US DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 4, NUMBER 27, JULY 5, 1993
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:
1.  U.S. Responds to Attack By Iraqi Government -- President Clinton, 
Background Statement
2.  A New Season of Service at Home and Abroad -- Secretary Christopher 
3.  Preview of the President's Trip To Asia and the G-7 Summit -- 
Secretary Christopher   
4.  Explanation of U.S. Vote on Lifting Arms Embargo Against Bosnia -- 
Madeleine K. Albright        
5.  The United States and Ukraine:  Broadening the Relationship -- 
Strobe Talbott 
6.  Nuclear Situation in Iraq -- Robert L. Gallucci 
(###)


ARTICLE 1:

U.S. Responds to Attack By Iraqi Government
President Clinton, Background Statement

President Clinton
Address to the nation, Washington, DC, June 26, 1993.

My fellow Americans, this evening I want to speak with you about an 
attack by the Government of Iraq against the United States and the 
actions we have just taken to respond.  This past April, the Kuwaiti 
Government uncovered what they suspected was a car bombing plot to 
assassinate former President George Bush while he was visiting Kuwait 
City.  The Kuwaiti authorities arrested 16 suspects, including two Iraq 
nationals.  Following those arrests, I ordered our own intelligence and 
law enforcement agencies to conduct a thorough and independent 
investigation.  Over the past several weeks, officials from those 
agencies reviewed a range of intelligence information, traveled to 
Kuwait and elsewhere, extensively interviewed the suspects, and 
thoroughly examined the forensic evidence. 

This Thursday, Attorney General Reno and Director of Central 
Intelligence Woolsey gave me their findings.  Based on their 
investigation, there is compelling evidence that there was, in fact, a 
plot to assassinate former President Bush; and that this plot, which 
included the use of a powerful bomb made in Iraq, was directed and 
pursued by the Iraqi Intelligence Service.  

We should not be surprised by such deeds, coming as they do from a 
regime like Saddam Hussein's, which is ruled by atrocity, [which has] 
slaughtered its own people, invaded two neighbors, attacked others, and 
engaged in chemical and environmental warfare.  Saddam has repeatedly 
violated the will and conscience of the international community.  

But this attempt at revenge by a tyrant against the leader of the world 
coalition that defeated him in war is particularly loathsome and 
cowardly.  We thank God it was unsuccessful. 

The authorities who foiled it have the appreciation of all Americans.  
It is clear that this was no impulsive or random act.  It was an 
elaborate plan devised by the Iraqi Government and directed against a 
former President of the United States because of actions he took as 
President.  As such, the Iraqi attack against President Bush was an 
attack against our country and against all Americans.  We could not and 
have not let such action against our nation go unanswered. 

From the first days of our revolution, America's security has depended 
on the clarity of this message:  Don't tread on us.  A firm and 
commensurate response was essential to protect our sovereignty; to send 
a message to those who engage in state-sponsored terrorism; to deter 
further violence against our people; and to affirm the expectation of 
civilized behavior among nations.  Therefore, on Friday, I ordered our 
forces to launch a cruise missile attack on the Iraqi Intelligence 
Service's principal command and control facility in Baghdad.  Those 
missiles were launched this afternoon at 4:22 p.m. eastern daylight 
time.  They landed approximately an hour ago.  I have discussed this 
action with the congressional leadership and with our allies and friends 
in the region.  

And I have called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations 
Security Council to expose Iraq's crime.  These actions were directed 
against the Iraqi Government, which was responsible for the 
assassination plot.  Saddam Hussein has demonstrated repeatedly that he 
will resort to terrorism or aggression if left unchecked.  Our intent 
was to target Iraq's capacity to support violence against the United 
States and other nations and to deter Saddam Hussein from supporting 
such outlaw behavior in the future.  Therefore, we directed our action 
against the facility associated with Iraq's support of terrorism, while 
making every effort to minimize the loss of innocent life. 

There should be no mistake about the message we intend these actions to 
convey to Saddam Hussein; to the rest of the Iraqi leadership; and to 
any nation, group, or person who would harm our leaders or our citizens.  
We will combat terrorism.  We will deter aggression.  We will protect 
our people. The world has repeatedly made clear what Iraq must do to 
return to the community of nations, and Iraq has repeatedly refused.  If 
Saddam and his regime contemplate further illegal provocative actions, 
they can be certain of our response.  

Let me say to the men and women in our armed forces and in our 
intelligence and law enforcement agencies who carried out the 
investigation and our military response:  You have my gratitude and the 
gratitude of all Americans.  You have performed a difficult mission with 
courage and professionalism.  Finally, I want to say this to all the 
American people:  While the Cold War has ended, the world is not free of 
danger.  And I am determined to take the steps necessary to keep our 
nation secure.  We will keep our forces ready to fight.  We will work to 
head off emerging threats, and we will take action when action is 
required.  That is precisely what we have done today.  Thank you, and 
God bless America.


Background Statement On Iraqi/Bush Plot
Released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Washington, 
DC,  June 26, 1993.

On April 14, 1993, while former President George Bush was beginning a 3-
day visit to Kuwait City, Kuwaiti authorities thwarted a terrorist plot, 
seizing a powerful car bomb and other explosives, and arresting 16 
suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.

In the succeeding 2 months, U.S. investigative teams from the FBI and 
the intelligence community have conducted a thorough investigation of 
this operation.  Based upon that review, the Department of Justice and 
the Central Intelligence Agency have concluded that Iraq planned, 
equipped, and ran the terrorist operation that threatened the life of 
President Bush in Kuwait City in April.  Further, it is the firm 
judgment of our intelligence community, from all sources of evidence 
available to it, that this assassination plot was directed and pursued 
by the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS).

