1.  Defining a New Transatlantic Security -- President
2.  Partnership for Peace:  Building a New Security for
the 21st Century -- President Clinton
3.  Partnership for Peace:  Invitation and Framework
4.  NATO Declaration
5.  Building Peace and Security Through Partnership and
Cooperation --President Clinton
6.  U.S. Economic Relations With the European Union --
President Clinton, Greek Prime Minister Papandreou
7.  Renewal of the Atlantic Economies:  Crucial to Our
Future -- President Clinton
8.  The Visegrad States:  Crossroads to Change in the
Heart of Europe-- President Clinton
9.  U.S.-Ukrainian Relations -- President Clinton,
Ukrainian President Kravchuk
10.  Trilateral Statement by the Presidents of the U.S.,
Russia, and Ukraine
11.  The United States and Russia:  Toward a Common
Mission -- President Clinton, Russian President Yeltsin
12.  Joint Statement on Non-Proliferation
13.  White House Statements on Mutual Detargeting,
Uranium Conversion
14.  Strengthening Russia's Economic and Political Future
-- President Clinton
15.  Joint American-Russian Statement on Human Rights
16.  OPIC Support for U.S. Investment in Russia
17.  Moscow Declaration
18.  U.S. Supports Reform in Belarus -- President Clinton
19.  U.S. and Syria Pledge Cooperation on Middle East
Peace Negotiations -- President Clinton, Syrian President
20.  Overview of Trip -- President Clinton
Defining a New Transatlantic Security
President Clinton
Address to a multinational audience of future leaders of
Europe, Brussells, Belgium, January 9, 1994
Thank you very much.  Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Mayor,
distinguished leaders.  I am delighted to be here in this
great hall of history with the Prime Minister and with
many of Europe's future leaders.
I first came to Brussels as a young man in a very
different but  difficult time, when the future for us was
uncertain.  It is fitting that my first trip to Europe as
President be about building a better future for the young
people of Europe and the United States today, and that it
begin here in Belgium.  As a great capital and as the
headquarters of NATO and the European Union, Brussels and
Belgium have long been at the center of Europe's steady
progress toward greater security and greater prosperity.
For those of you who know anything about me personally, I
also have a great personal debt of nearly 40 years'
standing to this country, because it was a Belgian,
Adolphe Sax, who invented the saxophone.
I have come here at this time because I believe that it
is time for us, together, to revitalize our partnership
and to define a new security at a time of historic
change.  It is a new day for our transatlantic
partnership:  The Cold War is over, Germany is united,
the Soviet Union is gone, and a constitutional democracy
governs Russia.  The specter that haunted our citizens
for decades of tanks rolling in through Fulda Gap--or
nuclear annihilation raining from the sky--that specter,
thank God, has largely vanished.  Your generation is the
beneficiary of those miraculous transformations.
In the end, the Iron Curtain rusted from within and was
brought crashing down by the determination of brave men
and women to live free--by the Poles and the Czechs; by
the Russians, the Ukrainians, the people of the Baltics;
by all those who understood that neither economics nor
consciences can be ordered from above.  Equally
important, however, their heroic efforts succeeded
because our resolve never failed, because the weapons of
deterrence never disappeared and the message of democracy
never disappeared.
As the East enjoys a new birth of freedom, one of
freedom's great victories lives here in Europe's West--
the peaceful cleaving together of nations which clashed
for centuries.  The transformation was wrought by
visionary leaders such as Monnet, Schumann, Spaak, and
Marshall, who understood that modern nations can enrich
their futures more through cooperation than through
My Administration supports European union and Europe's
development of stronger institutions of common purpose
and common action.  We recognize we will benefit more
from a strong and equal partner than from a weak one.
The fall of the Soviet empire and Western Europe's
integration are the two greatest advances for peace in
the last half of the 20th century.  All of us are reaping
their blessings.  In particular, with the Cold War over,
and in spite of the present global recession which clouds
your future, all our nations now have the opportunity to
take long-deferred steps toward economic and social
renewal.  My own nation has made a beginning in putting
our economic house in order--reducing our deficits,
investing in our people, creating jobs, and sparking an
economic recovery that we hope will help not only the
United States, but will also lift all nations.
We are also facing up to some of the social problems in
our country that we have ignored for too long--from the
challenge to provide universal health care, to reducing
crime in our streets, to dealing with the needs of our
poor children.  We have a truly multicultural society.
In one of our counties, there are people from more than
150 different national and ethnic groups.  But we are
working to build an American community for the 21st
With the European Union, we have recently led the world
to a new GATT agreement that will create millions of new
jobs in all our countries.  In many ways, it would be
easy to offer you only a message of simple celebration,
to trumpet our common heritage, to rejoice that our
labors for peace have been rewarded, to cheer on the
economic progress that is occurring.  But this is not a
time for self-congratulation.  And certainly we have
enough challenges that we should act as true partners--
that is, we should share one another's burdens rather
than only talking of triumphs.  We should speak honestly
about what we feel, about where we are, and where we
should go.
This is the truth as I see it.  We served history well
during the Cold War.  But, now, history calls on us again
to help consolidate freedom's new gains into a larger and
a more lasting peace.  We must build a new security for
Europe; the old security was based on the defense of our
bloc against another bloc.  The new security must be
found in Europe's integration--an integration of security
forces, of market economies, and of national democracies.
The purpose of my trip to Europe is to help lead the
movement to that integration and to assure you that
America will be a strong partner in it.
Challenges of Change
For the people who broke communism's chains, we now see a
race between rejuvenation and despair.  And the outcome
will shape the security of every nation in the
transatlantic alliance.  Today that race is being played
out from the Balkans to Central Asia.  In one lane are
the heirs of the enlightenment, who seek to consolidate
freedom's gains by building free economies, open
democracies, and tolerant civic cultures.  Pitted against
them are the grim pretenders to tyranny's dark throne--
the militant nationalists and demagogues who fan
suspicions that are ancient, and parade the pain of
renewal in order to obscure the promise of reform.
None of us can afford to be bystanders of that race.  Too
much is at stake.  Consider this:  The coming months and
years may decide whether the Russian people will continue
to develop a peaceful market democracy or whether, in
frustration, they will elect leaders who incline back
toward authoritarianism and empire.  This period may
determine whether the nations neighboring Russia thrive
in freedom and join the ranks of non-nuclear states or
founder under the strain of reform and cling to weapons
that increase the risk of nuclear accident or diversion.
This period may decide whether the states of the former
Soviet bloc are woven into the fabric of transatlantic
prosperity and security or are simply left hanging in
isolation as they face the same daunting changes gripping
so many others in Europe.
These pivotal decisions ultimately rest with the people
who threw off communism's yoke.  They must make their own
decisions about their own future.  But we in the West can
clearly help to shape their choices, and we must summon
the political will to do so.   The task requires a steady
and patient effort, guided by a strategic star that
points us toward the integration of a broader Europe.  It
also requires a fair amount of humility--understanding
that we cannot control every event in every country on
every day.  But if we are willing to assume the central
challenge, we can revitalize not only the nations of the
East, but also our own transatlantic relationship.
Over the past half-century, the transatlantic community
only realized half the promise of World War II's triumph
over fascism.  The other half lay captive behind Europe's
walls of division.  Now we have the chance to realize the
full promise of Europe's victories without its great
disappointment--Normandy without Yalta, the liberation of
the low countries without the Berlin blockade.
During this past half-century, transatlantic security
depended primarily on the deterrents provided by our
military forces.  Now the immediate threat to our East is
not of advancing armies, but of creeping instability.
Countering that threat requires not only military
security, but also the promotion of democratic and
economic renewal.  Combined, these forces are the
strongest bulwark against Europe's current dangers--
ethnic conflict, the abuse of human rights, the
destabilizing refugee flows, the rise of aggressive
regimes, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
The integration of the former communist bloc with the
rest of Europe  will be gradual and often difficult, as
Germany's bold efforts demonstrate.  Like all great
opportunities, we must remember that this one could be
fleeting.  We must not now let the Iron Curtain be
replaced with a veil of indifference.  For history will
judge us as it judged with scorn those who preached
isolationism between the world wars, and as it has judged
with praise the bold architects of the transatlantic
community after World War II.
With the Cold War over, some in America with short
memories have called for us to pack up and go home.  I am
asked often:  Why do you maintain a presence in Europe?
How can you justify the expense when we have so many
problems here at home?  We tried that, right after World
War I.  But the American people this year proved their
resistance to the siren song of global withdrawal.  We
did so when the Congress voted for the North American
Free Trade Agreement, voted for America to compete in a
global economy, not to retreat.  We did so when we
reached out to Europe and to others and, in working with
the European Union, led the world to accept a new GATT
agreement on world trade.
I have come here today to declare and to demonstrate that
Europe remains central to the interests of the United
States and that we will work with our partners in seizing
the opportunities before us all.
Without question, Europe is not the only focus of our
engagement; we must reach out to Latin America and to
Asia--areas that are increasingly important both to the
United States and to Europe.  Our bonds with Europe will
be different than they were in the past, but make no
mistake about it--the bonds that tie the United States
and Europe are unique.  We share a passionate faith that
God has endowed us as individuals with inalienable
rights, and a belief that the state exists by our consent
solely to advance freedom and security and prosperity for
all of us as individuals.  That is still a radical idea
in the world in which we live.  Developed by Locke and
Montesquieu and put into practice in my country by
Jefferson and Madison, it has toppled tyrants and drawn
millions to our country's shores.
Over three centuries, the ties of kinship between the
United States and Europe have fostered bonds of commerce,
and you remain our most valued partner, not just in the
cause of democracy and freedom, but also in the economics
of trade and investment.  But above all, the core of our
security remains with Europe.  That is why America's
commitment to Europe's safety and stability remains as
strong as ever.  That is why I urged NATO to convene this
week's summit.  That is why I am committed to keeping
roughly 100,000 American troops stationed in Europe,
consistent with the expressed desires of our allies here.
It is not habit, but security and partnership that
justifies this continuing commitment by the United
Security for the 21st Century
Just as we have worked in partnership with Europe on
every major security challenge in this century, it is now
time for us to join in building the new security for the
21st century--the century in which most of you in this
room will live most of your lives.  The new security must
seek to bind a broader Europe together with a strong
fabric woven of military cooperation, prosperous market
economies, and vital democracies.
Let me speak briefly about each of these.  The first and
most important element of the security must be military
strength and cooperation.  The Cold War is over, but war
itself is not over.  As we know, it rages today not only
in distant lands but right here in Europe and the former
Yugoslavia.  That murderous conflict reminds us that,
even after the Cold War, military forces remain relevant.
It also reveals the difficulties of applying military
force to conflicts within as well as among states.  And
it teaches us that it is best to act early to prevent
conflicts that later we may not be able to control.
As we work to resolve that tragedy and ease the suffering
of its victims, we also need to believe that the 21st
century can be the most exciting period that Europe and
the United States have ever known and that your future
can be the richest and brightest of any generation.  But
we will have to work to make it so.  Thank you very much.
Partnership for Peace:  Building a New Security for the
21st Century
President Clinton
Intervention at the North Atlantic Council summit, NATO
Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium, January 10, 1994
Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary General and
distinguished leaders.  I am deeply honored to represent
my nation at the North Atlantic Council this morning, as
eight previous Presidents have done before me.
Each of us came here for the same compelling reason:  The
security of the North Atlantic region is vital to the
security of the United States.  The founders of this
alliance created the greatest military alliance in
history.  It was a bold undertaking.  I think all of us
know that we have come together this week because history
calls upon us to be equally bold once again in the
aftermath of the Cold War.  Now we no longer fear attack
from a common enemy.  But if our common adversary has
vanished, we know our common dangers have not.  With the
Cold War over, we must confront the destabilizing
consequences of the unfreezing of history which the end
of the Cold War has wrought.
The threat to us now is not of advancing armies so much
as of creeping instability.  The best strategy against
this threat is to integrate the former communist states
into our fabric of liberal democracy, economic
prosperity, and military cooperation.  For our security
in this generation will be shaped by whether reform in
these nations succeeds in the face of their own very
significant economic frustration, ethnic tensions, and
intolerant nationalism.
The size of the reactionary vote in Russia's recent
election reminds us again of the strength of democracy's
opponents.  The ongoing slaughter in Bosnia tallies the
price when those opponents prevail.  If we do not meet
our new challenge, then most assuredly, we will once
again--someday down the road--face our old challenges
again.  If democracy in the East fails, then violence and
disruption from the East will once again harm us and
other democracies.
I believe our generation's stewardship of this grand
alliance, therefore, will be judged most critically by
whether we succeed in integrating the nations to our east
within the compass of Western security and Western
values.  For we have been granted an opportunity without
precedent:  We really have the chance to recast European
security on historic new principles--the pursuit of
economic and political freedom.  I would argue to you
that we must work hard to succeed now, for this
opportunity may not come to us again.
In effect, the world now wonders whether we have the
foresight and the courage our predecessors had to act in
our long-term interests.  I am confident that the steel
in this alliance has not rusted.  Our nations proved that
by joining together in a common effort in the Gulf War.
We proved it anew this past year by working together,
after seven long years of effort, in a spirit of
compromise and harmony to reach a new GATT agreement.
And now we must do it once again.
To seize the great opportunity before us, I have proposed
that we forge what we have decided to call the
Partnership for Peace, open to all the former communist
states of the Warsaw Pact, along with other non-NATO
states.  The membership of the partnership will plan and
train and exercise together and work together on missions
of common concern.  They should be invited to work
directly with NATO both here and in the Coordination Cell
in Mons.
The partnership will prepare the NATO Alliance to
undertake new tasks that the times impose upon us.  The
Combined Joint Task Force Headquarters we are creating
will let us act both effectively and with dispatch in
helping to make and keep the peace and in helping to head
off some of the terrible problems we are now trying to
solve.  We must also ready this alliance to meet new
threats, notably from weapons of mass destruction and the
means of delivering them.
Building on NATO's creation of the North Atlantic
Cooperation Council two years ago, the Partnership for
Peace sets in motion a process that leads to the
enlargement of NATO.  We began this alliance with 12
members; today there are 16--and each one has
strengthened the alliance.  Indeed, our treaty always
looked to the addition of new members who shared the
alliance's purposes and who could enlarge its orbit of
democratic security.  Thus, in leading us toward the
addition of these Eastern states, the Partnership for
Peace does not change NATO's original vision--it realizes
that vision.
So let us say, here, to the people in Europe's east that
we share with you a common destiny, and we are committed
to your success.  The democratic community has grown, and
now it is time to begin welcoming these newcomers to our
As President Mitterrand said so eloquently, some of the
newcomers want to be members of NATO right away, and some
have expressed reservations about this concept of the
Partnership for Peace.  Some have asked me in my own
country, well, is this just the best you can do?  Is this
sort of splitting the difference between doing nothing
and full membership, at least for the Visegrad states?
And to that, let me answer--at least for my part--an
emphatic no, for many of the same reasons President
Mitterrand has already outlined.
Why should we, now, draw a new line through Europe just a
little further east?  Why should we, now, do something
which could foreclose the best possible future for
Europe?  The best possible future would be a democratic
Russia committed to the security of all its European
neighbors.  The best possible future would be a
democratic Ukraine--a democratic government in every one
of the newly independent states of the former Soviet
Union, all committed to market cooperation, to common
security, and to democratic ideals.  We should not
foreclose that possibility.
The Partnership for Peace, I would argue, gives us the
best of both worlds.  It enables us to prepare for and to
work toward the enlargement of NATO when other countries
are capable of fulfilling their NATO responsibilities.
It enables us to do it in a way that gives us the time to
reach out to Russia and to these other nations of the
former Soviet Union, which have been almost ignored
through this entire debate by people around the world, in
a way that leaves open the possibility of a future for
Europe that breaks totally from the destructive past we
have known.
So I say to you:  I do not view this as some sort of
half-hearted compromise.  In substance, this is a good
idea.  It is the right thing to do at this moment in
history.  It leaves open the best possible future for
Europe and leaves us the means to settle for a future
that is not the best but is much better than the past.
And I would argue that that is the course we ought to
I think we have to be clear in doing so about certain
assumptions and consequences.  First, if we move forward
in this manner, we must reaffirm the bonds of our own
alliance.  America pledges its efforts in that common
purpose.  I pledge to maintain roughly 100,000 troops in
Europe, consistent with the expressed wishes of our
allies.  The people of Europe can count on America to
maintain this commitment.
Second, we have to recognize that this new security
challenge requires a range of responses different from
those of the past.  That is why our Administration has
broken with previous American administrations in going
beyond what others have done to support European efforts
to advance their own security and interests.  All of you
have received our support in moving in ways beyond NATO.
We supported the Maastricht Treaty.  We support the
commitment of the European Union to a common foreign and
security policy.  We support your efforts to refurbish
the Western European Union so that it will assume a more
vigorous role in keeping Europe secure.  Consistent with
that goal, we have proposed making NATO assets available
to WEU operations in which NATO itself is not involved.
While NATO must remain the linchpin of our security, all
these efforts will show our people and our legislatures a
renewed purpose in European institutions and a better
balance of responsibilities within the transatlantic
Finally, in developing the Partnership for Peace, each of
us must willingly assume the burdens to make it succeed.
This must not be just a gesture--it is not just a forum.
This Partnership for Peace is also a military and
security initiative, consistent with what NATO was
established to achieve.  There must be a somber
appreciation that expanding our membership will mean
extending commitments that must be supported by military
strategies and postures.  Adding new members entails not
only hard decisions but hard resources.  Today those
resources are not great but, nonetheless, as the
Secretary General told me in the meeting this morning,
they must be forthcoming in order for this to be taken
seriously by our allies and our friends who will
immediately subscribe to the partnership.
Let me also say, in response to something that President
Mitterrand said and that is on all of our minds--the
problem in Bosnia--that when we talk about making hard
decisions, we must be prepared to make them.  And tonight
I have been asked to talk a little bit about the work I
have been doing with Russia and what I believe we all
should be doing to support democracy and economic reform
there.  But I would like to make two points about Bosnia.
First, I want to reaffirm that the United States remains
ready to help NATO implement a viable settlement in
Bosnia voluntarily reached by the parties.  We would have
to seek, of course, the support of our Congress in this,
but let me say I think we can get it--if such an
operation would be clearly under NATO command, the means
of carrying out the mission would be equivalent to its
purposes, and these purposes would be clear in scope and
in time.
Second, I welcome the reassertion by the alliance in this
declaration of our warning against the strangulation of
Sarajevo and the safe areas.  But if we are going to
reassert this warning it cannot be seen as mere rhetoric.
