US DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH VOLUME 4, NUMBER 28, JULY 12, 1993 PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE: 1. Building a New Pacific Community--President Clinton 2. U.S.-Japan Economic Relations--President Clinton, Prime Minister Miyazawa 3. Market Access Agreement Reached--President Clinton 4. G-7 Summit: A Message Of Hope--President Clinton 5. Fact Sheet: U.S.-Russia Expanded Bilateral Cooperation 6. Fact Sheet: Implementation Of Vancouver Initiatives 492 7. U.S.and Japan Announce Economic Framework Agreement --President Clinton, Prime Minister Miyazawa 8. U.S.-Japan Framework for a New Economic Partnership 9. Fact Sheet: U.S.-Japan Relations 10. Country Profile: Japan 11. An Historic Moment for The Haitian People--President Clinton 12. U.S. Policy Toward Vietnam--President Clinton 13. Moratorium Extended on U.S. Nuclear Testing--President Clinton 14. Addressing the Needs of Refugees: A High Priority in the Post-Cold War Era--Warren Zimmermann 15. Statement at Confirmation Hearing--Daniel K. Tarullo 16. Department Statement: Cuba: U.S. Protests Killings Near Guantanamo ARTICLE 1: Building a New Pacific Community President Clinton Address to students and faculty at Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan, July 7, 1993 (opening remarks deleted) It is a great pleasure for me and for the First Lady to be here at this distinguished university today. Waseda is a center of true academic excellence and a training ground for many of Japan's most distinguished leaders. I am proud to be the first American President to visit here. But as has already been said, 31 years ago another American whom I admired very much, Robert Kennedy, spoke in this hall. It was a very different time. The modern economies of Japan and Asia were just emerging; it was the middle of the Cold War; fierce arguments raged here, as in other nations, about where the future lay--with communism or democracy, with socialism or capitalism. On that evening in 1962, those arguments spilled onto this stage. When members of the student communist movement heckled Robert Kennedy, he challenged their leader to come up and join him. In his characteristic way, Kennedy transformed a diatribe into a dialogue, and closed-mindedness into an open debate. That is what I hope we will have here today. The exchange that followed was heated, but it demonstrated the best of the values of freedom and democracy that our two nations share. Three decades later, on this day in this place, the times are very different, but no less challenging. The need for vigorous and open dialogue remains. The time has come for America to join with Japan and others in this region to create a new Pacific community. And this, to be sure, will require both of our nations to lead, and both of our nations to change. The new Pacific community will rest on a revived partnership between the United States and Japan, on progress toward more open economies and greater trade, and on support for democracy. Our community must also rest on the firm and continuing commitment of the United States to maintain its treaty alliances and its forward military presence in Japan and Korea and throughout this region. Is it appropriate? I believe it is--to address these issues here in Japan. The post-Cold War relationship between our two nations is one of the great success stories of the latter half of the 20th century. We have built a vital friendship. We continue to anchor this region's security and to fuel its development. Japan is an increasingly important global partner in peace-keeping, in promoting democracy, in protecting the environment, in addressing major challenges in this region and throughout the world. Because our relationship has been built on enduring common interests and genuine friendship, it has transcended particular leaders in each country, and it will continue to do so. History has decided the debate that raged here in 1962--a debate over whether communism works; it didn't. Its ruins litter the world stage. Our two nations have proved that capitalism works, that democracy works, that freedom works. Still, no system is perfect. New problems and challenges constantly arise. Old problems deeply rooted in cultures and prejudices remain. Positive Global Change To make the most of this new world, we both must change. As Robert Kennedy once noted, "Progress is a nice word, but its motivator is change, and change has its enemies." The Cold War passed from the world stage as the global flow of information pierced the Iron Curtain with news of other ways of living. And the world moved steadily toward a more integrated global economy. Money, management, and technology are increasingly mobile today. Trillions of dollars in capital traverse the globe every day. In one generation, international trade has nearly tripled as a percentage of global output. In the late 1980s, increased trade accounted for well over half of the new jobs in the United States. Meanwhile, there have been huge changes in the organization and the nature of work itself. We are moving away from an economy based on standardized mass production to one dominated by an explosion of customized production and services. The volume of information is increasing at an astonishing rate. Change has become the only constant of life. And only firms that are flexible and innovative with very well-trained people are doing very well. The new global economy requires little explanation here in Japan. You have pioneered the modernization of Asia. Now from Taipei to Seoul, from Bangkok to Shanghai, Asian economies are growing at dramatic rates, providing jobs and incomes, providing consumer goods and services to people who could not have even dreamed of them just a generation ago. To be sure, Asia's progress is uneven, there are still millions in abject poverty. Four of the world's last five communist regimes and other repressive regimes continue to defy the clear laws of human nature and the future. But the scenes of life in this region paint an unmistakable picture of change and vitality and opportunity and growth. A generation ago in Singapore, bumboats floated up to Boat Quay to unload their cargoes of produce and cloth which were sent out into a labyrinth of smoky shophouses and small family markets. Today, such scenes are joined by those of container ships steaming into Singapore's modern port--one every six minutes-- disgorging their goods into mechanized warehouses and modern supermarkets. In China's Guangdong Province, young entrepreneurs are leaving safe jobs in state-owned enterprises to start their own companies. To describe their daring spirit, the Chinese have coined a phrase that literally means "to plunge into the sea." Such images help to explain why Asia likely will remain the world's fastest growing region for some time. Its imports will exceed $2 trillion. This growth will help to make a tripolar world, driven by the Americas, by Europe, and by Asia. In years past, frankly, some Americans viewed Asia's vibrancy and particularly Japan's success as a threat. I see it very differently. I believe the Pacific region can and will be a vast source of jobs, of income, of partnerships, of ideas, of growth for our own people in the United States--if we have the courage to deal with the problems both of our nations have within and beyond our borders. Already, over 40% of American trade is with this region. Last year, over 2.3 million American jobs were related to the $120 billion we exported to Asia. Millions of Asian Americans in the United States today embody our nation's devotion to family values, to hard work, to education. In so doing, they have helped to strengthen our cultural ties and our economic ties to this region. Today, our nation is ready to be a full partner in Asian growth. After years of difficult transition, our private sector is embracing the opportunities and meeting the challenges of the global economy. Productivity is on the rise. Attempts to pierce overseas markets are more intense than ever. Many of our manufacturing services and financial firms are now the high-quality, low-cost producers in their fields. Change in the United States At last, our governmental sector in the United States is also moving in the right direction. After years of being urged by Japan and by other nations to do something about the massive American budget deficit, we are on the brink of doing something about it. After years of being urged to do something about improving our educational system and making our manufacturing and other sectors more productive and more competitive, we are doing something about it. We are nearing the adoption of a bold plan to reduce our public deficit by $500 billion over the next 5 years and to increase our investments in education, in technology, and in new jobs for the American people. We are moving to reform our health care system--the world's most expensive- -to control costs and provide quality care to all of our people. We are moving to give incentives to the millions of Americans who live in poverty so they will move from poverty into middle class working lives. We, too, are moving to reform our political system; to reduce the cost of our political campaigns and the influence of lobbyists on our lawmakers. We are moving to face one of our most painful social problems--high rates of crime and violence--with new initiatives to put more police officers on our streets, give better futures to our young people in depressed areas, and keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals. But it is not enough for the United States to change within. To increase the jobs, raise the incomes, and improve the quality of life of the American people, we must also change our relationships with our partners and ask them to do the same. The Need for a New Relationship With Japan Our first international economic priority must be to create a new and stronger partnership between the United States and Japan. Our relationship with Japan is the centerpiece of our policy toward the Pacific community. Our two nations account for nearly 40% of the world's output. Neither of us could thrive without the other. Producers in each of our countries are consumers for firms in the other. We are also joined in our efforts to address global economic problems. We work closely in an effort to move toward a new trade agreement. And I hope Japan will join in the initiative I proposed just 2 days ago in San Francisco--a meeting of the senior G-7 economic and labor and education advisers to look into a new problem with the global economy. Stubbornly persistent unemployment in the richest nations of the world, even where there is economic growth, is rooted in the inability of so many of these nations to create new jobs. The economic relationship we have has always benefited both our nations. Americans buy huge volumes of Japanese products. American companies in Japan employ thousands of your citizens. Joint ventures between Japanese and American enterprises advance the economic and other interests of people in both nations. Japanese companies have opened many manufacturing firms, sales offices, and other facilities in the United States. In the 1980s, when my country went on a huge debt binge, massively increasing public and private debt, Japanese purchases of much of that debt helped to keep our economy going and helped to prevent our interest rates from exploding. U.S.-Japan Trade Still, our economic relationship is not in balance. Unlike our relations with all other wealthy nations, we have a huge and persistent trade deficit with Japan. It usually exceeds $40 billion with a deficit in manufacturing products in excess of $60 billion, in spite of the fact, that in recent years, our manufacturing productivity has increased very greatly. It is impossible to attribute this trade imbalance solely to unfair Japanese barriers from governmental policies or a unique distribution system. Indeed, it is in part simply a tribute to Japanese abilities to produce high-quality, competitively priced goods and to the skill of Japanese businesses in piercing so many overseas markets including our own. Yet, it is clear that our markets are more open to your products and your investments than yours are to ours. And it is clear that governmental policies consistently promoting production over consumption, exports over domestic sales, and protections of the home market contribute to this problem. The trade deficit is on the rise this year even with the market rise of the yen against the dollar. Though American purchases of Japanese products have remained fairly constant, Japanese purchases of American products have dropped markedly, as a consequence of slow growth here in your economy with no offsetting government policies to stimulate demand. This problem has, as all of you know, fueled resentment in our country both from workers and from businesses who have worked hard to streamline their operations, reduce labor costs, and increase productivity, and now want the benefits that can only come from being able to compete and win in a global economy. Our people understand when our nation has a huge trade deficit with an emerging economy like China. The same was true just a few years ago with Korea and Taiwan. But both those nations have moved closer to trade balance with the U.S. as they have become more prosperous. The same has not happened with Japan. This persistent trade imbalance has not just hurt American workers and businesses; it has hurt the Japanese people. It has deprived you as consumers of the full benefit of your hard and productive work. For example, partly because of restrictive economic policies, the average Japanese family pays more than twice as much of your income for food as the average American family. And many other consumer products are far, far more expensive here than elsewhere, with these differentials going far beyond what can be accounted for by the transportation costs of bringing products to this market. Our relationships with Japan have been durable not only because of our security alliance and our political partnership, but because our economic relationship has actually served our interests and yours. I believe we must change this economic interest to improve the lives not just of the American people but of the Japanese people as well. It would be wrong for me to come here as President to ask you to embrace changes that would only benefit the people who live in my country. I believe that the changes I advocate will benefit both of us, or I would not be here pushing them. During my April meeting with Prime Minister Miyazawa, we agreed to build a new framework for trade on macroeconomic, sectoral, and structural issues. Now, I don't know how that translates into Japanese, but the average American has no idea what that means. What it means is that we are going to try to deal honestly with the differences we have over our nation's economic policies. We want to talk about the specific sectors of the economy where we believe that more trade is warranted. We want to talk about structural differences between our two countries that operate as effective barriers to finding greater balance and greater volume of trade. Our governments have made progress in these last few days in crafting the basic principles of this new framework, and we will persist until we can produce a sound agreement that is in the interests of people in both