U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
________________________________________________________
     The State Department does not guarantee the
authenticity of documents on the Internet.  If for legal
or other reasons you require the original version of a
document in hard copy, please contact the Office of
Public Communication, Bureau of Public Affairs.
     Note that State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced
without consent.  Citation of source is appreciated.
Permission to reproduce any copyrighted material
(including photos or graphics) must be obtained from the
original source.
________________________________________________________
 
 
 
US DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 5, NUMBER 30, JULY 25, 1994
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
 
ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:
1.  Sustainable Development and National Security --
Timothy E. Wirth
2.  President Clinton To Meet With King Hussein and Prime
Minister Rabin -- President Clinton
3.  The Future of the U.S.-UN Relationship -- Madeleine
K. Albright
4.  Feature:  Doing Business in the New Independent
States--A Resource Guide
5.  White House Statements
     Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund
     U.S. Closes Embassy of Rwanda
6.  Department Statement
     Aid for Refugees From Rwanda and Burundi
 
 
 
ARTICLE 1:
 
Sustainable Development and National Security
Timothy E. Wirth, Under Secretary for Global Affairs
Address before the National Press Club, Washington, DC,
July 12, 1994
 
It is a pleasure to be with you this afternoon and to be
part of the 1994 National Press Club Journalism Awards.
I am particularly delighted to be here for the
presentation of the Robert L. Kozik Award for
Environmental Reporting.  The winning entry for this
award is Jane Day's story about the influences straining
the San Francisco Bay, an enormously famous and
extraordinarily rich national, and natural, treasure.  It
is, as titled, a story about a "Bay in Peril."  In turn,
it is a story about one of the thousands of ecosystems
around the world being stretched to the limits of nature-
-and about this historic moment in history when we have
the opportunity and the responsibility to look beyond the
crisis of the moment toward the underlying causes that
are making the world ever more complex and redefining the
priorities for long-term national security and global
stability.
 
Redefining U.S. National Security Through Sustainable
Development
 
The Cold War, which defined long-term security for more
than 40 years, is fast becoming a distant era.  In its
place, we face a range of unfamiliar challenges in a
world itself so unfamiliar as to be nearly
unrecognizable.
 
The changes and the choices that the United States and
the world community now confront are every bit as
demanding as those we have known since 1945.  But the
nature, diversity, and speed with which the new
challenges emerge dictate an urgent effort to understand
the long-term challenges of our foreign policy and to
reassess the priorities for American leadership in
meeting new tests and forging a better world.
 
As always, our interest is in sustained peace and
prosperity.  What is novel are the diffuse trends that
will determine those interests in the future, when we
pass on the task of governance to our children.  What I
would like to do today is suggest that the pursuit of
sustainable development--the lofty idea launched at the
Earth Summit in Rio--must be a pillar of renewed American
foreign policy and redefined national security for the
21st century.
 
Sustainable development fundamentally means that the
economies of the world, including our own, should attempt
to meet the needs of today's generation without
compromising or stealing from future generations.
Understood and pursued, the idea of sustainable
development can integrate and harmonize the enormously
powerful economic and environmental forces at work in
today's world.  It is a concept rooted in the recognition
of the mutually reinforcing nature of economic and
environmental progress.  Ecological systems are the very
foundation of modern society--in science, in agriculture,
in social and economic planning.  Over the long term,
living off our ecological capital is a bankrupt economic
strategy.  At the same time, most peoples and nations
aspire to economic growth and scientific and
technological progress, which in turn are the essential
building blocks of environmental protection.
 
Unhappily, for far too long, concern about the
environment has been regarded as a peripheral, soft issue
that can be treated as luxury in the context of
prosperity.  Far too many will nod their head, saying
"Yes, I'm for the environment . . . as long as it doesn't
cost jobs."  And it is within this terribly mistaken
analysis that we encounter the fundamental intellectual
challenge to sustainable development.
 
The biggest obstacle to the pursuit of sustainable
development--here in our country or around the world--is
the misguided belief that protecting the environment is
antithetical to economic interests.  The fact is that the
economy is inextricably tied to the environment and
totally dependent upon it.
 
Five biological systems--croplands, forests, grasslands,
oceans, and fresh waterways--support the world economy.
Except for fossil fuels and minerals, they supply all the
raw materials for industry and provide all our food.
 
--  Croplands supply food, feed, and an endless array of
raw materials for industry, such as fiber and vegetable
oils.
 
--  Forests are the source of fuel, lumber, paper, and
countless other products.
 
--  Grasslands provide meat, milk, leather, and wool.
 
--  Oceans and fresh water produce food for individuals
and resources for industry.
 
In short, that's about all there is.  That's the bulk of
the economy.  That's the foundation for all economic
activity and all the jobs.  Stated in the jargon of the
business world, the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary
of the environment.  All economic activity is dependent
on the environment and its underlying resource base.
When the environment is finally forced to file for
bankruptcy under Chapter 11 because its resource base has
been polluted, degraded, dissipated, irretrievably
compromised, then the economy goes down to bankruptcy
with it.  Is this just a theoretical concept?  Of course
not.
 
It happened in Central and Eastern Europe, whose profound
environmental destruction we are only now uncovering and
comprehending.  It is, in fact, happening all over the
world, even in many of today's headlined trouble spots.
 
Resource Scarcities and Environmental Deficit Spending
 
Resource scarcities are a root cause of the violent
conflicts that have convulsed civil society in Rwanda,
Haiti, and Chiapas.  These conflicts could intensify and
widen as ever-growing populations compete for an ever-
dwindling supply of land, fuel, and water.  Professor Tad
Homer-Dixon, of the University of Toronto, warns that in
coming decades, resource scarcities "will probably occur
with a speed, complexity, and magnitude unprecedented in
history."
 
Current conflicts offer a grim foreshadowing of the
anarchy that could engulf more and more nations if we
fail to act.
 
--  In Rwanda, the unspeakably brutal massacres of recent
months have occurred against a backdrop of soaring
population growth, environmental degradation, and unequal
distribution of resources.  Rwanda's fertility rate is
among the highest in the world--over eight children per
woman.  The nation's once rich agricultural land is so
severely depleted and degraded that between 1980 and
1990, during a time of unprecedented population growth,
food production fell by 20%.
 
--  In Chiapas state, Mexico, resource conflicts underlie
the insurgency to the south.  Unequal distribution of
land and rapid population growth has forced poor
peasants--mostly indigenous people--to eke out a meager
living by farming environmentally fragile uplands.  But
these lands are quickly degraded, plunging the increasing
population even more deeply into poverty.  A similar
cycle has been observed in places as diverse as the
Philippines, the Himalayas, the Sahel, Indonesia, Brazil,
and El Salvador.
 
--  In Haiti, dwindling resources are even more central
to the social collapse that has overtaken an island
nation that was once the crown jewel of the French
Empire.  Almost totally deforested, its poor croplands
divided into smaller and less productive parcels with
each generation, these problems are compounded by a
predatory government that has drained the nation's scant
resources and failed to invest in its people.  Looming
ominously over this environmental, economic, and
political collapse is the fact that Haiti's population of
7 million--already unsustainable by every measure--is
expected to double in the next 18 years.
 
--  In China--home to one in five of the earth's people--
severe water shortages and soil erosion threaten that
nation's ability to sustain its population.  Between 1957
and 1990, China lost some 35 million hectares of
cropland--an area the size of all the farms in France,
Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands combined.  This
depletion is prompting an exodus from the impoverished
interior to the booming coastal cities, which along with
the demands of rapid industrialization, will combine into
an environmental wall which the Chinese economy will soon
hit full speed.
 
And it can happen to us, where our biological systems are
under varying degrees of stress.  As we continue to
degrade them, we are consuming our capital.  In the
process, we erode living standards--it is a dangerous and
slippery slope.
 
--  The timber environment of our Pacific Northwest was
ravaged, and the rivers, fisheries, and cheap power
complex are not far behind.
 
--  We from the American West should watch and listen for
the alarm bells, as we draw down water on our high plains
and wait, often blindly, for the inevitable economic
decline in these farm communities.
 
--  And next door to us here, something as seemingly
simple as the oyster population of the Chesapeake Bay,
which used to filter the entire bay every three days, is
now so depleted that this filtration occurs only once a
year, sharply lowering the health and productivity of
this remarkable system of life.  Can total collapse be
far behind?
 
We are learning that environmental capital cannot be
measured simply by counting trees, stocks of fish, or
ears of corn.  It also encompasses complex ecological
systems that filter wastes, regenerate soils, and
replenish fresh water supplies.  Those systems, which we
have belatedly begun to understand, form the very basis
of life on earth.  Ozone depletion, species loss, and the
increasing carbon content of our atmosphere are all
reflections of the fact that the planet's ecological
systems are under great strain.
 
Our deficit spending of environmental capital has a
direct, measurable impact on human security.  Simply put,
the life support systems of the entire globe are being
compromised at a rapid rate--illustrating our
interdependence with nature and changing our relationship
to the planet.  Our security as Americans is inextricably
linked to these trends.  The security of our nation and
our world hinges upon whether we can strike a
sustainable, equitable balance between human numbers and
the planet's capacity to support life.
 
Why has this new aspect of security only recently been
recognized?  Two trends tell the tale.  First is the
exponential growth of the human population.  World
population has doubled since 1950 and now stands at 5.6
billion.  Every year, the world gains another 91 million
inhabitants--the equivalent of another New York City
every month, another Mexico every year, another China
every decade.  Ninety-five percent of that growth is
taking place in the impoverished countries of the
developing world, which are already struggling to provide
jobs and sustenance for their people.
 
At the same time, the industrialized world has developed
the capability and consumptive capacity to utilize
resources and produce wastes at a rate that is
unprecedented in human history.  Although we comprise
only one-fifth of the world's population, the
industrialized countries use two-thirds of all resources
consumed and generate four-fifths of all pollutants and
wastes.
 
So we are getting ourselves into a terrible fix--the
globe's population is growing at a rate that is matched
or exceeded only by our growing capacity to consume
resources and produce wastes.  This is a completely
unsustainable course.
 
Progress, Challenges, and Reassessment
 
It is now fair for you to ask:  "Okay, you all were
elected to run the show.  What are you doing about it?"
And the answer is "plenty."
 
The Clinton Administration has embraced the challenge of
economics and the environment, which is the challenge of
sustainable development.  We've gotten the first part
right, in many ways far beyond what anyone had hoped, and
this economic success story has been pretty well
explained and reported.  We are working hard as well on
the second environmental part of the sustainable
equation--less understood, in many ways more difficult,
but absolutely essential if we hope to hand on to our
children and grandchildren a world that is as productive
or looks anything like what was given to us.
 
Clearly, economics is an essential foundation for this
new definition of national security and what we must do.
That is why President Clinton has charted a course for
economic renewal at home and partnership abroad, as he
said last week, "to focus on global growth in the short
run, and then to think about what the world will look
like in the next century and what we must do to get
there."
 
The G-7 summit was completed last week.  And where are we
related to our developed global partners--the U.K.,
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Canada?  The numbers
are a startling success story.
 
--  The United States has 40% of the gross domestic
product of the G-7 nations combined.  But in the last
year, we had 75% of the growth, almost 100% of the new
jobs, twice the investment, twice the export rate
increase, and highest rate of productivity growth.
 
--  We have gotten our deficit down to being the second
lowest, and next year we'll have the lowest deficit of
all the G-7 countries.
 
--  NAFTA is being implemented, the Uruguay Round has
beenconcluded, and our trade policy has clearly embraced
an open, robust global marketplace as crucial for our
long-term prosperity and national security.
 
But the agenda of this Administration is far wider and
more ambitious-- weaving our economic plans and hopes
into a sustainable fabric that will be a worthy legacy
for posterity.  In a far-ranging foreign policy address
to the UN General Assembly last fall, the President
described how the United States is working to assure a
secure future by promoting sustainable development.  And
as he reiterated in a speech to the National Academy of
Sciences 10 days ago, at the top of this agenda is
population stabilization.
 
Addressing Population Growth.  Unchecked, the spiral of
population growth will dim every hope for economic
progress in the developing world and cast a pall over
every environmental endeavor.  Population--and the 1994
Cairo Conference on Population and Development--must be
and is at the top of our agenda for sustainable
development.  American leadership has been restored in
international population policy, and we have helped
create a plan for Cairo that will launch a consensus and
a comprehensive approach to addressing rapid demographic
change--making family planning and reproductive health
services universally available; sharply expanding the
education of girls and focusing on child survival, male
responsibility, strong families, and the engagement of
grassroots, non-governmental organizations.
 
