US DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 4, NUMBER 24, JUNE 14, 1993
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:
1. China: Most-Favored-Nation Status -- President Clinton, Executive
Order, Winston Lord
2. Creation of Presidential Council on Sustainable Development --
President Clinton
3. U.S. Support for Global Commitment To Sustainable Development --
Vice President Gore
4. Economic Diplomacy: Key to Domestic Prosperity -- Joan E. Spero
5. U.S. Policy Toward Liberia, Togo, and Zaire -- George E. Moose
6. CSCE Negotiations on Nagorno-Karabakh -- John J. Maresca, Joint
Statement
7. Joint Statement Following U.S.-North Korea Meeting
(###)
ARTICLE 1:
China: Most-Favored-Nation Status
President Clinton, Executive Order, Winston Lord
President Clinton
Statement released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary,
Washington, DC, May 28, 1993.
Yesterday, the American people won a tremendous victory as a majority of
the House of Representatives joined me in adopting our plan to
revitalize American's economic future. Today, Members of Congress have
joined me to announce a new chapter in United States policy toward
China.
China occupies an important place in our nation's foreign policy. It is
the world's most populous state, its fastest growing major economy, and
a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Its future will do much
to shape the future of Asia, our security and trade relations in the
Pacific, and a host of global issues, from the environment to weapons
proliferation. In short, our relationship with China is of very great
importance.
Unfortunately, over the past 4 years, our nation spoke with a divided
voice when it came to China. Americans were outraged by the killing of
pro-democracy demonstrators at Tiananmen Square in June 1989. Congress
was determined to have our nation's stance toward China reflect our
outrage.
Yet, twice after Congress voted to place conditions on our favorable
trade rules toward China--so-called most- favored-nation status--those
conditions were vetoed. The annual battles between Congress and the
Executive divided our foreign policy and weakened our approach over
China. It is time that a unified American policy recognize both the
value of China and the values of America.
Starting today, the United States will speak with one voice on China
policy. We no longer have an executive branch policy and a
congressional policy; we have an American policy.
I am happy to have with me, today, key congressional leaders on this
issue. I am also honored to be joined by representatives of the
business community and several distinguished Chinese student leaders.
Their presence here is a tangible symbol of the unity of our purpose.
I particularly want to recognize Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell
of Maine and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi of California. Their tireless
dedication to the cause of freedom in China has given voice to our
collective concerns. I intend to continue working closely with Congress
as we pursue our China policy.
We are here, today, because the American people continue to harbor
profound concerns about a range of practices by China's communist
leaders. We are concerned that many activists and pro-democracy
leaders, including some from Tiananmen Square, continue to languish
behind prison bars in China for no crime other than exercising their
consciences. We are concerned about international access to their
prisons. And we are concerned by the Dalai Lama's reports of Chinese
abuses against the people and culture of Tibet.
We must also address China's role in the proliferation of dangerous
weapons. The Gulf War proved the danger of irresponsible sales of
technologies related to weapons of mass destruction. While the world is
newly determined to address the danger of such missiles, we have reason
to worry that China continues to sell them.
Finally, we have concerns about our terms of trade with China. China
runs an $18 billion trade surplus with the U.S.--second only to Japan.
In the face of this deficit, China continues practices that block
American goods.
I have said before that we do not want to isolate China, given its
growing importance in the global community. China, today, is a nation
of nearly 1.2 billion people--home to one of every five people in the
world. By sheer size alone, China has an important impact on the
world's economy--and politics. The future of China and Hong Kong is of
great importance to the region and to the people of America.
We take some encouragement from the economic reforms in China--reforms
that, by some measures, place China's economy as the third largest in
the world, after the United States and Japan. China's coastal provinces
are an engine for reform throughout the country. The residents of
Shanghai and Guangzhou are far more motivated by markets than by Marx or
Mao.
We are hopeful that China's process of development and economic reform
will be accompanied by greater political freedom. In some ways, this
process has begun. An emerging Chinese middle class points the antennae
of new televisions toward Hong Kong to pick up broadcasts of CNN.
Cellular phones and fax machines carry implicit notions of freer
communications. Hong Kong, itself, is a catalyst of democratic values,
and we strongly support Governor Patten's efforts to broaden democratic
rights.
The question we face, today, is how best to cultivate these hopeful
seeds of change in China while expressing our clear disapproval of its
repressive policies. The core of this policy will be a resolute
insistence upon significant progress on human rights in China. To
implement this policy, I am signing today an executive order that will
have the effect of extending most-favored-nation status for China for 12
months. Whether I extend MFN next year, however, will depend upon
whether China makes significant progress in improving its human rights
record.
The order lays out particular areas I will examine, including respect
for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the release of
citizens imprisoned for the non-violent expression of their political
beliefs, including activists imprisoned in connection with Tiananmen
Square. The order includes China's protection of Tibet's religious and
cultural heritage and compliance with the bilateral U.S.-China agreement
on prison labor. In addition, we will use existing statutes to address
our concerns in the areas of trade and arms control.
The order I am issuing today directs the Secretary of State and other
Administration officials to pursue, resolutely, all legislative and
executive actions to ensure that China abides by international
standards. I intend to put the full weight of the Executive behind this
order; I know I have Congress' support.
Let me give you an example. The Administration is now examining reports
that China has shipped M-11 ballistic missiles to Pakistan. If true,
such action would violate China's commitment to observe the guidelines
and parameters of the Missile Technology Control Regime. Existing U.S.
law provides for strict sanctions against nations that violate these
guidelines.
We have made our concerns on the M-11 issue known to the Chinese on
numerous occasions. They understand the serious consequences of missile
transfer under U.S. sanctions law. If we determine that China has, in
fact, transferred M-11 missiles or related equipment in violation of its
commitments, my Administration will not hesitate to act.
My Administration is committed to supporting peaceful democratic and
pro-market reform. I believe we will yet see these principles prevail
in China. For in the past few years, we have witnessed a pivot point in
history, as other communist regimes across the map have ceded to the
power of democracy and markets.
We are prepared to build a more cooperative relationship with China and
wish to work with China as an active member of the international
community. Through some of its actions, China has demonstrated that it
wants to be a member of that community.
Executive Order--Conditions for Renewal of Most-Favored-Nation Status
for the People's Republic of China in 1994
Released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Washington,
DC, May 28, 1993.
Whereas, the Congress and the American people have expressed deep
concern about the appropriateness of unconditional most-favored-nation
(MFN) trading status for the People's Republic of China (China);
Whereas, I share the concerns of the Congress and the American people
regarding this important issue, particularly with respect to China's
record on human rights, nuclear nonproliferation, and trade;
Whereas, I have carefully weighed the advisability of conditioning
China's MFN status as a means of achieving progress in these areas;
Whereas, I have concluded that the public interest would be served by a
continuation of the waiver of the application of sections 402 (a) and
(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2432 (a) and 2432 (b)) (Act) on
China's MFN status for an additional 12 months with renewal thereafter
subject to the conditions below;
Now, Therefore, by the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby
ordered as follows:
Section 1. The Secretary of State (Secretary) shall make a
recommendation to the President to extend or not to extend MFN status to
China for the 12-month period beginning July 3, 1994.
(a) In making this recommendation the Secretary shall not recommend
extension unless he determines that:
--extension will substantially promote the freedom of emigration
objectives of section 402 of the Act; and
--China is complying with the 1992 bilateral agreement between the
United States and China concerning prison labor.
(b) In making this recommendation the Secretary shall also determine
whether China has made overall, significant progress with respect to the
following:
--taking steps to begin adhering to the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights;
--releasing and providing an acceptable accounting for Chinese citizens
imprisoned or detained for the non-violent expression of their political
and religious beliefs, including such expression of beliefs in
connection with the Democracy Wall and Tiananmen Square movements;
--ensuring humane treatment of prisoners, such as by allowing access to
prisons by international humanitarian and human rights organizations;
--protecting Tibet's distinctive religious and cultural heritage; and
--permitting international radio and television broadcasts into China.
Sec. 2. The Secretary shall submit his recommendation to the President
before June 3, 1994.
