U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 5, NUMBER 6, FEBRUARY 7, 1994
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLLIC AFFAIRS
 
 
 
ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:
 
1.  America's Commitment to Human Rights--Secretary
Christopher, Counselor Wirth,Assistant Secretary
Shattuck, Overview of Report
2.  Building on the Achievements of Former Secretaries--
Secretary Christopher
3.  U.S. Environment Policy and Africa:   Challenges and
Realities--George E. Moose
4.  U.S.-Russia-Portugal Joint Statement on the Lusaka
Peace Talks on Angola
5.  Overview of U.S. Policy Toward Iraq--Ronald Neumann
6.  Department Statements--Crisis in Zaire and U.S.-
Ukraine Bilateral Economic Talks
 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 1:
 
America's Commitment To Human Rights
Secretary Christopher, Counselor Wirth, Assistant
Secretary Shattuck, Overview of Report
 
Secretary Christopher
Remarks before the leaders of non-governmental human
rights organizations, Washington, DC, February 1, 1994.
 
Good morning, and thank you all for coming.  I note that
Congressman Lantos is in the room, and I want to express
appreciation to him for all that he has given to the
human rights effort over the years.
 
I am very pleased to be here with Tim Wirth and John
Shattuck, our Assistant Secretary, to discuss the 1993
country reports on human rights.  Your organizations are
a significant source of information for these reports as
well as the most avid consumers of them.  So I appreciate
your cooperation in both regards.
 
These annual reports are far more than a statutory
requirement.  They demonstrate the President's commitment
to human rights and to advancing democracy.  They
indicate our determination to pursue human rights as one
of the priorities within the mainstream of American
foreign policy.
 
If I might add a personal note:  The human rights reports
were initially issued in 1977, my first year as Deputy
Secretary of State in the Carter Administration.  I well
remember how those first reports were put together.
There were only 83, I think, that first year.  I was
personally involved with the editing of a number of them
as we marked our way through that first effort, which was
primitive compared to the current effort and even
controversial within the Department.
 
Fortunately, the human rights reports have now become
institutionalized, and they are far from primitive.
Indeed, they have become a very important tool of our
foreign policy.  They help shape our decisions on
assistance programs, trade and foreign policy itself.  We
use them when we work with foreign governments,
international organizations, and organizations like
yours.  Most important, we use them as we weave human
rights and democracy more tightly into the activities of
all our missions abroad.
 
I would like to highlight some of the themes involved in
these 1993 reports, which cover 193 countries.  Certainly
the reports show that the world falls far short of the
ideals of human freedom and dignity called for in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed at
the Vienna Conference last summer.  The reports record
killings, torture, rape, disappearances and arbitrary
detention.  These abuses were committed all too often
against those who sought political freedom and those
whose ethnic origin, race, gender, or faith made them
prime targets.
 
Armed conflicts posed the most significant risk to human
rights in 1993, in Bosnia, Sudan, Burundi, Somalia,
Georgia, Azerbaijan, Angola, and many others torn apart
by strife, with massive civilian deaths accompanying
human rights abuses.  Even where armed conflicts were
absent, in places such as Iran, North Korea, and Cuba,
people were killed or subjected to torture or arbitrary
detention.
 
In China, there were some positive but limited steps
forward, including the release of some prominent
political prisoners.  However, hundreds, perhaps
thousands, remain in detention, and reports of physical
abuse have persisted.
 
As you know, we have conditioned renewal of China's most-
favored-nation trading status on improvement in human
rights.  Only last week, I met twice with Chinese
officials, once in Paris and once here, to reiterate our
determination that there must be significant overall
improvement in human rights if most-favored-nation
treatment is to be continued for another year.
 
The 1993 reports pay particular attention to those who
are especially vulnerable to human rights abuses:  women,
children, indigenous people, the disabled, and workers.
The rights of women are too often trampled by physical
abuse; by the denial of political, civil and legal
rights; and by limited access to education, health care,
and even food.  Children, too, have frequently been the
victims of abuse, ranging from miserable conditions in
the workplace to wanton violence.
 
Against these tragedies, 1993 was also a year of hope.
Against seemingly insurmountable odds, a historic
reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians has
commenced, and in South Africa there are really stunning
moves toward a non-racial democracy.
 
We also saw greater international emphasis on human
rights around the globe.  The United States has been
strongly supportive this last year, under Tim's and John
Shattuck's leadership, in multilateral efforts to hold
nations accountable to international standards and for us
to act with other nations to prevent abuses and  resolve
conflicts.
 
The United Nations took several significant steps during
1993 in the right direction.  The War Crimes Tribunal for
the former Yugoslavia began its work in November, and
it's one of my priorities.  We have to make some
important decisions on personnel, but I'm determined it
will take place.
 
With strong backing from the United States, the General
Assembly created the Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights, a goal that many of us have long had.  And
the June World Conference recommended the establishment
of a special rappor- teur on violence against women--an
important step forward.
 
Regional bodies, such as the Organization of American
States, the Organization of African Unity, and the CSCE,
have supported new democracies around the world.  They've
taken steps to establish accountability for human rights
abuses, and they've mediated conflicts.  We need to
stress the value of these regional organizations because
the United Nations cannot do it all.
 
One of the lessons I draw from the 1993 reports is the
tremendous importance of conflict prevention.  I think we
will rely on these regional organizations more and more
to deal with regional conflicts, particularly those of a
civil-war character.
 
The UN organizations and the regional bodies also have
emphasized how essential democracy is.  Although
democracies are not immune to human rights abuses, the
best hope for human freedom lies in freely elected
governments, independent judiciaries, respect for the
rule of law, civilian control of the military, and
freedom of expression.  Those policies are common in
democracies as we know them.
 
I want to assure you that our administration is steadfast
in supporting democracy and human rights.  We welcome
grass-roots movements around the globe in support of
human rights--in support of the ideals and the values
that we have so much enshrined in our Constitution in the
United States.
 
We honor the contributions of courageous, committed
people, many from the NGOs, who have worked to affirm, as
the UN Charter says, the dignity and worth of the human
person.
 
We deeply hope that these 1993 human rights reports will
not only be an indictment of repression but an instrument
of freedom.  I'm sure, looking around this room and
recognizing some of you and having seen the names of your
organizations, that you will use these reports as a tool
to promote human rights and ensure that they are an
instrument of freedom.  Thank you very, very much.
 
 
 
Counselor Wirth and Assistant Secretary Shattuck
Opening statements from a press briefing on the annual
human rights report, Washington, DC, February 1, 1994.
 
Counselor Wirth.  Good afternoon.  I'm Tim Wirth,
Counselor to the Department.  John Shattuck, Assistant
Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian
Affairs, will follow me with a little more detailed
discussion of the report and some highlights, and then we
will open it up for questions.
 
We have invited you here today, and you are all here,
related to the release of the State Department's 1993
Report to Congress on Human Rights Practices.  I should
remind all of you that this is required of the Department
of State; that in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974,
 
. . . the Secretary of State shall trans mit to the
Speaker of the House . . . and the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate by January 31 of each year, a
full and complete report regarding the status of
internationally recognized human rights, within the
meaning of subsection (A), which means in countries that
received assistance under this part, and . . . in all
other foreign countries which are members of the United
Nations and which are not otherwise the subject of a
human rights report under this Act.
 
This is an annual report that goes up, required by the
Congress.  What I would like to do is to give you a few
broad themes as to how this fits into where we are and
then turn it over to John.
 
President Clinton and Secretary Christopher have clearly
underlined human rights and the promotion of democracy as
fundamental to our foreign policy.  By fostering
pluralism and democracy around the world, we lay the
foundation for political stability, economic progress,
and environmental protection.
 
By working to assure that governments respect the rights
of their citizens, we help safeguard international peace
and security.  This has been an eventful year.  In June,
182 nations gathered at the World Conference on Human
Rights in Vienna.  After a fitful beginning, highlighted
by the refusal to allow the Dalai Lama into the hall, I
think it's fair to say that our steady hand prevailed.
With interventions from former President Carter and
Secretary Christopher, the conference proved a success.
 
The Vienna declaration and program of action reaffirmed
the universality of human rights. It recognized that
human rights are a legitimate concern of the
international community, refused to recognize so-called
cultural differences or various economic excuses, and
proposed steps to strengthen the UN's human rights
machinery.
 
Building on the Vienna declaration, the UN General
Assembly then authorized the creation of the post of High
Commissioner for Human Rights, a high-priority goal of
the United States of America.  The High Commissioner will
provide the international community with a spokesperson
for the promotion and protection of human rights around
the world.  The High Commissioner will also make a
practical difference overseeing UN human rights bodies
and supervising UN human rights programs.
 
The High Commissioner will assume responsibility for
human rights issues in UN peace-keeping, peace-making,
and humanitarian assistance operations.  Press reports
indicate that UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali will
appoint former Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Jose Ayala
Lasso to this important post.  Ayala Lasso, as you know,
chaired the UN General Assembly working group, which
hammered out the resolution establishing the post of High
Commissioner.
 
Despite the successes of 1993, much remains to be done.
Armed conflicts continue to be linked to human rights
abuses throughout the world.  Armed insurgent groups as
well as governments violate the rights of individual
citizens and use humanitarian assistance as a weapon of
war.  Ethnic, racial, and religious conflicts illustrate
the dangers, and we're only too conscious of the
continuum from human rights abuse to eroded respect for
minority groups to ethnic cleansing. This awareness
further underscores our resolve.
 
