1.  U.S., Israel, and Jordan Take Additional Steps Toward Peace
in the Middle East -- President Clinton, Jordanian Crown Prince
Hassan, Israeli Foreign Minister Peres 
2.  The Conference to Support Middle East Peace -- Vice
President Gore, Secretary Christopher, Belgian Foreign Minister
Claes, Treasury Secretary Bentsen, Co-Sponsors' Summary
3.  The Multilateral Talks in the Arab-Israeli Peace Process --
Edward P. Djerejian 
4.  U.S. Urges Global Moratorium On Nuclear Testing
5.  Economics and Foreign Policy:  The New Pacific Community --
Joan E. Spero 
6.  Averting Nuclear Chaos:  The Tasks Before Us -- James E.
7.  The Crisis in Moscow 
8.  Violations of Women's Human Rights -- John Shattuck  
9.  Fact Sheet:  First Annual Report of the Trade Promotion
Coordinating Committee
10.  Department Statements
        U.S. Condemns Abkhazian Violations of Sochi Agreement
        U.S. Supports Georgian Government on Sukhumi


U.S., Israel, and Jordan Take Additional Steps Toward Peace in
the Middle East
President Clinton, Jordanian Crown Prince Hassan, Israeli
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres
Remarks following a meeting at the White House, Washington, DC,
October 1, 1993

President Clinton.  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  I
have a brief statement, and then I want to give the Crown Prince
and the Foreign Minister an opportunity to make a few remarks.

I have just had the privilege of hosting what to date has been
an unprecedented meeting in the Oval Office between His Royal
Highness Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan and Foreign Minister
Shimon Peres of Israel.  This meeting is another important step
on the road toward a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.

With me in the Oval Office were Shimon Peres, a principal
architect of the path-breaking Israel-PLO agreement; and Crown
Prince Hassan, a leader who has literally devoted his life to
the promotion of peace and a better future for the entire
region.  I am grateful to both of them for accepting my
invitation to further the cause of peace.

On September 13, we bore witness to an event that should serve
as a turning point in the history of the Middle East.  Then, I
spoke of my commitment to help build a new future for the Middle
East and all its people. Today, we have taken two additional
steps to turn that hope into reality.

This morning at the State Department, in an extraordinary
demonstration of international support for peace, 43 nations
from every region of the world helped to usher in this new era
by providing their political and financial backing to those who
would make peace in the Middle East.  They pledged more than
$600 million for the immediate needs of the Palestinians and
over $2 billion over the next 5 years to help establish
Palestinian self-government.

And now this meeting has just taken place in the Oval Office,
coming as it does some 2 weeks after Jordan and Israel signed
their agreement on a common agenda to guide their negotiations. 
This symbolizes a new relationship between Jordan and Israel,
marked by dialogue and acceptance rather than confrontation and

The special relationship between the United States and Israel is
central to the pursuit of peace, and I want to emphasize the
great importance the United States attaches to Jordan's critical
role in achieving lasting peace in the region.

In our meeting, both the Crown Prince and the Foreign Minister
spoke of their hopes for the future of peace and prosperity for
Israelis, Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, and Jordanians
alike--indeed, for the entire region.  To help to work toward
this goal, they discussed ways to give more energy and force to
their bilateral negotiations to resolve all outstanding issues.

They also agreed today that Israel and Jordan should establish a
joint economic committee, much like the one agreed to in the
Israel-PLO agreement of 21/2 weeks ago.  And we all agreed that
Israel, Jordan, and the United States should establish a working
group to be convened by the United States with two
representatives from each country so that Israel and Jordan can
agree--together with this nation acting as facilitator--on the
next steps in economic development in their two nations.  They
share so much in common, as they both pointed out.  Now they
want a common economic agenda.

They also agreed to work, through this working group, on common
steps to reduce desertification in the area.  We want to reduce
the problems of the environment, and especially the problems the
desert presents, as a part of the long-term economic growth of
the Middle East and, especially, of Israel and Jordan.

And finally, they both agreed that we should all get to work as
soon as possible.  That's the kind of action and the kind of
attitude that I hope we can keep alive, coming as it does on the
heels of so many other encouraging signs in the Middle East.

Finally, let me say that they spoke of their common commitment
to work in close coordination with the Palestinians as this
peace process goes forward. In this way, we can all act as
partners with the Palestinians and work toward our common goals.

Let me say, personally, that I enjoyed this meeting very much. 
I applaud the Crown Prince; I applaud the Foreign Minister for
coming here, for being a part of it.  We believe that together
we can work toward a peace that benefits everyone.  And we
believe there are things we can be doing now to benefit the
countries and the peoples economically in ways that strengthen
their inner sense of security and commitment to this remarkable

I'd like now to offer the microphone first to the Crown Prince
and then to the Foreign Minister.

Crown Prince Hassan.  Mr. President, Foreign Minister, ladies
and gentlemen of the press:  There is a tide in the affairs of
men which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; omitted, all
the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. 
On such a full sea are we now afloat.

The voyage we have embarked upon, Mr. President, is guided by
important landmarks:  the common agenda, including the rights of
refugees according to international law; the Palestinian-Israeli
Declaration of Principles and its implementation within the
agreed timetable.  But what is more important is the commitment
to momentum.  And participating today through your kind
hospitality at the donors' conference, I was heartened to feel
that the commitment to peace in the Middle East is truly
universal.  We hope that this commitment and this partnership
can be maintained through your personal interest and guidance,
Mr. President.  And to that effect, I would endorse the fervent
desire for realizing the functional role that Jordan seeks to

I am happy to welcome the concept of an economic working group
within the context of our search for peace--the peace
process--and, indeed, to commit myself to--wherever and whenever
possible--furthering the humanitarian needs of people without
discrimination in Jordan and in the Palestinian context and in
the wider regional context.  I hope that interstate agreements
on these principles--these early functional steps--will lead in
the months ahead and, indeed, in the years ahead toward the
consolidation of a mutual understanding of shared peace in the
regional community where hope is shared by all on the ground.

But I have to say, in a word of caution, to the people of the
Middle East on the ground--in our cities, in our
villages--wheresoever and whomsoever they may be--in our refugee
camps, in the occupied territories, and in Jordan; in Jerusalem
where believers effectively of the Abrahamic faith 
share in the vision and the hope for peace--that there is much
to be done.  And I believe that we have to commit ourselves to a
work ethic for peace rather more than further opportunities to
share before the camera our commitment in statements, which I
hope will be realized.  But, again, I would stress that hope
needs to be effectively realized through commitment and hard
work on the ground.

I thank you, Mr. President.  Thank you, Foreign Minister.

Foreign Minister Peres.  Mr. President, Your Royal Highness:  I
would like to thank you, Mr. President, first of all, for
enabling us to return to what we used to be in history and to
what we should be--neighbors in economy.

It is a very moving occasion, I think, for our people--I hope,
for the rest of the Middle East.  And under the very devoted and
wise hand of the United States, I do believe that the two people
on both sides will have today a new hope and a new opportunity.

We have had the father, Abraham. We share the same river, the
Jordan. We have the same sea, the Red Sea. We are sharing the
same treasure, which is called, unfortunately, the Dead Sea. 
All these are historic treasures. They were blessed with
holiness.  Now what we want to do is to translate a great
historic tradition into a new economic endeavor.

I think in a world that was so skeptical, the Clinton
Administration and the people in the Middle East are trying to
show that we can do it differently, better, movingly, seriously,
with great hope and great depth.  May the Lord bless all of us
for serving him right historically as well as politically.

I would like also to thank the Secretary of State, Mr.
Christopher, for trying, in his own quiet way, to help us to
build a new, real drama in honor of our region.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.  ###


The Conference To Support Middle East Peace
Vice President Gore, Secretary Christopher, Belgian Foreign
Minister Claes, Treasury Secretary Bentsen, Co-Sponsors' Summary

Vice President Gore and Secretary Christopher
Statements at the opening of the Conference to Support Middle
East Peace, October 1, 1993.

Vice President Gore.  Ladies and gentlemen, good morning.  I
would like to begin by acknowledging, with gratitude, Secretary
Christopher and Secretary Bentsen and Minister Fyodorov,
representing our co-host, the Russian Federation.  And may I
formally welcome each and every participant here for this
important conference.  You are arriving in Washington at a time
when this city is still in the afterglow of the wonderful
agreement that was signed on the south lawn of the White House
just a few weeks ago.

Those of you who have been over to the West Wing of the White
House--and I see a great many here who have visited there on a
regular basis--you know that it's the custom at the White House
to decorate the walls with photographs of the big events of the
month.  Usually the pictures are up for a few weeks, and then
they come down and are replaced by a new batch.  Eventually,
this month's pictures will come down from the wall, too, but
they will occupy a permanent place in our memory and a permanent
place in our hearts:  the images of the Palestinian, Egyptian,
and Israeli youths in their green shirts with their seeds of
peace sign; pictures of the three leaders walking across the
south lawn; and, of course, Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman
Arafat leaning forward in front of President Clinton to
accomplish the famous handshake.

All of us there knew that we had witnessed a watershed event in
history--a stunning demarcation line between war and peace,
between despair and hope.  As cheers rang out spontaneously on
the lawn at the moment of the handshake, everyone there knew
that just as the crumbling of the Berlin Wall had instantly
become a metaphor, inspiring hope that all of the other walls
that need to come down could eventually come down, so in the
same way this historic handshake would become a metaphor for all
of the other efforts at reconciliation which now seem at times
impossible in our world but must occur and can occur if this one
did occur.  And it did.

The leaders of Israel and of the Palestinians have made historic
and courageous choices.  Prime Minister Rabin spoke for us all
when he said, "Enough of blood and tears.  Enough."  And so I
say to those Israelis and Palestinians who are here today, your
actions have earned you the respect and admiration and gratitude
of peace-loving people all around the world.

Today, the international community is also making a choice.  We
have chosen to support the agreement reached between Israel and
the Palestinians.  We support it politically, and we support it
economically.  This conference demonstrates the strength of our
commitment.  When I look around this room and see the vast array
of nations represented, I feel certain that the whole world will
understand our message that we intend to see peace prevail in
the Middle East.

This conference will play a critical role in supporting
implementation of the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration.  But the 
United States believes this conference should also play an
ongoing and much larger role than just seeing the agreement
survive.  We believe it can support and facilitate further
progress in the peace process for all states involved in the
peace negotiations.

The presence of so many parties from inside and outside the
Middle East thus sends a strong signal of hope.  By itself it
lends support to the peace process--support that is essential as
Israelis and Palestinians work to create a firm economic
foundation for peace.

We are prepared to do our part.  As President Clinton has said,
the United States anticipates contributing $500 million over the
next 5 years to help meet the economic needs associated with
implementing the Israeli-Palestinian agreement.  The money is
urgently needed, both in the Jericho and Gaza regions.  For that
reason, we will fund a range of activities on which we can begin
quickly, and, in some cases, we will start almost immediately. 
These include school reconstruction, hospital renovation, and

We're not alone.  Other countries have already announced
significant contributions.  We hope still others will be
announced at today's conference.  For those who have already
announced contributions and for those who will make such
announcements today, the United States offers its sincerest
thanks.  The world offers thanks.

It's hard today to find money for even the worthiest causes. 
How well we all know that.  Your decisions, therefore, are the
result of a commitment to the cause of peace that does not end
with rhetoric.  It would be hard to think of a more worthwhile
cause.  The Palestinian people need our help.  They need food. 
They need clothing.  They need medicine.  They need help
establishing the public sector infrastructure that will be the
key to long-term economic development.  They need help
empowering the private sector through investments.  Governments
can play a crucial role in creating an environment where private
investment will flourish.

But there are limits on what governments can do.  Ultimately,
the question of how well market forces can affect real people
living everyday lives will determine economic success or
failure.  This lesson is not lost on the private sector.

On a personal note, on the day of the agreement on the south
lawn, we had a briefing afterward in the White House for a group
of Arab-American leaders and Jewish-American leaders both in the
same room--in fact, the first time the two groups had been in
the same room as groups.  Because the schedule had dragged on a
bit after the south lawn ceremony, these two groups of people
were required to wait for an hour before the briefing began; and
during that hour, they got to know one another as human beings,
as individuals, as men and women.  And 
by the time those of us briefing them arrived, the mood in that
room was electrifying.  Reconciliation on a personal level had
taken place among dozens of individuals, echoing the symbolic
and real reconciliation affirmed by the handshake on the south

In that atmosphere, I mentioned this possibility of private
investment, and instantly the response from individuals on the
Arab and Jewish sides of the room--by then they were
intermingled--but the reaction from both groups was spontaneous,
enthusiastic, and immediate.  And I'm told that since that time
there has been a great deal of conversation in cities and
communities all across the United States--conversations aimed at
reconciliation and cooperative efforts to provide economic
support from the private sector for the reconstruction and
economic activities that are necessary in Gaza and Jericho.

And these commitments do not stem just from altruism.  They stem
from the view of successful investors that there is a reservoir
of skill and talent, not to mention markets, worth exploring
there.  The President has asked me to take the lead in
encouraging this private process and to offer our good offices
in support of the effort.