The evidence that forms the basis for these conclusions includes the 
following:

Forensics.  A car bomb, hidden in a Toyota Landcruiser, was smuggled 
across the Iraq-Kuwaiti border by the suspects during the night of April 
13, 1993.  This bomb, and the other explosives that were seized, have 
been directly examined by FBI forensic experts.  In the judgment of 
these experts, key components--including the remote-control firing 
device, the plastic explosives, the blasting cap, the integrated 
circuitry, and the wiring-- were built by the same person or persons who 
built bombs previously recovered from the Iraqis.  Certain aspects of 
these devices have been found only in devices linked to Iraq and not in 
devices used by any other terrorist groups.  According to the forensic 
experts, other explosives seized in this plot, including "cube bombs," 
contained components built by the same person or persons who built 
similar devices recovered in the past from Iraqis.

The car bomb itself possessed devastating power.  It was a sophisticated 
device, involving a complicated manufacturing process, and was well-
hidden in the vehicle.  It contained approximately 80 kilograms of 
explosives.  It was constructed to allow detonation by manual remote 
control or by timer.  The forensic experts have concluded that this bomb 
had the power to kill people within a radius of 400 yards.

The Suspects.   The FBI conducted extensive interviews of the 16 
suspects now on trial in Kuwait.  The two main suspects--Ra'ad al-Asadi 
and Wali al-Ghazali--are Iraqi nationals.  They told the FBI that they 
had been recruited and received orders in Basra, Iraq, from individuals 
they believed to be associated with the IIS.

These suspects told the FBI that their Iraqi recruiters provided them 
with the car bomb and other explosives in Basra on April 10, 1993.  One 
of the suspects, al-Ghazali, told the FBI that he was recruited for the 
specific purpose of assassinating President Bush in Kuwait City.

The other main suspect, al-Asadi, told the FBI that his task was to 
guide al-Ghazali and the car bomb to Kuwait University--where President 
Bush and the Emir of Kuwait were scheduled to appear--and to plant 
smaller explosives elsewhere in Kuwait.

Intelligence Assessments.  During and immediately after the Persian Gulf 
War, Saddam--through his controlled media--indicated that President Bush 
would be held personally responsible for the war and would be hunted 
down and punished, even after he left office.  Various classified 
intelligence sources support the conclusion that the Iraqi Government 
ordered this attack against President Bush.

From all the evidence available to it, the CIA is highly confident that 
the Iraqi Government, at the highest levels, directed its intelligence 
service to assassinate former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait 
on April 14-16, 1993. (###)


ARTICLE 2:

A New Season of Service At Home and Abroad
Secretary Christopher
Address to the Conference of Returned Peace Corps Volunteers, University 
of California at Berkeley, July 5, 1993 

Thank you, Senator Wofford.  All his life, Harris Wofford has been a 
builder and a healer.  Through his work in the civil rights movement, 
through his formative role in the Peace Corps, through his service in 
appointive and elective office, Harris Wofford has made us a more just 
society at home and a more effective force for democracy and development 
abroad.

I want to acknowledge Congressman Sam Farr, who is the son of my 
longtime friend, State Senator Fred Farr.  President Clinton's 
appointment of Leon Panetta not only gave America a first-rate Budget 
Director.  It also represented a not-too-subtle effort to send another 
outstanding returned Peace Corps volunteer to Congress.

I also want to commend Jack Hogan for his leadership as Acting Peace 
Corps Director.  I want to thank the leaders of the National Peace Corps 
Association--Chairman Doug Siglin, President Charles Dambach, and 
Conference Coordinator John Knapp for their fine work.

The nomination of Carol Bellamy as Peace Corps Director means that, for 
the first time, a former volunteer will lead the Peace Corps.  Carol 
Bellamy has built a very distinguished career in the public arena and 
the private sector.  I am sure she will be a highly effective Director 
of the Peace Corps.

I speak to you today as the product of a bipolar world.  I do not mean 
the Cold War world divided between democracy and communism.  I mean the 
Bay Area world divided between Berkeley and Stanford.

My long contact with these two universities has taught me an enduring 
lesson:  Keep the band off the field.

Having spent some of the happiest times of my life at Stanford, I have 
not only developed great affection for Stanford, but great respect for 
Berkeley as well.  Coming to this campus, I am reminded of the lasting 
contribution of one of the great figures of American politics, Governor 
Pat Brown.  I wrote speeches for Pat Brown in his early campaigns.  He 
gave me my start in public life.  And we have been close friends ever 
since.  Pat Brown will long be remembered for helping to build the 
University of California into the premier public university system in 
the world.

I've been told that among the glittering distinctions earned by this 
institution is the fact that the University of California at Berkeley 
has provided more Peace Corps volunteers than any other school in 
America.

When he established the Peace Corps, President Kennedy said:
"Our Peace Corps is not designed as an instrument of diplomacy or 
propaganda or ideological conflict.  It is designed to permit our people 
to exercise more fully their responsibilities in the great common cause 
of world development."

Thirty-two years later, the Peace Corps continues to fulfill this 
special role.  It is an expression of the values and the idealism of a 
free people.  It is an instrument to empower people--and to lift the 
lives of men and women and children in every part of the world.

Among the diverse contributions returned Peace Corps volunteers--RPCVs--
have made to public life, one theme stands out:  helping Americans 
understand the world.

