1.  Eulogy for Norwegian Foreign Minister Holst --
Secretary Christopher
2.  U.S. Commitment to Global Issues -- Timothy E. Wirth
3.  The United States and the United Nations In the
Global Era -- Douglas Bennet, Jr.
4.  U.S.-Japan Economic Framework Talks
Eulogy for Norwegian Foreign Minister Holst
Secretary Christopher
Eulogy at memorial services for Norwegian Minister for
Foreign Affairs Johan Jorgen Holst, Oslo, Norway, January
22, 1994
Today, we who represent the international community
mourn, honor, and remember Johan Jorgen Holst.  Our
hearts are with his family and friends, and we are
grateful to be permitted to join this service in his
We have lost a valued colleague and a generous friend.
Those who knew him as a distinguished academic, as
Defense Minister, or as Foreign Minister knew a man of
powerful intellect, firm convictions, and deep commitment
to public service.  Norway has a noble tradition of
working for peace, human rights, and humanitarian causes.
As an American with Norwegian blood in my veins, I find
great satisfaction in reflecting on the heritage of
public service that shaped Johan Holst's career.
In the last months of his life, Johan Holst turned his
skillful and sensitive diplomacy to the Middle East.  He
was at once imaginative and practical.  He understood
that change must come--not just through symbols, but
through pragmatic actions that would make a genuine
difference in the day-to-day lives of the people.  He
believed that, away from the glare of publicity, it was
possible to promote a path to reconciliation between
Israelis and  Palestinians.
And so Norway facilitated and nurtured the contacts that
led to the historic handshake at the White House last
September 13.  The extent to which Johan Holst's energy
and determination contributed to that process came home
to me in August, when he flew all night to California to
share with me his assessment of the Israeli-PLO
Declaration of Principles.
History will record the essential part that Johan Holst--
and Norway--played in helping to turn the Middle East
from a cauldron of hostility into a cradle of hope.  Yet
Johan Holst was modest about his role.  He said that he
had only grasped the baton that was passed to him.  And
he knew that the agreements reached in Oslo and
Washington were a beginning, not an end.
Many of us here today are linked by our desire, and our
efforts, to find an enduring peace in a region so long at
war.  Each of us must now follow the splendid example of
Johan Holst.  To  do his memory justice, we must grasp
that baton and carry it, together, to peace.  (###)
U.S. Commitment to Global Issues
Timothy E. Wirth, Counselor
Opening statement at a State Department press briefing,
Washington, DC, January 11, 1994
I don't have to remind all of you that during the
campaign of 1992, President Clinton and Vice President
Gore put an enormous emphasis on the new realities of the
world and the fact that our approach to international
security was changing very dramatically, some of that
being pushed by this new Administration and some of it,
obviously, by events around the world.
To back up that commitment, the Administration started
very rapidly with a series of reorganizations to reflect
the new global realities.  One of those was in the White
House, one in the National Security Council.  I think all
of you are familiar with the reorganization at USAID, and
another one was the reorganization of the State
Department to develop the global affairs group.
I have handed out to all of you a copy of the
organization chart to remind you all of what the new
organization at the State Department looks like de facto
now, and will look like in reality after the Senate deals
with the State Department authorization bill, which will
be the first item of business up at the end of January.
When the Senate comes back on January 25, the first item
will be the State Department authorization bill, and in
that will be all of the specifics of the reorganization.
That reorganization will create formally these four new
bureaus over which I have had responsibility since April.
The realities of the new foreign policy approaches were
also reflected by President Clinton in his United Nations
General Assembly speech in September, where it was the
first time a United States President had talked about
such issues as sustainable development and population--a
major set of changes of priorities of the United States
of America and a reflection of our commitments and
willingness and desire to lead on these issues.  Vice
President Gore reflected the same priorities at the
Commission on Sustainable Development sessions in New
York, and we continue to push on our new understandings
and definitions of what we mean by our own national
security, population, environment, counter-narcotics,
terrorism, and so on.  In addition, the Administration
has put increased and broader support into our
commitments around the world for U.S. values, reflected
particularly in the human rights and democracy packages.
