U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH 
VOLUME 5, NUMBER 49, DECEMBER 5, 1994 
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS 
 
ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE: 
1.  Challenges Facing Democracy in Ukraine--President Clinton, Ukrainian 
President Kuchma, Joint Statements 
2.  The Need for Engagement--Anthony Lake 
3.  U.S. and Kazakhstan Agree on Uranium Transfer 
4.  Peace-Keeping and Multilateral Relations in U.S. Foreign Policy--
Douglas Bennet, Jr. 
 


ARTICLE 1 
 
Challenges Facing Democracy in Ukraine 
President Clinton, Ukrainian President Kuchma, Joint Statements 
 
Remarks at Arrival Ceremony 
Released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Washington, 
DC, November 22, 1994. 
 
President Clinton.  Mr. President, Mrs. Kuchma, members of the Ukrainian 
delegation, representatives of the Ukrainian-American community, 
distinguished guests:  It is indeed an honor to welcome to Washington 
the leader of one of the world's youngest democracies and oldest 
nations.  To have you here with us today, Mr. President, is to be 
reminded that we live in an era of wonders, a time when people's long-
denied hope of having age-old dreams is fulfilled, a time when the 
unstoppable power of men and women who wish to be free has been 
demonstrated anew. 
 
The rebirth of Ukraine as an independent state after centuries of rule 
by others is one of the most inspiring developments of our time.  For 
ages, Ukraine was divided by competing empires, then subjugated to tsars 
and commissars.  Despite efforts to create an independent Ukraine, 
dictators, terrible famines, and relentless oppression all combined to 
deny your people the right to shape their fate.  Despite these ordeals, 
the Ukrainian people have endured--preserving hope and their identity 
and contributing greatly to the glories of European civilization.  Now, 
finally, Ukraine has reclaimed its independence and its place as a 
pivotal state in the new Europe.   
 
We congratulate you, Mr. President, and all Ukrainians on your 
remarkable achievements in the almost three years since regaining your 
freedom.  You held a historic referendum and began the hard work of 
reform and building democratic institutions.  Above all, Ukrainians are 
weathering the immense difficulties of political and economic 
transition.  In the face of continuous hardship, you have shown 
patience, bravery, and the ability to overcome all obstacles--an ability 
your young athletes like Oskana Baiul showed so spectacularly in the 
Olympic competition. 
 
We honor you, Mr. President, in our nation's capital as the man who is 
leading a Ukrainian renaissance.  Your boldness in the face of daunting 
problems reminds us of one of our greatest leaders, Franklin Roosevelt, 
who provided leadership in a time of great hardship in the United 
States.  Like him, you inherited a nation in the throes of economic 
depression.  And like him, you have lighted the darkness and created 
hope. 
 
You have blazed a path ahead on the two most critical issues for the 
future:  economic reform and nuclear weapons.  Thanks to your 
leadership, Ukraine is making the hard choices that will ensure the 
prosperity Ukrainians deserve.   
 
Thanks to your vision and that of the Ukrainian Parliament, you are 
removing the threat of nuclear weapons and laying the groundwork for an 
era of peace with your neighbors.  I salute the courage you have shown.  
America will stand with you to support your independence, your 
territorial integrity, and your reforms.  We are bound together by a 
dedication to peace and a devotion to freedom. 
 
The flame of that commitment to freedom was kept burning during the Cold 
War by nearly a million Ukrainian Americans, some of whom are with us 
here today, who never forgot Ukraine and who are today contributing to 
its reawakening.   
 
Now that your country is again free, all Americans are determined that 
the flame of Ukrainian freedom will burn ever brighter.  We will stand 
with you. 
 
Seventy-seven years ago today, Mr. President, on November 22, 1917, 
another generation of Ukrainian leaders declared the independence of 
Ukraine.  It was a tragedy that civil war and bolshevism doomed that new 
state while it was still in its infancy. 
 
Today, we are pleased and honored to welcome you, the leader of a 
Ukraine that is conquering the challenges of independence--poised to 
fulfill its hopes, a nation that will grow into one of the great nations 
of Europe.  We say, vitayemo.  Welcome. 
 
 
President Kuchma.  Mr. President, Mrs. Clinton, ladies and gentlemen:  
It is a great honor and great responsibility to address you now at this 
place.  I am grateful to Mr. President and the people of the United 
States for this possibility. 
 
This beautiful lawn in front of the White House has got a specific 
feature:  The words pronounced here belong to the whole of the world's 
history and mankind. 
 
Understanding and taking it into account, I would like all of us present 
here to witness a great process--the process of change of whole 
civilizations.  An epoch of global confrontation between two political 
systems with enormous military risk and economic wastefulness is over. 
 
We are lucky that an attempt at   expansion of totalitarian political 
structures in an assault against the human rights values and freedoms of 
civilization was a failure.  It was not the  
West who conquered, who gained victory, but it was the victory of the 
model of life which appreciates, most of all, a human being--its 
personality--and gives space for its self-realization. 
 
It is a special pleasure for me to say this in the United States of 
America, the great country where a human being has conquered its place 
not only from nature, but from politics, and with set hopes to become 
good and reliable partners for the United States in its efforts to 
transform the old--[inaudible]--into the era of victory of democratic 
values, civilization, and high responsibility of states for the destiny 
and well-being of their people. 
 
Today, they say that Ukraine is a poor country.  We are not a poor 
country; we are a young country and an experienced one.  That is why we 
are ready to learn in the sphere of economics, politics, and humanism 
the best examples of other countries. 
 
This is the aim of my visit to the United States.  At his time, your 
great President Abraham Lincoln was told that he should pray so that God 
is on the side of his people.  Mr. Lincoln replied that he would not 
pray for that, for sometimes it happens that people can make mistakes, 
and only God is always right--adding that he would pray so that his 
people would be with God.  I am confident that both the American and 
Ukrainian people, moving along that avenue which I have mentioned, will 
be together and with God. Thank you. 
 

Remarks Following Meeting 
Released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Washington, 
DC, November 22, 1994. 
 
President Clinton.  Good afternoon.  President Kuchma and I had an 
excellent set of meetings today, and I have very much enjoyed getting to 
know him.  The work we have done follows  on the successful meetings in 
Kiev between President Kuchma and Vice President Gore.  It has 
strengthened the friendship between our two nations that was already on 
a very firm basis. 
 
Since his election just five months ago, President Kuchma has bravely 
and squarely confronted the two greatest challenges facing Ukraine:  
economic reform and the nuclear question.  He has taken hard, practical 
steps required to secure a more peaceful and prosperous future for his 
people.  I applaud his leadership and the leadership of the Ukrainian 
Parliament in acceding last week to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.   
 
