US DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 5, NUMBER 38, SEPTEMBER 19, 1994
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:
1.  The Crisis in Haiti
2.  International Conference on Population and Development--Vice 
President Gore 
3.  The Purpose of American Power--Anthony Lake  
4.  Managing U.S.-Japan Relations Into the 21st Century--Walter Mondale
5.  Civil and Political Rights In the United States--John Shattuck
6.  Department Statements: 
     Partnership for Peace Exercise in Poland
     Sudan's Support for International Terrorism 
7.  Treaty Actions



Article 1:

The Crisis in Haiti
U.S. Interests in Haiti
President Clinton's Oval Office address to the nation, Washington, DC, 
September 15, 1994.

My fellow Americans:  Tonight I want to speak with you about why the 
United States is leading the international effort to restore democratic 
government in Haiti.  Haiti's dictators, led by General Raoul Cedras, 
control the most violent regime in our hemisphere.  For three years, 
they have rejected every peaceful solution that the international 
community has proposed.  They have broken an agreement that they made to 
give up power.  They have brutalized their people and destroyed their 
economy, and for three years we and other nations have worked 
exhaustively to find a diplomatic solution, only to have the dictators 
reject each one.  

Now the United States must protect our interests--to stop the brutal 
atrocities that threaten tens of thousands of Haitians, to secure our 
borders, to preserve stability and promote democracy in our hemisphere, 
and to uphold the reliability of the commitments we make and the 
commitments others make to us. 

Earlier today, I ordered Secretary of Defense Perry to call up the 
military reserve personnel necessary to support United States troops in 
any action we might undertake in Haiti.  I have also ordered two 
aircraft carriers, the USS Eisenhower and the USS America, into the 
region. 

I issued these orders after giving full consideration to what is at 
stake.  The message of the United States to the Haitian dictators is 
clear:  Your time is up.  Leave now, or we will force you from power.  I 
want the American people to understand the background of the situation 
in Haiti, how what has happened there affects our national security 
interests, and why I believe we must act now.  Nearly 200 years ago, the 
Haitian people rose up out of slavery and declared their independence.  
Unfortunately, the promise of liberty was quickly snuffed out, and ever 
since, Haiti has known more suffering and repression than freedom.  In 
our time, as democracy has spread throughout our hemisphere, Haiti has 
been left behind. 

Then, just four years ago, the Haitian people held the first free and 
fair elections since their independence.  They elected a parliament and 
a new president, Father Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a Catholic priest who 
received almost 70% of the vote.  But eight months later, Haitian dreams 
of democracy became a nightmare of bloodshed. 

Gen. Raoul Cedras led a military coup that overthrew President Aristide, 
the man who had appointed Cedras to leave the army.  Resistors were 
beaten and murdered.  The dictators launched a horrible intimidation 
campaign of rape, torture, and mutilation.  People starved; children 
died; thousands of Haitians fled their country, heading to the United 
States across dangerous seas.  At that time, President Bush declared 
that the situation posed, and I quote, "an unusual and extraordinary 
threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the 
United States." 

Cedras and his armed thugs have conducted a reign of terror--executing 
children, raping women, and killing priests.  As the dictators have 
grown more desperate, the atrocities have grown ever more brutal.  
Recent news reports have documented the slaying of Haitian orphans by 
the nation's deadly police thugs.  The dictators are said to suspect the 
children of harboring sympathy toward President Aristide for no other 
reason than he ran an orphanage in his days as a parish priest.  The 
children fled the orphanages for the streets.  Now they cannot even 
sleep there because they are so afraid.  As one young boy told a 
visitor, "I do not care if the police kill me because it only brings an 
end to my suffering."

International observers uncovered a terrifying pattern of soldiers and 
policemen raping the wives and daughters of suspected political 
dissidents--young girls, 13 years old, 16 years old.  People were slain 
and mutilated, with body parts left as warnings to terrify others.  
Children were forced to watch as their mothers' faces were slashed with 
machetes.  

A year ago, the dictators assassinated the Minister of Justice.  Just 
last month, they gunned down Father Jean-Marie Vincent, a peasant leader 
and close friend of Father Aristide.  Vincent was executed on the 
doorstep of his home--a monastery.  He refused to give up his ministry, 
and for that, he was murdered.  Let me be clear:  General Cedras and his 
accomplices alone are responsible for this suffering and terrible human 
tragedy.  It is their actions that have isolated Haiti. 

Neither the international community nor the United States has sought a 
confrontation.  For nearly three years we have worked hard on diplomatic 
efforts.  The United Nations, the Organization of American States, the 
Caribbean Community, the six Central American presidents have all sought 
a peaceful end to this crisis.  We have tried everything--persuasion and 
negotiation, mediation, and condemnation.  Emissaries were dispatched to 
Port-au-Prince and were turned away.  The United Nations labored for 
months to reach an agreement acceptable to all parties.  Then last year, 
General Cedras, himself, came to the United States and signed an 
agreement on Governors Island in New York in which he pledged to give up 
power, along with the other dictators.  But when the day came for the 
plan to take effect, the dictators refused to leave, and instead, 
increased the brutality they are using to cling to power.  Even then, 
the nations of the world continued to seek a peaceful solution while 
strengthening the embargo we had imposed.  We sent massive amounts of 
humanitarian aid--food for a million Haitians and medicine to try to 
help the ordinary Haitian people as the dictators continued to loot the 
economy.  Then, this summer, they threw out the international observers 
who had blown the whistle on the regime's human rights atrocities.  

In response to that action, in July the United Nations Security Council 
approved a resolution that authorizes the use of all necessary means, 
including force, to remove the Haitian dictators from power and restore 
democratic government.  Still, we continue to seek a peaceful solution, 
but the dictators would not even meet with the United Nations special 
envoy.  In the face of this continued defiance and with atrocities 
rising, the United States has agreed to lead a multinational force to 
carry out the will of the United Nations. 

More than 20 countries from around the globe, including nearly all the 
Caribbean Community and nations from as far away as Poland, which has so 
recently won its own freedom; Israel and Jordan, which have been 
struggling for decades to preserve their own security; and Bangladesh, a 
country working on its own economic problems, have joined nations like 
Belgium and Great Britain.  They have all agreed to join us because they 
think this problem in our neighborhood is important to their future 
interests and their security. 

I know that the United States cannot--indeed, should not--be the world's 
policemen.  And I know that this is a time--with the Cold War over--that 
so many Americans are reluctant to commit military resources and 
personnel beyond our borders.  But when brutality occurs close to our 
shore, it affects our national interests,  and we have a responsibility 
to act.  Thousands of Haitians have already fled toward the United 
States, risking their lives to escape the reign of terror.  As long as 
Cedras rules, Haitians will continue to seek sanctuary in our nation.  
This year, in less than two months, more than 21,000 Haitians were 
rescued at sea by our Coast Guard and Navy.  Today, more than 14,000 
refugees are living at our naval base in Guantanamo.  The American 
people have already expended almost $200 million to support them and to 
maintain the economic embargo.  The prospect of millions and millions 
more being spent every month for an indefinite period of time looms 
ahead, unless we act. 

Three hundred thousand more Haitians, 5% of their entire population, are 
in hiding in their own country.  If we don't act, they could be the next 
wave of refugees at our door.  We will continue to face the threat of a 
mass exodus of refugees and its constant threat to stability in our 
region and control of our borders.  

No American should be surprised that the recent tide of migrants seeking 
refuge on our shores comes from Haiti and Cuba.  After all, they are the 
only nations left in the Western Hemisphere where democratic government 
is denied; the only countries where dictators have managed to hold back 
the wave of democracy and progress that has swept over our entire 
region, and that our own government has so actively promoted and 
supported for years. 

Today, 33 of the 35 countries in the Americas have democratically 
elected leaders.  Haiti is the only nation in our hemisphere where the 
people actually elected their own government and chose democracy, only 
to have tyrants steal it away. 

There is no question that the Haitian people want to embrace democracy; 
we know it because they went to the ballot box and told the world.  
History has taught us that preserving democracy in our own hemisphere 
strengthens America's security and prosperity.  Democracies here are 
more likely to keep the peace and to stabilize our region.  They are 
more likely to create free markets and economic opportunity, and to 
become strong, reliable trading partners.  And they are more likely to 
provide their own people with the opportunities that will encourage them 
to stay in their nation, and to build their own futures.  Restoring 
Haiti's democratic government will lead to more stability and prosperity 
in our region, just as our actions in Panama and Grenada did.  Beyond 
the human rights violations, the immigration problems, and the 
importance of democracy, the United States also has strong interest in 
not letting dictators--especially in our own region--break their word to 
the United States and the United Nations. 

In the post-Cold War world, we will assure the security and prosperity 
of the United States with our military strength, our economic power, and 
our constant efforts to promote peace and growth.  But when our national 
security interests are threatened, we will use diplomacy when possible 
and force when necessary. 

In Haiti, we have a case in which the right is clear, in which the 
country in question is nearby, in which our own interests are plain, in 
which the mission is achievable and limited, and in which the nations of 
the world stand with us.  We must act.  Our mission in Haiti, as it was 
in Panama and Grenada, will be limited and specific.  Our plan to remove 
the dictators will follow two phases.  First, it will remove dictators 
from power and restore Haiti's legitimate, democratically elected 
government.  We will train a civilian-controlled Haitian security force 
that will protect the people rather than repress them.  During this 
period, police monitors from all around the world will work with the 
authorities to maximize basic security and civil order and minimize 
retribution.  

The Haitian people should know that we come in peace.  You, the American 
people, should know that our soldiers will not be involved in rebuilding 
Haiti or its economy.  The international community, working together, 
must provide that economic, humanitarian, and technical assistance 
necessary to help the Haitians rebuild. 

When this first phase is completed, the vast majority of our troops will 
come home--in months, not years.  I want our troops and their families 
to know that we will bring them home just as soon as we possibly can. 

Then, in the second phase, a much smaller U.S. force will join forces 
from other members of the United Nations.  And their mission will leave 
Haiti after elections are held next year and a new Haitian takes office 
in early 1996.

Tonight, I can announce that President Aristide has pledged to step down 
when his term ends, in accordance with the constitution he has sworn to 
uphold.  He has committed himself to promote reconciliation among all 
Haitians and to set a historic example by peacefully transferring power 
to a duly elected successor.  He knows, as we know, that when you start 
a democracy, the most important election is the second election.  
President Aristide has told me that he will consider his mission 
fulfilled not when he regains office, but when he leaves office to the 
next democratically elected president of Haiti.  He has pledged to honor 
the Haitian voters who put their faith in the ballot box. 

In closing, let me say that I know the American people are rightfully 
concerned whenever our soldiers are put at risk.  Our volunteer military 
is the world's finest, and its leaders have worked hard to minimize 
risks to all our forces.  But the risks are there, and we must be 
prepared for that.  

I assure you that no president makes decisions like this one without 
deep thought and prayer.  But it is my job as President and Commander in 
Chief to take those actions that I believe will best protect our 
national security interests.  

Let me say again, the nations of the world have tried every possible way 
to restore Haiti's democratic government peacefully.  The dictators have 
rejected every possible solution.  The terror, the desperation, and the 
instability will not end until they leave.  Once again, I urge them to 
do so.  They can still move now and reduce the chaos and disorder and 
increase the security, stability, and safety in which this transfer back 
to democracy can occur. 

But if they do not leave now, the international community will act to 
honor its commitments; to give democracy a chance, not to guarantee it; 
to remove stubborn and cruel dictators, not to impose a future. 

I know many people believe that we should not help the Haitian people 
recover their democracy and find their hard-won freedoms, that the 
Haitians should accept the violence and repression as their fate.  But 
remember:  The same was said of a people who, more than 200 years ago, 
took up arms against a tyrant whose forces occupied their land.  But 
they were a stubborn bunch, a people who fought for their freedoms and 
appealed to all those who believed in democracy to help their cause.  
Their cries were answered, and a new nation was born--a nation that, 
ever since, has believed that the rights of life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness should be denied to none.  May God bless the people 
of the United States and the cause of freedom. 


Meeting of the Multinational Force Coalition in Haiti
Remarks in the East Room of the White House, Washington, DC,  September 
16, 1994.

Secretary Christopher:  Mr. President, Vice President Gore, President 
Aristide, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen:  Good afternoon.  I am 
pleased to welcome this distinguished group to this unprecedented first 
meeting of the coalition.  Today, we are gathered to talk about our 
goals and our plans.

This historic coalition is a testament to the broad international 
consensus that democracy must be restored in Haiti.  We represent more 
than 24 countries, geographically as far apart as Bolivia and Bangladesh 
but joined in defense of a common cause.

This is a growing coalition.  Only a week or so ago, it was 11 nations 
contributing 266 troops.  Eleven grew to 17, 17 to 20, and now 24 
nations are  contributing more than 2,000 troops.  And it is a coalition 
that is continuing to grow as the world comes to the defense of 
democracy in Haiti.

Ten years ago, many of the countries of this hemisphere were suffering, 
like Haiti now, under military rule.  But now, in 1994, virtually every 
nation in the Americas is a democracy.  Not long ago, Haiti, too, was 
poised to join the democratic trend that has swept our hemisphere.  But 
three years ago, the military junta overturned the rule of law and 
replaced it with the rule of brute force.

As the President emphasized last night, only the departure of the 
military leaders from Haiti will bring an end to that country's agony.  
We will not permit Haiti's generals to prevail.  We will not permit them 
to demonstrate that bullets have more authority than ballots. 

That is the principle that has guided the world's response to Haiti's 
crisis during the last three years.  That is the principle that has 
guided America's response through two administrations.  It is a 
principle that reflects neither charity nor bravado, but a sober defense 
of important international and American interests.

For three years, we have patiently pursued every peaceful option.  Our 
efforts have been met only by delay, deceit, and disdain.  The dictators 
have shown their contempt for the international community, but now they 
have run out of time.

Our nations understand that the best way to accomplish our goals is to 
act together.  That is what we did when we approved UN Security Council 
Resolution 940, and that is what we are preparing to do today.  We are 
tremendously honored to be working with each of you, more than  24 free 
nations from around the world.  The Haitian military leaders should have 
absolutely no doubt about our resolve.  We will show them that the 
international community stands by its word.

Now, it is my privilege to introduce to you the Vice President of the 
United States, Al Gore.


Vice President Gore.  Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.  Mr. 
President, President Aristide, Prime Minister Bird, Prime Minister 
Ingraham, Prime Minister Arthur, Prime Minister Charles, Prime Minister 
Brathwaite, Prime Minister Compton, Prime Minister Layne, Deputy Prime 
Minister Morris, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Barrow, 
Foreign Minister Rohee, all of the ambassadors who are present, the 
charges and the other distinguished guests:  We are extremely grateful, 
not just for your participation here today, but for your participation 
and the effort by the world community to rescue a democracy that has 
been stolen from the people of Haiti.  Your willingness to be a part of 
this rescue mission is greatly appreciated by all men and women who love 
freedom and who are outraged by the gross human rights abuses that are 
continuing and worsening, even as we meet here.

It is my pleasure, in just a moment, to be able to introduce President 
Jean-Bertrand Aristide of Haiti, who will express the gratitude of 
others as well.  People in Haiti more than three years ago went bravely 
to the polls and cast the first free ballots in the history of that 
nation.  When the votes were counted, it was evident that the people of 
Haiti had spoken overwhelmingly by electing President Aristide by close 
to 70% of the vote.  That historic achievement was turned back a bare 
eight months later by a violent coup d'etat that stole freedom and 
democracy from the people of Haiti and unleashed a wave of brutality 
that has created a reign of terror throughout the entirety of that 
nation.  This meeting today is evidence of the fact that there are many 
nations in our hemisphere and in our world who will not stand idly by 
and watch such intense suffering and injustice as this hijacking of 
democracy continues.