This year we have a very ambitious agenda in the global
affairs area.  A top priority for everybody is our
commitment on population.  As all of you know, I believe,
the world population is currently at 5.5 billion.  If we
do nothing, the world's population will double again
sometime in the next 35 to 40 years and will move on to
13 to 15 billion people before it is estimated that it
will level off.
To imagine a world in which the population doubles in
this fashion is unfathomable and clearly does not allow
us any way that we are going to be able to maintain the
quality of life or respect for individuals that are
fundamental to what we believe in the United States.  Nor
would it allow us to maintain an environment with any
integrity whatsoever or to conserve what many would call
God's creation.
As a consequence, the United States has moved very
dramatically into the population area.  We redefined U.S.
population policy early in the Administration and again
in New York, much to the delight of most countries in the
world, who are very eager for U.S. leadership and very
pleased that we are undertaking again a commitment that
we had had during the 1970s.
The centerpiece of this year's activity will be the Cairo
Population Conference in early September.  That will be
for population what Rio was for the environment.  You
will remember the UNCED Conference in the summer of 1992,
which was so enormously important in bringing world
leadership together around environmental issues.  They
will come together in September 1994 around population
issues.  We will have a dramatically increased presence
and commitment to that and hope that we will have some
major commitments as well, working with other countries
and presenting a united front with countries from the
developed world as well as the developing world.
On the environment, we have a series of very, very
important tasks ahead of us.  One of those relates to
global climate change and assuring that other countries
meet their commitments as the United States has.
President Clinton laid out our set of goals on Earth Day
in 1993, and we have a lot of work to press other
countries to reach the commitments that they also signed
in Rio.
Biodiversity is an increasingly important and a very,
very important issue globally.  We have sent up the
biodiversity treaty to the Congress.  We look forward to
its ratification early this year, and we look forward
also to a very aggressive approach with the developing
world and with private enterprise--what Al Gore has
called a major, new partnership to pursue the goals of
A third area that is probably right at the top is
environment and trade.  Post-NAFTA and post-GATT, we now
have a number of major problems that are popping up in
the area of trade and the overlap of trade and the
environment, ranging all the way to the tuna-dolphin case
that you are all familiar with.  You remember when the
United States said that we would not allow or have the
sale of tuna, in the United States, that was not caught
with dolphin-free nets--that is symptomatic of a whole
series of problems when environment and endangered
species issues overlap with economic issues.  We have
others in timber and others in the European challenge to
our CAFE standards.  We are going to see the trade issues
increasingly defined by many of the environmental issues.
Finally--and I will stop with this--we have a major
challenge on Capitol Hill to redefine and develop a new
partnership within the United States on counter-
narcotics.  The Congress and the country are very
skeptical--we think with good reason--of the previous
Administration's efforts, which had placed so much effort
on interdiction.
Lee Brown, head of drug control policy, and Bob Gelbard
here and I are developing--and the President signed off
on--a broad, new strategy which will place greater
emphasis on demand at home and greater emphasis on
institution-building overseas.  This means that the flow
of funds and the efforts made by our embassies--not only
in the Andean area but in Southeast Asia, with the
growing and very troubling problems of heroin--are going
to get greater attention and, we hope, increasing support
from the Congress.
A final note on human rights.  We have been very
successful in getting the United Nations to agree to a
Human Rights Commissioner who will be named, and we will
have a set of efforts to try to strengthen the human
rights capabilities at the United Nations and around the
Let me stop at that.  Our next most immediate target is
the President's meetings with Prime Minister Hosokawa on
February 11  and 12, in which the Japanese and the United
States are having meetings that were agreed to in the
common framework.  They will have two trade packages and
one very large, global package in which we have worked
out  a very exciting and broad, new cooperative agenda
with the Japanese, the results of which--many results and
very promising results, we hope--will be announced on
February 11 and 12  by President Clinton and Prime
Minister Hosokawa.  (###)
The United States and the United Nations in the Global
Douglas Bennet, Jr., Assistant Secretary for
International Organization Affairs
Address before the National Convention of the United
Nations Association (UNA/USA), New York City, January 6,
Thank you for the invitation.  I am delighted to be here.
