US DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 4, NUMBER 36, SEPTEMBER 6, 1993
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:
1  U.S. Interests in the Caribbean:  Building a Hemispheric
        Community of Democracies--President Clinton 
2  NAFTA and the U.S. National Interest--Alexander F. Watson  
3  Vision for a New Pacific Community--Winston Lord    
4  Protection of War Victims--Warren Zimmermann  
5  Department Statements  
        Reflecting Diversity of American People  
        Repression in Marshes of Southern Iraq
        Equatorial Guinea
6.  What's In Print:  Foreign Relations of the United States


ARTICLE 1:

U.S. Interests in the Caribbean:  Building a Hemispheric Community of 
Democracies
President Clinton
Opening statement at news conference with Caribbean leaders, Washington, 
DC, August 30, 1993

Today I have the great honor of welcoming five outstanding leaders from 
the English-speaking Caribbean to the White House:  President Cheddi 
Jagan of Guyana, Prime Minister Erskine Sandiford of Barbados, Prime 
Minister Patrick Manning of Trinidad and Tobago, Prime Minister P.J. 
Patterson of Jamaica, and Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham of The Bahamas.  
I'm impressed by the intelligence, the dynamism, and the dedication of 
the Caribbean leadership.

The end of the Cold War has altered the nature but not the depth of our 
interest in the Caribbean.  Our concern for the region is firmly rooted 
in geographic proximity; the resultant flows of people, of commodities, 
and of culture; and our shared interest in fighting drug trafficking, 
protecting our economic interests, and protecting fragile ecosystems.  
As with U.S.-Mexico relations, U.S.-Caribbean relations dramatically 
demonstrate the absolute inseparability of foreign and domestic issues.  
More than ever before, our nation is a Caribbean nation.

In our discussions, we recognize the concerns that NAFTA may adversely 
affect the Caribbean and Central American nations by diverting trade and 
investment flows to Mexico.  Therefore, I want to announce today that I 
have asked Ambassador Mickey Kantor to study the impact of NAFTA on 
these small economies and to consult with them on new measures to 
increase regional trade.  American workers have a direct interest in the 
prosperity of the English-speaking Caribbean.  The $2 billion in U.S. 
exports to those countries creates at least 40,000 American jobs.

Our warm and productive luncheon meeting covered many other areas as 
well.  These nations are all vibrant democracies striving to adapt their 
economies to new global realities while maintaining full respect for 
individual freedoms and human rights.  In the Organization of American 
States and in the United Nations, they consistently take strong stands 
in favor of the collective defense of democracy.

They have all been firm supporters of multilateral efforts to restore 
President Aristide in Haiti, and we discussed cooperative security and 
economic measures to assist Haitian democracy.  I thanked them for their 
support of the restoration of President Aristide, and, of course, we all 
enjoyed a recounting of President Aristide's swearing-in of his new 
prime minister today.

The Caribbean community will be an important building block of a 
hemispheric community of democracies linked by growing economic ties and 
common political beliefs.  That will happen, I believe, in no small 
measure because of the leadership of the five people who are here with 
us today.  (###)



ARTICLE 2:

NAFTA and the U.S. National Interest
Alexander F. Watson, Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs
Address to the Greater North Michigan Avenue Association 
and the Executives' Club of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, September 2, 
1993
 
I appreciate this chance to talk about the issues we face in our foreign 
policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean.  This hemisphere is not 
in crisis.  As a result, we do not focus enough attention on the region 
and on the opportunities it presents us.

Of course, I am prepared to discuss with you any issue in the 
hemisphere.  But in my formal remarks, I would like to focus on one 
issue which is central to everything we are trying to accomplish with 
Canada, Mexico, and all our neighbors to the south.  That issue is the 
decision we face this fall on approving the North American Free Trade 
Agreement.

This issue is so important to President Clinton that he reached for a 
great son of Chicago, Bill Daley, to lead his campaign for congressional 
approval.  With the President's strong commitment, and with the talents 
of Bill Daley, we are confident that the American people and the 
Congress will see why this agreement is in our fundamental national 
interest.

The debate will begin very soon.  As the President puts it, it will be a 
"battle of ideas"--an honest, open contest between opposing views of 
what is best for our country.  The essence of the debate is as old as 
the Republic itself:  whether we do better to engage with the world or 
to insulate ourselves from it.  

There is no doubt where this President stands on that question.  In each 
part of our foreign policy--promoting democracy, protecting our 
security, and improving our economy--we see engagement and American 
leadership as the way to get things done.

Our nation faces some very difficult economic tasks.  There is nothing 
simple about getting economic growth going again.  There is nothing 
simple about the challenges we face as one competitor in the new global 
economy.  At the same time, we have considerable advantages.  We are the 
world's largest exporter.  American workers are the most productive in 
the world.  Our high technology is the envy of the world.  Our free 
market system has spawned competitive, dynamic, and resilient businesses 
and high wages.

The beginning of any good strategy is to recognize one's strengths and 
to play to them.  That is why President Clinton's economic policy has 
such a strong international dimension.  It is why we place such emphasis 
on creating new export opportunities.  Exports are creating about one of 
every three new jobs in today's economy, and those jobs pay higher than 
average wages.  These points underpin the Clinton Administration's 
attitude toward the international economy.

