US DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 4, NUMBER 22, MAY 31, 1993
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:
1.  U.S. Support for Russian Reform:  An Investment in America's 
Security -- Secretary Christopher
2.  Foreign Assistance Priorities After the Cold War -- Secretary 
Christopher
3.  CARE's Work Saluted -- Secretary Christopher 
4.  $30 Million for Refugees and Conflict Victims in Bosnia and Croatia
5.  U.S. Statement on Population and Development -- Timothy E. Wirth 
6.  Developments in U.S. Policy Toward Global Climate Change -- Timothy 
E. Wirth 
7.  FY 1994 Security Assistance Budget Requests -- Lynn E. Davis                                                                     
8.  FY 1994 Foreign Assistance Budget Request for Africa -- George E. 
Moose 
9.  Treaty Actions



ARTICLE 1:

U.S. Support for Russian Reform:  An Investment in America's Security
Secretary Christopher
Address at the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, 
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, May 27, 1993

Fritz Mondale suggested that I come here today, and I am delighted to be 
back in the Upper Midwest.  Scranton, North Dakota, where I grew up, was 
much too small to have a daily paper, and I depended upon the 
Minneapolis Tribune, which was brought only one day late on the 
Milwaukee railroad.  I grew up on Gopher football, and probably could 
still name some of the members of the 1935 team.

In those Depression years, I learned that politics should be about 
helping people.  Through my life and in my career, no single state has 
produced more caring politicians than Minnesota--notable among them 
Fritz Mondale.

Fritz Mondale is a man I have been proud to work with and stand by for 
nearly thirty years.  We worked together to advance justice at home and 
human rights abroad.  In the Carter Administration, we worked together 
to win approval of the Panama Canal Treaties and the Taiwan Relations 
Act, two of the signature endeavors of the Carter Administration.  We 
also worked together on behalf of Southeast Asian refugees and against 
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

In recent years, in private life, Fritz Mondale has worked to promote 
democracy and human rights around the world as Chairman of the National 
Democratic Institute.  Wherever he has gone, Fritz has shown America's 
most decent face to the world, and reminded Americans of our most 
inspiring values.

I am especially pleased to be speaking to you today at a great state 
university that honors the memory of Hubert Humphrey.  His achievements 
on the domestic front were so imaginative and so important--from civil 
rights to Medicare--that we sometimes forget the lasting contribution he 
made in the field of international affairs.

Like many of his contemporaries, Hubert Humphrey knew what he was 
against:  communism and repression.  But like few others, he was also 
just as passionate about what he stood for and what America ought to 
stand for in the world:  peace and freedom.  He knew where America 
should go--and as much as anyone of his generation, he knew how to get 
there.  The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; the Nuclear Test Ban 
Treaty; the Peace Corps and the Food for Peace program:  these are all 
part of Hubert's legacy.  Hubert's ideas made the world better, by 
bringing out the best in America.

This is one in a series of speeches I will be giving around the United 
States.  I want to make sure that foreign policy isn't foreign to the 
American people.

At the State Department, we have a desk for virtually every foreign 
country:  a China desk; a Brazil desk; a Russia desk.  As Secretary of 
State, I am determined that we will also have an American desk--and that 
I will sit behind it.  My principal mission is to advance the vital 
interests and values of the citizens of the United States.  That's my 
job.

I want to help American businesses succeed in the global economy.  That 
is why I visited Honeywell earlier today to discuss their investments in 
Russia.  It was an inspiring visit to a very great company.

I want to underscore our unshakable commitment to human rights.  That is 
why I am visiting later today the Center for Victims of Torture here in 
Minneapolis.

And I want America to make essential investments in our national 
security.  That is why I have come here to talk to you about America's 
policy toward Russia.  No relationship is more important to the long-
term security of the United States than our strategic relationship with 
Russia.

Today's students are the first generation of Americans to have come of 
age in the post-Cold War era.  It is your generation that will define 
America's destiny in the next century.  It is your generation that will 
decide to what purpose America's leadership and power will be put.

Today, I want to talk about our new opportunity to make a new democratic 
world.  As we meet, the people of Russia are struggling heroically to 
build a free society and a market economy.  If they succeed, the payoffs 
for America promise to be profound:  in the reduced threat of nuclear 
war; in lower defense budgets; and in the vast new markets that can fuel 
global prosperity and create jobs for Americans.

But if reform fails, and if Russia reverts to dictatorship or collapses 
into anarchy, the consequences would be appalling.  The shadow of 
nuclear confrontation could return.  Our "peace dividend" would be 
cancelled.  Cooperation in foreign policy would vanish. And the 
worldwide movement toward democracy would suffer a devastating setback.

America faces a choice.  Either we do all we can now to help Russia's 
reformers succeed--or we stand aside, take our chances, and just watch 
events unfold.  If we stand aside, we will forfeit a rare chance to 
shape a more peaceful world.

Some believe that with the end of the Cold War, America ought to step 
back from the world stage.  What a disservice that would be to all 
Americans, especially to young Americans.  You deserve the same chance 
my generation had to fulfill America's unique destiny to promote freedom 
and democracy around the world.

Some say that our nation is on a course of decline, that we can no 
longer afford to lead.  It is true that the United States faces many 
challenges today unlike any in the nation's history.  But to me, that 
means we must be more engaged internationally, not less; more ardent in 
our promotion of democracy, not less; more inspired in our leadership, 
not less.

America must lead because the need for American leadership is 
undiminished.  We are a blessed and a powerful nation.  We must shoulder 
the responsibility of world leadership.

We stand prepared to act decisively to protect our interests wherever 
and whenever necessary.  When it is necessary, we will act unilaterally 
to protect our interests.  Where collective responses are appropriate, 
we will lead in mobilizing such collective responses.  But let me make 
it clear today.  Make no mistake:  The United States will lead.

At two other points in this century, America faced a choice similar to 
the one we face today.

The first defining moment for American leadership came in 1918 in the 
aftermath of World War I.  After that terrible conflict, Europe lay 
devastated and demoralized.  Empires that had stood for centuries 
collapsed overnight.  Violent revolution and revenge erupted.

Amid the chaos, the world looked to the United States for the strength 
and moral vision to ensure a lasting peace.  That was the dream of 
President Wilson.  He was a visionary in his grasp of a profound truth 
of this bloody century:  American leadership is the linchpin of a more 
just international system.

But Wilson's plan to join the League of Nations was defeated in 
Congress.  Instead of deciding to lead, the United States chose to 
retreat.  For America and the world, the consequences were tragic.

Within a decade, the storm clouds gathered.  Hitler became Germany's 
chancellor, and, six years later, Germany marched into Czechoslovakia.  
A militarist Japan invaded Manchuria.  Fascist Italy conquered Ethiopia.  
And the systematic persecution and destruction of Europe's Jews 
commenced.  All the while, America reclined in isolationism.  Then the 
infamous attack on Pearl Harbor shattered a false peace.  And nearly 
300,000 Americans gave their lives on the battlefields of Europe and the 
Pacific to help win World War II.

Then came the second defining moment for American leadership. Americans 
saw European democracies teetering on the edge, economies lying in ruin, 
communist dictatorships consolidating their hold in Eastern Europe, the 
Iron Curtain descending, and a Cold War chilling the new peace.

Once again, the world looked to America's strength and moral force to 
build peace from the ruins of war.  But this time, America responded 
positively.

It took principled presidential leadership--and bipartisan 
statesmanship--to win congressional approval and lasting public support.  
Fortunately, we were blessed with leaders--Truman, Marshall, Acheson, 
Vandenberg--who had learned the bitter lessons of 1918.

Together, Democrats and Republicans put the pillars of peace and 
security in place--at Bretton Woods, with the Marshall Plan, and through 
NATO.  And those pillars still stood as the Berlin Wall fell.

Put simply, Communism was defeated.  Freedom was defended.  Our values 
triumphed.

In the late 1940s, I had returned from service in the Pacific during the 
Second World War and was attending law school.  I remember the 
atmosphere when, as Averell Harriman once said, most Americans wanted 
nothing more than to "go to the movies and drink a Coke."

Yet when the American people saw what was at stake, they exercised their 
common sense.  They accepted the necessity for American leadership of 
the post-war world.  They understood it was right, it was necessary, and 
it was in America's interest.

We spent literally trillions of dollars to deter the communist threat.  
And we put the lives of our finest young Americans on the line to 
preserve freedom.

The sacrifices were great, but the payoffs were even greater.  My 
generation enjoyed security and unparalleled prosperity.  And we helped 
to turn our former wartime adversaries--Germany and Japan--into 
peacetime allies and leading partners in the democratic community.

Certainly, there are differences between the situations we faced after 
two world wars and the situation today.  But there are also important 
parallels that ought to guide us.  We must recognize the need for 
American leadership; the need for bipartisanship in our foreign policy; 
the need to make investments now to avoid far larger expenditures and a 
much more dangerous world later; the need to talk sense to the American 
people.

Even as we make the tough choices at home to put our economy in order, 
we must extend a hand of cooperation to the peoples of the former Soviet 
Union, not out of charity, but out of responsibility to ourselves--to 
secure our own interests and to defend our own values.  Helping 
democracy succeed in Russia is probably the wisest--and least expensive-
-investment that we can make today in America's security.

A democratic Russia creates a new global political landscape.  Today, 
Russia is showing a willingness to work with the United States and other 
nations to prevent the spread of the conflict in Bosnia and to exert 
pressure for a political outcome.  Our new relationship with Russia 
gives us the chance to work together on the world's problems, and to 
carry out preventive diplomacy and solve conflicts.

The need for American action is reinforced by the results of Russia's 
April 25 referendum.  In a great expression of democratic faith, the 
Russian people reaffirmed their commitment to political and economic 
reform. While the experts insisted that Russians had grown cynical about 
democracy and apathetic toward politics, nearly two-thirds of voters 
came to the polls.  

Even more remarkable was the outcome of the referendum itself.  After 
almost 18 months of painful economic reforms, a strong majority of the 
Russian people expressed their support for President Yeltsin and for 
more reform.  And they did so with the backing of President Clinton, 
whose support of Yeltsin and reform in Russia has been strong and 
unflinching.

President Clinton is determined to meet the challenge of leadership--to 
tip the global balance in favor of free-dom.  This is why he has led 
America into an alliance with Russian reform.

Working closely with Russia's democrats and our Western allies, the 
President has developed a two-part strategy to support the new Russian 
revolution:  First, a focused program of US initiatives to help the 
development of Russian democracy and free enterprise; second, a large-
scale package of measures to support a transformation of the Russian 
economy, a package jointly sponsored by the world's major industrial 
democracies and major financial institutions.

