1.  The Middle East:  Opening the Door to a Comprehensive and Lasting 
Settlement -- President Clinton
2.  NAFTA:  Embracing Change -- President Clinton
3.  NAFTA:  A Bridge to a Better Future for The United States and the 
Hemisphere -- Secretary Christopher
4.  Fact Sheet:  NAFTA--Key Provisions and Supplemental Agreements
5.  What's in Print:  Foreign Relations of the United States
6.  Treaty Actions


The Middle East:  Opening the Door to a Comprehensive and Lasting 
President Clinton
Statement at the White House, Washington, DC, September 10, 1993

Today marks a shining moment of hope for the people of the Middle East; 
indeed, of the entire world.  The Israelis and the Palestinians have now 
agreed upon a declaration of principles on an interim self-government 
that opens the door to a comprehensive and lasting settlement.

This declaration represents a historic and honorable compromise between 
two peoples who have been locked in a bloody struggle for almost a 
century.  Too many have suffered for too long.  The agreement is a bold 
breakthrough.  The Palestine Liberation Organization openly and 
unequivocally has renounced the use of violence and has pledged to live 
in peace with Israel.  Israel, in turn, has announced its recognition of 
the PLO.

I want to express my congratulations and praise for the courage and the 
vision displayed by the Israeli and Palestinian leadership and for the 
crucially helpful role played by Norway.

For too long, the history of the Middle East has been defined in terms 
of violence and bloodshed.  Today marks the dawning of a new era.  Now 
there is an opportunity to define the future of the Middle East in terms 
of reconciliation and coexistence and the opportunities that children 
growing up there will have whether they are Israeli or Palestinian.

I want to express the full support of the United States for this 
dramatic and promising step.  For more than a quarter of a century, our 
nation has been directly engaged in efforts to resolve the Middle East 
conflict.  We have done so because it reflects our finest values and our 
deepest interests--our interests in a stable Middle East where Israelis 
and Arabs can live together in harmony and develop the potential of 
their region, which is tremendous.  From Camp David to Madrid to the 
signing ceremony that will take place at the White House on Monday, 
administration after administration has facilitated this difficult but 
essential quest.

From my first day in office, Secretary Christopher and I have made this 
a priority.  We are resolved to continue this process to achieve a 
comprehensive Arab-Israeli resolution.

In 1990, the United States suspended the U.S.-PLO dialogue, begun 2 
years earlier, following an act of terrorism committed against Israel by 
a faction of the PLO.  Yesterday Yasir Arafat wrote to Prime Minister 
Rabin, committing the PLO to accept Israel's right to exist in peace and 
security, to renounce terrorism, to take responsibility for the actions 
of its constituent groups, to discipline those elements who violate 
these new commitments, and to nullify key elements of the Palestinian 
covenant that denied Israel's right to exist.  These PLO commitments 
justify a resumption of our dialogue.

As a result and in light of this week's events, I have decided to resume 
the dialogue and the contacts between the United States and the PLO. 

The path ahead will not be easy.  These new understandings, impressive 
though they are, will not erase the fears and suspicions of the past.  
But now the Israelis and the Palestinians have laid the foundations of 
hope.  The United States will continue to be a full and an active 
partner in the negotiations that lie ahead, to ensure that this promise 
of progress is fully realized.

All the peoples of the Middle East deserve the blessings of peace.  I 
pledge to join them, in our help and our support, to achieve that 
objective.  I look forward to joining with Russia--our co-sponsor in the 
Middle East peace process--and with the people of the world in 
witnessing the historic signing on Monday.

I also want to say I am very grateful for the overwhelming support this 
agreement has generated among members of both parties in the United 
States Congress.  I especially thank leaders in the Congress from both 
parties who have foreign policy responsibilities and who have come to 
meet with me this morning in the White House, many of whom have stayed 
on for this statement.

This is a time for bipartisan support for this agreement and, indeed, a 
bipartisan effort to reassert and define America's role in a very new 
world.  We were talking today in our meeting about how this period is 
not unlike the late 1940s, a time in which America was the first nation 
to recognize Israel and in which we formed the United Nations and other 
international institutions in an attempt to work toward the world which 
everyone hoped would follow from World War II.

Once again, we must develop a strong philosophy and a practical set of 
institutions that can permit us to follow our values and our interests 
and to work for a more peaceful, a more humane, and a more democratic 

This is an enormous step toward that larger goal.  And I think all 
Americans should be grateful for the opportunity that we have been 
presented to help to make this historic peace work.  ###

Recent documents on the Middle East peace process will be printed in 
Dispatch Supplement Vol. 4, No. 4.  ###


NAFTA:  Embracing Change
President Clinton
Remarks at signing of NAFTA side agreements, Washington, DC, September 
14, 1993

Thank you very much.  Mr. Vice President, President Bush, President 
Carter, President Ford, ladies and gentlemen:  I would like to 
acknowledge just a couple of other people who are in the audience, 
because I think they deserve to be seen by America since you'll be 
seeing a lot more of them--my good friend, Bill Daley, from Chicago and 
former Congressman Bill Frenzel from Minnesota, who have agreed to lead 
this fight for our Administration on a bipartisan basis.  Would you 
please stand and be recognized?  