Sec. 3. The Secretary, and other appropriate officials of the United
States, shall pursue resolutely all legislative and executive actions
to ensure that China abides by its commitments to follow fair,
nondiscriminatory trade practices in dealing with U.S. businesses, and
adheres to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Missile Technology
Control Regime guidelines and parameters, and other nonproliferation
commitments.
Sec. 4. This order does not create any right or benefit, substantive or
procedural, enforceable by any person or entity against the United
States, its officers, or employees.
Assistant Secretary Lord
Statement by Winston Lord, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and
Pacific Affairs, before the Subcommittee on Trade of the House Ways and
Means Committee, Washington, DC, June 8, 1993.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee: On May 28, 1993, President
Clinton signed a historic executive order which renewed China's MFN
status for 1 year with human rights conditions. After years of sharp
disagreement, the United States can now speak with one voice in dealing
with China. Congressional leaders of varying viewpoints, human rights
and business representatives, and Chinese student leaders attending the
signing ceremony demonstrated the breadth of support for the
Administration's approach, which seeks to balance key U.S. goals while
firmly promoting human rights and democracy. The President's decision
has received broad approval in this country and abroad.
This was not an easy task. People of good will disagreed on the best
means to remain engaged with China while pressing Beijing for
responsible behavior in core areas of concern. Some would revoke MFN
status now. Some would impose very wide-ranging conditions for future
extension. Some believe that China is inexorably moving toward
political openness and we should focus on other issues. Some remain
very critical of Beijing but believe that trade legislation is an
inappropriate instrument for leverage. And everyone has a different
ordering of priorities among human rights, economic interests, non-
proliferation, and Chinese cooperation on international issues.
Only after extensive consultations with the Congress, human rights
organizations, business interests, and others did the President decide
on the approach defined in his executive order. Such consultations will
continue to be a hallmark of this Administration's China policy.
The President also reached his decision after intensive and quiet
dialogue with the Chinese on areas of major interest, including trade,
non-proliferation, and human rights. We sought to make the maximum
possible progress at the outset of this Administration before deciding
with the Congress on the optimum course of action with respect to
China's trade status.
Accordingly, for more than 3 months we have been setting forth our
concerns and urging Chinese movement. In Washington, Secretary
Christopher, Under Secretary Tarnoff, and I have been engaged with the
Chinese. In Beijing, Ambassador Roy and his team have been meeting with
a broad range of Chinese officials. Last month, I traveled to Beijing
to make one final effort.
The progress to date has not been dramatic, but it is not
inconsequential. It includes Beijing's release of prominent political
and religious figures; dispatch of several trade missions to buy
American products; the signing of the Chemical Weapons Convention;
cooperation on Americans missing in action; and, after lengthy delay,
the welcoming of Peace Corps volunteers. China has also played a
constructive role on some regional issues, notably including the North
Korean nuclear challenge. The President's report to Congress
accompanying his executive order gives a full survey of Chinese
progress--and lack of it--on key issues.
Such actions, together with balancing our various interests, led the
President to recommend extension of MFN status for another year. But
they clearly were insufficient to meet our basic concerns or the
President's past commitments. And, thus, he decided, through executive
order, to invoke human rights conditions while pledging to pursue other
issues diligently with the other instruments available to us.
China is an influential member of the international order. More than
one of every five humans live there. It possesses nuclear weapons and
exports nuclear technology. It launches satellites and sells missiles.
It represents a huge market and one of the world's richest
civilizations. It holds a permanent seat on the United Nations Security
Council. It has an influential role on key regional issues like
Indochina, Korea, and disputed islands. It abuts the unsettled Central
Asia region. It is salient in new challenges that require global
action, like the environment, population, refugees, and narcotics
traffic.
In recent years, China has opened up to the world, moved toward a market
economy, and enjoyed the fastest growth rate in the world. Together
with the greater Chinese communities of Taiwan and Hong Kong, it has
become one of the most promising areas for investment and trade.
At the same time, its leaders cling to an outdated authoritarian system.
Serious abuses persist. While Beijing releases some prominent activists
toward the end of their jails sentences, it arrests others for the
peaceful expression of political views. Hundreds, if not thousands, of
Chinese citizens languish in prison merely for their peaceful expression
of political views. Tibetans and other minorities face serious
challenges to their religions and cultures.
The Chinese leaders are gambling that open economics and closed politics
will preserve their system of control. It is a gamble that sooner or
later will be lost. Economic reform produces--and requires--political
reform. In today's world, nations cannot prosper for long without
opening up their societies. Technology and information, the forces of
modernization, and global democratic trends have been eroding communism
and totalitarianism across the globe.
All of the Asian models of economic success toward which China looks--
many of them Chinese societies--have shown that political relaxation,
tolerance of opposition, a freer press, the rule of law, and other
democratic elements are inescapably linked with economic development.
In encouraging human rights and democracy, we are not singling out
China. The Clinton Administration seeks these goals worldwide. This
policy will be promoted in the upcoming United Nations conference in
Vienna, and it will be reflected in the establishment of a Radio Free
Asia.
Our policy challenge with China, therefore, is to reconcile our need to
deal with this important nation with our imperative to promote
international values. We will seek cooperation with China on a range of
issues. But Americans cannot forget Tiananmen Square.
Despite that tragedy, the process of change continues in China. The
erosion of Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy in the last decade has unleashed
the talents of the Chinese people. We can see the results today in the
dynamic Chinese economy. The U.S. has a basic national interest in a
more open, prosperous, and humane China which will also be a more
peaceful and cooperative member of the world community. Our policies
will reflect this national interest.
China, already an important market for U.S. goods, may become even more
significant. Based on some estimates of growth in the P.R.C. economy,
our exports could reach as much as $20 billion by the year 2000, up from
$7.5 billion last year. There is the potential for a major expansion of
U.S. exports, including in certain high-tech industries, such as
aerospace and telecommunications. This growth will create jobs for
Americans. Moreover, in addition to improving the quality of life for
the Chinese people, it will guarantee the continued flow of new ideas
and values into the P.R.C.
The American business community has been effectively expressing its
views to the executive and legislative branches on the issue of MFN.
This is entirely appropriate. We hope, however, that it will also
express to the Chinese concerns that Americans have on humanitarian and
other issues.
The Chinese Government cannot expect to enjoy the full fruits of
membership in the international community unless it abides by
universally recognized standards regarding treatment of its citizens,
global commerce, and the transfer of weapons of mass destruction and
sensitive technology. It is especially important that China do this
now, while its institutional reforms and policies are still taking
shape.
The President's conditional renewal of China's MFN status recognizes
Beijing's need for access to our market as an incentive for improved
human rights conditions. We believe that the conditions set out in the
executive order are firm and credible. We also believe they are
achievable in the coming year. We are hopeful the Chinese Government
will take significant steps in the human rights area which will permit
the President next year to renew the P.R.C.'s MFN status in a positive
fashion. But the President is prepared to revoke that status if
satisfactory progress does not occur.
While conditioning renewal on human rights, the President's executive
order directs the Administration vigorously to use existing legislation
and executive authority to insure Chinese compliance with agreements on
fair trade practices and non-proliferation. The President believes
existing statutory and policy resources offer powerful tools to advance
American goals in these areas.
In recent years, as trade between the U.S. and China has ballooned, so
has our trade deficit with China, which is now close to $20 billion,
second only to Japan. Our export growth remains strong at nearly 20%
this year, but Chinese policies continue to resist access to the Chinese
market and present U.S. firms with barriers in goods and services that
Chinese firms do not face in selling to us. With the support of this
committee, the Administration intends to ensure Chinese compliance with
agreements signed last year on protection of intellectual property,
prison labor products, and market access.
In the area of non-proliferation, China's signing of the Chemical
Weapons Convention in January now makes Beijing an adherent to all major
non-proliferation agreements. We welcome these commitments, which are
essential for strengthening global non-proliferation regimes. But we
will very closely monitor Chinese behavior to ensure that it is fully
consistent with Beijing's obligations. In this respect, we are deeply
concerned about reports that China last year transferred M-11 missile-
related equipment to Pakistan. In keeping with the executive order, we
will not hesitate to take the actions required under U.S. missile
proliferation law if we determine that such a transfer occurred.
Let me emphasize here, as I have to the Chinese, that in the areas of
trade and non-proliferation we are not raising new demands. We are
merely asking China to implement agreements to which it has already
adhered. We are not asking for major concessions. We are only
insisting on faithful implementation. The follow-through on agreements
will not only serve American interests. It will serve Chinese interests
as well as buttress China's credibility.