Part and parcel of our strategy is the promotion of the
social, political, and economic rights of women--
extraordinarily important resources for growth and agents
of change.  The return on these initiatives--in terms of
stability, environmental quality, and economic
productivity--will outweigh the costs for generation
after generation.  And in the next year--at the Cairo
Conference, the Social Summit in Copenhagen, and the
Women's Conference in Beijing--this will be a common
theme of American foreign policy and, we believe, an
achievable goal early in the 21st century.
 
Providing Basic Health Services.  Similarly, provision of
basic health services is a wise investment for the
community of nations and can be achieved at relatively
little global cost.  The elimination of four major,
easily preventable diseases--measles, tetanus, whooping
cough, and polio; eradication of iodine and Vitamin A
deficiencies; and the global availability of oral
rehydration therapy are all achievable early in the next
century. Successfully done, these measures alone would
save 3 million to 4 million lives annually and perhaps
eliminate upward of 20 million early childhood deaths;
ease immeasurable, unnecessary suffering; and make a
significant contribution to lowering pressures for larger
families.
 
Part of our global health strategy also includes a major
focus on AIDS, recognizing that while a cure may be
decades away, we can help with aggressive prevention
strategies in those parts of the world where the spread
of the infection is epidemic.
 
Preserving Biodiversity.  Biodiversity is a third
priority--a broad umbrella for the task of preserving
God's creation, the biological inheritance that comprises
all living things.  This vast wealth of genetic
information is critical to our long-term economic and
environmental integrity, and we must do all that we can
to preserve it.  The Clinton Administration has signed
the biodiversity treaty, which in turn was passed almost
unanimously by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and
should be ratified by the full Senate this summer.  We
can then go to the first conference of the parties with
the momentum we need to help launch a worldwide effort to
catalog, prospect in, and sustainably utilize this great
and largely unknown library of information.  The next
century will surely be the century of biology, and we
must be engaged in order to fully utilize these
remarkable opportunities for new sources of food, fuel,
fibre, and pharmaceuticals.
 
Measuring True National Costs.  Integrating environmental
and economic imperatives at the national level is a
fourth unmet task.  Nations, including the United States,
can no longer assume that we bear no cost for fouling the
air or depleting our resources.  Instead, we need to
internalize those costs and allow the genius of the
marketplace to help determine the most efficient means of
achieving our environmental goals.  Under the leadership
of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, we are embarked on a
serious and difficult undertaking to "get the prices
right," to develop a so-called green accounting system
that can give us proper, unsubsidized measures of what is
really happening in our economy.
 
Reforming International Institutions.  Fifth is the
challenge of reforming our international institutions to
better promote sustainable development.  The World Bank,
the most important public engine for development, will
play a central role in fostering the transition to
sustainable development.  We must work harder to
encourage changes in lending practices to make good on
the promise of greater emphasis on smaller-scale,
decentralized projects to promote alternative
development, to protect the environment, to preserve the
rights of local populations, and to recognize the role of
crucial sub-populations--particularly women--in the
development process.
 
Forging Common Cause--The Challenge of Governance.  This
goal of institutional reform is part of the sixth and
final challenge, which I will call the challenge of
governing in the 21st century.  Traditionally, we have
assumed that our relationships with the rest of the world
were like a hub and a spoke; we are the hub in
Washington, and individual spokes go out to capitals
around the world--to London, Delhi, Tokyo, or Bogota.
But much of this traditional way of managing our affairs
and dealing with world problems is changing as we move up
to broader, cooperative international alliances and
organizations and down to the rapidly growing network of
private, non-governmental, voluntary organizations.  Let
me explain.
 
In this post-Cold War world, our problems spill messily
across traditional lines--global climate change, ozone
depletion, biodiversity, refugees, narcotics--all these
issues have become concerns which challenge us all and
must be dealt with through stronger multilateral,
cooperative organizations.  President Clinton raised this
issue with our G-7 partners last week:  Isn't it time to
re-examine our international institutions to be sure they
are adequate to the tasks of the 21st century?
 
This will not be easy.  Walls can be brought down in a
day.  Changing the consciousness of individuals and
forging common cause among institutions is much, much
more difficult.  But we have a rich, if complicated,
framework on which to build.  The United Nations
Development Program, UNFPA, UNICEF, the Commission on
Human Rights--creative and capable all--must rally behind
common themes and a common sense of purpose.  I believe
sustainable development will be that cause for the 21st
century.
 
These ideas are not only supported but are also being
championed by the team put in place by the Administration
to reinvent development priorities for the United States
and the world.  That is the challenge of the Global
Affairs unit at the State Department and corresponding
teams put in place at the NSC and the intelligence
community.  It  is the unenviable and often thankless
task that has been taken on by Brian Atwood, who is
trying to transform sustainable development from concept
to reality--supporting broad access by people to their
country's economic, environmental, and political
decision-making.  It is the work of Gus Speth at UNDP,
where he  is working to improve UN coordination and focus
on sustainable human development, which links the
abstract goals of sustainable development to people and
their lives.
 
And the challenge of governance goes down to the great
wave of people organizing to have a say in the direction
of their own lives around the world, who have been far
ahead of government in recognizing the challenge of
sustainable development.  The phenomenal growth of non-
governmental organizations around the world is one of the
salient features of our time.  The OECD counted over
2,500 NGOs among its 24 countries in 1990, up from 1,600
a decade before.  But that is nothing compared to NGO
growth in the developing world.  Roger Riddell of the
Overseas Development Institute suggests there may be
25,000 grassroots organizations in one Indian state,
Tamil Nadu.
 
The heroes of the Earth Summit in Rio were not the heads
of state but the NGOs who defined and drove Agenda 21.
Women's groups from around the world played a leading
role in the organization and agenda of the recent UN
Human Rights Conference in Vienna; in fact, they saved
the UN commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.  And the preparations for Cairo have not only
reinforced but surpassed these prior standards.  Our
challenge is to enlist and engage the sensitivity,
enthusiasm, and creativity that grassroots groups offer--
a new and highly promising challenge for those who
presume to govern.
 
U.S. National Security Dependent On Global Well-Being
Together, the momentum that is building in the Clinton
Administration and the citizenry reflect an understanding
that our nation's security depends on more than military
might.  It recognizes that our security is entwined with
the well-being of our neighbors.  Political boundaries
are porous; environmental devastation and disease do not
stop at national borders.  And the increasingly
globalized economy has drawn more tightly the bonds that
connect us.
 
In the newly configured world, national security is
closely linked to  human security.  Human security is
built on a foundation of peace and political stability,
physical health, and economic well-being.  The primary
threats to human security may not be as easy to recognize
as, say, an enemy's nuclear arsenal, but they are no less
deadly.
 
These are the threats posed by the abject poverty in
which 1 billion of the world's people live; the hunger
that stalks 800 million men, women, and children; the
spread of HIV/AIDS, which will infect 30 million to 40
million people by the year 2000; and the combination of
violence, poverty, and environmental degradation that
have forced 20 million people from their homes.
 
Here in the United States and around the globe, we are
coming to understand the close connections between
poverty, the environment, the economy, and security.
This historic transformation demands that we now liberate
ourselves--from outworn policies, from old assumptions,
from fixed views that only yesterday seemed to be the
dividing and defining lines of our politics.
 
Crisis prevention and the challenge of sustainable
development are among the great challenges for the
remainder of this and into the next century.  It is time
to retool our approach to national security--recognizing
that our economic and environmental futures are one and
the same.  And it is these challenges which will
determine the future we leave to our children and
grandchildren.
 
And we have no choice.  Let me close by asking you to
imagine that a man is out on the ledge of a high
building, and you have been asked to talk him back, to
persuade him not to jump.
 
That is where we are today; the United States must take
the lead in persuading the world not to gravely hurt
itself.  Some will minimize the threat or say that we
don't have enough knowledge to act now.  Others,
including many of you here, have noticed that the man on
the ledge has a rope tied around his ankle.  The other
end is tied to us, and if he goes down, we all go down
together.   (###)
 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 2:
 
President Clinton To Meet With King Hussein And Prime
Minister Rabin
 
Opening statement by President Clinton at a news
conference, Washington, DC, July 15, 1994.
 
Good morning ladies and gentlemen.  I am pleased to
announce that King Hussein of Jordan and Prime Minister
Rabin of Israel have agreed to my invitation to meet at
the White House on July 25.
 
I am also pleased that Speaker Foley, after discussions
with Majority Leader Mitchell, has invited both leaders
to address a joint session of Congress.  And Hillary and
I are delighted that both of them have agreed to join us
at a dinner at the White House on that day.
 
This historic meeting is another step forward toward
achievement of a comprehensive and lasting peace in the
Middle East.  The meeting will build on the dramatic
progress made in the trilateral U.S.-Israel-Jordan
meetings here in Washington last month and King Hussein's
recent declaration in parliament that he was prepared to
meet with Prime Minister Rabin.
 
It reflects the courageous leadership and the bold vision
that both King Hussein and Prime Minister Rabin have
displayed as they work together to create a new future
for their people and for all the region.
 
On behalf of all Americans, I salute their commitment to
peace.  I have pledged my personal dedication to the goal
of a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East.
Accordingly, Secretary Christopher will be traveling to
the region next week.  I want to compliment him on his
tireless efforts to achieve peace in the region and the
contribution he has made to the announcement today.
 
He will continue our efforts to achieve progress in the
Israel-Syria negotiations.  That also is a very, very
important thing for us.  I am committed to working to
achieve a breakthrough on those talks as soon as possible
so that we can make the dream of a lasting peace of the
brave a reality.
 
Secretary Christopher will follow-up on the discussions
that the President and King Hussein have had on this
initiative, and he will proceed and participate in the
U.S.-Jordan-Israel discussions.  He will also meet with
Chairman Arafat to review progress in implementing the
declaration of principles on Palestinian self-rule.
 
The Middle East is entering a new era.  I will do
everything I can to make certain that all the people of
the region realize the blessings of peace that have been
denied too long to them.  This meeting on July 25 will be
another important step on that long road.  (###)
 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 3:
 
The Future of the U.S.-UN Relationship
Madeleine K. Albright, U.S. Permanent  Representative
To the United Nations
Address at the National Press Club, Washington, DC, July
14, 1994
 
I have decided to talk to you today about the future of
one of the world's vital relationships--that between the
United States of America and the United Nations.  In
examining that relationship, we should recognize the debt
we owe to generations past.  Fifty years ago, American
leaders were immersed in the cauldron of world war.  They
had assembled the mightiest military force in history,
built an industrial juggernaut whose single purpose was
victory, launched the invasion that would liberate
Europe, and begun a project that would unlock the secret
of the atom and forever alter our age.
 
Our leaders then were beset with the challenges of
command and conflict; yet their thoughts were not
confined to the battlefield.  In the midst of chaos, they
designed an organization which would strive, in the words
of its Charter:
 
. . . to save succeeding generations from the scourge of
war . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights .
. . (and) to promote social progress and better standards
of life in larger freedom.
 
The UN's founders had been tested by war and were ever
mindful of the failure of vision and will that had led to
that war.  This generation--the generation of Roosevelt,
Churchill, Truman, Eisenhower, and Marshall-- had
confronted and defeated the greatest force for evil in
modern history.  Unlike early theorists of collective
security, they had few illusions about the nature of
human character.  Unlike the umbrella-toting  diplomats
of the 1930s, they did not expect mere promises of peace
to secure the reality of peace.  But they feared that the
next war would indeed be the war to end all wars.  They
were determined to build a world organization that,
although it could not assure the prevention of war would,
at least, lessen the prospect of war.
 
Unfortunately, the superpower rivalry stunted the UN
virtually at birth.  Through four decades, the tools of
peace-keeping and sanctions were little used.  The Soviet
veto robbed the Security Council of teeth and thus often
deprived the international community of spine.  The
General Assembly evolved into a forum less for debate
than invective.  Only rarely was the UN able to confront
real problems of war and peace, for it could do little
unless East and West agreed, and we did not agree very
often or about very much.
 
Today, we have a second chance to fulfill the promise of
the UN's founders.  We cannot let that opportunity slip
away.  Looking ahead, we need not confine ourselves to
the cramped horizons of past accomplishment.  The new UN
has the potential to move far beyond the old in
preserving peace, limiting the transfer of deadly arms,
promoting democracy, defending human rights, encouraging
sustainable economic growth, preventing disease, and
increasing respect for law.  We have an opportunity not
simply to strengthen the UN but to advance interests and
values that matter a great deal to us and to our friends
around the globe.
 
Reinvigorating the UN
 
But I did not come here today to indulge in rosy
scenarios.  I came to sound a warning.  The opportunity
we now have to reinvigorate the UN may not last long.
The UN does not run on its own power, it must be fueled
by the confidence, support, and leadership of member
states.  Today, the confidence is precarious, the backing
shaky, and the leadership ever more dependent on the
United States.
 
