US DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH 
VOLUME 5, NUMBER 48, NOVEMBER 28, 1994 
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS 
 
ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE: 
1.  The OAS and the Summit of the Americas--Vice President Gore 
2.  Fact Sheet:  Organization of American States  
3.  NATO:  Extending Stability in Europe--Secretary Christopher, NATO 
Secretary General Claes 
4.  The Growing Role of Economics In the Middle East Peace Mosaic--
Robert H. Pelletreau 
 
ARTICLE 1: 
 
The OAS and the Summit Of the Americas 
Vice President Gore 
Address before the Organization of American States, Washington, DC, 
November 17, 1994 
 
One of the pleasures of being Vice President is that you can invite 
brilliant and talented people to come to your house for dinner and they 
will often accept.  Last week saw one such occasion for my wife, Tipper, 
and me.  Tipper and I were honored to host a gathering of men and women 
who have been deeply involved in the affairs of our hemisphere for most 
of their lives. 
 
It was a rich, important, and absorbing discussion.  We had sought a 
range of opinion, and that is what we got--whether we were listening to 
Beatrice Rangel, the Venezuelan scholar-politician; Francisco Weffort, 
the Brazilian political pundit; Mexican-American poet, Dagoberto Gilb; 
Rex Nettleford, the artist and teacher from Jamaica; or any of the other 
35 poets, intellectuals, playwrights, novelists, and others who were 
part of the group from throughout the hemisphere. 
 
While we disagreed on some things, we agreed on one major idea:  that 
there is right now what some have called a "New Moment in the Americas"-
-a point in history that offers more hope than any other in our long 
history. 
 
We felt this way not only because of the flourishing of democracy in the 
Americas but because the United States has changed.  In 1826, when Simon 
Bolivar brought together a Congress of Spanish-American states, he 
invited the United States to take part.  John Quincy Adams appointed two 
delegates, but there was so much political bickering about their 
appointments that the two delegates from the United States arrived at 
the conference only after it was over.  Since then, it has sometimes 
seemed as if my country has chosen to involve itself too little--or too 
much. 
 
By contrast, President Clinton's decision to convene the Summit of the 
Americas and to issue invitations to all nations represented in this 
hall today--the first such hemispheric gathering in 27 long years--
reflects our firm belief that we have a historic opportunity to forge a 
new, cooperative partnership among our countries.  We believe, too, that 
the Organization of American States--the oldest, most successful 
regional organization in the world--has a crucial role to play in this 
endeavor.  My purpose in speaking to you this morning is to set forth 
our ideas on what the Summit of the Americas means for the OAS and what 
the OAS can do to promote the spirit and the achievements of the summit. 
 
We in the Western Hemisphere must create a bold strategy for the future.  
Political, social, and economic trends already have brought our 
countries closer than ever.  But we cannot rest on our laurels.  We need 
to accelerate the momentum. 
 
We will have that opportunity at the Summit of the Americas.  In the 
Organization of American States and other regional organizations, we can 
focus our energies on a united approach to issues that concern us all--
an approach that can be as unified as the design of this building--this 
"House of Americas," which blends the architectural styles of North and 
South America.  It is a building that has been witness to many key 
events in hemispheric history.  Just 17 years ago, it saw the signing of 
the Panama Canal treaties.  Two years ago, it was the site where the 
historic North American Free Trade Agreement was signed. 
 
NAFTA, with the active and resourceful leadership of President Clinton, 
prompted a vigorous national debate in my country, and that debate 
culminated in a most dramatic vote--which took place exactly one year 
ago today--when the U.S. House of Representatives passed the NAFTA 
legislation.  NAFTA is more than just a trade agreement among three 
neighbors.  It is perhaps the most striking example of a fundamental 
change taking place throughout the hemisphere, one in which the 
political issues dividing us are being replaced by the joint pursuit of 
common goals. 
 
Such partnership has evolved in the OAS as well.  It is a relatively 
recent development; the OAS Charter commits all members to 
representative government, but for years the organization suffered from 
internal contradictions, and these walls reverberated with 
recrimination.  Debates dragged on, sometimes seemingly endlessly.  
Consensus--and, therefore, decisive action--eluded us.  But by 1991 when 
the Santiago General Assembly was convened, all 34 delegations 
represented governments with a claim to democratic legitimacy.  The 
result was revolutionary:  the unanimous adoption of Resolution 1080, 
calling for automatic OAS consideration of the interruption of the 
democratic political institutional process in any member country. 
 
One year later, the OAS approved the Washington Protocol, which, when 
ratified, will allow for the suspension from the OAS of a state whose 
democratic government has been over- thrown by force.  We are encouraged 
that many countries, including the U.S., have ratified the protocol.  We 
look forward to the day when it goes into effect and fervently hope its 
provisions will never have to be implemented. 
 
But the OAS is much more than resolutions, protocols, and diplomatic 
negotiations.  Some of the organization's best work is carried out 
beyond these walls.  OAS personnel have observed elections in the 
farthest corners of the hemisphere; human rights monitors have labored 
under tense and sometimes life-threatening conditions.  Their tools are 
technical expertise and moral suasion.  These people are the unsung 
heroes of the OAS, and they deserve our special recognition and 
everlasting gratitude. 
 
The OAS has never been more prepared to carry out its responsibilities.  
The member states, through the Permanent Council and Secretary General 
Gaviria, are leading a political and managerial renaissance.  Dr. 
Gaviria has challenged all of us to think more about how the OAS can 
collectively address the pressing problems of the 1990s, and how it can 
adapt to meet the challenges of the 21st century.  The United States 
welcomes these efforts.  The Clinton Administration is firmly committed 
to the OAS.  We have helped finance technical assistance and activities 
to promote democracy and human rights. 
 
Today, I am particularly pleased to join with our Permanent 
Representative, Hattie Babbitt, on the entry into force of the OAS 
Headquarters Agreement.  This agreement recognizes the full legal 
privileges and immunities of the OAS Secretariat in exercising its 
functions here in the United States.  The recent ratification of the 
Headquarters Agreement represents a renewed expression of the deep 
commitment of my country to the OAS and to regional cooperation.  For 
the United States, it is a matter of great pride to be the official host 
of the OAS--as well as a steadfast friend. 
 
The United States' commitment to the OAS reflects a broader commitment 
to hemispheric cooperation on a broad range of issues: 
 
--  Reducing trade barriers;  
--  Strengthening our democratic institutions;  
--  Improving health and education for all our people; and  
--  Wisely managing our natural resources. 
 