The Clinton Administration's China policy looks beyond the annual debate
on MFN and seeks to broaden the framework for bilateral ties. It
defines an effective course which will advance U.S. goals and balance
U.S. interests. Mindful of the need to maintain unity with the Congress
on China, the President has now established a basis for using our
influence most effectively to encourage improved Chinese policies. With
a collaborative approach governing our actions, we will strive to
resolve our serious differences with Beijing while building on areas of
agreement. We will engage the Chinese in a variety of ways to make
progress during the coming year and beyond.
President Clinton would like to restore momentum in the Sino-American
relationship and build stronger foundations for the future. This will
require serious efforts by Beijing to meet our core concerns and
international norms. We, in turn, are prepared to listen to Chinese
perspectives and take steps of our own. In the long run, sound U.S.-
Chinese relations are of vital importance not only for our mutual
prosperity and welfare but for international peace and stability. By
restoring broad consensus on China policy, President Clinton has placed
America in the best possible position to move toward these goals. (###)
ARTICLE 2:
Creation of Presidential Council on Sustainable Development
President Clinton
Remarks at signing of the executive order on the Presidential Council on
Sustainable Development, Washington, DC, June 14, 1993
Thank you, thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for
being here. It has been a year since the Earth Summit in Rio. I think
you might be interested to know that a year ago at the Earth Summit in
Rio I placed a call to Senator Al Gore of Tennessee to get a report on
the goings on there from him and from Senator Wirth of Colorado and to
begin the process by which we came together as a team. Not very long
after that I asked Al Gore to join the Democratic ticket and the rest
was history.
I don't want to make any bones about it. When we had our first very
long meeting, one thing that then-Senator Gore said was that he wanted
to be part of a ticket that, if elected, could put the environment back
on the front burner in American public life and do it in a way that
would be good for the economy, not bad for the economy--do it in a way
that would bring the American people together, not divide them.
All the policy positions that the Vice President just announced that we
have taken to change the direction of the previous Administrations--and,
more importantly, to go beyond politics to embrace a new philosophy of
uniting our goals of preserving the environment and promoting economic
growth--would have been very difficult to achieve had it not been for
his leadership and constant involvement and faithfulness to this cause.
And the American people owe him a great debt of gratitude.
I would also like to acknowledge the presence of one other person in
this audience who has not been introduced and is not up here, but it
will become obvious when I say what I want to say. The Deputy Secretary
of Education, Madeline Kunin, is here. She was formerly the Governor of
Vermont. And, as far as I know, she was the only governor in the
country who actually had a sustainable development commission actively
operating on the problems of the people of Vermont when she was the
governor. And she, in many ways, blazed a trail for what we are
attempting to do today. And I thank you for that.
A year ago, the United States was in Rio fighting the Global Warming
Treaty and the Biodiversity Treaty. Our leading economic competitors
were at the Earth Summit signing off on the Global Warming Treaty,
signing off on the Biodiversity Treaty; and while the United States was
fighting to water it down, change it, or thwart it, they spent all their
time selling environmental technology to other nations in the world,
making money while we made hot air.
What a difference a year can make. This morning, the Vice President
made us all proud in his opening address before the United Nations
Commission on Sustainable Development. America is now doing what we
ought to do. We're leading again--leading the nations of the world in
the pursuit of a great purpose.
This afternoon, I am announcing the creation of the President's Council
on Sustainable Development to help set policies to grow the economy and
preserve the environment for our children and our children's children,
bringing together some of the most innovative people from business, from
government, from the environmental movement, the civil rights movement,
and the labor movement; people who bring a wealth of experience and
accomplishment to this mission; people who have developed
environmentally sound products, found ways to protect our air and water,
and defended communities all across the country against pollution and
health hazards.
In the past, many might not have ever had the chance to sit down at the
table and work together. But now they are working together. These men
and women have real experience in the real world, and I am counting on
them to achieve real results. I am asking them to find new ways to
combine economic growth and environmental protection, to promote our
best interests in the world community, to bring our people together to
meet the needs of the present without jeopardizing the future. I am
asking the council to be guided by three principles that inform our
environmental policies.
First, we believe a healthy economy and a healthy environment go hand in
hand. Environmental problems result not from robust growth but from
reckless growth. And we can grow the economy by making our people
healthier, our communities more attractive, and our products and our
services more environmentally conscious.
Second, America must lead the way in promoting economic growth and
environmental preservation at home and abroad. We live in an era of
global economics, global environmentalism, global epidemics. Our lives
and our livelihoods depend upon people throughout the world being
healthy and prosperous and respectful of the planet we all share. What
is good for the world in this sense is very good for America.
And, third, we must move beyond the false choices and unnecessary
antagonisms of the past. From American business and American labor to
the world's wealthiest nations and the world's poorest, we all share a
common interest in economic growth that preserves rather than pollutes
our environment. America can set an example by achieving economic
growth that can continue through the lifetimes of our children and
grandchildren because it respects the resources that make that growth
possible.
That is what we mean by sustainable development. That is why I'm asking
this council to promote healthy communities and environmentally sound
products and services that will do the best in the world to make our
marketplace the best in the world now and well into the 21st century.
When we talk about environmental justice, we mean calling a halt to the
poisoning and the pollution of our poorest communities, from our rural
areas to our inner cities. We don't have a person to waste, and
pollution clearly wastes human lives and natural resources. When our
children's lives are no longer cut short by toxic dumps, when their
minds are no longer damaged by lead paint poisoning, we will stop
wasting the energy and the intelligence that could build a stronger and
a more prosperous America.
When we talk about environmentally sound products and services, we mean
light bulbs and computers and refrigerators that use less energy and
automobiles that produce less pollution. People all across the world
want to buy these goods and services, and when we make them in America,
that means better-paying and more secure jobs and higher living
standards for all of our people.
Americans take pride in our know-how, our can-do spirit, and our love of
this remarkable land that God has given us. With leaders like the men
and women here today, we can put what is best about America to work
building a stronger economy and preserving this planet for our children
and all generations to come. Thank you very much. (###)
ARTICLE 3:
U.S. Support for Global Commitment To Sustainable Development
Vice President Gore
Address to the Commission on Sustainable Development, United Nations,
New York City, June 14, 1993
It is an honor to be here with you at an event of such importance to all
of our countries and to countries whose representatives are not in this
room. It is a year since Rio, and while we usually focus on the ideas
expressed during the official proceedings of the Earth Summit, I
remember a lot more. For the great riches of human creativity were on
full display in Rio: that giant "tree of life" decorated with messages
written in crayon on paper leaves from children around the world;
representatives of indigenous peoples like the Kayapao, Yanomami, Inuit,
and Penan presenting impassioned defenses of the endangered remnants of
wilderness within which their ancient cultures are struggling to
survive. Scientists displayed startlingly beautiful computer images of
every square inch of the earth, as seen from space and artists crafted
spectacular sculptures, paintings, music, graphics, and films. And they
all seemed more alike than different--the indigenous person and the
artist, the scientist and the child, and the tourist and the diplomat.
All seemed to share a deeper understanding--a recognition that we are
all part of something much larger than ourselves, a family related only
distantly by blood but intimately by commitment to each other's common
future.
And so it is, today. We are from different parts of the globe. My
words are being translated into many different languages. Over the next
few days we will need to resolve some significant differences, but we
are united by a common premise--that human activities are needlessly
causing grave and, perhaps, irreparable damage to the global
environment. The dangers are clear to all of us. The earth's forests
are being destroyed at the rate of one football field's worth every
second. An enormous hole is opening in the ozone layer, reducing the
earth's ability to protect life from deadly ultraviolet radiation.
Living species die at such an unprecedented rate that more than half may
disappear within our lifetimes. More and more chemical wastes seep down
to poison groundwater--and up to destroy the atmosphere's delicate
balance. Degradation of land, forests, and fresh water--individually
and synergistically--play critical roles in international instability.
Huge quantities of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases
dumped in the atmosphere trap heat and raise global temperatures. You
know this. Our shared sense of urgency has brought us here, today.
