US DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 5, NUMBER 44, OCTOBER 31, 1994
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:
1.  The United States and North Korea Reach Agreement on Nuclear 
Program--President Clinton, Robert Gallucci

2.  Partnership With South Africa--Vice President Gore

3.  The Sino-U.S. Relationship and Its Impact on World Peace--Secretary 
of Defense William Perry 

4.  U.S.-Russia Consultations Concerning Iraq--Secretary Christopher

5.  U.S. Business and Economic Cooperation In the Asia-Pacific Region--
Joan E. Spero

6.  Humanitarian Steps To Aid Cuban Refugees

7.  Treaty Actions 

8.  New Ambassadors 



ARTICLE 1:

The United States and North Korea Reach Agreement on Nuclear Program
President Clinton, Robert Gallucci


President Clinton
Statement at a White House briefing, Washington, DC, October 18, 1994.  

Good afternoon.  I am pleased that the United States and North Korea 
yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework document on North 
Korea's nuclear program.  This agreement will help to achieve a long-
standing and vital American objective--an end to the threat of nuclear 
proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.  This agreement is good for the 
United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the 
entire world.  It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear weapons 
spreading in the region.  It is a crucial step toward drawing North 
Korea into the global community.

I want to begin by thanking Secretary Christopher and our chief 
negotiator, Ambassador-at-Large Bob Gallucci, for seeing these 
negotiations through.  I asked Bob if he had had any sleep--since he is 
going to answer all of your technical questions about this agreement--
and he said that he had had some sleep.  So be somewhat gentle with him. 
After meeting with my chief national security advisers, and at their 
unanimous recommendation, I am instructing Ambassador Gallucci to return 
to Geneva on Friday for the purpose of signing an agreement. 

The United States has been concerned about the possibility that North 
Korea has been developing nuclear weapons since the 1980s.  Three 
administrations have tried to bring this nuclear program under 
international control.  There is nothing more important to our security 
and the world's stability than preventing the spread of nuclear weapons 
and ballistic missiles.  The United States has an unshakable commitment 
to protect our ally and our fellow democracy--South Korea.  A total of 
38,000 American troops stationed on the peninsula are the guarantors of 
that commitment.

Today, after 16 months of intense and difficult negotiations with North 
Korea, we have completed an agreement that will make the United States, 
the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer.  Under the agreement, North 
Korea has agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept 
international inspection of all existing facilities.

This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free 
Korean Peninsula.  It does not rely on trust.  Compliance will be 
certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  The United 
States and North Korea have also agreed to ease trade restrictions and 
to move toward establishing liaison offices in each other's capital.  
These offices will ease North Korea's isolation.

From the start of the negotiations, we have consulted closely with South 
Korea,  Japan, and other interested parties.  We will continue to work 
closely with our allies and with the Congress as our relationship with 
North Korea develops.

Throughout this Administration, the fight against the spread of nuclear 
weapons has been among our most important international priorities, and 
we have made great progress toward removing nuclear weapons from 
Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus.  Nuclear weapons in Russia are no 
longer targeted on our citizens.  Today, all Americans should know that 
as a result of this achievement on Korea, our nation will be safer, and 
the future of our people more secure. 

Now I will ask Ambassador Gallucci to come up, make a statement, and 
answer your questions. 

Robert Gallucci
Statement by the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large at a White House briefing, 
Washington, DC, October 18, 1994.

I would like to make a few comments about the agreement itself.  The 
President put it in a broader strategic context of our national 
interests in nonproliferation and regional security.  I want to say a 
word or two about the substance of the agreement and then try to answer 
your questions.

The agreement addresses concerns we have had about the North Korean 
nuclear program with respect to past activities, current activities, and 
future activities.  The question of what North Korea did in the past--
how much plutonium it separated--is the issue that arose between the 
IAEA doing its inspections and DPRK finding that it would not accept 
what they called special inspections.  That was brought to the Security 
Council, and that resulted in a number of Security Council presidential 
statements and resolutions.

The question of what North Korea did in the past can be resolved by the 
IAEA only if the IAEA has access to the information in sites it needs.  
Under the terms of the agreement, that access will be provided.  The 
DPRK will agree to the implementation of its full-scope safeguards 
agreement and whatever is required by the IAEA--whatever the IAEA deems 
necessary to resolve the questions of the past.

The implementation of that portion of the framework document takes place 
over a period of time.  The implementation must be completed before 
significant nuclear components of the first nuclear reactor that would 
be constructed in North Korea are delivered.

The agreement envisions the provision of two light-water reactors--and 
the first point I am making is that in the course of the delivery of 
components for that reactor, before any nuclear components are 
delivered, the question of past nuclear activities and the full 
compliance of North Korea with its IAEA safeguards obligations will be 
taken care of--will be addressed.  That is the question of the past.  

With respect to the present, North Korea has an operating, small, five-
megawatt reactor that produced the plutonium--however much plutonium 
they now have--produced the spent fuel that is now in the storage pond 
which contains 25 to 30 kilograms of plutonium.  North Korea has also a 
reprocessing facility that they have expanded in capacity.  These are 
the most significant components of the current nuclear program.  Under 
the terms of the agreement, the current nuclear program is frozen.  That 
means that the five-megawatt reactor will not restart.  That means that 
the reprocessing facility will be sealed and will not be operated again.  
That means that the fuel that is in the pond will stay in the pond.  All 
of these provisions will be monitored by the International Atomic Energy 
Agency, as the President said.  That addresses the current problems of 
both further separation of plutonium from spent fuel and further 
production of plutonium in a nuclear reactor. 

With respect to the future, the North Korean nuclear program includes 
two large gas graphite reactors: one rated at 50 megawatts electric; the 
other at 200 megawatts electric.  If these reactors were to be 
completed, they would produce hundreds of kilograms of plutonium a year. 

The spent fuel, as I said, that is in the pond--if that were to be 
reprocessed--would right away be a source of plutonium for four or five 
nuclear weapons.  This is the future problem that we are seeking to 
address, and under the agreement, the facilities that are under 
construction would be frozen.  Under the agreement, all the facilities--
the ones under construction and the ones currently existing in North 
Korea--would be dismantled over the course of the construction of the 
light-water reactor project. 

The spent fuel that is in the pond not only will not be reprocessed, 
according to the terms of the framework document, but the North Koreans 
will agree to cooperate in the shipment of that spent fuel out of North 
Korea so that there is no source of plutonium in North Korea.  This is 
the way we propose to address our concerns, as I said--grouping them 
into past, present, and future.

The agreement, of course, provides that the North Koreans receive 
assistance from the international community in achieving legitimate 
energy objectives.  A light-water reactor project roughly on the order 
of 2,000 megawatts or two 1,000-megawatt light-water reactors will be 
provided over a period of years.  We would hope in the near term to move 
to a contract phase and then for construction to begin. 