We do not fear the international marketplace; we embrace it.  We do not 
see other nations as threats; we see them as markets where our exporters 
can excel.  And above all, we see the men and women of the American work 
force as winners in the global economy, not victims of it.

For those of us whose job is to deal with foreign governments, our 
marching orders from the President are clear:  seek to open markets so 
that world trade can grow, creating more exports and more good jobs for 
the United States.

That is what NAFTA is all about--creating the world's largest market, 
370 million people, so that we and our closest neighbors can grow and 
prosper together.  We Americans should appreciate those benefits more 
than anyone else.  We have long enjoyed an advantage over our 
competitors in that we have such a huge domestic market, well linked by 
communications and transportation networks, in which our goods can be 
sold.  A larger market is an added advantage for our businesses and 
workers.

I must confess that, at times, it is hard to understand the vehemence of 
the opposition to NAFTA.  After all, free trade agreements are 
essentially tax cuts, and tax cuts are supposed to be popular.  And 
foreign countries' tariffs against our exports do more than cost us 
money--they cost us jobs.

What's more, the NAFTA is not a "pig in a poke."  The historical record 
shows that when Mexico and Canada lower their tariffs, our exports grow.  
The U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement led to an increase in U.S. exports 
of 26% over 4 years, from $72 billion in 1988 to $91 billion last year.

Mexico's economic opening has produced similar results.  President 
Salinas has stabilized Mexico's economy, renewed growth, privatized 
industries, welcomed foreign investment, and--note this--cut Mexican 
tariffs unilaterally by 90% since 1986.  That is why our exports surged 
228%, from $12 billion, then to over $40 billion last year.

Those new exports created over 400,000 jobs in the United States.  With 
NAFTA, we expect 200,000 more new jobs to be created here by 1995.

Even with that dramatic--and overwhelmingly positive--record, some still 
fear that NAFTA will send American jobs to Mexico because wages and 
environmental standards are low.  The answer to those fears is not to 
maintain the status quo, or retreat, but to make it better.  That is 
what NAFTA is all about.

Today, American firms can go to Mexico, Thailand, Malaysia, or 
Bangladesh, if all they seek is cheaper labor.  Most firms do not, 
because labor cost is not usually the greatest incentive behind 
investment decisions.

NAFTA changes economic incentives by making it more attractive for 
American companies to stay here and export to Mexico rather than set up 
shop on the other side of the border.  Today, in addition to tariffs, 
Mexico has local content requirements, which tell American manufacturers 
that if you want to sell in Mexico, you have to produce in Mexico.  
NAFTA ends that.  Under NAFTA, our manufacturers can produce here and 
sell there.

Then there is another fear about loss of American jobs--the fear that  
we will be flooded with imports from Mexico.  That needs to be put in 
perspective.

First, our tariffs on Mexican products are low--only about 4% on 
average, versus Mexico's 10% average tariff on our goods.  

Second, Mexico's entire economy is only 1/20, or 5%, the size of ours.  
There is no way that phasing out our low tariffs--some over a period of 
15 years--is going to have an apocalyptic effect on the U.S. economy.

Moreover, if there is a real surge in trade in any particular sector, 
NAFTA allows the temporary restoration of tariffs--this is called the 
"snap-back" provision--to permit a more gradual economic adjustment in 
the affected country.

Finally, there is no greener trade agreement than NAFTA plus its 
supplemental agreement on environmental cooperation.  NAFTA establishes 
a floor for environmental standards and the supplemental agreement 
provides means to make sure those standards are enforced.  That is not 
very inviting for anyone who thinks that moving to Mexico is a license 
to pollute.

The more one looks at the fears expressed by NAFTA's opponents, the more 
one realizes that NAFTA is part of the solution.  Let me state it 
plainly: Americans have nothing to fear from entering a partnership with 
Mexico and Canada to compete in the global economy.  In fact, we have 
already entered that competition; we are winning, and NAFTA will help us 
win even more.

Now, I would like to step away from economics for a moment.  As an 
American diplomat, I want to discuss the way NAFTA will affect our 
ability to get practical things done with Mexico.  In that regard, its 
impact is enormous.

For Mexico, NAFTA is about far more than tariffs and trade.  It is an 
effort to extend the hand of friendship to the United States.  It is the 
symbol of the end of antagonism in our relationship and the capstone of 
a new structure of cooperation.  It is a real turning point in the 
history of relations between the two countries.

Does any of that matter to anyone besides diplomats and historians?  You 
bet it does.  Just look at the issues we are tackling every day.

--  We deal with immigration, law enforcement, and security along the 
longest border in the world linking a developing and a developed 
country.

--  Our police and intelligence agencies cooperate daily on both sides 
of the border to fight the drug war.  We have a strong partner in 
President Salinas, who has tripled Mexico's counter-narcotics budget and 
has shown the resolve to attack both corrupt officials and drug barons 
themselves.

