US DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 4, NUMBER 23, JUNE 7, 1993
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:
1.  U.S. Commitment to Democracy in Guatemala -- Department Statement, 
Secretary Christopher, Deputy Secretary Wharton 
2.  World Conference on Human Rights -- Timothy Wirth, John Shattuck
3.  UN Security Council Adopts Resolution 827 on War Crimes Tribunal -- 
Madeleine K. Albright, UNSC Resolution
4.  UN Security Council Resolution 836 On Safe Areas in Bosnia-
Herzegovina 
5.  Focus on the Emerging Democracies:  Points of Contact 
U.S. Commitment to Democracy in Guatemala
Department Statement, Secretary Christopher, Deputy Secretary Wharton
Department Statement



ARTICLE 1:

Statement by Department Spokesman Richard Boucher, Washington, DC, May 
27, 1993.

In response to President Serrano's suspension of Guatemala's Congress 
and judiciary on Tuesday and his actions yesterday against press freedom 
and other civil liberties, the United States is suspending assistance to 
Guatemala.

We condemn the suppression of press freedom in Guatemala and continuing 
censorship.  These actions are a sign that Guatemala is on a dangerous 
course leading to further repression and further threats to democracy.

We urge an immediate return to constitutional government in Guatemala.  
We urge that this be done through legal, constitutional, and peaceful 
means.  Guatemala only stands to lose by continuing on its present 
course.

Today, we are suspending the following aid programs:

--  Economic support funds (cash transfers to the government);
--  Military education and training programs, deployments for training, 
and joint military exercises;
--  Police training;
--  Economic development project assistance and PL 480 food aid, which 
is channeled through the government.

Aid for humanitarian, environmental, and other projects provided to 
private organizations in Guatemala will continue.

We reject President Serrano's assertion that his actions will contribute 
to the fight against narco-trafficking.  They will only make cooperation 
more difficult.  As a result, we are reviewing our counter-narcotics 
cooperation with the Government of Guatemala.

We note that trade benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences 
(GSP) cannot be maintained in a country where labor rights are not 
respected.  Unless democracy is restored in Guatemala, GSP benefits are 
likely to be withdrawn.

We will monitor closely Guatemala's commitment to democracy and take 
that into account as the U.S. casts its vote on loans to Guatemala from 
the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Inter-American 
Development Bank. 


Secretary Christopher
Statement before the Organization of American States (OAS) Foreign 
Ministers' Meeting on Guatemala, Washington, DC, June 3, 1993.

Mr.  Chairman, Mr. Secretary, fellow Foreign Ministers, and friends:  
First, Mr. President, I want to congratulate you on your election as 
President of this meeting.  I also want to give great credit to our 
Secretary General and the other distinguished members of the mission who 
traveled to Guatemala.  They expressed our unswerving commitment, the 
commitment of this organization to the restoration of democracy, and I 
know that we are all grateful to them for doing so.

The events of this past week teach an important lesson for our 
hemisphere.  When democracy is at risk, we must rush to its defense 
immediately and strongly.  When we do, and when the people of the nation 
affected rush to its defense as well, the defenders of democracy 
prevail.  The prompt, unequivocal, and effective condemnation by the 
nations of the Western Hemisphere is a strong warning signal for the 
future to those in the region who might seek to derail democracy.

President Serrano's actions of May 25 did not stand.  They met a firm 
response from the people of Guatemala and from the entire inter-American 
community.  The United States and other nations suspended bilateral 
assistance and placed trade relations under review; the OAS quickly 
called for the meeting of Foreign Ministers that we are holding today; 
the Presidents of Central America convened an emergency meeting in San 
Salvador.  The people and the institutions of Guatemala spanning the 
political spectrum rallied to the defense of their hard-won democracy.

Now President Serrano himself has left office.  Many questions remain, 
but we hope that Guatemala is on the path to restoring constitutional 
democracy.

These events would not have been possible if the inter-American 
community, through the OAS, had not taken an historic, unanimous 
decision in Santiago in June of 1991 to come collectively to democracy's 
defense--whenever and wherever it is threatened in our hemisphere.

Still, Mr. President, it is premature to claim victory.  Events continue 
to unfold in Guatemala.  Let there be no doubt about the resolve of the 
United States and the inter-American community.  There must be a full 
and immediate restoration of constitutional democracy and basic human 
rights.  Unless and until democracy is fully restored, Guatemala will 
find itself isolated.

Hence, we must remain vigilant and engaged.  For the United States, 
there is nothing we wish to see more than the immediate restoration of 
constitutional democracy through legal, peaceful, and constitutional 
processes.  Until that occurs, Mr. President, our aid will remain 
suspended--and we will weigh suspension of trade preferences under the 
GSP system as well as the Caribbean Basin Initiative.

Our organization must remain vigilant and engaged.  We urge the Inter-
American Commission on Human Rights to ask the new Guatemalan 
authorities for authority to travel to Guatemala immediately to monitor 
and review the progress made in protecting human rights and restoring 
constitutional guarantees.  The Unit for the Promotion of Democracy 
should also offer its cooperation.

We urge, Mr. Chairman, that the Secretary General continue to monitor 
Guatemala's rapid return to democracy, to return there himself, as has 
been proposed by Mexican Foreign Secretary Solana, and to inform the 
General Assembly on progress to date when it convenes next week in 
Nicaragua.

We urge as well that once constitutional democracy has been restored, 
the new Guatemalan Government should make its first priority the renewal 
and revitalization of the peace process.  There is no step that will 
strengthen democracy more than negotiating an end to Guatemala's 33 
years of conflict.  The time has come in Guatemala not just for a return 
of constitutional rule, but also for the establishment of peace.

We urge the Secretary General, in consultation with the Presidents of 
Central America and Friends of the Peace Process, to offer their good 
offices to the Guatemalan parties.  Their objective should be to assist 
and promote a rapid and successful conclusion of the peace process.  
There was a chance for progress in the last round that unfortunately was 
not seized upon by the URNG.  The parties to the process will bear a 
heavy responsibility before the Guatemalan people and before history if 
they squander this new opportunity for peace.

If peace comes to Guatemala, then all of Central America can unite in 
working to fulfill the possibilities for expanding development and 
trade, strengthening democratic institutions, regional arms reduction, 
the return of refugees, and attention to the problems of poverty.

The OAS must renew our debate about how to strengthen the instruments 
available to defend democracy.  We must recognize that after elections 
are held and power is transferred peacefully in this hemisphere, the 
struggle to consolidate and institutionalize democracy has only just 
begun.  Basic institutions, like the judiciary, legislatures, law 
enforcement, and human rights, must be strengthened and 
professionalized.  The armed forces must function under strict and 
unchallenged civilian authority.  New threats to democracy, from 
corruption to narco-trafficking, must be met and overcome.

Mr. President, we are reminded that an extensive and complex agenda is 
before us.  Let us seize from the developments which have prompted this 
meeting an opportunity to redouble hemispheric efforts to confront the 
broad range of problems.  Let us use this opportunity to consolidate 
democracy.  

