U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 5, NUMBER 29, JULY 18, 1994
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:
1.  Advancing a Vision Of Sustainable Development--President Clinton
2.  Progress in the Middle East Peace Process Multilateral Negotiations-
-
Robert H. Pelletreau
3.  Human Rights and Democracy in Asia--John Shattuck
4.  U.S.-Russian Cooperation on Human Rights And Democracy-Building
5.  Human Rights Situation in Haiti--Nancy Ely-Raphel
6.  U.S. To Sign Seabed Mining Agreement Of the Law of the Sea 
Convention--David A. Colson, Department Statement



ARTICLE 1:

Advancing a Vision Of Sustainable Development
President Clinton
Address to the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, June 29, 
1994 (introductory remarks deleted)

I have been trying to prepare to go to the G-7 meeting in Naples.  And 
I've  been working on that organization for the last, well, year and a 
half--as long  as I've been in office--to try, first, to get it to focus 
on global growth in the  short run, about what we can do in our nations 
and together; and, then, to  think about what the world will look like 
in the next century and what we  must do.  And I must tell you, I am of 
two minds.  I am so happy and proud  to be going there, basically to say 
that what we agreed to do is working; in  the near-term, it is clearly 
working.

The United States has 40% of the gross domestic product of the G-7.  But 
in  the last year, we've had 75% of the growth, almost 100% of the new 
jobs,  twice the investment rate, twice the export increase rate, and 
the highest  rate of productivity growth.  We've got the second-lowest 
deficit; next year  we'll have the lowest deficit of all the G-7 
countries.  These things are  heartening to me.  And as a whole, our 
economy is in the best shape it's  been in in four years.  There is a 
sense that we're working together and that  our nation is fortunate 
enough to lead the way.

But when you look at the long-run trends that are going on around the 
world-
-you read articles such as Robert Kaplan's in the Atlantic a couple of 
months  ago--that some say is too dour--still, if you really look at 
what is going on,  you could visualize a world in which a few million of 
us live in such opulence  we could all be starring on nighttime soaps.  
And the rest of us look as  though we're in one of those Mel Gibson 
"Road Warrior" movies.

I was so gripped by many things that were in that article, and by the 
more  academic treatment of the same subject by Professor Homer Dixon.  
And I  keep trying to imagine what it's going to be like to bring 
children into this  world--in this country, or that one, or the other.  
That is really what we are  forced to come to grips with.  When I think 
about it, my mind starts bursting  in those ways that some people say 
are undisciplined, but I think are  productive.

If you look at the landscape of the future and you say we have to 
strengthen  the families of the globe; we have to encourage equitable 
and strong growth;  we have to provide basic health care; we have to 
stop AIDS from spreading;  we have to develop water supplies and improve 
agricultural yields and stem  the flow of refugees and protect the 
environment, and on and on and on--it  gives you a headache.  And of 
course, on that list, you have to say--if you  look at the numbers--we 
must reduce the rate of population growth.

Tim Wirth was talking about Haiti.  My daughter and I were talking about  
Haiti a few months ago, and I was telling her about how her mother and I  
had gone to Haiti once many years ago, shortly after we married and 
about  what sadness and hope I had seen there at the same time and what 
had  happened since then.  And she said to me,  
     I know all that, Dad, because I've seen aerial photographs from 
space.   And if you look at the island, you can see where the Dominican 
Republic  ends and where Haiti begins.  And there couldn't be all that 
environmental  destruction without all those other problems you talked 
about.

It was a stunning thing--from the perspective of an American 
schoolchild--
that sort of wraps all this up.

I say that to make this point:  We have to be disciplined in saying 
well, all  right, how much time and how much money and how much energy 
have we  got; and we have to order our priorities.  But we cannot be 
naive enough to  think that it is so easy to isolate one of these issues 
as opposed to another,  that there is some silver bullet that solves the 
future of the world.

If you look at the rate at which natural resources are disappearing and 
you  look at the rate at which the gap between rich and poor is growing, 
if you  look at the fact that the world's population has doubled since 
74 nations met  in Rome only 40 years ago, it is clear that we need a 
comprehensive  approach to the world's future.  We put it under the 
buzzword of sustainable  development, I guess, but there is no way that 
we can approach tomorrow  unless we are at least mindful of our common 
responsibilities in all these  areas.

During the nine days of the up-coming Cairo conference, more than 2 
million  people will enter our world--more than 2 million new babies 
will be born into  a world in which already one-third of our children 
are hungry, two of every  five people on Earth lack basic sanitation, 
and large parts of the world exist  with only one doctor for every 
35,000 or 40,000 people.  Reversing these  realities will require 
innovation and commitment and a determination to do  what can be done 
over a long period of time--while all of us around the world  are busy 
with our own business within our own borders.

It will require us to be willing to think anew about the relationship of 
human  development to what is going on in all of these nations; to cast 
aside a lot of  our ideas from the past--when it was always tempting to 
believe that there  was one single thing we could do--some silver 
bullet--that would make  everything all right.

Principles for a Shared Prosperity

To bring about shared prosperity, as Professor Homer Dixon has written, 
the  nations of the world simply must move forward on many fronts at one 
time.   Reducing population growth without providing economic 
opportunity won't  work.  Without education, it's hard to imagine how 
basic health care will  ever take hold.  Ignored, these challenges will 
continue to divide people from  one another.  We simply have to solve 
these problems together--the  problems together, and together as the 
people of the world.