As I think you know, the United States has been consulting with a number 
of governments about the financing of this project.  We envision the 
Republic of Korea and Japan playing essential roles in the financing and 
construction of that facility.

In addition to the light-water reactor project, the framework document 
provides that the energy needs of North Korea that arise from the 
freezing and ultimate dismantlement of the nuclear reactors that would 
have produced energy--that those energy needs be addressed by the 
international community.  Again, the United States will take the lead in 
supplying heavy oil over the next 10 years, or that period of time 
between now and when the light-water reactors might be expected to come 
on line.  So we will, with other countries, attempt to meet the North 
Korean energy needs that they forego--energy that they forego as a 
result of the freezing of the reactors, either extant or under 
construction.

In addition, the framework document provides for what we call a negative 
security assurance, assuring that the United States, with respect to a 
party--North Korea--to the Non-Proliferation Treaty will not, in 
essence, suffer the threat or use of nuclear weapons.

At this point I will stop.  I will say with respect to the status of the 
agreement--again, so you will understand--  we are in ad referendum 
posture with respect to the agreement.  As the President said, I will 
return on Friday for the purpose of signing the agreement. 

(###).



ARTICLE 2:

Partnership With South Africa
Vice President Gore
Remarks to Africare, Washington, DC, October 6, 1994


A little over 30 years ago, a young  leader of his people, on trial for 
conspiracy to overthrow his government, stood up to speak in his own 
defense.  He spoke passionately for four hours.  At one point, near the 
end of his speech, he summed up his views, his goals--in fact, the 
philosophy that guided his life.

During my lifetime I have fought against white domination and I have 
fought against black domination.  I have cherished the ideal of a 
democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in 
harmony and with equal opportunities.  It is an ideal which I hope to 
live for and to achieve.  But, if need be, it is an ideal for which I am 
prepared to die.
  
I wish he could have known then what was going to happen:  that he would 
live; that he would walk out of prison a free man; that one day, voters 
of all races would wait in line for hours, sharing soft drinks in the 
hot sun so they could walk into a polling place and vote for him; and 
that one day he would raise his right hand and take the oath of office 
as the first president of South Africa.

To see President Mandela on the White House lawn Tuesday; to see the 
flag of the United States side by side with the new flag of South 
Africa; to see him here with us, tonight: What could be a more important 
affirmation of our capacity as human beings to transcend our past?  And 
what could confirm more profoundly the idea that our own work has 
meaning--for the victory in South Africa belongs, in part, to so many 
people in this room.  You demonstrated;  you marched;  you lobbied; and, 
in the end, you won.  And because you won, we all won--all of us who 
believe in a common future for all mankind.

The end of apartheid will further inspire other African nations to reach 
for democracy as an alternative to violence.  For if Nelson Mandela can 
bring democracy to all the peoples of South Africa, is there not hope 
for finding peace in Angola, in Rwanda, in Sudan?

Of course, democracy flourishes not just in South Africa, but throughout 
the continent.  More than 20 nations in Africa are squarely on the path 
to multi-party democracy and free market economic reform.  It is one of 
the great but quiet revolutions of our age.

During the inaugural ceremonies in South Africa, I had the opportunity 
to meet with the heads of state and government of the Southern Africa 
Development Community (SADC) nations--those leading this revolution.  I 
saw President Masire of Botswana, who helped lead his nation through 
decades of democracy and economic growth.  I spoke with President Mugabe 
of Zimbabwe, elected to lead his country's transition to democracy.

Later, I visited Namibia and met with President Nujoma, its first 
President.  I visited Cape Verde, where President Mascarenhas is leading 
his country in consolidating its recently established democracy.  And I 
went to Benin, where during my discussions with your international 
honorary patron, President Soglo--discussions marked by his usual 
insight and enormous knowledge--the United States renewed its commitment 
to this strong, new democracy.  More important, we talked then about the 
pace and direction of democratic change in the West African region--
discussions which we had the chance to continue tonight at the White 
House.

In these conversations I reaffirmed what President Clinton feels so 
strongly:  that the goals of a fully democratic and economically viable 
Africa are both feasible and firmly in America's national interest.  In 
part, it is because of our belief in democracy.

President Mandela put it well when he stated:

We are reminded of the ties which bind us--particularly the pursuit of 
freedom, justice and equality.  For it is upon the basis of these values 
that the bond between our two countries can become an enduring 
partnership.

He was talking about his country.  But the same can be said for our 
relationship with many other countries on the continent.

Africa is also important because of its size and wealth of resources.  
Our total trade with the continent in 1993 was more than $24 billion.  
In 1993, U.S. exports to Sub-Saharan Africa alone were 20% greater than 
our exports to the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Finally, Africa is important to America for another reason.  America 
cares about more than a balance sheet when it comes to Africa.  I am 
part of an Administration that speaks for 25 million Americans whose 
roots are in Africa.  Three centuries have not erased the bonds that tie 
African-Americans to the continent of their ancestors.  They care deeply 
and taught all America to care.

And what could better demonstrate how much you care than the very name 
of this group?  Africare:  It has become one of the most important 
private American links to Africa.  It responds consistently to needs 
voiced by African communities.  It can leverage resources and mobilize a 
rapid response to both crisis situations and pervasive development 
problems. It can make a difference where it matters most.  Africare has 
a unique ability to work in close consultation with communities and the 
leadership of the host countries where it works.  It forms not just 
temporary infusions of aid, but true, long-term development assistance 
and sustainable partnership.  And it forms partnerships not just with 
government, but with foundations and within private industry.

Just ask the nearly 400 talented young South Africans educated in the 
United States through the South Africa Career Development Internship 
Program.  That program illustrates what can be accomplished when diverse 
segments of our society pull together to support a common cause:  
Africare, USAID, IBM, and hundreds of corporate and non-profit 
employers, all helping to improve skill and literacy levels in South 
Africa.  Or ask those helped by Africare's innovative program to 
eradicate river blindness.  Here, Africare works as a partner with Merck 
Pharmaceuticals, the River Blindness Foundation, and USAID to erase that 
devastating disease destroying so many communities in the fertile river 
valleys of rural West Africa.  Or ask those who saw Africare's response 
to the drought in Southern Africa.

Of course, we must first applaud the SADC nations themselves for a 
superb job in mobilizing an emergency response.  But Africare deserves 
enormous credit for developing an effective response in Zambia, 
Zimbabwe, and Malawi.  Helped by $4.1 million from USAID, you reached 
over 1,000 communities and villages.

There is much to do.  The infant mortality in Africa is the highest in 
the world and per capita income the lowest.  We need to help Africa 
become fully engaged with the world economy.