All will be underscored when we host the summit.  As I speak, we are 
continuing a series of consultations with our hemispheric neighbors on 
the summit agenda.  My friend, Mack McLarty, left this morning for 
Jamaica to consult with our friends.  These consultations also have 
involved significant contributions from business groups and non-
governmental organizations as well as governments. 
 
The summit will be a landmark for the United States--which was why I 
took such pleasure announcing it last December in Mexico City.  It will 
be the first hemispheric gathering we have ever hosted and the largest 
single summit ever held in this country.  With the summit just three 
weeks away, it might be appropriate to reminisce briefly about the last 
such gathering of our countries, in Punta del Este, Uruguay, in 1967. 
 
What a different world it was then.  At that April meeting in Uruguay, 
10 countries of the 24 then in the OAS were headed by non-democratic 
governments; ideology and rhetoric separated many of us in the American 
family.  More than a quarter of a century later, our world, of course, 
looks radically different.  The United States has new leadership 
committed to economic competitiveness and reinventing government.  All 
over the globe, encrusted ideologies and command economies have been 
replaced by democratic and free-market practices--especially in this 
hemisphere.  All but one of the states in the now 35-member OAS have 
elected governments--a development unprecedented in this hemisphere's 
history.  The countries of this hemisphere are today on a more equal, 
mutually respectful footing than they were 27 years ago. 
 
We have seen the successful conclusion of the Cold War.  We have 
reaffirmed the virtue of democracy and rejected anti-democratic 
ideologies,   and we have recognized that we must live and work together 
to survive and prosper.  It is this almost palpable expectation for our 
future that makes the upcoming summit so full of promise. 
 
The leaders who meet in Miami will  have a broad agenda.  That is not 
surprising after such a long hiatus.  We are confident the summit will 
be productive.  We are convinced the OAS will have a prominent role in 
implementing the summit's accomplishments. 
 
Although our countries have pursued different paths to democracy and 
economic reform, we largely agree on the steps that we must take from 
here:  economic growth, wise use of natural resources, and government 
institutions that are accountable to our peoples.  An issue that 
involves all of those steps is trade. 
 
Trade Commitments 
 
President Clinton is committed to expanding trade in this hemisphere.  
We will, of course, deal with this matter extensively at the summit.  
His commitment is shared by world leaders who look to a future of 
regional cooperation and increased economic integration.  Take, for 
example, the results of this week's meeting among APEC leaders.  While 
separated by vast geographic distances and different cultural 
traditions, the APEC members have nonetheless committed themselves to a 
far-reaching plan of action  to expand trade. 
 
The U.S. Congress has in its hands right now a trade measure that would 
greatly affect the future of my country's economy and the world economy.  
Passage of the Uruguay Round implementing legislation would show both a 
commitment to global economic openness and set an example for other 
states to follow.  We are working hard with our Congress to ensure 
passage of this legislation before the start of the summit. 
 
As soon as the new Congress is seated in January, President Clinton and 
key members of that body will press not only for new fast-track 
authority but for passage of the Interim Trade Program, an initiative  
of particular interest to our Central American and Caribbean neighbors. 
 
We look to the leaders in Miami to endorse the goal of free trade in the 
Western Hemisphere and to adopt concrete measures toward its 
realization.  We foresee the OAS and its Special Committee on Trade 
playing an important role in this process.  What an opportunity for the 
summit to stimulate cooperation on trade and investment in the Americas!  
We can get a hint of such potential by looking at what NAFTA has 
achieved.  The agreement has been in effect less than a year, but it has 
been a winner for everyone involved. 
 
How do we measure the benefits to the United States?  Look at exports 
from my country.  U.S. exports to our NAFTA partners over the first six 
months of 1994 are up 11.6% over the same period in 1993.  That is twice 
the rate of our export growth to the rest of the world.  Those 
burgeoning U.S. exports have so far created an estimated 100,000 jobs--
in every sector of the economy--while job displacements due to the trade 
pact are many times less. 
 
How do we measure the benefits to my country's neighbors to the North 
and South?  Look at their exports.  Over the same six months, for 
example, exports from Canada and Mexico to the U.S. rose by 
approximately 10% and 21%, respectively.  The citizens of all three 
countries have gained enormously in the lower prices they pay for the 
quality goods we supply to each other. 
 
Many of you have seen similar benefits from other sub-regional 
agreements.  In Miami, our leaders will have the historic potential to 
galvanize this process of economic integration.  We can promote the 
already vast and varied ties among our nations, economies, and markets, 
and make sure the fruits of economic growth reach all our citizens. 
 
Economic Integration 
 
To realize this, we need to spur investment by our private and public 
sectors and eliminate barriers to commerce and facilitate trade and 
other exchanges.  This means interweaving the strands of our financial, 
transportation, rail, aviation, energy, and telecommunications systems.  
For example, we can envision creating a hemispheric capital movements 
code that would make capital markets more open, unified, and liberal, 
thereby reducing the cost of capital necessary to finance growth.  We 
can envision agreement on basic principles that will give private 
investors the confidence and assurances they need to invest in the 
large-scale, long-term infrastructure our hemisphere needs. 
 
Strengthening the hemisphere's telecommunications infrastructure is  an 
especially critical part of building hemispheric integration.  I spoke 
to the International Telecommunications Union earlier this year in 
Buenos Aires about my own strong belief that the citizens of this 
hemisphere must have access to the information technology exploding all 
around us.  We need to collectively ensure that every major hospital, 
library, and educational institution in the Americas has access to the 
Internet.  The OAS and its Inter-American Telecommunications Commission 
(CITEL) can play a role in this crucial enterprise. 
 
Democracy 
 
As important as economic integration is to the Americas, this singular 
summit also should offer recognition of another singular story--the 
resounding success of democracy in this hemisphere.  One recent event in 
our hemisphere has underscored the potency of the democratic idea.  Just 
over a month ago, we all witnessed the heartening return to Port-au-
Prince of Haiti's elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.  Without 
the hemispheric consensus forged by the OAS, the eventual world 
consensus on the need to restore democracy to Haiti would not have been 
achieved.  The Organization called for a commercial embargo, dispatched 
human rights monitors, coordinated humanitarian assistance, and strove 
consistently to negotiate a peaceful solution. 
 