President Clinton is delivering on the commitments that he made to 
President Yeltsin at Vancouver in early April--commitments that were 
important to the outcome of the referendum.

He pledged concessional loans for agricultural products.  Very soon, 
Russia will sign a $700 million Food for Progress concessional loan 
agreement, an agreement that will provide aid for Russia.  That will 
also help wheat, corn, and soybean farmers here in the Midwest.

He pledged support for privatization in Russia.  US teams are now in 
Russia helping establish capital markets, including a fledgling stock 
market, and an Enterprise Fund to invest in start-up small businesses in 
Russia.

He pledged support for student exchange programs as part of a Democracy 
Corps.  More than 2,000 Russian students will come to America in the 
coming weeks as part of "Democracy Summer."

Other parts of the Vancouver program are also moving ahead.  We are 
working to revive Russia's energy sector--to provide hard currency for 
Russia--and lessen US dependence on Persian Gulf oil.  We are also 
helping to resettle recently demobilized Russian soldiers.  That action 
will support the withdrawal of Russian troops from neighboring 
countries.

President Clinton's initiative is guided by several basic principles.

First, we want to deliver quick and tangible benefits to the Russian 
people.  If the faith demonstrated in last month's referendum is to be 
sustained, they must see that they are the beneficiaries of reform and 
not its unintentional victims.  And if Americans are to support this 
initiative, we must--and we will--make sure that the aid is not just 
well-intentioned but also well-spent.

A congressional delegation, led by House Majority Leader Richard 
Gephardt, recently saw first-hand how the United States is helping to 
make privatization work in Russia.  They observed auction centers in 
Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod both funded by USAID and operated by Price 
Water-house, to carry out the sale of state-run enterprises.

Second, we need to assist Russia's conversion to a market economy.  
Ultimately, increased interaction with the world economy--far more than 
aid--will transform Russia.  For its part, Russia needs to establish the 
necessary legal and political conditions to attract foreign trade and 
investment--which we hope will include businesses that will create 
American jobs.

For our part, President Clinton has ordered a full review of Cold War 
laws and regulations.  They were meant to restrict trade with a 
communist Soviet Union, but they now only impede our relations with a 
democratic Russia.  To the maximum extent possible, consistent with 
America's interests, US markets should be open to competitive Russian 
products.  Similarly, Americans should be allowed to export our goods 
and technology to Russia.

Third, we want to dramatically expand efforts to send American business 
and trade union leaders, farmers, and community organizers to Russia.  
We want to increase contact and cooperation between our armed forces and 
the Russian military.  We want to bring tens of thousands of Russians to 
the United States, where they can experience the sights, sounds, and 
practices of a thriving democracy and a market economy.  

Our exchange programs will place a special emphasis on the younger 
generation of Russians and Americans.  I hope each of you consider 
taking part at some point.  

Fourth, our assistance to Russia must also reinforce US security.  This 
approach means helping Russia and its neighbors dismantle their 
dangerous nuclear arsenals.  This is simply the best security that our 
money can buy.

Fifth and finally, our assistance efforts must not take place in 
isolation, but must be part of a larger partnership between Russia and 
the international community.  That is why President Clinton's strategy 
to support Russia's democracy is tied to a larger-scale multilateral 
initiative with our principal industrial partners around the world.

This multilateral program was announced last month in Tokyo at an 
extraordinary meeting of foreign and finance ministers from the seven 
major industrialized countries and Russia.  At that meeting, Russia's 
representatives outlined a bold new plan to control Russia's money 
supply, to cut its budget deficits, and to undertake even more 
fundamental economic reform.  

In response to such actions, the world's leading democracies--working 
through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank--announced 
their readiness to provide Russia with financial support.  Fifteen 
billion dollars of Russia's foreign debt has recently been rescheduled.  
The multilateral package announced at Tokyo amounts to more than $28 
billion to help Russia stabilize its currency, finance critical imports, 
and divest itself of inefficient state enterprises.

The disbursement of these resources will be closely linked to Russia's 
progress in economic reform.  In contrast to previous assistance 
efforts, the Tokyo program sets realistic standards for Russian 
performance.  We plan to match Russia's progress with a prompt infusion 
of resources that will reinforce reform and will benefit Russian people 
at the grass-roots level.

At the G-7 meeting in Tokyo in April, the United States committed to 
going beyond the pledges made in Vancouver.  We put forth a $1.8 billion 
additional proposal to build upon our efforts in support of reform.

I am pleased that just yesterday, the funding for that proposal was 
approved by the House subcommittee that oversees these matters, chaired 
very effectively by Congressman Dave Obey from your neighboring state of 
Wisconsin.  And I am also pleased that the package drew strong 
bipartisan support.

We have made important progress since Vancouver.  I am confident that we 
will sustain that progress until the July summit meeting in Tokyo, when 
we hope for another burst of enthusiasm and commitment to support free 
markets and democracy in Russia.

Our closest allies clearly recognize that helping Russia is in their 
interest, too.  Canada, Germany, Japan, and Britain have each announced 
substantial new aid packages during the last two months.  We hope that 
by the July summit in Tokyo, we will be able to announce agreement with 
our allies on the creation of a new special privatization fund.  We will 
work closely in this effort with Japan and Germany.  And we hope that 
Japan fully recognizes the leading role it can play not only in Tokyo 
this summer, but thereafter in helping deliver the kind of total package 
that will secure Russia's place in the community of democratic nations.

I think that all of us in Washington realize that asking American 
taxpayers to help support Russia is not easy, especially when we face 
important challenges here at home.  But I disagree with those who think 
it's wrong or politically unwise to ask the American people to support a 
program that is so clearly in our interests.

That's why we are asking--and that's why we're asking now.  I urge you 
to support the President's plan to help Russia's democracy succeed.  I 
am convinced that this investment in Russia's democracy is essential to 
America's future security.

I am especially asking the young people here today to make your choice.  
I am not among those who think that your generation is disengaged, or 
cynical, or apathetic about what happens in the world around you.  Don't 
let those critics sell you short.  I believe you deserve more credit, 
and I ask you today to help prove me right.  I ask you to tell your 
parents, your peers, your representatives in Congress, that you 
understand the vital link between the success of Russian democracy and 
America's long-term security.

You understand that freedom abroad means opportunity in America.  You 
understand that assistance to our friends in Russia is insurance against 
having enemies in Russia.

If we do not act today, your generation may inherit an America of few 
choices and many burdens.  You may inherit an America of lost 
opportunities.  We may never build a national service program.  We may 
never fully fund Head Start for poor children.  We may never be able to 
afford the technologies we need to clean up our environment.  Unless we 
help Russian democracy now, we will pay the price.  And my 
responsibility, together with you, is not to let that happen.

We have come so far.  We have spent so much.  We have earned the promise 
of a safer, freer, and better world.  To retreat now would be to walk 
away from nearly a half century of American leadership, sacrifice, and 
commitment.

Our purpose over the last half century was to arrive right where we are 
today:  to be able to ask the American people to form a partnership with 
Russia because it is in America's most fundamental interest.  That is 
why we ask--and that is why we are confident that the Congress and the 
American people will respond affirmatively when we make this request to 
measure up to our mutual responsibilities. (###)



ARTICLE 2:

Foreign Assistance Priorities After the Cold War
Secretary Christopher
Statement before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Washington, DC, 
May 18, 1993

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you, Mr. 
Gilman, and the committee.  Together, we face the challenge of crafting 
a foreign policy for a new era of unprecedented change, hope, and 
opportunity.  The Clinton Administration approaches this task with the 
conviction that strong public support for foreign policy at home is 
essential to American effectiveness abroad.

Today, domestic issues and foreign issues are inseparable.  The American 
public expects our foreign policy investments to pay dividends in 
economic growth and the advancement of democratic ideals.  As our 
Administration goes forward, we expect to deliver on those expectations.

As I mentioned to the full committee in January, when we met informally, 
President Clinton has identified three overarching goals for our foreign 
policy:

First, elevating national and global economic growth as a primary 
foreign policy goal;

Second, updating our forces and security arrangements to meet new 
threats; and

Third, organizing our foreign policy to promote democracy, human rights, 
and free markets abroad.

Russian Aid
All three of these overarching policy goals would be greatly advanced by 
the success of Russian democracy and economic reform.  We must take 
strong action to cooperate with Russia.  The results of the referendum 
were a significant victory for democracy and economic reform.  But the 
worst mistake we could make would be to assume that all of our work had 
been done.  It's only begun.

As President Clinton has said, helping ensure the success of Russian 
democracy is the supreme security challenge of our era and is in our 
deep self-interest.  An investment today in Russia's democratic future 
is an essential investment in America's future.  By making this 
investment, we can help turn what was our most dangerous adversary into 
an enduring partner.  This, I believe, is a critical mission.

International Affairs Budget
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, you've already seen the 
details of the President's April 8 budget request, so I'd only like to 
stress one very important point that often gets lost in the details with 
regard to the Budget Function 150 account.

Historically, international affairs spending has represented just over 
1% of our total federal expenditures, a modest investment, indeed, in 
furtherance of our nation's vital international objectives.  The FY 1994 
budget marks a first step in redirecting our foreign policy, refocusing 
our foreign affairs funds, and reforming our foreign policy structures 
to help meet the three overarching goals that President Clinton has set 
forth for the post-Cold War era--supporting democracy, promoting growth, 
and strengthening security.

The FY 1994 budget is, by necessity, a transitional budget.  Changes in 
some of the details of our budget request are possible and probably even 
likely.  Our post-Cold War world is itself undergoing a profound 
transition.  The new challenges and opportunities we face in the world 
require fundamental changes in the direction of our foreign policy as 
well as a fundamental restructuring of our foreign policy institutions.

I believe we've made a good, strong start, but much remains to be done.  
We intend to work very closely and cooperatively with this committee 
during your deliberations on our funding request.

Peace-keeping
Mr. Chairman, I know this committee has very important responsibilities 
with respect to funding UN activities.  The FY 1994 international 
affairs budget requests nearly $700 million in contributions to the 
United Nations and other international peace-keeping operations.  We've 
also requested $300 million in FY 1993 supplemental funds to meet 
unanticipated needs for international peace-keeping.

Millions spent now on multilateral preventative diplomacy--emergency 
refugee support and peace-keeping--may save hundreds of millions in 
defense and international relief later.  At a time when we're calling on 
the United Nations to do much more, we cannot support it less.

The end of the Cold War has unleashed long-suppressed conflicts in the 
Balkans, the former Soviet Union, and elsewhere.  It has also opened up 
new possibilities for international cooperation, and I believe we must 
seize them.

Development, Economic, and Security Assistance
I know that Brian Atwood, our new USAID Administrator, appeared before 
you only last week and set forth our approach to redefining the role of 
U.S. assistance.  I won't repeat what he said, but I would like to 
reinforce some of the main points he made.