In the coming weeks, I intend to take counsel with others who
are interested in helping to bring together business leaders and
others in the Jewish- and Arab-American communities in this
country, and I feel that, ultimately, this is something truly
worthy of the talents and efforts of these communities and could
be a substantial source of support for the peace process both
materially and spiritually.  Meanwhile, I urge all of you to
encourage similar private sector initiatives in your own
countries, and I urge one thing more before I close.  In order
to realize the promise of the future, it is necessary to shed
the vestiges of what has been our past.

There are many things, including the boycott of Israel, that
have no place in a world seeking peace.  The decision to take
the first steps toward peace required exceptional courage.  It
does take courage to compromise.  It takes courage to surrender
some of yester-day's demands in exchange for the promise of a
much brighter tomorrow.

That meeting of Arab- and Jewish-Americans held only a few hours
after the signing was memorable and nothing short of miraculous.
 I looked out at that group, and one man stood up who will
remain in my memory--he identified himself as a Gazan.  He
looked across the seats to the representatives of Jewish groups
and across almost a half-century of bitterness, and he said, "I
say 'Shalom.' "

One of the Jewish leaders, a professor, quoted Hebrew scripture
from memory with deep emotion and then translated it into
English, and it was the passage where the Lord says, "Choose 
between--you have a choice between life and death; therefore
choose life."  And she said, "We have made choices today."

I call on all of the parties represented here to do all you can
to reward the courage on both sides encapsulated in that
wonderful handshake.  We must do everything in our power to
assure that one day Palestinians and Israelis will look back on
September 13, 1993, a sunny day on the south lawn of the White
House, with pride and satisfaction and that--when the pictures
have been taken down from the West Wing walls, when the
photographers have moved on to record the next crisis or the
next celebration, and when most of the names of those who worked
so hard to achieve this declaration have been, regrettably,
forgotten--both peoples, living in harmony and prosperity, will
remember and know that they and their leaders did not take the
risk for peace in vain; because that risk was supported by other
leaders from countries all over the world--who, in their own
way, also showed the courage called for at a historic time and
supported the peace process.

Thank you for being here, and thank you for your help.

Secretary Christopher.  Distinguished delegates and friends: 
For those of you who may not have had a chance to meet me, I'm
Warren Christopher, Secretary of State and one of the co-chairs
of this event.

The signing of the peace agreement 2 weeks ago challenges all of
us to seize the moment and convert it into a true turning point
in the troubled history of the Middle East.  When that moving
ceremony ended and the camera lights faded, the essential and
practical task of building peace had just begun.

We're here today representing people from the region and all
around the world to help those who had the courage to sign the
Israeli-Palestinian agreement.  Indeed, we must help them
transform the Declaration of Principles into new realities on
the ground.

For the Israelis and the Palestinians, the urgent and hard work
of reconciliation and reconstruction has only begun.  We must
help them demonstrate the tangible benefits of peace, and we
must do so quickly if the advocates of peace are to be
strengthened and the enemies of peace are to be isolated and

By meeting here today and, more importantly, by agreeing to act
now, we send a powerful signal to the Arabs and Israelis alike
that the international community will not let peace fail.

Forty-six countries and organizations are represented here today
from all around the world--one of the first donors' conferences,
indeed perhaps the first in my knowledge, where people have
volunteered to attend.  And let me say, we're grateful to all of
you for attending.

I know that no one will mind if I single out for particular
appreciation the attendance of Norway and Foreign Minister
Holst, who contributed so much to making the ceremony on the
White House lawn possible and, in effect, this day possible.

Your presence here and your immediate response to our invitation
clearly demonstrate an outpouring of moral and political support
for the agreement and for a comprehensive peace settlement.

Of course, our responsibilities do not end with the celebration.
 Now we must all deliver the necessary economic backing.  Our
pledges must be real, and they must be translated rapidly.  The
structures we create to organize and dispense the assistance
must be flexible and effective, and the Israeli-Palestinian
structures for receiving assistance must be capable of absorbing
it and using the assistance efficiently and credibly.

This conference demonstrates our collective recognition of a
historic moment and the need to do all we can to make it an
irreversible turning point in history.  This extraordinarily
diverse gathering of nations and institutions testifies to the
breadth and the depth of that commitment.  It shows that those
who make the political investment in negotiations will reap the
dividends of international support.  Those, on the other hand,
who choose violence and rejectionism will find only isolation
and failure.

The United States is proud to remain a full partner for peace. 
We congratulate the Israelis and the Palestinians for making the
negotiations work, and we pledge ourselves to continue our
active and determined effort to build upon these agreements and
to achieve a comprehensive peace.

A vital leader in America's role is our Treasury Secretary, my
colleague and friend, Lloyd Bentsen.  I'm very pleased that
Secretary Bentsen is here today and that he is going to be
applying his very considerable talents to this effort. 
Secretary Bentsen will be making remarks in just a few moments.

But I want to welcome you all to the Department of State, and I
look forward to working with you in this historic, collective
endeavor to 
promote peace in the Middle East.  

Secretary Christopher and Belgian Foreign Minister Claes
Remarks at the heads of delegation luncheon during the
Conference to Support Middle East Peace, October 1, 1993.

Secretary Christopher.  Thank you again for your cooperation. 
Our session this morning, I think it's fair to say, was a
striking success.  On behalf of Secretary Bentsen and Foreign
Minister Kozyrev and Minister Fyodorov, I want to thank you all 
for attending the conference and for your participation and your

In the coming months, we must make sure that we continue to work
together to make sure that the pledges are fulfilled and that
they're translated into tangible improvements on the ground in
the occupied territories.

At the same time, we must all redouble our efforts to work for a
comprehensive peace in the region.  The Israeli-Palestinian
agreements are a crucial component, an important building block,
but they must be fortified by progress on the other tracks.

Speaking of other tracks and speaking particularly of the
multilateral track, I want to note how pleased I am that the
first of the multilateral meetings will take place in the region
when Tunisia hosts the refugee group in October and Egypt hosts
the environmental group in December.  I hope there will be many
other meetings of the portions of the multilateral track in the
region in the near future.

As we've heard this morning and as you could tell from the
speakers, the European Community is playing a very vital role in
providing resources and providing leadership.  The EC financial
commitment complements its active leadership in the multilateral

The EC is a prime example of how integration of economies can
bring former adversaries together in producing stability and
prosperity in a region.  I'm pleased now to introduce Foreign
Minister Claes of Belgium, who is President of the Council of
Ministers of the European Community for this period, and I
introduce him to speak to you on this occasion--Foreign Minister

Foreign Minister Claes.  Mr. Secretary of State, Ministers,
Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen:  The history of mankind
teaches us that going to war is easier than making peace. 
Whether it is inherent to human nature or not, I leave to the
reflections of psychologists and (inaudible).  

It is, therefore, with enthusiasm that we all have greeted the
vision and courage of the leaders who took the decisive step to
sign the Israeli-Palestinian agreement, in our view, by
(inaudible) in the Middle East peace process.  Our response was
all the more swift and positive and, indeed, it represents the
concretization of ideas Europe has fostered since many years.

The Declaration of Venice of 1980, for example, contained ideas
which for some were unspeakable--and even unthinkable--at that
time.  When we consider what has been achieved now, it had some
prophetic value.  But the step which has been taken now, however
far-reaching and important, will only take its full 
significance if the momentum of the peace process is maintained
and if all the countries involved pursue their efforts in order
to achieve a complete, just, and lasting peace.

Peace will only be global when conditions will be realized for a
new start in the economic and social development of the region. 
A population frustrated in its ambitions for education, welfare,
public health, and prosperity would be an easy prey for
political unrest.  This would in turn continue to be a threat to
the stability of the region and of the world.

The sponsors of the Madrid Conference and the participating
countries were very conscious of the economic and social aspects
of any lasting peace.  The multilateral track of the conference
was created in order to give hope to populations who have
suffered wars rather than (inaudible) during more than 45 years.
 The bilateral track was created to solve the problems of the
past.  The multilateral track looks resolutely to the future.

Ladies and gentlemen, I shall not dwell upon the amount of our
contributions.  The figures have already been quoted.  Let me
just say that they have an important significance.  They
represent our commitment.  They are the consequence of our
long-lasting support for the peace process.  They mean that we
have firm hopes for the development of a region which is
culturally and spiritually one of the sources of our

It is also an act of faith in the various peoples who will learn
to live together.  We are convinced that the qualities and the
levels of education and of professional qualifications which
exist in the region constitute assets for a brilliant future and
rapid development.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have addressed my congratulations to the
courageous leaders who have made the first steps toward peace. 
I would fail to do my duty if I didn't mention also the role
played by the Norwegian Foreign Minister in this achievement. 
He deserves our gratitude.  And I would like to conclude in
commending all those who support their efforts.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate once
more the host country for the brilliant organization of this
conference on such short notice.

Secretary Christopher and Treasury Secretary Bentsen
Opening statements at a news conference following the Conference
to Support Middle East Peace, October 1, 1993.

Secretary Christopher.  Good afternoon.  It was only 19 days ago
that the world witnessed on the White House lawn a historic
turning point in the Middle East.  One week later, the United
States issued a call for a donors' conference to make that 
breakthrough irreversible.  Today we can say with confidence
that never before has the international community moved so
purposefully and with such urgency to build a lasting peace.  I
can say to you with confidence that the meeting this morning has
been a striking success.

On behalf of the United States and our Russian co-sponsors,
represented by Foreign Minister Kozyrev and Finance Minister
Fyodorov, Secretary Bentsen and I are delighted to summarize the
results of the conference.

The number and broad range of participants in this conference
exceeded our expectations.  The conference brought together 46
delegations from around the globe.  Indeed, for the first time
in my memory, nations actually requested invitations to a
donors' conference.  That remarkable response reflects the new
political landscape and the new sense of optimism that has
emerged in the Middle East.  Those contributions pledged today
reflected a genuine and sincere and generous commitment, as
Secretary Bentsen will describe in a moment.  This assistance
gives us every reason to expect that the needs foreseen in the
World Bank's estimates will be met in the years ahead.

The Palestinians have already taken the critical step of
creating a mechanism to work with the World Bank and others to
establish priorities and sound development policies.  The major
donors and the World Bank will work together to ensure that the
assistance is cost-effective, that it will produce tangible
results on the ground, and that it will spur long-term economic
growth.  We must work together to help Israel move to a
productive new relationship with its Palestinian neighbors.

For more than 40 years, the world has sought a just and lasting
peace in the Middle East.  Now we have seen a soaring
achievement by the Israelis and the Palestinians and an
extraordinary show of support by the international community. 
Certainly our work together has only begun, but we can be
greatly encouraged by the unprecedented moral and material
commitment that has been made today.

Now I'll introduce my colleague, Secretary Bentsen, for the
information you really are interested in--Secretary Bentsen.

Secretary Bentsen.  Well, I'm delighted to join my colleague,
Secretary Christopher.

This is an incredible response, as you've seen, in such a short
period of time.  To think it was only some 3 weeks ago that that
historic handshake took place and less than 2 weeks ago when we
announced this meeting--and then to have these representatives
from around the world coming to pledge their assistance.

What you're looking at here is, again, how important this
economic structure is for the future, because you must see in
the West Bank and Gaza an improving economy, one that will lead
to prosperity and the success of this venture.  We've had about
50 nations and international organizations that have come
together to bring about this show of support for the Middle East
peace.  As you know, there are very immediate and pressing needs
in the West Bank, and they have to be attended to quickly.  

I'm gratified that there are pledges for over $600 million for
that critical first year.  Over 2 years, it will reach $1
billion.  Commitments made today approach $2 billion over the 5
years; and, with the continuation of the maintenance of effort
in this from the donors that we have seen, I am confident that
we will exceed the $2.4 billion that the World Bank estimates to
be the need over 5 years.

You'll find some of the fine points of what we agreed to do in
the longer statement which we are handing out.  But I want to
point out the broad role of the multilateral institutions in
this effort.  We're calling on the World Bank to play an
important role, as well as the United Nations Relief and Works
Agency, the UN Development Program, and the IMF.

As donor nations, we agreed that we should support urgent relief
efforts and start rehabilitating the existing infrastructure. 
That in itself is a challenge.  But we also agreed that we must
do more.  We must help the Palestinians as they work to organize
and manage their own political, economic, and social affairs. 
The donors have agreed to start an extensive program of
technical assistance to build the institutions of government and
to train personnel.

The close cooperation of the Palestinians and the Israelis will
be essential in every area of institution-building.  One of the
critical needs will be creating a revenue-sharing system and a
local revenue-collection system--which a Secretary of the
Treasury can have a full appreciation for.  Over the longer
term, we agreed that promoting both public and private
investment will launch the West Bank and the Gaza on a path of
growth.  We have a 5-year program to make investments in
physical and social infrastructure, as well as in the areas of
their production capacity.

The representatives of both the Palestinian community and Israel
and the private donors stressed the part the private sector will
play in this--through lunch and talking to the PLO
representative and hearing him talk of the interest of
Palestinians back in the Gaza and the West Bank and what he
anticipates in the way of private capital coming to that area.