Over the decades, a culture evolved among member states
and within the UN that actively resists modernization and
reform.  Member states, including my own, have fallen
behind on funding, although we are striving to catch up.
The UN's ability to make, rather than simply keep peace
is in grave doubt.  The rising number of humanitarian
crises has drained the organization of funds and diverted
resources from development to refugees.  The result is a
cruel trade-off between short-term survival and long-term
progress.  Overall, the UN is being asked to do far too
much with far too little.  This gap between
responsibility and capability must be closed.  And it
must be closed while the spirit of general cooperation
among the world's leading powers is sustained.
 
Let there be no doubt on one score.  The United States
wants the UN to succeed.  The fact that I have often
criticized UN actions or practices does not belie this;
it proves it.
 
The Clinton Administration has proposed far-reaching
reforms, including expansion of the Security Council, a
more equitable sharing of peace-keeping costs, and an
office with the functions of an Inspector General.  We
believe the UN should focus more on qualifications as it
allocates its top jobs and less on nationality.  We have
recommended reforms in everything from budget procedures
to the delivery of humanitarian relief.  We are insisting
that tough questions be asked before, not after, new UN
peace operations are undertaken.  In each instance, our
purpose has been to make the UN more credible, efficient,
and successful.
 
But reform is not easy without real commitment from
member states.  Last May, after horrible violence broke
out in Rwanda, the UN was pressed to respond.  We wanted
the UN to respond, but we argued, as well, that it would
be a mistake to send a force to Rwanda without adequate
preparation and a sensible concept of operations.  Some
denounced that as callous.  But it was not callous.  It
was the simple gut-wrenching truth.
 
The killers in Rwanda--like aggressors elsewhere--could
not have been stopped by sentiment or by a paper tiger
peace-keeping force.  The task required not simply
soldiers but soldiers who were well-trained, well-
equipped, well-integrated, well-motivated, and well-led.
Early proposals for what the UN should deploy in Rwanda
fell far short of this standard.
 
The purpose of the Clinton Administration's policy toward
UN peace-keeping is not--as some have suggested--to make
UN peace-keeping impossible.  Our purpose is to make it
successful by recognizing current limitations, by
enhancing future capabilities, by demonstrating patience
and persistence, and by imposing discipline even when
discipline is hardest to maintain.
 
Let's remember that the United States remains by far the
largest financial contributor to UN operations.  We have
also been the driving force behind the airlift of relief
supplies to Bosnia and enforcement of the no-fly zone.
Tens of thousands of Americans are helping to enforce UN
sanctions against Serbia, Haiti, and Iraq.  And we are
working hard to prepare a UN force that will be effective
in Rwanda when the French forces now deployed there
leave.
 
We want the UN to succeed, because the UN Charter
embodies aspirations for the world that we fully share.
We want reforms that will bring those aspirations closer
to reality.  This is a view reflected in the U.S.
Congress, where I believe most Members from both parties
share our desire to see a stronger and more effective UN
system.
 
We should not confuse those who want to reform the UN to
make it succeed with those who delight simply in tearing
the UN down.  There is a fundamental difference between
constructive and destructive criticism.  Unfortunately,
there will always be some in American public life who
reject the need for international cooperative action.
These are the gurus of gridlock--the ideological heirs of
1920s isolationism.  Because the UN cannot do everything,
they dismiss its ability to do anything.  They attempt to
personalize and caricature differences of judgment
between UN officials and our own.  They exaggerate the
costs of UN participation, while ignoring benefits.  And
although they portray themselves as zealous protectors of
American interests, I believe they misunderstand what the
interests of the American people really are.
 
Sharing the Costs and Risks of Peace-keeping
 
To be sustainable, our foreign policy must be guided by
both the interests of our nation and the values of our
citizens.  But in the wake of the Cold War, a whole
category of conflicts has arisen in which the American
stake is real but resists precise calculation.
Certainly, the dangers are less clear and present than
Soviet missiles targeted on our homes.  But there is
ample precedent within this century for conflicts in
remote regions coming home to America.
 
Few felt in 1914 that an assassin's bullet in Sarajevo
would cause thousands of American soldiers to cross the
Atlantic, many never to return.  Few understood that
invasions of Manchuria in 1931, Ethiopia in 1935, and
Czechoslovakia in 1939 would end not with peace in our
time but in world war.
 
The globe is far smaller now than it was then.  Weapons
cost less but can destroy more at further range.  Borders
provide little protection from deadly drugs, death-
dealing terrorists, or fatal disease.  Economies are
interdependent.  Populations, including our own, are
highly mobile.  Images of heroism and horror are
transmitted instantly and constantly to and from every
corner of the earth.
 
In such a world, there is no way to innoculate America
against the contagion of foreign conflict.  Obviously, we
must retain both the capacity and the will to use
military force unilaterally when we must.  But we have
neither the ability nor the desire to police the world
ourselves.  The UN is a force-multiplier--a means by
which our own energies may be combined and thereby
multiplied through the participation of other member
states.
 
As former Secretary of State James Baker has said, "UN
peace-keeping operations are a pretty good buy."  When we
act alone, we bear all the costs and all the risks.  When
we participate with the UN, costs and risks are shared.
Today, there are 80,000 UN peacekeepers deployed around
the world.  Fewer than 1,000 are American.  Of the
expenses, we bear 30%, a figure we are trying to reduce
to 25%.
 
Bosnia.  Consider Bosnia.  America has a major stake in
the future there.  A wider conflagration could threaten
us strategically by undermining new democracies in
Eastern Europe, dividing our NATO allies, and straining
our relationship with Russia.  We have a humanitarian
interest in opposing the brutal violence, including acts
of genocide, that have outraged the conscience and
uprooted hundreds of thousands from their homes.  And we
have a political interest in opposing Serbia's efforts to
use its Bosnian surrogates to undermine a sovereign
state.
 
These interests are important to us, but this
Administration does not believe they warrant deployment
of American ground troops in the midst of war.  The UN is
one means by which we may help shape events and protect
our interests without such a deployment.  We are
participating in a peace-keeping force in the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to prevent the conflict
from spreading.  We have worked in partnership with both
NATO and the UN to prevent endangered enclaves in eastern
Bosnia from being overrun.  We have helped restore a
semblance of normal life to Sarajevo.  We brokered an
agreement between the government and Bosnian Croat
factions that has halted the violence in one-third of the
country.  We have helped to keep the humanitarian
pipeline open.  And we have used sanctions to pressure
Serbia and its Bosnian allies.
 
My point is not that all our hopes in Bosnia have been
realized.  They have not.  Nor does it mean that the UN
has been blameless in Bosnia.  On the contrary, UN
officials have made mistakes for which they have been
criticized justly by, among others, me.  But by
cooperating with, and at times pushing and prodding the
UN, we have achieved important results.  Hundreds of
thousands of Bosnians are alive today who might otherwise
be dead.  The Bosnian state has retained its multi-ethnic
character.  The Serbs have been forced to negotiate
seriously.  Outside powers have not been drawn into the
conflict.  And peace has become an option for all sides.
 
Haiti.  Haiti is another country where the UN is playing
a useful role.  UN-imposed sanctions have greatly
increased pressure on the illegitimate military
leadership.  We want those military leaders to step down.
And we are working to gain support at the UN, among our
allies, and around the hemisphere for a UN peace-keeping
force to be deployed when they have stepped down.
 
We envision a role for the UN that is consistent with UN
principles and with our own peace-keeping guidelines.  A
UN force would help to pave the way for the restoration
of Haiti's democratically elected president.  It would
assist the Haitian Government in providing security for
officials, international relief and human rights workers,
and key installations.  It would assist the authorities
in assuring public order and in the holding of elections.
The United States is prepared to participate in this
force and to lead it, but we invite the participation of
other states and expect to receive it.
 
In Haiti, as in the Persian Gulf, the UN can play a
legitimizing role.  It can help to isolate a rogue
regime.  It can help broaden a coalition backed by the
United States.  It can reinforce the rule of law.  And it
can act to resolve an urgent political and humanitarian
crisis.
 
Other UN Options
 
As these examples illustrate, America's stake in a
vigorous UN is based not on shared aspirations but on
practical benefits.  The UN provides options for
diplomatic, political, and military action we would not
otherwise have.  It allows us to influence events without
assuming the full burden of costs and risks.  And it
lends the weight of law and world opinion to causes and
principles we support.  This applies not only to UN
peace-keeping, but to an increasing number of other UN
activities, as well.
 
Sanctions.  Take, for example, the tool of economic
sanctions, including restraints on arms trade.  There
have been, and will be, times when the United States
chooses to impose sanctions alone on a rogue regime.  The
impact may be significant, but more often unilateral
sanctions simply spawn alternative sources of trade.
Only universal sanctions, ordered by the UN Security
Council, lock the doors on rogue regimes threatening
international peace and security and violating
international law.  In New York, my colleagues and I are
constantly improving our ability to target sanctions at
those they are intended to influence, to avoid
unnecessary suffering, and to suspend sanctions speedily
when conditions warrant.
 
Serbia/Montenegro has descended into economic hell as a
result of UN sanctions--a fact influencing Bosnian Serb
consideration of the Contact Group proposal this week.
We strongly urge the Serbian leadership to snap out of it
and take the necessary steps to permit the loosening of
the sanctions.  Haiti is the latest example of the
international community building solidarity through
sanctions.  We know that the sting of sanctions continues
to confound Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and we hope North
Korea will not be the next candidate.  But our options
would be limited, indeed, if we could not turn to the
Security Council to build international support for tough
sanctions that serve our national interest.
 
Democracy.  During this past year, I visited Cambodia, El
Salvador, Mozambique, and South Africa.  In each, the UN
has actively promoted democracy.  In each, populations
long ground down by poverty or repression have responded
with courage to the call of freedom.
 
Human Rights.  Since the days of Eleanor Roosevelt, we
Americans have pressed for the creation of a UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights.  We believe, as Thomas
Jefferson believed, that certain rights are inalienable
and universal; they belong to all people.  That is the
principle that defines America, and that vision remains
one of the driving forces for change in the world.  This
past fall, after almost a half century's effort, a High
Commissioner for Human Rights was established.
 
Non-proliferation.  To Americans, there is no more local
an issue than whether nuclear weapons fall into the wrong
hands.  The IAEA, an agency of the UN, has played a
central role in the effort to induce North Korea and Iraq
to live up to their obligations.  The General Assembly,
freed from Cold War restraints, passed resolutions last
fall supporting bans on testing nuclear weapons or
producing nuclear weapons material.  It also voted to
suspend the export of deadly anti-personnel land mines.
These actions are in keeping with the UN's purpose as a
peace-preserving institution, and with the interests of
our own citizens in a more stable world.
 
International Law.  We are also working to make the newly
established War Crimes Tribunal for former Yugoslavia an
effective instrument of truth.  This past week, we
selected a chief prosecutor, Judge Richard Goldstone of
South Africa, whose insistence on truth exposed some of
the worst abuses of apartheid.  We believe the Tribunal
will serve the cause not only of justice in Bosnia but of
peace.  For true reconciliation there will not be
possible until perceptions of collective guilt for
atrocities have been erased and individual responsibility
assigned.  This is something that Americans should--and
do--care about.
 
Opponents of American participation and leadership in the
UN should understand:  We do not face a choice between
acting through the UN and acting alone.  One course does
not foreclose the other.  On the contrary, an effective
UN provides an indispensable, additional option for
pursuing objectives important to us--objectives we might
otherwise not be able to obtain as easily or at all.
 
The risk is that we will allow our own impatience, and
the carping of destructive critics, to divert us from the
task of strengthening and transforming the UN.  If so, we
will have squandered an opportunity that may not come
again in our lifetimes.
 
This Administration is determined to keep faith with the
generation that forged the United Nations out of the
crumbled ruins of world war for the purpose of ending the
scourge of war.  As the President said in Naples, this
Administration is committed to making international
institutions work:
 
--  We are committed to work with friends, allies, and UN
officials to reinvigorate, reinvent, and reform the UN
system;
 
--  We plan to articulate goals during the UN's 50th year
that will guide it during the next 50;
 
--  We are determined to pay our bills and help make UN
peace-keeping succeed;
 
--  We will refrain from asking the UN to do what it
cannot do, while striving to enable it to do all it has
the potential to do; and
 
--  We will experiment and evaluate.
 
In short, we will lead.  Those who expect the UN to solve
all the world's problems are unrealistic; those who
suggest it has ever had such broad pretensions are wrong.
The UN was created by men and women who had just survived
the second of two devastating world wars.  These were not
naive people.  They understood, perhaps better than we,
the frailties of humankind and the yawning gap between
how we would like the world to be and how it is; between
promised behavior and reality.  But they also understood
the perils of missed opportunities and failed
responsibility.
 