Thank you very much, Mr. President.


Deputy Secretary Wharton
Address to the OAS Foreign Ministers' Meeting on Guatemala, Managua, 
Nicaragua, June 6, 1993.

Mr. Secretary General, Mr. Chairman, Ministers, friends:  This is an 
historic moment for Guatemala, for Central America, and for the 
Organization of American States.  The news from Guatemala could not be 
more heartening:  The Guatemalan Congress, acting on instructions from 
the Court of Constitutionality, has selected a new president to serve 
out the term of former President Serrano.  The hopes of the Guatemalan 
people, of this Assembly, and of the entire hemisphere are being 
realized--the restoration of democratic government through peaceful, 
legal, and constitutional means.

Let us give credit where credit is due.  This is a victory first and 
foremost for Guatemala's democratic civic society.  Civilian leaders 
from all sectors of Guatemala's society--political parties, labor 
unions, and the private sector--took a strong stand in support of 
constitutional governance.  And they have prevailed.  We congratulate as 
well the Guatemalan Congress which, in a display of national unity and 
consensus, has selected one of Guatemala's most respected public 
figures--a man whose name is synonymous with the protection of human 
rights and democracy--as Guatemala's new president.  We congratulate 
President De Leon Carpio, and we look forward to working in friendship 
and respect with his new government.

This is also a defining moment for Central America.  We congratulate the 
Presidents of Central America who, recognizing the region's stake in a 
peaceful and democratic outcome, acted quickly and decisively to 
encourage and bring about that result.  In doing so, they have responded 
to the highest aspirations for peace and democracy enunciated at 
Esquipulas nearly 6 years ago.

Mr. Secretary General, my government applauds the strong and vigorous 
leadership you and the members of your mission have shown in this 
successful collective defense of democracy.  Your mission to Guatemala 
enabled us all to work from a common understanding of what had happened 
and of what was at risk.  Your presence in Guatemala--acting with the 
guidance of all the Foreign Ministers of the OAS--gave strong, visible 
support to the democratic forces and the institutions of Guatemala.

We congratulate you, Mr. President, for your effective leadership in 
chairing the important emergency meeting of Foreign Ministers last week, 
which acted quickly and in unity to express this hemisphere's 
unequivocal support for the Guatemalan people's effort to defend their 
democracy.

Let us be clear about what we have learned.  As Secretary Christopher 
said last week:

When democracy is at risk, we must rush to its defense immediately and 
strongly. . . the prompt, unequivocal, and effective condemnation by the 
nations of the Western Hemisphere is a strong warning signal . . . to 
those . . . who might seek to derail democracy.

This was the intent of the Santiago Resolution.  The wisdom of that 
resolution is demonstrated today, but we must continue to find new tools 
to strengthen and guarantee that collective commitment.  I hope that, as 
one step in that direction, every member state will move quickly to 
ratify the recently enacted Washington protocol.

As we look ahead let us all find ways, individually and collectively, to 
give the new Guatemalan Government our strong support.  My own 
government has announced today that it is resuming the full range of our 
assistance and trade programs that were suspended May 25.  Tomorrow, at 
President De Leon Carpio's invitation, I will be visiting Guatemala to 
reaffirm our support for democracy in that nation.  We also look forward 
to the arrival in Guatemala of our new ambassador at a very early date.  
We will do all we can to help strengthen democratic institutions in 
Guatemala.  We urge all member states, observer nations, and the 
international financial institutions to do likewise.  The OAS should 
offer its resources through the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy.

The restoration of constitutional government is also an opportunity.  We 
urge the Secretary General together with the presidents of Central 
America and Mexico and other Friends of the Peace Process to explore 
with the new Guatemalan Government how they might jointly renew and 
reinvigorate the Guatemalan peace process.  Ending the 33 years of 
conflict is fundamental to strengthening democracy, protecting human 
rights, and providing all Guatemalans with a new, more hopeful vision 
for their collective future.  

Thank you.


Deputy Secretary Wharton
Opening statement following meeting with President De Leon, Guatemala 
City, Guatemala, June 8, 1993.

I have come on behalf of the Secretary of State to underscore the 
support of the United States for the constitutionally elected Government 
of Guatemala.  The fact that the Guatemalan people peacefully confronted 
the extra- constitutional steps taken by their former leaders and 
successfully restored democratic government through a peaceful, legal, 
and constitutional process is a momentous historical achievement.

I had a warm and positive meeting with President De Leon.  We reviewed 
the steps which he has taken to restore constitutional government, his 
hopes for the future of democracy in Guatemala, and the challenges ahead 
for all Guatemalans. 

The United States strongly supports the government of President De Leon.  
The United States has resumed the full range of assistance programs 
interrupted May 25.  We are urging the international community and 
international organizations to provide substantial support for his 
government.

I have just come from the General Assembly of the Organization of 
American States, where the Foreign Ministers met again on Guatemala.  We 
consider it particularly important that the OAS, under the energetic 
leadership of Secretary General Baena Soares, has committed itself to 
remaining engaged in support of democracy in Guatemala.

The success of the Guatemalan people in resolving the crisis which arose 
May 25 represents an enormous opportunity for making progress on the 
large problems Guatemala faces.  We welcome President De Leon's 
commitment to seek an early end to the 33-year-old conflict which has 
plagued this country.  We will work with the Group of Friends of the 
Peace Process to support the peace process.  Peace is vital to stable 
democratic institutions and greater respect for human rights objectives 
or nations share.  We will cooperate with the Guatemalan Government to 
fight the scourge of narcotics trafficking.

Upon my return to Washington, I will report to the Secretary on the very 
positive democratic developments which Guatemalans have taken and on the 
excellent prospects for future strengthening of our bilateral 
relationship.  (###)



ARTICLE 2:

World Conference on Human Rights 
Timothy Wirth, John Shattuck
Press briefing by Counselor Timothy Wirth and Assistant Secretary for 
Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs John Shattuck, Washington, DC, 
June 2, 1993

Department Spokesman Richard Boucher:  Good afternoon, ladies and 
gentlemen.  This is an on-the-record briefing.  The subject is the World 
Conference on Human Rights that's about to be held in Vienna.  The 
briefers today are Counselor of the Department Timothy Wirth, who will 
be heading our delegation, and John Shattuck, the Assistant Secretary 
for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, who also will be a prominent 
member of our delegation.  I think Timothy Wirth has a short statement 
for you at the beginning to tell you a little bit about the conference.

Counselor Wirth:  Richard, thank you very much, and thank you all for 
coming over.  This is the first public event that we're having for this 
extremely important human rights conference which, as all of you know, 
will take place in a little less than 2 weeks in Vienna.  

This is the first global human rights conference to be held in the post-
Cold War period.  The Administration views the world conference as a 
major opportunity to show U.S. support for the popular movements for 
freedom and democracy that are emerging all over the world.

