U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 5, NO. 17, APRIL 25, 1994
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
 
ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:
 
1.  Renewing the Momentum Toward Peace in Bosnia -- President Clinton, Letter
to Congress, Anthony Lake
2.  The U.S. and Israel:  Partners, Allies, and Friends -- Secretary
Christopher
3.  Indonesia and the United States:  Building A New Pacific Community --
Thomas C. Hubbard
4.  Feature:  Doing Business in Central and Eastern Europe--A Resource Guide
 
 
 
ARTICLE 1
 
Renewing the Momentum Toward Peace in Bosnia
President Clinton, Letter to Congress, Anthony Lake
 
President Clinton
Opening statement at a news conference, Washington, DC, April 20, 1994.
 
Over the last several days, the situation in Gorazde has become increasingly
grim.  The Serb forces have broken their own truce agreements and persisted
in brutal attacks on civilians, UN personnel, and NATO forces protecting
those personnel.  These events are clearly a setback for the momentum
achieved in recent months.  The NATO ultimatum brought a reprieve to
Sarajevo, humanitarian routes were re-opened, and agreements between Muslims
and Croats changed the balance of power on the ground and offered new
diplomatic opportunity.
 
There are reports that the Serbs have released more UN personnel and returned
heavy weapons seized from UN control near Sarajevo--and they are welcome.
But the imperative now is not only to address the latest Serb transgressions:
it is to renew the momentum toward peace.
 
Let me be clear about our objective. Working with our allies--the Russians
and others--we must help the warring parties in Bosnia to reach a negotiated
settlement.  To do that, we must make the Serbs pay a higher price for
continued violence so it will be in their own interests, more clearly, to
return to the negotiating table.  That is, after all, why we pushed for
NATO's efforts to enforce a no-fly zone and the Sarajevo ultimatum, and to
provide close air support for UN forces who come under attack.
 
In pursuit of that policy, we must take further action.  Therefore, the
United States has today undertaken the following initiatives:
 
First, we are proposing to our NATO allies that we extend the approach used
around Sarajevo to other safe areas, where any violations would be grounds
for NATO attacks.  I have insisted that NATO commit itself to achievable
objectives.  NATO's air power alone cannot prevent further Serb aggressions
or advances, nor silence every gun.  Any military expert will tell you that.
But it can deny the Serbs the opportunity to shell safe areas with impunity.
 
Second, we will work with others to pursue tighter sanctions through stricter
enforcements.  The existing sanctions on Serbia have crippled Serbia's
economy.  In light of recent events, there must be no relief.
 
Third, we are taking other steps to relieve suffering and support the peace
process.  We are offering the United Nations assistance in addressing the
humanitarian crisis that is now severe in Gorazde.  And we expect the
Security Council to take up a resolution authorizing additional UN peace-
keepers, which we will support.
 
These steps support our intensive work, along with others, to secure a
negotiated settlement.
 
I have just spoken at some length with President Yeltsin, as well as with
President Mitterrand.  I spoke earlier today with Prime Minister Chretien.  I
have not yet spoken with Chancellor Kohl or Prime Minister Major today.I have
attempted to do so, but I have spoken with them in the last couple of days
about this important issue. President Yeltsin and I agreed to work closely
together to pursue peace in Bosnia.  President Mitterrand expressed his
agreement with the general approach.
 
I was very encouraged by President Yeltsin's statement yesterday, calling on
the Serbs to honor their commitments, insisting that they withdraw from
Gorazde, that they resume talks, and that they permit UN personnel to return
to Gorazde.
 
I think you can look forward to a major diplomatic initiative coming out of
our common efforts, but I cannot discuss the details at this moment because
we have agreed, all of us, that our foreign ministers need to talk and flesh
out the details before we say exactly what approach we will take.  The
telephone conversations themselves were an insufficient basis for the kind of
specific detailed approach that I think would be required.In any case, it is
clear that our test of Serb intent must be their actions, not their words.
Those words have often proved empty.
 
Let me reiterate what I have often said before:  The United States has
interests at stake in Bosnia--an interest in helping to stop the slaughter of
innocents; an interest in helping to prevent a wider war in Europe; an
interest in maintaining NATO as a credible force for peace in the post-Cold
War era; and an interest in helping to stem the flow of refugees.  These
interests justify continued American leadership and require us to maintain a
steady purpose, knowing that there will be difficulties and setbacks and
that, in this world where we have a set of cooperative arrangements not only
with NATO but with the United Nations, there will often be delays that would
not be there were we acting alone or in a context in which our security were
more immediately threatened.
 
Ultimately, this conflict still must be settled by the parties themselves.
They must choose peace.  The agreement between the Croatians and the Muslims
was a very important first step, but there is so much more to be done.  By
taking firm action consistent with our interests, the United States and our
NATO allies can, and must, attempt to influence that choice.
 
Letter to Congress
Text of a letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, April 12, 1994.
 
Dear Mr. Speaker:
(Dear Mr. President:)
 
One year ago, I provided you with my initial report on the deployment of U.S.
combat-equipped aircraft to support the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's
(NATO) enforcement of the no-fly zone in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  I provided you
with follow-on reports on October 13, 1993, February 17, 1994, and March 1,
1994.  I am reporting today on the use of U.S. combat-equipped aircraft on
April 10-11 to provide protection for U.N. personnel who came under attack in
Gorazde, Bosnia-Herzegovina.
 
Since the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 713 on
September 25, 1991, the United Nations has actively sought solutions to the
conflict in the former Yugoslavia.  Under Security Council Resolution 824
(May 6, 1993), certain parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina have been established as
"safe areas."  Gorazde is specifically included as a location that should be
treated as a safe area "by all the parties concerned and should be free from
armed attacks and from any other hostile acts."  In addition, Security
Council Resolutions 836 and 844 (June 4 and 18, 1993) authorize Member
States, acting nationally or through regional organizations, to use air power
in the safe areas to help protect the United Nations Protection Forces
(UNPROFOR).
 
Recent heavy weapons (tank and artillery) fire in the Gorazde area has
resulted in a serious threat to the citizens remaining in Gorazde and to
UNPROFOR and U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) personnel operating
there.  On April 10, the city was subjected to sustained Bosnian-Serb tank
and artillery fire.  The UNPROFOR and UNHCR personnel in Gorazde were placed
in great danger.  Based on the threat to UNPROFOR, as reported by U.N.
observers in the city, the UNPROFOR commander requested the U.N. Special
Representative for Bosnia-Herzegovina to authorize close air support (CAS)
strikes on the Bosnian-Serb firing positions.  The U.N. Special
Representative approved the request.  Consistent with approved procedures and
rules of engagement, two U.S. aircraft from NATO Allied Force Southern Europe
(AFSOUTH) engaged Bosnian-Serb targets after receiving targeting orders from
the Commander in Chief, AFSOUTH.
 
On April 11, 1994, U.N. personnel in Gorazde requested NATO air support after
again coming under attack by Bosnian-Serb gunners.  United States F/A-18
aircraft from AFSOUTH were successful in neutralizing Bosnian-Serb targets
that had been firing on the city.  There were no NATO or U.N. casualties as a
result of the operations on April 10 and 11, 1994.
 
It is my hope that the clear resolve of the United Nations and NATO as shown
by these actions will encourage the parties to the conflict in the former
Yugoslavia to respect the decisions of the Security Council concerning the
protection of U.N. personnel and of the declared safe areas.  United States
forces will continue to serve as part of this important NATO enforcement
effort and will remain prepared to respond to U.N. and NATO requests for
further action against those who violate these decisions.
 
These actions are being taken in Bosnia-Herzegovina in conjunction with our
allies to implement the decision of the Security Council and the North
Atlantic Council and to assist the parties to reach a negotiated settlement
to the conflict.  It is not now possible to determine the duration of this
operation.  I have directed the participation of U.S. Armed Forces in this
effort pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign
relations and as Commander in Chief.
 
I am providing this report as part of my effort to keep the Congress fully
informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution.  I remain grateful for
the continuing support the Congress has provided and I look forward to
continued cooperation with you in this endeavor.  I shall communicate with
you further regarding our efforts for peace and stability in the former
Yugoslavia.
 
Sincerely,
William J. Clinton
 
Anthony Lake
 
Address by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs at
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, April 7, 1994.
 
It is an honor to be here at Johns Hopkins.  Over the last year, I have met
with students from around the country with a simple message:  We need your
generation to be engaged, to care about the wider world, to get involved in
the shaping of our foreign policy, for this is a time when American
leadership in the world is more important than ever.
 
Today, on a campus that has given so many leaders to the nation, I renew that
appeal for your involvement.  I want to talk in particular about the conflict
in the former Yugoslavia and about America's interests in helping to resolve
it.
 
For almost three years, the nations of this region have been ravaged by war.
Few conflicts in our memory have produced such terrible carnage.  We all have
seen the images of blood-stained markets and civilians cut down by snipers.
We have all been moved by the horrific accounts of mass rape, concentration
camps, and ethnic cleansing.  The challenge for all of us is to harness that
outrage to clear analysis and firm action.
 
The fighting in Bosnia is part of a larger story of change and conflict in
this era.  In Europe and around the globe, the end of the Cold War has
liberated millions and created new opportunities for greater security.  But
it has also lifted the lid from a cauldron of nationalist hatreds.
 
Nowhere have the consequences been more tragic than in the former Yugoslavia.
There, nationalist and religious tensions, inflamed by Serbian aggression,
have resulted in brutal fighting and the massive displacement of civilians.
 
Over 115,000 people have lost their lives in this war.  Several million more
have been forced to flee their homes.  But there is no way to calculate the
hopes destroyed, the bright young lives extinguished, the slow and terrible
erosion of basic decency and human civility that this war has caused.
 
If there is one thing this century teaches us, it is that America cannot
afford to ignore conflicts in Europe. This 50th anniversary year of D-Day
reminds us that our nation's security remains bound up with the security and
peace of Europe.  And in this era, our task is not only to maintain necessary
balances of power, as we must, but also to deal with a world in which most
conflicts are internal.
 
As the President has so often said, the United States has distinct interests
at stake in the Bosnian conflict.  First of all, we have an interest in
helping to prevent the spread of a wider war that could involve our allies
and threaten the stability of newly democratic states in Central and Eastern
Europe.  There is no region where the success of democratic and market reform
today is more important.  By engaging in efforts to resolve the war in
Bosnia, we help buttress the historic reforms under-way in neighboring
nations such as Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania--nations whose security is
important to our own.
 
We have other interests at stake in Bosnia as well.  We have an interest in
showing that NATO--history's greatest military alliance--remains a credible
force for peace in this era.  We have an interest in helping to stem the
destabilizing flood of refugees throughout all of Europe.  And we have a
humanitarian interest in helping to stop the continuing slaughter of
innocents.
 
While these interests do not justify unilateral American intervention, they
do justify strong American involvement and the exercise of our leadership.
That is why candidate Clinton urged the U.S. to be more actively engaged.
That is why, under President Clinton, we have taken an active part in efforts
to bring this conflict to an end.  And that is why the President has made
clear that if the parties can reach a viable, enforceable peace settlement,
the U.S. is prepared to deploy troops through NATO to help implement it.
 
If we are to contemplate the deployment of our forces to help implement a
settlement, we have to be as clear about the origins and nature of that
tangled conflict as we have been about our interests there.  Let me give a
brief overview.
 
When a half-century of communist rule ended in Yugoslavia in 1991, the
Balkans once again began to fracture.  Nationalism again caught fire among
Yugoslavia's Serbs.  The Serb-dominated federal army and Serb irregular
forces, under the leadership of demagogues, stoked the flames of war as
several republics of the country--Slovenia, Bosnia, and Croatia--sought
independence.
 
In June 1991, the first fighting broke out when Slovenia and Croatia declared
independence.  The federal army withdrew from Slovenia after several months,
implicitly recognizing that state's independence.  In Croatia, after many
more months of fighting--and thanks to the diplomacy of Cyrus Vance and
others--Serb and Croat leaders agreed to a cease-fire and the deployment of
UN peace-keepers.  The situation in Croatia has by no means yet been
resolved, but it has improved.
 
In Bosnia, however, the bloodshed continues.  Bosnia was once a state where
Croats, Serbs, and Muslims lived side by side in peace.  Sarajevo, its
capital, hosted the Olympics only a decade ago and was a monument to
tolerance and brotherhood.  But when Bosnia voted for independence in
February 1992, the Serbs reacted violently.  Some feared their minority
status, despite Bosnia's status as a multiethnic democracy.  Others in Bosnia
and Serbia saw a chance to advance their dream of a "greater Serbia."  The
result was to plunge Bosnia into a dark night of terror.
 
Throughout the spring and summer of 1992, the European Community and the
United Nations worked without success for a diplomatic solution.  One cease-
fire after another collapsed.  Throughout that period, the international
community grew more outraged at the brutal sieges and ethnic cleansing
engineered by the Serbs.  Haunting images of emaciated Muslim prisoners tore
at our consciences.  And the specter of unchecked Serb aggression in other
parts of the Balkans threatened our interests.  By October 1992, the Serbs
had seized close to 70% of Bosnia.  It was during this early period, when
preventive action might have had the best chance to be effective, that  Bill
Clinton called for a more forceful response from the West.
 