During Senate debate on the UN Charter, Sen. Arthur
Vandenberg replied to those who thought the goals of the
Charter unrealistic by saying that:
 
You may tell me that I have but to scan the present world
with realistic eyes in order to see these fine phrases .
. . reduced to a contemporary shambles . . . I reply that
the nearer right you may be in any such gloomy
indictment, the greater is the need for the new pattern
which promises at least to stem these evil tides.
 
The survivors of World War II understood quite well that
although it was the better qualities of human nature that
had made the UN possible, it was the lesser qualities
that had made it necessary.
 
Conclusion
 
Today, America is facing the possibilities and perils of
a new world.  We are developing a new framework of policy
and power that will protect our territory, defend our
citizens, safeguard our interests, promote our values,
and project our influence.  In that effort, we will
embrace opportunities for multilateral collaboration
while exercising the prerogatives of leadership.
 
In so doing, we will seek to build a world driven not by
events we deplore but by hopes we cherish; a world not
without conflict but in which conflict is effectively
contained; a world not without repression but in which
the sway of freedom is enlarged; a world not without
lawless behavior but where the law-abiding are
progressively more secure.  That is our mandate as we
enter this new era.  And that is a future that we can
bequeath with pride to our children and to theirs. (##)
 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 4:
 
Feature:  Doing Business in the New Independent States--
A Resource Guide
 
This resource guide is designed to assist U.S. businesses
seeking market opportunities in the New Independent
States.  It was prepared by Juanita Adams, Susan Holly,
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.
 
Russia and the other New Independent States (NIS) of the
former Soviet Union are working to strengthen their
fledgling market-oriented economies by expanding foreign
trade and investment.  The economic potential of the NIS
is tremendous, since many of these states have abundant
natural resources, particularly oil, natural gas, and
rare minerals; a large, educated, and literate work
force; and former defense research and development
facilities, now looking for profitable business
opportunities.
 
Russia and the other NIS actively seek foreign partners
and have emphasized the importance of U.S. participation.
Many American companies possess expertise in the key
sectors that these countries want to develop:  energy
resources, agriculture, food processing, transportation
infrastructure, communications, health care, and
technology to protect the environment.
 
Russia and Kazakhstan, for example, have given priority
to the extractive industries and have looked to U.S.
companies with technical  expertise and equipment for
investment, particularly in oil exploration and
development.
 
Similarly, U.S. agribusinesses are sought for their
expertise in large-scale farming operations, as well as
in storage and processing, areas in which the NIS
historically have been weak.  Opportunities for small and
large Western companies also exist in the chemical,
timber and wood processing, textile, and construction
industries.
 
Many opportunities are available for Western service
industries.  Equipment and technical advice are needed to
develop financial, transport, and communications
infrastructure.  Support also is needed for burgeoning
private institutions, such as insurance, banking,
financial markets, long-distance trucking companies, and
telephone systems.
 
The emergence of a prosperous Russia as well as the other
states will add billions of dollars of new growth to the
global economy, which in turn will create exports, jobs,
and investment opportunities for America.  An investment
in Russia's democratic future is an essential investment
in America's future as well.
 
U.S. Government Initiatives
 
The U.S. Government's highest priority for the NIS is to
encourage and aid their efforts to make the transition to
a market economy within a democratic system of
government.  The United States repeatedly stresses its
view to these governments that the economic
transformation they seek requires bold and consistent
policies that foster a market economy domestically and
greater integration into the global economy.
 
To support that integration, the United States works to:
 
--  Normalize relations by removing Cold War-era
restrictions on trade and investment and by negotiating a
network of economic agreements to support expanded
economic cooperation;
 
--  Integrate the NIS into the world economic system by
supporting their membership and participation in
international institutions such as the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), when they are able
to assume obligations for membership; and
 
--  Provide external support for market-oriented reform,
including bilateral technical and humanitarian assistance
and macroeconomic support pegged to debt rescheduling and
the IMF program designed to stabilize their economies and
their move to currency convertibility.
 
Assistance to Date
 
A focused program to assist Russian democracy and
development is in the deepest interest of the United
States.  The United States has  provided most of the NIS
with considerable bilateral assistance under the Freedom
for Russia and the Emerging Eurasian Democracies and Open
Markets (FREEDOM) Support Act.  This effort is
coordinated with other Western donors.
 
The United States makes available Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) loan guarantees to assure qualified NIS
governments of credit for essential food imports.  As a
result of the Vancouver and Tokyo summit process in 1993,
the United States is providing Russia an assistance
package worth $1.6 billion.  Among its initiatives are
support for private sector development with money
earmarked for enterprise funds, exchanges and training,
direct food and medical aid as well as credits, and funds
for energy and environment sector reform.  The package
also includes trade credits to the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC) and U.S. Export-Import Bank
(Eximbank) to guarantee U.S. investments and to the
Department of Commerce for the formation of a business
development committee.
 
Multilaterally, the United States is participating with
the other Group of Seven (G-7) industrialized states in
an aid package of about $30 billion.  Of this, the United
States is contributing $1.8 billion to support
privatization and assist energy productivity and
environmental protection, private sector development, and
financing of additional export and import credits.  The
United States also will target $300 million for other
NIS.
 
Progress in Normalizing Trade Relations With the NIS
The United States has established diplomatic relations
with all of the NIS, has opened an embassy in each one,
is establishing bilateral frameworks for trade and
investment, and has trade agreements that provide the
basis for reciprocal most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff
treatment for all the NIS except Azerbaijan.  Bilateral
investment treaties with Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz
Republic have entered into force.  Bilateral tax
treaties, granting investors relief from double taxation,
have been concluded with Russia.  The United States has
signed similar treaties with Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
 
U.S. trade and investment in the NIS is increasing,
partly because the U.S. Government has provided several
financing programs.  Total U.S. trade with Russia and the
NIS started from a low base:  In 1992, bilateral trade
amounted to a modest $4.6 billion--a 60% increase over
the same period last year--and U.S. exports of
manufactured goods such as construction equipment, cars,
oil equipment, pumps, and power equipment have more than
doubled.  Both OPIC and Eximbank have expanded their
activities in the NIS and will continue to do so because
of the increase in trade credits to guarantee U.S.
investments.
 
Ultimately, private trade and investment will be the most
important source of direct support for economic reforms.
Only the private sector can help meet Russia's enormous
capital and technology requirements and fuel
restructuring and modernization of its economy.
 
The United States encourages and supports U.S. business
involvement in Russia.  President Clinton made trade and
investment a priority at the 1993 Vancouver summit and
proposed ways to make a breakthrough in these important
areas.
 
--  Vice President Gore and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin
co-chair six working committees known collectively as the
Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission.  Progress continues at the
working level on a range of specific issues in the fields
of science and technology, business development, space,
energy policy, environmental protection, and defense
diversification.  The most recent high-level meeting was
held in June 1994, in Washington, DC.
 
--  The U.S.-Russian Business Development Committee (BDC)
identifies and removes impediments to trade and
investment.
 
--  The United States provides technical assistance to
Russia to improve its export control development.  An
effective Russian export control system will permit the
sale of higher levels of technology to assist Russian
economic reform and modernization.
 
--  Eximbank has approved more than $240 million in loan
guarantees and insurance for transactions in Russia.  In
July 1993, Eximbank signed an Oil and Gas Framework
Agreement with Russia under which secured credit
guarantees of about $2 billion will be extended to
support capital equipment exports for the rehabilitation
of Russia's energy sector.  In March 1994, Eximbank
approved its first transaction under the framework--a
$231 million credit for Permeneft, an oil production
association.  Eximbank has received more than $750
million in additional Government of Russia approved
applications that are eligible for support under this
framework agreement.
 
--  OPIC has approved a $150-million package--$50 million
in loan guarantees and $100 million in investment
insurance coverage--to support the "Polar Lights" U.S.-
Russia joint venture in the oil industry.
 
--  The Trade and Development Agency (TDA) has made a
number of grants for feasibility studies in the NIS,
including a $1.4-million grant for oil and gas
feasibility studies as part of a $3.8-million package.
 
Under the TDA and Commerce Department's Special American
Business Internship Program, 300 additional internships
are being created with U.S. companies for Russian
executives, entrepreneurs, and scientists to acquire on-
the-job training.  The U.S. has opened four American
business centers in Russia in 1994.
 
FREEDOM Support Act
 
The FREEDOM Support Act of 1992 provides a framework for
the U.S. Government to support trade and investment in
the NIS.  It also authorizes the humanitarian and
technical assistance necessary to build free markets and
a larger private sector in the NIS.  The act:
 
--  Increases export and investment guarantees and
insurance available through Eximbank and OPIC;
 
--  Permits TDA to increase the number of feasibility
studies for Western business investment in the NIS;
 
--  Supports continued guarantees of U.S. food exports
under the CCC;
 
--  Authorizes assistance in development of democratic
institutions and creation of indigenous private sector
organizations;
 
--  Encourages programs to establish a legal system that
guarantees individual rights;
 
--  Authorizes introduction of Peace Corps and Democracy
Corps, as well as numerous cultural exchanges; and
 
--  Authorizes founding of America Houses and American
Business and Management Centers to assist U.S. companies
in identifying promising investment and business
opportunities.
 
Where To Turn For Help
The following U.S. Government agencies, addresses, and
other information provide assistance to U.S. firms
seeking business opportunities in the New Independent
States.
 
U.S. Department of Commerce
Business Information Service For the NIS (BISNIS).  The
Department  of Commerce opened the Business Information
Service for the Newly Independent States (BISNIS) in June
1992.  BISNIS provides counseling and commercial
information to U.S. firms and investors interested in
doing business in the NIS.
 
BISNIS also provides U.S. companies with information on
NIS trade and investment opportunities, updates on trade
regulations and legislation, economic and industrial
market data, NIS government and industry contacts, a
calendar of trade promotion events, and information on
sources of financing.  International trade specialists
are available to counsel U.S. companies by telephone and
in person.
 
The center has more than 100 publications on doing
business in the NIS, including commercial overviews on
all 12 countries.  These overviews include summaries of
NIS resources, foreign investment environment, foreign
trade regulations, and overall economic situation.  Other
materials are available on several key topics, including
U.S. Government programs in the NIS, sources of
financing, privatizaton laws, procedures for establishing
an office, regional information, trade promotional
events, NIS and U.S. public and private sector contact
lists, and upcoming trade events.
 
 
Business Information Service For the NIS
U.S. Department of Commerce
 
International Trade Administration
Room 7413
Washington, DC 20230
Tel:  (202) 482-4655
Fax:  (202) 482-2293
Flashfax:  (202) 482-3145
 
U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (US&FCS).  Western
businesses may find limited facilities, since most of the
NIS have an acute shortage of office and hotel space.
The U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (US&FCS)  in the
NIS offers an "Office Away From Home" service in Moscow
that can help U.S. firms establishing operations there.
 
This service provides office space, furniture, answering
services, international telephone and fax services, and
referrals to local consultants, law offices, accounting
firms, interpreters, and drivers.  Fees are about half
those of local companies and are assessed only to cover
operating costs.  Staff includes Russians and Americans
experienced in facilitating contacts between U.S. and
Russian firms.  Through a satellite link, businesses also
are assured immediate, reliable, private telephone and
fax connections to offices worldwide.  Contact:
 
U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service, Moscow
Tel:  7 (502) 224-1105 or 7 (502) 224-1106
Telex:  413205 usco su
Fax:  2302101
 
The US&FCS also plans to open American Business Centers
(ABCs) that will help U.S. companies explore trade and
investment opportunities in the NIS by offering critical
business facilitation services such as telecommunications
and computer equipment, office space, market information,
secretarial services, and other assistance.  In 1994,
ABCs are scheduled to open in St. Petersburg,
Novosibirsk, Nizhnevartovsk, and Vladivostok, Russia;
Kiev, Ukraine; Almaty, Kazakhstan; and Tashkent,
Uzbekistan.  ABCs are under consideration for Tyumen,
Nizhniy Novgorod, Volgograd, and Yekaterinburg in Russia
and in Minsk, Belarus.
 