Many Peace Corps volunteers have gone on to serve at the State 
Department.  A few have become ambassadors.  But every Peace Corps 
volunteer brings a piece of the world back home--and makes American 
foreign policy stronger and more sensitive. You have a unique 
perspective on international relations:  not just on the views of 
governments, but on the needs of their people.  Those insights take on 
greater importance at a time of increasing interdependence of nations 
and growing empowerment of people all over the world.

Today, Peace Corps volunteers remain engaged on the front lines of the 
struggle for sustainable development all around the world.  They are 
preserving forests and creating systems of purified water.  They are 
building roads and helping to establish small businesses.  They are 
fighting AIDS and teaching literacy.  They are assisting in disaster 
relief and delivering maternal and child health care.  They are 
combating hunger and poverty.

The year after he started the Peace Corps, President Kennedy spoke at 
this university.  He said, "We can have a new confidence today in the 
direction in which history is moving."  Three decades later, history has 
moved in our direction--toward freedom and democracy.

In every part of the world, a common conviction is emerging that people 
must be empowered.  Democratic aspirations are rising from Central 
America to Central Asia.  The international debate now turns less on 
whether human rights are inalienable for every human being--and more on 
how to make their observance unavoidable for every government.  The 
debate turns less on whether democracy best serves the needs of people 
everywhere--and more on how soon their democratic aspirations will be 
met.

With the movement from despotism to democracy comes a newfound sense of 
economic empowerment as well.  One nation after another is concluding 
that free markets and a vigorous private sector are essential elements 
of economic growth.

Nowhere is the transition to freedom and free enterprise playing out on 
a more central stage than in the former Soviet Union.  Today, Peace 
Corps volunteers are serving not only in Russia--but also in Armenia, 
Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and 
Uzbekistan.  They are helping to create civic institutions and small 
businesses.  They are teaching the spirit and skills of 
entrepreneurship.  They are helping newly free people overcome decades 
of communist dogma that translated into despair and decline.

At the same time, I want to assure you that this Administration will not 
neglect Africa, Latin America, and Asia, where the overwhelming majority 
of Peace Corps volunteers serve.  As a native of North Dakota, I am not 
one to overlook the importance of places far from the headlines.  I 
recognize the vital contribution the Peace Corps is making today in 
Benin and Namibia, and Fiji and Costa Rica, and in so many other small 
and large countries all across the globe.

American foreign policy must shape a new world committed to democracy, 
prosperity, and environmental responsibility.  In each of these areas, 
the United States must lead--and we will.

The Clinton Administration is committed to promoting and sustaining 
democracy and human rights around the world.  We stand today with every 
prisoner of conscience, every victim of torture, every person denied 
freedom.  We support their struggle to overcome the forces of tyranny.  
We are helping emerging democracies to develop civil institutions and 
the rule of law.  And we are helping new democracies make the transition 
to civilian control of the military.

Like the promotion of democracy, building American prosperity is a vital 
pillar of the Clinton Administration's foreign policy.  We will advance 
that goal in Tokyo this week as we work with our G-7 partners to 
stimulate global growth.

President Clinton's responsible and courageous leadership has already 
begun to turn our economy in the right direction.  For years, our G-7 
partners have urged America to get our economic house in order.  Now, 
President Clinton's policies have brought long-term interest rates to 
their lowest level in two decades--and, I might add, have reduced 
significantly the debt burden of developing nations.

America is back as a responsible manager of its own economy and as a 
leader on global economic issues.  The credibility we earn by deficit 
reduction gives us a basis to promote global growth and to energize the 
world economy.

Another area where you will see a sharp departure from the past is in 
our environmental policy.  The Clinton Administration has made clear 
that America will be a global leader in environmental protection.

Instead of refusing to sign the biodiversity treaty, we have not only 
signed the treaty, but we have begun planning a National Biological 
Survey of every species of plant and animal in the United States.

Instead of refusing to set targets for reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions, President Clinton has committed the United States to cutting 
those emissions to their 1990 levels by the year 2000.

Instead of trying to wish away or walk away from the population 
explosion, we are working to stabilize world population growth.  The 
Clinton Administration understands that failure to address the 
population issue will undermine the efforts we make to support 
sustainable development.

A vital part of these efforts consists of recognizing and respecting the 
rights of women.  One of President Clinton's first acts in the White 
House was changing the so-called "Mexico City" policy so that we could 
assist women in receiving the reproductive health care they deserve.

Unless we effectively combat global environmental problems, we are 
likely to see an ever-increasing number of environmental refugees.  
Rather than witness the human suffering and political instability 
associated with these refugee flows, we need to take timely action--in 
our own policies, at the UN, and in other forums--to seek and secure the 
conditions for sustainable development.

This conference is an important signal of the Peace Corps' commitment to 
environmental protection.  The Peace Corps' growing involvement in 
environmental education, forestry, and wildlife management can make a 
profound difference in the quality of life for people in host countries.  
Peace Corps volunteers are helping to propel a citizens' movement that 
has captured the attention and changed the policies of governments 
around the world.  

The Peace Corps not only serves the needs of people in 96 countries.  It 
also serves as a model for a program of national service right here at 
home.

This new program will bring together Americans from different places and 
different backgrounds to address unmet needs.  It will help to finance 
the education of those who complete a term of service.  It will 
reinforce the sense of civic responsibility that must lie at the heart 
of any democracy.  It will broaden the experience and sharpen the skills 
of young men and women who will be leaders of our country in the 21st 
century.

This is not a generation of slackers.  This is not a lost generation.  
This is a generation that aches to prove itself, to demonstrate its 
idealism, to get its hands dirty in the hard work of rebuilding our 
communities.  It is a generation that knows it will face immense 
challenges as it comes of age, and is preparing itself right now.  It is 
a generation that finds holes in the social fabric and patches them.  
From the City Year program in Boston to the California Conservation 
Corps, America's young people burn with the same spirit that drew you to 
the Peace Corps.