We have placed increased emphasis this year in the
report--and in our policies--on the protection of the
rights of women, including issues such as rape, female
genital mutilation, treatment of women in the workplace,
marginalization of women in the political process, and
the rights of women to freely and responsibly choose the
number and spacing of their children.
 
Governments themselves create a climate for abuse when
they refuse to investigate and prosecute those accused of
human rights abuses.  By inaction, governments undercut
their own legitimacy.  The international community is
acting--and, in the case of the former Yugoslavia, has
recognized that those accused of human rights abuses must
be made to face the consequences through the
establishment by the United Nations of the international
War Crimes Tribunal.
 
We have been strong advocates for this process and, while
frustrated by the slow time table, continue to press
ahead.  Are we making progress?  Of course we are.  We've
seen human rights become a major issue in relations
between nations largely because of the efforts of the
United States of America.
 
As John will report, even China is moving a little, and
we will press for more.  Efforts by Nelson Mandela and
F.W. de Klerk, by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat, by the
people of Cambodia and the former Soviet Union confirm
the purpose of our commitment.  We will continue to press
forward on individual cases to promote conflict
resolution, to advocate self-fulfillment for individuals,
and to promote democracy and the rule of law.
 
This broadened commitment by the Clinton Administration,
starting with the President and flowing through our
reorganized efforts here in the State Department,
resulted in this strengthened and more comprehensive
report.
 
It is now my pleasure to introduce John Shattuck, the
Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and
Humanitarian Affairs.
 
 
Assistant Secretary Shattuck.  Thank you very much.  I
would like to cover for you six major trends that are
evident from the 1993 reports and give you an opportunity
then to ask us some questions about each of those issues
and other issues that may be in the reports that you want
to cover.
 
First, and perhaps most powerfully in 1993, we see the
trend of ethnic, racial, and religious armed conflict--
often stimulated by abusive and irresponsible political
leaders who play on people's fears--which has once again
proved to be a cauldron of major human rights abuse.
 
In Bosnia, Sudan, Burundi, Somalia, Angola, Iraq,
Azerbaijan, Georgia, and elsewhere, armed conflict has
led to massive numbers of civilian deaths, refugee flows,
and major human rights abuses and war crimes, such as the
cynical use of rape as an instrument of so-called "ethnic
cleansing" in Bosnia.
 
The second trend is in the opposite direction:  dramatic
first steps toward reconciliation in parts of the world
where it once seemed impossible--the Middle East, South
Africa, and Cambodia, as Tim Wirth pointed out, as well
as El Salvador, where a UN Truth Commission completed its
investigations of major human rights violations of the
past decade and recommended specific actions to further
the reconciliation process.
 
In the third trend that we highlight in 1993, democracy
continued to fire the imagination of people around the
world.  There were both major setbacks and major
advances.  The process of democracy moved forward in
Cambodia, where successful elections were held, but
backward in Haiti, where the military continued to
obstruct the return of President Aristide.  Advances
occurred in Russia, where democratic parliamentary
elections were held for the second time in the country's
history, as well as in certain Latin American countries.
But there were also major setbacks in countries such as
Nigeria, Burundi, and others.
 
The fourth trend was a continuation of major human rights
abuses in certain parts of the world where no necessarily
armed conflict is occurring but nonetheless the abuses
continue.
 
Of particular concern for us in 1993, and reflected in
the reports, were torture, arbitrary detention, impunity
for perpetrators of abuse, as well as actions trampling
on rights of women, children, indigenous people, and
workers in too many countries.  Different aspects of
these problems were evident in varying degrees in a
variety of countries with different forms of government,
such as China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Burma,
Zaire, Cuba, Indonesia, India, Saudi Arabia, Peru, Egypt,
and Turkey, as well as others.
 
A fifth trend was more positive. Countries working
together in the United Nations, the Conference on
Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Organization of
American States, and the Organization of African Unity
supported new democracies, mediated conflicts, or took
steps to begin to hold each other accountable for human
rights abuses.
 
The successful World Conference on Human Rights, which
Tim Wirth referred to, followed by the establishment of a
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights late in 1993, and
the creation of a Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal, which
began its work this month, are significant markers of
this trend.
 
Finally, the most powerful underlying trend, which our
report reflects for 1993, is the continuing growth of a
grass-roots movement throughout the world to promote
human rights and democracy.  Human rights cannot be
protected without constant vigilance of courageous
individuals and non-governmental organizations who
document abuses and hold their governments to account.
 
These sentinels for human rights engender hope, and we
have cited in our report and we will pay tribute to, at
this moment, six individuals or groups who represent this
grassroots movement for human rights which seems to know
no fear and which, ultimately, we believe will be
successful.
 
--  Monique Mujawamariya, who worked in Burundi, and
those like her whose bodies bear the scars of thugs as
the price of documenting human rights violations;
 
--  Liu Gang, who sits in jail in China, and all who are
imprisoned for peaceful expression of their views;
 
--  Sebastian Arcos of Cuba and all who refuse to be
silent when others are being abused;
 
--  Mansour Kikhiya of Libya and all the "disappeared"
who have been abducted because of their human rights
work;
 
--  Aung San Suu Kyi, in her fifth year of house arrest
in Burma, and all who work for freedom at the price of
their own liberty; and
 
--  The staff of the Sarajevo daily newspaper,
Oslobodjenje, and all who work for a free press and who
demonstrate that Serb and Croat, Muslim and Jew can work
and live side by side in peace.
 
These are the people to whom we dedicate this report and
whose work is reflected in the work of the Department of
State and the commitment of President Clinton, Secretary
Christopher, and Counselor Wirth and myself in this area.
Thank you.
 
 
 
Overview of Report
Text of the overview of the 1993 Report to Congress on
Human Rights Practices, released February 1, 1994.
 
WHY THE REPORTS ARE PREPARED
This report is submitted to the Congress by the
Department of State in compliance with sections 116(d)(1)
and 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA),
as amended, and Section 505 (c) of the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended.  As stated in Section 116(d)(1) of the FAA:
 
. . . the Secretary of State shall transmit to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Foreign Relations of the Senate, by January 31 of each
year, a full and complete report regarding the status of
internationally recognized human rights, within the
meaning of subsection (A) in countries that received
assistance under this part, and (B) in all other foreign
countries which are members of the United Nations and
which are not otherwise the subject of a human rights
report under this Act.
 
We have also included reports on the few countries which
do not fall into the categories established by these
statutes and which thus are not covered by the
Congressional requirement.
 
The idea that the United States has a responsibility to
speak out on behalf of internationally recognized human
rights standards was formalized in the 1970s.  In 1976,
Congress enacted legislation creating a Coordinator of
Human Rights in the U.S. Department of State, a position
later upgraded to Assistant Secretary.  Congress also
wrote into law formal requirements that U.S. foreign and
trade policy take into account countries' human rights
and worker rights performance and that country reports be
submitted to the Congress annually.  When the reports
were first produced in 1977, which at the time covered
only countries receiving U.S. aid, 82 were compiled and
published; this year, there are 193 reports.
 
HOW THE REPORTS ARE PREPARED
The human rights reports reflect a year of dedicated
effort by hundreds of State Department and other U.S.
Government employees.  In August 1993, the Secretary of
State issued a directive which further strengthened the
human rights structure in our embassies.  All sections in
each embassy were asked to contribute information and to
corroborate reports of violations.  New efforts were made
to link mission programming to the advancement of human
rights and democracy.
 
Our embassies, which prepared the initial drafts of the
reports, gathered information throughout the year from a
variety of sources, including contacts across the
political spectrum, government officials, jurists,
military sources, journalists, human rights monitors,
academics, and labor union members. Gathering information
can be hazardous.  Foreign Service Officers often go to
great lengths, under trying and sometimes dangerous
conditions, to investigate reported human rights
violations, stand up for individuals, and monitor
elections.
 
The draft reports were then sent from each embassy to
Washington, where they were carefully reviewed by the
Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, in
cooperation with other relevant offices in the State
Department.  As they corroborated, analyzed, and edited
the reports, Department officers drew on their own
additional sources of information.  These included
reports by and consultations with U.S. and other human
rights groups, foreign government officials,
representatives from the United Nations and other
international and regional organizations and
institutions, and experts from academia and the media.
Officers also consulted with experts on worker rights
issues, refugee issues, military and police issues, exile
issues, women's rights issues, and legal matters.  The
goal was to ensure that all relevant information was
included and that assessments were as objective,
thorough, and fair as possible.  The report will be used
as a resource in making decisions on U.S. foreign policy,
training, and aid allocations.  It also will serve as a
basis for valuable dialog and program planning on ways in
which the United States can work with foreign governments
and private groups to improve human rights observance
worldwide.
 
The Country Reports on Human Rights cover internationally
recognized individual, political, civil, and worker
rights, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.  These rights include freedom from torture
or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment; from prolonged detention without charges;
from disappearance due to abduction or clandestine
detention; and from other flagrant violations concerning
life, liberty, and the security of the person.
Individuals have the inalienable right to change their
government by peaceful means and to enjoy such civil
liberties as freedom of expression, assembly, religion,
and movement, without discrimination based on race,
national origin, or sex.  Free societies also require
free trade unions.  The reports assess key
internationally recognized worker rights, including the
right of association; the right to organize and bargain
collectively; prohibition of forced or compulsory labor;
minimum age for employment of children; and acceptable
conditions of work.
 