The Department of Commerce has established US&FCS offices
at four U.S. embassies and two consulates in the NIS:
 
Almaty, Kazakhstan
Senior Commercial officer
American Embassy Almaty
99/97 Furmanova Street
Almaty, Kazakhstan
Tel:  (7) (3272) 631-770
Fax:  (7) (3272) 633-883
 
U.S. Mailing Address
AmEmbassy Almaty
Department of State
Washington, DC  20521-7030
 
Moscow, Russia
Senior Commercial Officer
American Embassy Moscow
15 Novinskiy Bul'var
Tel:  7 (502) 224-1105
Fax:  7 (502) 224-1106
 
U.S. Mailing Address
PSC 77-FCS, APO AE 09721
 
St. Petersburg, Russia
Principal Commercial Officer
American Consulate General
St. Petersburg
15 Furshatskaya
St. Petersburg, Russia
Tel:  7 (812) 119-6045 (international)
7 (812) 213-6537 (local)
Fax:  7 (873) 140-5577 (international)
7 (812) 213-6962 (local)
 
U.S. Mailing Address
Box L, APO AE 09723
 
Vladivostok, Russia
Commercial Officer
American Consulate General
Vladivostok
12 Ulitsa Mordovtseva
Tel:  7 (509) 851-1011
Fax:  7 (4232) 268-445
 
U.S. Mailing Address
AmConsul Vladivostok
Department of State
Washington, DC  20521-5880
 
Kiev, Ukraine
Senior Commercial Officer
American Embassy Kiev
7 Kudriavsky Uzviz, 2nd floor
Kiev, Ukraine
Tel:  7 (044) 417-2669
Fax:  7 (044) 417-1419
 
U.S. Mailing Address
AmEmbassy Kiev
Department of State
Washington, DC  20521-5850
 
Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Senior Commercial Officer
American Embassy Tashkent
82 Chelanzarskaya
Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Tel:  (7) (3712) 771-407
Fax:  (7) (3712) 776-953
 
U.S. Mailing Address
AmEmbassy Tashkent
Department of State
Washington, DC  20521-7110
 
 
Establishing Operations
U.S. firms or individuals who want to establish
operations, including joint ventures, in the NIS follow
the procedures designated by each country, which can
include registration, accreditation, and fees.
 
In Russia, for example, registration permits a foreign
firm to carry out financial transactions and to conduct
its activities.  Forms can be obtained from:
 
Moscow Registration Chamber
Russia, l03009 Moscow
Mokhovaya ulitsa l8, BLD., 8-E
Tel:  7(095) 202-29-63 or 7 (095) 201-63-80
 
Once the forms are completed, contact:
Russian Agency for International Cooperation and
Development
Mr. Vitaliy Seryogin, Chief of Department of Registration
of Enterprises With Foreign Investment
Russia, l03009 Moscow
Georgievskiy per., 2
Tel:  7 (095) 292-3932
Fax:  7 (095) 292-8766
 
Accreditation in Russia is more restrictive than
registration and is usually limited to a three-year
period.  Accredited offices of a foreign company are not
legal entities and can conduct business only o behalf of
the local office, not the parent company.  Financial
transactions are prohibited.
 
 
U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service District Offices in
the U.S.  The Commerce Department's district offices tap
into its overseas network to steer U.S. 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)
 
U.S. Department of State
Office of the Coordinator for U.S. Assistance to the NIS.
The Office of the Coordinator for U.S. Assistance to the
New Independent States is responsible for overall
coordination of U.S. assistance policy and technical
assistance programs (ongoing or planned) for the NIS.
This office is the initial point of contact for U.S.
firms interested in business and investment
opportunities.
 
Senior Adviser
Private Sector Programs
S/NIS/C, Room 1004
U.S. Department of State
Washington, DC 20520
Tel:  (202) 647-2626
Fax:  (202) 647-2636
 
U.S.  Embassies in the NIS.  U.S. embassies in the NIS
countries assist American companies that wish to contact
businesses and officials in these countries.  They
provide information and analysis of NIS developments and
communicate U.S. Government and private sector views to
host governments.
 
Yerevan, Armenia
Harry Gilmore, Ambassador
18 Gen Bagramian
Tel:  (7) (8852) 151-144
Fax:  (7) (8852) 151-138
 
U.S. Mailing Address
American Embassy Yerevan
Department of State
Washington, DC  20521-7020
 
Baku, Azerbaijan
Richard Kauzlarich, Ambassador
Hotel Intourist
Tel: (7) (8922) 92-63-06
 
U.S. Mailing Address
American Embassy Baku
Department of State
Washington, DC  20521-7050
 
Minsk, Belarus
George Krol, Deputy Chief of Mission
46 Starovilenskaya
Tel:  (7) (0172) 34-65-37
Fax:  (7) (0172) 34-78-53
 
U.S. Mailing Address
American Embassy Minsk
APO AE 09723
 
Tbilisi, Georgia
Kent Brown, Ambassador
25 Antonely Street
Tel:  (7) (8832) 98-99-68
Fax:  (7) (8832) 93-37-59
 
U.S. Mailing Address
American Embassy Tbilisi
Department of State
Washington, DC  20521-7060
 
Almaty, Kazakhstan
William Courtney, Ambassador
99/97 Furmanova Street, 480012
Tel:  (7) (3272) 633-405
Fax:  (7) (3272) 633-883
 
U.S. Mailing Address
American Embassy Almaty
Department of State
Washington, DC  20521-7030
 
Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
Edward Hurwitz, Ambassador
66 Erkindik Prospekt  720002
Tel:  (7) (3312) 22-29-20
Fax:  (7) (3312) 22-35-51
 
U.S. Mailing Address
American Embassy Bishkek
Department of State
Washington, DC  20521-7040
 
Chisinau, Moldova
Mary Pendleton, Ambassador
103 Strada Alexei Mateevici
Tel:  (7) 373 (2) 23-37-72
Fax:  (7) (0422) 23-34-94
 
U.S. Mailing Address
American Embassy Chisinau
Department of State
Washington, DC  20521-7080
 
Moscow, Russia
Thomas Pickering, Ambassador
19/23 Novinskiy Bul'var
Tel:  (7) (095) 252-2451
Fax:  (7) (095) 255-9766
 
U.S. Mailing Address
American Embassy Moscow
PSC-77-FCS, AP0 AE 09721
 
Dushanbe, Tajikistan
Stanley Escudero, Ambassador
Interim Chancery, #39 Ainii Street
Tel:  (7) (3772) 24-82-33
 
U.S. Mailing Address
American Embassy Dushanbe
Department of State
Washington, DC  20521-7090
 
Ashgabat, Turkmenistan
Joe Hulings, Ambassador
Yubilenaya Hotel
Tel:  (7) (36320) 24-49-25
 
U.S. Mailing Address
American Embassy Ashgabat
Department of State
Washington, DC  20521-7070
 
Kiev, Ukraine
William Miller, Ambassador
10 Yuria Kotsyubinskovo, 252053
Tel:  (7) (044) 244-7349
Fax:  (7) (044) 279-1485
 
U.S. Mailing Address
American Embassy Kiev
Department of State
Washington, DC  20521-5850
 
Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Henry Clarke, Ambassador
82 Chelanzarskaya
Tel:  (7) (3712) 77-14-07
Fax:  (7) (3712) 77-69-53
 
U.S. Mailing Address
American Embassy Tashkent
Department of State
Washington, DC  20521-7110
 
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
The Center for Trade and Investment Services provides
specific information about USAID programs and activities.
 
U.S. Agency for International Development
320 - 21st Street, NW
SA-2, Room 100
Washington, DC   20523-0229
Tel:  202-663-2660 or 1-800-USAID 4U (1-800-872-4348)
Fax:  (202) 663-2670
 
U.S. Trade and Development Agency
TDA promotes U.S. exports for major development projects
in the NIS.  It funds feasibility studies, consultancies,
training programs, and other project-planning services
related to major projects.
 
U.S. Trade and Developmen Agency
Regional Director, New Independent States
SA-16, Room 309
Washington, DC 20523-1602
Tel:  (703) 875-4357
Fax:  (703) 875-4009
 
Export-Import Bank of the United States
Eximbank provides insurance, guarantees, and loans to
U.S. exporters and commercial banks to facilitate
financing for the export of U.S. goods and services to
many emerging NIS markets.  Eximbank has legal authority
to extend its programs to all of the NIS.  Its programs
are available in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine,
and Uzbekistan.
 
Loan Officer
Eximbank
811 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20571
Tel:  (202) 566-8190
Fax:  (202) 566-7524
 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
OPIC promotes economic growth in more than 125 developing
countries, including the NIS, by encouraging U.S. private
investment in these countries.  It assists U.S. investors
through three main programs:
 
--  Financing investment programs by direct loans and
loan guarantees;
 
--  Insuring investment projects against political risk;
and
 
--  Providing investor services, including advisory
services, project development funding, investment
missions, computer-assisted joint venture partner
matching, and country and regional information kits.
 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
1100 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20527
 
Legal Affairs
Tel:  (202) 336-8423
Fax:  (202) 408-0297
 
Managing Director, Insurance
Tel:  (202) 336-8588
Fax:  (202) 408-0297
 
Finance
Tel:  (202) 336-8475
Fax:  (202) 408-5145
 
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDA is responsible for commercial export programs and
several food aid programs, including congressional loans,
Food for Peace programs, and commodity grants.  Many
agricultural food commodities are eligible for export
under these programs.  USDA also sponsors technical
assistance programs for the NIS that support the
transition to a private agricultural system.
 
USDA supports the sale of American agricultural products
through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) and the
Export Enhancement Program (EEP).  The CCC guarantees
repayment of short-term loans made to eligible countries,
including the NIS.  The EEP challenges unfair trade
practices by competitors.
 
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Office of Emerging Democracies
Room 6506, South Building
Foreign Agricultural Service
Washington, DC  20250-1000
Tel:  (202) 720-0368
Fax:  (202) 690-4369
 
U.S. Information Agency
USIA is responsible for educational and cultural
exchanges, information programs, internships, and
training activities that support U.S. policy goals and
that promote democratic and economic reforms in the NIS.
In addition to USIA Foreign Service officers posted in
U.S. Embassies in the NIS, USIA's Washington, DC,
headquarters works through a number of private sector
exchange organizations in the United States.
 
U.S. Information Agency
301 - 4th Street, SW
Room 751
Washington, DC  20547
Tel:  (202) 619-5057
Fax:  (202) 619-5958
 
U.S. Department of the Treasury
The Treasury Department provides technical assistance in
macroeconomic policy, government financial operations,
and financial sector reform to support development and
operation of central and commercial banking institutions.
 
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Office of Eastern Europe and
Former Soviet Union Policy
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 4138
Washington, DC  20220
Tel:  (202) 622-2130
Fax:  (202) 622-2308
 
 
Country Reports
As changes occur in the New Independent States, the
United States is helping to 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 the NIS as American business
seeks greater trade and investment.
 
Armenia
Capital:  Yerevan
Chief of State:  Levon Ter-Petrosyan
Area:  29,800 square kilometers
Population:  3.4 million
Natural Resources:  copper, zinc, molybdenum, and alumina
Rail Network:  840 kilometers
Road Network: 11,300 kilometers, of which 10,500 are hard
surface
Ports:  none
Airports:  Yerevan
 
Bilateral Trade Agreement/MFN:  entered into force April
1992
Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT):  signed September
1992; awaits Armenian ratification
Tax Treaty:  negotiations expected in 1994
OPIC Agreement:  signed and entered into force April 1992
U.S. Export-Import Bank (Eximbank):  no
Membership:  IMF, IBRD, EBRD
 
The Armenian leadership is committed to economic reform
and continues to create the governmental and
institutional framework necessary to implement its goals.
Armenia's economy is depressed, the severity of which is
exacerbated by political conflict with Azerbaijan.
 
Trade relations have been brought to a near standstill
because major transportation and trade routes are closed.
Telecommunications, transportation, banking, reliable
power supplies, and office space are in short supply.  In
1992, GDP fell to about one-third of its 1989 level, and
the decline continued in 1993.  Unemployment and
inflation are high.  About 95% of the population is
estimated to live below the poverty line.  Food and
energy are in critically short supply.
 
Despite these difficult economic conditions, however, the
government has moved rapidly on economic reforms.
Agricultural land was largely privatized in 1991,
resulting in a 15% rise in production that year.  Prices-
-except for bread, public utilities, and transport--are
deregulated.  Legislation on property taxes, mortgages,
and banking has been passed or is pending..  In November
1993, Armenia introduced a new national currency, the
dram, replacing former Soviet and Russian banknotes.
 
The country's economy is dominated by its industrial
sector, emphasizing light industry and machine building,
and totally depends on imports of raw materials and
energy.
 
The United States provides significant amounts of
humanitarian assistance to Armenia.
 
Azerbaijan
Capital:  Baku
Chief of State:  Heydar Aliyev
Area:  86,600 square kilometers
Population:  7 million
Natural Resources:  petroleum, natural gas, iron ore,
non-ferrous metals, and alumina
Rail Network:  2,090 kilometers
Road Network:  36,700 kilometers, of which 31,800 are
hard surface
Ports:  Baku
Airports:  Baku
 
Bilateral Trade Agreement/MFN:  signed April 1993; awaits
Azerbaijan Parliament's ratification
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  talks expected in 1994
Tax Treaty:  no negotiations to date
OPIC Agreement:  signed September 1992; awaits Azerbaijan
Parliament's ratification
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  no
Membership:  IMF, IBRD, EBRD,
ECO (Economic Cooperation Organization, which includes
six Islamic states of the former U.S.S.R. and
Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey)
 
Azerbaijan is moving cautiously toward a market economy.
State enterprises have not been privatized, but many
small private enterprises have sprung up, mostly in the
retail sector.  Progress toward economic reform has been
impeded by the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.  The country
has economic potential because of fertile agricultural
land and rich mineral resources, particularly oil and
gas.  Its major industries are oil refining,
petrochemicals, oil production equipment, and light
industries (for example, food processing and clothing
manufacturing).  Western oil companies believe that
Azerbaijan contains one of the largest undeveloped tracts
of oil and gas in the world.  Several oil companies are
negotiating with the government on leases in the Caspian
Sea.
 
