U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH 
VOLUME 5, NUMBER 39, SEPTEMBER 26, 1994 
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS 
 
ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE: 
 
1.  Building a Secure Future on the Foundation of Democracy--
President Clinton 
2.  Report on Progress Concerning Emigration Laws and Policies 
of the Russian Federation--President Clinton 
3.  Fact Sheet:  U.S. Policy on a Landmine Control Regime 
4.  The United States and the Global Economy--Joan E. Spero 
5.  Recent Developments in the Middle East--Robert H. 
Pelletreau 
6.  The Summit of the Americas:  Creating An Architecture for 
Inter-American Relations--Richard E. Feinberg 
7.  Fact Sheet:  The Summit of the Americas  
 
 
ARTICLE 1: 
 
Building a Secure Future on the Foundation of Democracy 
President Clinton 
Address to the UN General Assembly, New York City, September 
26, 1994 
 
Mr.  President, Mr.  Secretary General, distinguished delegates:  First, let me congratulate you, Mr. President, on  your election as President of the 49th General Assembly.  The  American people look forward to working with you to celebrate the United Nations' 50th anniversary. 
 
We meet today in a time of great hope and change.  The end of 
the Cold War and the explosion of technology and trade and 
enterprise have given people the world over new opportunities 
to live up to their dreams and their God-given potential.  This 
is an age of hope. 
 
Yet, in this new world, we face a contest as old as history--a 
struggle between freedom and tyranny, between tolerance and 
bigotry, between knowledge and ignorance, and between openness 
and isolation.  It is a fight between those who would build 
free societies governed by laws and those who would impose 
their will by force.  Our struggle today, in a world more high-
tech, more fast-moving, more chaotically diverse than ever, is 
the age-old fight between hope and fear. 
 
Three times in this century--from the trenches of Somme to the 
island of Iwo Jima to the shattered wall of Berlin--the forces 
of hope were victorious.  But the victors of World War I 
squandered their triumph when they turned inward, bringing on a 
global depression and allowing fascism to rise and igniting 
global war. 
 
After World War II, the Allies learned the lessons of the past.  
In the face of a new totalitarian threat and the nuclear 
menace, great nations did not walk away from the challenge of 
the moment.  Instead, they chose to reach out, to rebuild, and 
to lead.  They chose to create the United Nations, and they 
left us a world stronger, safer, and freer. 
 
Our generation has a difficult task:   The Cold War is over; we 
must secure the peace.  It falls to us to avoid the complacency 
that followed World War I without the spur of the imminent 
threat to our security that followed World War II.  We must 
ensure that those who fought and found the courage to end the 
Cold War--those from both East and West who love freedom--did 
not labor in vain. 
 
Our sacred mission is to build a new world for our children--
more democratic, more prosperous, and more free of ancient 
hatreds and modern means of destruction.  That is no easy 
challenge, but we accept it with confidence.  After all, the 
walls that once divided nations in this very chamber have come 
down.  More nations have chosen democracy than ever before; 
more have chosen free markets and economic justice; more have 
embraced the values of tolerance and liberty and civil society 
that allow us all to make the most of our life. 
 
But while the ideals of democracy and free markets are 
ascendant, they are surely not the whole story.  Terrible 
examples of chaos, repression, and tyranny also mark our times.  
The 20th century proved that the forces of freedom and 
democracy can endure against great odds.  Our job is to see 
that in the 21st century these forces triumph. 
 
The dangers we face are less stark and more diffuse than those 
of the Cold War, but they are still formidable--the ethnic 
conflicts that drive millions from their homes; the despots 
ready to repress their own people or conquer their neighbors; 
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; the 
terrorists wielding their deadly arms; the criminal syndicates 
selling those arms or drugs or infiltrating the very 
institutions of a fragile democracy; a global economy that 
offers great promise but also deep insecurity and, in many 
places, declining opportunity; diseases like AIDS that threaten 
to decimate nations; the combined dangers of population 
explosion and economic decline, which prompted the world 
community to reach the remarkable consensus at the Cairo 
Conference; global and local environmental threats that demand 
that sustainable development becomes a part of the lives of 
people all around the world; and finally, within many of our 
nations, high rates of drug abuse and crime and family 
breakdown with all their terrible consequences.  These are the 
dangers we face today. 
 
We must address these threats to our future.  Thankfully, the 
end of the Cold War gives us a chance to address them together.  
In our efforts, different nations may be active in different 
situations in different ways.  But their purposes must be 
consistent with freedom and their practices consistent with 
international law. 
 
Each nation will bring to our common task its own particular 
strengths--economic, political, or military.  Of course, the 
first duty of every member of the United Nations is to its own 
citizens--to their security, their welfare, and their 
interests.  As President of the United States, my first duty is 
to the citizens of my country.  When our national security 
interests are threatened, we will act with others when we can, 
but alone if we must.  We will use diplomacy when we can, but 
force if we must. 
 
The United States recognizes that we also have a special 
responsibility in these common endeavors that we are taking--
the responsibility that goes along with great power and also 
with our long history of democracy and freedom.  But we seek to 
fulfill that responsibility in cooperation with other nations.  
Working together increases the impact and the legitimacy of 
each of our actions, and sharing the burdens lessens everyone's 
load.  The United States has no desire to be the world's 
policeman, but we will do what we can to help civil societies 
emerge from the ashes of repression, to sustain fragile 
democracies, and to add more free markets to the world--and, of 
course, to restrain the destructive forces that threaten us 
all. 
 
In every corner of the globe, from South Africa to Asia, from 
Central and Eastern Europe to the Middle East and Latin 
America--and now to a small island in the Caribbean--ordinary 
citizens are striving to build their own future.  Promoting 
their cause is our generation's great opportunity, and we must 
do it together. 
 
A coalition for democracy--it's good for America.  Democracies, 
after all, are more likely to be stable, less likely to wage 
war.  They strengthen civil society.  They can provide people 
with the economic and political opportunities to build their 
future in their own homes rather than fleeing their borders.  
Our efforts to help build more democracies will make us all 
more secure, more prosperous, and more successful as we try to 
make this era of terrific change our friend and not our enemy. 
 
In our nation, as in all of your nations, there are many people 
who are understandably reluctant to undertake these efforts 
because often the distances are great or the cultures are 
different.  There are good reasons for the caution that people 
feel.  Often the chances of success or the costs are unclear.  
And, of course, in every common endeavor there is always the 
potential for failure and often the risk of loss of life.  And 
yet our people--as we have seen in the remarkable global 
response to the terrible crisis in Rwanda--genuinely want to 
help their neighbors around the world and want to make some 
effort in our common cause. 
 
We have seen that progress can be made as well.  The problem is 
deciding when we must respond and how we shall overcome our 
reluctance.  This will never be easy; there are no simple 
formulas.  All of us will make these decisions, in part, based 
on the distance of the problem from our shores or the interests 
of our nation or the difference we think we can make or the 
cost required or the threat to our own citizens in the 
endeavor.  Hard questions will remain and cannot be erased by 
some simple formula. 
 
But we should have the confidence that these efforts can 
succeed, whether they are efforts to keep people alive in the 
face of terrible tragedy, as in Rwanda; or are efforts to avert 
a tragedy, as in the Horn of Africa; or are efforts to support 
processes that are literally changing the future of millions.  
History is on our side. 
 
We should have confidence about this.  Look at the march of 
freedom we have seen in just the last year alone.  Who, a 
decade ago, would have dared predict the startling changes in 
South Africa, in the Middle East, in Ireland; the stunning 
triumph of democracy and majority rule; the redemption of the 
purpose of Nelson Mandela's life; the brave efforts of Israel 
and its Arab neighbors to build bridges of peace between their 
peoples; or the earnest search by the people of Northern 
Ireland and Great Britain and Ireland to end centuries of 
division and decades of terror.  In each case, credit belongs 
to those nations' leaders and their courageous people.  But in 
each instance, the United States and other nations were 
privileged to help in these causes. 
 
The growth of cooperation between the United States and the 
Russian Federation also should give us all great cause for 
confidence.  This is a partnership that is rooted in democracy, 
a partnership that is working, a partnership of not complete 
agreement but genuine mutual respect. 
 
After so many years of nuclear terror, our two nations are 
taking dramatic steps to ease tensions around the world.  For 
the first time since World War II, foreign troops do not occupy 
the nations of Central and Eastern Europe; the Baltic nations 
are free.  Russian and American missiles no longer target each 
other's people.  Three of the four nuclear members of the 
former Soviet Union have agreed to remove all nuclear weapons 
from their soil.  And we are working on agreements to halt 
production of fissile materials for nuclear explosives, to make 
dismantling of nuclear warheads transparent and irreversible, 
and to further reduce our nuclear weapons and delivery 
vehicles. 
 
The United States and Russia also recognize that we must 
cooperate to control the emerging danger of terrorists who 
traffic in nuclear material.  To secure nuclear materials at 
their sources, we have agreed with Russia to stop plutonium 
production by the year 2000, to construct a storage facility 
for fissile materials and buy up stocks of weapons-grade fuel, 
and to combat the criminals who are trying to smuggle materials 
for nuclear explosives. 
 