Those who attack Sarajevo must understand that we are
serious.  If we leave that sentence in the declaration,
we have to mean it.  Those of us gathered here must
understand that, therefore, if the situation does not
improve, the alliance must be prepared to act.  What is
at stake is not just the safety of the people in Sarajevo
and any possibility of bringing this terrible conflict to
an end but the credibility of the alliance itself.  And
that--make no mistake about it--will have great
ramifications in the future in other contexts.
Therefore, in voting for this language, I expect the
North Atlantic Council to take action when necessary.
And I think if anyone here does not agree with that, you
should not vote for the language.  I think it is the
appropriate language, but we have to be clear when we put
something like this in the declaration.
Let me say finally that I ran across the following
quotation by a distinguished and now deceased American
political writer, Walter Lippman.  Three days after the
North Atlantic Treaty was signed, Lippman wrote this--
     The pact will be remembered long after the
conditions that have provoked it are no longer the main
business of mankind.  For the treaty recognizes and
proclaims a community of interest which is much older
than the conflict with the Soviet Union, and come what
may, will survive it.
Well, this meeting will prove him right.  The Soviet
Union is gone, but our community of interest endures.
And now it is up to us to build a new security for a new
future for the Atlantic peoples in the 21st century.
Partnership for Peace:  Invitation and Framework Document
On January 10, 1994, the following texts were issued by
the Heads of State and Government participating in the
meeting of the North Atlantic Council held at NATO
Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium, January 10-11, 1994.
We, the Heads of State and Government of the member
countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, building on the
close and longstanding partner- ship among the North
American and European Allies, are committed to enhancing
security and stability in the whole of Europe.  We
therefore wish to strengthen ties with the democratic
states to our East.  We reaffirm that the Alliance, as
provided for in Article 10 of the Washington Treaty,
remains open to the membership of other European states
in a position to further the principles of the Treaty and
to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.
We expect and would welcome NATO expansion that would
reach to democratic states to our East, as part of an
evolutionary process, taking into account political and
security developments in the whole of Europe.
We have today launched an immediate and practical
programme that will transform the relationship between
NATO and participating states.  This new programme goes
beyond dialogue and cooperation to forge a real
partnership--a Partnership for Peace.  We therefore
invite the other states participating in the NACC and
other CSCE countries able and willing to contribute to
this programme, to join with us in this Partnership.
Active participation in the Partnership for Peace will
play an important role in the evolutionary process of the
expansion of NATO.
The Partnership for Peace, which will operate under the
authority of the North Atlantic Council, will forge new
security relationships between the North Atlantic
Alliance and its Partners for Peace.  Partner states will
be invited by the North Atlantic Council to participate
in political and military bodies at NATO Headquarters
with respect to Partnership activities.  The Partnership
will expand and intensify political and military
cooperation throughout Europe, increase stability,
diminish threats to peace, and build strengthened
relationships by promoting the spirit of practical
cooperation and commitment to democratic principles that
underpin our Alliance.  NATO will consult with any active
participant in the Partnership if that partner perceives
a direct threat to its territorial integrity, political
independence, or security.  At a pace and scope
determined by the capacity and desire of the individual
participating states, we will work in concrete ways
towards transparency in defence budgeting, promoting
democratic control of defence ministries, joint planning,
joint military exercises, and creating an ability to
operate with NATO forces in such fields as peacekeeping,
search and rescue and humanitarian operations, and others
as may be agreed.
To promote closer military cooperation and
interoperability, we will propose, within the Partnership
framework, peacekeeping field exercises beginning in
1994.  To coordinate joint military activities within the
Partnership, we will invite states participating in the
Partnership to send permanent liaison officers to NATO
Headquarters and a separate Partnership Coordination Cell
at Mons (Belgium) that would, under the authority of the
North Atlantic Council, carry out the military planning
necessary to implement the Partnership Programmes.
Since its inception two years ago, the North Atlantic
Cooperation Council has greatly expanded the depth and
scope of its activities.  We will continue to work with
all our NACC partners to build cooperative relationships
across the entire spectrum of the Alliance's activities.
With the expansion of NACC activities and the
establishment of the Partnership for Peace, we have
decided to offer permanent facilities at NATO
Headquarters for personnel from NACC countries and other
Partnership for Peace participants in order to improve
our working relationships and facilitate closer
Framework Document
1.  Further to the invitation extended by the NATO Heads
of State and Government at their meeting on 10th/11th
January, 1994, the member states of the North Atlantic
Alliance and the other states subscribing to this
document, resolved to deepen their political and military
ties and to contribute further to the strengthening of
security within the Euro-Atlantic area, hereby establish,
within the framework of the North Atlantic Cooperation
Council, this Partnership for Peace.
2.  This Partnership is established as an expression of a
joint conviction that stability and security in the Euro-
Atlantic area can be achieved only through cooperation
and common action.  Protection and promotion of
fundamental freedoms and human rights, and safeguarding
of freedom, justice, and peace through democracy are
shared values fundamental to the Partnership.  In joining
the Partnership, the member States of the North Atlantic
Alliance and the other States subscribing to this
Document recall that they are committed to the
preservation of democratic societies, their freedom from
coercion and intimidation, and the maintenance of the
principles of international law.  They reaffirm their
commitment to fulfil in good faith the obligations of the
Charter of the United Nations and the principles of the
Universal Declaration on Human Rights; specifically, to
refrain from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any
State, to respect existing borders and to settle disputes
by peaceful means.  They also reaffirm their commitment
to the Helsinki Final Act and all subsequent CSCE
documents and to the fulfilment of the commitments and
obligations they have undertaken in the field of
disarmament and arms control.
3.  The other states subscribing to this document will
cooperate with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in
pursuing the following objectives:
(a)  facilitation of transparency in national defence
planning and budgeting processes;
(b)  ensuring democratic control of defence forces;
(c)  maintenance of the capability and readiness to
contribute, subject to constitutional considerations, to
operations under the authority of the UN and/or the
responsibility of the CSCE;
(d)  the development of cooperative military relations
with NATO, for the purpose of joint planning, training,
and exercises in order to strengthen their ability to
undertake missions in the fields of peacekeeping, search
and rescue, humanitarian operations, and others as may
subsequently be agreed;
(e)  the development, over the longer term, of forces
that are better able to operate with those of the members
of the North Atlantic Alliance.
4.  The other subscribing states will provide to the NATO
Authorities Presentation Documents identifying the steps
they will take to achieve the political goals of the
Partnership and the military and other assets that might
be used for Partnership activities.  NATO will propose a
programme of partnership exercises and other activities
consistent with the Partnership's objectives.  Based on
this programme and its Presentation Document, each
subscribing state will develop with NATO an individual
Partnership Programme.
5.  In preparing and implementing their individual
Partnership Programmes, other subscribing states may, at
their own expense and in agreement with the Alliance and,
as necessary, relevant Belgian authorities, establish
their own liaison office with NATO Headquarters in
Brussels.  This will facilitate their participation in
NACC/Partnership meetings and activities, as well as
certain others by invitation.  They will also make
available personnel, assets, facilities and capabilities
necessary and appropriate for carrying out the agreed
Partnership Programme.  NATO will assist them, as
appropriate, in formulating and executing their
individual Partnership Programmes.
6.  The other subscribing states accept the following
--  Those who envisage participation in missions referred
to in paragraph 3(d) will, where appropriate, take part
in related NATO exercises;
--  They will fund their own participation in Partnership
activities, and will endeavour otherwise to share the
burdens of mounting exercises in which they take part;
--  They may send, after appropriate agreement, permanent
liaison officers to a separate Partnership Coordination
Cell at Mons (Belgium) that would, under the authority of
the North Atlantic Council, carry out the military
planning necessary to implement the Partnership
--  Those participating in planning and military
exercises will have access to certain NATO technical data
relevant to interoperability;
--  Building upon the CSCE measures on defence planning,
the other subscribing states and NATO countries will
exchange information on the steps that have been taken or
are being taken to promote transparency in defence
planning and budgeting and to ensure the democratic
control of armed forces;
--  They may participate in a reciprocal exchange of
information on defence planning and budgeting which will
be developed within the framework of the NACC/Partnership
for Peace.
7.  In keeping with their commitment to the objectives of
this Partnership for Peace, the members of the North
Atlantic Alliance will:
--  Develop with the other subscribing states a planning
and review process to provide a basis for identifying and
evaluating forces and capabilities that might be made
available by them for multinational training, exercises,
and operations in conjunction with Alliance forces;
--  Promote military and political coordination at NATO
Headquarters in order to provide direction and guidance
relevant to Partnership activities with the other
subscribing states, including planning, training,
exercises and the development of doctrine.
8.  NATO will consult with any active participant in the
Partnership if that partner perceives a direct threat to
its territorial integrity, political independence, or
security.  (###)
NATO Declaration
On January 11, 1994, the following declaration was
released by the Heads of State and Government
participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic
Council held at NATO Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium,
January 10-11, 1994.
1.  We, the Heads of State and Government of the member
countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, have gathered
in Brussels to renew our Alliance in light of the
historic transformations affecting the entire continent
of Europe.  We welcome the new climate of cooperation
that has emerged in Europe with the end of the period of
global confrontation embodied in the Cold War.  However,
we must also note that other causes of instability,
tension and conflict have emerged.  We therefore confirm
the enduring validity and indispensability of our
Alliance.  It is based on a strong transatlantic link,
the expression of a shared destiny.  It reflects a
European Security and Defence Identity gradually emerging
as the expression of a mature Europe.  It is reaching out
to establish new patterns of cooperation throughout
Europe.  It rests, as also reflected in Article 2 of the
Washington Treaty, upon close collaboration in all
Building on our decisions in London and Rome and on our
new Strategic Concept, we are undertaking initiatives
designed to contribute to lasting peace, stability, and
well-being in the whole of Europe, which has always been
our Alliance's fundamental goal.  We have agreed:
--  to adapt further the Alliance's political and
military structures to reflect both the full spectrum of
its roles and the development of the emerging European
Security and Defence Identity, and endorse the concept of
Combined Joint Task Forces;
--  to reaffirm that the Alliance remains open to the
membership of other European countries;
--  to launch a major initiative through a Partnership
for Peace, in which we invite Partners to join us in new
political and military efforts to work alongside the
--  to intensify our efforts against the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.
2.  We reaffirm our strong commitment to the
transatlantic link, which is the bedrock of NATO.  The
continued substantial presence of United States forces in
Europe is a fundamentally important aspect of that link.
All our countries wish to continue the direct involvement
of the United States and Canada in the security of
Europe.  We note that this is also the expressed wish of
the new democracies of the East, which see in the
transatlantic link an irreplaceable pledge of security
and stability for Europe as a whole.  The fuller
integration of the countries of Central and Eastern
Europe and of the former Soviet Union into a Europe whole
and free cannot be successful without the strong and
active participation of all Allies on both sides of the
3.  Today, we confirm and renew this link between North
America and a Europe developing a Common Foreign and
Security Policy and taking on greater responsibility on
defence matters.  We welcome the entry into force of the
Treaty of Maastricht and the launching of the European
Union, which will strengthen the European pillar of the
Alliance and allow it to make a more coherent
contribution to the security of all the Allies.  We
reaffirm that the Alliance is the essential forum for
consultation among its members and the venue for
agreement on policies bearing on the security and defence
commitments of Allies under the Washington Treaty.
4.  We give our full support to the development of a
European Security and Defence Identity which, as called
for in the Maastricht Treaty, in the longer term
perspective of a common defence policy within the
European Union, might in time lead to a common defence
compatible with that of the Atlantic Alliance.  The
emergence of a European Security and Defence Identity
will strengthen the European pillar of the Alliance while
reinforcing the transatlantic link and will enable
European Allies to take greater responsibility for their
common security and defence.  The Alliance and the
European Union share common strategic interests.
5.  We support strengthening the European pillar of the
Alliance through the Western European Union, which is
being developed as the defence component of the European
Union.  The Alliance's organisation and resources will be
adjusted so as to facilitate this.  We welcome the close
and growing cooperation between NATO and the WEU that has
been achieved on the basis of agreed principles of
complementarity and transparency.  In future
contingencies, NATO and the WEU will consult, including
as necessary through joint Council meetings, on how to
address such contingencies.
6.  We therefore stand ready to make collective assets of
the Alliance available, on the basis of consultations in
the North Atlantic Council, for WEU operations undertaken
by the European Allies in pursuit of their Common Foreign
and Security Policy.  We support the development of
separable but not separate capabilities which could
respond to European requirements and contribute to
Alliance security.  Better European coordination and
planning will also strengthen the European pillar and the
Alliance itself.  Integrated and multinational European
structures, as they are further developed in the context
of an emerging European Security and Defence Identity,
will also increasingly have a similarly important role to
play in enhancing the Allies' ability to work together in
the common defence and other tasks.
7.  In pursuit of our common transatlantic security
requirements, NATO increasingly will be called upon to
undertake missions in addition to the traditional and
fundamental task of collective defence of its members,
which remains a core function.  We reaffirm our offer to
support, on a case by case basis in accordance with our
own procedures, peacekeeping and other operations under
the authority of the UN Security Council or the
responsibility of the CSCE, including by making available
Alliance resources and expertise.  Participation in any
such operation or mission will remain subject to
decisions of member states in accordance with national
8.  Against this background, NATO must continue the
adaptation of its command and force structure in line
with requirements for flexible and timely responses
contained in the Alliance's Strategic Concept.  We also
will need to strengthen the European pillar of the
Alliance by facilitating the use of our military
capabilities for NATO and European/WEU operations, and
assist participation of non-NATO partners in joint
peacekeeping operations and other contingencies as
envisaged under the Partnership for Peace.
9.  Therefore, we direct the North Atlantic Council in
Permanent Session, with the advice of the NATO Military
Authorities, to examine how the Alliance's political and
military structures and procedures might be developed and
adapted to conduct more efficiently and flexibly the
Alliance's missions, including peacekeeping, as well as
to improve cooperation with the WEU and to reflect the
emerging European Security and Defence Identity.  As part
of this process, we endorse the concept of Combined Joint
Task Forces as a means to facilitate contingency
operations, including operations with participating
nations outside the Alliance.  We have directed the North
Atlantic Council, with the advice of the NATO Military
Authorities, to develop this concept and establish the
necessary capabilities. The Council, with the advice of
the NATO Military Authorities, and in coordination with
the WEU, will work on implementation in a manner that
provides separable but not separate military capabilities
that could be employed by NATO or the WEU.  The North
Atlantic Council in Permanent Session will report on the
implementation of these decisions to Ministers at their
next regular meeting in June 1994.
10.  Our own security is inseparably linked to that of
all other states in Europe.  The consolidation and
preservation throughout the continent of democratic
societies and their freedom from any form of coercion or
intimidation are therefore of direct and material concern
to us, as they are to all other CSCE states under the
commitments of the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of
Paris.  We remain deeply committed to further
strengthening the CSCE, which is the only organisation
comprising all European and North American countries, as
an instrument of preventive diplomacy, conflict
prevention, cooperative security, and the advancement of
democracy and human rights.  We actively support the
efforts to enhance the operational capabilities of the
CSCE for early warning, conflict prevention, and crisis
11.  As part of our overall effort to promote preventive
diplomacy, we welcome the European Union proposal for a
Pact on Stability in Europe, will contribute to its
elaboration, and look forward to the opening conference
which will take place in Paris in the Spring.
12.  Building on the close and long-standing partnership
among the North American and European Allies, we are
committed to enhancing security and stability in the
whole of Europe.  We therefore wish to strengthen ties
with the democratic states to our East.  We reaffirm that
the Alliance, as provided for in Article 10 of the
Washington Treaty, remains open to membership of other
European states in a position to further the principles
of the Treaty and to contribute to the security of the
North Atlantic area.  We expect and would welcome NATO
expansion that would reach to democratic states to our
East, as part of an evolutionary process, taking into
account political and security developments in the whole
of Europe.
13.  We have decided to launch an immediate and practical
programme that will transform the relationship between
NATO and participating states.  This new programme goes
beyond dialogue and cooperation to forge a real
partnership--a Partnership for Peace.  We invite the
other states participating in the NACC, and other CSCE
countries able and willing to contribute to this
programme, to join with us in this Partnership.  Active
participation in the Partnership for Peace will play an
important role in the evolutionary process of the
expansion of NATO.
14.  The Partnership for Peace, which will operate under
the authority of the North Atlantic Council, will forge
new security relationships between the North Atlantic
Alliance and its Partners for Peace.  Partner states will
be invited by the North Atlantic Council to participate
in political and military bodies at NATO Headquarters
with respect to Partnership activities.  The Partnership
will expand and intensify political and military
cooperation throughout Europe, increase stability,
diminish threats to peace, and build strengthened
relationships by promoting the spirit of practical
cooperation and commitment to democratic principles that
underpin our Alliance.  NATO will consult with any active
participant in the Partnership if that partner perceives
a direct threat to its territorial integrity, political
independence, or security.  At a pace and scope
determined by the capacity and desire of the individual
participating states, we will work in concrete ways
towards transparency in defence budgeting, promoting
democratic control of defence ministries, joint planning,
joint military exercises, and creating an ability to
operate with NATO forces in such fields as peacekeeping,
search and rescue and humanitarian operations, and others
as may be agreed.
15.  To promote closer military cooperation and
interoperability, we will propose, within the Partnership
framework, peacekeeping field exercises beginning in
1994.  To coordinate joint military activities within the
Partnership, we will invite states participating in the
Partnership to send permanent liaison officers to NATO
Headquarters and a separate Partnership Coordination Cell
at Mons (Belgium) that would, under the authority of the
North Atlantic Council, carry out the military planning
necessary to implement the Partnership programmes.
16.  Since its inception two years ago, the North
Atlantic Cooperation Council has greatly expanded the
depth and scope of its activities.  We will continue to
work with all our NACC partners to build cooperative
relationships across the entire spectrum of the
Alliance's activities.  With the expansion of NACC
activities and the establishment of the Partnership for
Peace, we have decided to offer permanent facilities at
NATO Headquarters for personnel from NACC countries and
other Partnership for Peace participants in order to
improve our working relationships and facilitate closer
17.  Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
their delivery means constitutes a threat to
international security and is a matter of concern to
NATO.  We have decided to intensify and expand NATO's
political and defence efforts against proliferation,
taking into account the work already underway in other
international fora and institutions.  In this regard, we
direct that work begin immediately in appropriate fora of
the Alliance to develop an overall policy framework to
consider how to reinforce ongoing prevention efforts and
how to reduce the proliferation threat and protect
against it.