Azerbaijan seeks foreign trade, and the government has
adopted some laws aimed at encouraging trade investment.
In September 1993, the manat became the sole legal tender
in Azerbaijan, but it is not convertible.  Export
industries are required to surrender part of their hard
currency earnings to the government.
 
The lack of hard currency reserves severely restricts the
purchase of  imported goods, and there is insufficient
infrastructure to support foreign trade.
 
Belarus
Capital:  Minsk
Chief of State:  Aleksandr Lukashenko
Area:  207,600 square kilometers
Population:  10.3 million
Natural Resources:  forest lands and peat deposits
Rail Network:  87,180 kilometers
Road Network:  98,200 kilometers, of which 66,100 are
hard surface
Ports:  none
Airports:  Minsk
 
Bilateral Trade Agreement/MFN:  entered into force
February 1993
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  signed January 1994;
awaiting ratification
Tax Treaty:  no negotiations to date
OPIC Agreement:  Entered into force June 1992
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  open for short-term cover
Membership:  IMF, IBRD
 
Belarus has declared its intention to create a "socially
oriented market economy," but the pace of reform has been
slow.  Many of the former central planning mechanisms
remain in place.  Belarus has a diversified economy that
gives it one of the higher standards of living in the
former U.S.S.R., including an agricultural sector that is
strong by NIS standards and that supplies most internal
needs.  The industrial sector is biased toward heavy
industry, and virtually all enterprises are state-owned.
 
The government is eager to attract foreign investment and
has introduced legislation to improve the investment
climate.  A bilateral investment treaty was signed during
President Clinton's January 1994 visit to Belarus;
however, it is awaiting ratification by both countries.
Legislation for the treaty will remove restrictions on
the formation of joint ventures, allow leasing of land
and buildings by foreign firms, and permit the sale of
non-profitable enterprises.  Joint ventures with more
than 30% ownership are entitled to export their products
without a license and enjoy a three-year tax holiday on
profits commencing when the company earns its first
profits, if the product is manufactured by the joint
venture in Belarus.
 
Negotiations continue over an exchange rate between
Belarusian rubels and Russian rubles as well as possible
monetary union.  At the end of 1992, the Supreme Soviet
issued a decree mandating that hard-currency earnings
from the export of products made by an enterprise with at
least 30% foreign investment (previously 20%) remain at
the disposal of the enterprise.  All other enterprises
must sell 20% of their hard-currency earnings to the
Government of Belarus and pay a 10% hard-currency revenue
tax.  However, the Government of Belarus is considering
changes which would liberalize these provisions.
 
Georgia
Capital:  Tbilisi
Chief of State:  Eduard Shevardnadze
Area:  69,700 square kilometers
Population:  5.5 million
Natural Resources:  forest lands, hydroelectric power,
manganese, iron ore, copper, coal, and oil
Rail Network:  1,570 kilometers
Road Network:  33,900 kilometers, of which 29,500 are
hard surface
Ports:  Batumi, Poti
Airports:  Tbilisi
 
Bilateral Trade Agreement/MFN:  signed in March 1993;
entered into force August 1993
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  signed March 1994; not yet
entered into force
Tax Treaty:  no negotiations to date
OPIC Agreement:  entered into force June 1992
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  no
Membership:  IMF, IBRD
 
A series of political and internal security crises has
absorbed the energies of the government and worsened the
economic problems associated with the breakup of the
U.S.S.R.  After falling by 60% in 1991-92, net material
product continued to decline sharply in 1993.  Georgia
introduced a coupon currency in April 1993 and left the
ruble zone in July 1993.  The coupon rapidly lost value,
however, due to expansionary monetary and fiscal
policies.
 
Perhaps the largest blow has been the decline in
Georgia's external trade.  Moreover, political
instability has devastated the country's important
tourist industry.  Georgian leaders recognize the need to
create an open investment and trade regime to attract the
foreign capital and expertise necessary to develop
agriculture, light industry, and tourism.  Privatization
of agriculture is proceeding, with more than 40% of
arable land already in private hands.  Tax exemptions for
foreign investors include the exemption of property
contributed by them in accordance with a firm's articles
of incorporation, as well as property for the foreign
investors' personal use and equipment or materials
imported for industrial maintenance.  Tax benefits are
available for specific businesses designated by the
government.  The government recently abolished the
registration fee on foreign partners in joint ventures
and the 15% tax on re-exports.  Other economic reforms
are in the drafting or implementation stages.
 
Georgia's limited availability of convertible currency is
a significant barrier to trade, a problem exacerbated by
the government's surrender requirement on hard currency
earnings of export industries.  Under this rule, Georgian
export industries must surrender part of their hard-
currency earnings to the government for rubles at an
unfavorable rate.
 
Import licenses and export quotas are another barrier to
trade with the United States.  Although the government in
March 1993 lifted the requirement of a general license to
import, licenses are required for certain commodities.
The export of many food and consumer products is either
prohibited or restricted, depending on domestic supplies.
 
Moreover, political instability in western and northern
Georgia has disrupted the main rail and road links with
Russia.  Infrastructure is insufficient to support trade:
Telecommunications, banking, office space, and experience
with Western accounting practices are all in short
supply.
 
Kazakhstan
Capital:  Almaty
Chief of State:  Nursultan Nazarbayev
Area:  2.7 million square kilometers
Population:  17 million
Natural Resources:  petroleum, coal, iron, manganese,
chrome, nickel, cobalt, copper, molybdenum, lead, zinc,
and bauxite
Rail Network:  14,460 kilometers
Road Network:  189,000 kilometers, of which 108,000 are
hard surface
Ports:  Atyrau
Airports:  Almaty
 
Bilateral Trade Agreement/MFN:  entered into force
February 1993
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  signed May 1992; entered
into force January 1994.
Tax Treaty:  signed in October 1993; awaiting
ratification by both the U.S. and Kazakhstan
OPIC Agreement:  entered into force May 1992
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  open for short-term cover
Membership:  IMF, IBRD, EBRD, ADB
 
Kazakhstan Government leaders have repeatedly stressed
their commitment to economic reform.  Although the state
still owns all productive economic sectors, Kazakhstan
has made significant progress in building the legislative
framework for a market economy, and its abundant natural
resources could smooth the transition.  Private market
activity in retail trade is growing fast.
 
Kazakhstan is committed to a policy of encouraging long-
term growth through the exploitation of its extensive
natural resources.  A longer term priority is to develop
processing industries.  Kazakhstan seeks foreign
investment in these activities, and U.S. companies
already are participating.  Foreign exporters can sell
directly to Kazakhstan buyers and can sell intermediate
goods and services to foreign investors in Kazakhstan.
The country is a growing market for U.S. consumer and
capital goods, particularly for use in extractive
industries.  No import licenses are required in
Kazakhstan.  Foreign investment will be required to
increase imports.
 
Formally, no equity or participation limits exist on
foreign investment, though virtually all foreign
investment is through joint ventures.  Export performance
requirements are non-existent, as are local content
requirements and restrictions on foreign personnel or
repatriation of capital.  Capital movements can, in
practice, be constrained by foreign exchange shortages.
Foreign firms are permitted in downstream operations and
were allowed to operate as intermediaries by presidential
decree in January 1992.
 
Kazakhstan introduced its own currency, the tenge, in
November 1993.  The currency is widely used in the local
economy.  Legal restrictions on private currency trading
still exist, and individuals are limited in their
authorized access to foreign currency.  Any company,
however, can participate in the currency auctions as
buyer or seller.  Dollars and rubles are available from
banks, although not immediately on demand.  Kazakhstan
companies are required to exchange for tenge at the
national bank at least 40% of their foreign currency
earnings.
 
Kazakhstan has a developing legal framework, little
experience in and understanding of a market economy, and
a lack of domestic investment capital.  Services are
affected by formal and informal barriers, like antiquated
telecommunications and transportation facilities.
 
Kyrgyz Republic
Capital:  Bishkek
Chief of State:  Askar Akayev
Area:  191,300 square kilometers
Population:  4.2 million
Natural Resources:  coal, natural gas, oil, nepheline,
rare earth metals, mercury, bismuth, gold, uranium, lead,
zinc, and hydroelectric power
Rail Network:  370 kilometers
Road Network:  30,300 kilometers, of which 22,600 are
paved or gravel
Ports:  none
Airports:  Bishkek
 
Bilateral Trade Agreement/MFN:  entered into force August
1992
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  signed January 1993;
entered into force January 1994
Tax Treaty:  under negotiation
OPIC Agreement:  entered into force May 1992
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  short-term credit for
investment
Membership:  IMF, IBRD, EBRD,
ECO (Economic Cooperation Organization--an Islamic
economic bloc, which includes six states of the former
U.S.S.R. and Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey)
 
The Kyrgyz Republic is one of the poorest former Soviet
republics; it had depended on subsidies from the central
government.  It lacks easily accessible natural
resources, and the availability of energy supplies is
mixed.
 
Nonetheless, the government has constructed a legal
framework for economic reform, including privatization,
joint ventures, foreign trade and investment, free
economic zones, and concessions to foreign investors.  It
was the first of the former Soviet republics to reach a
stand-by arrangement with the IMF and to draw from this
new program.  Its prices are determined by free market
forces.  In February 1994, it hosted the first CSCE
economic seminar on promoting small- and medium-sized
businesses in transition economies.  The Kyrgyz Republic
introduced a national currency, the som, in May 1993.
 
The Kyrgyz Republic's recent law on foreign investment
permits issuance of shares in joint ventures and the
founding of foreign-owned enterprises, promotes
investment in research and development, and sanctions
other forms of economic and technological activity not
prohibited by Kyrgyz laws.  Moreover, tax-exempt status
for foreign investors has been granted in the priority
areas of electronics, machine tool production, tourism,
communications, consumer goods, agriculture, and new
technologies.  As yet, no laws regulate foreign ownership
of private property.
 
The Kyrgyz Republic lacks hard currency, making
repatriation difficult despite liberalized foreign
exchange laws.  Inadequate telecommunications and banking
facilities, as well as steep transportation costs, are
further barriers to trade.
 
Moldova
Capital:  Chisinau
Chief of State:  Mircea Snegur
Area:  33,700 square kilometers
Population:  4.4 million
Natural Resources:  lignite, phosphorites, and gypsum
Rail Network:  1,150 kilometers
Road Network:  20,000 kilometers, of which  13,900 are
hard surface
Ports:  none
Airports:  Chisinau
 
Bilateral Trade Agreement/MFN:  entered into force July
1992
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  signed April 1993;
ratified, now pending entry into force
Tax Treaty:  no negotiations to date
OPIC Agreement:  entered into force June 1992
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  no cover available
Membership:  IMF, IBRD, EBRD
 
The breakup of the former Soviet Union and the movement
toward market prices in trade among the former republics
have greatly affected Moldova's economy.  Moldova must
import oil, natural gas, and coal, mainly from Ukraine
and Russia.  Its products generally are unable to compete
on Western markets, and trade remains oriented toward the
other NIS.  The government has been focused mainly on
internal political crises.
 
Moldova has taken preliminary steps toward building the
framework for a market economy, including basic
legislation for economic reform and privatization.
Moldova introduced its national currency, the lei, in
November 1993.
 
The most significant barrier to U.S. exports is Moldova's
shortage of hard currency with which to pay for them.
The Moldovan Government's limited control over the
separatist Trans-Dniester region presents barriers to
investment in that region.
 