Our two nations and Germany have increased cooperation and 
engaged in joint anti-terrorist training.  Soon, under the 
leadership of our Federal Bureau of Investigation, we will open 
a law enforcement training academy in Europe, where police will 
learn how to combat more effectively trafficking of nuclear-
weapon components as well as the drug trade, organized crime, 
and money laundering. 
 
The United States also will advance a wide ranging non-
proliferation agenda:  a global convention to halt production 
of fissile materials; efforts to curb North Korea's nuclear 
ambitions; transparent procedures for dismantling nuclear 
warheads; and our work to ban testing and extend the nuclear 
Non-Proliferation Treaty. 
 
And today, I am proposing a first step toward the eventual 
elimination of a less visible but still deadly threat:   the 
world's 85 million anti-personnel land mines--one for every 50 
people on the face of the earth.  I ask all nations to join 
with us and conclude an agreement to reduce the number and 
availability of those mines.  Ridding the world of those often 
hidden weapons will help save the lives of tens of thousands of 
men and women and innocent children in the years to come. 
 
Our progress in the last year also provides confidence that in 
the post-Cold War years we can adapt and construct global 
institutions that will help provide security and increase 
economic growth throughout the world.  Since I spoke here last 
year, 22 nations have joined NATO's Partnership for Peace.  The 
first joint exercises have been conducted, helping to give 
Europe the chance to become a more unified continent in which 
democratic nations live in secure borders.  In Asia, security 
talks and economic cooperation will lead to further stability.  
By reducing nations' fears about their borders and allowing 
them to spend less on military defenses, our coalition for 
democracy can give nations in transition a better chance to 
offer new freedoms and opportunities to their own people. 
 
It is time that we think anew about the structure of this 
global economy as well--tearing down walls that separate 
nations, instead of hiding behind them.  At the Group of Seven 
meetings in Naples this year, we committed ourselves to this 
task of renewal--to examining the economic institutions that 
have served us so well in the past.  In the interest of shared 
prosperity, the United States actively promotes open markets.  
Though still in its infancy, the North American Free Trade 
Agreement has dramatically increased trade between the United 
States and Mexico and has produced in the United States alone 
an estimated 200,000 new jobs.  It offers a model to nations 
throughout the Americas on which we hope to build. 
 
And this week, I will send legislation to the Congress to 
implement the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the 
largest trade agreement in all of history.  GATT and its 
successor, the World Trade Organization, hold the promise for 
all of us of increased exports, higher wages, and improved 
living standards.  And in the months and years to come, we will 
work no less vigorously to extend the reach of open markets, 
starting with the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum and 
the Summit of the Americas later this year. 
 
Here, at the United Nations, we must develop a concrete plan to 
meet the challenges of the next 50 years, even as we celebrate 
the last 50 years.  I believe we should declare next year's 
50th anniversary not just a year of celebration but a year of 
renewal.  We call on the Secretary General to name a working 
group so that, by the time we meet next year, we will have a 
concrete action plan to revitalize the UN's obligations to 
address the security, economic, and political challenges ahead-
-obligations we must all be willing to assume. 
 
Our objectives should include ready, efficient, and capable UN 
peace-keeping forces.  I am happy to report that as I pledged 
to you last year--and thanks to the support in the United 
States Congress--$1.2 billion is now available from the United 
States for this critical account. 
 
We must also pledge to keep UN  reform moving forward, so that 
we do more with less.  And we must improve our ability to 
respond to urgent needs.  Let me suggest that it is time for 
the members of this Assembly to consider seriously President 
Menem's suggestion for the creation of a civilian, rapid 
response capability for humanitarian crises.   
 
And let us not lose sight of the special role that development 
and democracy can play in preventing conflicts once peace has 
been established.  Never before has the United Nations been in 
a better position to achieve the democratic goals of its 
founders.  The end of the Cold War has freed us from decades of 
paralyzing divisions, and we all know that multilateral 
cooperation is necessary to address the new threats we face. 
 
The efforts we have taken together in Haiti are a prime 
example.  Under the sponsorship of the United Nations, American 
troops--now being joined by the personnel of an ever-growing, 
international coalition of over two dozen nations--are giving 
the people of Haiti their chance at freedom.  Creative 
diplomacy, the influence of economic power, the credible threat 
of military force--all have contributed to this moment of 
opportunity. 
 
Essential civil order will be restored.  Human rights 
violations will be curbed.  The first refugees are returning 
within hours on this very day.  The military leaders will step 
down; the democratic government will be restored; President 
Aristide will return.  The multinational mission will turn its 
responsibilities over to the United Nations mission, which will 
remain in Haiti throughout 1995 until a new president is 
elected.  During this time, a multinational development effort 
will make available more than $1 billion to begin helping the 
Haitians rebuild their country. 
 
In the spirit of reconciliation and reconstruction, President 
Aristide called yesterday for the immediate easing of sanctions 
so that the work of rebuilding can begin immediately.  
Accordingly, I intend to act expeditiously, within Security 
Council Resolutions 917 and 940, to enable us to restore health 
care, water, and electrical services; supply construction 
materials for humanitarian efforts; and provide communications, 
agricultural, and educational materials. 
 
Today, I am also announcing that the United States will suspend 
all unilateral sanctions against Haiti except those that affect 
the military leaders and their immediate supporters.  This 
includes regularly scheduled air flights--when the air support 
becomes available--financial transactions, and travel 
restrictions.  I urge all other nations to do the same. 
 
In Haiti, the United States has demonstrated that it would lead 
a multinational force when our interests are plain, when the 
cause is right, when the mission is achievable, and the nations 
of the world stand with us.  But Haiti's people will have to 
muster the strength and the patience to travel the road of 
freedom.  They have to do this for themselves.  Every new 
democratic nation is fragile, but we will see the day when the 
people of Haiti fulfill their aspirations for liberty and when 
they are once again making genuine economic progress. 
 
United Nations actions in Bosnia, as in Haiti, demonstrate that 
progress can be made when a coalition backs up diplomacy with 
military power.  For the first time ever, NATO has taken, since 
we met last year, military actions beyond the territory of its 
members.  The threat of NATO air power helped  establish the 
exclusion zone around Sarajevo and end the Bosnian Serbs' 
spring offensive against Gorazde.  And NATO's February 
ultimatum boosted our mediation efforts which helped end the 
war between the Bosnian Government and the Bosnian Croats and 
forged a federation between those two communities. 
 
The situation in Bosnia, to that extent, has improved.  But in 
recent weeks, the situation around Sarajevo has deteriorated 
substantially, and Sarajevo once again faces the prospect of 
strangulation.  A new resolve by the United Nations to enforce 
its resolutions is now necessary to save Sarajevo.  And NATO 
stands ready to act. 
 
The situation in Bosnia is yet another reminder of the greatest 
irony of this century we are leaving--this century so full of 
hope and opportunity and achievement also has been an age of 
deep destruction and despair.  We cannot help but remember the 
millions who gave their lives during two world wars and the 
half-century struggle by men and women in the East and West who 
ultimately prevailed in the name of freedom.  But we must also 
think of our children and the world we will leave them in the 
21st century. 
 
History has given us a very rare opportunity--the chance to 
build on the greatest legacy of this century without reliving 
its darkest moments.  We have shown that we can carry forward 
humanity's ancient quest for freedom:   to build a world where 
democracy knows no borders, but where nations know their 
borders will always be secure--a world that gives all people 
the chance to realize their potential and to live out their 
dreams.  Thank you very much.  (###) 
 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 2: 
 
Report on Progress Concerning Emigration Laws and Policies of 
the Russian Federation 
President Clinton--Letter and Report to Congress 
 
Letter to Congress 
 
Text of a transmittal letter from the President to the 
Congress, September 21, 1994. 
 
To the Congress of the United States: 
 
I hereby transmit a report concerning the emigration laws and 
policies of the Russian Federation as required by subsections 
402(b) and 409(b) of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended (the "Act").  I have determined that the Russian 
Federation is in full compliance with the criteria in 
subsections 402(a) and 409(a) of the Act.  As required by Title 
IV, I will provide the Congress with periodic reports regarding 
the Russian Federation's compliance with these emigration 
standards. 
 
 
William J. Clinton 
 
 
Report to Congress 
 
Pursuant to sections 402 and 409 of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended ("the Act"), I have determined that the Russian 
Federation is not in violation of paragraphs (1), (2), or (3) 
of subsections 402(a) and 409(a) of the Act.  My determination 
is attached and incorporated herein. 
 
All current information indicates that the emigration laws and 
practices of the Russian Federation satisfy the criteria laid 
out in subsections 402(a) and 409(a) of the Act in respect of 
all matters covered in those subsections. 
 
The Russian Constitution guarantees all Russian citizens the 
right to emigrate.  A new procedure governing citizens' travel 
abroad, in line with international standards, came into force 
in Russia on January 1, 1993.  The time for processing passport 
applications for permanent residents does not exceed 3 months. 
 