Since taking office, President Clinton has pursued several efforts to help
bring a peaceful end to the conflict.  Have we made all the progress we would
have wished during the past year?  No.  Have we made a difference?  I believe
we have.
 
First, the Administration has worked to relieve the suffering of the people
of Bosnia.  The U.S. initiated an innovative, humanitarian airdrop and
participated in an airlift--the longest in history--to help relieve the long-
besieged residents of Sarajevo.  In Operation Provide Promise, American
aircraft have worked with UN peacekeepers to fly thousands of sorties,
delivering food, fuel, medicine, and other relief supplies.
 
Second, we have worked with the UN and the European Union to increase
sanctions against Serbia and tighten enforcement.  The sanctions have
effectively shut down the flow of all but humanitarian goods.  They have
forced draconian austerity measures and driven Serbia's economy into
hyperinflation.  Industrial production has collapsed.  Shipping has ground to
a halt.  And as a result, the Serbian Government has made the lifting of
sanctions one of its highest concerns.
 
Third, we have worked to bring to justice those responsible for the slaughter
of innocents.  Last year, persistent American advocacy led to the creation of
a UN War Crimes Tribunal.  The U.S. has made significant contributions to the
funding and staffing of the tribunal, and has provided information that
should assist in the prosecution of war criminals.
 
Fourth, we have worked to prevent the spread of the conflict.  In the Kosovo
region of Serbia, Serbs have systematically repressed the human rights of the
ethnic Albania majority.  The Serbs have threatened the same kind of ethnic
cleansing they have practiced elsewhere.  For that reason, we reaffirmed a
position--indeed, a warning--set down by the previous Administration against
Serb expansion of the conflict in Kosovo.  And we have contributed several
hundred U.S. troops to a preventive peace-keeping force in the neighboring
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
 
Fifth, we have increased the level of American diplomatic engagement.  A year
ago February, President Clinton sent a negotiator to participate in peace
efforts by UN and EC mediators.  And since that time, we have rejected
attempts to pressure the Muslims of Bosnia into accepting an unjust,
unworkable settlement.
 
Sixth, we have harnessed the power of NATO in the service of diplomacy.  With
our NATO allies, we implemented enforcement of a no-fly zone over Bosnia--and
we showed the seriousness of that effort when NATO fighters downed four
Serbian fighter-bombers on February 28.  Last summer, NATO signaled its
determination to prevent the strangulation of Sarajevo and other safe areas.
NATO also agreed to provide close air support to thousands of courageous UN
peace-keepers in Bosnia.
 
On February 9 of this year, spurred by President Clinton's leadership at the
January summit, NATO issued an ultimatum.  With our NATO allies, we declared
that any heavy weapons that remained in the zone around Sarajevo or were not
placed under UN control would be subject to air strikes.
 
Russia also played a useful role in gaining Serb compliance.  Moscow's
diplomatic intervention demonstrated how the U.S. and Russia, each acting in
its clear national interests, can frequently work cooperatively toward common
ends in this era.
 
The NATO ultimatum created a new momentum, both on the ground and in our
diplomacy.  Since February, over 300 Bosnian Serb heavy weapons have been
placed under UN control.  Bosnian Government forces have also turned over
nearly 50 heavy weapons.  While there have been sporadic incidents of small
arms fire and unconfirmed reports of mortar shelling near Sarajevo, there has
been no significant renewal of fighting or shelling in Sarajevo.
 
The NATO ultimatum in Sarajevo also generated new progress at the negotiating
table.  On March 18, Bosnian and Croatian leaders came to the White House to
sign agreements to create a federation between the Muslims and Croats of
Bosnia.  This Muslim-Croatian entity will then enter into a confederation
with Croatia.
 
The agreement between the Muslims and Croats is of strategic consequence.  It
changes the power equation in the area and places greater pressure on the
Serbs to join negotiations on their future status in Bosnia and on
territorial issues.
 
We have thus reached a pivotal moment in Bosnia.  On the one hand, there is
progress in cities like Mostar, where a cease-fire has ended months of
shelling and fighting; or Tuzla, where the airfield is now being readied for
UN relief flights; or Maglaj, where for the first time in months supplies are
getting in.
 
Yet progress remains fragile.  Ethnic cleansing continues, as we have seen in
the town of Prijedor.  There continue to be Serb attacks on Muslim enclaves,
as we have seen around the town of Gorazde in recent days.  This fighting
should not surprise us--as another round of negotiations approaches, each
side has incentives to bolster its position on the ground.  But the parties
must decide whether, in pursuit of marginal advantage, they are willing to
plunge all of Bosnia back into bloodshed.
 
Where, then, do we go from here?  We must do four things.
 
First, we must make clear to Serbia and to the Serbs of Bosnia that the costs
of continued intransigence are high.  We must maintain economic sanctions.
We must be vigilant against Serb aggression in Kosovo.  We must continue to
assist areas under Serbian siege with humanitarian relief and other
appropriate steps.
 
Let me be clear:  Neither the President nor any of his senior advisers rules
out the use of NATO power to help stop attacks such as those against Gorazde.
A contingent of UN forces should soon be on its way to Gorazde.  It is
important that this happen as soon as possible.  NATO is committed to
providing close air support for such forces, if requested.  We stand by that
commitment.  And as we examine other ways to build on the progress in
Sarajevo, we must recall the central principle of our action there--that
effective diplomacy is linked to practical calculations of power.
 
Second, we must also raise the effectiveness of NATO's involvement by
improving coordination with the UN.  When UN peace-keepers request NATO close
air support--as they have twice since February--their requests should not be
subject to a protracted decision-making process.  General Shalikashvili, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has called that process "tortuous, at best."
We are working to ensure past problems are corrected.
 
Third, with our European allies and Russia, we must at the same time
intensify diplomatic efforts to engage the Serbs.  We are committed to
working with all the parties in Bosnia on remaining territorial issues.  That
process--conducted on our part by our special negotiator, Ambassador Charles
Redman--will continue to be painstaking, delicate, and very difficult.
 
Fourth, as the parties move toward a settlement, we must prepare for the
possible deployment of NATO troops, including U.S. troops, to enforce the
peace.  The President has said he intends to help implement a viable
agreement; we believe that commitment has encouraged the parties to resolve
their differences.  Active American support is essential.  But as the
President has stressed, if we are to involve our troops, it must be at the
request of the parties and the settlement they reach must be viable.
 
We have set out clear and practical conditions for American participation in
a peace-keeping mission in Bosnia.  These conditions are designed to ensure
an effective operation with achievable objectives.  We are working in NATO to
refine a plan that General Shalikashvili and our other military leaders are
confident will work.  And we are working with Members of Congress from both
parties to help build broad public support.  The President has already met
with bipartisan congressional leaders several times on developments in
Bosnia.
 
As we prepare for the possibility of a U.S. deployment to Bosnia, we can gain
some insights from the mission our troops just completed with great skill in
Somalia.  In Bosnia, as in Somalia, we can help create the opportunity for
peace, but the responsibility for peace lies with the people who are at war.
By specifying an end date to our involvement in Somalia, we gave impetus to
the warring parties to work to reach new solutions.  By the same token, we
can spur the peace process in Bosnia by making clear our mission will not be
open-ended.
 
We also must define our mission clearly, early, and often.  When our forces
in Mogadishu suffered casualties last October, public confusion surfaced
about our objectives in Somalia.  The President spoke to the nation within
days to clarify our objectives and mission, but in all candor, we could have
done that much earlier.  In the case of Bosnia, the President has specified
our interests and goals consistently.  We will step up that effort if the
deployment of our forces becomes more likely.
 
A final lesson is that we must bring our forces to bear in sufficient mass to
get the job done.  If our forces are deployed to Bosnia, they will go in
strong.  They will be part of a NATO force, not  a UN force.  They will
establish a commanding  presence with the numbers, equipment, and robust
rules of engagement they need to defend themselves and accomplish their
mission.
 
In the weeks and months ahead, Bosnia is likely to remain prominently in the
headlines.  As the public turns more of its attention to this conflict, let
us remember where Bosnia stands on the scale of threats to our security in
this era.
 
Direct threats to our nation or our people require us to be prepared for a
unilateral military response; Iraq's attempted assassination of President
Bush fell into this category, and we did not hesitate to respond on our own.
A second category of threats justifies only a limited use of force, and
generally under international auspices.  Peace-keeping would fall under this
category.  A third category may require our strong diplomatic engagement but
not the deployment of our forces.
 
In this rough typology, Bosnia fits in the second category:  The interests at
stake warrant U.S. leadership and, at different stages and in differing ways,
the use of American force in tandem with others.  We have looked to Europe to
bear many aspects of the burden of solving this crisis, because it is Europe
that is most directly affected.  But Europe--and, indeed, the entire world--
looks to America for resolute leadership commensurate with our interests.
Imagine what the situation in Bosnia--and, indeed, the whole region--would be
if we had not provided the leadership that has made possible the gains of
recent weeks.
 
When the President traveled across the Atlantic in January, he set forth a
vision for Europe, based not on the kind of division Europe has known for
decades but on greater integration.  That vision--of democracy, market
economics, and security cooperation--reflects our deepest values and most
basic interests.
 
The war in Bosnia today presents a clear challenge--to Europe's stability, to
NATO's credibility, and to our very vision of a post-Cold War Europe.  In
Bosnia, as in so many of the conflicts that have erupted in this age, each
generation is accumulating blood debts to be paid by the next.  Children are
taught nothing but habits of hatred among religions, races, and clans.
 
What America does to help resolve the conflict in Bosnia will help shape the
kind of world your generation inherits.  That is why we have worked hard to
bring a peaceful end to the conflict, to help Bosnia break its cycle of
violence and vengeance, of bloodshed and blood debts.
 
That is why I close today with the same appeal I opened with--an appeal for
you, the men and women who will lead this nation into the 21st century, to
take an active interest and to play an active part in shaping America's vital
engagement in this new era.  (###)
 
 
 
ARTICLE 2
 
The U.S. and Israel:  Partners,Allies, and Friends
Secretary Christopher
Remarks on the occasion of Israeli Independence Day, Washington, DC, April
14, 1994
 
I am honored and delighted to be here this evening to help you celebrate the
46th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel.  Above all, I feel a
real sense of pride   in being associated and identified with this occasion.
Israel is an extraordinary place and Israelis are extraordinary people.
 
You are a nation of doers; and what you have done and accomplished over the
past four decades--in the face of extraordinary adversity--is a testament to
your special qualities.  You have succeeded in building a remarkable
democracy, absorbed Jews from all over the world, and become a world leader
in high technology.  And you have managed to achieve all of this while
preserving your humanity and your sense of justice.  In a sense, you have
triumphed over history and defeated those forces that have sought to deny the
Jewish people security and even the semblance of a normal life.
 
Yet, there are still challenges to be overcome.  I wish I could say tonight
that Israel was fully at peace on this Independence Day, that terror had
stopped, and that Israelis could feel a real sense of security every day of
their lives.  I feel both outraged and saddened here tonight that Israel's
citizens are still exposed to the terror of extremists who want to deny
Israel that security.  No nation should have to live this way.
 
At the same time, there is a real potential for peace in a way that has never
existed before, not only with your Palestinian neighbors but with the Arab
states as well.  We will push the process of reconciliation that must succeed
if peace is to be sustained.  And we know we have a very strong and
determined partner in Israel.
 
First, Israelis want peace; in addition to your search for security, the
search for peace has been your highest national priority.  Moreover, Israelis
are courageous and determined enough to stay the course for peace; these
qualities have been among your greatest national assets.  I am convinced that
you will not allow extremists on either side to derail the negotiations, to
defeat your purpose, and to shape the future.  Prime Minister Rabin has
expressed those very sentiments recently, and we support him.
 
Finally, I want to make clear to you in unmistakable terms that the United
States will continue to stand with Israel.  For more than four decades,  the
United States has stood by Israel because it reflects our ideals and
reinforces our interests.  This country believes in you.  We believe in the
idea of Israel, and we have an unshakable commitment to your security and
well-being.
 
Working together as partners, as allies, and as friends, we will continue our
search for peace and security until we achieve our objectives--and we can
achieve them.  With sufficient political will, determination, and courage, we
will realize the kind of peace that you and your Arab and Palestinian
neighbors have so long been denied.  (###)
 
 
 
ARTICLE 3
 
Indonesia and the United States:  Building a New Pacific Community
Thomas C. Hubbard, Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific
Affairs
Address to the Asia Society, New York City, April 14, 1994
 
I am pleased to be here today to participate in this conference.  Let me
first commend the organizers--the Asia Society, the Centre for Strategic and
International Studies, and the United States-Indonesia Society, in
cooperation with the American-Indonesian Chamber of Commerce, for putting
together this excellent program.  This is only the beginning of a number of
efforts during the coming year to broaden American understanding of Indonesia
and its growing importance as a regional and international partner of the
United States.  Holding seminars in other cities, as you have planned, is an
important component of that effort.
 