These movements, as you know, have played a central role in ending the 
Cold War.  Indeed, they've helped to change the political map, not just 
of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe but parts of Africa, Asia, 
and Latin America as well.

This worldwide effort comes from the courageous men and women committed 
to advancing the cause of human rights and democracy, often at great 
sacrifice and risk.  In re-committing itself to the goals and principles 
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United States honors 
the work of human rights advocates and non-governmental organizations 
from all cultures and continents who are helping to build a freer, 
safer, and more peaceful world.

We have two major goals for the human rights conference:  first, the 
reaffirmation of the bedrock principles of the Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights.  The Universal Declaration enshrines what we believe are 
timeless principles.  The gains for human rights that we see worldwide--
the massive referendum for democracy in Russia, or the ballots just cast 
in Cambodia, the very strong changes in South Africa--these all, to us, 
reaffirm the universal human desire and right to live in freedom and 
dignity regardless of cultural differences.

Our second goal is to do everything that we can to strengthen the United 
Nations' ability to promote human rights.  We have developed an action 
plan--and a copy of that is in your packets, the U.S. Draft Human Rights 
Action Plan--we have developed an action plan that, if adopted in the 
months ahead, would go far to improve the United Nations' effectiveness 
in addressing and resolving human rights problems.  And there are a 
number of highlights of that which I'll go over with you and then stop:

First, ensuring greater effectiveness for the UN Human Rights Center and 
its advisory services and reporting activities;

Second, targeting UN assistance toward helping nations establish the 
rule of law, eliminate torture, and resolve ethnic, religious, and 
racial conflict;

Third, helping to integrate the rights of women and children into 
efforts throughout the UN system and supporting the appointment of a 
special rapporteur on violence against women;

Fourth, increasing the capacity of the United Nations to promote 
democracy by assisting in the conduct of elections and improving the 
administration of justice;

Fifth, integrating human rights considerations into UN activities, such 
as peace-keeping, refugee protection, conflict resolution, and 
development and humanitarian programs; and 

Finally, creating the office of a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights 
as a means of helping to accomplish all of these goals.

We have been working especially closely with non-governmental 
organizations across the United States in the development of the U.S. 
Draft Human Rights Action Plan and look forward to engaging them even 
more deeply in activities in Vienna and effectively making them part and 
parcel of our delegation.

This engagement of non-governmental organizations is part of this 
Administration's effort seen in this building over and over and over 
again.  It's been successful elsewhere, and we plan to build upon that 
success during the 2 weeks in Vienna.

Finally, as you all know, Secretary Christopher will be going, and he 
will be speaking at the human rights conference the afternoon of the 
Monday that it opens--I believe that's the 14th--he'll be speaking that 
afternoon, and former President Jimmy Carter will be there for most of 
the human rights conference.  He'll be arriving earlier, engaging with 
the big non-governmental organization conference that starts the Friday 
before the conference, and President Carter will be there.  He has 
accepted the Secretary General's invitation to attend the conference as 
a distinguished guest.

So the United States will be represented at the highest levels, and 
we're delighted with their involvement.  

Let me stop with that and ask John Shattuck.  John, do you have any 
additional comments you might like to make?

Assistant Secretary Shattuck:  I think you can just take questions.

Counselor Wirth:  Any questions, please?

Q:  Are you aware of the news conference that was held yesterday in 
London by, I guess it was, the Assistant Secretary General, who said 
that it was disappointing, and I think he used the word "scandalous," 
that there had been no series of draft proposals from any of the 
participants in this conference, and therefore he had no high 
expectations for it, because the basic homework had not been done.

Counselor Wirth:  I don't know why--I didn't see that particular report, 
so it's difficult to comment on it.  Clearly, there have been a whole 
series of draft proposals, and there have been a number of preparatory 
meetings leading up to this.  There was a major meeting in Geneva just a 
month ago which was the final preparatory meeting leading up to it, and 
there will be other discussions for the week before the conference opens 
in Vienna.

We have tabled the U.S. Human Rights Action Plan as what we believe is a 
basic and fundamental position that we think is absolutely the high 
road, and we're going to do everything to stick with that high road.

Q:  Are you aware of any other nations who are doing the same kind of 
spade work?

Counselor Wirth:  As this kind of a statement?  There are some 
statements that run the opposite direction, as you probably know.  There 
was a meeting--there were a number of regional--five regional meetings 
around the world leading up to this as well, and there was a regional 
meeting in Bangkok in which the universal applicability of human rights 
was really--sort of looked like it was backsliding significantly, and 
we're concerned about that.

There are a number of nations that appear to be attempting to erode the 
basic UN standard and to erode the basic agreements reached in Tehran in 
1968, and we are concerned about that and expect that to be a major 
challenge for us in the 2-week period of time during Vienna.

Q:  What piece of paper or what doctrine or what will come out of this 
conference, do you hope, that will be the result?

Counselor Wirth:  These have to be done, as you know, unanimously.  The 
nature of these is that all nations have to agree.  The basic document 
that has been tabled and will be worked from is the document put 
together by Mr. Fall, who is the Assistant Secretary General--

Assistant Secretary Shattuck:  Secretary for Human Rights.

Counselor Wirth:  --for Human Rights.  Anyway, it's the Fall document, 
and that is still a heavily bracketed document.  It's the document from 
which everybody was working, and there are still great sections of that 
that are bracketed.  We hope a lot of those brackets will be cleaned up 
by--as you know, any nation that has a reservation can say they have a 
reservation, and, therefore, that text is bracketed.  And we hope that 
we can clean up a lot of those brackets in the week preceding Vienna and 
then get to agreement during the 2 weeks of the Vienna conference and 
would come out with a document at the end of that that we hope reaches 
the goals and the level of commitment that we think is reflected in the 
U.S. Draft Human Rights Action Plan.

Assistant Secretary Shattuck:  Could I just add a comment to that?

Counselor Wirth:  Please.  Come on up.

Assistant Secretary Shattuck:  I'm sorry.  It's a little complicated to 
have two briefers, and I apologize for the intrusion.  But I think the 
ultimate goal here is to reaffirm the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights, which is 45 years old this year, and which in 1968, of course, 
was last celebrated in the fashion that this conference will be 
celebrating it.

The road to that reaffirmation is complicated, and it certainly involves 
working through a number of issues, but we are very deeply committed to 
not having an erosion occur with respect to that basic set of 
principles.  It has overwhelming support from the nations of the world, 
even though there are some nations that would like to redirect their 
efforts to try to undermine some of those basic principles.

Q:  Can you give us some of the nations that are trying to erode the 
principles of the universal applicability of human rights standards, and 
what are they proposed to replace it with?