As of March 1994, there were 5,000 to 6,000 cases of people who 
had been refused passports over the preceding 12 months.  Of 
the 6,000 passports refused, only 180 were for intending 
emigrants.  Consistent with international legal standards, the 
Government of Russia has established a body to hear appeals of 
cases in which permission to emigrate is refused on the basis 
of access to state secrets.  This  Interdepartmental 
Commission, currently chaired by a Deputy Foreign Minister, has 
overturned over 100 refusals.  The Commission, which meets on a 
monthly basis, met last on August 30 and overturned eight 
passport refusals. 
 
The United States has consistently urged the Russian government 
to resolve so-called "poor relative" cases, in which permission 
to emigrate is refused on the basis of unresolved financial 
obligations to immediate relatives.  We have received 
encouraging reports that Russian courts have begun to hear 
these "poor relative" cases, and in one recent instance a court 
in St. Petersburg decided in favor of the applicant seeking to 
emigrate.  We will follow the progress of the Russian courts on 
this issue closely to determine if they provide an effective 
mechanism for resolving these cases. 
 
  As a result of such progress, tens of thousands of Russian 
citizens emigrate annually.  In 1993, the Russian Passport and 
Visa Service issued a total of 3 million passports for 
temporary travel abroad and 114,000 passports to emigrants.  
The number of cases on the listings of refuseniks maintained by 
the United States Government and American Jewish organizations 
has decreased from over 1,000 in the late 1980s to a much 
smaller number today.  Russian human rights groups, leaders of 
Jewish communities in Russia, and officials of third 
governments have told us repeatedly in recent months that 
freedom of emigration is a reality in Russia. 
 
Moreover, the Russian Government has made firm public 
statements against anti-Semitism.  During the January 1994 
Moscow summit, President Yeltsin joined me in condemning anti-
Semitism and all forms of ethnic and religious intolerance.  
This marked the first public denunciation of anti-Semitism by 
Moscow's top leader in Russian history.  Within hours of his 
arrival in the United States in June, Prime Minister 
Chernomyrdin met with American Jewish leaders at his official 
residence to hear their concerns about human rights and the 
treatment of Russian Jews.  He later visited the Holocaust 
Museum, an event which was widely reported in the Russian 
media. 
 
We recognize that statements by Russian leaders cannot by 
themselves eradicate the roots of intolerance.  But they 
constitute a crucial step forward toward that goal.  We commend 
Russian authorities at all levels for efforts they have made to 
discourage anti-democratic behavior and will continue to work 
with Russian officials to ensure such efforts continue and are 
strengthened.  
 
In addition to having made great progress in its emigration and 
human rights practices, the Russian Federation has close 
relations with the United States, and has demonstrated 
repeatedly its full commitment to the transition to a 
democratic, free market society. (###) 
 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 3: 
 
Fact Sheet:  U.S. Policy on a Landmine Control Regime 
Fact sheet released by the White House, Office of the Press 
Secretary, Washington, DC, September 26, 1994. 
 
Today at the UN General Assembly, President Clinton unveiled a 
new landmine control regime proposal designed to reduce the 
horrendous suffering caused by the illegal and indiscriminate 
use of anti-personnel landmines. 
 
People in 62 countries, mostly in the developing world, daily 
face the threat of being killed or maimed by one of the 
estimated 85 million landmines in place today.  Such mines 
claim an estimated 800 casualties each month, obstruct economic 
development, and keep refugees from returning to their 
homeland.  They will remain a threat to civilian populations 
for decades.  Moreover, the problem is becoming worse.  Over  1 
million more mines are emplaced each year. 
 
As part of a comprehensive strategy to address this problem, 
the President is proposing the negotiation of a multilateral 
landmine control regime.  Through a combination of export, 
production, and stockpiling restrictions, the regime will:  
reduce the overall availability of anti-personnel land-mines; 
reduce reliance on those types of anti-personnel landmines that 
cause the greatest danger to civilians; and reinforce the 
landmine use restrictions contained in the Convention on 
Conventional Weapons.  The regime poses as an ultimate 
objective the complete elimination of anti-personnel landmines. 
 
Until the proposed regime can be negotiated and put in place, 
the United States will continue to urge other countries to join 
in imposing unilateral moratoria on the export of all anti-
personnel landmines.  The United States is currently in the 
second year of a four-year moratorium. 
 
The United States also will continue its efforts to negotiate 
strengthened provisions for the protocol on landmine use in the 
Convention on Conventional Weapons and will work to assist 
mine-plagued countries in clearing mine fields after conflicts 
have ceased. (###) 
 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 4: 
 
The United States and the Global Economy 
Joan E. Spero 
Address by the Under Secretary for Economic, Business, and 
Agricultural Affairs at a town meeting on U.S. foreign policy, 
Charlotte, North Carolina, September 20, 1994 
 
Good evening.  It is a great pleasure to have this opportunity 
to talk to you at a "Town Meeting" on the United States and the 
world economy.  I am very impressed by this large turnout.  But 
I should not be surprised, because Charlotte is the economic 
and financial center of the Carolinas.  I don't need to 
convince you how important greater economic engagement in the 
world is to the American economy and to the well-being of the 
American people. 
 
I am also very pleased to have this opportunity to visit North 
Carolina in an official capacity.  I expect I will be seeing a 
lot of your state over the next four years, now that my son has 
begun his freshman year at Duke. 
 
Today, I would like to talk about the international economic 
policy of the Clinton Administration and what we at the State 
Department are doing to bring U.S. economic interests to the 
forefront of our foreign policy.  I would like to talk 
specifically about the importance of the Uruguay Round to 
America's future.  And then I would like to listen to you--
because that's what a town meeting is all about. 
 
Economics Matters 
 
During the Cold War, we took our nation's economic interests 
for granted.  Our economic strength was there to be used--to 
pay for our military; to provide assistance for other 
countries, often for political and not economic reasons; or to 
be used as leverage to attain non-economic goals when the 
Soviet Union or others misbehaved.  But for the United States 
to pursue its economic interests abroad, to care about jobs and 
exports for its people and companies, to demand that other 
countries grant us the same access to their markets in trade 
and investment that we give to ours--all this was seen as 
secondary or even unworthy for a great nation like ours. 
 
Under the Clinton Administration, this has changed because the 
world has changed.  Although the Cold War is over, security 
issues remain important--just think of North Korea's nuclear 
program.  But increasingly, economics is coming to the 
forefront.  It is almost a cliche now to say that our future 
will be described in economic terms.  Today we face a world 
filled with economic opportunity but also one filled with 
economic challenges.  We live in a world where markets 
increasingly are global and our market is increasingly 
interdependent.  We may be the world's only political and 
military superpower, but when it comes to economic and business 
matters, we have a lot of competition. 
 
The Clinton Economic Agenda 
 
Today economics matters, and it has acquired a new centrality 
in U.S. foreign policy.  Those of us in the Clinton 
Administration remember clearly the primary reason why the 
American people turned to us for new leadership--"it's the 
economy." 
 
As you remember, the President said he would "focus like a 
laser beam" on the economy.  From the beginning of his 
Administration, President Clinton has given a clear indication 
that economics play a central role in his foreign as well as 
domestic policy.  He said that this nation is going to play a 
leadership role in the global economy and that America would 
"compete, not retreat" in world markets.  A year and half 
later, it is clear that he is keeping his word. 
 
The Clinton Administration has five broad goals for our 
international economic policy.  Let me go through them, one by 
one, and give a report card on how I think we are doing. 
 
America Is Back 
 
Our first goal is to get our own economic house in order.  More 
than anything else, this is the most important contribution we 
can make to a healthy international economy and to the American 
people.  Our goal is to make the United States, without 
question, the most competitive nation in global markets and the 
world's economic leader as we enter the 21st century.  Under 
President Clinton's leadership, we are doing just that: 
 
--  The President worked with Congress to achieve a five-year 
budget-deficit reduction package of $500 billion.  Today, 
thanks to that package and a revived economy, our budget 
deficit is down, and that is contributing to the positive 
performance of our economy. 
--  At the same time, we are working to shift our investment 
and government programs from defense spending to infrastructure 
investment in education, training, and civilian technologies. 
--  We are putting a new emphasis on trade promotion and 
opening foreign markets. 
 
What is happening in America today is not just thanks to the 
government; having worked in business for the past 12 years, I 
know that our companies and workers also deserve great credit 
for what is happening in our economy today.  The short-term 
pain of restructuring is starting to produce longer-term 
benefits as our firms regain their competitive position: 
 
--  The United States has reemerged as the world's largest 
producer of automobiles, we have regained our position as the 
leading global seller of semiconductors, and we have widened 
our technological lead in the critical high-technology fields 
of computers and telecommunications. 
--  We are once again the world's greatest export machine:  We 
export more of the world's goods and services than any other 
country.  Today we export over 13% of our GNP, compared to just 
over 9% for Japan.  U.S. exporters are enjoying their best year 
since 1988; the Commerce Department predicts that our exports 
will increase by 8% this year. 
 