THE 1993 REPORTS
The 1993 report describes a world far short of the vision
we and other countries hold for it.  Around the globe,
people who by right are born free and with dignity too
often suffer the cruelties of authorities who deprive
them of their rights in order to perpetuate their own
power.  Yet, again in 1993, children too often were
denied their birthright in countries ruled by dictators
or rent by armed conflict, where bullets, torture,
arbitrary detention, rape, disappearances, and other
abuses were used to silence those who struggle for
political freedom; to crush those whose ethnicity,
gender, race, or religion mark them for discrimination;
or to frighten and mistreat those who have no defenses.
The United Nations' Charter affirms the "dignity and
worth of the human person."  In too many places in 1993,
however, human dignity was assaulted; violence was
perpetuated with impunity; those responsible for massive
violations of human rights went unpunished; and political
repression went unchecked.
 
This year, we draw particular attention to several trends
evident from the 1993 reports.  Armed conflict posed the
most significant risk to human rights.  In contrast, the
historic handshake between Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin
of Israel and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)
Chairman Yasir Arafat, the Nobel Prize-winning efforts of
African Nationalist Congress (ANC) leader Nelson Mandela
and President F.W. de Klerk in South Africa to
enfranchise all citizens, and the peace process in El
Salvador exemplify movement toward reconciliation in
places where it once seemed impossible.
 
This polarity between violence and reconciliation was
typical of a year in which democracy and human rights
were marked both by progress and backsliding.  The
process of democracy moved forward in Cambodia, where
successful elections were held, but backwards in Haiti,
where the military continued to obstruct the return of
President Aristide.  At the same time, human rights
abuses continued around the world.  Of particular concern
to us in 1993 were torture, arbitrary detention, impunity
for perpetrators of abuse, and the trampling on the
rights of women, children, indigenous people, and workers
in many parts of the world.
 
Yet, in 1993, we also witnessed positive trends.
Countries working together in the United Nations, the
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE),
the Organization of American States (OAS), and the
Organization of African Unity (OAU) supported new
democracies, mediated conflicts, and took steps to hold
each other accountable for human rights abuses.  Around
the world, grassroots movements to promote human rights
and democracy spread, as people claimed their inalienable
rights and demanded accountability from their
governments.
 
I.  Armed Conflict
In Bosnia, Sudan, Burundi, Somalia, Angola, Iraq,
Azerbaijan, Georgia, and elsewhere, armed conflict led to
massive numbers of civilian deaths, refugee flows, and
human rights abuses.  Many of the conflicts were
stimulated by irresponsible political leaders who played
on people's fears.
 
In many parts of the former Yugoslavia, the carnage
continues.  In 1993 as in 1992, all nationalities were
victimized, and there were numerous violations of the
Geneva Conventions.  Bosnian Serb armed forces, supported
by Belgrade and by Serbian paramilitary counterparts,
persisted in their program of "ethnic cleansing,"
including laying siege to cities, indiscriminately
shelling civilian inhabitants, raping and executing
noncombatants, and interfering with humanitarian aid
deliveries.  The warfare continued relentlessly through
1993, with Bosnian Government and Croat forces also
committing egregious abuses.
 
In Sudan, both the Government and the Sudanese People's
Liberation Army (SPLA) engaged in widespread human rights
abuses, including torture, forced displacement, and
massacres of civilians.
 
In Somalia, although massive starvation was averted by
international humanitarian efforts, most Somalis remained
beyond the rule and protection of recognized law and
social order.
 
In Iraq, Saddam Hussein's regime continued its flagrant
abuses of human rights by conducting military operations
against civilians, including burning and razing villages
and forcing people to abandon their homes, particularly
Shi'a Arabs living in the wetlands of southern Iraq.
 
In Azerbaijan, the continuing conflict over Nagorno-
Karabakh gave rise to human rights abuses by all sides.
 
In the Georgian province of Abkhazia, Abkhaz separatists
launched a reign of terror after a successful offensive
gave them control of the province.  Many Georgian
civilians and troops were subjected to torture and
summary execution.
 
II.  Reconciliation
In the face of such bloodshed, 1993 was also a year in
which some countries, against all odds, moved toward
reconciliation.  In 1964, Nelson Mandela of South Africa
wrote:
 
I have fought against white domination, and I have fought
against black domination.  I have cherished the ideal of
a democratic and free society in which all persons will
live together in harmony and with equal opportunities.
It is an ideal which I hope to live for and achieve.
 
Thirty years later, Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk have
led their country toward that ideal.
 
In the Middle East, there was also progress toward peace.
On a warm September day in Washington, the world
witnessed an historic handshake between Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabin and PLO leader Yasir Arafat that stretched
across years of conflict.  In that moment, two men joined
together their peoples' hopes for peace.
 
In El Salvador, once racked by civil war, the UN Truth
Commission completed its investigations of human rights
violations of the past decade and recommended specific
actions to further the reconciliation process.
 
In Mozambique, while there have been many setbacks in the
process of political reconciliation, implementation of
the 1992 peace accords continued, giving Mozambicans
increasingly greater protection from human rights abuses
and opportunities for greater enjoyment of civil and
political rights.  Although human rights violations
continued in these countries, progress is being made.
 
III.  Democracy
In 1993, democracy continued to capture the imagination
of people around the globe.  There were both advances and
setbacks.
 
In Cambodia, following the largest United Nations
peacekeeping effort ever undertaken, 90 percent of voters
participated in free and fair elections in May--the first
in decades--thus providing the opportunity for long-term
democratic evolution.  The remainder of the 370,000
Cambodian refugees who had been living mostly along the
Thai-Cambodian border were voluntarily repatriated under
the direction of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR).
 
By contrast, in Haiti the military continued to obstruct
the return of democratically elected President Aristide.
Right-wing thugs closely allied with the military
assassinated the legitimately appointed Justice Minister
and conducted many other killings targeted against
specific individuals.
 
In Guatemala, President Jorge Serrano was peacefully and
constitutionally dismissed after he had suspended several
sections of the Constitution and dissolved Congress and
the Supreme and Constitutional Courts.  When Congress
reconvened, it elected as President Ramiro de Leon
Carpio, the former Human Rights Ombudsman.
 
In Russia, democratic parliamentary elections were held
for the second time in the country's history.  Despite
this, and continuing progress in the areas of civil and
political rights, there were setbacks, most notably
during the violent constitutional crisis in October.
 
In Burma, military authorities continued to refuse to
implement the results of the May 1990 elections that
rejected their rule.
 
In Nigeria, the military overturned the results of an
election, dissolved all democratic institutions, and now
rules the country by decree.
 
In Burundi, the nation's first democratically elected
president was assassinated, and a bloody conflict
followed.
 
The starting point of democratic government is the right
of citizens, through free and fair elections, to choose
their government.  Elections are not the sum total of
democracy, of course, but they are a foundation.
Democracy also requires establishing civil societies,
where people can participate fully in the democratic
process.  The rule of law, civilian control of the
military, an independent judiciary, free media, and the
rights of people to free speech, association, and
assembly are essential elements of democratic societies.
 
IV.  Torture, Arbitrary Detention, and the Impunity of
Abusers
Major violations of human rights occurred not only in
war-torn countries.  Human rights abuses also remained
widespread in countries in which violators were not held
accountable.  When violators can commit human rights
abuses with impunity, abuses multiply.
 
In Iran, the Government continued to torture and execute
people summarily and to restrict the freedoms of speech,
press, assembly, and association.  Minority religious
groups, including the Baha'is, faced systematic
repression.
 
North Korea remains one of the most repressive countries
of the world.  The Government treats individual rights as
potentially subversive of the goals of the State and the
party.
 
In Burma, the autocratic military regime reinforces its
power with a pervasive security apparatus.  People are
arrested arbitrarily and prisoners are abused.  Citizens
are denied basic political rights and the rights of free
speech and assembly.
 
Zaire is undergoing its worst human rights crisis since
the end of the civil war in the 1960s.  The Mobutu regime
was responsible for massive human rights violations,
including extrajudicial killings, unlawful detentions,
ethnic violence, torture, and disappearances.
 
In China, fundamental human rights provided for in the
Chinese Constitution frequently are ignored in practice,
and challenges to the Communist Party's political
authority are often dealt with harshly and arbitrarily.
China took some positive but limited steps in human
rights areas, including releasing prominent political
prisoners.  Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of political
prisoners, however, remained under detention or in
prison.  Reports of physical abuse persisted, including
torture by police and prison officials.  This was
especially the case in politically restive and minority-
populated regions such as Tibet.  In November, China
announced that it would give positive consideration to a
request from the International Committee of the Red Cross
to visit China.
 
In Peru, the terrorist activities of the Shining Path
declined following the capture of its leader in 1992.
The number of extrajudicial killings and disappearances
instigated or condoned by the Government also fell.
Nonetheless, human rights violations continued and
serious due process questions arose concerning the
military trials of civilians.
 
In Cuba, the Government does not permit domestic or
international human rights groups to function legally.
Human rights activists and political dissidents are
systematically harassed, beaten, and otherwise abused by
police and security officials.
 
In Turkey, both the Government and the Kurdistan Workers
Party (PKK) terrorist forces committed human rights
violations, including torture.
 
In Egypt, torture and other human rights violations
continued.  In a positive development, the country's
Supreme Court acquitted 25 defendants in cases in which
confessions were extracted under torture.
 
In Indonesia, extrajudicial arrests and detentions, as
well as torture of those in custody, continued.  In East
Timor, no significant progress was noted in the
accounting for those missing from the November 1991
shooting incident in Dili.
 