New Pacific Community
Before turning directly to U.S.-Indonesia relations, I'd like to try to place
our relationship within the context of the Clinton Administration's overall
policy toward Asia.  During his trip to Japan and Korea in July 1993,
President Clinton said it was time for America   to join with others in the
Asia-Pacific region to create a New Pacific Community.  Such a new community,
he said, should be built on shared prosperity, shared strength, and a shared
commitment to democratic values.  These goals are linked.  Economic progress
spurred by trade and investment liberalization is important to stability in
the Pacific Rim.  Economic growth, rising standards of living, and
integration with the world economic system are powerful forces for democratic
change and respect for human rights.  A continued strong U.S. commitment to
the region's security helps to create the environment for economic
development, growing markets, and flourishing trade.  Each of these three
pillars is important; each reinforces the other.
 
North America, by its sheer market size, remains the world's biggest engine
for growth, but it is Asia that contains the world's fastest-growing and most
dynamic economies.  The World Bank predicts that by the year 2000, Asia--
including South Asia--will account for fully one-third of global GDP.  In
1960, that figure was 4%.  As President Clinton said in Seattle, the nations
of Asia have been transformed from "dominoes to dynamos."  Half of our total
trade is with Pacific Rim countries.  Asia is the largest single regional
market for U.S. goods and services as well as a growing destination for our
investment dollar.  U.S. trade with Asia-Pacific economies exceeded our trade
with Western Europe by more than 60% in 1993.  Our exports to Asia in 1992
supported over 2.8 million jobs in the United States.
 
The 17-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum is building on and
contributing significantly to the dramatic economic transformation of the
Asia-Pacific region.  APEC has evolved into a promising forum to promote
greater economic cooperation and trade liberalization in the region.  The
APEC economies together represent about half the world's population, about
half the world's output, and just over 40% of world trade.  APEC is not meant
to be a regional trading bloc, but rather is meant to support the GATT--as it
did by providing additional impetus at last year's Seattle meetings for the
final Uruguay Round negotiations.  And APEC trade ministers will use the
occasion of the official signing of the Uruguay Round agreement in Marrakesh,
Morocco this week as an opportunity to meet again and discuss cooperative
endeavors for the region.
 
The United States was pleased to host the APEC ministerial in Seattle last
November, as well as the first informal APEC leaders' meeting.  President
Soeharto's early support and enthusiasm for the leaders' meeting was a key
factor in its success.  With Indonesia now in the chair, we have seen an
increased enthusiasm among APEC members to move forward on those initiatives
agreed to in Seattle.  For example, in March, Secretary Bentsen hosted a
meeting of APEC    finance ministers to discuss broad economic issues, and
Canadian Deputy Prime Minister and Environment Minister Sheila Copps hosted a
meeting of environmental ministers.  APEC senior officials will meet again in
Indonesia in May to continue follow-up activities.  We look forward to
participating in the next ministerial and leaders' meetings in Indonesia this
coming November.
 
Security forms a second pillar in the New Pacific Community.  In his speech
last July in Seoul, President Clinton emphasized that the United States
intends to remain actively engaged in the Asia-Pacific region.  He outlined
four priorities for the security of the Pacific community:
 
First, a continued American military commitment to this region;
 
Second, stronger efforts to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction;
 
Third, new regional dialogues on the full range of our common security
challenges; and
 
Fourth, support for democracy and more open societies throughout this region.
 
Indonesia figures prominently in the new regional dialogues.  At the ASEAN
ministerial in Singapore in July 1993, agreement was announced establishing
an ASEAN regional forum.  This forum will supplement, but not replace, U.S.
bilateral security relationships in the region, and we believe it will
contribute to easing tensions and discouraging arms races.  In addition to
the ASEAN nations and their dialogue partners, these discussions will include
China, Russia, and Vietnam.  Ten years ago, or even five, such an array of
countries getting together to discuss security matters would have been
unthinkable, but today it is a reality.
 
The third pillar about which President Clinton spoke was support of democracy
and human rights.  The encouragement of democracy and human rights abroad has
been a central theme of U.S. foreign policy since the founding of our nation.
In an age of information and new technology, where development and
modernization depend on computers and fax machines, and televisions and
satellites, you cannot have open economic and closed political systems for
very long.  Open societies are, in turn, better able to address the frictions
that economic growth creates and to assure the continuance of prosperity.
For example, a free press roots out corruption; the rule of law encourages
and protects investments.
 
The spread of democracy is one of the best guarantees of regional peace and
prosperity and stability that we could ever have in the Asia-Pacific region.
Democracies make better neighbors--they don't wage war on each other, engage
in terrorism, or generate refugees.  The movement toward democracy is the
best guarantor of human rights.  As the Secretary of State has said, human
rights are not a Western effort.  They are a universal aspiration.
 
U.S.-Indonesia Relations
This is the overall framework we see for U.S. policy in Asia.  In this
context, let me turn more directly to the evolution of our ties with
Indonesia.  As is customary with the advent of a new administration, we have
examined our relations with a number of countries, including Indonesia.  Last
year I chaired a comprehensive interagency policy review which sought to
bring into focus the vast array of interests that bring our two countries
together.
 
It goes without saying that the United States and Indonesia have a solid and
long-standing relationship, based on a friendship which goes back to the
beginnings of the Republic of Indonesia when the U.S. supported Indonesian
independence from the Dutch at the end of World War II.  This relationship
has important political-diplomatic, human and worker rights, security,
commercial, and economic components.  We are seeking to manage the
relationship in a manner that is realistic and results-oriented, directed
toward promoting U.S. interests in all these areas.  Just as a rising tide
lifts all vessels, in our relations with Indonesia, we hope to maintain
momentum on all fronts.  Given budget realities, though, we are particularly
mindful of the need for policy coherence in managing carefully and
consistently our programs in these areas.
 
Political and Diplomatic Relations
Politically, the U.S. and Indonesia share a range of goals and objectives and
cooperate in many regional and multilateral efforts.  We see Indonesia
playing an increasingly prominent role internationally and among developing
countries.  This is demonstrated regionally by Indonesia's key role as one of
the co-chairs of the Cambodian peace process and its current efforts to use
its good offices to bring together those countries which have claimed
sovereignty over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.
 
Multilaterally, Indonesia is now just past the midpoint of its chairmanship
of the Non-Aligned Movement.  As chair, Indonesia has tried to focus the NAM
more on economic cooperation, both North-South as well as South-South
cooperation.  President Soeharto personally conveyed this message to
President Clinton when they met last July in Tokyo, just prior to the G-7
Summit.
 
Indonesia also supported the Israeli-Palestinian Agreement signed last
September.  As part of that support we were pleased that Indonesia
participated in the donors' conference held in Washington last October,
pledging financial assistance to the Palestinians.
 
Indonesia's participation in UN peace-keeping operations, including the
recent, successful operation in Cambodia, is most welcome.
 
While I don't have time to run through the entire litany of issues on today's
global agenda, I would like to mention that our interests often converge in
other areas as well, such as population and family planning matters, refugee
issues, and nuclear non-proliferation.
 
I would also note that our views sometimes differ.  This has been the case on
human rights and worker rights matters.
 
Human Rights
The United States and Indonesia share a fundamental characteristic of which
we are rightly proud--we are both multi-ethnic and multi-religious yet
secular nations.  Indonesia's great challenge has been to forge a nation from
a widely diverse environment of over 10,000 islands and 300 ethnic groups.
However, serious human rights problems continue to occur, particularly in
those regions such as East Timor, where armed insurgencies existed or
continue to exist.
 
The United States is committed to advancing human rights and democracy around
the world.  In our diplomatic contacts, we have consistently emphasized our
continued concerns over human rights problems and the importance we attach to
improvements in the human rights situation in step with Indonesia's
commendable progress in so many other areas.
 
However, I would like to emphasize today--and we think Indonesians understand
this--that when we raise these issues, we do so as a friend, and we endeavor
to work constructively with those both inside and outside the government to
encourage improvements.  As a concrete example, to this end we are devoting
some of our USAID and USIS resources to projects, including USAID programs
in East Timor, which we believe support objectives many Indonesians share.
Our overall hope is that we can roll up our sleeves and work together with
those on the ground who are trying to get something done.
 
This is also true for the related issue of worker rights in Indonesia, an
issue that received considerable publicity during the past year in connection
with a review under the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences.  The U.S. GSP
program provides duty-free entry into the United States of certain products
from developing countries which meet the criteria for inclusion in this
special program.  One of these criteria is that a country is taking steps to
respect internationally recognized worker rights.  In February, the U.S.
Government suspended the formal review of worker rights in Indonesia, noting
that we will reassess the situation in six months.  We have been pleased that
senior Indonesian officials have worked with us to address this issue and
have undertaken to follow through with promised improvements.
 
Security
 
Turning to regional security, I have already mentioned the collaborative
effort that Indonesia and the United States are engaged in with respect to
the new ASEAN Regional Forum.  On the bilateral side, we have considerable
contact and exchanges among senior military officials, an example being
CINCPAC Admiral Larson's visit to Indonesia last December.
 
As part of our security commitment in the Asia-Pacific region, the United
States is pursuing a policy of cooperative engagement.  As Admiral Larson has
often said, following withdrawal from our bases in the Philippines, our
military presence in Southeast Asia rests on places, not bases.  Access
arrangements in Southeast Asia provide greater deployment flexibility and
create a sounder base from which we can play a stabilizing security role,
based on the affirmative cooperation of a range of nations.  In Indonesia,
for example, we have an arrangement with the commercial shipyard PT Pal in
Surabaya for maintenance and repair work on U.S. Navy ships.  Last, but
certainly not least, given Indonesia's strategic location between the Pacific
and Indian Oceans, the United States has a strong national interest in
exercising internationally recognized transit rights through international
straits and archipelagic sea lanes, as well as overflight rights over these
waters.
 
Economics and Commerce
 
Finally, President Clinton spoke about shared prosperity.  With an economy
expanding by 6% or more a year, the World Bank estimates that Indonesian per
capita income is likely to reach $1,000 by the end of the decade.
Indonesia's economic development over the past 30 years is matched by few
developing countries.  Prudent macro-economic policies coupled with a program
of trade, investment, and financial deregulation have paid large dividends.
Indonesia can be proud of what it has accomplished.
 
One of Indonesia's greatest assets today is its human resources.  Unlike the
situation we see in many developing countries around the world, Indonesians
who receive training abroad return to Indonesia.  Several years ago, USAID
did a study on Indonesians it had sponsored for study and training in the
U.S.  At the time, it had sponsored about 10,000 students and it discovered
that over 99% had returned home.  That's a phenomenal statistic.    I think
it probably reflects both the strong cultural and family ties most
Indonesians have, as well as the opportunities that exist today--the
prospects for a better life.
 
The dynamic growth seen today in Indonesia presents excellent opportunities
for U.S. business, and we wish to take advantage of them to our mutual
benefit.  U.S. firms have long played a prominent role in the natural
resource sector of Indonesia, but today Indonesia is also developing a
vibrant manufacturing sector and an increasingly large middle class which
offer growing markets for U.S. goods and services.  Economic growth in
Indonesia has also meant a need for new and more sophisticated infrastructure
to support this growth.  The U.S. Commerce Department has estimated that
projected Indonesian imports for infrastructure-related projects over the
next decade should exceed $100 billion.  Major growth sectors include
aerospace, telecommunications, energy,  and transport--all sectors where U.S.
companies are leaders and increasingly competitive.
 
Many of you have heard about the big emerging markets initiative of     the
U.S. Trade Policy Coordinating Committee, chaired by the U.S. Department of
Commerce.  By big emerging markets, we mean those nations which hold so much
of the promise for the future by virtue of their enormous potential, both
industrial and demographic.  Indonesia is such a market.  With this
initiative we're trying to analyze and develop new and effective strategies
throughout the U.S. Government and the private sector to capitalize on the
increased opportunities to the benefit of both the U.S. and Indonesia.  For
example, Indonesian Minister of Transportation Haryanto is visiting the U.S.
to see first-hand what U.S. companies can do in the air transport sector.  To
reinforce further our commitment, our Ambassador to Indonesia, Bob Barry, is
accompanying the Minister throughout his U.S. trip.  Minister Haryanto's
visit in itself is part of a follow-up effort to a sector study for the
Indonesian Government financed by the U.S. Trade Development Agency.
 
We have also been pleased to see increased cooperation in the power  sector,
with the signing in February of the $2-billion plus contract for the build-
own-operate Paiton power project.  Mission Energy of California leads this
private consortium, which also includes General Electric, Batu Hitam Perkasa,
and Mitsui.  Not only does this project respond to a pressing need in
Indonesia, but it also demonstrates the Indonesian Government's commitment to
increasing the role of the private sector and its ability to respond
creatively to new challenges.
 
Conclusion
As the above suggests, we have pursued a balanced policy toward Indonesia
during the past year, trying to put both opportunities and frictions in
proper perspective.  As we approach the important APEC meeting in November--
which the President is committed to attending--I suspect Indonesia will loom
larger than ever before in the eyes of the American public.  In the economic
sphere, continued Indonesian deregulation, improved intellectual property
protection, greater privatization, and better incentives in the oil and gas
sector can all reinforce the attractiveness of business opportunities in
Indonesia.  Indonesian and American commitments made under the Uruguay Round
Agreement, which our trade ministers are signing this very week in Marrakesh,
will also contribute to shared prosperity and world economic growth.  Our
multilateral    efforts through the U.S.-ASEAN dialogue and APEC also boost
cooperation.  To reiterate what President Clinton said in Tokyo last year,
our New Pacific Community should be built on shared prosperity, shared
strength, and a shared commitment to democratic values.
 