In my present position, I travel overseas a lot--my husband 
says too much--and I can tell you that, from my conversations 
with government officials and business executives from Europe 
to Japan, the word is out:  The United States is back as a 
responsible manager of its own economy and as a responsible 
leader of the world economy. 
 
The greatest compliment, perhaps, has just come from the 
international business community.  The World Economic Forum in 
Geneva recently announced the results of its annual survey of 
nearly 3,000 international business executives--a survey of 
global competitiveness.  The result?  The United States has 
climbed to the top of the list and displaced Japan for the 
first time since 1985.  Today we are the most competitive 
economy in the world. 
 
The Importance of the Uruguay Round 
 
The second major goal of our foreign economic policy is to open 
markets around the world, working at all three levels:  global, 
regional, and bilateral.  We intend to open up new worlds of 
opportunity for our businesses overseas.  The successful 
completion of the Uruguay Round last December is the 
centerpiece of a more open global trading system. 
 
The Uruguay Round has in essence "modernized" the international 
trading system.  It significantly reduces tariffs and non-
tariff barriers; expands the trade regime to services, 
intellectual property, and investment; covers agriculture in a 
meaningful way for the first time; and establishes a World 
Trade Organization. 
 
The Uruguay Round is going to produce a $5 trillion "kick" to 
the world economy over the next 10 years.  And as the world's 
greatest exporter, we are going to reap substantial benefits 
from it-- on average, $200 billion per year.  A lot of that is 
going to come here to North Carolina.  Your exports to the 
world more than doubled between 1987 and 1993, and with the 
Uruguay Round they are going to go up even more. 
 
Our most important and immediate challenge today is to secure 
congressional ratification of the Uruguay Round.  By ratifying 
the Uruguay Round, Congress will help generate growth and 
create jobs in the Carolinas and around our nation.  It will 
demonstrate once again that the United States has the 
confidence and the willingness to lead and to compete in the 
world. 
 
You all remember the debate in this country last year over 
NAFTA and whether it was good or bad for us.  Have you looked 
at the results?  In the first six months of this year, our 
exports to Mexico went up by 17%.  That's more than twice as 
fast as our exports to the rest of the world.  If that pace 
keeps up, we will ship $50 billion in U.S. products to Mexico 
this year.  The giant sucking sound is U.S. exports heading 
south. 
 
The Uruguay Round will be equally beneficial to our economy, 
our businesses, and our people.  For example, your high 
technology industries here in North Carolina--electronics, 
computers, and telecommunications--will benefit from greater 
protection for intellectual property; your chemical industry 
will benefit from lower tariffs and better patent protection. 
 
While we work to remove trade barriers globally, we also will 
continue to pursue market-opening on both the regional and 
bilateral level.  Last November, in Seattle, we launched a 
Trade and Investment Framework among the 15 member economies of 
APEC--the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.  This 
framework lays the groundwork for cooperation on opening 
markets in the Asia-Pacific region, the fastest-growing and 
most economically dynamic region in the world.  We expect 
further movement at the APEC meetings in Indonesia in November.  
At the Summit of the Americas in December, we will work for an 
expansion of markets in this hemisphere, to create the 
conditions for dynamic growth throughout the Americas and for 
greater economic integration among the 34 democracies of the 
Western Hemisphere. 
 
Bilaterally, the U.S.-Japan Economic Framework, our Dialogue 
for Economic Cooperation with Korea, our discussions with China 
on market access and the protection of intellectual property, 
our upcoming economic dialogues with Taiwan and India--all of 
these are aimed at providing greater access for American goods 
and services to these important Asian markets. 
 
Building the Economic Base for Peace and Stability 
 
Our third major goal is to help build a solid economic 
foundation to support the world's new democracies.  Think of 
the dramatic changes we have seen in the past few years:  
Russia; the Israeli-Palestinian agreement; South Africa; and 
now Haiti--people working to build free societies and market 
economies.  Our goal is to help them succeed and, beyond that, 
to help integrate them into the world economy and the community 
of free nations.  We do this not simply because it is good 
economics or good business.  We do it because successful 
economic policies provide the underpinning for our other 
foreign policy goals. 
 
Assistant Secretary Pelletreau talked to you earlier about the 
Middle East.  There we clearly see the linkage between our 
political goal of a stable and durable peace on the one hand 
and economic success on the other.  The Israelis and 
Palestinians took a major step toward peace when they signed 
the Declaration of Principles a year ago, and the international 
community responded less than two weeks later with over $2 
billion in pledged support.  Now we are working for economic 
success on the ground.  The Palestinian people increasingly 
will judge their leaders on their ability to bring economic as 
well as political benefits. 
 
The United States, Europe, and Japan have been active in 
providing official financial resources to help Russia and its 
neighbors stabilize their economies and adjust to new economic 
realities.  President Yeltsin and his government have made 
remarkable progress since last December's elections in 
developing a domestic consensus for economic reform.  Inflation 
is down, and Russia is moving toward the second stage of 
privatization of state-owned enterprises.  When President 
Yeltsin meets with President Clinton on September 28, we plan 
to begin a new phase in our economic relationship with Russia--
one that emphasizes even more strongly the role of the private 
sector, the importance of trade and investment, and the need to 
create the kind of economic and legal environment that attracts 
private capital.  The United States is now the largest foreign 
investor in Russia, with over $1 billion in investments.  But 
in a country of Russia's size, there clearly is much greater 
potential. 
 
In South Africa, per capita income fell by 15% over the past 
decade, and the economy's growth rate was only 1% last year.  
South Africa needs a sustained economic recovery to create jobs 
and provide resources for its reconstruction and development.  
The United States is supporting the new Mandela government with 
an assistance package of nearly $600 million over the next five 
years.  Our private sector also can help.  We have regained our 
position as South Africa's leading trading partner, but the 
return of U.S. investment to South Africa has been slower than 
expected.  With the right mix of natural and human resources, 
sophisticated infrastructure, capital, and economic policies, 
South Africa has the potential not only to provide a better 
life for all of its people but also to serve as an engine of 
growth for the southern Africa region. 
 
The ability to manage economic transformation in Russia, the 
Middle East, South Africa, Haiti, and elsewhere is one of the 
major challenges of the 1990s.  But America cannot do it alone.  
The assistance of other nations and international financial 
institutions is required.  In the long run, private sector 
development--not official development flows--will be the key to 
whether or not reform succeeds.  But above all, success will 
depend, in the end, on the governments and people of the 
transition economies themselves. 
 
The Developing Nations 
 
Our fourth goal is to promote sustainable and broad-based 
growth in the developing world.  We want to add to the 
impressive list of economic success stories in the developing 
world.  U.S. exports to developing nations are increasing 
faster than those to the developed world.  And developing 
countries need markets to serve as much as they need financial 
assistance.  Trade, not aid, is the way to future growth, and 
developing countries also must work to encourage private 
capital flows to promote development.  The Clinton 
Administration is pursuing a range of policy initiatives to 
encourage market-oriented growth in the developing world.  
NAFTA, APEC, and the Uruguay Round are key elements of this 
approach; so is the Summit of the Americas this December.  We 
also are restructuring U.S. foreign assistance programs and 
institutions, we are seeking more effective cooperation with 
the multilateral development banks, and we have transmitted to 
the Congress the draft of a new foreign assistance act. 
 
A New Economic Architecture 
 
Our fifth goal is to improve coordination among the world's 
economies and modernize the "architecture" that ties the world 
economy together.  This year marks the 50th anniversary of the 
Bretton Woods conference--the key meeting that established a 
new world economic order after World War II--the World Bank, 
the International Monetary Fund, and the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade (GATT).  The institutions that grew out of 
that period have served us well.  But the world is changing.  
There are new issues and new players on the world economic 
scene.  For example: 
 
--  How do we deal with the growing integration of the world 
economy?  Do we need new ways of addressing trade in services 
and international financial flows? 
 
--  How do we handle the "new" global issues that affect the 
world economy, such as the environment, population growth, and 
workers' rights? 
 
--  What should we do about those countries, especially in 
Africa, which are not keeping pace with world economic growth 
and development? 
 
Over the past two years, we have been working with the other 
major economies of the world through the Group of Seven, or G-
7--Japan, Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and 
Canada.  Our goal is to strengthen the G-7 as a coordinating 
mechanism for the world economy.  At the recent G-7 meeting in 
Naples, the leaders of the G-7 accepted President Clinton's 
proposal to look at the world's economic architecture--to 
consider how to reshape our international economic 
institutions, adapt them to deal with new issues and new 
players, and, where necessary, create new institutions to help 
achieve our policy goals. 
 
We already have made significant progress in reorienting global 
and regional economic institutions.  The successful conclusion 
of the Uruguay Round, which I discussed earlier,  was an 
important step to "modernize" the international trading system. 
 
We also are moving the World Bank and other multilateral 
development banks into a new era, to strengthen their 
management and place greater emphasis on the "new development 
agenda"--support for market-oriented economics, social welfare, 
good governance, and sustainable development. 
 