Would that everyone saw things the same way; they don't. A few weeks
ago Harvard Prof. Edward Wilson, writing in The New York Times,
summarized the notions of those who have a different view.
"Population growth? Good for the economy--so let it run. Land
shortages? Try fusion energy to power the desalting of sea water, then
reclaim the world's deserts . . . by towing icebergs to coastal
pipelines . ." "Species going extinct? Not to worry," the skeptics
say. "That is nature's way. Think of humankind as only the latest in a
long line of exterminating agents in geological time. Resources? The
planet has more than enough resources to last indefinitely."
Wilson called this group the "exemptionalists," because they hold that
humans are so transcendent in intelligence and spirit that they have
been exempted "from the iron laws of ecology that bind all other
species."
The human race is not exempt. The laws of ecology bind us, too. We
made a commitment at Rio to change our course. We made a commitment to
reject the counsel of those who would continue along the road to
extermination. And if there was any doubt about the support of the
United States for that commitment, let me lay it to rest. This
Administration not only supports that commitment, we intend to join with
all those determined to demonstrate real leadership. Don't take my word
for it. Listen to the words of President Clinton commemorating Earth
Day.
"Unless we act, and act now," the President said, "we face a future
where our planet will be home to 9 billion people . . . but its capacity
to support and sustain our lives will be very much diminished. "Unless
we act, we face the extinction of untold numbers of species that might
save . . . our very lives. Unless we act now, we face a future in which
the sun may scorch us, not warm us . . . and where our children's
children will inherit a planet far less hospitable than the world in
which we came of age."
President Clinton mentioned the critical importance of the Biodiversity
Treaty emerging from Rio and announced [that] the United States would
now sign that treaty. And so we did, on June 4. He mentioned the
importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and committed the United
States to reducing emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000--a major
change for my country. The President announced a series of executive
orders that will transform our government into a leader in pollution
prevention and energy efficiency--for we ask for changes in everyone
else's house, shouldn't we get our own house, the federal government of
the United States, in order?
And this afternoon, I am pleased to tell you, we will announce one of
the many fruits of this new attention to the environment from the United
States: the President's Council on Sustainable Development. This 25-
member council will build a new partnership among representatives from
industry, government, and environmental groups. It will develop new
approaches to integrating economic and environmental policies.
President Clinton will formally establish the council in a ceremony at
the White House this afternoon. By the end of this year, the council
will have contributed to the U.S. Sustainable Development Action Plan.
That plan will then be reported to you. We believe in this mission. We
are committed to making it work. But of course, what we have done so
far is only a beginning. We cannot overestimate the difficulties that
lie ahead. In fact, from the vast array of problems about which it is
possible to be pessimistic, let me mention two.
Population Growth
First, population growth. It is sobering to realize what is happening
to the world's population in the course of our lifetimes. From the
beginning of the human species until the end of World War II, when I was
born, it took more than 10,000 generations to reach a world population
of a little more than 2 billion. But in just the past 45 years, it has
gone from a little over 2 billion to 5.5 billion. And if I live another
45 years, it will be 9 or 10 billion.
The changes brought about by this explosion are not for the distant
future. This is not only a problem for our grandchildren, the problems
are already here--soil erosion, the loss of vegetative cover,
extinction, desertification, famine, and the garbage crisis. The
population explosion, accompanied by wholesale changes in technology,
affects every aspect of our lives, in every part of the globe.
Now, sometimes, developing countries feel the population argument is one
made by wealthy countries who want to clamp down on their ability to
grow. Let me answer that. Sometimes the developing countries are
right. So I say this to citizens of the developed nations: We have a
disproportionate impact on the global environment. We have less than a
quarter of the world's population, but we use three-quarters of the
world's raw materials and create three-quarters of all solid waste. One
way to put it is this: A child born in the United States will have 30
times more impact on the earth's environment during his or her lifetime
than a child born in India. The affluent of the world have a
responsibility to deal with their disproportionate impact.
But population growth affects everyone. By the year 2000, 31 low-income
countries will be unable to feed their people using their own land. At
the Second Preparatory Committee Meeting for the International
Conference on Population and Development, the United States pledged its
commitment to help promote international consensus around the goal of
stabilizing world population growth. We called for a comprehensive
approach built around three areas--the environment, development, and the
rights and needs of women.
Is population growth only a problem of birth control? Of course not.
Paradoxically, reducing infant mortality is important as well. Several
decades ago, Julius Nyerere put this matter cogently: "The most
powerful contraceptive is the confidence by parents that their children
will survive." More recently, a doctor in India put the matter a
slightly different way, as he explained the success of programs in
Kerala that have dramatically reduced birth rates. "The most enduring
contraception is female education," he said. "Women realize they have a
conscious choice and that hopes and dreams for their children are not
unrealistic." Slowing population growth is in the deepest self-interest
of all governments. It is a responsibility for rich and poor countries
alike.
Emerging Technologies
Rapid population growth is only one of the causes of a profound
transformation in the relationship between human civilization and the
ecological system of the earth. The emergence of extremely powerful new
technologies which magnify the impact each of us can have on the global
environment has also played an important role. Most significant of all,
many people now think about our relationship to the earth in ways that
assume we don't have to concern ourselves with the consequences of our
actions, as if the global environment will forever be impervious to the
rapidly mounting insults to its integrity and balance. But the evidence
of deterioration is all around us. Take, for example, the threat to our
supply of fresh water. There is a lot of water on earth, but there isn't
very much fresh water. Only about 2.5% of all water on earth is fresh,
and most of that is locked away as ice in Antarctica, or Greenland, or
other areas. Furthermore, much of that water is used inefficiently. It
also may be polluted by toxics and human waste. Meanwhile, by the year
2000, 18 of the 22 largest metropolitan areas in the world--those with
more than 10 million people--will be in developing countries. By 2025,
60% of the world's population will live in cities--that's more than 5
billion people. They will urgently need fresh water and water
sanitation--and not just to drink. Water affects industrial
development. It is the medium necessary for heat exchange, processing,
and transport. It affects the world's ability to produce food; 76% of
global water use is agricultural. A significant change in the
availability of fresh water supply can trigger massive human migrations.
Because we know how precious drinkable water is, our ways of supplying
it have become justly celebrated as triumphs of human ingenuity, whether
from the first irrigation networks along the Nile to the monumental
system of tunnels that bring water to this city so you could brush your
teeth in the hotel room this morning. We will need all our ingenuity to
prevent that supply from drying up. Rapid growth itself is a threat to
our supply of fresh water, whether in Mexico City where the water level
of the main aquifer drops as much as 11 feet a year or in any of the
approximately 80 countries which already suffer from serious water
shortages.
Meanwhile, the World Health Organization estimates that contaminated
water causes at least 25 million deaths in developing nations each year.
Hundreds of millions more suffer from debilitating water-borne diseases.
In fact, about 80% of all diseases and over one-third of all deaths in
developing countries are caused by the consumption of contaminated
water. More than 3 million infants die each year from diarrhea alone,
due to contaminated drinking water and inadequate sanitation.
What is the reason for the great popular indifference to these crises?
I sometimes like to remind people of the old science experiment
involving a frog. Put the frog into a pot of boiling water, and it
jumps right out; it recognizes the danger. But put the same frog into a
pot of lukewarm water, and bring it slowly to a boil; it'll just sit
there until it is rescued. I've learned over the years that it's
important to rescue the frog in the middle of the story. The point of
this story is that when the process of change seems gradual, we have
trouble recognizing it. From day to day, the lives of most of us seem
not to change all that much. It is only when we lift our gaze beyond
the next few days or years that we see the truth.
Similarly, even though our worldwide civilization confronts an
unprecedented global environmental crisis, we can go from day to day
without confronting the rapid change now underway. We must recognize
the extent to which we are damaging the global environment, as we must
develop new ways to work together to foster economic progress without
environmental destruction.
How do we do it? Let me dispose of a few myths. No matter what this
commission does, it can't do everything by itself. Archimedes said if
he had the right lever and a firm place to stand, he could move the
world. This commission should seek to exert leverage on other
institutions which can help us accomplish our task. Second, the
industrial countries do not have a monopoly on ideas. In fact, last
year at Rio many developing countries showed the way. Third, we must
once and for all abandon the idea that economic development and
environmental responsibility are incompatible.