It is incumbent upon all of us to give them a helping hand.

I am pleased to see that the Bay Area is taking on a special role in 
national service, just as it has made a singular contribution to the 
Peace Corps.  A few weeks ago, a precursor to the national service 
initiative was launched half way across the Bay on Treasure Island.  
Nearly 1,500 young people from around the country took part in 
leadership training before embarking on a summer of service-- eight 
weeks of community service at locations from Los Angeles to Boston.

Like the Peace Corps, the national service initiative will benefit not 
only those who receive assistance, but also those who provide it.  
Participants will gain insights and experiences that will make them more 
productive and better informed citizens throughout their lives.

The success of national service will rest on leadership at the local 
level.  Locally driven initiatives will be started and sustained by 
schools and universities; by civic, youth, and religious organizations; 
by corporations and by state and local governments.

As Senator Wofford has suggested, who is better prepared to create and 
direct these locally based national service initiatives than returned 
Peace Corps volunteers?

Let me issue a challenge and an invitation to all of you:  Help us pass 
the national service program into law--and then help us make national 
service an irresistible force for building stronger, safer, healthier, 
better-educated communities across the nation.

As I conclude, let me say I am pleased to return again to a part of our 
country that fired the spirit of Ansel Adams and Wallace Stegner, of 
John Steinbeck and Cesar Chavez; that has produced so many volunteers 
for the Peace Corps; that will, I believe, help us usher in a new era of 
national service that will renew our sense of national purpose.  I am 
reminded that we Americans have so much to live up to.

We are more than a collection of freeway billboards and video games.  We 
are a blessed and powerful nation.

I salute you for your service.  On behalf of President Clinton, I pledge 
to you a new season of service at home and a new foreign policy of 
strength and sensitivity in pursuit of American ideals and interests 
abroad.

Thank you very much. (###)


ARTICLE 3:

Preview of the President's Trip To Asia and the G-7 Summit
Secretary Christopher
Opening statement at news conference, Washington, DC, July 2, 1993

Secretary Bentsen yesterday talked about the economic aspects of the 
forthcoming trip.  I'm going to discuss the diplomatic and political 
aspects.

From that standpoint, the President's trip has two related but distinct 
dimensions--the G-7 summit in Tokyo, and the Asian dimension focused on 
Japan and South Korea.  We consider it very fortunate that the 
President's first overseas trip is a trip to Asia.  The Tokyo setting 
will give him an opportunity to set his agenda for Asia.  He will stress 
the importance of the region and the high priority that he places on the 
political and security relationships there, and, just as significantly, 
the priority that he gives to the economic ties with Asian nations.

This dynamic region provides more trade with the United States than any 
other in the world.  The Asian dimension of the trip is reflected in the 
President's activities on the trip.  He will make three significant 
speeches:  The first one will be in San Francisco on Monday, the second 
in Tokyo on Wednesday, and the third in Seoul on Saturday.  In each of 
these speeches, he will address different aspects of our relations with 
Asian nations.

In addition, he'll have several very important bilateral meetings 
relating to Asia:  There will be a meeting with President Soeharto of 
Indonesia soon after he arrives; a meeting with Prime Minister Miyazawa 
of Japan; a meeting with President Yeltsin of Russia, which, of course, 
is a great Asian power as well as being a European power; and, finally, 
a meeting with President Kim Young Sam of South Korea in Seoul.

The meetings with Prime Minister Miyazawa and President Kim Young Sam 
will give him an opportunity to emphasize the solid American commitment 
to remain engaged in Asia.  He will emphasize that the United States 
intends to remain a Pacific power; that we intend to carry out our 
security responsibilities and forward-deployed strategy in Asia; and 
that we remain committed to our security relationship and treaties with 
Japan and South Korea.

He will express appreciation for Japan's constructive role on the world 
scene, particularly in connection with Russia, North Korea, Cambodia, 
and China.  He will stress the importance that we attach to Japan's 
political engagement and its cooperation with us on regional and global 
issues.

As the President has pointed out, our relationship with Japan rests on 
three pillars:  our political partnership, our security alliance, and 
our economic relationship.  We want to use this trip to begin repairing 
and strengthening the economic aspect of that relationship.  We must 
reduce Japan's huge current account surplus and open Japan's markets to 
more United States goods and services.  Our trade relationships with 
Japan are equally as important as our security relationship, and we are 
in the process of negotiating a new economic framework with Japan.

As I said, we'll also be going to Seoul, where President Kim Young Sam 
is taking serious steps to liberalize and deregulate the Korean economy, 
opening it to American goods and services in a very significant way.  We 
want to initiate a cooperative dialogue with the Korean Government to 
sustain this important economic momentum.

We'll discuss the security issues that linger in Korea, which is the 
last remaining front line of the Cold War.  We'll coordinate closely 
with Seoul on our talks with North Korea concerning the threat of North 
Korea to withdraw from the IAEA.

Let me now discuss the G-7 summit for just a moment or two before taking 
your questions.  The broad issues on the agenda--coordinating economic 
growth, opening markets for trade, supporting reform in Russia--are not 
new.  What is new is the American President going to a summit, acting 
from a position of strength because the United States has put its 
economic house in order.

Since the early 1980s, our G-7 partners have pointed out the burdens 
imposed on their economies by our rising budget deficits and our high 
real interest rates.  Every year they have appealed to us to put our 
economic house in order.  Now, for the first time, an American President 
will face his G-7 counterparts with a strong and credible economic hand 
to play.