It's an honor for me today to be joined by my predecessor, President 
Bush, who took the major steps in negotiating this North American Free 
Trade Agreement; President Jimmy Carter, whose vision of hemispherical 
development gives great energy to our efforts and has been a consistent 
theme of his for many, many years now; and President Ford, who has 
argued as fiercely for expanded trade and for this agreement as any 
American citizen and whose counsel I continue to value. These men, 
differing in party and outlook, join us today because we all recognize 
the important stakes for our nation in this issue.  

Yesterday, we saw the sight of an old world dying and a new one being 
born in hope and a spirit of peace.  Peoples who for a decade were 
caught in the cycle of war and frustration chose hope over fear and took 
great risk to make the future better.  Today, we turn to face the 
challenge of our own hemisphere, our own country, our own economic 

In a few moments, I will sign three agreements that will complete our 
negotiations with Mexico and Canada to create a North American Free 
Trade Agreement.  In the coming months, I will submit this pact to 
Congress for approval.  It will be a hard fight, and I expect to be 
there with all of you every step of the way.  We will make our case as 
hard and as well as we can.  And though the fight will be difficult, I 
deeply believe we will win.  And I'd like to tell you why:  first of 
all, because NAFTA means jobs--American jobs, and good-paying American 
jobs.  If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement. 

As President, it is my duty to speak frankly to the American people 
about the world in which we now live.  Fifty years ago, at the end of 
World War II, an unchallenged America was protected by the oceans and by 
our technological superiority and, very frankly, by the economic 
devastation of the people who could otherwise have been our competitors.  
We chose then to try to help rebuild our former enemies and to create a 
world of free trade supported by institutions which would facilitate it.  
As a result of that effort, global trade grew from $200 billion in 1950 
to $800 billion in 1980.  As a result, jobs were created, and 
opportunity thrived all across the world.  

But make no mistake about it:  Our decision at the end of World War II 
to create a system of global, expanded, freer trade and the supporting 
institutions played a major role in creating the prosperity of the 
American middle class.  Ours is now an era in which commerce is global 
and in which money, management, and technology are highly mobile.  

For the last 20 years, in all the wealthy countries of the world--
because of changes in the global environment, because of the growth of 
technology, because of increasing competition--the middle class that was 
created and enlarged by the wise policies of expanding trade at the end 
of World War II has been under severe stress.  Most Americans are 
working harder for less.  They are vulnerable to the fear tactics and 
the averseness to change that are behind much of the opposition to 
NAFTA.  But I want to say to my fellow Americans:  When you live in a 
time of change, the only way to recover your security and to broaden 
your horizons is to adapt to the change--to embrace, to move forward.

Nothing we do--nothing we do in this great capital can change the fact 
that information can flash across the world, that people can move money 
around in the blink of an eye.  Nothing can change the fact that 
technology can be adopted, once created, by people all across the world 
and then rapidly adapted in new and different ways by people who have a 
little different take on the way the technology works.  For two decades, 
the winds of global competition have made these things clear to any 
American with eyes to see.  The only way we can recover the fortunes of 
the middle class in this country so that people who work harder and 
smarter can, at least, prosper more--the only way we can pass on the 
American dream of the last 40 years to our children and their children 
for the next 40--is to adapt to the changes which are occurring.  

In a fundamental sense, this debate about NAFTA is a debate about 
whether we will embrace these changes and create the jobs of tomorrow or 
try to resist these changes, hoping we can preserve the economic 
structures of yesterday.  I tell you, my fellow Americans, that if we 
learn anything from the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the 
governments in Eastern Europe, even a totally controlled society cannot 
resist the winds of change that economics and technology and information 
flow have imposed in this world of ours.  That is not an option.  Our 
only realistic option is to embrace these changes and create the jobs of 

I believe that NAFTA will create 200,000 American jobs in the first 2 
years of its effect.  I believe if you look at the trends--and President 
Bush and I were talking about it this morning--starting about the time 
he was elected President, over one-third of our economic growth and, in 
some years, over one-half of our net new jobs came directly from 
exports.  And on average, those export-related jobs paid much higher 
than jobs that had no connection to exports.  

I believe that NAFTA will create 1 million jobs in the first 5 years of 
its impact.  And I believe that that is many more jobs than will be 
lost--as, inevitably, some will be, as always happens when you open up 
the mix to a new range of competition.  NAFTA will generate these jobs 
by fostering an export boom to Mexico by tearing down tariff walls, 
which have been lowered quite a bit by the present administration of 
President Salinas but which are still higher than America's.

Already, Mexican consumers buy more per capita from the United States 
than other consumers in other nations.  Most Americans don't know this, 
but the average Mexican citizen--even though wages are much lower in 
Mexico--the average Mexican citizen is now spending $450 per year per 
person to buy American goods.  That is more than the average Japanese, 
the average German, or the average Canadian buys and more than the 
average German, Swiss, and Italian citizens put together.  So when 
people say that this trade agreement is just about how to move jobs to 
Mexico so nobody can make a living, how do they explain the fact that 
Mexicans keep buying more products made in America every year?  Go out 
and tell the American people that.  Mexican citizens with lower incomes 
spend more money--real dollars, not percentages of their incomes--more 
money on American products than Germans, Japanese, or Canadians.  That 
is a fact.  And there will be more if they have more money to spend.  
That is what expanding trade is all about. 