The goal of rescuing democracy and returning Haiti's freely elected 
government is what unites this meeting here today.  The United States 
and the international community have worked closely with President 
Aristide throughout our efforts to bring democracy back to Haiti through 
the use of diplomacy and sanctions, as President Clinton outlined so 
thoroughly last night.  However, all of our efforts at diplomacy and 
sanctions have run into a stone wall of military intransigence by cruel 
dictators who are intent on denying the human rights of the people of 
Haiti and perpetuating their own illegal, corrupt, and brutal regime.  
Unless the military leaders in Haiti step aside, as President Clinton 
made clear last evening, the coalition will    act to remove them and 
restore the legitimate president and government to their rightful place.

The coalition's mission will be strictly limited to providing the 
Haitian people, under President Aristide's leadership, a safe 
environment in which to rebuild their country.  The international 
community will help Haitians in this historic effort by providing a 
wide-reaching economic assistance program that you will hear more about 
shortly.  I use the word rescue.  After the rescue there is another word 
that will dominate--reconciliation.

In that spirit, may I say it is my honor and privilege to introduce to 
you now President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who will talk to you about his 
plans for building a new future for Haiti in a climate of peace, 
reconciliation, and respect for human rights.  President Aristide.


Haitian President Aristide.  President Clinton, Mr. Vice President, 
distinguished Prime Ministers, Mr. Secretary of State, Mr. Secretary of 
Defense, Honorable Ministers and Ambassadors, Mr. Secretary General of 
CARICOM, General Shalikashvili, Mr. Gray, Special Adviser to President 
Clinton:  In the name of our nation, I extend to you my warm and sincere 
greetings.

Honorable Prime Ministers of the Caribbean, may I say that we are indeed 
happy and proud to be surrounded by you.  I thank you--this microcosm of 
the world community--for traveling with the people of Haiti on our long 
and difficult journey toward democracy, and for the commitment of the 
world community to help us end the suffering and oppression of the 
people of Haiti and to restore democracy.

President Clinton, thank you for a historic message last night.  Your 
words were an eloquent testimony to the suffering endured by our nation 
during these past three years.  Your homage to our friends and fallen 
heroes--Father Jean-Marie Vincent, Minister Guy Malary--and to the 
thousands of victims of the coup d'etat echo deeply in our heart.  By 
understanding the suffering, you nurture our great hope--the hope for 
peace, the hope for reconciliation.  Standing with the people of Haiti 
in this vision for democracy, you affirm the great sense of patriotism 
buried deep in the souls of all Haitians.  Listening to your message, we 
as Haitians are reminded of a shared history rooted in dreams of liberty 
and freedom.

Thank you and the people of the United States once again.  We thank, 
also, the international community for embracing our hope for peace and 
reconciliation.

In your remarks last night, President Clinton, you documented well the 
history of the international support for Haiti, diplomatic efforts of 
the United Nations and the Organization of American States, to secure 
the sovereign rights of all Haitians to decide the future of our nation.

As you said, there is no question that the people of Haiti want to 
embrace democracy.  It is the restoration of democracy that will bring 
peace for all, reconciliation among all, respect and justice for every 
single citizen.

With the implementation of the Governors Island agreement, we will 
realize this vision.  That is why we fully support UN Resolution 940, 
the ultimate vehicle to achieve the goals of democracy outlined in that 
agreement.

We thank the people of the United States for taking the lead in this 
multinational effort under Resolution 940.  The solidarity that the 
international community has expressed in this effort through the 
participation of our dearest neighbors in the Caribbean and our brother 
nations representing the continents of Africa, South America, Europe, 
and Asia is the solidarity that will be needed tomorrow as, together, we 
work to uplift Haiti.  As we move toward democracy and toward this new 
Haiti, we move democratically, we move justly, fully aware that peace 
and stability will return to our nation only because we have pledged to 
reconcile our society.

This is why I granted the political amnesty authorized by Article 147 of 
our constitution.  This amnesty is part of the reconciliation and 
rebuilding process.  Let our commitment to peace be our contribution to 
democracy.  We will not allow artificial lines to divide us.  Members of 
political parties, members of parliament, civilians, members of the 
military, all Haitians: Let us turn to rebuild our nation.

How great will it be, in a few short days, to begin our education 
program, to reduce our 85% illiteracy rate.  Already we plan to build 
one new school in each of the 565 rural districts of the country, 
restore and resupply 1,000 of the existing schools, and train 3,000 
teachers.  How great will it be, in a few short days, to begin 
implementation of emergency health measures in a nation where there are 
only 1.8 doctors for every 10,000 Haitians and 1.5 hospital beds for 
every 1,000 people.

How great will it be, in a short few days, to begin planting trees to 
ward off a total ecological disaster that threatens the nation.  Since 
the onset of the political crisis, an additional 7,500 trees are cut 
down each month.  In 1978, our forest acreage stood at 7%.  By 1989, 
that number was reduced to 1.3%.  If this rate continues, by next year, 
all of our forests may disappear.

How great will it be, in the next few days, to begin with our plans for 
the professionalization of the army, to no longer suffer under a 7,000-
person army controlling 45% of the national budget.  Members of the 
military--we will create jobs for you.  You will not be isolated.  You 
are the sons of the land, the nation's citizens.  Stop the violence.  Do 
not be afraid.  We say "no" to vengeance; we say "no" to retaliation.  
Again and again, day after day, we will continue saying "no" to 
vengeance, "no" to retaliation.

Let us embrace peace.  When?  Now.  Is it too late?  No, the time is 
now.  The restoration of democracy will bring peace for all, 
reconciliation among all, respect and justice for every single citizen.  
Stop the violence.  Do not be afraid.  We say and we will be saying 
again and again, "no" to vengeance, "no" to retaliation; let us embrace 
peace.  When?  Now.  Is it too late?  No.  The time is now.

In a new and democratic Haiti, the rule of law is indispensable.  In a 
few days, after the restoration of democracy, we will start to reform 
our judiciary.  With the assistance of a separate civilian police for 
this reformed judicial system, we will offer a constitutional avenue for 
recourse to equity; national academies to train our magistrates--our 83 
judges, 348 justices of the peace, 43 court clerks, and 147 officers of 
the Bureau of Vital Statistics--will restore confidence in these 
beleaguered institutions.

With political stability will come economic rebirth.  The decline in 
national production by over 10% in 1992, the alienation of foreign 
investment, the accelerated depreciation of our currency, and the 60% 
rise in inflation must be reversed.  The security and stability that 
will come with the restoration of democracy will create the environment 
where growth is possible.  The 140,000 jobs lost in the industrial 
sector will be restored.  In this environment of political stability, 
commitments from the international community will allow us to advance an 
economic policy that ensures an open market and opportunities to 
prosper.

As during our first seven months in office, we will again close the 
floodgate of Haitian boat people.  Our refugees will stay at home, happy 
to participate in a prospering economy, to share in the resources 
contributed by our vibrant diaspora.  They will work to rebuild the 
nation.  Once again, we will move from misery to poverty with dignity.  
Yes, indeed, we will move from misery to poverty with dignity.

The restoration of democracy will bring peace for all, reconciliation 
among all, respect and justice for every single citizen.  The swift and 
determined action of the international community, pursuant to Resolution 
940, will lead us quickly toward creating this climate of peace as the 
December legislative elections approach.  A successful election to which 
the world is invited to observe will set the scene for a historic event-
-the December 1995 elections.

As I have said before, the true test of a democracy is its second free 
election when power is transferred freely and constitutionally.  
Therefore, I will not be--and cannot be--a candidate.  We anxiously 
await the international community to support that effort as they 
currently support the restoration of democracy today. 

On February 7, 1991, the day of my inauguration as president, I said 
that not another drop of blood must fall in Haiti.  Today, again, I 
repeat this call to peace and reconciliation which will flourish with 
the restoration of democracy.

President Clinton, last night in your historic and vibrant message, you 
told the people of my nation that you come in peace.  With you, and with 
every individual participating in the international effort for peace in 
Haiti, we share the desire for peace as together we move toward Haiti--a 
Haiti where, like in South Africa, we will celebrate a new beginning.  A 
new day is coming for Haiti; may it come soon.


Barbadian Prime Minister Arthur.  Mr. President, Vice President Gore, 
President Aristide, distinguished Prime Ministers, Excellencies, ladies 
and gentlemen:  The people of the Caribbean strongly believe that 
wherever democracy has taken root, it should be encouraged to grow and 
to prosper.  Like the former Soviet Union and South Africa, Haiti also 
deserves its rendezvous with democracy.  The Haitian people have wished 
for it; they have suffered for it; they have voted for it; and now they 
are dying for it.

It is an easy matter for a blood-thirsty clique, hardened by decades of 
brutality, to snuff out the flame of democracy which lit the Haitian 
darkness in 1990.  It is equally as easy to destroy the lives of tens of 
thousands of unfortunate Haitians whose only crime is that they, too, 
like Americans and Barbadians, opted to choose a leader in free and fair 
elections so that they, too, may live in a free and ordered society 
under the rule of law.

Even as I speak, the killings continue.  And those who have been marked 
for death by the extermination squads risk their lives night and day to 
escape the living hell that Haiti has become.

Horrendous as these developments are, they do not in themselves 
constitute sufficient reasons to justify intervention.  What justifies 
the UN sanction intervention is the refusal of the illegal military 
regime to heed calls by the international community to step down in 
accordance with the Governors Island agreement so that our colleague, 
President Aristide, can assume his rightful place as president.

Peace and stability in this hemisphere is in everybody's short- and 
long-term interest.  The member states of the Caribbean Community have 
consistently urged action to restore President Aristide.  We now fully 
support the planned intervention to restore democracy to Haiti.

Within the limits of our resources, we have offered what help we can.  
And CARICOM governments have pledged themselves, after the restoration 
of democracy, to make available to the legal government of Haiti a corps 
of suitably qualified civilian personnel to assist with the task of 
social and economic reconstruction.  In this respect, it is vital for 
the international community to participate fully in helping the lawful 
Haitian Government build a prosperous and a stable democracy.

President Clinton's decision is a principled and courageous one.  Nobody 
loves violence, and every life is sacred.  But what is being perpetrated 
in Haiti is a defiance of the UN Security Council and an affront to the 
entire international community.

We in our region are keen for a swift conclusion of this action and look 
forward to the day when normal life can be resumed in Haiti.  I thank 
you.


President Clinton.  President Aristide, Prime Minister Arthur, 
distinguished Prime Ministers, Deputy Prime Ministers, Foreign 
Ministers, Ambassadors, Charges, the representative of the United 
Nations, my colleagues in the United States:  I begin by saying a simple 
thank you.  Thank you to all the nations represented here for joining an 
international coalition to restore democratic government to Haiti as 
called for by UN Security Council Resolution 940.

Your presence here demonstrates that this international coalition is 
strong, diverse, and growing.  We have countries from the Caribbean, 
Latin America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East united in our 
insistence that the enemies of  democracy who now terrorize Haiti leave 
and leave now, and that democratically elected government be returned.

And thank you, President Aristide, for your remarks, for your commitment 
to democracy, reconciliation, the long, hard work of rebuilding your 
economy and your society, and for your commitment to the future of 
democracy as evidenced by your comments about the next election.  I 
think your statement that in a democracy the most important election is 
always the second one may become a staple of civics books in our country 
and perhaps throughout the world.

For three years, the international community has done everything it 
could think of to restore Haiti's democratic government peacefully, to 
end this brutal reign of terror in our hemisphere.  We have tried 
everything.  Often our envoys have been rebuffed.  Often just a simple 
request for talk has been denied.  On one occasion an agreement was 
reached here in the United States, where General Cedras came and 
actually signed the Governors Island agreement, committing the military 
dictators to give up power in return for the spirit of reconciliation 
about which President Aristide spoke.  When the day came for that plan 
to take effect, the coup leaders went back on their word and refused to 
leave.  And all our efforts since have failed to budge them.  As all of 
you know, the atrocities have only gotten worse.  And recently, the 
leaders even refused to meet with the UN special envoy.

We have an interest, obviously, in many things:  The importance of 
spreading democracy; the importance of dealing with the immigration 
problem about which President Aristide spoke; clearly, the importance of 
dealing with the horrible human rights violations; and also the 
importance of not allowing dictators to   break their word to the 
international community, the United Nations, the Caribbean Community, 
and the Organization of American States.

As I look around this room, I am struck by the fact that our common goal 
is shared by nations, not only here in the neighborhood we all share, 
but in those well beyond our hemisphere--from all over the earth.  Some 
of the countries here represented have been struggling with economic 
difficulties of their own.  Some of the countries represented here have 
been struggling for decades for peace in their own region.  Some of 
these countries here represented have only recently come to know their 
own freedom and democracy.  And yet, you are all here in this 
international coalition because of the unusual and the terrible 
developments in Haiti.

Our goals are clear, but they are limited.  Once the military regime is 
removed from power, the coalition will then help the democratic 
government  establish basic security.  It will begin the process of 
placing Haitian police under civilian control and monitoring them to 
ensure respect for human rights.

This will enable the Haitian Government to provide the security 
necessary for international institutions and private institutions to 
resume the delivery of basic humanitarian assistance.  Then, in months--
not years--the coalition will pass the baton to the United Nations.  The 
UN mission in Haiti will take over the peace-keeping effort and continue 
to professionalize Haiti's police and military.  It will leave Haiti no 
later than 18 months from now--after the next elections are held and a 
new government takes office.

Over time, all of us here, and the international financial institutions 
as well, will be involved in helping Haiti recover, by providing Haiti 
with the economic, humanitarian, and technical assistance that will be 
required to keep the country on the path of progress and democracy.  But 
all of us realize--none more than President Aristide--that in the end, 
the job of rebuilding Haiti belongs to the Haitian people.

I think they ask for nothing more than the opportunity to meet that 
challenge.  And, sir, I again say to you today, the spirit of 
reconciliation, the hand which you have reached out, even in this hour, 
to those who have taken democracy away, is critical to your success, and 
I applaud you for what you have said.

Our international coalition goes to Haiti to give democracy a chance--we 
cannot guarantee it--to remove cruel and brutal dictators, but not to 
impose a future on Haiti.  We cannot do that; that is for the Haitians 
to make themselves.

But I hope and believe that what we are doing will not only be 
successful, but will generate support from even more nations.  I think 
as we go along, you will see more and more countries from all over the 
world coming to be a part of this.  I invite them to do so.  Together, 
we can help to ensure that the bright light of democracy once again 
burns in Haiti; that we have taken a stand that helps to restore human 
rights and to end an almost unimaginable brutality; and that we will 
send a clear message that people who give their word to the 
international community should keep it.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are some more things which I believe we all 
need to discuss and certainly things which our coalition partners are 
entitled to know and questions they might want to ask.  So I have asked 
the Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili, to 
discuss in more detail the military and security aspects of our efforts.

Let me say, if I might, to all of you:  I appreciate the fact that you 
have given us your people to serve as part of this effort.  I know you 
appreciate the fact that in this world, dealing with difficulties, there 
is no such thing as a risk-free effort.  But I will tell you that 
General Shalikashvili and the other leaders of our military have worked, 
planned, and done everything they possibly could to maximize the chances 
of success and minimize the risks to your people and the risks to human 
life,  generally, consistent with the spirit outlined in President 
Aristide's remarks.

With that I leave you with General Shalikashvili and the Secretary of 
State.  And I thank you all again very, very much.
 

President Clinton Sends Diplomatic Mission to Haiti
President Clinton's radio address to the nation, September 17, 1994.

Good morning.  The night before last, I spoke with you about why 
America's interests compel us to help restore democratic government in 
Haiti.  For three years, the United Nations, the Caribbean Community, 
and the Organization of American States have pursued every diplomatic 
avenue possible.  But the dictators rejected all of our efforts, and 
their reign of terror--a campaign of murder, rape, and mutilation--gets 
worse with every passing day.  Now we must act.