Counselor Wirth:  There are a variety of nations who, for a variety of 
different reasons, have not gone along with the position that we have 
taken.  For example, the Cubans have not been helpful in this process.  
The Iraqis have not been helpful in the process.  There are a number of 
other nations.  The Chinese, as you know, we have had some long-standing 
and difficult conflicts with on the issues of human rights.  There is an 
interesting set of issues, which those of you who are going to the human 
rights conference will witness, and that's the question of some kind of 
cultural differences that exist:  that because somebody lives in a 
particular culture, therefore they should not subscribe to the UN 
doctrine even though their countries signed on to this--the basic UN 
document in 1948 and the Tehran document in 1968.  Of all of them, they 
will say, well, there are cultural differences that don't allow or 
suggest that we should go along with the universal applicability.  To 
which the United States, I think, has only one question to ask, and that 
is, "What is there in your culture that suggests that there ought to be 
different changes and different standards as they relate to the 
treatment of individuals?"

You know, turning that question in a different way will be getting some 
very different answers to that during the 2 weeks in Vienna.

Q:  Senator, you're saying that by almost any standards that the 
practice of ethnic cleansing is a violation of people's human rights.  
To what extent do you believe that the inability of the international 
community to come to terms with the problems in Bosnia, to prevent forms 
of genocide and so on, significantly weakens this whole process and puts 
into question the real meaning of having such a conference and cheering 
about human rights?

Counselor Wirth:  In this new world into which we are entering and 
groping our way in the post-Cold War world, there is a whole series of 
new challenges that we face and we have to come to grips with.  And as 
we redefine our foreign policy and redefine our responsibilities in the 
world--and much of that set of obligations is new to us and to the 
world--one of those is this emergent issue of ethnic conflict and 
conflict resolution.  How do you get minorities and how do you get 
different ethnic groups to respect each other, and what kind of tools 
can we put into place to do that?

Part of what we believe is an action plan and the strengthening of the 
United Nations is to help to set up the institutions.  For example, when 
it appears that these kinds of ethnic conflicts may be emerging, what 
can we do early on to understand those, what can be done early on by a 
United Nations mechanism to anticipate those, to get those ethnic groups 
to be dealing with each other and talking with each other in a peaceful 
fashion so that you do not get the violent eruptions of those which we 
now see in the former Yugoslavia?  This is one of a set of new issues to 
which we don't have any clear and defined issues.

The UN Vienna conference is not going to solve these problems.  It's 
going to be a statement and a set of principles to which we hope that 
nations all around the world will adhere.  We hope that becomes, then, 
the basis against which we can take the next steps in attempting to 
understand these new pressures and deal with them.  What we're not about 
to say is that this is going to be the "silver bullet" that's going to 
solve a lot of problems.  Of course, it's not going to be, and to hold 
those kinds of expectations up for this kind of a conference is 
unrealistic.  That's not the goal of the conference.

The goal of the conference, we believe, has to be to reaffirm this and 
to strengthen the UN capability to deal with these problems.  We've got 
to take them one step at a time.

Q:  Senator, if I can call it, the "Carter-Christopher-Derian" 
Administration tried to apply human rights to foreign policy, and a lot 
of people considered it naive, but a lot of people were very pleased 
that there was an Administration that cared about human rights.

When your job was created, you were given catch-all responsibility-- 
there were a lot of issues that were avoided for 12 years, like 
proliferation, birth control, human rights.

Counselor Wirth:  Population sits right up there.  It does remind--

Q:  It should.  But I wonder if--the honeymoon is over, and I wonder if 
you could give us any examples where this Administration has used a 
human rights yardstick in any measurable way?  You're going to a 
conference-- and I could ask you why you're willing to bank on the UN to 
stand up for human rights, considering the quality of some of its 
members.  You didn't mention any friends of the United States in the 
group, but their human rights record is appalling, as you know-- 
chopping people's arms and hands off for stealing.

But how has this Administration applied human rights values to its 
foreign policy decisions?  Except for that little addendum to China's 
trade privileges, what has this Administration done so far for human 
rights in the world, would you say?

Counselor Wirth:  First of all, the Administration--just to go back to 
the basic assumptions underlying your question--the Administration, 
quite accurately, is focused on these new global issues.  As we talk 
about the changing nature of U.S. foreign policy, we understand that our 
foreign policy is going to increasingly be driven for the rest of this 
decade--into the next century--by this whole new set of issues.  They 
are environmental, they are population, they're democracy and 
democracy's relations to human rights, they're a continuing commitment 
to counter-narcotics programs and the relationship of counter-narcotics 
to building judicial systems and civil societies in the countries where 
those occur.

There are conflict resolution issues, referred to in the previous 
question.  These are the new fabric of what much of our foreign policy 
is going to be.  I would just say as an aside, everybody was talking 
last week about statements made about the changing nature of U.S. 
foreign policy.  The shoe that didn't drop and nobody asked about was:  
What are these changes that are occurring?  What are these new  
pressures and the new themes that we have to be thinking about?  
Clearly, this Administration has begun to put these out very strongly. 
We dramatically changed U.S. policy on population 2 weeks ago at the 
preparatory commission for Cairo.  It was a remarkable success for the 
United States of America and a very dramatic one, broadly applauded, in 
which the United States is once again in the lead, as we should be.

On environmental issues, to pick up that part of the package, we 
reversed the two most contentious points of Rio and the UNCED conference 
there on global climate change and the signing of the Bio-Diversity 
Treaty, which will occur, by the way, this Friday in New York.

These are examples of the very clear high points in U.S. foreign policy.

Specifically, now, to the human rights issue:  You refer to China, and I 
think it's fair to say that this is more than a little addendum.  I 
think it was quite a remarkable achievement of this Administration--the 
way in which brought together, around China policy, were a series of 
deeply conflicted interests in the country with very, very different 
perspectives and a very different history--on the issue of our attitude 
toward China.  First of all, of the Administration and the Congress, 
working very closely together.

I went through most of those battles on the China policy that George 
Mitchell led on the floor so ably.  And to see Senator Mitchell and 
Congresswoman Pelosi and the President of the United States together on 
that, I think, was the beginning of that fabric:  to see groups that 
said we should never grant most-favored-nation status to China as long 
as they are acting as they are toward Tibet; being there, as well, in 
that group to see a broader range of the business community there.

I think that we have threaded our way through the mine field of the 
China policy, and done it very well, in which the dominant concern was 
human rights.

Q:  If their record next year looks like their record today, would they 
be given an extension?

Counselor Wirth:  We hope their record next year--that's a hypothetical.

Q:  I know it's a hypothetical.

Counselor Wirth:  We are going to do everything we can to make sure that 
their record next year does not look like this year.

Q:  If you kick the can down the road for a year, you also didn't 
specify all political prisoners.  It was a compromise between business 
interests, like long-term contracts with Chinese firms.  And people like 
Mitchell--civil libertarians who really wanted them held to it--and you 
compromised, and you didn't say, free all political prisoners, for 
instance.

Counselor Wirth:  Well, we all compromise every day, don't we?  You have 
to compromise on how much space your stories get in the paper.  We all 
compromise--

Q:  It's less than political prisoners and executions.  Space is just a 
small thing.

Counselor Wirth:  No, no.  I think this is a matter of clearly 
understanding it.  You take it one step at a time.  The Administration 
is firmly committed to moving ahead this particular set of agendas, and 
we plan to continue to do so.