I've never studied Bahasa Indonesian but I have studied Bahasa Malaysian,
which I understand bears    a vague resemblance.  Listening to Bahasa, I
often think the most frequently used words are sudah--which means already--
and belum--which means not yet.  Perhaps these words can aptly describe U.S.-
Indonesian relations.  We sudah--or already--have a strong and expanding
cooperative relationship.  But this relationship has belum--or not yet--
reached its full potential.  We each have a lot to offer one another, and the
first step is mutual education.  And a conference such as this is a
significant contribution to that process.  (###)
 
 
 
ARTICLE 4
 
Feature:  Doing Business in Central and Eastern Europe-- A Resource Guide
 
This resource guide is designed to assist U.S. businesses seeking market
opportunities in Central and Eastern Europe.  It was prepared by Juanita
Adams and Jim Pinkelman of the Bureau of Public Affairs in cooperation with
the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Agency for International
Development.
 
The Central and East European (CEE) governments have made significant
progress in their transition from communism to democracy; however, they
continue to face challenges in developing private sectors.  American
expertise, products, and technology can help those CEE countries with
pressing economic problems and, at the same time, create business
opportunities and jobs for the United States.
 
The CEE countries are pursuing political and economic reforms, expanding
trade and investment ties with the West, and diversifying their sources of
imports.  In the last four years, trade with the West and foreign investment
have increased dramatically.  As these governments promote private
enterprise, the number of local agents, consultants, and other service
providers has grown.
 
Experienced Western trading and consulting companies already established in
CEE countries can help U.S. companies enter the regional market.  Other
businesses use joint ventures and direct investment to market their products
and services.  Other ways to approach the market include participating in
trade fairs and licensing arrangements, advertising, hiring an agent, or
forming partnerships with experienced West European firms.
 
To promote economic growth and open markets in the CEE region, the U.S.
Government frequently deals directly with private and non-governmental
sectors in addition to host government institutions.  The United States
provides technical assistance to help train bankers and managers; draft tax,
labor, and commercial laws that will permit competition; create financial
intermediaries to assist in the privatization process; and remove government
regulation which impedes economic development.
 
The United States emphasizes the transitional nature of assistance to CEE but
recognizes that certain countries, such as Albania, may require long-term
help in institution-building.  Funding in fiscal year (FY) 1993 increased 12%
from FY 1992, a total of $400 million for 10 countries.
 
--  As in the past, democratic initiatives receive about 7.5% of assistance,
17.5% of quality-of-life activities, and 75% of economic restructuring.
 
--  Poland remains the largest single recipient of assistance, consistent
with its size and special relationship with the United States.
 
--  Enterprise funds quickly and successfully meet the needs of the new
private sectors and receive the largest segment of the budget.  As evidenced
in Poland and Hungary, such funds attract other international donor/private
sector support.
 
--  The United States also supports development of private agriculture and
agribusiness.
 
--  To increase efforts to privatize state-owned enterprises, major programs
are underway to support privatization of industry, housing, energy, health,
banking, and other key sectors.
 
Countries of this region wish to integrate their economies with those of the
West.  Central and Eastern Europe can be a profitable gateway to the Europe
of tomorrow for American businesses interested in venturing into the CEE
market.  In the long run, the impact of U.S. private sector capital, goods,
services, and expertise will be much greater on the development of free
markets abroad than any assistance government can offer.
 
U.S. Government Initiatives
The United States provides bilateral assistance through the Support for East
European Democracy (SEED) Act and multilateral aid through the Group of 24
(G-24), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), and other institutions.  The United States
supports increased IMF and World Bank activity in Central and Eastern Europe
and the integration of these countries into the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT).
 
The United States seeks to develop the legal and policy framework that will
lead to expanded trade and investment and to liberalized export controls.
 
SEED Act
The principles of U.S. policy are outlined in the SEED Act, which authorizes
the U.S. Government to undertake a range of activities designed to encourage
the establishment of democratic institutions, assist in the development of
free market economies, and provide emergency humanitarian aid.
 
Through the SEED Act, Congress since 1989 has appropriated $1.4 billion to
fund technical assistance programs in Central and Eastern Europe.  Including
food assistance and other U.S. contributions, total U.S. grant assistance to
Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic states is $4.6 billion, the largest
contribution of grant assistance to the region.
 
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is primarily
responsible for implementing the projects, most of which are open for
competitive bidding.  Some money is transferred to other U.S. Government
agencies that have expertise in particular priority areas.  Projects range
from meeting humanitarian needs to establishing credit unions in CEE
countries.  USAID advertises requests for proposals and applications for such
projects in Commerce Business Daily.
 
The SEED Act also extends programs such as General Schedule
of Preferences (GSP) duty-free tariff treatment and Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC) financing and insurance coverage, provides
broad technical assistance, and establishes enterprise funds.  It calls for
25 distinct actions to support structural adjustment; private sector
development; trade and investment; educational, cultural, and scientific
activities; and other assistance.
 
Economic Restructuring
The centerpiece of U.S. Government assistance is economic restructuring of
CEE.  Since expanded trade and investment with the West is an important
factor in transforming CEE economies, the United States has extended most-
favored-nation (MFN) tariff status to them and granted duty-free access for
many categories of exports.  To help CEE governments privatize state-owned
enterprises and to encourage individual firms to restructure, the United
States has put into place a $150 million Privatization and Enterprise
Restructuring Project administered by USAID.  Activities under this project
help governments in the region adjust the legal, fiscal, regulatory, and
institutional frameworks that govern the privatization process.
 
The project also helps governments divest state-owned enterprises.  U.S.
assistance in privatization has helped attract many investors and rapidly has
increased the pace of investment in these countries.  For example, total
foreign investment committed to the Czech Republic has reached $5 billion, of
which $1.4 billion is from U.S. companies.  Grants to 32 U.S. universities
for managerial training and economics education have helped to develop basic
skills for private businesses and large state enterprises scheduled for
restructuring or privatization.  Emphasis also is placed on strengthening the
understanding of market economics among teachers, government officials, and
the general public.
 
The United States provides technical assistance and training in production
and marketing to independent agricultural cooperatives and private
agribusinesses.  Projects aim to create private agricultural cooperatives,
privatize state farms and agricultural industries, and develop agricultural
credit institutions.  U.S. experts plan programs to improve safety standards
at Soviet-designed nuclear power plants and develop methods to increase
energy efficiency.
 
The United States helps to privatize existing housing facilities and develop
private real estate and housing construction capabilities.  It also funds
programs to address major environmental problems by providing technical
assistance, training, and equipment.
 
Enterprise Funds.  Under the SEED Act, Congress in 1989 authorized $300
million to establish enterprise funds for Poland and Hungary to transform
centrally planned economies into free market systems.  Funds for the Czech
and Slovak Republics and for Bulgaria also have been established, and a
Baltic Enterprise Fund has been announced.*
 
*For further information on the Baltic Enterprise Fund contact the Office of
Economic Restructuring, Bureau of Europe (AID/EUR/RME/ER), 202-647-7358)
 
The funds make equity investments or loans primarily to locally owned
companies or joint ventures, and occasionally to subsidiaries or affiliates
of U.S. companies with business operations in the respective countries.  Such
funds are directed toward small- and medium-sized companies.  U.S. businesses
interested in obtaining capital from the funds should be prepared to submit
proposals of from three to five pages.  After an initial review, a detailed
business plan could be required.
 
The Polish-American Enterprise Fund, established in May 1990, has disbursed
$123.7 million in direct equity investments and loans to Polish private
enterprises to provide needed capital for new business growth.  The
Hungarian-American Enterprise Fund, also set up in May 1990, has disbursed
about $38 million to more than 50 firms.  The Czech- and Slovak-American
Enterprise Fund, established in March 1991, has focused on small business
investment.  It has made commitments for 47 direct investments or loans
totaling $22 million.  The Bulgarian-American Enterprise Fund, set up in
November 1991, concentrates loans in the food, agribusiness, electronics, and
tourism sectors.
 
Polish-American Enterprise Fund
535 Madison Avenue, 33rd Floor
New York, NY  10022
Tel:  (212) 339-8330
Fax:  (212) 339-8359
 
Hungarian-American Enterprise Fund
1620 I Street, NW
Washington, DC  20006
Tel:  (202) 467-5444
Fax:  (202) 467-5469
 
Czech- and Slovak-American Enterprise Fund
1620 I Street, NW, Suite 703
Washington, DC  20006
Tel:  (202) 467-5480
Fax:  (202) 467-5466
 
Bulgarian-American Enterprise Fund
333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2080
Chicago, IL  60606
Tel:  (312) 629-2500
Fax:  (312) 629-2929
 
American Business and Private Sector Development Initiative (ABI)
In March 1991, the United States announced the American Business and Private
Sector Development Initiative (ABI).  This $46-million initiative is designed
to promote more U.S. investment, participation by U.S. firms in
infrastructure development, and increased involvement of small- and medium-
sized U.S. companies in bilateral trade.  ABI aims to transfer U.S.
commercial expertise and investment in agriculture, agribusiness, energy,
environment, telecommunications, and housing.  ABI's components are the:
 
Eastern Europe Business Information Center (EEBIC).   The Department of
Commerce established EEBIC in January 1990 to serve as an information
clearinghouse.  EEBIC provides information on exporting, financing, and joint
ventures, as well as referrals to other agencies such as the U.S. Export-
Import Bank (Eximbank) and OPIC.  The center has responded to more than
125,000 requests for information from U.S. firms and has developed a
computerized database of more than 12,000 small- and medium-sized U.S. firms
interested in pursuing business opportunities in CEE countries.
 
Under ABI, EEBIC has expanded its services by developing and disseminating
information on key CEE industries and business opportunities.  Through its
publication service, "Eastern Europe Looks for Partners," EEBIC alerts firms
to joint venture and other business opportunities.  EEBIC also publishes the
Eastern Europe Business Bulletin, a newsletter that informs U.S. companies of
recent developments in the region and of U.S. Government and private sector
programs to facilitate business in Eastern Europe.
 
Consortia of American Businesses in Eastern Europe (CABEE).  CABEE, initiated
by the Department of Commerce, supports groups of small- and medium-sized
U.S. companies that wish to enter the CEE market.  Grants assist U.S. trade
and business associations in selected sectors in establishing a presence in
the region.  The program is designed for companies that may lack the capacity
or the resources to enter the market on their own.  To date, five U.S. trade-
producer associations have been established and are providing their members
with market surveys, lists of potential joint-venture partners, and guides on
how to do business in CEE.  Associations supported under the ABI include the
American Home Builders and Suppliers Association, Sun Diamond Growers of
California, Telecommunications Industry Association, Coalition for
International Research and Assistance (environment), and the Agricultural
Machinery and Supplies Association.  As of July 1993, $138 million in U.S.
export sales have been attributed to the CABEE program.
 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC).  Under the ABI, OPIC expands
its services to potential U.S. investors in Central and Eastern Europe.  In
addition to offering investment advisory services, investment missions,
computer-assisted joint ventures partner matching, and country and regional
information kits, OPIC offers project development assistance under its
Project Development Program.  To date, OPIC has provided more than $1 million
in matching funds to U.S. companies to perform pre-investment analyses for 11
regional projects in such sectors as telecommunications, food processing,
metal products, and appliances.  OPIC provides up to $150,000 to eligible
U.S. investors to cover 50% (75% for small businesses) of costs in conducting
pre-investment analyses and developing business plans for proposed
investments in the region.  Also under the ABI, in FY 1993, OPIC conducted
investment missions to Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, and Romania and
plans to conduct additional missions to the region in FY 1994.
 
Capital Development Initiative (CDI).  This program responds to the critical
infrastructure needs in Central and Eastern Europe by assisting the CEE
private sector identify appropriate technology, attract foreign investment,
and by helping CEE governments improve the investment climate.  Sectors of
emphasis include energy, telecommunications, and the environment.  In
addition to advisers from these sectors located in CEE, CDI also provides a
financial adviser to help companies in the region prepare business plans and
steer them to possible sources of financial support.  Approximately 900 firms
in CEE and United States have been in contact with the CDI technical
contractors. This has resulted in the identification of more than 103
projects, of which 59 have been reported through EEBIC.  An earlier cost-
sharing grants program to assist U.S. companies develop in-vestments in CEE
has been phased out.
 
Trade and Development Agency (TDA).  Money provided through USAID under the
ABI has enabled the U.S. Trade and Development Agency to expand its
activities in CEE countries.  TDA has funded feasibility studies for
infrastructure projects in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
 
Multilateral Initiatives
 
The international community has joined together to assist the countries of
Central and Eastern Europe through their difficult transition to democracy
and a market economy.  The G-24 and the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development were established in direct response to the 1989 revolutions--the
former to coordinate international assistance, the latter to provide capital
in support of political and economic reforms.  Other multilateral
organizations, including the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, also are active
throughout the region.
 
Group of 24
The leaders of the Group of Seven
(G-7) countries agreed at the 1992 Munich economic summit on the need for
continued political and economic reform in Central and East European
countries.  They agreed that industrialized countries must open their markets
further to products and services from CEE countries.  At the same time, the
G-7 urged CEE countries to develop trade and investment ties among themselves
and with the New Independent States (NIS) of the former Soviet Union.
 