During the Cold War, geopolitical and security concerns dominated our 
economic assistance program.  In the post-Cold War era, however, we must 
now target our assistance to address today's priorities:  global growth 
and domestic job creation; transnational challenges such as disease, 
environmental degradation, global population growth, and migration; and 
promoting sustainable economies and stable democracies.

In the past decade, we mobilized our assistance against communism.  Now, 
we can and must mobilize ourselves for democracy, for free markets, and 
for a secure international environment in which they can flourish.  
Today, our watchwords must be empowerment, partnership, and 
effectiveness.

During the Cold War, the imperative of assisting national governments 
resulted in the rise of large, highly centralized aid bureaucracies 
focusing on government-to-government relations.  Now we can build 
economic, civic, and cultural partnerships between peoples.  We must 
support democratic values through individual empowerment.  Foreign 
assistance will serve as our venture capital in mobilizing America's 
major asset--our robust civil society--in support of political and 
economic freedom worldwide.  Forging broad and non-traditional 
partnerships with our allies and with international financial 
institutions will help us do more with less, a key challenge in an era 
of vast possibility and tight budgets.

Our focus on individual empowerment and partnerships will also enhance 
our effectiveness.  Our foreign assistance programs will be result-
oriented, not expenditure-oriented.  National entitlements will be 
phased out, and our institutions will be made flexible enough to ensure 
that assistance can go where we find cooperation and reform are 
manifest.  Where scarce development resources cannot be used 
effectively, our assistance programs should be reduced or redirected.

To be effective--to get results--the Agency for International 
Development itself must be reorganized.  We seek greater efficiency and 
smaller overseas missions.  At the same time, we will work to strengthen 
USAID's central policy direction.  We'll foster teamwork and 
accountability throughout the Agency, and we'll ensure better agency 
coordination.

Dr. Wharton and his Function 150 Task Force will forward their report on 
USAID to me shortly.  Before commenting, I want to review it in depth.  
I hope that consultations with this committee and other key committees 
will begin soon so we can discuss the report and I can get your 
reactions to it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge publicly the role of this committee-
-and its Chairman and ranking minority member--in the reform of our 
foreign assistance programs and institutions.  As Mr. Gilman said, the 
recommendations of your 1989 task force will be largely adopted by the 
Administration.  I look forward to continuing to rely on your leadership 
and support in the coming months.

I want to highlight four budget proposals that reflect some of our 
foreign aid priorities.

First, we are requesting development funding for Africa at $800 million.  
In addition, we will continue to provide over half a billion dollars in 
humanitarian and other assistance to Africa;

Second, we're requesting a $100-million increase in population programs, 
including a $50-million contribution to the United Nations Family 
Planning Agency;

Third, we have requested enhanced funding to address global 
environmental concerns; and

Fourth, we will also undertake democracy-building programs around the 
world.

Our development assistance should be judged not on the basis of funds 
obligated but on the basis of results achieved, and the same applies to 
security assistance.

Security assistance can help strengthen friends and allies so they can 
play a larger role in promoting regional stability, defending themselves 
against aggression, and participating in peace-keeping activities.  The 
Clinton Administration does not view security assistance in isolation 
but in terms of how it can serve the mutually reinforcing and 
overarching goals of our foreign policy.

Nonproliferation and disarmament are among the greatest national 
security challenges facing us today.  The proposed FY 1994 budget 
reflects an integrated, government-wide approach to nonproliferation and 
arms control.  We're requesting funds for  the establishment of a new 
$50-million Non-Proliferation Fund.  Departmental resources will also be 
devoted to addressing other global problems, such as AIDS, international 
crime, terrorism, and narcotics production and trafficking.

Humanitarian Assistance
Alleviating human suffering remains a high priority in our FY 1994 
budget.  During FY 1993, we provided worldwide relief to refugees and 
victims of poverty and of natural disasters and crises such as war, 
famine, and drought.  Significant amounts of aid are being directed to 
the vast human tragedies in Somalia and the former Yugoslavia.  The 
Clinton Administration is committed to continuing the funding levels 
Congress provided for these activities in FY 1993, and we're also 
proposing a $20-million increase in refugee assistance in 1994.

To conclude the broad topic of assistance, Mr. Chairman, if we succeed 
with our plans for redirecting and revitalizing our assistance efforts, 
Americans will benefit and the world will benefit.

State Department Reform
Now, a few words about State Department reform.  Given the budget 
constraints, flexibility and wise management of funds for all our 
programs and institutions become ever more important.

In this regard, I'd particularly like to commend Representative Berman 
and Representative Snowe for their subcommittee's efforts to provide me 
with increased flexibility and decreased micromanagement.  I know you're 
marking up the State Department bill next week, and I appreciate very 
much your help as the Department tries to accomplish more with fewer 
budgetary resources.

Our broad-based reform of the State Department's organization and 
operations is designed to achieve quicker, more open, more cost-
effective policy-making and performance.  We must achieve clearer 
financial accountability.  We must invest in better training for our 
personnel, both Foreign and Civil Service.  And we must ensure that the 
face of the Department, which is shown to the world, is a diverse face.

The committee's cooperation and support remains vital to the success of 
our overall reform efforts.  I want you to know, Mr. Chairman and all 
members of the committee, that our Administration is more open to your 
views than ever as we face together the challenge of forging a new 
foreign policy, better channeling our resources, and adapting our 
institutions to a world that is fundamentally changed.

Bosnia
And now, Mr. Chairman, before I close, I want to add a few words on the 
ongoing crisis in the former Yugoslavia, a matter that I know is of deep 
interest to the committee.

The Bosnian Serb so-called referendum this past weekend has 
overwhelmingly rejected the Vance-Owen peace plan.  At the same time, 
the Bosnian Serbs and others in that sad country continue to engage in 
aggression.  As you know, I never gave much weight to the so-called 
referendum, and I indicated from the moment the Bosnian Serbs called for 
it that it would in no way advance the cause of peace; and I believe it 
has not done so.

My attitude was similar toward the signature by the Bosnian Serb leader 
Karadzic on the Vance-Owen plan in Athens a couple of weeks ago.  
Subsequent events have made a mockery of that signature.  What we have 
looked at, and looked for, from the beginning were not signatures or 
words or referenda but rather actions on the ground, demonstrating a 
serious interest in ending the violence and coming to a peaceful 
settlement.  We have seen no real indication of such actions by the 
Bosnian Serbs.

This is a historically tragic and difficult problem.  It involves a 
struggle among three groups--the Serbs, the Croats, and the Muslims--all 
residing in Bosnia and each possessing deep distrust and ancient hatreds 
of each other.  The war that began 2 years ago has evolved into a war of 
all against all.  Indeed, some of the most violent recent battles have 
taken place in the western half of Bosnia between Croat and Muslim 
fighters, particularly around the town of Mostar.  There are atrocities 
on all sides in this terrible situation.

Obviously, any intervention in such a morass must be carefully 
considered and carefully weighed with a clear view to what the United 
States' interests are.  In addressing this problem, President Clinton 
has set forth several principles that guide our consideration of further 
steps to respond to the violence, to produce a political settlement, and 
to contain the conflict.

The first principle is that we will not act alone in taking actions in 
the former Yugoslavia.  This is a multilateral problem, and it must have 
a multilateral response.  There are a number of countries already 
involved on the ground, and a number of countries have moral, political, 
and strategic interests at stake here.  Furthermore, at heart this is a 
European problem.  We will do  what we can, in concert with our allies 
and friends, to respond to the violence and contain the conflict; but we 
will not act unilaterally.  

Second, the United States will not send ground troops into Bosnia to 
engage in military action.  As I've said, we are prepared to commit our 
military forces to implement a peace settlement entered into 
consensually and in good faith by the parties, but we will not use our 
military forces to impose a settlement in the Balkans.

The President's position is that the best way to increase the pressure 
on the Bosnian Serbs and, ultimately, contain the conflict is to lift 
the present arms embargo, coupled with a standby authority for air power 
in the event that the Bosnian Serbs try to take advantage of the 
situation while the Bosnian Government is preparing to defend itself.  
This approach is, in the President's judgment, the right course; but 
it's an approach that, obviously, can be carried out only with the 
cooperation of our allies and friends.  It will require the repeal of a 
United Nations Security Council resolution which was supported by the 
prior Administration and by the governments in Europe.

As you know, our allies and friends in Europe are not prepared to follow 
this course at the present time.  However, we're continuing to consult 
with them on these proposals and other steps.  Along these lines, I'll 
be engaging in a new round of consultations on the problem in the next 
several days.  I'll be meeting with Foreign Minister Kozyrev from Russia 
on Thursday and Foreign Minister Juppe of France here in Washington on 
Monday.

Although, Mr. Chairman, this is a difficult situation--a problem I once 
described as a "problem from hell"--our involvement and our actions have 
made a difference.  American leadership has resulted in concerted 
pressure that has produced some tangible results.  We've become engaged 
diplomatically, and we were able to get two of the three parties to sign 
on to the Vance-Owen agreement.  We were able to get enforcement of a 
"no-fly" zone.  We've engaged in a large-scale humanitarian effort that 
has saved thousands of lives.

Our pressures have directly resulted in Milosevic's recent shift to 
pushing for a peace agreement and agreeing to increasingly isolate the 
Bosnian Serbs, and we have increased the sanctions against Serbia very 
considerably in the last few days.  These actions have been consistent 
with our interests.

In situations like this, Mr. Chairman, we must be tough, but we also 
must try to be wise.  And being wise means acting in ways that are 
consistent with our national interests.  This the President has done and 
will continue to do. (###)



ARTICLE 3:

CARE's Work Saluted
Secretary Christopher
Statement at CARE 47th anniversary humanitarian awards luncheon, 
Washington, DC, May 14, 1993

I am most pleased to have this opportunity to pay tribute to CARE and to 
honor two individuals for their extraordinary work.  For nearly half a 
century, CARE has stood as a shining example of compassion and hope.

At a time when our attention is riveted on international atrocities, we 
need to remember the men and women who devote their lives to 
international healing.

At a time when hunger and starvation steal the future from millions of 
children around the world, we need to remember those who reach out to 
feed the hungry.

At a time when so many people in developing nations are trapped in a 
cycle of deprivation and fear, we need to remember those who are helping 
to lift people's lives by providing the means and skills for economic 
advancement.

So it is very fitting today for us to remember and honor an organization 
that President Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature."

I want to salute this magnificent organization, and all of the people 
who work for CARE, and all of the individuals and corporate donors who 
have given so generously to CARE.  Armed with this support, CARE 
performs daily miracles in dozens of countries around the globe.  From 
the Andes to Asia, from Southern Africa to the former Soviet Union, CARE 
is a making a profound difference for people in need.