President Clinton's economic program represents a serious disciplined 
effort at deficit reduction--half a trillion dollars in the next 5 
years.  The major elements of the program, as you know, have passed both 
Houses of Congress and now await final action in the Congress this 
summer.

The G-7 nations know that America is back as a responsible manager of 
its own economy and that it's a leader in global economic matters.  This 
progress gives us a sounder basis to encourage our G-7 partners to 
reduce interest rates, as Germany just did yesterday, to stimulate their 
economies, to open up the world's trading system, and to spur global 
growth.

Decisive action to complete the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations by 
the end of the year will create jobs and promote growth.  The market 
access negotiations are continuing.  We hope that the summit will send 
an unmistakable signal that the G-7 nations are committed to expanding 
trade in goods, services, and agricultural products.  These efforts 
should result in new markets for American businesses and new jobs for 
American workers.

Probably the most tangible result of the summit will be increased 
cooperation and partnership with Russia.  There should be a very strong 
indication of multilateral support for Russia in the form of a special 
restructuring and privatization program and with a G-7 office in Moscow 
to coordinate this assistance. With that progress on our part, with the 
G-7 working together, assistance should be forthcoming also from the 
international financial institutions.

We also expect that the summit partners will commit to a series of 
important political steps, including UN reform.  I would expect to see 
discussions and perhaps a strong statement with respect to the ending of 
the Arab boycott.

Let me also emphasize that President Clinton is committed to 
strengthening non-proliferation regimes to prevent the spread of weapons 
of mass destruction by such nations as Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and 
Libya.  We want the G-7 to agree to strengthen export controls and other 
non-proliferation regimes; to support the indefinite and unconditional 
extension of the NPT when it comes up for review in 1995; and to 
coordinate efforts to dismantle nuclear weapons in the former Soviet 
Union.

Overall, both the G-7 and Asian dimensions of the trip have a unified 
theme.  Just as American political and security leadership remains 
necessary, our leadership is now essential for the global economy to 
grow and for democracy to succeed. America will provide that leadership, 
but we will need the cooperation of our major partners. (###)


Materials relating to the G-7 Economic Summit (July 7-9) will be printed 
in Dispatch Vol. 4, Supplement No. 3. (###)


ARTICLE 4:


Explanation of U.S. Vote on Lifting Arms Embargo Against Bosnia
Madeleine K. Albright, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United 
Nations
Statement before the UN Security Council, New York City, June 29, 1993 

Mr. President, my government has consistently advocated lifting the arms 
embargo imposed by this Council on the Government of Bosnia.  In fact, 
our views on lifting the embargo have not changed since Secretary 
Christopher first presented them.  In voting "yes" on today's 
resolution, the United States reaffirms its belief that the Republic of 
Bosnia-Herzegovina, as a sovereign state and member of the United 
Nations, has a right to defend itself.  This is not a perfect solution.  
But the arms embargo mandated by this Council has had an unintended yet 
devastating effect in favor of the aggressor:  to freeze in place a vast 
disparity in arms.  We do not believe that this body should deny the 
Bosnian Government the wherewithal to defend itself in the face of 
brutal aggression conducted by the Bosnian Serbs and their backers in 
Belgrade.  We, therefore, regret that the Council was unable to adopt 
the resolution under consideration today.

Although the Council has not chosen to act today on the arms embargo, it 
would be a grave mistake for the Bosnian Serbs to interpret today's 
action by the Council as an endorsement of their intransigence, or of 
their attempts to use military force to change international boundaries 
and destroy a neighbor.  Nor should today's vote be seen as an 
indication that the international community is willing to turn a blind 
eye to the gross violations of human rights that have been committed in 
Bosnia, primarily by the Bosnian Serbs.  We will continue to insist 
that, if the authorities in Belgrade want to rejoin the family of 
nations, they will have to stop the violence, stop the killing, stop 
their aggressive war against the Bosnian state and comply with all 
relevant Security Council resolutions.  Until that day, this Council 
will have no choice but to keep the pressure on.

Our goal remains a negotiated settlement freely agreed to by all the 
parties.  The United States believes that exempting the Bosnian 
Government from the arms embargo is a means to that end.  This Council 
must continue to look for ways to restore its credibility on this issue.  
We must continue to make clear that the status quo is unacceptable.  In 
the face of continued obstructionism, my government continues to believe 
that all options for new and tougher measures must remain open.  No 
option should be prejudged or excluded from consideration.  Thank you, 
Mr. President. (###)


ARTICLE 5:


The United States and Ukraine:  Broadening the Relationship
Strobe Talbott, Ambassador-at-Large and Special Adviser to the Secretary 
on the New Independent States
Statement before the Subcommittee on European Affairs of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC, June 24, 1993

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am pleased 
to have the opportunity to meet with you today to discuss the 
Administration's policy toward Ukraine.  With the exception of our 
support for reform in Russia and the New Independent States, no other 
issue has engaged more of my personal attention over the past few months 
than developing our relationship with Ukraine.

Indeed, I see our overall NIS policy and our Ukraine policy as mutually 
reinforcing:  A democratic, prosperous, and secure Ukraine is crucial to 
stability, democratization, and economic progress throughout the former 
Soviet Union; by the same token, the continuation of reform in Russia is 
crucial to the security of Ukraine.  That, Mr. Chairman, is the essence 
of my message to you and your colleagues today.

After the Vancouver summit, the Administration launched a comprehensive 
interagency review which sought to refine and broaden U.S. policy toward 
Ukraine.  Secretary Aspin's recent visit as well as my earlier trip to 
Kiev flowed directly from that policy review.  These visits are part of 
a larger strategy of engaging the senior Ukrainian leadership in an 
effort to turn a new page in relations with Kiev.