18.  We attach crucial importance to the full and timely
implementation of existing arms control and disarmament
agreements as well as to achieving further progress on
key issues of arms control and disarmament, such as:
--  the indefinite and unconditional extension of the
Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and work
towards an enhanced verification regime;
--  the early entry into force of the Convention on
Chemical Weapons and new measures to strengthen the
Biological Weapons Convention;
--  the negotiation of a universal and verifiable
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;
--  issues on the agenda of the CSCE Forum for Security
--  ensuring the integrity of the CFE Treaty and full
compliance with all its provisions.
19.  We condemn all acts of international terrorism.
They constitute flagrant violations of human dignity and
rights and are a threat to the conduct of normal
international relations. In accordance with our national
legislation, we stress the need for the most effective
cooperation possible to prevent and suppress this
20.  We reaffirm our support for political and economic
reform in Russia and welcome the adoption of a new
constitution and the holding of democratic parliamentary
elections by the people of the Russian Federation.  This
is a major step forward in the establishment of a
framework for the development of durable democratic
institutions.  We further welcome the Russian
government's firm commitment to democratic and market
reform and to a reformist foreign policy.  These are
important for security and stability in Europe.  We
believe that an independent, democratic, stable and
nuclear-weapons-free Ukraine would likewise contribute to
security and stability.  We will continue to encourage
and support the reform processes in both countries and to
develop cooperation with them, as with other countries in
Central and Eastern Europe.
21.  The situation in Southern Caucasus continues to be
of special concern.  We condemn the use of force for
territorial gains.  Respect for the territorial
integrity, independence and sovereignty of Armenia,
Azerbaijan and Georgia is essential to the establishment
of peace, stability and cooperation in the region.  We
call upon all states to join international efforts under
the aegis of the United Nations and the CSCE aimed at
solving existing problems.
22.  We reiterate our conviction that security in Europe
is greatly affected by security in the Mediterranean.  We
strongly welcome the agreements recently concluded in the
Middle East peace process which offer an historic
opportunity for a peaceful and lasting settlement in the
area.  This much-awaited breakthrough has had a positive
impact on the overall situation in the Mediterranean,
thus opening the way to consider measures to promote
dialogue, understanding and confidence-building between
the countries in the region.  We direct the Council in
Permanent Session to continue to review the overall
situation, and we encourage all efforts conducive to
strengthening regional stability.
23.  As members of the Alliance, we deplore the
continuing conflict in the former Yugoslavia.  We
continue to believe that the conflict in Bosnia must be
settled at the negotiating table and not on the
battlefield.  Only the parties can bring peace to the
former Yugoslavia.  Only they can agree to lay down their
arms and end the violence which for these many months has
only served to demonstrate that no side can prevail in
its pursuit of military victory.
24.  We are united in supporting the efforts of the
United Nations and the European Union to secure a
negotiated settlement of the conflict in Bosnia,
agreeable to all parties, and we commend the European
Union Action Plan of 22 November 1993 to secure such a
negotiated settlement.  We reaffirm our determination to
contribute to the implementation of a viable settlement
reached in good faith.  We commend the front-line states
for their key role in enforcing sanctions against those
who continue to promote violence and aggression.  We
welcome the cooperation between NATO and the WEU in
maintaining sanctions enforcement in the Adriatic.
25.  We denounce the violations by the parties of the
agreements they have already signed to implement a cease-
fire and to permit the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian
assistance to the victims of this terrible conflict.
This situation cannot be tolerated. We urge all the
parties to respect their agreements.  We are determined
to eliminate obstacles to the accomplishment of the
UNPROFOR mandate.  We will continue operations to enforce
the No-Fly Zone over Bosnia.  We call for the full
implementation of the UNSC Resolutions regarding the
reinforcement of UNPROFOR.  We reaffirm our readiness,
under the authority of the United Nations Security
Council and in accordance with the Alliance decisions of
2 and 9 August 1993, to carry out air strikes in order to
prevent the strangulation of Sarajevo, the safe areas and
other threatened areas in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  In this
context, we urge the UNPROFOR authorities to draw up
urgently plans to ensure that the blocked rotation of the
UNPROFOR contingent in Srebrenica can take place and to
examine how the airport at Tuzla can be opened for
humanitarian relief purposes.
26.  The past five years have brought historic
opportunities as well as new uncertainties and
instabilities to Europe.  Our Alliance has moved to adapt
itself to the new circumstances, and today we have taken
decisions in key areas.  We have given our full support
to the development of a European Security and Defence
Identity.  We have endorsed the concept of Combined Joint
Task Forces as a means to adapt the Alliance to its
future tasks.  We have opened a new perspective of
progressively closer relationships with the countries of
Central and Eastern Europe and of the former Soviet
Union.  In doing all this, we have renewed our Alliance
as a joint endeavour of a North America and Europe
permanently committed to their common and indivisible
security. The challenges we face are many and serious.
The decisions we have taken today will better enable us
to meet them.  (###)
Building Peace and Security Through Partnership and
President Clinton
Opening statement at a news conference, Brussels,
Belgium, January 10, 1994
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.  I came to Europe to
help strengthen European integration--to create a new
security for the United States and its Atlantic partners
based on the idea that we have a real chance to integrate
rather than to divide Europe, both East and West--an
integration based on shared democracies, market
economies, and defense cooperation.  Today, we have taken
two giant steps toward greater security for the United
States, for Europe, and for the world.
First, this afternoon I joined our NATO allies in signing
the documents that create the Partnership for Peace.  The
United States proposed this partnership to lay the
foundation for intensive cooperation among the armed
forces of our NATO members, all former Warsaw Pact
states, and other non-NATO European states who wish to
join the partnership.  By providing for the practical
integration and cooperation of these diverse military
forces, the Partnership for Peace will lead to the
enlargement of NATO membership and will support our
efforts to integrate Europe.
I am also pleased to announce that, on Friday, the United
States will sign with Ukraine and Russia an agreement
which commits Ukraine to eliminate nuclear weapons from
its territory.  These include 176 intercontinental
ballistic missiles and some 1,500 warheads targeted at
the United States.  This is a hopeful and historic
breakthrough that enhances the security of all three
parties and every other nation as well.
When I came into office, I said that one of my highest
priorities was combating the proliferation of nuclear
weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.  The issue
of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union was the
most important non-proliferation challenge facing the
world.  With the Soviet Union dissolved, four countries
were left with nuclear weapons:  Russia, Ukraine,
Kazakhstan, and Belarus.  I have sought to ensure that
the breakup of the Soviet Union does not result in the
birth of new nuclear states, which could raise the
chances for nuclear accidents, nuclear terrorism, or
nuclear proliferation.
In just one year, after an intensive diplomatic effort by
the United States, both Kazakhstan and Belarus agreed to
accede to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and join
the ranks of non-nuclear nations.  Much credit for these
actions goes to President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan, whom
I will be welcoming to Washington in February; Chairman
Shushkevich of Belarus, whom I will meet in Minsk later
this week; as well as the people and parliaments of those
two countries.
My Administration has been working with the Governments
of Ukraine and Russia to address Ukraine's security
concerns so that it can follow suit.  The trilateral
accord we will sign will lead to the complete removal of
nuclear weapons from Ukraine.  I want to congratulate
both President Yeltsin and President Kravchuk for their
statesmanship in negotiating this accord with us.  I want
to commend President Kravchuk and thank him for his
leadership.  I look forward to consulting with him
personally during the brief stop at Borispol Airport in
Kiev on Wednesday evening.  President Kravchuk will later
join President Yeltsin and me in Moscow on Friday to
finalize the agreement in a trilateral meeting.
This agreement opens a new era in our relationship with
Ukraine, an important country at the center of Europe--a
country, I might add, which was mentioned frequently
during our meetings today.  We expect to expand our
cooperation with Ukraine, especially in the economic
area.  We look forward to Ukraine playing an important
role in efforts to move toward the integration of a
broader Europe.
Today, I spent the day at NATO Headquarters, one of the
pillars of our security in the post-World War II era.
Through that era, our security was defined by the
stability of Europe's division.  But with the two
breakthroughs for peace announced today, we can begin to
imagine--as well as to  define--a new security for the
post-Cold War era, founded not on Europe's division but
instead on its integration.
Throughout the 20th century, now drawing to a close,
Europe has seen far too much bloodshed based on these
divisions.  But with strong democracies, strong market
economies, strong bonds of defense cooperation, and this
strong step to combat nuclear weapons proliferation, we
can make the next century far more secure for all of our
people by building a united Europe. (###)
U.S. Economic Relations With the European Union
President Clinton, Greek Prime Minister Papandreou
Remarks following a meeting with European Union leaders,
Brussels, Belgium, Janaury 11, 1994
President Clinton.  Thank you very much.  We have just
had a very productive meeting, President Delors, Prime
Minister Papandreou, and I.  As I have said many times in
the last few days, I came to Brussels in the hope of
working with the leaders of Europe to build a broader and
more integrated Europe.
At the heart of this new concept of security is the
economic vitality of the relationship between the United
States and the European Union.  The EU remains America's
most valued partner in trade and investment.  A strong
relationship between us is good for America.  It can help
to generate more jobs, more growth, more opportunities
for workers and businesses at home as well as for those
here in Europe.
That is one of the reasons that our Administration
strongly supported the Maastricht Treaty.  We believe a
strong and more unified Europe makes for a more effective
economic and political partner.  I think we proved that
through our combined efforts to lead the world to a new
GATT agreement in December.
One key to achieving that accord came last spring when
President Delors agreed to join me in focusing on market
access at last year's G-7 summit.  I am committed to
deepening our relationship with the EU through regular
meetings at all levels to continue to address other
concerns as we address the market access concern and as
we work together to get a new GATT agreement.
I have argued in my own country that to advance the
global economy and to advance the interests of American
workers as well, we must compete, not retreat.  Advanced
economies can generate more jobs and higher incomes only
when they have more people beyond their borders to buy
their goods and services.  Therefore, we must continue
our efforts to expand global growth and world markets.
The GATT agreement will help in that regard.  I am
convinced it will create millions of jobs in the global
economy between now and the end of the decade.  But we
also have responsibilities--the United States, the EU,
and others--to continue our own efforts toward open trade
and more global growth.
In today's meeting, we discussed four ways in which we
can build on the momentum generated by the GATT
agreement.  First, we stressed the need to finalize and
ratify the agreement.  The agreement itself was an
impressive breakthrough, but there are several areas in
which we did not reach full agreement.  I emphasized
today our strong desire to resolve our outstanding
We also agreed that further market access offers from
Japan and from other countries are also needed to meet
the ambitious goals on which we agreed.  The U.S. and the
EU alone cannot create the open markets the world needs.
We think it is clearly time for the other great economic
power, Japan, to join us in this effort to open markets.
Second, we agreed on the importance of putting jobs at
the center of our trade and economic agenda.  Today, the
nations of the European Union are facing high and
persistent rates of unemployment and sluggish growth.
In the United States, we have begun to generate more
jobs, but our nation still has a long way to go before
our unemployment is at an acceptable level and before our
workers begin to generate more income when they work
harder.  The renewal of each of our economies will
benefit all of them.  We discussed some of the innovative
ideas contained in the Delors White Paper.  President
Delors and Prime Minister Papandreou both made very
thoughtful comments about the kinds of things we could do
to generate more job growth both in Europe and the United
States.  And we look forward to pursuing those ideas at
the jobs conference in Washington this spring, and again
at the G-7 summit this July.
Third, we agreed to explore the next generation of trade
issues.  I suggested that the successor agenda to the
Uruguay Round should include issues such as the impact of
environmental policies on trade, antitrust and other
competition policies, and labor standards--something
that, frankly, I think we must address.
While we continue to tear down anti-competitive practices
and other barriers to trade, we simply have to assure
that our economic policies also protect the environment
and the well-being of workers.  As we bring others into
the orbit of global trade--people who can benefit from
the investment and trading opportunities we offer--we
must ensure that their policies benefit the interest of
their workers and our common interest in enhancing
environmental protection throughout the globe.  That is
exactly what we tried to do with the North American Free
Trade Agreement.  In the coming months I look forward to
continuing discussions on these issues with our EU
Finally, we discussed the imperative of helping to
integrate the new market democracies of Europe's eastern
half into the transatlantic community.  Yesterday, NATO
took a historic step in this direction with the
Partnership for Peace.  We must match that effort by
helping to ensure that our markets are open to the
products of Eastern Europe.  Ultimately, the further
integration of Europe can be a future source of jobs and
prosperity for both the United States and Western Europe
as these nations become increasingly productive and,
therefore, increasingly able to serve as consumers in the
global economy.
We have already begun to open our markets to these new
democracies.  And I have urged that both the United
States and the EU explore additional ways in which we can
further open our markets to the nations to our east.  Our
trade is a source of strength, a source of jobs, a source
of prosperity.
I look forward to continuing these discussions in the
future.  We had a lot of very good specific discussions
this morning on the jobs issue in particular.  We intend
to continue to work together and to make progress
together.  Thank you very much.
Prime Minister Papandreou.  President Clinton, in this
very brief presentation, has covered the issues that we
discussed today.  He has done so in a very complete way,
so I will make two or three comments and not more.  To
begin with, we have the revitalization of transatlantic
relations-- relations between Europe, the European Union,
and the United States of America.
It is very important for President Clinton that European
integration, the great objective of a united Europe, is
very important.  Now, the other important issue is an
opening toward Eastern Europe.  The wall separating the
East from the West has been dismantled.  We do not want
any further divisions in Europe.  But we should not
ignore the dangers that may confront us on this road.
Russia is involved in a very difficult economic,
political, and social reform.  And we would like to
contribute in any way we can so that this road will lead
to a modern economy, to a peace policy, and to a just
society.  We hope that this will be the final outcome of
this process.
Now, the third point which is directly linked to what we
have mentioned so far is a Partnership for Peace.  We
have to work together for peace.  This is a great
concept.  We should consider ways of working together in
the area of defense in connection with problems arising
due to crises, nationalist fanaticism, and conflicts in
Europe or at the periphery.  Crisis management is a very
important objective.  Military cooperation without
Eastern European countries being members of NATO--
cooperation between them and NATO--is not a threat for
Russia, but rather an invitation to Russia to contribute
I will not embark on the problem of the European economy.
Mr. Delors will speak about this problem.  But the truth
is that there are three regions in which we have both
unemployment and recession--Europe, Japan, and the United
States.  Now, the United States has started an upswing.
We are faced with a very serious problem in connection
with employment, and we will have to live with this
problem for many years unless we  manage to find a
radical solution.  It is not the right time to go into
the details of these solutions.  Now, this is what I
wanted to say at the present juncture. (###)
Renewal of the Atlantic Economies:  Crucial to Our Future
President Clinton
Address to the American business community, Brussels,
Belgium, January 11, 1994 (Introductory remarks deleted)
I came to Europe hoping that together we might begin to
realize the full promise of the end of the Cold War--
recognizing clearly that this is a difficult economic
time in Europe,  there are still profound difficulties in
the United States, and these factors are having an impact
on the politics of Europe and the United States and on
what we might do.
Nonetheless, it seemed to me that the time has come to
try to define, here on the verge of the 21st century,
what the elements of a new security in Europe and in the
United States should be in the aftermath of the Cold War-
-one premised not on the division of Europe, but on the
possibility of its integration--its political integration
around democracies, its economic integration around
market economics, and its defense integration around
mutual defense cooperation.
Yesterday, when the NATO Alliance adopted the concept of
the Partnership for Peace, we did what I believe history
will record as a very important thing.  We opened up the
possibility of expanded NATO membership to nations to our
east, not only all the former Warsaw Pact countries, but
also other non-NATO members in Europe--all who wish to
begin work on joint planning and operations with us and
to work toward being able to assume the full
responsibilities of membership.  We did it by opening up
the possibility to everyone and making no decisions now.
We did it in a way that did not have the United States
and NATO prematurely drawing another line in Europe to
divide it in a different way, but instead gave us a
chance to work for the best possible future for Europe--
one that includes not only the countries of Eastern
Europe, but also countries that were part of the former
Soviet Union and, indeed, Russia itself.  So we have
made, I think, a very good beginning in the right way.
We also are having today the first summit with the
European Union after the ratification of the Maastricht
Treaty, to talk about what we can do together to rebuild
the rate of economic growth and opportunity here and
throughout the world.
Our firms--our American firms--are deeply woven into the
fabric of Europe's economies.  Over 60% of the overseas
profits of American companies come from Europe.  America
has $225 billion invested here, employing nearly 3
million Western Europeans alone.  And back home, trade
with Europe generated $120 billion worth of exports and
about 2.5 million jobs in 1993.  We all know--you know
better than I--that this continent faces high
unemployment and very sluggish growth rates.  We also see
that in Japan.  Even though in our country the
unemployment rate is coming down, we see in every
advanced economy great difficulty today in creating jobs
and generating higher incomes, even when people are
working harder and working smarter.
The renewal of the Atlantic economies is critical to the
future of America and, I would argue, critical to the
future of our Alliance.  For in a democracy, as we have
seen time and time again in votes at home, in Europe, and
in Russia, when people feel that they are anchored and
stable and secure; when they believe they will be
rewarded for their work; when they believe that the
future will be better than the past--they vote in a
certain way.  When they are in economic and emotional
free-fall; when they feel disoriented; when they don't
know whether the future will be better than the past--
they often vote another way and in ways that, indeed,
make their futures more difficult and life for all people
more difficult.
When I became President, it seemed to me that my first
order of business ought to be to put our own economic
house in order.  And so we worked hard to reverse the
exploding deficits of the last 12 years, to begin
investing in our own people, trying to do it in a way
that would keep interest rates and inflation low and turn
the tide of private investment in the United States.  We
have begun to do that.  Last year more new jobs came into
our economy than in the previous four years.  Millions of
Americans refinanced their homes and businesses.
Consumer confidence at the end of the year rose to its
highest level in many years, and people began to believe
that they could pay their debts and control their lives.
In November, delinquencies on home mortgage payments in
America reached a 19-year low.  So we are beginning to
believe that we have some discipline, some control of our
own destiny.
We also had to make a tough decision in America last year
as a people.  That was whether we could grow internally
or whether we could continue to grow by reaching out to
compete and win in a global economy and help our friends
and neighbors to grow.  That debate was, I suppose,
captured more clearly for the people of our nation and
the people of the world in the congressional debate over
NAFTA than in any other way.
But the issue was bigger and, in some ways, simpler than
that.  It clearly seems to me that there is no way in a
global economy for a wealthy country to grow wealthier--
to generate more jobs and to raise incomes--unless there
are more customers for its goods and services, and
customers beyond its own national borders.  The United
States can ill afford to be in the vanguard of those
running away from that idea but, instead, should be in
the vanguard of those promoting it.  That is really what
the NAFTA vote was all about.