I'm really proud of the fact that the G-7 has agreed to address some of 
these  issues in a serious way this week in Naples.  We're going to talk 
about what  we can do within the G-7 to promote not just growth but more 
jobs--because  a lot of the wealthy countries are finding they can't 
create jobs even when  they grow their economy.  And then, when they 
can't do that, they lose the  constituency at home to engage the rest of 
the world.

We're going to talk about how we build an economic infrastructure for 
the  21st century.  What's this new world trade organization that we 
create with  GATT going to look like?  What should the World Bank and 
the IMF do?   We're also going to talk about how we can help economies 
in transition,  such as the states of the former Soviet Union, and what 
we can do with the  economies that are not in transition--or, if 
anything, are going the wrong  way--to address our common 
responsibilities.

This is quite a unique thing, really, for the world's advanced nations.  
And  I'm quite pleased that with all the economic problems that exist in 
many of  these countries they are willing to have a serious look at 
where we should be  10 or 20 years from now--far beyond the election 
prospects of the world  leaders who will be there.

As we head for the Cairo conference, I think that same approach has to  
guide us.  The policies we promote must be based on enduring values--
promoting stronger families, having more responsibility from individual  
citizens, respecting human rights, deepening the bonds of community.  
Here  at home and around the globe, that's where the future lies, 
beginning with  our families.  When they're whole and they function, 
families nurture and  care for us.  They provide role models.  They 
communicate values and enable  people to live together in peace and work 
together for common objectives.   Therefore, that is the most important 
thing we can do.

Since the beginning of this administration, we have worked to promote  
policies that would permit families to grow in strength at home and 
abroad.  I  reversed the so-called Mexico City policy because I thought 
that doctors and  medical workers around the world should be able to 
really work on family  planning and provide a full range of family-
planning information.

Since then, we have increased by about 50%--at a very tough budget time-
-
the Agency for International Development's budget for international 
family-
planning and support services.  To bolster families here at home, we 
passed  a big increase in the earned income tax credit to help keep 15 
million working  families off welfare, out of poverty, and in the work 
force.  We increased  Head Start availability and nutrition programs to 
hundreds of thousands of  children, cracked down on delinquent child-
support payments, and increased  immunization funds so that we can 
increase by literally more than a million  the number of children who 
are immunized.

We're working to reduce out-of-wedlock and teen births.  Through the 
Family  and Medical Leave Act, we're working to make it possible for 
people to be  successful workers and successful parents--a big issue 
everywhere in the  world now, when more and more parents must work.  Any 
society which  forces people to choose is doomed to failure.  If people 
have no option but to  work and we all need people to continue to bear 
children, then surely all of  our parents must be successful workers and 
our workers must be able to  succeed as parents.

Our population policy is rooted in the idea that the family should be at 
the  center of all of our objectives.  Therefore, there must be support 
for the  concept of responsibility--of parents to their children, of men 
and women to  one another, and of our current generation to future 
generations.

Progress brings freedom; freedom requires more disciplined 
responsibility.   We must teach our young people to choose wisely, and 
tell them that their  choices must include abstinence.  Our policy 
always has been rooted in the  ethical principles of compassion and 
justice and respect for human rights.   We have supported every 
individual's dignity and worth.  And we will  continue to oppose and 
condemn all forms of coercion in family planning.

Translating Principles Into Reality

Helping to translate these principles into reality is the charge that 
the Vice  President will take to Cairo in September.  No one is better 
suited to this task  than he.  He has shown his commitment to these 
long-term challenges, and  he had been thinking in large ways about them 
long before they were  politically unpopular or even the source of much 
current discussion.

In Cairo, we'll join the international community in pursuing a new plan 
of  action to attack the population problem as part of the larger issue 
of  sustainable development.  At the top of our agenda will be active 
support for  efforts to invest in the women of the world.  Over the long 
run, maybe the  most important thing that the Cairo policy will call for 
is for every nation  make an effort to educate its children on an equal 
basis, to put an end to the  widespread practice of withdrawing girls 
from school and forcing them to go  to work before boys do.  To ensure 
that nations can develop at a more rapid  pace, it will call on each of 
us to recognize women's worth and development  and to engage them fully 
in the work force.  It will help give women the full  rights of 
citizenship and end discrimination which still exists nearly  everywhere 
and slows progress wherever it exists.

At Cairo, the United States also will join the international community 
in  launching new, high-quality, voluntary family-planning and 
reproductive  health programs.  Our goal is to make these programs 
available to every  citizen in the world by early in the next century.  
Parents must have the right  to decide freely and responsibly the number 
and spacing of their children.

Now, I want to be clear about this.  Contrary to some assertions, we do 
not  support abortion as a method of family planning.  We respect, 
however, the  diversity of national laws--except we do oppose coercion 
whenever it exists.   Our own policy in the United States is that this 
should be a matter of  personal choice, not public dictation.  And, as I 
have said many times,  abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.  In 
other countries where it does  exist, we believe safety is an important 
issue.  And if you look at the  mortality figures, it is hard to turn 
away from that issue.  We also believe  that providing women with the 
means to prevent unwanted pregnancy will  do more than anything else to 
reduce abortion.

Finally, let me say, we must take to Cairo the same basic commitment to  
provide health care for every citizen of the world that we have brought 
to the  public debate here in America.  I must say that there is less 
disagreement  among the representatives of the 174 countries going to 
Cairo than there is  among the 535 members of Congress.  Maybe we can 
bring the spirit back  home.