Our reasons are clear--to stop the horrific atrocities that threaten 
thousands of men, women, and children in Haiti here in our own 
neighborhood; to affirm our determination that we keep our commitments 
and we expect others to keep their commitments to us; to avert the flow 
of thousands of more refugees and to secure our borders; and to preserve 
the stability of democracy in our hemisphere.

Today, I would like to speak with you about the steps we are now taking 
to ensure that these brutal dictators leave--and leave now.  The 
preparations of the extraordinary international coalition we have 
assembled are proceeding without delay.  Even as I speak with you, our 
armed forces, in coordination with personnel from 24 other nations from 
all around the world, are poised to end the reign of terror that has 
plagued Haiti since the military coup three years ago.  I have great 
pride and confidence in our troops.  Our leaders have prepared their 
mission very, very carefully, and our forces are clearly the finest in 
the world.

At the same time, it is the responsibility of any American president to 
pursue every possible alternative to the use of force in order to avoid 
bloodshed and the loss of American lives.  That is why this morning, at 
my request, former President Carter; former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, Gen. Colin Powell; and Chairman of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, Senator Sam Nunn, left for Haiti.  Their mission is to make 
one last best effort to provide a peaceful, orderly transfer of power, 
to minimize the loss of life, and to maximize the chances of security 
for all Haitians, and, of course, for our own troops in the coalition 
force.

On Thursday night, I stated that the Cedras regime's time is up.  Their 
time is up.  The remaining question is not whether they will leave, but 
how they will leave.  They can go peacefully and increase the chances 
for a peaceful future and a more stable future for Haiti in the near 
term, not only for all those whose democracy they stole, but for 
themselves as well.  They can do that, or they will be removed by force.

Yesterday, leaders of the international coalition gathered at the White 
House.  They came, not only from our hemisphere and from our 
neighborhood here in the Caribbean, but also from Europe, Asia, Africa, 
and the Middle East; from countries as diverse as Israel and Poland, 
Belgium and Bangladesh; countries with problems  of their own--economic 
problems, political problems, even security problems.  But each and 
every one of them believes it is important enough for them to come here 
to participate, to stand united with us in insisting that the dictators 
who terrorize Haiti must be removed, and that the democratically elected 
government must be returned to power now.

As Prime Minister Owen Arthur of Barbados stated so eloquently 
yesterday:   The Haitian people have wished for [democracy], they have 
suffered for it, they have voted for it, and now they are dying for it.

The goals of the international coalition are clear and limited.  Once 
the military regime is removed from power, the coalition will help the 
democratic government establish basic security.  It will begin the 
process of placing the Haitian police under civilian control and then 
monitor them to help ensure that they respect human rights.  Then, in 
months--not years--the coalition will pass the baton on to the United 
Nations.  The UN mission in Haiti will take over and continue to 
professionalize Haiti's police and military.  It will leave Haiti no 
later than 18 months from now--after elections are held and a new 
government takes office.

Over time, the coalition countries,  as well as the international 
financial institutions, will provide Haiti with economic, humanitarian, 
and technical assistance that the country needs to stay on the 
democratic track, to put people back to work, and to begin the work of 
progress.  They can get assistance from other countries, but we all know 
that in the end, the job of rebuilding Haiti belongs to the Haitian 
people.

Yesterday, at the White House, President Aristide took a long step 
toward that job of rebuilding--in the spirit of reconciliation.  He put 
it very well when he said, "We say, and we will be saying again and 
again, 'no' to vengeance and 'no' to retaliation; let us embrace peace."  
President Aristide also reiterated his pledge to transfer power 
peacefully to a duly-elected successor.  He said that in the formative 
years of any democracy, the most important election is not the first one 
but the second.  That is a sentiment that should become a staple of 
civics books in our country and throughout the world.

My fellow Americans, at this very hour, we are taking important steps in 
the journey back to democracy in Haiti.  We still hope to end this 
journey peacefully.  But let me say one last time:  The cause is right, 
the mission is achievable and limited, and we will succeed.  The 
dictators must leave.


Announcement of Military Leaders' Agreement 
President Clinton's Oval Office address to the nation, Washington, DC, 
September 18, 1994.

My fellow Americans:  I want to announce that the military leaders of 
Haiti have agreed to step down from power.  The dictators have 
recognized that it is in their best interest and in the best interest of 
the Haitian people to relinquish power peacefully, rather than face 
imminent action by the forces of the multinational coalition we are 
leading.

Our objective over the last three years has been to make sure that the 
military dictators leave power and that the democratically elected 
government is returned.  This agreement guarantees both those 
objectives.  It minimizes the risks for American forces and the forces 
of the 24 nations of the international coalition.  And the agreement 
maximizes the orderly transfer of power to Haiti's democratically 
elected government.

This is a good agreement for the United States and for Haiti.  The 
military leaders will leave.  The United States and coalition forces 
will arrive beginning tomorrow.  And they will do so in conditions that 
are less dangerous, although still not without risk.  It will be much 
easier to preserve human rights.  And there is a real chance of a more 
orderly and less violent transfer of power.

To the supporters of President Aristide, he will be returned.  I ask 
that all Haitians remember what President Aristide said just a couple of 
days ago:  no vengeance, no violence, no retribution.  This is a time 
for peace.  That is what the United States, along with our coalition 
partners, is going to work for.

As all of you know, at my request, President Carter, Gen. Colin Powell, 
and Senator Sam Nunn went to Haiti to facilitate the dictators' 
departure just yesterday.  I have been in constant contact with them for 
the last two days.  They have worked tirelessly--almost around the 
clock.  I want to thank them, on behalf of all of Americans, for 
undertaking this crucial mission. 

Just as important, I also want to thank the men and women of the United 
States Armed Forces.  It was their presence and their preparations that 
played a pivotal part in this agreement.

Under the agreement, the dictators agreed to leave power as soon as the 
Haitian Parliament passes an amnesty law, as called for by the Governors 
Island agreement, but in any event, no later than October 15.  They have 
agreed to immediate introduction of troops from the international 
coalition, beginning, as I said, as early as tomorrow.  They have also 
pledged to cooperate fully with the coalition troops during the peaceful 
transition of power--something we have wanted very much.

I have directed United States forces to begin deployment into Haiti as a 
part of the UN coalition.  General Shelton, our commander, will be there 
tomorrow.  The presence of the 15,000-member multinational force will 
guarantee that the dictators carry out the terms of the agreement.  It 
is clear from our discussions with the delegation that this agreement 
only came because of the credible and imminent threat of the 
multinational force.  In fact, it was signed after Haiti received 
evidence that paratroopers from our 82nd Airborne Division, based at 
Fort Bragg, North Carolina, had begun to load up to begin the invasion, 
which I had ordered to start this evening.  Indeed, at the time the 
agreement was reached, 61 American planes were already in the air.  
Because of this agreement, the United States and other coalition troops 
going to Haiti will now be able to go under much more favorable 
conditions than they would have faced had the generals not decided to 
leave power.  

But let me emphasize that this mission still has its risks, and we must 
be prepared for them.  Haiti is still a troubled country, and there 
remain possibilities of violence directed at American troops.  But this 
agreement minimizes those risks and maximizes our chance to protect the 
human rights of all Haitians, both those who support President Aristide 
and those who oppose him; and creates an environment in which President 
Aristide can return, as he said, without violence, without vengeance, 
without retribution.

Under the terms of UN Security Resolution 940, an international 
coalition from 25 nations will soon go into Haiti to begin the task of 
restoring democratic government.  President Aristide will return to 
Haiti when the dictators depart.

On Thursday night, I told you that the United States must act here to 
protect our interest, to stop the brutal atrocities that threaten tens 
of thousands of Haitians, to secure our borders and to preserve 
stability and promote democracy in our hemisphere, and to uphold the 
reliability of commitments we make to others and the commitments others 
make to us.  This agreement furthers all these goals.

From the beginning, I have said that the Haitian dictators must go; 
tonight I can tell you that they will go.  To our troops tonight who are 
headed to Haiti under less risky conditions, I am confident you will 
carry out your mission as you already have, effectively and 
professionally.  We depend upon you to do well tomorrow as you have done 
so very well today and in the weeks and days before, when you planned 
this exercise, prepared for it, and then began to carry it out.

To all of you I say, thank you.  Your nation is proud of you.  Good 
night, and God bless America.


Secretary Christopher
Remarks at White House briefing, Washington, DC, September 18, 1994.

Good evening.  Perhaps I will say first that Tony Lake is off on other 
duties; otherwise, he would be here with General Shalikashvili, 
Secretary Perry, and me.

We have been saying since the beginning of our Administration that the 
goals of our Haiti policy are to restore democracy to Haiti and to 
return President Aristide.  Today, we have taken very long and important 
steps toward achieving both of those goals.  As I look back on this 
situation, it seems to me that a critical time occurred when the legal 
government forced the UN monitors out of Haiti.  That resulted in the 
passage of UN Security Council Resolution 940, which provides basically 
the context of what has happened today.

All that has been done here, I think, is, in effect, a way to carry out 
UN Security Council Resolution 940.  And what has been done here is to 
achieve the goals set forth in that resolution and achieve the goals 
that we have been trying to carry out during the entire time we have 
been in office.

There are certainly challenging times ahead for us in implementing this 
policy.  First, there will be the obligation to secure the environment 
in Haiti.  We expect that President Aristide will be returned to power 
in an appropriate way in the very near future, and we look forward to 
the transition to the UN mission within a matter of months.  But we 
have, I think, the structure and the basis for moving ahead to achieve 
the goals of our policy in Haiti.  And, of course, the best news of the 
day is that we are going to do this in a permissive environment with 
less risk to American lives--less risk to our troops than there would 
have been without these goals.

As I look back over the course of the day, I want to pay great tribute 
to the negotiating team that we had in Haiti: President Carter, General 
Powell, and Senator Nunn. I think we had the perfect combination to make 
it clear to the leaders of Haiti that not only this Administration, but 
those in leading positions in American life were strongly convinced that 
the illegal government must leave.  I also want to pay tribute to the 
United Nations and the coalition of 25 governments that were prepared to 
join us and will join us in this endeavor.  I think these are all 
factors that conjoined to convince the de facto leaders that the time 
had come for them to definitely go.

This is clearly power in the service of diplomacy in one of the most 
convincing ways that I can recall.  As the day went on, we, of course, 
were in very close touch with the President's negotiators in Haiti; we 
had an open line to the negotiating areas all during the course of the 
day.  The President talked not only to former President Carter, but also 
to General Powell and Senator Nunn during the course of the day.  I 
would say that the sticking point for us was to insist on there being a 
definite date on which the de facto leaders would leave, and without 
that the President was unwilling to go forward.   And when that was 
achieved--as the day wore on and it became apparent to the de facto 
leaders that they were going to be taken out in other ways--we were able 
to get an agreement to the departure on that date, which I think is the 
critical element of this agreement.  We hope that they may be forced to 
leave before then because of the passage of the amnesty law, but we do 
have an outside date and that is critical.

I want to step aside now because, in many ways, I am sure you will be 
much more interested in talking about the military aspects of this than 
the diplomatic aspects, although as I say, this is one instance where 
power has served diplomacy in an absolutely classic way.


Letter to Congress
Text of a letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, September 
18, 1994.

Dear Mr. Speaker:
(Dear Mr. President:)

I am providing this report, consistent with the sense of Congress in 
section 8147(c) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1994 
(Public Law 103-139), to advise you of the objectives and character of 
the planned deployment of U.S. Armed Forces into Haiti.

(1)  The deployment of U.S. Armed Forces into Haiti is justified by 
United States national security interests:  to restore democratic 
government into Haiti; to stop the brutal atrocities that threaten tens 
of thousands of Haitians; to secure our borders; to preserve stability 
and promote democracy in our hemisphere; and to uphold the reliability 
of the commitments we make and the commitments others make to us.

From the very beginning of the coup against the democratic government of 
Haiti, the United States and the rest of the international community saw 
the regime as a threat to our interests in this hemisphere.  Indeed 
President Bush declared that the coup "constitute[d] an unusual and 
extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and 
economy of the United States."

The United States' interest in Haiti is rooted in a consistent U.S. 
policy, since the 1991 coup, to help restore democratic government to 
that nation.  The United States has a particular interest in responding 
to gross abuses of human rights when they occur so close to our shores.

The departure of the coup leaders from power is also the best way to 
stem another mass outflow of Haitians, with consequences for the 
stability of our region and control of our borders.  Continuing 
unconstitutional rule in Haiti would threaten the stability of other 
countries in this hemisphere by emboldening elements opposed to 
democracy and freedom.

The agreement regarding the transition between the de facto government 
and the elected government, negotiated by former President Jimmy Carter, 
Senator Sam Nunn, and General Colin Powell, will achieve the objective 
of facilitating the departure of the coup leaders.  Their departure will 
substantially decrease the likelihood of armed resistance.

(2)  Despite this agreement, this military operation is not without 
risk.  Necessary steps have been taken to ensure the safety and security 
of U.S. Armed Forces.  Our intention is to deploy a force of sufficient 
size to serve as a deterrent to armed resistance.  The force will have a 
highly visible and robust presence with firepower ample to overwhelm any 
localized threat.  This will minimize casualties and maximize our 
capability to ensure that essential civil order is maintained and the 
agreement arrived at is implemented.  The force's rules of engagement 
allow for the use of necessary and proportionate force to protect 
friendly personnel and units and to provide for individual self-defense, 
thereby ensuring that our forces can respond effectively to threats and 
are not made targets by reason of their rules of engagement.

(3)  The proposed mission and objectives are most appropriate for U.S. 
Armed Forces, and the forces proposed for deployment are necessary and 
sufficient to accomplish the objectives of the proposed mission.  
Pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 940, a multinational 
coalition has been assembled to use "all necessary means" to restore the 
democratic government to Haiti and to provide a stable and secure 
environment for the implementation of the Governors Island Accords.  The 
deployment of U.S. Armed Forces is required to ensure that United States 
national security interests with respect to Haiti remain unchallenged 
and to underscore the reliability of U.S. and UN commitments.

This crisis affects the interests of the United States and other members 
of the world community alike, and thus warrants and has received the 
participation of responsible states in the 
coalЊџџџ­џџџАџџџГџџџЗџџџКџџџНџџџУџџџХџџџЩџџџб
џџџдџџџйџџџкџџџЖџџџЦџџџЮџџџтџџџуџџџфџџџ№џџџіџџџїџџџљџџџњџџџћџџџ§џџџўџџџџџџџѕџџџФџџ
џЪџџџСџџџЂџџџЃџџџлџџџДџџџЯџџџЄџџџЌџџџЉџџџЛџџџЧџџџТџџџа
џџџЈџџџјџџџЁџџџБџџџгџџџвџџџЋџџџЕџџџІџџџсџџџќџџџеџџџМџџџШџџџЙџџџИџџџВџџџРџџџЫџџџчџ
џџхџџџЬџџџ€џџџџџџЎџџџ‚џџџщџџџƒџџџцџџџшџџџэџџџъџџџыџџџьџџџмџџџ„џџџёџџџюџџџяџџџЭџџџ
…џџџзџџџЏџџџєџџџђџџџѓџџџ†џџџ џџџоџџџЇџџџˆџџџ‡џџџ‰џџџ‹џџџŠџџџŒџџџОџџџџџџриииŽџџџ
џџџ‘џџџ“џџџ’џџџ”џџџ•џџџнџџџ–џџџ˜џџџ—џџџ™џџџ›џџџšџџџжџџџПџџџџџџœџџџžџџџŸџџџрџџџпџџ
џиџџџџџџition to redress the situation.  The United States is playing a 
predominant role because it is the leading military power in the 
hemisphere, and accordingly, has the influence and military capability 
to lead such an operation.  The coalition is made up of representatives 
from 25 member nations, including the United States.  During the initial 
phase of the operation, the force will be of sufficient size to over-
whelm any opposition that might arise despite the existence of the 
agreement.  In the follow-on, transitional phase, forces from other 
members of the coalition will assume increasingly important roles.  At 
all times when U.S. forces are deployed in whatever phase, they will be 
equipped, commanded, and empowered so as to ensure their own protection.