--  And then there is the environment.  We are working to clean up the 
border through a $1 billion environmental plan.  We are working together 
on water treatment projects from California to Texas.  We are 
cooperating to fight air pollution.  The supplemental environmental 
cooperation agreement will oversee enforcement of environmental laws, 
bring environmental concerns into the making of trade policy, and give 
us a framework for a comprehensive North American approach to the 
environment.  This is really a revolutionary step.  No trade agreement 
in history has contained such provision.

But let us step back for a moment.  If you want to know if a country has 
a sound environmental policy, two fundamental questions matter--does it 
have real political commitment; and does it have the resources to do the 
job?

President Salinas has shown that Mexico's commitment is solid.  In the 
past 3 years, he has quadrupled the number of officials enforcing 
environmental laws along the border.  In 1991, to cut air pollution in 
Mexico City, he ordered the closing of an oil refinery which accounted 
for 7% of Mexico's refining capacity.

We are encouraged that some in the environmental community have 
recognized that NAFTA--rather than an obstacle--is the key to further 
progress in Mexico and along our border.  We in the Administration 
believe that an enlightened environmental policy begins with the realiza 
tion that this is a global problem which demands international 
solutions.  We also believe that we cannot pursue economic goals without 
taking environmental issues seriously into account.

By the same token, a sound environmental policy cannot ignore economic 
fundamentals.  Each government, regardless of the level of its nation's 
economic development, needs to be concerned about the environment.  But 
a fundamental fact in the developing world is that poor countries do not 
have the resources to undertake large- scale environmental cleanup.  As 
they develop, they acquire those resources, and they can put their 
commitments more effectively into practice.

Mexico is making great strides in economic development and is already 
using newly generated resources for environmental cleanup and 
protection.  As Mexico develops, new environmentally sound industries 
replace older production processes which generated large amounts of 
pollution.  That is why, if you support environmental protection in 
Mexico, it makes sense to support NAFTA and a stronger Mexican economy.  
These are the kinds of facts we will present in the NAFTA debate.

We will also have some questions for our opponents.  They say our 
negotiators should drive a tough bargain.  NAFTA will cut and equalize 
tariffs which are now 21/2 times higher against our exports than against 
Mexico's.  If that is not a good bargain, what is?  They say we need to 
work with cooperative countries willing to open their markets to our 
goods.  Mexico unconditionally cut its tariffs 90% before we entered 
talks on NAFTA.  If that is not a cooperative country, what is?  They 
say we should concentrate our efforts on good market opportunities.  Our 
trade deficit with Mexico is now a surplus, and our exports have more 
than tripled since 1986.  How many places offer better opportunities?  
They say they want fair trade.  We will ask them to define what is 
unfair about this agreement.  We will ask their alternative to create 
the next 200,000 jobs and to improve environmental protection.  We are 
confident we will have a good, honest debate, and we are confident that 
in the end, the President will prevail and NAFTA will be approved.

We believe this not only because the merits are on our side.  This is a 
question of our leadership, and Americans seldom shrink from a test of 
leadership.

The NAFTA debate will determine whether we, as a nation, have the long-
range vision to position ourselves to compete in the global economy, and 
whether we will keep alive one of the most dramatic sources of job 
creation in our economy today.

Internationally, it will test our economic leadership.  It will tell the 
world whether we mean business when we call for more open global 
markets.  A rejection of NAFTA would embolden protectionists abroad and 
damage our credibility in capitals around the world.  It would 
discourage bold economic reformers throughout Latin America who, 
overcoming decades of protectionist tradition, are opening their 
economies--including to U.S. exports.  At minimum, rejection of NAFTA 
would jeopardize the opportunity for a successful Uruguay Round.  At a 
time when we are looking for ways to revive job creation in our economy, 
that is a risk we are determined to avert.

Ever since the Smoot-Hawley tariff, Americans have resisted sending that 
kind of protectionist signal.  We are confident that Congress and the 
American people will examine the NAFTA issue and conclude that our faith 
in the American worker, and our optimism about the economic 
possibilities before us, are well placed.

Secretary of State Warren Christopher calls NAFTA "the opportunity of a 
generation."  It is--and America must seize it.  (###)



ARTICLE 3:

Vision for a New Pacific Community
Winston Lord, Assistant Secretary  for East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Opening statement at news briefing, Washington, DC, 
August 31, 1993

You have various handouts for  your background information.  I'm going 
to make some brief, informal opening remarks to try to give you a 
conceptual framework of this Administration's policy toward East Asia 
and the Pacific; and, indeed, when we get to your concrete questions, 
there will be a framework for you to consider them in.

In chronological order, the hand-outs include my own confirmation 
statement, where I began to sketch possible contours of our attitude 
toward Asia; then, of course, the authoritative blueprints of the 
President's two speeches on his July trip to Japan and Korea; and then 
Secretary Christopher's on-the-record remarks in late July in Singapore 
at the ASEAN Post-Ministerial Conference (PMC).  So these will give you 
some of the basic elements of our policy as they have been set forth in 
an authoritative fashion.