The Palestinians have acknowledged how very important it is to
have an environment that encourages private investment, and
donors will encourage private investment through incentive 
programs.  Conference participants also stressed the need to
address the development of the West Bank and the Gaza in its
regional  context, and there was agreement that free trade is
certainly needed throughout the region.

And, finally, we have a shared concern--Secretary Christopher
and I--that the assistance we are pledging be managed as
efficiently as possible, so there will be close cooperation
among major donors and the World Bank to meet that goal.  Thank

Co-Sponsors' Summary
Following is a text released at the Conference to Support Middle
East Peace in Washington, DC, October 1, 1993.

1.  "The Conference to Support Middle East Peace" was held on
October 1 in Washington.  The Conference was jointly sponsored
by the Russian Federation and the United States.  The Russian
co-chairs were Foreign Minister Kozyrev and Finance Minister
Fedorev.  The American co-chairs were Secretary Christopher and
Secretary Bentsen.

2.  The Conference brought together several overlapping circles
of parties:  members of the Multilateral Steering Group, a body
that has overseen the multilateral track of the peace process;
the gavel-holders of the working groups established under the
Madrid process, namely the European Community, Japan, Canada,
and the U.S.; the G-7 countries, which were invited in the
Palestinian-Israeli Declaration of Principles to play a role in
fostering economic development in the region; Norway; major
donors from around the world; Israel and Arab representatives,
including the GCC; and the World Bank and the United Nations. 
All participants gathered, first and foremost, to show support
for a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East and for the
Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles, which is an
important step toward that end.  Given the pressing economic and
development needs in Gaza and the West Bank, the Conference set
as its major objective the marshalling of substantial resources
to meet immediate and longer-term needs.

3.  The Palestinians and Israelis reported to the Conference on
steps they are taking to implement and consolidate the
Declaration of Principles signed on September 13.  The
Palestinians emphasized their intention to organize mechanisms
to promote economic development and make effective use of
external assistance.  The Palestinians and Israelis made clear
their intention to cooperate in fostering economic development
in the West Bank and Gaza as foreseen in the Declaration of

4.  The participants at the Conference agreed to support the
historic political breakthrough in the Middle East through a
broad-based multilateral effort to mobilize resources to promote
reconstruction and development in the West Bank and 
Gaza.  They acknowledged [that] the formidable challenges of
implementing the September 13 Declaration of Principles will
generate a broad range of assistance needs.

5.  Participants shared the view that these needs require both
immediate and longer-term action.  The twin goals are to have
near-term impact on economic prospects and living standards and
to ensure that longer-term assistance lays the basis for
launching sustained growth.

Conference Commitments
6.  For the critical first phase of the effort, participants
announced pledges totalling in excess of $600 million for the
first year and $1 billion for the first two years.  For the
five-year period corresponding to the peace agreement, there
were formal indications of planned support approaching $2
billion.  Additional indications are expected in the future. 
Anticipating the continuation of donor efforts on the level
announced for the first year, we are confident that the $2.4
billion of five-year external assistance needs identified by the
World Bank will be met.

Assistance Programs and Donors
7.  The donor community agreed to support urgent relief efforts,
and to endeavor to meet other short-term needs including
rehabilitation of existing infrastructure.  It is recognized
that an appropriate legal framework should be established on the
recipient side in order to enable a smooth implementation of
external assistance.  Participants recognized that the United
Nations Relief and Works Agency is already active in these
areas.  UNRWA, nongovernmental organizations, the EC, and other
bilateral donors are prepared to move at a rapid pace.

8.  Urgent and ongoing efforts must be directed at building the
capacity of the Palestinians to organize and manage their own
political, economic, and social affairs in the context of
implementation of the September 13 Palestinian-Israeli
Declaration of Principles.  An important priority will be the
development of effective revenue-sharing and revenue-collection
arrangements.  Participants resolved to initiate an extensive
program of technical assistance to build institutions and to
train personnel.  The World Bank will establish and manage a
Trust Fund to finance this kind of technical assistance,
training, and feasibility studies over the next 12-18 months. 
Moreover, UN agencies including UNDP, along with other
multilateral and bilateral programs and agencies, will provide
both technical and financial assistance to support this
institution-building effort.

9.  In the longer term, the Conference noted the importance of
promoting public and private investment to lay the foundation
for launching the West Bank and Gaza on a path of sustained
growth.  Participants will carry out their assistance projects
within the framework of a five-year program of public 
investment in physical and social infrastructure and productive
capacity.  The World Bank, in cooperation with other
international financial institutions, will take a leading role
in developing and helping to mobilize programs to support public

10.  The private sector and private investment will play a
critical part in promoting sustained growth and development. 
The Palestinians acknowledge the importance of establishing an
environment conducive to private investment.  Conference
participants intend to encourage trade and private investment
through export financing programs and investment incentives.

11.  Conference participants stressed the need to address the
development of the West Bank and Gaza in its regional context. 
The World Bank has begun to identify regional infrastructure
projects that would facilitate economic integration of the West
Bank and Gaza with its neighbors.  Participants emphasized that
freer trade among the economies of the region would be
beneficial.  The four relevant working groups created under the
Madrid process should continue their work on issues of regional
economic development, water, environment, and refugees.

12.  There was a shared concern, in a time of budget constraint
and scarce resources, that this assistance effort be managed
efficiently with maximum benefit for recipients.  Donors and
regional financial institutions will work closely with the World
Bank to achieve this goal.

13.  Participants recognized that many obstacles must be
overcome on the road to peace, security, and economic
development in the region.  They expressed confidence in the
ability of the Israeli and Palestinian people to sustain the
hard labor of peace.  Participants urged the Palestinian and
Israeli representatives to move forward rapidly to implement the
Declaration of Principles and pledged their support for the
peace process, both politically and financially.  ###


The Multilateral Talks in the Arab-Israeli Peace Process
Edward P. Djerijian
Address at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Last week, we were witnesses to history.  The signing at the
White House of the Israeli-Palestinian Joint Declaration was one
of those seminal events which transform the international
landscape.  Like all major events, the signing will have many
consequences--intended and unintended.

Today I would like to focus on one of the intended consequences
of the Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough--the synergism between
the two tracks of the Madrid peace process.  Secretary
Christopher, in announcing the Conference to Support Middle East
Peace, said we would be "building on the Madrid framework."  He
was referring to the multilaterals--the "other" track of the
peace process.

In planning Madrid and its aftermath, we pushed for two
negotiating tracks to address the sets of problems which exist
in the Middle East.  The first track, the bilaterals, was and is
meant to resolve the core bilateral issues at the heart of the
Arab-Israeli dispute:  namely, land, peace, and security.  As
you know, this track is broken down into separate bilateral 
negotiations between Israel on the one hand and, respectively,
the Syrians, the Lebanese, and the Jordanians and Palestinians
on the other.  Clearly, the bilaterals have been the focal point
of public attention and interest.

The second track, the multilaterals, was designed to address
functional issues on a region-wide basis.  It was designed to
foster broader human contact between Israelis and Arabs.  In
short, it was designed to be an essential complement to the
bilaterals--to tackle those regional problems that are
themselves a source of tension and instability.  Not
surprisingly, foreign policy professionals and the general
public did not pay a great deal of attention to the
multilaterals.   And participants in this process were not
unhappy to avoid the glare of publicity--to keeUUUhe focus on
the bilaterals and to encourage the thoughtful exploration of
regional concerns in a constructive atmosphere.

Now, precisely because of this first success in the bilaterals,
the importance and the profile of the multi-laterals will
inevitably rise.  The work that we have been doing on this track
will, in some instances, be drawn into the bilateral track and,
more significantly, the mechanism we established for running the
multilaterals will itself feature in our efforts to implement
the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles.

But I am getting ahead of myself.  It might be useful for me
first to discuss the origins of this "other" track, describe the
progress the multilateral working groups have made to date, and
then link the work that has been done with the urgent
multilateral effort to support the recent agreement between
Israel and the Palestinians.

The Origins of the Multilaterals
In preparing the multilateral track for Madrid, we had a vision
of the fruits of peace in terms of economic, human, social,
developmental, environmental, and security needs.  We recognized
that many functional problems affected the entire region, from
the Maghreb to the Gulf.  In order to address these problems
effectively, we needed as broad a regional participation as
possible.  With this in mind, we extended 
invitations to all regional states, save those--like Libya and
Iraq--whose policies had put them outside of the community of

We recognized, too, that in order to deal comprehensively with
the problems of the Middle East, we had to include
extra-regional parties.  We realized it would be essential to
draw on the wealth of expertise, energy, and goodwill available
around the globe.  We therefore invited the Europeans, Japan,
Canada, China, and many others.  In doing this, we understood 
that the U.S. could not afford to shoulder the entire promise
and obligation of peace as it had done at Camp David.

Accordingly, the parties at the Madrid Conference established
the multilateral track and called for an organizing meeting to
be held in Moscow.  In January 1992, 36 parties, including 11
Arab states and Israel, attended the meeting.  Take note of the
number of Arab participants--11.  The bilaterals established
negotiations between Israel and four Arab partners.  The
multilaterals brought the Israelis into contact, from the very
start, with seven additional Arab countries.  This demonstrates
that the concept of the multilaterals--inter alia, to facilitate
and normalize Israeli-Arab contact--was sound.

The historic impact of this new departure came home to me while
co-chairing with my Russian colleague the first multilateral
Steering Group meeting in Lisbon in May of 1992.  Around the
large oval table for the first time were Israeli delegates
sitting next to the Egyptians, Saudis (representing the GCC),
Tunisians (representing the Maghreb), Jordanians, and
Palestinians.  A new situation was emerging.

The Working Groups
Let me turn to the operation of the working groups.  The parties
in Moscow agreed to establish five working groups on issues that
are regional in scope and vital to establishing and maintaining
peace:  arms control and regional security, environment,
economic development, refugees, and water resources.  The
Steering Group, co-chaired by the U.S. and Russia, was created
to monitor the multilateral process.

It is not surprising--in fact, it was planned--that several of
the groups, especially security, refugees, and water resources,
would address matters that are also central to bilateral
negotiations.  We believed that the multilateral working groups
could do valuable spade work in preparation for eventual
bilateral agreements.  We wanted to be ready to mobilize
resources--both financial and technical--as soon as agreements
were reached.  Now we are reaping the benefit of that foresight.

Arms Control and Regional Security.  The U.S. and Russia, the
co-sponsors of the Madrid process, chair the Arms Control and
Regional Security Working Group.  The acronym is ACRS.  The 
realities of this heavily armed region dictated the approach we
took in this working group.  Decades of war had produced great
mutual distrust and little experience with arms control or even
confidence-building measures in the Middle East.  Indeed,
outside of a handful of countries--most notably Israel and
Egypt--there were few officials or even scholars in the region
familiar with these concepts.

The result was an approach at the first and, even, second
working groups that sought to provide the ABCs of arms control. 
Equally important was providing an atmosphere in which
professionals, responsible for the security of their respective
countries, could establish a relationship and learn, little by
little, to trust each other.  From there, the group moved on to
explore more specific arms control and confidence-building
measures that might be applied to the region.  It has held
workshops on verification, maritime measures, information
exchange, and communications.  (In fact, the first peace process
event held in the region was a workshop in Egypt.)  Down the
road, we can see ACRS looking to implement some
confidence-building measures on a region-wide basis in the areas
of communications and maritime search and rescue.

Economic Development.  The EC leads the Economic Development
Working Group, with the U.S. and Japan as co-organizers.  Even
before the recent breakthrough, the Economic Development Group
was focused on the economic problems of Gaza and the West Bank
as well as regional concerns.  A World Bank study done for the
group has become a valuable foundation for the economic work
essential to support the peace process.  

While the details of an assistance program need to be worked
out, this study provides a coherent and timely framework for
rational decision-making.  It suggests ways to set priorities
and indicates the magnitude of the task before us.  Without it,
we would be scrambling now to catch up to the dramatic events of
last week.

The Economic Working Group had not restricted itself to studies
and hypothetical discussions, however.  Well before news of the
Israeli-Palestinian accord broke, members of the Economic
Development Working Group had begun projects to lay the
groundwork for Palestinian self-government.  The U.S., for
example, had taken the lead in training Palestinians to
administer a civil service, administer a tax system, and make a
sewage system work.  This is essential work.  These people will
provide the mid-level expertise required by the institutions the
Palestinians will develop--the institutions that will give
substance to the vision of peace offered by the Declaration of

Environment.  Of the five groups, the Environment Working Group,
led by the Japanese, with the U.S. and EC as co-organizers, has
the least political baggage.  Early on, the regional
participants identified environmental needs.  A 
consensus emerged to address the very real problem of
desertification--the spread of the desert--that affects all the
parties of the region.  A number of the regional parties also
urged this working group to focus on solid and liquid waste
disposal urgently.

The mode of operation has been to bring experts--not politicians
or diplomats--from the region together at workshops and set them
to addressing the problems.  What we found was that when we put
these experts together they solved problems.  Beyond the glare
of the political klieg lights, we created an environment where
scientists spoke a common language.  In this forum, Israelis,
Palestinians, and other Arabs started working together on such
critical environmental issues as hazardous waste disposal and
oil spills.  