V.  The Rights of Women
We have paid special attention in 1993 to the problem of
rampant discrimination against women.  Physical abuse is
the most obvious example.  In many African countries, the
practice of female genital mutilation continued.  In
Pakistan, many women in police custody are subjected to
sexual or physical violence.  On several continents,
women and girls are sold into prostitution.  In many Gulf
countries, domestic servants from Southeast Asia are
forced to work excessively long hours and are sometimes
physically and sexually abused.  In Bangladesh and India,
dowry deaths continue.  Marital rape in many countries is
not recognized as a crime, and women raped or beaten at
home often have no recourse.  That female life is not
valued as much as male life is apparent in countries such
as China where it is reported that more female fetuses
than male are aborted.
 
In addition to physical abuse, the political, civil, and
legal rights of women are often denied.  In 1993 women
throughout the world were subjected to onerous and
discriminatory restrictions of such fundamental freedoms
as voting, marriage, travel, testifying in court,
inheriting and owning property, and obtaining custody of
children.  All too often, women and girls find that their
access to education, employment, health care, and even
food is limited because of their gender.
 
VI.  Worker Rights
In far too many countries, the freedom of workers to
associate, which is the paramount right on which trade
unions base their ability to bargain collectively, defend
their members' grievances, and protect them from unfair
and unsafe working conditions, falls well short of the
standards elaborated by the International Labor
Organization (ILO).  Restrictions on freedom of
association abound.  They range from outright and total
government control of all forms of worker organizations
to webs of legislation so complicated that full
compliance is virtually impossible, giving authorities
excuses to intervene at will.
 
In 1993, the practice of forced labor continued, as did
the abuse of expatriate workers, particularly domestics.
Slavery still exists in some countries, particularly in
Mauritania and Sudan.  Given the rising concern about the
impact of international trade on worker rights standards,
this year's reports focus more sharply on the presence of
child labor in export industries and on minimum wage and
occupational safety standards.  Our reports document a
number of serious bonded and child labor problems,
particularly in South Asia and North Africa.
 
VII.  Accountability
In the face of widespread human rights violations, the
impunity of violators and absence of the rule of law,
some progress was made at the international level in 1993
to develop new global institutions to promote human
rights accountability.
 
In February, the United Nations created a War Crimes
Tribunal to prosecute those responsible for gross
violations of human rights in much of the former
Yugoslavia.  By year's end, all judges had been sworn in.
In December, following the recommendation of the World
Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in June, the UN
General Assembly established the office of High
Commissioner for Human Rights with a mandate to remove
obstacles to citizens' full enjoyment  of basic human
rights.  The World Conference also recommended
establishing a Special Rapporteur on Violence Against
Women.  The Human Rights Commission will take up this
project in 1994.
 
Meanwhile, the UN Human Rights Center had rapporteurs
assess conditions in countries such as Burma, Iraq, and
Cuba, where human rights are largely disregarded.  Other
bodies, such as the Committee Against Torture, monitored
compliance with UN treaties and conventions.
 
The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe
(CSCE) has been a significant force in holding countries
accountable for adherence to human rights standards.  In
September the CSCE held a review conference to assess
each participating state's progress in implementing its
"human dimension" commitments, including to human rights,
fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law.  The CSCE has
also been active in mediating disputes, particularly
through the work of its High Commissioner for National
Minorities.  In Latvia and Estonia, CSCE and other
international factfinding missions looked into
allegations of human rights abuses.  While finding no
systematic violations, they urged these governments to
adopt an inclusive approach to citizenship and alien
rights and assure the equitable and nondiscriminatory
treatment of ethnic Russians living in their countries.
Both Latvia and Estonia have accepted the establishment
of CSCE missions to help improve intercommunal relations.
 
The Organization of African Unity (OAU) assisted in
mediation efforts in Burundi that have helped move that
country toward a resolution of its constitutional and
humanitarian crisis.
 
The Organization of American States (OAS) played an
important role in defending human rights and due process,
notably in Nicaragua.
 
VIII.  Grassroots Movement for Human Rights and Democracy
The willingness of nations to begin to hold each other
accountable for human rights abuses is a reflection of
the work of individuals to hold their own governments
accountable.  Around the world in 1993, grassroots
movements supported the spread of human rights, freedom,
and democracy.  This commitment of people, acting through
nongovernmental organizations, is reflected in the final
Declaration of the World Conference on Human Rights held
in June in Vienna, that the individual--and not the
state--is at the center of development.  Moreover,
underdevelopment can never justify human rights abuses.
There is indeed an important linkage among human rights,
democracy, and development:  the protection of human
rights and the full participation of individuals in their
own political system create the necessary context for
development to take place.
 
Human rights will not be protected without the constant
vigilance of courageous individuals who promote human
rights, document abuses, and hold their governments to
account.  These sentinels for human rights engender hope.
Amidst the abuse of 1993, there is another story, that of
countless men and women who stood up and said "No!"  No
to injustice, no to tyranny, no to torture, and no to
censorship.  We salute those who are working against
great odds to advance human rights and democracy:
 
--Monique Mujawamariya who works in Rwanda and Burundi,
and those like her whose bodies bear the scars of thugs
as the price of documenting human rights violations;
--Mansour Kikhiya of Libya, and all the "disappeared" who
have been abducted because of their human rights work;
--Liu Gang who sits in jail in China, and all who are
imprisoned for peaceful expression of their views;
--Sebastian Arcos of Cuba, and all who refuse to be
silent when others are being abused;
--Aung San Suu Kyi, in her fifth year of house arrest in
Burma, and all who work for freedom at the price of their
own liberty.
--The staff of the Sarajevo daily newspaper,
Oslobodjenje, and all who work for a free press and who
demonstrate that Serb and Croat, Muslim and Jew, can work
and live side by side in peace.
 
We salute these people, and the tens of thousands of
courageous human rights workers around the world.
 
The year 1993 was a difficult one for human rights, a
year in which setbacks outweighed advances in some parts
of the world.  Paradoxically, it was also a year in which
the daily struggle for human rights at global, national,
and local levels received more attention than ever
before, a year in which the worldwide grassroots movement
for human rights and democratic change gathered momentum.
The year saw the community of nations reaffirm its
commitment to the protection and promotion of human
rights at the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna
on the 45th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.  The force of this movement was captured by
Eleanor Roosevelt in an address to the United Nations in
1958:
 
Where, after all, do universal human rights begin?  In
small places, close to home--so close and so small that
they cannot be seen on any maps of the world.  Yet, they
are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood
he lives in; the school or college he attends; the
factory, farm or office where he works.  Such are the
places where every man, woman and child seeks equal
justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without
discrimination.  Unless these rights have meaning there,
they have little meaning anywhere.  Without concerned
citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall
look in vain for progress in the larger world.
 
1993 Human Rights Report
Copies of the 1993 Report to Congress on Human Rights
Practices is sold by the Superintendent of Documents,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402,
tel. 202-783-3238; GPO stock no. 052-070-06948-1; price
is $41.00 a copy.
 
Electronic distribution of the full report is available
through GPO's Federal Bulletin Board and on the Internet.
On the Federal Bulletin Board, the report can be found in
the Department of State Human Rights Library under Global
Issues.  On the Internet via gopher to ace.esusda.gov,
the report is under Americans Communicating
Electronically, State Department releases, Human Rights
Report.  To request the report by e-mail, send to
almanac@ace.esusda.gov this one-line message:  send
state-hr catalog.  (###)
 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 2:
 
Building on the Achievements  of Former Secretaries
Secretary Christopher
Remarks at the 11th annual conference of the Secretaries
of State, Washington, DC, January 28, 1994
 
Good morning, and welcome to the State Department.  It's
a pleasure and honor for me to open this 11th annual
meeting of the former Secretaries of State.  I understand
that this is the first time the conference has been held
in the State Department and the first time that a
sitting--or perhaps I should say standing--Secretary of
State has participated.  I am delighted to be that first
one.
 
I want to thank the Southern Center for International
Studies for organizing this event and the Public
Broadcasting System for televising it.  Together, the
Southern Center and PBS are helping to make sure that
foreign policy isn't foreign to the American people.
 
I believe that foreign policymakers cannot afford to
ignore the public.  Otherwise, there is a real danger
that the public will ignore foreign policy.  That would
be unfortunate, because an effective American foreign
policy must be grounded in the understanding and support
of the American people.
 
A remarkable predecessor of ours as Secretary of State--
indeed, the man for whom this room was named, Dean
Acheson--understood this lesson very well.  The month
before George Marshall proposed, at Harvard, the plan
that was to bear his name, Acheson thought it was
important to try out the concept and get a response from
a quite different audience--Delta State Teachers College
in Cleveland, Mississippi.
 
Acheson described the scene at this speech as
 
. . . an easygoing, good-natured, shirt-sleeved,
thoroughly American audience--a far cry from a
conventional setting for striped pants and diplomatic
utterances.
 
Today, we're in a more conventional setting, but our
purpose remains the same as Acheson's nearly a half  cen
tury ago:  to engage the American people as we use our
power and purpose in the world.
 
Each of my predecessors here today served our country by
facing the world as he found it and helping to make it
safer, freer, and better.  Today, two of our most
significant foreign policy challenges are our
relationships with the former Soviet Union and China.
Former Secretary Bill Rogers was Secretary at a time of
historic changes in our relationships with both, and he
worked very hard to promote a cease-fire in the Middle
East.
 
I had the honor of serving under  Ed Muskie.  It was
during his time as Secretary of State that our nation
stood strong against Soviet aggression in Afghanistan.
That event, many experts agree, was the beginning of the
end of the Soviet empire.
 
Former Secretary Al Haig maintained a principled stance
against Soviet aggression by helping to place sanctions
on the Soviet Union and Poland after the imposition of
martial law in Poland by the Soviet Union.  He also
strongly emphasized the fight against international
terrorism.  And, of course, it's not to be overlooked
that Al Haig gave us the word "caveat" as a verb.
 
