 
between our two countries can greatly improve.

In any event, I believe the delay on START I is no reason for us to 
defer action on START II.  START II, after all, reduces the threat to 
all of Russia's neighbors by reducing Russian nuclear forces.  Thus, 
prompt Senate action to approve START II will encourage rapid action on 
the part of Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

Summary
As I conclude here, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that regardless of the 
outcome of the struggle for democracy and free markets in Russia, START 
II dramatically improves the strategic stability by eliminating the 
final vestiges of the old Soviet first-strike strategic forces.  It is 
thus in our interest and, indeed, in the interest of the entire world 
that this treaty be promptly ratified.

START II, as you indicated in your comments, Mr. Chairman, is an unusual 
treaty, negotiated by one Administration to be ratified and implemented 
by its successor Administration of another party.  As this committee is 
aware, President Clinton warmly endorsed the negotiation of this treaty 
and supported its basic concepts before taking office.  In the months 
since January, we have reviewed the details of the START II Treaty 
carefully.  That review has convinced us that the treaty is sound and 
should be approved without change.  Therefore, on behalf of the 
President, I urge the Senate to give prompt approval to this important 
treaty.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, I'll be followed by many other witnesses on 
behalf of the Administration--the Secretary of Defense, the Director of 
the Central Intelligence Agency, experts who negotiated the treaty--but 
I'll be very glad to try to respond to any questions that you and the 
other Senators have.  (###)



ARTICLE 3:


Situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina
Secretary Christopher, NATO Secretary General Woerner, UNSC Resolution, 
Madeline Albright

Reaction to Bosnian Referendum 

Statements by Secretary Christopher and NATO Secretary General Manfred 
Woerner, Brussels, Belgium, May 6, 1993.

Secretary Christopher:  The decision of the so-called parliament last 
night really makes a mockery of the signatures in Athens.  It's a grave 
disservice to all the people of Bosnia.  It makes all the more urgent my 
consultations, which I intend to continue.  I think there will be a new 
focus on those consultations today.

With respect to the proposed referendum, I would not be inclined to 
invest it with any legitimacy.  It looks to me like another cynical ploy 
to accomplish delay while they are rolling up additional territory in 
Bosnia.  I find the conduct really very unusual, and I must say that I'm 
going to remain on the track that I started on at President Clinton's 
direction last Saturday, consulting with our allies about new, stronger, 
tougher measures.

I've had a good conversation with the Secretary General about these 
matters this morning.  I must say he shares my view of the seriousness 
of the overnight developments, but he certainly is able to speak for 
himself.  I thank him for his hospitality and friendship, as always.  
Mr. Secretary General?

Secretary General Woerner:  Thank you, Mr. Secretary of State.  We had a 
very in-depth discussion, exchange of views on the situation, which is 
considered to be very serious, and on possible options.

Our member nations will have to consult here in NATO about further 
steps.  Of course, we will stay in close contact with the United 
Nations, and I hope the international community will now consider 
additional measures to come to a solution which stops this terrible war 
in former Yugoslavia.  And, as the Secretary of State, I am very 
disappointed by the vote, and I think it is a blow--a severe blow--to 
the efforts to reach a peaceful settlement.  We have to continue our 
efforts.  Thank you very much.

UNSC Resolution 824
(May 6, 1993)

The Security Council,

Reaffirming all its earlier relevant resolutions,

Reaffirming also the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political 
independence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

Having considered the report of the Mission of the Security Council to 
the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (S/25700) authorized by 
resolution 819 (1993), and in particular, its recommendations that the 
concept of safe areas be extended to other towns in need of safety,

Reaffirming again its condemnation of all violations of international 
humanitarian law, in particular, ethnic cleansing and all practices 
conducive thereto, as well as the denial or the obstruction of access of 
civilians to humanitarian aid and services such as medical assistance 
and basic utilities,

Taking into consideration the urgent security and humanitarian needs 
faced by several towns in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as 
exacerbated by the constant influx of large numbers of displaced persons 
including, in particular, the sick and wounded,

Taking also into consideration the formal request submitted by the 
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (S/25718),

Deeply concerned at the continuing armed hostilities by Bosnian Serb 
paramilitary units against several towns in the Republic of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina and determined to ensure peace and stability throughout the 
country, most immediately in the towns of Sarajevo, Tuzla, Zepa, 
Gorazde, Bihac, as well as Srebrenica,

Convinced that the threatened towns and their surroundings should be 
treated as safe areas, free from armed attacks and from any other 
hostile acts which endanger the well-being and the safety of their 
inhabitants,

Aware in this context of the unique character of the city of Sarajevo, 
as a multicultural, multi-ethnic and pluri-religious centre which 
exemplifies the viability of coexistence and interrelations between all 
the communities of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and of the 
need to preserve it and avoid its further destruction,

Affirming that nothing in the present resolution should be construed as 
contradicting or in any way departing from the spirit or the letter of 
the peace plan for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

Convinced that treating the towns referred to above as safe areas will 
contribute to the early implementation of the peace plan,

Convinced also that further steps must be taken as necessary to achieve 
the security of all such safe areas,

Recalling the provisions of resolution 815 (1993) on the mandate of 
UNPROFOR and in that context acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

1.  Welcomes the report of the Mission of the Security Council 
established pursuant to resolution 819 (1993), and in particular its 
recommendations concerning safe areas;

2.  Demands that any taking of territory by force cease immediately;

3.  Declares that the capital city of the Republic of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, Sarajevo, and other such threatened areas, in particular 
the towns of Tuzla, Zepa, Gorazde, Bihac, as well as Srebrenica, and 
their surroundings should be treated as safe areas by all the parties 
concerned and should be free from armed attacks and from any other 
hostile act;

4.  Further declares that in these safe areas the following should be 
observed:

(a)  The immediate cessation of armed attacks or any hostile act against 
these safe areas, and the withdrawal of all Bosnian Serb military or 
paramilitary units from these towns to a distance wherefrom they cease 
to constitute a menace to their security and that of their inhabitants 
to be monitored by United Nations military observers;

(b)  Full respect by all parties of the rights of the United Nations 
Protection Force (UNPROFOR) and the international humanitarian agencies 
to free and unimpeded access to all safe-areas in the Republic of Bosnia 
and Herzegovina and full respect for the safety of the personnel engaged 
in these operations;

5.  Demands to that end that all parties and others concerned cooperate 
fully with UNPROFOR and take any necessary measures to respect these 
safe areas;

6.  Requests the Secretary-General to take appropriate measures with a 
view to monitoring the humanitarian situation in the safe areas and to 
that end, authorizes the strengthening of UNPROFOR by an additional 50 
United Nations military observers, together with related equipment and 
logistical support; and in this connection, also demands that all 
parties and all others concerned cooperate fully and promptly with 
UNPROFOR;

7.  Declares its readiness, in the event of the failure by any party to 
comply with the present resolution, to consider immediately the adoption 
of any additional measures necessary with a view to its full 
implementation, including to ensure respect for the safety of United 
Nations personnel;

8.  Declares also that arrangements pursuant to the present resolution 
shall remain in force up until the provisions for the cessation of 
hostilities, separation of forces and supervision of heavy weaponry as 
envisaged in the peace plan for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 
are implemented;

9.  Decides to remain seized of the matter.

VOTE:  Unanimous (15-0).


US Explanation of Vote On Resolution 824
Statement by US Permanent Representative Madeleine K. Albright, New York 
City, May 6, 1993.

We had hoped to be able to vote in the Council today on a resolution 
that would at long last begin the long road back to peace in Bosnia-
Herzegovina. Instead, we are voting on a resolution to halt Serbian 
aggression.  Once again, the Bosnian Serb leadership has thumbed its 
nose at the values that every one in this room holds dear.  As Secretary 
Christopher said in Brussels earlier today, the decision of the so-
called Bosnian Serb parliament has made a mockery of the signatures in 
Athens.  We are not inclined to invest the proposed referendum with 
legitimacy, as it appears to be another cynical ploy to delay while the 
Bosnian Serbs continue to roll up additional territory.  As a result, 
our focus will continue to be on the new, stronger measures President 
Clinton has decided on.

I ask my fellow Council members to reflect briefly on the irony of what 
has transpired over the past week.  On Sunday, in Athens, the self-
styled leader of the Bosnian Serbs, Radovan Karadzic, signed the 
remaining portions of the Vance-Owen agreements. He conditioned his 
signature, however, on the approval of the so-called Bosnian Serb 
parliament.  This unelected group of dubious characters declined to 
ratify the agreements, instead calling for them to be put to a 
referendum at some point later this month.

We are thus faced with the self-declared parliament of a self-declared 
leader stating that it needs the agreement of the "people" to stop the 
killing for which they are themselves to blame.  We have no doubts that 
those responsible for war crimes will be allowed to participate in the 
referendum if it ever occurs.  We doubt, however, that those who have 
been forced from their homes at gunpoint will be allowed to participate.  
We know that those who now enjoy the peace of the grave will not 
participate.  This is not democracy in action; this is simply a ruse to 
buy time for further territorial conquest.

Let us be honest.  The current resolution is a palliative; the only 
solution is for the Bosnian Serbs to agree to peace, to live in 
tolerance of their neighbors, and to give up for judgment those who have 
plunged their country into war and fouled the good name of the Serbian 
people.  Let me remind the Bosnian Serb leadership that my government 
has in recent days made it clear that we are consulting with our allies 
about new, stronger, and tougher measures.   Their implementation, or 
lack thereof, of this and all other relevant Council resolutions in the 
next days will determine whether we and the rest of the international 
community decide that the use of force is inevitable. (###)



ARTICLE 4:


A New Generation and America's Post-Cold War Challenges
Deputy Secretary Wharton
Commencement address to the graduating class of American University, 
Washington, DC, May 9, 1993

I am delighted to be here for several reasons.  First, there is nothing 
more joyous than celebrating and congratulating a graduating class--so 
congratulations!  Second, my wife and I are long-time friends of 
President Duffey and his spouse, Anne.  Third, even though I am a 
graduate of a rival school--SAIS--you have honored me.  And fourth, you 
have given me an opportunity to reflect on certain aspects of US foreign 
policy.