Experience shows that investing in maternal health, prenatal services, 
and  preventive care for children not only saves lives, it eventually 
gives people  the confidence they need from knowing that their children 
will survive.  And  that changes all kinds of attitudes that affect the 
way children are raised.   Every country has committed itself to 
improving the health of women and  children.  And every one that has 
really done that has seen a decline in  population growth and a rise in 
prosperity.

The Cairo conference, therefore, can do a great deal to advance our 
vision of  sustainable development and stabilized population growth and 
to help us  fulfill a vision of a world of intact families in which 
every member is  cherished, a world that has the wisdom and the strength 
to tackle challenges  head on instead of talking about them and using 
words to divide people so  they don't really address the challenges, a 
world that will lead to equal  opportunity and shared prosperity.

When President Roosevelt died in 1945, there was a typed manuscript of 
his  last speech, which was found with just a single sentence written in 
his own  hand.  This was the last sentence of the last speech that 
Franklin Roosevelt  had written--one that he never got to give.  His 
handwritten sentence said,       The only limit to our realization of 
tomorrow will be our doubts of today.   Let us move forward with strong 
and active faith.

In the face of so many seemingly intractable problems, it is certainly  
tempting to let those doubts take control.  But I think those of you 
here  tonight believe as I do that we can, instead, search for and find 
solutions  that will help generations yet to come.  President Roosevelt 
governed at a  time when doubt was a luxury the American people could 
not afford.  I say  to you, tonight, doubt is a luxury the world can no 
longer afford.

I commend you for your compassion and your commitment.  I urge you to  
turn this faith into action and to help me to do my job to do the same.  
(###)



ARTICLE 2:

Progress in the Middle East Peace Process Multilateral Negotiations  
Robert H. Pelletreau, Assistant Secretary For Near Eastern Affairs
Opening remarks at a news conference following a meeting of the Middle  
East Multilateral Steering Group, Tabarka, Tunisia, July 13, 1994

The Middle East Multilateral Steering Group met July 12-13 in Tabarka,  
Tunisia.  The Steering Group--which is composed of core parties from the  
Middle East; the United States and Russia, as co-sponsors of the peace  
process; and extraregional parties that have taken on responsibility for 
the  multilateral working groups--monitors, evaluates, and guides the 
activities of  all the working groups.

All the participants contributed to a serious and fruitful dialogue on 
important  organizational and substantive issues.  They expressed their 
appreciation to  the Government of Tunisia for its invaluable 
contribution to the success of  the peace process and for its gracious 
hosting of this meeting.

The multilateral working groups continue to complement the bilateral  
negotiations and act as a catalyst for progress.  The Steering Group  
welcomed the progress achieved in the bilateral talks, including the  
conclusion of the May 4 Gaza-Jericho agreement, the establishment of the  
Palestinian Authority, and the Jordanian-Israeli agreement to intensify 
their  bilateral negotiations in the region.

During this meeting, the Steering Group took note of the significant  
accomplishments in each working group since the Tokyo Steering Group  
meeting.

--The Arms Control and Regional Security Working Group approved the  
establishment of an ACRS communication network, the holding of a search  
and rescue demonstration in the Mediterranean, and continuing the 
efforts to  finalize a document on security relations.  The group also 
continued its  discussions in such areas as verification and the concept 
of a conflict  prevention-regional security center.

--The Environment Working Group approved further work on an  
environmental code of conduct and projects on oil-spill contingencies in 
the  upper Gulf of Aqaba, desertification, and wastewater treatment in 
small  communities.

--The Regional Economic Development Working Group drafted economic  
guidelines for regional cooperation, established a monitoring committee 
to  monitor implementation of the Copenhagen Action Plan, and announced 
the  establishment of a Peace Process Information Bank.

--The Refugee Working Group developed projects to alleviate the plight 
of  Palestinian refugees and promote self-sufficiency, including 
projects such as  the construction or renovation of training centers, 
schools, and health clinics;  plans to improve child welfare and public 
health; and ongoing support for the  Palestinian Bureau of Statistics.  
The group also encouraged progress in the  area of family reunification.

--The Water Resources Working Group approved an Omani proposal for a  
regional desalination research center, an Israeli proposal to 
rehabilitate  municipal water supply systems, and a proposal for 
wastewater treatment  and reuse facilities.

The Steering Group also had an extensive discussion on guidelines for  
regional development and a study on the future of the region.  
Delegations  provided extensive comments on both the substance and 
purpose of the  documents and the method for completing them.  The 
guidelines will serve  as a framework of key elements for regional 
cooperation and will establish a  common set of procedures for all the 
working groups.  The regional study  will serve as vision of what the 
Middle East region will look like in 10 years  and will assist the 
parties in setting specific priorities for the working groups.  
The Steering Group approved the following venues for the next round of  
working groups, which will take place before the end of 1994.

--Arms Control and Regional Security--Tunisia

--Environment--Bahrain

--Refugees--Turkey

--Regional Economic Development--Germany

--Water Resources--Greece

--Steering Group--To be determined  (###)



ARTICLE 3:

Human Rights and Democracy in Asia
John Shattuck, Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and 
Labor
Address to the Asia Foundations' Center for Asian Pacific Affairs, 
Alexandria,  Virginia, June 28, 1994

I would like to thank the Asia Foundation for the opportunity to be here 
with  you this evening and to address issues of real moment and 
consequence for  Asia and the U.S. at a time when U.S.-Asia relations 
are evolving into a new  phase--at a time of great world change.