countries. What the United States seeks--let me make clear--is not managed trade or so-called trade by the numbers, but better results from better rules of trade. Openness like this cannot simply come from pressure from the United States. That is one reason I wanted so much to be here with you today. A new openness can only come ultimately when Japanese leaders and Japanese citizens recognize that it is in your interests to pursue this course. So, today, I would send this message to all of you and to the people beyond the walls here in this hall: You have a common cause with the people of America--a common cause against outdated practices that undermine our relationship and diminish the quality of your lives. The ideas I propose are beneficial to both of us because they will increase the number and lower the costs of the products you are able to buy, the services you are able to access, and they will, thereby, reward the work, the education, and the skills that you bring to daily life here in Japan. You are entitled to no less, and it will be a part of your role as a great nation for the foreseeable future to have that sort of open relationship. We should take these steps together for ourselves and for future generations. I am optimistic that the people of Japan and the people of the United States can hear the same message and move toward the same goal. Japan has, after all, a proud heritage of embracing bold change when the times call for it. Much of the success you have enjoyed in recent years comes from a phenomenal ability to adapt to the changing contours of the global economy. And over 120 years ago, the leaders of the Meiji restoration embarked on a series of rapid and successful initiatives that transformed a feudal Japan into a modern society, making it more open to the West and the broader world without sacrificing the uniqueness of the Japanese culture. On this campus today, there is a statue honoring one of the great statesmen of that period: this school's founder, Count Okuma. In his exhaustive narrative of the Meiji restoration, Okuma attributes the period's reforms--and I quote: "to thoughtful and farsighted Japanese leaders." And he concludes, "Even as the spirit of liberality has animated the Japanese race during the past half-century of its remarkable progress, so it will ever impel its march along the paths of civilization and humanity." To keep the country's doors wide open is a national principle to which Japan has attached the greatest importance from its earliest days. I believe and hope that spirit still prevails, and that a stronger Japan- U.S. economic relationship, driven by mutual wisdom, can power our new Pacific community well into the next century. An Open Global Economy The second building block of that community must be a more open regional and global economy. That means that, together, we must resist the pressures that are now apparent in all wealthy countries--to put up walls and to protect specific markets and constituencies in times of slow growth. We must resist them because the only way wealthy countries can grow richer is if there is global economic growth and we can increase trade with people who, themselves, are growing more prosperous. An essential starting point is the successful completion of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I am committed to doing that by the end of this year, and I hope that your government is also. I believe we should also work to reduce regional trade barriers. That is what we in the United States are attempting to do in negotiating an agreement with Mexico and Canada--not to close North America to the rest of the world--but to open it up. And perhaps we should consider Asian- Pacific trading areas as well. The most promising economic forum we have for debating a lot of these issues in the new Pacific community is the organization for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC. The 15 members of APEC account for nearly half of the world's output and most of the fastest-growing economies. This fall, we will host the APEC ministerial meeting in Seattle. I will speak at that meeting to signal America's engagement in the region. But I hope we can go beyond it. I am consulting with the leaders of APEC at this moment on a proposal that they join me in Seattle in an informal leadership conference to discuss what we can do to continue to bring down the barriers that divide us and to create more opportunities for all of our people. In addressing common economic challenges, we can begin to chart a course toward prosperity and opportunity for the entire region. Of course, the purpose of meetings like this is not simply more meetings and communiques, it is to improve our people's lives. Not just the lives of those who dash around financial districts in Tokyo or New York with cellular telephones in their pockets but the millions of people in my country and the billions of people on the earth who work hard every day in factories and on farms simply to feed their families and to give their children a better life than they have enjoyed. It will make a world of difference to them if our leaders can set pro- grow policies, dismantle trade barriers, and get government out of the way. Expanded trade and more open economies not only enrich people, they also empower them. Trade is a revolutionary force that wears down the foundations of despotic rule. The experiences of the Philippines, Taiwan, Korea, and others prove that the move toward more open economies also feeds people's hunger for democracy and freedom and more open political systems. Supporting Democratic Reform This, then, should be our third priority in building a new Pacific community--to support the wave of democratic reform sweeping across this region. Economic growth, of course, can occur in closed societies, even in repressive ones. But in an information age, it cannot ultimately be maintained. People with prosperity simply crave more freedom. Open societies are better able to address the frictions that economic growth creates and to assure the continuance of prosperity. A free press roots out corruption, even though it sometimes aggravates political leaders. The rule of law encourages and protects investments. This spread of democracy is one of the best guarantees of regional peace and prosperity and stability that we could ever have in this region. Democracies make better neighbors--they don't wage war on each other, engage in terrorism, or generate refugees. Democracy makes it possible for allies to continue their close relations despite changes in leadership. Democracy's virtues are at the core of why we have worked so hard to support the reforms and the reformers in Russia, which is now on a path toward becoming one of the Pacific's great democratic powers. The movement toward democracy is the best guarantor of human rights. Some have argued that democracy is somehow unsuited for Asia or at least for some nations in Asia--that human rights are relative and that they simply mask Western cultural imperialism. I believe those voices are wrong. It is not Western urging or Western imperialism, but the aspiration of Asian peoples themselves that explains the growing number of democracies and democratic movements in this region. And it is an insult to the spirit and hopes and dreams of the people who live here to assert that anything else is true. Each of our Pacific nations must pursue progress while maintaining the best of their unique cultures. But there is no cultural justification for torture or tyranny. We refuse to let repression cloak itself in moral relativism, for democracy and human rights are not occidental yearnings; they are universal yearnings. Dedication to Goals These, then, are the economic essentials for this new Pacific community- -one in which most of you, being so much younger than I am, will spend far more of your lives in than will I. A better U.S.-Japan relationship, more open economies and trade, more democratic governments--these things will make your lives better. I will pursue these goals vigorously. You will see that commitment reflected in what our Administration does. Together we can make this decade and the coming century a time of greater security, democracy, prosperity, and personal, family, community, and national empowerment. So, today, on this holiday of Tanabata, a holiday of joining together and hopeful wishes, let us wish for a new Pacific community built on shared effort, shared benefit, and a shared destiny. Let us write out our brightest dreams for our children on pieces of paper as bright and differently colored and numberless as are the peoples of the Asian- Pacific region. In the spirit of this holiday, let us fly those dreams from bamboo poles that are as high as our hopes for the era, and then, together, let us dedicate ourselves to the hard work of making those dreams come true. Senator Kennedy was right when he said that change has its enemies. But, my friends, we can make change our friend. (###) ARTICLE 2: U.S.-Japan Economic Relations President Clinton, Prime Minister Miyazawa Opening statements at a news conference, Tokyo, Japan, July 6, 1993 Prime Minister Miyazawa. I would like to lead off with a brief explanation. I would like to, first of all, extend my warmest welcome to President Clinton and his entourage. And it also is, I believe, most meaningful that President Clinton has chosen Asia as the first overseas visit this time. Of course, his visit is for the summit meeting as well, but he will meet with the President of Indonesia as well. And I mention, therefore, that I highly rate the fact that he has visited Asia this time and made the Japan-U.S. leaders meeting as well. Our relations--the Japan-U.S. relations--are built on three pillars: security, global cooperation, and our bilateral economy. In April, we said in Washington that we should be establishing a framework for our economy, and both of us at the working level had been working on this. But time had lapsed, so I sent a personal letter to President Clinton. And today, I also received a kind response to that personal letter. And we wanted on a working level to expedite their work on this matter as quickly as possible. And at the working level, both sides are working. Both of us are determined that a proper framework must be put in place. And in the summit meetings starting tomorrow, we've agreed that we shall cooperate with each other in bringing the summit meeting to a success. Mr. President, please. President Clinton. Thank you very much. First of all, it's very good to see Prime Minister Miyazawa again. We had a fine meeting in Washington in April at the White House, and I was honored to have the opportunity to come here and meet with the Prime Minister before the beginning of the G-7 summit. It bears repeating again that the United States has no more important bilateral relationship than our relationship with Japan. We are strategic allies and our futures are bound up together. We have one of the world's most important trading partnerships. We have an array of regional and global alliances. And our historic relationship, as it undergoes change, must also maintain some continuity. I have invested a lot in both the change and the continuity because I think they are terribly important. And I was glad to have the opportunity to discuss a wide range of issues with the Prime Minister today. We discussed the need for a successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round and our hope that we can agree, among the G-7 leaders, on market access on a range of manufacturing products. We discussed the need to coordinate economic strategies of the world's wealthiest economies in the hope of restoring some growth and job opportunities to our own people and to the global economy. We discussed the issue which the Prime Minister mentioned on the framework of our own relationships, and I'll have a little more to say about that. But before I do, I want to say something about our security relationship, which too often is overlooked. I emphasized to the Prime Minister that the United States intends to maintain our forward military presence, our presence in Japan, our presence in Korea, and our security agreements in this area. We intend to maintain a full engagement in this region. We discussed some of the difficulties that we face here, but we feel confident, looking toward the future, that our security partnership, which has kept us free of war and which has maintained a strict non-proliferation approach in this region, can continue, and we hope that it will. I also expressed my support for the extraordinary work Japan has done in supporting the process of reconciliation in Cambodia, in supporting United Nations efforts in Somalia and elsewhere. And I also want to say how much I appreciate the support that Japan has given to the efforts the United States has made with the G-7 to support democracy and market reforms in Russia. I believe that we will see a very positive outcome to those common efforts here at the G-7 meeting. The primary focus of our relationship was strengthening the economic relationships between our two nations. We are moving away, I hope, from continued tension toward greater shared benefits. The changes I seek in our relationship are not changes that I hope will benefit the United States at the expense of Japan, but changes that I believe will benefit the people of both nations. We discussed this back in April. We discussed it again today. As the Prime Minister said, we reaffirmed our belief in the importance of creating a framework and establishing basic principles for our trading relationships. I remain convinced that we can conclude an important agreement on this issue. The negotiations have not been free of difficulty, but, frankly, some significant progress has been made. And we agreed in our private meeting that our respective sides would continue to work in good faith and with real intensity during the next few days to see what we can do. The best way we can strengthen our historic friendship, as we must, is to make our trade and investment genuinely in the best interests of the peoples of both countries. I hope we will have more trade, not less, more openness, more growth, and more jobs in both Japan and the United States. And I believe we can achieve that with the proper framework. Finally, let me say that it's a great pleasure for Mrs. Clinton and me both to be back here in Japan. I came here several times when I was a governor. I suppose, Mr. Prime Minister, I won't have quite the freedom of movement that I once enjoyed as a more private citizen, but, on the other hand, I'm being treated to an enormous amount of Japanese hospitality, for which the United States is very grateful, and I look forward to the next few days. (###) ARTICLE 3: Market Access Agreement Reached President Clinton Opening statement at news conference, Tokyo, Japan, July 8, 1993 Ladies and gentlemen: I want to read a statement about the market access agreement that was reached. Ambassador Kantor, I know, has already been down here answering your questions, and Secretary Christopher and Secretary Bentsen are here. I want to try to explain why I can't take a broad range of questions on the G-7 summit. Under the rules of the summit, we can't discuss what's going on while it's going on unless we get an exemption. Since we've actually made an agreement on this, I can make the following statement. The breakthrough achieved today in the international trade talks is good news for America and good news for the world. It means more jobs and higher incomes for our people. While there are difficult negotiations ahead, today's agreement on manufactured goods breaks the logjam in the Uruguay Round. For years, talks in that round have languished. G-7 leaders have emerged from these summits pledging renewed commitment to complete the round. Their pledges have gone unfulfilled. But this year, we have recaptured the momentum. If we can complete the Uruguay Round by the end of this year--and I believe we can now--then this agreement will bring the largest tariff reductions ever. It will lower duties on 18 categories of manufactured goods, from paper to chemicals to electronics. It eliminates tariffs entirely; that is, it creates global free trade for eight major sectors, including farm implements, steels, and pharmaceuticals. This agreement means new jobs and new growth in the United States and in other nations. It proves that government can be a productive partner with business, helping to open markets and create jobs. Special praise is due to the European Community, to Canada, and to Japan, who joined with us in this effort; to our negotiator, Ambassador Mickey Kantor; and to the U. S. Congress, which voted last week to renew my fast track authority to complete this round. With today's accord, I am more determined than ever to press ahead with the Uruguay Round by the end of this year. This really can mean an enormous number of jobs to the American people. When we came here, frankly, we did not know whether we could get an agreement on market access for manufactured goods. It is a very, very good sign that the agreement was achieved, not only because of the jobs that this holds for Americans, but because of the promise it holds to actually complete the Uruguay Round.