CARE lighted the way for one of the proudest moments in American foreign 
policy--a military mobilization for a mission of mercy, saving the 
people of Somalia.

Over the last year, as so many Somalis succumbed to starvation, CARE 
helped to bring this tragedy to world attention as it brought relief to 
the Somali people.  By last fall, about 1.3 million Somalis--roughly 
one-fourth of the population--were receiving emergency care from CARE.  
A vital aspect of CARE's role was the work of CARE's President, Phil 
Johnston, who served for 6 months as the UN Coordinator for Humanitarian 
Assistance in Somalia.  I can tell you from the reports that I received 
that Phil did a magnificent job, but that won't surprise any of you who 
have worked with him and know his work.  To Philip Johnston and to all 
the other men and women working for CARE in Somalia, let me congratulate 
you on behalf of the Administration for all that you have accomplished.

In so many other places, as in Somalia, CARE's good works are motivated 
by love--and made possible by good logistics.  CARE is justly proud of 
its capacity to deliver food and services, to turn good intentions into 
lasting results.

Our Administration is completing an extensive review of the programs run 
by our Agency for International Development.  We have not yet determined 
our final recommendations for USAID, but I can tell you that two 
important components of our development policy will mirror the strengths 
of CARE:  first, an effective, reliable means of delivering services 
and, second, a sustained commitment to empowering people and giving them 
the tools and training they need to move from dependence to 
independence.

Looking at what CARE has accomplished, I am reminded of the way 
President Kennedy closed his inaugural address--some lines I think that 
aren't often enough remembered.  Here is what President Kennedy said at 
the end of his inaugural address:

With a good conscience as our only sure reward, with history as the 
final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, 
asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's 
work must truly be our own.

Performing that work, the people of CARE have elevated all of us, and I 
am pleased and very, very grateful to have had this opportunity to 
participate in this event honoring CARE and its two honorees this year.  
Thank you.  (###)



ARTICLE 4:

$30 Million for Refugees and Conflict Victims in Bosnia and Croatia
Statement by Department Spokesman Richard Boucher, Washington, DC, May 
24, 1993.

The President authorized the release on May 20 of up to $30 million from 
the U.S. Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund to meet the 
urgent needs of refugees and conflict victims in Bosnia and Croatia.

Intensified fighting has increased the number of persons requiring 
assistance in Bosnia from 1.2 million in January to 2.5 million at the 
present.  With the population at risk in Bosnia rising dramatically, 
particularly since the evacuation of wounded and civilians from 
Srebrenica, Tuzla, Gorazde, and Zepa, funds for emergency programs in 
Bosnia are a priority.  There are also 800,000 refugees and displaced 
persons in Croatia in need of assistance.

This U.S. funding may be drawn upon for contributions to United Nations 
agencies in response to the UN's consolidated appeal for the former 
Yugoslavia as well as for the support of programs of the International 
Committee of the Red Cross and non-governmental organizations working in 
Bosnia and Croatia.  (###)



ARTICLE 5:

U.S. Statement on Population and Development
Timothy E. Wirth, Counselor
Statement to the Second Preparatory Committee for the International 
Conference on Population and Development, United Nations, New York City, 
May 11, 1993

Mr. Chairman, Madame Secretary General, and distinguished delegates:  It 
is an honor for me to be here today to represent the United States at 
this second preparatory meeting for the 1994 International Conference on 
Population and Development in Cairo.  Today, I would like to share with 
you the new policy developments in the United States since President 
Clinton took office.  These developments reflect our determination to 
help lead and be a part of a renewed global effort to address population 
problems.  Even more important, we are committed to help promote 
international consensus around the goal of stabilizing world population 
growth through a comprehensive approach to the rights and needs of 
women, to the environment, and to development.  These elements are the 
underpinnings of a new partnership among nations, men and women, and the 
natural world.  Only as innovative and engaged partners can we rise to 
this urgent global challenge.

A Broader Perspective In U.S. Policy
President Clinton is deeply committed to moving population to the 
forefront of America's international priorities.  He understands the 
cost of excessive population growth to the health of women, to the 
natural environment, and to our hopes for alleviating poverty.  He 
believes that America cannot stand aside as the world confronts one of 
the largest challenges of this century and the next.

Since taking office, President Clinton has taken steps to revitalize 
U.S. efforts.  The President has reversed the so-called Mexico City 
policy, lifting restrictions that prohibited some family planning 
organizations from receiving U.S. funding because of abortion-related 
activities.  He has mandated a reorganization of the State Department to 
reflect the greater priority we are giving to population as a major 
global issue.  He has called for a restructuring of our foreign aid 
programs to promote development more effectively.  And he has requested 
a $100 million increase in population assistance for FY 1994.

These actions have clearly established the importance that the United 
States gives to the issues of international population.  An additional 
step will be taken by the U.S. Government.  I am pleased today to 
reconfirm the Clinton Administration's intention to contribute to the UN 
Fund for Population Activities.  We are close to a final decision on 
conditions for our contribution and the level of funding.

Finally, under the direction of President Clinton, the United States is 
developing a comprehensive and far-reaching new approach to 
international population issues.  It will expand the scope of our 
activities and harmonize them better with collective international 
efforts.  The key elements of our approach are:

--  Ensuring that couples and individuals have the ability to exercise 
their right to determine freely and responsibly the size of their 
families;

--  Promoting access to the full range of quality reproductive health 
care, including women-centered, women-managed services;

--  Stressing the need for governments and public and private 
organizations to commit themselves to quality of care in family planning 
services;

--  Supporting the empowerment of women so that all societies may move 
toward full gender equality in all aspects of decision-making concerning 
economic and social development;

--  Ensuring access to primary health care, with an emphasis on child 
survival;

--  Preserving the endangered natural environment of our globe; and

--  Ensuring that our population policy supports the world's priority 
for sustainable development.

Although many of these commitments are being treated more directly in 
other fora, their linkage to the population issues of this conference 
reinforces their discussion here.

I now turn to three major concerns which I believe provide the context 
for this conference:  women's health and status, population and the 
environment, and migration.

Women's Health and Status
As we prepare for Cairo, we must recognize that women are taking 
leadership around the world on their own behalf and for the benefit of 
their families, their communities, and their countries.  They know what 
they need, and they must be equal partners in programs and policies.

Women are all too often victims of poverty, discrimination, and actual 
physical violence.  Without nutrition, without health, without control 
over childbearing, women cannot empower themselves to achieve their full 
potential and contribute to sustainable development.  Unacceptably high 
levels of maternal and child mortality persist in many countries.  
Inadequate access to maternal health care, contraception, and safe 
abortion leaves more than 500,000 women dead from preventable, 
pregnancy-related causes each year.  The global pandemic of AIDS and 
other sexually transmitted diseases is also affecting more and more 
women as well as men.

The unmet need for safe, effective methods of fertility regulation is 
now well documented in most countries. Many women still have no access 
to any method, much less their preferred method or the counseling and 
follow-up care that could assure its proper use.

Overall, we must take a broader approach to sexual and reproductive 
health.  We must recognize that advancing women's rights and health and 
promoting family planning are mutually reinforcing objectives.  Even 
more fundamentally, all barriers which deprive women of equal 
opportunity must be removed.  Universal educational opportunities, 
especially for girls and women, are an essential precondition for 
economic empowerment.

Population and the Environment
Second, the world, and U.S. policy, have moved past the misconception 
that population growth is a "neutral phenomenon."  Its effect on 
economic development is not neutral.  Neither is its linkage with the 
environment neutral.  Nor is the connection between population and 
consumption of resources neutral.

Citizens of developed nations must recognize that our current population 
size, technology, and consumption patterns give our nations a major and 
disproportionate impact on the global environment.  Representing less 
than one-quarter of the world's population, developed nations consume 
75% of all raw materials and create a similar percentage of all solid 
waste.

Under President Clinton, America is now addressing these issues more 
actively.  For example, the United States will sign the Biodiversity 
Treaty and is committed to reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases to 
their 1990 level by the year 2000.  The long-term budget strategy 
presented by the President includes investments in pollution prevention, 
energy efficiency, renewable energy, environmental restoration, and 
water treatment.  The United States takes the points raised in Agenda 21 
very seriously and is actively formulating a sustainable development 
plan for implementing it.  And we will act on the Agenda 21 objectives 
calling for further research on population-environment relationships and 
for integration of demo- graphic considerations into environmental 
planning at all levels.

Migration
A third major issue in the population equation is international 
migration.  Uncontrolled migration is fueled by demographic pressures, 
those same pressures which are challenging our ability to live in peace 
with our environment.  The Cairo process should reaffirm the priority we 
place on improving the conditions which force people to move--
impoverishment, persecution, and conflict.

All people should have the right to remain in their homes in safety and 
dignity.  In those cases where individuals have resettled permanently, 
governments should make every effort to bring them fully into the social 
and political life of their new homes.

New Opportunities:  The Cairo Conference
The Cairo conference, and the process leading up to it, will provide new 
opportunities to agree on actionable recommendations for the issues I 
have just discussed.  The secretariat for the conference has provided us 
with a well thought-out conceptual framework, built around the central 
theme of "choices and responsibilities."  We must consider carefully the 
responsibilities that men and women have to one another, the 
responsibilities that governments have to people within their borders, 
and the responsibilities of all to the world community.  By doing so, we 
can ensure that individuals do have choices.

In addition, the U.S. looks forward to working with the international 
community to develop consensus around priority, long-term, and 
quantitative goals for stabilizing world population, just as we work to 
preserve the global environment, improve health, and meet other 
development objectives.

We also encourage the development of regional fertility and population 
growth goals, as agreed at the Bali and Dakar regional conferences.  At 
the same time, these goals should not be confused with targets and 
quotas which apply penalties to failure; this is a self-defeating 
approach.  The adoption of reasonable goals can help us to estimate 
resources required and evaluate what we have achieved.

Between now and the Cairo conference, the U.S. Government supports the 
need to develop new estimates of the resources required for population 
and reproductive health programs.  Resource estimates should also be 
made for improving child health, providing universal access to basic 
education, and reducing infant and maternal mortality.

As a world community, we need to speak with one voice in respecting all 
peoples' rights and standing up to those who engage in coercive 
activities.  A key question for the international community to consider 
is how governments should be held accountable.  A government which is 
violating basic human rights should not hide behind the defense of 
sovereignty.

Difficult as it is, we must also discuss thoroughly the issue of 
abortion.  Recent international meetings have drawn attention to the 
human tragedy of illegal and unsafe abortion.   It is estimated that as 
many as a quarter of maternal deaths, ranging from 50,000 to 200,000 
annually, are due to this cause, almost all in developing countries.