When President Clinton spoke here earlier this year, he outlined the 
post-Cold War challenges and opportunities facing our nation. He called 
on all of us to support a program of enlightened American leadership in 
world affairs.  President Clinton's words of hope and concern at the 
centennial of this university struck a personal chord for me.  He 
rightly said that the world has not been at a comparable turning point 
since the late 1940s.

In 1947, it was my class at Harvard that was graduating.  Secretary of 
State George C. Marshall was our commencement speaker.  His message was 
brief and compelling.  It changed my life.  That day, I became convinced 
that assistance would be critical to constructive global change and a 
stable international order.  And, I have been involved with development 
ever since. 

At a time when the Cold War was looming and military tensions were 
rising, Marshall launched the plan for European recovery and opened the 
possibility of a more hopeful path for Europe and the world.  The 
Marshall Plan was, at its core, a message of hope and a call to 
partnership.  "Our policy," Marshall said, "is directed not against any 
country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos.  
Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so 
as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which 
free institutions can exist." Marshall went on to ensure that any 
government that was willing to assist in the task of recovery would find 
full cooperation from the United States.  It was a hinge-point in 
European and world history.  Tragically, fatefully, Russia turned away 
from that colossal opportunity, and the global promise of Marshall's 
broader vision was deferred for over 40 years by the realities of the 
Cold War. 

Today, in every sense of the word, is a new, hopeful day.  Forty-six 
years late, Russia has decisively rejected communism and world 
domination and has taken up our offer of hope and partnership.  We have 
the rare opportunity to extend our post-war partnerships with Europe and 
Japan to the whole of Russia and Eurasia.  And, like my generation did 
in our day, your generation--indeed, the entire international community-
-stands at a new hinge-point of history.  One world--the bitterly 
divided world of the Cold War--has been left behind.  A new world is 
before us--facing major challenges from poverty, nationalism, other 
forces unleashed by the demise of communism, and extremism of all kinds.  
But it can be made whole through the powers of democracy and economic 
freedom.  Your generation can help make it happen.  Exciting 
opportunities for promoting democracy, prosperity, and peace are open to 
you.  And new perils abound as well.

Let me begin with the defining features of the post-Cold War environment 
and the difficult questions they pose.

One, with the demise of communism, there is no longer any serious 
challenge to the efficacy of democratic principles of government and 
market economics.  But how can we help the new democracies, especially 
the newly free states of the former Soviet empire, overcome the 
devastating legacy of command or centralized state enterprises and 
communism's political and economic failure?

Two, as the only country now capable of projecting its military power 
anywhere in the world, what is the national interest "template" that we 
should use in deciding our foreign policy priorities?  What criteria 
should we employ in seeking to protect our fundamental goals and 
interests?  As the superpower, just how broad and inclusive is our 
national interest and world leadership responsibility?  Does our 
leadership status bring with it certain moral imperatives that transcend 
narrower political or economic national interests?  For example, we have 
been agonizing over whether we have an obligation to take the lead in 
Bosnia, when others closer to the scene have been unable to end the 
tragedy there.

Three, bipolar, East-West dynamics no longer drive policy nor serve as 
an adequate justification for foreign aid.  But how do we help ensure 
that Cold War divisions are not replaced by new gulfs between the stable 
and prosperous "haves" and "have nots" wracked by political upheaval and 
economic chaos?  Further, what are the implications of the bipolar 
demise for North-South relations?  And what is our responsibility for 
the persistence of poverty, whether in Somalia or Haiti, or in our own 
inner cities and depressed rural areas?

Four, increasing differentiation among the developing countries has seen 
Africa, at one end of the spectrum, lose economic ground.  At the other 
end, some of the newly industrialized countries are now world-class 
economic actors.  Across this spectrum, what is the most effective, 
efficient use of our technological prowess and our limited financial 
resources as we seek to pro- mote greater democracy, prosperity, and 
stability worldwide?  Moreover, when and how do we determine that a 
friendly country no longer qualifies for development assistance, 
security assistance?

Five, the threat of massive Soviet attack has dissipated, but other 
dangers abound:  instabilities spawned by the collapse of empires, 
ethnic antagonisms, arms proliferation, and threats posed by the 
dangerously irresponsible.  At the same time, international 
relationships and institutions are no longer locked in a Cold War 
catacomb.  How can we seize this moment to promote multilateral problem-
solving?  How do we configure ourselves to manage, resolve, and even 
prevent threats stemming from internal ethnic, religious, and political 
strife?  Ethnic and religious violence is spreading across the globe 
like the Black Plague of old--Bosnia, Sri Lanka, Nagorno-Karabakh, 
Sudan--each day seems to increase the list. What is our moral 
responsibility to combat this plague?  And how can we protect our own 
democratic traditions rooted in multicultural visions of a melting pot 
and promote these to help other nations cope with their own explosive 
diversities?

Six, environmental degradation, rapid population growth, terrorism, drug 
trafficking, epidemics, mass migration, and refugee flows are 
transnational concerns carrying consequences across the board in human, 
political, economic, and security terms.  How do we adapt traditional 
diplomacy to deal with these global concerns?  Can we find mechanisms 
which protect national sovereignty yet allow for successful collective 
solutions?

Seven, economics has gone global, too, with new economic powerhouses on 
the scene; interconnected systems for finance, trade, and 
communications; and, increasingly, multinational firms and products.  
Regional economic associations and a growing sense of economic rivalry 
between nations are also evident.  How can we better coordinate national 
and international economic policies in the face of growing 
interdependence?  How do we simultaneously find new ways to open 
markets, avoid protectionist backlash, and assure that America has a 
competitive edge in this challenging global marketplace?  I realize that 
those of you looking for jobs can take little comfort in our superpower 
status.  Nevertheless, that very status must be based on economic 
strength.  Unless we are able to compete with Europe and Asia 
economically, it is inevitable that we will no longer be a superpower in 
any sense.

Eight, and finally, ours is a complex, interconnected, multipolar world 
in profound transition.  And these are tight budgetary times.  In this 
challenging new context, how do we make the best allocation and use of 
our limited resources while exercising effective US leadership?  How can 
we wisely decide the tradeoffs between dollars for our own urban renewal 
and dollars for the reconstruction of war-torn foreign lands?

These are some of the major questions we confront in the new post-Cold 
War era.  Finding the answers is an awesome and, yet, exciting 
challenge.  It is particularly a challenge to your generation, for the 
answers will not come quickly but require extended and intense study, 
planning, experimentation, and implementation.

In considering them, however, there are two broad conclusions which are 
already clear.  The first is that domestic and foreign policy are 
inexorably linked.  The second is that a priority emphasis on people is 
absolutely central to any solutions.

President Clinton has recognized that the development of foreign policy 
is an integral part of domestic policy.  It is a recognition that the 
domestic economy and the welfare of the American people cannot be 
strengthened in isolation; that our ability to be a major participant 
and influence in global interdependence is a crucial element in 
achieving his domestic goals.

Thus, US foreign policy must encompass the critical bond between our 
domestic economic, social, and political health with that of the rest of 
the world.  All our foreign assistance efforts must be conditioned on 
this central reality.  Moreover, these efforts constitute a commitment 
to invest in the human capital of recipient nations, thereby building a 
strong, permanent human infrastructure that will support the building 
blocks of democracy and a free market economy.

At home, we must get our own economic house in order.  American economic 
renewal will lend new authority to our foreign policy and strength to 
our security partnerships. It will provide new trade opportunities for 
nations attempting to overcome the legacies of authoritarian governments 
and centrally planned economies, even as it generates growth at home. 
Equally important, our commercial partnerships with reforming nations 
will result in new partnerships that enable us to better protect the 
global environment from transnational scourges.  In turn, fostering 
conditions under which people-power and human rights can thrive will 
improve long-term prospects for sustainable peace and economic 
development.

Second, President Clinton's commitment to "put people first" is a 
guiding principle of both our domestic and foreign policy.  It is based 
on the belief that:

--  Americans have an undying vision of political and economic freedom.  
We believe in the rewards of hard work and initiative.  We see community 
as the foundation of democratic society.

--  We believe that American men and women are the key to an economy 
that produces good jobs and high quality goods and services--goods and 
services that can compete in the global marketplace.  To remain 
competitive, all Americans must be empowered to perform to their fullest 
capacity.

--  Most important of all, we believe that protecting and promoting the 
human rights of men and women is the first duty of domestic government.  
The creativity and entrepreneurial spirit of the individual in a free 
society is the engine of economic dynamism worldwide.  In broad 
geopolitical terms, "putting people first" means a world community 
committed to liberal democratic and free market values.

Ladies and gentlemen, 46 years ago, George Marshall's commencement 
address inspired me to join the cause of development as a critical 
dimension of foreign policy.  Today, I have tried to give you a sense of 
the exciting foreign policy challenges we face--you face--in this new 
era.

To meet these challenges, we are counting on the rising generation of 
educators, scientists, business people--people like you.  If the next 
century --your century--is to become an era of unprecedented growth and 
well-being, we need you.  Your commitment and involvement can make a 
critical difference.

As you do so, I ask that you always keep in mind that successful answers 
must reflect a framework of values that places the sanctity and 
aspirations of the individual human being at the heart of what the US 
role in the world should be.  We have to, once again, begin seeing the 
world as a planet of human beings--not as abstractions tied solely to 
national security concerns such as nonproliferation or nationalism and 
ethnic hatreds or gaining trade advantage.  We must recognize that it 
all begins with people, including each and every one of you. (###)



ARTICLE 5:


US-Russian Meeting on the Situation in The Former Yugoslavia
Joint US-Russian press release, released by the Office of the Department 
Spokesman, Washington, DC, May 5, 1993.