(4)  Clear objectives for the deployment have been established.  These 
limited objectives are:  to facilitate the departure of the military 
leadership, the prompt return of the legitimately elected President and 
the restoration  of the legitimate authorities of the Government of 
Haiti.  We will assist the Haitian government in creating a civilian-
controlled security force.  We will also ensure the protection of U.S. 
citizens and U.S. facilities.

(5)  An exit strategy for ending the deployment has been identified.  
Our presence in Haiti will not be open-ended.  After a period of months, 
the coalition will be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force (UNMIH).  By 
that time, the bulk of U.S. forces will have departed.  Some U.S. forces 
will make up a portion of the UNMIH and will be present in Haiti for the 
duration of the UN mission.  The entire UN mission will withdraw from 
Haiti after elections are held next year and a new Haitian Government 
takes office in early 1996, consistent with UN Security Council 
Resolution 940.

(6)  The financial costs of the deployment are estimated to be the 
following.  A conservative, preliminary estimate of Department of 
Defense and Department of State incremental costs for the U.S. military 
operations, U.S. support for the multinational coalition, and the 
follow-on UN peacekeeping operation is projected at $500-$600 million 
through February 1996.  This covers potential costs to be incurred in FY 
1994, FY 1995, and FY 1996.  Final deployment-related costs could vary 
from this estimate depending on how operations proceed in the first few 
weeks, how fast civic order is restored, and when the operation is 
replaced     by  a  UN peacekeeping operation.       A preliminary 
estimate of U.S. nondeployment-related costs--migrant operations, 
sanctions enforcement, police training, and economic reconstruction--
will be provided separately.  The Congress will be provided more 
complete estimates as they become available.


Sincerely,
William J. Clinton


President Clinton
Remarks at White House breakfast, Washington, DC, September 19, 1994.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  Let me--before we sit for 
breakfast--let me just make a couple of points very briefly.  First of 
all, our deepest thanks, as a nation, should go to President Carter, 
General Powell, and Senator Nunn.  They have had about four hours' sleep 
in the last two or three nights.  They have worked very hard, and they 
have, I think, made a major contribution toward helping us find a 
peaceful solution to the problem in Haiti.

I also want to say to you, I think a significant measure of credit goes 
to the United States military forces for their preparation, their 
readiness, and their imminence.  And finally, let me say that we have, 
this morning, the first peaceful introduction of our forces there to 
begin to carry out the mandate of the United Nations.

So it has been, so far, a good day, thanks in no small measure to the 
extraordinary labors of this delegation.  I know that you join me in 
thanking them for all they've done.  


Remarks at White House Press Conference, September 19, 1994

President Clinton.  Good morning.  I would like to begin by thanking 
President Carter, General Powell, and Senator Nunn for their 
extraordinary work in Haiti.  They got in very early this morning; they 
have had hardly any sleep for the last two nights, as they have worked 
virtually around the clock. 

The peaceful solution they helped  work out is another major 
contribution of their careers, which have been devoted to the pursuit of 
peace and democracy.  They have done a great service to our country, as 
well as to the people of Haiti, the people in our hemisphere, and the 
efforts of the United Nations--and we owe them a great deal of 
gratitude. 

I also want to thank the men and women of our United States Armed 
Services, who are beginning their operations in Haiti even as we meet 
here today.  Their preparation and presence made a crucial difference in 
convincing the Haitian leaders to leave power.

In the end, two things led to the agreement to leave.  The first was 
this delegation's appeal to the Haitians to do the right and honorable 
thing for their own people in accordance with the United Nations 
Security Council resolutions.  The second was the clear imminence of 
military action by the United States. 

This is a good agreement.  It will further our goals in Haiti.  General 
Cedras and the other leaders will leave power no later than October 15.  
After three years and a series of broken promises, American 
steadfastness has given us the opportunity to restore Haiti's 
democratically elected government and President Aristide.

American troops are beginning to take up their positions in Haiti today, 
and they will be there to make sure that the leaders keep their word.  
The agreement means that our troops do not have to invade.  They have 
entered Haiti peacefully today.  It minimizes the risks to American 
forces and to our coalition partners. 

I want to emphasize that the situation in Haiti remains difficult; it 
remains uncertain; the mission still has risks.  But, clearly, we are in 
a better position to work for peace in a peaceable way today than we 
were  yesterday.

My first concern, and the most important one, obviously, is for the 
safety and security of our troops.  General Shalikashvili and Lt. Gen. 
Hugh Shelton, our commander in Haiti, have made it clear to all involved 
that the protection of American lives is our first order of business.

Let me repeat what I said last night and what I said on Thursday night:  
This mission will be limited in time and scope.  It is clearly designed 
to provide a secure environment for the restoration of President 
Aristide and democracy, to begin the work of retraining the police and 
the military in a professional manner, and to facilitate a quick hand-
off to the UN mission so that the work of restoring democracy can be 
continued, the development aid can begin to flow, Haiti can be rebuilt, 
and, in 1995, another free and fair election for president can be held.

I also have to say again that we remain ready to pursue our interests 
and our obligations in whatever way we have to.  But we hope that good 
faith and reasonableness will prevail today and tomorrow and in the days 
ahead,  so that this will not be another violated agreement that the 
United States has to impose and enforce.  We believe that, because of 
the work of this delegation, we have a chance to achieve that kind of 
good faith and cooperation.

I want to thank, again, President Carter, General Powell, and Senator 
Nunn, and ask them each in turn to make an opening statement.  Then we 
will be available for your questions.


President Carter.   Thank you, Mr. President.  First of all, I want to 
comment on a superb balancing of the use of American military power 
conjunctively with a proper use of diplomacy, which has defused a 
potential crisis that could have cost many lives.  

We went to Haiti with the full support of President Clinton and with a 
limited objective:   to carry out the mandates of the UN resolution, 
including the inexorable return of President Aristide to his office and 
the resignation from office of the three officials listed in UNSC 
Resolution 917.  This was a very difficult mission, but we had constant 
support and constant consultation with President Clinton, for which we 
are very grateful.

We believe that the overriding result has been the avoidance of massive 
bloodshed and perhaps an extended period of occupation that could have 
been very troubling to our country and to the world.  Instead, there is 
a peaceful, cooperative entry of international forces into Haiti with a 
mutual respect between the American commander and the Haitian military 
commanders.

I had a telephone conversation within the last five minutes with Dr. 
Robert Pastor, who is in the office with the military leaders of both 
nations.  He said everything is going perfectly.  I think the mutual 
respect with which this has been done is a notable achievement.

The final point I want to make is that we have accomplished our goals as 
assigned to us by our President.  The international agreement that has 
been worked out was done over a period of not much more than 24 hours 
total--when a lot of us had not had much sleep.  I do not want it to be 
examined in the most minute detail by lawyers who can spend weeks going 
over what we did in just a few minutes.  But the overwhelming point is 
that all of our objectives were accomplished and all of the UN 
resolutions are being honored, and it would not have been possible 
without the superb respect that the Haitian military leaders have for 
Gen. Colin Powell.  They see him as a fellow officer whose global 
reputation is unexcelled.  And Senator Sam Nunn brought the 
parliamentary approach   to the discussions in their crucial stages, 
when a lot depended on the return of one man to Haiti--President 
Aristide.  But Senator Nunn made it plain that one man does not mean 
democracy.  There has to be a national commitment to the sharing of 
power, and I think this was the crucial element contributed.

Now General Powell will say a few words.


General Powell.  Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind words.  It was 
a great honor for me to be a member of this delegation.  Mr. President, 
my congratulations to you for your enormous achievement, and thank you, 
Mr. President, for the confidence you placed in me.

The image that we were all afraid we would see sometime this week has 
been avoided.  That image was of American youngsters killing Haitian 
youngsters, and Haitian youngsters killing American youngsters.  
Instead, what we see on our television screens this morning are 
tentative beginnings in the new relationship, where these armed forces 
are talking to one another.  General Shelton is now talking to General 
Cedras.  We have not had to do something which may have contaminated the 
relationship between these two countries for years--decades--to come.

We were able to achieve this over the weekend by, first, having solid 
support from President Clinton and the members of his Administration in 
giving us the guidance we needed; by conveying to the Haitian leaders 
the inevitability of the arrival of U.S. forces and encouraging them to 
cooperate so that arrival would take place in a peaceful way.  I think 
the role that I may have played with some effect was to appeal to their 
sense of honor and to appeal to their sense of what is right and what is 
wrong at this particular point in their history. 

We had long and painful conversations, and there was a lot of emotion in 
the room.  But we kept coming back to that point:  What is best for the 
people of Haiti, what is best for the future of Haiti, and how can you 
be a part of that?  And at the end of the day, that worked. 

There will be many questions asked at a fairly low level, in my 
judgment, about details and when do they leave and who leaves and do 
they leave or don't they leave.  All that will be worked out in due 
course.  It was not part of our full mandate, and those questions will 
be resolved in due course.  But as those questions are resolved, let us 
not lose sight of the overall achievement.  The UN resolutions will be 
executed.  President Aristide will return.  And we have the opportunity 
for a future of peace and democracy in Haiti and a superb relationship 
between our two countries.

But this is only day one--not even the completion of day one.  There 
will be difficult times ahead.  There may well be injuries and 
casualties; we can not guarantee anything.  But we are off to an 
exceptionally good start.   And, Mr. President, I thank you for giving 
me the opportunity to be a part of that.


Senator Nunn.  First, to President Clinton:  Thank you, Mr. President, 
for your strong leadership.  To President Carter and to General Powell--
this was a unique team.  I was a very small part of it.  Without 
President Carter's initiative, without President Carter's persistent, 
dogged determination to bring about peace, this could not have happened.  
Without General Powell's great respect with the Haitian military and the 
Haitian people, this could not have happened.  He was able to talk 
straight with the military, and he was able, with President Carter, to 
carry on a very sensitive and very important discussion with Mrs. Cedras 
on Sunday morning, which was an important meeting.

So, President Clinton, thank you for your strong leadership.  Thank you 
for giving us a couple of extra hours to conclude this under some very 
difficult circumstances.  I will repeat the point that I made over and 
over again to the Haitian leadership, and that is that returning one 
man, even though elected and even though he certainly should and will be 
returned, is not democracy.

Democracy involves institutions; democracy involves an elected 
parliament.  I hope that the focal point of our foreign policy can be, 
in addition to returning President Aristide, free and fair elections of 
a parliament.  Democracies do not work unless minorities are protected.  
In Haiti today, when you lose an election, there is a fear by the 
minority that they may lose their lives.  That fear has to be dealt with 
through a parliamentary election and protections under the constitution 
with an independent judicial system.

So this is going to be the challenge ahead for the Haitian people, and I 
know that we will help facilitate that, President Clinton, in every way 
possible.  Thank you.



Department Releases Interim Human Rights Report on Haiti

Remarks by John Shattuck, Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human 
Rights, and Labor, at a State Department press briefing, Washington, DC, 
September 13, 1994.

I am joining  you here today to present a report on the state of human 
rights in Haiti.  Haiti is in the grip of a repression and terror, as 
the report reflects, that is marked by a level of violence comparable to 
what existed during the notorious regime of "Papa Doc" Duvalier.  This 
rule of terror has grown worse in recent months under the illegal Cedras 
regime and has made Haiti among the worst human rights violators in the 
world today.

By early this year, more than 3,000 Haitians had been murdered by the 
regime, and that number has since increased by several hundred more, by 
most accounts.  The people of Haiti have been subjected to 
assassinations, executions, beatings, mutilation, raids, rapes, and 
other violent abuses and intimidation directed at innocent men, women, 
and children--including, reportedly, the most vulnerable members of 
society, such as orphans.  Three hundred thousand Haitians--
approximately 5% of the population--have been driven into hiding, 
reportedly, by this pervasive climate of fear.

Because the human rights conditions in Haiti have deteriorated 
significantly, the report we are releasing today cannot document every 
act of violence and repression.  For every reported example of abuse, 
there are, no doubt, others that go unreported. 

This repression and terror is often targeted at supporters of President 
Aristide, yet it is random as well.  This suits the purpose of the 
regime, which is to convince all Haitians--even children, apparently--
that they are at the mercy of the regime and unable to oppose it.  In 
short, the aim is to replace the rule of law with its opposite:  the 
rule of fear.

Let me review some of the highlights of the report.  Some of these facts 
are known to you already, and others are probably not.

On August 28, a priest and colleague of President Aristide--Rev. Jean-
Marie Vincent--was shot to death in a hail of fire from unidentified 
gunmen as he drove up to the gates of his order's compound in the 
Turgeau region of Port-au-Prince.  Also, within the last month, former 
Senator Reynold Charles was seriously wounded but escaped death when 
shot by unidentified gunmen.  Gunmen attacked the home of Senator Clarck 
Parent and his sister, the Mayor of Petionville, but fled when the blind 
Senator fired his pistol into the air.These assassinations and attempted 
assassinations continue the regime's practice of systematically 
exterminating Haitian leaders who dare to work for democracy, human 
rights, and the rule of law.  As you know, in September of last year, 
prominent pro-Aristide activist Atoine Izmery was killed while attending 
a church service, and on October 14 of last year the Minister of 
Justice, Guy Malary, was murdered in downtown Port-au-Prince.

The most vulnerable and ordinary citizens are also routinely attacked.  
In one incident in the report, a fire set by the military at night in 
Port-au-Prince destroyed 200 houses and killed 65 people.  In another 
incident, the military beat up residents of a southern town, killing an 
elderly man and then attacked his funeral.  Last week, unconfirmed press 
reports indicated that Haitian orphans--many of whose parents were 
victims of the de facto regime--have been killed by the regime, 
apparently, in retaliation against Aristide, who was active in caring 
for orphans of Port-au-Prince in his days as a parish priest.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has drawn special 
attention to the use of rape as a tool of terror against politically 
active women or the families of politically active men.  These included 
a 13-year-old girl, a 16-year-old girl, and a woman who hemorrhaged to 
death after being raped by soldiers.

In the first five months of 1994--before their expulsion from Haiti by 
the military--the UN-OAS International Civilian Mission documented 66 
cases of politically motivated rape by military and paramilitary forces.

Let me just briefly run through a few very recent examples of the 
deterioration--serious deterioration--of human rights in Haiti today.

--  On June 14, military and armed civilians raided a church office in 
Laborde, arresting and severely beating the Director of the College of 
Notre Dame and his parents.

--  On June 24, an explosion in the house of a local representative of a 
labor organization killed two young girls.

--  On June 30, the bodies of five men appeared on the streets of Port-
au-Prince.  All had been shot with their hands tied behind their backs.

--  On August 18, the army arrested 40 people in the southern peninsula 
town of Cavaillon for lowering the Haitian flag.

--  The Embassy in Port-au-Prince has reported deaths in custody this 
month and recent arrests and beatings of Haitians caught listening to 
Voice of America broadcasts.

--  In the coastal town of Aquin, a large number of people were thrown 
in prison, and all were subject to harassment by the authorities.  A 
local nun told our embassy officers of the torture victims she had 
treated.