In Asia, we are building the foundation of a new Pacific 
Community through APEC.  Here in this hemisphere, we are 
promoting the renaissance of the Organization of American 
States--the OAS--the strengthening of the Inter-American 
Development Bank--the IDB--and the development of a new system 
of hemispheric relations through the Summit of the Americas. 
 
These are but a few examples.  Modernizing the world's economic 
architecture is one of our key future tasks.  Because economics 
will be at the center of our policy interests in the world of 
the future, these institutions also increasingly will be seen 
as the key, central players in world affairs. 
 
Conclusion 
 
These, then, are the international economic goals of the 
Clinton Administration.  The President and all of us who work 
for him are determined to help bring the benefits of a growing 
world economy home to the American people. 
 
I am pleased to be at the Department of State today, for we--
and our 275 Foreign Service posts around the world--are 
supporting the President fully in his efforts to restore the 
strength of the American economy and build a better future for 
the American people. 
 
Our ambassadors overseas and the other officers at our 
embassies increasingly understand that supporting American 
economic and business interests is a key part of their job.  As 
the President recently told a group of American business 
leaders, "our embassies are now on your side."  Secretary 
Christopher has made it clear that he expects our embassies to 
be fully supportive of American business. 
 
And the Secretary practices what he preaches; each time he 
travels overseas, he makes it a point to meet with the American 
business community and to raise key commercial issues with the 
host government.  On his first trip to Japan as Secretary of 
State, in April 1993, the first thing the Secretary said to his 
counterpart at the Foreign Ministry was, "I want to talk to you 
about the problem we're having selling computers to the 
Japanese Government."  I don't know who was more shocked--the 
Japanese Government officials present or our embassy staff! 
 
At his confirmation hearings, Secretary of State Christopher 
made it clear that wants an "America desk" at the State 
Department.  And he has made it clear that he expects me and 
every one of our officers to be sitting behind it with him.  
The Secretary and I are pleased to receive an increasing number 
of letters from the American business community praising our 
ambassadors and embassy officers overseas.  We know that we 
have a long way to go, and we want to do a better job.  So we 
hope that you will let us know when we fall short.  But I think 
that, at last, we are headed in the right direction. 
 
In today's world, foreign policy is not "foreign" to the 
American people anymore.  It is about promoting America's 
interests.  And increasingly, those interests are economic.  
The first priority of our foreign policy, Secretary of State 
Christopher has said many times, is the economic security of 
the American people.  (###) 
 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 5: 
 
Recent Developments in the Middle East 
Robert H. Pelletreau 
Address by the Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs at 
a town meeting on U.S. foreign policy, Charlotte, North 
Carolina, September 20, 1994 
 
Ladies and gentlemen:  My role in today's program is to join 
with you in consideration of the Middle East--its prospects and 
problems, its importance to the United States, and the issues 
it presents for our foreign policy.   
 
The Middle East is a vast and varied area extending from 
Morocco on the Atlantic Ocean across North Africa to Egypt--
then northward to the countries which we sometimes refer to as 
the Holy Land or Levant, with the states of Israel, Lebanon, 
and Syria bordering on the eastern Mediterranean--then eastward 
to the Persian Gulf with the six states of the Gulf Cooperation 
Council facing the threatening presence of Iraq to the north 
and Iran to the east. 
 
In this often tumultuous region, American interests have 
remained relatively constant.  They include: 
 
--  Securing a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace between 
Israel and all Arab parties with which it is not yet at peace; 
--  Maintaining our steadfast commitment to Israel's security 
and well-being; 
--  Building and maintaining security arrangements that assure 
stability and unimpeded commercial access to the petroleum 
reserves of the Arabian Peninsula that are vital to our 
economic prosperity; 
--  Ensuring fair access for American business to commercial 
opportunities in the region; 
--  Countering the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction, the systems to deliver them, and combatting 
terrorism; and 
--  Promoting more open political and economic systems and 
respect for human rights and the rule of law. 
 
This region, long plagued by war, has embarked on a historic 
journey toward peace.  Former antagonists are negotiating and 
opening doors to a new era of coexistence.  This comes at a 
time when many countries are undergoing complicated internal 
transitions.  Governments and the governed are seeking 
appropriate responses to currents of change set in motion by 
the end of the Cold War.  The Middle East remains a complicated 
and, in many ways, a dangerous neighborhood, but it is a place 
where peace is gaining ground. 
 
Peace Process: Bilateral Negotiations 
 
Let me briefly review with you recent historic progress in the 
peace process.  The many direct contacts between Israelis and 
Arabs stimulated by the 1991 Madrid Middle East Peace 
Conference bore their first great fruit a year ago with the 
exchange of mutual recognition by the PLO and Israel and the 
signing of a joint Declaration of Principles, sealed by a 
handshake between Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat on 
the White House lawn.  President Clinton was able to declare 
that day: 
 
Now, after so much bloodshed, so many lost opportunities, Arabs 
and Israelis are reaching out to each other to settle their 
differences through conciliation, compromise, and peaceful 
coexistence. 
 
Virtually continuous negotiations between Palestinians and 
Israelis have now brought Palestinian self-government in Gaza 
and Jericho and sectoral empowerment in other areas of the West 
Bank.  Seeing Mr. Arafat preside over the beginning of this 
Palestinian school year--all must admit--is a positive image 
shift from the past.  Serious discussions on the organizing of 
elections in Palestinian self-governing areas are beginning.  
Difficulties the Palestinians face in establishing institutions 
and absorbing outside assistance should not obscure the real 
progress that is being made. 
 
On July 25, President Clinton hosted another breakthrough event 
in the peace process on the south lawn of the White House, when 
King Hussein and Prime Minister Rabin signed the Washington 
Declaration, drawing to a close Jordan's and Israel's 46-year 
state of belligerency.  The declaration is a positive, forward-
looking document, committing the Jordanians and Israelis to 
work toward a treaty of peace. 
 
The Israel-Jordan negotiations also yielded an agreement to 
open a border crossing between the Israeli town of Eilat and 
the Jordanian port city of Aqaba.  I accompanied Secretary 
Christopher to the border-opening ceremony.  Let me share with 
you the scene:  Large crowds of Jordanians and Israelis 
gathered for the event, the deep emotion on both sides evident 
as veterans embraced, and Crown Prince Hassan quoted the 
scriptures in Hebrew.  Later, as King Hussein's yacht--with 
leaders of both countries on board--crossed into Israeli waters 
for the first time, a flotilla of Israeli boaters was on hand 
to greet the event with cheers, blaring horns, and waving 
flags.  As this was happening, a Spanish tour group was already 
crossing through the newly opened border posts.  The events of 
the day were for me a vivid testament that the message and 
promise of peace is reaching the people of the region. 
 
Further northward, it is significant that President Hafez al-
Asad has taken no steps to disrupt the growing Palestinian and 
Jordanian coexistence with Israel.  Instead, Syrians were 
viewing directly on their TV sets the Jordanian-Israeli 
meetings in Washington, at Aqaba-Eilat, and in Dead Sea.  In 
his July Army Day speech, Asad spoke of "peace with honor," and 
two weeks ago, he outlined to the Syrian People's Assembly a 
strategy of peace based on normalization of relations with 
Israel.  Since the end of April, Secretary Christopher has been 
engaged in shuttle diplomacy to narrow the issues of 
withdrawal, peace, and security--and the timing and interfacing 
of their component parts.  The gaps are wide and the bargaining 
is hard, as one would expect, but both leaders want the effort 
to continue and neither is shrinking from the process of 
engagement. 
 
Progress has been slow in the Israel-Lebanon negotiations, but 
we think here, too, the fruit is ripening.  The issues are 
clear:  The Lebanese seek Israeli withdrawal from southern 
Lebanon; Israel claims neither land nor water but justifiably 
seeks to secure its northern border from terrorist attack and 
to formalize peace and security arrangements between the two 
governments.  Meanwhile, Lebanon is making steady progress in 
emerging from the dark years of civil war and in rebuilding its 
economy.  We support Lebanese independence and territorial 
integrity and share the goals of the Lebanese people of a 
nation secure and at peace, free of all foreign forces. 
 
Multilateral Negotiations 
 
Let me now turn to the status of the multilateral track of the 
negotiations.  In early 1992, shortly after the Madrid Middle 
East Peace Conference, a set of multilateral negotiations was 
launched to complement the bilaterals.  These negotiations are 
extending the fruits of cooperative interaction beyond the core 
countries.  For almost three years, representatives of Israel, 
the Palestinians, and 12 Arab countries have been meeting to 
address key issues facing the region as a whole:  water, the 
environment, economic development, refugees, and arms control 
and regional security.  They have moved from issue-
familiarization and establishing a com- mon vocabulary to 
concrete projects and proposals.  Official Israeli delegations 
are becoming routine features in Arab capitals where such 
meetings occur--five of the six meetings of the last round of 
multilateral talks were held in the region--in Rabat, Tunis, 
Cairo, Doha, and Muscat. 
 
The multilaterals provide several benefits to the process as a 
whole:  They reinforce the bilateral negotiations and buffer 
periods of difficulty; they are creating networks of Arab and 
Israeli professionals with similar interests; they provide a 
mechanism through which regional problems can be addressed and 
constitute an available forum for other states to join at the 
appropriate time. 
 