And crucial to that kind of engagement is Africa's need to safeguard its 
environment.  For example, the terrible deforestation around Niamey, 
Niger, means that women now must walk three times as far for wood to 
prepare the mid-day meal.  Shouldn't we work to prevent the stripping of 
trees and erosion of top-soil plaguing much of the Sahelian region of 
West Africa?

Nigeria has already lost more than 80% of its forests, savannah, and 
wetlands.  Only 15% of the population of Uganda has access to safe 
water.  Only 12% of Somalia and Sudan have access to sanitation.  
Without fresh water and sanitation and with decreased land productivity 
and deforestation, there can be no sustainable development and, 
therefore, no economic growth--not in Africa, not anywhere.

President Clinton wants to be involved with every aspect of African 
development.  That is why USAID has sustainable development programs in 
over 20 African countries--the countries that seem to have the greatest 
potential for economic and political success.

We have used the partnership created for drought in Southern Africa as a 
model for our effort in the Horn of Africa.  We funded election 
observers for Gabon's first multi-party elections--training for poll 
watchers in the Central African Republic, and support for the democratic 
transition in Mali.  We supported debt relief in Sao Tome and advocated 
debt relief for all African nations reforming and revitalizing their 
economies.  When Rwandan refugees flooded Zaire and other countries, we 
responded with men, material, logistical support, and medical equipment-
-a $150 million effort to battle starvation and disease.

USAID has established the Southern Africa Enterprise Development Fund.  
Chaired by Ambassador Andy Young, it will help up to 11 African nations 
develop the entrepreneurial segment of their economies.  Overall, in 
1993, the United States provided more than $3 billion to Africa through 
various programs.

And President Clinton and President Mandela have just agreed to expand 
cooperation and investment in South Africa.  These initiatives include a 
Peace Corps presence by 1995 and USAID programs providing housing and 
electricity in disadvantaged areas.

Deputy President Mbeki and I will also be heading a joint commission 
that will meet at regular intervals to facilitate cooperation in the 
environment, science and technology, and business development.  Russia 
is the only other nation with which we have such an arrangement.

In South Africa, we have a host of agreements ranging from agreements to 
send Peace Corps volunteers to OPIC investments, to housing relief, to a 
10-year, $50-million program linking historically black colleges and 
universities and their South African counter- parts to an assistance 
package totaling $600 million over three years.

And we have done much in Africa that goes beyond material aid.  Dr. Lee 
Brown has just returned from South Africa as part of a mission to help 
with law enforcement.  Secretary O'Leary will visit that country soon to 
work on electrification and other issues.  Mike Espy did a tremendous 
job creating a Department of Agriculture task force helping with 
nutrition, rural development, and other issues--especially a program 
creating a free lunch program affecting 1,800 schools.

We are working with the United Nations and the parties to facilitate 
the first-ever democratic multi-party elections in Mozambique scheduled 
for next month.  We are diplomatically engaged to find democratic 
solutions to the turmoil in Nigeria, Sudan, Zaire, Burundi, Rwanda, 
Angola, and elsewhere.

But, of course, no matter how much this Administration wants to help, we 
do not delude ourselves that we can accomplish much by ourselves.  We 
want to work as a partner--with private sector and public sector, with 
groups like Africare, and with the new governments in a resurgent 
Africa.

During the election in South Africa, someone put up a sign beside a 
schoolhouse in Port Elizabeth that said:  "The road to the future is 
always under construction."  And so it is.  But there are times in 
history when we reach what is undeniably a great milestone along that 
road.  That election was such a milestone.  Why did it happen?

In addition to the well-known courage and vision of both Mandela and De 
Klerk was a 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 to reach across the 
barriers that divided them and to join hands to create a future much 
brighter than any they had been told was possible to imagine.

Such a decision has been made also by men and women all over Africa.  
They can realize their dreams because groups like Africare have gotten 
involved in projects as small as digging a well and as big as averting a 
famine.

This Administration has joined hands with you.  The result will be to 
give children all over Africa a brighter future than anyone could have 
imagined on the day Nelson Mandela left prison--or on the day so many 
decades ago, when he spoke in a Pretoria courtroom. 

We are now going to see Countdown to Freedom, a film about this great 
man.  Let's watch; let's reflect on Nelson Mandela's achievements.Then 
it will be my pleasure and honor to present him with the Bishop John T. 
Walker Humanitarian Award.

(###).



ARTICLE 3:

The Sino-U.S. Relationship and Its Impact on World Peace
Secretary of Defense William Perry
Address at the National Defense University, Beijing, China, October 18, 
1994


Thank you very much for that warm introduction.  It is a great honor for 
me to be here and to meet with the leadership of the PLA. British author 
Graham Greene once wrote that "There always comes a moment in time when 
a door opens and lets the future in."  With the ending of the Cold War, 
a door has opened for the Asia-Pacific region.  Together, the nations of 
this region can work to shape that future to make it prosperous, 
peaceful, and secure.

The Asia-Pacific region today is more peaceful and more stable than at 
any time in its history.  The rivalry of the Cold War has been washed 
away by a flood tide of democracy and economic progress.  And throughout 
the region, there is a sense of increased confidence and optimism about 
the future.  The seeds of this triumph were actually sown during the 
Cold War as Asian nations undertook market reforms and began building 
strong trade links with their neighbors and the rest of the world.  The 
results have been extraordinary.

The gross domestic product of this region essentially matches that of 
the United States and Europe combined.  Asia now accounts for one-third 
of the world's gross world product.  This enormous economic growth now 
makes the prosperity of Asia essential to the economic health of the 
world.  And good economic relations require healthy political ties.  
Consequently, leaders around the globe are placing increased importance 
on their relations with the nations of this region.  President Clinton 
has done so, including convening the first-ever meeting of leaders of 
the region last November in Seattle, at which time he met President 
Jiang Zemin.

The challenge facing us today is to ensure that this region's stability 
and prosperity are strengthened for future generations.  The United 
States and China share a special responsibility for making this happen.  
That is why I am here today.  I want to talk to you this morning about 
the reasons why our security relationship is so important and about some 
of the most important challenges that we face.  I want to talk about the 
importance of building ties between our two militaries.

The Importance of Stability

There are four principal reasons why the United States and China share a 
special responsibility to secure the present and future stability in the 
West Pacific.

The first is strategic.  The size of our countries and their 
populations, our vast natural resources, and the creative spirit of our 
peoples combine to make the United States and China key players in the 
Asia-Pacific region, with China at one end of the Pacific and the United 
States at the other.  Together, we play a defining role in every aspect 
of the region's economy and security.  This is not an idle boast.  I do 
not want to downplay the contributions of other nations in the region, 
but history shows that when the United States and China enjoy positive, 
stable relations, the entire region benefits.

