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