This restoration of democracy in Haiti was an enormous triumph, but it 
should not let us gloss over the fact that maintaining democracy 
requires persistence and rigor.  Here, too, there is a pivotal role for 
the Organization of American States to play.  After all, if democracy 
falls in most other parts of the world, the foreign ministers do not 
convene in emergency session to confront the challenge.  Perhaps they 
should.  Perhaps one day they will.  But for now, democracy is our 
watchword and our pride. 
 
The challenge for the OAS now is to direct even more effort toward 
preventing crises and strengthening democratic institutions throughout 
the hemisphere.  To further promote democracy, summit leaders should 
look to this organization to enhance even further its capacity.  We must 
help countries strengthen their electoral organizations.  We must also 
facilitate contact among democratic institutions--such as legislatures--
of member states throughout the hemisphere. 
 
There are many other contributions for the OAS to make when asked by 
member states.  It could play an even greater role in political 
reconciliation, and it could act as a consultant and adviser on 
government reform. 
 
There are also other ways for the OAS to help fortify our democracies.  
We all agree, for example, that we must improve government performance, 
making it more efficient and accountable, less subject to corruption, 
and less vulnerable.  Every OAS member has come to fully acknowledge the 
true costs of corruption to purse and polity.  We agree that a 
hemispheric-wide commitment to combat it would benefit us all. 
 
The draft declaration prepared by the OAS Working Group on Public Ethics 
contains many important elements that we hope the summit will endorse.  
We strongly support the notion of outreach through the working group to 
other organizations active in this area, such as the OECD.  We also 
support the concept of an inter-American anti-corruption agreement.  I 
wish to express thanks to the member states that were the initiators of 
this dialogue.  It did not come from the United States in the first 
instance. 
 
Social Issues 
 
There are several areas of social policy  we have discussed where 
cooperative efforts could bear fruit and where the OAS can spur such 
cooperation.  Let us never forget the importance of social justice as we 
work to raise the prosperity of our region.  First, the economic pie 
must be made larger if our people are to have any realistic chance at 
happiness.  But how the pie is divided also matters. 
 
It was not an accident that the OAS chose to make the elimination of 
extreme poverty one of its "essential purposes" as an organization, 
right along with strengthening democracy in the reforms of the 
Washington and Managua Protocols.  Democracy and respect for the needs 
and aspirations of ordinary people must go together.  People want and 
deserve honest government that collects taxes from those who are able to 
pay and spends the money wisely. 
 
We can make progress on social issues at the summit.  All of us share 
concerns about money laundering and the drug trade that feeds it.  At 
the summit, we could urge the assembled nations to ratify the Vienna 
Convention, making it illegal to launder the proceeds of serious crime.  
Such legislation can be based on the CICAD model regulations. 
 
The Environment 
 
The theme of environmental protection--so important to me and to our 
entire Administration--also emerged in our consultations as a topic 
worthy of discussion by our leaders.  The summit is a logical forum to 
frame mutually agreed-upon environmental standards for the Americas; to 
instill better compliance regimes; and to intensify efforts to maintain 
the amazingly rich, living resources of our hemisphere.  These follow 
consistently from the commitments we all made at the 1992 Rio 
Conference, which I was privileged to attend along with many of you 
here. 
 
One significant step already has been taken in our hemisphere with the 
launching of the Central American Alliance for Sustainable Development.  
I was honored to be at the Central American Ecological Summit in Managua 
October 12 and to express the commitment of my country to this exciting, 
new endeavor.  Together with the Central American nations, we plan to 
sign the CONCAUSA Declaration on Cooperation for Sustainable Development 
at the Summit of the Americas. 
 
Hemispheric Ties 
 
This hemisphere has made tremendous progress in recent years, as we all 
know and recognize.  While there have been dramatic changes around the 
world, we can take special pride that the democratic revolution in our 
hemisphere happened first.  Democracy was reestablished in our 
hemisphere even before the great democratic movement liberated Eastern 
Europe.  The historic process of reconciliation in the Middle East has 
its counterparts in this hemisphere as well, notably in the process that 
has brought peace to Central America. 
 
Never before in history have Latin America, the Caribbean, Canada, and 
the United States been in such close agreement on all the fundamental 
economic, political, and social values that are important to free 
people.  Never in its history has our hemisphere been so close to a 
universal family of democratically elected governments.  Never have we 
been more genuinely neighbors, determined to devote ourselves to making 
a neighborhood marked by the social and economic prosperity of all its 
people. 
 
My government welcomes this historic moment as an opportunity to work 
toward foreign and economic policies with the hemisphere rather than 
merely toward the hemisphere.  We want to help create a region not of 
donors and recipients but one in which all contribute and in which all 
are respected.  We seek the consolidation of an even more democratic 
hemisphere to provide the political foundation for all that we want to 
achieve. 
 
In his famous speech at Angostura in 1819, Simon Bolivar looked ahead to 
what the Latin American independence movements would mean.  Here is what 
he said: 
 
Flying through the ages yet to come, my imagination fixes itself on 
future centuries--and observing from that vantage point--I see it 
serving as the link, the focus, the emporium of the human family; I see 
it seated on the Throne of Liberty, clasping  the sceptre of Justice, 
crowned by Glory, displaying to the Old World the majesty of the modern 
world. 
 
We now live in the time envisioned by Bolivar.  We are the Organization 
of American States, yes--but we are also a community of American 
democracies.  Let us strengthen the ties among us at the summit. 
 
Our languages will be different.  But in our beliefs, our commitment, 
and our dedication, we are one.  Nos vemos en Miami.   
(###). 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 2: 
 
Fact Sheet: Organization of American States 
 
 
Background 
 
The Organization of American States (OAS) is the world's oldest regional 
organization.  It dates back to the First International Conference of 
American States, which was held in Washington, DC, in April 1890.  This 
conference founded the International Union of American Republics and 
also established a Commercial Bureau, which acted as the Union's 
secretariat.  In 1910, the International Union became the Union of 
American Republics and the Commercial Bureau, the Pan American Union. 
 
The OAS Charter was signed in Bogota, Colombia, in 1948 and entered into 
force December 1951.  It has been amended twice:  first, through the 
Protocol of Buenos Aires in 1970 and later by the Protocol of Cartagena 
de Indias in November 1988.  The latter marked the beginning of 
modernizing and strengthening the organization. 
 