In 1987, Mexico exported $5.7 billion more of products to the United 
States than they purchased from us.  We had a trade deficit.  Because of 
the free market, tariff-lowering policies of the Salinas government in 
Mexico and because our people are becoming more export-oriented, that 
$5.7-billion trade deficit has been turned into a $5.4-billion trade 
surplus for the United States.  It has created hundreds of thousands of 
jobs.  Even when you subtract the jobs that have moved into the 
maquiladora areas, America is a net job winner in what has happened in 
trade in the last 6 years.  When Mexico boosts its consumption of 
petroleum products made in Louisiana--where we're going tomorrow to talk 
about NAFTA--as it did by about 200% in that period, Louisiana refinery 
workers gained job security.  When Mexico purchases industrial machinery 
and computer equipment made in Illinois, that means more jobs.  And 
guess what?  In this same period, Mexico increased those purchases out 
of Illinois by 300%.  

Forty-eight out of the 50 states have boosted exports to Mexico since 
1987.  That's one reason why 41 of our nation's 50 governors--some of 
them who are here today, and I thank them for their presence--support 
this trade pact.  I can tell you, if you're a governor, people won't 
leave you in office unless they think you get up every day trying to 
create more jobs.  They think that's what your job is if you're a 
governor.  And the people who have the job of creating jobs for their 
state and working with their business community, working with their 
labor community--41 out of the 50 have already embraced the NAFTA pact.

Many Americans are still worried that this agreement will move jobs 
south of the border, because they've seen jobs move south of the border 
and because they know that there are still great differences in the wage 
rates.  There have been 19 serious economic studies of NAFTA by liberals 
and conservatives alike; 18 of them have concluded that there will be no 
job loss.

Businesses do not choose to locate based solely on wages.  If they did, 
Haiti and Bangladesh would have the largest number of manufacturing jobs 
in the world.  Businesses do choose to locate based on the skills and 
productivity of the work force, the attitude of the government, the 
roads and railroads to deliver products, the availability of a market 
close enough to make the transportation costs meaningful, and the 
communications networks necessary to support the enterprise.  That is 
our strength, and it will continue to be our strength.  As it becomes 
Mexico's strength and as they generate more jobs, they will have higher 
incomes, and they will buy more American products.  We can win this.  
This is not a time for defeatism.  It is a time to look at an 
opportunity that is enormous. 

Moreover, there are specific provisions in this agreement that remove 
some of the current incentives for people to move their jobs just across 
our border.  For example, today Mexican law requires U.S. automakers who 
want to sell cars to Mexicans to build them in Mexico.  This year, we 
will export only 1,000 cars to Mexico. Under NAFTA, the Big Three auto- 
makers expect to ship 60,000 cars to Mexico in the first year alone, and 
that is one reason why one of the automakers recently announced moving 
1,000 jobs from Mexico back to Michigan.

In a few moments, I will sign side agreements to NAFTA that will make it 
harder than it is today for businesses to relocate solely because of 
very low wages or lax environmental rules. These side agreements will 
make a difference.

The environmental agreement will, for the first time ever, apply trade 
sanctions against any of the countries that fails to enforce its own 
environmental laws.  I might say to those who say that that's giving up 
our sovereignty, for people who have been asking us to ask that of 
Mexico:  How do we have the right to ask that of Mexico if we don't 
demand it of ourselves?  It's nothing but fair.  This is the first time 
that there have ever been trade sanctions in the environmental law area.  
This ground-breaking agreement is one of the reasons why major 
environmental groups, ranging from the Audubon Society to the Natural 
Resources Defense Council, are supporting NAFTA.

The second agreement ensures that Mexico enforces its laws in areas that 
include worker health and safety, child labor, and the minimum wage.  
And I might say, this is the first time in the history of world trade 
agreements when any nation has ever been willing to tie its minimum wage 
to the growth in its own economy.  What does that mean?  It means that 
there will be an even more rapid closing of the gap between our two wage 
rates.  And as the benefits of economic growth are spread in Mexico to 
working people, what will happen?  They'll have more disposable income 
to buy more American products, and there will be less illegal 
immigration because more Mexicans will be able to support their children 
by staying home.  This is a very important thing.

The third agreement answers one of the primary attacks on NAFTA that 
I've heard for a year, which is:  Well, you can say all this, but 
something might happen that you can't foresee.  Well, that's a good 
thing; otherwise, we never would have had yesterday.  I mean, I plead 
guilty to that.  Something might happen that Carla Hills didn't foresee, 
or George Bush didn't foresee, or Mickey Kantor or Bill Clinton didn't 
foresee.  That's true.  Now, the third agreement protects our industries 
against unforeseen surges in exports from either one of our trading 
partners.  And the flip side is also true.  Economic change, as I said 
before, has often been cruel to the middle class, but we have to make 
change its friend.  NAFTA will help to do that.

This imposes also a new obligation on our government, and I'm glad to 
see so many Members of Congress from both parties here today.  We do 
have some obligations here.  We have to make sure that our workers are 
the best prepared, the best-trained in the world.

Without regard to NAFTA, we know now that the average 18-year-old 
American will change jobs eight times in a lifetime.  The Secretary of 
Labor has told us--without regard to NAFTA--that over the last 10 years, 
for the first time, when people lose their jobs most of them do not go 
back to their old job; they go back to a different job.  So we no longer 
need an unemployment system; we need a re-employment system.  And we 
have to create that.

And that's our job.  We have to tell American workers who will be 
dislocated because of this agreement or because of things that will 
happen regardless of this agreement that we are going to have a re-
employment program for training in America, and we intend to do that.