My subject tonight is human rights and democracy.  Around the world, and  
certainly in Asia, the issues I will raise are those that stand at the 
crossroads  of two of the most dynamic and momentous developments of our 
time:  the  global movement toward democracy and human rights and the 
global spread  of free market economies.  These are large and 
complicated issues, and it is  unlikely that I will dot every "i" and 
cross every "t" this evening.  But what I  hope we can accomplish here 
and in your subsequent discussions is to  articulate an approach to the 
questions of democracy and human rights, a  formulation of how we in the 
Clinton Administration think about and address  these issues.

Every region of the world is different, and no region itself is a 
monolith.  Our  commitment is to democracy and human rights around the 
world, a  commitment shared by people the world over.  At the same time, 
there is no  question that each region poses its own challenges--and 
rightly so.

In the Asian context, several salient questions confront us at the 
outset.  Simply put, does the promotion of human rights in Asia darken 
the door of  better U.S. bilateral relations?  In promoting democracy 
and human rights,  are we promoting our values at the expense of our 
interests?  Are we  promoting our values to an unreceptive audience?  
These are legitimate  questions, and I know they are on the minds of 
many Asia experts.  Before  answering these questions and, indeed, in 
order to answer them at all, I will  first outline for you this 
Administration's human rights and democracy policy  as a whole.

U.S. Policy on Human Rights And Democracy

Protecting human rights and promoting democracy are integral elements of  
U.S. foreign policy for two distinct but closely related reasons.  
First, respect  for human rights in the processes of government and law 
reflects  fundamental values, which not only have played a major role in 
shaping  America's world view but also represent binding and universal 
principles as  expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 
and, more recently,  at last year's Vienna conference.  Second, human 
rights protection serves  far-reaching, long-term interests of the U.S., 
its trading partners and allies,  and, indeed, the entire international 
community.

We know from historical experience that democracies are more likely than  
other forms of government to respect human rights; to settle conflicts  
peacefully; to observe international law and honor agreements; to go to 
war  with great reluctance and rarely against other democracies; to 
respect the  rights of ethnic, racial, and religious minorities; and to 
provide the social and  political basis for free market economies.

Open societies make for better and more stable trading partners because  
they tend to honor agreements and provide reliable systems of justice.  
By  contrast, repressive regimes foster instability in the long run and 
put  investment at great risk of expropriation or loss.

By contrast, the costs to the world of repression and authoritarianism 
are  painfully clear.  In the 20th century, the number of people killed 
by their own  governments under authoritarian regimes is four times the 
number killed in all  this century's wars combined. Repression pushes 
refugees across borders  and triggers wars, and unaccountable 
governments are heedless of  environmental destruction.

We do not seek to replicate America's unique society around the world.   
Rather, we promote accountable government, a free press, effective  
judiciaries, and the rule of law.  We encourage the development of civil  
society--of civic, religious, trade, and social groups--that creates 
breathing  room for society to develop apart from the state and affords 
individuals and  communities the greatest opportunity for growth.

The Clinton Administration is incorporating human rights and democracy 
into  the mainstream of our foreign policy.  We encourage institutions 
of  accountability that will hold violators to account.  Examples 
include the UN  War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the Truth 
Commission in El  Salvador, and administration of justice programs in 
many countries, including  in Latin America, Russia, and other states of 
the former Eastern bloc.

We are working to build new multilateral institutions to address racial, 
ethnic,  and religious conflict--institutions that can work to defuse 
conflicts before  they lead to gross violations of human rights.  We are 
especially involved in  pursuing cooperation with regional groups to 
create mechanisms of conflict  resolution and are actively engaged in 
supporting initiatives by the OAU,  OAS, and the CSCE.  We are 
integrating, for the first time, women's rights  into all aspects of our 
human rights policy.

We are working to meet U.S. international human rights obligations by  
pressing for the ratification of a number of pending international 
treaties and  conventions.  Thanks to our efforts, the Senate recently 
ratified the  convention on the elimination of race discrimination, 
which had been  languishing for years.

We led the effort in the UN to create a UN High Commissioner for Human  
Rights, and we are working with other states to improve the functioning 
of  the UN Human Rights Commission.  Finally, and perhaps above all, we 
are  strengthening our relationship with non-governmental organizations 
striving  to promote democracy and human rights around the globe.

Three Points About The U.S. and Asia

Turning now to Asia, President Clinton has described the New Pacific  
Community as a community built on shared prosperity, shared strength, 
and  a shared commitment to democratic values.  These goals are related; 
each  pillar is important and reinforces the others.  I would, at this 
juncture, like to  make three broad points about the U.S. and Asia.

First, there is no question that we share major economic and security  
interests with Asia.  Both of these interests are served if the region 
becomes  more democratic and human rights are better protected--and both 
are  threatened by anti-democratic governments which violate human 
rights.

Our shared economic interests--trade and investment--are best served in 
the  long run by a political and social order which respects the rule of 
law, where  basic freedom of speech is a social safety valve, and where 
government is  accountable to its citizens.  Needless to say, we 
enthusiastically welcome  and share in Asia's economic boom, which our 
open market has helped to  create, for the prosperity it brings Asia's 
people and its trading partners and  for the social and political 
development it engenders.  But, as no less an  exponent of the free 
market than Milton Friedman has recognized, economic  development alone-
-while a necessary condition for the development of  human rights and 
civil society--is not by itself sufficient and must be  supplemented by 
concerted effort if a just political and social order is to  come into 
being.  This was historically the case here in the United States and  is 
certainly true elsewhere.