Secretary of State Warren Christopher of the United States of America, 
visiting Russia on behalf of President Clinton, was received today by 
President Boris Yeltsin of the Russian Federation and also conducted 
talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei Kozyrev.  These were 
positive and important meetings on the situation in the former 
Yugoslavia.  Three major points were agreed upon.

--  They emphasized the importance of the partnership that has developed 
between the United States and Russia.  They reaffirmed their 
determination to continue working closely together to achieve a peaceful 
resolution of the tragic conflict in the former Yugoslavia, including an 
ongoing dialogue and appropriate meetings at the ministerial level.

--  The signing of the Vance-Owen plan by all parties to the Bosnian 
conflict is an important step in the coordinated efforts of the world 
community, including Russia and the United States.  The United States 
and Russia strongly urge the Bosnian Serbs to approve and implement the 
Vance-Owen plan.  They call upon all parties to act according to its 
provisions.  If the Vance-Owen plan is approved by the Bosnian Serbs and 
all parties act in a way consistent with its provisions, the United 
States and Russia will work together to implement the plan and put in 
place the appropriate peacekeeping measures under the auspices of the 
United Nations.  The United States and Russia also are prepared to 
commit appropriate military forces of their own to assist in these 
peacekeeping endeavors.

If, however, the Vance-Owen plan is not accepted and implemented, the 
United States and Russia will immediately resume their discussion on new 
and tougher measures.  No measures are prejudged or excluded from 
consideration.  (###)



ARTICLE 6:


Trade Central to America's Future in the World
Michael Kantor, US Trade Representative
Address before the National Press Club, Washington, DC, May 5, 1993

A little over 2 months ago, at American University, President Clinton 
set forth his vision of America's role in the global economy.  It is a 
vision rooted in the belief that we are at the third great moment of 
decision in the 20th century.

"Will we repeat the mistakes of the 1920s or the 1930s by turning 
inward," he asked, "or will we repeat the successes of the 1940s and the 
1950s by reaching outward . . . ?"  His answer was clear:  We will reach 
outward and adapt to the new global economy.  We will compete, not 
retreat.

Trade is central to the President's vision of America's future in the 
world.  Trade is not an abstract concept.  Trade means money in people's 
pockets.  Trade means jobs.  Trade means that working men and women in 
Raleigh, North Carolina, make and sell electrical products for computers 
in 70 countries.  Trade means that a minority-owned company in 
California exports electromechanical products to five countries.  All 
over this country, trade means that working people can put dinner on the 
table and support their families.

The benefits of trade are not limited to the United States.  As the 
President went on to declare in his speech at American University, the 
fabric of commerce will also shape global prosperity:  ". . . for now 
and for the foreseeable future," he added, "the world looks to us to be 
the engine of global growth and to be the leaders."

We can't live up to the twin tasks of American prosperity and global 
leadership unless we are competitive.  The Clinton Administration is 
committed to making America competitive.  We can only be competitive if 
trade policy is an integral part of economic policy.

Gone are the days when this nation could subordinate trade concerns to 
"national security" in the traditional sense of the term.  The strategy 
of containment was appropriate during the Cold War, but it was a static 
strategy, aimed at halting Soviet expansionism.  In those years, we 
worried about the "doomsday clock"--with hands perilously close to the 
midnight of nuclear war.  For a long time, our strategy was mutually 
assured destruction.

Today our challenges are dynamic, not static.  Economic strength, 
founded on human resources and nourished by trade, is a pillar of 
national security in this new Post-Cold War age.  Our security 
interests--and those of others--are inextricably linked to the growth 
and fairness of the global trading system.

Economic policy begins with the President's domestic economic program.  
The challenges are enormous.  Unemployment is still at 7%.  More than 1 
in 10 Americans is on food stamps.  More than 16 million people are 
looking for full-time work and having no luck at all.

We must provide American workers with the training they need for good 
jobs in the industries of the future.  We must reduce our structural 
deficit.  We must provide American enterprise with the capital it needs 
to expand and compete.  And we must provide the American economy with 
the stimulus of a thriving global marketplace.

The goals of the Clinton Administration's trade policy are clear.  We 
want to open more foreign markets.  We want to do more business with 
those whose markets are already open.  We want to eliminate trade 
barriers that are raised against us and others.

We need to build faith in the international trading system.  Too many 
people in the American public think that trade hurts them, that trade 
may take away their jobs.  The truth is the opposite.

The numbers speak for themselves.  Every billion dollars of exports 
creates 20,000 new jobs in the United States.  There are now more than 7 
million Americans whose weekly paychecks are related to and dependent on 
merchandise exports alone.  A majority of those people work in the 
manufacturing sector, and they earn almost $3,500 per year more than the 
average American worker.

And when jobs in the service sector are oriented toward trade, they also 
provide workers with valuable incentives.  The average salary for a 
service worker in the export field is estimated to be 20% higher than 
the average service worker's salary.

So trade means the hands of the clock move forward, toward higher wages 
and better jobs for working Americans.  Take Ron Thomason, a materials 
expediter at Caterpillar's large bulldozer assembly plant in East 
Peoria, Illinois.  He says, "I owe my job to exports."  At the IBM 
facility in Rochester, Minnesota, 200 out of 900 people know that their 
jobs depend on exports.  So do the 18 employees of a process control 
company in Tucson.

At the same time, we have the largest open market in the world.  We take 
the largest share of exports from developing countries.  In four major 
industries--textiles and apparel, steel, autos, and footwear--the United 
States imports from 1 to 10 times as much per capita as Japan.  With 
this record, Americans want to be sure that no one is taking advantage 
of them and that others establish and maintain comparably open markets.

To achieve our trade goals we will use all the negotiating tools at our 
disposal.  We will negotiate multilaterally, regionally, bilaterally, 
industry by industry.  We insist only that foreign governments respect 
our rights under current and future international agreements.  And we 
will respect theirs.  We seek mutuality of obligation and comparability 
of action--terms that mean real partnership and mutual responsibility.

Americans are sometimes accused of "unilateralism" when we insist on 
enforcement of agreements.  But holding countries to their agreements is 
the opposite.  Enforcement strengthens Americans' support for an open 
trading system, and it strengthens the credibility of that trading 
system as well.

We cannot ask businesses and their workers to take the risks of doing 
business in the global marketplace unless we can guarantee that 
agreements will be enforced.  That is the essence of real partnership 
and mutual responsibility.  These principles are reflected in each of 
our major trade initiatives.

The Uruguay Round.  The Uruguay Round is of primary importance because 
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade--the GATT--remains the 
foundation of the global trading system.  These negotiations are now in 
their seventh year.  To restore momentum, we need to make progress in 
market access by agreeing to remove the barriers to trade in 
manufactured goods, services, and agriculture; and we intend to finish 
the Uruguay Round by December 15.

Some are waiting for the US and the EC to show leadership in this area 
before making their own contributions.  For our part, we and the 
European Community have accepted responsibility and have agreed to aim 
for an outline on market access.  We will only be successful, however, 
if others--like Japan and the developing countries--are full 
participants.

Recent events indicate that we can work together with the European 
Community and move forward to complete the round.  Last January, the EC 
unilaterally imposed community-wide requirements on government 
procurement that discriminated against non-European providers.  There 
seemed no alternative but to impose sanctions under our law.  Last 
month, after 2 days of intense talks, the United States and the EC 
reached agreement to open up a major segment of that procurement market 
to both sides.  The EC will remove the discrimination against US 
suppliers of heavy electrical equipment.  The United States will remove 
"buy America" preferences on certain federal power administrations, 
including the Tennessee Valley Authority.  We will continue to negotiate 
on remaining barriers even as we are imposing sanctions for failure to 
open the telecommunications market.

The North American Free Trade Agreement.  The North American Free Trade 
Agreement is a second key link in the trade and economy chain.  In 
response to the lowering of trade barriers in Canada and Mexico and in 
anticipation of NAFTA, trade and jobs are on the rise.  Exports to 
Canada already support an estimated 1.5 million US jobs.  Export jobs 
related to Mexico have grown from 300,000 to 700,000 over the last 5 
years, with another 200,000 predicted by 1995 if NAFTA with the 
supplemental agreements is implemented.  These jobs pay about 12% more 
than the national average.  And for 38 of the 50 states, Mexico is one 
of the top 10 customers.  Five of the ten states selling the most to 
Mexico are northern industrial states.  Without NAFTA, the United States 
will be unable to lock in and extend these gains.

The current negotiations are addressing several key areas:  border 
cleanup; commissions on labor and environment, with provisions for 
enforcement; import surges; stronger enforcement of national laws; and 
promoting higher wages and productivity.  In addition, the agreement we 
send to Congress will ensure that there is adequate adjustment 
assistance for workers.

Looking beyond NAFTA, we see good prospects for additional trade 
agreements with successful market-oriented economies throughout the 
Americas, beginning with Chile.  The combination of political and 
economic reform in this region is breathtaking.  US exports to the 
region are expanding at a rate that is three times the rate of export 
growth to the world as a whole.

The Pacific Rim.  A high-priority area for this Administration  is the 
Pacific Rim.  We want to serve as a catalyst connecting the Pacific Rim 
and the Americas, the two most dynamic regions in the world today.  In 
1960, the nations of the Pacific accounted for 8.9% of the world's gross 
national product.  By the year 2000, the figure will be nearly 26%.  
Forty percent of current US international trade is with the Pacific 
Basin.  Last year, trade across the Pacific exceeded trans-Atlantic 
trade by 50%.

This year, the United States is chairing the Asia-Pacific Economic 
Cooperation forum, known as APEC.  Our hope is that APEC will provide 
the framework for expanded trade and an increased investment flow 
throughout the region.  We intend to work with our Asian partners to 
further these goals.

When the United States looks to the Pacific, we think first of Japan.  
There is no single country more important to our long-term interests.  
For well over a century now, history has bound our two nations closely 
together.  We have been adversaries and allies.  Today, our alliance is 
fundamental.  Our common interests and our common challenges are 
extensive.  That's why the issues that divide us must be openly 
acknowledged; squarely faced; and, ultimately, resolved.