(###) ARTICLE 4: G-7 Summit: A Message of Hope President Clinton Opening statement at news conference, Tokyo, Japan, July 9, 1993 Good evening. The summit we have concluded today sends a message of hope to America and to the world. Some have called this a jobs summit, and they are right because the creation of new jobs in the United States and in all the other countries here present was at the center of all of our discussions. All of us are mindful that we have a long way to go to restore real growth and opportunity to the global economy, but we have made a serious start. We reached an agreement here that can open manufacturing markets to American products and to all other products in ways that we have not seen in many years. Indeed, the agreement, if finally concluded, could bring the largest reduction in tariffs in world history. While tough negotiations still remain, this world trade agreement captures the momentum that we have needed in these negotiations for a long time. We now can move toward completion of a broader trade agreement that could spur the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next decade in the United States, and millions throughout the world. We also agreed that the other industrialized nations will send their top education, labor, and economic ministers to Washington in the fall for a serious conference on the creation of jobs. All the advanced nations are having difficulty creating new jobs even when their economies are growing. This was a constant cause of concern in all of our conversations, and we are now going to make a serious effort to examine the problem from every angle and to try to come up with new and innovative solutions which can be helpful in the United States and throughout the G-7 countries. We have to figure out how to unlock the doors for people who are left behind in this new global economy. I want to say a special word of appreciation that the other industrial nations expressed their support and praise for the United States' economic plan to reduce our deficit dramatically and invest in our future. Ever since 1980, whenever these meetings have occurred, the statements issued at the end have either explicitly or implicitly criticized the United States for our budget deficit. This statement [see Dispatch Supplement Vol. 4, No. 3] explicitly supports the United States for our effort to bring the deficit down and to bring growth and investment back into our economy. Other nations clearly welcome our resolve. I might note that the fact that both Houses of Congress have passed the economic plan greatly strengthens my hand in the discussions and the negotiations which have taken place here this week. This summit also held out fresh hope for other peoples of the world, especially those involved in democratic reform in Russia, led by President Yeltsin, who joined us here today. The $3-billion program we announced here to help Russia move to a market system will not only bolster prospects for freedom there, it is a very solid investment for the United States. Funds to move state-owned industries to private hands to make the free enterprise system work, funds to make available operations for new enterprises, funds from the World Bank, and funds for credits for export--all these things will help Americans to do more business in Russia and will help Russia to succeed in a way that will continue the path charted by the end of the Cold War--fewer nuclear weapons, fewer defense investments, more opportunities to invest in people and jobs and a peaceful future. American leadership has been indispensable to growth and to freedom throughout this century. In partnership with others, we will now be able to continue to meet that responsibility in the years ahead. I have said before and I will say again, I came to this summit in the hope that we could get an agreement to open more markets to manufactured products, in the hope that we could get a strong program for Russian aid, in the hope that together we would demonstrate resolve to restore the ability of all of our countries to create jobs and opportunities for our people. I believe those objectives were achieved. And I am pleased at the first of these G-7 meetings which I was able to attend. (###) ARTICLE 5: Fact Sheet: U.S.-Russia Expanded Bilateral Cooperation The following fact sheet was released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Tokyo, Japan, July 9, 1993. Tokyo Vancouver Bilateral Initiatives Package* ($ millions) ($ millions) Private Sector Development 148 655a Trade and Investment 243 270b Democracy Corps Initiative 48 220 Support for Troop Withdrawal 6 165 Energy and Environment 38 125b Humanitarian 925 75 Security Assistance 215 0 Total Russia Support 1,623 1,510 Other NIS 0 300 Total Vancouver and Tokyo Package Request 1,623 1,810 FY 1994 Regular Request 704 Additional FY 1994 Nunn-Lugar Request 400 Total Supplemental FY 1993 and FY 1994 Administration Request for NIS support 2,914 *announced in April a. Up to $655 million for private sector development, including $125 million in grants and $250 million in credits for the start-up phase of the G-7 Special Privatization and Restructuring Program. b. Trade and investment total includes financing for energy and environment commodities and equipment. c. Assistance for nuclear weapons safety, security, and dismantlement. (###) ARTICLE 6: Fact Sheet: Implementation Of Vancouver Initiatives The following fact sheet was released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Tokyo, Japan, July 9, 1993. At the Vancouver summit, the U.S. announced a $1.6 billion package of assistance for Russia for FY 1993. Progress on Obligations To date, the United States has obligated over 62% of the Vancouver assistance package, i.e., just over $1 billion of planned programs are under full implementation. (Obligations are based on formal contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements signed between the U.S. Government and the Russian Government, U.S. firms, non-governmental organizations, or universities.) Highlights of Program Obligations Grant Food Aid and Concessional Food Sales. The agreements for grant food aid and Food for Progress credit sales, totaling $700 million, have been signed. Under the $194 million grant food aid initiative, additional agreements between governments and with private voluntary organizations totaling $73.7 million have been signed. Contracts for grant food aid for mothers and children also have been signed and actual delivery of commodities began July 1. Medical Partnerships. Of three additional planned partnerships, one has been signed for Vladivostok and another signed for Stavropol. The third agreement, with the Moscow Medical Center, will be signed in July. Privatization. AID is providing technical assistance for the implementation of the Russian Government's National Voucher Auction Program, which is privatizing 500 medium- and large-scale enterprises each month. In addition, AID contractors are assisting in the privatization of small retail shops and the transport, wholesale, and distribution sectors. Bankers Training. U.S.-based training for 240 Russian bankers began June 20, with 8 weeks of hands-on training involving 116 U.S. banks across the country. Eurasia Foundation. Since mid-May, when the grant agreement was signed with AID, the Eurasia Foundation has awarded five grants in the areas of management training and democratic institution-building. Farmer-to-Farmer Program. In response to specific requests, 218 volunteers have been placed in Russia. They have completed assignments in areas such as food production, processing, wholesaling, and distribution. Democracy Summer (Exchanges). The United States Information Agency (USIA) has completed recruitment of candidates for its high school exchange program: 350 Russians will participate in 4- to 6-week programs, and 617 will study in American high schools for a full academic year. Selection of candidates for the university programs has also been completed: 200 graduate students will enroll in 1- and 2-year graduate programs, and 450 undergraduate students will begin 1-year programs in U.S. universities this fall. Environmental Non-Governmental Consortium. AID awarded a cooperative agreement in May to ISAR to administer a non-governmental organization small grants fund. This program is being expanded to bring in Russian NGO consortium partners. Trade and Development Agency Grants. Grant agreements totaling the $3.8 million contained in the Vancouver package were signed with seven Russian organizations, and several feasibility studies already are underway. Eximbank Loan. Eximbank completed an $82 million loan to finance the sale of Caterpillar pipeline construction machinery for Gazprom. The equipment will be used on construction of a gas pipeline in the Yamal Peninsula region of Russia. OPIC Guarantees. The $50 million loan guarantee supporting Conoco's Polar Lights project was signed in Moscow on May 25. Fiscal Summary ($ millions) Obligations Planned Actual Humanitarian/Health and Food Sales 924.5 773.7 Private Sector Development 148.4 59.9 Democracy Corps 48.0 25.8 Energy and Environment 38.0 7.3 Officer Resettlement 6.0 0.0 Trade and Investment 243.0 138.8 Security Assistance 215.0 0.0 Total 1,622.9 1,005.5(###) ARTICLE 7: U.S. and Japan Announce Economic Framework Agreement President Clinton, Japanese Prime Minister Miyazawa Remarks made in Tokyo, Japan, July 10, 1993 Prime Minister Miyazawa: President Clinton and I were able to agree upon the establishment of the Japan-U.S. framework for a new economic partnership. This agreement comes at a time to coincide with the Tokyo summit, which symbolizes the cooperation and coordination between the G- 7 partners in the international society in the post-Cold War era. This framework is something that President Clinton and I agreed to establish in our bilateral summit meeting held in last April. President Clinton and I share the views that establishing such a new framework and stabilizing Japan-U.S. economic relations from the medium- to long-term perspective and managing our bilateral economic relationship constructively are extremely important not only to the enhancement of the national life of our two countries, but also to the maintenance and strengthening of the free trading system of the world. The negotiating teams of our two countries, based on those perspectives- -the negotiating teams of both countries made serious negotiations both in Washington and Tokyo, and they made further negotiations on the occasion of President Clinton's visit, and, subsequently, they have succeeded in reaching an agreement. Let me share [with] you the gist of this framework in a few words. This framework aims at facilitating frank and broad exchange of views between our two countries and aims at resolving the economic issues between our two countries based on the spirit of joint exercise between the two largest free market economies that are the United States and Japan; and also aims at advancing our cooperation on issues such as environment and technology, which have significance. More concretely, under this framework, we will operate on the principles of two-way dialogue and limiting our consultations to matters within the scope and responsibility of government. Under those principles, we will deal with the following: Japan's efforts at reducing the current account surplus and the reduction of the American federal budget deficit in the macroeconomic area. In sectoral and structural areas, we will deal with government procurement and deregulation, et cetera. And on our common task for cooperation on global perspective, we will deal with issues such as environment and technology. And we will announce the achievements regarding these issues at our biannual bilateral summit meeting. Furthermore, let me share with you that Japan intends to take measures on its own initiative to further expand its market access, to enhance its transparency, and promote deregulation, all along with our objective to achieve a better quality of life. And I expect and hope that, in the United States as well, the U.S. Government will make progress in reducing the federal budget deficit and in strengthening international competitiveness. Through the efforts of our two governments, we would like to contribute to the strengthening of Japan-U.S. economic relations and also to contribute to the development of the world economy in the future. Thank you, Mr. Clinton. President Clinton: Thank you very much. Today's agreement is an important step toward a more balanced trade relationship between the United States and Japan, but it also benefits the world trading system. For years, we have had trade agreements that have failed to reduce our chronic trade deficits. Those agreements have not worked because they lacked a commitment to tangible results, and they provided no way to measure success. This has caused resentment to build over time on both sides, threatening our vital friendship. This framework agreement we are announcing today takes a different approach. As I said in my speech at Waseda University earlier this week, we are not interested in managed trade or trade by numbers, but better results from better rules of trade. This frame-work launches us on that road. As the Prime Minister said, we will negotiate a series of agreements under this framework--some to be completed within 6 months, the rest within a year--that will allow greater penetration of the Japanese marketplace in specific areas of the economy. And these new agreements