The multilaterals are also spawning new areas of cooperation.  
Morocco and Israel have agreed to establish liaison offices.  
New business ventures be-tween Arab and Israeli entrepreneurs 
are being discussed and signed on practically a daily basis.  
King Hassan of Morocco is hosting, under the sponsorship of the 
Council of Foreign Relations and the Davos Group, a Middle East 
Economic and Business Summit Conference in Casablanca at the 
end of next month, the objective of which is to energize the 
private sector within and outside the region to participate 
fully in the new opportunities that peace is opening up.  We 
are urging high-level attendance from internationally oriented 
firms at the Casablanca meeting.  This summit underscores the 
opportunities in the Middle East as a new frontier for U.S. 
business. 
 
Challenges to Peace and Stability 
 
These developments allow a degree of optimism that would have 
been unrealistic and impermissible in past years, but they do 
not permit complacency.  A great deal of work remains to be 
done to consolidate existing agreements and expand them into a 
more comprehensive peace.  Forces of terrorism and rejection 
will continue to complicate the task of peace-making.  The 
pursuit of weapons of mass destruction by some states poses a 
long-term threat to the region.  Some governments also face 
challenges from opposition movements--religious and secular--
that use violence and terrorism as the path to political power.  
Also, the activities of Iran and Iraq in the Gulf region remain 
a source of great concern.  Let me spend a few minutes 
reviewing our policy toward the Gulf. 
 
Gulf Security 
 
No one familiar with the history of the second half of the 20th 
century needs to be reminded of the importance of this region 
to the United States or the world.  U.S. exports to Gulf 
countries, including Saudi Arabia, are in the billions of 
dollars annually.  Sixty-five percent of the world's known 
petroleum reserves are located here.  With the U.S. now 
importing 50% of its daily requirements, American presidents 
have identified unimpeded access to these resources as a 
"vital" interest--one for which we will if necessary commit 
military forces, as we did in Desert Storm.  In this vein, a 
key objective is to ensure the physical security of the Persian 
Gulf--to reduce the chances that another aggressor will emerge 
to seek control over the area, threaten the independence of 
existing states, or dictate policy in the region.  Iraq, 
despite its defeat in the Gulf War, is still ruled by Saddam 
Hussein and still harbors ambitions of regional domination.  It 
has yet to show any serious willingness to live at peace with 
its neighbors.  Our stance toward Iraq is unambiguous:  It must 
fully comply with all relevant UN Security Council resolutions 
and with the measures taken by the international coalition to 
enforce and monitor them. 
 
There is no convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime is 
prepared to meet this standard.  Iraq is not today in full 
compliance with any of the relevant UN Security Council 
resolutions.  It has not even taken the basic step of 
recognizing Kuwait's borders and national sovereignty.  With 
such a record, Iraq's calls for negotiations to end 
international sanctions have a hollow ring. 
 
Having said that, we strongly support the continued territorial 
integrity and unity of Iraq.  We also support the Iraqi 
National Congress in its efforts to unify and strengthen the 
Iraqi opposition and to bring a democratic, pluralistic 
government to Iraq  which can live in peace with its neighbors 
and its own people. 
 
It needs to be said that we bear no ill will toward the Iraqi 
people.  Sad-dam Hussein's brutal treatment of Iraq's civilian 
population is a matter of record.  The Iraqi Government could 
alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people by ceasing its 
repression, especially in the north against the Kurds and in 
the south against the Shiites, and by taking advantage of UN 
Security Council resolutions 706 and 712, which allow Iraq to 
sell oil under UN control to purchase food, medicine, and other 
humanitarian goods. 
 
As for Iran--the other major threat to stability in the Gulf 
area--we have very deep and serious concerns about its behavior 
in five areas: 
 
--  Its quest for nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction 
and the means for their delivery; 
--  The continued involvement of the Iranian Government in 
terrorism and assassinations worldwide; 
--  Its support for violent opposition to the Arab-Israeli 
peace process; 
--  Its threats and subversive activities against its 
neighbors; and 
--  Its dismal human rights record at home. 
 
Our policy is not aimed at changing the Iranian Government but 
at inducing Iran to change its policies in these areas.  We 
have made clear that we are prepared to enter into dialogue 
with authorized representatives of the Iranian Government to 
discuss the differences between us.  We seek to persuade Iran 
that it cannot expect to enjoy normal state-to-state relations 
so long as it violates basic standards of international 
conduct.  This means working with other countries to deny Iran 
access to military or dual-use technology and other means it 
might use to facilitate the pursuit of policies of 
destabilization, terrorism, and acquisition of weapons of mass 
destruction. 
 
We seek signs of positive change in Iranian policy so that the 
Iranian people may look forward to joining the widening circles 
of peace.  So far, Iran has preferred to face backward, 
choosing the path of resistance rather than of coexistence in 
the new Middle East. 
 
The second main focus of our policy in the Gulf, besides 
limiting the threatening potential of Iran and Iraq, is 
bolstering the defensive capabilities of our friends in the 
Gulf region.  We are urging the members of the Gulf Cooperation 
Council to work more closely together on collective defense and 
security arrangements.  We have also strengthened our own 
ability to act quickly in the region by maintaining strong 
forces there, by pre-positioning vital equipment and material, 
and by concluding defense cooperation agreements with several 
GCC states. 
 
Our goal is to complement--not replace--the Gulf states' own 
collective security efforts.  We do not intend to station 
troops permanently anywhere in the region.  Our objective is to 
increase regional stability and deter threats and to raise the 
threshold at which direct U.S. military action might be needed-
-that is, to reduce the likelihood that we and our allies might 
actually be called upon to help repel an aggression. 
 
Economic Cooperation 
 
Before closing, let me say a few words about our economic 
cooperation in the Gulf region and U.S. support for private 
business.  From President Clinton on down, this Administration 
has made clear its view that supporting American business 
overseas lies at the heart of our foreign policy interests.  
This Administration's support for NAFTA and GATT and its 
readiness to join in our companies' efforts to secure specific 
commercial contracts show we are taking that mandate seriously.  
We wish to reduce barriers to trade and investment and to 
ensure that the rights of American businesses are not 
infringed.  We are working to protect the integrity of American 
patents, copyrights, and trademarks by pressing all Middle 
Eastern states to join the international conventions protecting 
intellectual property rights. 
 
Saudi Arabia's decision to purchase up to $6 billion worth of 
airplanes and parts from U.S. manufacturers to replace their 
aging fleet of civilian aircraft demonstrates how our 
partnership with private industry can translate into large 
orders for goods and services produced by American workers.  
Sup-port for American business is a priority of each of our 
ambassadors overseas. 
 
Conclusion 
 
I have tried to present a snapshot of the major issues of 
importance to the United States in the Middle East today.  The 
prospects for broader peace between Israel and its neighbors, 
as well as for meaningful cooperation between the United States 
and the Gulf States, have never been brighter.  This 
Administration--from President Clinton and Secretary 
Christopher on down--is committed to making the most of our 
opportunities in the Middle East and steadily transforming what 
has been an area of turbulence and conflict into one of peace 
and coexistence. (###) 
 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 6: 
 
The Summit of the Americas:  Creating an Architecture For 
Inter-American Relations 
Richard E. Feinberg 
Address by the Special Assistant to the President for Inter-
American Affairs, National Security Council, before the Inter-
American Dialogue, Washington, DC, September 20, 1994 
 
It is a pleasure to be with so many friends today.  I 
appreciate this opportunity to exchange thoughts with you as we 
approach the Summit of the Americas, now less than three months 
away.  The Miami meeting could be the most important and 
successful summit in the history of hemispheric relations.  It 
could set the spirit and agenda for the rest of this decade and 
beyond. 
 
Vice President Gore announced the summit last December in 
Mexico City.  That sparked an intensive process of preparation 
within the U.S. Government, between government agencies and our 
civil society, and among governments of the region.  The summit 
has unleashed a torrent of energy and surfaced an enormous 
backlog of thoughtful proposals.  Haiti and Cuba capture the 
daily headlines, but I can assure you that summit preparations 
are proceeding apace and at an accelerating rate. 
 
This spring, senior U.S. officials undertook a first round of 
consultations throughout the region to determine the summit's 
broad themes.  Vice President Gore led two of these visits, to 
Central America and Canada.  We are now in the midst of a 
second round of consultations on the more detailed agenda for 
action.  Tomorrow, we will host representatives from the Rio 
Group to continue these increasingly in-depth discussions on 
specific initiatives. 
 
We are also drawing on the expertise of the two most prominent 
regional institutions.  President Clinton will meet this 
afternoon with OAS Secretary General Cesar Gaviria, and 
Ambassador Harriet Babbitt is chairing a working group within 
the OAS on the summit agenda.  Vice President Gore spoke last 
Friday at an Inter-American Development Bank conference on 
democracy and the modernization of the state.  The IDB, through 
its President Enrique Iglesias, is helping to craft many of the 
summit's initiatives and will have a role in implementing them. 
 