International consensus has yet to be developed on the proper and 
feasible role of governments and public policy in this area.  The 
abortion issue should be addressed directly with tolerance and 
compassion rather than officially ignored while women, especially poor 
women, and their families suffer.  The U.S. Government believes the 
Cairo conference would be remiss if it did not develop recommendations 
and guidance with regard to abortion. Our position is to support 
reproductive choice, including access to safe abortion.

Mr. Chairman, Madame Secretary General, and fellow delegates:  Many of 
you have heard me talk about the profound effect the earth summit in Rio 
had on people in the United States, and on me personally.  It gave us--
politicians, non-governmental organizations, and everyday citizens--a 
new energy and dedication to meet complicated and urgent problems head 
on, to make the necessary changes in our own country--both in policies 
and individual behavior--to be better partners in the struggle to save 
our global environment.  The Cairo conference can be the same kind of 
turning point for all of us. No issue will leave a greater mark on 
future generations than the population issue.  I pledge the fullest 
measure of American effort to meet this challenge in a way that 
safeguards the rights, the welfare, and the future of human beings the 
world over.  (###)



ARTICLE 6:

Developments in U.S. Policy Toward Global Climate Change
Timothy E. Wirth, Counselor
Statement before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the House 
Energy and Commerce Committee, Washington, DC, May 26, 1993

I am delighted to be with you today, along with my colleagues from the 
Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, to discuss 
the Clinton Administration's policies on global climate change.

Addressing this issue will require close collaboration between the 
Administration and the Congress, including this committee.  It will also 
require significant U.S. leadership, because we cannot solve this 
problem on our own.  We must help guide the international resolve that 
has developed in support of action to prevent further dangerous human 
intervention in the complex climate system that influences so many 
aspects of our society and our world.  Let me begin by reviewing the 
international context in which we now confront the issue of global 
warming.

While concern about human intervention in the earth's natural climate 
system has existed for some time, global warming has emerged rapidly in 
recent years as a powerful foreign policy and diplomatic issue.  Driving 
this process has been the continuing development in our scientific 
knowledge.  As our understanding of the atmosphere has improved, we have 
become more aware of how our actions affect it.  It is clear that human 
activities are increasing atmospheric concentrations of "greenhouse" 
gases, including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.  While there 
are uncertainties about the magnitude, timing, and regional patterns of 
climate change due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations, there is 
substantial scientific evidence that suggests a high probability for 
global warming.  If predictions of significant warming made by the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other scientists are 
realized, the rate of  climate change in the next century would far 
exceed any natural changes that have occurred in the last 10,000 years, 
and the earth could reach a warmer state than it has experienced in the 
last 150,000 years. Furthermore, the change in atmospheric composition 
will likely persist for centuries because of the long atmospheric 
lifetime of some of these gases.

The Climate Convention
Last year, the international community acknowledged this scientific 
concern and took the first steps to address this significant challenge 
for the world.  More than 150 nations signed the Framework Convention on 
Climate Change at the earth summit last June--and, to date, it has been 
signed by more than 160 countries.  The United States, along with 18 
other nations, have now ratified the treaty.

As you and this committee are aware, Mr. Chairman, the climate 
convention was the subject of considerable discussion and debate last 
year.  Let me take a moment to discuss what specifically is in the 
treaty.

The convention's ultimate objective is to:

[A]chieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, 
stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a 
level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the 
climate system.  Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame 
sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to 
ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic 
development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

This is a major undefined challenge perhaps requiring significant 
reductions in global emissions.  As a first step to agreeing on the 
international action required, Article 4 of the convention set forth a 
series of commitments.  While the language of these commitments is 
rather confusing, let me quote the critical lines from paragraph 2 (a) 
and (b) of this Article.   Article 4.2(a) states:  

. . . parties shall adopt national policies and take corresponding 
measures on the mitigation of climate change, by limiting . . . 
anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and protecting and enhancing 
. . . greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs.  These policies and measures 
will demonstrate that developed countries are taking the lead in 
modifying longer-term trends in anthropogenic emissions consistent with 
the objectives of the Convention, recognizing that the return by the end 
of the present decade to earlier levels of anthropogenic emissions . . 
.would contribute to such modification. . . .

Article 4.2(b) goes on to say:  

In order to promote progress to this end, each of these Parties shall 
communicate . . . detailed information on its policies and measures 
referred to in subparagraph (a) above, as well as its resulting 
projected anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of 
greenhouse gases . . . with the aim of returning individually or jointly 
to their 1990 levels these anthropogenic emissions. . . .

While the language contained in these paragraphs does not create a 
binding target level for emissions reductions, the intent of the 
negotiators was to have countries move toward the convention's ultimate 
objective through the preparation of inventories of their net greenhouse 
gas emissions, including both sources and sinks of all greenhouse gases, 
and adoption by developed countries of national policies and measures to 
limit greenhouse gas emissions, and to allow countries to work together 
to provide cooperative cost-effective programs to do this.  Furthermore, 
the convention calls for developed countries to provide financial and 
technical resources to help developing countries meet their obligations 
under the convention.  

And finally, it calls for countries to report on the actions they are 
taking to meet their commitments.  The Conference of the Parties, which 
the United States anticipates will meet for the first time in mid-1995, 
will review these reports and the adequacy of the commitments under the 
convention.  Subsequent reviews will take place at regular intervals, 
with the second review scheduled no later than December 1998.

The Clinton Agenda
Since assuming office, President Clinton has directed his Administration 
to conduct a broad review of international environmental concerns, 
including global climate change. Through this process, the President has 
determined that the United States should provide leadership to help 
guard against human-induced causes of global climate change.

President Clinton clearly set forth the direction of our climate policy 
in his Earth Day speech.  He said:

We . . . must take the lead in addressing the challenge of global 
warming that could make our planet and its climate less hospitable and 
more hostile to human life.  Today, I reaffirm my personal and announce 
our nation's commitment to reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases to 
their 1990 levels by the year 2000.

I am instructing my Administration to produce a cost-effective plan by 
August that can continue the trend of reduced emissions.  This must be a 
clarion call--not for more bureaucracy or regulation or unnecessary 
costs but, instead, for American ingenuity and creativity to produce the 
best and most energy-efficient technology.

The Administration is committed to seeing the convention promptly 
implemented, and, if necessary, strengthened.  To this end, the 
Administration is taking a two-pronged approach--a national effort to 
reduce emissions and enhance sinks of greenhouse gases and an 
international effort, including working to implement the convention and 
to support developing countries and countries moving toward free market 
economies--in meeting its goals.

To realize the requirements of the President's commitment--the details 
of which will be addressed more extensively by Deputy Administrator 
Sussman and Assistant Secretary Tierney--preparations have begun to 
develop a plan that will identify steps we can take to return U.S. 
emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.  This will be the focus of 
our efforts in developing the August plan.

Under the climate convention's Article 12, developed country parties 
must report on their actions within 6 months of the convention's entry 
into force, which is expected by late 1994. While the August plan will 
be the cornerstone of that report, we anticipate that the next full 
version of the U.S. National Action Plan will be developed after August 
in time to meet our convention commitment.

The Clinton Policy on Climate:  A Break from the Past
The essential difference between the Clinton Administration and the 
previous Administration on climate change is that we take the science of 
this issue very seriously and, as a consequence, are developing a 
national climate change policy to use in playing a leadership role in 
promoting an effective global response.  Our policy development process 
will represent a significant departure from that undertaken by the Bush 
Administration when it produced a draft National Action Plan in 
December.

However, our domestic actions alone, even as large a source of emissions 
as the United States is, will not be enough to reverse the upward trend 
in global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.  We must 
establish a partnership with other countries at all levels of 
development.  Sources of emissions are spread globally, and action to 
reduce emissions undertaken anywhere on the planet has global 
significance.  The United States currently contributes about 20% of 
global net emissions, although our share is declining.  Developing 
countries represent an increasing share of the total emissions, about 
40% today and, perhaps, rising to 60% by 2030.

To make a significant contribution to protecting the climate, the United 
States must both demonstrate its own resolve and leverage our example in 
encouraging efforts to reduce emissions the world over.  Within the 
scope of our limited resources, the United States must promote a 
"partnership" approach between developed and developing countries.  Such 
an approach must reconcile different but compatible interests in 
environment and development.  That there are compatible interests is 
clear--assistance we provide to developing countries will meet both our 
needs:  ours, with respect to the strong concern we have for the 
preservation of the global environment and for the creation of domestic 
jobs in environmental concerns, and for the concomitant requirement to 
continue along the path of environmentally sustainable economic growth.

To begin resolving this issue, industrialized countries will have to 
take the lead in implementing the convention's commitments, as agreed in 
the convention language itself, and encourage developing countries to 
follow.  In the Administration's view, such leadership will be linked to 
the quality of our national responses, as well as to the extent of the 
financial and technical assistance we and other industrialized nations 
can provide to developing countries.

Joint Implementation
Joint implementation will be an important piece of the solution to 
climate change.  Under joint implementation, countries would be able to 
offset domestic emissions of greenhouse gases through emissions 
reductions achieved through their efforts anywhere in the world.  
Because emissions of greenhouse gases everywhere contribute to the 
build-up of atmospheric concentrations, reductions anywhere can diminish 
the threat of global climate change.  However, reductions may be 
achieved more cost-effectively in some countries or regions than in 
others.

The inter-agency group charged with the task of developing the August 
plan includes a working group on joint implementation chaired by the 
State Department.  This group will look closely at legislative 
provisions that support joint implementation, for example the Energy 
Policy Act, and through public participation procedures, will draw on 
the experiences of U.S. companies who already are proceeding with joint 
implementation projects.

The principal advantage of joint implementation is its efficiency.  
Joint implementation could provide for global emissions reductions to be 
achieved at the lowest overall cost and have a host of possible 
ancillary environmental benefits.

Provisions for joint implementation also figure in the language of the 
framework convention, which allows countries to implement policies and 
measures jointly with other countries. The relevant paragraph of Article 
4 says: 

. . . Parties may implement . . . policies and measures jointly with 
other Parties and may assist other Parties in contributing to the 
achievement of the objective of the Convention. . . .

A number of questions related to international guidelines for joint 
implementation need to be addressed in the Intergovernmental Negotiating 
Committee at its August meeting. We anticipate that the INC will explore 
such "how to" questions as who would participate in joint implementation 
baseline measurements, qualification within the context of the framework 
convention, and how information about such activities would be 
communicated and acknowledged.  To ensure proper coordination between 
plan development and negotiating positions, the same working group that 
is considering joint implementation in the context of the August plan 
will coordinate preparations for these decisions.