When these scientists went home, they told their political
leadership that Arabs and Israelis can work together on problems
of mutual concern.  This "bottom-up" approach--the technicians
telling the politicians that it is not only possible but
necessary to work with old adversaries--has been replicated a
number of times in the multilaterals.  That was precisely what
we had in mind in setting this process in motion.

Refugees.  Canada has the lead in the Refugee Working Group.  
This has been a particularly contentious group since it deals
with some of the most emotionally charged problems in the
Arab-Israeli conflict--issues like family reunification. 
Indeed, we recognized from the beginning that on such sensitive
questions the parties would have to arrive at political
agreements bilaterally.  Now Israelis, Palestinians, and
Jordanians have agreed to do just that.  Both the
Israeli-Palestinian accord and the Israel-Jordan agenda commit
the parties to negotiate on these sensitive issues.

We hope and expect that the bilateral commitments will enable
this working group to move ahead more quickly.  Even before the
bilateral breakthrough, the refugee group had carved out some
aspects of the problem to work on:  training and job creation,
public health and child welfare, and social and economic

Water Resources.  As with the refugee problem, the core issue of
water  resources--water rights--will be the subject of bilateral
negotiations.  The Israeli-Palestinian accord and the
Israel-Jordan agenda call for negotiations on water rights.  

As a result, the U.S.-led Water Resources Working Group has
focused on a variety of functional issues, such as sector
training needs, river basin management, and water data
availability.  Through workshops, field trips, and feasibility
studies, the group has laid the groundwork for important
regional projects.  With the breakthrough in the bilaterals, it
might be possible to move forward on projects, like desalination
plants, in the region.

Future Steps
I have quickly described the progress to date in the three
rounds of multilateral working group meetings.  Yet there is one
more achievement that deserves mention.  We agreed in the last
Steering Group meeting in Moscow that two of the working groups
in the fourth round, which is scheduled for October and
November, will be hosted in the Arab world.  The Refugee Working
Group meets in Tunisia and the Environmental Working Group in
Egypt.  This means, of course, that Israelis will be meeting
with 11 other Arab delegations--and others--in two Arab venues. 
Once again, the multilaterals are brushing aside long-standing
barriers to regional normalization.

In conceiving the multilaterals, we hoped to create a web of
functional interests vaulting political fault lines.  We
imagined that, as countries prepared for the working groups,
they would create institutions and interest groups that
understood the need for this process to succeed and would work
toward that end.  And we were right.  Early on, it was evident
that for most participants the multilaterals were seen as a
"win-win" situation.   All could gain, and all have.

While pleased with the barriers that have fallen in the
multilaterals, we would still like to broaden regional
participation.  Syria and Lebanon have, to date, declined to
join the multilateral process until there is concrete progress
in the bilateral negotiations.  We hope recent developments will
move this process forward so that Syria and Lebanon will take
part in this important effort.  We are once again encouraging
them to join the multilateral process.

The Breakthrough and the Multilaterals
The achievements that I have described predate the signing of
the Israeli-Palestinian Joint Declaration of Principles.  But
that breakthrough inevitably affects the work program and the
prominence of the multi-laterals.

At the signing ceremony on the White House lawn September 13,
President Clinton pledged that the U.S. would take the lead in
marshaling the necessary resources to support the breakthrough. 
Secretary Christopher outlined our approach in his speech this
week in New York.  To fulfill this pledge, the U.S. will convene
a donors' conference in Washington early next month.  The
conference will be held within the framework of the multilateral
Steering Group.  The instrument that we put in place to advance
the multilateral track now becomes the vehicle for implementing
the first breakthrough in bilateral negotiations.

The use of the Steering Group is no accident.  We had foreseen
the economic needs that would need to be addressed as part of
our efforts to make peace.  At the Steering Group session in
Moscow last July, I negotiated, with Faisal Husseini, Israeli
Deputy Foreign Minister Beilin, and other members of the group,
language for the final statement of the session.  The statement 
"recognized the particular needs of the Palestinians as they
moved toward interim self-government arrangements."  It also
expressed the hope that "additional funds will be made available
to the Palestinians to meet their current pressing needs and
responsibilities."  Now that is coming to pass.

Secretary Christopher and Treasury Secretary Bentsen, along with
their Russian counterparts, are inviting the Israelis, the
Palestinians, the Europeans, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Canada, the
Nordic countries, and others to this event.  The World Bank will
participate and, within the Madrid framework, will play a
leading role.  The UN also has a key contribution to make. 
There is no intention to exclude any country or organization
which can make a genuine contribution.  Parties will be invited
who plan to extend material assistance beyond any levels they
currently provide.  As Secretary Christopher said:

The purpose of this Conference will be to mobilize resources
needed to make the agreement work.  The international community
must move immediately to see that the agreement produces
tangible improvements in the security and daily lives of the
Palestinians and the Israelis.

In this effort, one of the first tasks will be to gauge the
amount of assistance needed in Gaza and the West Bank.  While
there are several varying estimates, perhaps the most
comprehensive is the one prepared by the World Bank that I
referred to earlier.  According to that study, an additional $3
billion will be needed over the next 10 years.

In any case, all experts agree on the needs that must be
addressed.  We are looking to produce visible results
immediately in terms of creating employment.  We want to
mobilize resources for the longer-term challenge of putting in
place an adequate physical infrastructure that can ensure clean
water, good transportation, and the availability of electric
power.  We intend to pursue projects that build roads, schools,
hospitals, and housing.  We will provide technical assistance
aimed at establishing democratic institutions, strengthening
credit institutions and tax collection capabilities, and
improving agricultural methods.  We expect to draw on the
resources of UNRWA, UNDP, and other organizations that have
experience and ideas for particular projects in Gaza and the
West Bank.  Equally important, we will encourage and work with
the American private sector to play an important role.

Given the positive response we have received to date from
countries and organizations around the globe, we believe that
these needs can be met.  We are also prepared to contribute our
fair share.  Working with the Congress, we expect to provide a
2-year assistance package valued at $250 million.

Thus far, I have focused on the intended actions of the U.S. and
other donors.  But it is important to keep in mind the role of
the Israelis and the Palestinians in this process.  The 
Declaration of Principles enters into force October 13.  At that
time, the parties are to establish an Israeli-Palestinian
Economic Cooperation Committee.  This is absolutely essential. 
The Palestinians need to create structures to receive and to
coordinate with the Israelis the receipt of assistance and to
ensure that it is put to productive use.

Looking Ahead
The overall effort that we are engaged in is an exercise in
coalition-building on a grand scale.  We have been coalition
builders before--most recently in the Gulf war.  But this
coalition is something new.  As Secretary Christopher said, this
is a coalition for peace--to help establish and stabilize peace
in one of the world's most important and volatile regions.

The stakes in this new endeavor are every bit as high as in our
previous efforts at coalition-building.  The Israeli-Palestinian
Declaration of Principles marked the first major step toward the
vision of a just and durable Middle East peace glimpsed at
Madrid.  Economic and social development and growth are
essential to consolidate the peace agreement.  The role of this
multilateral effort is nothing less than to secure that first
step and ensure that the structure and resources are in place to
support further steps toward a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace
on all fronts.  What a worthy venture this is.  For the sake of
peace in the Middle East, let us all work to make it a success. 


U.S. Urges Global Moratorium on Nuclear Testing
Statement released by the White House, Office of the Press
Secretary, Washington, DC, October 5, 1993.

Last night, China conducted an underground nuclear test at the
Lop Nur test site in northwest China, despite the urging of more
than 20 nations, including the United States, not to do so.

The United States deeply regrets this action.  We urge China to
refrain from further nuclear tests and to join the other nuclear
powers in a global moratorium.  Such a moratorium will
contribute to the achievement of the Administration's goal of
completing a Comprehensive Test Ban by 1996, to which the
Administration is committed.

The President has today directed the Department of Energy to
take such actions as are needed to put the U.S. in a position to
be able to conduct nuclear tests next year, provided the
notification and review conditions of the Hatfield-Exon-Mitchell
amendment are met in the spring of 1994.

The President's ultimate decision on whether to test will be
based on fundamental U.S. national security interests, taking
into account:

--  The contribution further tests would make to improving the
safety and reliability of the U.S. arsenal in preparation for a
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTB).
--  The extent to which China and others have responded to the
U.S. appeal for a global moratorium on testing.
--  Progress in the CTB negotiations.
--  The implications of further U.S. nuclear tests on our
broader non-proliferation objectives.

Administration officials will begin consultations at once with
Congress and our allies on these issues.  ###


Economics and Foreign Policy:  The New Pacific Community
Joan E. Spero, Under Secretary for Economic and Agricultural
Address before the Asia Foundation, San Francisco, California,
September 21, 1993

With the end of the Cold War,the world has changed
fundamentally.  We all know it.  We see images of that change on
TV:  the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, President Yeltsin waving
off tanks, free elections in Cambodia.  Perhaps nothing better
illustrates just how different things are than the improbable
picture last week of Prime Minister Rabin and PLO Chairman
Arafat on stage with President Clinton, Secretary Christopher,
and Russian Foreign Minister Kozyrev for the signing of the
Mideast peace agreement.

With the fundamental changes in the post-Cold War era, the U.S.
national interest also has shifted.  Economics is increasingly
at the forefront of our foreign policy.  Economic growth and
development, spurred by open markets and increasing economic
integration, are critical to U.S. objectives of promoting peace
and democracy in the post-Cold War period.  The success of the
democratic revolution in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet
Union depends on their ability to build market economies.  That
is why the U.S. is contributing to a multilateral effort to
support Russian reform.  The historic peace in the Middle East
will hinge to a great extent on the ability to create jobs and
an economic base in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.  That is
why we will be working with the international community to help
fund that economic base of peace. 

Our international economic relations are key to domestic
economic renewal.  As all of us who have been in business know, 
world markets are now global.  That is why President Clinton, in
his first foreign policy speech last February, spoke about
economic policy and laid out a policy agenda:  making America
competitive by getting our own economic house in order;
promoting free trade; improving coordination among major
financial powers to promote growth; encouraging development; and
promoting democracy in the former Soviet Union.  In this context
of the new centrality of economics, no region is more important
than Asia and the Pacific.

The United States response to the unprecedented opportunities
and challenges of the post-Cold War era is vitally important. 
Living in America's cosmopolitan bridge to the Pacific, San
Franciscans have long known what the rest of the country is just
discovering:  In the post-Cold War period, across the board,
there is no region in the world more important to the United
States than the Pacific Rim.  Today, I would like to look at the
stakes for the U.S. and describe our strategy for promoting and
responding to change in the Pacific.  It is particularly
appropriate that I do so here, since it was in San Francisco, on
his way to the G-7 Summit in Tokyo, that President Clinton first
articulated his vision of the New Pacific Community.

Change in the Pacific
Until recently, many Americans paid scant attention to the major
transformation of the region.  Yet in the past decade, Asia has
seen the most dynamic economic growth in the world.  Foreign
investment is pouring into Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, and
Malaysia.  ASEAN economies are booming--growing six times faster
than world output in 1992.  China's southern and coastal areas
are enjoying a market-oriented manufacturing boom and an
explosion of Western joint ventures.  According to the World
Bank, China's economy should be viewed as the third-largest in
the world and is increasingly integrated with the economies of
Hong Kong and Taiwan through informal trade and investment
linkages.  Korea represents one of Asia's greatest success
stories, having transformed in a few short decades from
subsistence to an advanced manufacturing economy.  Economic
growth has given rise to an Asian middle class and a large, new
consumer market.  

Fueled by global revolutions in technology, transportation, and
communication, this new Asian middle class has expectations of
greater political empowerment.  From Chai Ling's proclamation of
democracy's spirit at Tiananmen Square to Aung San Suu Kyi's
eloquent opposition to repression in Burma to President Kim's
courageous political reforms in Korea, calls for democracy and
human rights are being voiced throughout the region.  In the
past 2 years, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, and Korea have moved
decisively toward democratic government.  Even in strong
democracies like Japan, we are seeing greater public demand for
more accountability by the nation's elected leaders.  Rapidly
growing access to information will inevitably lead to new
demands for human rights protection and democratic institutions
throughout the region. 

An explosion of information in the region has just begun. 
Pacific Rim countries are investing more than $21 billion
annually to modernize and restructure their telecommunications
networks.  Fiber optic cables are being laid throughout the
Pacific, bringing the world's most sophisticated communication
services to the region, linking Asia's financial markets even
more closely, and bringing Asia closer to America.  During 1985
and 1989, telephone traffic between the U.S. and the Pacific Rim
increased by 140%.  The birth of Star TV in Hong Kong with a
satellite footprint covering most of the region serves Asia's
growing middle class.  CNN and BBC coverage is now available
throughout the region.

We are seeing a thawing of traditional regional antagonisms. 
South Korea has established diplomatic relations with both
Russia and the People's Republic of China.  This year, ASEAN
established a broad, new regional forum to include all major
countries of the region to begin considering Asia's future
security.  In Cambodia, Asia-Pacific nations are working
side-by-side to bring about a political solution to end decades
of suffering.  And Japan sent a peace-keeping force to Cambodia
in its first overseas military deployment since World War II.