To be sure, those who voted against NAFTA were responding
to very legitimate pressures and very real fears.
Workers all over the world believe now that they, too,
are fungible and relatively unimportant to people who
control their jobs and their lives and that, in the flash
of an eye, their jobs and their livelihoods could be
taken away by someone who could move money and
information across the globe in a millisecond and,
indeed, who could move management and technology across
the globe in a short amount of time.
So it is going to be a continuing challenge for us to
keep Americans outward-looking and committed to open
trade and more open markets and still, at the same time,
to make our working people more secure in the sense--not
that they will be able to hold the job they have, because
they won't--the average American will now change jobs
seven or eight times in a lifetime--but they must know
that they are employable; that they will have their basic
health care needs and the needs of their families taken
care of; and that they will have a chance to make the
changes that will dominate at least the foreseeable
decades of the 21st century--changes that are friendly,
not hostile, to them.  That is our challenge as we begin
the next session of Congress in 1994.
Because of the NAFTA agreement and the meeting we had in
Washington State with the leaders of the Asia-Pacific
region, there was a new energy given to the prospect of
successfully concluding the GATT Round.  After seven
years of frustration and progress, we were able to do
that.  I was not fully satisfied with the Round.  It was
obviously not perfect from any nation's point of view,
and there are clearly many things that still have to be
done.  But there is no doubt in my mind that it was in
the interest of the United States to conclude the GATT
Round successfully--that it will lead to the creation of
hundreds of thousands of jobs in our nation alone and
millions worldwide by the end of the decade.  I think now
we have to ask ourselves where we go beyond GATT.  There
are several issues, of course, that we need to take up
with our European friends and with others around the
globe.  And we will take them up.
We also have to deal with the structural challenges
facing our economies-- the economies of the advanced
nations.  In March, we will convene a jobs conference in
the United States.  We have a lot to learn from some
European countries about training and retraining of the
work force.  They have something to learn, perhaps, from
us in flexibility  and mobility of the work force and the
creation of an entrepreneurial environment that will
enable unemployment to be driven down to lower levels.
But it is clear that together, along with our friends in
Japan, we all have to learn something about how to make
technological and other changes lead not only to higher
productivity but to the ability of working people to be
rewarded for that productivity and to the ability of
nations to create more employment within their national
Beyond that, let me emphasize that when I leave here
today after the European Union summit, I am going on to
Prague to meet with the leaders of the Visegrad
countries.  It seems to me that it is folly to believe
that we can integrate Europe through NATO or just on the
basis of affinity for democracies unless we are also
committed to the economic integration of all of Europe
and to reaching out to our east.
I will be urging the leaders of the European Union today
to work with the United States to further reduce trade
barriers and increase trade and investment to our east.
Today I say to all of you, I hope you are representing
companies that, as a result of the activities taking
place in these few days, will take another and harder
look at your prospects in Central and Eastern Europe and
beyond, because without private investment, we cannot
hope to have private economic development.
Oh, I know we have a lot to do in Russia and in the other
states of the former Soviet Union and still some work to
do in Eastern Europe.  And we are doing that.  I am going
on to Russia after I leave Prague.  But in the end,
private investment and the development of successful
private sectors will determine the future of European
integration economically.  Without it, I do not believe
we can hope to sustain the military and political ties
that we are building up.  So I ask you to do that.
The United States Government has worked hard to eliminate
outdated export controls and to support American
companies in Europe.  We hope that, in turn, you will
feel emboldened to make more investments further East and
to do what you can to improve our prospects to generate
higher levels of trade and investment across national
borders in ways that benefit people everywhere.  For in
the end, governments do not create wealth--people like
you do.
Soon, your efforts will be sending goods back and forth
through the channel.  Your capital is already building
bonds of commerce and culture across the Atlantic.  You
are in many ways the pioneers of the new Europe we are
trying to ensure.  Just by instinct, you will want the
kind of integration that we have to work for around the
political conference tables.  Your determination to enter
new markets is a hallmark of the American spirit and can
help make the 21st century an American century as well.
I hope you will do that.  I assure you that we will work
hard to do our part.  Thank you very much.  (###)
The Visegrad States:  Crossroads to Change in the Heart
of Europe
President Clinton
Remarks at a luncheon with the leaders of the Visegrad
states, Prague, Czech Republic, January 12, 1994
I am delighted to be here with the leaders of the Czech
Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia.  This region has
contributed so much to my nation's history.  Officers
from your lands helped lead our fight for independence,
and your sons and daughters helped build our cities and
communities.  Two of my senior national security advisers
were born in this region--my UN Ambassador, Madeleine
Albright; and the Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff,
General John Shalikashvili.  I asked Vice President Gore
to make his first official trip abroad to this region--to
Poland, in April.  And I asked him to come here again in
December to pay my nation's respects to Hungary's great
Premier, the late Jozsef Antall.
The Visegrad states hold a special place in modern
history.  This is where the transformations of our era
began-- with Poland's elections in June of 1989, the
opening of Hungary's frontiers, and the Velvet Revolution
in Prague and Bratislava.  Just as your states have been
at the heart of European civilization for centuries, your
courageous bid for freedom inspired the march to freedom
for half a continent and hundreds of millions of people.
At that time, many doubted your ability to succeed.  They
said achieving freedom was one thing; building new
democracies and market economies was quite another.  Some
said it would all come to tears--that carrying through
reforms of such magnitude was simply impossible.  And
there are those who still say that today.  But you have
confounded such skeptics.  Indeed, you have surprised
even the optimists.  Against great challenges, your
people are repairing the devastation of a half-century of
communism, building new market economies--and doing all
of this by way of democracy.  And your success helps
persuade other nations that such reforms can work.
I have come to Europe this week to work with our European
partners in building a new security for a broader,
democratic Europe in the 21st century.  For a half-
century, the security of the U.S. and Western Europe was
based on the defense of half of Europe against the other
half.  The new security must be found in Europe's
integration--in the successful expansion of military
cooperation, democratic government, and market economies.
The combination of those practices across a broader
Europe is the best protection all our nations can build
against creeping instability or a return to the old ways
and the old, imposed divisions.  Now those old days are
gone, and we want to make sure they are gone for good.
Let me be absolutely clear:  The security of your states
is important to the security of America.
Two days ago in Brussels, I began laying out my ideas for
how all our states can put the Cold War behind us and
move from artificial division to integration.  But I am
mindful of the old Polish saying, "nothing about us
without us," and so I have come to share my thoughts
directly with you as well.  I want to discuss three sets
of ideas I have about how to build the new security and
advance the integration of a broader Europe.  First, I
want to talk with you about the NATO summit.  Second, I
want to discuss how the United States can support your
democratic and free market transformations.  Third, I
want to discuss how our nation can support regional
cooperation among your new democracies.
As you know, the NATO summit approved my proposal, the
Partnership for Peace, which builds on shared values and
a willingness to assume shared responsibilities.  The
partnership invites the countries of the former Warsaw
Pact, plus others, to join in military cooperation with
NATO--military training, exercises, and operations.  We
hope Poland will host such an exercise this year.
The partnership sets in motion a process that will lead
to the enlargement of NATO's membership.  I know that
many in this region prefer immediate membership.  I want
to say two things about that.  Partnership for Peace is
not NATO membership.  But neither is it a permanent
holding room.  It changes the entire dialogue about
enlarging NATO's membership.  Now the question is no
longer whether NATO will take on new members, but when
and how we will do so.
I also say to all in your countries and mine who would
draw a new line in Europe:  We should not foreclose the
possibility of the best future for Europe--democracy
everywhere, market economies everywhere, countries
cooperating for mutual security everywhere.  We must
guard against a lesser outcome, and we have time to do
so.  But just as others were wrong to assume the failure
of your reforms, I urge you not to assume the failure of
Russia's reforms.  Freedom's boundaries now should be
defined by new behavior, not by old history.  As Vice
President Gore suggested last week in a meeting with
Polish-, Czech-, Slovak-, and Hungarian-Americans, this
is not a rerun of Yalta; it is a first-run of democracy.
Like any security agreement among nations, the
partnership requires a two-way effort.  For our part, we
have begun ending Cold War restrictions on the sale or
transfer of defense articles to some Central and Eastern
European countries.  We are prepared to help train some
of your military units to NATO standards.  For your part,
we hope you will join the partnership, participate
actively, and work with us to make this the road toward
NATO enlargement.
Our second goal is to help solidify your democratic and
market reforms.  Your progress since 1989 shows that
deep, thorough-going reforms work.  Today, your cities
are alive with commerce.  But the benefits of reform are
unevenly distributed.  Those who have had no experience
with any system other than a command economy often feel
the insecurities of the new economy more than its
opportunities.  This is a problem that your nations will
solve for themselves.  But we are determined to do what
we can to help.  I have ordered that our programs give
greater emphasis to helping you tend to reform's human
Ultimately, the success of your economic reforms will
depend less on aid than on trade and investment.  In
Brussels, I called on the European Union to work with us
to help open the world's markets to fair exports from
your countries.
Today, I am pleased to announce that the United States
will support your states in the process of achieving
early membership in the Organization of Economic
Cooperation and Development.  I also am pleased to
announce a major expansion of programs by the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation--OPIC--in Central Europe.
And in the first half of this year, the U.S. will sponsor
a special conference on trade and investment
opportunities in Central and Eastern Europe.
We also are working to help you bolster your new
democracies.  Today, all of Europe is facing hard
questions about economic transition, social change, and
ethnic diversity.  Those challenges provide a fertile
soil for demagogues preaching militant, intolerant
nationalism.  They say all the problems are caused by
"others."  They say they will solve everything overnight.
We all have an obligation to foster tolerance, to protect
individual human rights, and to denounce those who sow
hatred.  That is important in my country as well as in
yours.  But over time, democracy relies on a robust civil
society, embedded in a thriving economy.  Today, across
your cities and towns, your people are fulfilling the
promise of 1989 by creating such a civil society--
community groups, free trade unions, environmental
organizations, and more.  To help support this process,
this year we are significantly increasing our support for
such groups in this region and elsewhere.  And today I am
announcing a new initiative, "the Democracy Network," to
bring new resources to grass-roots and independent groups
throughout Central and Eastern Europe.
One of the most important building blocks of democracy is
a free media.  Over the years, we supported a free flow
of information throughout this region and the former
Soviet Union through Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty.
Since taking office, I have insisted that these important
broadcasting services be continued because they still
have a role to play.  The Czech Government has made a
generous offer to help, if we decide to move them to
Prague--and we are looking at this option very seriously.
Finally, my Government is eager to foster regional
cooperation among your countries.  Our belief in regional
cooperation flows from our own experience after World War
II.  One of the central features of the Marshall Plan and
the integration of Western Europe was the development of
cooperation among those states.  It helped turn wary
neighbors into staunch allies.  We see cooperation among
the states of Central and Eastern Europe as an integral
part of Europe's broader integration.  We are determined
to foster that integration in practical ways.  We will
provide technical assistance to regional or bi-national
groups.  We will help mobilize international support for
regional infrastructure projects, such as highways and
communication networks.  And we want to support the
development of an integrated system of airports and air
traffic control for the region.
All of these steps can advance the larger purpose we
share--the integration of Central and Eastern Europe into
a broader Europe that is thriving, democratic, and at
peace.  Ultimately, that is the best source of security
for all of us.
You and I both understand this work will be neither easy
nor instant.  But we are not deterred or dismayed.  We
have been with you in this struggle since the beginning.
We pledged in 1989 to stand by you as long as you
continued your reforms--and we stand by you today.
Together, we can place Central and Eastern Europe at the
heart of an integrated Europe--democratic, prosperous,
secure, and free. (###)
U.S.-Ukraine Relations
President Clinton, Ukrainian President Kravchuk
Opening remarks at a news conference, Kiev, Ukraine,
January 12, 1994
President Clinton.  Thank you very much.  I have just
completed my first meeting with President Kravchuk, and I
am delighted that we have met under such promising and
historic circumstances.  I was also delighted to be able
to wish the President a happy 60th birthday on this
auspicious occasion.
President Kravchuk, President Yeltsin, and I are ready to
sign on Friday an agreement committing Ukraine to
eliminate 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles and
some 1,500 nuclear warheads targeted at the United
States.  This breakthrough will enhance the security of
Ukraine, the United States, Russia, and the entire world.
Ukraine is a nation with a rich heritage, enormous
economic potential, and a very important position in
European security.  The ties between our two nations have
deep roots.  From America's birth to the present day,
Ukrainian immigrants have helped to shape my nation's
Our meeting this evening begins a new era in our
relations.  The agreement President Kravchuk and I will
sign with President Yeltsin opens the door to new forms
of economic, political, and security cooperation.  Our
meeting tonight centered on three important issues.
First, we discussed the strategic importance for this
region and the world of the nuclear agreement.  I commend
President Kravchuk for his courage and his vision in
negotiating this agreement.
Second, I was able to issue a personal invitation to
Ukraine to participate fully in the Partnership for Peace
launched at this week's NATO summit.  By providing for
specific and practical cooperation between NATO and
Ukrainian states and their forces, this Partnership can
foster an integration of a broader Europe and increase
the security of all nations.  I'm very pleased by the
expression of interest in participating that came from
President Kravchuk and his government today.
Third, President Kravchuk and I agreed today to expand
and enhance the economic ties between our nations.  This
is a difficult time of transition for Ukraine, but
Ukraine is blessed with abundant natural resources and
human talent.  Because so many of its neighbors are
moving toward market economies and democracy as well, I
believe Ukraine's most promising future lies with reform
and with integration with those burgeoning economies.
To assist in the reform effort, I am today announcing the
establishment of an enterprise fund for Ukraine, as well
as Belarus and Moldova, a fund which will help capitalize
new small businesses and provide assistance to existing
firms that seek to privatize.
Over the last year, the United States has also provided
$155 million in assistance to Ukraine.  We are prepared
to increase our support substantially as Ukraine moves
toward economic reform.  Under such circumstances, I also
believe the international community would be able to
provide significant support and investment to Ukraine,
and I am prepared to work hard to see that that support
and investment come to pass.
To begin this work, we will be pleased to welcome to
Washington later this month a senior Ukrainian economic
delegation.  I believe that Ukraine can play a major role
in the future of Europe, a Europe whose security is not
based on divisions, but on the possibility of integration
based on democracy, market economics, and mutual respect
for the existing borders of nations.
I'm looking forward to seeing President Kravchuk in
Moscow on Friday and to welcoming him to Washington for
an official visit in March.  I want to thank the people
of Ukraine for having me here and treating me so warmly,
if only briefly.  And I would like to close by asking the
President permission to come back and actually see the
beautiful city of Kiev at some other time.  I have
sampled its wonderful food and I'm now ready for the
sights.  Thank you very much.
President Kravchuk.  Ladies and gentlemen, I am happy to
greet the President of the United States, Mr. Clinton,
and his accompanying persons in Ukraine.  I'm sorry that
this visit is quite short, but I hope and I'm confident
that Mr. President will be able to visit Ukraine once
again, so to say, in a full-scale visit, and we'll be
able to show him Ukraine as it is.  And I invite you, Mr.
President, to visit Ukraine whenever it is convenient for
This is a short visit, a few hours only, but to my mind
it is worth several days of negotiations if one takes
into consideration the wide range of issues which have
been discussed.  And we would be glad to inform the world
that those problems were worth its attention.
I think the most urgent problem and the most important
problem for the whole world now is the problem of nuclear
weapons.  And we have approached its solution.  And I'm
sure that this day and the forthcoming days open the way
to the world for disarmament and the elimination of
nuclear weapons.  And Ukraine will be committed to its
obligations, and Ukraine will be the state which will not
stand in the way of disarmament.
A lot of time was devoted to discussing the bilateral
relations between Ukraine and the United States.  And I'm
glad that the President of the United States and the
United States support our country in this time of our
hardships.  And I'm sure that this sort of cooperation
and support is real support of all independent states
which have emerged from the former Soviet Union.
I'm sure that the charter for cooperation and friendship
between our states, which is now being finished up by our
experts, will be a new stage in the development of our
relations.  For us, it is very important that there is an
understanding on the part of the President of the United
States of the urgency of the support to Ukraine in
carrying out its economic reform and support of its
reform processes.  I am happy that the President of the
United States will support our country in such
international financial structures as the International
Monetary Fund, the World Bank,  and the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development.
We understand that we have to be decisive in carrying out
reforms, and we are ready for that.  And we are happy
with the development of our trade relations and that new
prospects are opening up.
We support the initiative of the United States--its
program which is called the Partnership for Peace--which
we consider to be the universal formula which enables the
participation of all countries.  We understand that this
program does not solve all the problems of security, but
it gives the possibility of all states to participate.
I'd like to greet once again Mr. President here in
Ukraine, and I would like to point out that in all issues
we have discussed we have found joint, common viewpoints.
This meeting was short, but it was very important and
fruitful and it opened a new stage in the development of
Ukrainian-American relations, which I am confident will
be long-term and reliable.  (###)
Trilateral Statement by the Presidents of the U.S.,
Russia, and Ukraine
Texts of the Trilateral Statement and Annex by the
Presidents of the United States, Russia, and Ukraine;
Moscow, Russia; January 14, 1994.
Presidents Clinton, Yeltsin and Kravchuk met in Moscow on
January 14.  The three Presidents reiterated that they
will deal with one another as full and equal partners and
that relations among their countries must be conducted on
the basis of respect for the independence, sovereignty
and territorial integrity of each nation.
The three Presidents agreed on the importance of
developing mutually beneficial, comprehensive and
cooperative economic relations.  In this connection, they
welcomed the intention of the United States to provide
assistance to Ukraine and Russia to support the creation
of effective market economies.
The three Presidents reviewed the progress that has been
made in reducing nuclear forces.  Deactivation of
strategic forces is already well underway in the United
States, Russia and Ukraine.  The Presidents welcomed the
ongoing deactivation of RS-18s(SS-19s) and RS-22s (SS-
24s) on Ukrainian territory by having their warheads
The Presidents look forward to the entry into force of
the START I Treaty, including the Lisbon Protocol and
associated documents, and President Kravchuk reiterated
his commitment that Ukraine accede to the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear-weapon state in the
shortest possible time.  Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin
noted that entry into force of START I will allow them to
seek early ratification of START II.  The Presidents
discussed, in this regard, steps their countries would
take to resolve certain nuclear weapons questions.