Russia
Capital:  Moscow
Chief of State:  Boris Yeltsin
Area:  17 million square kilometers
Population:  149 million
Natural Resources:  oil, natural gas, coal, phosphorites,
potassium salts, iron ores, gold, diamonds, rare metals,
copper, lead, tin, bauxite, manganese, silver,
molybdenum, graphite, nickel, and uranium
Rail Network:  87,180 kilometers
Road Network:  879,100 kilometers, of which  652,500 are
hard surface
Ports:  Arkhangelsk, Kaliningrad, Kholmsk, Korsakov,
Magadan, Murmansk, Nakhodka, Novorossiysk, Petropavlovsk-
Kamchatskiy, Rostov, St. Petersburg, Tiksi, Tuapse,
Vanino, Vladivostok, Vostochnyy, Vyborg,
Airports:  Khabarovsk, Magadan, Moscow, Novosibirsk, St.
Petersburg, Smara, Syktyvkar, Tyumen, Vladivostok,
Yakutsk, Yekaterinbeurg
Bilateral Trade agreement/MFN:  entered into force June
1992
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  signed June 1992; awaits
ratification
Tax Treaty:  entered into force January 1994
OPIC Agreement:  entered into force June 1992
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  open for medium-term cover
Membership:  IMF, IBRD, EBRD
 
The Russian economy is experiencing a wrenching
contraction as it moves from a command to a free market
system.  GDP decreased by 12% in 1993 (an improvement
from the 19% drop in 1992).  Agricultural production,
chiefly grain and potatoes, accounted for more than one-
half of that of the NIS; it declined by 6% in 1993.
Industrial output fell by 16% and the rate of investment
by 15% in the same year.  Official unemployment was only
1% of the 71-million work force in 1993 (excluding the
estimated 4-5 million who work reduced hours or are on
voluntary leave).
 
Inflation rose to a peak of 30% monthly in January 1993.
It has fluctuated at double-digit rates since then as the
government has pursued various economic policies (such as
raising interest rates, cutting food subsidies, and
delaying debt payments) with limited success.  As of
early 1994, the inflation rate was estimated at 10%.
 
Russia's trade balance was positive in 1993, primarily as
a result of lower grain import requirements, higher
import duties, and reduced use of Western trade credits.
The government has rescheduled its official debt payment
obligations but has been unable to do so with its
commercial creditors.  It has increased official foreign
exchange reserves to about $5 billion in 1993 (to some
extent due to non-payment of commercial creditors.)
Capital flight remains a serious problem.
 
Russia has made significant head- way in privatizing many
economic sectors.  About 50% of GDP is now produced in
the market economy.  As of March 1994, about 15,000 large
state enterprises had sold shares to the public through
auctions; more than 80,000 small firms had been
transferred to the private sector.  There are 270,000
private farms.  Although private and reorganized
state/cooperative farms are increasingly productive and
efficient, privatization has not yet generated efficiency
gains in industry.  About 30% of state-owned housing
(about 8 million dwellings) had been turned over to
private individuals by the end of 1993.  However, state-
subsidized rents and utilities discourage individual home
ownership.
 
Consumers make 70% of their purchases in the private
sector to take advantage of better selection, quality,
and service.  Food availability and real per capita
income have improved or stabilized, but social welfare
problems, such as increased crime and health care
shortages, are serious.  The gap between rich and poor
also has widened; about one-third of the population lives
below the official poverty level.
 
U.S. exports to Russia face significant legal barriers.
Russia is developing the legal framework for its
transition to political democracy and a market economy.
National and regional authorities are creating and
interpreting laws and decrees that often conflict and
overlap.  As a result, negotiations and contracts for
export sales or investments can be complex and
protracted.  In the absence of a commonly accepted and
enforceable commercial code, each contract must embody
the basic provisions of such a code.  Contracts must
likewise protect the foreign partner against
contingencies that might arise in such a situation.  Lack
of transparency, with no single publication yet
comparable to the U.S. Federal Register, compounds the
problems created by fluidity of laws.  Uneven
implementation of laws creates further complications.
Various officials, branches of government, and
jurisdictions apply regulations with little consistency,
and the decisions of one can be overruled or contested by
another.
 
Russian tax laws governing foreign investment and trade
have changed repeatedly.  Duties range from "duty free"
to about 20%.  The value-added tax is 20% for most goods
and is imposed on Russian and foreign legal entities that
carry out commercial activities in Russia.  Excise taxes
on luxury goods range from 10% to 90%.  Profits are taxed
at 38%.  The top income tax rate is 40%.
 
Russia has foreign exchange controls on profit
repatriation by foreign companies and on hard currency
earnings of exporters.  Russian businesses must sell 50%
of their hard currency earnings for rubles.
 
Tajikistan
Capital:  Dushanbe
Chief of State:  Imomili Rakhmanov
Area:  143,100 square kilometers
Population:  5.5 million
Natural Resources:  hydropower potential, petroleum,
brown coal, lead, zinc, uranium, mercury, salt, gold,
natural gas, bismuth, antimony, molybdenum, and tungsten
Rail Network:  480 kilometers
Road Network:  29,900 kilometers, of which 24,400 are
hard surface
Ports:  none
Airports:  Dushanbe
 
Bilateral Trade Agreement/MFN:  entered into force
November 1993
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  further consultations
needed
Tax Treaty:  further consultations needed
OPIC Agreement:  entered into force June 1992
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  no cover available
Membership:  IMF, IBRD, EBRD, ECO (Economic Cooperation
Organization--an economic bloc, which includes six
Islamic states of the former U.S.S.R. and Afghanistan,
Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey).
 
Progress in implementing an economic reform program has
been slowed by unsettled political conditions.  The civil
war damaged the economic infrastructure, limited
industrial and agricultural production, and led to
serious food shortages.  Little progress has been made
toward establishing a market economy.
 
Tajikistan is the only Central Asian country that has not
left the ruble zone and issued an independent currency,
but Russia's reluctance to provide desperately needed
rubles is increasing the likelihood that Tajikistan will
do so.
 
Tajikistan has one of the lowest standards of living and
is one of the most rural of the New Independent States.
Under the former U.S.S.R., its net output in all major
sectors was less than 1.5% of the total for all
republics.  About 40% of the population is engaged in
agriculture and forestry and 20% in industry and
construction.  Much of its territory is high mountains,
from which it obtains minerals and hydroelectric power,
which are the foundation of its economy.
 
Since the country has little capacity for processing raw
materials, these are exported.  Agricultural products and
exports include cotton, fruits and vegetables, and silk.
Tajikistan imports consumer goods, clothing textiles, and
food from other republics.
 
Tajikistan encourages foreign investment to help rebuild
its economy.  Its reform program aims to develop small
and medium enterprises, while continuing state support
for large enterprises.  A major effort will be made to
develop non-ferrous metallurgy.
 
Turkmenistan
Capital:  Ashgabat
Chief of State:  Saparmurad Niyazov
Area:  488,100 square kilometers
Population:  3.7 million
Natural Resources:  petroleum, natural gas, coal, sulfur,
and salt
Rail Network:  2,120 kilometers
Road Network:   23,000 kilometers, of which 18,300 are
hard surface
Ports:  Krasnovodsk
Airports:  Ashgabat
 
Bilateral Trade Agreement/MFN:  entered into force
October 1993
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  under discussion
Tax Treaty:  under discussion
OPIC Agreement:  entered into force June 1992
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  open for short-term coverage
Membership:  IMF, IBRD, EBRD, ECO (Economic Cooperation
Organization--an economic bloc, which includes six
Islamic states of the former U.S.S.R. and Afghanistan,
Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey).
 
The Turkmenistan Government plans to maintain the state's
role in industry, science, health, and national culture,
taking only a few preliminary steps toward a market
economy.  For the next several years, the economy's
primary sectors--oil, gas, minerals, and most
agriculture--have been reserved for state ownership and
control.
 
Turkmenistan aggressively has pursued new export markets
for its energy, mineral, and cotton products and has
broadened its range of import sources.  The collapse of
inter-republic trade has dampened production in key
sectors of the economy, particularly the pharmaceutical,
agriculture, and construction industries.
 
The issuance of its independent currency, the manat, in
1993 has increased the need for the government to move
decisively on controlling government spending, promoting
foreign investment, and a number of other long-awaited
reforms.  A series of laws on foreign investment,
banking, property ownership, and intellectual property
rights were passed in 1992, but these have not translated
into significant support for economic reform.
 
U.S. exports encounter no significant formal barriers,
although the shortage of hard currency and poor
infrastructure for transportation and communications
impede trade.  Government and individual importers rely
heavily on barter arrangements.
 
Varying shares of foreign exchange received from the
export of certain goods must be surrendered to support
the government's foreign exchange fund.  The surrender of
hard currency earnings from exports is made on the basis
of ruble wholesale prices; that is, exporters receive the
equivalent of the domestic ruble price of the goods
exported in return for the foreign exchange surrendered.
 
Ukraine
Capital:  Kiev
Chief of State:  Leonid Kuchma
Area:  603,700 square kilometers
Population:  52 million
Natural Resources:  iron ore, coal, manganese, natural
gas, salt, sulfur, graphite, titanium,
magnesium, kaolin, nickel, mercury, and timber
Rail Network:  22,800 kilometers
Road Network:  273,700 kilometers, of which 236,400 are
hard surface
Ports:  Bredyansk, Ilchevsk, Kherson, Mariupol, Nikolaev,
Odessa, Sevastopol Kerch, and Yuzhnyy
Airports:  Kiev
 
Bilateral Trade Agreement/MFN:  entered into force June
1992
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  signed March 1994
Tax Treaty:  signed 1994; awaiting ratification by U.S.
and Ukraine
OPIC Agreement:  entered into force May 1992
U.S. Export-Import Bank: open for short-term insurance
for U.S. investments
Membership:  IMF, IBRD, EBRD
 
The Ukrainian economy continues to deteriorate, with its
decline recently accelerating.  Price increases for
energy supplies from Russia and irresponsible credit
policies by the government have led to hyperinflation.
Production continues to drop, with overall GDP falling by
20% in 1993.  The financial system is in disarray.  The
Ukrainian coupon exchange rate, 900 to the dollar in
February 1993, dropped to less than 35,000 to the dollar
in 1994.  On February 21, 1994, the government continued
a pattern set in 1993 and announced  massive new
subsidies worth more than $300 million to the
agricultural and industrial sectors.  These will deepen
the state budget deficit and ensure that inflation will
continue at current high levels in the near term.
 
The vast majority of Ukrainian trade is with countries of
the former Soviet Union, and principally with Russia.
Demand for Ukraine's non-agricultural exports--ferrous
metals, steel pipe, machinery and transport equipment--
continues to fall.  Forced to pay high prices for fuel,
Ukraine continues to run large, unsustainable trade
deficits.  Its trade deficit with Russia was more than
$1.5 billion in 1993.
 
Ukraine's dependence on Russian fuel supplies has
crippled its economy.  Ukraine imports 90% of its oil and
most of its natural gas from Russia.  During 1993, Russia
raised fuel prices (although still significantly below
world-market prices) and reduced deliveries to one-half
1992 levels.  Ukrainian authorities have been forced to
cut supplies to industrial enterprises by 40%, reduce
transport services by one-third, and use rolling
brownouts in major cities to preserve supplies.
 
In January 1994, the parliament passed an ambitious
privatization law which envisions transferring one-
quarter of the state enterprises into private hands by
the end of 1994.  The government aims to negotiate a
stabilization program with the International Monetary
Fund which could serve as the basis for a comprehensive
reform effort.
 
 Ukraine encourages foreign trade and investment.  The
parliament has approved a foreign investment law allowing
Westerners to purchase businesses and property, to
repatriate revenue and profits, and to receive
compensation in the event that property is nationalized
by a future government.  An agreement to provide relief
from double taxation has been signed.
 
Ukraine is rich in natural resources.  It has a major
ferrous metal industry, producing cast iron, steel, and
steel pipe.  Its chemical industry produces coke, mineral
fertilizers, and sulfuric acid.  Its manufactured goods
include metallurgical equipment, diesel locomotives, and
tractors.
 
It also is an important agricultural and industrial
region.  It is a major producer of grain and sugar and
possesses a broad industrial base, including much of the
former U.S.S.R's space industry.  Although oil reserves
are largely exhausted, it has important energy sources,
such as coal and natural gas, and large mineral deposits.
 
 
Uzbekistan
Capital:  Tashkent
Chief of State:  Islam Karimov
Area:  447,400 square kilometers
Population:  21.7 million
Natural Resources:  natural gas, coal, gold, uranium,
silver, copper, lead, zinc, tungsten, and molybdenum
Rail Network:  3,460 kilometers
Road Network:  78,400 kilometers, of which 67,000 are
hard surface
Ports:  none
Airports:  Andizhan, Bukhara, Samarkand, Tashkent, Termez
 
Bilateral Trade Agreement/MFN:  signed November 1993;
entered into force January 1994
Bilateral Investment Treaty:  under discussion
Tax Treaty:  under discussion
OPIC Agreement:  entered into force October 1992
U.S. Export-Import Bank:  open for short-term financing
insurance for U.S. investments
Membership:  IMF, IBRD, EBRD, ECO (Economic Cooperation
Organization--an economic bloc which includes six Islamic
states of the former U.S.S.R and Afghanistan, Iran
Pakistan, and Turkey).  The government became a signatory
to the Convention on Settlement of Investment Disputes
Between States and Nationals of Other States in March
1994.
 
The Uzbekistan Government is reforming slowly in order to
avoid social dislocation and potential unrest.  The
government is committed to retaining control over major
economic sectors, including oil, natural gas, metallurgy,
transport, chemicals, and the cotton monoculture.
 