Reasons To Emphasize the Asia-Pacific Region
From the outset, the President and Secretary Christopher have seen the 
Asia-Pacific region as the most promising and dynamic area for American 
foreign policy.  Other regions, of course, are very important but 
inevitably involve much attention to inherited or residual or historical 
problems--whether it is Central Europe or the Middle East--which tend to 
dominate the headlines.  I think there are three reasons for this 
emphasis that you are going to be seeing on the Asia-Pacific region.

First, in that area, you can look toward the future, and this is the 
President's vision of a New Pacific Community.  There are problems of 
security; but, essentially, again compared to other regions, it is a 
fairly stable area.  It's got the most dynamic and fastest-growing 
economies.  There are certainly many repressive states still out there.  
But democracy, in many areas, is on the move, not only in recent years--
like South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines and in Thailand--but even 
now, whether you range from Mongolia to Cambodia.  Some of this is 
fragile, but the trend is promising.  There are some promising regional 
structures both on the economic and security side, and then there is the 
emerging integration of this vast region through trade, investment, and 
technology.

A second reason for emphasis is that the Asia-Pacific region is the most 
relevant to the President's highest priority--namely, his domestic 
agenda: the renewal of the American economy, getting the deficit down, 
getting more competitive, and promoting jobs and exports.  This region 
is the most lucrative terrain for American jobs and exports because of 
its rapid growth.  I think you are familiar with the figures.  It 
contains almost one-half the world's GNP, $120 billion of U.S. exports, 
2.3 million jobs, three times our trade with Latin America, and almost 
50% more trade than we have with Western Europe.

And finally, another reason and opportunity for emphasis in our policy 
toward this region is that there are several key events on the calendar 
this year--the first year of the Administration--which are enabling the 
President and the Secretary to lay out a vision for this area and to 
begin to implement it.  

--  For example, there was a 1-in-7 chance that the G-7 would be held in 
Tokyo; and, therefore, the President got out to Asia within the first 6 
months of his Administration--early July--in this case, Northeast Asia.

--  In late July, Secretary Christopher went to Singapore, Southeast 
Asia, for the ASEAN Post-Ministerial Conference.

--  This November, there was a 1-in-15 chance that we would be hosts to 
the APEC annual meeting--and we will, in Seattle--which, of course, 
includes the entire region.

--  If you throw in the UN General Assembly and Washington, DC, and 
Seattle bilateral meetings--beginning with a very important visit of 
Prime Minister Keating of Australia in a couple of weeks--there are lots 
of opportunities, as I say, to begin to lay out this Pacific Community.

Thus, in the first 6 months, not only has the President been out to the 
Asia-Pacific, Secretary Christopher has been there three times, the 
three top Defense officials have been there, Deputy Secretary Wharton, 
four Under Secretaries of State, I've been there four times, etc.

Basic Blueprint for a New Pacific Community
Now the basic blueprint for this New Pacific Community--which is just 
beginning to emerge--was laid out, as I said, in the two speeches you 
have:  Japan, with its emphasis on economics; Korea, with its emphasis 
on security; and both, with the common thread of democracy important to 
both security and economics.

Now, in the next 31/2--or perhaps 71/2--years, we plan to flesh out this 
Pacific Community.  I want to emphasize from the beginning, this is not 
an American blueprint.  We will develop this in concert with our Asia-
Pacific partners.  We will show leadership, of course, but we also will 
be attentive in our style.  We believe the President was that way on his 
trip.  Secretary Christopher was certainly that way as well in Southeast 
Asia.  So we want to consult with others as we shape this vision, and so 
we are going to strike a balance between--as I say--leadership and 
listening to our friends.  And we are hard at work within the State 
Department and with other agencies in implementing this vision and 
talking to other countries.

Economics.  On the economic side, the speech--again, I won't go over it 
in detail, because you have the text, and many of you have covered this 
already.  But it rests--as so much of our Asian policy does--on the 
U.S.-Japan relationship, the most important bilateral relationship, 
certainly, in the region if not in the world; on open markets, which is 
the reason for the dynamic growth of the region; plus on democracy in 
open societies.  We are addressing the economic challenges in Asia on 
three levels.

--  The global approach is still our highest priority;  namely, the 
Uruguay Round and the GATT.  We are not interested in regional trade 
blocs; we want to head them off.  And the market access agreement in 
Tokyo was a significant step forward.

--  On the regional level, APEC--which I have mentioned--we see as the 
cornerstone of a possible regional cooperation on economics.  I might 
add that in October there will be the first Joint Commercial Commission 
meeting of all the leaders of the Pacific states.

--  On the bilateral level, you have the U.S.-Japan framework talks, 
with a major agreement with former Prime Minister Miyazawa in July.  
Just next week, a U.S.-Korean dialogue for economic cooperation will be 
launched.  This, again, was agreed upon by Presidents Kim and Clinton in 
Korea.  On China, we set forth our basic policy with respect to 
economics and other issues, on MFN, and many other important bilateral 
economic dimensions.

We will work very closely with the private sector in developing this 
area of our relationships.  For example, we have advisory councils on 
ASEAN and APEC.