Assistant Secretary Shattuck:  Can I just add one thing?  That is, I 
think the other major issue in addition to China--which I think if you 
look very closely at the record--is an extraordinary change from the way 
trade status has ever been treated before; actually doing conditionality 
of this kind on human rights issues is a first.

Second is Russia.  Another major area of concern to the President in 
this new global environment that Senator Wirth is describing is the 
building of democracy.  The kind of commitment, not only in diplomacy 
terms but in terms of programs to develop the administration of justice 
and the civil society in Russia and the dollar commitments that went 
along with that and the constant attention to the shoring up of 
democracy in Russia as a major security as well as principled interest 
to the United States, I think, is another example of the kind of thing 
that the Administration is producing.

Q:  Senator, given the perception, whether it's real or contrived, that 
the United States is now stepping away from its role as world leader, do 
you think you are going to have that thrown in your face at this 
meeting, that you are going to have problems in pushing, in leading 
these people toward the human rights goals the United States would like 
to see?

Counselor Wirth:  Well, you see, I would just take--I wouldn't agree 
with the, again, the premise of the question.  You know, as the 
discussion has gone on about our role in the world and the changing 
nature of the world and the changing nature of our role, we have also, 
as I suggested earlier, dropped the other shoe.  And there is this whole 
new fabric of issues that are out there where, if we don't lead, nobody 
in the world is going to do so.

The world is expecting us to provide this kind of leadership not only on 
the human rights agenda but is expecting us to lead on population, and I 
cannot tell you the extraordinary response that the U.S. statement on 
the floor of the United Nations received.  It was a remarkable moment.  
And you could feel the emotion and the tension and the excitement in the 
room related:  the United States once again resuming the leadership that 
the world expects of us. To see the changes that we have made related to 
environmental policy coming out of the disastrous events in Rio just 1 
year ago at the UNCED conference.  Just a year ago, the United States 
was viewed as a country not fulfilling its responsibilities, and now we 
are, on these most difficult issues, once again out in the lead. 

Now, I just do not think that the premise of your question is accurate.  
Now, clearly, there are questions asked about how we are going to deal 
in a multilateral world as well; how do we deal with peace-keeping and 
peace-making and all of that side of issues, which, I think, is, you 
know, the focus of part of your question.  And we are all feeling our 
way through a new world, as well.  

You know, have we ever been in a situation in which U.S. troops were 
commanded by non-U.S. commanders?  Never before.  Lots of other 
countries have been in that.  How do we adapt to that?  How do we deal 
with that?  These are questions that we have to deal with and learn how 
to deal with.  But we are leading and out there, you know, very much, 
particularly on this new set of issues now.

Q:  Israel has the largest number of political prisoners in the world 
today.  It has admitted just recently to 6,000, and the Palestinians say 
there are 13,000.  Many of them have not been brought before the courts.  
My question is this:  Are the Palestinians going to be represented at 
the Vienna conference?

Counselor Wirth:  Just the countries that are--I think the Palestinians 
will be there.  I am sure that they will be there.  All the countries 
that are either in the United Nations or are accredited observers to the 
United Nations, you know, can--and I can't say specifically--they 
certainly have the right to be there, but do you know if they will be 
there?

Assistant Secretary Shattuck:  I don't know whether they will be there.  
They have the right to be there.

Counselor Wirth:  They have the right to be there, just as all observers 
do, in an observer status.  They will also be there some 1,000 non-
governmental organizations accredited to the United Nations.  So I am 
sure that the Palestinians will be there.

This is not, however, a conference to deal with specific issues and 
specific problems, as you know.  

Q:  Senator, you mentioned this interesting issue or question of whether 
cultural differences undermined the idea or concept of universal human 
rights and the idea that one man's universal principle is another man's 
invasion of political or cultural sovereignty.

I'm just wondering what other arguments the U.S. might bring to the 
conference other than to ask people the question:  What is it in their 
culture that requires them to have a different standard of human rights?

In previous negotiations about human rights, the Soviets, for instance, 
have argued that full employment is a basic human right.  There have 
been positions where, you know, the U.S. has rejected other human rights 
standards that other people tried to apply to the U.S.--often cynically, 
I admit.

I'm just wondering what other arguments we are bringing in to ask, you 
know, what is it in your culture that requires them--

Counselor Wirth:  There is a new and additional declaration related to 
social and economic rights, and the United States is supporting that.  
The United States is broadening our definition and our commitments 
beyond what we have done before, which we believe is a welcome change 
and an important thing to do.

Second, there are basic fundamentals that we think are applicable across 
the board, no matter what religion one may practice or what the 
political system may be.  I mean, as we support democracy and human 
rights, we are also very aware of the fact that democracy can take many, 
many forms.  And we are also all aware of the fact that  these cultures, 
forms of self-determination and self-governance have taken many 
different forms in many different religious areas, as well.

So in addition to asking that question, which I will admit is a bit 
rhetorical, but, I mean, it does draw the issue.  There are fundamental 
principles that we will continue to espouse, and we are broadening our 
definition and our involvement, as well.

Q:  And will your office--regardless of whether people sign on to these 
universal principles--and would you argue in favor of some sort of 
action?  I mean, for instance, if countries did not cease female 
circumcision or other things that we in the West find abhorrent--I mean, 
other steps beyond just verbal condemnation that you believe the United 
States should take to address countries that fail to meet the human 
rights standards?

Counselor Wirth:  As you know, we are shifting our overall foreign 
policy, and while, for the last 40 years our foreign policy and our aid 
program had been driven by the Cold War, it is now going to be driven 
by, largely by a new set of goals.  And that new set of goals relates to 
not only human rights and democracy but the environment and population 
and sustainable development.  And how we deal with other countries is 
going to be looked at through a new lens:  not the lens of the good guys 
and the bad guys, or the white hats and the black hats, or the 
conspiracy related to the Cold War but, rather, a new set of measures.  
And you all have touched upon, or so many of you have touched upon in 
your questions--that's where we are right now.  We are going through 
this evolution right now in the United States and in the Western world.  
And the leadership of the United States in doing that is enormously 
important.

Again, if we don't define these criteria and these don't become part of 
our foreign policy, they will not become part of the world community, 
and we think that they have to be.

It's a good place to end, because I think that that just shows exactly 
where the human rights--this commitment in the human rights conference 
in Vienna fits into our overall broad
Administration goals. (###)



ARTICLE 3:

UN Security Council Adopts Resolution 827 on War Crimes Tribunal
Madeleine K. Albright, UNSC Resolution

Madeleine K. Albright
Excerpt from statement by the U.S. Permanent Representative to the 
United Nations, New York City, May 25, 1993.

Mr. President, today we begin to cleanse the hatred that has torn apart 
the former Yugoslavia.  A few months ago, I said, "This will be no 
victors' tribunal.  The only victor that will prevail in this endeavor 
is the truth."  Truth is the cornerstone of the rule of law, and it will 
point toward individuals, not peoples, as perpetrators of war crimes.  
And it is only the truth that can cleanse the ethnic and religious 
hatreds and begin the healing process.