The Presidents emphasized the importance of ensuring the
safety and security of nuclear weapons pending their
The Presidents recognize the importance of compensation
to Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus for the value of the
highly-enriched uranium in nuclear warheads located on
their territories.  Arrangements have been worked out to
provide fair and timely compensation to Ukraine,
Kazakhstan and Belarus as the nuclear warheads on their
territory are transferred to Russia for dismantling.
Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin expressed satisfaction
with the completion of the highly-enriched uranium
contract, which was signed by appropriate authorities of
the United States and Russia.  By converting weapons-
grade uranium into uranium which can only be used for
peaceful purposes, the highly-enriched uranium agreement
is a major step forward in fulfilling the countries'
mutual non-proliferation objectives.
The three Presidents decided on simultaneous actions on
transfer of nuclear warheads from Ukraine and delivery of
compensation to Ukraine in the form of fuel assemblies
for nuclear power stations.
Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin informed President
Kravchuk that the United States and Russia are prepared
to provide security assurances to Ukraine.  In
particular, once the START I Treaty enters into force and
Ukraine becomes a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the United States
and Russia will:
--  Reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance
with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the
independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of
the CSCE member states and recognize that border changes
can be made only by peaceful and consensual means; and
reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or
use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state, and that none of
their weapons will ever be used except in self-defense or
otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United
--  Reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance
with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain
from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their
own interest the exercise by another CSCE participating
state of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus
to secure advantages of any kind;
--  Reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate UN
Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine,
as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT, if
Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or
an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear
weapons are used; and
--  Reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment
not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon
state party to the NPT, except in the case of an attack
on themselves, their territories or dependent
territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such
a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon
Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin informed President
Kravchuk that consultations have been held with the
United Kingdom, the third depositary state of the NPT,
and the United Kingdom is prepared to offer the same
security assurances to Ukraine once it becomes a non-
nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT.
President Clinton reaffirmed the United States commitment
to provide technical and financial assistance for the
safe and secure dismantling of nuclear forces and storage
of fissile materials.  The United States has agreed under
the Nunn-Lugar program to provide Russia, Ukraine,
Kazakhstan and Belarus with nearly USD 800 million in
such assistance, including a minimum of USD 175 million
to Ukraine.  The United States Congress has authorized
additional Nunn-Lugar funds for this program, and the
United States will work intensively with Russia, Ukraine,
Kazakhstan and Belarus to expand assistance for this
important purpose.  The United States will also work to
promote rapid implementation of the assistance agreements
that are already in place.
For the United States of America:
William J. Clinton
For Ukraine:
Leonid Kravchuk
For the Russian Federation:
Boris Yeltsin
The three Presidents decided that, to begin the process
of compensation for Ukraine, Russia will provide to
Ukraine within ten months fuel assemblies for nuclear
power stations containing 100 tons of low-enriched
uranium.  By the same date, at least 200 nuclear warheads
from RS-18(SS-19) and RS-22 (SS-24) missiles will be
transferred from Ukraine to Russia for dismantling.
Ukrainian representatives will monitor the dismantling of
these warheads.  The United States will provide USD 60
million as an advance payment to Russia, to be deducted
from payments due to Russia under the highly-enriched
uranium contract.  These funds would be available to help
cover expenses for the transportation and dismantling of
strategic warheads and the production of fuel assemblies.
All nuclear warheads will be transferred from the
territory of Ukraine to Russia for the purpose of their
subsequent dismantling in the shortest possible time.
Russia will provide compensation in the form of supplies
of fuel assemblies to Ukraine for the needs of its
nuclear power industry within the same time period.
Ukraine will ensure the elimination of all nuclear
weapons, including strategic offensive arms, located on
its territory in accordance with the relevant agreements
and during the seven-year period as provided by the START
I Treaty and within the context of the Verkhova Rada
Statement on the non-nuclear status of Ukraine.  All SS-
24s on the territory of Ukraine will be deactivated
within ten months by having their warheads removed.
Pursuant to agreements reached between Russia and Ukraine
in 1993, Russia will provide for the servicing and ensure
the safety of nuclear warheads and Ukraine will cooperate
in providing conditions for Russia to carry out these
Russia and the United States will promote the elaboration
and adoption by the IAEA of an agreement placing all
nuclear activities of Ukraine under IAEA safeguards,
which will allow the unimpeded export of fuel assemblies
from Russia to Ukraine for Ukraine's nuclear power
industry.  (###)
The United States and Russia:  Toward a Common Mission
President Clinton, Russian President Yeltsin
Opening remarks at a news conference, Moscow, Russia,
January 14, l994
President Yeltsin.  Ladies and gentlemen, I will tell you
the main thing now.  The first official visit paid by the
President of the United States of America, Bill Clinton,
to Russia has been very fruitful.  It could not have been
otherwise because we know one another only too well, and
we had a great job to do and two great hopes were placed
on us by our nations.
This visit is based on today's realities, and, at the
same time, it projected itself into the future as regards
the difficult past.  We and the President of the United
States wrapped it up solidly back in Vancouver.  Work in
Moscow was very intense to obtain great results.  The
concrete agreements made are crucial to Russia and the
United States--and to the entire world.  The talks were
held at a history-making time for both countries.  Old
habits and stereotypes fade away.  We are searching for
new things in Russia and in America.  I must say that we
are in the thick of the Russian-American joint
During the free, democratic elections, the Russians
approved the new constitution and for the first time,
with no coercion, they elected their own Parliament.  I
do not agree with those who believe that the first
pancakes did not turn out right--you should take a better
look at individual names and popular slogans.  You will
see that the people chose a better way of life:  legality
and predictability.  This is a lesson for all of us to
Yet in order not to repeat past mistakes, I made it
perfectly clear to the President that we would expand the
scope of reforms, focusing more on the social dimension.
I am confident that this country will have greater
stability and a durable social peace.
Bill Clinton demonstrated he has a fine sense of our
particular situation.  Indeed, the Americans also
survived a lot, and they continue to survive a lot.  We
may count on their full support for the reforms
implemented by the Russian President, government, and
reformists in the new Parliament.
I discussed problems concerning our economy and positive
changes that happened, and I referred to elements of
stabilization.  I would like to underscore that what we
need now is not humanitarian aid, but rather full-scale
cooperation with due regard for the period of transition
the young market economy in Russia is going through now.
Specifically, along with the Tokyo package and the
Clinton package from Vancouver, the most tangible support
for Russia would be the opening of the American market
for our exports, whether raw materials or equipment.
I am very much satisfied also in that today we finally--
after two years of discussion--signed an agreement on
uranium.  All the Cold War restrictions should be lifted
like the Jackson-Vanik Amendment.  We need to remove
artificial barriers that were put up under the excuse of
Russian dumping practices.  As regards uranium, I think
it is, rather, a fear of competing with more advanced
technologies and cheaper materials.
Since Vancouver, Bill Clinton has done a lot, keeping his
promise to remove the economic barriers of the Cold War.
Discriminating restrictions were struck off from the
American domestic legislation--I mean the bulk of those.
No more high customs duties are levied on about 5,000
Russian products.   The U.S. President has done a great
job of integrating Russia into international financial
and economic organizations.  I believe that it will not
take much time for the Group of Seven to turn into a
Group of Eight.
Through our negotiations, Russian-American relations have
reached a point where they have become a mature strategic
global partnership along all the lines.  It is based on a
commonly held view of new prospects and fresh problems.
We are both confident that today's world should be
democratic, open, and integrated.  As regards equality,
mutual benefits, regard for one another's interests--no
more references should be made to that, because those are
implied.  This basic dimension of our partnership is
formalized in the Moscow Declaration we signed.  It
demonstrates and consolidates the historic shift in the
Russian-American relations in Eurasia and in the entire
world.  Our interaction is now freshly meaningful, and it
is geared toward a better strategic stability and
security.  Thanks to that, over a few recent months the
world and our countries avoided quite a few traps and
miscalculations.  There was some progress made--better
cooperation in the areas of security and disarmament,
peace-keeping, and promotion of economic transparency.
The landmark step that we finally made in Moscow is the
package of agreements leading to the elimination of
nuclear weapons in Ukraine.  I believe that this is a
history-making document that was signed today by the
three Presidents.  Everybody benefits from it--and, in
the first place, the Ukrainian people.  The agreements
reached at our three-party summit will save money, remove
differences, and set a good example for other countries
to follow.  They are consolidated by the Russian-American
declaration concerning the consolidation of all mass-
destruction weapon non-proliferation regimes.  And non-
proliferation, as you know, is being called into question
now--is facing a very serious test of strength.
The U.S. President gave me fresh information about the
Partnership for Peace concept that was approved in
Brussels.  This idea comes from NATO, but there is some
basic element of the Russian-American cooperation in it.
This concept is a very important step toward building a
security system from Vancouver to Vladivostok that
excludes the emergence of new demarcation lines for areas
of unequal security.   We believe that this idea may
provide just one of the scenarios for building a new
Europe.  Just one of those will impart very specific
cooperation in this dimension of cooperation, including
the military area.  Of course, we will keep on track with
other collective security structures in Europe, including
such time-tested institutions as the United Nations and
the CSCE.
I provided very detailed information to President Clinton
about the integration processes in the former Soviet
Union, including our latest meetings--summit meetings
within the framework of the CIS.  You should not be
fearful of some neo-imperialist ambitions.  Russia is
only interested in stability, and it takes very honest
mediation efforts to extinguish the hotbeds of conflicts
along its new borders.
We are ready to expand our cooperation and coordinate our
actions with the United Nations, CSCE, and the
international community.  It is too bad that the
international community has yet to show great enthusiasm.
It responds, but frugally, to our concrete proposals
concerning either Abkhazia or Nagorno-Karabakh or
Tajikistan.  I believe that we will have a greater
understanding with the United States of this very crucial
I raised the issue of human rights violations and
national minorities, especially in the Baltics.  No
double standards should be allowed here, whether in Haiti
or in the Baltics.  As a result, we adopted a very
forceful declaration on securing human rights.  The
President confirmed that he will take appropriate steps
in making contact with the Baltics so that no more
discrimination would be allowed against the Russian-
speaking population there.
I do not want to be too optimistic now.  This does not
reflect the nature of our sincere and business-like
conversations.  We have had differences, and we will
continue to have some differences in the future.  But
what is crucial here is looking for an understanding that
will turn into a specific policy.  This is our flight
plan for the Russian-American partnership that now will
substitute for the flight plan for strategic missiles
that will not be targeted against one another.
Thank you very much.  Now, Mr. Clinton.
President Clinton.  Thank you very much.  Nine months
ago, President Yeltsin and I met in Vancouver, and there
we laid the foundation for a new partnership between the
United States and Russia--a partnership based on mutual
respect.  We have just concluded an excellent and very
productive summit meeting in which we took important
steps to strengthen that partnership.  I want to thank
President Yeltsin and his entire team for hosting us and
for making these days so productive.
Throughout our discussions, I reaffirmed the strong
support of the United States for Russia's commitment to
democracy and the transition to a market economy.  I
informed President Yeltsin that the United States is
committed to specific projects--100% of the $1.6 billion
of assistance that I announced in Vancouver--and we have
actually expended about 70% of the funds.  The President
and I also discussed the additional $2.5 billion in
assistance for Russia and the other new independent
states that my Administration proposed in Tokyo in April,
and which Congress fully funded this September.
The President gave me strong assurances of his intention
to continue the reform process.  He and I discussed a
number of ways in which the United States and the
international community can assist in the promotion of
reform and, at the same time, assist Russia in cushioning
the social hardships which reform has brought to many
Russians.  As a concrete expression of our commitment to
reform, the United States is opening the doors this week
to the Russian Small Enterprise Fund and has established
a new fund for large enterprises to promote private-
sector development here.  That latter fund will be
chaired by former Secretary of the Treasury Michael
We also signed a contract to purchase $12 billion of
highly enriched uranium over the next 20 years.  I have
asked Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown to lead a very
high-level presidential trade mission to Russia in March-
-including top CEOs, who would be in a position to
promote both trade and investment here.
We also issued a joint statement on human rights in which
we express our common resolve to combat discrimination
and all forms of intolerance, including anti-Semitism.
Today, I also had an opportunity to describe further the
results of the successful NATO summit this week; and
President Yeltsin assured me, as you just heard, of
Russia's intention to be a full and active participant in
the Partnership for Peace.
We took several historic steps to ensure that the fear of
nuclear confrontation will remain a relic of the past.
As you know, Presidents Yeltsin and Kravchuk and I signed
an agreement that commits Ukraine to eliminate over 1,500
nuclear warheads.  All the most modern and deadly
missiles in Ukraine--the SS-24s--will have their warheads
removed within 10 months.  Second, President Yeltsin and
I agreed that as of May 30, the nuclear missiles of
Russia and the United States will no longer be targeted
against any country.  And, third, we signed an agreement
to work closely together in regions where proliferation
risks are greatest, including the Korean Peninsula and
the Middle East.
We also agreed that the sovereignty and independence of
Russia's neighbors must be respected.  In that regard, I
expressed my strong hope that Russia's negotiations with
Estonia and Latvia will lead to the withdrawal of Russian
troops in early 1994.  And I did agree, as President
Yeltsin said, to press strongly the proposition that the
rights of Russian-speaking people in those republics must
be respected.
Let me close by noting that President Yeltsin and I have
agreed to meet in Naples at the G-7 summit in July, and I
am pleased that he has accepted my invitation to make a
state visit to the United States this fall.  I look
forward to those meetings.
I came to Europe with the hope of beginning to build a
new security rooted in common commitments to democracy
and free economics and mutual respect for security and
territorial borders.  I came with a dream that, with the
end of the Cold War, we might all be able to work
together to have a Europe that is integrated--
politically, economically, and in terms of security; a
Europe that, for the first time since the establishment
of nation-states would not be divided by present conflict
or lingering animosities.
I now believe we have a better chance to create that kind
of new security--a security in which great nations will
be able to treat each other as genuine partners and chart
their own futures without being dictated to by others.  A
future in which I believe greatness will be defined
fundamentally by our capacity to enable the men and women
and the children who live within our borders to live up
to the fullest of their capacities.
I thank President Yeltsin for his partnership in that
endeavor, and I assure you we will continue to work as
hard as we can toward that common mission.  (###)
Joint Statement on Non-Proliferation
Text of the "Joint Statement by the President of the
Russian Federation and the President of the United States
of America on Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction and the Means of their Delivery," Moscow,
Russia, January 14, 1994.
President Clinton and President Yeltsin, during their
meeting in Moscow on January 14, 1994, agreed that the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their
missile delivery systems represents an acute threat to
international security in the period following the end of
the Cold War.  They declared the resolve of their
countries to cooperate actively and closely with each
other, and also with other interested states, for the
purpose of preventing and reducing this threat.
The Presidents noted that the proliferation of nuclear
weapons creates a serious threat to the security of all
states, and expressed their intention to take energetic
measures aimed at prevention of such proliferation.
--  Considering the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons as the basis for efforts to ensure the
nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, they called for its
indefinite and unconditional extension at conference of
its participants in 1995, and they urged that all states
that have not yet done so accede to this treaty.
--  They expressed their resolve to implement effective
measures to limit and reduce nuclear weapons.  In this
connection, they advocated the most rapid possible entry
into force of the START I and START II treaties.
--  They agreed to review jointly appropriate ways to
strengthen security assurances for the states which have
renounced the possession of nuclear weapons and that
comply strictly with their nonproliferation obligations.
--  They expressed their support for the International
Atomic Energy Agency in its efforts to carry out its
safeguards responsibilities.  They also expressed their
intention to provide assistance to the Agency in the
safeguards field, including through joint efforts of
their relevant laboratories to improve safeguards.
--  They supported the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and
agreed with the need for effective implementation of the
principle of full-scope IAEA safeguards as a condition
for nuclear exports with the need for export controls on
dual-use materials and technology in the nuclear field.
--  They reaffirmed their countries' commitment to the
conclusion as soon as possible of an international treaty
to achieve a comprehensive ban on nuclear test explosions
and welcomed the decision to begin negotiations at the
conference on disarmament.  They declared their firm
intention to provide political support for the
negotiating process, and appealed to other states to
refrain from carrying out nuclear explosions while these
talks are being held.
--  They noted that an important contribution to the goal
of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons would be made by a
verifiable ban on the production of fissile materials for
nuclear weapons and by the most rapid conclusion of an
international convention to this effect with the widest
possible participation of states and on a non-
discriminatory basis.
--  They agreed to cooperate with each other and also
with other states to elaborate measures designed to
prevent the accumulation of excessive stocks of fissile
materials and over time to reduce such stocks.
--  They agreed to establish a joint working group to
    --including in their voluntary IAEA safeguards offers
all source and special fissionable materials, excluding
only those facilities associated with activities having
direct national security significance;
    --steps to ensure the transparency and
irreversibility of the process of reduction of nuclear
weapons, including the possibility of putting a portion
of fissionable material under IAEA safeguards.
Particular attention would be given to materials released
in the process of nuclear disarmament and steps to ensure
that these material would not be used again for nuclear
--  The Presidents also tasked their experts to study
options for the long-term disposition of fissile
materials, particularly of plutonium, taking into account
the issues of nonproliferation, environmental protection,
safety, and technical and economic factors.
--  They reaffirmed the intention of interested
organizations of the two countries to complete within a
short time a joint study of the possibilities of
terminating the production of weapon-grade plutonium.
--  The Presidents agreed that reduction of the risk of
theft or diversion of nuclear materials is a high
priority, and in this context they noted the usefulness
of the September 1993 Agreement to cooperate in improving
the system of controls, accounting, and physical
protection for nuclear materials.  They attached great
significance to further joint work on the separate but
mutually connected problems of accounting for nuclear
materials used in the civilian and military field.
Both Presidents favored a further increase in the efforts
to prevent the proliferation of chemical and biological
--  As the heads of the countries that have the world's
largest stockpiles of chemical weapons, they acknowledged
particular responsibility for eliminating the threat
posed by these weapons.  In this context, they declare
their resolute support for the Convention on the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and their intention to
promote ratification as rapidly as possible and entry
into force of the Convention not later than 1995.
--  To promote implementation of a comprehensive ban on
chemical weapons, they welcomed the conclusion of the
implementing documents for the Wyoming Memorandum of
Understanding and agreed to conclude work in as short a
time as possible on the implementing documents for the
Bilateral Agreement on the Destruction of Chemical
--  The Presidents reaffirmed their desire to facilitate
the safe, secure, timely, and ecologically sound
destruction of chemical weapons in the Russian Federation
and the United States.  They applauded the joint Chemical
Weapons Destruction Work Plan recently concluded between
the two countries which leads the way for the United
States to provide an additional $30 million in assistance
to support an analytical chemical laboratory in Russia to
facilitate chemical weapons destruction.  The United
States also agreed to consider appropriate additional
measures to support Russia's chemical weapons destruction
--  They reiterated the importance of strict compliance
with the Convention on the Prohibition of Biological and
Toxin Weapons and of continued implementation of measures
in accordance with the Russia-America-British Statement
of September 1992, which provided inter alia for the
reciprocal visits of facilities and meetings between
experts in order to ensure confidence in the compliance
with the Convention.