Security.  On the security side, outlined by the President in Korea, we 
are making it very clear--the President has made it clear, Secretary 
Christopher has made it clear, and the rest of us, as well--that we are 
going to stay on in Asia in our own self-interest, not just as a favor 
to others.  But, clearly, we are wanted by others to stay there as a 
stabilizing force.  So the bedrock and the continuity elements of our 
security relationships in Asia will be our alliances, as well as a 
forward military presence.  If you notice, as the defense budget has 
been cut, the cuts are coming out of Europe and out of our own domestic 
bases.  We are maintaining our force levels in Asia.  In addition, after 
the closure of the Philippine bases, all the ASEAN countries have been 
cooperative in new defense arrangements--not treaty alliances but giving 
us access, joint training, ship repair facilities, etc.

Those are elements of continuity and some movement forward, but on top 
of that is a new emphasis in this Administration on regional security 
dialogues.  These will supplement, they will not supplant, our alliances 
and forward military presence.  It is on top of those foundations that 
we pursue these dialogues.

The ASEAN PMC is already a going and promising framework, where I 
attended a senior-level meeting and the Secretary the Ministers' 
meeting.  A potential turning point was achieved in late July when these 
dialogue partners--seven countries plus the six ASEAN countries--agreed 
to begin integrating China, Russia, and Vietnam, as well as Laos and 
Papua New Guinea, who were observers to ASEAN, into this regional 
dialogue, a potentially significant step.  This will not necessarily be 
the only framework for security in Asia.  All of this is dialogue and 
incremental progress, perhaps moving toward structures.  But, for 
example, we may need dialogue and structures in Northeast Asia, and we 
want to pursue academic as well as governmental tracks.

The point here is that, unlike the Cold War and unlike Europe, we are 
not talking about blocs against each other or some common enemy.  We are 
talking about potential antagonists, potential enemies, talking to each 
other to convey intentions, to be more transparent--whether it is arms 
buildups or territorial claims--to ease tensions, to erase 
misperceptions, and, perhaps, to start building confidence.  That's the 
point of these regional dialogues, and that's a different kind of 
regional security concept.  We are talking, really, about preventive 
diplomacy.

The other element of security that the President outlined is non-
proliferation.  This, of course, is a global issue.  The President 
recently made a dramatic initiative with respect to a test moratorium 
and going for a comprehensive test ban, and we are looking for 
indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  We are attacking, 
of course, weapons of mass destruction, in particular, and at every 
level we can see both challenges and problems in negotiations:

--  Of course, the nuclear issue with North Korea, when we talk about 
nuclear weapons.  When you are talking about missiles, that involves 
North Korea as well;

--  China--the recent imposition of sanctions on M-11;

--  The deal between Russia and India that we talked about; and

--  Chemical weapons have to do with transshipment and increasingly 
sophisticated technologies, including in Southeast Asia, which makes 
this a new non-proliferation problem in the region.

There was a great deal of talk about non-proliferation at the ASEAN 
Post-Ministerial Conference.

Democracy.  Finally, democracy is key to both the economic and security 
realms.  On the economic side, in an age of information and technology, 
we believe you can't have open economics and closed politics.  You need 
to have access to information to develop and modernize.  We are talking 
about modernization now, not Westernization.

For example, how do you attract investment without the rule of law?  How 
do you attack corruption without a free press?  How do you make progress 
in complex economic issues unless there is free debate in a society?  
So, maybe for a while, you can get along with authoritarian political 
systems and open markets and open trade systems, but it won't last for 
very long, in our view.  So we think open societies make for greater 
development in modernization.

Equally, on the security side, the fact is that open societies make for 
a more stable and secure region and a more stable and secure world.  
Democracies do not attack each other.  They make better neighbors.  They 
don't practice terrorism.  They don't produce refugees.  They don't 
traffic in drugs.

So this is not a matter of values being replicated and projected by us; 
it's a matter of our own concrete, national self-interest.  And it's 
relevant, as I said, to both economics and security.  We would like to 
see the promotion of human rights and democracy be more multilateral, 
not just a U.S.  initiative.  And the role of private organizations--
whether it is the National Endowment for Democracy or other non-
governmental organizations--is very important, as will be Asia Democracy 
Radio.

Global Issues.  A final dimension that will be increasingly important, 
we believe, over the coming years will be some of these global issues.  
After all, this region contains almost one-half the world's people, with 
a great impact on resources and the environment--whether it is coal 
burning or forests or endangered species.  It is already on the agenda 
with the Japanese.  Under Secretary Wirth will be launching discussions 
soon with them on that.  We'd like to begin environmental talks at some 
point with China, which will play a very important role.  Whether it is 
refugees and smuggling of aliens or narcotics in Southeast Asia or the 
global scourge of AIDS--all of these have an impact on our society.  All 
of them could benefit from regional cooperation.

Conclusion
In conclusion and in short, we are seeking to build with others--again, 
we do not have all the answers; we are going to shape this with the 
cooperation of our friends--we are seeking to build a Pacific Community.  
This will take many years if not decades.  And it is one of prosperity 
based on free markets, of regional security based on preventive 
diplomacy and the control of dangerous weapons, and of free and humane 
societies addressing global issues.