Jim Baker was Secretary at a time of extraordinary
change.  He managed the pressures arising from a
disintegration of the Soviet Union and the reunification
of Germany.  He helped  build and sustain the coalition
that rolled back Iraq's aggression against Kuwait.  By
spearheading the Madrid process, he helped to set the
stage for the historic breakthrough last September
between Israel and the PLO.
 
The collective accomplishments of these men helped us
prevail in the Cold War.  Now we have the responsibility
to set new priorities as we advance America's interests
in an age free of superpower confrontation.
 
Today, President Clinton and I have placed economic
security at the heart of American foreign policy.  We are
working to expand trade, to spur global growth, to create
jobs, and to enhance the well-being of each and every
American.
 
We are building on a unique situation in which all of the
major powers of the world, for the first time in history,
are cooperating in the interest of genuine peace and
prosperity.  And we're reaching out through our former
adversaries to turn them into partners--partners for
peace.
 
We are moving global issues, such as the environment and
population, into the mainstream of American foreign
policy.  We're working to stop the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, and we're not only
reinforcing America's interests but reflecting America's
highest ideals by promoting democracy and defending human
rights around the world.
 
Our new priorities are consistent with America's enduring
interests:  our military security, our economic
prosperity, and our democratic values.  These are the
interests that my predecessors as Secretary of State did
so much to uphold.  Now we have the privilege once again
to hear their views and learn from their experience.
 
Your program today looks very interesting to me.  I know
that, with the very capable help of Charlayne Hunter-
Gault, you will have a very lively and provocative
session.  I am very pleased to welcome my predecessors
back to the Department of State:  Secretary William
Rogers; Secretary Al Haig; Secretary Edmund Muskie; and
Secretary James Baker.  (###)
 
 
 
ARTICLE  3:
 
U.S. Environmental Policy and Africa:  Challenges and
Realities
George E. Moose, Assistant Secretary for African Affairs
Address before the annual meeting of the African Studies
Association, Boston, Massachusetts, December 6, 1993
 
Members of the African Studies Association, honored
guests: Good evening.  As someone who has sat on the
other side of this podium admiring the work of so many of
you over the years, let me say that it is an honor to
give the keynote address before this year's meeting of
the African Studies Association.  In my role as Assistant
Secretary, I am often called on to talk on Africa;
however, I rarely have the opportunity to speak to such a
familiar and knowledgeable audience.  I have been
fortunate to have met most of you in one fora or another
throughout my career.  And hence, I come here with great
comfort and pride, because, indeed, the greatest honor
bestowed on one is the esteem of one's friends.  So I
thank you for the invitation.  Having read over the
program, I recognized many subjects very familiar to
those who have been observing Africa for the last three
decades.  At the same time, I was intrigued and
fascinated by the host of new titles that point to new
African realities.
 
In much the same way--looking at the Clinton
Administration's policy toward Africa--you are likely to
recognize some familiar themes, but you will also find
some new dimensions and emphases.  These new policy
dimensions reflect a new global agenda--one that has
recently emerged forcefully and clearly from the shadows
of the Cold War.  Frankly, they make our task more
complicated.  Beginning in the summer of 1993, I
participated in a State Department management study--the
State 2000 Task Force--that offered recommendations
regarding the management of U.S. foreign policy in the
post-Cold War era.  That study concluded that far greater
attention was needed to transnational issues.
 
The issues we have in mind affect not only Africa, but
the rest of the world.  They are, in fact, global issues,
because they transcend national boundaries and the
capacity of any single nation to address them alone.  As
Secretary of State Warren Christopher has said, this
Administration is placing an unmistakable emphasis on
these pressing global concerns.  The State Department is
in the process of creating a new position--the Under
Secretary for Global Affairs.  The President has
nominated former Senator Tim Wirth to be the first holder
of that job.  The intention is to place these global
issues--issues such as terrorism, narcotics, refugees,
population growth, and the environment--squarely where
they belong--in the mainstream of American foreign
policy.
 
Nowhere is the need for a change in approach more evident
than in our policy toward Africa.  As elaborated over the
last several months, the Administration's policy is
driven by three overriding goals:
 
First, to support African efforts to establish democratic
governments and institutions.  We intend to use our
influence to achieve real democracy throughout the
continent, stressing transparent governance, the rule of
law, and respect for human rights;
 
Second, to bring our influence and diplomatic skills to
bear in promoting an end to the many conflicts and crises
which continue to plague the continent; and
 
Third, to encourage sustainable development and economic
growth so that people can aspire to better lives for
themselves and their children.
 
In Africa, as elsewhere, what we seek are partners who
are fully able to assume their rightful role and
responsibilities in the international community.  For
that, we need governments that can represent and speak on
behalf of their citizens, that can make commitments and
fulfill them, elaborate strategies and implement them.
 
Contained within these three broad goals, and especially
the last, is the recognition that, for there to be stable
partners in Africa, we must pay far more attention to a
host of dramatic, long-term transnational trends that
affect the continent.  If we do not, efforts to build
democracy and forge sound economic structures in Africa
run the risk of being overwhelmed.  The important gains
achieved so far in democratization and economic reform
may be lost.  If we ignore these issues, they will later
return, compounded and more costly.
 
For Africa, many of these issues are of immediate, urgent
concern.  The importance of these issues has forced us to
rethink the organization of the Africa Bureau.  In order
to give them the attention they merit, one of our three
deputy assistant secretaries--Prudence Bushnell--has
assumed full-time responsibility for a portfolio that
closely mirrors that of Under Secretary Wirth.
 
The challenge for those of us at the State Department
working on African issues is how to handle the daily
crises which confront the African Continent and yet
reserve resources, energy, and time enough to deal with
these longer term, global trends.  Ours, frankly, is the
challenge of integrating this emerging understanding of
the transnational issues into traditional bilateral
thinking and diplomacy.  Make no mistake about it:
Transnational issues are already influencing diplomacy.
Today, we cannot pursue democratization without
considering population growth.  We cannot make plans for
development without considering the environment.  We
cannot discuss peace-keeping missions without considering
how AIDS might affect the deployment of troops.
 
What I'd like to do this evening is focus attention on
several African transnational and environmental issues,
examine a handful of realities we need to accept, and
briefly review the role we see for the U.S. Government as
we attempt to help Africa confront its environmental and
ecological problems.
 
Africa, we all know, is a continent of awesome resources.
It is also a continent that faces enormous environmental
challenges, including defo- restation, desertification,
loss of biodi- versity, and degradation of water
resources.  Closely linked to these ecological problems
are issues of population and health.  Studies conducted
by the UN Environmental Program indicate that since 1980,
the total acreage of Africa's forests has declined by
nearly 2% a year.  In Madagascar, perhaps as much as
four-fifths of the area in which tropical forest once
flourished has been cleared and much of it lost to severe
land degradation.  These forest losses have been
accompanied by desertification and land degradation.
This has become a problem throughout Africa and is the
dominant environmental threat in the Sahel.  Inherent
soil deficiencies, overgrazing, and unfavorable weather
patterns contribute to the problem, as does variability
of rainfall which can cause erosion of soils that are
already shallow.  Between 1984 and 1990, land degradation
in some parts of the Sahel caused millet and sorghum
yields to drop from around 125 kilograms per hectare to
less than 50 kilograms per hectare.
 
Africa's development is also closely tied to the use of
water resources.  The Nile, the Niger, the Zaire, and
numerous smaller rivers are, potentially, major resources
for irrigation of crops and generation of hydroelectric
power.  Rivers and lakes can support fisheries to help
feed the region's burgeoning population.  Wells and
streams are direct sources of potable water for thousands
of African villages and towns.  Unfortunately,
environmental degradation, misuse of water resources, and
poor management of catchment areas are eroding these
resources and hampering Africa's efforts to realize its
development potential.
 
Deforestation, desertification, and the degradation of
water resources are trends that also threaten Africa's
remarkable biodiversity.  As land is misused, critical
habitats for wild plants and animals are lost.
Nevertheless, Africa still contains a wealth of
biodiversity.  In much of the rest of the world, it may
be too late to stem the loss of plant and animal species.
In most of Africa, however, the opportunity still exists
to secure these resources and their long-term economic
and environmental benefits.  We cannot allow this
opportunity to pass.
 
At this point, it is perhaps appropriate  for me to
stress the Administration's strong support for the new
family of international treaties on the environment that
emerged from last year's Rio summit.  These agreements
have far-reaching implications for all mankind but,
perhaps, especially for Africa.
 
President Clinton's reversal of the previous U.S.
position and his signature of the Convention on
Biological Diversity symbolized a critical new emphasis
on integrating economic and environmental policy.  As a
result of the Biodiversity Convention, Africans, in
particular, will have new incentives and resources for
the conservation of their unique biological heritage.
 
Preserving biodiversity in Africa means more than saving
elephants and enlarging game preserves--important as
those objectives are.  For many Africans, the
conservation of biodiversity is essential for food
security, while for others it is a source of livelihood
and medicines.  The knowledge and techniques to utilize
plants and animals for human benefit have been part of
African culture and traditions for centuries. Western
science has only recently begun to appreciate and build
on indigenous knowledge.  In Zambia, for example,
traditional varieties of sorghum and millet have proved
exceptionally drought-resistant.  Biodiversity thus
offers a new and more culturally sensitive approach to
development.
 