The second reason our nations have a special obligation to get along is 
that we have many overlapping interests.  Both the United States and 
China regard economic progress and the economic well-being of our people 
as a vital national priority.  Economic progress requires, above all, 
stability and peace.  Fortunately, the economic strengths of our two 
countries complement each other, and the forces favoring cooperation 
between us are growing stronger all the time.

The third reason our relationship is so important is the danger posed by 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems.  
China and the United States are two of a handful of nations capable of 
producing both.  Early this month, our two governments signed important 
agreements to control missile transfers and fissile material production.  
This was an important step, but more needs to be done to promote global 
security by limiting weapons of terror and mass destruction.

Restraint by China in transferring these technologies, in concert with 
the United States and other major powers, is vital to the success of 
current, global non-proliferation regimes.  Indeed, without the full 
participation of both China and the United States, no effort against 
proliferation can be successful.

Fourth, because China and the United States play such key roles in Asia, 
our cooperation is essential to solving the major threats to regional 
stability.  This won't be easy.  The Cold War world was one of great 
danger, but it was also somewhat stable.  The thaw that came with the 
end of the Cold War alleviated one of the greatest dangers--that of a 
nuclear world war.  But the new world is more complex--and still 
dangerous.  Right now, Asia faces many challenges and threats to its 
stability--challenges and threats that require Chinese-American 
cooperation.  This morning, I want to focus on four of those challenges.

Regional Security Challenges

First, the most serious challenge is on the Korean Peninsula.  There is 
both a nuclear and a political connection to this challenge.  

Let me consider first the nuclear dimension.  If North Korea produces 
nuclear weapons, the peace and security of Northeast Asia will be 
threatened, and the worldwide effort to control weapons of mass 
destruction will be dealt a heavy blow.  I have discussed this with 
Minister of National Defense Chi, and I believe that we have a common 
view on this issue.  North Korea must honor its commitment to the Non-
Proliferation Treaty and to its agreement with South Korea for a 
denuclearized Korean Peninsula.

Both the United States and China support a nuclear-free Korean 
Peninsula.  Right now, we are deeply engaged in discussions and dialogue 
with North Korea.  Just this morning, I heard that the negotiations in 
Geneva have reached agreement.  I am hopeful that this agreement will 
result in the ending of the nuclear threat from North Korea.  All during 
these negotiations, we consulted very closely with your government which 
has been very helpful.

The second dimension of this challenge is finding ways to reduce the 
overall tensions on the peninsula that have plagued the Korean people 
and their neighbors for half a century.  We are deeply interested in the 
long-term future of the Korean Peninsula and its contribution to peace 
and stability in the region.  And we want to work with China to ensure 
that peace and stability.  But only the Korean people themselves can 
address the root causes of the tensions between them.  That is why it is 
so important for the North and South to revive their dialogue and work 
toward removing military confrontation and increasing economic and human 
ties.

Reducing tensions in Northeast Asia also depends on other outside 
factors.  America's security alliances and military presence in 
Northeast Asia, I believe, are key components of the region's stability.  
A keystone of security in Asia is the firm fabric of strategic ties and 
the military alliance between the United States and Japan.  The people 
and the Governments of Japan and the United States are committed to 
maintaining and strengthening the alliance to deal withæthe challenges 
of  the post-Cold War world.  I believe that this alliance is a force 
for stability.

The American and South Korean security alliance is also an important 
force for regional peace and stability.  The United States will maintain 
a ground and air military presence on the peninsula for as long as the 
Republic of Korea and the Korean people feel that it meets their 
security interests.

The second challenge to regional security in Asia lies in South Asia.  
We are on the brink of a nuclear weapons race on the subcontinent, where 
relations between India and Pakistan have been tense for years.  India 
and Pakistan both have the right to a strong defense, but the 
combination of nuclear weapons and enduring tension could prove 
catastrophic to both countries--indeed, to the entire region.  As in the 
case with Korea, China has a huge stake in this issue since it involves 
nations on its borders.

With so much at stake, it is essential that countries with influence in 
South Asia try to stop the potential arms race before it gathers 
momentum.  The recent progress between the United States and China on 
missile technology and fissile material is a positive step in that 
direction.  But we must do more if we are to prevent a  South Asia 
nuclear arms race

A third challenge we face lies in the South China Sea.  This situation 
has been a source of tension for years, and it creates anxiety about the 
future.  If disputed territorial claims to the Spratly Islands erupt 
into conflict, it could be a devastating blow to regional security and 
could threaten sea lines of communication vital to the United States and 
other countries of the world.  Inflammatory statements and military 
deployments help keep tensions high.  They also prevent the development 
of natural resources which might help reduce tensions.  That is why I am 
encouraged by the stated desire of China and Vietnam to avoid conflict.  
I am also encouraged by the Indonesian-led efforts to find a long-term 
solution to the disputed territorial claims involving other nations.  
What is needed are permanent and peaceful solutions to these problems.

The fourth regional security issue is Taiwan.  Over the past 22 years, 
six American administrations have demonstrated America's commitment to 
abide by the terms of the Taiwan Relations Act and the three communiques 
between China and the United States.  Responsibility for resolving 
differences lies with Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Straits.  The 
overriding United States interest is that the resolution beæpeaceful and 
not threaten regional security.  Not long ago, relations across the 
straits reflected fierce hostility between the two sides.  But, today, 
economic and cultural relations are robust and growing stronger every 
day.

More significantly, political contacts appear to be developing at a pace 
with which both sides are comfortable.  We welcome any progress that the 
two sides can agree upon.  Overall, military tension has been reduced 
and the situation is far less volatile.

This is a promising trend accomplished by the two sides.  And we believe 
that our policies contributed to these positive developments.  These 
policies include strict adherence to the agreements between China and 
the United States and include the maintenance of unofficial relations 
with Taiwan.  This will not change.

U.S.-China Cooperation

None of the challenges to Asian stability and security can be fully met 
without cooperation between the United States and China.  Each of us has 
a particular kind of influence and each of us must use this influence 
appropriately.  Maintaining regional stability is our cooperative task.  
It is also the strategic basis for our relationship.

An important component of a healthy political relationship between our 
two countries is military-to-military ties.  By building trust, these 
ties contribute to our ability to solve regional problems.

One way that military ties build trust is by helping both sides 
understand each other's defense policies and strategic intentions.  Both 
of our countries need to do better in this area.  And, indeed, that is a 
major purpose for my visit here today.  China is a large country with a 
proud, independent spirit.  Your capabilities in all areas, including 
military areas, are growing every day.  This growth, particularly in the 
military area, creates much speculation in Washington and in capitals 
throughout Asia.

We welcome your assurances about the focus of your defense budget and 
the peaceful, defensive orientation of your modernization program.  
Nevertheless, it would be helpful if your defense budget and strategic 
planning were more open and visible to the outside world.  This would 
contribute to stability in the Asia-Pacific region.  We have nothing to 
fear from a better understanding of each other.