--  In a particularly disturbing incident described in the report during 
July and August, a military commander in the Les Cayes region--Norelus 
Mendelus--brutalized the civilian population, among other atrocities 
reported by the embassy.  In the course of a brutal beating, Commander 
Mendelus cut off a victim's ear and forced him to eat it, then carved 
his initials in the victim's flesh.  This behavior was tolerated by the 
military authorities until a priest and a seminarian, who were among the 
victims of Mendelus indiscriminate beatings, turned out to be relatives 
of a higher-ranking officer.  Mendelus apparently received a minor 
reprimand before being reassigned.

--  In the town of Grecssiers, several bodies of murder victims were 
found just last month in a very shallow grave, with body parts sticking 
out--a gruesome example of intimidation.

--  On the morning of August 1, the police beat Haitians who were 
waiting in line for the opening of the U.S. Refugee Processing Center in 
Port-au-Prince.  And many other examples of these kinds are documented 
in the report.

Ever since the regime reneged on the terms of the Governors Island 
agreement nearly a year ago, it has blocked discussion of settlement of 
these issues.  And earlier this month, of course, it refused to meet 
with a special representative of the UN Secretary General, Boutros 
Boutros-Ghali.

It was in response to the escalating human rights violations, as well as 
the intransigence of the regime and the exhaustion of diplomatic 
channels, that the UN Security Council on July 31 approved Resolution 
940, which authorizes the expulsion of the de facto regime by all means 
necessary.  From this authorization, the U.S. has worked toward forming 
an international coalition of forces to implement the resolution.  


Interim Human Rights Report on Haiti
Copies of the report may be obtained from the Public Information 
Division, Bureau of Public Affairs, Room 5831, (202) 647-6575.

The report also is available on GPO's Federal Bulletin Board Service by 
dialing (202) 512-1387, and on the Internet at gopher summit.fiu.edu.  
(###)



Article 2:

International Conference on Population and Development
Vice President Gore
Remarks at the opening session of the UN International Conference on 
Population and Development, Cairo, Egypt, September 5, 1994

Good morning.  I am honored to join you as we begin one of the most 
important conferences ever held.

On behalf of President Clinton and the people of the United States, I 
would like first of all, to express my thanks and appreciation to our 
host, President Mubarak.  His leadership has been marked by a continuing 
commitment to building a better future for his people, this region, and 
the world.  This conference is dedicated to helping achieve the same 
ends.  I can think of no better or more fitting setting than Cairo for 
the work we begin today.

I would also like to thank Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and  
Dr. Nafis Sadik for their inspired leadership in shepherding this 
conference from a concept to a reality.  Allow me to also thank Prime 
Minister Brundtland and Prime Minister Bhutto for their leadership and 
their contributions to the world's efforts to deal with this vital 
issue.

Most importantly, I want to acknowledge the enormous contributions of 
government officials, non-governmental organization representatives, and 
private citizens toward addressing one of the greatest challenges--and 
greatest opportunities--of the coming century.  We owe all of you who 
have been involved in this process a debt of gratitude.

We would not be here today if we were not convinced that the rapid and 
unsustainable growth of human population was an issue of the utmost 
urgency.  It took 10,000 generations for the world's population to reach 
2 billion people.  Yet over the past 50 years, we have gone from 2 
billion to more than 5-1/2 billion.  And we are on a path to increase to 
9 or 10 billion over the next 50 years.  Ten thousand generations to 
reach 2 billion and then in one human lifetime--ours--we leap from 2 
billion toward 10 billion.

These numbers are not by themselves the problem.  But the startlingly 
new pattern they delineate is a symptom of a much larger and deeper 
spiritual challenge now facing humankind.  Will we acknowledge our 
connections to one another or not?   Will we accept responsibility for 
the consequences of the choices we make  or not?  Can we find ways to 
work together, or will we insist on selfishly exploring the limits of 
human pride?  How can we come to see in the faces    of others our own 
hopes and dreams  for the future?  Why is it so hard to recognize that 
we are all part of something larger than ourselves?

Of course, these are timeless questions that have always characterized 
the human condition.  But they now have a new urgency, precisely, 
because we have reached a new stage of human history--a stage defined 
not just by the meteoric growth in human numbers but also by the 
unprecedented Faustian powers of the new technologies we have acquired 
during these same 50 years--technologies which not only bring us new 
benefits, but also magnify the consequences of age-old behaviors to 
extremes that all too often exceed the wisdom we bring to our decisions 
to use them.

For example, warfare is an ancient human habit, but the invention of 
nuclear weapons so radically altered the consequences of this behavior 
that we were forced to find new ways of thinking about the relationship 
between nuclear states in order to avoid the use of these weapons.  
Similarly, the oceans have always been a source of food, but new 
technologies like 40-mile long driftnets coupled with sophisticated 
sonar equipment to precisely locate fish have severely depleted or 
seriously distressed every ocean fishery on our planet.  Thus, we have 
begun to curtail the use of driftnets.

But it is becoming increasingly clear that our margin for error is 
shrinking as rapid population growth is combined with huge and 
unsustainable levels of consumption in the developed countries, powerful 
new tools for exploiting the earth and each other, and a willful refusal 
to take responsibility for the future consequences of the choices we 
make.  Economically, rapid population growth often contributes to the 
challenge of addressing persistent low wages, poverty, and economic  
disparity.

Population trends also challenge the ability of societies, economies, 
and governments to make the investments they need in both human capital 
and infrastructure.  At the level of the family, demographic trends have 
kept the world's investment in its children--especially girls--
unacceptably low.  For individuals, population growth and high fertility 
are closely linked to the poor health and diminished opportunities of 
millions upon millions of women, infants, and children.  And population 
pressures often put strains on hopes for stability at the national and 
international level.  Look, for example, at the 20 million refugees in 
our world who have no homes.

The delegates to this conference have helped create a widely shared 
understanding of these new realities.  But what is truly remarkable 
about this conference is not only the unprecedented degree of consensus 
about the nature of the problem, but the degree of consensus about the 
nature of the solution.  A real change has occurred during the last 
several years in the way most people in the world look at and understand 
this problem.  The change is part of a larger philosophical shift in the 
way most people have begun to think about many large problems.  There 
used to be an automatic tendency--especially in the developed world--to 
think about the process of change in terms of single causes producing 
single effects.  Thus, when searching for the way to solve a particular 
problem--however large--it seemed natural enough to search for the 
single most prominent "cause" of the problem and then address it 
forcefully.  Many divisive arguments resulted between groups advocating 
the selection of different causes as     the "primary" culprit deserving 
full attention.

Thus, when it became clear that new medical technologies were bringing 
dramatic declines in death rates but not in birth rates, many pioneers, 
in the effort to address the population question, settled on the notion 
that the lack of contraceptives was the primary problem and argued that 
making them widely available everywhere would produce the effect we 
desired--the completion of a demographic transition with the achievement 
of low birth rates as well as low death rates.  But as it became clear 
that contraception alone seldom led to the change nations were seeking 
to bring about, other single causes were afforded primary attention.  
For example, in the historic Bucharest conference 20 years ago, when 
thoughtful people noticed that most of the societies which had 
stabilized their population growth were wealthy, industrial, and 
"developed," it seemed logical to conclude--in the phrase common at the 
time--"development is the best contraceptive."

Meanwhile, some insights from developing countries were given 
insufficient attention.  For example, some African leaders were arguing 
30 years ago that "the most powerful contraceptive in the world is the 
confidence of parents that their children will survive."  And in places 
like Kerala, in southwestern India, local leaders were making economic 
development more accessible by giving women as well as men access to 
education and high levels of literacy, while at the same time providing 
good child- and maternal-health care as well as widespread access to 
contraception.  In the process, they found that their population growth 
rate fell to nearly zero. 

The world also has learned from developing countries that the wrong kind 
of rapid economic development--the kind that is inequitable and 
destructive of traditional culture, the environment, and human dignity--
can lead to the disorientation of society and a lessened ability to 
solve any problems, including population.  But here, in Cairo, there is 
a new and very widely shared consensus that no single one of these 
solutions is likely to be sufficient by itself to produce the pattern of 
change we are seeking.  However, we also now agree that all of them 
together, when simultaneously present for a sufficient length of time, 
will reliably bring about a systemic change to low birth and death rates 
and a stabilized population.  In this new consensus, equitable and 
sustainable development and population stabilization go together.  The 
education and empowerment of women, high levels of literacy, the 
availability of contraception, and high-quality health care--  These 
factors are all crucial.  They cannot be put off until development takes 
place; they must accompany it--and, indeed, should be seen as part of 
the process by which development is hastened and made more likely.

This holistic understanding is representative of the approach we must 
take in addressing other problems that cry out for attention.  
Recognizing connections and interrelationships is one of the keys.  For 
example, the future of developed countries is connected to the prospects 
of developing countries.  It is partly for this reason that we in the 
United States wish to choose this occasion to affirm, unequivocally, all 
human rights, including the right to development.

Let us be clear in acknowledging that persistent high levels of poverty  
in our world represent a principal cause of human suffering, 
environmental degradation, instability, and rapid  population growth.  
But the solution--like the solution to the population challenge--will 
not be found in any single simplistic answer.  It will be found in a 
comprehensive approach that combines democracy, economic reform, low 
rates of inflation, low levels of corruption, sound environmental 
stewardship, free and open markets at home, and access to markets in the 
developed countries.  We must also acknowledge--in developed and 
developing countries alike--the connection between those of us alive 
today and the future generations that will inherit the results of the 
decisions we make.  Indeed, a major part of the spiritual crisis we face 
in the modern world is rooted in our obstinate refusal to look beyond 
the immediacy of our own needs and wants and instead invest in the kind 
of future our children's children have a right to expect.  It should be 
obvious that we cannot solve this lost sense of connection to our future 
merely through appeals to reason and logic.

Personally, I am convinced that the holistic solution we must seek is 
one that is rooted in faith and a commitment to basic human values of 
the kind enshrined in all of our major religious traditions and 
principles increasingly shared by men and women all around the world:

--  The central role of the family;
--  The importance of community;
--  The freedom of the human spirit;
--  The inherent dignity of every individual woman, man, and child on 
this planet;
--  Political, economic, and religious freedom; and
--  Universal and inalienable human rights.

Will we draw upon the richness of these shared principles and values as 
we embark on our efforts today, or will we allow ourselves to be divided 
by our differences?  And there are, of course, differences that will be 
extremely difficult to ever fully resolve.  For example, we are all well 
aware that views about abortion are as diverse among nations as among 
individuals.  I want to be clear about the U.S. position on abortion so 
that there is no misunderstanding.  We believe that making available the 
highest quality family planning and health care services will, 
simultaneously, respect women's own desires to prevent unintended 
pregnancies, and reduce population growth and the rate of abortion.

The United States Constitution guarantees every woman within our borders 
a right to choose an abortion, subject to limited and specific 
exceptions.  We are committed to that principle.  But let us take a 
false issue off the table:  The United States does not seek to establish 
a new international right to abortion, and we do not believe that 
abortion should be encouraged as a method of family planning.

We also believe that policy-making in these matters should be the 
province of each government, within the context of its own laws and 
national circumstances and consistent with previously agreed upon human 
rights standards.  In this context, we abhor and condemn coercion 
related to abortion or any other matters of reproduction.

We believe that where abortion is permitted, it should be medically safe 
and that unsafe abortion is a matter of women's health that must be 
addressed.  But as we acknowledge the few areas where full agreement 
among us is more difficult, let us strengthen our resolve to respect our 
differences and reach past them to create what the world might remember 
as the "spirit of Cairo"--a shared and unshakable determination to lay 
the foundation for a future of hope and promise.

This is the opening session.  Each of us plays a crucial role in 
ensuring the success of this historic endeavor.  The essential 
ingredient we all must bring to it is our commitment to make it work.  

The Scottish mountain climber W.H. Murray wrote early in this century:  
Until one is committed there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, 
always ineffectiveness.  Concerning all acts of initiative there is one 
elementary truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and 
splendid plans:  that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then 
providence moves too.

I saw this truth in operation earlier this year at the southern end of 
this continent when I represented my country at the inauguration of 
Nelson Mandela.  As he raised his hand to take the oath, I suddenly 
remembered a Sunday morning four years earlier when he was released from 
prison and my youngest child, then seven, joined me to watch live 
television coverage of the event and asked why the entire world was 
watching this person regain his freedom.

After I explained as best I could, my son asked again, "Why?"  After a 
series of "whys," I began to feel frustrated--but I suddenly realized 
what a rare privilege it was to explain to a child the existence of such 
an extraordinary positive event when I, like other parents, had so often 
been confronted with the burden of explaining to my children the 
existence of evil and terrible tragedies and injustices in our world.  
So as President Mandela completed his oath, I resolved that I would 
spend the next several days in South Africa trying to understand how 
this wonderful development had occurred.  And what I found--in addition 
to the well-known courage and vision of both Mandela and De Klerk--was 
the key ingredient that had not received emphasis in the news coverage:  
Ordinary men and women of all ethnic backgrounds and all walks of life 
quietly had made up their minds that they were going to reach across the 
barriers that divided them and join hands to create a future much 
brighter than any they had been told was possible to even imagine.

We here today face the same choice and the same opportunity:  Will we 
give to our children's children the burden of explaining to their 
children the reason why unspeakable tragedies that could have been 
avoided occur in their lives?  Or will we give them the privilege and 
joy of explaining the occurrence of unusually positive developments--the 
foundations for which were laid here at this place at this time?  The 
choice is ours.  Let us resolve to make it well.  (###)



Article 3:

The Purpose of American Power
Anthony Lake, Assistant to the President For National Security Affairs 
Address to the Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC, September 
12, 1994

I want to talk you tonight about the purpose of American power in the 
world as we chart a course in a radically new international environment.  
Charting such a course has never been easy.  While the policy of 
containment looks obvious to us in retrospect, we should remember that 
it took President Truman and Dean Acheson several years to define their 
way and build a policy consensus behind it.  And they had the advantage 
of an ideologically and geographically distinct adversary with whom to 
contend.

Today, we--all of us in this room who believe in American engagement--
have a still more difficult challenge.  We must seek to be as creative 
and constructive--in the literal sense of that word--as the generation 
of the late 1940s, for we see a world of opportunity for such 
construction.  But we must do it in the domestic circumstances not of 
the 1940s but of the 1920s, when there was no single, foreign threat 
against which to rally public opinion and head off the destructive 
isolationism that followed.

To most Americans, the post-Cold War era seems chaotic.  The easy 
divisions of the Cold War have given way to a confused complex of 
problems:  "traditional" threats of aggression by regional bullies; 
emerging transnational threats like environmental decay, over-
population, and refugees; a global economic and information free-for-all 
that increases wealth and opportunity but also produces fear and 
uncertainty within all nations; and the carnage of terrible ethnic 
conflicts.

In short, for too many of our people and commentators, we seem to face 
an incomprehensible chaos that prevents us from setting a clearly 
defined goal for the exercise of American power and diplomacy.  I 
believe that view is profoundly and dangerously wrong, for there is a 
simple truth about this new world.  That truth is this:  The same idea 
that was under attack by fascism and then by communism remains under 
attack today--but on many fronts at once.

In defeating fascism and prevailing over communism, we were defending an 
idea that comes under many names--democracy, liberty, civility, 
pluralism--but that has a constant face.  It is the face of the tolerant 
society in which leaders and governments exist not to use or abuse 
people, but to provide them with freedom and opportunity to preserve 
individual human dignity--societies in which the wonderful paradox of 
democracy is at work.  The paradox is this:  A society built around a 
central devotion to pluralism is a society best able to reconcile the 
divisions that would otherwise rip it apart.