U.S. Stakes in the Pacific
The wave of change means that our stakes in the Pacific Rim,
always important, are now even more vital.  Asia still has the
world's largest population, many of its richest and oldest
cultures, and many of the world's resources.  More and more, our
own culture and society are enriched by the growing numbers of
immigrants from the region, something which the people of San
Francisco have always known.  

As the fastest-growing region in the world, the Pacific Rim
holds terrific promise for job-creating exports of U.S. goods
and services.  As a growing center of technological and
entrepreneurial innovation, it is a region that the U.S. cannot
afford to ignore.  Quite simply, the economic dynamism of the
region--the promise and challenges it holds for the
future--demand U.S. engagement.   
We have a major economic stake in Asia.  Over one-half of our
total world trade is with the Pacific region, half again as much
as our trade with Europe and three times our trade with Latin
America.  By one estimate, every $1 billion of exports creates
almost 20,000 new American jobs.  Not only does trade create
jobs, but those jobs also pay a higher wage--almost $3,500 more
per year than the average American job.  We therefore should
remember that more than 2.5 million U.S. jobs now depend on
exports to the Asia-Pacific region. 

The Pacific is also the region of our greatest economic
challenges.  Many of our toughest competitors--and potential
competitors--are in Asia.  We all know that Asian countries
export a lot to us and other countries around the globe.  How do
we meet this challenge?  As President Clinton stated recently,
we are confronted with the choice of embracing change 
and creating the jobs of tomorrow or resisting change and hoping
we can preserve the economic structures of yesterday.  Closing
markets and resisting change is not an option.  Rather, we need
to export more.  We need to increase our presence in these
markets to know what competitors are doing.  We cannot afford to
abandon the field.  This, too, demands greater U.S. engagement. 

We have a stake in global issues, including the evolution of
democracy.  As Secretary of State Christopher has noted,
"Democracies tend not to make war on other democracies."  They
respect basic human rights.  There are no better examples than
Korea and Taiwan, where the democratic developments spurred by
economic growth are welcome for both humanitarian and practical
reasons.  Our interest in promoting this trend, too, demands
continued U.S. engagement.  And we need to work closely with our
Asian partners on other global problems--overpopulation, AIDS,
protection of the environment, refugees, and drug trafficking.

Despite the unprecedented change in the equation of war and
peace with the end of the Cold War, we continue to have an
important stake in the security of the region.  We fought three
wars there in the last half-century.  Our continued presence
prevents another outbreak.  The most dangerous vestige of the
Cold War lingers on the Korean Peninsula, where a potentially
nuclear-capable North Korea remains a serious strategic threat
to our friends in the region.  Four of the world's five
remaining communist regimes--and other repressive regimes--are
in Asia.  Asia remains an area which has the potential to send
weapons of mass destruction to other parts of the world.  We
continue to have serious concerns about China's compliance with
international standards against missile proliferation and
nuclear testing.  We have a critical interest in halting
proliferation in Asia.

In sum, we have enormous stakes in the Pacific--economic,
political, and strategic.  How will the U.S. respond?

The U.S. Response:  The New Pacific Community
As President Clinton told an American University audience last
February, the United States and the major world economies today
"stand at the third great moment of decision in the 20th
century."  Together, we can either provide the leadership the
world now desperately needs, or we can repeat the mistakes of
history by turning inward.  Quite simply, America's future lies
in broader, deeper, more intense engagement in the Asia-Pacific
region.  It is this realization that has led President Clinton
to call for development of a New Pacific Community.   

As the President said first in San Francisco, then in Tokyo and
Seoul this summer, he envisions "a Pacific community built on
shared strength, shared prosperity, and a shared commitment to
democratic values."  These three pillars are inseparable and
intertwined.  Economic progress spurred by trade and investment 
liberalization is essential for stability in the Pacific Rim. 
Economic growth, rising standards of living, and integration
with the world economic system are powerful forces for
democratic change and respect for human rights.  A continued
strong U.S. commitment to the region's security creates the
environment for economic development, growing markets, and
flourishing trade.  Each of these three pillars is necessary for
an effective U.S. foreign policy in Asia:  Each reinforces the
other.  But we must also recognize that there are and will
continue to be conflicts in our pursuit of these goals.  For
example, a policy to use economic sanctions to advance human
rights or non-proliferation goals will have an economic cost. 
We cannot avoid trade-offs.  What we must do is carefully
evaluate the costs and benefits in each case. 

To realize the President's vision, we must first work to create
a true sense of community--shared interests, values,
goals--among the highly diverse nations of the Asia-Pacific
region.  The region is one of enormous economic and political
diversity, large cultural and physical distances, and a legacy
of conflict.  

At the same time, the changes I spoke of earlier are driving the
region toward broader and deeper interaction.  Explosive
economic growth helps weave the web of human and commercial
relationships that form the foundation of a "community."  The
significant and historically new trends, especially the
telecommunications revolution, are reducing distances and
spurring regional "networking."  There is a growing awareness
that trans-national issues require regional cooperation.  U.S.
engagement is required to promote and direct these trends,
serving as a catalyst for the development of a community.  We
must build the architecture and intensify the network of
relationships that will make a community.

An Economic Vision of the New Pacific Community.  We will seek
to promote continued, rapid economic growth with a commitment to
sustainable development and market-oriented economies open to
international trade and investment.  Our approach must include
vigorous and essential efforts to convince trading partners to
tear down barriers to trade and investment.  We must also seize
the tremendous opportunities for mutual benefit that exist with
these burgeoning economies.  Thus, we are actively exploring
possibilities for economic cooperation on various levels.   

We continue to place priority on sustaining and strengthening
the global trading system.  For far too long, we have been
trying to bring the GATT Uruguay Round to a successful
conclusion.  The Clinton Administration is committed to securing
a successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round of trade
negotiations this year.  A successful conclusion to the round is
critically important in the Asia-Pacific region, where explosive
economic growth has been driven by international trade.  None of
the remaining trade-offs will be easy for any 
nation.  But without a successful round, the wealth of all
nations will be decreased.  We call upon our trading partners in
Asia and throughout the world to join with us in making the hard
choices necessary now to secure the certain benefits of more
open trade tomorrow.  We look to our Asian partners in
particular for progress in the areas of investment and services.

Bilaterally, we are striving to improve U.S. competitiveness and
to ensure that competitive U.S. business enjoys the access it
needs to thrive in dynamic Asian markets.  In our bilateral
dialogues, we will put new emphasis on encouraging the promising
trend of market-oriented regulatory reform now underway in many
Asian economies.  We recognize that deregulation is critical to
U.S. businesses' ability to compete, in practice, in these
markets.  We will not shy from exploring bilateral economic
cooperation in our interest.   

Our Japan framework agreement is one example of this new
approach; our new dialogue for economic cooperation with Korea
is another.  We have agreed with Japan to address macroeconomic
imbalances and negotiate agreements on market-opening, as well
as explore areas in which we can cooperate on global issues such
as the environment, technology, and human resources.  With
Korea, we will work to ensure that U.S. business interests are
addressed as Korea pursues its ambitious economic reform and
deregulation program.  We will also explore areas in which we
might work together to our mutual benefit in industrial

Our commitment to international economic cooperation does not
mean that we will dilute our economic agenda.  We will continue
to welcome foreign competition within our borders, but we expect
the same access to foreign markets.  We will continue to keep
our doors open to foreign investors and foreign subsidiaries as
a crucial source of new capital, managerial techniques, and
technologies.  But we expect other countries to offer the same
welcome to American firms and investors.

Regional Economic Cooperation.  Regional cooperation is also
vital to advancing our economic interests.  As you know,
congressional approval of the North American Free Trade
Agreement is one of President Clinton's highest priorities. 
NAFTA is essential to our long-term economic welfare.  It will
create high-wage, high-skill American jobs, enhance our ability
to compete globally, and increase cooperation with our neighbors
on a broad range of critical issues from narcotics to
immigration and the environment. 

Regional economic cooperation is also essential to realizing the
President's vision of the New Pacific Community.  And one of the
brightest spots on this front today is the promising evolution
of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC).  I am on
my way to Hawaii for a key meeting of APEC senior officials. 
The meeting will lay the groundwork for this 
year's meeting of APEC foreign, trade, and other economic
ministers, which will be chaired by the U.S. in Seattle in

APEC first met in Australia in 1989 as an informal dialogue
group of 12 member economies.  Frankly, the group had no stated
goal.  Two years later, in its 1991 Seoul ministerial
declaration, APEC spelled out the group's common commitment to
more open trade and increased economic collaboration.  Members
agreed to promote the role of the private sector, the
application of free market principles, and the inclusive concept
of "open regionalism."

The members also agreed in 1991 to admit the People's Republic
of China, Hong Kong, and Chinese Taipei.  Last year in Bangkok,
APEC took another step forward, establishing a permanent
secretariat in Singapore.  The ministers also directed an
independent, private sector Eminent Persons Group to enunciate a
vision for Asia-Pacific trade to the year 2000.

Today, the 15 member economies of APEC constitute collectively
the most powerful regional economy in the world, accounting for
approximately one-half the world's annual economic output and
around 35% of world trade.

Secretary of State Christopher will chair the 1993 APEC
ministerial in Seattle in November.  The theme for this year's
ministerial is regional trade and investment liberalization.  We
hope to be able to announce a new trade and investment
instrument at the Seattle ministerial and establish a committee
that will identify trade and investment barriers and reduce the
transaction costs of doing business in the region. 

APEC's most crucial work to date--from the perspective of
building a "community"--has been quietly carried out in the
day-to-day activities of its 10 working groups.  For example,
APEC working groups are surveying transportation bottlenecks,
working to standardize trade data and promote trade, sharing
insights on training and development of human resources, and
promoting environmentally sound technologies.  Through APEC's
ongoing annual work programs, business executives, academics,
and government officials are forging the links that will make
the New Pacific Community a reality.   

Private Sector Involvement.  Promoting private sector
participation is one of APEC's objectives.  Each working group
invites interested businesses from its participant economies to
share their experiences and offer solutions to common problems. 
For example, business executives have briefed APEC officials on
ways to rationalize the telecommunications infrastructure.  At
the first APEC customs symposium--to be held just prior to the
ministerial in Seattle--customs authorities will exchange views
with private sector exporters, shippers, carriers, and insurers.
 We hope this exchange will 
not only disseminate information but also encourage improvement
in customs regimes. 

These collaborative efforts with the private sector are creating
new business opportunities as APEC members discover the benefits
of new technologies, products, and management styles.  Through
APEC collaboration, the U.S. enjoys the opportunity to learn the
"secrets for success" in other Pacific economies.  U.S.
participation in and support for APEC allows U.S. business to
help shape tomorrow's infrastructure. 

Broader and deeper interaction with the private sector at both
the practical and policy level is essential if APEC is to
continue to evolve as a key regional economic forum.  As we
create the infrastructure of community in Asia, it is critical
that U.S. business be engaged at the outset.  We welcome your
input.  Please give us your thoughts.   

While I am talking about doing business in Asia--a subject with
which I had considerable experience in a previous life--let me
put in a plug for what I and, perhaps more importantly,
Secretary Christopher see as the role of the State Department in
supporting U.S. business overseas.  To paraphrase the Secretary,
we have opened an America desk at State, and every member of the
Department sits behind it.  Embassies overseas and our people in
Washington stand ready to assist.  Let me know how we can help
and how we are doing. 

Leaders Meeting.  Following the APEC ministerial, the President
has proposed an unprecedented meeting of APEC leaders in
Seattle.  The meeting will be a historic opportunity for APEC
leaders to collectively reaffirm their vision for the future and
commitment to work for a new era in the Pacific.  The President
views this meeting as a reaffirmation that the United States
sees its future in Asia and in continued, active engagement in
the region and the world.

Our Future in the Pacific 
I would like to end by assuring you that this new vision of the
Pacific which the President has announced is not an abandonment
of our close and important relationships in Europe, Latin
America, and elsewhere.  We are a two-ocean nation, and our
interests and responsibilities are global. 

Our economic might and our national interests have given us a
unique opportunity--and a responsibility--to provide a
much-needed measure of global leadership and stability.  But we
cannot do it alone.  North America, by its sheer market size,
remains the world's biggest engine for growth, but it is Asia
that contains the world's fastest-growing and most dynamic
economies.  We must work together if we are to meet the
challenges of the post-Cold War world.  We must work together if
we are to share in the opportunities.  Only by building a true
community in the Pacific can we achieve the global peace and
prosperity we all seek.  And the New Pacific Community can 
serve as a model for the new order of global relations in the
21st century.  ###


Averting Nuclear Chaos:  The Tasks Before Us
James E. Goodby, U.S. Negotiator on Safe and Secure
Dismantlement of Nuclear Weapons
Address before the UN Symposium on Security Disarmament, and
Confidence-Building in the CIS Context, Kiev, Ukraine, September
28, 1993

Nearly 2 years ago, the Soviet Union dissolved into 15 sovereign
states, and the world was confronted with an unprecedented and
unanticipated prospect:  the political breakup of a superpower
equipped with weapons of mass destruction.  The independence of
new states and the end  of the confrontation between East and
West were hopeful events.  The end of the Cold War and the
burden it placed on peoples everywhere could only be a welcome
historical turning point.  It was the dawn of a new era in which
cooperation, confidence, and partnership in peace could replace
hostility and suspicion. 