I will come right to the point.  Building a vibrant and
productive partnership between the United States and the
United Nations is one of the critical tasks of our time.
And I can tell you after some months as Assistant
Secretary of State for International Organizations that--
if you like roller coasters--it is also one of the more
exhilarating tasks of our time.  It is also a task in
which the UNA/USA has long played a dynamic leadership
role.  For that and for all your good work, I salute you.
I suspect many of you saw the cover story in the Sunday
Times magazine this past week featuring a battered blue
helmet and a discussion of the trials and tribulations of
UN peace-keeping.  That article--and the facts on which
it is based--underlined again the importance of the
U.S./UN relationship.  It reminded us that the UN remains
dependent upon the will and the resources of national
governments, which in turn depend on collaboration
through the UN to do things none of them can do alone.
It told the story of an able and distinguished Secretary-
General doing a hard, and, at times, thankless job.  And
it should compel us to respond to the advent of a new and
promising historical age, not by settling for what seems
possible today, but by setting our sights on what may be
possible tomorrow.
Let me start with two pragmatic policy propositions:
First, the United States should maintain a robust
military and diplomatic capacity to act unilaterally.
This is necessary because the world remains dangerous,
and because we want to influence events in directions
that reflect our interests and values.
Second, we need workable alternatives for those occasions
when unilateral action is unnecessary, insufficient, or
unwise.  That is why we are preserving vigorous alliances
with our fellow democracies and long-time friends, and
why we must put fresh energy into our commitment to the
United Nations.
These basic propositions frame our approach in what
pundits persist in calling the "post-Cold War era."  I
note from your program that the UNA has  a more useful
label:  "the global era."  The distinction is by no means
semantic, for as the President recently pointed out,
post-Cold War tells us "where we have been, not where we
are going."  The Cold War prism also tells us little
about the underlying forces of history which helped end
the old era and are plainly shaping the new.  These are
indeed global forces.  Only if we build policies and
institutions that take them into account can we expect to
succeed.  What are some of these forces?
--  Economic interdependence is one.  Labor, capital,
production, and markets have all been globalized.
--  The information revolution--faxes, VCRs, satellites,
CNN--have made people around the globe more aware, more
demanding, and more  able to act independent of governing
--  Not only are money and ideas overrunning political
borders, so too are refugees, immigrants, pollution,
narcotics, armaments, and disease.  As a result, terms
like national interest and national security are losing
clarity.  And national governments are less able, on
their own, to satisfy popular expectations.
--  At the same time, more and more non-state actors are
moving onto the world stage.  These include multinational
corporations, environmental and human rights
organizations, criminal cartels, ethnic minorities, and
individuals of broad public influence.
These and other forces are the essence of the post-Cold
War world, and they are changing the international order
beyond anything the statesmen and statecraft of the old
state system ever contemplated.  Long-stable institutions
have been profoundly altered; some--including the United
Nations--are acquiring new relevance; others--like NATO--
are being redefined; still others are fading from view.
It should not surprise us, then, that Americans' own
vision of global affairs is in flux.  Clearly, economic
and social problems--legacies, in part, of Cold War
costs--occupy our attention here at home.  A recent Los
Angeles Times poll concluded from this that the general
public:  is inclined toward a new but unique kind of
isolationism. . They want a foreign policy that serves
the domestic agenda of the United States, and they would
treat each global issue according to its impact on that
According to the pollster, the top foreign policy
priorities of the American people are to stop drug
trafficking, strengthen our economy, halt the flood of
illegal aliens, and protect the global environment.
To me, these priorities are not isolationist at all.  On
the contrary, they contain the seeds from which a new and
revitalized consensus about our role in the world may
grow.  People are seeing that global forces do have a
real impact on their lives and believe, not unreasonably,
that a central purpose of a successful foreign policy
should optimize these impacts.
The Clinton Administration's focus on global economic
growth is part of an emerging domestic/foreign policy
synthesis.  By enlarging the circle of market democracies
and reducing barriers to trade, we create good jobs at
home, while giving more and more states a vital stake in
the international system.  NAFTA, APEC, and GATT don't
exactly roll off the tongue--and not everyone agrees
about them, to be sure--but they reflect precisely the
kind of domestically grounded multilateral initiatives
that will serve our citizens well in a global era.