The OAS has 35 member states.  It has granted permanent observer status 
to 32 states.  The Holy See and the European Union also are permanent 
observers. 
 
U.S. Policy 
 
The U.S. is committed to strengthening and working with the OAS as the 
preeminent hemispheric institution.  This reflects the U.S. Government's 
determination to make optimal use of multilateral diplomacy to resolve 
regional problems and to engage its neighbors on topics of hemispheric 
concern.   
 
The most elemental and historic U.S. interest in the Western Hemisphere-
-shared by virtually all hemisphere states--is to prevent military, 
political, or other intervention by states outside the hemisphere.  A 
second, fundamental interest shared by the U.S. and other nations is the 
maintenance of peace among the states of the hemisphere.  The OAS 
provides a means to promote the consolidation of democracy with due 
regard for the charter principle of non-intervention. 
 
All OAS members share a common concern for democracy, economic 
development, and human rights.  Major U.S. interests and objectives in 
the hemisphere coincide with the goals and work of the OAS:  
 
--  The promotion and strengthening of democracy and human rights; 
--  Drug control; 
--  Environmental protection; 
--  Legal development; 
--  Economic assistance and technical cooperation; 
--  Trade; and 
--  Economic integration and development. 
 
Since 1990, the U.S. has paid its full assessed quota to the OAS.  For 
FY 1996, the Administration seeks full funding of the U.S. quota 
assessment to the OAS.   
 
OAS Objectives 
 
The OAS is a natural forum for the Western Hemisphere's dialogue on 
political, economic, social, educational, cultural, scientific, and 
technological matters.  Its objectives are to: 
 
--  Strengthen the peace and security of the hemisphere; 
 
--  Promote democracy, with due respect for the principle of non-
intervention; 
 
--  Seek solutions to hemispheric political, juridical, and economic 
problems; 
 
--  Promote cooperative economic, social, and cultural development; and 
 
--  Fight drug-trafficking and abuse. 
 
Maintaining Peace  
 
The OAS has a long, prestigious tradition of defending and maintaining 
peace in the hemisphere.  For example,  the OAS helped demobilize more 
than 22,000 members of the former Nicaraguan Resistance.  Currently, it 
is repatriating 18,000 relatives of former combatants and providing 
conditions that will enable them to be fully incorporated into civilian 
life. 
 
Promoting Democracy 
 
The OAS plays a constructive role in promoting democracy in the 
hemisphere.  Since 1989, upon explicit requests from respective 
governments, the Secretary General has established civilian OAS missions 
to observe electoral processes in Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, 
Suriname, and Paraguay.  OAS observers also were present at elections in 
Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, and the Dominican Republic. 
 
The OAS strongly condemned the September 1991 coup, which interrupted 
the democratic political institutional process in Haiti.  It forged 
hemispheric and world consensus on the need to restore democracy in 
Haiti and called for a commercial embargo, dispatched human rights 
monitors, coordinated humanitarian assistance, and consistently strove 
to negotiate a peaceful solution. 
 
Development Cooperation 
 
The OAS is a forum through which the hemisphere discusses the following 
development issues: 
 
--  Reducing poverty and unemployment;  
--  Defending social justice;  
--  Creating incentives for investment and economic growth;  
--  Liberalizing trade; and   
--  Alleviating the external debt burden. 
 
The General Secretariat supports national and multinational development 
programs and projects in member states.  OAS-supported projects are 
requested by the respective governments. 
(###). 
 
OAS Members(1)

Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Grenada
Guatemala
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
St Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Suriname
Trinidad and Tobago
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela

__________
(1)With the entry of Canada (1990), Belize (1991), and Guyana (1991), all 
sovereign states of the Western Hemisphere are OAS members.  Cuba is a 
member, although its current government has been excluded from 
participation since 1962 for incompatibility with the principles of the 
OAS Charter.  
__________
(###)


Organization
The OAS accomplishes its objectives through the following organs:

--  General Assembly;
--  Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs; 
--  Councils--Permanent Council, Inter-American Economic and Social 
    Council, and Inter-American Council for Education, Science and 
    Culture;
--  Inter-American Juridical Committee;
--  Inter-American Commission on Human Rights;
--  General Secretariat;
--  Specialized organizations--Inter-American Commission of Women, 
    Inter-American Children's Institute, Inter-American Indian 
    Institute, Pan American Institute of Geography and History, Inter-
    American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture; and the Pan 
    American Health Organization; and
--  Other entities--Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Inter-American 
    Drug Abuse Control Commission, Inter-American Defense Board, Inter-
    American Defense College, Inter-American Development Bank, Pan 
    American Development Foundation, and Inter-American Commission on 
    Telecommunications.  

(###)
 
 
ARTICLE 3: 
 
NATO:  Extending Stability in Europe  
Secretary Christopher, NATO Secretary General Claes 
Opening remarks at a press conference, Washington, DC, November 21, 1994 
 
 
Secretary Christopher.  Good morning.  I am pleased to welcome Willy 
Claes on his first official visit to Washington as Secretary General of 
NATO.  Mr. Claes, of course, is well known to us because of his 
distinguished service as the Foreign Minister of Belgium.  He takes his 
new role at a defining moment in the history of NATO and also of Europe.  
His visit here is particularly timely with respect to the long-term 
challenges we face in Europe and the immediate challenges we face in 
Bosnia. 
 
Secretary General Claes played an instrumental role in the important 
events of this weekend.  These events culminated, as you know, in UN 
Security Council Resolution 958, authorizing the use of air power in 
Croatia.  Immediately following the Security Council action, the North 
Atlantic Council, with the leadership of Mr. Claes--who was on the 
telephone most of the weekend--held an emergency session that resulted 
in a rapid agreement to implement this new UN resolution. 
 
This morning, pursuant to these decisions, NATO aircraft struck at 
Udbina--the airfield in Croatia from which the attacks had been launched 
against Bihac.  Those attacks were in violation of the no-fly zone as 
well as the UN resolutions on the safe areas. 
 
We have only preliminary reports so far of this action, but it appears 
that the NATO aircraft succeeded in cratering the runway and in 
eliminating six surface-to-air missiles that were around the field.  The 
Serbs fired some hand-held, shoulder-launched missiles, but all the 
planes returned safely. 
 