The G-24 countries (G-7 plus other members of the Organization of Economic
Cooperation and Development) have extended coordinated assistance to several
CEE countries.  Major G-24 contributors are Germany, Japan, the European
Union (EU), and the United States.
 
European Bank for Reconstruction And Development (EBRD)
 
The EBRD was created specifically to support the political and economic
transformation in Central and Eastern Europe.  Based in London, it began
operations in April 1991 with an initial capital of $13 billion.  The United
States is the largest single shareholder, with 10% of the capital.  Other
members include CEE countries, the NIS, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South
Korea, the EU and its members, and the European Investment Bank.
 
The EBRD finances projects in CEE, makes direct loans (including   co-
financing projects with other institutions), provides loan guarantees, and
makes equity investments.  Under its charter, the EBRD must commit at least
60% of its resources to private sector projects, including the privatization
of state enterprises.  The balance can be lent to the public sector,
including for infrastructure development and environmental clean-up.
 
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Office of the U.S. Executive Director
One Exchange Square
London EC2A 2EH
United Kingdom
Tel:  44-71-338-6459
 
World Bank Group
The World Bank group consists of four institutions:  the International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the International Development
Association (IDA), the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and the
Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA).  Their main purpose is to
promote economic and social progress in developing countries by helping to
raise productivity.  They seek to do this by lending funds, providing advice,
and serving as a catalyst to stimulate outside investment.  The World Bank
recently has increased lending in CEE countries for activities ranging from
project finance to sector and structural adjustment loans.  In FY 1993, the
World Bank loaned more than $1.7 billion.  Future lending will depend on the
number of projects put forward by the region's governments.
 
World Bank
Office of the U.S. Executive Director
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20433
Tel:  (202) 458-0118
Fax:  (202) 477-2967
 
International Monetary Fund (IMF)
The IMF provides technical assistance and financial support to CEE countries,
all of which are IMF members.  This includes advice on macroeconomic policy
and expertise on central banking, trade and exchange rate regimes, fiscal
affairs, and statistics.
 
In 1992, the IMF's financial support included $1.1 billion for Central and
Eastern Europe.  It is expected to make available to CEE countries as much as
$867 million in additional financing in 1993.
 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) The OECD plays a
central role in building consensus among the Western industrial democracies
on economic, scientific, and social issues.  One crucial challenge facing the
West is how best to support the economic reform process in Central and
Eastern Europe.  In 1990, at U.S. initiative, the OECD created the Center for
Cooperation with European Economies in Transition (CCEET).  It brings Central
and East Europeans together with OECD experts who provide technical and
policy advice in such market-oriented areas as structural reform, tax policy,
foreign direct investment, competition policy and law, banking and financial
systems, trade and accounting standards, open government procurement, and
many others essential to a successful transition to a market-based economy.
 
"Partners in Transition," an OECD program, helps prepare CEE countries to
undertake the obligations required for OECD membership.
 
OECD Publications and Information Center
2001 L Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20036
Tel:  (202) 785-6323
Fax:  (202) 785-0350
 
International Energy Agency (IEA)
This is the major energy forum for industrial countries to provide for energy
security.  The IEA also is involved in work on energy-related pollution
control, energy conservation, and research and development of non-oil energy
sources.  It cooperates with CCEET, the IMF, the World Bank, the EBRD, and
the G-24 to provide technical and policy advice to CEE countries in such
related fields as energy technology, information and emergency systems, oil
market developments, and energy and the environment.  Information on the IEA
is available from the OECD Publications and Information Center listed above.
 
Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM
 
 
For more than 40 years, COCOM protected Western security by restricting
access to U.S. strategic technology by the former Soviet Union and its allies
and by other countries which violate human rights and support terrorism.
 
However, with the end of the Cold War, the disintegration of the Soviet
Union, deep cuts in the strategic arsenals of both sides, and the goal of
assisting economic and political reform in Russia and the New Independent
States, the U.S. and its allies agreed that COCOM's strategic rationale was
no longer tenable.  As a result, the U.S. and its COCOM partners are
revamping approaches to export controls to the post-Cold War era.  Members of
COCOM agreed to end the Cold War regime effective March 31, 1994, and to work
together to establish a new arrangement aimed at enhancing transparency and
restraint in arms sales and transfers of sensitive technology.  COCOM members
agreed to maintain the existing lists as the
basis for national export controls after March 31.
 
The Department of Commerce published a Federal Register notice, effective
April 4, 1994, that lifted the requirement for individual export licenses to
ship less sensitive dual-use goods to civilian end-users in Russia and the
other New Independent States.  This liberalization freed up most computers
and virtually all civil telecommunications equipment on the COCOM control
list.
 
Information on U.S. export control policies toward CEE is available from:
U.S. Department of State
Office of Export Control Policy
Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs
Washington, DC 20520
Tel:  (202) 647-2870
Fax:  (202) 647-4232
 
U.S. Department of Commerce
Bureau of Export Administration
Office of Export Licensing
Exporter Assistance Staff
Washington, DC 20230
Tel:  (202) 482-4811
(recorded information)
Fax:  (202) 482-3617
 
Where To Turn For Help
The following U.S. Government agencies, programs, and offices provide
assistance to U.S. firms seeking opportunities in Central and Eastern Europe.
 
U.S. Department of State
The Office of the Coordinator for Eastern European Assistance provides advice
on assistance priorities and information on U.S. policy toward Central and
Eastern Europe.
 
Other offices at the State Department that provide information, analysis, and
briefings on economic trends and the political situation in CEE countries
also are listed below.
 
Bureau of European and Canadian Affairs
Office of the Coordinator for Eastern European Assistance
Tel:  (202) 647-0853
Fax:  (202) 647-0414
 
Office of Eastern European Affairs
Tel:  (202) 647-3052
Fax:  (202) 647-0555
 
Office of EU and Regional Affairs
Tel:  (202) 647-1708
Fax:  (202) 647-9959
 
Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs
Office of Developed Country Trade
Tel:  (202) 647-1420
Fax:  (202) 647-6540
 
Office of Development Finance
Tel:  (202) 647-9427
Fax:  (202) 647-0320
 
Office of Investment Affairs
Tel:  (202) 647-1128
Fax:  (202) 647-0320
 
Office of Commercial, Legislative,and Public Affairs
Tel:  (202) 647-1942
Fax:  (202) 647-5713
 
Office of Export Control Policy
Tel:  (202) 647-2870
Fax:  (202) 647-4232
 
Bureau of International Communications and Information Policy
Office of Trade and Development
Tel: (202) 647-5230
Fax: (202) 647-0158
 
U.S. Department of Commerce
 The International Trade Administration (ITA) promotes U.S. international
trade, economic growth, and technological advancement.  Four units within ITA
assist firms seeking access to CEE markets:  the East European Division
(EED), the Eastern Europe Business Information Center (EEBIC), the U.S. and
Foreign Commercial Service (US& FCS), and the Trade Development Unit.
 
East European Division (EED) Country Desk Officers
Tel:  (202) 482-4915
Fax:  (202) 482-4505
 
The Eastern Europe Business Information Center (EEBIC).  The EEBIC was
established to respond to the business community's rapidly growing need for
information on trade and investment opportunities in CEE.  It serves as a
clearinghouse for information on market opportunities and on U.S. Government
programs supporting private enterprise, trade, and investment in CEE.  Since
its opening in January 1990, EEBIC has responded to more than 500 calls a
week.  Its staff answers questions about marketing, financing, export
licensing, trade promotion opportunities, and voluntary organizations
providing assistance to CEE.  It also provides material on doing business in
CEE, including lists of priority industry sectors and potential trade
partners; copies of investment regulations and incentives; and announcements
about seminars, conferences, and trade promotion events.  EEBIC publishes the
Eastern Europe Business Bulletin, a monthly newsletter highlighting economic
developments in the CEE.  EEBIC also has contractors throughout the region
who identify and report on specific business opportunities for U.S. firms.
 
Eastern Europe Business Information Center (EEBIC)
Tel:  (202) 482-2645
Fax:  (202) 482-4473
Flashfax:  (202) 482-5745
 
The U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (US&FCS) District Offices in the
United States.  The US&FCS helps exporters compete more effectively in the
world marketplace. Its commercial officers, stationed in CEE and the United
States, pursue sales leads and current market information.  They also
organize pavilions for U.S. firms at the major trade fairs held annually in
CEE.  In the United States, US&FCS trade specialists in the Commerce
Department's district offices tap into its overseas network and steer local
companies into promising markets.
 
Alabama
Birmingham (205) 731-1131
 
Alaska
Anchorage (907) 271-6237
 
Arizona
Phoenix (602) 640-2513
 
Arkansas
Little Rock (501) 324-5794
 
California
Los Angeles (310) 575-7105
Newport Beach (714) 660-1688
San Diego (619) 557-5395
San Francisco (415) 705-2300
Santa Clara (408) 291-7625
 
Colorado
Denver (303) 844-6622
 
Connecticut
Hartford (203) 240-3530
 
Delaware
(Serviced by Philadelphia, PA)
 
District of Columbia
(Serviced by Gaithersburg, MD)
 
Florida
Clearwater (813) 461-0011
Miami (305) 536-5267
Orlando (407) 648-6235
Tallahassee (904) 488-6469
 
Georgia
Atlanta (404) 452-9101
Savannah (912) 652-4204
 
Hawaii
Honolulu (808) 541-1782
 
Idaho
Boise (208) 334-3857
 
Illinois
Chicago (312) 353-4450
Rockford (815) 987-4347
Wheaton (312) 353-4332
 
Indiana
Indianapolis (317) 582-2300
 
Iowa
Des Moines (515) 284-4222
 
Kansas
Wichita (316) 269-6160
 
Kentucky
Louisville (502) 582-5066
 
Louisiana
New Orleans (504) 589-6546
 
Maine
Augusta (207) 622-8249
 
Maryland
Baltimore (410) 962-3560
Gaithersburg (301) 975-3904
 
Massachusetts
Boston (617) 565-8563
 
Michigan
Detroit (313) 226-3650
Grand Rapids (616) 456-2411
 
Minnesota
Minneapolis (612) 348-1638
 
Mississippi
Jackson (601) 965-4388
 
Missouri
Kansas City (816) 426-3141
St. Louis (314) 425-3302
 
Montana
(Serviced by Portland, OR)
 
Nebraska
Omaha (402) 221-3664
 
Nevada
Reno (702) 784-5203
 
New Hampshire
Portsmouth (603) 334-6074
 
New Jersey
Trenton (609) 989-2100
 
New Mexico
Santa Fe (505) 827-0350
 
New York
Buffalo (716) 846-4191
New York City (212) 264-0634
Rochester (716) 263-6480
 
North Carolina
Greensboro (919) 333-5345
 
North Dakota
(Serviced by Omaha, NB)
 
Ohio
Cincinnati (513) 684-2944
Cleveland (216) 522-4750
 
Oklahoma
Oklahoma City (405) 231-5302
Tulsa (918) 581-7650
 
Oregon
Portland (503) 326-3001
 
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia (215) 962-4980
Pittsburgh (412) 644-2850
 
Puerto Rico
San Juan (809) 766-5555
 
Rhode Island
Providence (401) 528-5104
 
South Carolina
Charleston (803) 727-4361
Columbia (803) 765-5345
 
South Dakota
(Serviced by Omaha, NB)
 
Tennessee
Knoxville (615) 545-4637
Memphis (901) 544-4137
Nashville (615) 736-5161
 
Texas
Austin (512) 482-5939
Dallas (214) 767-0542
Houston (713) 229-2578
 
Utah
Salt Lake City (801) 524-5116
 
Vermont
(Serviced by Boston, MA)
 
Virginia
Richmond (804) 771-2246
 
Washington
Seattle (206) 553-5615
Tri-Cities (509) 735-2571
 
West Virginia
Charleston (304) 347-5123
 
Wisconsin
Milwaukee (414) 297-3473
 
Wyoming
(Serviced by Denver, CO)
 
The US&FCS includes Department of Commerce experts in several U.S. embassies
in CEE countries.  U.S. embassies in the CEE countries assist American
companies that wish to contact businesses and officials in these countries.
They typically are staffed by economic, commercial, political, agricultural,
and public affairs sections.  They provide information and analysis of CEE
developments and communicate U.S. Government and private sector views to the
host governments.
 
For posts with APO/FPO numbers, use name, organization PSC or unit number,
box number, APO number, and domestic postage.  For posts without APO/FPO
numbers, use name, section, embassy, street address, and international
postage.
 