Against this background of a transformed and transforming
world, we need to ask ourselves anew:  What should we
expect from the United Nations and other international
institutions?  Where do they fit in?  What can we do to
limber them up?  How can we develop robust options for
collective action and burden-sharing, when those
alternatives appear to offer the best solution?
Clearly, the potential for international organizations to
play an influential role on the world stage is greater
today than in previous decades.  If we are to fulfill
that potential, we must forge international arrangements
that complement, not compete with, the efforts of
national governments.  This is not a zero sum situation
in which existing authority is simply reapportioned among
national and international actors.  All must make the
strongest contributions they can.
For purposes of tonight's discussion, I will divide the
Clinton Administration's strategy for developing the kind
of multilateral institutions we need into three general
First, we are taking a new and more constructive approach
to reforming UN institutions.  As our superb Permanent
Representative to the UN, Ambassador Madeleine Albright,
has pointed out:
. . . the bills of the [United Nations] are not paid by
governments; they are paid by hard-working, tax-paying
citizens--the largest portion by citizens of the United
Those citizens have a right to know that their dollars
are being used wisely, efficiently, and for purposes they
understand and support.
We who are responsible for the UN cannot afford the
luxury of bureaucratic bloat.  There are too many
important jobs to perform and, in key areas such as
peace-keeping and emergency relief, far too few
resources.  We must now do what governments, businesses,
universities, hospitals, and other institutions are being
asked to do: improve services while controlling costs.
In the recent past, the United States has pursued UN
reform through micromanagement and interference in its
innermost workings.  The result was little reform and
even less accountability.  The current Administration has
charted a different approach.  Instead of trying to
micromanage in quest of micro-gratifications, we are
trying to shift the focus to good governance--to setting
broad objectives, to holding UN managers responsible, and
to evaluating results.
The global era is also a competitive era.  As a contender
for scarce public resources, the UN can neither be
insulated from that competition, nor should it fear it.
The UN brings to the table enormous assets of global
legitimacy, a record of past accomplishment, and a system
of shared financing that multiplies each dollar
contributed several times over.
Unfortunately, as former Ambassador Donald McHenry has
The whole UN civil service got hijacked by the Cold War
and decolonialization.  Everybody, us included, started
insisting on certain jobs within the UN and using them
for defeated politicians. . . .  Once you took on such an
individual, you had to take on three other people [who
could actually] do the job.
The United States is now trying to set an example by
embarking on a higher road.  We're working to identify
outstanding individuals not only from our own country,
but from around the world, to recommend for high-level UN
posts.  We're advocating a personnel system in which UN
employees are hired, fired, and promoted according to
merit, rather than political pull.  And we're pressing
for reforms that will give agencies and programs a real
chance to perform, with the understanding that we will
back fully those that achieve results, and do our best to
pull the plug entirely on those that do not.
The second element in our strategy at the UN is to take
full advantage of the opportunity to break free from the
east-west, north-south divisions that have traditionally
hindered the institution's work.  Here, with a massive
assist from history, we are making dramatic progress.
For example, this past fall, the General Assembly voted
to establish a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
This is something Americans have been pushing for, with
greater or lesser degrees of energy, since the days of
Eleanor Roosevelt.  It is a true landmark in the life of
the UN.  It could not have been achieved during the Cold
War, but this year, every former Soviet Republic
supported it, and regimes that abuse human rights were
reduced to delaying tactics and weakening amendments that
failed.  The High Commissioner is no panacea for human
rights problems, but he or she can become a highly
visible and influential champion for a cause that
embodies both UN principles and our core values.
Arms control is another arena in which the Cold War
chilled cooperation.  But this past fall, at the General
Assembly, Russia opposed the U.S. on only one of 53 arms
control and security-related resolutions.  The UN
endorsed a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, a ban
on the production of fissile material for nuclear
weapons, and a moratorium on the export of anti-personnel
land mines.  Meanwhile, the IAEA, with support from all
major powers, is playing a key role combating nuclear
proliferation in North Korea and Iraq.  These actions,
too, accord with the fundamental purpose of the UN as a
peace-preserving institution, and with the interests of
our own citizens in a more stable world.