I want to make it clear to the Serb forces that they should not take any 
measures that would jeopardize the safety of the UNPROFOR forces.  They 
should cease their violation of   the UN resolutions.  They should cease 
their attacks on Bihac.  NATO already  has ample authority to defend 
UNPROFOR, and to ensure the integrity of the UN resolutions; NATO will 
not hesitate to use that authority. 
 
These strikes, of course, do not in and of themselves end the crisis 
around Bihac.  We will be continuing to watch the situation closely and 
to work with our allies on a range of options for additional NATO action 
to protect the safe areas and to halt the Serb offensive. 
 
Mr. Claes' visit here is especially timely because we are approaching an 
important series of meetings in Europe in the first week of December.  
This series begins with the North Atlantic Council meeting, followed by 
a North Atlantic Cooperation Council meeting--both of these meetings in 
Brussels.  Then we move to Budapest for the meeting of the Conference on 
Security and Cooperation in Europe, the latter meeting, of course, being 
the one that President Clinton will attend.  These meetings will give us 
an important opportunity to advance our comprehensive strategy for 
Europe. 
 
NATO is and will remain the centerpiece of America's commitment to 
European security.  But now our challenge is to extend the zone of 
security and stability that the Alliance has provided--to extend it 
across the continent to the east.  The Alliance is meeting this 
challenge by reaching out to former adversaries and by developing new 
tools and new approaches to the threats to European security. 
 
NATO's Partnership for Peace is a key element in our strategy, and it 
has certainly become an impressive success since it was launched last 
January.  Troops that once were trained to fight one another are now 
planning and training together.   
 
The United States views a fully functioning and active Partnership for 
Peace as a key part of the modern European security structure.  It is an 
essential link between the members and non-members of NATO.  It is the 
best path for countries seeking to join NATO. 
 
I want to conclude by saying that the United States is firmly committed 
to a steady, transparent, and deliberative process for NATO expansion.  
Our aim is to extend stability in Europe, not to maintain old divisions 
or to create new ones.  We are looking forward to working closely with 
Secretary General Claes and with our allies as we develop this important 
process toward NATO expansion and toward the integration of Europe. 
 
Secretary General--Willy--you are most welcome here.  It is, I think, 
very timely and fortunate that you were in the United States at the time 
of these important decisions over the weekend, which you handled with 
such skill and precision. 
 
Secretary General Claes.  Thank you, Mr. Secretary.  Ladies and 
gentlemen:  Let me say first of all that I am very glad that the 
operation this morning, led by NATO, can be considered as being a real 
success.  I am very glad that all the pilots came back to the bases 
safely, and I take this opportunity to congratulate the pilots and the 
troops on the ground who were responsible for the success of this 
operation. 
 
This operation, ladies and gentlemen, indicates clearly, I think, that 
NATO is not dead at all.  This was a multinational operation--Americans, 
British, French, and Dutch pilots.  Just one week ago, I was in Italy 
and I visited different bases, so I saw what is going on every day, 24 
hours on 24 hours, in the framework of the "Sharp Guard" action in the 
Adriatic Sea and the "Deny Flight."  Those who pretend that America is 
not willing to go on to cooperate are making a serious mistake, I think. 
 
Let me tell you once again that the situation and the mandate we have 
accepted are perfectly manageable.  Not only the President of the U.S.A. 
and the eminent members of the government, but representatives of both 
important political parties I have met here confirm their commitment to 
NATO--NATO which, indeed, this weekend acted very quickly just two hours 
after the decision taken by the Security Council--an urgent meeting of 
the Council in Brussels--gave a clear and positive answer to the request 
sent to me by Secretary General of the UN Boutros-Ghali. 
 
I think that this action indicates that we are doing better in our 
cooperation with the UN.  Of course, the UN and NATO are different 
international organizations with different structures, with different 
conceptions and even, if I may say, with a different bureaucratic 
culture. 
 
But after having had a lot of discussions and negotiations with the UN, 
we have made a new agreement, and I think that the first implementation 
of this new agreement--the action of this morning--indicates that we are 
on the right course. 
 
Of course, we are not trying to multiply military victories.  We are 
just trying to convince the Serbs that the moment has come to go back to 
the conference table and to accept the proposals as made by the Contact 
Group.  That is what we are trying to do. 
 
Finally, maybe I am a little bit brutal in saying this, but NATO, ladies 
and gentlemen, is more than Bosnia.  As Secretary Christopher said, the 
day has come to enlarge the peace, the stability, and the security in 
Europe to Central and Eastern Europe.  I am very thankful that the U.S. 
Government is making a proposal which will be discussed during the 
Ministerial Council of NATO on December 1. 
 
I suppose that the council will be ready to start the internal dialogue 
on the enlargement of NATO toward the East in trying to give clear 
answers to complicated questions--how to do this, why to do this.  
Afterward, we will have the opportunity to discuss who will do it and 
when we will do it--but first of all, how and why.  I hope that it will 
be possible to finalize this work in 1995, and that we will have the 
opportunity that same year to start a dialogue with partners. 
 
But all this has to be discussed during the Ministerial Council, and I 
am very glad that I will have the opportunity now to discuss all these 
different questions--having, of course, a link with other developments 
in Europe--at the Intergovernmental Conference of the European Union in 
1996 and at the CSCE summit at the beginning of December in Budapest.  
But once again, I am convinced that without NATO it is not possible to 
bring stability to consolidate those young democracies and to help them 
in reforming the economic systems. 
 
So the challenge we are facing is maybe much more important--much more 
complicated--than we knew in the Cold War period. 
 
Once again, I think that the challenge is so that the transatlantic 
link--the solidarity between the United States of America and Canada, on 
one end, and the European partners--is an absolute necessity. 
(###). 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 4: 
 
The Growing Role of Economics In the Middle East Peace Mosaic 
Robert H. Pelletreau, Assistant Secretary For Near Eastern Affairs 
Address before the Mid-America Committee, Chicago, Illinois, November 
17, 1994 
 
It is a pleasure to be with you today.  I want to thank the Chicago Mid-
America Committee, and in particular your Chairman, Thomas Miner, for 
that wonderful lunch and for the opportunity to speak to you about 
developments in the Middle East.  I also want to extend a special 
welcome to my diplomatic colleagues who have joined us today. 
 
Today, more than at any time in recent history, the goal which we have 
sought for over four decades--of securing a comprehensive peace between 
the Arab world and Israel--is gaining momentum, and it is driving a 
significant transformation of the region.  Since the Israelis and PLO 
exchanged mutual recognition and signed a joint Declaration of 
Principles in September 1993, the world has witnessed an extraordinary 
series of breakthroughs toward peace. 
 