Today, those societies--from the fragile to the mature--remain under 
assault.  Far from reaching the end of history, we are at the start of a 
new stage in this old struggle.  This is not a clash of civilizations; 
rather, it is a contest that pits nations and individuals guided by 
openness, responsive government, and moderation against those animated 
by isolation, repression, and extremism.  The enemies of the tolerant 
society are not some nameless, faceless force; they are extreme 
nationalists and tribalists, terrorists, organized criminals, coup 
plotters, rogue states, and all those who would return newly freed 
societies to the intolerant ways of the past.

But for all its dangers, this new world presents immense opportunities:  
the chance to reshape and create new international security and economic 
structures that are not merely adapted to post-Cold War realities, but 
are specifically designed to consolidate the victory of the idea of 
democracy and open markets.  

The issue for the next decade is whether our efforts at this 
construction can succeed in the face of the centrifugal forces at work 
within and among nations.  This requires designing structures with the 
flexibility to withstand shifting threats to their stability, much like 
skyscrapers in Los Angeles or Mexico City are built with enough give to 
weather an earthquake.  And it means that we must infuse these 
structures with the ideals and habits of democracy.

Democracy is at once the foundation and the purpose of the inter- 
national structures we must build.  It is the foundation because, as 
Zbig Brzezinski has put it: 

If one builds . . . only with bricks and mortar we will find that 
something profound is missing, and the structure may not prove enduring, 
because societies as viable entities exist on the basis of conviction, 
of commitment, of certain shared values.  

It is also the purpose because the security structures that defend our 
safety and the economic institutions that expand trade and create jobs 
give democracy the chance to flourish.We are not starry-eyed about the 
prospects for spreading democracy;it will not soon take hold everywhere.  
But we know that the larger the pool of democracies, the better off we 
will be.  Democracies create free markets that offer economic 
opportunity, and they make for more reliable trading partners.  They 
tend not to abuse the civil and political rights of their citizens.  And 
democracies are far less likely to wage war on one another.  Civilized 
behavior within borders encourages it beyond them.  So it is in our 
interest to do all we can to enlarge the community of free and open 
societies, especially in areas of greatest strategic interests, as in 
the former Soviet Union.

Building New Structures
I believe that over the past 20 months--building often on the work of 
our predecessors--we have made a good start at this process of 
construction.  Working with our allies, President Clinton has moved to 
create new security arrangements or to revitalize old ones and to devise 
pro-trade economic institutions or modernize existing ones.

To meet the new reality in Europe, we are deeply engaged in transforming 
existing structures to fulfill President Clinton's vision of an 
integrated continent.  While NATO is and must remain the foundation of 
security and stability for the transatlantic community, it must adapt to 
changing times so as to keep the peace--and, if necessary, make the 
peace.

That is why President Clinton has taken the lead in establishing the 
Combined Joint Task Forces for peace-keeping and crisis management and 
the Partnership for Peace, to begin the process of expanding security in 
Europe eastward.  That is one reason why NATO's action in Bosnia is so 
important:  It is the first time NATO has undertaken actual military 
operations; the first time NATO has operated beyond the borders of its 
member states; the first time it has acted on behalf of the United 
Nations; and the first time it has acted in close cooperation with the 
Russian Federation.

For the new European democracies, the Partnership for Peace is the 
lighthouse at the entrance to NATO's harbor, offering real, practical 
military and defense cooperation with NATO.  The Partnership also gives 
a boost to reformers and commits all partners to open up and democratize 
their defense forces.

While keeping us prepared for the worst, the Partnership allows us to 
work toward the best possible outcome for Europe--a community of 
democratic and stable nations.  In Asia, because there is no equivalent 
to NATO, we must develop a series of arrangements that will function, as 
President Clinton has put it, "like overlapping plates of armor, 
individually providing protection and together covering the whole body 
of our common security concerns."

These plates include the deployment of American forces to meet bilateral 
treaty arrangements and varied multilateral efforts--from our attempt to 
defuse the North Korean nuclear threat to our participation in regional 
security dialogues, such as the unprecedented gathering in July of the 
ASEAN countries and others, including the United States, Russia, and 
Vietnam.

While the new global economy has delivered wonderful possibilities for 
growth and creativity, it also has limited governments' ability to 
control their nations' economic future.  This has bred fear and 
insecurity within each of our societies--especially among those left 
behind and who blame their personal predicament on ominous, unidentified 
international forces.

There is a powerful lesson here for those of us concerned with 
sustaining our country's prosperity in the decades to come.  That is the 
need to design structures with the everyday, real interests of Americans 
in mind, that produce tangible benefits for them and turn their 
uncertainty into hope.

One striking example is NAFTA, whose passage President Clinton went to 
the mat to secure.  Already, NAFTA has dramatically accelerated the 
exchange of goods and ideas between the United States, Mexico, and 
Canada.  For all it promises to achieve in its own right, NAFTA is just 
the starting point for the integration of our hemisphere.  Other trading 
compacts are following NAFTA, and we will pursue hemispheric integration 
at the Summit of the Americas, convened by the President in Miami next 
December.  

In Asia, where our trade translated into almost 2.5 million American 
jobs, President Clinton took the lead and hosted the first-ever 
gathering of the organization for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 
leaders.  By setting pro-growth policies, toppling trade barriers, and 
cutting regulatory red tape within the fast-growing Asia-Pacific 
economies, we can take tangible steps to improve our peoples' lives.  A 
heavier flow of American goods, services, and people in the region will 
help spread the ideals and the wealth of tolerant societies and build an 
integrated Asia-Pacific community.

Our difficult but successful completion of the GATT Uruguay Round, begun 
eight years ago, also will make a real difference in real lives.  By 
lowering barriers to trade and bringing more nations into an open 
trading system, this accord promises to lift substantially American 
wages and living standards and to do the same for other nations around 
the world.  GATT's successor, the World Trade Organization, not only 
will ensure a more even international playing field, but also will 
provide a forum to resolve disputes openly.

The struggle to consolidate our victories in 1945 and in the Cold War 
involves not only construction, but also the patient application of 
diplomacy and the measured exercise of power.  We use diplomacy to 
pursue peace.  But peace is not just an end in itself; it also creates 
conditions necessary for the habits of democracy and community to 
thrive.  Thus, when we support and foster peace in the Middle East or 
Northern Ireland or Southern Africa, we are promoting the tolerant 
society as well.  It is no accident that the enemies of peace in such 
areas are also apostles of intolerance and extremism.  Effective 
diplomacy today--as throughout human history--depends not only on the 
skill of our diplomats, but also on the power that lies behind it.

The progress we have made in Bosnia, for example, came when power was 
tied to our diplomatic ends.  The Sarajevo ultimatum largely succeeded 
because the threat of NATO air power was judged real.  It provided the 
catalyst for the agreement on a federation between the Croatians and 
Muslims in Bosnia, in itself a development of great strategic importance 
there.  I believe that after the recent rejection of peace by the 
Bosnian Serbs, it was the threat of further action by NATO, combined 
with the effect of our sanctions, that led Slobodan Milosevic to promise 
to effectively close Serbia's border with them.

Our approach to Haiti has also relied on diplomacy backed by power --the 
power of our sanctions as well as the real threat of the use of force.  
The responsible course has been to pursue every possible diplomatic way 
to reach our goal there.  But make no mistake:  When diplomatic efforts 
are exhausted, the power behind them then becomes the only alternative.

Our goal is clear:  For two Administrations, that goal has been the 
restoration of democratic government in Haiti.  For almost 20 months, we 
have vigorously pursued every diplomatic avenue available to achieve a 
peaceful transfer of power from the coup leaders back to the 
democratically elected government.  We have tightened sanctions all we 
can without crushing the Haitian people.  Our efforts have failed to 
move the military leaders.  Their brutality, if anything, gets worse.  
They alone are responsible for Haiti's terrible predicament.  In 
response, the international community has spoken clearly and 
authoritatively, throughout the UN Security Council.  Resolution 940 
authorizes the use of all necessary means, including force, to restore 
democracy to Haiti.

Thus far, 17 countries with some 1,500 personnel have told us that they 
will join the international coalition in some form, and others are 
considering it.  Additional nations will sign up when the coalition is 
replaced by the UN mission.  I believe there is a great deal at stake 
here.  

First is the essential reliability of the United States and the 
international community.  Having exhausted all other remedies, we must 
make it clear that we mean what we say.  Our actions in Haiti will send 
a message far beyond our region--to all who seriously threaten our 
interests.

Second, there is a new wave of democracy sweeping over this hemisphere, 
but it is not irreversible.  Haiti is a critical test of our commitment 
to defend democracy, especially where it is most fragile.

Third, the United States has a particular interest in curbing gross 
abuses of human rights when they occur so close to our shores.  Murder, 
rape, and intimidation are a systematic part of this regime's reign of 
terror.  The victims are women, children, orphans, and even priests.  
These abuses will end only when the dictators are gone.

Finally, the consequences of this festering problem will not be confined 
to Haiti.  We risk a further explosion of refugees--a mass exodus that 
could destabilize the region and prove difficult for us to contain.

So the military leaders must go.  We still hope that they will do so 
voluntarily.  But our message to them is clear:  We will act if we must, 
and time is running out.

The Threats to Construction
As we build new structures and wield the tools of power and diplomacy, 
we must keep an eye to the long-term threats to our efforts.  In effect, 
we have to adopt the methods of the architect.  Before starting a 
project, any good designer sits down with the client and asks a few 
basic questions:  What is the building for; what are your needs; how 
much time do you spend in each room?  And in New England, we know also 
to ask this question:  From which direction do the high winds and storm 
fronts come?

The threats to our international construction come from many quarters.  
Bosnia and Haiti, for example, are not simply transitory tragedies or 
immediate crises that can divert us from the "big picture."  Rather, 
they are part of something bigger and more menacing that threatens to 
undermine the foreign policy structures we are working so hard to build:  
the ethnic and other historic divisions within nations that tear them 
apart and in some regions threaten the definition of the nation itself.

It cannot and must not be the responsibility of the international 
community or this nation finally to resolve those deeply rooted 
conflicts.  We cannot force a reversal of centuries of animosity in a 
few years.  To attempt to do so would condemn peace-keeping efforts to 
costly failure.

But where practical, we can save lives, as in Rwanda, and we can offer 
conflicted societies a breathing space in which to sort out their own 
affairs.  Whether or not they do so must, in the end, be their own 
responsibility.Where and when UN peace-keeping can and should engage 
cannot, in a world of such rapid changes, clearly be predicted on some 
briefer's multicolored map.  But we can be very clear about the criteria 
to use in making those decisions.  Following our very careful policy 
review, we are insisting, for example, that every peace-keeping 
operation have a clear mission, with adequate funding and a reasonable 
plan for completion.

These explosions within states--in Eastern Europe, in Africa, and 
elsewhere--while rooted in historic hatreds, are also exacerbated by the 
so-called transnational problems whose dimensions have been more clearly 
exposed by the end of the Cold War,mass migration, and refugees; the 
population explosion; an endangered environment; a nefarious nexus of 
crime, terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction.  Our institutions 
must be built to withstand, and, ultimately, to reverse these threats.

The Cairo conference on population growth and sustainable development 
rightly addresses perhaps the most important underlying transnational 
threat before us, and America is leading in the response.  But in our 
struggle against the forces of hatred, more attention must also be 
given, I believe, to the horrific prospect of the growing links among 
organized crime, drug trafficking, terrorism, and the spread of weapons 
of mass destruction.  Several times in the last month, police seized 
nuclear materials smuggled into Germany from Russia.  We should be 
thankful that superior police work and cooperation among various 
intelligence services--including our own--intercepted this deadly cargo.  
But we also should be concerned.  Imagine, for example, what would have 
happened if the World Trade Center terrorists had detonated a 
nonconventional device.

The nexus demands a coordinated, international response.  Mere vigilance 
will not suffice.  The amount of plutonium needed to make a bomb is no 
bigger than a can of Coke.  Intensified cooperation among various 
criminal justice systems is one of the most potent weapons in our 
arsenal.  Over the past few years, we have greatly enhanced our 
intelligence-sharing with allies and through Interpol, increased regular 
consultations, and engaged in joint anti-terrorist training.  Most 
recently, in July, FBI director Louis Freeh visited several East 
European countries and Russia, where he stressed the risks of nuclear 
proliferation through the efforts of organized crime and proposed new 
cooperative initiatives in response.  Ultimately, this informal network 
of concerned nations will likely evolve into a new structure to counter 
what must rank as one of the greatest long-term threats to our security.

And, as I said before, there is the immediate threat to our efforts at 
construction posed by the regional rogue states that seek to develop and 
traffic in the weapons of mass destruction, that support terrorism, and 
that are no less dedicated to the destruction of the tolerant society 
than were the defeated leaders of fascism and communism.  That is why 
this President is determined to maintain and modernize the finest 
military in the world:  so we can deter aggression--and counter it when 
the need arises; why we have developed and are pursuing a strategy of 
"dual containment" of both Iraq and Iran; and why we will maintain our 
commitment to our South Korean allies, even as we negotiate a resolution 
of the nuclear issue with the North.

Our Challenge
The struggle before us, while in the tradition of the centuries-old 
fight between the ideas of freedom and authoritarianism, is also very 
new.  Because we must fight on so many fronts at once, we will only make 
progress over time, in small victories, not only through the exercise of 
our power, but also through patience, persistence, and pragmatism.We 
Americans are an impatient people.  But patience, persistence, and 
pragmatism are not evidence of indecision:  They are the hallmarks of 
determination.

Choice, not chance, determines destiny.  After World War I, we chose 
withdrawal, leaving a vacuum that was filled by the forces of hatred and 
tyranny.  After World War II, we chose engagement, creating the 
institutions that guaranteed 50 years of freedom and prosperity.  

Today, at this century's third major turning point, the Clinton 
Administration has chosen.  Rather than throw up our hands in despair at 
the complexities of the post-Cold War era, we have thrown ourselves with 
determination into the fight against those who would deny people their 
human rights, terrorists who threaten innocents, and pariah states that 
choose repression and extremism over openness and moderation.  We have 
thrown ourselves, in short, into the long struggle for democracy and the 
order it brings.

In so doing, we take up the challenge previous generations met so well.  
Inspired by their example, aware of the responsibility they left, we are 
helping to create a world where tolerance, freedom, and democracy 
prevail.  (###)


Article 4:

Managing U.S.-Japan Relations Into the 21st Century
Walter Mondale, U.S. Ambassador to Japan
Address before the National Press Club, Washington, DC, August 6, 1994

I am pleased to serve as our ambassador to Japan, because I am convinced 
that our relationship with that great country will shape the future of 
the Asia-Pacific region and the world.  How the U.S. and Japan work 
together--or fail to work together--will have a great impact on the kind 
of world that my grandchildren--and yours--will inherit.  At a time of 
fundamental change in the world, our alliance relationship with Japan is 
crucial in helping us navigate the uncertainties of this new era.  
Together, our two nations must provide an anchor for regional stability, 
provide opportunities for greater world economic growth, and take the 
lead in forging international cooperation on global problems.

Looking back over this past year, we have seen major accomplishments 
involving cooperation between the United States and Japan.  A successful 
conclusion of the Uruguay Round; a historic first meeting of APEC 
leaders; major new bilateral initiatives to deal with global problems 
such as AIDS, population, and the environment; and effective cooperation 
on a range of foreign issues, including the nuclear crisis in North 
Korea.  The world's two largest economies and the most dynamic societies 
have a natural interest in working together to help shape a more 
prosperous and peaceful world.

However, in my first year as ambassador, I have been struck by the 
conflict between this imperative for greater cooperation on the one 
hand,  and the tensions in our relationships over economic issues on the 
other.  Both American and Japanese leaders emphasize that we do not 
intend to allow these economic disputes to have a negative effect on our 
broader strategic political and global cooperation.  But I am, 
nevertheless, concerned that protected and sometimes acrimonious 
negotiations on trade issues could, over time, sour public and even 
leadership attitudes in each country toward the other.  It is clear, to 
me at least, that we must put our economic relationship on as firm a 
footing as our political and strategic relationships.

