VOLUME 4, NUMBER 28, JULY 12, 1993

1.  Building a New Pacific Community--President Clinton
2.  U.S.-Japan Economic Relations--President Clinton, Prime Minister 
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 


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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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.  (###)


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 

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.  (###)


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 

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.(###)


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 

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 

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. (###)


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.

	                                    ($ millions)                        
($ millions)

Private Sector Development        148                                  

Trade and Investment                  243                                  

Democracy Corps Initiative             48                                  

Support for Troop Withdrawal          6                                  

Energy and Environment                38                                   

Humanitarian                               925                                     

Security Assistance                      215                                       

Total Russia Support                 1,623                                 

Other NIS                                        0                                    

Total Vancouver and Tokyo
    Package Request                  1,623                                  

FY 1994 Regular Request                                                       

Additional FY 1994 Nunn-Lugar 

Total Supplemental FY 1993
    and FY 1994 Administration 
    Request for NIS support                                                 

*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.  


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 

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 

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 

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)


    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        


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 

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 

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 

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 

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.  (###)


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 

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 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 

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 

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 

--  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 

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.  (###)


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 

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 

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 

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.  (###)


Country Profile:  Japan
Official Name:  Japan

Area:  377,765 sq. km. (145,856 sq. mi.); slightly smaller than 
Cities:  Capital--Tokyo.  Other major cities--Yokohama, Osaka, Nagoya, 
Sapporo, Kobe, Kyoto.  
Terrain:  Varied, predominantly mountainous to rugged.  
Climate:  Varies from subtropical to temperate.

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 
Work force  (63 million):  Services--43%.  Trade, manufacturing, mining, 
and construction--32%.  Agriculture--8%.  Government--7%.  

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. 

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  (###)


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. (###)


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 

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 

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 

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 

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.  (###)


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.  (###)


Addressing the Needs of Refugees:  A High Priority in the Post-Cold War 
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. 

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.

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.

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 

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 

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 

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. 

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-

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 

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).


In conclusion, I would like to review some recent and ongoing 
accomplishments to help refugees in which the U.S. has played an active 

--  Development of policies to protect and assist refugee women and 
children and implementation of programs which incorporate those 

--  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 

--  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           
                                             Budget          Request           

Refugee Assistance

East Asia                              44,774         37,500             
Africa                                 109,877       130,000            
Near East/North 
    Africa                               72,500         76,500              
South Asia                            29,683         42,000             
Western Hemisphere              4,455           6,600               
Europe                                  39,461         40,000                  
Other Activities                    19,300         20,813               

Subtotal                              320,050       353,413             

Refugees to Israel                 80,000         55,000            

    Admissions                     209,138       220,775              

    Expenses                           11,500         11,500                  

Program Total                   $620,688     $640,688             

    Total                             $620,688     $640,688             


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 

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.  (###)


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.  (###)


To the top of this page

Index of Dispatch Magazine Archives 1993 Issues|| Index of Dispatch Magazine Archives|| Index of "Briefings and Statements"
Index of Electronic Research Collections ERC Reference Desk || Alphabetic Index || Sitemap || ERC Homepage
Last modified: Jun. 3, 1999
Designed by: Lin Dou