There is also a new attitude at the UN on what has
historically been the most contentious of issues--the
Middle East.  September's Israeli-PLO Declaration of
Principles breeched deep and bitter divisions.  For the
first time, an Israeli was elected to a position at the
General Assembly.  Anti-Israeli rhetoric was toned down
and action on some particularly divisive resolutions was
deferred.  Most importantly, the peace process was
endorsed by a nearly unanimous vote, and there was broad
support for economic and social projects in Gaza and the
West Bank.
Let me cite briefly some other areas where U.S.
leadership and a changed UN hold the promise of benefits
for us and for others:
--  We are determined to make the War Crimes Tribunal for
the former Yugoslavia a meaningful instrument for
establishing the truth about the atrocious violations of
international humanitarian law committed in the Balkans.
--  We are welcoming and participating in the UN's entry
into the business of democracy-building and election-
monitoring in places as diverse as El Salvador, Cambodia,
South Africa, and Mozambique.
--  We are working to follow up on the 1992 Earth Summit
in Rio by making the concept of sustainable development a
reality in people's lives, in our own country and
--  We have embarked on a joint effort with Japan to
improve the coordination of the UN's response to complex
And the President himself has called attention to the
heroic efforts of UNICEF and WHO to save children's
lives.  By using low-tech, low-cost, high-impact
techniques, these agencies have raised child immunization
rates in cities like Lagos, Calcutta, and Mexico City
above those even in the United States.  As a result, more
than 3 million children who would otherwise die each year
are now getting a chance at life.  This is doubly
important because we know that birth rates decline when
parents are confident that the children they do bear will
The key fact here is that without a general spirit of
cooperation--to which the U.S. is contributing--these
initiatives and experiments at the UN would not be
possible; and without experimentation, forward movement
would not be possible.  Today, the habit of cooperation
has led the UN to the threshold of a new age of
discovery.  Like the European monarchs of 500 years ago,
those of us responsible for international organizations
are sending vessels to sea in search of the unknown.
Like them, we can expect some of those vessels to turn
back, some to sink, and some to find new worlds wholly
beyond our prediction.  The important thing is not that
there are setbacks, but that we continue to sail outward
toward the horizon, rather than allow our resources to
rust inexorably and uselessly in port.
The third element in our UN strategy is international
peace-keeping.  Why?  Because if we do not wish to assume
responsibility for containing overseas conflicts
ourselves, we must look to the UN and regional
organizations to do so, or accept a future ruled not by
the law of nations, but by no law at all.
Territorial disputes, armed ethnic conflicts, civil wars,
and the total collapse of governmental authority in some
states are now among the principal threats to
international peace. Although many of these conflicts do
not now impinge directly on our security, the cumulative
effects of continuing conflict include economic
dislocation, humanitarian disaster, terrorism, regional
political instability, and the rise of leaders and
societies that do not share our values.
We are working with Congress to forge a strong bipartisan
consensus on our approach to international peace-keeping.
Such a consensus must be guided by realism about what the
UN can and cannot be expected to do, especially in the
short term.  It must be durable and disciplined enough to
withstand the vicissitudes of this morning's headlines
and tonight's network news.  And it must be hard-headed
enough to merit the confidence of the American people,
including those who serve in our armed forces.
The elements of such a consensus may well include:
First, agreement that UN peace-keeping capabilities must
be strengthened in almost every area.
Second, agreement that fundamental questions of need,
mission, cost, and likely duration must be asked before--
not after--new UN obligations are assumed.
Third, agreement that where it is in our interest,
America should support and sometimes participate in well-
planned UN peace operations.  But the U.S. contribution
will most often be in areas such as logistics,
intelligence, and communications, rather than combat.
And fourth, under no circumstances will American
servicemen or -women be sent into combat in the absence
of competent command and control, nor will the ultimate
command authority of the President over U.S. armed forces
ever be compromised.