Together, the efforts of two administrations now have created a trade 
agreement that moves beyond the traditional notions of free trade, 
seeking to ensure trade that pulls everybody up instead of dragging some 
down while others go up.  We have put the environment at the center of 
this in future agreements.  We have sought to avoid a debilitating 
contest for businesses where countries seek to lure them only by 
slashing wages or despoiling the environment.

This agreement will create jobs, thanks to trade with our neighbors.  
That's reason enough to support it.  But I must close with a couple of 
other points.  NAFTA is essential to our long-term ability to compete 
with Asia and Europe.  Across the globe our competitors are 
consolidating, creating huge trading blocks.  This pact will create a 
free trade zone stretching from the Arctic to the tropics, the largest 
in the world--a $6.5-billion market, with 370 million people.  It will 
help our businesses to be both more efficient and to better compete with 
our rivals in other parts of the world.  This is also essential to our 
leadership in this hemisphere and the world.  Having won the Cold War, 
we face the more subtle challenge of consolidating the victory of 
democracy and opportunity and freedom.

For decades, we have preached and preached and preached greater 
democracy, greater respect for human rights, and more open markets to 
Latin America.  NAFTA finally offers them the opportunity to reap the 
benefits of this.  Secretary Shalala represented me recently at the 
installation of the President of Paraguay, and she talked to Presidents 
from Colombia, from Chile, from Venezuela, from Uruguay, from Argentina, 
from Brazil.  They all wanted to know:  Tell me if NAFTA is going to 
pass so we can become part of this great, new market.  [It would create] 
hundreds of millions more of American consumers for our products.

It's no secret that there is division within both the Democratic and 
Republican Parties on this issue.  That often happens in a time of great 
change.  I just want to say something about this because it's very 
important.  I am very grateful to the Presidents for coming here, 
because there is division in the Democratic Party, and there is division 
in the Republican Party.  That's because this fight is not a traditional 
fight between Democrats and Republicans and liberals and conservatives.  
It is right at the center of the effort that we're making in America to 
define what the future is going to be about.

And so there are differences.  But if you strip away the differences, it 
is clear that most of the people that oppose this pact are rooted in the 
fears and insecurities that are legitimately gripping the great American 
middle class.  It is no use to deny that these fears and insecurities 
exist.  It is no use denying that many of our people have lost in the 
battle for change.  But it is a great mistake to think that NAFTA will 
make it worse.  Every single, solitary thing you hear people talk about 
that they're worried about can happen whether this trade agreement 
passes or not, and most of them will be made worse if it fails.  And I 
can tell you, it will be better if it passes.

So I say this to you:  Are we going to compete and win, or are we going 
to withdraw?  Are we going to face the future with confidence that we 
can create tomorrow's jobs, or are we going to try against all the 
evidence of the last 20 years to hold onto yesterday's?  Are we going to 
take the plain evidence of the good faith of Mexico in opening their own 
markets and buying more of our products and creating more of our jobs, 
or are we going to give in to the fears of the worst-case scenario?  Are 
we going to pretend that we don't have the first trade agreement in 
history dealing seriously with labor standards and environmental 
standards and, cleverly and clearly, taking account of unforeseen 
consequences, or are we going to say this is the best you can do and 
then some?

In an imperfect world, we have something which will enable us to go 
forward together and to create a future that is worthy of our children 
and grandchildren, worthy of the legacy of America, and consistent with 
what we did at the end of World War II.  We have to do that again.  We 
have to create a new world economy.  And if we don't do it, we cannot 
then point the finger at Europe and Japan or anybody else and say:  Why 
don't you pass the GATT agreement; why don't you help to create a world 
economy.  If we walk away from this, we have no right to say to other 
countries in the world:  You're not fulfilling your world leadership; 
you're not being fair with us.  This is our opportunity to provide an 
impetus to freedom and democracy in Latin America and create new jobs 
for America as well.  It's a good deal, and we ought to take it.  ###


NAFTA:  A Bridge to a Better Future for The United States and the 
Secretary Christopher
Statement before the Senate Finance Committee, Washington, DC, September 
15, 1993

Chairman Moynihan, members of the committee:  I want to thank you for 
giving Secretary Bentsen, Ambassador Kantor, and me the opportunity to 
discuss with you the benefits of the North American Free Trade 

I believe that this agreement between the United States, Canada, and 
Mexico deserves approval on its economic merits alone, especially now 
that it has been improved by the side agreements on the environment and 
labor that the President signed yesterday.  It gives our exporters the 
opportunity to sell without barriers in what will be the world's largest 
free trade area--comprising about 370 million people.  It will lock in--
and increase--the advantages that have boosted our exports to Mexico 
more than 200% since 1986, creating 400,000 jobs in this country in the 
process.  It will create even more high-wage, high-skill American jobs 
and enhance our ability to compete globally.  

Secretary Bentsen and Ambassador Kantor will make this case in greater 
detail.  I would like to focus instead on what NAFTA means for our 
relations with Mexico and with the Western Hemisphere more generally.  I 
firmly believe that the foreign policy implications of NAFTA make an 
already compelling economic case even stronger.

A central insight of this Administration is the need to reinforce the 
link between domestic and international economic growth.  In his first 
year in office, President Clinton has translated that insight into 
several important initiatives:  a credible deficit reduction package; a 
new framework for our economic and trade relations with Japan; the 
promotion of a New Pacific Community; and a successful conclusion to the 
Uruguay Round negotiations.  NAFTA is a vital element in America's 
competitive strategy to make us stronger at home and abroad, and it is a 
key test of our global economic leadership.  