Country Studies
The United States has already begun to demonstrate our commitment to the 
development of an effective international effort to address the issue of 
climate change.  We are providing $25 million over 2 years to a U.S. 
country studies initiative, which will provide an analytical and 
institutional foundation from which countries may inventory their annual 
emissions and develop appropriate measures and actions to address 
climate change.  Studies enable countries to identify and address 
vulnerabilities to climate change, measures to limit net greenhouse gas 
emissions, or both.  Country studies could also be used to assess the 
measures necessary to meet the obligations of the convention, including 
by developing national inventories of greenhouse gases and by 
identifying actions and measures to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions or 
to adapt to climate change.

Participants in the country study program will generally receive funds 
and associated technical assistance both during the organization of the 
work and as it progresses.  Assistance would cover specific, high-cost 
activities, including data development, institutional or infrastructural 
development, model-building, or procurement of special equipment, as 
well as lower cost technical assistance and project monitoring.  The 
country studies initiative, which is coordinated through an interagency 
committee chaired by the State Department, is operated by DOE, EPA, and 
USAID.  The first country study teams from the agencies left last 
weekend to begin bilateral discussions with our developing country 
partners in this effort.

Modifying the Convention
Under the provisions of the climate convention, all parties are called 
upon to formulate and implement programs to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions, with developed countries taking the lead.  There is broad 
agreement about the first step in this effort:  countries are aiming to 
return their emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.

To move forward, I believe that our work under the convention must focus 
on the longer term.  Once all countries have ratified the convention--
and the State Department will be beginning a campaign to encourage this-
-we must evaluate the obstacles to its implementation and work to 
overcome them.  As I noted earlier, the preponderance of future 
emissions are most likely to come from the developing countries and 
countries with economies in transition.  We must therefore begin now to 
develop appropriate responses to help these countries reduce their 
emissions while continuing in the path toward economic prosperity, a 
response that is sure to involve the development and commercial exchange 
of new environmentally sound technologies.

One of the charges that has in the past been leveled against those who 
have advocated a strong environmental policy--such as the one required 
to address global warming--is that environmentalism and economic growth 
cannot co-exist.  I do not agree.  I strongly believe that a sustainable 
environmental future is economically imperative.  We must think about 
the children.  And, simultaneously, we must also concern ourselves with 
the present welfare of our country.  Investment in environmental 
technology is one way to reach this goal, and we must poise our 
industrial sector for a leadership role in a future international 
economy that will reflect our global environmental imperatives.

As President Clinton noted in his Earth Day speech, there will be, by 
the end of this decade, a $300 billion market for environmental 
technologies, and the United States must capture as much of that market-
-and the tens of thousands of jobs it will create--as possible.  This is 
an area in which the United States can and must continue to be a leader.  
These are the kinds of programs that this Administration will support in 
our efforts to address climate change.

As adopted, the climate convention is but one piece of the international 
policy framework that can help us redirect our thinking.  To address 
this critical issue, we must continue to advance on all fronts--
international and domestic.  I look forward to working with you all as 
we move ahead.

Thank you.  I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.  
(###)


ARTICLE 7:

FY 1994 Security Assistance Budget Requests
Lynn E. Davis, Under Secretary for International Security Affairs
Statement before the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, Washington, DC, May 12, 1993

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to present the 
Clinton Administration's FY 1994 international affairs budget for 
security assistance programs to you and committee members.  Before 
discussing programs, I would like to set the budget in the broader 
context of the Administration's foreign policy goals and objectives.

Renewal and Redirection Of US Foreign Policy
As you are aware, the President has summoned us to a national renewal, 
calling for innovation, investment, and a new partnership between the 
American people and their government.  He has made it clear that our 
foreign policy must play a central role in this renewal by ensuring that 
our goals, institutional structures, and budgetary outlays address the 
real challenges to our national interests abroad.  To this end, the 
President set three overarching goals to guide the formulation and 
execution of U.S. foreign policy.  These goals are:

First, to revitalize the American economy by using all the tools at our 
disposal to generate growth at home and bring down barriers abroad to 
our goods and services;

Second, to modify our security structures to address the challenges of 
the post-Cold War world.  These modifications must include restructuring 
of our military forces, maintaining the viability of vital alliances, 
bolstering international peace-keeping and peace-making capabilities, 
and strengthening nonproliferation regimes;

Third, to promote democratic institution-building to foster 
international stability and free markets and thus create the conditions 
for greater prosperity and security at home.

Refocusing Budgetary Priorities
To achieve the President's goals in this period of fiscal austerity, 
Secretary Christopher has begun to refocus spending priorities in the 
international affairs budget.  He intends to take foreign affairs to the 
American people to explain our initiatives, justify our expenditures, 
and earn the people's support.  He recognizes that many Americans still 
feel that foreign assistance is nothing more than charity.  One of our 
jobs, as members of this Administration, is to show the American people 
that every penny spent on foreign assistance is an investment in their 
prosperity, their security, and their commitment to cherished values.

The FY 1994 international affairs budget request reflects the 
Administration's desire to take U.S. foreign policy in a new direction.  
It is presented in a new way to promote transparency and understanding.  
It is organized around five functional categories, rather than 
geographic areas.  These functional categories flow from our foreign 
policy objectives and will serve as stepping stones to achieving 
President Clinton's foreign policy goals.  The categories are:

--  Building democracy through support of free and fair elections, 
respect for human rights, the rule of law, and economic opportunity;

--  Promoting and maintaining peace by supporting peace-keeping efforts; 
assisting friendly and allied nations; insisting upon verifiable arms 
control and nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and 
fostering sustained, peaceful development;

--  Promoting economic growth and sustainable development by fostering 
free and open markets, trade liberalization, deregulation, 
privatization, and market-based structural reform;

--  Addressing global problems of environmental degradation, narcotics 
trafficking, terrorism, and other criminal activities by increasing 
cooperation with allies, friends, and traditional adversaries; and

--  Meeting urgent humanitarian needs by supporting private and 
government efforts and by promoting economic reform and resolution of 
local conflicts.

Presenting the international affairs budget in this way will enable the 
American people to see the clear relationships among American interests 
overseas and the programs that support them.

I wish to emphasize here that the FY 1994 budget is by necessity a 
transitional one.  Redirecting our foreign policy and restructuring the 
institutions responsible for policy- making takes considerably more time 
than the 4 months this Administration has been in office.  In my view, 
we have made a good, strong start.  But there is much work ahead, as we 
struggle with budgetary constraints on the one hand and a fast-changing 
world on the other.  I would ask the committee for understanding and 
support during this period of transition.

The Role of Security Assistance In the FY 1994 Budget
Global turbulence and instability put both our domestic and foreign 
policy goals at risk.  Military conflicts, cross-border battles, and 
civil wars undercut American values and interests, erode opportunities 
for trade and commerce, and divert scarce resources away from economic 
pursuits and into unproductive military expenditures.  To minimize the 
impact of these risks on the President's program for national renewal, 
we need to invest in security assistance programs that support 
preventative diplomacy.  These programs enable us to strengthen friends 
and allies so that they can play a larger role in promoting regional 
stability, defending themselves against aggression, and participating in 
peace-keeping activities.

With the FY 1994 budget request organized by functional categories, we 
can see that security assistance contributes more to achieving some 
priority foreign policy objectives than to others.  This should cause no 
surprise, since many of the new challenges to U.S. interests lie outside 
the military domain.  I would only like to point out that the importance 
of a security assistance program should not be judged by the level of 
funding but by the degree of leverage we gain in achieving the program's 
ultimate purpose.  For example, although security assistance funding 
levels for building democracy and promoting economic development are not 
large compared to other forms of assistance, we believe that security 
assistance programs aimed at encouraging militaries to accept civilian 
authority and the rule of law greatly contribute to the process of 
democratization and economic development.

Security Assistance Programs
I would now like to review the security assistance component of the FY 
1994 international affairs budget.  I will discuss the programs 
according to their functional categories.

Building Democracy.  The FY 1994 budget request reflects our interest in 
helping countries make the transition to democracy and free market 
economies, particularly the former Soviet and other Warsaw Pact states.  
This interest stems from the widely recognized view that there is a 
strong relationship between a country's form of government and its 
international behavior.  Democratic governments are more likely to 
embrace human rights, foster economic activity, and check abuses of 
power at home and abroad.  Put simply, democratic states make better 
neighbors and partners in international agreements.

Security assistance will play a small but important role in promoting 
the democratic transition in Russia and other former Warsaw Pact states.  
The proposed funding for IMET will help inculcate their militaries in 
the importance of law, civilian control of the military, legislative 
oversight, and transparency in defense programs and budgets.

Other forms of foreign assistance being requested for democracy building 
will be used to provide technical assistance to create and strengthen 
democratic institutions; encourage private sector development; 
strengthen key human services; promote reforms in agriculture, energy, 
the environment, and housing; and support research and development.  We 
are requesting assistance for similar programs for countries in Central 
and Eastern Europe.

I think the Chairman and committee members will agree, there can be 
nothing more important to U.S. security than for these countries to 
succeed in their political, military, and economic reforms.  Obviously, 
the burden of reform rests mainly on the shoulders of the countries 
themselves.  We should be prepared, however, to do our part to help.  It 
is in our interest to do so.

Other security assistance programs include $15 million in ESF requested 
for Haiti to support the democratization process being carried out under 
OAS auspices and $12 million in ESF requested for the promotion of 
democracy in Africa as well as an additional $16 million for improving 
the administration of justice in Panama and in selected Caribbean 
countries.

Promoting and Maintaining Peace
I will now turn to security assistance programs designed to promote and 
maintain international peace.  With the collapse of communism, there has 
been a fundamental restructuring of the international environment, 
posing new problems and challenges.  These demand a new kind of 
diplomacy--a diplomacy that is sustainable, flexible, and activist.  The 
goal of this new diplomacy is to prevent crises before they occur and, 
failing that, contain conflicts at the lowest possible level.  The FY 
1994 budget identifies four security assistance programs to serve this 
goal.

Middle East Peace.   The first program aims at establishing a just, 
enduring, and comprehensive peace in the Middle East and at maintaining 
Israel's security and qualitative edge.  Our budget request for $5.2 
billion reflects the President's commitment to these twin objectives.  
Of this amount, Israel will receive $3 billion and Egypt, $2.1 billion.  
In addition, we are proposing security assistance for Jordan, West 
Bank/Gaza, and Lebanon.  Also included is a request for $5 million to 
fund activities associated with the multilateral working groups of the 
peace process.

Peace-keeping.  The second program supports multilateral peace-keeping 
and peace-making activities.  More than $1 billion is requested in State 
and Defense Department accounts to support these activities.  Some of 
this funding will be used to assist countries in taking part in peace-
keeping operations and to support conflict resolution and downsizing of 
militaries.  Most of the $700 million in the international affairs 
account, however, will be used to cover assessed UN peace-keeping 
operations and other regional peacekeeping efforts that are funded on a 
voluntary basis.