A consensus on peace-keeping must also draw the right
lessons from past successes and disappointments.  The
difficulties of peace operations in Somalia, Bosnia, and
Haiti demonstrate that traditional approaches are not
adequate where government or civil society have broken
down or where one or more of the parties is not prepared
to end the conflict.  Major operations must be planned
not only with "best-case," but with "bad-case" and
"worst- case" scenarios in mind.  A clear understanding
must exist not only of how an operation might begin, but
also of how it can be brought to a conclusion within a
reasonable period of time and at an acceptable cost.
Finally, the complexity of modern peace-keeping missions
underlines the importance of being very clear about what
the mission is and how the mission is to be accomplished.
Certainly, the experience in Somalia underlines the
importance of defining a mission clearly and of
understanding the limits of what outsiders can do in the
absence of an internal commitment to peace.  At the same
time, we should not forget that because of American and
UN efforts, hundreds of thousands of Somali children are
alive, crops are being planted, and prospects for
political reconciliation are real.  No one can guarantee
what Somalia will look like a year or two from now.  But
it would be patronizing to assume that Somali leaders
have not learned from past tragedies, or that chaos will
inevitably ensue as the international presence is drawn
down.  Nor should we find it troubling that the fate of
Somalia will be shaped primarily by Somali hands.
UN peace-keeping is not the only tool, but it remains a
vital one, for responding to threats to international
peace and security.  Certainly, such threats will
continue to arise.  The world will continue to look to
America for leadership.  It will continue to be in our
interest to provide that leadership, but we cannot and
should not bear the full burden alone.  We, and all those
who share our stake in a relatively peaceful and stable
world, will benefit if the UN becomes more capable of
preventing, containing, and ending international
Although it is true that the UN has moved to center stage
of world affairs in recent years, the reviews to date are
mixed and the prospects are unclear.  The UN's commitment
to genuine reform remains suspect.  Because of financial
shortfalls occasioned, in part, by the United States, the
UN's logo seems sometimes less the dove of peace than the
tin cup.  The durability of major power cooperation at
the UN cannot be taken for granted.  There are inevitable
limits on what an organization dependent for its mandate
on the full diversity of world opinion is going to be
able to do.
But we would fail in our responsibility if we were to
take too narrow and pinched a view of the opportunities
that are now at hand.  We Americans, living in an open
democracy and a global economy, have a deep interest  in
a world where acceptable "rules of the game" are
observed.  For decades, we argued the merits of free
markets, free elections, the nonproliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, and human rights.  During the depth
of the Cold War, these issues were raised even when hopes
for immediate progress were not realistic.  Today, as the
global era dawns, we have the chance to see real movement
toward higher standards of international behavior, not
overnight, but over time. International organizations,
and especially the UN, can be central to this effort.
A couple of weeks ago, the Secretary-General met in Japan
with the family of Atsuhito Nakata, a young  UN volunteer
who was shot to death  in Cambodia last April.  There was
no bitterness.  On the contrary, the young man's mother
spoke of her son's deep love for the UN.  The father, who
has quit his job to become a UN volunteer himself, told
the Secretary-General that "although my son's flesh has
vanished, his spirit of service has survived."
Thanks in no small measure to you--the UNA/USA--this same
spirit of service is alive and well in America.  It is no
accident that 71% of Americans said in a recent poll that
the U.S. should cooperate fully with the United Nations.
Because of your efforts, most Americans understand that
the UN family is characterized less by the renowned
slothful bureaucrat than by the health technician whose
vaccines are saving small children; the election monitor
aiding the cause of freedom; the convoy driver struggling
to help the innocent survive; and the peacekeepers like
Atsuhito Nakata and our own servicemen and -women who
have given so many victims a chance for what President
Clinton has called "the quiet miracle of a normal life."
Forty-eight years ago, another President, Harry Truman,
pledged to the first General Assembly that America would:
. . . support the United Nations with all the resources
we possess . . . not as a temporary expedient, but as a
permanent partnership.
After decades of ups and downs, this partnership between
the U.S. and the UN continues to contribute mightily to a
global system more acceptable than anything either we or
it could achieve alone.  The financial cost is relatively
small.  The entire UN system, including peace-keeping,
gets 0.7% of the $285 billion the U.S. spends annually on
international security.  That translates into a price per
capita for us, for everything from blue helmets for
peace-keepers to polio vaccines for babies, of less than
$7 a year--or the price of a ticket to see "The Pelican
Those who expect the UN to solve all the world's problems
are unrealistic; those who suggest it has ever had such
broad pretentions are wrong.  The UN was created by men
and women who had just survived the second of two
devastating world wars.  These were not naive people.