American foreign policy begins with our neighbors--Canada and Mexico.  
We have had a successful free trade agreement with Canada since 1989.  
As a result, bilateral trade and investment between the United States 
and Canada have increased.  NAFTA will complement and improve the 
current free trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada, just as it 
will complement and improve our cooperation with Canada on environmental 

For Mexico, too, NAFTA is about far more than tariffs and trade.  It is 
the symbol of a new relationship and a new structure of cooperation with 
the United States and Canada.  It is a turning point in the history of 
relations among our countries.  And it is a turning point that is in the 
overriding national interest of the United States.  

Today, U.S.-Mexican relations are characterized not by distrust but by 
the pragmatic pursuit of cooperation that benefits the people of both 
nations.  In less than a generation, Mexican attitudes toward the United 
States and the world have been transformed.  NAFTA will reinforce 
Mexico's unprecedented efforts to open its economy and reform its 
political institutions, including the judiciary and the electoral 

Under President Salinas' leadership, Mexico has stabilized its economy, 
climbed out of much of its debt, renewed growth, privatized industries, 
welcomed foreign investment, and cut its tariffs unilaterally by 90% 
from their 1986 levels.  Mexico is America's fastest-growing major 
export market, and we have a vital stake in its further growth and 

By stimulating growth, NAFTA will also increase Mexico's capacity to 
cooperate with us on a wide range of important issues that spill across 
our 2,000-mile border.  A stronger, more prosperous Mexico will have 
greater resources to address these cross-border problems that affect so 
many Americans.

Let me briefly address three of them:  narcotics, illegal immigration, 
and the environment.

--  Mexico recognizes that illegal narcotics is a shared problem that 
can be solved only through close cross-border cooperation.  President 
Salinas has tripled Mexico's counter-narcotics budget and has shown the 
resolve to attack corrupt government officials and drug barons.  Some of 
Mexico's most notorious drug traffickers are now in prison.  This is 
breakthrough progress, and it must be sustained. 

--  We must also consider the relationship between NAFTA and illegal 
immigration.  Legal migration from Mexico and other nations will 
continue to make an important contribution to American diversity, 
vitality, and democracy.  At the same time, the U.S. is committed to 
reducing illegal immigration.  As Mexico's economy prospers, higher 
wages and greater opportunity will reduce the pressure for illegal 
migration to the United States.  In the long run, this is the most 
effective solution.

--  Like illegal immigration, pollution does not observe political 
boundaries.  Mexico recognizes its problems and is moving to address 
them both on its own and in cooperation with us.  We are continuing our 
work with Mexico to develop a far-reaching environmental plan that will 
help clean up the border.  Unlike any previous trade agreement, NAFTA 
explicitly links trade with the environment--and that is an important 
achievement in itself.  The side agreement just negotiated will improve 
the enforcement of environmental laws and increase cross-border 
cooperation to curb pollution.  

Today, we are working with Mexico not only to resolve issues along the 
border but to defuse hemispheric conflicts and crises.  In June, Mexico 
and the United States together took the lead in calling for immediate 
action by the Organization of American States to stand by democracy in 
Guatemala.  Our cooperation there made a difference and symbolizes the 
constructive way in which relations between Mexico and the U.S. are 

Mexico and the United States also came together in the same spirit of 
trust and friendship to support a successful, negotiated conclusion to 
the war in El Salvador.  NAFTA will further solidify the productive new 
relationship that the United States has been seeking with Mexico and our 
other Latin neighbors.

For more than half a century, every American President--Democrat and 
Republican alike--has stood for closer cooperation throughout the 
Western Hemisphere.  NAFTA reflects a bipartisan commitment to widening 
and improving America's ties to our Latin neighbors.  It was under 
President Carter that we negotiated the Panama Canal treaty, but it was 
with the help of his two Republican predecessors--Presidents Ford and 
Nixon--that Congress agreed to ratify the treaty.  Similarly, NAFTA was 
conceived and negotiated under President Bush but substantially improved 
through side agreements on the environment and labor under President 

President Clinton is committed to building what he calls "a hemispheric 
community of democracies linked by growing economic ties and common 
political beliefs."  NAFTA will encourage democratic governments from 
Argentina to Venezuela that have opened their economies to trade and 
investment with the U.S.  The agreement will be a bridge to a more 
promising future for the entire hemisphere.

Another way to state the importance of NAFTA is to consider the foreign 
policy consequences for our country if it is defeated.  Let me be clear:  
Rejection of NAFTA would seriously damage our relations with Mexico and 
erode our credibility with the other nations of the hemisphere and the 
world.  For the United States, failure to approve NAFTA would be a self-
inflicted setback of historic proportions.

First, it would undermine Mexico's capacity to cooperate with us on 
vital cross-border issues that affect millions of Americans.

Second, it would send a chilling signal about our willingness to engage 
in Latin America at a time when so many of our neighbors are genuinely 
receptive to cooperation with the United States.

Third, it would hand our major economic competitors in Europe and East 
Asia a clear opportunity to gain advantage in what should be natural and 
growing markets for us.

Fourth, it would undermine our position as a negotiating partner on 
global trade agreements vital to the economic renewal of the United 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, NAFTA is a test of America's 
confidence.  It will measure whether Americans believe in our ability to 
compete in open markets or whether we will shrink from that challenge 
and cower in the face of a changing global economy.  We must embrace 
change; we cannot escape from it.