The consultation process is not limited to officialdom.  We 
have welcomed the suggestions from a wide range of  civil 
society--that whole spectrum of private-sector associations and 
non-governmental organizations interested in hemispheric 
affairs.  This morning, Ambassador Tony Gillespie appeared 
before the Washington, DC Liaison Committee on Latin America.  
Last week, we exchanged views with the Council of the Americas.  
We have benefited from the input of a large number of non-
profit advocacy groups and think tanks, and many more exchanges 
will occur.  During October,  Summit of the Americas citizen 
consultations will be held with the private sector and NGO 
leaders around the country.  We have also read with great 
interest the proposals advanced by a group of distinguished 
experts assembled by the UN Development Program and the IDB.   
 
By example and persuasion, we have sought to stimulate other 
governments to also involve their own civil society in summit 
preparations.   
 
In Argentina, representatives of  Conciencia and of Poder 
Ciudadano participated in our bilateral consultations.  In 
Central America, experts from both U.S. and local environmental 
groups are deeply involved in designing the Alliance for 
Sustainable Development.  We have heard from our business 
leaders that private sector groups in Mexico, Argentina, 
Brazil, and Chile are working closely with their own 
governments. 
 
In this way, when the summit leaders call for a deepening of 
democracy and for more cooperative interchange between 
government and civil society, their words will ring true.  
There will be a consistency between the form and the substance 
of the summit process.   The summit preparations are advancing 
those very values and institutions that the summit declarations 
will proclaim.    
 
We want to involve the private sector and non-governmental 
organizations in summit preparations for another reason:  so 
that they can assist in the implementation of its 
recommendations.   In the promotion of democracy, in 
encouraging trade and investment flows, in educational reform, 
and in the design of environmental projects, partnerships 
between governments and civil society can be essential elements 
of change and part of the standard machinery of hemispheric 
governance. 
 
This expanding array of consultations with civil society serves 
yet another purpose for U.S. foreign policy.  With the end of 
the Cold War,  fears arise that Americans could turn their 
backs on the rest of the world.  We must build a new coalition 
for an affirmative foreign policy.  Its constituency lies among 
U.S. firms and workers whose livelihood depends on trade.  It 
includes environmentalists and other  public policy groups that 
see the links between the actions of foreign governments and 
their own objectives.  It also includes religious and ethnic 
groups legitimately concerned about the welfare of their 
brethren and families overseas.  Among these and other groups, 
there is the potential for a much broader constituency for 
American foreign policy than ever before.  By involving many of 
these groups,  the summit process can help strengthen the 
foundations of hemispheric relations. 
 
The Summit in Historical Perspective 
 
A summit is a bold undertaking:  
 
There have been only two hemispheric summits in the post-war 
period--in Panama in 1956 and in Punta del Este, Uruguay in 
1967.   It is already clear that this summit will be distinct 
and historic in a number of respects. 
 
First, the extent of consultations with civil society:  
Accounts of the 1967 summit make reference to meetings with a 
few well-known business and labor leaders and intellectuals.  
That was before the broad spectrum of American civil society 
became so deeply involved in hemispheric affairs.  Certainly, 
the inclusion of Latin American civil society in summit 
preparation is unprecedented.   Still more needs to be done to 
make hemispheric diplomacy more accessible and transparent, but 
the summit has already advanced this democratizing process. 
 
Second, previous summits were attended by many leaders whose 
power derived from bullets, not ballots.  This is the first 
summit of solely democratically elected leaders.   The Miami 
summit will be a celebration of the consolidation of democracy.  
Our democracies are far from perfect, but we should not lose 
sight of the dramatic progress made since the days when 
authoritarianism was at its apogee. 
 
Third, this is the first hemispheric summit hosted by the 
United States and the first held in this country.  In earlier 
years, the hemisphere was split along a North-South divide and 
the confrontational stances spawned by the Cold War.  These 
tensions would have made it difficult for any U.S. president to 
successfully convene such a meeting.  The previous two 
hemispheric summits were hosted in Latin America under OAS 
auspices to compensate for the asymmetries of power and purpose 
that separated the United States from the rest of the 
hemisphere.  Today, Latin America welcomes the U.S. commitment 
to hemispheric solidarity that the summit signals.  In the 
1990s, there is a shared desire to work closely with one 
another to address our common agenda. 
 
Fourth, we are in an era of substantive symmetry--a shared 
agenda based on synchronous domestic concerns that can best be 
addressed cooperatively.  We face similar agendas rooted in our 
common participation in the one-world economy.   A traveler 
encounters common conversations in Santiago, Sao Paulo, and San 
Francisco.  We are all concerned to overcome citizen alienation 
and to bring government closer to the people.  We are all 
dedicated to increasing job security and raising productivity.  
We all seek broad access to health care and quality education.  
Preoccupation with foreign aid has given way to intense 
interest in free-trade zones that create mutual prosperity.  
Fears of  unilateral American interventionism have been 
superseded by interest in strengthening the capacity of the 
United Nations and the OAS to enable the hemisphere to defend 
democracy collectively. 
 
The President's decision to host the summit in the regional 
center of Miami follows the theme in the Administration's 
foreign policy that, in a world of integrated markets, domestic 
interests and foreign policy are tightly intertwined.  The 
daily lives of U.S. citizens are deeply affected by our 
relations with Latin America, the Caribbean, and Canada.  Job 
creation through trade and investment, population and 
immigration, drug trafficking and money laundering--these 
regional phenomena--some good, some bad--link the welfare of 
all the inhabitants of this hemisphere.  Miami is a hub of the 
hemisphere, a crossroads of cultures and commerce.  Miami's 
diversity richly displays the interconnectedness of the 
Americas.    
 
Recent events in the Caribbean Basin underscore the stake that 
Miami has in the region.  Just as prosperity abroad generates 
jobs in the United States, so do the aftershocks of instability 
cast a long shadow across our shores.  The summit location and 
agenda recognize that our fates are inextricably linked to the 
fates of our hemispheric neighbors.  Today, all politics, like 
economics, is global. 
 
Fifth and finally, this summit will create an architecture for 
hemispheric relations to assure that its plan of action is 
implemented and the results are measurable.  As Secretary 
General Gaviria warned in his inaugural address last week:   
 
The confidence and hope of the American nations cannot survive 
another round of empty rhetoric and unfulfilled promises.   
 
At this summit, the leaders will mandate a network of 
implementing mechanisms, including functional partnerships for 
specific objectives, periodic ministerials, strengthened 
regional institutions, and public-private sector interactions.  
Many of the initiatives under discussion will be mandated to 
the OAS and the IDB.  Make no mistake:  The summit will enhance 
the authority of both of these multilateral agencies.  Other 
summit initiatives will be implemented by senior officials from 
the responsible national ministries and regulatory bodies.  In 
numerous areas, the expertise and perspectives of private 
business and NGOs will join with government authorities.  
Together, these mechanisms will amount to a genuine inter-
American system capable of sustained action. 
 
We are working to help craft a summit agenda which puts forth 
an inspiring vision of the future--one which is concrete and 
relevant to the daily lives of the average citizen of the 
hemisphere.  When leaders return home after Miami, each should 
be able to report to their constituents exactly how the summit 
initiatives will improve their lives and those of their 
children.  Better government, new jobs, easier access to 
quality education, healthier air to breathe--these, we hope, 
will be the living legacy of the Miami summit. 
 
Inclusive participation of civil society, legitimacy accorded 
only to democratic authority, a new maturity of relations 
between North and South America, substantive symmetry, and 
follow-on architecture--these are five of the innovative 
hallmarks of the process that is the Summit of the Americas 
1994. 
 
Conceptual Convergence 
 
This is an era of overlapping agendas in hemispheric relations.  
The common problems we face have increasingly impelled us to 
share common approaches to resolving these problems.  There is, 
indeed, a notable conceptual convergence throughout the 
hemisphere around certain basic ideas.  With these shared 
interests and values, it becomes much more feasible to arrive 
at common solutions to our hemispheric agenda.  Hemispheric 
leaders have reached agreement on the three broad themes for 
the summit:  democratic governance, shared prosperity, and 
sustainable development.    
 
Government reform is at the top of the political agenda 
throughout the region.  Leaders are seeking to identify 
themselves with cleaner, more effective public administration.  
If the challenge of the 1970s was the protection of human 
rights, and if the triumph of the 1980s was the rejection of 
authoritarianism--as Vice President Gore said last week at the 
IDB--the challenge of the 1990s is the creation of an 
effective, efficient, and transparent state.  The summit is an 
opportunity to share ideas on how to institutionalize 
representative, accountable, and effective governments capable 
of confronting threats to democracy, including corruption and 
narcotics trafficking.  In our consultations, we are also 
discussing how to deepen democracy by encouraging a vibrant 
civil society.  The IDB is exploring the creation of a civil-
society fund designed to promote public participation and 
encourage local private philanthropy.  The summit will also 
strengthen the capacity of the OAS to assist members in 
fortifying democratic institutions and discouraging threats to 
democracy.  
 