Economic development is no excuse for environmental vandalism. Rich
countries cannot impose limits on poor countries or deny them the right
to achieve wealth. At the same time, there is increasing recognition
that the fastest growing markets are in developing countries--countries
where the demand for environmentally responsible technologies is also
growing rapidly. Economic progress without environmental destruction:
That's what sustainable development is all about.
Two principles must guide us as we set about the pursuit of sustainable
development.
National Responsibility. First, the principle of national
responsibility. After all, the role of this commission is primarily
catalytic. It can focus attention on issues of common interest. It can
serve as a forum for raising ideas and plans. It can help resolve
issues that arise as nations proceed in their sustainable development
agendas. It can monitor progress. It can help shift the multilateral
financial institutions and bilateral assistance efforts toward a
sustainable development agenda. It can help revitalize the UN system to
ensure that sustainable development is a central theme in each
organization. Indeed, this commission, through its focus on sustainable
development, can enhance UN efforts to maintain peace, stability, and
prosperity in this post-Cold War world. But it can do none of these
things unless each country makes a strong commitment to change. This
commission will simply be a meeting about meetings if the members fail
to bring to the table a strong sense of national responsibility.
Will the United States show that sense of commitment? We can. We will.
That's why we'll announce a plan to move forward on climate change by
August--a detailed outline for action that will continue the trend of
reduced emissions past the next 7 years. That's why we've established a
National Biological Survey to protect our own biodiversity. That's why
we're moving immediately to reduce toxic releases in federal facilities.
That's why we're buying energy-efficient technologies, including
alternative fuel vehicles for federal fleets. That's why we will soon
announce a new management plan for federal forests. That's why
President Clinton, in his first full day in office, changed the so-
called Mexico City policy and acted to promote access to the full range
of quality reproductive health care for women everywhere. And that's
just the start. But just as each nation must assume national
responsibility, so must we all act together.
Global Partnership. If sustainable development is to become a reality,
the second principle we must follow is that of partnership. There are
still those who think the wealthy countries on this planet have a
monopoly on technology and insight. That's nonsense. We can all learn
from each other. That's why this commission must encourage partnership
among countries, especially between North and South. Over the last 20
years, we have made some progress in creating the basis for a global
partnership. UNCED was a landmark in unifying "environment" and
"development" in the term "sustainable development." Now, this insight
must be given life within the policies of every government. Trade,
commerce, agriculture--all interests need to be part of the effort, and
that's why this commission as well must help create partnerships within
countries.
There are those who expect us to rely on a single financial mechanism,
such as the GEF for Agenda 21 implementation. But Agenda 21 addresses
much too broad a range of issues for the GEF. That's why this
commission must create partnerships between it and all multilateral
development banks. All of them have to be involved. Finally, there are
those who believe that only government can marshall the resources for
this task--not true. Public policy that gets input from everyone is
better public policy. The fact is the private sector played a huge role
in Rio. And if this commission is to succeed, it must help create
partnerships between government and non-governmental organizations.
National responsibility, partnership--can we actually translate these
ideas, the staple of political rhetoric, into reality? I don't blame
those who are pessimistic. In fact, a few months ago, I was going
through the solutions for our environmental crisis for a group of
scientists. And at the end, one of them raised his hand and said, "You
know, I agree with everything you've said, but I know enough about
politics to tell you that it's not likely to occur. The momentum toward
continuing our current way of doing things is just too powerful."
There's something to that. But what if 4 or 5 years ago we had said that
in the next few months all of the communist countries in Eastern Europe
will suddenly become democracies and choose free market capitalism? What
if we had said that all the statues of Lenin would be torn down and that
we would have a chance to remake the world in the aftermath of the Cold
War? What if we had said that Nelson Mandela would be free and F.W. de
Klerk would announce the end of apartheid, and together they would set
out on the road to reconciliation in South Africa? None of those seemed
likely. We can assume change is impossible, or we can be part of the
solution. We can assume our enemies are too powerful, or we can assume
the urgency of our mission is more powerful.
I believe there is every reason for hope. Part of the reason is this
group, from every part of the planet, committed to the idea of
sustainable development. But that's not the only reason. For there are
millions who believe as we do. Some are working in government,
attending meetings like this one. But there are countless others whose
work goes uncelebrated: a woman in Kenya's Greenbelt Movement plants a
tree, then organizes a meeting about family planning; an engineer in
Detroit comes up with a way to use less gasoline; a scientist in
Antarctica, drilling through the ice, finds clues to the history of our
planet; a teacher in Brazil leads a class full of children in a
discussion about the rain forests. These are the men and women who give
us hope.
Conclusion
In the next few days, as we plan the future of this commission, let us
remember the spirit animating our meeting, thousands of miles to the
south, exactly a year ago; remember how we achieved unity of purpose out
of diversity. And let that memory of past success give us confidence
that we will succeed in the future--and for the future. (###)
ARTICLE 4:
Economic Diplomacy: Key to Domestic Prosperity
Joan E. Spero, Under Secretary for Economic and Agricultural Affairs
Statement before the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy,
Trade, Oceans and Environment of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Washington, DC, May 27, 1993
Mr. Chairman, this is my first appearance before the Congress as Under
Secretary of State. It is particularly appropriate for it to take place
before the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy. I said at my
confirmation hearing that I wanted a continuing dialogue with the
Congress. Thus I appreciate your offering me this first official
opportunity.
The theme of today's hearing--linkages among trade, investment, external
debt and foreign assistance--is one in which the Administration, and
specifically the State Department, are deeply engaged. When we think
about linkages, we must start with the most fundamental one: that our
foreign economic programs must be part and parcel of our larger strategy
to revitalize the domestic economy.
In his February 26 remarks at American University, President Clinton
laid out five steps to renew economic growth in America and the world:
-- A strengthened U.S. economy;
-- A trade policy directed at open markets;
-- Improved macroeconomic coordination;
-- Expanded growth in the developing world; and
-- Helping Russia build a democratic government and a market economy.
These objectives bear directly on what we are discussing today.
Developing countries are critical to our national interest. They buy
almost 40% of American exports, directly supporting some 3 million
American jobs. They are host to about a quarter of our overseas
investment. Stable growth in developing countries will strengthen
trends underway to expand democratic, accountable government, with
direct benefits for American and global security. Their prosperity will
make them stronger partners in protecting the global environment,
dealing effectively with population growth, and combatting illicit
drugs.
Similarly, we have a historical opportunity to support economic reform
and democracy in the former Soviet Union. We have much to offer Russia
and the other newly independent states, not just in government
assistance, but also in trade, investment, and the exchange of know-how
among our companies and citizens.
Our relationships with these countries and our effectiveness in pursuing
mutual goals are influenced heavily by the international economic
environment. We need an open trade and investment regime, one in which
the fresh breeze of competition can invigorate all markets, including
those of the developing countries. And we need our major economic
partners in the G-7 to coordinate policies that will foster sustainable
growth, stimulate investment, and reduce structural barriers to greater
economic integration.
New Opportunities
The Clinton Administration comes to office at a moment when activist
economic diplomacy is essential to the preservation of domestic
prosperity and America's leadership role in the world. The good news is
that opportunities abound. Interest in market-oriented policies,
including domestic reform, as well as open trade and investment
policies, has probably never been higher. Developing countries are
lowering trade barriers unilaterally, privatizing inefficient state-
owned firms, and, in increasingly democratic societies, responding to
the will of the people. Liberal economic policies have accelerated the
improvement in foreign debt burdens. Finally, the breakup of the Soviet
Union gives us the luxury of redirecting national resources spent
containing communism to pressing domestic needs, and to redirect our
foreign assistance away from expenditures against communism to
investments in democracy.
The bad news is that we have limited resources to bring to the task,
given the priority of our domestic agenda and a federal deficit that
simply must be reduced. Furthermore, slow growth and high unemployment
in the industrialized economies generates protectionist pressures making
the challenge of opening markets that much more difficult. The enormity
of the economic, political and social problems facing the former Soviet
Union presents unprecedented challenges to reformers there and to those
abroad who support them. These challenges underscore the need to make
our international programs as effective as possible, and to design them
to leverage to the maximum other official and private sources. Our
programs must tap a variety of energies, at home and abroad, and keep
government commitments in line with available resources.