will include specific timetables and objective criteria for measuring success. These results-oriented agreements can create bigger markets for key U.S. industries, including the automotive industry, computers, telecommunications, satellites, medical equipment, financial service, and insurance. If we are successful, we will create benefits for citizens in both the United States and Japan. More jobs and opportunities for America's workers and businesses, new choices and lower prices for Japanese consumers, and new jobs for Japanese citizens in business establishments located in Japan but owned by citizens of other countries. Again, as the Prime Minister said, this framework also includes a basic bargain. We agree that the United States will significantly cut our budget deficit, which has clearly slowed the growth of the global economy. And we will continue our efforts to improve our competitive position to be the high-quality, low-cost producer of more and more goods and services. In return, the Japanese agree to what the agreement quotes as highly significant reductions in their trade surplus and increases in their imports of goods and services from the United States and other countries. In other words, both nations have made some tough choices. We should have no illusions. We announced today a framework to govern specific agreements yet to be negotiated. Negotiating those agreements will surely be difficult. But now, at least, we have agreed what the outcome of these negotiations needs to be: tangible, measurable progress. I have said for some time that the United States and Japan, the two largest economies of the world, must strengthen our friendship. Our political relationship is strong; our security relationship is firm. These trading disputes have been corrosive, and both of us are called upon to change. It is essential that we put this relationship on a footing of mutual respect and mutual responsibility. This framework is a good beginning. As the Prime Minister said, many people worked very hard on these negotiations. And before I conclude my statement, I would like to express appreciation to people on both sides. I want to thank on the American side Mr. Bo Cutter, who was our lead negotiator and is the Deputy Director of the National Economic Council; Charlene Barchevsky, the Deputy U.S. Trade Representative; Roger Altman, the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury; and Joan Spero, the Under Secretary of State. They did an excellent job; they worked many long hours with their Japanese counterparts. I also want to thank the Japanese negotiating team, and I want to say a special word of appreciation to Prime Minister Miyazawa for his leadership here at the G-7 summit and his constant attention to these bilateral negotiations while they were going on. He has shown wisdom, determination, and genuine leadership. Perhaps only I and a few others know how difficult these negotiations have been, how many late night discussions have been involved, how hard so many people have tried for our two countries to reach across the divide that has separated us on this issue. I do not believe that this day would have come to pass had it not been for Prime Minister Miyazawa, and I thank him in a very heartfelt way. I think he has done a great service today for the people of Japan, the people of the United States, and for the principle of a free world economy. (###) ARTICLE 8: U.S.-Japan Framework for a New Economic Partnership Following is the text of the "Joint Statement on the United States-Japan Framework" for a New Economic Partnership, Tokyo, Japan, July 10, 1993. Reaffirming their understanding at their meeting of April 1993, the Prime Minister of Japan and the President of the United States agree to establish the United States-Japan Framework for a New Economic Partnership, as described below. Basic Objectives The Framework will serve as a new mechanism of consultations for United States-Japan economic relations. This new economic relationship must be balanced and mutually beneficial, and firmly rooted in the shared interest and responsibility of the United States and Japan to promote global growth, open markets, and a vital world trading system. These consultations will take place under the basic principle of two-way dialogue. The Framework provides a structure for an ongoing set of consultations anchored in biannual meetings of the Heads of Government. The goals of this Framework are to deal with structural and sectoral issues in order substantially to increase access and sales of competitive foreign goods and services through market-opening and macroeconomic measures; to increase investment; to promote international competitiveness; and to enhance bilateral economic cooperation between the United States and Japan. Japan will actively pursue the medium-term objectives of promoting strong and sustainable domestic demand-led growth and increasing the market access of competitive foreign goods and services, intended to achieve over the medium term a highly significant decrease in its current account surplus, and at promoting a significant increase in global imports of goods and services, including from the United States. In this context, Japan will take measures including fiscal and monetary measures as necessary to realize these objectives. The United States will also actively pursue the medium-term objectives of substantially reducing its fiscal deficit, promoting domestic saving, and strengthening its international competitiveness. Steady implementation of these efforts on both sides is expected to contribute to a significant reduction in both countries' external imbalances. The United States and Japan are committed to an open multilateral trading system that benefits all nations. Benefits under this Framework will be on a Most Favored Nation basis. Consultations will be limited to matters within the scope and responsibility of government. The two Governments are committed to implement faithfully and expeditiously all agreed-upon measures taken pursuant to this Framework. Both Governments agree that tangible progress must be achieved under this Framework. The two Governments will utilize this Framework as a principal means for addressing the sectoral and structural areas covered within it. If issues within these areas arise, both sides will make utmost efforts expeditiously to resolve differences through consultations under the framework or, where appropriate, under applicable multilateral agreements. Sectoral and Structural Consultations and Negotiations Japan and the United States will engage in negotiations or consultations to expand international trade and investment flows and to remove sectoral and structural impediments that affect them. Initial areas include the following issues of interest to both countries: -- Government Procurement. Measures undertaken in this area should aim at significantly expanding Japanese government procurement of competitive foreign goods and services, especially computers, supercomputers, satellites, medical technology, and telecommunications. The U.S. Government will encourage U.S. firms to take advantage of opportunities created by the Government of Japan. The U.S. Government reconfirms that it is the policy of the U.S. Government to provide non- discriminatory, transparent, fair and open opportunities consistent with its obligations under the GATT Agreement on Government Procurement. The U.S. Government will consult with the Government of Japan upon request concerning such policies, and areas of particular interest. -- Regulatory Reform and Competitiveness. Measures undertaken in this area will address reform of relevant government laws, regulations, and guidance which have the effect of substantially impeding market access for competitive foreign goods and services, including financial services, insurance, competition policy, transparent procedures, and distribution. The United States will undertake efforts to promote exports to Japan, including business facilitation measures and other measures to further enhance U.S. international competitiveness. -- Other Major Sectors. Measures undertaken in this area will address other major sectors, including the automotive industries. Efforts in this area, including existing arrangements, such as MOSS, will have the objective, inter alia of achieving significantly expanded sales opportunities to result in a significant expansion of purchases of foreign parts by Japanese firms in Japan and through their transplants, as well as removing problems which affect market access, and encouraging imports of foreign autos and auto parts in Japan. The U.S. Government will promote the export of autos and auto parts to Japan and will encourage U.S. companies to pursue more actively market opportunities in Japan. -- Economic Harmonization. This area will address issues affecting foreign direct investment in Japan and the United States. In addition, this area encompasses issues such as intellectual property rights, access to technology, and long term buyer-supplier relationships between companies in the two countries. -- Implementation of Existing Arrangements and Measures. All existing bilateral arrangements and measures will be closely monitored and fully implemented. Specific commitments made under the Structural Impediments Initiative (SII) talks will be absorbed into this basket as appropriate. Discussions in the above areas will begin as soon as possible. Each basket will be chaired at the Subcabinet level with working groups as appropriate. The two governments will make utmost efforts to agree on measures regarding significant market access problems in government procurement, the insurance market, the automotive industries, and other high priority areas to be determined, at the first Heads of Government meeting in 1994 or within six months of this agreement. Each such issue will be dealt with separately. Agreements on measures in the remaining areas are expected to be announced at the second Heads of Government meeting in July 1994. Common Agenda for Cooperation in Global Perspective The two Governments will also jointly pursue positive cooperation in a wide range of global areas and bilateral projects of potentially global application. In doing so, Japan and the United States will build new cooperative relations and thereby contribute to the development of technology and the world economy. The two Governments will pursue a new joint response to the challenge in environment and other common economic issues of global implication. Through this joint collaboration, the two nations will establish a constructive global partnership. Progress on results arising out of such consultations will be included in the joint statements at the biannual meetings of the Heads of Government. Progress reports will be prepared by the Subcabinet group at the pre-Heads of Government meetings. Discussions will begin as early as possible in the following areas: 1. Environment. The United States and Japan will establish a forum for regular consultations on environmental issues at the sub-Cabinet level. The U.S. and Japan will collaborate on the following specific environmental priorities: oceans, forests, global observation information network, environmental and energy efficient technologies, conservation of important natural and cultural resources, and environment-related development assistance. 2. Technology. Japan and the United States agree to cooperate on mutually-agreed projects in the following areas of technology development: transport technology, telecommunications, civil industrial technology, and road technology and prevention of disaster. 3. Development of Human Resources. The United States and Japan agree to strengthen bilateral cooperation in the development of human resources in the areas of labor exchanges and the Manufacturing Technology Fellowship Program. 4. Population. The United States and Japan will work together to enhance the effectiveness of efforts to stem rapid global population growth, including strengthening multilateral population programs. The U.S. and Japan will work together to use our bilateral programs to enhance the effectiveness of population programs in the developing world. 5. AIDS. The United States and Japan will cooperate to enhance multilateral efforts on AIDS. The United States and Japan will work together to use our bilateral programs to address the AIDS crisis in the developing world. High-Level Consultations Both Governments will seek as expeditiously as possible, to begin consultations under this Framework, with achievements to be announced at the Heads of Government meetings to be held twice a year. The two Governments will assess the implementation of measures and policies taken in each sectoral and structural area within each basket under this Framework; this assessment will be based upon sets of objective criteria, either qualitative or quantitative, or both as appropriate, which will be established using relevant information and/or data that both Governments will evaluate. Such assessment will occur at the biannual Deputies meeting prior to the Heads of Government meetings and, in addition, as determined by the negotiating teams within each basket. These criteria are to be used for the purpose of evaluating progress achieved in each sectoral and structural area, including the collaborative efforts of the two Governments. At their biannual meetings, the Heads of Government will issue public statements that include reports of results achieved under the Framework on sectoral, structural and macro-economic issues, as well as a common agenda for cooperation in global perspective. Deputy Minister level meetings will be held twice a year to prepare reports to be submitted to the two leaders. Meetings can be held as appropriate several weeks before biannual Heads of Government meetings. The first Deputy Minister level meeting will be held within six months of agreement on this Framework. Consultations will be carried out making use of the existing fora where appropriate, and working groups may be established as necessary in order to facilitate dialogue in this Framework. All relevant agencies will participate. After two years, both Governments will decide whether to extend consultations in this Framework beyond the fall of 1995. An update on progress toward reducing current account imbalances and other macroeconomic issues will be included in the biannual Heads of Government statements. Progress will also be reviewed at the pre-Heads of Government meetings. While ongoing talks will be anchored in the G-7 process and central bank dialogue, other contacts between the two Governments will offer the opportunity to discuss these concerns, for example during discussions between the Council of Economic Advisors and the Economic Planning Agency. (###) ARTICLE 9: Fact Sheet: U.S.-Japan Relations President Clinton made his first official visit to Japan on July 6-10. He met with Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa on July 6 and July 9 to discuss bilateral and global issues of concern to the two countries and attended the Group of Seven (G-7) economic summit in Tokyo on July 7-9. Japan is America's most important ally in East Asia and its second- largest trading partner. The United States and Japan share global and regional interests and cooperate extensively on international political, economic, and security issues. At their meetings in Washington, DC, in April 1993 and in Tokyo in July 1993, President Clinton and Prime Minister Miyazawa agreed that to meet the needs of a new era, the United States and Japan need to build a new partnership--one based on mutual respect and responsibility and on a longer-term vision of the global role played by the two nations. That partnership is founded on three pillars: the U.S.