In foreign policy terms, NAFTA is a test of America's leadership.  It 
will measure our willingness to cooperate across a diverse range of 
issues with our closest neighbors.  Our relations in this hemisphere--
and our global economic leadership--will be substantially boosted by the 
decision of this Congress to approve NAFTA.    

NAFTA is good economic policy-- and good foreign policy.  It is a once-
in-a-generation opportunity.  For the sake of future generations, NAFTA 
is an opportunity that must not be lost.  ###


Fact Sheet:  NAFTA--Key Provisions and Supplemental Agreements

The United States' leadership in the next century will depend on our 
ability to compete in the global marketplace.  The North American Free 
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) will expand export markets in Mexico and Canada 
for U.S. goods and services, boost economic growth, create jobs, 
strengthen cooperation with our neighbors on labor standards and the 
environment, and enable us to better compete against Europe and Asia.  
NAFTA will enhance free trade in goods and services between the United 
States, Canada, and Mexico by eliminating import restrictions--such as 
tariffs, quotas, and licenses--and restrictions on foreign ownership and 

Key Provisions
Tariffs.  NAFTA eliminates all tariffs on U.S., Mexican, and Canadian 
goods by 2008.  Many will be removed immediately and others will be 
phased out over 5, 10, and 15 years.

Rules of Origin.  Rules of origin define goods eligible for NAFTA 
treatment and prevent "free riding" by third countries.  Only goods 
produced in North America qualify for NAFTA treatment.  Goods containing 
imported components qualify if they are transformed enough to result in 
a tariff classification change.  In some cases, goods also must have a 
specified percentage of North American content.  There is a special rule 
of origin for textiles and apparel.

Customs.  NAFTA expands and improves on procedures in the U.S.-Canada 
FTA and provides for uniform regulations to ensure consistent 
interpretation, application, and administration of the rules of origin.

Quotas.  NAFTA eliminates import and export quotas unless consistent 
with the GATT or explicitly mentioned in the agreement. 

National Treatment.  NAFTA reaffirms GATT principles preventing 
discrimination against imported goods.

Standards.  NAFTA prohibits use of product standards as a trade barrier 
but preserves each country's right to establish and enforce its own 
product standards, particularly those designed to promote health and 
safety and to protect human, animal, and plant life and the environment.

Government Procurement.  NAFTA opens new procurement markets in Mexico, 
particularly the petrochemical, heavy electrical, and pharmaceutical 

Safeguards.  NAFTA partners can impose a safeguard action during the 
transition period if increased imports constitute a "substantial cause 
or threat" of "serious injury" to a domestic industry.  This follows 
GATT practice.

Agriculture.  NAFTA eliminates immediately or phases out tariffs on 
agricultural goods.  It converts most quotas and other quantitative 
restrictions to tariff rate quotas, which allow a certain quantity of a 
product to enter duty-free.  These tariff rate quotas will apply to U.S. 
exports of corn, dry beans, powdered milk, poultry, malted barley, 
animal fats, potatoes, and eggs.  For some products--such as wheat, 
grapes, tobacco, other dairy products, and day-old chicks--quotas and 
other quantitative restrictions will be converted to tariffs, which then 
will be phased out.  U.S. standards regarding food imports will be 
maintained.  Special agricultural safeguards for certain import-
sensitive products will be available to limit the impact of sudden 
import surges.

Energy.  NAFTA lifts investment restrictions on most of the basic 
petrochemicals industry and on most electricity generating facilities.  
It eliminates or phases out tariffs on oil and gas field equipment and 
on coal.

Autos.  NAFTA provides for the immediate reduction of Mexican duties on 
vehicle imports and a timetable for their elimination.  It eliminates 
Mexican quotas on new auto imports.  It also removes tariffs on certain 
automotive parts and phases out others.  It reduces the Mexican 
domestic-content requirement to zero over 10 years and reduces Mexico's 
trade balancing requirement.

Textiles and Apparel.  NAFTA eliminates some tariffs immediately and 
phases out others over a 10-year period.  It removes quotas on imports 
from Mexico that qualify under the rules of origin.

Financial Services.  NAFTA allows investment by U.S. and Canadian firms 
in the Mexican banking market.  It provides for the elimination of all 
restrictions on such investment by January 2000.  U.S. and Canadian 
insurance firms with existing joint ventures in Mexico may increase 
their ownership to 100%.  The agreement also permits U.S. insurance 
companies to issue reinsurance policies and establish subsidiaries in 
Mexico.  It allows U.S and Canadian companies to invest in the brokerage 
industry in Mexico.

Transportation.  NAFTA eliminates, over a 5-year period, current 
restrictions on access by U.S. and Canadian trucking companies to 
Mexico.  It gives charter and bus tour operators full access to the 
Mexican market.  It allows U.S. and Canadian investment in Mexican bus 
and truck companies, in international cargo subsidiaries, and in Mexican 
port facilities.  The agreement does not alter U.S. safety standards.

Telecommunications.  NAFTA eliminates duties and non-tariff barriers on 
most Mexican imports of telecommunications equipment--including private 
branch exchanges, cellular systems, satellite transmission, earth 
station equipment, and fiber optic transmission systems.  It also 
eliminates restrictions on foreign investment in voice mail and other 
value-added and information services.  North American firms will have 
access to and use of public telecommunications  networks and services.