Ukraine's move is a major step toward ensuring that nuclear missiles 
never again will be targeted at the children of our nations.  I told 
President Kuchma that the United States will continue to work with 
Ukraine to completely dismantle its nuclear arsenal.   A sum of $350 
million of our total $900-million two-year aid package is targeted 
toward that goal, and there could be no better use of the funds. 
 
In addition, Ukraine's decision will permit the United States, Russia, 
and the United Kingdom to extend formal security assurances to Ukraine.  
It will allow the START I Treaty to be brought into force, enabling the 
process of nuclear weapons reductions to move forward.  It will permit 
us to strengthen our military relations with Ukraine.  It will open up 
Ukraine to a new range of business and technological opportunities.  In 
addition, we pledge to help defray some of the costs for participation 
by Ukraine in the Partnership for Peace.   
 
On economic issues, the President and I discussed the far-reaching 
reforms he has initiated.  These reforms put Ukraine on the right path, 
toward a future of increasing prosperity and economic integration with 
the Western market economies.   
 
At this moment in our history, we have an extraordinary opportunity to 
improve the lives of all of our people by working more closely together 
and trading together more.  Ukraine's reform program can speed this 
development, and I have pledged to support it to the fullest of our 
ability to do so.  In 1994 and 1995, our economic assistance  of $550 
million, including balance-of-payment support, will be speedily 
delivered to help stabilize the economy.  Our new U.S.-Ukraine 
Enterprise Fund will soon start making loans to new small businesses.  
We will continue our work together in aerospace and high tech.  
 
As Ukraine's economy continues to improve, the opportunities for both 
our countries will multiply.  The IMF and the World Bank are also 
working hard to make sure these reforms bear fruit, and Russia and 
Turkmenistan have given badly needed help.  I will continue to press our 
G-7 partners, especially the European Union and Japan, to do more to 
contribute to this effort. 
 
President Kuchma and I discussed other issues, including the nuclear 
power complex at Chernobyl.  The G-7 nations and Ukraine have a common 
interest in agreeing on a plan to improve the safety and the efficiency 
in the Ukraine energy sector and in closing down the Chernobyl plants. 
 
We have worked hard today.  The agreements we have reached promise to 
help deliver concrete results:  increased security and increased 
prosperity for Ukrainians and Americans.  Our relations continue to grow 
stronger, as they have since Ukrainian independence just three years 
ago.  Our friendship will grow because our futures are intertwined. 
 
I would now like to turn the microphone over to President Kuchma for his 
remarks, and then we will answer your questions, beginning with an 
American journalist, alternating with Ukrainian journalists.  Mr. 
President. 
 
President Kuchma.  Thank you very much, Mr. President.  Ladies and 
gentlemen:  President Clinton and I have just signed very important 
documents--the Charter of Ukrainian American Partnership, Friendship, 
and Cooperation; and also, the Agreement on Cooperation on Space 
Research for Peaceful Purposes.  We also signed several bilateral 
accords on the ministerial level.   
 
Thus, by joint efforts, both countries have made another concrete step 
toward solidifying the legal basis of relations between the United 
States and Ukraine and enriching the relationship of democratic 
partnership with practical content. 
 
The signing of these documents has become possible due to a constructive 
and purposeful effort of politicians, diplomats, and experts in both 
countries.  It is noteworthy that the charter signed today removed the 
last barriers which, to an extent, held back the development of 
Ukrainian-American relations in a very first and extremely important 
stage of their formation.  We can now say that we have not simply signed 
several bilateral documents, but opened the way to full-fledged 
cooperation in the political, economic, humanitarian, and other areas in 
the  interest of both nations.  That was the main purpose of my state 
visit to the United States. 
 
The current Ukrainian-American summit, the talks we had today, can be 
characterized with a spirit of a constructive, businesslike, and mutual 
interest in reaching practical results.    I am very thankful to the 
President of the United States, Bill Clinton, and to Vice President Al 
Gore.  Thus, we are the participants and witnesses of a process where 
our relations are being formed step by step and cooperation is being 
enriched.  Such are respective, to our extent, in the development of 
relations and in the interest of both nations. 
 
Ahead of us lies practical work to realize.  The reached signed accords-
-without such implementation, we will not be able to move ahead to a 
stronger bilateral cooperation.  I would like to assure you, Mr. 
President, that Ukraine will fulfill its pledges and is ready for 
further active cooperation.  
 
 
Joint Summit Statement 
Released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Washington, 
DC, November 22, 1994. 
 
On the occasion of his State visit to the United States on November 21-
23, 1994, Leonid D. Kuchma, President of Ukraine, met with William J. 
Clinton, President of the United States, to open a qualitatively new 
stage in the growing U.S.-Ukrainian partnership aimed at furthering 
bilateral and multilateral cooperation on a broad range of issues 
between the two countries. 
 
The Presidents renewed their shared commitment to broaden the bilateral 
democratic partnership into which the two countries have entered.  
President Clinton underscored the importance the United States attaches 
to the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.  
In this context, President Clinton assured President Kuchma that the 
United States will continue to give high priority to supporting Ukraine 
in its efforts to achieve genuine economic independence, its transition 
to a market economy and its integration into the global economic system. 
 
Bilateral Relations
 
In keeping with their commitment to strengthen bilateral relations, 
President Clinton and President Kuchma signed the Charter of American-
Ukrainian Partnership, Friendship and Cooperation.  The Presidents 
praised the Charter as the framework for developing closer relations 
over the coming years.  President Clinton noted in particular Ukraine's 
valuable contribution to this new framework by its momentous decision to 
accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is an historic 
step forward on the road toward strengthening the international nuclear 
weapons nonproliferation regime and global security and stability. 
 
The Presidents inaugurated this new framework of bilateral relations by 
signing an Agreement on Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer 
Space for Peaceful Purposes and agreed to work closely to explore 
additional bilateral cooperative space- related opportunities in the 
future.  They noted that this process had begun with a U.S.-Ukraine 
discussion of Ukraine's interest in the commercial launch market. 
 