--  Jordan and Israel have signed a full treaty of peace; 
--  Israel and the PLO are implementing their Declaration of Principles; 
--  Morocco and Tunisia have established official ties with Israel; 
--  Arab nations are dismantling the boycott of Israel; and 
--  The Casablanca Middle East/North Africa economic summit has engaged 
businesses and governments in the practical work of regional 
normalization. 
 
But the region has embarked on this journey toward peace at a critical 
moment, when many countries face serious internal difficulties and 
disruptive change.  Governments and the governed are seeking the right 
responses to the changes set in motion by the end of the Cold War.  As 
recent terrorist acts and Iraqi military provocations remind us, the 
region continues to face grave threats to stability and security.  It 
is, indeed, fortunate that the peace process is creating new and hopeful 
patterns in the complicated mosaic of Middle East politics. 
 
Securing a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace in the Middle East has 
been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy for more than four decades.  
Progress toward peace in turn bolsters other key, long-standing U.S. 
interests in the region, which include: 
 
--  Maintaining our steadfast commitment to Israel's security and well-
being. 
 
--  Ensuring fair access for American business to commercial 
opportunities in the region. 
 
--  Countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the 
systems to deliver them and combatting terrorism. 
 
--  Promoting more open political and economic systems and respect for 
human rights and the rule of law. 
 
--  Building and maintaining security arrangements that assure the 
stability of the Gulf region and unimpeded commercial access to its 
petroleum reserves, which are vital to our economic prosperity; the 
United States now imports some 50% of its petroleum requirements. 
 
Last month, I accompanied President Clinton on a historic tour of the 
region.  He visited Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Syria to pay homage to 
the courageous leaders and people of Israel and Jordan and to advance 
the other tracks of the peace process.  While in Jordan, he became the 
first American president to address an Arab parliament.  He made stops 
in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to reaffirm our resolve against Iraqi 
aggression. 
 
The President's trip confirmed that across the Middle East and North 
Africa the movement toward regional peace has a new pace and has taken 
on new dimensions.  Let me briefly review with you the current status of 
the various tracks of the peace process. 
 
Bilateral Negotiations  
 
The Jordanians and Israelis took a historic step on October 26 with the 
signing of a peace treaty--the second between Israel and an Arab state.  
President Clinton's participation in the signing ceremony underscored 
the U.S. commitment to the peace process and our genuine appreciation 
for the great step these two countries have taken.  We are heartened, in 
particular, by the "warm peace" these two neighbors contemplate, 
including economic cooperation, shared water resources, and joint 
tourism facilities. 
 
The treaty between Jordan and Israel not only establishes a firm basis 
for cooperation between two former adversaries, but also serves as a 
model for future steps in the peace process and adds to the momentum of 
our efforts. 
 
Israel and the PLO took courageous risks for peace when they signed the 
Declaration of Principles, and their bold actions have been rightly 
acknowledged by the awarding of the Nobel Peace prize to Prime Minister 
Rabin, Chairman Arafat, and Foreign Minister Peres.  Israelis and 
Palestinians continue to make steady progress in their talks despite 
tough political issues and the desperate acts of terrorists seeking to 
derail the process. 
 
--  In April, the two sides concluded an economic agreement with far-
reaching implications for their relations. 
 
--  The Gaza-Jericho Accords, signed on May 4 in Cairo, set out the 
terms for implementing the Declaration of Principles and included 
annexes on security arrangements, civil and legal matters, and economic 
relations.  These accords cleared the way for the  
withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Palestinian-inhabited areas of 
Gaza and Jericho and for the Palestinians to assume self-government 
responsibilities. 
 
--  In August, a further agreement expanded Palestinian self-rule in the 
West Bank with the transfer of authority over education and set the 
stage for the Palestinians to assume responsibility for social welfare, 
health, tourism, and direct taxation. 
 
--  The two sides are now negotiating issues related to the holding of 
elections for a Palestinian council as provided for in the Declaration. 
 
With these agreements in place, we were able to witness Chairman Arafat 
presiding over the beginning of this Palestinian school year--a positive 
image shift from the past.  Difficulties the Palestinians face in 
establishing institutions and absorbing outside assistance--which, in 
some instances, has been slow in coming--should not obscure the real 
progress that is being made. 
 
As last month's treacherous bus bombing in Tel Aviv, the kidnaping and 
murder of an Israeli soldier by Hamas, and the latest suicide bombing in 
Gaza remind us, efforts of violent rejectionists to derail the peace 
process are an unfortunate part of the total scene.  These terrorist 
crimes only serve to undermine the legitimate aspirations of the 
Palestinian people.  Israeli and PLO leaders have made clear that they 
will not let violence turn back the momentum of peace.  However, it is 
also clear that more effort needs to be put into combatting terrorism if 
the parties are to realize the full potential of the Palestinian-Israeli 
track.  States inside and outside the region will need to take concrete 
steps to cut off funding and other forms of support to terrorist groups 
opposing the peace process. 
 
Syria and Israel are intensively engaged in negotiations--through 
President Clinton's and Secretary Christopher's facilitation--on the 
issues of peace, withdrawal, security, and the timing of the various 
elements of these issues.  President Hafez al-Asad is clearly preparing 
the Syrian population for peace.  There is still much work to be done 
there, but the positions have narrowed since the Secretary began his 
shuttle diplomacy last spring.  The Secretary plans to travel to the 
region again soon to continue his efforts to bring these parties closer. 
 
Progress has been slow in the Israel-Lebanon negotiations.  The 
Secretary reviewed the status of these talks with Lebanese Foreign 
Minister Bouez when they met in September in New York.  The issues 
remain 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 for a nation reunified, secure and at peace, and free of 
all foreign forces. 
 
Multilateral Negotiations   
 
In early 1992, shortly after the Madrid Middle East Peace Conference, 
multilateral negotiations were launched to complement the bilateral 
talks.  For almost three years now representatives of Israel, the 
Palestinians, and 12 Arab countries have been meeting to address the key 
issues which the region as a whole will face when peace is achieved--
water, the environment, economic development, treatment of refugees, and 
arms control and regional security.  Official Israeli delegations are 
becoming routine features in Arab capitals.  Within the past year, 
Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Morocco, Oman, and Tunisia have hosted 
Israeli delegations for multilateral talks.  These negotiations have 
been highly successful, extending cooperative interaction beyond the 
core countries. 
 