Our proposed non-assessed peacekeeping budget for FY 1994 totals $77.2 
million--an increase of $50 million from FY 1993--in an effort to meet 
burgeoning peace-keeping requirements.  In addition to providing for 
long-standing UN peace-keeping operations in Cyprus and the Multilateral 
Force and Observers in the Sinai, the funding will also support new 
peace-keeping ventures by the Conference on Security and Disarmament in 
the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, by the UN/OAS observer mission 
in Haiti, and by the Economic Community of West African States in 
Liberia and the Organization of African Unity in Rwanda.  We are also 
providing limited FMF and ESF funding to help underwrite participation 
of poorer countries in UN and regional peace-keeping operations.

Nonproliferation and Disarmament.  The third program aims at addressing 
one of the greatest national security challenges facing us today--the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, enhanced conventional 
weapons, and associated delivery systems.  This is an area I am 
particularly seized with--and one which Secretary Christopher has asked 
me to focus on. 

The proposed FY 1994 budget reflects an integrated  government-wide 
approach to nonproliferation and arms control and requests $197 million 
for the State Department, over $400 million for the Defense Department, 
and about $300 million for the Energy Department.  Our objectives in 
this area are:

First, to reduce and restructure Russia's strategic nuclear force and 
support denuclearization of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan before or 
during the 7-year START implementation period;  

Second, to support and enhance U.S. bilateral and multilateral efforts 
to establish effective export controls for destabilizing weapons systems 
and materials;  

Third, to dismantle existing systems of proliferation concern in the 
former Soviet states and other states; and 

Fourth, to increase the effectiveness of existing nonproliferation and 
arms control agreements and promote arms control and security in regions 
of tension.

Within the security assistance ac- count, we are requesting $50 million 
for the establishment of a new Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Fund to 
support four primary program areas:

--  Education and training programs to introduce foreign government 
officials to the broad range of non-proliferation issues and to instruct 
them in the creation and implementation of effective export control 
mechanisms;

--  Destruction and conversion programs to terminate activities of 
proliferation concern and to implement global treaties such as the 
Chemical Weapons Convention and START;

--  Enforcement and interdiction programs to help curb illicit trade in 
materials related to weapons of mass
destruction;

--  Safeguards and verification programs to assist in the verification 
of international nonproliferation regimes.

Defense Cooperation and Regional Security.  The fourth program aims at 
supporting key allies which have close defense relations with the U.S. 
and provide access to important military facilities essential to U.S. 
power projection.  Concessional loans of $855 million will be sought for 
Turkey, Greece, and Portugal to help them finance the purchase of 
defense equipment and services from U.S. sources.  In addition, we will 
seek $143 million in ESF for Turkey and $54 million in other ESF and FMF 
funding to promote regional stability and assist other key allies and 
friends to meet defense and economic needs.

Promoting Economic Growth and Development
U.S. policy goals and mechanisms for promoting international economic 
growth and development are being redesigned to keep the U.S. secure and 
competitive in the global economy.  Many of the assistance programs 
being proposed by the Administration fall outside the security 
assistance domain.  There are, however, a few exceptions.  In the FY 
1994 budget, we are proposing $177.5 million in ESF for 12 countries to 
support economic development, including funds for El Salvador, the 
Afghan humanitarian aid program, the Cambodian economic development 
program, Nicaragua, and the Philippines.

Addressing Global Issues
The FY 1994 budget reflects the Administration's commitment to 
demonstrating U.S. leadership on pressing global issues that are 
essential to our country's domestic and international future.  
Suppressing narcotics trafficking is a primary issue in which the 
President has expressed a personal interest.  The security assistance 
budget thus contains significant funding for counter-narcotics 
activities.  For the Andean countries, we are proposing $100 million in 
ESF to support development programs and $45 million in FMF to help 
sustain counter-narcotics military operations.  We are also requesting 
$4.7 million in FMF to maintain and enhance anti-narcotics capabilities 
among the "potential source and transit" countries in the Caribbean and 
Latin America.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening remarks.  I look forward to 
working with this committee and the Congress as we strive to reform our 
foreign assistance program.  Thank you.  (###)



ARTICLE 8:

FY 1994 Foreign Assistance Budget Request for Africa
George E. Moose, Assistant Secretary for African Affairs
Statement before the Subcommittee on Africa of the House Foreign Affairs 
Committee, Washington, DC, May 12, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, members of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on 
Africa:  It is a pleasure to meet with you again today to discuss our 
fiscal year 1994 foreign assistance budget request.  On April 22, I set 
out for the subcommittee the following goals for the Clinton 
Administration in Africa:

--  Promotion of democracy; 
--  Conflict resolution, with greater African involvement;
--  Economic growth through free market systems;
--  Strengthened environmental and population programs;
--  Humanitarian assistance where needed to alleviate suffering;
--  Increased American private sector involvement in Africa; and
--  Incorporating Africa into a globally interdependent world.

Today, I would like to discuss the overall foreign assistance resources 
needed to achieve these goals.  The Development Fund for Africa--the 
DFA--is our principal instrument for achieving our aims in Africa.  You 
will recall that Congress created the DFA in recognition of Africa's 
special needs.  There was a desire to move beyond disaster relief to 
support sustained development.  

The DFA has provided a higher, more flexible, and more stable source of 
resources for African development.  It has been funded at around $800 
million the past several years.  While we could certainly do more with 
higher funding, the needs everywhere are  great.  What is important is 
to at least maintain this historic level.  I have heard from many about 
the need to continue funding at last year's level.  Indeed, Mr. 
Chairman, you and other Members of Congress expressed concern in a May 6 
letter to Secretary Christopher that the Administration not reduce its 
FY 1994 request from the originally proposed level of $800 million in 
order to accommodate the need for a larger program in the former Soviet 
Union.  You correctly pointed out that Africa is the poorest region in 
the world today and that its development is one of the major challenges 
we face.  

Mr. Chairman, I believe that an $800-million DFA is the minimum amount 
necessary to achieve our development objectives in Africa.  I will do 
all I can to ensure that we maintain this level.  

The Development Fund for Africa has a good record.  It has increased 
childhood immunization, supported basic education programs, improved 
agricultural productivity, promoted the private sector, and supported 
economic reform and democratization in Africa. The Agency for 
International Development has many highly qualified and hard-working 
officers who are dedicated to helping Africa emerge from its economic 
crisis.  

The task has not been easy given the handicaps of drought, civil war, 
severely depressed commodity prices, and a crushing debt burden.  But 
there are hopeful signs.  Countries which have consistently worked to 
restructure their economies--Benin, Burundi, and Ghana, for example--
have had better economic growth.  Not surprisingly, we have found that 
democracy and economic reform have gone hand in hand.  

As we look to the future, it is clear we will have to do more with 
available resources if we are to achieve our goals.  One advantage is 
that with the end of the Cold War, we can concentrate on meeting 
Africa's true needs.  For example, we will no longer have a reason for 
providing assistance to countries on the basis of an outmoded Cold War 
rationale.

We will be looking at how to improve coordination with other donors to 
achieve the critical mass needed to bring about economic recovery in key 
countries which have undertaken the political and economic reforms 
necessary to make development possible.  As USAID Administrator Atwood 
noted in his confirmation testimony, this has been done in the G-7 in 
developing a package of support for Russian democracy; we can do it in 
other areas as well.

The respective roles of bilateral and multilateral organizations need to 
be reviewed.  Both are needed in the development effort, but we must be 
sure that each is concentrating its work where it has a comparative 
advantage.  We will assert American leadership in the international 
financial organizations to reinforce their key role in assisting 
development.

We will also support African efforts to create more viable regional 
markets which increase opportunities for trade and growth.  Many African 
countries are small, and their markets are too limited to permit 
economies of scale.  Regional trade is inhibited by high trade barriers, 
nonconvertible currencies, and poor transport links.  For that reason, 
we will continue to help the countries which belong to the Southern 
Africa Development Community as they refocus their efforts from reducing 
dependence on South Africa to regional economic integration.  We will 
also support similar efforts in other parts of Africa.

The last part of our effort to stretch our resources will be to work 
closely with U.S. and local private and voluntary organizations to 
support their very important contribution to humanitarian assistance.  
Many brave Americans have risked their lives to bring help to people who 
have had to flee their homes to survive.  Their organizations need our 
financial backing to continue to save lives.  Private Voluntary 
Organizations also play a key role in reconstruction and development 
projects, as their grass-roots thrust complements our work at the 
national level.  We can leverage our scarce resources by supporting 
their work.

Mr. Hicks will discuss with you in more detail the development program 
for Africa.  I would, however, like to make a few comments on the key 
areas of the environment, health, population, democracy, and conflict 
resolution.  

Deforestation and desertification continue at an alarming rate in Sub-
Saharan Africa.  Availability of arable land is decreasing because of 
erosion and nonsustainable farming techniques.  Africa's rapidly 
expanding population will continue to place enormous pressure on the 
land.  Environmental degradation must be stopped if the continent is to 
be able to feed itself in the future.  USAID plans to spend $168 million 
on agriculture, environment, and natural resource projects in Africa in 
fiscal year 1993, of which $70 million is for natural resources 
management. 

With strong encouragement from the U.S. and others, the World Bank is 
also devoting considerable funding to the environment.  Health and 
family planning will continue to be a high priority.  Child survival 
programs have been one of USAID's greatest successes.  Immunizations and 
effective treatment of diarrheal diseases have saved lives and avoided 
debilitating diseases such as polio for thousands of African children. 

Although less dramatic, family planning is also having an impact after a 
sustained effort.  In several African countries, women are now having 
fewer children and spacing them better.  Improved family planning is 
critical to the efforts to improve living standards in Africa.  It will 
receive high priority from the Clinton Administration.  

USAID also has programs to combat the spread of AIDS in a number of 
countries and has had success in encouraging African countries to 
confront this terrible disease more openly.  This effort will need to be 
sustained for a number of years to bring infection rates down.

In the last 2 years, the Development Fund for Africa has been used for 
major funding of democracy and governance projects.  Most exciting has 
been the aggressive program in South Africa to promote empowerment of 
the black majority through leadership development, labor union training, 
private sector mobilization, and human resource development.  We have 
contributed to preparing the black majority for majority rule and, in 
the meantime, have taken a small, first step in helping to overcome the 
legacy of apartheid.  