Investment.  NAFTA provides for member state investors to receive the 
more favorable of national or MFN treatment in setting up operations or 
acquiring firms.  It phases out most performance requirements over 10 
years and states that NAFTA partners may not impose new ones.  The 
agreement guarantees the free transfer of capital and profits and that 
investors will be compensated at the fair market value of the investment 
in cases of expropriation.

Intellectual Property.  NAFTA protects North American producers in two 
new areas:  computer programs and compilations of individually protected 
material.  It establishes a minimum 50-year term for the protection of 
sound recordings and motion pictures.  The agreement requires companies 
to register both service marks and trademarks.  It prohibits compulsory 
licensing or mandatory linking of trademarks.  It provides protection 
for independently created industrial designs and for trade secrets and 
proprietary information.

Environment.  NAFTA maintains existing federal and subfederal standards.  
It allows a country to prohibit entry of goods that do not meet its 
standards.  The agreement states that parties, including states, may 
enact tougher standards and permits each country to impose environmental 
requirements on foreign investment.

Implementation.  The governments will establish the Free Trade 
Commission to ensure that NAFTA is implemented properly.  Commission 
working groups will monitor implementation of the various chapters of 
the agreement.

Dispute Settlement.  NAFTA extends the dispute settlement provisions of 
the U.S.-Canada FTA to Mexico while providing new safeguards to ensure 
fairness.  It establishes the  North American Free Trade Commission and 
a Secretariat to administer the panel review system.  The mechanism for 
resolution is as follows:

(1)  Notification and consultation between parties;
(2)  If no resolution, referral to the Commission;
(3)  If necessary, referral to a panel of private sector experts; and
(4)  Resolution or retaliation.

If the defending party does not comply with the panel ruling, the other 
party may suspend equivalent trade benefits until the dispute is 

Supplemental Agreements
The three parties also have concluded supplemental agreements on the 
environment, on labor, and on import surges.

Environment.  The NAFTA supplemental agreement on environmental 
cooperation creates the new Commission on Environmental Cooperation, 
which will:

(1)  Provide expertise to dispute settlement panels in cases where one 
party has failed to enforce its laws affecting a sector involving traded 
goods and services;
(2)  Consider the environmental implications of processing and 
production methods; and
(3)  Promote greater public access to information about hazardous 

Labor.  The NAFTA supplemental agreement on labor creates the new 
Commission on Labor, which will promote labor principles, laws, and 
standards and their effective application and enforcement.  The 
supplemental agreement provides that each country will promote public 
awareness of its laws as well as ensure compliance.  The agreement 
provides for the use of fines and trade sanctions as a last resort if a 
party believes that another is demonstrating a persistent pattern of 
failure to enforce labor laws.

Import Surges.  The NAFTA supplemental agreement on import surges allows 
parties to impose trade restrictions if increased imports cause or 
threaten serious injury to a domestic industry.

Border Cleanup
NAFTA partners are in basic agreement, although details are still being 
worked out, on a new institutional structure to coordinate environmental 
infrastructure projects, including those focusing on water pollution 
along the border.  ###


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 X, Part I (Eastern Europe Region; Soviet 
Union; Cyprus).  

This volume of the Foreign Relations series documents U.S. diplomatic 
relations with the Soviet Union and the states of communist East Europe 
at the height of the Cold War.  It also covers the early stages of U.S. 
involvement in the Cyprus question.

Despite the Soviet suppression of the 1956 Hungarian revolution and a 
thwarted assertion of Polish independence from Soviet control, the 
United States looked for a loosening of the grip of the Soviet empire 
and encouraged gradual liberalization in Eastern Europe.  
Notwithstanding hostility from the communist regimes, the Eisenhower 
Administration continued its efforts to normalize relations with Eastern 
Europe and to expand trade as a tool to open these societies to Western 
influence.  However, progress in loosening the Soviet grip was slow at 

The United States exploited its bilateral relationship with the Soviet 
Union to effect changes in the Cold War.  High-level exchange visits 
with Soviet officials began in the spring of 1958, and in July 1959 Vice 
President Richard Nixon visited Moscow.  The Nixon visit became famous 
for the "kitchen debate" with Soviet Premier Khrushchev but included 
other substantive private conversations between the Vice President and 
Soviet leaders.

The Nixon visit was a prelude to Khrushchev's extraordinary September 
1959 tour of the United States.  He traveled to major U.S. cities, 
confronted media and local political personalities, and attempted to 
meet with average U.S. citizens.  Prior to his tour and after his return 
to Washington, DC, Khrushchev had substantive talks with President 
Eisenhower, first at the White House and afterward at Camp David.  The 
meetings created a cordial personal relationship between Eisenhower and 

This rapport deteriorated in May 1960, when a U-2 reconnaissance 
aircraft crashed well within the Soviet Union.  At the opening session 
of the Paris summit later that month, Khrushchev demanded that 
Eisenhower apologize and punish those responsible for the overflights.  
The President refused and the summit ended.  The U-2 incident and the 
subsequent shooting down of a U.S. reconnaissance bomber ushered in a 
new era of East-West confrontation.

In contrast to the souring of East-West relations, the lengthy Cyprus 
crisis appeared resolved at the end of the Eisenhower Administration.  
The U.S. role in the settlement was essentially secondary.  Its 
diplomatic moves were designed to reinforce British efforts to negotiate 
a solution and to restrain two key NATO allies--Greece and Turkey--from 
direct confrontation.  The settlement was fragile and left the United 
States with the diplomatic problem of securing its interests with the 
leadership of the emerging Cypriot state while encouraging pacification 
of the island. 