Albania
Attn:  Economic/Commercial Officer
American Embassy Tirana
Box A, PSC 59
APO AE 09624
 
Rruga Labinoti:  103
Tel:  355-42-33520, 32875
Fax:  355-42-32222
 
Bulgaria
Attn:  Senior Commercial Officer
American Embassy Sofia
Unit 25402
APO AE 09213-5740
 
1A. Stamboliski Boulevard
Tel:  359-2-88-48-01
Telex:  22690 BG
Fax:  359-2-80-38-50
 
Croatia and Slovenia
Attn:  Economic/Commercial Officer
American Embassy Zagreb
APO AE 09213-5080
 
Adrije Hebranga 2
Tel:  38-41-444-800
Fax:  38-41-440-235
 
Czech Republic
Attn:  Senior Commercial Officer
American Embassy Prague
Unit 25402
APO AE 09213-5630
 
Hybernska 7a
117 16 Prague 1
Tel:  (42-2) 2421-9844, 2421-9846, 2421-9847
Telex:  121196 AMEMBC
Fax:  (42-2) 2421-9965
 
Estonia
Attn:  Economic/Commercial Officer
American Embassy Tallinn
Box T
APO AE 09723
 
Kentmanni 20
Tel:  372-6-312-021
Fax:  372-6-312-025
 
Hungary
Attn:  Economic/Commercial Section
American Embassy Budapest
Unit 25402
APO AE 09213-5270
 
Bajza utca 31
H 1062 Budapest
Tel: 122-8600/1217
Fax: 36-1-142-2529 or 36-1-132-8934
 
Latvia
Attn:  Political/Economic Officer
American Embassy Riga
Box R
APO AE 09723
 
Raina Blvd. 7
Riga
Local Tel:  371-2-211-572
(cellular phone via Sweden)
Fax:  469-882-0047
(cellular phone via Sweden)
 
Lithuania
Attn:  Economic Officer
American Embassy Vilnius
Box V
APO AE 09723
 
Akmanu 6
Vilnius
Tel:  370-2-223-031
Fax:  370-2-222-779
 
Poland
Attn:  Senior Commercial Officer
American Embassy Warsaw
Unit 25402
Warsaw or APO AE 09213-5010
 
al.  Jerozolimskie 56/C
00-803 Warsaw
Tel:  48-2-625-4374
Telex:  813934 USTDO PL
Fax:  48-22-21-6327
 
Romania
Attn: Senior Commercial Officer
American Embassy Bucharest
Unit 25402
APO AE 09213-5260
 
Strada Tudor Arghezi 7-9
Tel: 40-0-3124042
Telex: 11416
Fax: 40-1-3120395
 
Slovakia
Attn:  Economic/Commercial Officer
American Embassy Bratislava
Box 5630, Unit 25402
APO AE 09213-5630
 
Hviezdoslavovo Namesite 4
81102 Bratislava
Tel:  42-7-330861
Fax:  42-7-330096
 
The Trade Development Unit.  The Trade Development Unit's primary objective
is improving U.S. industries' competitiveness and increasing their
participation in international markets.  Organized along industry sector
lines, it identifies trade opportunities and obstacles by product, industry
sector, and market and organizes and co-sponsors frequent trade missions to
the CEE.
 
Planning, Coordination and Resource Management
Tel:  (202) 482-4921
Fax:  (202) 482-4462
 
Export Promotion Coordination
Tel:  (202) 482-4501
Fax:  (202) 482-1999
 
Trade and Economic Analysis
Tel:  (202) 482-5145
Fax:  (202) 482-4614
 
Technology and Aerospace Industries
Tel:  (202) 482-1872
Fax:  (202) 482-0858
 
Office of Aerospace
Tel:  (202) 482-4222
 
Fax:  (202) 482-3383
 
Office of Computers and Business Equipment
Tel: (202) 482-0572
Fax: (202) 482-0952
 
Office of Microelectronics, Medical Equipment and Instrumentation
Tel:  (202) 482-2587
Fax:  (202) 482-0975
 
Office of Telecommunications
Tel:  (202) 482-4466
Fax:  (202) 482-5834
 
Basic Industries
Office of Automotive Affairs
Tel:  (202) 482-0554
Fax:  (202) 482-0674
 
Office of Materials, Machinery, and Chemicals
 
Tel:  (202) 482-0575
Fax:  (202) 482-1436
 
Office of Energy, Environment, and Infrastructure
Tel:  (202) 482-5225
Fax:  (202) 482-3594
 
Service Industries and Finance
Tel:  (202) 482-5261
Fax:  (202) 482-4775
 
Office of Export Trading Company Affairs
Tel:  (202) 482-5131
Fax:  (202) 482-1790
 
Office of Finance
Tel:  (202) 482-5131
Fax:  (202) 482-5702
 
Office of Service Industries
Tel:  (202) 482-3575
Fax:  (202) 482-2669
 
Textiles, Apparel, and Consumer Goods Industries
Tel:  (202) 482-3737
Fax:  (202) 482-8809
 
Office of Textiles and Apparel
Tel:  (202) 482-5078
Fax:  (202) 482-4133
 
Office of Consumer Goods
Tel:  (202) 482-2969
Fax:  (202) 482-2331
 
Export-Import Bank of the United States (Eximbank)
The Eximbank is an independent U.S. Government agency that helps the American
business community export goods and services through a variety of financing-
support programs.  It offers short- and medium-term trade credit insurance
through its agent, the Foreign Credit Insurance Association (FCIA), working
capital guarantees, and medium- and long-term guarantees and financing.
Eximbank has supported more than $200 billion in U.S. exports since 1934.
Eximbank has been active in Hungary since 1969.  Support for exports to
Poland and the former Czechoslovakia became available in early 1990, while
coverage in Bulgaria and Romania remains legislatively prohibited.  In
addition to Eximbank's normal short- and medium-term programs in Poland, a
$200-million Trade Credit Insurance Program was established under the SEED
Act.  This program is co-insured by the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) and is available only to private sector buyers in Poland.
 
Export-Import Bank of the United States
811 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20571
 
Insurance Division
Tel:  (202) 566-8190 and 566-8197
Fax:  (202) 377-9534
 
Europe and Canada Division
Tel:  (202) 566-8898 and 566-8813
Fax:  (202) 566-7524
 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)
 OPIC encourages U.S. businesses to invest in developing countries and
emerging market economies, creating U.S. jobs, exports, and promoting
economic growth at home and abroad.  Operating in nearly 140 countries, OPIC
fosters American global competitiveness by offering project financing,
investment insurance, and other investor services.  OPIC considers an
investment's impact on the U.S. economy, the environment, and rights of
workers in the host country.
 
Finance Programs.  Medium- to long-term financing for sound overseas
investment projects is made available through loan guaranties and direct
loans.  Financing generally ranges from $2 million to $200 million and is
available to U.S. companies.  OPIC's financing commitment may range from 50%
of total project costs for new ventures and up to 75% for expansion of
existing successful operations, with final maturities of 5-12 years or more.
Additionally, OPIC is supporting a family of privately managed direct
investment funds in various regions and business sectors.  Currently, these
"growth funds" cover Africa, the Asia-Pacific, Russia, Poland, Israel, and
the environmental sector.  Growth funds for Latin America, South Asia, and
the Middle East are planned.
 
Investment Insurance.  OPIC offers a number of programs to insure U.S.
investments in emerging markets and developing countries against the risks
of:
 
--  Currency inconvertibility--the inability to convert profits, debt
service, and other investment remittances from local currency into U.S.
dollars;
 
--  Expropriation--loss of an investment due to expropriation,
nationalization, or confiscation by a foreign government; and
 
--  Political violence--loss of assets or income due to war, revolution,
insurrection, or civil strife.  Coverage is available for new investments and
for investments to expand or modernize existing operations.  Equity, debt,
loan guaranties, leases, and most other forms of long-term investment can be
insured.  Special programs also are available for contractors, exporters, and
oil and gas projects.
 
Investor Services.  OPIC investor services include:
 
--  Investment missions that bring groups of U.S. executives to selected
countries to meet host country government officials, local business leaders,
and potential joint-venture partners who can play key roles in bringing
proposed business ventures to fruition;
--  Reverse missions, which bring groups of foreign government officials and
local business leaders to the United States to meet with their American
counterparts; and
--  Investor conferences that cover a variety of investment-related subjects.
 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
Information Officer
1100 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20528
Tel:  (202) 336-8799
Fax:  (202) 408-5155
Telefax:  (202) 336-8700 (for printed material)
 
Small Business Administration (SBA)
Congress created this independent federal agency in 1953 to assist, counsel,
and protect the interests of U.S. small businesses.  It sponsors an
international trade loan program and a revolving line of credit program to
small exporters.  It also offers training and counseling to aid current and
potential small business exporters.
 
The SBA can design an individual program of business development assistance
to meet specific needs of the small business owner who is entering the CEE
market for the first time or expanding operations in the region.  This
program can include personal counseling by volunteers from the Service Corps
of Retired Executives who have international trade experience; assistance
from professional, international trade management consulting firms; initial
consultation with an international trade attorney, business management
training, and direct contacts with CEE countries through Department of
Commerce Matchmaker Trade Missions and in OPIC Investment Missions.
 
Small Business Administration Office of International Trade
409 - 3rd Street, SW
Washington, DC 20416
Tel:  (202) 653-7794
Fax:  (202) 653-6514
 
U.S. Trade and Development Agency (TDA)
This agency promotes economic development in developing countries by funding
feasibility studies, consultancies, training programs, and other project
planning services.  The agency assists U.S. firms by identifying major
development projects in CEE that offer large export potential and by funding
U.S. private sector involvement in project planning.  This helps position
U.S. firms for follow-on contracts when these projects are implemented.  TDA
invites CEE governments to apply for grant assistance for planning studies of
major public sector projects.  Such projects should include plans to allocate
substantial resources for foreign goods and services.  Official requests for
TDA assistance may be made directly to TDA in Washington, DC, by the
appropriate foreign government agency or ministry or through the U.S.
embassy.  If TDA approves the request, U.S. firms conduct the study under
competitive bidding procedures.  TDA then makes direct payment to the
contractor selected.
 
In situations where neither a feasibility study nor a consultancy is
appropriate, TDA may provide funding for technical seminars in either the
United States or in the respective CEE country.  TDA can fund orientation
visits to the United States by key CEE decision-makers.  It also considers
commercially oriented training programs under the TDA public sector project
screening process.
 
U.S. Trade and Development Agency
Regional Director, Central and Eastern Europe
SA-16, Room 309
Washington, DC 20523-1602
Tel:  (703) 875-4357
Fax:  (703) 875-4009
 
CEE Trade Development Offices in the United States provide information and
contacts on trade and investment in the following countries:
 
Albania
Attn:  Commercial Counselor
Embassy of the Republic of Albania
1511 K Street, NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC  20005
Tel:  (202) 223-4942
Fax:  (202) 628-7342
 
Bulgaria
Attn:  Commercial Counselor
Embassy of the Republic of Bulgaria
1621 - 22nd Street, NW
Washington, DC 20008
Tel:  (202) 387-7969
Fax:  (202) 234-7973
 
Croatia
Attn:  Commercial Counselor
Embassy of the Republic of Croatia
236 Massachusetts Ave., NE, Suite 505
Washington, DC  20002
Tel:  (202) 543-5608
Fax:  (202) 543-5623
 
Czech Republic
Attn:  Commercial Attache
Embassy of the Czech Republic
3900 Spring of Freedom Ave., NW
Washington, DC  20008
Tel:  (202) 363-6315
Fax:  (212) 244-2147
 
Estonia
Attn:  Commercial Counselor
Embassy of Estonia
1030 - 15th Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC  20005
Tel:  (202) 789-0320
Fax:  (202) 789-0471
 
Hungary
Mr. Barnabas Nemeth
Embassy of the Republic of Hungary
2401 Calvert Street, NW, Suite 1021
Washington, DC  20008
Tel:  (202) 387-3191
Fax:  (202) 387-3140
Attn:  Commercial Counselor
 
Embassy of the Republic of Hungary
150 East 58th Street, 33rd floor
New York, NY  10022
Tel:  (212) 752-3060
Fax:  (212) 486-2958
 
Attn:  Commercial Attache
Hungarian Commercial Office
1930 Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, IL  60601
Tel:  (312) 856-0274
Fax:  (312) 856-1080
 
Attn:  Commercial Attache
Hungarian Consulate General
11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 410
Los Angeles, CA  90025
Tel:  (310) 473-4957
Fax:  (310) 914-0456
 
Latvia
Attn:  Commercial Counselor
Embassy of Latvia
4325 - 17th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20011
Tel:  (202) 726-8213
Fax:  (202) 726-6785
 
Lithuania
Attn:  Assistant to the Ambassador for Commercial Affairs
Embassy of the Republic of Lithuania
2662 - 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Tel:  (202) 234-5860
Fax:  (202) 328-0466
 
Poland
Attn:  Economic Counselor
Embassy of Poland
1503 - 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC  20036
Tel:  (202) 467-6690
Fax:  (202) 833-8343
 
Attn:  Commercial Counselor
Consulate General of Poland
820 Second Ave., 17th floor
New York, NY  10017
Tel:  (212) 370-5300
Fax:  (212) 818-9623
 
Attn:  Commercial Counselor
Consulate General of Poland
333 East Ontario Street, Suite 3908B
Chicago, IL  60611
Tel:  (312) 642-4102
Fax:  (312) 642-8829
 
Attn:  Consul-Commercial
Consulate General of Poland
3460 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA  90010
Tel:  (213) 365-7900
Fax:  (213) 365-7905
 
Romania
Attn:  Economic Counselor
Embassy of Romania
1607 - 23rd Street, NW
Washington, DC  20008
Tel:  (202) 332-4848 or 4852
Fax:  (202) 332-4858
 
Slovakia
Attn:  Economic Counselor
Slovakia Commercial Office
10 East 40th Street, Suite 3601
New York, NY 10016
Tel:  (212) 213-8349
Fax:  (212) 684-7648
 
Slovenia
Attn:  Commercial Counselor
Embassy of the Republic of Slovenia
1300 - 19th Street, NW
Washington, DC  20036
Tel:  (202) 828-1650
Fax:  (202) 828-1654
 
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
USAID is the lead agency in implementing U.S. Government assistance to
Central and Eastern Europe.
 