We have made it clear to our Ukrainian friends that we seek a broader, 
deeper, and richer relationship--a multidimensional relationship that 
takes account of our mutual economic, political, and security interests.  
That relationship is based on five general principles:

--  As a large and resource-rich country in the center of Europe, 
Ukraine has a crucial role to play in the security of Central and 
Eastern Europe.

--  Ukrainian independence and sovereignty are important to the national 
interest of the United States; we want to see the young Ukrainian state 
prosper.

--  Our relationship with Ukraine is independent of our relationship 
with Russia; strong relationships with both countries are in our 
national interest, as are good relations between Russia and Ukraine.

--  Ukraine, given its history and geography, has legitimate security 
concerns.  These can be addressed through a web of bilateral and 
multilateral ties that will help underpin Ukraine's continued 
independence and sovereignty and its place in the European security 
order.

--  We believe it is in Ukraine's own security interest to fulfill its 
Lisbon Protocol commitments by ratifying START I and acceding to the 
NPT.

The Ukrainian people and their fledgling democratic government are 
struggling with serious political, economic, and societal problems which 
decades of Soviet domination left them ill equipped to handle.  While 
Ukrainians have an ancient, proud culture, Ukraine has almost no 
experience relevant to modern, democratic statehood.

But while Ukraine faces great problems, it is also a nation of great 
potential.  With its educated work force, agricultural richness, and 
industrial-military base, combined with its strategic location, Ukraine 
will, in the next century, take its place as a major country in Central 
Europe.  The direction Ukraine takes now and the traditions it 
establishes over the next few years will have a profound effect on its 
neighbors--both to the east and to the west--and on the security and 
stability of the entire region.  This is why we believe our bilateral 
relationship with Ukraine is of such importance and merits a serious 
commitment of America's attention and resources.  In effect, our 
involvement with Ukraine now is a major step toward molding the shape of 
Central and Eastern Europe in the 21st century.

It might be useful to review where we stand today in our efforts on the 
security, political, and economic fronts with Ukraine.

We have put particular emphasis, given Ukraine's tragic history and 
intense security concerns, on expanding our defense and military 
cooperation with Ukraine.  Secretary Aspin's recent visit was the first 
step in a process that will unfold over the next few months, including a 
return visit to the United States by Ukraine's Minister of Defense 
Morozov later this summer.  A bilateral working group between our two 
defense ministries will work out a program of military-to-military 
contacts and exchanges.

Deputy Under Secretary Slocombe will discuss the specifics of Secretary 
Aspin's visit in greater detail, but let me say that this Administration 
remains convinced that the best guarantee for Ukraine's security is a 
good, solid relationship of mutual respect with a reforming, democratic 
Russia.  That is why we are so encouraged by the results of the June 17 
summit meeting in Moscow between Presidents Yeltsin and Kravchuk.  They 
agreed on the principles for division of the Black Sea Fleet. In 
addition, both sides have agreed to pursue a comprehensive political 
treaty, to accelerate the signing of an agreement on dual citizenship, 
and to cooperate in solving fuel and energy issues on a mutually agreed 
basis.

Furthermore--and this is very important from our point of view-- 
President Kravchuk reiterated his determination to fulfill Ukraine's 
commitment to ratify START I and the Lisbon Protocol and accede to the 
NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state. In turn, President Yeltsin 
reiterated Russia's readiness to grant Ukraine security assurances 
before Ukraine ratifies START I and joins the NPT.  These assurances 
would enter into force once Ukraine has ratified the specific 
agreements.  In addition, Prime Minister Kuchma has announced that the 
Russians have agreed to provide the necessary maintenance for nuclear 
weapons on Ukraine's territory even before START I ratification by the 
Rada.  These are all very positive developments, and the two Presidents 
ought to be commended for the statesmanship they have displayed in 
reaching these agreements.  We are aware, of course, that previous 
arrangements reached at the summit level between Russia and Ukraine have 
come undone.  But we are hopeful that this meeting presages a positive 
turn in Russia-Ukraine relations that parallels our own strategy.  The 
importance of this cannot be stressed enough, for at the end of the day, 
the state of Russia-Ukraine relations will be the decisive factor in 
Ukraine's calculations of its national security interests.  

We are playing our part by seeking to arrange a series of steps in the 
political and security areas which we believe should allow Ukraine to 
move forward unimpeded to ratification of START, the Lisbon Protocol, 
and NPT.  These steps include:

Security Assurances.  We are seeking to design confidence-building 
mechanisms.  Already, Ukraine has received draft texts of security 
assurances from all five members of the UN Security Council. We are 
exploring ways to reassure all the parties to the Lisbon Protocol that 
their security concerns will continue to be addressed.

Highly Enriched Uranium Sharing.  We are closely involved with the issue 
of Ukrainian compensation for the sale of highly enriched uranium from 
former Soviet warheads, and we have offered our assistance to facilitate 
the resolution of other points of tension between Russia and Ukraine.

Early Deactivation.  Secretary Aspin and I discussed with our Russian 
and Ukrainian interlocutors some ideas about how we might begin the 
process of weapons reduction in advance of entry into force of START I.  
Those discussions will continue.