Both Presidents expressed their determination to broaden bilateral 
cooperation in a range of new areas.  During the visit, the two 
governments brought into force a bilateral customs cooperation agreement 
and announced their intention to conclude negotiations on a bilateral 
civil aviation agreement.  The Presidents recognized the threat that 
organized crime and corruption pose for reform and expanded business 
activity in Ukraine, and they agreed to cooperate in combating crime and 
promoting the rule of law as an essential safeguard of social stability 
and civil and human rights.  The Presidents will encourage exchanges 
among Ukrainians and Americans in the fields of science, technology and 
education.  The Presidents, noting the valuable role of culture in 
bringing nations closer together, voiced support for wide-ranging 
cultural contacts between the United States and Ukraine.  Both 
Presidents also recognized the importance of health care for the well-
being of their people, and President Clinton announced that the United 
States would provide Ukraine hospital equipment, medical supplies and 
assistance with health programs. 
 
The Presidents intend to maintain frequent high-level bilateral contacts 
to assure timely and effective implementation of activities.  President 
Kuchma invited President Clinton to make an official return visit to 
Ukraine at the earliest convenient opportunity.  President Clinton 
accepted this invitation with pleasure. 
 
Economic Cooperation
 
The Presidents agreed that market-oriented economic reform provides the 
surest path to Ukraine's economic revival and its integration into the 
world economy.  President Clinton reaffirmed full U.S. support for the 
reform policies recently adopted by President Kuchma's government and 
its conclusion of an IMF Systemic Transformation Facility program.  
President Kuchma outlined plans for accelerating the process of economic 
reform.  These plans include intensifying structural reform efforts to 
encourage competition through enhanced macroeconomic stabilization and 
increased privatization.  President Clinton commended President Kuchma 
for his leadership on economic reform and encouraged him to work toward 
early completion of negotiations with the IMF on a stand-by program.  He 
stressed the importance of Ukraine's reform measures and the United 
States' readiness to support Ukraine in their implementation. 
 
President Clinton announced that the United States would provide $200 
million in new assistance to Ukraine in Fiscal Year 1995.  Of this 
amount, $103 million will finance technical and economic assistance 
activities.  The remaining $97 million will provide balance of payments 
support, consisting of $72 million in an energy sector grant and $25 
million in USDA concessional food credits, as provided in agreements 
signed by the two Governments during the State visit.  When combined 
with $3 million of pharmaceuticals and other commodities from Fiscal 
Year 1994, the United States will provide $100 million in balance of 
payments support in the next few months to reinforce Ukraine's IMF 
program. 
 
This United States economic support is in recognition of Ukraine's major 
initiative to launch a comprehensive economic reform program.  This 
support is in addition to the $350 million in economic assistance 
committed to Ukraine in March 1994, the major part of which will take 
effect once reforms have begun.  The Presidents reviewed the progress 
made in the implementation of economic assistance programs for Ukraine 
and agreed to work together to accelerate delivery and ensure the full 
disbursement of all current and previous commitments, as well as the 
effectiveness of these programs. 
 
President Kuchma expressed appreciation for United States leadership in 
mobilizing international support for Ukraine, particularly the prompt 
United States response to the Ukrainian request for balance of payments 
support.  Looking to the future, President Clinton reaffirmed United 
States commitments made at the Washington donor session and the Winnipeg 
G-7 conference in October and his intention to continue the United 
States' leading role in encouraging international support for Ukrainian 
reform. 
 
The Presidents recognized the important contribution the private sector 
can make to Ukraine's economic prosperity through expanded trade and 
investment.  President Clinton welcomed Ukraine's ratification of the 
bilateral investment treaty and noted that the Western NIS Enterprise 
Fund has now opened its offices in Kiev.  President Kuchma expressed the 
hope that the U.S. Senate would ratify the treaty at an early date.  The 
leaders emphasized the importance of privatization if expanded 
cooperation between American enterprises and an emerging private sector 
in Ukraine is to begin in earnest. 
 
On November 21 President Kuchma and members of his government 
participated in an OPIC-sponsored business conference which reviewed 
investment opportunities in Ukraine.  Both Presidents agreed that there 
was enormous potential for private sector cooperation in developing key 
sectors of the Ukrainian economy.  They specified, in particular, 
agriculture and food processing; pharmaceuticals and medical equipment; 
energy, including fossil and environmentally sound and safe nuclear 
power; aerospace, consistent with international obligations; civil 
aviation; telecommunications; environment and defense conversion. 
 
The two leaders noted that the first session of the Joint U.S.-Ukrainian 
Commission on Trade and Investment is meeting during the State visit to 
discuss ways of promoting business cooperation and removing barriers to 
expanded trade and increased investment in Ukraine.  The Commission is 
discussing the tax, legal and regulatory changes that Ukraine will need 
to adopt to support private business activity.  President Clinton 
recognized the special circumstances facing economies in transition, 
such as Ukraine's, which seek to expand export markets, and offered to 
consult with the U.S. Congress on appropriate ways of reflecting this in 
U.S. trade legislation.  The Presidents noted that expanded trade will 
be critical to the success of Ukrainian economic reform and agreed to 
make the expansion of trade and investment a priority in their economic 
cooperation efforts.  
 
The Presidents also agreed to work toward expanding economic cooperation 
within a multilateral framework and to promote Ukraine's integration 
into the global economy.  President Clinton reaffirmed the United 
States' support for Ukraine's accession to the GATT/WTO, and noted that 
the United States is providing assistance to the Ukrainian government to 
support this process.  The United States is also chairing the working 
group in Geneva overseeing Ukraine's accession. 
 
The Presidents noted that the resolution of Ukraine's energy problems 
would have an important and positive impact on Ukraine's economic 
recovery.  President Kuchma welcomed the United States' decision to 
provide part of its special balance of payments assistance in the form 
of an energy sector grant.  Both leaders reviewed the progress that has 
been made in implementing cooperative programs aimed at the 
restructuring and reforming of Ukraine's energy sector and improving 
nuclear reactor safety.  President Kuchma informed President Clinton of 
the recent agreement Ukraine reached with IAEA on the application of 
IAEA safeguards to all nuclear materials, except those for nuclear 
propulsion, utilized in Ukraine. 
 
The Presidents agreed to continue to work together for the full 
implementation of the G-7 Naples Action Plan, and recognized that this 
will require   G-7 cooperation and assistance.  President Clinton drew 
attention to the significant resource commitments made at Naples, Corfu 
and Winnipeg and to the importance of receiving early assurances that 
the Chornobyl reactors would be shut down in accordance with the G-7 
Action Plan.  President Kuchma assured President Clinton that Ukraine 
takes seriously the international community's concerns about the 
continued operation of the Chornobyl nuclear power plant.  He expressed 
Ukraine's readiness to work with the G-7 nations in the implementation 
of the Naples Action Plan, noting that its successful implementation is 
connected with a series of measures, including preparing the closure of 
the nuclear reactors, minimizing the social impact on the plant's 
personnel, and ensuring that sufficient economically- priced electricity 
is available to meet Ukraine's domestic needs.  He also stressed the 
importance that Ukraine places on improving the stability of the 
shelter installed over the damaged reactor.  Both Presidents agreed on 
the need for further close work in the G-7/Ukraine Task Force to ensure 
the future closure of Chornobyl, as envisioned in the G-7 Action Plan, 
as an integral part of a comprehensive solution to Ukraine's energy 
problems. 
 