The Convention on Global Climate Change is another
pioneering effort to sustain and nurture our planetary
resource base in the interests of all mankind.  Although
the primary source of greenhouse gases is the
industrialized world, Africa is also an important factor
in global climate change.  Central Africa has the world's
second-largest expanse of moist tropical forest, after
the Amazon.  Deforestation linked with brush fires from
slash-and-burn agriculture is a significant and growing
source of carbon dioxide emissions in many parts of
Africa.
 
As part of a $25-million interagency program, the United
States is supporting climate change studies in several
African countries, helping them inventory their
greenhouse gas emissions, evaluate their vulnerability to
climate change, and begin consideration of remedial
strategies.  Our long-term aim is to help Africans
develop their own scientific and management capabilities
in this field.
 
Although still under negotiation, a third major treaty
envisaged in the "Rio family" will mobilize international
resources to combat desertification.  This
desertification treaty will focus heavily on Africa.  We
regard it as invaluable on two counts.  First, it will
encourage global cooperation in the development and
communication of new technologies to combat drought and
desertification.  Second, it will give new impetus to
more effective utilization of anti-desertification
assistance efforts.  The treaty will also put new
emphasis on helping Africans build their capacity to
manage their own land and water.  And it will discourage
donors from uncoordinated, politically motivated aid-
giving that has wasted too many anti-desertification
resources in the past.
 
Africa's most important resource is not its land or
animals, but its people.  On the health front, Africa has
made impressive progress since independence, but there
have been setbacks that could undermine the basis for
long-term development.  The statistics are grim.  Each
year, 150,000 African women die, and an equivalent number
suffer permanent disabilities, because of complications
from pregnancy and childbirth.  The infant mortality rate
for most of the region ranges between 100 and 170 deaths
for every 1,000 live births, compared with about 33 in
China or Sri Lanka.  In poorer countries, such as Burkina
Faso, Ethiopia, Mali, and Niger, only 70% to 80% of
children live to the age of five.
 
The AIDS pandemic has hit Africa harder than any other
continent.  According to current estimates, between 8 and
12 million Africans are infected with the HIV virus, and
the disease is spreading rapidly.  Already, there are
more than 1.5 million AIDS cases in Africa.  If that were
not tragic enough, the virus is decimating the
continent's most productive groups--the professional and
working classes.  A predicted 14,000 African teachers
will die of AIDS in the next 15 years.  By the year 2000,
there will be an estimated 10 million AIDS orphans. The
cost--in human suffering, strain on health care systems,
social disruption, and lost skills and productivity--will
be impossible to calculate.
 
Nevertheless, Sub-Saharan Africa has the fastest growing
population in the world, with an average rate of increase
of 3% per year.  At this rate, the region's population
will double from the present 500 million to 1 billion
people in only 23 years.  This population explosion, if
unchecked, will undermine every hope for environmental,
health, and development successes.
 
Although some African countries have instituted national
population strategies, the fertility rate--the average
number of births per woman--remains exceptionally high,
more than six.  Since 1965, it has decreased by only 5%.
The fact that 45% of the population is under 15 creates
built-in momentum for population growth as young people
move into their reproductive years.   The adverse
consequences of unchecked population growth are clear:
land degradation, declining per capita food production,
destruction of forests, loss of biodiversity, overuse and
pollution of water, and fuel wood shortages--not to
mention the inevitable strain on social services.
 
As Africa confronts these environmental challenges, we
will need to recognize and take into account a number of
realities.
 
First, we need to work in close partnership with African
governments as they plan environmental reform with their
citizens.  Ultimately, Africans are the ones who will
have to assume responsibility for the continent's
environment and establish workable plans and programs to
respond to particular needs.  That is already beginning
to happen.  More than 18 African countries are currently
working with USAID and the World Bank to formulate large-
scale programs called national environmental action
plans.
 
Second, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks,
one of the goals of American policy in Africa must be to
foster sustainable development on the continent.  A
compelling reason for focusing on environmental issues in
Africa is that on no other continent is there a more
immediate connection between environmental progress and
economic development.  Better management--and sustainable
develop- ment--of wildlife, land, and forests will lead
directly to an improvement in living conditions for the
65% of Africa's population that lives in rural areas.
Our priority must be, whenever possible, to promote sound
environmental practices that are also developmentally
sound.  The transition to sustainable economic growth
requires new thinking about Africa's natural resource
base.  It is not a question of environment or
development.  What we seek to encourage is the careful
use of natural resources as an essential component of
sustainable development.
 
Third, if we are to assist African countries assume
responsibility for environmental programs, we must also
help them improve their economies.  This means pursuing
policies of structural adjustment while taking fully into
account the social and human effects of such policies.
It also means dealing with the economic fragmentation of
Africa by working to overcome the difficulties small
economies pose for investment.  It may mean creating
conditions more favorable to Africa's trade relations
with the world and finding wider markets for African
products.  It will almost certainly mean seeking ways of
overcoming Africa's debt burden on terms that will assure
us that past problems will not simply be repeated.
 
Fourth, we need to ensure that our efforts and programs
fully recognize the central role women must assume in
managing population, conservation, and environmental
issues.  Women must be actively involved because they are
in many respects the resource managers of the continent.
In Sub-Saharan Africa, women grow up to 80% of the food
eaten by their families and half of all cash crops.
Their knowledge and their input is essential to any
strategy for sustainable development.
 
Fifth, we must accept that we are working in an era of
diminishing U.S. resources and staff.  We will,
therefore, need to be creative in the way we organize and
pursue our programs and policies.  As part of a
restructuring program, USAID Administrator Brian Atwood
has announced plans to phase out 21 field missions
worldwide over the next three years--nine of them in
Africa.  I wish to assure you that these closings do not
signal a change in the Administration's commitment to
Africa, only in the way we do business.  In Africa, USAID
will maintain missions in 27 countries, and it is
exploring ways to continue programs in some of the nine
countries where missions will close by managing them
regionally or from Washington.
 
The U.S. commitment to sustainable development in Africa
remains firm.  But in today's climate, we cannot afford
to waste our limited resources on superficial or short-
sighted solutions.  If current strategies are judged
inadequate or unsustainable, we must be prepared to
adjust our programs, revise our projects, and try new
approaches.  Our assistance programs will need to be
closely coordinated and, in some instances, combined with
those of other donors and multilateral institutions, such
as the World Bank and the African Development Bank.
 
Sixth, we recognize that the environmental and other
global problems facing Africa are remarkably complex.  We
accept that the State Department does not have all the
information, the expertise, or all the answers.  There
are, obviously, many in the academic and non-governmental
organization communities who know a great deal more about
particular African environmental matters than we do.  We
need to develop better ways of reaching out to them and
to you--to bring your thinking into our policy
formulation.  We see in that policy formulation a new
emphasis on partnership.  We expect the U.S. Govern
ment's role to be facilitative--one that helps establish
a broad framework for environmental action and brings
together different elements and organizations--
governmental and non-governmental, public and private,
African and international.
 
Let me close by making clear my conviction that in an age
of diminishing resources, diplomacy often will need to be
more public.  Help from many sectors of society will be
needed to solve the problems which face us in Africa and
the world.  In that spirit, I hope that we at the State
Department can have a new, expanded relationship--a new
partnership--with you in the academic community, and
especially with you the members of the African Studies
Association as we continue our efforts to help Africans
conserve their ecological heritage while improving their
standard of living.  (###)
 
 
 
ARTICLE 4:
 
Overview of U.S. Policy Toward Iraq
Ronald Neumann, Director, Office of Northern Gulf Affairs
Address at the Meridian International Center, Washington,
DC, January 27, 1994
 
In the Washington tradition of executive summaries, for
those who would like to skip the text or doze through the
speech, let me lay out the main points I would like to
make to you tonight.
 
--  The United States is determined to demand full
compliance with all relevant UN Security Council
resolutions on Iraq, including  Resolutions 687, 715,
833, and 688, all of which I will explain in a moment.
 
--  We remain committed to maintaining the measures taken
to enforce these resolutions and are prepared to face new
challenges, should Baghdad choose that course.
 
--  We support the formation of a democratic government
in Baghdad, representative of all Iraqis and able to live
in peace with its own people and its neighbors.
 
--  We support the Iraqi National Congress as a unifying
force in the opposition and as an important element in
movement toward a democratic future.
 
--  We believe a government which lives without
repression can easily comply with all UN resolutions.
 
--  We do not believe Saddam Hussein can comply with
Resolution 688 dealing with an end to repression and
remain in power.
 
--  Our relief program in northern Iraq is based on a
humanitarian policy, not a political one.  It exists
within the context of our overall Iraq policy, including
our support for the territorial integrity of Iraq.  The
relief program has averted a humanitarian crisis.
 
--  We believe that the regime in Baghdad retains the
desire to threaten its neighbors and U.S. interests.
Iraq has no apparent intention of actually giving up its
determination to re-establish its weapons of mass
destruction or of carrying out its various commitments to
the international community.
 
--  The international coalition remains united and has
every intent of continuing to enforce sanctions until
full compliance is achieved.
 
--  While extreme repression keeps Saddam Hussein in
power, conditions in Iraq have deteriorated further and
Saddam's base of support has contracted.  Nevertheless,
it is not possible to predict when Saddam might go.
 
--  U.S. policy has been and remains effective in
preserving U.S. interests and upholding international
norms.  Challenges persist, but success in forging and
maintaining an extremely broad international coalition is
something of which we can be proud.
 
Let me now take a moment to remind you of some recent
history and the somewhat arcane terms which come up
repeatedly in this discussion.  On April 3, 1991, at the
end of the Gulf War, the UN Security Council adopted its
famous "cease-fire resolution," numbered 687, which
established a cease-fire on the basis of Iraq's
acceptance of conditions deemed essential to the
restoration of peace and stability in the area.  This
resolution required Iraq to give up its weapons of mass
destruction, return Kuwaiti property, account for
detainees, and renounce terrorism, as well as accept the
UN demarcation of the Iraq-Kuwait border.  It also set up
UNIKOM--a UN peace-keeping force on the border.
 