Safety, Security, and Dismantling  Assistance.  We are eager to move 
forward in the provision of assistance on the Safety, Security, and 
Dismantling (SSD) of nuclear weapons. (However, $175 million in 
strategic nuclear delivery vehicle dismantlement assistance is tied to 
Ukraine's fulfillment of its Lisbon Protocol commitments.)  Although we 
have conducted several rounds of discussions with the Ukrainians on SSD, 
we have not been able to move forward because the Ukrainians have not 
yet signed the implementing agreements for assistance.  Since January, 
we have attempted to get Ambassador Goodby and his SSD team to Kiev to 
help move the process along, but have run into repeated difficulties.  
We will continue to press hard to finish up the agreements, so we can 
get assistance flowing to Ukraine as soon as possible.

U.S.- Ukraine Charter.  On the political front, our goal is to construct 
a framework within which our two nations can work together toward common 
goals.  This political framework will be built on our commitment to the 
continued independence and sovereignty of the Ukrainian state and on 
Ukraine's commitment to being a responsible member of the community of 
democratic nations. To affirm the basis of our political cooperation and 
the commitments of both countries in this shared endeavor, we have begun 
discussion of a U.S.-Ukraine charter which might be signed at the 
highest level once Ukraine has fulfilled its Lisbon Protocol commitment 
to ratify START I and accede to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state.

A Strategic Dialogue.  My Ukrainian counterpart, Deputy Foreign Minister 
Tarasyuk, and I have agreed to have a senior level strategic dialogue 
which will bring together inter-agency teams on both sides.  We will 
meet regularly to search for areas where political cooperation can be 
expanded.

The United States will also work together with Ukraine whenever possible 
to encourage and expand Ukraine's involvement in regional and 
international fora.  We will also enhance our program of public 
diplomacy, through our Embassy in Kiev, and through programs promoting 
contact between Ukrainian and American citizens, to ensure that the 
people of both nations understand and support the political ties being 
forged.

We are also committed to broadening and deepening our economic 
relationship with Ukraine with steps designed to encourage and promote 
market reform.  Ukraine faces problems similar to those of all the new 
independent states in trying to overcome the disastrous economic legacy 
of the Soviet Union. Although some progress has been made, Ukraine has 
been much more cautious in implementing structural economic reform than 
many of its neighbors, and its economic situation is steadily worsening. 
Recent figures indicate inflation is approaching 50%--a commonly 
recognized benchmark of hyper-inflation.  

In 1992, we focused much of our assistance on Ukraine's immediate 
humanitarian needs, providing more than $110 million in grant food aid 
and concessional food loans and $18.6 million in urgently needed 
medicines and medical supplies.  We intend to maintain this level of 
humanitarian assistance in 1993, but we are also developing technical 
assistance initiatives designed to help Ukrainians help themselves.  
Some key examples include our plan to send 100 volunteers to Ukraine 
this year under the Farmer-to-Farmer Program; funding we provided to 
help mount the first private auctions of retail stores in Lviv--an 
initiative that Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Pynzenik has praised and 
wants to expand; and the first OPIC mission to Ukraine last month which 
sought agricultural, space, pharmaceutical, and defense conversion 
opportunities for U.S. firms in Kiev and Kharkiv.  We are also working 
with the Ukrainian Government to draft a nationwide privatization 
program, and we have pledged an additional $15 million this year to 
support this program.  

But as in all the states of the former Soviet Union, our ability to help 
Ukraine economically is tied to the Ukrainian Government's own 
commitment to serious economic reform, and the commitment of the Rada.  
For example, we and our Western partners have advised Kiev that 
multilateral macroeconomic stabilization support would be available for 
Ukraine when it is ready to make the hard political decisions to rein in 
inflation, deficit spending, and credit emissions.  But they are just 
not there yet.

In fact, one element of the three-way power struggle now underway in 
Kiev among the President, Prime Minister, and parliament is internal 
disagreement over the course of economic reform.  As you know, the 
Donbass miners went on strike in early June, demanding more economic 
autonomy and a national referendum on the nation's political course.  
When the parliament failed to agree on a response to the miners, 
President Kravchuk issued a decree creating an emergency economic 
committee within the Cabinet of Ministers chaired by Prime Minister 
Kuchma.  Kuchma subsequently denounced the decree as economic 
"dictatorship by the President" and threatened to resign.  Kravchuk then 
withdrew his decree.  However, Kravchuk's bid for greater power and 
continuing pressure from the miners helped persuade the parliament to 
approve a referendum on September 26 in which both President and 
parliament will stand for national confidence votes.  If either branch 
fails to garner a popular majority, it must stand for reelection.

We applaud this resort to democratic means to resolve the leadership 
crisis.  The people of Ukraine must have the decisive voice in their own 
future.  Ukrainian politics, however, are now in a "campaign mode" at a 
crucial moment--with all the delays and distractions we know that 
entails.

But despite all this, just 2 days ago, President Kravchuk again 
confirmed his commitment to ensure that  Ukraine honors its Lisbon 
obligations as soon as possible.  Asked in a press conference if the 
referendum would postpone Rada consideration of START and NPT, President 
Kravchuk said he saw no reason why it should.  We were greatly 
encouraged by this statement because--as I said earlier--we are 
convinced that a non-nuclear Ukraine is in the people of Ukraine's own 
best national interest. 

Mr. Chairman, let me sum up.  Much hard work is ahead of us and we 
should not underestimate the difficulties that remain. But I believe, 
based on my discussions during three visits to Kiev in the past month, 
that there are grounds for optimism about the future of our relations 
with Ukraine.  Recent events appear to have refocused Ukrainian leaders' 
attention on the important economic dimensions of their national 
security. Russia and Ukraine have taken important steps to improve their 
relations.  And both Moscow and Kiev have made clear that they want 
continued U.S. engagement in these problems.  We have every intention of 
doing so because the stakes for us, as well as for Russia and Ukraine, 
are enormous.  Thank you for giving me the time to address this critical 
issue.  I would be delighted to answer any questions you might have. 
(###)


ARTICLE 6:


Nuclear Situation in Iraq 
Robert L. Gallucci, Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs
Statement before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Washington, DC, 
June 29, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss our 
assessment of the nuclear situation in Iraq and the UN's capabilities to 
deter or detect any efforts by Iraq to regenerate its nuclear weapons 
program.  In these remarks, I would like to briefly describe the work of 
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Iraq, some lessons 
learned, and the continuing need to give our fullest support to the IAEA 
as part of our overall non-proliferation efforts.