Defense and Security
 
The Presidents expressed satisfaction with the accomplishments and pace 
of implementation of the January 14 Trilateral Statement signed by the 
Presidents of the United States, Ukraine, and the Russian Federation.  
In addition, they renewed their commitment to international efforts to 
reduce sharply the threat and proliferation of nuclear weapons. 
 
President Clinton congratulated Ukraine on its decision to accede to the 
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the historic 
renunciation of nuclear weapons which it represents and reaffirmed the 
U.S. commitment to provide security assurances to Ukraine in connection 
with its accession to the NPT by signing a Memorandum on Security 
Assurances on the margins of the Budapest CSCE Summit. 
 
The Presidents look forward to early entry into force of the START-I 
treaty and agreed that the Lisbon Protocol Signatories should exchange 
instruments of ratification on the margins of the Budapest CSCE Summit.  
Both Presidents reiterated their views that the START-I treaty would not 
only serve the mutual interests of both countries, but also would serve 
to strengthen global peace and stability. 
 
Both Presidents agreed to work closely to ensure the timely 
implementation of Nunn-Lugar programs intended to facilitate the 
dismantlement of strategic offensive arms and the security of nuclear 
weapons, achieve our joint non-proliferation objectives, and help in the 
conversion of Ukraine's defense industries.  The Presidents agreed on 
the importance of identifying as soon as possible programs of assistance 
under the Nunn-Lugar program, using the $75 million allocated to Ukraine 
out of Fiscal Year 1995 Nunn-Lugar funds.  Both acknowledged the 
progress that had been made to date, noting in particular the utility of 
U.S. deactivation assistance, procurement of missile fuel storage tanks 
and the imminent completion of a U.S.-Ukraine communications link.  The 
Presidents also recognized the significant contribution of the fourteen 
Western countries and the European Union in providing $234 million of 
dismantlement and related assistance for Ukraine. 
 
The Presidents discussed the evolving European security structure.  They 
agreed that this process should be managed in a manner that strengthens 
the stability and security of all nations of Europe.  As a tangible 
example of Ukraine's overall importance in European security and the 
U.S. commitment to expanded Ukrainian cooperation with NATO, President 
Clinton announced that the United States would make funds available to 
Ukraine under the Warsaw Initiative to support Ukrainian participation 
in the Partnership for Peace.  The funds will contribute to Ukraine's 
ability to promote the objectives of the Partnership. 
 
The two leaders announced that the two countries had agreed to move 
forward with a $600,000 International Military Training and Education 
Program to assist in the professional development of Ukraine's armed 
forces.  The Presidents also pledged to continue to expand military and 
defense contact programs designed to assist Ukraine in the restructuring 
of its defense establishment which is now under civilian leadership for 
the first time.  In addition, the sides announced that Ukraine will host 
a U.S.-Ukraine combined peacekeeping training exercise late next spring.  
In the area of defense industry conversion, President Clinton informed 
President Kuchma that the United States would continue to provide 
assistance to U.S.-Ukraine joint ventures and would seek new partners 
for the important work of defense conversion. 
 
The Presidents noted the importance of proceeding with defense industry 
conversion priorities and the need to expand opportunities for trade and 
investment in high technology industries.  They also underscored the 
importance of the bilateral U.S.-Ukraine Memorandum of Under- standing 
on the Transfer of Missile Equipment and Technology signed last May 13.  
The Presidents also recognized the importance of broader international 
cooperation in ensuring reliable control over exports of sensitive 
materials and technology.  President Clinton expressed the hope that 
Ukraine would become a member of the MTCR at an early date and 
reiterated that the U.S. would support Ukraine in achieving this goal.  
They agreed to work together toward Ukraine's full participation in a 
successor regime to COCOM.  President Clinton was pleased to note that a 
Science and Technology Center, funded by the United States and other 
donors, will soon begin operations in Ukraine and that this would assist 
Ukraine in redirecting the work of former defense scientists and 
engineers to civilian purposes. 
 
Diplomatic Endeavors
 
Consistent with the new stage of bilateral relations, the Presidents 
also underscored the importance of ensuring that the diplomatic missions 
of both countries be fully capable of conducting their operations 
without hindrance.  With this in mind, the Presidents announced the 
exchange of diplomatic notes to lift employment restrictions on 
diplomatic personnel and their families.  President Clinton also used 
this occasion to welcome Ukraine's newly appointed Ambassador to the 
United States, Yuriy Shcherbak, to Washington, D.C.
 
 
Joint Statement on Expansion of Trade and Investment 
Released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Washington, 
DC, November 22, 1994. 
 
The United States and Ukraine believe that strong and vigorous 
commercial ties can make a significant contribution to strengthening 
their relations, developing free markets, and promoting economic growth 
in both countries.  Both countries have agreed to make the expansion of 
trade and investment a priority in their economic cooperation efforts 
and are committed to use their best efforts to implement measures 
supporting trade expansion and to remove obstacles to trade development. 
 
Both countries recognize the importance of the success of economic 
reform in Ukraine, including the adoption of a free-market system and 
the establishment of a dynamic private sector, to provide a sound basis 
for the rapid expansion of trade and investment.  The United States 
welcomes Ukraine's agreement with the International Monetary Fund for a 
Systemic Transformation Facility as a strong first step towards 
comprehensive economic reform and stabilization.  It commends the 
Government of Ukraine for its strong initial steps to implement a 
program of economic reform, including measures to liberalize foreign 
trade. 
 
Both countries agree that Ukraine's integration into the global economy 
can play an important role in promoting and consolidating the economic 
reform process in Ukraine.  The United States welcomes Ukraine's efforts 
to accede to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World Trade 
Organization.  In this context, the United States is pleased to extend 
assistance to help the Government of Ukraine to reform its economy and 
foreign trade system consistent with international standards, by sending 
a special trade advisor to Ukraine last month, and stands ready to 
consult with Ukraine on the accession process. 
 