Of course, we understand that this is a two-way street.  We want you to 
know about U.S. military planning as well.  I know that some in China 
believe that the United States regards China as a threat or, at least, a 
future threat.

As Secretary of Defense of the United States, I can assure you that 
those who make these arguments do not understand American defense 
policy.  The fact that some people believe them just highlights the need 
for greater openness and understanding.

For all of these reasons, I am pleased that, in the past year, we have 
begun rebuilding ties between our militaries.  Just last August, your 
Deputy Chief of General Staff, General Xu Huizi, visited the United 
States.  We were able to talk very frankly and productively about each 
other's concerns.  I am convinced that our two militaries are working 
toward the same goals of mutual understanding, peace, and stability.

We want to build military-to-military ties with China that will endure 
long into the future.  Doing this means building a consensus and a 
strong foundation of domestic support in the United States.  No military 
relationship can grow in a vacuum, and it cannot survive without a 
healthy political relationship.

I must tell you that the idea of U.S.-China military-to-military ties 
has its critics in the United States, in the capitals of our allies, 
and, I'm sure, in China as well.  That's why we must proceed cautiously 
and within a framework ofæoverall progress in our relations, including 
difficult issues such as non-proliferation and human rights.  But 
weæmust proceed.

I envision a relationship that is led by our defense officials but which 
rests on a solid foundation of officers--like yourselves--who will lead 
the armed forces into the 21st century.  I can assure you that your 
American counter- parts, who also proudly wear their uniform, share this 
vision.

In the past 200 years, the United States and China have met under 
various circumstances and for various purposes.  At times, we have 
opposed each other; at other times, we've been drawn together by common 
interests.

From the outset of his Administration, President Clinton decided that 
our countries needed to follow the path of cooperation instead of 
confrontation.  That is why he launched a policy of comprehensive 
engagement, including a resumption of the military ties which I am 
discussing today.  And that is why he renewed most-favored-nation 
trading status for China--to pave the way for expanding our ties.  I 
have strongly supported these policies.  Now the challenge is to use our 
expanded ties for our mutual advantage and for the benefit of peoples 
around the world.

China is a great nation.  China's influence reaches every corner of Asia 
and, increasingly, the world.  Your future is important to us and to all 
of the Asia-Pacific region--indeed, is important to the world.

In the Chinese classic The Art of War by Sun Tzu, there is some good 
advice about how to maintain peace.  It says, 

. . . always remember danger when you are secure and remember chaos in 
times of order, watch out for danger and chaos while they are still 
formless and prevent them before they happen . . .

I hope my trip to China helps both  our nations use the security and 
order in our present relationship to prevent dangers and to build a 
lasting peace for the future.  Thank you very much.  

(###).



ARTICLE 4:

U.S.-Russia Consultations Concerning Iraq
Secretary Christopher
Excerpts from a statement concerning Iraq following a meeting with             
Russian Foreign Minister Kozyrev, New York City, October 17, 1994


I have just held a productive working breakfast with Andrei Kozyrev, the 
Russian Foreign Minister.  I am struck, once again, by the fact that the 
partnership between Russia and the United States is durable and working 
well.  

We spent most of our time today on Iraq.  We reviewed Saturday's action 
by the UN Security Council requiring Iraq to remove its troops from 
southern Iraq and not again enhance its military capabilities there.  
Several points emerged from our discussion, which I feel underline the 
common direction we are pursuing with Russia as we address the recent 
provocations by Saddam Hussein.

First, we believe it is in the vital interest of both the United States 
and Russia to oppose new threats by Iraq to the security of the Gulf.

Second, we agreed that it is important to let Saddam know that any 
aggression will be decisively and unanimously--unanimously--repulsed.  
On behalf of the United States, I made clear--as I have previously--that 
we are prepared to use force as necessary to enforce the requirements of 
UN Security Council Resolution 949.  We believe that we have authority 
under existing resolutions to take action if it becomes necessary.

Third, we have agreed to consult closely as the Security Council 
continues to address this situation.

Fourth, we agreed that it is necessary for Iraq to comply fully with all 
UN Security Council resolutions--not just some.

Fifth, we agreed that Saddam is not entitled to any reward for 
withdrawing the troops that threatened Kuwait.  Any future lifting of 
sanctions against Iraq is an issue that stands completely separate and 
should be reviewed under the normal procedures of the United Nations.  
Saddam will not get something for nothing.

(###).



ARTICLE 5:

U.S. Business and Economic Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific Region
Joan E. Spero, Under Secretary for Economic, Business, and Agricultural 
Affairs
Address before the AFSA Symposium on Economic Cooperation in the            
Asia-Pacific Region, Washington, DC, October 14, 1994


It is a great honor to be here this morning and welcome you to what I am 
sure will be a very rewarding day.  We are here today to talk about one 
of the most economically dynamic regions of the world:  Asia and the 
Pacific.  The Asia-Pacific region accounts for 41% of world trade and 
one-half of world output.  It is the fastest-growing region in the 
world.  Thirty years ago, Asia alone accounted for only 4% of the 
world's economy.  Today, it accounts for 25%.  Some economists predict 
that by the year 2000, it will account for 33%.  By the end of this 
century, one-half of world trade will take place in the Asia-Pacific 
region.

Asia is not only dynamic:  It is also, increasingly, a closer, more 
cohesive, more integrated region.  Forty-two percent of Asia's trade now 
takes place within Asia.  And intra-Asian trade is growing four times 
more rapidly than trade between the U.S. and Asia.  Direct investment by 
Asians within Asia also is burgeoning.  Japanese companies are in the 
lead:  They accounted for 18.4% of the foreign direct investment in 
major Asian markets between 1986 and 1992.  But the Japanese are not 
alone.  Companies from the rest of Asia--Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and 
so on--accounted for one-half of all foreign direct investment in the 
region.

The worldwide communications revolution now underway will link the 
region ever tighter in the future.  Pacific Rim countries are investing 
more than $21 billion annually to modernize and restructure their 
telecommunications networks.  Fiber- optic cables--the Silk Roads of the 
21st century--are being laid throughout the Pacific.

U.S. business needs to be a part of this explosive economic development.  
As markets and competitors, the nations of Asia and the Pacific will 
only become more important to us in the future.  There are immense 
challenges and immense opportunities in the region's dynamism.  We must 
meet both.

U.S. business is doing its part--becoming more competitive.  For the 
first time since 1985, the United States this year displaced Japan as 
the world's most competitive economy, according to a survey conducted by 
the World Economic Forum in Geneva.  We are once again the world's 
greatest export machine, exporting more goods and services than any 
other economy.