With the end of the Cold War, the U.S.-Japan alliance and global 
partnership is more easily buffeted by the competitive elements in our 
relationship.  As we move into the 50th anniversary of the end of the 
Second World War, both societies are questioning some of the fundamental 
tenets that have governed our relationship over the past 50 years.  With 
old landmarks eroding, it is more important than ever to build on the 
foundations we so carefully nurtured to anchor the security and 
prosperity of our nations in a shared future.  Leadership in both 
countries must reconcile conflicting priorities, identify and build on 
areas of cooperation, and ensure that a new generation of Americans and 
Japanese understand and appreciate the tremendous benefits that both 
societies receive from this relationship and the greater promise it 
holds for the future.

In this era of growing independence, expanding trade and travel, and 
increasing deregulation of economic activity, it is perhaps hubris to 
talk of managing the U.S.-Japan relationship.  In fact, most of the 
interactions between us are beyond the direct control of our 
governments.  Every day in this electronic era, billions, if not 
trillions, of dollars and currency transactions cross our borders.  
Every day, tens of thousands of business decisions on both sides of the 
Pacific generate a massive flow of traded goods and services.  Every 
day, millions of citizens in both countries buy Walkmans and computers, 
use airlines and phone lines, watch films, and hear music from each 
other's country.  And every day, thousands of tourists from each country 
arrive to experience the wonder of the other's culture.  Every year, 
thousands of students cross the Pacific in both directions in pursuit of 
new knowledge, a new language, a new adventure.  These experiences will 
shape their views for a lifetime.

The vibrant activity is not orchestrated by bureaucrats and politicians, 
but is part of the organic life of our two free societies.  That said, 
only governments can provide the security framework in which these 
private interactions can flourish.  Only governments can ensure the 
establishment and maintenance of economic rules which provide for 
sustainable free trade and investment.  Only governments can forge 
cooperative efforts to address the regional and global challenges that 
we face.

The security treaty between the United States and Japan is the 
foundation of our alliance and the basis for peace and stability in East 
Asia.  This alliance will remain the cornerstone of future cooperation.  
In this century, the United States has been drawn into three conflicts 
in Asia and sacrificed thousands of American lives to restore and 
maintain stability.  Thanks largely to this American sacrifice and to 
our continuing military presence and political involvement, Asia today 
is free of major military conflicts.  This in turn has permitted 
democracy to spread, trade to flourish, and standards of living to rise 
dramatically.

Today, our security relationship with Japan is sound.  There is broad 
recognition in both countries that, even with the end of the Cold War 
and with all the progress that has been made in resolving regional 
disputes such as Cambodia, there are still threats to the stability in 
East Asia.  The most visible reminder of this is North Korea's efforts 
to acquire nuclear weapons.  Once again, it has been the United States 
which has taken the lead in working closely with Japan, South Korea, and 
the other key countries in addressing this threat.  There are also 
competing territorial claims in the South China Sea and other friction 
points that cannot be ignored.

In Japan, we recently passed an important and very welcomed watershed 
under the leadership of Prime Minister Murayama.  The Japanese Socialist 
Party endorsed the U.S.-Japan security treaty and the U.S. military 
presence in Japan.  This means that there is now a consensus that the 
US.-Japan security treaty serves Japan's interests and is a source of 
regional stability.  Both governments understand that to ensure regional 
stability, the United States must continue to maintain a forward-
deployed military presence in East Asia.  The heart of this presence is 
our bases in Japan and the 47,000 American servicemen and women 
stationed there.  Without these bases, we could not maintain the 
forward-deployed carrier battle group and the air force, marine, and 
army units necessary to meet our commitments.

Japan's contribution to maintaining these forces is vital.  Under an 
agreement concluded four years ago, Japan is assuming more than half the 
cost--some $4 billion or 10% of Japan's budget--associated with our 
bases.  Deducting American salaries, this is most of the cost of our 
forces in Japan.  By any standard, this is a tremendous bargain for both 
the United States and Japan.  This arrangement serves the interests of 
the United States, Japan, the region, and the world, and it will 
continue to do so for years to come.  

Since my arrival in Tokyo, I have spent most of my time trying to move 
forward our economic agenda with    Japan.  Full access to the Japanese 
market is important to the welfare of American companies and workers and 
to our economic future and to the global trading system.  Moreover, 
constant bickering over trade issues weakens political and public 
support in both countries for our overall cooperative relationship.

Our economic relations with Japan are by no means a zero-sum game.  
Americans receive tremendous benefits from this interaction.  Japan is 
second only to Canada as a market for American exports.  It is our 
largest agricultural market, and this month, an important barrier to 
American agricultural products--Japan's ban on our apples-- was removed.  
Japanese investments in the U.S. are responsible for hundreds of 
thousands of American jobs and have brought new technology and 
management techniques to U.S. industries.

Nevertheless, there remains an   imbalance in the benefits and 
responsibilities in that relationship.  Japan's markets in key sectors 
are substantially less open than ours or those of other industrialized 
countries, hindering the ability of our competitive firms to gain access 
to the world's second-largest economy.  On the macro- economic level, 
Japan is running a massive current account surplus with the world--more 
than $130 billion--which denies other countries, including the U.S., 
export and growth opportunities.

The relatively closed nature of the Japanese economy is well documented.  
Tariffs are low on the average, but a combination of excessive 
regulations and restrictive informal business practices impedes imports 
and investments.  As a result, Japan absorbs far fewer manufactured 
imports relative to the size of its economy than any other industrial 
nation and even fewer foreign investments.

Some in Japan have questioned the commitment of American firms to 
competing in Japanese markets.  "You don't try hard enough" is a charge 
we hear quite often.  There may have been a time when this was a 
credible allegation, but it is simply no longer true.  Most American 
business leaders recognize that U.S. companies must be in Japan, not 
only because of the size of the market and the potential profits to be 
made, but for strategic reasons as well.  Across a wide range of 
industries, the major competitors of our leading firms are Japanese.  If 
U.S. firms are to compete worldwide, they must compete in Japan head-to-
head with their major rivals.

Fifteen months ago, we agreed on a framework for a new economic 
partnership.  In this agreement, we promised to reduce our fiscal 
deficit and improve our international competitiveness.  We have made 
significant progress on both commitments.  U.S. productivity is up.  The 
quality of our goods and services has improved dramatically, and U.S. 
firms are enjoying solid worldwide growth.  U.S. firms dominate the 
leading edge of the high-tech frontier, and our business confidence in 
its ability to compete is stronger than it has been in years.  For its 
part, the Japanese Government promised to improve market access for 
competitive goods and services and to reduce its chronic current account 
surpluses through domestic-led economic growth.

While we have reached a number of important agreements on construction, 
mobile phones, rice, and intellectual property rights, we have yet to 
conclude agreements in the priority areas of the framework, which are 
government procurement, insurance, and auto and auto parts.  At the same 
time, Japan's global current account surplus has remained at a very high 
level as domestic economic stimulus efforts have lagged.  As we face 
deadlines under our trade law at the end of this month, we need to make 
solid progress on the economic agenda.  We have been urging Japan to 
open its markets, reduce its excessive global surplus, and deregulate 
its economy.  This will benefit the world, and the U.S.  But most of 
all, it will benefit the Japanese people who, because of these barriers, 
now pay an average of 40% more for tradable goods and services than do 
the citizens of other industrialized countries.

The economic friction with Japan gets all the headlines, but no more--no 
area is more important for the future of our planet than the cooperation 
between our countries on regional and global issues.  Our record here is 
truly impressive.

I have already mentioned our cooperation on the North Korean nuclear 
issue.  The U.S. and Japan have also worked with ASEAN and other key 
countries to launch APEC, an organization of historic significance, an 
organization that is undertaking a wide variety of initiatives to 
further economic growth and integration in the Asia-Pacific region.

Beyond Asia, our two countries--the largest financial contributors to 
the UN--cooperate closely in reforming and strengthening international 
organizations, including Security Council expansion.  But the untold 
success story is the cooperation between the United States and Japan on 
so-called global issues.  Since the framework agreement, we have put 
into place major agreements on the fight against AIDS, the population 
problem, the environment, and cooperation in scientific research.

Japan has committed billions of   dollars under the Common Agenda to 
address these problems, and together we have been able to leverage our 
funding and our research to make a true difference in improving the 
global quality of life.

The U.S. and Japan--the world's two largest economies, the world's two 
biggest aid donors, and the world's two most advanced technological 
societies, have a unique opportunity--and obligation--to contribute to 
the solution of the globe's  most pressing problems, and that we are 
doing together.  One of the most important ways in which we can 
strengthen the relationship is to build the human connections which 
provide the repositories of trust and knowledge, enabling us to work 
together more effectively.  

Since the end of the war--under the Fulbright and other programs, the 
U.S. Government has helped thousands of Japanese to study in the U.S.  
These programs have proved to be among our wisest investments, and the 
graduates have gone on to become leaders in Japanese society and have 
formed a core of solid support for our overall relationship.  Today, 
there are more than 40,000 Japanese students studying at American 
institutions of higher learning, again building connections between a 
new generation of Japanese and Americans.  Unfortunately, only 1,300 
Americans are enrolled in Japanese universities, and it is one of my 
personal priorities during my tenure in Tokyo to try to find ways to get 
more Americans into Japanese institutions to learn from that society.  
We, in the United States, need to do a better job of developing Japanese 
language skills and strengthening the study of Japanese society in 
American schools and colleges.

I am particularly concerned about the increasing crime and violence in 
America that not only is a pressing domestic problem, but also has a 
great impact on the image of American society in Japan and around the 
world.  I want to stop here for just a minute.  This problem looks 
different in many respects from Tokyo than it does from Washington or 
from Minneapolis.  Crime is a serious issue, and we know it.  But from 
that vantage point--and I suspect from elsewhere around the world--this 
spectacle of the wanton availability of guns, the soaring number of 
murders and violence, the lack of safety in the streets, really causes 
them to question whether we are falling apart.  Since I have been there, 
two Japanese students were killed in a parking lot in Los Angeles.  Just 
before I came over, a young student was killed doing a Halloween stunt 
in Louisiana,  and another was shot and injured in Denver.

When you meet with young Japanese they are attracted by the United 
States.  They want to come to the United States, go to school and so on, 
but they fear for their lives and their safety.  As a young man, I 
remember when America's failure to eliminate discrimination undermined 
America's capacity for effective international leadership, particularly 
in competition with the Soviet Union,  because every time we wanted to 
do something, they would say, "Oh, yeah, what about how you deal with 
your blacks in America?"  We had to deal with that problem to eliminate 
discrimination before they would listen to the rest of our message.  We 
did that, and I think there was a change. 

I believe in some ways, the impact of crime, violence, and the 
availability of guns in America is starting to cut across the American 
message in other ways as well.  It is not just a domestic issue; it is 
really, in a sense, an international issue as well.  As Americans, we 
simply have to deal with it.

My message is simple:  The U.S. and Japan cannot build the kind of world 
we want for our grandchildren unless our two countries cooperate across 
the full range of issues we face.  The foundation of this cooperation 
has been carefully built up over the past 50 years and remains solid, 
with the leadership in both countries committed to enhancing our ties.  
But with the end of the Cold War and the persistence of imbalances in 
our economic relationship, there are new strains that can, over time, 
weaken public support.  We cannot allow this to happen.

It is essential that American and Japanese leaders maintain and 
strengthen our security ties that remain the key to stability in East 
Asia, to resolve outstanding trade issues for our mutual economic 
benefit, to enhance our regional and global cooperation, and to continue 
to build the human connections between our societies that are so 
necessary to the future.  If we build and strengthen this relationship, 
I cannot think of a better gift for our grandchildren.  (###)


ARTICLE 5:

Civil and Political Rights In the United States
John Shattuck, Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and 
Labor
Introduction to a report to the UN Human Rights Committee, September 13, 
1994

I am pleased to introduce the initial report prepared by the United 
States Government concerning its compliance with the International 
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  The report was submitted in 
July to the UN Human Rights Committee established by the Covenant.  This 
is the first report submitted by the United States in accordance with 
its obligations under an international human rights treaty.  Written to 
UN specifications and prepared through the collaborative efforts of the 
U.S. Departments of State, Justice, and other executive branch 
departments and agencies with input from non-governmental organizations 
and concerned individuals, it represents a government-wide commitment to 
creative interaction with the emerging global framework of international 
human rights law.  It is meant to offer to the international community a 
sweeping picture of human rights observance in the United States and the 
legal and political system within which those rights have evolved and 
are protected.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was concluded 
in 1966, entered into force 10 years later, in 1976, and was ratified by 
the United States in 1992.  Work on this report began shortly after 
ratification.  A total of 127 countries have, to date, become party to 
the treaty.  Together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 
the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, it 
represents the most complete and authoritative articulation of 
international human rights law that has emerged in the years following 
World War II.

The antecedents of contemporary human rights law stretch far back into 
history to natural law traditions, the ethical teachings of the world's 
great religions--both East and West--Greco-Roman law, and the pioneering 
philosophical works of Hugo Grotius and John Locke.  The concept of 
universal rights developed by 18th- century political theorists 
nourished international law as it also set the stage for American 
constitutionalism.  Indeed, international human rights law and the 
constitutional law of the United States are, at bottom, profoundly 
related--both seek to limit the authority of states to interfere with 
the inalienable rights of all individuals, without discrimination.

The first major articulations of international human rights law took 
place after World War I around the creation of the ill-fated League of 
Nations, its system for the protection of minorities, and the more 
successful International Labor Organization.

It was, however, the horrific experiences of mid-century totalitarianism 
and World War II that spurred the victorious Allied Powers to try to 
inscribe into international law the larger goals that had emerged during 
the war, such as President Roosevelt's Four Freedoms.  The Nuremberg 
trials--in which the vanquished Nazi leaders were publicly tried, 
convicted, and sentenced according to the principles of international 
law--represented an attempt to fashion a new international order which 
would work to protect human dignity and, in some measure, redeem the 
terrible sufferings of the victims of totalitarianism.

The capstone of these efforts was the creation of the United Nations and 
the adoption of its Charter, the promulgation of the Universal 
Declaration of Human Rights, and the launching of the efforts that 
resulted in the two major covenants on international human rights.

While the League had focused on the rights of minority groups to self-
determination, the UN Charter was all-embracing, making it the legal as 
well as the political responsibility of all member states to protect and 
promote the human rights and fundamental freedoms of their people.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted unanimously by the UN 
General Assembly in 1948, represented an authoritative articulation of 
the rights that member states are generally obliged to protect and 
promote under the UN Charter.  The declaration synthesized the two 
categories of human rights that have emerged in international legal 
discourse--civil and political rights on the one hand and economic, 
social, and cultural rights on the other.  It has remained to the 
international community to sift out these distinct though related 
elements in order to create workable instruments of international law.

Human rights have come to be recognized as the universal birthright of 
every man, woman, and child on this planet.  This faith in inalienable 
human dignity rests at the core of the international law of human 
rights; it has many different sources and has been articulated over time 
in different ways.  Indeed, its commanding power rests in no small 
measure on the varied nature of its sources; it is not anchored in any 
one philosophical, religious, or ideological foundation.  The Universal 
Declaration achieved inclusiveness precisely because it did not lodge 
these timeless principles in any specific and thus, inevitably, 
debatable and partial political program.

The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contributes to the promotion 
of international human rights by codifying many of the principles we, in 
the United States, hold dear--political freedom; self-determination; 
freedom of speech, opinion, expression, association, and religion; and 
protection of the family against governmental intrusion.  The 
unfortunate fact that these principles are disregarded in many countries 
in no way diminishes their commanding authority.