We are now seeking to remove restrictions on access to Japan's 
construction and supercomputer markets.  These are but two examples of 
deep-rooted political, social, and commercial practices and attitudes 
that gravely distort the workings of a free and open international 
trading system.  When Prime Minister Miyazawa visited Washington last 
month, President Clinton made it clear that the time has come for Japan 
to take more substantial steps to open its market and play a leadership 
role commensurate with its economic strength.  But we need to make 
concrete, measurable progress on a number of sectoral and structural 
issues.  Japan and the United States have agreed to identify specific 
areas for bilateral negotiation when the Tokyo economic summit convenes 
in July of this year.

The purposes of our trade policies and actions are the same:  to open 
markets and create trade opportunities and, in so doing, to boost the 
global economy; strengthen the international trading system; and, above 
all, ensure that American workers and American companies are and will 
remain competitive.  Trade is not a zero-sum game; it is an engine of 
growth.  This Administration will link all the resources at our disposal 
to achieve these goals.  Whatever programs we have--export promotion, 
export finance, trade-related assistance--are tools of a comprehensive 
trade promotion strategy.

The trading system and its supporting institutions must adapt to the 
realities of the new global economy.  We will need new assumptions--a 
whole new set of attitudes on the part of the United States and its 
trading partners.  The fundamental fact is that the globalization of 
production and markets has changed the nature of international 
competition.  Self-sufficiency is not realistic.  "Imported" goods are 
no longer entirely produced in the exporting country; domestic 
production is often involved.  Trade and investment are closely 
intertwined.

Similarly, domestic policies and regulations have become as important to 
the future of trade as trade measures adopted at the border.  Domestic 
policies have become major competitive factors in world trade.  
Governments are competing to create high-wage, high-skill jobs through a 
variety of domestic measures.  These new realities dictate the need to 
address the environment, technology, and competition policies.  Each of 
them is interrelated with trade, and each challenges our trade 
institutions to be more creative, open, and flexible.  Addressing them 
and other trade issues will require change.

The United States has always been willing to change.  We embrace change, 
thrive on change, and depend on change.  As the President has said, we 
must make change our friend.  After World War I, we raised trade 
barriers, with disastrous results.  After World War II, we lowered 
tariffs and built global institutions to expand trade and investment 
even as we held communism to a standstill.

The end of the Cold War is the third decisive moment in this century.  
We have a chance to build a new future and to make it the brightest and 
most enduring of all.  Instead of a doomsday clock, with hands pointing 
toward a nuclear midnight, we want a "growth clock," with hands pointing 
toward noon.  Instead of mutually assured destruction, we will strive 
for mutually assured growth.  Together, we need to summon up a small 
portion of the wisdom, vision, courage, and sense of joint mission that 
our parents showed when confronted with the daunting task of defeating 
fascism, containing communism, and rebuilding the postwar world.  I 
believe we are up to the challenge.  (###)



ARTICLE 7:


Fact Sheet:  US National Interests and Cooperation With Mexico

For more than 200 years, the United States and Mexico have shared a 
continent but not a vision of the future.  In the past 10 years, that 
has changed dramatically, as US and Mexican political, social, and 
economic leaders have realized that cooperation on a wide range of 
issues--from economic growth, to the environment, to narcotics control--
benefit both countries.

Consequently, managing the bilateral relationship across the 2,000-mile 
border will be a critical US security challenge in the 21st century.  
With Mexico, the US Government has been working to address mutual 
concerns and will need to expand such efforts in the years ahead.  Key 
to this cooperation will be the North American Free Trade Agreement 
(NAFTA). 

Mexico's Importance To the US Economy
Mexico has become one of the most open, market-oriented developing 
countries in the world.  In the Western Hemisphere, it has become an 
economic model for countries within the region and in Central and 
Eastern Europe.  Recent Mexican economic reforms include reducing 
barriers to trade and foreign investment, privatizing most state 
enterprises, and improving legal protection for firms doing business in 
Mexico.

These reforms have spurred Mexican economic growth and benefited the 
United States.  Mexico is the third-largest US trading partner and its 
fastest-growing major export market.  US exports to Mexico have more 
than tripled, from $12.3 billion in 1986 to $40.6 billion in 1992.  
Furthermore, the United States had a $5.4-billion trade surplus with 
Mexico in 1992.

Mexico recently overtook Japan as the United States' second-largest 
export market for manufactured goods.  Seventy cents of every $1.00 that 
Mexico spends for foreign products is spent on those from the United 
States.  Under NAFTA, the remaining Mexican trade barriers will be 
removed, creating new export opportunities for US firms.  This also will 
increase US employment:  Every $1 billion of US exports to Mexico 
creates almost 20,000 jobs in America.  

Democracy and Human Rights Reform in Mexico
Under President Salinas, political reforms have opened the political 
process and have led to significant opposition gains at the national, 
state, and municipal levels.  While the ruling Partido Revolucionario 
Institucional (PRI) still dominates, President Salinas' reforms have 
raised public confidence and reduced complaints of significant election 
irregularities.  Moreover, the Salinas Administration has proposed 
further reforms, including a $1-billion nation-wide voter identification 
system, changes in campaign financing, and allowing foreign pollsters to 
take exit polls at Mexican elections.  These steps should reinforce 
trends toward greater democracy.

President Salinas also has attacked long-standing problems of government 
corruption and worked to improve respect for human rights.  In 1990, he 
established the National Commission on Human Rights, which is earning 
considerable foreign and domestic respect for investigating and 
correcting abuses, resolving controversial cases, and reducing official 
impunity for abuse of power.  The Mexican public increasingly turns to 
the commission for assistance in human rights cases.

In January 1993, President Salinas appointed Jorge Carpizo, a former 
head of the commission, as Attorney General to address law enforcement 
problems.  He aggressively is pursuing convictions and sentencing of 
officials who are guilty of human rights violations.  He also has stated 
his commitment to eliminate corruption from the Office of the Attorney 
General of the Republic and from the Mexican Federal Judicial Police.  
The US supports these efforts to improve professionalization of law 
enforcement agencies with technical assistance.

Bilateral Cooperation
Illegal Drugs.  The security of the United States and Mexico are 
threatened by the scourge of illegal drug use, trafficking, and 
production.  Mexico shares the US Government's deep concern with illegal 
narcotics and supports enhanced bilateral cooperation to stem their 
spread to the United States.  The Mexican Government has made 
significant seizures, especially of cocaine; has stepped up eradication 
efforts; and has arrested officials involved in narcotics-related 
corruption.

President Salinas has declared drug-trafficking to be a threat to 
Mexico's national security.  He has made the Attorney General 
responsible for anti-narcotics coordination and increased the budget to 
combat illegal drugs threefold since 1989.  He energetically tackled the 
endemic corruption that undermines effective law enforcement and 
benefits drug-traffickers.  The results have been notable:  In 1992, 
Mexican authorities seized nearly 40 metric tons of cocaine and 97 
kilograms of heroin and eradicated almost 6,900 hectares of opium poppy 
and more than 12,000 hectares of marijuana with US intelligence and 
logistic support.

Mexico is reforming its legal system to make money-laundering and other 
drug-related financial activities crimes and is undertaking a vigorous 
asset seizure program.  It also broadened drug treatment, education, and 
prevention programs to reach its young people.

An active partnership between US and Mexican authorities is vital to 
keeping narcotics out of the growing commerce between both countries.  
US-Mexico anti-narcotics cooperation has reached unprecedented levels in 
policy coordination and operations.  The US-Mexico Mixed Permanent 
Commission reviews cooperative efforts.  The Mutual Legal Assistance 
Treaty enhances both governments' ability to prosecute criminals 
operating on either side of the border.  The countries are coordinating 
their efforts to assist Central and South American nations in 
implementing drug education and treatment programs.  The United States 
also supplies helicopters and sophisticated aircraft to Mexico's rapid 
response force.

Mexico is a leader in promoting regional cooperation to stop drug-
trafficking.  It also has played a key role in anti-narcotics efforts of 
the Organization of American States.

US-Mexico Border.  Developments along the US-Mexico border significantly 
affect cooperation and stability in bilateral relations.  For example, 
efforts to control criminality and illegal smuggling of goods and people 
sometimes have generated tension in this relationship.  Border 
environmental problems, trade flows, and narcotics-trafficking are other 
key issues with "spillover" effects.

However, US-Mexico border relations are increasingly constructive, 
cooperative, and fruitful.  Local and state officials on both sides of 
the border meet frequently to discuss cooperative ways to deal with 
shared problems.  The US and Mexico joined to provide relief to 
thousands of victims of disastrous floods in early 1993.   

The Mexican Government created a special border police force, the Grupo 
Beta, which successfully has reduced violence by smugglers of illegal 
immigrants and effectively has monitored border traffic.  Additionally, 
Mexico has helped combat illegal migration to the United States by 
apprehending more than 123,000 third-country nationals in 1992 (up from 
13,000 in 1988), most of whom were bound for the United States.  These 
efforts helped save millions of dollars spent on detention by the United 
States.

Nonetheless, Mexico continues to be a major source of illegal 
immigration.  About 1.5 to 2.7 million Mexican nationals without legal 
status may be residing in the United States.  Through US border patrols, 
employer sanctions, and other programs, the US Immigration and 
Naturalization Service will continue to deal with illegal immigration.

Environment.  No issue demonstrates the need to manage issues 
cooperatively more than environmental problems which cannot be 
constrained by national boundaries.  The US and Mexico have a long 
history of joint efforts to deal with wide-ranging environmental 
problems and natural resource management.  Various agreements and 
institutions provide the framework for cooperation to protect the shared 
environment:

--  The 1944 Water Treaty gave the International Boundary and Water 
Commission (IBWC) authority to deal with border sanitation problems, and 
several border sewage projects have resulted.  The IBWC, which is more 
than 100 years old, also is responsible for flood control, for 
conservation and division of the use of border water resources, and for 
maintaining the international boundary.