The region's leaders also understand that greater economic 
integration will promote the dynamic growth that comes from 
expanding markets.  The summit setting lets them take a long-
range view on measures to reduce trade barriers.  The summit 
will foster economic integration, including financial market 
reform, and promote greater financial and infrastructure 
linkages in sectors such as telecommunications, transportation, 
and energy. 
 
Sustainable development encompasses the goals of improving the 
well-being of the people of the Americas.  It recognizes the 
importance of protecting environmental resources for future 
generations.  Summit measures to expand access and improve the 
quality of educational and health services, stabilize 
population growth, prevent pollution, preserve biodiversity, 
and more wisely husband our natural resources will strengthen 
the region's democratic institutions.    
 
Together, the three themes of reinventing government, economic 
integration, and sustainable development amount to a 
comprehensive and coherent paradigm for national development.  
The summit holds the promise of ratifying and building upon the 
emerging consensus on the fundamental ideas which will guide 
inter-American relations into the next century. 
 
Haiti 
 
The Haitian military dictatorship has been the antithesis of 
the values that the summit will seek to consolidate.  
Government for the de facto leaders has existed not to educate 
and nurture but to extort and exploit.  The Haitian kleptocracy 
has left most of the population illiterate and without potable 
water.  The Haitian countryside has been stripped of its 
natural resources and transformed into an ecological wasteland. 
 
Haiti could be a test case for the aspirations of the summit.  
Having collectively defended democracy, the hemisphere and the 
international community will join with Haitians in the task of 
constructing a government of and for the people.  Having lifted 
the embargo, the international community will share its 
financial resources and expertise to build its infrastructure, 
attract investment, and create jobs.  We must invest in the 
Haitian people by helping to provide primary education and 
health care.  We will also help to repair the land, reforest 
the hills, and purify the waters. 
 
The Summit and U.S. Interests 
  
One measure of the summit's success will be its relevance for 
all the hemisphere--from the poorest country, which is Haiti, 
to the richest, which is the United States.  For us, the summit 
will succeed if it improves the hemispheric neighborhood we 
inhabit.  It will also succeed for Americans if it spurs us 
forward to continue to reinvent our own government, to improve 
our global competitiveness, and to nurture our piece of the 
earth.   
 
Ultimately, the summit should be an exercise not only in 
international relations but also in domestic renewal.  It 
should speak to Americans as partners in the hemisphere at the 
same time that it addresses our own daily agenda.  It should 
address our foreign and domestic interests.  That will make it 
significant and historic.  It will be a summit for our times 
and for the 21st century.  (###) 
 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 7: 
 
Fact Sheet:  The Summit of the Americas 
 
President Clinton has invited the 33 democratically elected 
leaders of the Western Hemisphere to a Summit of the Americas 
in Miami, Florida, December 9-11, 1994.  This is a unique 
opportunity: 
 
--  The summit is the first meeting of the leaders of the 
nations of North America, the Caribbean, and Central and South 
America in more than a generation.  Two earlier hemispheric 
summits--Panama in 1956 and Punta del Este, Uruguay, in 1967--
did not include Canada and portions of the Caribbean. 
 
-- It is the first-ever hemispheric summit of solely 
democratically elected leaders. 
 
--  It is the first hemispheric summit hosted by the United 
States, the largest summit ever held in the United States, and 
the largest gathering of Western Hemisphere leaders in history. 
 
A New Set of Relationships 
 
Democracy is a rising tide in the Americas.  All governments in 
the Western Hemisphere--except Cuba and the de facto regime in 
Haiti--are democratic and have declared, through the 
Organization of American States, that democracy must remain the 
norm throughout the hemisphere.  This shared dedication to 
democracy is a strong foundation for creating a hemispheric 
partnership aimed at improving the well-being of people 
throughout the region.  Ensuring effective democratic 
governance will strengthen that foundation. 
 
This partnership also aims to promote prosperity by increasing 
trade and investment.  By the year 2000, the hemisphere's total 
population will approach 800 million, with a total gross 
national product expected to exceed $9 trillion.  The 
hemisphere is a large and growing market. 
 
--  U.S. exports to Latin America--mostly of manufactured 
goods--more than doubled between 1985 and 1993, rising from $30 
billion to $79 billion. 
--  This expansion of inter-American trade has created up to 
900,000 new U.S. jobs. 
--  Latin America and the Caribbean are experiencing sustained 
economic expansion and generally declining inflation. 
--  Foreign direct investment to Latin America has doubled 
since 1990,  reaching almost $15 billion in 1993. 
 
This partnership will face many other challenges through the 
21st century, which include: 
 
--  Competing economically;  
--  Providing access to education and health care; and  
--  Protecting the environment.  
 
The nations of the hemisphere also will need to continue 
working together on problems that do not recognize national 
borders, such as illicit narcotics trafficking and terrorism, 
which threaten not only the health and safety of people but the 
survival of democratic institutions themselves.  Most 
important, these efforts need to be sustainable to ensure that 
achievements will be enjoyed by future generations. 
 
Summit Themes 
 
In consultations with the countries of the Caribbean, Central 
and South America, Mexico, and Canada, three broad themes have 
emerged as the basis for the summit agenda. 
 
Making Democracy Work:  Reinventing Government.  
Institutionalize representative, transparent, and responsive 
democratic government and encourage the development of a civil 
society and the forging of a dynamic and constructive new 
partnership with government; strengthen democracies to counter 
threats such as corruption, terrorism, and narcotics 
trafficking. 
 
Making Democracy Prosper:  Hemispheric Economic Integration.  
Integrate further the economies of the hemisphere to maximize 
their potential, promoting greater openness in markets and 
movement of capital to sustain and broadly extend the benefits 
of growth. 
 
Making Democracy Endure:  Sustainable Development.  Improve the 
well-being of the people of the Americas by alleviating poverty 
and raising standards of health and education, helping to 
create citizenry and societies that recognize the value of 
protecting and renewing environmental resources for future 
generations. 
 
The summit will generate specific initiatives to give life to 
these three themes, taking advantage of expanding, active 
relationships in the hemisphere among private citizens, non-
governmental organizations, regional institutions, and 
governments.  The participating heads of state and government 
have expressed interest in issuing at the summit a declaration 
of principles and an associated plan of action to transform 
principles into concrete activities with measurable impact.  
This common plan of action will set in motion a process that 
will, ultimately, transform the quality of life of people 
throughout the hemisphere. 
 
Miami, Florida 
 
Miami, the communications crossroads of the hemisphere, is the 
ideal site for the summit.  Florida's economy is increasingly 
integrated with the economies of Latin America and the 
Caribbean and plays an important role in their development.  
The community's rich cultural and ethnic diversity places it at 
the vanguard of relationships in the Americas as the 21st 
century approaches.  (###) 
 

--President Clinton announcing the Summit of the Americas, 
March 11, 1994   

We have arrived at a moment of very great promise and great 
hope for the Western Hemisphere. Democratic values are 
ascendant. Our economies are growing and becoming more 
intertwined every day through trade and investment. Now we have 
a unique opportunity to build a community of free nations, 
diverse in culture and history, but bound together by a 
commitment to responsive and free government, vibrant civil 
societies, open economies, and rising living standards for all 
our people. 
 
(##) 
 
 
Summit of the Americas Participants 
 
Head of Government, Country 
Prime Minister Lester Bird, Antigua and Barbuda 
President Carlos Menem, Argentina 
Prime Minister Hubert A. Ingraham, The Bahamas 
Prime Minister Owen Arthur, Barbados 
Prime Minister Manuel Esquivel, Belize 
President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, Bolivia 
President Itamar Franco, Brazil 
Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Canada 
President Eduardo Frei, Chile  
President Ernesto Samper Pizano, Colombia 
President Jose Maria Figueres, Costa Rica 
Prime Minister Dame Eugenia Charles, Dominica 
President Joaquin Balaguer, Dominican Republic 
President Sixto Duran Ballen, Ecuador 
President Armando Calderon Sol, El Salvador 
Prime Minister Nicholas Brathwaite, Grenada 
President Ramiro De Leon Carpio, Guatemala 
President Cheddi Jagan, Guyana 
President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Haiti 
President Carlos Roberto Reina, Honduras 
Prime Minister P. J. Patterson, Jamaica 
President Ernesto Zedillo(1), Mexico 
President Violeta Chamorro, Nicaragua 
President Ernesto Perez Balladares, Panama 
President Juan Carlos Wasmosy, Paraguay 
President Alberto Fujimori, Peru 
Prime Minister Kennedy Simmonds, St. Kitts and Nevis 
Prime Minister John Compton, St. Lucia 
Prime Minister James F. Mitchell, St. Vincent and the 
Grenadines 
President Ronald Venetiaan, Suriname 
Prime Minister Patrick Manning, Trinidad and Tobago 
President William J. Clinton (Host), United States 
President Luis Alberto Lacalle, Uruguay 
President Rafael Caldera, Venezuela 
 
(1) To be inaugurated December 1, 1994 
 
(###) 

 
[END OF DISPATCH VOL. 5, NO. 39]