And I would add, as a footnote in concluding, that the single most 
important event coming up, certainly in the economic area, will be in 
November in Seattle, where we will have the annual APEC Ministerial 
Conference.  And we have been consulting with other countries to have 
that followed by a leadership conference--leaders from the 15 members of 
APEC in an informal session looking at economics and looking at the 
future of the region.

This could be a historic event, and we are very encouraged by the 
reaction we have received from our APEC partners.  We see this as a U.S.  
initiative in this case, because we're the host this year.  But I want 
to stress that in APEC, as in other areas of our Asia-Pacific policy, 
this is a collective, consensual effort with the other countries of the 
region.  (###)



ARTICLE 4:

Protection of War Victims
Warren Zimmermann, Director for Refugee Programs
Address by the U.S. representative to the International Conference for 
the Protection of War Victims, Geneva, Switzerland, August 30, 1993

Mr. President and distinguished colleagues, it is a credit to the 
Government and people of Switzerland that they have convened this 
International Conference for the Protection of War Victims.  We come 
together in Geneva, birthplace of international humanitarian law, to 
express our outrage at the widespread violations of that law throughout 
the world.

Let me begin by paying tribute to the International Committee of the Red 
Cross (ICRC)--an organization marked by dedication, a strong 
humanitarian spirit, professionalism, and a rare courage.  As a major 
contributor to the ICRC's medical and relief activities, protection and 
training, and dissemination of international humanitarian law, the U.S. 
Government will continue to provide strong support for the ICRC's work 
and the work of the Red Cross movement as a whole.

Each day brings vivid and horrifying accounts of new atrocities in many 
parts of the world:  summary executions, torture, rape, the use of 
starvation as a weapon of war, and the indiscriminate use of military 
force against civilians.  The United States unambiguously and 
wholeheartedly condemns such abuses--wherever they are committed, 
whoever commits them.

It is vital that we in the international community reconfirm our 
commitment to international humanitarian law.  That law is, for many, 
the only shield from harm, the only hope for recovery from injury, the 
only recourse for the punishment of violators.  War itself is 
horrifying, but this week we meet to emphasize to all people everywhere 
that even in war there are limits beyond which no one may go.

In many conflicts, we see savage treatment of civilians, prisoners of 
war, and the wounded; the destruction of civic and cultural property 
without any reasonable military justification; and unnecessary assaults 
on the environment.  We have seen particularly brutal crimes against 
women and the tragedy of children doomed to death by deliberate policies 
of violence or starvation.  Our governments meet this week here in 
Geneva to say:  Enough!  No more!  This barbarism must stop.

International humanitarian law has developed through both custom and 
conventions.  The various Geneva Conventions constitute a legal bulwark 
against the forces of chaos.  They embody principles of humanity 
relevant to every culture and people.  They are the minimum standard by 
which we call ourselves civilized.  Yet today, they are under attack in 
many quarters.  Most disturbing of all, those who have dedicated their 
lives to upholding the conventions and assisting those in need find 
themselves, likewise, under attack.  The International Committee of the 
Red Cross is mandated to provide assistance and protection to the 
victims of conflict.  There is no more noble cause.  Yet the ICRC, 
itself, has become a target.  Witness the slaying last week of two ICRC 
nurses in Sierra Leone, the latest of 17 Red Cross workers killed in the 
past year.

No one gains by such attacks; we all share the tragedy and loss.  We 
must rededicate ourselves to the fullest respect for the Red Cross, Red 
Crescent, and other recognized emblems and those who labor under them.  
We must educate those who do not know about international humanitarian 
law and punish those who do not care.

As Monsieur de Martens, who contributed so much to the development of 
the law of armed conflict, said in 1900, only with "compulsory teaching 
in military training establishments and in the instruction of the 
soldier" can the application of international humanitarian law be 
guaranteed.  The world has, unfortunately, not yet learned this simple 
lesson.  Each state must continuously instruct the forces under its 
control--including the civilian, military, or paramilitary authorities 
at all levels--in the law applicable to armed conflict.  This training 
should not be merely a classroom exercise.  The forces must have 
operational rules conforming to the law of armed conflict.  In the 
United States, we have found that training in the law of armed conflict 
directly benefits the effective operation of our armed forces; our 
military sees the protection of victims as facilitating, rather than 
hindering, its operations.

States should assist one another in educating their forces.  We stand 
ready to share our education programs with any government that asks.  In 
addition, we are now including international humanitarian law in our 
expanded International Military Education and Training (IMET) programs, 
and the American Red Cross has just released new training materials for 
the American public which will be made available through local units.

Educational efforts must be supplemented by effective enforcement:  When 
forces violate international humanitarian law, they must be held 
individually accountable.  Punishment for violations is under the 
purview of national laws.  In the United States, for example, we have an 
extensive system of administrative and judicial punishments for members 
of our forces who violate international humanitarian law.  When 
effective national enforcement appears unlikely, however, the 
international community must be willing to step in.  On May 25, the UN 
Security Council took a major step by establishing an international 
tribunal for the prosecution of persons accused of serious violations of 
international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia.  We expect this 
tribunal to be impartial and thorough.  It should serve as a model for 
other conflicts and a warning to those who believe that they can avoid 
punishment for despicable acts.