--  The 1983 La Paz Agreement is an important, comprehensive framework 
agreement with Mexico dealing with transboundary pollution.  Through 
work groups and specific problem-solving annexes, the La Paz agreement 
deals with border air pollution; contingency planning for pollution 
accidents; hazardous waste disposal and trans-boundary shipments; 
technical assistance and data exchange; and, in cooperation with the 
IBWC, water quality.

--  The US and Mexico concluded the Mexico City Environment Agreement in 
1989 and a US Department of Energy-Mexican Petroleum Institute 
memorandum of understanding in 1990, both aimed at improving the 
environment in and around Mexico City.

--  In 1992, the US and Mexico concluded the landmark Integrated 
Environmental Plan for the Mexican-US Border Area in a process notable 
for its public participation and input.  That plan, covering 1992-94, 
comprises a detailed review of border conditions and specific proposals 
to solve problems.  The plan will be updated next year.

--  The two governments also have about 100 joint wildlife/park projects 
ranging from conservation and management of migratory bird habitats, to 
protecting endangered species such as the jaguar, to research on 
tropical birds.  Mexico has extensive programs, including the 
establishment of 44 national parks, 8 reserves, and 14 biosphere 
reserves.  It also has joined the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species.

Mexico's Role in the World
Mexico has become a regional leader on key issues important to the US, 
notably US efforts to promote peace in Central America.  Mexico helped 
persuade the rebel forces and Government in El Salvador to demobilize 
and end their war.  Similarly, it has played a constructive role in 
encouraging the end to conflict in Guatemala and Haiti.  It also has 
been an important regional ally in US efforts to combat drug-
trafficking, to improve environmental conditions, to support the growth 
of democracy, and to promote more open, market-oriented economies. (###)



ARTICLE 8:


Fact Sheet:  Mexico--A Solid Market Continues To Serve US Companies

Following is an article by Rebecca Reynolds Bannister reprinted from the 
April 19, 1993, edition of Business America, which is published by the 
US Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration.

Mexico is the fastest-growing US export market.  Total merchandise 
exports to Mexico in 1992 were up 22% to a record $40.6 billion, three 
times their level as recently as 1986.  While 1993 may not quite 
approach last year's impressive growth rate, it is expected that Mexico 
will continue to be a stellar market for US products, boosting exports 
to the $47-48 billion range.

Last year was a banner year for trade with Mexico on several counts, 
especially in manufactured goods.  Mexico surpassed Japan as the second-
largest market for US exports of manufactured goods.  (The United 
States' other North American Free Trade Agreement--NAFTA--partner, 
Canada, is the largest market.)  At the same time, the United States 
trade surplus in manufactured goods with Mexico ($7.5 billion) was the 
largest with any country in the world, larger even than that with the 
entire European Community.  Mexico prefers American products and spends 
15 cents of each dollar of per capita income on US goods (compared with 
2 cents in Japan and the European Community).

Imports from Mexico also set a record in 1992, increasing 13% to $35.2 
billion.  Export growth exceeded import growth for the third year in a 
row, a phenomenon that is expected to continue next year as well.  As a 
result, the overall US trade surplus with Mexico widened to $5.4 billion 
in 1992 and should improve further next year.

The strong, positive growth in the US trade surplus with Mexico runs 
counter to the arguments of some that exports to Mexico are largely 
returned to the United States after further processing.  Quite the 
contrary:  Production sharing comprises only about 25% of US exports to 
Mexico, and its share is declining.  Mexico represents a vibrant market 
of 82 million consumers with a preference for US goods--nearly 70% of 
Mexico's imports come from the United States.  (Compare this to the 22% 
US share of imports in Japan and 7% share in the European Community.)

Since reducing its trade barriers beginning in 1986 and undertaking 
major economic reforms, Mexico has been on a steady growth course of 
roughly 3% per annum for the last 4 years, and this is expected to 
continue.  Strong growth has increased the demand for capital goods and 
equipment as well as consumer goods and agricultural products.  It may 
surprise some, but even traditionally import-sensitive industries like 
textiles, footwear, apparel, steel, and auto parts have found a 
receptive Mexican market.  The North American Free Trade Agreement 
promises to improve this outlook by phasing out and eliminating 
remaining barriers. Congress is expected to vote on NAFTA later this 
year in order to meet the target implementation date of January 1, 1994.

Some of the Most Promising Mexican Markets

Descriptions of some of the most promising Mexican markets for 1993 and 
beyond follow.

Infrastructure.  Most exciting for US exporters is the investment Mexico 
is making in infrastructure to support the needs of its growing economy.  
Mexico's President Carlos Salinas de Gortari has made a major and highly 
visible commitment to bring Mexico "from the third world into the first 
world'' by the end of the decade.  What this amounts to is massive 
investment in infrastructure--all kinds, from telecommunications, to 
roads and ocean ports, to building and modernizing enough electrical 
power plants to effectively service the needs of its growing industry, 
to water purification and distribution systems, and to environmental 
cleanup infrastructure such as sewage treatment plants and incinerators.  
Billions of dollars in private and leveraged public dollars are being 
spent this year in what has to be one of the most ambitious national 
infrastructure improvement projects in the world.  Many of the purchases 
of equipment and technology to improve Mexico's infrastructure are from 
the United States (33% of US exports to Mexico are capital goods).

Telecommunications.  In telecommunications, Mexico is making great 
strides to modernize its infrastructure.  Telmex, Mexico's privatized 
telecommunications company, has embarked on a huge capital investment 
program calling for a 63% increase in total infrastructure, with 
expenditures of around $13 billion by the year 2000.  (In 1991, $1.8 
billion was spent; 1992 and 1993 expenditures should total $4.6 
billion.)  US exports of telecommunications equipment to Mexico totaled 
$1.5 billion in 1992.

A concrete example of this upgrade is Hughes Aircraft Company's $200-
million contract for two new communications satellites for the Mexican 
Government to be launched in November 1993 and February 1994.  (Hughes 
built the two satellites that are currently used by Mexico's 
Communications Ministry.)  This contract will support an average of 250-
300 jobs over 36 months in Hughes Aircraft's Long Beach [CA] facility 
and various US subcontractors.

Related to the Telmex modernization, Jefa International, a Native 
American-owned radio telecommunications service company, recently won a 
multi-million-dollar, multi-year contract with Telmex's Telcel cellular 
company to engineer and install the cellular microwave interconnect 
system for several Mexican cities.

Energy.  Big changes are also happening in Mexico's energy sector.  
Market liberalization, which has been so dramatic in most segments of 
the Mexican economy, has been slow to reach the energy sector, largely 
because Mexico's constitution restricts ownership of oil and gas 
resources and control over electrical power generation to the state.  
Nevertheless, changes are being made in response to demands for more 
efficient and reliable energy.  It is estimated that Mexico will have to 
invest $20 billion to $30 billion by the year 2000 to upgrade its energy 
capabilities.

In June 1992, the Mexican national oil company, PEMEX, reorganized its 
operations into four separate subsidiaries:  an exploration and 
production unit, a refining unit, a natural gas and primary 
petrochemicals unit, and a secondary petrochemicals unit.  Other 
internal reforms within PEMEX indicate that there is a willingness to 
explore creative methods of working with foreign suppliers/contractors 
in order to move to the level of production and efficiency in energy 
services that Mexican producers need to compete.  These changes, 
combined with the market access achieved in NAFTA, promise new 
opportunities for US firms.

In 1992, US exports of chemicals to Mexico totaled $3.2 billion.  NAFTA 
eliminates import and export licenses on all petrochemicals, except for 
five remaining "basic'' petrochemicals reserved to Mexican state 
control. 

In the area of electrical power generation, NAFTA provides new 
investment opportunities for electricity-generating facilities for "own 
use,'' co-generation, and independent power production.  It allows NAFTA 
investors to acquire, establish, and operate such facilities without any 
involvement from the state energy monopoly, CFE.  Investors may also 
purchase or build independent power production (IPP) facilities.

A recently announced $675-million contract between General Electric and 
Bechtel and Mexico's Federal Electricity Commission to build a 700-
megawatt electrical power plant is a big success story, resulting from 
Mexico's push to modernize and expand its energy grid.  The fact that 
these two US companies are committed corporate citizens in Mexico and 
that they formed a consortium with a major Mexican 
engineering/construction firm, ICA, gave them the knowledge to present a 
winning bid.  This contract alone will directly result in 1,000 jobs in 
New York and South Carolina over the next 3 years.

Procurement.  Although Mexico has privatized nearly all state-owned 
enterprises, government purchases still represent a major market 
opportunity.  However, except for those purchases involving multilateral 
lending, there is no requirement to open government procurement to 
foreign bidders today.  New rules on NAFTA government procurement will 
open up opportunities to US firms seeking government contracts in Mexico 
and Canada. NAFTA gives North American suppliers immediate and growing 
access to the Mexican Government procurement market, not only in 
parastatal firms such as PEMEX and CFE (national electric company) but 
other government entities.  NAFTA also breaks new ground by including 
services for the first time, substantially increasing export 
opportunities for North American providers of a wide variety of 
services--construction, environmental, and software to name just a few 
areas.

Environmental Products and Services Market.  Mexico spends the 
equivalent of 1% of its gross national product on environmental 
improvement.  In 1992, the total market for pollution control products 
and services in Mexico was approximately $1 billion. Average growth of 
the Mexican pollution-control products and services market is expected 
to reach 20% per annum through 1994, and US exports of environmental 
products and services to Mexico are expected to grow by 20% during 1993.

Currently, very few non-tariff barriers impede sales of US pollution-
control equipment and services in Mexico.  Tariffs on pollution-control 
equipment and services range from zero to 20%.  Under NAFTA, tariffs on 
most pollution-control equipment will be eliminated on the date of 
implementation of the agreement or within 5 years of implementation, 
stimulating US exports by further enhancing the relative price 
competitiveness of US pollution control and equipment vis-a-vis non-
NAFTA products.

Continued growth of the Mexican economy, spurred by NAFTA, will 
encourage increased sales of new US pollution-control equipment and 
services in Mexico as citizens demand a cleaner environment and the 
financial resources exist for these purchases. 