They understood, perhaps better than we, the frailties of
humankind, and the yawning gap between how we would like
the world to be and how it is; between promised behavior
and reality.  But they also understood the perils of
missed opportunities and failed responsibility.
During Senate debate on the UN Charter, Senator Arthur
Vandenberg replied to those who thought the goals of the
Charter unrealistic by saying that:
You may tell me that I have but to scan the present world
with realistic eyes in order to see these fine phrases .
. . reduced to a contemporary shambles. . . .  I reply
that the nearer right you may be in any such gloomy
indictment, the greater is the need for the new pattern
which promises at least to stem these evil tides.
The survivors of World War II understood quite well that
although it was the better qualities of human nature that
had made the UN possible, it was the lesser qualities
that had made it necessary.
Today, under the leadership of President Clinton, America
is exploring the possibilities and perils of a new world.
We are developing a new framework of policy and power
that will protect our territory, defend our citizens,
safeguard our interests, promote our values, and project
our influence.  In that effort, we will embrace
opportunities for multilateral collaboration without
forfeiting the prerogatives of leadership.  We will
strive to make international institutions serve the
times, rather than spend our time serving institutions.
In so doing, we will seek to build a world driven not by
events we deplore, but by hopes we cherish; a world not
without conflict, but in which conflict is effectively
contained; a world not without repression, but in which
the sway of freedom is enlarged.  That is our mandate as
we enter this new global era.  And that is the future
that--with your continued help--we can bequeath with
pride to our children and to theirs.  (###)
U.S.-Japan Economic Framework Talks
Statement by Department Spokesman Michael McCurry,
Washington, DC, January 19, 1994.
Two sets of economic framework negotiations are taking
place in the State Department during January 19-21:  on
foreign direct investment and on buyer-supplier
relations.  These are parts of the framework's "economic
harmonization" basket chaired by Under Secretary for
Economic and Agricultural Affairs Spero and Japanese Vice
Minister of Foreign Affairs Matsuura.
In the investment talks, the United States and Japan
agree on the goal of increasing the presence of foreign
firms in Japan and are now discussing the best measures
to achieve it.  Foreign direct investment in Japan,
compared with most other developed countries, is very low
relative to the size of the Japanese economy or to the
level of Japanese outward investment.  The United States
believes that achieving  a better balance in Japan's
investment flows will help achieve a better balance in
its trade flows.  In particular, exports of many goods
and services require a presence in Japan for such
activities as distribution, market research, and after-
sales service.  U.S. negotiators have suggested a number
of steps the Japanese Government could take to reduce the
formal and informal barriers to increased foreign
investment in Japan.  These include steps on
deregulation, tax policy changes, encouragement of
mergers and acquisitions, land policy reform, government
facilitation measures, and financial incentives.
In the buyer-supplier relations talks, the two sides are
addressing features of the Japanese economy that impede
the formation of close and durable relationships between
foreign suppliers of goods and services and Japanese
buyers.  Examples of such features include exclusionary
buying preferences and other discriminatory private
procurement practices by Japanese companies relating to
product standards and "design-ins."  Such anti-
competitive features restrain imports into Japan's
The United States proposes that the two sides focus on
such measures as deregulation, competition policy,
targeted financial incentives, industry-to-industry
meetings, and information policy.  The United States
believes private sector involvement is essential to the
success of this group.  It has proposed bringing American
suppliers and Japanese buyers together under U.S. and
Japanese Government auspices, with particular emphasis on
telecommunications, flat glass, and paper.
The U.S. negotiating team is led by Alan Larson, State's
Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Finance and
Development, and the Japanese side by Risaburo Nezu,
Deputy Director General for International Trade
Negotiations of the Ministry of International Trade and
Industry.  Other meetings will be held with the goal of
reaching agreements by July. (###)

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. 3, 1999
Designed by: Lin Dou