Physical manifestations of the Cold War--like the Berlin
Wall--fell practically overnight; psychological attitudes and
perceptions take longer to change.  The very magnitude of the
political changes of our time makes it difficult for us to
understand their implications.  It is not easy for us, as
individuals or as nations, to come to swift and confident
conclusions about how to advance this peaceful revolution, or
about how to move prudently and sensibly toward democracy and
free-market economies where these did not exist. 

One enormously difficult and threatening challenge was the fate
of some 30,000 nuclear weapons dispersed throughout the former
Soviet Union.  These nuclear weapons and the supporting
infrastructure for their production and deployment were
scattered throughout several new states that were in a complete
state of political, economic, and military flux.  Hundreds of
thousands of people working in this industry would be affected
and would face social, professional, and economic upheaval
almost beyond comprehension.  Such a situation had never before
occurred, nor had been seriously contemplated. 

This situation raised the prospect of frightful scenarios:  loss
of centralized control of the weapons and their supporting
infrastructure; proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology
within the borders of the former Soviet Union and beyond those
borders to other nations or groups; inadvertent or deliberate
lack of attention to measures designed to ensure the safe and
secure handling and transport of these weapons and their 
components; terrorist groups acquiring weapons of mass
destruction; mass unemployment among a highly educated and
technically proficient part of the population; and
discouragement among those charged with safeguarding weapons of
mass destruction. 

Such prospects would affect the entire community of nations. 
These conditions threatened worldwide efforts to block
proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology; they posed the
possibility of nuclear-related accidents on the territory of the
former Soviet Union that could be as disastrous or worse than
what happened at Chernobyl; and they conjured up fears of
nuclear weapons being used, with or without authorization,
against another country or as a weapon of terror in the many
civil conflicts raging on the territory of the former Soviet
Union.  They foreshadowed alienation and nihilism among an elite
segment of society and rampant unemployment with profound
implications for the health of whole nations. 

It was these powerful impulses that caused the United States and
other nations to become actors--not just onlookers--in the
process of demilitarization, democratization, and economic
transformation in this region.

Immediate Tasks
Once the United States decided to commit resources--$1.2 billion
over 3 years--to assist in the safe and secure dismantlement of
nuclear weapons and to address a broad range of
non-proliferation challenges in the former Soviet Union, it
faced the practical task of identifying where and how its
assistance could best be put to use.  In cooperation and
consultation with the recipient countries--Belarus, Kazakhstan,
Russia, and Ukraine--we began the task of jointly identifying
needs and designing cooperative efforts to meet those needs. 

This dialogue is a dramatic example of the radical
transformation of our relationship from enemies to partners:  We
are discussing what were and, to an extent, still remain the
most secret details of the nuclear industry and
military-industrial complex of the former Soviet Union.  The
progress of this dialogue is a measure of where we are on the
spectrum from enemies to partners.  In the beginning, there were
lingering sensitivities, suspicions, and caution about
cooperating in this area.  After 2 years of increasingly
productive discussions, the partners in this endeavor have begun
to make remarkable strides--have finally turned a corner--and
our assistance efforts have begun to bear fruit.  I will outline
for you the specific problem areas which the United States and
its partners have identified and the cooperative programs we
have designed to address those problems.

Reducing the Legacy of Weapons of Mass Destruction
The START I and II agreements require the elimination of
thousands of strategic nuclear weapon delivery vehicles
currently located on the territory of Belarus, Kazakhstan, 
Russia, Ukraine, and the United States.  The Chemical Weapons
Convention and the bilateral destruction agreement between
Russia and the United States require the destruction of
thousands of tons of chemical warfare agents amassed by the
former Soviet Union and the United States.  Eliminating these
weapons systems in conformity with treaty requirements and in a
safe and environmentally sound manner is a technically demanding
and costly enterprise and obviously one which is immeasurably
beneficial to the world at large.  Cooperation in this area is a
high priority for the United States.  

Destruction of Strategic Nuclear Delivery Vehicles.  Our
partners in START and the Lisbon Protocol are concerned about
the resources required to fulfill their treaty obligations with
respect to the elimination of strategic offensive arms on their
territories.  The United States has agreed to provide Russia up
to $130 million in material, services, and related training to
assist in the elimination of strategic offensive arms including
ICBMs and SLBMs, their launchers, heavy bombers, and associated
equipment and components.  We are currently discussing the
provision of assistance in this area to Kazakhstan and Ukraine. 

U.S. Early Deactivation Status.  I am pleased to report that the
United States is well along in the process of early
implementation of the strategic arms reductions required by
START.  We have already removed 90% of the warheads from the
ICBMs and SLBMs whose launchers will be eliminated under the
7-year START reduction period.  We expect to complete this
process by the end of 1994 and to have removed all such missiles
from their launchers by the end of 1995.  Most of our heavy
bombers scheduled to be eliminated under START have already been
retired and transferred to the site where they eventually will
be eliminated.  These concrete steps demonstrate the sincerity
of the U.S. commitment to early realization of the benefits of
the START Treaty for all nations. 

Government-to-Government Communications Links.  Russia inherited
the Soviet Union's Nuclear Risk Reduction Center (NRRC) which,
by agreement, was established in Moscow and is used primarily to
transmit arms control treaty-related notifications.  Belarus,
Kazakhstan, and Ukraine had no such facility, nor did they have
the capability to establish one.  Thus, we have provided Belarus
with the equipment and training for its own continuous
communications link with the U.S.  We are currently discussing
the provision of similar equipment and training to Kazakhstan
and Ukraine. 

Chemical Weapons Destruction.  Economic constraints as well as
domestic political and environmental concerns have impeded
Russia's efforts to establish timelines and formalize
obligations to destroy its chemical weapons stockpile in
accordance with the bilateral destruction agreement and the
Chemical Weapons Convention.  Thus, the U.S. is providing
assistance to Russia in the area of safe, secure, and
ecologically sound destruction of chemical weapons. 

Nuclear Weapons Safety and Security
The logistical task of downloading and/or returning thousands of
strategic nuclear warheads of the former Soviet Union for
dismantlement in Russian plants is an enormous and costly
undertaking.  The prospect of large-scale movements of nuclear
weapons poses a host of safety challenges and taxes the limited
resources of the countries with whom we are cooperating.  Thus,
the United States agreed to provide certain items required to
facilitate the process and ensure the safety and security of
these weapons, particularly during their transport back to
Russia for dismantlement.  Specifically, we have agreed to
provide to Russia for this purpose:  armored blankets, emergency
response equipment, fissile material containers for
transportation and storage, safety and security improvements for
rail cars used in transportation of nuclear weapons, and tanker
rail cars to safely transport highly toxic and explosive liquid
propellant removed from ICBMs.  Some of these items have already
been delivered to Russia. 

In addition, we have provided Belarus with emergency response
and accident equipment, and are discussing similar arrangements
with Ukraine and Kazakhstan. 

Storage Capacity for Special Nuclear Materials From Dismantled
The dismantlement of U.S. and former Soviet nuclear weapons will
lead to unprecedentedly large stocks of weapons-grade plutonium
which must be disposed of safely and securely.  The complex
problem of how to dispose of plutonium over the long run is
receiving serious study in the United States by the National
Academy of Sciences and others.  Several options are under
study, but there is no national or international consensus yet
on how to address this problem.  The choices we make will have
profound implications in important areas such as
non-proliferation and the future of nuclear energy. 

In the meantime, safe and secure storage of plutonium and highly
enriched uranium from dismantled weapons is a necessity.  It is
extremely important that adequate measures for control,
accounting, and physical protection of this material be
instituted to ensure that none of the material is diverted to
unacceptable uses.  The United States and Russia are working
cooperatively on the design of a fissile material storage
facility in Russia.  In addition, the U.S. will provide
material, services, and training related to construction and
maintenance of the storage facility.  Of course, Russia will
retain full responsibility for the design, construction, and
operation of the planned facility. 

A major concern the United States shares with its
partners--Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine--is to ensure
that nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, materials,
and know-how do not spread within their borders to 
unauthorized individuals or beyond their borders to other
countries or sub-state groups.  Non-proliferation requires a
multi-pronged effort; we plan to cooperate in the following
related areas. 

Export Control.  The new independent states are, in most cases,
faced with the task of designing from scratch domestic laws and
regulations in almost every area of economic and political life.
 These countries have requested U.S. assistance in designing,
establishing, or improving export control systems to prevent the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and related
technologies.  The United States is already cooperating in this
area with Belarus, and is discussing the subject with
Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine. 

Material Control and Accounting.  Nuclear non-proliferation
requires a strict and secure system to protect nuclear materials
against theft, diversion, loss, or unauthorized use.  The
objective of cooperation in this area is to establish or enhance
the existing national systems of material control and accounting
and physical protection in the former Soviet Union to help the
new independent states better protect nuclear materials against
possible proliferation threats, internal or external.  The
United States is cooperating with  Russia in this area; we are
discussing with Ukraine and Kazakhstan possible cooperation in
this area. 

Science and Technology Centers.   The proposals for an
International Science and Technology Center (ISTC) in Moscow and
a Science and Technology Center in Kiev have great potential to
contribute to our mutual efforts to prevent proliferation. 
These centers address the human dimension of the task of
demilitarization:  how to gainfully employ the thousands of
talented scientific workers who heretofore dedicated their
professional lives to the design and maintenance of weapons of
mass destruction in the former Soviet Union.  The intent of the
centers is to fund scientific projects which put the scientific
talent formerly employed by the military-industrial complex to
work in more productive and peaceful areas--for instance, in
designing more proliferation-proof civilian nuclear power
technologies and in converting dual-use nuclear facilities to
exclusively civilian use.  The agreement that would establish an
ISTC in Moscow is awaiting Supreme Soviet ratification.  The
United States is discussing with Ukraine the establishment of a
similar center in Kiev.

Overcoming the Economic Distortions of the Arms Race
Defense Conversion.  The economies of the new independent states
are heavily dominated by the defense sector.  Successful
transformation to market economies requires that the defense
industrial, technological, and scientific facilities and
personnel be reoriented to more productive and peaceful purposes
which will in turn benefit the citizens of those countries. 

With Belarus, we have signed a defense conversion agreement,
providing $20 million for the conversion of military
technologies and capabilities into civilian activities and
housing and retraining for former military officers.  We are
discussing providing similar assistance to Russia. 

Environmental Restoration.  Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and
Ukraine have inherited the disastrous environmental legacy of
the Cold War.  The United States would like to provide
assistance in this area, but has been constrained by its own
limitations on resources.  Nevertheless, we are providing $25
million to facilitate environ- mental restoration of several
former Strategic Rocket Forces (SRF) facilities and sites in

We are acutely aware of environmental concerns of the other
countries, such as Kazakhstan's concerns regarding
Semipalatinsk, and hope to be able to provide some assistance in
response to these concerns, perhaps from other congressionally
approved programs.

Reactor Safety.  The United States is cooperating with Russia in
the area of nuclear reactor safety and has initiated a dialogue
with Ukraine on this subject. 

Laying the Foundation for a Lasting Partnership
As indicated by the preceding review, these cooperative programs
in fact span a broad range of activities which go well beyond
the very important task of dismantling weapons of mass
destruction.  In addition, our cooperative programs are
addressing other critical needs identified by our partners, such
as environmental restoration, including assessment of
environmental damage and defense conversion.  Cooperation also
is underway in areas related to nuclear non-proliferation, such
as establishing export control regimes and systems to control
and account for inventories of nuclear weapons and material. 
The United States will continue to be as responsive as possible
to the needs and concerns of our partners, to the extent allowed
by the authorizing legislation for these assistance funds. 

Our experience in cooperating together in these areas is laying
the foundation for what the United States hopes will be enduring
partnerships extending to other areas.  Close collaboration such
as this provides the best and most meaningful kind of security
assurances to all involved.  It is a building block in the
efforts of the international community to build a stable world
order in the post-Cold War era, a goal to which the United
Nations is firmly committed and ably pursuing. 

Multilateral Cooperation 
Although I cannot of course speak for other countries, let me
note that the United States is not alone in recognizing the
importance of cooperation in this area.  The United States has 
been working with its NATO and G-7 partners to cooperate jointly
on de-nuclearization and reduction of weapons of mass
destruction.  Our objective is to work together to ensure that
our programs complement rather than duplicate each other, fill
in gaps where needed, and benefit from our comparative
strengths.  Japan, for example, recently committed $100 million
to its program of cooperation with Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia,
and Ukraine.  One project of particular interest to Japan is
cooperation in areas related to the construction of a secure
storage facility in Russia for fissile materials from dismantled
nuclear weapons. 

Nuclear Disarmament And Regional Stability
As many voices in the new independent states have pointed out,
safe and secure dismantlement of nuclear weapons is only one
element of a much broader canvas of security problems and
solutions in the region.  The United States seeks a broader
relationship with all states in the region--including
Ukraine--which goes far beyond a focus on nuclear issues and
acknowledges the full range of issues and interests we share. 