Shortly after Resolution 687 was passed, a surge of
repression led to the passage of Resolution 688,
demanding an end to Iraqi repression and cooperation with
humanitarian efforts.  Under this resolution, we also led
in setting up Operation Provide Comfort to extend
protection in northern Iraq.  Various other resolutions
have built on these resolutions.  Of these, two of the
most significant are UNSCR 715, which spelled out in
detail 687's demand for long-term monitoring of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction, and Resolution 833, which
reaffirmed the finality and inviolability of the boundary
as demarcated by the UN Boundary Demarcation Commission,
as well as the Security Council's guarantee of that
border.
 
Against that background, I would like to elaborate on the
points I made in the summary.
 
U.S. Policy
Our policy has remained consistent and firm from the
beginning of the Administration.  We continue to demand
full compliance of Iraq with all the relevant UN Security
Council resolutions, the most important of which I have
just mentioned.
 
Our resolve is firm to maintain the measures enacted to
enforce these resolutions, which include:
 
 
--  UN economic sanctions against Iraq;
 
--  A multinational interdiction force to police the
sanctions regime at sea;
 
--  No-fly zones over portions of northern and southern
Iraq; and
 
--  Multinational protection of the security zone in
northern Iraq.
 
We retain adequate forces in the region to carry out
these missions, assisted by various regional states and
with the active participation of Britain, France, and, in
the case of Provide Comfort in the north, Turkish forces.
Additionally, our military training exercises with our
friends in the Gulf symbolize our commitment to Gulf
security generally and particularly to Kuwait.  The
provisions of several UN Security Council resolutions
guarantee the now-demarcated Kuwaiti border.
 
Humanitarian Relief
It is important to note that none of the measures taken
by the international community is directed against the
Iraqi people.  Food, medicine, and items for essential
civilian needs can be and are sent to Iraq.  We co-
sponsored Resolutions 706 and 712 which permit the Iraqi
Government to sell up to $1.6 billion of oil to purchase
humanitarian supplies under proper UN monitoring.  It is
unfortunate--but entirely Baghdad's responsibility--that
it has not chosen to make use of these resolutions and
has thus exposed the Iraqi people to entirely unnecessary
suffering.  In fact, Iraq has gone further and imposed a
blockade on the northern part of the country, preventing
the delivery of food, medicine, and fuel.  In Dohuk
Province, the electricity has been cut off for five
months, and only the emergency generators provided by the
U.S. and the UN have averted a health crisis.
 
The point is that Saddam Hussein, not the international
community, is responsible for the plight of the Iraqi
people.  A mechanism exists for relieving the suffering
of the Iraqi people, but he continues to reject it.
Similarly, Saddam's policies, not the policies of the
coalition, are responsible for separating the north
economically from the rest of Iraq.  Saddam Hussein's
actions present the real threat to Iraq's territorial
integrity.
 
Northern Relief
With regard to northern Iraq, we did not work for the
return of over 1 million displaced people to that area
only to abandon them to the repression and murder that
characterize Saddam Hussein's previous actions.
Consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 688, we
devised a humanitarian policy for the north which exists
within, and is entirely consonant with,  our overall Iraq
policy of maintaining the territorial integrity of the
state and seeking stable conditions in the region.  It is
also consistent with promoting a more representative and
pluralistic government which could live in peace with its
own people.
 
This is not an easy task.  It requires that relief policy
not come into conflict with or weaken international sanc-
tions.  It requires fairness to Kurds, Turkomen, and
Assyrians.  It requires coordination with local
authorities on issues such as security, while steadily
avoiding any suggestion that we would support any
territorial division.  And it requires a sizable
international relief effort to defeat Baghdad's economic
pressure on Iraq's northern population.  Our efforts make
clear that there is survival outside the grasp of Saddam
Hussein.  With a great deal of regional and international
cooperation, we are succeeding in meeting these goals.  I
wish to commend, in particular, the action of the Turkish
Parliament last month in again renewing the mandate of
Operation Provide Comfort, whose presence is so
essential.
 
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Concerning weapons of mass destruction, we see no sign
that Iraq has given up its determination to preserve its
weapons of mass destruction capability through
concealment and pretended cooperation.  This is why we
insist that compliance with weapons provisions be
thorough and long-term.  The long-term monitoring plan of
the UN Special Commission, known as UNSCOM, will need to
be extensive and intrusive to be sure that there are no
protected sanctuaries in which Iraq can begin rebuilding
its nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons capabilities
or its long-range missiles.  We believe UNSCOM plans will
meet this test.  It is also important that there be a
substantial testing period in which the plans are in
operation in Iraq.  Given Saddam Hussein's record of
broken promises, the United Nations must seek complete,
sustainable, and verifiable compliance before judging
Iraqi intentions.  Until these tests are met, we will not
regard Iraq as being in compliance with the weapons
provisions of Resolutions 687 and 715; UNSCOM chairman
Ekeus has agreed.  Until Iraq is in compliance, it is
premature to talk about when or how the export sanctions
portion of the resolution might be lifted.
 
The international coalition, which is composed of nations
with diverse interests and policies, remains firm in its
determination to prevent Iraq's reacquisition of nuclear
weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and long-
range ballistic missiles.  Sanctions were continued
without dissent at the Security Council meeting on
January 18.  I believe this will continue to be the case
so long as Iraq is not in compliance.
 
While Iraq is making a concerted effort to pretend that
it is complying in the weapons field, Baghdad is not even
making a pretense of compliance with the other
commitments it made when it accepted Resolution 687.
Iraqi statements continue to make claim to Kuwait.  This
certainly calls into question Iraq's willingness to
recognize Kuwait's sovereignty, let alone its borders.
Iraq has long ceased to attend meetings of the
International Red Cross to discuss Kuwaitis missing since
the occupation, and declines to provide any information
on the fate of these people.
 
Iraq's continuing repression of its own people throughout
the country is too well known to require extensive
discussion here.  The destruction of the southern marshes
through drainage, burning, razing, and military action
has been well documented.  It is a clear violation of
Resolution 688.  We condemn it as we condemn the ongoing
executions, torture, and imprisonment which have become a
daily fact of existence for the Iraqi people.
 
Looking to the Future
We do hold out a vision for the future.  We would like to
see a pluralistic and representative government in
Baghdad which can govern the entire Iraqi nation, within
its current borders, while living in essential peace with
its own people.  We recognize that this is a difficult
goal.  Iraq contains many national and ethnic communities
which have rarely lived harmoniously with each other for
long.  Currently, Saddam Hussein himself is driving deep
divisions among the Iraqi people in order that the fear
of one community for another may help to keep him in
power.
 
We know this difficult history.  The present is at least
as difficult.  It is for that reason that we recognize
that the form and nature of a future Iraqi Government is
going to have to be determined by the Iraqi people.  They
will have to find the basic means to live together
without butchery in a post-Saddam Iraq.  We cannot
dictate the means or the form of this solution.
 
We can encourage positive trends.  This is one reason for
our continued support for the opposition Iraq National
Congress.  We see, in the INC's survival after two years,
hope that Iraqi opposition figures of diverse pasts can
work together for the first time in many years and can
continue to hold together in adversity.  We do not
exaggerate their strength; neither should others
exaggerate their weakness.  We will continue a policy of
strong support for the INC and urge others to do
likewise.
 
Beyond the issue of Iraq's internal governance, we look
to the day when Iraq is reintegrated into the
international community, bearing both the rights and
responsibilities that legitimate governments possess.
Iraq is an important country in the area of the Gulf, in
the broader Middle East, and, indeed, in the
international arena.  It is a country blessed with
natural resources and a talented, creative people who
deserve to be a positive part of international society
under better leadership than they now possess.
 
Current Status of Iraq
Inside Iraq, there is a steady decline in conditions.
Inflation has spiraled to 250% of pre-war levels.
Unemployment is rife.  Iraq's living standards are at
about half the pre-war level.  This is not only a
function of the external embargo, but of Saddam's
economic mismanagement and social brutality.  His recall
of the 25-dinar note substantially fueled inflation.  His
execution of merchants terrified businessmen and drove
more goods from the market.  The middle class is under
increasing pressure.  These economic trends show no sign
of abating.
 
Reconstruction has made some progress, drawing on the
energies of a creative people and large stockpiles of
parts.  Many bridges have been reconstructed, and
electricity production is close to pre-war levels.
However, this has been achieved largely with resources in
place and by cannibalization.  Improvements are heavily
concentrated in the Baghdad area and thus misrepresent
for visitors the extent of reconstruction in the country
as a whole.  Spare parts are a continuing problem.
Tires, to take one example, are acquiring patches on the
patches.  In this situation, there is always a danger of
something new breaking down.
 
In security terms, the base of regime support continues
to contract.  Two years ago, we heard about low morale in
the army and coup attempts there.  These developments
were followed by problems inside the Republican Guard,
then by widespread arrests among the Jaburis, a major
Sunni tribe of central Iraq and one of the traditional
sources of personnel for the Guard and security services.
In the summer there were fresh arrests, followed by
executions--this time within the Tikriti family itself--
which will generate new blood feuds.
 