By the same token, our shared security interests are best served by 
countries  where the military is accountable to civilian government and 
where  international obligations are respected. It is no accident that 
the greatest  security threat we face in Asia comes from North Korea, a 
totalitarian state  whose people are kept in a constant state of 
mobilization.  It is no accident  that our strongest allies--such as 
Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and  Thailand--all have elected 
governments

Second, the interrelationship between economics, security, and human 
rights  means that policies in those three areas not only should but 
must proceed in  tandem--that these issues are, ultimately, all of a 
piece.  I submit that it is in  this context that we ought to view the 
President's recent decision to renew  China's most-favored-nation 
status.  This decision--the product of  thoroughgoing discussion and 
analysis throughout the U.S. Government--was  a difficult one, but it 
represents a first step on the road toward a constructive  and future-
oriented strategy for human rights in Asia.

Let us make no mistake:  China did not achieve significant, overall 
progress  on human rights last year, though it did meet the two 
mandatory  requirements set out in the President's executive order.  It 
should be pointed  out that under the requirements of U.S. law, China's 
MFN status will still be  evaluated annually with respect to freedom of 
emigration.  The point,  however, is that the President's decision now 
enables us to develop  constructive initiatives to address China's very 
serious human rights situation  without doing the massive harm to our 
economic ties that the exercise of  MFN denial would create.

The U.S. Government will maintain human rights as an essential part of 
our  engagement with China.  Among the elements of our forward-looking 
human  rights approach there are facilitating access by the Chinese 
people to the  world's commerce in information and ideas, working on a 
multilateral basis to  promote human rights, engaging with the business 
community, and helping  foster civil society in China.

The third point I would make about Asia is that, clearly, some Asian  
governments see democracy as a threat to their sovereignty and 
authority.  These governments attack the very idea that human rights are 
universal. As  a result, there are more tensions in our bilateral 
relations with some Asian  governments over human rights than with 
governments elsewhere.

However, the rejection of human rights and democracy by some Asian 
elites  fails to take account of some very important realities.  There 
have been  tremendous gains in democracy throughout Asia over the last 
decade--in  Cambodia, Thailand, Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines, 
and Mongolia.   Furthermore, there has been a tremendous growth of Asian 
NGOs, partly as  a result of growth of the middle classes in booming 
Asian economies.  One  of the most fascinating and telling dimensions of 
last year's Vienna  conference was the important role of Asian NGOs, not 
least as a  counterweight to Asian governments.

Alongside Asia's deeply impressive economic emergence, we have seen the  
emergence of extraordinary men and women working day in and day out  
within their own societies to foster respect for democracy and human 
rights--
people like Wei Jingsheng in China, who has characterized the 
establishment  of "true democracy" as the "fifth modernization" that 
China must undertake,  and Burmese Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu 
Kyi, who commands  our respect and attention not only for her own 
courage and vision but for her  commitment to her own society.  Last 
week, the International Labor  Organization reminded the world community 
that universal human rights and  worker rights standards could not be 
ignored in Asia, when the ILO's  international conference rejected out 
of hand a resolution proposed by  several Asian countries that simply 
would have dismissed the relationship  between worker rights and trade.

As Secretary Christopher recently remarked:  "Our commitment to  
democracy is neither occidental nor accidental.  We are not imposing an  
American model; we are supporting a universal impulse for freedom."  It 
was  that impulse, he noted, that "inspired the people of Cambodia, 
where  farmers, monks and former soldiers risked violence to vote,"  in 
last year's  election.  "These authentic voices of Asia," he concluded, 
"are not  embracing an alien creed.  They are asserting their dignity as 
human beings."

Four Areas for New Forms of Progress

At this point, I would like to descend from the general to the 
particular and  outline for you four areas in which we see chances for 
new forms of  progress in democracy and human rights in Asia in addition 
to work on the  basic and universal freedoms enunciated in the Universal 
Declaration of  Human Rights--such as freedom from torture, freedom of 
speech and  association, and fundamental due process of law.

First, freedom of information and the media.  The world 
telecommunications  revolution is sweeping through Asia as elsewhere and 
is a driving force for  economic growth and for democratic change.  The 
free flow of information  and ideas has proven to be both literally and 
figuratively enriching.

We believe that encouraging the freest possible flow of information and 
ideas  will not only facilitate prosperity and enhance the world's 
commerce in ideas  but, ultimately, will redound to the benefit of 
Asia's people.

Second, civil-military relations.  In a number of Asian countries, it 
can be said  that deep strains in civil-military relations are the 
single-biggest challenge to  democratic development--for example, albeit 
in different ways, in Thailand,  Indonesia, and Burma.  In these 
countries, the military is interwoven into the  social and economic 
fabric of the country and plays a dominant political role.

The promotion of more clearly defined roles and responsibilities for 
civilian  and military sectors would enhance the prospects not only for 
democracy  and human rights but for better cooperation between the U.S. 
and Asian  countries on our shared security concerns.