This volume of the Foreign Relations series is one of more than 70 
volumes documenting the foreign policies of the Eisenhower 
Administration.  Volume X, Part 2 documents U.S. policy on the issue of 
East-West exchanges and U.S. policies toward individual Eastern European 
states, Finland, and Greece; that volume will be released later in 1993.

Volume X, Part 1 (GPO Stock No. 044-000-02356-3; ISBN 0-16-038069-3) may 
be purchased for $39 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.  ###


Treaty Actions


Berne convention for the protection of literary and artistic works,  of 
Sept. 9, 1886, as revised at Paris July 24, 1971, and amended on Oct. 2, 
1979.  Entered into force for the U.S. March 1, 1989.  [Senate] Treaty 
Doc. 99-27.
Succession deposited:  Macedonia, July 23, 1993.
Accession  deposited:  Bolivia, Aug. 4, 1993.

Diplomatic Relations
Vienna convention on diplomatic relations.  Done at Vienna Apr. 18, 
1961.  Entered into force Apr. 24, 1964; for the U.S. Dec. 13, 1972.  
TIAS 7502; 23 UST 3227.
Accession deposited:  Guinea-Bissau, Aug. 11, 1993.

Instrument for the amendment of the constitution of the International 
Labor Organization.  Adopted at Montreal Oct. 9, 1946.  Entered into 
force Apr. 20, 1948.  TIAS 1868; 62 Stat. 3485.
Acceptance deposited:  Georgia, June 22, 1993.

Budapest treaty on the international recognition of the deposit of 
microorganisms for the purposes of patent procedure, with regulations.  
Done at Budapest Apr. 28, 1977, as amended Sept. 26, 1980.  Entered into 
force Aug. 19, 1980.  TIAS 9768; 32 UST 1241.
Accession deposited:  Greece, July 30, 1993.

International convention for the protection of new varieties of plants 
of Dec. 2, 1961, as revised.  Done at Geneva Oct. 23, 1978.  Entered 
into force Nov. 8, 1981.  TIAS 10199; 33 UST 2703.
Accession deposited:  Norway, Aug. 13, 1993.

Convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization. 
Done at Stockholm July 14, 1967.  Entered into force Apr. 26, 1970; for 
the U.S. Aug. 25, 1970.  TIAS 6932; 21 UST 1749.
Succession deposited:  Macedonia, July 23, 1993.

Paris convention for the protection of industrial property of Mar. 20, 
1883, as revised.  Done at Stockholm July 14, 1967.  Entered into force 
Apr. 26, 1970, and for the U.S. Sept. 5, 1970; except for Articles 1 
through 12, which entered into force May 19, 1970, and for the U.S. Aug. 
25, 1973.  TIAS 6923, 7727; 24 UST 2140.
Succession deposited:  Macedonia, July 23, 1993.
Accession deposited:  Bolivia, Aug. 4, 1993.

Nice agreement, as revised, concerning the international classification 
of goods and services for the purposes of the registration of marks.  
Done at Geneva May 13, 1977.  Entered into force Feb. 6, 1979; for the 
U.S. Feb. 29, 1984.
Succession deposited:  Macedonia, July 23, 1993.

World Health Organization
Constitution of the World Health Organization.  Done at New York July 
22, 1946.  Entered into force Apr. 7, 1948; for the U.S. June 21, 1948.  
TIAS 1808; 62 Stat. 2679.
Amendment of Articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the WHO.  Adopted 
at Geneva May 23, 1967.  Entered into force May 21, 1975.  TIAS 8086; 26 
UST 990.
Amendments to Articles 34 and 55 of the Constitution of the WHO.  
Adopted at Geneva May 22, 1973.  Entered into force Feb. 3, 1977.  TIAS 
8534; 28 UST 2088.
Amendments to Articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the WHO.  
Adopted at Geneva May 17, 1976.  Entered into force Jan. 20, 1984.  TIAS 
Acceptances deposited:  Eritrea, July 24, 1993.


Agreement for the exchange of tax information.  Signed at Santafe de 
Bogota July 21, 1993.  Enters into force upon an exchange of notes by 
which the parties confirm their mutual agreement that they have met the 
constitutional and legal requirements necessary to effectuate agreement.

Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling of certain debts 
owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the U.S. Government and its 
agencies, with annexes.  Signed at Maputo Aug. 13, 1993.  Enters into 
force following signature and receipt by Mozambique of written notice 
from the U.S. that all necessary domestic legal requirements have been 

Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling or refinancing of 
certain debts owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the United States 
Government and its agencies, with annexes.  Signed at Washington Aug. 
30, 1993.  Enters into force following signature and receipt by Peru of 
written notice from the U.S. that all necessary domestic legal 
requirements have been fulfilled.

Agreement concerning economic, technical, and related assistance 
programs.  Signed at Warsaw Aug. 10, 1993.  Enters into force on the 
first day of the first month after the parties exchange notes confirming 
that they have completed their respective internal requirements.

Agreement relating to the employment of dependents of official 
government employees.  Effected by exchange of notes at Washington July 
1 and 28, 1993.  Entered into force July 28, 1993.

Agreement for the protection and preservation of certain cultural 
properties.  Signed at Bucharest July 8, 1992.  Entered into force 
provisionally July 8, 1992; definitively July 29, 1993.  ###


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