Internal armed conflicts can be particularly devastating, and states 
have a special responsibility to take measures to alleviate threats to 
civilians.  All participants in internal armed conflicts should apply 
the provisions of the Geneva Conventions--whether by special agreement 
or otherwise--particularly those provisions that ensure access and the 
delivery of humanitarian assistance, international monitoring, and 
enforcement of international humanitarian law.  One hundred and thirty 
years ago, in the midst of a terrible civil war in my country, President 
Abraham Lincoln issued the first comprehensive code on the law of armed 
conflict.  This document--General Orders 100--is a reminder that states 
must address the harsh reality of civil war by promulgating adequate 
rules and directives for their forces.

States should also take steps to limit or end the threat posed to 
civilians by weapons that can have indiscriminate effect.  Particularly 
in civil wars, this includes land mines.  Today there are some 85 
million land mines uncleared throughout the world, and new mines are 
laid daily.  Over 150 people are maimed or killed each week; nearly all 
are unarmed civilians, often injured years after conflicts end, when the 
mines no longer serve any possible military purpose.  We urge states to 
limit the use of land mines and other explosive devices to what is 
provided for in Protocol II to the 1980 Convention.  In addition, we 
urge exporting states to join countries such as the United States and 
France, which already have unilateral moratoriums or limitations on the 
export of anti-personnel land mines.  Furthermore, the international 
community should take steps to limit trade in those land mines that pose 
the greatest threat to civilians--those that lack self-neutralizing 
features and have insufficient quantities of metal to be detected 
easily.  Only by such restraint can lives be saved.

Mr. Chairman, the United States supports this conference and the draft 
declaration we will adopt.  That declaration will reconfirm the 
importance of adherence to the principles of international humanitarian 
law in a time of massive violations of those principles.  It will 
provide a mechanism for redoubling our efforts to protect and assist the 
victims of conflict.  Already, in accordance with the draft 
declaration's urging, the United States is reviewing Additional Protocol 
Number I of 1977 and the 1954 Convention on the Protection of Cultural 
Property, with a view to deciding whether to become a party.  We are 
also nearing completion of our review of the 1980 Convention on Certain 
Conventional Weapons and its protocols.  Through these measures and 
others, we intend to put meaning into the words we say here.  We hope 
other states will do likewise.

If we collectively focus our energies on teaching international 
humanitarian law, training our military forces, and ensuring access and 
safety for relief workers, we will save many lives.  Moreover, we will 
reaffirm our humanity, our brotherhood, and our commit- ment to the 
highest standards of civilization and behavior.  (###)



ARTICLE 5:

Department Statements

Reflecting Diversity Of American People
Memorandum to State Department employees from 
Secretary Christopher, Washington, DC, August 7, 1993.

As we explore ways to enhance the overall mission of the Department of 
State, I will be paying particular attention to the Department's efforts 
in the areas of equal employment opportunity (EEO) and civil rights as 
they pertain to our Civil and Foreign Service employees and to 
applicants for employment.  While progress has been made toward greater 
diversity, much remains to be done.  The work force of the Department 
should reflect the diversity of the American people and be 
representative of women and minorities at all levels.

The Department must accelerate its efforts to ensure that we not only 
recruit but also retain a work force that reflects America's diversity.  
To this end, I call on everyone, particularly managers and supervisors, 
to be actively involved in eliminating barriers where they exist and 
ensuring the proper and affirmative utilization of all employees.  
Managerial and supervisory performance should be evaluated seriously and 
accurately to comply with this requirement.

All employees have the right to work or seek employment in an 
environment governed by merit principles and free from unlawful 
discrimination or reprisal based on race, color, national origin, sex 
(including sexual harassment), age, religion, or handicap.  In cases of 
allegations of discrimination, the investigation and resolution of such 
allegations shall be handled promptly and impartially.  Particular 
emphasis will be placed on the fair and equitable resolution of long-
standing employment issues which adversely affect women and minorities.  
In instances where employees have conducted themselves contrary to 
Department policy, the imposition of sanctions consistent with federal 
personnel policy will be mandated.

If the Department of State is to be effective in promoting American 
principles of democracy through our foreign policy, then we must lead by 
example and make concerted efforts to ensure fair and equitable 
treatment of all employees, applicants for employment, and others who 
benefit from our programs and activities.  We must be committed to the 
principles of equal employment opportunity, affirmative action, and 
diversity in the work force.

Together we can all help to create a State Department work force that is 
truly representative of America. 

Repression in Marshes Of Southern Iraq
Statement released by the Office of the Spokesman, Washington, DC, 
August 27, 1993.

The Government of Iraq's campaign of destruction and repression in the 
marshes of southern Iraq continues.  Despite repeated calls by the 
international community for Iraq to respect the requirements of UN 
Security Council Resolution 688, which calls on Iraq to cease its 
repression of the Iraqi people, the Government of Iraq is intensifying 
its repressive tactics.  We have verified extensive draining and burning 
of the marshes, the burning of villages, and ongoing artillery attacks 
on civilian centers.  By destroying the fragile marsh environment, the 
Government of Iraq is seeking to deprive innocent civilians of their 
principal source of food and shelter.  The Iraqi Government's tactics 
are designed to eradicate a culture which has been present in the 
marshes for thousands of years and eliminate a fragile eco-system unique 
in the region.