Third, the U.S actively seeks multilateral cooperation in promoting 
democracy  and human rights.  As I said earlier, we are not trying to 
export uniquely  American values and mores but, rather, to foster the 
best long-term  conditions for international peace and stability.  This 
of necessity is an  endeavor that must involve many nations working 
together, and we welcome  the input and creative disagreement that the 
multilateral process brings.  We  seek cooperation with our regional 
allies and with regional groupings on  human rights and democracy issues 
of special concern to them.

Whether it be in election monitoring, good governance, judicial 
education  programs, or human rights commissions, the U.S. is beginning 
to work with  Asia's regional groups, with ASEAN, or, on a different 
scale, with groups  such as the Mekong Law Association on a broad 
spectrum of human rights  and democracy promotion activities.

Fourth, and finally, we seek to support actively Asia's NGOs, which are  
catalysts for change.  We are eager to promote and encourage the work of  
NGOs, precisely because they emerge from the grass roots, with the 
result  that the agendas they support are rooted in and molded to the 
contours of  their own societies.  We have much to learn from Asian 
democracy  advocates, both in and out of government, about effective 
strategies for  advancing universal values in their societies. We will 
take their views into  account when shaping U.S. policies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would say that global dialogue on human rights, 
accountable  government, civil society, and the rule of law is vital in 
the new, post-Cold  War world in which we find ourselves.  There is as 
yet no magic formula for  synthesizing economic development and 
political development, the  responsibilities of the community, and the 
dignities of the individual.  The  work of advancing human rights is an 
unending work in progress.

I would leave you tonight with the remarkably candid words of Malaysia's  
Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.  He has recently written that Asian  
countries must find their own way to democracy in keeping with their own  
cultural and social tradition.  At the same time, he says:   
     Prosperity in Asia must be accompanied by not only higher living  
standards for the general population but also the political empowerment 
of  the ordinary citizen.  Fundamental freedoms such as the freedom from  
hunger, freedom from fear and insecurity, freedom from economic  
exploitation, freedom from coercion, and the freedom to practice 
peacefully  one's religious beliefs are so basic for the growth of a 
truly human society  that we must continue to emphasize them.  (###)



ARTICLE 4:

U.S.-Russian Cooperation On Human Rights and Democracy-Building
Statement by Acting Department Spokesman Christine Shelly  Washington, 
DC, July 8, 1994.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor  
John Shattuck met July 7-8 with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey  
Lavrov; Vyacheslav Bakhmin, head of the Human Rights and Humanitarian  
Affairs Administration of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and other  
representatives of the Government of the Russian Federation to conduct a  
wide-ranging review of U.S.-Russian cooperation in the advancement of  
human rights and democracy.  In the fourth of a regular series of 
bilateral  discussions on this topic over the last year, the two sides 
agreed that full  respect for basic human rights and fundamental 
freedoms of all persons is  indispensable to the development of a full 
and mature partnership between  Russia and the United States.

Both sides also agreed that fundamental to the protection of human 
rights  and individual liberty is the further development of democratic 
institutions,  both governmental and non-governmental, within a 
framework established by  the rule of law.  Russia's achievements in 
this respect have been truly  historic in recent years.  The Russian 
people have chosen their president and  parliament in fair and free 
elections, and they have approved a constitution  that affords legal 
protections and guarantees for individual rights and  freedoms.

Assistant Secretary Shattuck and Deputy Foreign Minister Lavrov 
expressed  their commitment to continue to cooperate in supporting the 
development of  democracy and the rule of law in Russia.  The sides 
discussed ways in which  coordination of these efforts could be 
improved.  They exchanged views on  how to strengthen rule of law 
assistance programs to maximize their  effectiveness in promoting 
principles of justice in the context of Russian  democracy.

Shattuck and Lavrov also discussed the need to intensify cooperation in  
increasing the effectiveness of international organizations and 
mechanisms in  promoting human rights and democracy.  They agreed to 
further strengthen  cooperation between the two countries on human 
rights in the United  Nations, particularly in the UN Human Rights 
Commission.  Both sides  expressed their appreciation of the activities 
of the UN High Commissioner  for Human Rights and agreed to cooperate 
fully in supporting his efforts in  exercise of his mandate.  They 
expressed their full support of the goals and  activities of the 
international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

They also agreed, in this connection, on the importance of the upcoming  
CSCE summit in Budapest and the need for enhancing the role of the CSCE,  
including the role of the CSCE High Commissioner for National Minorities 
and  that of the CSCE missions relating to minority rights and the 
protection of  minorities against discrimination throughout the region.  
They agreed to  continue to work together to combat all forms of ethnic 
and religious  intolerance, particularly anti-Semitism.

The sides reiterated the importance they attach to freedom of travel and  
emigration.  They agreed that virtually all Russian citizens now enjoy 
this  basic freedom, that this issue should no longer pose a barrier to 
the full  development of commercial relations between Russia and the 
United States,  and that both countries will work to achieve this 
important goal.  (###)



ARTICLE 5:

Human Rights Situation in Haiti

Nancy Ely-Raphel, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human 
Rights,  and Labor
Opening remarks at a State Department press briefing, Washington, DC, 
July  13, 1994  
Good afternoon.  I've been asked to speak to you for a few minutes today  
about the deteriorating situation of human rights in Haiti.

As many of you are aware, on July 11, the de facto government ordered 
the  UN/OAS International Civilian Mission expelled from Haiti.  The 
U.S. joins the  Five Friends of Haiti, the United Nations, and the 
Organization of American  States in expressing its outrage at this 
latest action of the de facto regime.