The United States and Ukraine intend to build upon the strong foundation 
that has already been established to support the development of 
bilateral commerce.  They note the importance of the Agreement on Trade 
Relations in force between the two countries in establishing the 
framework for normal commercial relations, and intend to carry out fully 
the provisions of this agreement. 
 
They agree that the extension to Ukraine of beneficiary status under the 
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) has contributed positively to 
the growth of Ukraine's exports to the United States.  The United States 
hopes to extend the GSP program in the coming weeks. 
 
The United States welcomes the ratification of the Bilateral Investment 
Treaty by Ukraine and looks forward to U.S. Senate approval in the near 
future.  Both sides also look forward to the expeditious ratification of 
the Bilateral Tax Treaty. 
 
The United States and Ukraine agree that the level of trade and 
investment existing between the two countries is far below its 
potential.  They will place a high priority on joint efforts to develop 
their trade and investment relationship to its full potential. 
 
In their efforts to expand trade, both sides will be guided by the 
principles of the GATT/WTO.  Each country desires to provide liberal 
access to its market for the other's goods and services. They are 
committed to facilitate access consistent with fair trade practices and 
their respective trade laws.  Recognizing that Ukraine is an economy in 
transition to a free market, the United States, as part of its overall 
effort to support Ukraine's reform process, will give priority attention 
to the special circumstances Ukraine faces as it continues its economic 
transition and will be consulting with the U.S. Congress in the coming 
year on appropriate ways of reflecting this in U.S. trade legislation. 
 
Both countries recognize that, while governments can encourage and 
facilitate business contacts and support entry of their firms into each 
others' markets, actual business decisions are made by the firms 
themselves.  Recognizing the need to create a hospitable environment to 
attract and support trade and investment, Ukraine affirms its commitment 
to build a modern     economic, legal and regulatory infra- structure 
and take the necessary steps to reduce trade and investment barriers. 
 
The United States and Ukraine look forward to cooperation under the 
working group on intellectual property matters, established by the 
Agreement on Trade Relations. 
 
They have designated the U.S.-Ukraine Joint Commission on Trade and 
Investment as an important forum for coordinating the efforts of the two 
governments to improve the conditions for trade and investment expansion 
and to promote and facilitate the building of commercial ties by their 
respective business communities.  They note with satisfaction that the 
Commission is holding its inaugural meeting during the State visit of 
President Kuchma to the United States, and is developing a program of 
work aimed at supporting the expansion of trade and investment between 
the two countries.  They have agreed that the Commission will seek to 
identify barriers to trade and investment, to identify means to improve 
the business climate in Ukraine and to take practical measures to 
promote trade and investment. 
 
Both countries recognize that the expansion of trade and investment is 
key to facilitating the reorientation of the facilities and capabilities 
of Ukraine's military-industrial complex to commercial purposes.  In 
support of this effort, and working with the Departments of Defense, 
State, Energy, and other U.S. Government agencies through the U.S.-
Ukraine Committee for the Conversion of the Defense Industry, the U.S. 
Department of Commerce's Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) is taking 
steps to alert U.S. industry to the many opportunities available in 
converting Ukrainian defense enterprises.  Through publication of 
directories of Ukrainian defense enterprises, industry roundtables, and 
industry counseling, BXA is publicizing Ukrainian capabilities and 
sources of financing, such as the Department of Defense's Nunn-Lugar 
program, the Defense Enterprise Fund, OPIC's set-aside for defense 
conversion, and the Department of Energy's Industrial Partnering 
Program.  In this regard, they recognize the need to create the 
conditions that will help attract private investment to converting 
defense enterprises and that will allow such enterprises to function in 
a market environment. 
 
The United States and Ukraine, building on the strong foundation        
already established, support the development in Ukraine of an effective 
system of export controls.  Recognizing the constructive linkage among 
export controls, U.S. private investment, and commercial development, 
the United States will continue to cooperate in assisting Ukraine to 
build such a system based in national law and consistent with 
international norms and practices. Both countries agree that 
implementation of an effective export control system is an important 
element in the expansion of trade and investment between them. 
 
To facilitate trade and reduce the costs of doing business, the two 
countries have agreed to work together in the area of standards and 
conformity assessment.  Working under the auspices of the U.S.-Ukraine 
Joint Commission on Trade and Investment, they will form a Standards 
Working Group to work toward standards compatibility and mutual 
acceptance of standards conformance measures. 
 
In keeping with the goals of the Joint Commission, the U.S. Department 
of Commerce Business Information Service for the Newly Independent 
States (BISNIS) will continue its efforts to promote trade and 
investment with Ukraine, and to provide available information on 
investment opportunities in Ukraine to interested American firms.  
Through the BISNIS Search for Partners program, and other publications, 
BISNIS will assist Ukrainian and American companies to explore 
commercial opportunities. 
 
The Department of Commerce's Special American Business Internship 
Training (SABIT) program has provided hands-on business training in U.S. 
firms to over 50 managers and scientists from Ukraine. The SABIT program 
looks forward to substantial participation by Ukrainian experts in two 
new programs to assist Ukraine in its transition to a market economy. 
 
In conjunction with the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), SABIT is 
implementing a new training program for Ukrainian and other standards 
experts from the Newly Independent States (NIS).  In cooperation with 
the Bureau for Export Administration (BXA) and the U.S. component of the 
U.S.-Ukrainian Committee on Conversion of Defense Industry, the SABIT 
program plans to develop a new defense conversion internship training 
program in 1995 for Ukrainian and other NIS defense enterprise managers, 
accountants, engineers and marketing officers and selected city and 
oblast officials. 
 
To facilitate and expand business between the United States and Ukraine, 
an American Business Center (ABC) will open in Kiev in 1995.  The ABC, 
which will be co-located with the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service, 
will offer American companies a broad range of business development and 
facilitation services.  American and Ukrainian firms will cultivate 
close business contacts via outreach activities of the ABC.  The ABC 
will enhance the ability of Ukrainian firms to become viable trade and 
investment partners with U.S. firms through business related training, 
technical assistance and use of commercial libraries. 
 
The ABC will be vital in building U.S.-Ukrainian business ties and will 
ultimately facilitate efforts made by the United States Government and 
the American business community to supply capital and technology to 
Ukraine as it continues its long-term reforms. 
 
With a view to the long-term development of bilateral trade and 
investment relations, the United States and Ukraine have agreed to 
consider the possibility of additional measures to expand the framework 
of cooperation in promoting business ties.  In this context, the United 
States will examine Ukraine's proposal for a Joint Center for Trade and 
Investment Promotion (JCTI). 
 