The government encourages foreign investment and joint
ventures to increase national income and jobs.  The
indigenous private sector is growing, with increasingly
active trade contacts abroad, but it is strictly
regulated by the Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations.
The government has provided a key incentive to promote
trade flows and foreign investment through joint
ventures:  A two-year "tax holiday," which for those
investing in government-designated priority sectors
becomes a five-year tax holiday.  Foreign investors pay
fees (on a sliding scale) to repatriate profits, but they
can accept or purchase local products for export in lieu
of cash profits.  In November 1993, after Russia expelled
it from the ruble zone, Uzbekistan issued the som coupon
as an interim currency until conversion to a permanent
currency later in 1994.
 
The slow pace of privatization, complicated laws on
property and foreign investment, and general economic and
political uncertainty will continue to make foreign
investors cautious.  Export licenses are required for
exports of so-called strategic goods, which include
cotton, silk, gold, copper, and mineral fertilizers.
Uzbekistan's industrial and transportation
infrastructures need modernization, for which major
capital investments will be required.  Special
precautions are necessary to ensure safe arrival of cargo
shipped by rail or road transport from Russia and
Ukraine.
 
 
Publications and Electronic Information
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 the New Independent States.
 
U.S. GOVERNMENT
U.S. 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 nations in the news; and treaty actions.    To
subscribe, contact:
 
Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO)
PO Box 371954
Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954
Tel:  (202) 783-3238
Fax:  (202) 512-2233
 
Cost:  $91 third-class mail,  $144 first-class mail.
Request List ID-USDSD.  Check or money order should
accompany the order and be made payable to the
Superintendent of Documents
 
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 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.  There is no charge for browsing
the list of files and searching for keyword terms,
downloading copies of instructional and product
description files or publication schedules, or using
electronic mail to order free product literature or
publications for sale by GPO.
 
Prices are reasonable for downloading files:  The minimum
charge per file is $2 (up to 50 kilobytes); a full
megabyte file costs $15.  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) 512-1530
Fax:  (202) 512-1524
 
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 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
of Consular Affairs provides a number of publications
that offer travel information:  Your Trip Abroad, A Safe
Trip Abroad, and Tips for Americans Residing Abroad.
These publications 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).
 
U.S. Department of Commerce
The Commerce Department provides information from the
following sources:
 
BISNIS Reference Library.  The Business Information
Service for the NIS reference library is open to U.S.
companies and includes current directories, newsletters,
market research, and other useful publications for
developing trade with the NIS.
 
Summary of Export Controls is a 14-page pamphlet
describing licenses and when and how to apply for them.
Obstacles to Trade and Investment in the New Republics of
the Former Soviet Union reviews barriers and recommends
procedures to NIS governments to accelerate the flow of
trade and investment.
 
Obtain these publications from:
 
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
5825 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161-2171
Tel:  (703) 487-4653
Fax:  (703) 321-8547
 
Information also is available through several periodic
publications--BISNIS Bulletin, Search for Partners, and
Commercial Opportunities.  BISNIS Bulletin reports the
latest practical information on market developments and
U.S. Government programs supporting trade and investment
in the region.  Search for Partners identifies NIS
enterprises seeking U.S. business partners for joint
ventures and other long-term business relationships.
Commercial Opportunities highlights NIS companies that
are looking to purchase specific products from U.S.
suppliers.  These publications are sent to U.S. companies
that request to be placed on the official BISNIS mailing
list.
 
BISNIS makes its information and back issues of
publications available immediately through the FlashFax
BISNIS Bank, a 24-hour, 7-day automated phone/fax
information bank, which provides fast-breaking trade
leads and market information.  Access is from a touch-
tone phone.
 
BISNIS
International Trade Administration
Room 7413
Washington, DC  20230
Tel:  (202) 482-4655
Fax:  (202) 482-2293
FlashFax Business Bank:  (202) 482-3145
Internet:  BISNIS1@USITA.GOV
 
The Economic Bulletin Board (EBB) is a personal computer-
based electronic bulletin board, which can be reached
from most PCs 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 (300/1200/2400 bps) using your personal
computer.  Set the PC's communications switches to no
parity, 8 bitwords, 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.
 
The National Trade Data Bank (NTDB) is a trade
information library 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.
 
Use the NTDB on any IBM-compatible personal computer
equipped with a CD-ROM reader.
 
Cost:  $360 per year for 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 electronic on-line
system with more than 100 federally operated on-line
computer systems  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.  Two future features, the File Transfer
protocol and Internet mail, are expected to be highly
popular.  For more information, call (703) 487-4608.
 
Small Business Administration (SBA)
The SBA provides Exporters Guide to Federal Resources for
Small Business:  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
 
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
USAID offers the Central and Eastern Europe Private and
Voluntary Organization Contact List, a 127-page
descriptive list of 83 private and voluntary
organizations.  Call:
 
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
Tel:  (703) 487-4630
Fax:  (703) 321-8547
 
PRIVATE SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS
U.S.-Russia Business Council
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 650
Washington, DC  20006
Tel:  (202) 956-7670
Fax:  (202) 956-7674
 
Russian-American Chamber of Commerce
Head Office
Chairman:  John H. French
President:  Dr. Irene Lewis
6200 Quebec Street, Suite 201
Englewood, CO  80111
Tel:  (303) 689-8739
Fax:  (303) 689-8762
 
Branch Offices
909 3rd Avenue, 27th floor
New York, NY  10022-9998
Tel:  (212) 339-5564
Fax:  (212) 935-3121
 
608 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC  20002
Tel:  (202) 674-4444
Fax:  (202) 546-3240
 
American Chamber of Commerce in Russia
Ulitsa Stankevicha 16/4 #1
Moscow, Russia
Tel:  +7-095-229-0514
Fax:  +7-095-271-0994
 
Russian-American Chamber
731 8th Street, SE
Washington, DC  20003
Tel:  (202) 546-3275
Fax:  (202) 546-4784
 
American-Russian
Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 7950
Chicago, IL  60680-7950
Tel:  (708) 726-8511
Fax:  (708) 726-1703 or (312) 275-2250
 
U.S.-Kazakhstan Economic
Development Council
c/o East-West Trade and Commerce Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 3648
Princeton, NJ  08543-3648
Tel:  (609) 497-9200
Fax:  (609) 683-1820
 
U.S.-Kyrgyz Business Council, Inc.
700 13th Street, NW
Suite 950
Washington, DC  20005
Tel:  (202) 347-6540
Fax:  (202) 347-6537
 
American-Uzbek Chamber of Commerce
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC  20006-4604
Tel:  (202) 872-0013
Fax:  (202) 872-0210
 
U.S.-NIS Chamber of Commerce and Industry
P.O. Box 1178
Central Islip, NY  11722
Tel:  (516) 582-9102
Fax:  (516) 582-2159
 
CIS-America Chamber of Commerce
9330 Memorial Drive
Houston, TX  77024
Tel:  (713) 681-8474
Fax:  (713) 682-0721  (###)
 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 5:
 
White House Statements
 
Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund
Statement by White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers,
Washington, DC, July 15, 1994.
 
President Clinton announced today that the Honorable
Stephen Solarz, former Congressman from New York, will be
the Chairman of the Central Asian-American Enterprise
Fund.  The Fund will promote private sector development
in the five states of Central Asia:  Kazakhstan, the
Kyrgyz Republic, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and
Turkmenistan.
 
The United States plans to capitalize the Fund with $150
million in foreign assistance appropriations over the
next three to four years.  The Fund, which will be
managed by a private Board of Directors, will have
authority to make equity investments and loans and offer
technical assistance to promote new private companies and
entrepreneurs in the Central Asian states, with special
emphasis on the promotion of small- and medium-sized
enterprises.  Although the Enterprise Fund may invest in
any of the Central Asian states, it is expected to begin
operations and establish offices in those states
demonstrating a commitment to, and progress toward,
economic reform, specifically Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz
Republic.  The Fund also will be encouraged to use its
U.S. Government funding to attract other resources for
private sector development in the Central Asian states.
 
The Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund will be
similar in purpose and authority to the existing
Enterprise Funds in Russia, Poland, Hungary, the Czech
and Slovak Republics, and Bulgaria.  The Enterprise Fund
concept was created in the Support for Eastern European
Democracy Act of 1989 and was extended to Russia and
other New Independent States in the 1992 Freedom for
Russia and Emerging Eurasian Democracies and Open Markets
(FREEDOM) Support Act.
 
The Administration expressed its intention to establish
the Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund during Vice
President Gore's visit to Central Asia in January 1994.
The Enterprise Fund complements other U.S. assistance
programs in the region, including those in the FY 1994
$2.5 billion bilateral support package for Russia and
other New Independent States of the former Soviet Union.
 
In addition to Mr. Solarz, the Fund's Board of Directors
will include Scott Sperling, Managing Partner at Aneas
Group; Martha Brill Olcott, Professor of Political
Science at Colgate University; Jerry K. Pearlman, Chief
Executive Officer of Zenith Electronics Corporation;
Sanford Robertson, Partner at Robertson, Stephens &
Company; Monica Vachher, formerly President of The Astor
Group and now with Bear Stearns; and Walter White,
Partner at Quarles & Brady.
 
 
U.S. Closes Embassy of Rwanda
Statement by White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers,
Washington, DC, July 15, 1994.
 
In an effort to bring an end to the fighting and growing
humanitarian disaster in Rwanda, the Clinton
Administration has closed the Embassy of Rwanda and
ordered all personnel to leave the country.
Representatives of the so-called interim government of
Rwanda must depart within five working days.
 
The White House also announced that it will begin
consultations with other UN Security Council members to
remove representatives of the interim government from
Rwanda's seat on the council.  The State Department
declared that representatives of the interim government
will be denied access to any Rwandan Government financial
holdings in the United States.  "The United States cannot
allow representatives of a regime that supports genocidal
massacre to remain on our soil," President Clinton said.
 
Noting that the ongoing fighting is creating an even more
perilous humanitarian disaster in Rwanda and along its
borders, the White House appealed to all forces to agree
to an immediate cease-fire.  It called on all responsible
parties to begin serious talks on forming a transitional
government that will lead to genuine power-sharing.
 
The White House applauded the French effort to protect
Rwandans at risk and said the United States would
continue to press for rapid deployment of the UN peace-
keeping force (UNAMIR) to replace the French.  It
appealed to the international community to redouble its
efforts to deploy those UN forces.
 
The White House again insisted that those Rwandans
responsible for genocidal killings and other crimes
against humanity be brought to justice.  It said it hoped
that the United Nations would act swiftly--under the
Security Council Resolution that established a UN
Commission of Experts--to create a War Crimes Tribunal.
 
As the crisis in Rwanda has unfolded, the United States
has taken a leading role in efforts to protect the
Rwandan people and ensure humanitarian assistance.  It
has:
 
--  Provided more than $95 million in relief, including
food, medicine, and supplies for international
organizations and private relief agencies.
 
--  Flown about 100 Defense Department missions into the
region to airlift relief supplies.
 
--  Strongly supported an expanded UNAMIR; airlifted 50
armored personnel carriers to Kampala to support the UN
peacekeepers; and committed to equipping the UN's Ghanian
peace-keeping battalion.  (###)
 
 
 
 
ARTICLE  6:
 
Department Statement
Statement by Acting Department Spokesman David Johnson,
Washington, DC, July 18, 1994.
 
On July 17, the President authorized the use of up to $19
million from the U.S. Emergency Refugee and Migration
Assistance Fund to meet the unexpected and urgent needs
of refugees, returnees, and conflict victims from Rwanda
and Burundi.
 
The number of refugees who have fled the conflict in
Rwanda to the neighboring countries of Tanzania, Zaire,
Uganda, and Burundi has now reached more than 2 million.
The flow of almost a million people into the Goma area of
Zaire over the last few days is unprecedented.  Moreover,
there are as many as 3 million displaced people inside
Rwanda.  The needs are enormous, and international relief
agencies are overwhelmed.  The continued outflow
threatens the stability of the region.
 
This funding reaffirms our commitment to assist the
humanitarian relief effort caused by the Rwanda crisis.
It will be made available to the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)--which is coordinating
basic assistance to Rwandan and Burundi refugees
throughout the region--and to other international
organizations providing critical relief in Rwanda,
Burundi, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zaire.
 
This new funding is in addition to the $100 million which
the U.S. has already contributed since April and to 80
new Department of Defense airlift missions which will
begin this week with flights into Goma.
 
U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator
Brian Atwood, who is also the President's Special
Coordinator for International Disaster Assistance,
visited Goma today to assess relief efforts and the need
for enhanced assistance caused by the wave of new
refugees across the border from Rwanda into Zaire.  (###)
 
[END OF DISPATCH VOL. 5, NO. 30]

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