Increasingly strict Mexican enforcement of its sweeping 1988 General Law 
of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection will necessitate 
diligent maintenance of existing environmental control equipment. 

Mexico's recent intensification of enforcement of its environmental laws 
is also contributing to increased sales of US environmental products and 
services in the Mexican market.  In 1992, Mexico created a new super-
agency, the Secretaria de Desarrollo Social (SEDESOL), which is 
empowered to set and enforce Mexico's environmental norms and 
regulations.  Notable increases in both the number of SEDESOL inspectors 
employed and the frequency and seriousness of their inspections have 
made compliance with Mexican environmental law a high priority for firms 
operating in this market.  Implementation of NAFTA is likely to 
reinforce this trend by strengthening enforcement efforts and by 
generating additional resources in Mexico to address environmental 
problems.

Services.  The market for services is another very important new 
opportunity under NAFTA.  The agreement opens Mexico's $146-billion 
services market for US telecommunications companies (both equipment and 
services); banks; insurance, law, and accounting firms; and 
transportation companies.  To make it possible for service providers to 
have real access to these markets, NAFTA allows professionals to cross 
the border.  This means, for example, that an equipment vendor can offer 
follow-up services to its clients--a very important advantage when it 
comes to sales.

Export Assistance Services
To join the expanding ranks of successful small, medium, and minority 
firms that have added Mexico to their sales base, tap into these 
Department of Commerce services.

--  For quick answers about the Mexican market, call the Commerce 
Department' s Flash Facts Information Hotline.  Over 1,000 businesses 
call this resource hotline 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to order Mexico 
market information that is sent via fax.  Call (202) 482-4464 and order 
the Flash Facts Menu (Document #0101) to see what you can learn about:  
NAFTA, tariffs, permits, and customs regulations; marketing, 
distribution, and finance; statistics; and even tips for traveling in 
Mexico.

--  If you are interested in Trade Shows and Direct Marketing Help in 
Mexico, the US Trade Center in Mexico City provides a range of services 
to promote US exports to Mexico.  The Trade Center provides facilities 
for exhibiting products, as well as market research and other services.  
In addition, the Trade Center's facilities are available for private 
business-sponsored events such as product promotions, sales meetings, 
product demonstrations, seminars, and workshops.  Eleven trade events 
are scheduled at the center between April 1993 and March 1994.  For 
further information, contact the US Trade Center at (011-525) 591-
0155.(###)



ARTICLE 9:


Summary of Report on 'Patterns of Global Terrorism:  1992' 

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

Today the Department of State submitted to Congress its annual report, 
"Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1992."  Copies of the report are 
available in the press office.

The report covers international terrorist and counter-terrorist activity 
for calendar year 1992.  It does not cover events that have taken place 
this year.

Among the main points:
--  International terrorist attacks declined last year to the lowest 
level since 1975;

--  US casualties from acts of terrorism were the lowest in a single 
year since 1968.  Two Americans were killed and one was wounded during 
1992.

--  Iran and Iraq were the most active state sponsors of terrorism last 
year.  Other sponsors were largely quiescent.

--  Today's report contains no changes to the so-called "Terrorism 
List."  However, we continue to monitor behavior by Pakistan and Sudan 
closely.

The report also notes that, despite the dramatic drop in terrorist 
attacks, we must remain vigilant to counter the threat.

Excerpts From Report
Following is the text of the "Year in Review" and "State-Sponsored 
Terrorism Overview" from Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1992, released 
April 1993.  The Department's Office of the Coordinator for Counter-
terrorism released the report, which is available through the Office of 
Public Liaison, tel. 202-647-9658.  It also is available electronically 
through GPO's Federal Bulletin Board (see inside back cover for more 
details).

The Year in Review
One of the largest one-year decreases in the number of international 
terrorist incidents since the United States began keeping such 
statistics in 1968 occurred in 1992.  International terrorist attacks 
declined during 1992 to the lowest level in 17 years.  This is roughly 
35% fewer than the 567 incidents recorded in 1991, a figure that was 
inflated by a spate of low-level incidents at the time of the Gulf war.  
During 1992, US citizens and property remained the principal targets 
throughout the world; nearly 40% of the 361 international terrorist 
attacks during the year were directed at US targets.

US casualties from acts of terrorism were the lowest ever.  Two 
Americans were killed* and one was wounded during 1992, as opposed to 
seven dead and 14 wounded the previous year:

*Five American missionary nums were brutally murdered in Liberia in two 
separate attacks during 1992.  We have not included the murders as 
terrorist attacks because a political motivation appears to be lacking.

-- On 8 January 1992 naturalized US citizen Jose Lopez was kidnapped by 
members of the National Liberation Army in Colombia and subsequently 
killed.

--  On 10 June, Sgt. Owell Hernandez was killed in Panama when the US 
Army vehicle he was driving was raked by automatic gunfire from a 
passing car.  Another American serviceman in the vehicle was wounded.  
No group claimed responsibility.  This attack occurred just before the 
visit of President Bush to Panama.

The one "spectacular" international terrorist attack during the year 
occurred on 17 March when a powerful truck bomb destroyed the Israeli 
Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina.  The blast leveled the embassy and 
severely damaged a nearby church, school, and retirement home.

Twenty-nine persons were killed and 242 wounded.  Islamic Jihad, a cover 
name for the Iranian-sponsored group Hizballah, publicly claimed 
responsibility for the attack and, to authenticate the claim, released a 
videotape of the Israeli Embassy taken during surveillance before the 
bombing.  There is mounting evidence of Iranian Government 
responsibility for this act of terrorism.

As was the case during the preceding three years, Latin America saw more 
terrorism in 1992 than any other region.  Antiforeign attacks in that 
region were predominantly against American targets.  Leftwing terrorism, 
particularly in Europe, is in decline, but ethnic and separatist groups 
in Europe, Latin America, South Asia, and the Middle East remained 
active last year.

The deadly Peruvian terrorist group Sendero Luminoso was dealt a major 
blow in September when security forces in Lima captured the group's 
founder, Abimael Guzman, and many of its high command.  Guzman was 
subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment for his terrorist crimes.

None of the traditional state sponsors of terrorism has completely 
abandoned the terrorist option, especially against dissidents, nor 
severed ties to terrorist surrogates.  Iraq's international terrorist 
infrastructure was largely destroyed by the Coalition's counterterrorist 
actions during that war.  Since Operation Desert Storm, however, Saddam 
has used terrorism to punish regime opponents and to intimidate UN and 
private humanitarian workers.  The Iranian regime has practiced state 
terrorism since it took power in 1979; it is currently the deadliest 
state sponsor and has achieved a worldwide reach.

There were fewer deaths caused by international terrorism during 1992, 
93 vice 102 in 1991, but many more persons were wounded, 636 vice 242.  
The single bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina accounted for 
about 40 percent of all those wounded in terrorist attacks in 1992.

State-Sponsored Terrorism Overview
The United States, its allies, and increasingly the UN Security Council 
(UNSC) recognize the need to make those governments that support, 
tolerate, and engage in international terrorism pay a significant price 
for doing so.  There was dramatic action by the UNSC in 1992 when it was 
presented with clear evidence of Libya's responsibility for the bombings 
of Pan Am Flight 103 and UTA Flight 77 and the resulting loss of 441 
lives.  In Resolution 731, the UNSC demanded that Libya end its 
sponsorship of acts of international terrorism and cooperate with 
American, British, and French judicial requirements in the trials of 
those Libyan officials charged with the bombings.  The Security Council 
later voted mandatory sanctions against Libya when it determined that 
Libya had not complied.  The sanctions included an arms and air embargo, 
a demand that Libyan Arab Airlines offices be closed, and a requirement 
that all states reduce Libya's diplomatic presence abroad.  The UNSC 
reviews the Libyan case every 120 days.  The UNSC's requirement that 
Iraq refrain from sponsoring terrorism remains in effect as a part of 
Resolution 687.

Despite these counterterrorism accomplishments, state sponsorship poses 
an ongoing danger.  Iran continued to be the most active of the state 
sponsors.  Iranian agents or surrogate groups conducted over 20 attacks 
in 1992.  Again this year, Iran's prime targets were Iranian opponents 
of the regime and Israeli interests.  Iran was the principal sponsor of 
extremist Islamic and Palestinian groups.  Besides providing funding, 
training, and weapons to groups that conduct terrorist acts, Iran also 
hosted a series of high-profile meetings with Hizballah and HAMAS that 
had the stated goal of coordinating efforts against Israel and bringing 
the Arab-Israeli peace process to a halt.  Islamic Jihad, a cover name 
for Hizballah, was responsible for the lethal car-bombing of the Israeli 
Embassy in Argentina--an attack that killed 29 people and wounded 242.

Iraq, though constrained by UNSC sanctions and the expulsion of Iraqi 
agents from many countries during the Gulf war, sponsored in the last 
half of 1992 numerous attacks against Kurdish opponents and UN and 
Western relief personnel and killed an Iraqi scientist in Jordan.  Libya 
and Syria continue to provide support and safehaven to a number of 
Palestinian and non-Palestinian groups that engage in international 
terrorism.

The United States currently lists Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, 
and Syria as state sponsors of terrorism.  This list is maintained 
pursuant to Section 6 (j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979.  
This and related US statutes impose trade and other restrictions on 
countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly 
provided support for acts of international terrorism.  The list is sent 
annually to Congress, although countries can be added or removed any 
time during the year as circumstances warrant.  (###)




ARTICLE 10:


Statements at Confirmation Hearings


Douglas J. Bennet
Assistant Secretary-designate For International Organization Affairs
Statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC, 
May 7, 1993. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it falls to this nation, this 
Administration, and this committee, in this decade, to help the world 
define its expectations for a new era.  International institutions that 
really work will be essential, and part of America's global leadership 
role is to see that they do.