The multilaterals 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 when they think the timing is right.  The 
principles that are being accepted and the relationships that are being 
forged in the multilaterals may well prove to be the crucible of the 
regional structures and institutions of tomorrow's Middle East. 
 
The activities of the multilateral working groups also are fostering new 
bilateral and private-sector initiatives.  One of the more spectacular 
of these initiatives was the Middle East/North Africa Economic Summit 
held in Casablanca earlier this month.  Let me describe for you what was 
accomplished there. 
 
The Casablanca Conference 
 
The conference brought together representatives of 61 countries and more 
than a thousand business leaders. 
 
The U.S. approached the conference with four principal objectives, all 
of which were accomplished: 
 
First, adoption of principles calling for the free movement of goods, 
capital, ideas, and labor across the borders of the Middle East and 
North Africa.  The GCC statement in September ending the secondary and 
tertiary boycott of Israel was a major step forward.  The Casablanca 
Declaration marked further progress, with participating governments 
agreeing on the need to overcome as soon as possible all barriers to 
trade and investment, including boycotts. 
 
Second, we wanted to ensure that Casablanca would not be a one-time 
event but the beginning of a long-term process of regional economic 
transformation.  Thus, a number of new regional institutions were 
announced, including a regional bank for investment and development, a 
regional tourist board, and a regional chamber of commerce.  The 
conference also established a steering committee and secretariat to 
provide overall coordination and serve as an information source for 
interested businesses. 
 
Third, we also sought to have the conference address the need to tackle 
the roots of extremism and terror.  In this regard, we focused on the 
importance of providing international support for the implementation of 
the Gaza-Jericho agreement and the vital need to support Palestinian 
self-government.  Palestinians now have agreed on a six-month budget to 
cover recurrent costs.  We will organize a donors' meeting in the coming 
weeks to urge that past pledges be paid quickly and that donors continue 
their support.  Palestinian self-government, for all its shortcomings 
and frustrations, must not fail. 
 
Finally, we hoped to promote new and expanding contacts between Israel 
and the Arab world--and that certainly happened in the "happy confusion" 
of Casablanca--between and among businesspeople, politicians, and 
diplomats.  To show you what was happening, on the second day of the 
conference we were meeting with Crown Prince Hassan at his villa.  
Halfway through the meeting, Shimon Peres and his delegation joined us 
for a trilateral discussion.  At the same time, a reception was being 
organized out on the lawn and when we asked the Crown Prince about it, 
he said he had invited the Israeli business group at Casablanca over to 
meet the Jordanian business group.  We went down to mingle for a few 
minutes and they applauded us and we applauded them, but that kind of 
interaction was the real success of the conference. 
 
We believe that a regional development bank is particularly important, 
given that there is currently no economic organization able to 
effectively promote dialogue, harmonization of trade regulations, and a 
lifting of barriers, to say nothing of financing regional projects.  
Conference participants agreed that an experts group should meet to 
discuss the bank's structure.  In a meeting with the Secretary at the 
conference, several representatives of the GCC states agreed that they 
would be pledging and joining.  Others expressed an openness to the 
concept, but wanted to hear more details. 
 
A Middle East bank for economic cooperation and development would be in 
a unique position to develop other regional institutions and mechanisms, 
to focus on regional projects, and to provide broader and more direct 
support for private-sector development.  The bank could also benefit 
from close cooperation with established institutions, such as the 
European Investment Bank and the World Bank.  In the coming weeks, we 
will work hard with other agencies and governments toward making this 
regional development bank a reality. 
 
To contribute to these follow-up activities, the Council on Foreign 
Relations has decided to establish a Middle East/North Africa Economic 
Strategy Group.  This group will be made up of representatives from the 
private sector and will recommend strategies for regional economic 
cooperation and ways to overcome obstacles to trade and private 
investment.  The World Economic Forum also will be setting up a business 
interaction group to foster increased contacts and exchanges within the 
business community. 
 
Secretary Christopher captured the broad importance of Casablanca in his 
address to the conference.  He said: 
 
Governments can make the peace.  Governments can create the climate for 
economic growth.  But only the people of the private sector can marshal 
the resources necessary for sustained growth and development.  Only the 
private sector can produce a peace that will endure. 
 
One disappointment of the conference was that Syria and Lebanon chose 
not to attend.  Despite the absence of these important states, 
Casablanca presented us with a view of the productive relations that we 
are sure will multiply in an emerging Middle East at peace and open for 
business.  We hope that progress in their bilateral negotiations in 
coming months will encourage Lebanon and Syria to attend the follow-on 
conference in Amman next year. 
 
The Persian Gulf:  Security Challenges 
 
Turning now to the situation in the Gulf, the heightened focus on 
economic relationships in our regional policy highlights the growing 
importance of the Gulf states as economic and commercial partners.  U.S. 
business has deep roots in the Gulf by virtue of its role in helping to 
establish the area's industries and infrastructures.  This 
Administration seeks to build on our friendships and historical ties so 
that our commercial relations in the Gulf can grow and be sustained in a 
healthy way. 
 
Part of the U.S. role in the Gulf is to help protect our friends and our 
vital interests against threats to regional security and stability.  And 
as President Clinton has recently demonstrated, he is prepared to move 
decisively when required.  Let me say a few words about Iraq and Iran. 
 
Iraq.  In a scenario chillingly similar to that of July 1990, last 
month, Iraq used military force to threaten Kuwait and to seek to 
intimidate the UN Security Council.  Iraq failed.  Unlike 1990, when we 
did not take Iraq's build-up on the Kuwaiti border seriously until after 
the invasion, this time the international response, led by the United 
States, was swift and decisive.  Within hours of detecting Iraqi troop 
movements, the Administration made clear that it would defend Kuwait's 
independence and territorial integrity, and that Iraq's attempts to 
intimidate the UN or Kuwait--or whatever else Saddam had in mind--would 
fail.  In succeeding days, the U.S. military responded to back up those 
commitments, putting in place with impressive speed a force capable of 
confronting any Iraqi aggression. 
 