Included among the millions who will learn of this resolution are the 
hundreds of thousands of civilians who are the victims of horrific war 
crimes and crimes against humanity in the former Yugoslavia.  To these 
victims we declare by this action that your agony, your sacrifice, and 
your hope for justice have not been forgotten.  And to those who 
committed these heinous crimes, we have a very clear message:  war 
criminals will be prosecuted and justice will be rendered.

The crimes being committed, even as we meet today, are not just isolated 
acts of drunken militia men, but often are the systematic and 
orchestrated crimes of government officials, military commanders, and 
disciplined artillery men and foot soldiers.  The men and women behind 
these crimes are individually responsible for the crimes of those they 
purport to control; the fact that their power is often self-proclaimed 
does not lessen their culpability.

Those skeptics--including the war criminals--who deride this tribunal as 
being powerless because the suspects may avoid arrest should not be so 
confident.  The tribunal will issue indictments whether or not suspects 
can be taken into custody.  They will become international pariahs.  
While these individuals may be able to hide within the borders of Serbia 
or parts of Bosnia or Croatia, they will be imprisoned for the rest of 
their lives within their own land.  Under today's resolution, every 
government, including each one in the former Yugoslavia, will be 
obligated to hand over those indicted by the tribunal.

We must ensure that the voices of the groups most victimized are heard 
by the tribunal.  I refer particularly to the detention and systematic 
rape of women and girls, often followed by cold-blooded murder.  Let the 
tens of thousands of women and girls who courageously survived the 
brutal assault of cowards who call themselves soldiers know this:  your 
dignity survives, as does that of those who died.

The Honorable Geraldine Ferraro, who recently represented the United 
States on the UN Human Rights Commission, said of this crime, "Rape 
should not be used as a weapon of war.  It should also not be used as a 
tool for revenge. . . .  Women's rights are human rights, and must be 
respected as such."  The international tribunal will prosecute the 
rapists and murderers and their superiors.

My government is also determined to see that women jurists sit on the 
tribunal and that women prosecutors bring war criminals to justice.  Our 
view is shared by all of the women permanent representatives of this 
organization.  We also take note of the recommendation of the 
Organization of the Islamic Conference that gender be duly represented 
on the tribunal.

Today's resolution contains important provisions designed to ensure the 
expeditious establishment of the tribunal.  It is imperative that I take 
some time to state clearly and completely the understandings which 
underpin my government's support for this resolution and for the statute 
of the tribunal.  To begin, we want to stress the importance of three 
provisions in particular.  

Today's  resolution ensures that the UN Commission of Experts continues 
to pursue its work of establishing a data base and preparing evidence 
during the interim period before the appointment of the tribunal's 
prosecutor and hiring of staff to begin authoritative investigations and 
preparations for trials.  We expect that the Secretary-General will 
provide the Commission with the space, resources, and personnel 
necessary to continue its mandate, and we urge other countries to follow 
our lead in pledging financial contributions to the Commission.  At the 
appropriate time, we expect the Commission would cease to exist and its 
work folded into the prosecutor's office.

The resolution also encourages states to submit proposals for the rules 
of evidence and procedure for consideration by the judges of the 
tribunal.  We hope to contribute to this critical process of developing 
the rules that the tribunal can expeditiously adopt, so that the 
prosecutor will then be in a position to begin prosecuting cases without 
further delay.

In addition, the resolution recognizes that states may find it necessary 
to take measures under their domestic law to enable them to implement 
the provisions of the statute and pledges them to endeavor to take any 
such measures as soon as possible.  That is certainly the intention of 
the United States. . . .

With the adoption of the statute for the tribunal, we have completed the 
most difficult part of the task we began in February when Resolution 808 
was approved by the Council.  We must move without delay to the next 
steps, particularly the appointment of the prosecutor and the election 
of judges.

Finally, of this we are certain:  The tribunal must succeed, for the 
sake of the victims and for the credibility of international law in this 
new era.  Thank you, Mr. President.


Resolution 827
(May 25, 1993)

The Security Council,

Reaffirming its resolution 713 (1991) of 25 September 1991 and all 
subsequent relevant resolutions,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General (S/25704 and Add. 
1) pursuant to paragraph 2 of resolution 808 (1993),

Expressing once again its grave alarm at continuing reports of 
widespread and flagrant violations of international humanitarian law 
occurring within the territory of the former Yugoslavia, and especially 
in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including reports of mass 
killings, massive, organized and systematic detention and rape of women, 
and the continuance of the practice of "ethnic cleansing", including for 
the acquisition and the holding of territory,

Determining that this situation continues to constitute a threat to 
international peace and security,

Determined to put an end to such crimes and to take effective measures 
to bring to justice the persons who are responsible for them,

Convinced that in the particular circumstances of the former Yugoslavia 
the establishment as an ad hoc measure by the Council of an 
international tribunal and the prosecution of persons responsible for 
serious violations of international humanitarian law would enable this 
aim to be achieved and would contribute to the restoration and 
maintenance of peace,

Believing that the establishment of an international tribunal and the 
prosecution of persons responsible for the above-mentioned violations of 
international humanitarian law will contribute to ensuring that such 
violations are halted and effectively redressed,

Noting in this regard the recommendation by the Co-Chairmen of the 
Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former 
Yugoslavia for the establishment of such a tribunal (S/25221),

Reaffirming in this regard its decision in resolution 808 (1993) that an 
international tribunal shall be established for the prosecution of 
persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian 
law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991,

Considering that, pending the appointment of the Prosecutor of the 
International Tribunal, the Commission of Experts established pursuant 
to resolution 780 (1992) should continue on an urgent basis the 
collection of information relating to evidence of grave breaches of the 
Geneva Conventions and other violations of international humanitarian 
law as proposed in its interim report (S/25274),

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1.  Approves the report of the Secretary-General;

2.  Decides hereby to establish an international tribunal for the sole 
purpose of prosecuting persons responsible for serious violations of 
international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former 
Yugoslavia between 1 January 1991 and a date to be determined by the 
Security Council upon the restoration of peace and to this end to adopt 
the Statute of the International Tribunal annexed to the above-mentioned 
report;

3.  Requests the Secretary-General to submit to the judges of the 
International Tribunal, upon their election, any suggestions received 
from States for the rules of procedure and evidence called for in 
Article 15 of the Statute of the International Tribunal;

4.  Decides that all States shall cooperate fully with the International 
Tribunal and its organs in accordance with the present resolution and 
the Statute of the International Tribunal and that consequently all 
States shall take any measures necessary under their domestic law to 
implement the provisions of the present resolution and the Statute, 
including the obligation of the States to comply with requests for 
assistance or orders issued by a Trial Chamber under Article 29 of the 
Statute;

5.  Urges States and intergovernmental and non-governmental 
organizations to contribute funds, equipment and services to the 
International Tribunal, including the offer of expert personnel; 