-Japan security alliance, the economic partnership of the United States and Japan, and cooperative efforts of the two nations to address global issues. Each pillar is essential and must serve mutual self-interests. Each also needs to reflect an equitable balance of benefits and responsibilities. The President and Prime Minister agreed to meet twice yearly to personally review progress on economic and other aspects of the relationship. Economics While all three pillars of the U.S.-Japan partnership are equally important, the economic relationship requires urgent attention as the two nations attempt to address economic imbalances between them. In response to ongoing problems, President Clinton and Prime Minister Miyazawa at their July 9 meeting issued a joint statement establishing a new framework to address, in a concrete fashion, the economic agenda. This framework will also be used to expand cooperation between the two countries on global issues. The primary U.S. objective in this effort is to work with Japan to strengthen the world trading system by promoting growth, open markets, and free trade. The new framework addresses both structural and sectoral impediments to market access in Japan. Problems and Challenges. The United States and Japan are the world's two largest economies, with a combined gross domestic product (GDP) estimated at $9 trillion in 1991, almost 30% of world output. Japan is America's second-largest market after Canada and its best agricultural customer; U.S. exports to Japan include agricultural and forest products, aircraft, and data processing equipment. The United States is Japan's largest market; Japanese exports to the United States consist primarily of vehicles, non-electric machinery, and electronic products. Almost all the growth in U.S.-Japan trade in recent years can be attributed to growth in U.S. exports, which rose 70% in the 1987-92 period. Japanese exports to the United States in the same period rose 15%. However, in 1992, U.S. exports to Japan totaled $48 billion, while imports from Japan were $97 billion. The U.S.-Japan bilateral trade imbalance was $49 billion in 1992, down from its high of $57 billion in 1987 but an increase over the 1990 deficit of $41 billion. Japan's trade surpluses with North America, Europe, and Asia are large and growing. Japan's global current account surplus has grown sharply in recent years, reaching $118 billion in 1992. There is serious concern that it is acting as a drag on world growth, and that limited access to Japan's markets may be undercutting efforts to strengthen the world trading system. Achievements and Goals in Trade Issues. The United States long has worked to increase its access to Japanese markets. The United States and Japan have negotiated several agreements aimed at increasing foreign access to Japan's market by lowering tariffs, addressing standards that operate as barriers to trade and commercial practices that exclude newcomers, and promoting long-term relationships between Japanese companies and foreign suppliers. Agreements cover sectors such as Japan's market for beef and citrus, semi-conductors, telecommunications, supercomputers, wood products, satellites, public works, amorphous metals, cellular phones, Japanese public sector computer procurement, and paper. Surveys indicate that U.S. exports to Japan of manufactured products covered by negotiated agreements increased about 265% over the period 1985-91. Working through multilateral forums, the United States and Japan are trying to conclude the Uruguay Round of international trade talks successfully. The U.S. Government has been urging Japan to play a leadership role and to help conclude the round before year's end by agreeing to substantial improvements in its offers on goods, services, and agriculture. President Clinton has expressed the importance of Japan becoming "one of the engines for growth" for the world economy by sustained efforts to stimulate domestic demand. The U.S. welcomed Japan's $116-billion 1993 stimulus program as a very good first step toward stronger domestic growth in Japan but stressed the importance of a continued and sustained effort. Security Japanese Governments in the post-war period have relied on a close relationship with the United States as the foundation of their foreign policy. The United States and Japan coordinate policies on security in Asia, on support for emerging democracies and market economies, and on foreign aid. Although a unilateral military role for Japan in international affairs is precluded by its constitution and government policy, a bill authorizing Japan's Self-Defense Forces to participate in UN peace-keeping operations was passed in June 1992. Japanese agreement to permit the U.S. to base forces in Japan under the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security has made an important contribution to peace and stability in East Asia. The Japanese public is becoming more aware of security issues, and support for the security treaty is widespread. After the Persian Gulf war, the Japanese Government in April 1991 dispatched military assets (mine sweepers) overseas for the first time since World War II to help clear Iraqi mines from the Gulf, and Japanese peace-keepers have participated in UN peace-keeping operations in Cambodia and Mozambique. Japan's Foreign Relations Japanese foreign policy aims to promote peace and prosperity by working with the West and by strongly supporting the United Nations, of which it has been a member since 1956. Japan maintains diplomatic relations with most countries. Japan has pursued a more active foreign policy in recent years, recognizing the responsibility that accompanies its economic strength. It has expanded its ties with the Middle East, which provides most of its oil. It has been increasingly active in Eastern Europe, Africa, and Latin America and has extended support to multilateral and bilateral development projects in those regions. The United States and Japan are now the two largest bilateral aid donors in the world. Japan's primary interests traditionally have been in Asia, and good relations with its neighbors continue to be of vital interest to Tokyo. After Japan and China signed a peace and friendship treaty in 1978, ties developed rapidly. Following the June 1989 events in Tiananmen Square, the Japanese temporarily suspended their economic assistance to the Chinese but later resumed it. Although Japan has no diplomatic relations with Taiwan, it has maintained strong economic ties. Japan also has established strong trade relationships with South Korea and Hong Kong. The Japanese have sought to improve relations with the countries of the former Soviet Union. However, because Russia continues to occupy the Northern Territories--four small islands off the coast of Hokkaido that the former Soviet Union seized at the end of World War II--relations between Russia and Japan have been strained. Japan has, nonetheless, participated in multilateral efforts to provide assistance to Russia and the other new independent states of the former Soviet Union. (###) ARTICLE 10: Country Profile: Japan Official Name: Japan Geography Area: 377,765 sq. km. (145,856 sq. mi.); slightly smaller than California. Cities: Capital--Tokyo. Other major cities--Yokohama, Osaka, Nagoya, Sapporo, Kobe, Kyoto. Terrain: Varied, predominantly mountainous to rugged. Climate: Varies from subtropical to temperate. People Nationality: Noun and adjective--Japanese. Population (1992 est.): 125 million. Annual growth rate (1992): 0.5%. Ethnic groups: Japanese; Korean 1%. Religions: Shintoism and Buddhism; Christian 1%. Language: Japanese. Education: Literacy--99%. Life expectancy--males 76 yrs., females 81 yrs. Work force (63 million): Services--43%. Trade, manufacturing, mining, and construction--32%. Agriculture--8%. Government--7%. Government Type: Parliamentary democracy. Constitution: May 3, 1947. Branches: Executive--prime minister (head of government). Legislative--bicameral Diet (House of Representatives and House of Councillors). Judicial--Civil law system with Anglo-American influence. Subdivisions: 47 prefectures. Political parties: Liberal Democratic Party (LDP); Japan Socialist Party (JSP), Democratic Socialist Party (DSP), Komeito (Clean Government Party), Japan Communist Party (JCP). Suffrage: Universal at 20. Flag: Red sun on white field. Economy GNP (1992): $3.6 trillion. Real growth rate (1992): 1.5%. Per capita GNP (1992): $28,800. Natural resources: Negligible mineral resources, fish. Agriculture: Products--rice, vegetables, fruits, milk, meat, silk. Industry: Types--machinery and equipment, metals and metal products, textiles, autos, chemicals, electrical and electronic equipment. Trade (1992): Exports--$330 billion: motor vehicles, machinery and equipment, electrical and electronic products, metals and metal products. Major markets--U.S. 29%, Western Europe 21%, developing countries 43%. Imports--$210 billion: fossil fuels, machinery and equipment, raw materials and foodstuffs. Major suppliers--U.S. 23%, Western Europe 17%, developing countries 48%. Principal Government Officials Prime Minister--Kiichi Miyazawa Foreign Minister--Kabun Muto Other ministers: Finance--Yoshiro Hayashi Trade/Industry--Yoshiro Mori Justice--Masaharu Gotoda Health/Welfare--Yuya Niwa Transportation--Ihei Ochi Labor--Masakuni Murakami Construction--Kishiro Nakamura Ambassador to the United States--Takakazu Kuriyama Ambassador to the United Nations--Yoshio Hatano (###) ARTICLE 11: An Historic Moment for The Haitian People President Clinton Statement released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Washington, DC, July 4, 1993 The agreement reached in New York today to restore democracy and President Aristide to Haiti is an historic moment for the Haitian people, for the Hemisphere, and for the principle of democratic rule. It marks the beginning of a process of democratic reconciliation and economic reconstruction in Haiti. I am extremely pleased, and I have called President Aristide to express my congratulations. The United States will back the UN/OAS agreement to the fullest. We call on all Haitians to cooperate in the implementation of this agreement, which contains the essential elements for a peaceful transition to a stable and durable constitutional democracy. We will closely coordinate our own support with the UN, the OAS, and the Haitian parties. As part of our support for the plan, we are preparing to contribute $37.5 million to a Haiti Reconstruction and Reconciliation Fund. These funds will be used for economic support, technical assistance, and development programs. This accord is a major achievement for the UN and the OAS. I also extend my congratulations to the UN/OAS Special Envoy, Dante Caputo, and the U.S. Representative, Ambassador Lawrence Pezzullo, for their dedicated efforts toward achieving this important accord. (###) ARTICLE 12: U.S. Policy Toward Vietnam President Clinton Statement released by the White House, Office of Press Secretary, Washington, DC, July 2, 1993 It has always been my firm belief that America's highest priority in its approach toward Vietnam is to secure a full accounting on its prisoners of war and missing-in-action. Today, I am announcing two new steps toward that goal. The first involves access by Vietnam to the International Monetary Fund. The second is my decision to send a new, high-level delegation to Vietnam to press for further progress on unresolved POW/MIA issues. Together, these steps offer the best hope of providing America's POW/MIA families the answers and peace of mind they deserve. Over the past several months, I have given intense thought to how best to achieve the fullest possible accounting for our POW/MIAs and how to shape U.S. policy toward Vietnam to achieve that goal. I have met with veterans, with the families whose loved ones have not returned, and with Members of Congress who have a strong interest in this issue, including some who were held as prisoners of war. Last night, I met with a group of impressive, dedicated representatives of veterans organizations and families who care deeply about our government's efforts to achieve the fullest possible accounting of our missing. They share my own belief that our policy toward Vietnam must be driven not by commercial interests but by the overriding purpose of achieving further progress toward the fullest possible accounting of our POW/MIAs. Vietnam has long been a divisive issue for America; it remains so today. I know there is strong disagreement among all those with an interest in the POW/MIA issue on how best to further our mutual goal. Where there is no disagreement, however, is on the need to ensure that any decision taken is made in answer to the only relevant question: Will it help us discover the truth about our missing? One of the tragedies of this issue is that our own government has often denied unnecessarily information about this issue to the American public. That is why I have instructed all U.S. Government POW/MIA- related documents to be declassified by Veterans Day of this year, except for that tiny fraction that could still affect our national security or invade the privacy of the families. I have also been working to consolidate the POW/MIA agencies and resources to enhance the efficiency of these operations and access by the public. They have a right to know, and I intend to ensure they do. Since taking office, I have reviewed the progress made to date in resolving unanswered questions concerning the fate of American service personnel who did not return from Vietnam. I have insisted on the fullest possible accounting from the Vietnamese Government and pressed for further progress. As part of this effort, I dispatched Gen. John Vessey to Vietnam last April as my Special Emissary for POW/MIA Affairs to press for further progress. In addition, Members of Congress and representatives of veterans groups have traveled to Vietnam to press for that goal. In an effort to encourage further progress, it is appropriate at this time to recognize what the Vietnamese have done in our effort to account for our missing. Attached is a summary outlining that progress. Therefore, I have decided to end our opposition to the efforts of other nations to clear Vietnam's arrears in the IMF. I believe--as do former POWs John McCain and Douglas "Pete" Peterson and other veterans, such as John Kerry and others in Congress--that such action will best serve the goal of achieving further progress toward the fullest possible accounting. Any further steps in U.S.