So it is a great honor to be nominated by President Clinton to serve as 
Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs.  It 
is a pleasure to appear again before this committee.  Those who recall 
my previous stints as Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations 
and as Administrator of AID know that I am committed to close and open 
consultations with Congress and to bipartisan- ship.  These are all the 
more important in today's unfamiliar circumstances.

The United Nations and many of its agencies were created in the 
aftermath of a global war.  Their charters are noble constitutions, 
established by people who knew the cost of chaos among nations and 
realized that it arose from poverty, oppression, arms proliferation, and 
forces of history that could rage out of control.  Our country had a lot 
to do with those charters. They were written at another time of American 
leadership in the world, when we took the opportunity, together with 
others, to define global hopes in terms consistent with American 
standards of freedom and human dignity.

It would be hard to create a UN system today if we were starting from 
scratch.  Fortunately, we already have a set of global institutions 
inspired by our values.  We now have a fresh chance to help restore 
their effectiveness.  During 41/2 decades, they have done some useful 
experimentation and achieved some important successes. These 
institutions are not free-standing, however.  They do as well or as 
poorly as they are used by their member nations.  The agencies often 
have been compromised by veiled patronage interests of donors and 
beneficiaries alike.  Lack of consensus objectives has meant lack of 
accountability; lack of accountability has meant lack of credibility; 
lack of credibility has made it all the easier for member states to 
ignore or disparage these important global institutions.

Now we are in the process of revalidating the hopes of the original 
chapters and remaking the institutions. President Bush ultimately saw 
the UN as a building block for the new world order.  In one of his first 
actions, President Clinton announced that his Ambassador to the United 
Nations would be a member of his Cabinet and of the National Security 
Council. The bipartisan decision to pay our assessments and arrearages 
was a result of significant strides the UN has made with regard to 
budget reform and of recognition of the growing role the UN is being 
asked to play, particularly in peace-keeping.  This decision reflected 
an understanding that not meeting our financial obligations has caused 
the US to lose influence with both the international community and the 
UN Secretariat.

With US support, meanwhile, progress is being made in redefining and 
reworking the UN system for the post-Cold War era.  The United States 
has welcomed the constructive leadership put forward by Secretary 
General Boutros-Ghali in his reform efforts, including his "Agenda for 
Peace."  We will work with him and the other members of the United 
Nations to make UN peace-keeping more effective and to ensure that the 
UN system is capable of handling other important items on the global 
agenda.  Let me outline some of the broad directions this Administration 
will be pursuing.

Strengthening the Security Council
Nothing is more critical to the long- term prospects for peace than 
assuring the effectiveness of the Security Council as the supreme global 
authority for peace-making, peace-keeping, and peace enforcement, 
including their humanitarian dimensions.  The United States must work 
with the other members of the Council and the world community, in 
general, to ensure the effectiveness of Council decisions on these 
matters.

During his campaign, President Clinton opened the question of expanding 
membership to ensure that the Security Council represents today's 
international realities.  As we review ways to reach this objective, we 
will give highest priority to ensuring that the Security Council can 
operate effectively.   The Security Council now is swamped with peace-
keeping business.  It is meeting almost round- the-clock.  Its policy, 
planning, and intelligence support is inadequate. What the Security 
Council decides, the Secretary General and the world community must be 
prepared to undertake.  Today, the world continues to experiment 
urgently to find effective ways to keep the peace through multilateral 
action.  We are testing combinations of diplomacy, emergency relief 
assistance, electoral monitoring, economic sanctions, and armed 
intervention.  We are saving lives, and we are losing lives, because our 
tools and responses in this new era are still grossly inadequate.  It is 
not clear whether these instruments can work in Bosnia, but what is now 
absolutely clear is that America has an unavoidable leadership role in 
multilateral efforts for peace.

This Administration is preparing a plan for the long-term strengthening 
of UN peace-keeping and US capacity to participate. We are building on 
the series of efforts starting with the statement by heads of state and 
government at the meeting in January 1992 of the UN Security Council.  
They called upon the Secretary General to recommend ways to strengthen 
and make more efficient the UN's capacity for preventive diplomacy, 
peace-making, and peace-keeping.  Last summer, Secretary General 
Boutros-Ghali responded with his "Agenda for Peace."  That document and 
subsequent proposals made by the previous Administration last September 
at the UN General Assembly are the basis for [our] own review.

Beginning in February, a number of US foreign affairs agencies have 
looked at US participation in operations involving not only peace-
keeping but also humanitarian relief, observer groups, and enforcement 
of UN man- dates.  Some of the topics reviewed have been the overall 
role of peacekeeping, the role of regional organizations, the 
administrative and operational capabilities of the UN, financing, 
Article 43 and command relationships, how the US military is organized 
for these activities, the executive-legislative relationship, and 
legislation which may require amendment.

To assist the UN, we have looked specifically at helping the Secretary 
General establish a planning cell and a 24-hour operations center to 
prepare for and then stay on top of peace-keeping missions; 
standardizing training and developing joint exercises, as well as peace-
keeping doctrine and rules of engagement; adopting financial and 
managerial reforms; and identifying force capabilities which could be 
made available to the UN on short notice.  We hope to achieve these 
reforms in concert with other members of the Security Council and with 
the support of the General Assembly.  Our objective in all of this is to 
strengthen the system of international security which the founders of 
the UN had intended, and which had been hampered for over 40 years by 
the influence of the Cold War in the Security Council.

Good Governance and Good Management of UN Agencies
Just as the Security Council struggles to meet the demands of a new era 
in peace-keeping, so must the rest of the UN make real progress 
elsewhere on the global agenda.  Secretary General Boutros-Ghali is 
committed to reform. He has launched a major effort--long encouraged by 
the United States--to rationalize the activities of the Secretariat and 
eliminate duplication and overlap in UN programs and activities. We have 
been supportive of the Secretary General's objectives.

Together [with] the leaders of the institutions themselves and with 
donors and beneficiaries alike, the Bureau of International Organization 
Affairs will prepare a plan to enhance the performance of the most 
important of these institutions.  Reform plans need to be tailor-made, 
but there are some basic principles that apply across the board.

--  Clarify objectives.

--  Establish accountability. Be sure leaders can lead, managers can 
manage, and governing bodies take responsibility for the success of the 
institutions.

--  Evaluate results.

--  Work for transparency.

We need to ensure that the UN's economic and social capacities improve 
in tandem with the expansion of the UN's peace-keeping efforts and that 
the urgency of peace-keeping does not distract us from other important 
global issues.  Unless the UN is effective across the board, it may 
prove difficult to maintain an international consensus that the UN 
operate as an effective guardian of the interest of the world community 
in places like Somalia and Bosnia.

In one recent reform, the major development agencies and programs were 
brought directly under the Economic and Social Council umbrella, with 
ECOSOC now providing system-wide policy guidance, implementation 
coordination, and better governance through open, high-level oversight.

In the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, developing 
countries have begun to examine economic issues with new realism based 
on market-oriented policies.  The old confrontations over increased aid, 
debt-forgiveness, and a changed world order have given way to a 
constructive agenda of national policy reforms to liberalize trade, to 
attract investment, and to support private-sector development.  The US 
has worked for many years to help bring about this shift and to support 
constructive economic dialogue in the UN, generally.  Our goal has been 
"an OECD for developing countries" and to set a model for reform 
elsewhere in the UN system.

With the growing role of the United Nations in meeting a global agenda, 
there very likely will be increased need for funds to finance UN 
operations.  The United States, in its own interest, will want to 
contribute.  This, in turn, increases the requirement for assurance that 
UN funds be spent effectively.  Last week in Geneva at a meeting of 
major donor members, the United States put forward our proposal for a UN 
inspector general or another comparable mechanism. The concluding 
statement of the meeting underlined the importance of achieving the 
highest standards of accountability and transparency throughout the UN 
system, and welcomed the US offer to produce a paper on establishing an 
office of inspector general for review by the group.

Fair and Adequate Assessments
Secretary General Boutros-Ghali requested last autumn that the Ford 
Foundation sponsor an independent advisory group on UN financing--the 
Volcker-Ogata group whose report was recently released.  The 
introduction to the report reads, "the examination of UN financing is 
important precisely because it is part of a broader debate--a debate 
about how to build a lawful and just world order while the opportunity 
to do so still exists.  Only with foresight, and a willingness on the 
part of governments to face up to their responsibilities and 
commitments, can the UN become the organization that our times demand."

Last week, representatives of the major funding nations discussed the 
Volcker-Ogata report at their Geneva meeting.  The members of the Geneva 
Group agreed that this report "was an impressive and perceptive document 
which helped clarify the UN's current financial problems and could help 
advance discussion of possible solutions."  While not all 
recommendations were equally attractive, the group members broadly 
supported the overall thrust of the report.  We will encourage and 
monitor appropriate follow-up.

The Clinton Administration is committed to meeting its financial 
obligations to the UN and other international organizations and to 
helping to restore their financial stability.  This commitment is 
especially important in regard to the greatly increased peace-keeping 
expenses of the UN.  In undertaking this commitment, we share with 
Members of Congress concern about the disproportionate share of UN 
peace-keeping assessments borne by the United States.  The present 
special peace-keeping scale reflects a 20-year-old agreement among 
member nations to meet a special situation in the Middle East.  The 
capacities of many of these nations, and surely the circumstances, have 
changed over two decades.  Today, all nations are supposed to pay 
something toward peace-keeping, but our belief is that the US shares 
should be the same as for regular UN assessments.  Precisely, because we 
know we have to expect higher peace-keeping expenses in the future, it 
becomes all the more important now that the burden be equitably shared 
so that commitments are willingly met.

Sustained Participation
Mr. Chairman, I said the world's nations were experimenting urgently 
with peace-keeping through the UN. We are experimenting in other areas 
as well--for example, putting the concepts of sustainable development 
into practice.  The United States will participate as a full partner.  
It is no longer in our interest to operate at arms length as we have 
done sometimes in the past, turning to the UN when we needed it and 
turning away when we did not.