6.  Decides that the determination of the seat of the International 
Tribunal is subject to the conclusion of appropriate arrangements 
between the United Nations and the Netherlands acceptable to the 
Council, and that the International Tribunal may sit elsewhere when it 
considers it necessary for the efficient exercise of its functions;

7.  Decides also that the work of the International Tribunal shall be 
carried out without prejudice to the right of the victims to seek, 
through appropriate means, compensation for damages incurred as a result 
of violations of international humanitarian law;

8.  Requests the Secretary-General to implement urgently the present 
resolution and in particular to make practical arrangements for the 
effective functioning of the International Tribunal at the earliest time 
and to report periodically to the Council;

9.  Decides to remain actively seized of the matter. 

VOTE:  Unanimous (15-0). (###)



ARTICLE 4:

UN Security Council Resolution 836 On Safe Areas in Bosnia-Herzegovina
Resolution 836
(June 3, 1993)

The Security Council,

Reaffirming its resolution 713 (1991) of 25 September 1991 and all 
subsequent relevant resolutions,

Reaffirming in particular its resolutions 819 (1993) 824 (1993), which 
demanded that certain towns and their surrounding areas in the Republic 
of Bosnia and Herzegovina should be treated as safe areas,

Reaffirming the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political 
independence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the 
responsibility of the Security Council in this regard,

Condemning military attacks, and actions that do not respect the 
sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the 
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which, as a Member State of the 
United Nations, enjoys the rights provided for in the Charter of the 
United Nations,

Reiterating its alarm at the grave and intolerable situation in the 
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina arising from serious violations of 
international humanitarian law,

Reaffirming once again that any taking of territory by force or any 
practice of "ethnic cleansing" is unlawful and totally unacceptable,

Commending the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and 
the Bosnian Croat party for having signed the Vance-Owen Plan,

Gravely concerned at the persistent refusal of the Bosnian Serb party to 
accept the Vance-Owen Plan and calling upon that party to accept the 
Peace Plan for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in full,

Deeply concerned by the continuing armed hostilities in the territory of 
the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina which run totally counter to the 
Peace Plan,

Alarmed by the resulting plight of the civilian population in the 
territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in particular in 
Sarajevo, Bihac, Srebrenica, Gorazde, Tuzla and Zepa,

Condemning the obstruction, primarily by the Bosnian Serb party, of the 
delivery of humanitarian assistance,

Determined to ensure the protection of the civilian population in safe 
areas and to promote a lasting political solution,

Confirming the ban on military flights in the airspace of the Republic 
of Bosnia and Herzegovina, established by resolutions 781 (1992), 786 
(1992) and 816 (1993),

Affirming that the concept of safe areas in the Republic of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina as contained in resolutions 819 (1993) and 824 (1993) was 
adopted to respond to an emergency situation, and noting that the 
concept proposed by France in document S/25800 and by others could make 
a valuable contribution and should not in any way be taken as an end in 
itself, but as a part of the Vance-Owen process and as a first step 
towards a just and lasting political solution,

Convinced that treating the towns and surrounding areas referred to 
above as safe areas will contribute to the early implementation of that 
objective,

Stressing that the lasting solution to the conflict in the Republic of 
Bosnia and Herzegovina must be based on the following principles:  
immediate and complete cessation of hostilities; withdrawal from 
territories seized by the use of force and "ethnic cleansing"; reversal 
of the consequences of "ethnic cleansing" and recognition of the right 
of all refugees to return to their homes; and respect for the 
sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the 
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

Noting also the crucial work being done throughout the Republic of 
Bosnia and Herzegovina by the United Nations Protection Force 
(UNPROFOR), and the importance of such work continuing,

Determining that the situation in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina 
continues to be a threat to international peace and security,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1.  Calls for the full and immediate implementation of all its relevant 
resolutions;

2.  Commends the Peace Plan for the Republic of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina as contained in document S/25479;

3.  Reaffirms the unacceptability of the acquisition of territory by the 
use of force and the need to restore the full sovereignty, territorial 
integrity and political and independence of the Republic of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina;

4.  Decides to ensure full respect for the safe areas referred to in 
resolution 824 (1993);

5.  Decides to extend to that and the mandate of UNPROFOR in order to 
enable it, in the safe areas referred to in resolution 824 (1993), to 
deter attacks against the safe areas, to monitor the cease-fire, to 
promote the withdrawal of military or paramilitary units other than 
those of the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and to 
occupy some key points on the ground, in addition to participating in 
the delivery of humanitarian relief to the population as provided for in 
resolution 776 (1992);

6.  Affirms that these safe areas are a temporary measure and that the 
primary objective remains to reverse the consequences of the use of 
force and to allow all persons displaced from their homes in the 
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to return to their homes in peace, 
beginning inter alia with the prompt implementation of the provisions of 
the Vance-Owen Plan in areas where those have been agreed by the parties 
directly concerned;

7.  Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation inter alia with the 
Governments of the Member States contributing forces to UNPROFOR;

(a)  to make the adjustments or reinforcement of UNPROFOR which might be 
required by the implementation of the present resolution, and to 
consider assigning UNPROFOR elements in support of the elements 
entrusted with protection of safe areas, with the agreement of the 
Governments contributing forces;

(b)  to direct the UNPROFOR Force Commander to redeploy to the extent 
possible the forces under his command in the Republic of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina;

8.  Calls upon Member States to contribute forces, including logistic 
support, to facilitate the implementation of the provisions regarding 
the safe areas, expresses its gratitude to Member States already 
providing forces for that purpose and invites the Secretary-General to 
seek additional contingents from other Member States;

9.  Authorizes UNPROFOR, in addition to the mandate defined in 
resolutions 770 (1992) and 776 (1992), in carrying out the mandate 
defined in paragraph 5 above, acting in self-defence, to take the 
necessary measures, including the use of force, in reply to bombardments 
against the safe areas by any of the parties or to armed incursion into 
them or in the event of any deliberate obstruction in or around those 
areas to the freedom of movement of UNPROFOR or of protected 
humanitarian convoys;

10.  Decides that, notwithstanding paragraph 1 of resolution 816 (1993), 
Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or 
arrangements, may take, under the authority of the Security Council and 
subject to close coordination with the Secretary-General and UNPROFOR, 
all necessary measures, through the use of air power, in and around the 
safe areas in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to support 
UNPROFOR in the performance of its mandate set out in paragraphs 5 and 9 
above;

11.  Requests the Member States concerned, the Secretary-General and 
UNPROFOR to coordinate closely on the measures they are taking to 
implement paragraph 10 above and to report to the Council through the 
Secretary-General;

12.  Invites the Secretary-General to report to the Council, for 
decision, if possible within seven days of the adoption of this 
resolution, on the modalities of its implementation, including its 
financial implications;

13.  Further invites the Secretary-General to submit to the Council, not 
later than two months after the adoption of this resolution, a report on 
the implementation of and compliance with this resolution;

14.  Emphasizes that it will keep open other options for new and tougher 
measures, none of which is prejudged or excluded from consideration;

15.  Decides to remain actively seized of the matter, and undertakes to 
take prompt action, as required.

VOTE:  13-0-2 (Pakistan, Venezuela abstaining). (###)



ARTICLE 5:

Focus on the Emerging Democracies
Points of Contact

Points  of Contact For U.S. Firms Seeking Business Opportunities in The 
New Independent States

Each U.S. Government agency listed below has identified key individuals 
as points of contact for American companies seeking business 
opportunities in the new independent states (NIS) of the former Soviet 
Union.