But business cannot do the job alone.  Government also has its part to 
play.  Today, I would like to talk to you about what the Clinton 
Administration is doing to open markets for American business in Asia 
and around the world  --globally, regionally, and bilaterally.  I'll 
focus in particular on how APEC--the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 
forum--fits into our policy.  Then I would like to explain why APEC 
matters to U.S. business and how you can participate in its activities 
and ensure that APEC serves you.

GATT:  Centerpiece of Global Engagement 

The Clinton Administration is committed to global economic engagement--
to compete, not retreat, in the global economy of the 21st century.  The 
centerpiece of the Administration's policy of international economic 
engagement is the Uruguay Round.  In Asia, Uruguay Round agreements will 
strengthen protection for intellectual property, open heretofore 
completely sealed markets, such as the Korean and Japanese rice markets, 
and substantially reduce or eliminate tariffs on major U.S. exports like 
construction equipment, pharmaceuticals, and medical equipment.

Although the Uruguay Round agreement is the most far-reaching trade 
agreement in history, it is much more than that.  The round will, in 
essence, "modernize" the international trading system.  It will 
significantly reduce tariffs and non-tariff barriers; expand the trade 
regime to services, intellectual property, and investment; cover 
agriculture in a meaningful way for the first time; and establish a 
World Trade Organization (WTO).  The new WTO will provide a solid 
foundation for the open, multilateral trading system --a system that 
will allow regional arrangements like the European Union or North 
American Free Trade Agreement to flourish but keep the world economy 
from breaking into costly, exclusionary economic blocs.

The Uruguay Round is an investment in a more integrated and prosperous 
post-Cold War world.  Implementation of the new agreements will boost 
world growth by an estimated $5 trillion over the next 10 years.  It 
will stimulate world demand for American products--boosting U.S. 
incomes, jobs, and standards of living.  The American people alone stand 
to reap $200 billion a year once the Uruguay Round goes into effect.

We are resolved to secure congressional ratification of the Uruguay 
Round this year.  We are confident that when the Congress reconvenes in 
December, both houses will pass the round's implementing legislation.  
Our trading partners throughout Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world 
are waiting for us to act.  In doing so, we will demonstrate to the 
American people and the world that we are prepared to provide global 
economic leadership and secure economic benefits for our own people.

Bilateral Challenges

We are also busy on the bilateral front.  We continue to level the 
playing field and provide new opportunities for our companies through 
our efforts in the U.S.-Japan Economic Framework talks, market access 
discussions with China, and formal economic dialogues with key Asian 
economies like Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and India.

The issues, as you in business know all-too well, are tough.  The 
problems can't be solved overnight.  We will have difficult moments--ups 
and downs--as we work to convince our trading partners that the Clinton 
Administration means business.  We expect the same opportunities for our 
firms in foreign markets as our trading partners enjoy in ours.  But as 
we have shown in the case of Japan, we are committed to finding 
solutions, and making those solutions produce results in the market.

Our recent agreements with Japan in telecommunications, medical 
technology, insurance, and flat glass will provide access for 
competitive U.S. firms in these key markets.  While much remains to be 
done, China is working to improve its protection for intellectual 
property rights, and Korea is beginning to address U.S. concern with 
access to its market for U.S. autos and parts.  We will continue to work 
aggressively for the removal of barriers to U.S. trade and investment 
throughout Asia.

Regional Approaches

We also need regional approaches to expand business opportunities, 
promote economic growth, and secure benefits for the American people.  
We see positive regional policies as a way to ensure that U.S. business 
is firmly rooted in those dynamic parts of the world that are so 
important to our economic future.

So in addition to its efforts to sustain and strengthen an open, 
multilateral trading system, the Clinton Administration is revitalizing 
and expanding U.S. economic relations with the three most important 
economic regions in the world--Western Europe, Latin America, and the 
Asia-Pacific region.

Canada and the nations of the European Union are our traditional 
markets.  They remain our largest partners in trade and investment.  
Through the North American Free Trade Agreement, we have created a 
unified North American market of 360 million consumers, a market that is 
translating into unprecedented new business opportunities for Americans.  
During the first half of 1994, U.S. exports to Canada grew 10% over the 
corresponding 1993 period, and exports to Mexico jumped 17%.

Our movement to expand economic opportunities close to home will 
continue in December, when President Clinton will host the Summit of the 
Americas in Miami.  Thirty-four democracies of the Western Hemisphere 
will come together to lay the groundwork for growth and greater economic 
cooperation in this hemisphere.

Trade with Asia, the world's fastest-growing region, remains front and 
center in our overall economic strategy.  That is why we are here today.  
Asian economies are, quite simply, the world's major growth markets.  
They will grow an average 7% or more over the next 10 years, compared to 
2.7% for the G-7 countries.  Four of the world's 10, Big Emerging 
Markets--BEMs--lie in Asia:  China, Korea, Indonesia, and India.  Last 
year, China's economy grew by 13%.  It now ranks as the world's third-
largest economy in purchasing power parity, after the United States and 
Japan; India ranks sixth.

Moreover, America's stake in Asia is growing.  U.S. sales to Asia are 
expanding more rapidly than to any other region--by an average 10% a 
year.  Asia is now our top trading partner.  It now buys one-third of 
U.S. exports, compared to only 23% in 1985.  Total American trade with 
Asia now exceeds $374 billion a year, or almost 40% of our total global 
merchandise trade.  An estimated 2.6 million American jobs now depend on 
U.S. exports to Asia, and Asia is now home to $92 billion of U.S. direct 
investment.

Where Does APEC Fit?

You may well be asking:  Where does APEC fit in this picture?  To start, 
some history:  APEC first met in Australia in 1989 as an informal 
economic dialogue among 12 member economies.  Beyond a general economic 
focus, the group had no stated mission or goal.  We have come a long way 
since then.

APEC has expanded from 12 to 18 member economies.  It now includes the 
vibrant Pacific economies of Mexico and Chile and those of the People's 
Republic of China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan--one of the world's most 
powerful economic areas.  Collectively, APEC's members represent one-
half the world's people and one-half its annual economic output.

APEC now has a structure:  a small secretariat in Singapore, a policy-
making process capped by annual Leaders' Meetings, and, most importantly 
in terms of day-to-day business needs, three committees and 10 active 
working groups.  APEC's working groups strongly encourage active private 
sector participation and focus on ways to make it easier to do business 
in sectors such as transportation, telecommunications, or energy.  Yet, 
the U.S. contribution to APEC's budget last year was only $364,000. It 
is one of the best deals the American taxpayer gets.

APEC now has a guiding vision.  The group is committed to more open 
trade and investment, application of free-market principles, and the 
concept of "open regionalism."  APEC leaders endorsed that vision last 
year at Blake Island.  They are expected to give it life this year in 
Bogor.