Impact of Inspections
Under the auspices of UN Security Council Resolution 687, and with the 
assistance of UN Special Commission (UNSCOM), the IAEA has conducted 20 
nuclear inspections of Iraq since the end of the Gulf war in April 1991.  
These inspections have forced Iraq to disclose, destroy, or render 
harmless all of the major nuclear weapons facilities and equipment that 
we are aware of, including several enrichment sites, research 
facilities, and weapons design facilities.  Along with the damage 
inflicted by the war and subsequent military actions, we believe these 
inspections have effectively put the Iraqi nuclear weapons program out 
of business--at least for the near term.

Regeneration:  A Problem
Over the long-term, however, Iraq still presents a nuclear threat.  We 
believe that Saddam Hussein is committed to rebuilding a nuclear weapons 
capability, using indigenous and imported resources.

--  Iraq retains its most critical resource for any nuclear weapons 
program, namely skilled personnel and expertise.

--  Iraq also retains a basic industrial capability to support a nuclear 
weapons program, including a large amount of dual-use equipment and 
facilities.

--  If sanctions are lifted, Iraq would have access to additional 
financial resources to refuel overseas procurement activities.

--  Finally, Iraq has still refused to provide the UN with details of 
its clandestine procurement network, a network which could therefore be 
reactivated in the future.

Focus on Long-Term Monitoring
To deter or detect regeneration, we need to ensure that the IAEA and 
UNSCOM receive the political, technical, and financial support to 
implement their plans for long-term monitoring in Iraq.  These plans are 
contained in Security Council Resolution 715--a resolution that Iraq has 
so far refused to accept.

--  The Security Council will need to enforce the rights of the IAEA and 
UNSCOM under Security Council resolutions 687 and 715, especially the 
right to conduct challenge inspections without obstruction from the 
Iraqi authorities.

--  We must also provide technical support and information to the IAEA 
and UNSCOM, including assistance in the use of technical monitoring 
devices, such as water sampling, to detect covert nuclear activities.

--  To address the risk of overseas procurement, we must continue to 
press Iraq to reveal its foreign suppliers, and work with other 
suppliers to ensure effective monitoring of exports to prevent 
diversion.

Sustainability
Iraq no doubt will continue to test the UN's resolve to continue 
vigorous inspections--especially if it perceives that support for them 
is waning.  As in the past, Iraq will use tactics such as delaying or 
refusing access to sites, denying information, harassing inspectors, and 
refusing to accept UN Security Council Resolution 715 to reduce the 
effectiveness of the inspections.

Recently, Iraq's efforts to undermine long-term monitoring has focused 
on two issues:

--  Iraq has refused to allow the Special Commission to install cameras 
at two rocket motor test stands and has refused to destroy certain 
chemical weapons precursors and related equipment.

--  On June 18, the Security Council adopted a presidential statement 
that Iraq's refusal to cooperate with the Special Commission in these 
matters constitutes a "material and unacceptable breach" of UNSCR 687, 
and a violation of UNSCRs 707 and 715.  The statement warned of "serious 
consequences."

--  On June 22, UN Secretary General, President Boutros Boutros-Ghali 
met with Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz to discuss the 
presidential statement.  Aziz said that the issues could be discussed in 
a technical meeting with UNSCOM on July 12.

On June 24, UNSCOM Chairman Rolf Ekeus told the Iraqi Foreign Minister 
that technical meetings between the Commission and Iraq cannot take 
place until Iraq complies with the Council's demands.  We strongly 
support Chairman Ekeus in this decision.

Strengthening of IAEA Safeguards
Finally, I would like to relate the lessons of Iraq to the strengthening 
of the overall IAEA safeguards system--a system that plays a critical 
role in the international effort to prevent nuclear weapons 
proliferation.  Fundamentally, the revelations about Iraq demonstrated 
the need for the international community to strengthen the Agency's 
ability and authority to detect undeclared nuclear activities outside 
declared safeguarded facilities.  In response, the IAEA's Board of 
Governors has taken a number of important steps to improve safeguards, 
reflecting the view that the IAEA should give a higher priority to 
detecting covert nuclear activities.  The board has:

--  Reaffirmed the Agency's right to perform special inspections 
whenever necessary to permit it to fulfill its safeguards obligations, 
including access to undeclared sites;

--  Determined that the Agency may rely on information supplied by 
member states when seeking a special inspection;

--  Strengthened obligations to provide notice and early submission of 
design information on new nuclear facilities or changes to existing 
facilities; and

--  Established a voluntary system for reporting on nuclear exports and 
imports.

In our view, these changes have substantially strengthened the IAEA 
safeguards system, which is essential to ensuring that fullscope 
safeguards under the Non-Proliferation Treaty are fully implemented.  We 
have already seen evidence of this new determination in the Agency's 
performance in North Korea, South Africa, and Iran.  We believe that the 
IAEA's experience in Iraq has resulted in a substantial improvement in 
the IAEA safeguards system and, with the support of member states, it 
will continue to be a important part of the international non-
proliferation regime.   (###)

END OF DISPATCH VOL 4, NO 27