The men and women of the ICM have done a superb job of monitoring  human 
rights in Haiti, often at considerable personal risk to themselves and  
in the face of intimidation by the military and its allies, the de facto  
government, and the FRAPH.

The ICM has played a critical role in monitoring the behavior of these  
repressive elements in Haitian society.  We can only ascribe its 
expulsion to  the de facto government's intent to pursue continued--and 
in all likelihood  increasingly--abusive and repressive actions free 
from international scrutiny.   Whatever the purpose, as ICM Chief Colin 
Gray Anderson said yesterday, the  de facto authorities have willingly 
assumed a heavy responsibility in ordering  the ICM, under threat, to 
leave Haiti.

Let me stress that, in our view, the departure of the ICM is a temporary  
matter.  The ICM was forced to depart from Haiti out of fear for its 
safety in  October 1993 through early January 1994, when it returned to 
Haiti.  We  will work with the UN and the OAS once again to seek the 
ICM's return as  rapidly as possible.

Human rights are being pervasively violated in Haiti.  While serious 
human  rights abuses have occurred regularly since the 1991 coup, they 
have risen  dramatically in the past year.  Beginning last summer, 
politically motivated  killings in Port-au-Prince rose sharply.  The 
brutal assassination of prominent  pro-Aristide activist Antoine Izmery 
in September and Justice Minister Guy  Malary in October were clear 
attempts to destroy key leaders and intimidate  their followers.

Human rights abuses have qualitatively and quantitatively worsened in 
recent  months, including senseless violence against ordinary citizens.  
We believe  we now may be seeing a further ratcheting up of repression.  
Extra-judicial  killings were not uncommon before June 30.  The Inter-
American  Commission on Human Rights identified 133 cases of 
extrajudicial killings  between February and May alone.

The latest developments include increased dumping of bodies in public 
areas  of Port-au-Prince in an attempt to terrorize the populace.  
Following the June  30 appearance of the corpses of five young men in 
the streets of Port-au-Prince, all shot with their hands tied behind 
their backs, one or more bodies  were found each day through the 4th of 
July weekend.  This follows the  already reported increase in the use of 
rape as a tool of political repression  and other egregious forms of 
abuse, such as mutilation, as well as the  reestablishment of the 
notorious Tontons Macoutes.

The quantity of abuses reported has increased dramatically in recent 
weeks.   From January 31--when the ICM first returned from the Dominican 
Republic--through May 31, 1994, 1,350 people went to ICM offices to 
register  complaints.  In June alone, 1,143  complaints were registered.

During the entire period from January 31, 1994, through June 30, the ICM  
registered the following allegations of serious offenses:  Extrajudicial 
killings,  340; seizures or disappearances, 131; rapes with political 
motives, 52;  human rights abuses resulting in the deaths of children, 
51.

As Colin Gray Anderson expressed so profoundly yesterday, one cannot be  
close to this type of violence every day without suffering oneself.

Our embassy will continue to monitor and report on the human rights  
situation in Haiti, and we encourage other missions to do the same.  
Those  who think that they can intimidate the international community as 
well as the  people of Haiti or think that we who monitor human rights 
abuses will get  tired, give up, and look away are wrong.  (###)



ARTICLE 6:

U.S. To Sign Seabed Mining Agreement Of the Law of the Sea Convention
David A. Colson, Department Statement  Opening remarks at a State 
Department press briefing, Washington, DC, July  6, 1994.

On July 29, at a resumed session of the UN General Assembly in New York,  
there will be signed something that is entitled the "Agreement Relating 
to the  Implementation of Part 11 of the 1982 United Nations Convention 
on the  Law of the Sea."  Part 11 of the Law of the Sea Convention is 
the part of  the convention that relates to deep seabed mining, and by 
deep seabed  mining we're talking about the mining of mineral resources 
on the seabed  beyond national jurisdiction.

The Secretary last week announced that the United States will sign this  
agreement, which opens the way for the United States Senate to consider  
the complete Law of the Sea Convention, including the part which is  
unrelated to seabed mining and this part which has been fixed in the 
most  recent negotiations.

The United States has had, since the 1960s, the objective of having a 
widely  ratified Law of the Sea Convention that the United States could 
support.  We  have always sought to have a convention for the oceans 
that governed all  aspects of oceans use and that would be widely shared 
around the world to  set the framework, the guidelines, and the ground 
rules for the way that the  international community deals with oceans 
issues.  In the third United  Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 
which began during the Nixon  Administration, we set out upon this task, 
and the result was a 320-article,  nine-annex treaty.  It is undoubtedly 
the most complex international  instrument that has ever been negotiated 
that governs how states act in the  oceans.

During the negotiations, one part of the process got off track, and that 
was  the part that related to mining mineral resources of the deep 
seabed.  At the  end of the Carter Administration, then-Ambassador Eliot 
Richardson--in his  final report to Congress--indicated that that part 
of the convention, as it then  stood, was unacceptable to the United 
States.  The Reagan Administration  made clear that it was unacceptable 
to the United States, and President  Reagan decided that we would not 
sign the convention, which was  concluded over the vote of the United 
States.  We voted against the  conclusion of those negotiations because 
this seabed mining provision had  not been fixed.

In 1983, President Reagan decided that the United States, as a policy  
matter, would support all of the other parts of the Law of the Sea  
Convention, and we would continue to work to try to fix that part of the  
convention relating to deep seabed mining.  Over the course of the last 
10  years, there has been an ongoing effort to see if some reform of 
Part 11  could be made.