--  They supported convening a special conference of the
states' parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of
Biological and Toxin Weapons in order to consider
measures that would contribute to transparency and
thereby confidence in compliance with the Convention and
its effectiveness.
The Presidents expressed the determination of their
countries to cooperate with each other in preventing the
proliferation of missiles capable of carrying weapons of
mass destruction.
--  They welcomed the conclusion of the Bilateral
Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the
Russian Federation and the Government of the United
States of America Concerning the Export of Missile
Equipment and Technologies, signed in September 1993,
noted the importance of this Agreement for ensuring
mutually beneficial cooperation between the U.S. and
Russia in the field of space exploration, and agreed to
collaborate closely in order to ensure its full and
timely implementation.
--  The U.S. welcomed Russia's intention to join the
Missile Technology Control Regime and undertook to
cooperate with Russia in facilitation its membership at
an early date.  The Russian Federation and the United
States of America are certain that further improving the
MTCR, including the prudent expansion of membership, will
help reduce the threat of proliferation of missiles and
missile technologies in the regional context as well.
The Presidents of the two countries agreed that, in
addition to strengthening global norms of
nonproliferation and working out agreements to this
effect, close cooperation is essential in order to
develop policies on nonproliferation applicable to
specific regions posing the greatest risk of
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their
means of delivery.
--  They agreed that nuclear weapons on the Korean
Peninsula would represent a grave threat to regional and
international security, and decided that their countries
would consult with each other on ways to eliminate this
danger.  They called upon the DPRK to honor fully its
obligation under the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons and its safeguards agreement with the
IAEA in connection with the Treaty, and to resolve the
problems of safeguards implementation, inter alia,
through dialogue between IAEA and DPRK.  They also urged
full and speedy implementation of the Joint Declaration
of the ROK and the DPRK on Denuclearization of the Korean
--  They support efforts to reach agreement on the
establishment of a multilateral forum to consider
measures in the field of arms control in nonproliferation
that could strengthen security in South Asia.  They call
on India and Pakistan to join in the negotiation of and
become original signatories to the Treaty Banning Nuclear
Weapons Test Explosions and the proposed Convention to
Ban Production of Fissile Materials for Nuclear
Explosives and to refrain from deploying ballistic
missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass
destruction to each other's territories.
--  They agreed that the U.S. and Russia, as co-chairs in
the Middle East peace process, would actively promote
progress in the activity of the working group for Arms
Control and Regional Security in the Middle East,
striving for speedy implementation of confidence-building
measures and working toward turning the Middle East into
a region free of weapons of mass destruction, where
conventional forces would not exceed reasonable defense
--  They firmly supported the efforts of the UN Special
Commission and the IAEA to put into operation a long-term
monitoring system of the military potential of Iraq, and
called upon Iraq to comply with all UN Security Council
resolutions. (###)
White House Statements on Mutual Detargeting, Uranium
Mutual Detargeting of Strategic Nuclear Systems
Statement released by the White House, Office of the
Press Secretary, Moscow, Russia, January 14, 1994.
United States and Russian experts have discussed for
several months possible measures to improve strategic
stability, increase mutual confidence, and step back from
Cold War nuclear force postures.  These discussions have
included proposals for mutual detargeting of strategic
nuclear systems.  Based on these talks, the Presidents
announced that they will direct the detargeting of
strategic nuclear missiles under their respective
commands.  This means that by May 30, 1994, no country
will be targeted by the strategic forces of either side.
For the first time since the earliest days of the nuclear
age, the two countries will no longer operate nuclear
forces, day-to-day, in a manner that presumes they are
Intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic
missiles are capable of being launched against one of
several targets or sets of targets stored in weapon
system computers.  Historically, a target setting
associated with actual war plans had been the routine
alert assignment of U.S. missile systems.  Detargeting
will involve changing weapon-system control settings so
that on a day-to-day basis no country, including Russia,
Ukraine, or any other former Soviet territory, will be
targeted by U.S. strategic forces.  Russia has told the
United States that their detargeting measures are
For three of the four U.S. strategic missile systems--the
Trident I, Trident II, and Peacekeeper--the missiles will
contain no targeting information.  The older-technology
Minuteman III missile computers, which require a constant
alignment reference, will be set to ocean-area targets.
 This action directly affects only the strategic nuclear
forces under the command of the United States and Russian
Federation.  However, as no country will be targeted on a
day-to-day basis by U.S. and Russian strategic forces,
any country whose territory may have been of targeting
interest to U.S. and Russian forces is affected.
This initiative builds on previous steps taken
unilaterally to reduce strategic nuclear arsenals,
withdraw and eliminate certain tactical nuclear weapons,
and discontinue strategic bomber ground alert and
continuous airborne command post operations.
This will not affect commitment of U.S. forces to NATO
contingency plans.
Discussions between Russia and the U.S. on strategic
stability will continue.  In addition, the U.S. is
conducting a comprehensive Nuclear Posture Review to take
into account rapidly changing strategic circumstances.
The review is to be completed later this year.  It is
possible that other measures along these lines may be
recommended in the future.
Conversion of Highly Enriched Uranium
Statement released by the White House, Office of the
Press Secretary, Moscow, Russia, January 14, 1994.
Large numbers of nuclear warheads of the arsenal of the
former Soviet Union are being withdrawn from service as a
result of arms control agreements such as INF and START
and unilateral initiatives to reduce tactical nuclear
forces.  As these warheads are dismantled, valuable
nuclear material is removed.
An important non-proliferation objective of the United
States is to ensure that the highly enriched uranium
(HEU) removed from nuclear weapons is converted to low-
enriched uranium (LEU), which cannot be used for nuclear
weapons purposes.  Conversion of this material to LEU
would eliminate the risk that HEU might fall into the
wrong hands, and would make any future buildup of nuclear
forces in Russia extremely expensive and time consuming.
LEU has economic value as fuel for nuclear power
stations, opening up an opportunity for using the
reductions in nuclear forces to support economic reform.
Under the terms of the HEU contract signed in Moscow,
Russia will convert 500 tons of HEU to LEU and sell the
LEU to the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), a
U.S. Government corporation.  USEC will use the LEU it
purchases from Russia to fulfill contracts to supply fuel
for nuclear power stations in the United States and
throughout the world.  Over the 20-year life of the HEU
contract, Russia will earn approximately $12 billion from
sales of enriched uranium to commercial nuclear power
stations.  There will be no net cost to the U.S.
In addition, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus will
receive compensation for the value of the HEU in warheads
transferred to Russia.  In the case of Ukraine, as
warheads are transferred to Russia for dismantling,
Ukraine will receive in compensation fuel assemblies for
its nuclear power stations.  Some of the LEU derived from
HEU removed from nuclear warheads transferred from
Ukraine will be sold to USEC to cover expenses incurred
by Russia for converting HEU to LEU and fabricating fuel
To help begin this process, USEC will advance to Russia
$60 million to help cover expenses for the initial
production of fuel assemblies for Ukraine.  USEC will
recover the $60 million advance payment with funds that
would otherwise be paid to Russia under the HEU contract.
This agreement for the purchase of LEU derived from HEU
removed from nuclear warheads will benefit all nations
involved.  It will eliminate a substantial amount of
weapons-grade nuclear material, foreclosing any
possibility that this material will fall into the wrong
hands.  It will provide substantial funds to Russia to
promote economic reform and the transition to a market
economy.  It will provide important energy resources to
Ukraine, and demonstrates how the United States can work
with the states of the former Soviet Union to promote
mutual security, non-proliferation, and economic
interests.  (###)
Strengthening Russia's Economic and Political Future
President Clinton
Address telecast to the Russian people, Moscow, Russia,
January 14, 1994
I am deeply honored to be here today at this television
station, which has become for all the world a beacon of
information and truth.  Attacked three months ago by
opponents of reform, Ostankino stands as a symbol of the
power of free expression and of the brave sacrifices the
Russian people have been making to build a great and free
I'm so glad there are many young people here and I hope
there are many, many more watching us on television,
because it is the future of the youth of Russia that I
wish to speak about.  Once every generation or two all
great nations must stop and think about where they are in
time.  They must regenerate themselves.  They must
imagine their future in a new way.  Your generation has
come of age at one of those moments.
Yesterday I walked through Moscow.  I stopped at a bakery
and bought some bread.  I went into another shop and
talked to the people there.  I talked with an awful lot
of people on the street.  I went to Kazan Cathedral and
lit a candle in memory of my mother.  It is a cathedral
which, like Russia itself, has been built anew on old
Over the centuries, the Russian people have shown their
greatness in many ways, in the arts and literature, on
the battlefield, in the university, and in space.  Though
the communist system suppressed human rights and human
initiative and repressed your neighbors and brought the
world the Cold War, still the greatness of the Russian
people showed through.
Now, on the brink of the 21st century, your nation is
being called upon once again to redefine its greatness in
terms that are appropriate to the present day and to the
future, in ways that will enable your nation to be strong
and free and prosperous and at peace.
We live in a curious time.  Modern revolutions are
changing life for the better all over the world.
Revolutions in information and communications and
technology and production--all these things make
democracy more likely.  They make isolated, state-
controlled economies even more dysfunctional.  They make
opportunities for those able to seize them more numerous
and richer than ever before.  And yet even in this modern
world, the oldest of humanity's demons still plague us:
the hatreds of people for one another based solely on
their religion or their race, or their ethnic
backgrounds, or sometimes simply on the piece of ground
they happen to have been born upon.
In the midst of these conflicts between the forces of
tomorrow and the forces of yesterday, I believe that the
greatness of nations in the 21st century will be defined
not by whether they can dictate to millions and millions
of people within and beyond their borders, but instead by
whether they can provide their citizens, without regard
to their race or their gender, the opportunity to live up
to the fullest of their ability, to take full advantage
of the incredible things that are in the world of today
and tomorrow.
Therefore, if we are to realize the greatness of Russia
in the 21st century, I believe your nation must be strong
democratically and economically.  And in this
increasingly interconnected world, you must be able to
get along together and to get along with and trade with
your neighbors close at hand and all around the globe.
To do that, I think we will have to write an entirely new
future for all of Europe--a future in which security is
based not on old divisions, but on a new integration of
nations by means of their shared commitment to democracy,
to open economies, and to peaceful military cooperation.
I come here as a friend and supporter of the democratic
changes going on in this nation.  I hope that my nation
and I can make a positive contribution in the spirit of
genuine and equal partnership not simply to these large
changes but a positive contribution to the everyday lives
of ordinary citizens of this great nation.
In the end, you will have to decide your own future.  I
do not presume to do that.  Your future is still yours to
make, yours to write, yours to shape.  But I do come to
say that my nation and its President want very much to be
your equal partners and genuine friends.
If I were in your place listening to this speech, I might
ask myself:  Why is this guy saying this?  What is on his
mind?  Why, really, is he eager to work with us?  First
of all, I identify with and even sympathize with the
difficulty of the changes you face.  I ran for President
of the United States in 1992 because I was convinced that
my nation had to make some very hard and tough changes in
order to keep the dream that had inspired Americans for
200 years alive; in order to keep the hopes of our
working people alive in a fierce and difficult and ever-
changing new global economy.  So I understand that.
I have devoted myself at home to making those changes,
and I know the changes are difficult, even in an
environment in which they are easier than the ones you
face.  So I come here in genuine sympathy and
Secondly, I am interested in supporting these changes
because my nation stood for so long against a communist
system, against its lack of freedom, against its
excessive dictates, against its imperial impulses, and I
could not bear to think that a majority of your people
would ever be sorry to have given it up.
I come here because I believe that, together, we can
write a new future for Europe and help the entire world
to have a more peaceful and prosperous future.  And,
frankly, I come here because I believe your success is
clearly in the best interests of the United States and of
ordinary American citizens.  For it is in our interest to
be able to spend less on defense and to invest more in
our own people--in the education and health and welfare
and technology that will help carry us into a better time
in the 21st century.
It is in our interest to curb the spread of weapons of
mass destruction and to cooperate with you in reducing
threats to peace all around the world.  It is in our
interest to develop new trade ties and new customers.
And each of these developments is more likely if we have
a genuine, equal partnership with a strong and free
I believe how you define your future will be determined
in large measure by how you decide to respond as a people
to the three great challenges facing you.  First, will
you continue to work for a genuine market economy, or
will you slow down or turn back?  Second, will you
continue to strengthen and deepen your commitment to
democracy, or will you allow it to be restricted?  And
third, how will you define your role in the world as a
great power?  Will you define it in yesterday's terms or
Let me begin with a challenge that clearly most affects
the daily lives of the people of this nation--the
economic one.  I know that your transition to a market
economy has been hard, painful, even emotionally
disorienting to millions of people.  But if the change
seems costly, consider the price of standing still or
trying to go back.  A rigid, state-run economy simply
does not work in the modern world.
To be sure, the system you had produced a very literate
society, made some of you the best educated people in the
world; developed a high-tech base and developed a strong
industrial base tied quite closely to military might.
But it is inadequate for a dramatically changing, highly
competitive, increasingly flexible global economy in
which all decisions simply cannot be made by a handful of
people from the top down and in which no country is
immune from the forces without.
The old system failed before.  That is why you are in the
present period of transition.  If you attempted to
reimpose it, it would fail you again.  Let me make it
clear that I do not suggest that markets solve all
problems.  They clearly do not solve all of society's
problems.  And indeed, they create some problems for
every society-- problems which must be frankly and
forthrightly addressed by people who propose to have a
strong community of common interest and common concern
within their nation.
Yet it is clear that the surest way to prosperity in the
world in which we live is the ability of people to
produce and to sell high-quality goods and services both
within and beyond their borders.  There is no other clear
path to prosperity.
Russia clearly has the capacity to do well in this kind
of economy.  You have enormous technological prowess, a
highly educated citizenry that is known and respected
around the world.  You have immensely valuable natural
resources.  It is clear that you have the capacity to do
well.  You have a rapidly growing private sector.
Already your nation has privatized nearly one-third of
its industry.  About 600 businesses a month are
privatizing.  Tens of millions of your people now own
private property and are gaining, daily, experience in
market economies.  But there remain serious problems--the
most profound, of course, is high rates of inflation.
Inflation at high rates destroys wages.  It makes people
feel that they can't keep up and that no matter how hard
they work, they will not be rewarded for their labor.  It
hurts the ordinary working people, the very people that
are the backbone of any society, who have to believe that
the future can be better than the present.  It undermines
that very belief and makes it so difficult to develop and
maintain a majority for the changes and the short-term
sacrifices that have to be made.  So inflation must be
tamed.  And as everyone knows, that also has its price,
for inflation can only be tamed if the government is
willing to print less money and, therefore, to spend
The next problem you have, it seems to me as an outside
observer, is that even though you have a lot of
privatization of companies, the systems on which every
private economy depends are not as well-developed as they
ought to be.  There are not enough laws which clarify and
protect contracts, which make tax systems clear, which
provide, in other words, the framework within which all
different kinds of transactions can occur.  But that can
be rather easily corrected.
There are other problems.  I might just mention one other
that President Yeltsin has talked about quite a lot
lately and that has received a lot of attention all
around the world since the last election here in Russia,
and that is that your country must develop some sort of
social safety net as all other successful market
economies have to deal with the fact that some people are
always going to have difficulties in a rapidly changing
Most people can be restored to participation in the
economy in times of prosperity, but in any market economy
there will always be people who are dislocated.  So you
have to have training systems, retraining systems,
systems to make sure that new businesses can always be
started when old businesses are stopping; and systems to
deal with people who simply are not competitive in
difficult times.
Now, you must determine how to do this.  No one can
determine how to do it for you, or even whether to do it.
But as your partner, I can tell you that the United
States will do what we can to help to ease your hardships
as you move forward on this path, and do what we can to
help you make the decisions that you are prepared to
Let me say that I think this has been, in some ways, the
most difficult period of all for you because you have
taken a lot of risks, you have made a lot of changes
already, and yet the changes have not been felt tangibly
in the lives of most ordinary citizens in the country.
And that is very difficult.  But I can say that--just as
an outside observer--it seems to me that it is likely
that you will begin to see those changes.
Let me just give you a couple of examples.  I asked Vice
President Gore and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin to work on
a program of economic cooperation in the fields of
energy, the environment, and space.  You have massive
energy resources.  If we can just get a few more things
worked out, it will lead to big flows of money and
investment, prosperity, and jobs into this nation.
We have reached an agreement, an unprecedented agreement
for cooperation in space.  Next month, Russian cosmonauts
will serve on our space shuttle.  We will share our
resources, share our knowledge, share our training.  And
we will uncover things in space and in our venture which
will have direct economic benefits to the people of
Russia and the people of the United States.  We both have
different but very significant environmental problems
which require high levels of skill and technology, but
which generate enormous economic opportunity and large
numbers of jobs.  These things will come.
Secondly, last April when I met with President Yeltsin, I
pledged $1.6 billion in United States aid.  We have now
committed all that aid, and 70% of the money has been
spent.  And I provided a map the other day to show that
it had been spent all over the country in all kinds of
different ways-- mostly to help you develop a private
economy.  You will begin to see the benefits of that.
Just this week, the G-7 big industrial nations opened an
office in this city, led by an American, for the purpose
of making sure that we speed up the aid that was promised
last summer, but which has been coming too slow.  In
September, the Congress of the United States approved
another $2.5 billion aid package which can now begin to
flow again to try to create jobs and opportunities, and
to help slow the rate of inflation in this country.  So I
believe that specific benefits will begin to be felt, and
people will come to see that there is a light at the end
of this long tunnel.
Just today we announced the signing of a contract for the
purchase of highly enriched uranium, a contract which
will bring another $12 billion to this nation over the
next several years.  And we are working hard to get
assistance to the nations which buy your energy because
so many of them cannot afford to pay for it; to make sure
that you can be paid in cash, promptly, as you sell your
energy resources.  All these things will begin to have an
impact on the lives of ordinary citizens.  That is
something that, as someone who also has to run for
election on a periodic basis, I am sensitive to.
In a democracy, if you put people in the driver's seat,
they are going to drive.  So it is best to give them a
good road to drive on, and we are working with that.