The United States is apprising the UN Human Rights Center of the Iraqi 
Government's repressive campaign in the southern marshes.  On August 20, 
the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of 
Minorities passed a resolution condemning the human rights violations of 
the Iraqi regime and urging the application of Resolution 688.  We 
applaud the Sub-Commission's call for a visit by  the UN Special 
Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iraq, Max van der Stoel, to visit the 
region and interview refugees fleeing the persecution of the Iraqi 
regime.

The United States strongly denounces the Government of Iraq's gross 
abuses of human rights and urges the international community to join it 
in demanding that Iraq immediately comply with the terms of UN Security 
Council Resolution 688.  The United States and its coalition partners 
will continue to enforce the "no-fly" zone established a year ago in 
southern Iraq to monitor Iraq's compliance with Resolution 688.  

Equatorial Guinea
Statement by Department Spokesman Michael McCurry, Washington, DC, 
September 1, 1993.

Once again, as on several occasions within the past year, the United 
States is compelled to comment on the deplorable state of human rights 
in the Republic of Equatorial Guinea.  The brutal and dictatorial regime 
of President Obiang Nguema Mbasogo has recently stepped up its ongoing 
campaign of violence, repression, and intimidation.

The regime's clear goal is to quash political dissent and hold onto 
power at all costs through systematic violations of basic human rights, 
ranging from extrajudicial killings and torture to arbitrary detention 
and disruption of peaceful assembly.  In recent weeks, the government 
has singled out for special abuse the isolated and vulnerable citizens 
on the island of Annobon, as well as peaceful, pro-democracy 
demonstrators in the streets of the capital, Malabo.

Despite its public commitment to foster democracy, the regime continues 
to deny the political opposition an opportunity to test its strength in 
free and fair elections.  Instead, it has offered only a hollow pretense 
of democratic reform accompanied by repression of its own people and a 
deliberate campaign of propaganda and intimidation against several 
foreign diplomatic missions and their employees and nationals, including 
the thinly disguised death threat issued against U.S. Ambassador Bennett 
in February 1993.

We again call upon the Government of Equatorial Guinea to release 
immediately all political prisoners, cease the torture in its prisons, 
punish those responsible for these abuses, and compensate those persons 
unjustly detained.  We also emphatically repeat our call for it to 
adhere to its own promises to permit the democratization process to go 
forward peacefully in Equatorial Guinea.   ###



ARTICLE 6:

What's in Print:  Foreign Relations of the United States

The Department of State has released Foreign Relations of the United 
States, 1958-1960, Volume XII, Near East Region; Iraq; Iran; Arabian 
Peninsula.  The volume is 1 of 19 in this series  documenting the 
foreign policy of President Dwight D. Eisenhower during the 1958-60 
period.

Between 1958 and 1960, the Eisenhower Administration sought to contend 
with the forces of radical Arab nationalism that seemed to be sweeping 
the Near East region, threatening the existence of conservative Near 
Eastern monarchies friendly to the West and exacerbating anti-Western 
sentiments.

Western interests in the region appeared particularly threatened by the 
union of Syria and Egypt into the United Arab Republic in February 1958, 
under the leadership of Abdul Gamal Nasser, and the violent and sudden 
overthrow of the Hashemite monarchy in Iraq in July 1958.  At the 
request of Lebanon and Jordan, U.S. military forces moved into Lebanon, 
while British forces entered Jordan to contain the damage to Western 
interests.

The U.S. recognized the new Iraqi regime and sought to establish 
relations with it.  Instead, U.S.-Iraqi relations deteriorated quickly, 
as Iraqi leader Abdul Karim Qassim evinced growing hostility toward the 
United States and began to rely heavily on the Iraqi Communist Party in 
his struggle with pro-Nasser forces for control of Iraq.  The United 
States monitored the situation closely and amplified its anti-communist 
message, but limited its response because it believed that a policy of 
open hostility could drive Qassim into the communist camp.   

By the end of 1960, the United States saw Arab nationalism as less 
threatening to Western interests.  U.S. officials assessed the situation 
as unstable but calm, and welcomed improved relations with Iraq and the 
United Arab Republic.

Documents from the White House and the Department of State comprise the 
majority of the volume.  However, material from the Department of 
Defense as well as many interagency documents are included.

Volume XII (GPO Stock No. 044-000-02354-7; ISBN 0-16-038057-X)  may be 
purchased for $38 from:  Superintendent of Documents, Government 
Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954.  To FAX 
orders, call (202) 512-2250.  Checks payable to the Superintendent of 
Documents are accepted, as are Visa and MasterCard.  For further 
information, contact Glenn W. LaFantasie, General Editor of the Foreign 
Relations series, at (202) 663-1133.  (###)

END OF DISPATCH VOL 4, NO 36