APEC also has a customer.  APEC is not for governments; it is for you--
business.  You are the customer.  Through APEC, we aim to get 
governments out of the way, opening the way for business to do business.  
It is our goal to make APEC the most user- friendly forum in the world.  
That is why business participates in APEC's working groups.  That is why 
APEC established a business advisory group --the Pacific Business Forum-
-to advise APEC leaders this year on business priorities and vision for 
APEC's future.  And that is why increasing the role for the private 
sector in APEC is a key objective for this year's meetings in Indonesia.  
The Pacific Business Forum will deliver its own "business blueprint for 
APEC" to President Soeharto tomorrow.

How APEC Serves You

How does APEC carry out this mission?  Let me give you some specific 
examples.

With the establishment in 1993 of a new Committee on Trade  and 
Investment--CTI--APEC launched an extensive new trade and investment 
facilitation effort.  Its goals are to simplify and harmonize customs 
procedures and standards, identify administrative barriers to trade, 
develop a set of non-binding investment principles, and work to 
harmonize Uruguay Round implementation among APEC member economies.

Indonesia will host the second APEC Customs Symposium in November.  Last 
year's symposium in Seattle provided an opportunity for U.S. business 
representatives to talk directly with customs officials and business 
leaders from around the region, making individual customs regimes more 
transparent and allowing businessmen and officials to work out problems 
face to face.

Much of APEC's most important work, in terms of solving practical, daily 
"doing business" needs, takes place in the day-to-day activities of its 
10 working groups.  For example, APEC's working groups recently 
published customs, investment, telecommunications, and transportation 
guides.  The guides provide information which make regional regimes and 
regulatory environments more transparent.  APEC will use these guides to 
analyze "best practices," identify bottlenecks, and work toward 
harmonization of standards and regimes.

APEC's energy working group has held seminars and training courses in 
the use of clean coal, providing new market opportunities for American 
environmental and alternative energy companies.  The APEC 
telecommunications working group has agreed on guidelines for 
harmonizing equipment certification, establishing principles to 
harmonize certification of this multi-billion dollar regional market.  
In APEC's customs working group, work is underway to speed movement of 
air express shipments by creating an electronic system to replace paper 
tracking and clearance systems.  These practical efforts directly 
reflect business  input in the working groups and APEC's desire to 
tackle the nitty-gritty but important issues confronting companies doing 
business in the region.

What We Expect in November

This year's Ministerial and Leaders' Meetings, under the chair of 
Indonesia, hold special promise.  We expect that further progress in 
advancing our vision of the Pacific's economic future will emerge this 
year.  President Soeharto will be in the chair, and he has said he will 
use the Bogor Leaders' Meeting to establish concrete goals for open and 
GATT-consistent trade and investment liberalization in the region.  The 
U.S. is supporting him in this effort.

In Bogor, the leaders will consider endorsing a call for establishment 
of free trade in the region by a set date.  By this, we mean not a 
formal agreement but endorsing a broad effort to achieve freer trade:  
promoting more open systems that pave the way for business to do 
business.

We expect the leaders will ask their ministers to develop, over the 
coming year, a blueprint for achieving this broad goal of free trade.  
In the medium term, this would mean improvements in customs, standards, 
and investment.  It would go beyond tariff reduction to address broader 
non-tariff and structural barriers to trade in the region.  It would 
address the concerns and needs of members at different levels of 
development.  The blueprint also would have to define how the process of 
moving toward freer trade in the region would be consistent with GATT 
and with APEC's commitment to "open regionalism."

We expect leaders will also review progress toward developing a non-
binding code of investment principles.  We are not there yet.  We will 
continue to work with our APEC partners to develop principles which 
promote more open, transparent investment regimes.

We also hope that APEC leaders in November will endorse establishment of 
a new, permanent business-sector advisory body to APEC.  We want 
business to provide the expertise and views necessary for APEC to define 
its objectives and focus its work.  The litmus test for success in APEC 
will be whether its work has practical relevance to the business 
community-- whether APEC removes impediments, creates opportunities, and 
develops a genuine sense of community in which all can do business.

Conclusion

Through GATT, APEC, and our bilateral economic dialogues, we are working 
to pave the way for U.S. business to seize the opportunities in Asia's 
economic boom.  Our economic future requires greater U.S. business 
involvement in Asia, competing and leading in the world's fastest-
growing markets.

APEC is a work in progress, one which holds the promise to help us set 
the stage for the future.  We look forward to hearing today from a broad 
range of experts--from within the U.S. Government and without--on how we 
might best realize that promise.  But, most importantly, we hope to hear 
from you--both today and in the future--as we seek to develop APEC as a 
key resource for business in the region.

(###). 



ARTICLE 6:

Humanitarian Steps To Aid Cuban Refugees
Statement by White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers, Washington, DC, 
October 14, 1994.


Today, the President announced a series of immediate humanitarian steps 
relating to Cubans in safehavens in Guantanamo and Panama.

First, the Attorney General will parole into the United States 
chronically ill persons and their caregivers who cannot be adequately 
cared for in the camps.

Second, she will parole into the United States unaccompanied young 
children now in the safehavens.

Third, she will parole into the United States migrants over 70.  In each 
case, we will ensure that those paroled in have appropriate sponsors.

Fourth, the Administration will conduct a review of the status of all 
children in the camps.

Fifth, we have launched a major effort to persuade other countries to 
accept some of the Cuban migrants.

Sixth, although much remains to be done, significant improvements have 
been made in the camps, including providing better food, inaugurating 
mail and telephone service, and improving sanitary conditions.  [Copies 
of a White House fact sheet showing the timetable for improvements can 
be obtained from the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, (202) 
456-2100.]

The Administration shares the deep concern of the Cuban-American 
community for the well-being of all Cubans in safehavens.  The root 
cause of these problems is in Cuba.  The Administration is dedicated to 
pursuing policies that will lead to a rapid and peaceful movement to 
democracy in Cuba. 

(###).



ARTICLE 7:

Treaty Actions


Multilateral

Copyright
Berne convention for the protection of literary and artistic works of 
Sept. 9, 1886, as revised.  Done at Paris July 24, 1971.  Entered into 
force for the U.S. Mar. 1, 1989.  Accession:  Lithuania, Sept. 14, 1994 
(1).

World Health Organization
Amendments to articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the World Health 
Organization, as amended.  Done at Geneva May 12, 1986.  Entered into 
force July 11, 1994. Acceptance:  Pakistan, Aug. 22, 1994.

Women 
Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against 
women.  Done at New York Dec. 18, 1979.  Entered into force Sept. 3, 
1981 (2).  Accession:  Kuwait, Sept. 2, 1994.