The United States and Ukraine note the importance of commercial 
cooperation in the field of health care to the development of trade and 
investment between them and note the important contribution cooperation 
in this field offers for Ukraine's economic development and recovery.  
Recognizing the positive impact of bilateral trade development efforts 
conducted to date, the United States and Ukraine agree to accord a high 
priority to promotion of trade and investment to activities to be 
undertaken under the auspices of the JCTI. 
 
Recognizing the important role that tourism can play in expanding 
personal, professional and commercial ties between the two countries 
foreseen by the bilateral Trade Agreement, the United States and Ukraine 
agree to consider tourism development within the framework of the JCTI. 
 
To support the business development efforts of American and Ukrainian 
enterprises, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) remains 
committed to increasing economic cooperation between U.S. and Ukrainian 
firms, particularly in crucial sectors such as agriculture/food 
processing, energy, defense conversion, transportation, 
telecommunications and manufacturing.  OPIC is pleased to note that its 
accomplishments in Ukraine to date include the commitment of $25.1 
million in political risk insurance coverage to companies such as 
Alliant Techsystems, Generation Ukraine, and Universal Research 
Technologies.  In recognition of the importance that both nations place 
on trade and investment, President Kuchma addressed a group of U.S. 
business leaders at OPIC on November 21.  In addition, OPIC announced 
agreements to provide several million dollars of finance and insurance 
support for U.S. investments in Ukraine. 
 
The U.S. Trade and Development Agency (TDA) has supported U.S. business 
development efforts by funding feasibility studies for a number of 
projects, including the Ukrainian Power Plant empowering, the Ukraine 
Aviation project, and the Zaporozhye Aluminum Smelter project.  To 
facilitate more active TDA involvement in Ukraine, the Ministry of 
Foreign Economic Relations of Ukraine has agreed to assist TDA in 
identifying priority Ukrainian projects. 
 
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Eximbank) has proposed to 
Ukraine a Project Incentive Agreement designed to promote and facilitate 
Eximbank financial support for projects in Ukraine that earn hard 
currency revenues.  This agreement sets forth the general types of 
projects eligible for such financing and the conditions necessary for 
Eximbank to participate in them.  Conclusion of this Agreement will be 
an important first step towards establishing a working  relationship 
that can benefit both Ukrainian development and American exporters. 
 
Successful implementation of an economic reform program and 
privatization by Ukraine will enable Eximbank to offer increased 
financial support for the public and private sectors. 
 
The Government of the United States and the Government of Ukraine will 
cooperate to achieve the goals of the Joint Statement, which will 
contribute toward the success of Ukraine's reform process and the 
prosperity of both nations.  (###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 2 
 
The Need for Engagement 
Anthony Lake, Assistant to the President For National Security Affairs 
Address to the Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, Trenton, New 
Jersey, November 30, 1994  
 
I would like to speak with you today about the need for American 
engagement abroad.  There is no better forum for such a discussion.  
After all, President Woodrow Wilson was one of the first and most 
eloquent proponents of American internationalism. 
 
We are participants, whether we would or not, in the life of the world . 
. . . The interests of all nations are our own . . . .  What affects 
mankind is irrevocably our affair. . . . 
 
I welcome this chance to tell a talented group of people in the foreign 
policy racket that engagement is more important than ever, that we must 
reject the new isolationism and form a coalition of the center:  a 
coalition that spans the two parties and both ends of Pennsylvania 
Avenue; a coalition eager to open markets and make trade more free and 
more fair for Americans; a coalition prepared to support the movement 
toward democracy that is sweeping the world; a coalition determined to 
lead the historic effort to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons; and a 
coalition poised to seize the opportunities and meet the obligations of 
engagement. 
 
It is ironic that in the wake of engagement's greatest achievement--the 
triumph of containment over communism--some would have the United States 
retrench behind the walls of isolation.  It is ironic, but not 
surprising.  In the absence of a clear, unifying threat from abroad, 
Americans naturally want to turn their attention to concerns at home.  
We face a complex of problems that cause us to shy away from engagement-
-from the threat of "traditional" aggression by predatory nation states 
to trans-national threats like over-population to terrible ethnic 
conflict. 
 
At the same time, it has been argued that victory in the Cold War has 
left us at the end of history and that, consequently, we need no longer 
engage with the world beyond our borders.  Nothing could be further from 
the truth.  Indeed, the same idea attacked by communism, and by fascism 
before it, remains under attack today.  Now, as then, we must defend an 
idea that has many names--democracy, liberty, civility, pluralism--but 
that has a constant face:  the face of the tolerant society. 
 
As President Clinton has said:  We face a contest as old as history--a 
struggle between freedom and tyranny; between tolerance and isolation.  
It is a fight between those who would build free societies governed by 
laws and those who would impose their will by force.  Our struggle 
today. . . is the age-old fight between hope and fear. 
 
Yet, despite this challenge--and despite the opportunities the post-Cold 
War world presents--there is a dangerous isolationist backlash in the 
air.  This reflex is as old as our republic.  As an emerging nation 
intent on strengthening its independence and protected by wide oceans, 
at that time, it was in America's interest to heed George Washington's 
admonition against foreign entanglements.  America held itself above--
and away from--great power politics, while holding itself out, in Thomas 
Jefferson's words, as "a standing monument and example" for all the 
peoples of the world. 
 
Our early tendency to look upon the distant warring continents from a 
position of moral and material superiority did not prevent us from 
pursuing a policy of expansion on this continent and the Monroe Doctrine 
in this hemisphere.  But manifest destiny aside, the isolationist tide 
continued to run wide and deep in America until the turn of the century. 
 
Teddy Roosevelt became the first president to seek to reverse that tide 
and assert global interests for America.  He realized that the 
consolidation of a great territory, combined with exponential growth in 
our population and economic output, had transformed the United States 
into the most powerful nation on earth.  He understood that technology 
was weakening the insulating effect of the oceans. 
 
But America's experience and values made it difficult for the nation to 
embrace Roosevelt's foreign policy.  Woodrow Wilson's approach had 
deeper resonance.  He joined morality to Roosevelt's internationalism, 
thus allowing the United States to lead the world in the name of 
principle, not power.  His vision culminated in the League of Nations, a 
universal grouping of largely democratic states that would serve as the 
world's "trustees of peace." 
 
But Wilson's confidence in the power of morality--and his concern about 
the immorality of power--were misguided and undercut his promotion of 
collective security and self-determination.  Wilson's lofty rhetoric 
made it easy to caricature his campaign to make the world safe for 
democracy. 
 