Nevertheless, Saddam Hussein clings to power--willing to
sacrifice anything and anyone to keep it.  It is not
possible to predict how long he will go on or the
circumstances under which he might fall.  It is possible
to say that the United States stands ready to cooperate
with a successor government in Iraq which will comply
with relevant UN resolutions and live in peace with its
people and its neighbors.  With a government based on
these principles, we believe agreements could be reached
rapidly to resolve issues and lighten the burdens of the
Iraqi people.
 
Conclusion
To sum up, the overall situation remains difficult.
However, we have achieved considerable success.
 
--  Vast arsenals of chemical weapons and missiles have
been destroyed.
 
--  Most of the Iraqi nuclear program, which was
dangerously close to manufacture of weapons, has been
destroyed.
 
--  Iraq will not be able to reconstitute its destructive
weapons so long
as UNSCOM enjoys an unrestricted ability to carry out its
mandate--a mandate which includes indefinite
international supervision.
 
--  Kuwait is free and its border has been demarcated,
internationally recognized, and guaranteed by the
Security Council.
 
--  The people we helped resettle in northern Iraq remain
generally secure.
 
--  The regional coalition, which enables us to operate
and to contain Iraq, remains intact.
 
--  The international coalition in the Security Council
remains a strong force for demanding Iraqi compliance
with UN resolutions.
 
--  Most importantly, the threats Iraq poses to its
neighbors and our interests continue to be contained.
 
These things did not just happen, nor do they continue to
happen on their own.  They are the result of determined
efforts, including the operations of those on the land,
sea, and air who enforce the no-fly zones and economic
sanctions.  Our sustained diplomatic work in the United
Nations and in close cooperation with major allies
underpins the cohesion of this policy.  Many states and
international agencies are involved.  But I can say
without hesitation that we are the leaders in the effort,
and without strong U.S. leadership it could not have held
together.
 
I submit to you that this is a significant success for
U.S. policy to date.  We have preserved our interests and
our regional friendships.  We have done it at reasonable
cost, for a sustained period, and within a bipartisan
political consensus that is the basis for a strong
policy.  The story is not over.  Our efforts will
continue.  But I believe that the need to persist must
not detract from the very considerable success we have
had to date.  (###)
 
 
 
ARTICLE 5:
 
Department Statements
 
Crisis in Zaire
Statement by Department Spokesman Michael McCurry,
Washington, DC, January 26, 1994.
 
Representatives of the United States, France, and Belgium
met on January 24 in Paris to discuss Zaire.  They
expressed great concern over the continued deterioration
of the social and economic situation in Zaire--a crisis
accentuated by the "economic reform" measures taken in
October 1993.
 
Zaire's grave financial crisis--marked by a paralysis of
the commercial banking system, hyperinflation, nonpayment
of civil servants, and a precipitous decline in the
exchange rate--has been accompanied by severe disruptions
of the country's social systems and the increasing
impoverishment of the Zairian people.
 
The current conditions in Zaire have serious consequences
for the country's population and also present a threat to
the stability of neighboring states.  It is urgent that a
solution be found to Zaire's long-standing political
crisis.  The United States, Belgium, and France view
favorably recent efforts to implement the protocol of
agreement on the institutions governing the transition in
Zaire.  We note with satisfaction that the High Council
of the Republic has decided to enlarge and to constitute
itself as the legislative body of the transition,
continuing the process begun by the Sovereign National
Conference.
 
In this context, the United States, Belgium, and France
support the efforts of Archbishop Monsengwo to end the
duplication of institutions in Zaire.  We also support
his attempts to find a solution to the crisis ,which is
in accord with the protocol of agreement on the
institutions of the transition.
 
We stress that, as has been agreed by all parties in
Zaire, the Prime Minister of the transitional government
must come from the opposition.  The United States,
Belgium, and France ask that the political forces in
Zaire cooperate to establish a government of national
unity without further delay.
 
 
U.S.-Ukraine Bilateral Economic Talks
Statement released by the Office of the Department
Spokesman, Washington, DC, January 31, 1994.
 
On January 24-30, 1994, a high-level delegation headed by
Ukrainian Minister of Economy, Roman Shpek, visited the
United States.  The delegation followed up on the meeting
between President Kravchuk and President Clinton in Kiev
on January 12, 1994, and their intention to move the
focus of our relationship from nuclear weapons issues to
the development of comprehensive economic cooperation.
 
The Ukrainian delegation met with senior officials at the
White House; Departments of State, Treasury, Defense,
Commerce, Energy, Agriculture; the Office of the U.S.
Trade Representative; and other agencies of the U.S.
Government, including the Agency for International
Development, Federal Reserve Bank, the Export-Import
Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the
Council of Economic Advisors, and the Trade Development
Agency.  On January 27, the delegation met with leaders
of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives and with
the American business community.
 
The Ukrainian delegation informed U.S. officials of the
steps being taken to address Ukraine's economic problems
and of the commitment at the highest levels of the
Ukrainian Government to proceed with market-oriented
reforms.  The U.S. side noted with concern Ukraine's
serious economic situation and welcomed actions by the
Ukrainian authorities to overcome the economic crisis
through efforts to curb inflation and to liberalize and
stabilize the economy.  The U.S. expressed its readiness
to render to Ukraine, urgently, the assistance discussed
in this paper.
 
A major focus of the delegation's meetings was to expand
bilateral economic and commercial cooperation.  Both
sides agreed on a number of governmental initiatives to
promote trade, including the extension of GSP to Ukraine,
U.S. support--including technical assistance--for
Ukraine's eventual admission to the GATT, and U.S.
assistance in creating a national export control regime
in Ukraine.  The two sides also completed negotiations on
a treaty for the avoidance of double taxation and
continued negotiations on a treaty on bilateral
investment.
 
Both sides will focus on mutually agreed priority sectors
to promote direct investment and on steps to increase the
access of each to the other's markets and to integrate
Ukraine into the international economic system.  They
welcomed the stepped-up commercial promotion activities
of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service and the
Ukraine Trade Representative, the formation of U.S.-
Ukraine Business Council, and the activities of the
Special American Business Intern Training Program (SABIT)
and the Business Information Center for the Newly
Independent States (BISNIS).  The two sides agreed to
establish a Joint Commission on Trade and Investment, and
they developed terms of reference for this commission,
which will be signed in March 1994.  As a priority, the
commission will draft an action plan for promotion of
commercial relations between the two countries.
 
The U.S. side welcomed Ukraine's commitment to the
enforcement of UN sanctions against Serbia/Montenegro and
noted the cost these sanctions impose on the Ukrainian
economy.  The U.S. has taken the lead in organizing a
conference of CSCE states and international organizations
in Vienna on January 31-February 1, 1994, to review the
hardships these sanctions impose on front-line states,
such as Ukraine, and to draw international support to
help these countries cope with the sanctions.
 
Both sides agreed to cooperate on a bilateral basis and
to explore cooperation within the framework of existing
multilateral institutions in the field of outer space.
They agreed to hold a meeting of experts in February to
consider specific issues and projects in this area.
 
The United States places the highest priority on the
success of democratic and market-oriented reform in
Ukraine.  Taking into account that Ukraine plays a
stabilizing role in the region, its economic and
political security is of critical importance to the
United States and to Europe.  The U.S. presented its
plans for substantially expanded support to Ukraine in
1994.  This will include, inter alia, increased technical
assistance and additional OPIC financing and guarantees
in support of American investment in Ukraine, as well as
increased emergency humanitarian assistance to ease the
social consequences of transition.  The United States
provides this assistance in support of Ukrainian reform,
and for this assistance to continue and be effective,
reform must proceed.
 
The U.S. side will increase funding for the safe and
secure dismantlement of strategic nuclear arms as well as
conventional weapons destruction.  Recognizing that the
safe and secure dismantlement of Ukrainian strategic
nuclear arms, to which President Kravchuk agreed,
enhances the security of the United States and the entire
world, the U.S. urges, and will continue to urge, other
states to provide financial and technical assistance to
support such efforts.
 
Both sides recognized that defense conversion is a
priority for the successful transition of the Ukrainian
economy.  The Ukrainian delegation discussed this subject
at the U.S. Department of Defense.  The two sides agreed
to hold the first session of a U.S.-Ukraine Committee on
the Conversion of Defense Industry in Kiev in March.  The
committee will discuss defense conversion projects,
including the issues related to providing financing for
housing and retraining of servicemen released in
connection with disarmament and demobilization.
 
As a result of negotiations held at the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, both sides agreed to expand cooperation
and the U.S. side agreed to provide technical assistance
and financial assistance--specifically, concessional
credits--in the field of agriculture.  A delegation from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture will visit Ukraine in
February 1994 to consider practical ways of rendering
such technical and financial assistance.
 
The Ukrainian delegation met with representatives of the
IMF and the IBRD to discuss the role these institutions
can play in providing resources in support of Ukraine's
transition to a market economy.  The U.S. is prepared to
work with its G-7 partners and with the international
financial institutions to urgently mobilize additional
assistance in support of a comprehensive reform program
worked out between Ukraine and the IMF.  The U.S.
expressed concern over Ukraine's difficult energy
situation and its readiness to work with Ukraine on a
bilateral and multilateral basis to help it adjust to
increased energy costs as part of a broader reform
program.
 
The Ukrainian delegation also prepared the groundwork for
President Kravchuk's visit to Washington, now scheduled
for March 1994.  The visit will be an opportunity to
consider a bilateral Charter of American-Ukrainian
Partnership, Friendship and Cooperation--which will
reaffirm our commitment to the independence, sovereignty,
and territorial integrity of each nation--as well as a
number of other important bilateral agreements, including
treaties on bilateral investment and the avoidance of
double taxation.  (###)
 
END OF DISPATCH VOL. 5, NO. 6

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