We have been actively supporting democracy elsewhere on the continent as 
well.  In fiscal year 1993, we will provide over $40 million for 
electoral assistance and support for democratic institutions in Africa.  
The Africa regional electoral assistance fund has a $12.5 million budget 
funded from DFA and ESF.  It has assisted the electoral process in 
Cameroon, Kenya, Niger, Namibia, Ghana, Senegal, and Madagascar.  The 
democracy and human rights fund (116e) provides $2-$3 million a year for 
small, country-level projects to promote civil and political rights.

There are some things which the DFA cannot do well.  It lacks the 
flexibility to respond to urgent needs to support new democracies.  We 
have used economic support funds--ESF--for example, to provide rapid but 
modest balance-of-payments assistance to Benin, Sao Tome and Principe, 
Zambia, and others in their progress to democracy.  We have found that 
newly elected governments often inherit a bankrupt treasury.  Even 
modest balance-of-payments assistance can help with fuel, medical, and 
other imports during the critical first year.  We will again be seeking 
ESF for democracy in FY 1994 to provide funding for election support and 
to help newly democratizing countries.

We are also seeking funds to support peace-keeping in Africa.  The worst 
hardship in Africa today results from the conflicts which have plagued 
the continent.  We have no higher priority than to work to bring peace 
to as many of these countries as possible and are doing so.  Given the 
heavy demands on the UN for peace-keeping, we need to build the capacity 
of African organizations to play a larger role in conflict resolution 
and peace-keeping.

Given the above, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support your proposal to fund 
a conflict resolution capability in the OAU from existing resources.  
Such a fund would, among other things, permit the secondment of U.S. 
experts to the OAU Secretariat to assist in organizing and overseeing 
military observers and peace-keeping operations in Africa.  The proposed 
use of military training funds--IMET--to instruct African militaries in 
peace-keeping skills would also be very useful.

Your proposal also addresses demobilization of oversized African armies, 
which can be critical to conflict resolution, to economic development, 
and to democratic transitions.  It recognizes the importance of 
retraining soldiers once they are demobilized. It is not enough to 
simply pay soldiers off; they need help in acquiring job skills so they 
can support themselves.  

Mr. Chairman, Africa needs to have the capability to deal with its own 
conflicts.  African peace-makers can do the job--reports from Somalia 
indicate that African forces are handling their responsibilities with 
distinction.  What we need is greater institutional capacity in Africa 
to organize contingents from individual African countries.  Under your 
very timely proposal, the OAU can develop this capability.  It would 
help reduce the suffering which accompanies civil war and reduce the 
need for costly humanitarian relief operations.

Mr. Chairman, since I last met with this committee, I have had the 
opportunity to meet personally with most subcommittee members; I will be 
meeting with the rest of you over the next 2 weeks.  I am firmly 
convinced that, working together, we can make a difference in helping 
Africa meet the challenges it faces.  I look forward to your questions. 
(###)



ARTICLE 9:

Treaty Actions

Multilateral
Copyrights
Universal copyright convention with three protocols annexed thereto.  
Done at Geneva Sept. 6, 1952.  Entered into force Sept. 16, 1955.  TIAS 
3324; UST 2731.  Ratification deposited:  Uruguay, Jan. 12, 1993.

Universal copyright convention, as revised.  Done at Paris July 24, 
1971.  Entered into force July 10, 1974.  TIAS 7868; 25 UST 1381.
Accession deposited:  Uruguay, Jan. 12, 1993.

Forestry
Establishment agreement for the Center for International Forestry 
Research (CIFOR), with constitution.  Done at Canberra Mar. 5, 1993.  
Entered into force Mar. 5, 1993; for the U.S. May 3, 1993.

Patents--Plant Varieties
International convention for the protection of new varieties of plants 
of Dec. 2, 1961, as revised.  Done at Geneva Oct. 23, 1978.  Entered 
into force Nov. 8, 1981.  TIAS 10199; 33 UST 2703.
Accession deposited:  Finland, Mar. 16, 1993.

Property--Intellectual
Convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization.  
Done at Stockholm July 14, 1967.  Entered into force Apr. 26, 1970; for 
the United States Aug. 25, 1970.  TIAS 6932; 21 UST 1749.
Accession deposited:  Bolivia, Apr. 6, 1993.

Publications
Statutes of the international center for the registration of serial 
publications.  Done at Paris Nov. 14, 1974, and amended Oct. 11 and 12, 
1976.  Entered into force Jan. 21, 1976; provisionally for the U.S. Mar. 
31, 1978.
Accession deposited:  Ecuador, Feb. 2, 1993.

UNIDO
Constitution for the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, 
with annexes.  Done at Vienna Apr. 8, 1979.  Entered into force June 21, 
1985.
Accession deposited:  Kyrgyzstan, Apr. 8, 1993.

United Nations
Convention on the privileges and immunities of the United Nations.  Done 
at New York Feb. 13, 1936.  Entered into force Sept. 17, 1946; for the 
U.S. Apr. 29, 1970.  TIAS 6900; 21 UST 1418.
Accession deposited:  Liechtenstein, Mar. 25, 1993.

World Health Organization (WHO)
Constitution of the World Health Organization.  Done at New York July 
22, 1946.  Entered into force Apr. 7, 1948; for the U.S. June 21, 1948.  
TIAS 1808; 62 Stat. 2679.
Amendment of Arts.  24 and 25 of the Constitution of the WHO, as 
amended.  Done at Geneva May 23, 1967.  Entered into force May 21, 1975.  
TIAS 8086; 26 UST 990.
Amendments to Arts.  34 and 55 of the Constitution of the WHO, as 
amended.  Done at Geneva May 22, 1973.  Entered into force Feb. 3, 1977.  
TIAS 8534; 28 UST 2088.
Amendments to Arts.  24 and 25 of the Constitution of the WHO, as 
amended.  Done at Geneva May 17, 1976.  Entered into force Jan. 20, 
1984.  TIAS 10930.
Acceptance deposited:  Estonia, Mar. 31, 1993.

Constitution of the World Health Organization.  Done at New York July 
22, 1946.  Entered into force Apr. 7, 1948; for the U.S. June 21, 1948.  
TIAS 1808; 62 Stat. 2679.
Amendment of Arts.  24 and 25 of the Constitution of WHO.  Done at 
Geneva May 23, 1967.  Entered into force May 21, 1975.  TIAS 8086; 26 
UST 990.
Amendments to Arts.  34 and 55 of the Constitution of WHO.  Done at 
Geneva May 22, 1973.  Entered into force Feb. 3, 1977.  TIAS 8534; 28 
UST 2088.
Amendments to Arts.  24 and 25 of the Constitution of WHO.  Done at 
Geneva May 17, 1976.  Entered into force Jan 20, 1984.  TIAS 10930.
Acceptances deposited:  Macedonia, Apr. 22, 1993; Tuvalu, May 7, 1993.


Bilateral
Bolivia
Postal money order agreement.  Signed at La Paz and Washington Feb. 26 
and Mar. 11, 1993.  Enters into force June 1, 1993.

China, People's Republic of
Agreement relating to the reciprocal facilitation of visa issuance.  
Effected by exchange of notes at Beijing Apr. 14, 1993.  Entered into 
force May 14, 1993.

Estonia
Postal money order agreement.  Signed at Tallinn and Washington Mar. 9 
and 22, 1993.  Enters into force June 1, 1993.

Ethiopia
Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling or refinancing of 
certain debts owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the United States 
Government and its agencies, with annexes.  Signed at Washington May 3, 
1993.  Enters into force following signature and receipt by Ethiopia of 
written notice from U.S. that all necessary domestic legal requirements 
have been fulfilled.

Japan
Agreement amending the agreement of Mar. 29, 1988, as amended, 
concerning the acquisition and production of the EP-3 aircraft in Japan.  
Effected by exchange of notes at Tokyo Mar. 26, 1993.  Entered into 
force Mar. 26, 1993.

Kyrgyz Republic
Agreement regarding cooperation to facilitate the provision of 
assistance.  Signed at Washington May 19, 1993.  Entered into force May 
19, 1993.

Lithuania
Agreement regarding grants under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
amended, and the furnishing of defense articles, related training, or 
other defense services from the United States to Lithuania.  Effected by 
exchange of notes at Vilnius Feb. 11 and Mar. 26, 1993.  Entered into 
force Mar. 26, 1993.

Netherlands
Agreement on mutual administrative assistance in the exchange of 
information in futures matters.  Signed at Washington Apr. 29, 1993.  
Enters into force on the first day of the second month following the 
date on which both parties have informed each other in writing that 
their constitutional procedures have been complied with.

Peru
Agreement for the exchange of tax information.  Signed at Cartagena Feb. 
15, 1990.  Entered into force Mar. 31, 1993.

Russian Federation
Memorandum of understanding on scientific and technical cooperation in 
the fields of standards and metrology, with annex.  Signed at St. 
Petersburg and Washington Sept. 4, 1992, and Mar. 23, 1993.  Entered 
into force Mar. 23, 1993.

Protocol to the agreement of 
June 17, 1992, concerning the safe and secure transportation and storage 
of nuclear weapons through the provision of emergency response equipment 
and related training.  Signed at Moscow Mar. 26, 1993.  Entered into 
force Mar. 26, 1993.

Sierra Leone
Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling or refinancing of 
certain debts owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the United States 
Government and its agencies, with annexes.  Signed at Freetown Apr. 19, 
1993.  Enters into force following notification of completed Paris Club 
review and receipt by Sierra Leone of written notice from the U.S. that 
all necessary domestic legal requirements have been fulfilled.

Slovenia
Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation, with annexes.  
Signed at Washington Apr. 29, 1993.  Enters into force upon an exchange 
of notes confirming that the Parties have completed their respective 
internal requirements.  International express mail agreement, with 
detailed regulations.  Signed at Ljubljana and Washington Jan. 27 and 
Mar. 22, 1993.  Entered into force May 1, 1993. 

Spain
Treaty on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, with attachments.  
Signed at Washington Nov. 20, 1990.  Instruments of ratification 
exchanged:  May 19, 1993.  Enters into force:  June 30, 1993.

Agreement on cooperation to reduce the demand for narcotic drugs.  
Signed at Madrid Nov. 25, 1991.  Entered into force:  May 7, 1993. 

UNIDO
Tax reimbursement agreement, with annex.  Signed at Vienna Mar. 26, 
1993.  Entered into force Mar.  26, 1993.

Western Samoa
International express mail agreement, with  detailed regulations.  
Signed at Apia and Washington Feb. 16 and Mar. 18, 1993.  Entered into 
force May 1, 1993.

Agreement concerning the provision of training related to defense 
articles under the United States International Military Education and 
Training (IMET) program.  Effected by exchange of notes at Apia Dec. 1, 
1992, and Mar. 8, 1993.  Entered into force Mar. 8, 1993. (###)

END OF DISPATCH VOL 4, NO 22

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