U.S. Agency for International Development
320 - 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20523-0229
 
Enterprise Development Division
Office of Economic Restructuring
Bureau for Europe
Tel:  (202) 736-4271
Fax:  (202) 647-8237
 
Center for Trade and Investment Services
Tel:  (202) 663-2680
Fax:  (202) 663-2670
Toll-free:  1-800-872-4348
 
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
600 - 17th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20506
 
Office of Europe and Mediterranean Affairs
Tel:  (202) 395-3211
Fax:  (202) 395-3911
 
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) Information Center
Tel:  (202) 395-6971
Fax:  (202) 395-3911
 
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Eastern Europe
and the Former Soviet Union
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 3221
Washington, DC 20220
Tel:  (202) 622-1270
Fax:  (202) 622-0658
 
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Office of Emerging Democracies
Foreign Agricultural Service
Room 6506, South Building
Washington, DC 20250-1000
Tel:  (202) 720-0368
Fax:  (202) 690-4369
 
U.S. Department of Labor
Office of International Economic Affairs
Bureau of International LaborAffairs
Washington, DC 20210
Tel:  (202) 523-7597
Fax:  (202) 523-4071
 
U.S. Information Agency East European Initiative
301 - 4th Street, SW
Room 753-D/EE
Washington, DC 20547
Tel:  (202) 619-5066
Fax:  (202) 401-6893
 
Private Sector Business Councils
Participating in private sector business councils active in CEE countries is
a good way to become involved in the region's business.  These councils play
a major role in facilitating communication between member companies and their
CEE partners.  They assist in generating trade leads and contacts and
influence the development of bilateral trade.  Each council traditionally
shares a close relationship with the U.S. Government and its respective CEE
government.
 
TheBulgarian-American Trade and Economic Council, the Czech and Slovak-U.S.
Economic Council, the U.S.-Hungarian Business Council, the U.S.-Polish
Economic Council, and the U.S.-Romanian Economic Council are affiliated with
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  Obtain information by contacting:
 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, International Division
Office of Central and Eastern European Affairs
1615 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20062
Tel:  (202) 463-5473 and 463-5482
Fax:  (202) 463-3114
 
Country Reports
 
As changes occur in the Central and East European countries, the United
States helps establish and solidify political and economic institutions and
systems that will foster long-term democracy and prosperity in the region.
The United States is expanding its political, diplomatic, and economic
relations with CEE countries as American business seeks greater trade and
investment.
 
Albania
Capital:  Tirana
Area:  28,750 square kilometers
Population:  3.4 million (1993)
GNP:  $1 billion (1992)
Bilateral Trade Treaty/MFN:  yes
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  no
GSP:  no
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  Trade Credit Insurance Division (TCID) only
OPIC Agreement:  yes
TDA:  yes
GATT:  observer status
IMF/World Bank:  yes
EBRD:  yes
 
In recognition of Albania's progress toward democracy and a market economy,
the United States in March 1992, granted a waiver to the Jackson-Vanik
amendment, which opened the door for various U.S. Government trade and
investment programs of agencies such as OPIC and TDA.  A bilateral trade
agreement was signed in May 1992 and awaits approval from the parliament.
 
Albania offers a number of opportunities for American businesses,
particularly in tourism, telecommunications, and agribusiness.  In 1992, U.S.
exports to Albania doubled to $36.2 million.  Imports rose 62% to $5.2
million.
 
Albania is rich in natural resources.  The mineral and the oil sectors, in
particular, offer good prospects for investment.  Industry generally suffers
from outdated technology.  Priorities for investment include bottling plants,
food processing plants, and mining/refining facilities.
 
Scenic mountain terrain and more than 200 miles of beaches offer considerable
potential for tourism development.
 
Bulgaria
Capital:  Sofia
Area:  110,987 square kilometers
Population:  8.9 million (1992)
GNP:  $16.5 billion (1992)
Bilateral Trade Treaty/MFN:  yes
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  not yet ratified
GSP:  yes
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  TCID only
OPIC Agreement:  yes
TDA:  yes
GATT:  pending
IMF/World Bank:  yes
EBRD:  yes
 
The United States and Bulgaria signed a bilateral trade agreement in April
1991, and a bilateral investment treaty is in the process of being ratified.
The latter will assure American investors of national treatment guarantees,
as well as the services of an ombudsman office to facilitate joint ventures.
Bulgaria became a GSP beneficiary in December 1991, and most-favored-nation
status went into effect in November 1991.
 
U.S.-Bulgaria trade has slowed significantly due primarily to Bulgaria's
persistent shortages of foreign exchange.  However, economic reforms signal
significant trade potential.  The country offers several advantages,
including a highly skilled labor force, an established distribution network
with an extensive trucking industry, and an established (although antiquated)
base for the electronics and computer sectors.
 
Croatia
Capital:  Zagreb
Area:  148,200 square kilometers
Population:  4.8 million (1991)
GNP:  $9.3 billion (1991)
Bilateral Trade Treaty/MFN:  no/yes
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  no
GSP:  yes
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  no
OPIC Agreement:  yes
TDA:  no
GATT:  no
IMF/World Bank:  no
EBRD:  yes
 
Civil war has badly damaged the Croatian economy and temporarily halted
economic reform efforts.  Productivity has dropped 50% since mid-1991.
Shipbuilding and petrochemical refining, the leading industrial sectors, have
suffered tremendously, and much of the country's infrastructure is damaged or
ruined.  Croatia is expected to offer a variety of major reconstruction
projects after hostilities have ceased and it is accepted in the IMF and the
World Bank.
 
Despite these problems, Croatia is the leading importer of U.S. goods among
the former Yugoslav republics.  There are good opportunities for U.S. exports
of coal, motor vehicles, telecommunications and computer equipment, and
chemicals, though arrangements should be made to guarantee payment before
shipment.
 
Croatia has nationalized several socially owned (local- vs. state-owned)
enterprises as an initial step toward  selling them to private investors.
The process is expected to gain momentum as the fighting ends.  Investment is
allowed in almost all sectors, with 100% foreign ownership permitted.
 
Czech Republic
Capital:  Prague
Area:  80,600 square kilometers
Population:  10.3 million
GNP:  $14.3 billion
Bilateral Trade Treaty/MFN:  yes
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  yes
GSP:  yes
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  yes
OPIC Agreement:  yes
TDA:  yes
GATT:  yes
IMF/World Bank:  yes
EBRD:  yes
 
The Czech Republic welcomes U.S. trade and investment, which are seen as a
counterweight to economic dominance by its more prosperous neighbors,
particularly Germany.  Most of the obstacles to bilateral trade and
investment have been removed.  The number of American companies represented
in the Czech Republic has increased from an estimated half dozen in 1989 to
more than 500 in Prague alone.  U.S. exports to the former Czechoslovakia
increased from a negligible level during the communist era to $89.1 million
in 1990 to $413.2 million in 1992.  U.S. 1993 exports to the Czech Republic
currently are estimated to be about $300 million.
 
Best prospects for U.S. exports include computers and software, air pollution
control equipment, telecommunications equipment, aircraft and parts, and food
processing and packaging equipment.  Financial, management, consulting, and
environmental services also are in demand.  There is an increasing demand for
consumer goods.  U.S. business faces stiff competition from EU companies.
 
Estonia
Capital:  Tallinn
Area:  45,215 square kilometers
Population:  1.6 million (1992)
GNP:  $6.1 billion (1991)
Bilateral Trade Treaty/MFN:  no/yes
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  no
GSP:  yes
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  TCID only
OPIC Agreement:  yes
TDA:  yes
GATT:  observer status
IMF/World Bank:  yes
EBRD:  yes
 
Estonia is highly industrialized and supplies about 60% of its energy needs
from oil shale and hydroelectric plants.  The agricultural sector is small
but largely self-sufficient.  Fishing and shipbuilding are other key
industries.
 
Estonia has made remarkable progress in economic stabilization and structural
adjustment since early 1992.  Strong fiscal discipline, sound monetary
policies, and a new currency fully backed by foreign exchange have helped
reduce inflation to single-digit levels, albeit in the context of a 40%
decline in output.  Trade has been liberalized, and Estonia has begun to
emerge as a market for U.S. goods and potential entrepot for markets farther
east.  Pharmaceuticals and consumer durables are in demand, as are
telecommunications equipment and other high- technology products.
 
Hungary
Capital:  Budapest
Area:  93,030 square kilometers
Population:  10.3 million (1992)
GNP:  $21 billion (1992)
Bilateral Trade Treaty/MFN:  yes
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  pending
GSP:  yes
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  yes
OPIC Agreement:  yes
TDA:   yes
GATT:  yes
IMF/World Bank:  yes
EBRD:  yes
 
The United States and Hungary signed an agreement on September 24, 1993, that
provides commitments on intellectual property protection.  Hungary benefits
from MFN status as a result of a 1978 Title IV trade agreement.  It became a
GSP beneficiary in November 1989.
 
Hungary acceded to the GATT in 1973 based on a non-market economy Protocol of
Accession.  The protocol will be renegotiated based on its market-oriented
reforms and ability to fully accept GATT obligations.
 
American products are in high demand, especially now that the Hungarian
Government has substantially liberalized imports.  Average import duties have
been cut from 50% to 17% in two years.  Best prospects for U.S. exporters
include food processing and packaging equipment, computer software,
agricultural equipment, telecommunications equipment, computers and
peripherals, construction equipment, and consumer goods.
 
Latvia
Capital:  Riga
Area:  64,100 square kilometers
Population:  2.8 million (1992)
GNP:  $8.9 billion (1991)
Bilateral Trade Treaty/MFN:  no/yes
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  no
GSP:  yes
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  TCID only
OPIC Agreement:  yes
TDA:  yes
GATT:  observer status
IMF/World Bank:  yes
EBRD:  yes
 
Latvia has an advanced industrial sector, producing high-quality electronic
and consumer goods.  It is largely dependent on imports of energy and raw
materials.  Industrial and agricultural machinery and equipment are key
industries.
 
Latvia has made excellent progress in economic reform.  A new currency has
been introduced, price reform is almost complete, and inflation has declined
to nearly zero.  However, output has dropped nearly 40% from its 1990 level,
and unemployment is rising.
 
Trade with the United States has remained small, but there are opportunities
for U.S. exports of pharmaceuticals, consumer durables, computers, and
telecommunications equipment.  In late 1994, the United States anticipates
signing an investment treaty, an updated trade agreement, and an intellectual
property agreement.
 
Lithuania
Capital:  Vilnius
Area:  65,200 square kilometers
Population:  3.8 million (1992)
GNP:  $10.0 billion
Bilateral Trade Treaty/MFN:  no/yes
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  pending
GSP:  yes
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  TCID only
OPIC Agreement:  yes
TDA:  yes
GATT:  observer status
IMF/World Bank:  yes
EBRD:  yes
 
Lithuania has a relatively diverse manufacturing base, which features a large
machine-building industry, an oil refinery, and mini-computer production.
Its livestock sector also is strong but depends on grain imports.  Lithuania
also is  dependent on outside sources for energy.
 
In 1991, Lithuania embarked on a comprehensive economic reform plan and has
made substantial progress in price and trade reform and privatization.
However, output has decreased 50% since 1989, and unemployment is rising.
Its market is small, but there are opportunities for U.S. exports of consumer
durables, pharmaceuticals, and high-technology equipment.
 
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Capital:  Skopje
Population:  2 million
Area: 25,700 square kilometers
GDP:  $6.4 billion (1992)
Bilateral Trade Treaty/MFN:  no/yes
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  no
GSP:  yes
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  no
OPIC Agreement:  no
TDA:  yes
GATT:  observer status
IMF/World Bank:  yes
EBRD:  yes
 
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has recently adopted currency
reform and passed privatization legislation.  It has a newIMF program.
Although relations with neighboring Greece remain difficult, The Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is at the crossroads of the southern Balkan
region and offers investment opportunities in telecommunications,
agribusiness, and transportation infrastructure development.
 
Poland
Capital:  Warsaw
Area:  312,680 square kilometers
Population:  38 million (1992)
GNP:  $160 billion (1991)
Bilateral Trade Treaty/MFN:  yes
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  not yet in force
GSP:  yes
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  yes
OPIC Agreement:  yes
TDA:  yes
GATT:  yes
IMF/World Bank:  yes
EBRD:  yes
 
Four years into its transition to a market economy, Poland is the first
former centrally planned economy in Eastern Europe to end its recession and
return to growth.  However, incomes remain low and unemployment high,
straining the political consensus for reform.  As a result, a new government,
elected in September 1993, may seek to moderate the pace of change.
 