The next great challenge Russia faces is the
consolidation of democracy, and I want to say just a few
words about that.  Just like the market, democracy is no
cure-all for all economic troubles or social strains.  It
is always a noisy and messy system.  Our common ally in
World War II, the British Prime Minister Winston
Churchill once said that democracy is the worst possible
form of government, except for all of the others.  Why
did he say that?  Because the debate is so wide, the
opinions are so different and, sometimes, the differences
are so sharp that you wonder if anything will ever be
done.  But democracy still offers the best guarantee of
good decision-making and the protection of individual and
minority rights.
In a society like yours and mine, and throughout the
multi-ethnic expanse of Europe, democracy offers the best
hope of protecting diversity and of making diversity a
source of strength, harnessing it to a world in which
diversity is perhaps the overwhelming fact of life.
That is why I would argue to you that each of us, in
order to protect your democracy and mine, has a personal
responsibility to denounce intolerance and ethnic hatred
and anti-Semitism, and anything that undermines the
ability of everybody who lives within our national
borders to be as productive as possible.  Because, keep
in mind, in the world in which we live, if you make any
decision that deprives anybody who lives in your country
of the right to live up to the fullest of their capacity,
you have weakened your own ability to be free and
prosperous and successful.
I might say it is also why the United States has
cautioned other nations to respect the rights of ethnic
Russians and other minorities within their borders.  In
both our nations, the success of democracy depends partly
on a formal constitution and partly on regular elections
and respecting those elections.  But it also depends upon
a full array of other free associations that give real
life and texture to democracies:  independent trade
unions, newspapers, and a wide variety of civic and
cultural associations.
If, like me, you are in a position of authority, you know
that the freedom of speech can sometimes be a painful
thing.  Even in Roman times the great Emperor Marcus
Aurelius said that the freedom of speech for someone in
power was something to be endured, not enjoyed.  But it
is essential to democratic life that people feel free to
say what they believe without fear of retaliation.
We are committed to fostering this kind of democratic
ferment, and we are prepared to provide whatever kind of
technical assistance we can to help it do well here.  I
say that because some people are concerned by the wide
variety of views and the loud expression of those views
we have seen in the Duma after the last election.  That
can be a healthy thing if, but only if, everybody else's
views are respected and protected, too.  For once
democracy becomes an instrument of crushing the views of
the minorities, those who disagree, those who don't have
the muscle, then democracy itself soon disappears.
The third great challenge you face today is redefining
the role of your great nation in this age:  What does it
mean to be a great power in this 21st century?  How will
you define it?  How will you know Russia is a great
nation?  If someone asked you to describe it, looking to
the future, how would you know?  If someone asked you to
describe it looking back in the early 1800s, you would
say, we are a great nation because we beat Napoleon and
ran him out of Russia.  Right?  Whether you agree or
disagree with the communist system you can say you were a
great nation in the sense that you loomed large at the
height of the Soviet empire with the Warsaw Pact.  Great
does not always mean good, but at least it is large.
How will you define your greatness?  It is a profoundly
important question that you must answer.  I think there
are some different ways to describe it.  Russia co-
sponsored with the United States in the Middle East peace
process.  I think it was a very great thing when Israel
and the PLO signed their accord on September 13, 1993.  I
think it is a good thing that we are continuing to work
until a comprehensive settlement is reached in that
troubled area.
I think it was a great thing what we did today with the
Presidents of Ukraine and Russia and the United States
agreeing to get all the nuclear weapons out of Ukraine
and to give fair compensation to that nation for the
uranium they are giving up.  It makes the world a safer
place.  It makes your nation and mine less vulnerable to
nuclear terrorism or threats.  It shows that we can move
beyond the nuclear age entirely.
There are still questions, you know, in the world about
how you will define your greatness.  When I was at the
NATO conference and afterward, there were nations that
live between Western Europe and the border of Russia who
still wonder what the future holds; nations who said,
"Put me in NATO, now, just in case.  Oh, I believe this
President of Russia when he says he respects the
territorial borders of other nations, but look at the
history of Russia.  Think of the national impulse.  Draw
another line across Europe while you have a chance."
There are people who are in the Baltic nations now who
hear some of the debate in your politics, who hear the
threats to take them over again.  One of your political
leaders even suggested you might like to have Alaska
back.  I don't think I can go along with that.
I say that because all those definitions, I would argue
to you, are looking to yesterday.  What in the world
would you do with an army of occupation to the East?  How
would you pay for it?  And what would it give you?  How
would you be more powerful than some small nation, one of
the industrial tigers of Asia, for example, producing and
selling goods and services at such a rate that their
people's incomes are going up by 10% a year, and they are
giving the people who live there the opportunity to do
things that would have been undreamed of by their parents
or grandparents?  This is a very serious thing.
I believe that the greatness of a nation that lasts for
centuries and centuries and centuries, as this nation
has, is the ability to redefine itself in every age and
time.  The young people of Russia especially now have a
chance to show that a great power can promote patriotism
without expansionism; that a great power can promote
national pride without national prejudice.  That, I
submit, is your challenge.
Today you face no threat from invasion.  That was a
legitimate concern of Russia for decades and decades, a
legitimate reason to want a buffer zone around your
borders in former times.  It is not there now.  I believe
the measure of your greatness in the future will be
whether Russia the big neighbor can be the good neighbor.
That is why it is so important that as your forces
operate beyond your borders, they do so according to
international law; why it is important that you continue
your planned withdrawal from all the Baltic states; why
it is important that your nation work with the United
States and the rest of Europe to build the Partnership
for Peace called for at the NATO conference this year, so
that for the first time in the history of nation-states,
we can have a Europe that is united by a shared
commitment to democracy, free-market economies, and
mutual respect for borders for the first time in history,
instead of the Europe that is divided.
I'm very proud and pleased that President Yeltsin decided
to participate in the Partnership for Peace and work for
an integrated Europe; that he signed the historic accord
with President Kravchuk and with me today to eliminate
over 1,800 nuclear warheads.  These are hopeful signs,
and I believe signs that indicate you can make a future
that is different from the past.
Yours is a history of heroism and of persistent hope.
The question now is, can we make the economic decisions,
the political decisions that foster hope?  You will have
to decide these things.  I'm amused when I come here in
the spirit of genuine partnership and respect and some
people say, well, the United States is trying to dictate
our course.  Nothing could be further from the truth.
Believe me, my friends, it's all we can do to deal with
our own problems.  We don't have time to try to dictate
your course.  But the course you take will affect us and
so we want you to make decisions that are best for you.
And I will close as I began:  Will you define your future
greatness in terms that were relevant to the past or
terms that will shape the future?  This is a crossroad,
and a difficult one.  But the younger generations of
Russians will look back on this time with either
gratitude or regret, depending on how those questions are
answered--the economic, the political, the military
I believe you will choose the future.  After all, Russia
did not get to this point by making all that many wrong
decisions in the past.  And every nation makes a few
mistakes.  There are few people anywhere that have more
knowledge of history, both positive and negative, that
have more reason to hope for the future than you do.  I
know the present is difficult, but if you make the right
decisions, if you choose hope over fear, then the future
will reward your courage and your vision.
Thank you very much. (###)
Joint American-Russian Statement on Human Rights
Text of the "Joint American-Russian Statement on Human
Rights by President Clinton and Russian Federation
President Yeltsin," Moscow, Russia, January 14, 1994.
The President of the United States of America and the
President of the Russian Federation share the view that
full guarantees of respect for basic human rights and
fundamental freedoms of all persons are indispensable for
the maintenance of good relations between countries and
the strengthening of stability and security in the world.
They also share the view that the development of a state
founded on the rule of law with an independent, impartial
and effective legal system is essential for the respect
of human rights.
They agree that aggressive nationalism and political
extremism are the main threat to peace and democracy
today.  They therefore reaffirm their resolve to focus
attention, through joint efforts where possible, on
violations of human rights wherever they may occur and to
continue to work for the elimination of discrimination,
intolerance, racial and national prejudices, xenophobia
and anti-Semitism.  Adhering to the principle of
intolerance of any nationalistic or religious extremism,
they reiterate their commitment to take all necessary
measures for the effective guarantee of the rights of all
citizens, regardless of their nationality or religion.
They will take coordinated steps to increase the
effectiveness of the activities of international
organizations and mechanisms in order to improve human
rights practices everywhere and to guarantee their full
respect.  They reaffirm the determination of CSCE Foreign
Ministers in Rome that better use of CSCE human dimension
instruments, including CSCE missions, should be made to
promote open and diverse media.  They reiterate their
commitment to safeguard freedom of expression as a basic
human right and underscore its importance for a free and
open society.
The United States reaffirms its support for democratic
reforms in Russia.  Among these reforms are the
establishment of an independent judiciary as a
fundamental part of a state based on the rule of law, the
strengthening of other foundations of a civil society and
full realization of personal rights and liberties.  The
Presidents agree that the continued success of the
democratic transformation in Russia is of great
importance for the promotion of the principles of
democracy and human rights all over the world and for the
maintenance of international stability and security.
OPIC Support for U.S. Investment in Russia
The following statement was released by the White House,
Office of the Press Secretary, Moscow, Russia, January
14, 1994.
As a demonstration of the President's support of Russian
reform efforts, the President of the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC),
Ruth R. Harkin, signed in Washington on January 7 three
OPIC protocols supporting U.S. private investments in
Russia.  These protocol agreements are described below.
U.S. West
To help modernize Russia's telecommunications systems,
OPIC plans to provide close to $80 million in finance and
insurance to U.S. West International for its newly
established $150-million telecommunications holding
company in Russia.  The Denver-based firm endeavors to
position itself as a leader in Russian telecommunications
development by serving as a source of financing for
future Russian telecommunication projects.  U.S. West
will develop and operate this project and subsequent
telecommunication projects utilizing state-of-the-art
Western practices and applying state-of-the-art
technology.  U.S. West is in the process of applying for
OPIC financing of up to $60 million for this project, and
$20 million in political risk insurance for a related
cellular telephone project.
Snyder Oil
This joint venture will restart oil production from
existing, idle wells.  OPIC would provide up to $140
million in financing and insurance for Snyder's joint
venture project with a Russian state-owned company,
Incorporated Works Permneft, located 800 miles east of
Moscow.  Snyder, through its subsidiaries, recently
established a 50/50 joint venture, Permtex, with the
Incorporated Works Permneft, a regional production
association operating under the auspices of the
Government of the Russian Federation, to engage in the
development of existing major oil-producing areas in the
Perm region of Russia.  Snyder expects peak production to
yield an average annual production of 8,000,000 barrels
of oil.  Snyder will develop and operate the project
using Western environmental practices and applying state-
of-the-art production technologies.
In an effort to boost oil production and generate hard
currency exports, OPIC will provide $100 million of
financing and insurance to Dresser/Petro-Hunt for its
crude oil production project. (###)
Moscow Delaration
Text of Moscow Declaration by President Clinton and
Russian President Yeltsin, Moscow, Russia, January 14,
President of the United States William J. Clinton and
President of the Russian Federation Boris Yeltsin, having
met together in Moscow from January 12-15, 1994,
reaffirmed the fundamental importance of U.S.-Russian
cooperation based upon the Charter of American-Russian
Partnership and Friendship, the Vancouver Declaration,
and existing treaties and agreements.  They noted with
satisfaction that the relationship between the United
States and Russia has entered a new stage of mature
strategic partnership based on equality, mutual
advantage, and recognition of each other's national
interests.  From this perspective, they reviewed the full
range of bilateral and international issues.
The two Presidents had an extensive discussion of
security issues, including arms reduction and
nonproliferation.  Both parties expressed concern over
increasing challenges to global nonproliferation regimes.
They agreed upon the need to strengthen those regimes and
to create, together with other interested states, a new
mechanism to enhance transparency and responsibility in
the transfer of conventional arms and sensitive dual-use
technologies.  They also strongly supported completion of
negotiations on a comprehensive test ban at the earliest
possible time.  The two Presidents reiterated their
support for a cutoff of production of fissile materials
for weapons and considered new measures to strengthen
strategic stability.
Based on ongoing discussions of strategic disengagement
measures between the ministries of defense of the two
countries, the Presidents announced that they would
direct the detargeting of strategic nuclear missiles
under their respective commands so that by not later than
May 30, 1994, those missiles will not be targeted.  Thus,
for the first time in nearly half a century--virtually
since the dawn of the nuclear age--the United States and
Russia will not operate nuclear forces, day-to-day, in a
manner that presumes they are adversaries.
President Clinton and President Yeltsin expressed
satisfaction with the accelerating development of a wide
range of economic, scientific and technological
relationships between the United States and Russia.  They
also reaffirmed their strong support for the rapid growth
of bilateral trade and investment as a special priority.
In their view, the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission has
become a dynamic and effective mechanism for coordination
and expansion of U.S.-Russian cooperation.  A key
expression of this relationship is U.S.-Russian joint
cooperation in space, especially their partnership, with
other interested parties, in the construction of a space
The two Presidents reaffirmed their readiness to move
forward on the path of openness and mutual trust in
American-Russian relations and to create favorable
conditions for the comprehensive development of
political, commercial, humanitarian, and people-to-people
contacts between the two countries.  In this connection,
a mutual interest in enlarging the consular presence of
each other's territory was expressed.  In particular, the
American side intends to open a Consulate General in
Yekaterinburg in February 1994.
With the approval of the U.S. Congress of NAFTA and the
successful completion of the Uruguay Round of global
trade negotiations, President Clinton and President
Yeltsin welcomed the accelerating progress toward
creation of an open and prosperous world economy and
trading system.  President Yeltsin informed President
Clinton of recent steps among the member states of the
Commonwealth of Independent States toward increased
economic coordination and cooperation.  The two
Presidents agreed that such initiatives, pursued in an
open and voluntary manner consistent with GATT rules and
procedures, should be conducive to the rapid inclusion of
all the participating states into the global economy.
In this context, President Clinton and President Yeltsin
exchanged views on the economic strategies of their
respective governments.  President Yeltsin described the
economic situation in Russia.  He affirmed the
irreversibility of Russia's transition to a market
economy and his intention to further promote reforms and
to address social needs associated with this transition.
President Clinton stressed his strong support for Russian
reform and suggested that social issues could be a new
and promising area for cooperation.
President Clinton and President Yeltsin noted with
satisfaction that the end of the Cold War has brought
continuous progress toward overcoming the division of the
European continent and opened the way for broad
cooperation among European states on a new agenda of
urgent tasks, with priority being given to preventive
diplomacy, peacekeeping and protection of human rights
and the rights of national and other minorities.  In this
connection, the two Presidents welcomed the decisions of
the CSCE Foreign Ministers' meeting in Rome which they
consider to be an important step in making the CSCE a key
mechanism of international cooperation in Europe.
Proceeding from the conviction that new divisions of
Europe must be avoided, President Clinton and President
Yeltsin agreed upon the need to create a new European
security order that is inclusive, non-discriminatory and
focused on practical political and security cooperation.
The two Presidents agreed that the concept of the
Partnership for Peace adopted at the Brussels meeting of
the NATO member states is an important element of an
emerging new European security architecture.
President Yeltsin informed President Clinton of Russia's
intention to participate actively in the Partnership for
Peace and to conclude substantive agreements opening the
way for broad and intensive cooperation between Russia
and NATO as a partner.  Taking into account Russia's
international role, President Clinton welcomed the
prospect of Russia's active participation in the
Partnership for Peace.
The two Presidents condemned aggressive nationalism,
violations of human rights, and ethnic and religious
intolerance of any kind, including anti-Semitism.  They
expressed serious concern about the existence and
potential for intensification of conflicts in the former
Yugoslavia and a number of the New Independent States of
the former Soviet Union.  President Yeltsin apprised
President Clinton of the peacekeeping efforts undertaken
by Russia on the territory of the former USSR.  The two
Presidents are determined to intensify the coordination
of their efforts, within the framework of the United
Nations and the CSCE, to promote rapid and peaceful
resolution of conflicts on conditions that correspond to
generally accepted standards of international law,
including respect for the independence, sovereignty, and
existing borders of the New Independent States of the
former Soviet Union.
The two Presidents reaffirmed the support of the United
States and Russia for the United Nations.  They will act
with other countries to strengthen the potential of the
UN to support and establish peace and prevent conflict.
The two sides will work out practical activities among
themselves and other countries to improve preparation for
participation in UN peacekeeping operations.  In
connection with the upcoming 50th anniversary of the UN,
President Clinton and President Yeltsin consider it
important to convene at the appropriate time a meeting of
the heads of state and government of the members of the
UN Security Council for a review of the work established
for the UN at the January 1992 Security Council summit
and an examination of tasks for the future.
President Clinton and President Yeltsin are convinced
that the United States and Russia will continue to
consolidate their partnership and together promote global
stability, peace, and prosperity.
Done in Moscow on January 14, 1994, in the English and
Russian languages.
William J. Clinton
For the United States of America
Boris Yeltsin
For the Russian Federation (###)
U.S. Supports Reform in Belarus
President Clinton
Address at the Academy of Sciences, Minsk, Belarus,
January 15, 1994
Sergei Gaponenko, the President of the National Academy
of Sciences; to my friend, Chairman Shushkevich; ladies
and gentlemen:  Thank you all for coming here.  I am
delighted to be here at your National Academy of Sciences
with many representatives of my government and
representatives of yours.  But most of all, I'm glad to
see so many young people here, because it is your future
I wish to talk about today.
I want to thank Chairman Shushkevich for inviting me and
for suggesting that I meet with you.  The Chairman is a
leader of real courage--in recording the terrible toll of
Chernobyl and in leading your nation's reforms.  I'm
delighted to be with him here today.
I wanted to come to Belarus because I am impressed with
much of what you have done and because I believe you can
and will do even more.  Your generation has been given an
opportunity to build a strong and free nation.  While you
face hard times today, you have much with which to build
a better future.  You stand at the crossroads of
continents.  You have a highly educated people and great
institutions of higher learning. You have good, strong,
high-technology industries.  Above all, you have
reclaimed your freedom, and your destiny is now in your
own hands.
Now you must decide what to do with your nation and your
future.  You are, I assure you, not alone in facing that
question, for this is a time of profound change all
across the world.  Nations everywhere face the challenge
of shaping their future amid all the technological,
economic, and political changes sweeping the globe.
Nations everywhere must now grapple with the question of
how to compete in a global economy; how to reward and
support hard-working families and their children; how to
make their governments more effective and more
responsive; how to address social problems such as
unemployment and inequality and crime; how to combine
cultural and spiritual traditions with the demands of
modern life; how to define, indeed, a nation's security
and greatness in a modern era in which money and
information and technological changes fly across the
globe in a millisecond and in which we will be judged, I
believe, more on whether we can develop the full
capacities of every man and woman within each nation's
border than on whether we can tell other people beyond
our borders what to do and how they must live.