Policy Objectives
Our objectives must be pursued on two levels--the first in terms of
broad policy and international cooperation and the second through our
international programs.
The Uruguay Round is a prime example of policy at the macro level. For
the first time, developing countries are deeply engaged in a
multilateral trade round. They understand the importance of
liberalization to their own economic future and they understand the
determination of trading partners like ourselves to see that all
participants reduce barriers and provide genuine market access. A
successful round will be a win/win situation for all GATT members.
The same can be said for a successful NAFTA, which will bring economic
benefit to all the nations of the continent and serve as a model of the
advantages of liberal trade for the rest of the hemisphere.
Mr. Chairman, let me move on now to our international programs. Some--
such as Eximbank's export promotion programs--are designed to help
American business directly in taking advantage of growing markets.
Others--such as debt relief and development assistance--are needed to
stimulate economic development and to meet urgent humanitarian needs in
developing areas. In discussing these programs, I would like you to
bear in mind two things. First, the FY 1994 budget is a transitional
one. New directions in policy are a work in progress. This budget marks
the beginning.
Second, the international programs funded by this budget request serve
five mutually reinforcing objectives:
-- Promoting economic growth and sustainable development;
-- Building democracy;
-- Promoting and maintaining peace;
-- Addressing global problems, especially the environment and population
growth; and
-- Providing humanitarian assistance.
I will focus on promoting economic growth and sustainable development.
By sustainable development we mean broad-based economic growth which
protects the non-renewable natural resource base, improves the quality
of life for current generations and preserves that opportunity for
future generations. However, I would stress that U.S. efforts in all
the areas I enumerated will improve prospects for global economic
development and U.S. economic growth.
International Programs
Let me begin with Eximbank, which is an indispensable vehicle for
expanding the U.S. presence in developing country markets, building
long- term commercial relationships that go beyond any single sale, and
assuring that our producers can hold their own in competition with their
industrialized country rivals. We are requesting $751 million for the
U.S. Export-Import Bank, a sum that will enable total export financing
of more than $16 billion, an increase of more than $1 billion over the
current fiscal year.
A parallel organization on the investment side, the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC), enables us--with a modest appropriation--
to support private sector development and market reform in emerging
countries, while also stimulating U.S. jobs and competitiveness. We are
requesting $17.9 million for OPIC programs to provide insurance and
other financing for U.S. investments in developing countries and,
increasingly, in the reforming economies of Eastern Europe and the
former Soviet Union. Investments supported by OPIC programs provide a
direct boost to U.S. exports and jobs.
The Trade and Development Agency (TDA) is an international program that
illustrates a focus on mutual development. TDA provides grant funding
for U.S. firms to conduct feasibility studies of infrastructure and
industrial projects in developing and transitional economies. These
studies support the development priorities of the host country. They
also increase the chances that U.S. companies will supply goods and
services to the actual projects. Thus, TDA can be a catalyst for long-
term commercial relationships. Since its creation just over a decade
ago, TDA projects have resulted in $4.6 billion worth of U.S. exports, a
return of $25 for every dollar invested by U.S. taxpayers. TDA has
moved quickly to support new business opportunities in the newly
independent states. For FY 1994, we are requesting $60 million for TDA,
a substantial increase that will allow the agency to serve U.S.
companies better by beginning to fund more detailed engineering and
design work as part of its feasibility studies.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to these direct trade promotion programs, the
new budget requests funding for various bilateral and multilateral
assistance programs that further our agenda for economic growth and
sustainable development.
Multilateral Development Banks
The multilateral development banks (MDBs) will play a central role in
the Administration's global economic strategy. While Under Secretary
Summers will go into more detail, I want to stress a few points. The
MDBs leverage relatively small donor contributions with those of other
shareholders to extend large amounts of assistance. Their advancement
of economic growth and sustainable development in developing countries
contributes to our economic security and growth as well. We and other
donor governments have also looked to the MDBs to address the challenges
posed by the transition economies of Eastern Europe and the former
Soviet Union.
We have asked for full funding of U.S. obligations due to the World Bank
and the four regional development banks in 1994, an amount totaling $1.9
billion. Almost 65% of this request would go for our first payment
under the recent replenishment of the International Development
Association, the World Bank's soft loan window that lends only to the
poorest countries.
Debt
Mr. Chairman, let me now turn to debt restructuring. The Administration
is seeking $78 million in appropriations in FY 1994 for debt
restructuring in support of market-based development. Most of these
funds would be used to continue an initiative under which the United
States has supported democratization and economic reform in Latin
America through the provision of debt relief and other assistance.
The Administration also has a new initiative for non-concessional debt
reduction in the poorest and most needy developing countries,
particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. We need authorization for this new
initiative and $7 million in appropriations to enable the United States
to take the first steps to join the international consensus in favor of
this non-concessional debt relief effort.
We believe it is time that the United States join with the international
community to support the often difficult economic restructuring process
in the poorest countries with non-concessional debt relief. Although
the countries that would benefit from this initiative play a relatively
small role in the world economy, we believe they should not be excluded
from the benefits of participation in this increasingly interdependent
global economy. Many have debt burdens in excess of their GDP. They
have little prospect of successful economic restructuring without non-
concessional debt relief. Although the U.S. portion of such relief
would be small--both in absolute terms and as a share of these
countries' outstanding debts--participation in the international
consensus will send a strong signal of U.S. support for these countries'
efforts to break out of poverty.
Bilateral Development Assistance
Mr. Chairman, let me now address bilateral development assistance. Upon
taking office, the Secretary of State asked the Deputy Secretary to look
at possible restructuring of USAID's programs and institutions. Dr.
Wharton's policy review is not yet complete, so I cannot report today on
his conclusions. However, I can discuss a few general principles which
have emerged. In addition, I pledge the Department's close consultation
with Congress as we move forward.
We are interested, first, in establishing a focused set of priorities,
to weed out the unworkable number of programs which have accrued over
the years. We should concentrate broadly on sustainable development,
building democracy, global issues such as environment and population,
and humanitarian concerns. We want to judge our performance on the
basis of results, not spending, and we will pay particular attention to
leveraging bilateral programs by working more closely with the
multilateral banks, international organizations, and other donors. The
underlying philosophy of our programs will be one of participation,
empowerment and democracy-building. We must help people to realize the
fundamental human aspiration to gain greater control over their own
lives and destinies.
Mr. Chairman, U.S. bilateral development assistance is a vital element
of our effort to promote sustainable economic growth in developing
countries. We are requesting $2.1 billion for development assistance in
FY 1994; $800 million would go for the Development Fund for Africa.
These resources will be targeted on sustainable development by helping
to build the human capital and institutions that underpin economic
growth and civil society. Our request, although smaller in nominal
terms than in 1993, will target investments in people--in improving
health care, nutrition and access to clean water, and by encouraging
literacy. In addition to the benefits for developing countries,
sustainable development protects us, because demographic, health and
environmental crises run the risk of long-term negative consequences for
our citizens.
Economic Support Funds (ESF)-- another of our bilateral economic
programs--is an all-grant program that encourages economic reform and
development in friendly countries. We are requesting about $2.6 billion
in ESF, most of it planned for Israel and Egypt in support of Middle
East peace and stability.
Mr. Chairman, as I noted, the Administration is committed to supporting
the political and economic transformations underway in Eastern Europe
and the former Soviet Union. Our FY 1994 request would fund these vital
programs with $704 million for former Soviet republics and $409 million
for Eastern Europe. Here, too, the aim is to weave assistance efforts
with our trade, investment, and debt relief policies by building market
institutions, consolidating democracy, and integrating the former
communist countries into the international economy.
Mr. Chairman, the numerous programs, institutions, and initiatives I
have reviewed with you today offer a comprehensive set of instruments
for advancing American interests internationally. Clear synergies exist
among them, which we are determined to enhance through more effective
coordination and collaboration among agencies and through greater
consultation with the Congress. The National Economic Council, the
Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee, and Dr. Wharton's foreign
assistance review are all vehicles for achieving this goal. I hope to
have the opportunity to report back to you frequently on the progress we
are making. (###)
ARTICLE 5:
U.S. Policy Toward Liberia, Togo, and Zaire
George E. Moose, Assistant Secretary for African Affairs
Statement before the Subcommittee on African Affairs of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC, June 9, 1993
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I appreciate the opportunity
to testify before you again--this time on developments in--and U.S.
policy toward--Liberia, Togo, and Zaire.