-Vietnamese relations will strictly depend on further progress by the Vietnamese on the POW/MIA issue. We should not be swayed from that course; America owes no less to the brave men and women who fought in Vietnam and to their loved ones. Progress to date is simply not sufficient to warrant any change in our trade embargo or any further steps toward normalization. In order to press for further progress and send a clear message to the Vietnamese Government, I will send to Hanoi a high-level delegation. The official delegation will include Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs Hershel Gober, Assistant Secretary of State Winston Lord, and Lt. Gen. Michael E. Ryan. I also have invited representatives of the three largest veterans group to accompany the delegation. The American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Disabled American Veterans have each agreed to send representatives with the delegation, and I am grateful for their willingness to participate in this important mission. In addition, I have invited the National League of Families of American Prisoners and Missing in Southeast Asia to send a representative. I have also asked our current Ambassador in Thailand David Floyd Lambertson, who has extensive experience in Vietnam, to assist the delegation. The delegation will make clear to the Vietnamese that any further steps in relations between our two nations depend on tangible progress on the outstanding POW/MIA cases. We insist upon efforts by the Vietnamese in four key areas: -- Remains--concrete results from efforts on their part to recover remains and repatriate American remains; -- Discrepancy cases--continued resolution of 92 discrepancy cases, live sightings, and field activities; -- Laos--further assistance in implementing trilateral investigation with the Lao; and -- Archives--accelerated efforts to provide all POW/MIA-related documents that will help lead to genuine answers. The individuals on this delegation share my own determination to do all we can to find the truth surrounding those who did not come home. They will press hard for results. The delegation will also raise with the Vietnamese continuing human rights concerns and press for progress in the areas of basic freedoms, democracy, and economic reform. For many Americans, the Vietnam war left deep wounds that have yet to heal. One of the ways to help the process of healing is to help the friends and families of POWs and MIAs learn the truth. The steps I have outlined today will advance that goal. Progress Toward the Fullest Possible Accounting Progress During the Clinton Administration Remains. 28 sets of remains repatriated, compared to the 32 sets recovered in all of 1992. Identification is ongoing; to date, one remain has been identified as American. Field Investigations. Two joint operations completed, with over 200 cases investigated; third operation began June 24. Detailed information developed on the fate of 89 individuals. Documents: 18,000 POW/MIA-related documents and artifacts examined in Vietnam. Overall POW/MIA Accounting Progress in Vietnam Remains. Since the end of the war, 542 sets of remains have been repatriated from Vietnam; to date, 278 have been identified as Americans; others are pending ID by the Army forensics lab. Last Known Alive Cases. For the past year, field investigations have focused on the 135 remaining "discrepancy cases"--individuals that could have survived the incident in which they were lost. We have confirmed the fate of 43 of those individuals and have begun with the Vietnamese Government a special program to intensively re-investigate the remaining 92 cases. Documents. Department of Defense (DOD) researchers have examined over 24,000 POW/MIA-related documents and artifacts--such as aircrew gear--in Vietnam's military museums and archives, providing important information on the fate of some of the missing. Information to Families. Since the Joint Task Force Full Accounting was established in January 1992, it has provided 870 families with more than 4,000 reports of meaningful information about the fate of their missing relative. Field Investigations. Every other month, a team of 60-80 DOD personnel spends 30 days in Vietnam, inter- viewing witnesses and excavating crash or burial sites across the country. 23 joint U.S.-SRV operations have been completed, with hundreds of cases investigated; the 24th operation began June 24. During the last 14 months, field investigations have led to detailed information on the fate of 250 missing individuals. Live Prisoners: Over 200 investigations of live sighting reports, including some in SRV prisons, produced no evidence an American POW is still held in Vietnam. As of June 19, no active live-sighting cases required further investigation in Vietnam. (###) ARTICLE 13: Moratorium Extended On U.S. Nuclear Testing President Clinton Excerpts from radio address, Washington, DC, July 2, 1993 Because of the vigilance, the democratic values, the military strength of the United States and our allies, we won the Cold War. Our inheritance, our victory is a new chance to rebuild our economies and solve our problems in each of our countries while we reduce military spending. But our profound responsibility remains to redefine what it means to preserve security in this post-Cold War era. We must be strong; we must be resolute; and we must be safe. This great task has certainly changed with the passage of the Cold War. The technologies of mass destruction in the hands of Russia and the United States are being reduced. But technologies of mass destruction that just a few years ago were possessed only by a handful of nations, and still are possessed only by a few, are becoming more widely available. It is now theoretically possible for many countries to build missiles, to have nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. This is a new and different challenge that requires new approaches and new thinking. During my campaign for President, I promised a wholehearted commitment to achieving a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. A test ban can strengthen our efforts worldwide to halt the spread of nuclear technology in weapons. Last year, the Congress directed that a test ban be negotiated by 1996. And it established an interim moratorium on nuclear testing while we reviewed our requirements for further tests. That moratorium on testing expires soon. Congress said that after the moratorium expires, but before a test ban was achieved, the United States could carry out up to 15 nuclear tests to ensure the safety and reliability of our weapons. After a thorough review, my Administration has determined that the nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal are safe and reliable. Additional nuclear tests could help us prepare for a test ban and provide for some additional improvements in safety and reliability. However, the price we would pay in conducting those tests now by undercutting our own non-proliferation goals and ensuring that other nations would resume testing outweighs these benefits. I have, therefore, decided to extend the current moratorium on U.S. nuclear testing at least through September of next year, as long as no other nation tests. And I call on the other nuclear powers to do the same. If these nations will join us in observing this moratorium, we will be in the strongest possible position to negotiate a comprehensive test ban and to discourage other nations from developing their own nuclear arsenals. If, however, this moratorium is broken by another nation, I will direct the Department of Energy to prepare to conduct additional tests while seeking approval to do so from Congress. I, therefore, expect the Department to maintain a capability to resume testing. To assure that our nuclear deterrent remains unquestioned under a test ban, we will explore other means of maintaining our confidence in the safety, the reliability, and the performance of our own weapons. We will also refocus much of the talent and resources of our nation's nuclear labs on new technologies to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and verify arms control treaties. Beyond these significant actions, I am also taking steps to revitalize the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, so that it can play an active role in meeting the arms control and nonproliferation challenges of this new era. I am committed to protecting our people, deterring aggression, and combatting terrorism. The work of combatting proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is difficult and unending, but it is an essential part of this task. It must be done. (###) ARTICLE 14: Addressing the Needs of Refugees: A High Priority in the Post-Cold War Era Warren Zimmermann, Director of the Bureau for Refugee Programs Statement before the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Washington, DC, June 30, 1993 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss our FY 1994 budget request, the Department's reorganization as it affects the Bureau for Refugee Programs, and refugee and migration situations worldwide. The changes in Europe since 1989 offered hope that a new world order was on the horizon for the international community of nations and the some 16 million refugees then around the world. For nearly 2 million refugees--1.3 million Afghans, 370,000 Cambodians, and tens of thousands of Ethiopians--the promise has become a reality. They have returned home to rebuild their lives and their countries. But for others, the post-Cold War period has unleashed new conflicts--political, ethnic, and religious--which have forced over 3 million new refugees from the republics of the former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union, Burma, and Somalia to seek safety outside their countries. There are another 2 million displaced persons inside Bosnia. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees now estimates the global refugee total to be 18 million. The refugee situation has now become perilous. The root causes of refugee flows--persecution, human rights abuses, and civil conflict--are increasing and the accompanying problems are ever more difficult and complex. The present crisis poses enormous financial and political challenges to the international community. We already see the well-documented needs of the humanitarian relief agencies outstripping the resources currently available from the donor community. FY 1994 BUDGET REQUEST For many years, Mr. Chairman, you and your committee have generously supported humanitarian programs for the world's refugees. The Administration asks for your continued support as we endeavor to resolve these difficult problems. Addressing the needs of refugees remains a high priority in the FY 1994 budget. The Administration is committed to maintaining the funding levels that Congress provided for these activities in FY 1993 and which will enable the United States to continue to play a major role in helping the world's refugees and victims of conflict. The Administration's FY 1994 budget request includes approximately $641 million for migration and refugee assistance (MRA) and $49 million to replenish the U.S. Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund. MRA includes $353 million to support international efforts to provide protection, care and maintenance, local resettlement, and repatriation assistance to refugees, displaced persons, and conflict victims abroad. It also includes $221 million to support the admission of approximately 120,000 refugees for resettlement in this country. DEPARTMENT REORGANIZATION As part of Secretary Christopher's proposals to streamline the Department, eliminate overlapping jurisdictions, and emphasize new cross-cutting priorities the Secretary has asked Congress to create a new bureau--the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM)-- headed by an Assistant Secretary. Subsumed in this new bureau will be the statutory functions of the Ambassador-at-Large and Coordinator for Refugees Affairs. The establishment of the PRM Bureau will consolidate all departmental responsibility for refugee matters and enhance policy focus on refugee and migration issues in a single bureau. The migration component of the PRM portfolio is especially challenging. International migration issues--the complex of political and economic concerns related to the movement of people across borders--have made their way to the top of the political agenda. One subset of the people with whom we are dealing are refugees. Many, however, are economic migrants who are often traveling outside of legal channels. This Administration is working both bilaterally and with key multilateral institutions to better manage uncontrolled migration. The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Community, the Council of Europe, the OECD, the International Organization for Migration, and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) are all involved in migration-related activities. The U.S. is engaged with the republics of the former Soviet Union and the states of Eastern and Central Europe to help them manage the movement of people in keeping with democratic norms. We are also committed to asylum reform--to ensure that misuse of humanitarian channels does not threaten public support for the protection of those truly in need. PRM will also be responsible for coordinating the Department's policy on population. As you know, the Secretary has asked Congress to create an Under Secretary for Global Affairs, with responsibility for managing and directing the full range of critical transnational issues that require global solutions. With the Department's reorganization, PRM will come under the jurisdiction of the new Under Secretary for Global Affairs. I believe this reorganization and reconfiguration will ensure that refugee issues are given high-level attention and--with other humanitarian concerns--are integrated into the core of our foreign policy. OVERVIEW OF THE WORLD'S REFUGEES The past few years have brought mixed results for refugees and for the governments, international organizations, and private groups working to help them. Some long-standing conflicts were resolved with the corresponding benefits for the affected refugees and displaced persons. The end of the Cold War has also rekindled old ethnic tensions and has led to new flows of asylum seekers in many areas of the world. Europe and the Former Soviet Union The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union has produced profound internal changes in many countries. It has resulted in hundreds of thousands of people leaving their homes in search of economic opportunity. Where ethnic rivalries and new nationalistic stirrings have led to threatening conditions and, often, violent conflict, tens of thousands more have fled in search of refuge. These events have led to the largest number of European refugees and displaced persons since World War II. The breakup of the former Yugoslavia and the ensuing war has generated nearly 4 million refugees. The Former Soviet Union. The dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991 resulted in the emergence of 15 new countries and the fragmentation of the common economic frame-work. Millions of people now live and work in states in which they are an ethnic minority. There continue to be significant population movements among the states of the former Soviet Union. Large numbers of Armenians and Azeris flee violence associated with the ongoing dispute over the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave. Concern over minority rights in Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Georgia has led to additional population flows. Political uncertainty, economic instability, and fear of ethnic discrimination in the non-Russian republics have prompted large numbers of ethnic Russians to return to Russia. There has already been a large migration of Russians from south Ossetia, (in Georgia) to north Ossetia (in Russia). Both the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the UNHCR are instituting programs with Russia and with East and Central European governments to increase these governments understanding of refugee issues and to strengthen their capacity to respond to emergency population flows. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) has established a technical advisory program in Russia to foster the development of migration and refugee institutions within the Russian Government. Additionally, private organizations, such as the Salvation Army and the American Red Cross, are working with refugees and the displaced in Russia, Armenia, and elsewhere in the former Soviet Union. The United States has opened a dialogue with Russia and several East European countries on refugee and migration matters. The U.S. has also encouraged states of the former Soviet Union, especially the three Baltic nations, to develop equitable citizenship laws which protect the rights of minority populations under pressure to migrate. A committee on migration has been established in Russia with responsibility for coordinating programs and policies for displaced persons, migrants, and refugees in Russia. Russia is in the process of replacing communist-era laws with a legal framework that protects minority rights, encourages non-governmental organizations, and promotes regional cooperation on the status of ethnic groups. Yugoslavia. The ongoing war in Bosnia and in parts of Croatia has generated nearly 4 million refugees and internally displaced. Most are Bosnian Muslims and Croats. A massive international relief effort led by UNHCR is bringing humanitarian relief to millions of refugees and displaced within the former Yugoslavia, with the focus on life- sustaining relief to persons in Bosnia. Other UN humanitarian agencies, including UNICEF, WHO, WFP, as well as the ICRC and large numbers of non-governmental organizations continue to bring food, medicine, and supplies to victims of the war despite the ongoing fighting and obstacles caused by the lack of security to deliver the relief commodities. Europe. The number of asylum seekers in Western Europe has increased dramatically in the past 5 years. In 1992, over 1.2 million applications for asylum were lodged in Western Europe. In most West European countries, asylum seekers are supported by a generous social welfare system; some estimate that Europe and North America now spend more than $5 billion a year on their asylum systems. The tremendous cost of supporting asylum seekers, many of whom do not have legitimate claims for protection, is leading to calls to revise existing asylum regulations. Many West European nations, such as Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and Belgium, are re-examining and restructuring their asylum and immigration policies to develop ways to protect those persons truly in need of safe- haven while tightening procedures to exclude economic migrants who are seen to be abusing asylum systems. Ironically, the liberalization of the formerly communist countries has contributed significantly to what many in the West view as the asylum crisis. Many of these countries, anxious to eliminate the closed borders of communism, have had difficulty in developing policies to handle the movements of people across borders in an orderly and controlled fashion. As a result, they are often used as transit points for travel to the West. In addition, there are still significant numbers of migrants originating from Eastern and Central Europe in search of economic opportunity. Most analysts believe uncontrolled East-West migration will lessen when the transition to market economies is more secure. Of greater long-term concern are the potential flows from developing countries in the "South," fueled by unchecked population growth. We are working to draw greater attention to this issue and to engage the development community on issues related to international migration. Southeast Asia During 1992, there was significant progress toward comprehensive solutions to the problems faced by Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian asylum seekers and refugees in the region. Refugee status determinations--screening--for Vietnamese under the Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) neared completion in all countries except Hong Kong. Boat arrivals from Vietnam declined to negligible levels. The Thai Government began implementing its plan to provide for the resettlement and repatriation of Lao asylum-seekers by closing one of the major Lao/Hmong camps in Thailand. Vietnam. The cumulative effect of measures taken under the Comprehensive Plan of Action became clear in 1992 when only 58 boat people from Vietnam arrived in first-asylum countries, compared to more than 22,000 in 1991. At the same time, more than 17,000 Vietnamese returned home under the voluntary repatriation program. To date, some 42,000 have returned to Vietnam. Those who return are monitored by UNHCR, resident embassies, non-governmental organizations, and U.S. Government officials visiting Vietnam. None report any evidence that those who return are subject to persecution. They are, rather, the beneficiaries of considerable reintegration assistance from UNHCR, the European Community and, most recently, the U.S. Government. During the first quarter of 1993, no boat people arrived in first-asylum countries. An important element of the success of the CPA is the Orderly Departure Program (ODP) from Vietnam, which provides for large-scale legal movements of immigrants and refugees to resettlement countries. In 1992, 100,000 left Vietnam under the ODP, including 80,000 to the U.S. alone. Through May of this year, some 23,500 have arrived in the U.S. Vietnam, itself, is a first-asylum country, providing UNHCR-supported refuge for almost 10,000 Cambodian refugees of ethnic Chinese origin who fled the depredations of the Khmer Rouge in the late 1970s. More recently, Vietnam has provided refuge to some 25,000 ethnic Vietnamese from Cambodia who were fleeing violence by the Khmer Rouge. Laos. There remain approximately 40,000 Lao asylum seekers in and outside camps in Thailand; all but about 4,000 are Highland Lao. The Thai Government has begun implementing a plan to close the two large first-asylum camps for Lao/Hmong and consolidate the first-asylum population in two remaining camps--one for those eligible for resettlement and one for those who wish to repatriate to Laos. One camp, Ban Vinai, was closed in December 1992, and the other, Chiang Kham, is scheduled to close in 1993. In 1992, 3,000 people returned to Laos from Thailand. Although only 46% of the Lao repatriated were Highlanders, it was encouraging to note that more than half of the Hmong returning held refugee status and could have exercised other options. They chose, however, to return to Laos. Repatriation is voluntary, and returnees are monitored by UNHCR and the U.S. Embassy. There is no evidence of any policy or practice on the part of the Lao Government to persecute any of those who have gone home. The Lao remaining in Thailand will have to choose soon between repatriation and resettlement. About 2,500 Lao/Hmong have been screened out and have no alternative but to return to Laos. Many others want to return but seek assurances regarding their future when they return home. In 1992, the U.S. provided $1.5 million to UNHCR to be spent through non-governmental organizations in Laos for assistance to those who return, and we are working on plans to provide an additional $1 million in reintegration assistance in 1993. Cambodia. During 1992, UNHCR fully activated its repatriation program for over 360,000 displaced Cambodians who had taken refuge on the Thai border since 1979. On March 31, 1993, UN High Commissioner for Refugees Ogata personally closed Site 2, the last and largest Khmer camp in Thailand, signifying the completion of the repatriation process and the return of nearly all Khmer in Thai camps to their homeland. In Cambodia, UNHCR, WFP, UNDP, and non-governmental organizations work together to provide resettlement, reintegration, and de-mining programs for returnees, with generous U.S. support. Bangladesh. In the first half of 1992, about 220,000 Rohingya refugees from Burma's Arakan state fled to Bangladesh to escape Burmese military repression. In February 1992, at the invitation of the Bangladesh Government, UNHCR began coordinating the assistance program in 20 camps in the Cox's Bazar area. Bangladesh signed a bilateral agreement with Burma in April 1992, providing for the voluntary repatriation of refugees to Burma. Beginning in September, the Bangladesh Government repatriated small numbers of refugees to Burma. UNHCR participated briefly but then withdrew in December convinced that the Bangladesh Government was using coercion to force Rohingyas to return. UNHCR resumed its participation in the repatriation process in January, and since then, reports of coercion in the camps by the Bangladesh Government have decreased dramatically. To date, some 25,000 Rohingyas have returned to Burma. In May, UNHCR and the Bangladesh Government finalized a memorandum of understanding which guarantees the voluntary repatriation of Rohingyas to Burma and ensures UNHCR's full access to all Rohingya camps Burma. Burma was Southeast Asia's largest generator of refugee outflows in 1992, with over 220,000 Burmese Muslims, known as Rohingyas, crossing from Arakan state into Bangladesh and some 20,000 ethnic Burmese crossing into Thailand to escape Burmese military repression. Although the Government of Burma signed an agreement with the Government of Bangladesh in April 1992, providing for the voluntary repatriation of Rohingya refugees, Burma has not agreed to UNHCR monitoring the resettlement and reintegration of returnees. There are, however, some promising signs. A UN special envoy recently visited Rangoon to press for a UNHCR-monitoring presence in Arakan state, and discussions continue. Also, the Burmese have invited Mrs. Ogata, the High Commissioner for Refugees, to Rangoon to discuss UNHCR repatriation monitoring in Burma. South Asia Afghanistan. Propelled by the fall of the Najibullah regime and the establishment of a muhajidin government in Afghanistan in April 1992, the largest voluntary repatriation in history began in Pakistan in May 1992, when the first of what would become over 1 million Afghan refugees began to return to Afghanistan. Repatriation became a virtual stampede to the border in mid-summer, when, in 1 week, over 100,000 Afghans took advantage of the UNHCR "encashment" package to assist them in repatriation. In August, however, heavy fighting for control of Kabul began a process of reverse movement back to Pakistan as well as internal displacement within Afghanistan. At least 500,000 residents of Kabul left the city for other parts of Afghanistan, and approximately 70,000 Afghans entered Pakistan as refugees. ICRC was forced to curtail its activities in Afghanistan as a result of the fighting, and other international and private voluntary organizations have been unable to establish themselves in Kabul. But other areas of the country are stable, and repatriation and reconstruction of the devastated country continues. Afghan repatriation from Iran began more slowly than in Pakistan, as the UNHCR and the Iranian Government did not institute a repatriation incentive package until December 1992. Over 22,000 Afghans returned from Iran in 1992. Over 75,000 Afghans have repatriated from Iran, so far, in 1993. UNHCR estimates that in 1993, 700,000 Afghans will repatriate from Iran, and 600,000 will repatriate from Pakistan. Sri Lanka. Elsewhere in South Asia, India and Sri Lanka agreed to begin the repatriation of the approximately 120,000 Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in refugee camps in South India to Sri Lanka. After lengthy discussion, India agreed to UNHCR's presence in South India to interview the prospective repatriates and to ensure the voluntariness of their return. By the end of 1992, approximately 27,000 Sri Lankans had repatriated. UNHCR augmented its presence to assist in their reintegration into Sri Lankan society. ICRC remained a significant presence in Sri Lanka, assisting in protecting food convoys as well as its mandated activities. Nepal. In Nepal, a growing number of ethnic Nepalese refugees from Bhutan received shelter in UNHCR-administered camps. By the end of 1992, approximately 72,000 refugees from Bhutan had left or had been forced to flee from increasingly stiff Bhutanese nationality laws. The Government of Bhutan recently announced its willingness to resume bilateral talks with the Government of Nepal to address the refugee situation. Tibet. Tibetans, who began their flight to India in 1959 with the Dalai Lama, continued to transit Nepal on their way to refuge in India. Approximately 130,000 Tibetans now reside in India. Several thousand more reside in Nepal. UNHCR assists those Tibetans in transit to India and has been effective in pressuring both the Chinese and Nepalese border guards from harassing the refugees. Central and South America Guatemala. The most notable refugee event in Central America was the October 1992 accord signed by Guatemalan President Serrano and representatives of the 46,000 Guatemalan refugees in Mexico--the Refugee Permanent Commissions. The accord provided for the voluntary, large- scale repatriation of the refugees from Mexico. Among the provisions of the accord were the government's guarantee of safety and security for the repatriates; the repatriates' right to be accompanied on the return by any group of their choosing and their right to move freely and choose their residence within Guatemala; government assistance with obtaining land; and a mediation system to continue to facilitate dialogue, prevent conflicts, and advise on any questions of implementation. Based on the accords, a first group of 2,480 Guatemalans left Mexico on January 20, 1993, to return to Guatemala. While this group has been resettled in the Guatemalan Department of Quiche, other refugees who wish to return to the Department of Huehuetenango still face obstacles in their attempt to purchase land on which to resettle. Despite problems in resolving land tenure issues, UNHCR remains optimistic about both large-scale and individual voluntary repatriations in 1993. We are encouraged by the election of President de Leon, who was previously active in efforts to promote repatriation. Central America. Elsewhere in Central America, the International Conference on Central American Refugees continued to work through UNHCR on localized, community-based "quick impact projects" in Nicaragua and Belize to assist in the reintegration of repatriates and the economic development of the communities to which they returned. UNHCR assisted 4,800 Salvadoran refugees and 2,270 Nicaraguans in returning home. While 30,000 Nicaraguans remain in Costa Rica and may return home in 1993, UNHCR has essentially terminated its repatriation programs for Nicaraguans. As a consequence of the 1992 peace accords, ICRC closed its mission in El Salvador in March 1993. Elsewhere in South America, internal conflict and terrorism in Peru and the additional factor of drug-related violence in Colombia, necessitated an increase in ICRC programs to assist civilian victims of conflict. Early