As a result, for America, the League became a promise postponed.  
Skeptical internationalists quibbled with its practical shortcomings.  
Resurgent isolationists condemned its assignment to America of too 
global a role.  And, in a moment of great historical import, the Senate 
voted the League down.  No one can say how the following two decades of 
history would have differed had the United States joined the League.  
But we do know that, over the next two decades, America and the rest of 
the world suffered through isolation, economic stagnation, and, 
eventually, a new war that engulfed the planet. 
 
It was not until after World War II that a remarkable, bipartisan 
generation of Americans finally gave practical expression to Wilson's 
vision.  That generation shaped the United Nations and the world.  It 
helped create the structures--such as NATO, the Marshall Plan, and the 
Bretton Woods institutions--that ensured a half-  century of security 
and prosperity in America, Europe, and Japan, and it prevailed against 
communism.   
 
Today, it is the spirit of the post-World War II generation that we need 
to recapture in forging the coalition of the center.  In so doing, I 
believe we should follow a course that is neither rigidly Wilsonian nor 
classically realist. 
 
The realists have it right that power matters.  The United States must 
be--and is--prepared to defend its interests whenever and wherever they 
are threatened, by any means necessary. 
 
Similarly, as we face a rapidly changing world, we cannot be so absolute 
in our principles that paralysis sets in.  Our rhetoric must not outpace 
reality.  When it does, we risk creating a climate of disillusion like 
the one that descended upon us in the 1920s. 
 
But Wilson had it right that principles matter--that power unhinged from 
principle will leave us rudderless and adrift.  His vision of a world of 
democracies touched on a central truth that speaks to us still.  That 
truth is this:  The larger the community of democracies, the more likely 
it is that peace and prosperity will flourish in the world.  Democracies 
create free markets that offer economic opportunity and make for more 
reliable trading partners.  They tend not to abuse the civil and 
political rights of their citizens, and democracies are far less likely 
to wage war on one another.  So, while Wilson would not have put it this 
way, enlarging the community of democracies is in America's interest. 
 
Wilson also understood that what happens within nations is fundamental 
to what happens among them.  Especially in today's global and economic 
free-for-all in which ideas, information, money, and people crisscross 
the planet at near warp speed, 19th-century realpolitik is dangerously 
outdated.  Every day, we use products conceived in one country, 
manufactured in another, from parts made in a third, and marketed all 
over the world.  Every night, we channel-surf through images of distant 
conflicts and catastrophes that play on our emotions and our intellects.  
We are engaged whether we like it or not. 
 
In short, Wilson's core beliefs--the value of spreading democracy to 
other nations, the importance of principle, and, above all else, the 
need for engagement--remain more vital than ever.  They animate the work 
of this Administration as they did that of our predecessors over the 
past half-century. 
 
For it is our conviction that only by leading abroad--only by meeting 
the obligations of engagement and seizing its opportunities--can America 
stay prosperous and secure at home.  It is essential to America's future 
that the new Congress--Republicans and Democrats--work with the 
Administration in the pursuit of this fundamental proposition.  
President Clinton took office convinced that to secure real prosperity, 
we had to, in his words, . . . tear down the wall in our thinking 
between domestic and foreign policy and take advantage of opportunity 
abroad.   
 
He understood that the growth of our economy and the quantity and 
quality of the jobs it produces would be enhanced by our ability to 
trade and invest beyond our borders.  That is why we have been so 
aggressive in promoting open markets and free trade. 
 
We began last year with the hard fight for NAFTA, which already has 
increased our exports to Mexico by nearly 20% and produced tens of 
thousands of new, better-paying jobs.  At the APEC summit, we won a 
commitment to achieve free and fair trade in Asia by 2020, a region that 
already accounts for one-third of our exports and supports more than 2 
million American jobs.  Next week, at the Summit of the Americas in 
Miami, we will take important steps to establish a partnership for 
prosperity among the democracies of our hemisphere. 
 
Nothing we do this year will advance the goal of opening markets and 
building prosperity more than passing GATT--the largest, most 
comprehensive trade agreement ever.  For 40 years, our markets have been 
more open than those of other nations.  GATT will ensure that trade is 
more free and more fair by evening the playing field for our companies 
and workers.  It will allow us to bring the benefits of global growth to 
millions of Americans. 
 
I believe that the Senate vote on GATT tomorrow is a watershed event 
much like the vote on the League of Nations at the end of World War I 
and the ones on the Marshall Plan after World War II.  Now, as then, the 
Senate has an opportunity to show what this country stands for and where 
we are heading--and whether a coalition of the center is possible.  I 
hope that they find inspiration in Senator Vandenberg's call 50 years 
ago "to unite our official voice at the water's edge."  By renewing that 
bipartisan spirit to pass GATT--by choosing engagement over escapism, as 
former Secretary of State James Baker put it--we will ratify America's 
commitment to free trade, jobs and growth, and our leadership in the 
world. 
 
The post-Cold War world also has given us the chance to tackle what once 
seemed to be intractable problems.  There are those who say we should 
not even bother--that we should save our resources, go our own way, and 
let others fend for themselves.  They are wrong.  The price of such a 
blindly arbitrary approach would be calculated in missed opportunities--
opportunities to make all Americans more secure.  That price would be 
too high.  Consider a few of these opportunities. 
 
In the Middle East, Northern Ireland, and South Africa, America's status 
as a great power and ability to act as an honest broker allow us to 
facilitate change.  By taking up these challenges, we are helping to 
replace conflict with cooperation, to bring peace and stability where 
there was war and strife, and to enlarge the world's community of free 
and open societies.  That is good for all Americans. 
 
We also must remain steadfast in our support for reform in the former 
Soviet Union.  Nothing is more important to the long-term security of 
the United States than the successful transformation of Russia and the 
former Soviet republics into democratic nations that respect the rule of 
international law and the rights of their people.  In particular, a 
resurgent, revanchist Russia could put at risk much of what was won 
during the Cold War.  A democratic, free-market Russia can become a 
powerful partner on issues and in regions where we have important 
national interests.  That is what we are working to achieve. 
 
At the same time, as a result of our engagement, Russian missiles no 
longer target American cities or citizens.  In neighboring Ukraine, our 
strong support for President Kuchma has helped that country move toward 
eliminating its 1,800-warhead nuclear arsenal.  And our efforts are 
helping to rid Kazakhstan and Belarus of their weapons of mass 
destruction. 
 