The United States as a nation was founded on the principle of 
inalienable individual rights.  The history of this country is in many 
ways the story of an ongoing struggle to fulfill the promise of that 
conception of rights, a struggle to overcome old and new injustices in 
our own democracy that continues today.  As part of that struggle, the 
United States is also firmly committed to promoting respect for human 
rights and fundamental freedoms around the globe.  As this report shows, 
U.S. law provides extensive protection against human rights abuses by 
government authorities.  

Under the U.S. Constitution, government authority is distributed and 
diffused through the separation of powers between the three branches of 
government.  From the beginning of this nation's history, the United 
States Supreme Court has exercised the power of judicial review to check 
unconstitutional action by the executive and legislative branches.  
Freedoms of speech and religion are protected by law, police power is 
subject to significant constitutional limitations, and America's 
political leadership at all levels is held accountable to its citizens.

Our Constitution laid out a blueprint for the interpretation and 
realization of the idea of civil and political rights and freedoms, but 
it has taken the labors of generations of citizens from all parts of our 
society to build the institutions which carry the promise of these 
rights and freedoms.  This process has unfolded over more than two 
centuries, through many chapters of history--some noble and others dark-
-and the task continues to this day.    

Over the course of its history, America has experienced egregious human 
rights violations in this ongoing American struggle for justice, such as 
the enslavement and disenfranchisement of African Americans and the 
virtual destruction of many Native American civilizations.

The profound injustices visited on African Americans were only partially 
erased after the Civil War (1861-65), and then, a century later, by the 
civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s--a movement that combined 
heroic leadership with grassroots organizing and dogged legal marches 
through courthouses and legislatures, a movement that helped shape the 
interpretation and implementation of constitutional law to ensure that 
human rights could be respected in practice. 

Those efforts to undo the bitter legacy of slavery continue today.  The 
lessons learned from our nation's unfinished battle with racial 
discrimination can be shared with other members of the international 
community.  Simply put, our national experience demonstrates that legal 
guarantees of human rights are a prerequisite to social progress, not 
the other way around.

Native Americans have suffered a fate similar to that of many indigenous 
civilizations--destruction and displacement of their cultures and 
societies.  The lessons of those injustices and the responsibilities 
with which the people of the United States are charged as a result are 
also central legacies of American history.

The members of other minority groups have suffered injustices in the 
United States.  The United States is largely a nation of immigrants. We 
continue to draw wave after wave of men and women from around the world 
seeking a better life, with annual immigration now surpassing 900,000.  
However, immigrants to our shores--like immigrants everywhere--have 
often met with discrimination and resistance that have deepened the 
personal dislocations of migration.  The openness of our society has 
permitted, with time, mobility and release from poverty and 
marginalization.  In the process, immigrant groups themselves have 
deeply enriched our national identity, as the 19th century's notion of a 
"melting pot" of assimilation has gradually given way to a broader 
vision of pluralism.

The ongoing struggle for full realization of the rights of women is a 
central feature of the human rights process in America.  Women did not 
have the vote in the United States until 1920, a century and a half 
after the founding of the republic.  With growing strength, women have 
moved to claim their equal place in the political, economic, and social 
life of the country.  Efforts are underway in all sectors of American 
life to broaden women's opportunities and end remaining discrimination.

There are many other human rights challenges in our nation's historical 
and contemporary experience.  As we have continued to find new 
challenges, we have worked with varying degrees of success to strengthen 
the capacity of our institutions to address them.

As an open democracy, the United States tends to address its most 
difficult and divisive human rights issues in public and in the courts.  
The result is a number of long-standing human rights issues with a large 
body of case law, as well as many newer issues on which legal ground is 
being broken.  Among the former are such areas as freedom of religion, 
immigrants and refugees, race discrimination, and freedom of expression.  
More recent areas of concern include gender discrimination, the death 
penalty, abortion, police brutality, and language rights.

As a matter of domestic law, treaties as well as statutes must conform 
to the requirements of the Constitution.  No treaty provision will be 
given effect as U.S. law if it conflicts with the Constitution.  In the 
case of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the U.S. 
Constitution offers greater protection of free speech than does the 
Covenant. On those and some other provisions of the Covenant, the United 
States has recorded its understanding of a particular provision or made 
a declaration of how it intends to apply that provision or undertaking.

It is of little use to proclaim principles of human rights protection at 
the international level unless they can be meaningfully realized and 
enforced   domestically.  In the words of the renowned human rights and 
constitutional scholar Louis Henkin,

     The international law of human rights parallels and supplements 
national law . . . but it does not replace, and   indeed depends on, 
national institutions.

Thus, it is up to the various organs of federal, state, and local 
government here in the United States to bring those international 
commitments to fruition.

As observers have noted ever since the great French thinker and 
statesman Alexis de Tocqueville penned his classic Democracy in America 
in the 1830s, the United States possesses a strikingly robust legal and 
judicial system, and it is in and through that system that legal 
protection for human rights has taken shape.  This report of the United 
States to the UN Human Rights Committee thus focuses on the law of human 
rights protection as it has evolved in the distinctive mix of statutory 
and common law that exists at the federal level.

The broad conception of rights that has evolved in the course of U.S. 
history has come to serve as the basis for much of international human 
rights law and, ironically but fittingly, to set the standard by which 
the United States is judged by other members of the international 
community.

While the state of human rights protection in the United States has 
advanced significantly over the years, many challenges and problems 
remain.  The elaborate structure of human rights law set forth in this 
report emerged in the course of a long and painful struggle in the 
United States in a sweeping historical narrative displaying cruelty and 
injustice alongside vision and courage.  It has been a distinguishing 
characteristic of our political and legal system to weave the constant 
possibility of change into the fabric of constitutional democracy.

In publishing this report and giving it wide domestic distribution, we 
hope to enhance public awareness of human rights protection and foster 
human rights education in the United States.  We hope it will find a 
wide readership in schools and universities, among civic and political 
groups, and with concerned citizens.  We will be issuing subsequent 
reports under this covenant and also under additional human rights 
agreements to which the United States is a party.

Here, as elsewhere, the realization of universal human rights is a work 
in progress.  While the U.S. system has done much over time to advance 
and champion human rights--as this report demonstrates--much remains to 
be done.  The U.S. Government welcomes the spirited dialogue and debate 
on the advancement of human rights in the United States and throughout 
the global community that is taking shape on the horizon of the 21st 
century.  

Copies of the report may be obtained from the Superintendent of 
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, at a cost of $15.  The GPO 
stock number is:  044-000-02417-9.  Call 202-512-1800 for further 
ordering information.  The report is also available on GPO's Federal 
Bulletin Board Service by dialing 202-512-1387.  (###)


ARTICLE 6

Department Statements

Partnership for Peace Exercise In Poland
Statement by Department Spokesman Michael McCurry, Washington, DC, 
September 12, 1994.

Cooperative Bridge 94, which takes place September 12-16 in Poland, is 
the first Partnership for Peace exercise and a historic event.  For the 
first time, NATO forces are joining in an exercise with former 
adversaries on the territory of a former Warsaw Pact country.  
Cooperative Bridge 94 brings together NATO troops from Denmark, Germany, 
Italy, Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States with 
troops from partner countries Poland, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, 
Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Ukraine at the Biedrusko training area 
in western Poland.  The training will include conducting patrols, 
operating check points, weapons familiarization, and, on the final day, 
an airdrop of humanitarian supplies.

The President's Partnership for Peace initiative, agreed to last January 
at the NATO summit in Brussels, is off to a very strong start with NATO 
and its partners beginning to build new structures for security and 
stability in Europe.  Cooperative Bridge 94 is the first of three 
Partnership exercises this year.  Cooperative Venture 94, September 28-
October 7, is a maritime exercise in the North Sea, and Cooperative 
Spirit 94 in Netherlands, October 24-28, is the second field exercise.  
The United States will participate in each of these exercises.  There 
will also be a robust program of exercises in 1995.  These exercises are 
enhancing the ability of Partnership countries to operate with NATO in 
such areas as peace-keeping, search and rescue, and humanitarian 
assistance.  


Sudan's Support for International Terrorism
Statement by Department Spokesman Michael McCurry, Washington, DC, 
September 15, 1994.

The Government of Sudan has repeatedly expressed its desire to engage 
the United States in dialogue on the issues that separate us.  In 
particular, Khartoum has asked that we provide evidence of its support 
for international terrorism.  In response to those requests, Ambassador 
Donald Petterson, on the instructions of the U.S. Government, recently 
gave the Government of Sudan specific information about a facility which 
has been and, we believe, continues to be used to train non-Sudanese 
extremists.  Training for these individuals has included small arms 
familiarization.

We gave this information to Khartoum as a sample of the evidence we have 
that the Government of Sudan supports international terrorism.  As we 
stated at the time of the August 1993 terrorism list decision, we 
believe that reports of training in Sudan of militant extremists who 
commit acts of terrorism in neighboring countries are credible.  In 
addition, the available evidence indicates that Sudan allows the use of 
its territory as sanctuary for terrorist groups such as the Abu Nidal 
Organization, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestine Islamic Jihad.  We believe 
safehouses and other support facilities for radical groups exist in 
Sudan with the approval of the Sudanese Government.

It is unfortunate that Sudanese Government officials have chosen to 
respond to our information, which they requested from us, by rejecting 
it out of hand.  Khartoum's reaction, in publicizing the information in 
the press and using the government-controlled media to attempt to 
discredit and insult Ambassador Donald Petterson, is unhelpful and 
raises serious questions about Sudan's willingness to engage in a 
genuine dialogue on terrorism.

The United States hopes that the Sudanese Government will take steps to 
end its support for international terrorism and will engage Ambassador 
Petterson and other U.S. Government officials in constructive dialogue 
on those issues which are of concern to us.  (###)


ARTICLE 7:

Treaty Actions

Multilateral

Copyrights
Berne convention for the protection of literary and artistic works of 
Sept. 9, 1886, revised at Paris July 24, 1971 and amended in 1979.  
Entered into force for the U.S. Mar. 1, 1989.  [Senate] Treaty Doc. 99-
27.
Accession:  Estonia, July 26, 1994; Guyana, July 25, 1994.

Health
Amendment of Art. 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the World
Health Organization as amended.  Done at Geneva May 12, 1986.
Acceptances:  Comoros, July 29, 1994; Guatemala, July 21, 1994.
Entered into force:  July 11, 1994.

Judicial
Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction.  Done 
at The Hague Oct. 25, 1980.  Entered into force Dec. 1, 1983; for the 
U.S. July 1, 1988.  TIAS 11670.
Accession:  Saint Kitts and Nevis, May 31, 1994.

Property 
Convention of Paris for the protection of industrial property of Mar. 
20, 1883, as revised.  Done at Stockholm July 14, 1967.  Entered into 
force May 19, 1970; for the U.S. Aug. 25, 1973.  TIAS 6923, 7727; 24 UST 
2140.
Accession:  Guyana, July 25, 1994.

Convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization.  
Done at Stockholm July 14, 1967.  Entered into force Apr. 26, 1970; for 
the U.S. Aug. 25, 1970.  TIAS 6932; 21 UST 1749.
Accession:  Andorra, July 28, 1994; Guyana, July 25, 1994.

Scientific Cooperation
Agreement to establish a science and technology center in Ukraine.  Done 
at Kiev Oct. 25, 1993.  Entered into force:  July 16, 1994.  World 
Heritage Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and 
natural heritage.  Done at Paris Nov. 23, 1972.  Entered into force Dec. 
17, 1975.  TIAS 8226; 27 UST 37.
Acceptance:  Kazakhstan, Apr. 29, 1994.

Bilateral

Algeria
International express mail agreement, with detailed regulations.  Signed 
at Algiers and Washington June 25 and July 26, 1994.  Entered into force 
Sept. 1, 1994.

Angola 
Investment incentive agreement.  Signed at Luanda July 27, 1994.  Enters 
into force on date on which Angola notifies the United States that all 
legal requirements have been fulfilled.

Costa Rica 
Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling or refinancing of 
certain debts owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the United States 
Government and its agencies, with annexes.  Signed at San Jose Nov. 22, 
1993.  Entered into force Aug. 10, 1994.

Estonia 
Agreement on science and technology cooperation, with annex.  Signed at 
Riga July 6, 1994.  Entered into force July 6, 1994.

Guyana
International express mail agreement, with detailed regulations.  Signed 
at Georgetown and Washington June 22 and July 16, 1994.  Enters into 
force Nov. 1, 1994.

Israel 
Agreement concerning counter-terrorism research and development, with 
annex.  Signed at Washington June 14, 1994.  Entered into force June 14, 
1994. 

Jamaica 
Memorandum of understanding for the establishment within the Jamaican 
territorial sea and internal waters of a facility to process nationals 
of Haiti seeking refuge within or entry to the United States of America.  
Signed at Kingston June 2, 1994.  Entered into force June 2, 1994. 

Kenya 
Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling of certain debts 
owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the U.S. Government and its 
agency, with annexes.  Signed at Nairobi July 1, 1994.  Entered into 
force Aug. 26, 1994.

Korea 
Memorandum of understanding on cooperation in the fields of mining, 
mineral processing, materials, science, and related environmental 
technology.  Signed at Taejon May 3, 1994.  Entered into force May 3, 
1994. 

Latvia 
Agreement on science and technology cooperation, with annex.  Signed at 
Riga July 6, 1994.  Entered into force July 6, 1994.

Lithuania 
Agreement on science and technology cooperation, with annex.  Signed at 
Riga July 6, 1994.  Entered into force July 6, 1994.

Namibia 
Agreement relating to the employment of dependents of official 
government employees.  Effected by exchange of notes at Windhoek Jan. 24 
and June 8, 1994.  Entered into force June 8, 1994.

Niger 
Agreement regarding the consolidation, reduction, and rescheduling of 
certain debts owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the United States 
Government and its agencies, with annexes.  Signed at Niamey July 29, 
1994.  Entered into force Aug. 29, 1994.

Poland 
Memorandum of understanding on cooperation in the field of mining and 
related environmental technology.  Signed at Katowice June 6, 1994.  
Entered into force June 6, 1994. 

Russia
Memorandum of understanding for the establishment of the Russian-
American oil and gas technology center in Tyumen City, with annex.  
Signed at Washington and Tyumen City June 23 and July 26, 1994.  Entered 
into force July 26, 1994.

Memorandum of understanding on cooperation in the field of forestry, 
with annex.  Signed at Washington May 13, 1994.  Entered into force May 
13, 1994. 

Senegal
Agreement regarding the consolidation, reduction, and rescheduling of 
certain debts owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the United States 
Government and its agencies, with annexes.  Signed at Dakar July 28, 
1994.  Enters into force following signature and receipt by Senegal of 
written notice from the U.S. that all necessary domestic legal 
requirements have been fulfilled. 

Slovakia
International express mail agreement, with detailed regulations.  Signed 
at Bratislava and Washington June 24 and 27, 1994.  Entered into force 
Aug. 1, 1994. 

United Kingdom--Turks and Caicos Islands
Memorandum of understanding to establish in the Turks and Caicos Islands 
a processing facility to determine the refugee status of boat people 
from Haiti, with related letter.  Signed at Grand Turk June 18, 1994.  
Entered into force June 18, 1994.

United Kingdom 
Memorandum of understanding for the development testing, qualification 
testing, and unconstrained enclosure development for the intercooled 
recuperated (ICR) gas turbine engine, with annex.  Signed at Washington 
June 21, 1994.  Entered into force June 21, 1994. 

United Nations
Agreement amending the postal agreement of Mar. 28, 1951, as amended.  
Effected by exchange of letters at New York June 20 and Aug. 8, 1994.  
Entered into force Aug. 8, 1994.  

(###)

[END OF DISPATCH VOL. 5, NO. 38]

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. 8, 1999