in 1993, Government of Peru impediments to ICRC efforts to visit prisoners in Peruvian jails were removed. Africa As elsewhere in the world, 1992 began with the hopeful expectation that large numbers of refugees could repatriate in the course of the year. It was thought that with sufficient political will to bring several African conflicts to full resolution (e.g., Liberia and Rwanda) and with adequate aid for those returning to their homes (e.g., Eritrea, Angola, and northern Somalia), some 2 million African refugees could return to their home countries. These hopes were largely dashed. While repatriation to Burundi and Chad progressed during 1992, planned repatriations to Ethiopia, Eritrea, Liberia, and Rwanda were delayed by conflicts and absorptive difficulties. One of the greatest disappointments was the renewed warfare in Angola that derailed the repatriation effort planned for 400,000 Angolan refugees in Zaire and Zambia. Overall, the total number of African refugees climbed, once again, in 1992 to 5.4 million. The Horn. The Horn experienced the most precipitous growth in refugees in 1992, largely because of the collapse of order and widespread starvation in Somalia that led the international community to the military humanitarian intervention dubbed "Operation Restore Hope." In contrast, while the ongoing war in southern Sudan has ravaged the population, it has produced far fewer refugees than anticipated. At the beginning of the year, Kenya was hosting 120,244 refugees. At year's end, there were 425,000 refugees from Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, and an assortment of other countries--an average daily influx of 870. UNHCR responded to the regional refugee problem by activating its new emergency response mechanisms and by outlining what it called a "cross- border, cross-mandate preventive zone" concept. It was hoped that in particular catchment zones where refugees were mixed with displaced persons, drought victims, and returnees, UNHCR and its sister UN agencies would divide the workload along geographic lines, with one UN agency assisting all of the uprooted people in a given area (cross- mandate). Moreover, where people appeared likely to move across borders to obtain assistance and, thus, become refugees, UNHCR hoped to deliver supplies cross-border preemptively or to assure that assistance efforts were evened out so that people did not feel constrained to move in order to survive. Both cross-mandate and cross-border efforts depended for success on the involvement of a wide range of operational non- governmental organizations, including the Red Cross movement. Southern Africa. In Southern Africa, a dramatic region-wide drought had a negative impact on refugees. Refugees faced the same losses of crops and employment as others throughout the region. There were increased movements into refugee camps--new refugees coming from Mozambique; spontaneously settled refugees no longer able to cope on their own; even hungry nationals of the host countries. The World Food Program was no longer able to count on local purchases and on swaps of food in the region to keep the refugee food pipelines full. Program costs for assistance efforts--and, therefore, demands on donor resources--increased. In addition to concerns about food, there were even more fundamental concerns about availability of water, which is necessary for life. Refugees and refugee-assistance agencies faced increased competition with nationals for water, food, and the logistical capacity to move food; and it was feared that there could be hostility toward refugees for whom assistance networks were already in place, if nationals did not also get adequate relief. Fortunately, the international response to the Southern African drought emergency was virtually an unqualified success; starvation was averted through regional and international cooperation in the timely delivery of aid. One positive effect of the drought was to bring the Mozambican combatants to the peace table with a cease-fire agreement signed October 4 that set the scene for the voluntary repatriation of 1.6 million Mozambican refugees beginning in 1993--but likely to be a multi-year process. Unfortunately, the Angolan parties left the peace table. UNHCR's focus on repatriation shifted to the difficult task of providing emergency aid to the estimated 100,000 Angolans who had returned spontaneously and who were caught in the war that also added another 344,000 to the ranks of those already internally displaced (800,000 previously displaced). A UNHCR relief flight was hit with bullets and the flight crew beaten by UNITA forces in Mbanza Congo in April 1993. West Africa. In West Africa, the seemingly stalemated Liberian conflict took on new dimensions--and uprooted new people--with the arrival of a new combatant force, ULIMO (United Liberation Movement for Democracy in Liberia); the NPFL--Charles Taylor's National Patriotic Front of Liberia-- attack on Monrovia in mid-October; and the resulting counter- offensive by the West African peace-keeping force, ECOMOG (the Economic Community of West African States' Cease-fire Monitoring Group). CONCLUSION In conclusion, I would like to review some recent and ongoing accomplishments to help refugees in which the U.S. has played an active role: -- Development of policies to protect and assist refugee women and children and implementation of programs which incorporate those policies; -- Voluntary repatriation of large numbers of refugees in safety and dignity to Afghanistan, Cambodia, and Ethiopia; -- Initiation of a U.S. admissions program for Haitian asylum seekers; -- Establishment of a giant relief and support program for refugees and displaced persons from the former Yugoslavia and Somalia; -- Increased study of and funding for repatriation-related de-mining activities; -- Initiation of efforts to help formerly communist states develop balanced and humane migration policies; -- Close monitoring of international organizations to ensure effective management and use of scarce financial resources; and -- Start of a multilateral effort to coordinate the work of UN humanitarian relief agencies and to integrate their work with UN peace- keeping and political negotiation initiatives. I believe that future commitment by the United States to the cause of refugees, in the face of prolonged flows and restricted resources, must be based on five fundamental efforts now underway: -- The care, maintenance, and protection of refugees in place; -- Aggressive pursuit of the three "durable solutions"--voluntary repatriation, local integration, and third country resettlement; -- Tenacious diplomacy to encourage continued humanitarian treatment of refugees and asylum seekers; -- Discouragement of flows of economic migrants; and -- Attack on the root causes of refugees by the advancement of human rights, the just settlement of conflicts, and the alleviation of desperate poverty. Beyond these basic activities, I would add the following priorities to our refugee policy agenda: -- Development of integration programs in the country of origin for returning refugees; -- Better capacity to get food and other relief safely through battle lines to refugees isolated by violence; -- Improved protection measures; and -- Integration of refugee assistance and aid programs to impacted local populations, emphasizing self-sufficiency and income-generation, education, and economic development. (###) Bureau for Refugee Programs Budget Summary (FY 1994) $ thousands FY 1993 FY 1994 Difference Budget Request +/(-) Refugee Assistance East Asia 44,774 37,500 (7,274) Africa 109,877 130,000 20,123 Near East/North Africa 72,500 76,500 4,000 South Asia 29,683 42,000 12,317 Western Hemisphere 4,455 6,600 2,145 Europe 39,461 40,000 539 Other Activities 19,300 20,813 1,513 Subtotal 320,050 353,413 33,363 Refugees to Israel 80,000 55,000 (25,000) Refugee Admissions 209,138 220,775 11,637 Administrative Expenses 11,500 11,500 -- Program Total $620,688 $640,688 $20,000 Appropriation Total $620,688 $640,688 $20,000 ARTICLE 15: Statement at Confirmation Hearing Daniel K. Tarullo, Assistant Secretary-Designate For Economic and Business Affairs Statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC, June 28, 1993 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am honored to appear before you today as President Clinton's nominee to be Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs. It is a particular honor and a substantial challenge to be nominated for this position at this time in our nation's history. With the end of the Cold War, we must reassess traditional assumptions about our foreign relations and recognize that our economic interests have become inseparable from our security interests. As President Clinton has said, "We are woven inextricably into the fabric of a global economy." We must reappraise the role and limitations of international economic institutions to ensure that American economic interests are fairly treated throughout the world. We must remind ourselves that, in today's global economy, the strength of America and the well-being of Americans depend upon our international competitiveness. Consistent with the President's own emphasis upon the economy, Secretary Christopher and Under Secretary Spero have already established a new agenda for the Department of State. With his concept of the America desk, the Secretary has committed the Department to support the interests of Americans in specific ways, as well as pursuing the overall foreign policy interests of the country. One prominent form of support will be directed toward economic and commercial interests, including the ability of American business to compete internationally. Under Secretary Spero has undertaken the task of sensitizing the entire Department to the importance of business support. Clearly, the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs (EB) must play a key role in implementing the goals established by the Secretary and Under Secretary. If confirmed, I intend to emphasize three missions for the Bureau. First, the bureau should ensure that U.S. economic interests are effectively integrated into our overall foreign policy. This means that the bureau must work within the State Department to articulate and advocate U.S. economic interests as foreign policy is being formulated and specific decisions made. The job of the State Department is to pursue America's interests abroad. It should be the job of the Bureau to show that the economic interests of Americans are not secondary to, or even separate from, the foreign policy interests which the Department pursues. The Administration's proposal for a new framework to address many of our economic problems with Japan is an excellent example of a more integrated approach to foreign policy. The framework is based upon the principle that U.S.-Japan economic relations are of co-equal importance with U.S.-Japan security relations. Because our economic relations are troubled, the Administration is devoting substantial energies to rebalancing the economic relationship. The process of developing policy in new circumstances demands particularly close cooperation between the Executive and Congress. In this regard, I look forward, if confirmed, to frequent consultations with the members of this Committee and of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, both on issues of the moment and on longer-term planning for our international economic policies. Second, the bureau should assist U.S. commercial interests in quite tangible ways, in order to strengthen the American economy. The Department will create a new office within the bureau to develop an aggressive outreach program with business, to promote dialogue, and to solicit new ideas. The head of this office will have responsibility for coordinating business outreach and assistance throughout the Department. The Foreign Commercial Service of the Department of Commerce has the lead role in promoting U.S. exports abroad. But there is plenty to be done, abroad and at home, to support U.S. export efforts. For example, the full resources of our embassies must be systematically mobilized to further U.S. commercial interests. Third, the bureau must conduct tough and effective negotiations in those areas in which it has lead negotiating responsibility. Prominent among these areas are aviation and energy issues. If Congress approves the reincorporation of the Bureau of International Communications and Information Policy into EB, the bureau would also have responsibility for coordinating certain U.S. positions and negotiations in the telecommunications area. If confirmed, I anticipate personally devoting a good deal of attention to international aviation issues. Our industry is extremely competitive internationally, but the character of the global industry is changing rapidly, and heavy government involvement remains the norm in most of the world. We need both a coherent strategy for international aviation negotiations and a hardheaded approach to each bilateral negotiation. I look forward to the challenge of leading the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs in fulfilling these missions, and contributing to the formulation and execution of effective international economic policies for the United States. I believe that I will, if confirmed, bring to the job the broad perspective based on my experience as a junior official in the Justice and Commerce Departments, as an academic teaching in the international economic area, as a member of a Senate staff, and in private law practice for the last few years. Finally, let me say a few words about ethical standards for government officials. I am committed to the highest such standards, both in entering and leaving government. I have taken steps to recuse myself from matters in which a prior affiliation or representation would create a conflict or an appearance of conflict of interest. In this regard, I will consult with, and abide by, the judgments of ethics officials in the Department of State and the White House. As to restrictions on post-government activities, I personally endorse the standards which President Clinton has established for senior appointees. These are by far the strictest standards that have ever applied to U.S. Government officials. They remove, I believe, the opportunity for former appointees to trade on information or relationships established while in the public trust. Thank you. (###) ARTICLE 16: Cuba: U.S. Protests Killings Near Guantanamo Statement by Acting Department Spokesman Joseph Snyder, Washington, DC, July 7, 1993. On five separate occasions in late June, personnel at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo, Cuba, have observed Cuban border guards killing Cubans attempting to swim to the base, apparently to seek asylum. In the five cases, the border guards used hand grenades and rifle fire to attack the swimmers. The border guards were seen pulling three bodies from the water on June 26, and one on June 27. In response, we protested this barbaric practice to the Cuban Foreign Ministry on Monday, July 5. We informed the Cuban Government that we view these actions against individuals who pose no threat to others, to be extraordinarily cruel and unacceptable. We insisted that the Cubans end the practice. We have no response to date from the Cuban Government. (###) END OF DISPATCH VOL 4, NO. 28.
To the top of this page