Poland is the largest Central and East European market for U.S. exports,
which totaled $636 million in 1992, almost 40% higher than in 1991.  Major
export product areas included computers, telecommunications, food processing
equipment, consumer goods, pollution-control equipment, refrigeration and
air-conditioning equipment, and travel and tourism services.  To spur
involvement in Poland, the American Business Center in Warsaw opened in March
1993 to provide office space and business services to the U.S. business
community.  Companies also are encouraged to use the services of OPIC,
Eximbank, the Trade Development Agency, and the Polish-American Enterprise
Fund.
 
Romania
Capital:  Bucharest
Area:  237,500 square kilometers
Population:  23 million (1992)
GNP:  $18 billion (1992)
Bilateral Trade Treaty/MFN:  yes
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  not yet ratified
GSP:  no
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  TCID only
OPIC Agreement:  yes
TDA:  yes
GATT:  yes
IMF/World Bank:  yes
EBRD:  yes
 
Most-favored-nation trade status, renounced in 1988 by former President
Ceausescu, was renewed in the fall of 1993.
 
More than 100 American firms maintain representative offices in Romania.  The
Department of Commerce sponsors a U.S. pavilion at the annual Bucharest
international fair.  More than 50 U.S. firms participated in 1992.  OPIC led
a trade mission of U.S. businesses to Romania in October 1993.
 
Slovakia
Capital:  Bratislava
Area:  49,400 square kilometers
Population:  5.3 million
GNP:  $6.1 billion (1992)
Bilateral Trade Treaty/MFN:  yes
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  yes
GSP:  yes
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  pending
OPIC Agreement:  yes
TDA:  yes
GATT:  yes
IMF/World Bank:  yes
EBRD:  yes
 
American goods are in strong demand.  Best prospects for U.S. exports to
Slovakia include computer hardware and software, pollution-control equipment,
telecommunications equipment, building products, and management and
consulting services.
 
Slovenia
Capital:  Ljubljana
Area:  20,296 square kilometers
Population:  2 million (1992)
GNP:  $10 billion (1992)
Bilateral Trade Treaty/MFN:  no/yes
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  no
GSP:  yes
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  no
OPIC Agreement:  yes
TDA:  yes
GATT:  pending
IMF/World Bank:  yes
EBRD:  yes
 
Slovenia has not been involved in the fighting in other former Yugoslav
republics.  It has a skilled, well-educated work force; a stable, convertible
currency; and excellent trade ties to Western Europe.
 
Slovenia's privatization law for the conversion of large, government-owned
enterprises is close to ratification.  It has an abundance of smaller,
private companies in almost all fields.
 
Slovenia places no restrictions on the repatriation of profits or invested
capital and virtually no restrictions on any kind of business.  Several major
U.S. companies have established operations in Slovenia, which has six free
trade/customs zones.
 
Slovenia depends on imports of semi-finished and raw materials to produce
exports.  Best U.S. export prospects include hides and skins, coal, corn,
and, in finished goods, computers, telecommunications equipment, chemicals,
and petroleum products.
 
 
Publications and Electronic Services
 
Publications and electronic dissemination services of the following U.S.
Government agencies and private sector organizations can provide assistance
to U.S. firms seeking opportunities in CEE countries.
 
U.S. GOVERNMENT
 
Department of State
The State Department provides the following materials and electronic
information services:
 
Dispatch is a weekly magazine that carries major foreign policy speeches and
congressional testimony by senior government officials; fact sheets and
chronologies on current issues; special features; country profiles and maps
on the nations in the news; and treaty actions.  To subscribe, contact:
 
Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
P.O. Box 3471954
Pittsburgh, PA  15250-7954
Tel:  (202) 783-3238
Fax:  (202) 512-2233
Cost:  $91 third-class
  $144 first-class
Request List ID-USDSD.  Check ormoney order should accompany  order and be
made payable to Superintendent of Documents.
 
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA  22161-2171
Tel:  (703) 487-4630
Fax:  (703) 321-8547
Cost:  $175 first-class;
$430 overnight delivery
Request #PB93-923500ACT.
Check or money order should accompany order and be made payable to NTIS.
 
Federal Bulletin Board Service.  The U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO)
provides the public immediate, self-service, and cost-effective access to
federal electronic information.  The Bureau of Public Affairs provides
Dispatch, country Background Notes, daily press briefings, and special
publications, such as this feature, on the BBS.
 
Users can immediately access free services on the bulletin board with a
personal computer, modem (settings: 8 bit, no parity, 1 stop bit, speeds 300-
9600 baud), telecommunications software, and telephone line by calling (202)
512-1387 or Internet's Telnet to federal.BBS.GPO.GOV, Port 3001.  To download
files, prices are reasonable:  The minimum charge per file is $2 (up to 50
kilobytes).  There is no charge for browsing the list of files or for
downloading copies of instructional and product description files,
publication schedules, and the use of the electronic mail to order files on
personal computer diskettes or in hard copy.  For BBS purchases, you may pay
by VISA, MasterCard, or GPO Deposit Account.  To pay by credit card, GPO
requires 24 hours to validate the information from the time you register on
the BBS as a new user.  A GPO Deposit Account can be opened by calling 202-
512-0822; Fax:  202-512-1262.  For additional information about GPO's
service, contact:
 
Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services
 Tel:  (202) 512-1524
Fax:  (202) 512-1262
 
Travel Information.  U.S. citizens traveling abroad can obtain information
about the health, security, and general travel situation in countries around
the world from Consular Information Sheets.  These contain data on the
location of the U.S. embassy or consulate, unusual immigration practices,
health concerns, political disturbances, unusual currency and entry
regulations, crime and security information, and drug penalties.  Contact:
 
Citizens Emergency Center
Tel:  (202) 647-5225
(recorded information)
Fax:  (202) 647-3000
 
The Consular Affairs Bulletin Board (CABB) enables users to access at no
charge the Consular Information Sheets described above, as well as
information on U.S. citizen passports, visas for foreigners wishing to come
to the United States, acquisition and loss of U.S. citizenship, international
adoptions, and entry requirements for Americans wishing to travel to other
countries.  Information comes from the Overseas Security Advisory Council's
(OSAC) electronic bulletin board, maintained by the Department of State's
Bureau of Diplomatic Security.  For general information call (202) 647-9225.
 
Through the U.S. Government Printing Office, the Bureau for Consular Affairs
provides a number of publications that offers travel information:  Your Trip
Abroad, A Safe Trip Abroad, and Tips for Americans Residing Abroad.  These
publications also are available on the BBS and are sold by the Superintendent
of Documents, Washington, DC 20402-9371 (Tel:  202-783-3238; Fax:  202-512-
2233).
 
Department of Commerce
The Commerce Department provides free, single copies of the materials and
other publications listed below.
 
"Eastern Europe:  A New Frontier for Business,"  Business America,
June 18, 1990.  Commerce Department officials describe how to do business
with CEE countries, plus provide information on special topics.
 
Sources for Financing Your Ventures in Eastern Europe.  A 17-page handout
describing financing available from U.S. Government agencies.
 
Summary of Export Controls.  A 14-page pamphlet describing types of licenses
and when and how to apply for them.
 
Trade Lead Opportunities in Eastern Europe.  Updated regularly, this
publication lists, by country, leads on trade opportunities provided by U.S.
overseas commercial posts.
 
U.S. Export Trading Companies Doing Business in Eastern Europe.  A 19-page
document listing, by state, trade intermediaries reporting their experience
trading with CEE.
 
Financial Institutions Active in East/West Business.  A list of banks and
other financial institutions active in CEE.
 
 Eastern Europe Business Bulletin.  A bimonthly newsletter on export
opportunities in CEE.
 
For copies, contact:  Eastern Europe Business Information Center (EEBIC)
Room 6043
U.S. Department of Commerce,
14th and Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20230
Tel:  (202) 482-2645
Fax:  (202) 482-4473
 
The Economic Bulletin Board (EBB) is an electronic bulletin board, which can
be reached from most personal computers equipped with a modem (300, 1200,
2400, or 9600 bps) and standard communications software.  A free, limited-
access service is available to those who would like to get acquainted with
the EBB before subscribing.  Call the EBB and type GUEST when prompted for a
User ID.  Guest users may not download actual files but are encouraged to
read bulletins, including several sample files.
 
The EBB can be reached 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at (202) 482-3870 using
your personal computer.  Set the PC's communications switches to no parity, 8
bit words, and 1 stop bit.  The EBB's 9600bps service uses US Robotics Dual
Standard HST/V.32 modems and can be reached by calling (202) 482-2584.
 
The EBB is an on-line source for trade leads as well as for the latest
statistical releases from the Bureaus of Economic Analysis, Census, and Labor
Statistics; the Federal Reserve Board;  the Department of the Treasury; and
other federal agencies.  The EBB offers regular access to government reports
such as daily trade opportunities, merchandise trade, and economic
indicators.  General topics include foreign trade data, U.S. Trade
Representative press releases, regional economic statistics, and many others.
EBB files are continually updated and are available at or within a short time
of their official release.  For further information call the EBB staff at
(202) 482-1986.
 
All types of access:  $45 annual fee.  For connections at 300/1200/2400 and
9600bps and Internet's telnet to ebb.stat-usa.gov.  (includes a $20 credit
for connect time)
 
Flat-rate payment two-option plan.  One annual payment (includes the annual
fee and all online charges; excludes access from 8 a.m.-Noon)
 
Option one:  $250 a year, (includes up to 60 minutes on-line time per day)
Option two:  $400 per year, (includes up to 240 minutes on-line time per day)
 
The National Trade Data Bank (NTDB) is a trade information library (CD-ROM)
designed to boost export sales.  It offers access to contacts worldwide with
profiles of screened businesses that are interested in importing U.S.
products.  It also offers the most current and reliable information about
specific industries and countries worldwide.  This information is updated
monthly and compiled from federal sources such as the Federal Reserve, the
Export-Import Bank, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.  It also
includes Dispatch, Background Notes, and selected reports from the State
Department.
 
Use the NTDB on any IBM-compatible personal computer equipped with a CD-ROM
reader.
 Cost:  $360 per year (12 two-disc issues) or $35 an issue.
 For more information call:
Tel:  1-800-USA-TRADE
 
For information and phone orders for the NTDB, call the  NTDB help line:
Tel:  (202) 482-1986
TDD Access:  (202) 482-1526
 
FedWorld.  FedWorld is a user-friendly on-line system where more than 100
federally operated on-line computer systems have been brought under a single
umbrella.
 
These systems provide practical and highly specialized information ranging
from the Commerce Department's Economic Bulletin Board, which reports
economic indicators such as housing starts; to the State Department's
Consular Affairs Bulletin Board, which provides visa requirements for travel
to other countries.
 
FedWorld can be directly accessed through the Internet or via telephone line.
By phone, set modem parity to none, data bits to 8, and stop bit to 1.  Set
terminal emulation to ANSI or VT100.  Set duplex to full, and dial FedWorld
at (703) 321-8020.
 
From the Internet, connect to fedworld.gov by using the telnet command.
FedWorld's I.P. address is 192.239.92.201.  For more information, call (703)
487-4608.
 
Small Business Administration (SBA)
 
The SBA provides Exporter's Guide To Federal Resources For Small Business and
The World Is Your Market for smaller firms that want to export their goods
and services.  Call:
U.S. Government Printing Office
Tel:  (202) 783-3238
Fax:  (202) 512-2233
 
SBA Online.  SBA Online is a computer-based electronic bulletin board created
to expedite information and assistance to the small business community.
Operating 23 hours a day, this system provides current information on SBA
publications, services, points of contact, calendars of local events, on-line
training, access to other federal on-line services, data from other federal
agencies, electronic mail, special interest groups, files for downloading,
and on-line assistance.
 
To access the SBA Online system, use a computer, modem, phone line, and
communications software.  Data parameters:  N,8,1.
Toll Free
9600 bps--1-800-697-INFO
2400 bps--1-800-859-INFO
Washington, DC Area
9600 bps--(202) 401-9600
2400 bps--(202) 205-7265
Hotline
(202) 205-6400
 
SBA Answer Desk
1-800-ASK-SBA
 
PRIVATE SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS
Inquiries about availability and price should be made directly to the dealers
listed; the U.S. Government does not endorse unofficial publications.
 
"Recent Developments in Eastern European Laws on Investments by Foreign
Firms," Foreign Investments Law Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, Fall 1990.  This 34-
page article in a special edition of the Journal assesses recent legal
changes in CEE.
 
Business Eastern Europe.  Weekly information on market opportunities and
business information in CEE.
 
Business International, Ltd.
Customer Service Department
40 Duke Street
London, W1A 1DW
Tel:  44-71-493-6711
Fax:  44-71-491-2107
 
Eastern Europe and Soviet Telecom Report.  Monthly telecommunications
industry news by company and country.
 
International Technology Consultants
1724 Kalorama Road, NW, Suite 210
Washington, DC 20009
Tel:  (202) 234-2138
Fax:  (202) 483-7922
 
PlanEcon Business Report.  A biweekly update on business developments in the
former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe that describes the status of
privatization, other reforms, and details of pending and completed investment
transactions and political activities that could affect investment.  Contact:
PlanEcon Inc.
1111 - 14th Street, NW, Suite 801
Washington, DC 20005-5603
Tel:  (202) 898-0471
Fax:  (202) 898-0445.  (###)
 
END OF DISPATCH VOLUME 5, NO. 17

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