The situations in the three countries represent different stages of two
major issues with which Africa is currently dealing: democratization
and conflict. The transition to democracy in Togo has reached a
stalemate which could have serious repercussions, but we understand that
talks continue. Mobutu's refusal to relinquish power to the high council
goes beyond thwarting transition to democracy in Zaire; it puts Zaire in
a pre-conflict status. The challenge now in Liberia is to secure peace
and move to democracy and rehabilitation in that country. I would like
to discuss each of these in some detail.
Liberia
In Liberia, we have been shocked by a brutal new atrocity--the massacre
of over 250 civilians on June 6 at a camp for displaced persons on the
Firestone rubber plantation near Harbel. The United States condemns
this deplorable act, which underscores the need to support UN and ECOWAS
efforts to bring an end to this tragic war. U.S. policy remains focused
on clear and long-standing objectives. We seek a negotiated settlement
with the assistance of the UN and the Economic Community of West African
States; full disarmament of all Liberian warring factions; the return
home of more than 1 million displaced Liberians; free and fair
internationally monitored elections; and the establishment of a unified
government based on respect for human rights, democratic principles, and
economic accountability.
The West African peace-keeping force known as ECOMOG has borne the major
financial burden for maintaining peace-keeping forces in Liberia, but
the six contributing nations look forward to concluding their mission
and bringing their troops home. U.S. assistance to this endeavor serves
all of our interests.
The ECOWAS initiative offers an appropriate and cost-effective
alternative to calls for massive UN intervention. The ECOWAS consensus,
which was skillfully hammered out in more than 20 summit meetings on
Liberia, enjoys strong support from the Organization of African Unity
(OAU) and the UN. In two recent resolutions, the Security Council, with
our strong support, has unanimously endorsed the ECOWAS effort in
Liberia. As we have seen elsewhere in Africa and the world,
international consensus does not necessarily guarantee cooperation by
all parties. In Liberia, however, the regional initiative, supported
by the OAU and the UN, offers by far the best prospect for achieving a
settlement that will restore peace and stability to Liberia and the
immediate subregion.
We believe the UN can play an important role as a catalyst to get
negotiations restarted. UN Special Representative Trevor Gordon-Somers
has been carrying out an intensive, 6-week round of negotiations in the
region, and we support his efforts to lay the groundwork for a meeting
of factions under auspices of the UN Secretary General. The UN can play
an important complementary role in support of the existing regional
effort.
Many obstacles must be overcome. Liberian faction leaders have proven
unreliable and their troops undisciplined. An even-handed approach to
disarmament of all factions, backed up by convincing military power,
will be needed to ensure compliance. We do not believe a military
solution is possible or desirable, but we recognize that continuing
pressure is an inescapable part of the equation for peace in Liberia.
While supporting ongoing diplomatic efforts, the United States continues
to respond to the humanitarian needs of the Liberian people. The relief
effort is one of the great unsung success stories of averting greater
tragedy in Africa. In addition to almost $29 million in support for the
regional peace-keeping, the United States has provided almost $260
million in humanitarian aid for victims of the conflict, far more than
all other donors combined. We continue to stress the need for
distribution throughout Liberia, urging ECOMOG to facilitate up-country
assistance and Charles Taylor to end his resistance to cross-line
deliveries.
While meeting the immediate needs of Liberians, we must also be poised
to foster and support moves to build a lasting peace. We are prepared
to assist with repatriation, demobilization, and the holding of free and
fair elections when conditions allow. We have requested funds in fiscal
year 1994 to assist the peace-keeping efforts of ECOWAS in Liberia. In
the post-Cold War world, our concern for the Liberian people and our
desire for peace is unconstrained by strategic necessities; we seek a
future relationship based on fundamental principles of human rights,
accountability, and democracy. Liberia's neighbors, the United States,
and the UN have all signaled their readiness to assist, and we are all
providing tangible support. But, ultimately, it will be the people of
Liberia themselves who must resolve to make the most of their
opportunity and chart the future of this nation.
Togo
The people of Togo launched a process toward multi-party democracy in
July 1991, with a national conference and a schedule for transition to a
democratic government selected in free, fair, representative elections.
However, over the past year, that transition has disintegrated under the
pressure of intimidation and violence. Members of the transitional
government and the High Council of the Republic have been held hostage
and abused by members of the military. Their homes have been firebombed
and opposition political candidates shot and, in one case, killed.
Opposition press offices and personnel have been assaulted and unarmed
opposition demonstrators fired on by military forces. In response to
those events, there were acts of revenge and defiance against the
military and the ruling party of President Eyadema, including mob
killings of soldiers, attacks on the homes of ruling-party officials,
and an armed night-time raid on the military headquarters.
The result is an atmosphere of fear and insecurity which reigns in the
capital, Lome, and throughout much of the country. Togo's economic life
has been essentially paralyzed since November by a general strike called
by opposition unions and politicians to protest the breakdown of the
transition. Over 200,000 Togolese citizens have fled the country since
January 1993. Their flight was triggered by security force attacks on
opposition neighborhoods in Lome. Those who fled, including almost all
significant members of the political opposition, remain outside Togo,
primarily in neighboring Benin and Ghana. There is concern that the
ongoing crisis will affect regional as well as domestic stability.
Against this backdrop, President Eyadema and his supporters announced
elections beginning June 20. Unfortunately, these elections were called
without full participation of major elements of the opposition. In the
absence of a mutually agreed framework, the coalition of opposition
political parties announced its intention to boycott the elections and
called on the Togolese electorate to do the same. However, behind-the-
scenes efforts, primarily led by the French, have continued to work
toward bringing all sides back to the negotiating table. On June 1, the
government announced a 15-day delay in the election schedule. During
this delay, it is hoped that talks with the opposition can resume with
the aim of reaching agreement among all parties for elections to move
forward. Our view remains that elections, to be meaningful, will
require careful preparation.
Throughout the transition, we have maintained a continuous dialog with
all sides in Togo, urging compromise and conciliation as the only means
to move Togo forward on the road to democracy. Responding to the
military's intimidation tactics, the United States has suspended much of
its assistance. In the remaining projects, we work primarily through
private voluntary organizations to meet basic human needs. Our actions
mirror those of the French, the Germans, and the EEC--donors who have
historically provided the bulk of Togo's foreign assistance and whose
lead we are following with regard to Togo.
We are consulting regularly with Togo's friends abroad in an effort to
ensure that a unified, clear message is sent to all Togolese parties:
We will not return to business as usual until the transition is back on
track. In line with that policy, we have announced that the United
States will not provide electoral support or observers for the
unilaterally arranged and announced elections beginning June 20. In the
wake of the new effort to negotiate, we are cautiously optimistic that
Togo's impasse can be broken. We are following closely preparations for
imminent talks in Ouagadougou. Should those talks result in a mutually
agreed framework for free, fair elections held in a secure environment,
we will re-evaluate our decision concerning electoral observers and
assistance. In the meantime, we will continue to consult with all
sides, urging them to take advantage of this opportunity to move Togo
back to the path of democracy.
Zaire
Africa's third-largest country faces an increasingly dangerous crisis--
one that threatens the livelihood of 40 million Zairians and the
stability of neighboring countries. There is no doubt about the cause
of the problem. It is President Mobutu's stubborn refusal to honor his
promise to permit a democratic transition process to proceed. The
results include a near total breakdown of Zaire's modern economic
sector, rampant hyper-inflation, growing malnutrition in Kinshasa
itself, and, most notably in Shaba, a pernicious pattern of government-
provoked or tolerated violence against minority ethnic groups. Because
of the regime's increasing use of intimidation against political
opponents, there has been a sharp escalation of human rights abuse in
recent months.
The current crisis in Zaire is, in part, a tragic consequence of the
Cold War era, when policies of the United States and its allies were
strongly influenced by broader strategic interests, often to the
detriment of other considerations. Our concept of what is "strategic"
is no longer what it was. Today, it centers on support for
democratization and sustainable development. In Zaire, we are
encouraging constructive change through a combination of pressure on the
current regime and a clear offer of help for the establishment of a
democratic successor government. We support the democratic transition
established by the National Conference, not any particular Zairian party
or individual. We are working with the Belgians and French to increase
political and economic pressure through a range of measures, including
visa restrictions, prohibition of arms exports, and public statements.