I have not come here to tell you what I think the
solutions should be to these questions for your nation
and your future; that is for you alone to decide.  But I
do come here as a friend and supporter of the democratic
and economic reforms you are beginning in your nation.
I've come to show my support for those reforms and for
your determination to build a better and safer and
stronger future--for your nation and for this entire
The work of reform before you today also has a larger
significance.  For what you do here might encourage other
nations facing the same challenges.  It can help build a
broader Europe that is no longer divided, but integrated-
-integrated by democratic governments, market economies,
and peaceful co-existence and respect for national
If we can accomplish this kind of integration all across
Europe, east and west, then we can make both Europe and
America safer and more prosperous.  This nation, which
lost one in four of its citizens in the Second World War,
must surely know better than any other on the face of the
earth the terrible price Europeans have paid for their
constant divisions--not only in the two world wars of the
20th century, but, indeed, throughout the entire history
of nations in Europe.
Now, for the first time, we have a chance to build a
Europe without divisions--where all countries respect
each other's borders; all countries observe democratic
traditions of majority rule and individual and minority
rights; all countries trade freely with each other and
help each other achieve the true measure of greatness,
developing the capacities of their people.
Today, I want to speak briefly about three opportunities
I see before you:  the renewal of your economy, the
reform of your political system, and your work to define
a new security for a new era.
First, let me say a word about economic transition.  Of
course, you inherited an economic system imposed from
above, and it has left you with, frankly, a mixed legacy.
On the one hand, clearly, it helped to rebuild Belarus
from the ruins of World War II, but that same centrally
planned system is ill-suited for the fast-changing global
That is clear everywhere.  Everywhere in the world--on
every continent--the people who are doing well are those
who live in economies where investment and a well-trained
work force make it possible for them to produce high-
quality goods and services which they sell to each other
and beyond their borders.
Now you must face the challenge of taking what is best
about your economy--your highly skilled people and your
advanced industries--and adapting it to the rigors of
this new global competition.  It is a hard transition.
Almost every place which has sought to do it has faced--
as you have, among other things--very steep inflation--
something you faced in this summer's increases in the
prices of meat and butter.  Many people are struggling to
get by as a result of this inflation.  In a cruel way,
inflation hurts the people that economies should reward
the most--those who simply get up and go to work every
day, obeying the law and trying to make their
But there is cause for hope because, as you privatize
more of your economy and as more of it works in a market
system, people will have reason to invest more and
generate more economic growth.  The government's plan to
privatize 20% of state property this year is, I believe,
a step in the right direction.
The United States wishes to support this kind of change.
Since you became independent, we have provided over $150
million in food, medicine, and other forms of assistance.
During this trip, I announced additional steps to assist
your movement to a market economy:  the establishment of
a business center, here in your nation, to help
coordinate business efforts both within the country and
with other businesses not only in my country, but around
the world; a new regional enterprise fund to help start
new businesses, which will include Belarus, Ukraine, and
Moldova; and a U.S.-Belarus Investment Treaty to
encourage more private trade and investment between our
two countries.
Ultimately, your economic success will depend upon your
own efforts, but you must have good neighbors who wish to
be good partners.  The United States wants to be one of
those.  And I believe there is no reason that Belarus
should be left behind in this march to a global economy.
I urge you to press ahead with these economic reforms; to
do it as sensibly and clear-headedly as possible; to
learn from the experience of other nations, because I
believe that it is the key to a better future.
You also face the challenge of political transition.
Just as modern economies need the benefit of every
individual's productive capacity, modern nations need the
benefit--indeed, cannot do well without the benefit--of
the diverse and informed views of all of their people.
The world does not work very well from the top down
anymore.  It requires active engagement of all
When voices are silenced by authoritarianism, by closed
political systems or, as in the case with too many
democracies today, by the apathy of citizens themselves
who stay home and stay out of political dialogue; then
wisdom is lost, debate becomes more hollow, challenges
are avoided instead of being faced, and in the end,
tyrants find it easier to grab or to hold on to power.
We know where that low road leads; it leads to economic
stagnation and social intolerance.
You have learned from your own hard history that there is
a better way.  I applaud your democratic reforms.  I hope
you will follow through with the commitments that have
been made to hold new elections in March of this year.  I
hope you will press ahead with plans to craft a new
constitution.  I hope you will, in short, create a
foundation for your economic renewal by protecting and
promoting the political and human rights of your people,
without which, over the long run, it will be very
difficult to have a strong economy.
One of the most encouraging signs of your economic
renewal is the political ferment that is bubbling up from
your people.  You have new political movements such as
the Belarusian Popular Front.  I was pleased to meet some
of their members early today.  You have environmental
groups that formed after the Chernobyl disaster.  Such
groups-- along with free labor unions, business
associations, and others--can help  create a culture of
participation, of debate, of personal investment in your
nation's future.  These private associations are
important--almost as important as the right to vote in
the elections.  It requires both a participation in the
decisions of who will represent you at the state and who
will be able to organize privately to make life more
satisfactory, and they will give views a wider range.
Finally, let me say a word about your efforts to build a
new nation that defines its strength and greatness in new
ways.  There is no better example than your determination
to live as a nuclear-free state.  Since I became the
President of the United States, I have been determined to
work with the other nuclear nations, and especially with
Russia, to try to help the other republics of the former
Soviet Union become nuclear-free.  We have gone a long
way to finance that.  Belarus led the way, and you
deserve the credit and thanks of citizens all over the
Seventy-six nuclear weapons were here when the Soviet
Union dissolved.  As a new nation, one of your first
decisions was to do away with them. It would have been
easier to look backward and say:  Well, these 76 weapons
somehow make us a great nation; they make us stronger; we
will keep them; we will use them and rattle them around
as threats if people don't help us or do what we want
them to do.   But you made a braver and a better choice--
to live nuclear-free.
I am sure that your tragic experience with Chernobyl
helped shape that choice.  But I also imagine that many,
many of you had a clear understanding that these weapons,
powerful and intimidating though they might be, offer you
little in the way of real security.  Real security lies
in integration with your neighbors--their political and
economic values and respect for their borders.
So you freely chose to eliminate these weapons.  You
became the first of the newly independent states of the
former Soviet Union to ratify the START Treaty and to
accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  That is part of
why I was so pleased to welcome Chairman Shushkevich to
Washington last July, early in my Administration.  I
wanted to express my admiration for the courage and the
vision that he and all of you have demonstrated by making
the choice to be nuclear-free.
We are committed to helping you  prove to all the people
of the world that that was the right choice, that you
were building a new and a better security.  We are
helping you remove these weapons safely and securely with
technical advice.  You suffered through one nuclear
tragedy;  we are determined to see that you do not endure
Today, I informed the Chairman that the United States
will make additional funds available to Belarus for this
purpose, which will bring the total we have provided over
the last two years in 1993 and 1994 to $100 million.
As you move away from the weapons of the old security, we
want to help you build a new security by helping you to
be a part of a new, democratic Europe.  Earlier this
week, I joined our NATO allies in creating the
Partnership for Peace.  The Partnership for Peace invites
all of the nations of the former Soviet Union,the former
Warsaw Pact, and all other non-NATO nations in Europe--
all of them together--to join with NATO in a partnership
that will permit us together to provide for the common
security.  It will permit non-NATO members to do military
planning and training and exercises with NATO members as
long as they promise to respect the sovereignty, the
independence, and the existing territorial boundaries of
all nations which participate.
I hope Belarus will give careful consideration to this
Partnership.  It is a part of our strategy to try to have
a Europe that is undivided for the first time in its
history, that uses the prospect of military cooperation,
genuinely, to ensure the peace instead of simply to
prepare for war.
You are a new nation with a long history.  During this
century, you have endured as much or more hardship as any
people we have ever known.  Now you face difficult and
challenging political and economic transitions.  They are
so challenging that they can even be disorienting.  And
if you move to elections, which I hope and pray you will,
you will find that when people are in trouble they
sometimes vote their frustrations as well as their hopes.
That is still true in the United States, and we have been
working at it for 200 years now.
But there is no substitute for putting the people of the
nation in the driver's seat.  We must be aware of this,
no matter how sophisticated a people are, no matter how
much information is available to decision-makers.  There
is so much going on in this world today--economically,
politically, culturally.  The changes are so sweeping
that there is no way that one group of people, sitting
atop a society, can make decisions which suffice to
guarantee the best possible life for all of the people
who live in that society.
Therefore, I believe that free political systems and free
economic systems also happen to be good economics for the
world in which we are living and the world in which we
will live in the 21st century and for the foreseeable
future.  You face possibilities that are as sweeping as
your land.  The new freedom you are building has many
difficulties, but it can also work miracles.  It can make
your cities thrive; it can help your land blossom.  Most
important of all, it can give the wonderful children with
whom I was shaking hands just a few moments ago real
hope. (###)
U.S. and Syria Pledge Cooperation on Middle East Peace
President Clinton, Syrian President Asad
Opening remarks at a news conference, Geneva,
Switzerland, January 16, 1994
President Asad.  At the conclusion of the important and
constructive talks that were conducted today between
President Clinton and myself, I wish to express my deep
satisfaction for what these talks have effected in terms
of U.S. determination to do all it can in order to bring
the peace process to its desired objective--the objective
of establishing a just and comprehensive peace in the
region through the implementation of UN Security Council
Resolutions 242, 338, and 425 as well as the principle of
land for peace.
In this respect, I appreciate the fact that not
withstanding the great importance that President Clinton
attaches to the internal affairs of his country, he has
attached a special importance as a full partner and
honest intermediary to helping the parties reach a
comprehensive peace that is in the interest not only of
the peoples of the region, but also the people of the
world at large.
Today's meeting between President Clinton and myself came
to crown a number of exchanges and telephone
communications between us over the last year.  I hope
that our meeting today will contribute to the realization
of the aspirations of the peoples in the region; mainly,
that this new year will be the year of achieving a just
and comprehensive peace which puts an end to the
tragedies of violence and wars endured by them for
several decades.
During our meeting, I had the opportunity to stress to
President Clinton Syria's firm commitment to the
principles and bases of the peace process and our strong
conviction that peace cannot be genuine and lasting
unless it is comprehensive and based on the principles of
international legitimacy and justice.  This means
endeavoring to reach a just solution on all tracks.
Historical evidence, both past and present, has proved
that separate peace and partial solutions are not
conducive to the establishment of real peace in the
region.  In this regard, I would like to express my
satisfaction that President Clinton himself has committed
to the objective of comprehensive peace.
On this basis, we have agreed to work together for
successful efforts aimed at putting an end to the Arab-
Israeli conflict and at reaching a genuine and
comprehensive peace that enables the peoples of the
region to focus on development, progress, and prosperity.
This meeting has also provided us with the opportunity to
exchange views on a number of issues, including those
related to bilateral relations between our countries.  We
have agreed that the noble objective toward which we are
working requires a qualitative move in these relations.
We have also discussed questions related to the regional
situation as well as all matters that might
constructively contribute to the achievement of security
and stability in the Middle East.  Syria seeks a just and
comprehensive peace with Israel as a strategic choice
that secures Arab rights; ends the Israeli occupation;
and enables all peoples in the region to live in peace,
security, and dignity.  In honor we fought; in honor we
negotiate; and in honor we shall make peace.  We want an
honorable peace for our people and for the hundreds of
thousands who paid their lives in defense of their
countries and their rights.
There is hardly a home in Syria in which there is no
martyr who has fallen in defense of his country, nation,
and Arab pride.  For the sake of all those, for our sons,
daughters, and families, we want the peace of the brave--
a genuine peace which can survive and last, a peace which
secures the interests of each side and renders to all
their rights.  If the leaders of Israel have sufficient
courage to respond to this kind of peace, the new era of
security and stability in which normal peaceful relations
among all shall dawn anew.
President Clinton.  I believe you could tell from that
statement that I have just completed a constructive and
encouraging meeting with President Asad.  From the first
days of my Administration, the achievement of a
comprehensive peace between Israel and its Arab
neighbors, based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and
338 and the principle of territory for peace, has been
one of my highest foreign policy objectives.
In pursuit of that priority, I have always viewed Syria's
involvement as critical.  That is why, from the outset of
our Administration, I have engaged President Asad in
regular correspondence by telephone and letter, and why I
am now pleased to have had this opportunity to hear,
personally, President Asad's views about how best to make
this a year of breakthroughs on all fronts.
During our meeting, I told President Asad that I was
personally committed to the objective of a comprehensive
and secure peace that would produce genuine
reconciliation among the peoples of the Middle East.  I
told him of my view that the agreement between Israel and
the PLO constitutes an important first step by
establishing an agreed basis for resolving the
Palestinian problem.  I also told him that I believe
Syria is the key to the achievement of an enduring and
comprehensive peace that finally will put an end to the
conflict between Israel and her Arab neighbors.
President Asad, as you have just heard, shares this
objective--not just an end to war, but the establishment
of real and comprehensive peace with Israel that will
ensure normal, peaceful relations among good neighbors.
Crucial decisions will have to be made by Syria and
Israel if this common objective is to be achieved.  That
is why President Asad has called for a peace of the
brave.  And it is why I join him now in endorsing that
appeal.  Accordingly, we pledged today to work together
in order to bring the negotiations that started in Madrid
over two years ago to a prompt and successful conclusion.
Critical issues remain to be resolved, especially the
question of relating withdrawal to peace and security.
But as a result of our conversation today, I am confident
that we laid the foundations for real progress in the
negotiations between heads of delegation that will begin
again next week in Washington.
President Asad and I also discussed the state of
relations between the United States and Syria and agreed
on the desirability of improving them.  This requires
honestly addressing the problems in our relationship.
Accordingly, we've instructed the Secretary of State and
the Syrian Foreign Minister to establish a mechanism to
address these issues in detail and openly.
For too long, the Middle East has been denied the
benefits of peace.  And yet, it is within our power to
create the conditions that will enable Israeli and Arab,
Muslim, Christian, and Jew to live together in peace.
Today's meeting was an important step toward fulfilling
that vision.  We have a lot of work to do, but we are
closer to our goal. (###)
Overview of Trip
President Clinton
Remarks to reporters en route to Washington, DC from
Geneva, Switzerland, January 16, 1994
Looking back over the trip, I can say without any
hesitation that it certainly met all of our objectives.
Everything that we hoped would happen did.  I think there
were basically three main elements.
The first was the prospect of really uniting Europe for
the first time since nations have been on the landscape
there.  I am very encouraged by the initial reaction to
the Partnership for Peace--all the Central and Eastern
European countries and the Visegrad nations have said
they want to join--Russia and Ukraine expressed interest.
We have now heard some interest from Romania.  I am
feeling quite good about that.  Even the Swiss said they
want to think about whether there is some way they can
support the partnership even if they do not join, given
their historic neutrality.
The second important element, of course, was the nuclear
breakthrough--the agreement with Ukraine following the
agreement that had been reached earlier in the year with
Belarus and Kazakhstan--not having our nuclear weapons
targeted at anyone; not having their nuclear weapons
targeted at us.  It is a really important next step.  And
we also had some important discussions with the Russians
about making sure that START I and START II are
completely ratified and implemented and that we continue
thinking about what further steps ought to be taken.  So
this was a very good meeting in that respect.
The third aspect of the trip was the whole new effort
toward not only uniting Europe economically and
politically, but of getting growth back into the system.
I met with the leaders of the European Union.  We
discussed ways to implement the GATT agreement and how to
follow up on it; how important it is to get the growth
rates up in Europe again; and how important it is to open
new markets in Eastern Europe and states of the former
Soviet Union.  Then in Prague, I talked about economics
and spent a lot of time dealing with it in Russia.  And I
must say, even though they have had a really tough time,
I think they are on the verge of having some good things
happen economically.
For all the criticism of the pace of reform in Russia,
one of the little- known facts about it is that, in terms
of privatizing companies, Russia is actually running
ahead of the pace of the other former communist
countries.  There are some other problems they have to
deal with--their inflation problems, and just having a
legal framework that will attract more investment.  But I
feel quite good about that.  Just from my experience in
Moscow, I really think that while there are, as you would
imagine, uncertainties among the people there because of
all the hardships and the difficulty of sort of
visualizing the future, I think there is a lot of emotion
to the idea that the people should rule the country.  I
did not get much of a sense from anyone that they wanted
a more authoritarian government.  I think they like the
fact that the voters are in the driver's seat, even
though they are still trying to come to grips with
exactly what that means and how to translate it into
So, I would say on the grounds of building a united
Europe in terms of security, where all the neighbors
agree to respect one another's borders; moving to
continually reduce the nuclear threat to the world; and
supporting economic and political reform in Europe and
the former communist countries that this was a very, very
successful trip.
The Middle East
As we met on the Middle East today, I was hoping that we
could get a signal from President Asad that was clear and
unmistakable--that he was ready to make a complete peace.
Today is the first time he has ever explicitly said he
wanted an end to the hostilities with Israel--willing to
make peace with Israel as opposed to saying something
like peace in the Middle East; and that peace to him
meant normal, peaceful relations--a general term that
encompasses trade, tourism and travel, and embassies.  So
that was very significant.  That sends a very clear
signal now to the Israelis.
President Asad also said that he did not want Syria alone
to be resolved, he wanted to see the Jordanian peace and
the Lebanese peace completed.  He also said something
that everyone wanted to hear in the Middle East--he
wanted Lebanon to be an independent country with a peace
with Israel.  I was quite pleased with that.
So, from now on the question of the differences between
Syria and the United States, which we spent about an hour
on today--a significant portion of our meeting on it,
because I thought it was important that neither of us be
under any illusions about the differences that are still
there, and because I think it is important in this peace
negotiation that we both have absolute credibility with
each other.  So we thought we had to spend some time on
We agreed to attempt to get beyond sort of a general and
accusatory level by allowing the Secretary of State and
the Foreign Minister of Syria to develop a process to
specifically identify the things that trouble the United
States so much, and to give them a chance to specifically
identify things about our policy toward them or toward
the Middle East in general that trouble them, and to try
to set into motion a process for working through it
because every report I have received over the years--I
have spent a lot of time talking to Westerners about the
Middle East issue--things always stop, in my judgment, at
a level that is too general, where people are charging
and counter-charging, and there is no real effort to lay
the kind of factual basis that has to be laid to really
argue that people should change their policies. (###)

To the top of this page

Index of Dispatch Magazine Archives 1994 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. 8, 1999