Nonetheless, of particular interest here in Kiev are the
security concerns of Ukraine and the state of Ukrainian-Russian
relations.  Of course, peaceful and stable relations between
Russia and Ukraine are key to regional stability and the
prospects for economic prosperity.  It is in everyone's interest
that Russian-Ukrainian relations evolve in a positive manner
over time and that any differences are worked out fairly and
peacefully.  Issues surrounding the presence of former Soviet
nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil have only complicated what was
already a very difficult set of issues requiring resolution
between these two states. 

The United States believes it is in Ukraine's interest to ratify
START and accede to the NPT and thus to enjoy the benefits of
deeper integration into Western economic and security
structures.  At the same time, we are sensitive to the concerns
voiced by  Ukraine over the past many months and have tried hard
to address those concerns. 

Specifically, the United States is energetically seeking to
conclude the necessary agreements which will facilitate U.S.
cooperation with Ukraine in the areas of dismantlement and
non-proliferation, and will help offset the economic costs of
demilitarization and fulfillment of  Ukraine's Lisbon
commitments.  Military-to-military cooperative contacts between
the United States and Ukraine are already underway.  The United
States has sought to meet Ukraine's desires for security
assurances and has stated that it is prepared to reaffirm
security assurances previously offered through the UN Security
Council, the NPT, and the CSCE when Ukrainian ratification of
START occurs. 

In addition, the United States is working to ensure that Russia
reaches agreement with Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan on an 
equitable sharing of the proceeds from the sale to the United
States of enriched uranium from dismantled weapons, which is to
be blended down to low-enriched uranium for use in civilian
nuclear power reactors. 

The United States has also made clear its readiness to help
facilitate resolution of Ukrainian-Russian differences.  In this
regard, the United States is encouraged by the reports of
agreement between Russia and  Ukraine on the return of former
Soviet nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantlement.

The process of U.S. cooperation with the states of the former
Soviet Union to provide assistance in the area of safe and
secure dismantlement of nuclear weapons marks the beginning of
what we hope will be a long and constructive relationship. 

We have left the familiar terrain of Cold War alliances and set
out on a path toward cooperative security.  Rather than aiming
our weapons at each other, we are cooperating to eliminate them.
 We are working to achieve the common goals of promoting
non-proliferation, reorienting our economies away from defense
toward more socially productive endeavors, and restoring our

Cooperation in these areas will begin to accomplish what only
time and experience can--to allow us finally to abandon the old
attitudes and perceptions of the Cold War and to see each other
anew as partners and allies.  Albert Einstein said the atom bomb
changed everything except the way we think.  Perhaps our mutual
efforts to dismantle the nuclear legacy of the Cold War can
accomplish even that.  ###


The Crisis in Moscow
Statement by Strobe Talbott, Ambassador-at-Large and Adviser to
the Secretary on the New Independent States, at a news briefing,
Washington, DC, October 4, 1993.

Good afternoon.  I thought probably the best place to begin was
just to say that Secretary Christopher has, within the past
hour, talked on the telephone with Ambassador Pickering in
Moscow.  Secretary Christopher wanted, among other things, to
thank Ambassador Pickering and his staff for the extraordinary
job they have done under very arduous circumstances in the last
couple of days and also, of course, to get the latest update on
the situation there.

We have stayed very closely in touch with our Embassy and with
the Russian Government throughout this period of crisis.  We 
can confirm--that is, our Embassy in Moscow has been able to
confirm, on the basis of its own contacts with the Russian
Government--that the government forces are now back in control
of the Russian White House--the Parliament building.  We have
also been told independently that Messrs. Rutskoi and
Khasbulatov are in custody.

The United States is obviously very relieved that this situation
has come to an end.  At the same time, while the immediate
crisis appears to have been resolved in favor of the government
forces, there is still a lot of raggedness around the edges of
this situation.  There is still sporadic gunfire around the
city, particularly in the area immediately around the Parliament
building--which, of course, is also the neighborhood where the
United States embassy is located.  That will be a source of some
concern as long as it continues, but we have confidence that the
Russian Government authorities will continue to consolidate
their restoration of civil order, while at the same time
recognizing that a certain amount of mopping up will probably
have to go on for some time. As President Clinton indicated in
his own public statement yesterday, throughout this episode,
tragic as it was, the United States firmly supported President
Yeltsin, his reform government, and reformers throughout Russia.
 There has never been any question that the opposition forces
provoked and led yesterday's riots and violence.

We also were struck--throughout the day yesterday, into the
night, and into this morning--by the attempt on the part of the
Russian Government authorities to contain this situation as
quickly and as efficiently as possible and to use only that
degree of force that was absolutely necessary to end the
outburst of violence that had occurred.  It was clear to us,
both from what we saw and also from what we heard from Russian
Government officials throughout the night, that this operation
was strategically planned and tactically executed in order to
contain the situation.

We obviously deeply regret the loss of life and the bloodshed
that has occurred during the past 24 hours.  This is a tragic
moment in Russian history.  We hope and trust that it is a
tragic moment that has now come to an end.  We hope very much
that the violence will end entirely and order will be restored.

It is also our understanding that five Americans have been
wounded in the course of the trouble.  Our Embassy is doing
everything possible to ensure the safety of the entire American
community in Moscow.

It's the strong feeling of President Clinton, Secretary
Christopher, and the rest of the Administration that the thing
now is to focus on what we hope--and we are sure that President
Yeltsin also hopes--will next occur, and that is not only a
restoration of order but a reaffirmation of the Russian
Government's commitment to get on with the process of 
democratization and to resolve the political differences that
clearly exist in that country and in that society in democratic
and free elections, which, as you know, are scheduled for
December 11.

We also very much hope that this election process will be a
period that will contribute to healing and internal
reconciliation.  It has been our feeling from the very outset of
this most recent episode, going back to September 21, that the
Russian people must decide their future.  That is precisely what
President Yeltsin has proposed, and that is why we continue to
support him.  ###


Violations of Women's Human Rights
John Shattuck, Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and
Humanitarian Affairs

Statement before the Subcommittee on International Security,
International Organizations, and Human Rights of the House
Foreign Affairs Committee, Washington, DC, September 29, 1993

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee:  I am honored to
appear before you today.  I commend you for holding this hearing
on the important issue of violations of women's human rights. 
Promotion of the rights of women is one of the highest
priorities of President Clinton's human rights agenda, and it is
central to the work of the Bureau of Human Rights and
Humanitarian Affairs.  By holding these hearings, this
subcommittee has helped focus attention on crucial aspects of
the women's rights agenda, and I am delighted to contribute to
this effort.  Working together, I am confident that we can
strengthen measures to attack gender-based abuses that persist
around the world.

Three years ago, when this subcommittee held its first hearing
on this subject, witnesses expressed concern that insufficient
attention was focused on abuses of women.  I would have agreed
with this assessment then, and I am pleased that significant
progress has taken place since then, particularly in recent

A major, recent victory for women's rights was achieved at the
World Conference on Human Rights, where a very active U.S.
delegation worked closely with women's groups to promote a
substantial women's rights agenda.  Women's groups were among
the best organized and most effective of the hundreds of
non-governmental organizations participating in the conference. 
Courageous survivors of gender-specific violence from countries
around the globe spoke out at the conference's 
women's tribunal, emphasizing the truth of the simple but often
ignored slogan:  "Women's rights are human rights."  The U.S.
action plan for the conference, which was substantially adopted
in the conference's Final Declaration, called for the systematic
integration of women's issues into UN human rights programs,
training of UN personnel to ensure sensitivity and competence in
addressing gender-based abuses, and the appointment of more
women to positions of responsibility within the UN.

In another sign of recent progress, the United States is helping
lead the effort at the United Nations toward appointing a UN
Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, as well as the
adoption of a UN Declaration on Violence Against Women.  In
addition, we have continued and strengthened our monitoring of
women's rights worldwide.  For example, our annual country
reports on human rights practices have grown increasingly
detailed in their coverage of gender-specific issues.  U.S.
embassies are now instructed to report in greater detail any
evidence of systematic physical abuse of women, governmental
attitudes toward such abuse, and the extent of governmental
effort to curtail abuses.  Although human rights violations
against women have never been ignored in the reports, they are
now significantly highlighted.

The Clinton Administration strongly supports the Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW) to promote women's equality and to eliminate
gender-based discrimination.  Secretary of State Christopher
announced at the World Conference on Human Rights that the 
Administration will ask the Senate to take up first the
ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination.  After the Senate acts on the race
convention, we will move for ratification of the women's
convention, which was signed and transmitted to the Senate in
1980 and has been pending ever since.  We believe our
step-by-step approach toward human rights treaty
ratification--developed in consultation with interested Senate
offices--will best ensure broad and bipartisan support for the
human rights treaty ratification process.

As you know, the human rights bureau monitors violations of
human rights in every country in the world.  The infringement of
women's rights knows no geographical boundaries.  While women in
some countries undoubtedly experience greater discrimination and
marginalization than in others, this is not a problem confined
only to a few nations.  In many cases, women nominally have
equal standing in law, but governments interpret or enforce the
laws in a discriminatory manner.

It is a disgrace that in 1993 women throughout the world are
still subject to onerous and discriminatory restrictions of such
fundamental freedoms as voting, marriage, travel, testifying in
court, inheriting and owning property, and obtaining custody of
children.  All too often, girls and women 
find that their access to education, employment, health care,
and even food is limited because of their gender.  Domestic
violence affects women in every country in the world. 
Trafficking in women who are either duped or coerced into
prostitution is rampant in Asia and elsewhere.  For example, our
most recent human rights report noted that the sex trade in
Thailand involves thousands of women and children, many of whom
are forced or tricked into prostitution and are held as virtual
captives by brothel operators.  Sadly, as The Washington Post
recently reported, some East European women are the most recent
additions to the ranks of women who are sexually exploited for
the profit of others.

Specific examples of women's relegation to inferior status can
be found in many parts of the world.  For instance, in our
latest human rights report, we noted that:  

Women in Saudi Arabia have few substantive political and social
rights, and they are not equal members of society.  Some Saudis
condone the "strict disciplining" of women, including the use of
physical force, as part of a proper marriage.  Restrictions on
women's rights are pervasive and extend from strict dress
requirements to restrictions on travel.  Women, including
foreigners, may not even legally drive vehicles, and there are
restrictions on their use of public facilities when men are

In Iran, women have been harassed, detained, or physically
attacked if they appear in public in clothing that official
guardians of public morality deem insufficiently modest.  In
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and some other Gulf countries, female
domestic servants lack substantive protection from abuses and
violations.  In Kuwait, during the period April 1991 to July
1992, there were 72 reported cases of physical abuse or rape
involving domestic servants.

In some of the newly democratic countries in Eastern Europe and
the former Soviet Union, layoffs and unemployment brought about
by economic restructuring have often been imposed on women
disproportionately.  In many African and Asian countries,
although women are nominally equal under the law, their access
to education, health care, and economic independence is often
restricted in practice.  

Women's lack of education and access to income often contributes
to their vulnerability and exploitation.  In developing
countries on all continents, the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) has programs to increase women's access to
education, health care, and income.  A number of USAID
activities include legal rights education, along with other
basic services targeted to women.

The terrible custom of female genital mutilation is widespread
in many countries in Africa and also occurs in Yemen and Oman,
as our human rights reports note.  Female genital mutilation is 
estimated to affect over 70 million women worldwide.  This
ritual, when practiced in its most extreme form, can lead to
hemorrhage, shock, infection, inability to consummate marriage,
urinary tract infection, pelvic inflammatory disease,
infertility, psychological trauma, increased maternal mortality,
and death.  The United States views female genital mutilation as
both harmful to women's health and as a violation of their right
to physical integrity.  The eradication of this abusive practice
has been impeded by the fact that it often reflects deeply
rooted traditions.  We support the work of the World Health
Organization in its efforts through education and medical
assistance to bring about the elimination of this practice in
countries which allow it.  USAID has also sponsored studies to
better understand the sociocultural and economic conditions that
contribute to female genital mutilation and has funded a number
of health- and population-related activities in Somalia to
counter the practice.

Women are also subjected to human rights violations because of
their political beliefs, cultural background, or their
relationship to men who are subject to persecution.  Women are
often raped while in detention by government officials, murdered
because their dowry is considered insufficient, or murdered with
impunity by jealous husbands whose crimes go unpunished because
they involve the man's "honor."  Refugee women are especially
vulnerable, often subject to rape and exploitation in exchange
for access to relief supplies or assistance with documentation.