Additional measures, which I would prefer not to discuss in open
session, are under active consideration.
As we look toward Zaire's future, it is clear that any resolution of the
current tragedy will require rapid deployment of both bilateral and
multilateral resources. There will be two immediate requirements. One
is military reform. No democratic transition will be sustainable until
the present regime's relatively well-armed and well-trained troops are
brought under civil control through a combination of military reform and
demobilization. Otherwise, they will obstruct the transition, repeating
a tragic pattern played out in Liberia. Defusing this problem will
demand a multilateral effort, but the United States must be ready to
participate with appropriate levels of assistance for the demobilization
and reform process.
The second and equally pressing need will, of course, be economic
stabilization and reform. We, the French, and the Belgians told the
Government of Zaire in January that we are willing to provide support
for stabilization and reform under clearly defined conditions. These
include a credible plan for elections and strict controls to deny
President Mobutu unimpeded access to public funds and the management of
public finances. Working with the IMF and the World Bank, we determined
that the crucial first stages of such a program could be, in large part,
financed by proper use of the funds, which are currently being diverted
for unauthorized personal use. The second phase, longer and more
arduous, will involve a pattern of economic reform, debt rescheduling,
new development investment, and multi-donor support similar to that
undertaken by many other countries and certainly not beyond the
capability of Zaire once a reform-oriented administration is in place.
In short, while we believe that the situation in Zaire is critical, it
is not beyond hope. We are determined to play a leadership role in the
international effort which will be required to achieve a solution. (###)
ARTICLE 6:
CSCE Negotiations On Nagorno-Karabakh
John J. Maresca, Joint Statement
John J. Maresca
Excerpts from opening statement by Ambassador John J. Maresca, U.S.
negotiator for Nagorno-Karabakh, at a briefing in Washington, DC, June
8, 1993.
We announced today... a joint proposal, an initiative, to get our
negotiations back on the track again. This proposal is jointly
sponsored by all the members of the so-called Minsk Group that are not
directly parties to the conflict. We are hoping that it will be
accepted by the parties to the conflict by the end of the week.
It's for that reason that I thought it would be a good idea to provide
you with some background information on how we got where we are, what
we're doing, and what the prospects are.
We have agreed with the other co-sponsors of this initiative not to go
into the details of it prior to acceptance by all the parties to the
conflict. How-ever, I can tell you some of the general things about it.
Moreover, it is designed to implement Security Council Resolution 822,
which I also have available if you don't have it on your own.
The points which are in the proposal are largely those points that are
in the Security Council resolution. Just to give you some of the
background, the U.S. approach on this from the beginning of the
negotiating process has included a number of points. We have
deliberately decided to be impartial in this dispute to condemn violence
on both sides--but to be impartial. We are essentially a mediator in
this dispute.
We have decided to play a part in an international effort rather than
trying to do something our own, and that international effort is
represented by the so-called Minsk Group of the CSCE, which is the
recognized negotiating body on this effort--recognized by the UN and by
the CSCE, of course.
We've decided that we won't have a U.S. military presence on the ground
in this area, and we've decided that the two democratically chosen
leaders in the two countries--Armenia and Azerbaijan, both moderates who
are interested in converting their countries to democratic systems and
free market economies--are both deserving of support, and we have been
supporting both of them.
Our effort has been to bring about, first of all, a cease-fire with
international monitoring in order to stabilize it and some other
stabilizing measures like lifting of what are called "blockades" in the
region in order to permit a sensible, rational political negotiation to
go forward. We are not trying to decide in advance what the solution,
ultimately, on this problem will be. This is something that will have
to be negotiated.
There have been a number of visits to the region. I've been there
myself several times. Reports have been written about the problem.
Last spring, the CSCE set up a thing called the Conference on Nagorno-
Karabakh to be held in Minsk. That's where the name comes from. It's
called the Minsk Conference, and the group which has been preparing for
this conference is called the Minsk Group for that reason.
It has, I think, become a credible negotiating process, to the extent
that it is recognized in Security Council resolutions, and it has
brought all of the parties to the conflict to the table, which, of
course, is the first step in any negotiation. It's produced one
agreement already--that is, the Terms of Reference for an international
monitoring operation as soon as a cease-fire has been agreed and
stabilized.
These Terms of Reference include a lot of political points. It was
agreed not just by the two states involved but also by representatives
from Nagorno-Karabakh. So, it does represent a serious negotiating
effort, and the CSCE is ready to send this monitoring team as soon as
the cease-fire holds.
The Minsk Group negotiations also now, in the latest Security Council
resolution, do have the direct backing of the Security Council. So, I
think, there is no question now where the negotiation process should
take place.
As happens in any dispute like this, the events on the ground are very
volatile. There are events going on right now, too. And throughout the
negotiating process, we've had ups and downs based on skirmishes of one
kind or another--an attack, a seizure of a village, or whatever. This
is part of this kind of conflict and part of the negotiating process
that goes with it.
What we're doing right now is trying to get back to the negotiating
table after one such military operation--which was a seizure by the
Armenian side of a valley area called Kelbajar, which is not
specifically shown on your map but which is to the north and west of the
Nagorno-Karabakh outline on that map--which was seized about a month ago
by the Armenian side.
Since that time, we've been trying to get back to the negotiations. We
have made proposals--first of all, along with Russia and Turkey--to try
to accomplish this. For one reason or another, those proposals were not
accepted right away. But we have, as of last week, revised this
proposal in certain ways, clarified certain points about it, filled in
some details, and acquired the backing of all the other members of the
Minsk Group. That is what constitutes the proposal that we put forward
and which we announced today.
The last thing I'd mention, before I take questions, is that,
essentially, what the Minsk Group is doing with this proposal is
implementing--attempting to implement--the Security Council resolution.
I think this is kind of an interesting new feature of the way this
arrangement has worked, where a CSCE group is actually trying to
implement a Security Council resolution. That's where we stand today.
Joint Statement by CSCE Minsk Group
Text of joint statement by the U.S. and other members of the CSCE Minsk
Group released by Acting Spokesman Joseph Snyder, Washington, DC, June
8, 1993.
The representatives of the following countries belonging to the CSCE
Minsk Group: Belarus, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, the
Russian Federation, Sweden, Turkey and United States, have met in Rome
on June 3-4 under the chairmanship of the Representative of the Chairman
of the CSCE Minsk Conference on Nagorno-Karabakh, and with the
participation of observers of the UN Secretariat, in order to prepare a
proposal intended to provide for the implementation of the UN Security
Council Resolution 822 and the resumption of the CSCE negotiating
process.
Acceptance of this proposal would contribute to the overall resolution
of the conflict and the establishment of stability and peace in the
region.
Thus, the nine States and the Chairman of the CSCE Minsk Conference call
upon all to accept and implement the proposal without exception or
delay. (###)
ARTICLE 7:
Joint Statement Following U.S.-North Korea Meeting
Text of U.S.-North Korean joint statement released by the Office of the
Spokesman, New York City, June 11, 1993.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States of
America held government-level talks in New York from the 2nd through the
11th of June, 1993. Present at the talks were the delegation of the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea headed by First Vice Minister of
Foreign Affairs Kang Sok Ju and the delegation of the United States of
America led by Assistant Secretary of State Robert L. Gallucci, both
representing their respective Governments. At the talks, both sides
discussed policy matters with a view to a fundamental solution of the
nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. Both sides expressed support for
the North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean
Peninsula in the interest of nuclear non-proliferation goals.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States have
agreed to principles of:
-- assurances against the threat and use of force, including nuclear
weapons;
-- peace and security in a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, including
impartial application of fullscope safe-guards, mutual respect for each
other's sovereignty, and non-interference in each other's internal
affairs; and
-- support for the peaceful reunification of Korea.
In this context, the two Governments have agreed to continue dialogue on
an equal and unprejudiced basis. In this respect, the Government of the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea has decided unilaterally to
suspend as long as it considers necessary the effectuation of its
withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
(###)
END OF DISPATCH VOL 4, NO 24
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