Saddam blinked--and began to redeploy northward.  But, again under U.S. 
leadership, the international community laid down a firm marker that 
just moving back was not sufficient.  With the unanimous passage of UNSC 
Resolution 949, the Security Council put Iraq on notice that future 
aggressive behavior toward its neighbors would not be tolerated.  We 
cannot be put in a position of having to rush reinforcements to the Gulf 
whenever Saddam sends his army to the Kuwaiti border.  We have made sure 
Saddam understands what the consequences would be, should he be tempted 
to repeat his adventure. 
 
What conclusions should we draw from this experience?  The most 
important, I would submit, is the validation of the long-standing U.S. 
contention that Saddam does not deserve the benefit of the doubt when it 
comes to discussing modification of the sanctions regime.  This latest 
provocation affirms the wisdom of the drafters of UN Security Council 
Resolution 687--the resolution that ended the Gulf War and established 
the conditions of the cease-fire.  Its preamble declares that the 
Council must be "assured of Iraq's peaceful intentions" in considering 
the circumstances under which sanctions might be lifted and Iraq might 
regain its status as a normal member of the international community.  It 
was clearly not the Council's intention that Saddam Hussein should be 
permitted to regain the means of pursuing his agenda while remaining a 
threat to the region. 
 
It is not the task of the Security Council to help Iraq find a way out 
of the sanctions regime by complying with as few of the requirements it 
has established as possible.  The sanctions were reviewed by the 
Security Council on Monday, and the Council properly concluded that 
despite Iraq's recognition of Kuwait last week--almost four years after 
its forces were expelled by the international coalition in the Gulf War-
-Iraq is still not complying with important provisions of the Security 
Council resolutions and the sanctions, therefore, must remain in place.  
It was only by maintaining a hard line that the Security Council won 
Iraqi recognition of Kuwait, and it is only by insisting on full 
compliance that we will be able to ensure that Iraq does not repeat its 
aggression in the future. 
 
Iran.  Our ability to deploy forces rapidly to the Gulf also sent a 
strong message to Iran, the other state in the region about which we 
have very deep and serious concerns.  They include Iran's: 
 
--  Quest for nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and the 
means for their delivery; 
 
--  Its continued involvement in terrorism and assassination 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 aims 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.  Thus, we are working with other 
countries to deny Iran access to military or dual-use technology and 
other means it might use to pursue international destabilization and 
terrorism or to acquire weapons of mass destruction. 
 
We seek positive change in Iranian policy to allow the Iranian people to 
join the region's widening circles of peace.  But so far, Iran has 
turned backward, choosing resistance rather than co-existence. 
 
Complementing our efforts to counter the threatening potential of Iran 
and Iraq, we are also 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.  At the same time, we are strengthening our own ability to 
act quickly by maintaining strong forces in the region and by pre-
positioning equipment and materiel.  A strong and visible collective-
security framework in the Gulf offers the best assurance that we will 
not have to engage in combat to protect our vital interests in that 
strategic part of the world. 
 
U.S. Commercial Interests 
 
Before closing, let me say a few words about U.S. support for private 
business.  From President Clinton down, this Administration has made 
clear its view that supporting American business overseas would be at 
the heart of our foreign policy interests.  This Administration's 
support for NAFTA and the GATT and in promoting U.S. companies' efforts 
to secure specific commercial contracts show that 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 
upon.  We are working to protect the integrity of American patents, 
copyrights, and trademarks by asking all Middle East states to join the 
international convention protecting intellectual property rights. 
 
Support for American business is a priority of each of our ambassadors 
overseas.  Saudi Arabia's decision to purchase up to $4 billion worth of 
telecommunication equipment from U.S. manufacturers demonstrates how our 
partnership with private industry can translate into large orders for 
goods and services produced by American workers. 
 
Our embassies have been active elsewhere in the Gulf helping American 
businesses to secure, for instance, over 500 construction contracts in 
Kuwait worth approximately $5 billion and a $98-million contract for 
dredging work in Doha. 
 
We also will continue the work of the Casablanca Conference to develop 
increased linkages between the U.S. private sector and its counterparts 
in the region.  With this in mind, Vice President Gore and Egyptian 
President Mubarak agreed on September 6 to intensify the U.S.-Egyptian 
partnership in economic areas.  The core of this partnership will be a 
new, high-level joint committee for economic growth, which will 
facilitate contacts between the U.S. and Egyptian private sectors; 
strengthen science and technology cooperation; and establish an 
"economic dialogue" that will foster development of a broad-based 
economic relationship focused more on trade, investment, and mutual 
commercial benefit than on assistance. 
 
Conclusion 
 
Let me sum up with a perspective on recent developments in the peace 
process.  Even as the region is being transformed by peace, it remains a 
dangerous neighborhood, demanding our unwavering vigilance. 
 
--  Forces of terrorism and rejection will continue to complicate the 
task of building a comprehensive peace. 
 
--  It is critical to stanch the flow of weapons of mass destruction 
into the region. 
 
--  A collective security framework must be strengthened and maintained 
on the western side of the Gulf to deter governments with aggressive 
intentions toward their neighbors. 
 
--  Non-governmental movements--whether religious or secular--that use 
or espouse violence and terrorism as the path to political power will 
continue to pose a threat to stability until they can be convinced to 
work peacefully and respect human rights or are decisively dealt with by 
forces of law and order. 
 
--  We also need to continue our work with governments in the region to 
encourage greater openness and responsiveness in their political systems 
and to enhance the protection of human rights. 
 
The agreements and activities I have described today were set in motion 
by courageous leaders.  A series of Arab-Israeli accords have created 
new political and economic linkages across traditional lines of 
conflict.  They also have been catalysts for expanding reconciliation 
among people.  Today in the region, one finds multiplying contacts 
between Arab and Israeli citizens to explore tourism, commerce, and 
cultural activities.  The region has turned a corner.  The mosaic of 
peace is no longer being pieced together only by politicians and 
diplomats; the people of the region have joined in the work. 
 
This Administration recognizes that there is no more worthy goal of 
statecraft than to consolidate peace and reconciliation between 
countries and people.  As the personal involvement of the President and 
the Secretary demonstrates, we are determined to do everything possible 
to achieve that goal in the Middle East.   Thank you very much.   
(###). 
 
[END OF DISPATCH VOL 5 , NO 48]

To the top of this page


Index of Dispatch Magazine Archives 1994 Issues|| Index of Dispatch Magazine Archives|| Index of "Briefings and Statements"
Index of Electronic Research Collections ERC Reference Desk || Alphabetic Index || Sitemap || ERC Homepage
Last modified: Jun. 8, 1999