This effort began to grow in strength around 1990, with then- Secretary  
General Perez de Cuellar, taking the issue on in New York--bringing a 
small  group of negotiators together to begin to see if the waning of 
the Cold War  and the turn to free-market principles by a number of 
developing countries  created the conditions under which they would be 
willing to consider  changes in Part 11.  Those negotiations continued 
to grow in strength--involving more and more parties--until just a few 
weeks ago, when there was  a conclusion to those negotiations that the 
Administration found acceptable.

I'd like to remind you of the many kinds of provisions that are 
contained in  the convention that are of benefit to the United States.  
You can basically  consider any aspect of ocean use--from the use of the 
oceans for garbage  disposal to fishing practices in the ocean to the 
way that telephone cables  might be laid on the seabed to the way that 
we navigate submarines through  straits.  All of these are contained--
all of the rules and the framework for  dealing with these issues are 
all laid out--in the convention.  As I said, even  in 1982, we 
determined that all of those provisions except for seabed mining  were 
acceptable to the United States and that we would act in a manner  
consistent with them, even without, at that time, being party to the  
convention.

We did say then that we would not abide by the deep seabed mining part,  
and all of the rest of the industrialized world stayed with us on that.  
There is  no industrialized country that is a party to the convention at 
the present  time. Now we believe that it has been fixed--this Part 11.

Let me just mention a few of the details.  I don't want to go into a 
large  number of them, but the standards that we objected to in 1982 
related to  the--we thought that the way the mining regime was 
structured in this part  would deter the development of mineral 
resources.  We thought that the  structure that was created for making 
decisions about mining operations did  not give us the kind of voice we 
thought we were entitled to.  We thought  the structure would allow 
amendments to the regime that could be  implemented and bind the United 
States over our objections.  There were  mandatory provisions for 
technology transfer that we objected to and many  other elements of that 
character.

The kind of result that we have achieved is, I think, far-reaching, 
particularly  for those of us who spend a lot of time in negotiations, 
you often end up  with a lot of sort of fuzzy finesses when you get into 
difficult situations like  this.  But I think if anybody takes the time 
to look at this new agreement,  you will see that there are very clean 
solutions to a lot of very difficult,  intractable problems--there are 
some solutions that simply say that this  provision no longer exists.

--Production limitations:  Production limitations on deep seabed mining 
had  been a problem.  There are no production limits anymore.

--There had been an annual fee that miners had to pay even during the  
exploration stage.  That is gone.

--The bureaucracy that will regulate deep seabed mining is going to be 
kept  small because the United States will participate in the committee 
that will  control the decision-making about the financing of this 
operation.

--The United States is given a seat on what's called the Council, an 
executive  body which we did not have before. We will be able, together 
with our allies,  to control the decision-making process.

--The technology transfer provisions have been removed or made otherwise  
acceptable to us.  Our firms that have mining licenses with the United 
States  have been grandfathered in, and their interests will be 
protected under this  new arrangement.

So we look forward to signing it at the end of the month and to 
submitting it  early to the Senate for advice and consent.  We would 
expect to try to get it  up to the Senate, before it goes out this year, 
for early consideration next  year.

Department Statement
Statement by Department Spokesman Michael McCurry, Washington, DC,  July 
1, 1994.

Secretary of State Warren Christopher announced June 30 that the United  
States will sign an agreement that reforms the deep seabed mining 
provisions  of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  
The new  agreement addresses long-standing U.S. objections.  Removal of 
those  objections now opens the way for United States acceptance of the 
Law of  the Sea (LOS) Convention, a treaty whose provisions are of major 
strategic,  economic, and environmental importance to the United States.

Objections to the LOS Convention's provisions on possible development of  
mineral resources from the deep seabed led to the U.S. decision in 1982 
not  to sign the convention at that time.  It also has deterred all 
major  industrialized nations from adhering to the convention.  
Nonetheless, a  central and bipartisan tenet of United States oceans 
policy is that U.S.  oceans interests would be best served by a 
universally accepted convention.   Conclusion of the new agreement, 
which will form an integral part of the  LOS Convention, brings that 
goal within reach.

The new agreement, open for signature on July 29 at the United Nations 
in  New York, incorporates legally binding changes to ensure that the 
U.S. and  others with major economic interests at stake have adequate 
influence over  future decisions on possible deep seabed mining.  It 
also requires the  administration of the seabed mining regime to be 
based on free-market  principles.  Thus, the agreement meets the U.S. 
goal of guaranteed access to  deep seabed minerals on the basis of 
reasonable terms and conditions.  It  makes these changes effective 
before the LOS Convention enters into force  on November 16, 1994.

The Law of the Sea Convention is a comprehensive legal framework that 
sets  forth the rights and obligations of states with respect to use of 
the oceans.   Its provisions guarantee United States control of economic 
activities off our  coasts, such as fishing and gas and oil development, 
and enhances U.S.  ability to protect the marine environment.  At the 
same time, it preserves and  reinforces the freedom of navigation and of 
overflight essential to national  strategic and commercial interests.  
The end of the Cold War and the  resulting changes in U.S. defense 
policy, which places a greater emphasis on  our ability to project U.S. 
military force, has highlighted the strategic  importance of the 
preservation of these freedoms.

The Administration is now beginning preparations to submit the 
convention  and the agreement as a package to the Senate for advice and 
consent.  (###)

[END OF DISPATCH VOL 5, NO 29.]