We need to listen carefully to voices from other nations.  In forums 
like the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, and the 
General Assembly--and this comes as no surprise in a nation accustomed 
to democratic legislatures--we must work with other nations and other 
views toward durable consensus.  When it comes to governance of the 
agencies, some of which have been politicized to a point where they 
cannot be effective, we and other nations need to start operating in the 
collective interest rather than political self-interest.

As Secretary Christopher testified, this Administration intends to 
"organize our foreign policy around the goal of promoting the spread of 
democracy and markets abroad."  These objectives imply global 
engagement.  They require global systems and institutions that are 
reliable and credible.

These issues are not for diplomats and generals only.  Publics 
everywhere are witness to the events in Bosnia and Somalia.  In the 
agony of the former Yugoslavia we are testing not the UN, but the 
capacity of the world community, through the UN, to stop brutality, 
which is by no means unique to the Balkans.  It is morally indefensible 
that hundreds of thousands of people should die each year from 
starvation and genocide.  It is just as untenable when relief workers 
die for lack of protection or peace-keepers die for lack of a credible 
mandate or adequate support. My guess is that it will become politically 
unsustainable if these atrocities occur for long on international TV 
without a proportionate response.

Ultimately, it is the public in democracies around the world who must 
decide to support interventions, to risk their own sons and daughters, 
to save the lives of others, and to make an adequate financial 
investment in global peace.  Our leadership obligation, as I see it, is 
to create credible instruments that deserve their support.

I view it as my task not just to respond to events, although that we 
must, but work with the committee in building an agenda for making these 
international institutions into powerful assets.  With an agenda, the 
United States may be able to shape to events in ways that build an 
acceptable structure for the new world order;  without an agenda 
opportunities may be lost irretrievably.  Declaring for change and 
helping it happen, the US can help revitalize instruments for peace, 
human rights, and development whose potential is even greater now than 
in the past.



Elinor G. Constable
Assistant Secretary-designate For Oceans and International Environmental 
and Scientific Affairs
Statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC, 
May 7, 1993.

Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to testify before you today as the  
President's nominee for the post of Assistant Secretary for the Bureau 
of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES).  
Given your critical role in this bureau's creation some two decades ago, 
it is particularly appropriate that I appear before you at this time.

The OES bureau's mandate has never been more crucial or more 
challenging.  As the United States moves into the post-Cold War era, 
issues such as climate change, biodiversity, ocean policy, and science 
and technology cooperation will become increasingly important elements 
of US foreign policy.

I have been personally concerned about many of these issues for years 
and am honored that the President has asked me to advance the 
Administration's agenda in these areas of great significance for this 
country and for the world. 

Should I be confirmed, I will do my best to address the broad range of 
international environmental concerns the United States faces and to 
build on the progress made at last year's earth summit in Rio.  The 
earth summit goal of a truly sustainable future can be achieved if we 
pursue sound policies that promote both environmental objectives and 
economic growth.  To reach this goal, we will engage in an enhanced 
global dialogue to deal with climate change, depletion of the ozone 
layer, destruction of forests, and other pressing concerns.

Our environmental goals encompass many significant oceans issues.  We 
hope to make progress in dealing with marine pollution, protecting 
marine mammals and other species, and conserving fish stocks of 
importance to the US industry.  We will also take a more active role in 
international discussions on the Law of the Sea Convention, a topic I 
know is of deep and abiding interest to you, Mr. Chairman.

Bilateral and multilateral cooperation on science and technology 
programs is essential for developing new technologies to benefit 
mankind, such as those in the area of energy and the environment.  
Access to scientific developments in other countries also can help 
ensure that the United States remains the world's scientific and 
technological leader.  This is vital for our nation's long-term economic 
competitiveness.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, the OES Bureau and the State Department face 
tremendous challenges in the years ahead.  I am very pleased about this 
opportunity to advance an agenda that I care about deeply.  I look 
forward to working closely and often with this committee on these very 
important issues. 



John Shattuck
Assistant Secretary-designate for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs
Statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC, 
May 7, 1993.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is an honor and a privilege 
to appear before you this morning as President Clinton's nominee to be 
Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs.  
If confirmed, I look forward to consulting often and regularly with you, 
and to seeking your advice about how to respond to the extraordinary 
changes that are transforming the world we live in.

I am particularly honored and grateful that Senators Ted Kennedy and 
John Kerry have generously given their time to introduce me this 
morning.

We all know that popular movements for democracy and human rights are 
sweeping across every region of the globe today and confronting 
authoritarian oppression in all its forms and guises.  How should our 
foreign policy relate to these movements?  How can we help them succeed?  
How should we assist political prisoners who are tortured, political 
leaders who are denied the right to give voice to their constituencies 
through free and fair elections, ethnic and religious minorities who are 
persecuted, workers who are jailed for trying to form free trade unions-
-these are among the many challenges our government will face as we 
rededicate ourselves to the defense of human rights and the spread of 
democracy throughout the world.

I come to my assignment after more than three decades of experience in 
human rights affairs.  In many ways, my experience has mirrored the 
dramatic changes that have occurred during this period.  A few examples 
are worth recounting.

Six years ago, as vice chairman of Amnesty International, I participated 
in a campaign to secure the release of a political prisoner in a 
Siberian prison camp.  Four weeks ago, that former prisoner visited the 
State Department in his capacity as director of human rights in the 
Russian Ministry of Justice.

In the summer of 1988, I traveled to Prague where I met with a leader of 
the Czech human rights movement that was later to transform 
Czechoslovakia and tear a gaping hole in the Iron Curtain through the 
Velvet Revolution of 1989.  We met in an outdoor cafe so that our 
conversation would not be bugged.  Two years later, that leader, Rita 
Klimova, was appointed by President Vaclav Havel to be the Czech 
ambassador to the United States.  

Thirty-three years ago, I was the first and only American Field Service 
summer exchange student ever to be sent to Damascus, Syria.  That 
experience made me intensely aware of the importance of safeguarding 
human rights in situations of religious and ethnic diversity.  I have 
spent many years since then reflecting and acting on the use of human 
rights law and the machinery of justice to promote pluralism and mediate 
ethnic conflict both in the United States and abroad.

Over the past 25 years, I have served the cause of human rights in a 
wide variety of positions--as a trial and appellate lawyer in freedom of 
speech and privacy cases; as director of the Washington office of the 
American Civil Liberties Union, engaged in all aspects of the domestic 
human rights agenda in the Congress; as a national board member and vice 
chair of Amnesty International; as a founder of the International Human 
Rights Law Group; as a lecturer and author on most areas of human 
rights, democracy, civil liberties, and constitutional law; and as vice 
president of Harvard University, where I have shared the responsibility 
for many issues of civil rights and academic freedom as well as the 
management of a large and internationally diverse university.  

The Congress, and particularly the members of this committee, have long 
been at the forefront of the protection of human rights.  It was this 
committee that originated legislation in 1976 calling for the 
establishment of a coordinator of human rights within the Department of 
State.  In 1977, congressional human rights advocates urged an expansion 
of the mandate and authority of that office, and this led to the 
establishment of the current Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian 
Affairs.

Out of the dramatic changes that have occurred since that time, some of 
the worst violators of human rights have now emerged as constitutional 
democracies.  Yet as official respect for human rights has grown in some 
parts of the world, large-scale abuses have continued unabated in many 
areas, and new and extreme abuses have begun to appear, particularly 
those involving ethnic and religious conflict.

As the world changes, we must increase our effort to curtail these gross 
violations of human rights.  We must also develop new strategies to 
address the increasingly important relationship between the protection 
of human rights and the building of democratic societies.  This will be 
the function of the new Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 
which has been proposed under the State Department reorganization plan. 
According to this proposal, for which we need congressional consent, the 
new bureau will succeed the Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian 
Affairs.  It will report to the new Under Secretary for Global Affairs, 
Tim Wirth, who as Counselor already has responsibility for all cross-
cutting global issues in the State Department.

The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor will be organized around 
a central premise:  The condition of human rights in any country is a 
measure of the quality of its democracy.  Human rights are never secure 
in a non-democratic setting, and authoritarian or totalitarian regimes 
are at war with human freedom.

President Clinton has called the promotion of human rights and 
democratic freedom one of the three pillars of his foreign policy.  Not 
only is promoting democracy true to time-honored fundamental American 
values, it makes sound strategic sense.  Experience has shown that 
thriving democracies are more likely to respect human rights and protect 
minorities; they are more likely to be reliable partners in trade, arms 
accords, and environmental protection; and they are more likely to join 
in international efforts to counter aggression, terrorism, and human 
rights abuse.

Closely related to its human rights and democracy mission will be the 
function of the new bureau in helping to upgrade the importance of labor 
issues in foreign policy.  The Department's labor officers overseas 
should be given an expanded role in working with trade unions, human 
rights organizations, and other grassroots organizations to help promote 
durable democratic societies.  In addition, greater emphasis should be 
given to encouraging countries to improve their efforts to provide and 
protect internationally recognized worker rights and thereby meet the 
criteria now defined in US trade and foreign assistance legislation.  
Finally, a larger proportion of development assistance should be made 
available to improving the working and living conditions of ordinary 
people, tying these programs more closely to human rights and democracy-
building initiatives.

In closing let me briefly state three initial goals that I plan to 
pursue if I am confirmed.

First, I will direct an interagency effort to identify programs and 
policy options for the President and the Secretary of State as they 
begin to shape the role of the United States in promoting democracy and 
human rights through American foreign policy.

Second, I plan to consult widely with non-governmental organizations who 
are working on issues of democracy, human rights, and international 
labor affairs and to develop a constructive relationship between the 
government and the private sector in the cause of democracy-building and 
human rights protection.

Third, I look forward to working closely with this committee, and with 
the Congress as a whole, on ratification of the pending human rights 
treaties so that the United States can demonstrate its resolve more 
clearly than ever to adhere to universal human rights standards and to 
seek their enforcement throughout the world.

If I am confirmed, I look forward to your continuing guidance and 
counsel in carrying out the mission of the bureau I will direct. (###) 

END OF DISPATCH VOL 4, NO 20

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