Department of State
The Office of U.S. Government assistance programs is headed by 
Ambassador Thomas W. Simons, Jr., who reports to Ambassador-at-Large and 
Special Adviser to the Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott.  Ambassador 
Simons is responsible for coordination of U.S. assistance policy and 
technical assistance programs (ongoing or planned) for the NIS.  This 
office is able to answer general questions about the structure of the 
U.S. assistance program and the economic sectors in the NIS receiving 
U.S. Government technical assistance.  

David M. Hatcher
Senior Adviser,  Media and Private Sector 
U.S. Department of State
S/NIS/C, Room 1004
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC  20520
Tel:  202-647-4617
Fax:  202-647-2636

Department of Commerce 
The initial point of contact for US firms interested in commercial 
opportunities in the NIS is the US Department of Commerce's Business 
Information Service for the New Independent States (BISNIS).  The BISNIS 
staff of international trade specialists assist US companies exploring 
business prospects in the NIS.  BISNIS maintains current information on 
prevailing trade regulations and legislation, economic and industrial 
market data, NIS public and private sector contacts, sources of 
financing, and other practical information.  BISNIS publishes several 
newsletters, including the BISNIS bulletin, "Search for Partners," and 
"Commercial Opportunities," providing invaluable commercial information 
to the U.S. business community.

Linda Nemec
Director, Business Information Service for the NIS
U.S. Department of Commerce
Room 7413
Washington, DC  20220
Tel:  202-482-4655
Fax:  202-482-2293

Foreign Commercial Service Offices in the NIS:
Moscow, Russia
Dale Slaight, Senior Commercial Officer
c/o U.S. Embassy
Novinsky Bulvar 15
Tel:  011-7-502-224-1105
Fax:  011-7-502-224-1106

St. Petersburg, Russia
Karen Zens, Commercial Officer
c/o American General Consulate
Ulitsa, Petra Lavrova St. 15
Tel:  011-7-812-274-8235
Fax:  011-7-812-271-4554

Kiev, Ukraine
Stephen Wasylko, Senior Commercial Officer
c/o U.S. Embassy
10 vul. Kotsynskovo
252053 Kiev 53
Tel:  011-7-044-244-7349
Fax:  011-7-044-244-7350

US Agency for International Development (USAID)
USAID established a NIS Task Force in April 1992 to respond to the 
economic and political changes in the former Soviet Union.  Projects 
have been developed along broad sectoral lines and are managed by USAID 
and other U.S. Government agencies and grantees.  The public information 
line for the NIS Task Force is (202) 647-9950.

The USAID Private Enterprise Bureau, Center for Trade and Investment 
Services (CTIS), provides information about USAID and other U.S. 
Government programs and activities to private U.S. businesses seeking 
information on opportunities in the NIS.  The NIS liaison officers at 
CTIS are:

Lori Hatton
Tel: 202-663-2667

David Rybak
Tel: 202-663-2668

USAID, SA-2, Room 100
Washington, DC  20523-0229
Tel: 1-800-USAID-4-U (1-800-872-4348)
Fax:  202-663-2670 

U.S. Trade and Development Agency (TDA)
TDA promotes U.S. exports for major development projects in the NIS.  It 
funds feasibility studies, consultancies, training programs, and other 
project planning services related to major projects.

Daniel Stein
U.S. Trade and Development Agency
SA-16, Rm. 309
Washington, DC  20523-1602
Tel:  703-875-4357
Fax:  703-875-4009

Export/Import Bank (Eximbank)
The Eximbank provides insurance, guarantees, and loans to U.S. exporters 
and commercial banks to facilitate financing for the export of goods and 
services from the United States to many of the NIS emerging markets.

Insurance: 
Ellen Lubetsky
Loan Officer
Eximbank of the U.S.
811 Vermont Ave., NW
Washington, DC  20571
Tel:  202-535-9664
Fax:  202-566-7524

Guarantees and Loans, including Oil and Gas Sector:
John Lentz
Loan Officer
Eximbank of the U.S.
811 Vermont Ave., NW
Washington, DC  20571
Tel:  202-566-8208
Fax:  202-566-7524

Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)
OPIC promotes economic growth in more than 140 developing nations and 
emerging economies (including all NIS states) by encouraging U.S. 
private investment in those nations.  OPIC assists American investors 
through three principal programs:

--  Financing investment projects through direct loans and loan 
guarantees; 
--  Insuring investment projects against a broad range of political 
risks;  and
--  Providing a variety of investor services including advisory 
services, project development funding, investment missions, computer-
assisted joint venture partner matching, and country and regional 
information kits.

OPIC
1100 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC  20527

OPIC NIS contacts:
Michael Oxman, Insurance
Tel:  202-336-8589, 
Fax:  202-408-5142

Burton Bostwick, Finance 
Tel:  202-336-8475,  
Fax:  202-408-9866

Dan Riordan, Investor Services
Tel:  202-336-8620, 
Fax:  202-408-5145

Eric Luhmann, Investor Services
Tel:  202-336-8621
Fax:  202-408-5145

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
USDA is responsible for commercial export programs and several food aid 
programs  including concessional loans, Food for Peace Programs, and 
commodity grants.  A wide array of U.S. agricultural food commodities 
are eligible for export under these different programs.

USDA also sponsors technical assistance programs for the NIS that 
support the transition to a private agriculture system.

Glenn Whiteman
USDA, Rm. 4079
SUSDA/FAS/EC
Washington, DC  20250-1000
Tel:  202-720-4274
Fax:  202-690-0727 

U.S. Information Agency (USIA)
USIA is responsible for educational and cultural exchanges, information 
programs, internships, and training activities that support U.S. policy 
goals in the new countries.  USIA programs aim to assist democratic and 
economic reform in the new states.  In addition to USIA Foreign Service 
officers posted in NIS embassies, USIA Washington DC headquarters works 
through a number of private sector exchange organizations in the United 
States.

Bud Jacobs
USIA, Rm. 751
301 4th Street, SW
Washington, DC  20547
Tel:  202-619-5057
Fax:  202-619-5958

Department of the Treasury 
The Treasury Department provides technical assistance in macroeconomic 
policy, government financial operations, and financial sector reform.

Robert Banque
Office of Technical Assistance Management
Room 4138
Main Treasury Department
1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC  20220
Tel:  202-622-2130
Fax:  202-622-2308 (###)

END OF DISPATCH VOL 4, NO 23

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