In areas ravaged by war, women are frequently rape victims of
rampaging armies.  Historically, such crimes of mass rape have
gone unpunished.  Now, the UN War Crimes Tribunal on the Former
Yugoslavia, which the U.S. has played the leading role in
establishing, will have the opportunity to begin to reverse this
shameful legacy when the tribunal investigates and prosecutes
violations of the Geneva Conventions.  Although all sides in the
Bosnian conflict have committed rape, by far the worst abusers
have been the Bosnian Serbs, who have used systematic sexual
abuse of women and girls as a weapon of war.  As an integral
part of their campaign of "ethnic cleansing," Bosnian Serb
military units and prison guards have used massive, systematic
rape to terrify the Muslim population.  Muslim women and girls
have been herded into "rape camps."  In some instances, women
and girls have been repeatedly raped until they became pregnant
and then imprisoned for months to keep them from terminating
their pregnancies, forcing them to bear children against their

Some governments excuse the fact that women have a lesser status
than men by pointing to culture and tradition.  However, culture
and tradition cannot excuse gross and systematic violations of
human rights.  One of our primary goals at the World Conference
on Human Rights was to stress that human rights are universal. 
As Secretary Christopher said in his speech to the conference,
"We cannot let cultural relativism 
become the last refuge of repression."  We cannot allow women to
be the exception to the fundamental principle of human rights
universality.  The U.S. affirms the principle of cultural
diversity, but does not believe cultural tolerance should be
used to justify abuse of human rights.  We believe we should
help to promote local women's groups' efforts to improve the
status of women, and we should continue to make clear to
governments that we are concerned about systematic gender
violence and gross discrimination.  Governments that promote or
turn a blind eye to gender-based violence are denying basic
human rights.

The Clinton Administration regards promoting the cause of
women's rights as a key element of our overall human rights
policy.  Addressing abuses against women is a complex and
difficult task, and we are committed to moving forward in the
following specific areas: 

1.  By supporting ratification of the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, we
will demonstrate how seriously we take our international legal
obligations to protect the rights of women.  This treaty
requires states party to it to condemn and to work to eliminate
discrimination against women.  Among other measures, states must
embody the principle of equality of men and women in their
constitutions and laws; adopt laws and other measures--including
sanctions if necessary--prohibiting all discrimination against
women; and take measures to eliminate discrimination against
women by any person, organization, or enterprise.  States must
also act to ensure the full development and advancement of women
in the political, social, economic, and cultural fields.

2.  As we press for implementation of the recommendations of the
World Conference on Human Rights, we will focus particular
attention on the agenda for women's rights.  We were pleased
that the conference's Final Declaration endorsed positions taken
by the U.S. Human Rights Action Plan.  The Vienna Declaration
calls for the integration of the human rights of women into the
mainstream of United Nations system-wide activity and stresses
the importance of working toward the elimination of violence
against women, sexual harassment, exploitation, and trafficking
in women; gender biases in the administration of justice; and
harmful traditional practices.  The declaration also calls for
universal ratification of CEDAW by the year 2000, reaffirms the
right of women to accessible and adequate health care and the
widest range of family planning services, and urges governments
to facilitate the access of women to decision-making posts. 
Another important provision calls for the appointment, by the UN
Human Rights Commission, of a Special Rapporteur on Violence
Against Women.  Finally, the declaration urges that the human
rights of women play an important role in the deliberations of
the 1995 World Conference on Women.

3.  The World Conference on Human Rights also called for the
establishment of a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.  The
United States strongly and actively supports this proposal and
believes that the creation of this position will enhance the
integration of women's issues throughout the UN's human rights
machinery.  We will also consider introducing resolutions in the
United Nations General Assembly, the Commission on the Status of
Women, and the Human Rights Commission to address issues raised
in this sub-committee's hearings on women's human rights.

4.  As the War Crimes Tribunal moves forward with prosecuting
crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia, the United States
will press for the assembly of evidence to prosecute systematic
rape as a war crime and a tool of ethnic cleansing.  We are
pleased that the U.S. candidate for 1 of the 11 judgeships on
the tribunal, Judge Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, was elected to the
tribunal and received more votes than any other candidate.

5.  The elimination of abuses and discrimination against women
will be an important factor in our overall consideration of the
human rights records of countries interested in receiving U.S.
aid and trade benefits.  Our efforts to promote democracy, which
include the administration of justice and broad citizen
participation in social and political life, will be a major
vehicle for advancing women's rights in new and emerging
democracies around the world.

6.  As I noted above, an integral part of our human rights
reports is examining the ways in which women are subject to
gender-specific discrimination and abuse.  In addition, our
Embassies abroad report throughout the year on the status of
women in host countries.  This year's instructions to overseas
posts on preparing the 1993 human rights reports emphasizes that
abuses targeted at women should be included throughout the
report in the appropriate section.  For example, rape by
government officials would be covered in the section on torture,
restriction of voting rights would be covered in the section on
the right to choose one's government, and so forth.  There is
also a separate paragraph in the instruction cable specifically
requiring that our Embassies and Consulates report on
trafficking in women.

7.  I am aware of proposals by both the House of Representatives
and the Senate to create a full-time position within the Bureau
of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs to address women's
issues.  I note that an employee within the bureau has always
included women's rights in her portfolio.  Whatever the outcome
of the Senate and House proposals, I can assure you that I plan
to assign someone to work on these issues full-time.

Promoting the equality of women is an essential component of
this Administration's human rights and democracy policy.  As
Secretary Christopher said when he addressed the World
Conference on Human Rights: 

Violence and discrimination against women don't just victimize
individuals; they hold back whole societies by confining the
human potential of half the population.  Guaranteeing human
rights is a moral imperative with respect to both women and men.
 It is also an investment in making whole nations stronger,
fairer, and better.  

We look forward to working with the Congress toward the
realization of this common goal. ###


First Annual Report of the Trade Promotion Coordinating

Following is a fact sheet released by the White House on
September 29, 1993, on the Trade Promotion Coordinating
Committee's report, Toward a National Export Strategy:  U.S.
Exports Equal U.S. Jobs.  The report is available from the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
(stock no. 003-009-00632-5).  It also is available through GPO's
Federal Bulletin Board.

Exports and Jobs.  The United States' future depends on our
ability to compete successfully in the international
marketplace.  Between 1988 and 1992, almost 60% of real growth
in the U.S. economy came from export expansion.  Every $1
billion in U.S. exports creates about 20,000 good, American
jobs--jobs that pay about 17% more than the average wage.

Right now, U.S. exports total $700 billion per year.  Our goal
is to increase U.S. exports to $1 trillion by the end of the
decade.  If we succeed, it will mean millions of new high-wage
jobs.  The driving force behind export growth is the competitive
U.S. industry and workforce.  But the Federal Government must do
what it can to make this goal a reality.

In 1992, Congress established the 19-agency Trade Promotion
Coordinating Committee (TPCC) and mandated it to prepare a
national export strategy.  Today, with the release of its first
annual report, the TPCC takes a major step in that direction by
setting forth over 60 concrete actions and specific
recommendations to improve Federal export promotion programs and
clear away unnecessary obstacles to U.S. exports.  Some of the
highlights of the report include the following. 

Export Controls.  The report contains a number of far-reaching
changes to current U.S. export controls.  These reforms remove
cumbersome and expensive licensing burdens from some of our most
competitive industries.  This action is an important step in
streamlining U.S. non-proliferation export controls and 
making our system more responsive and efficient.  It will not
inhibit legitimate exports that play a key role in America's
economic strength, but it will prevent exports that would make a
material contribution to the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and ballistic missiles.  The reforms include the

--  Propose an increase in the threshold for exports of
computers to most destinations from 12.5 Million Theoretical
Operations per Second (MTOPS--the accepted measure of the speed
of a computer) to 500 MTOPS.  As a first step, we will
immediately liberalize computer controls for most destinations
up to 194 MTOPS, which will decontrol $24 billion of computer
exports.  In addition, we will immediately propose to the
Japanese under our bilateral supercomputer agreement that we
decontrol exports up to 500 MTOPS.  Once complete, this reform
will free an estimated $30 billion of computer exports currently
subject to controls from licensing requirements.

--  Propose an increase in the definition of supercomputers from
195 MTOPS to 2000 MTOPS.  Redefining supercomputers will free
about $5 billion of supercomputer exports from expensive
"safeguard" requirements (e.g., 24-hour security guards).

--  Remove prior licensing requirements for the majority of
telecommunications exports to most destinations.  This will
immediately free $2 billion in telecommunications exports.  We
are prepared to move further, but any additional action needs to
be worked out in negotiations with our COCOM allies.  We are
already engaged in those negotiations.
We will continue to control exports to countries against which
the U.S. has an embargo or which present a significant threat of
terrorism or proliferation.  For example, computer exports to
Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba will
remain subject to the strictest licensing requirements.

This is an important step toward bringing our export control
system in line with national security and technological reality.
 It complements the President's commitment to reform COCOM,
which seeks to enlist the support of our former adversaries to
combat new strategic threats while improving their access to the
technologies that will enhance their democratic and economic

Decontrolling computers and other items that are readily
available from other countries is consistent with the
Administration's strong commitment to combat the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles.  
Reducing control levels on widely available items improves our
ability to persuade other suppliers to maintain effective
controls on items of proliferation concern.  Export control
reform thus complements our non-proliferation efforts.

One-Stop Shops.  Currently, 19 agencies provide export promotion
services, and exporters must weave through a maze of offices to
get help.  The TPCC report recommends the creation of four pilot
"one-stop shops" in Miami, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Baltimore
to provide information and assistance on all Federal export
promotion and trade finance programs.  These shops also will
seek to integrate Federal programs with local, state, and
private sector services.

Unified Export Promotion Budget.  The U.S. Government needs to
do a better job of determining how its export promotion dollars
are spent by region, country, and product.  The report pledges
to create a unified export promotion budget for FY 1995 and
beyond, which will help the government set priorities and
allocate resources accordingly.  The report establishes a
process that involves the National Economic Council, the Office
of Management and Budget, and the TPCC in developing such a

Strategic Country Plans.  The U.S. Government has been
criticized in the past for not thinking strategically about key
foreign markets.  The TPCC recommends that a comprehensive
commercial plan be developed for each foreign country with
significant market potential.  This plan would coordinate the
export promotion efforts of the Departments of State, Commerce,
and Agriculture and would ensure that Embassies play a central
role in supporting U.S. commercial interests.

Government Advocacy.  High-ranking officials in many countries
play an important role in securing deals for their country's
companies.  There is a need for higher-level, coordinated U.S.
Government advocacy for major export sales.  The TPCC report
establishes an "advocacy network" to collect information on
overseas deals and to coordinate these efforts.

Reinventing Export Promotion.  The Administration is committed
to making the Federal Government work better and cost less.  We
are determined to make each dollar of Federal investment go
further toward the goal of economic growth.  Nowhere is that
more the case than in export promotion.  The TPCC report marks
the first step in a continuing campaign to improve the efforts
of the Federal Government to support increased exports and job
creation. ###



U.S. Condemns Abkhazian Violations of Sochi Agreement
Statement by Department Spokesman Michael McCurry, Washington,
DC,  September 24, 1993.

On September 16, Abkhazian forces broke the cease-fire agreement
signed at Sochi on July 27 by representatives of the Republic of
Georgia, the Russian Federation, and Abkhazian separatists.

As a consequence of the Abkhazians' unjustified attacks on the
regional capital of Sukhumi and other towns in the Republic of
Georgia, an escalating cycle of violence has resulted in:

--  The indiscriminate shelling of civilian populations from
Abkhazian positions on land and sea;

--  The shooting down of civilian airliners over territory
controlled by Abkhazian forces;

--  The tragic disruption of efforts by the vast majority of the
people of Abkhazia peaceably to rebuild their war-shattered
economy; and

--  The serious endangerment of the peace process begun at Sochi
and advanced under UN Security Council Resolutions 854 and 858.

The U.S. Government strongly condemns the actions of the
Abkhazian forces and calls upon them to halt their military
offensive and return to the cease-fire line established by the
July 27 Sochi agreement.  We also call upon the Abkhazian
leaders to respect fully the provisions of UNSC Resolutions 854
and 858 and to join with representatives of the Government of
Georgia and the United Nations in negotiations leading to a
peaceful solution of the conflict in Abkhazia.  The U.S.
Government reiterates its full support for Chairman Shevardnadze
and his efforts to resolve this crisis and maintain the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia.

U.S. Supports Georgian Government on Sukhumi
Statement by Acting Department Spokesman David Johnson,
Washington, DC, September 28, 1993.

On September 27, Abkhazian separatist forces took the regional
capital of Sukhumi, Republic of Georgia.  This attack ended an
11-day siege waged in violation of the cease-fire agreement
signed at Sochi on July 27 by representatives of the Republic of
Georgia, the Russian Federation, and Abkhazian separatists.

The U.S. Government strongly condemns the actions of the
Abkhazian forces and calls upon them to renounce further
military action.  We are particularly concerned about additional
possible violations of human rights and internationally
recognized standards regarding treatment of noncombatants.

The U.S. Government strongly supports the territorial integrity
of the Republic of Georgia and does not recognize Abkhazian
gains made by force of arms.  The U.S. Government calls upon the
Abkhazian leadership to halt immediately their military
offensive and to join with representatives of the Government of
Georgia and the United Nations to begin negotiations leading to
a peaceful and durable resolution of this conflict.  We
reiterate our full support for the internationally recognized
Government of Georgia and Chairman Shevardnadze in their efforts
to resolve this crisis and maintain the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of Georgia.  ###


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