Bilateral

Bahamas
Extradition treaty.  Signed at Nassau Mar. 9, 1990.  [Senate] Treaty 
Doc. 102-17.  Instruments of ratification exchanged Sept. 22, 1994.  
Entered into force Sept. 22, 1994.

Burkina Faso
Postal money order agreement.  Signed at Ouagadougou and Washington Apr. 
25 and Aug. 17, 1994.  Entered into force Sept. 1, 1994.

Cameroon 
Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling or refinancing of 
certain debts owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the U.S. Government 
and its agencies, with annexes.  Signed at Yaounde Sept. 12, 1994.  
Enters into force following signature and receipt by Cameroon of written 
notice from the U.S. that all necessary domestic legal requirements have 
been fulfilled. 

Canada 
Protocol amending the convention with respect to taxes on income and on 
capital of Sept. 26, 1980, as amended by protocols of June 14, 1983 and 
Mar. 28, 1984.  Signed at Washington Aug. 31, 1994.  Enters into force 
upon the exchange of instruments of ratification.  [Senate] Treaty Doc. 
103-28.

Central African Republic 
Agreement regarding the consolidation, reduction, and rescheduling of 
certain debts owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the U.S. Government 
and its agencies, with annexes.  Signed at Bangui Sept. 6, 1994.  Enters 
into force following signature and receipt by Central African Republic 
of written notice from the U.S. that all necessary domestic legal 
requirements have been fulfilled.

Cote d'Ivoire 
Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling or refinancing of 
certain debts owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the U.S. Government 
and its agencies, with annexes.  Signed at Abidjan Aug. 26, 1994.  
Enters into force following sig- nature and receipt by Cote d'Ivoire of 
written notice from the U.S. that all necessary domestic legal 
requirements have been fulfilled. 

Dominica
Memorandum of understanding for the establishment within the territory 
of Dominica of facilities to provide temporary protection under the 
auspices of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees for nationals of Haiti 
fleeing their country, with related letter.  Signed at Dominica July 10, 
1994.  Entered into force July 10, 1994.

Eritrea
International express mail agreement, with detailed regulations.  Signed 
at Asmara and Washington July 4 and 18, 1994.  Entered into force Nov. 
1, 1994.

France 
Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of 
fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and capital, with 
exchanges of notes.  Signed at Paris Aug. 31, 1994.  Enters into force 
on the date of receipt of later notification that constitutional and 
statutory requirements have been satisfied.  [Senate] Treaty Doc. 103-
32.

Gabon
Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling or refinancing of 
certain debts owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the U.S. Government 
and its agencies, with annexes.  Signed at Libreville Sept. 2, 1994.  
Enters into force following signature and receipt by Gabon of written 
notice from the U.S. that all necessary domestic legal requirements have 
been fulfilled.

Hong Kong 
Agreement extending the agreement of Nov. 23, 1990, as extended, 
concerning the confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds and 
instrumentalities of drug trafficking.  Effected by exchange of notes at 
Hong Kong July 12 and 14, 1994.  Entered into force July 14, 1994; 
effective Jan. 18, 1995. 

Jordan
Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling or refinancing of 
certain debts owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the U.S. Government 
and its agencies, with annexes.  Signed at Amman Aug. 18, 1994.  Entered 
into force September 19, 1994.

Lebanon 
Agreement regarding grants under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
amended, and the furnishing of defense articles, related training, and 
other defense services from the U.S. to Lebanon.  Effected by exchange 
of notes at Beirut June 21 and July 18, 1994.  Entered into force July 
18, 1994. 

Mexico
Protocol modifying the agreement of Nov. 9, 1989, for the exchange of 
information with respect to taxes.  Signed at Mexico Sept. 8, 1994.  
Enters into force upon an exchange of notes confirming their mutual 
agreement that both sides have met all constitutional and statutory 
requirements.

Additional protocol that modifies the convention of Sept. 18, 1992, for 
the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion 
with respect to taxes on income.  Signed at Mexico Sept. 8, 1994.  
Enters into force when the parties notify each other that their 
respective constitutional and statutory requirements have been 
satisfied.  [Senate] Treaty Doc. 103-31. 

Portugal 
Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of 
fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, with protocol.  Signed 
at Washington Sept. 6, 1994.  Enters into force upon the exchange of 
instruments of ratification.  [Senate] Treaty Doc. 103-34. 

South Africa 
Agreement concerning the provision of training under the U.S. 
International Military Education and Training (IMET) Program.  Effected 
by exchange of notes at Pretoria June 14 and July 11, 1994.  Entered 
into force July 11, 1994. 

St. Lucia 
Memorandum of understanding for the establishment within the territory 
of St. Lucia of facilities to provide temporary protection under the 
auspices of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees for nationals of Haiti 
fleeing their country.  Signed at St. Lucia July 15, 1994.  Entered into 
force July 15, 1994.

Sweden 
Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of 
fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, with exchange of 
letters.  Signed at Stockholm Sept. 1, 1994.  Enters into force upon the 
exchange of instruments of ratification.  [Senate] Treaty Doc. 103-29. 

Trinidad and Tobago 
Memorandum of understanding concerning protection of intellectual 
property rights.  Signed at Washington Sept. 26, 1994.  Enters into 
force upon an exchange of notes indicating that all legislation and 
regulations necessary to give full effect to obligations undertaken have 
come into force. 

United Kingdom--Turks and Caicos Islands 
Agreement amending the 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.  Effected by exchange of letters at Grand Turk and 
London July 13, 1994.  Entered into force July 13, 1994.


(1)  With declaration. 
(2)  Not in force for the U.S.

(###).



ARTICLE 8:

New Ambassadors
July-September 1994


Albania--Joseph Edward Lake, September 19, 1994
Algeria--Ronald E. Neumann, August 29, 1994
Bahrain--David M. Ransom, July 8, 1994
Belize--George Charles Bruno, August 16, 1994
India--Frank G. Wisner, July 5, 1994
Kyrgyz Republic--Eileen A. Malloy, September 15, 1994
Lithuania--James W. Swihart, Jr., September 13, 1994
Malawi--Peter R. Chaveas, August 1, 1994
Mauritania--Dorothy Myers Sampas, September 22, 1994
Portugal--Elizabeth Frawley Bagley, August 3, 1994
Saudi Arabia--Raymond Edwin Mabus, Jr., July 13, 1994
Seychelles--Carl Burton Stokes, August 29, 1994
Singapore--Timothy A. Chorba, July 28, 1994
Tanzania--Brady Anderson, August 29, 1994
Togo--Johnny Young, September 9, 1994
Trinidad and Tobago--Brian J. Donnelly, August 25, 1994
Tunisia--Mary Ann Casey, September 13, 1994
Uganda--E. Michael Southwick, September 12, 1994 

(###).



END OF DISPATCH  VOL 5, NO 44.

(###)