You probably read last week about our secret operation to ship highly 
enriched uranium--enough to make as many as 50 bombs--out of Kazakhstan 
and into safekeeping.  The size of the supply and the lack of secure 
controls made it an especially tempting target for smugglers or 
terrorists.  Thanks to superb work by the Departments of Defense, 
Energy, and State and the cooperation of the Kazakhstan Government, 
temptation never had an opportunity to become tragedy. 
 
The situation in Bosnia has been a tragedy for more than three years.  
In 1991, NATO chose not to intervene directly and gave the lead to the 
United Nations.  Right or wrong, that decision has consequences with 
which we must continue to struggle. 
 
The UN believes that its important humanitarian mission dictates a 
posture of impartiality.  As a result, calling on NATO to retaliate for 
Bosnian Serb attacks against safe areas has become a solution of last 
resort for the UN Command.  In addition, UN troops whose jobs are to 
protect humanitarian relief workers in Bosnia are lightly armed and 
unable to defend themselves against attack.  Any UN decision on NATO 
action must take into account the safety of these troops and the relief 
workers.  So while NATO is constrained in what more it can do, it stands 
ready--when asked--to do what it has always said it would do:  provide 
close air support, conduct operations on behalf of UN personnel and 
enforce safe areas and exclusion zones.  So we face stark policy choices 
with no easy solutions. 
 
Throwing our full military might behind the Bosnian Government forces 
would require putting at risk more than 100,000 American ground troops 
in a conflict that poses no immediate threat to our security, however 
important the interests at stake.  Similarly, washing our hands of the 
problem by unilaterally lifting the arms embargo and walking away would 
be a profound mistake.  It would blow a hole in our ability to implement 
sanctions against Iraq and Libya and others who challenge American 
interests.  It could provoke the most serious rift in NATO history and, 
certainly, the most serious since the 1956 Suez crisis.  It might lead 
our allies and others to step away from the Bosnian problem and seek to 
turn it over to the United States as our sole responsibility.  That 
would raise the issue of the introduction of American ground forces in 
Bosnia. 
 
There is a third option, and that is to keep doing all that we can to 
help  the parties reach a diplomatic settlement.  This path is rife with 
frustrations and setbacks, but it is the best--the steadiest course.  
Let me state again the fundamentals of the situation in Bosnia and our 
policy.   
 
First, neither side can win a final, decisive victory on the 
battlefield.  Despite their losses in Bihac, Bosnian Government forces 
remain at least as capable in the central region of the country.  So 
both sides face the same choice:  They can perpetuate a bloody military 
stalemate, or they can stop the senseless killing and come to terms. 
 
Second, the only way out of the Bosnian inferno is a cease-fire linked 
to negotiations for a political settlement.  That has been and that 
remains the policy of this Administration.  We will continue to urge the 
parties to establish a cease-fire and negotiate a settlement.  On 
Friday, Secretary of State Christopher will discuss with our partners in 
the process how best to do so. 
 
Third, the United States remains committed to the territorial integrity 
and sovereignty of the Bosnian state.  We do not favor a confederation 
between the Bosnian Serbs and Serbia.  But, as we have said for the past 
two years, it is up to the parties to agree on future constitutional 
arrangements and on the map. 
 
Finally, the President and his senior advisers continue to operate on 
the assumption that NATO should be prepared to use force when called 
upon to do so.  We have made no concessions to the Serbs.  We are 
determined to keep doing what we can to help bring the parties to peace. 
 
The tragedy in Bosnia teaches us the importance of extending to all of 
Europe the democracy, stability, and prosperity that Western Europe has 
enjoyed for 50 years.  That is why the United States took the lead to 
establish the Partnership for Peace and to prepare for NATO's eastward 
expansion.  That is why we are focusing time and attention on the 
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. 
 
Together, these and other structures will help fulfill President 
Clinton's vision of an integrated Europe--including Russia--by setting a 
foundation for stability into the next century.  And they should work 
against ethnic tensions in Europe spiraling out of control.  In 
particular, a strengthened CSCE--with its focus on human rights, 
conflict resolution, and peacekeeping--could provide a first, flexible 
line of defense against future Bosnias. 
 
All of these efforts to make America and its allies more prosperous and 
more secure and to enlarge the community of democracies represent the 
opportunities of engagement.  But we also have an obligation to meet the 
many threats to our wealth and well-being that continue to arise in a 
chaotic post-Cold War world. 
 
This is not easy to do.  For one thing, just causes are not lacking in 
this world.  Through the all-seeing eye of the media, pressure builds 
quickly to take on them all--indiscriminately. 
 
The hard part, and the duty of any administration, is to be selective--
to match those causes to our interests.  That calculus will determine 
whether we intervene with military force, economic sanctions, sustained 
diplomacy--or not at all.  It will dictate whether, if we take action, 
we do so alone, with interested allies, or with a broad cross-section of 
the international community. 
 
Ultimately, the only test for intervention--whatever its form--is a 
combination of self-interest and idealism.  Compassion should animate 
but not dictate our policies.  In an era of finite means, there can be 
no crusades for democracy.  But where our interests demand it, we cannot 
back down from engagement.  To do so--to give in to a neo-isolationist 
impulse--threatens to undermine stability and security in our hemisphere 
and elsewhere.  Consider a few recent examples. 
 
In the Persian Gulf, four years after Operation Desert Storm, our 
failure to respond quickly to Iraq's recent provocations might easily 
have resulted in another full-scale war.  Instead, our rapid, decisive 
deployment of troops, ships, and attack planes caused Iraq to withdraw 
the forces it had massed at the Kuwaiti border. 
 
Or, take our recent actions on the Korean Peninsula and in Haiti.  In 
North Korea, previous administrations had also sought to end the threat 
of nuclear proliferation.  Yet some argue that we have no business 
dealing with the North Korean regime, that threats and bluster--not 
patient, hard-headed engagement--are the only course.  But our firm 
diplomacy achieved an agreement that requires Pyongyang first to freeze, 
then to dismantle its nuclear program.  To the surprise, I suppose, of 
the agreement's critics, this week, inspectors from the International 
Atomic Energy Agency verified that North Korea has, in fact, halted its 
nuclear program and stopped building two reactors as provided for by the 
agreement.  Over time, as the agreement takes full effect, the Korean 
Peninsula--and the entire world--will be less threatened and more 
secure. 
 
In Haiti, had we not acted, the military regime would still be in power, 
terrorizing the Haitian people.  Tens of thousands of refugees would 
continue to pose a threat to our regions' stability.  Instead, our 
careful, calibrated use of power preserved stability and gave Haiti 
another chance at democracy. 
 
In these two instances, we met our obligation to engage with patience, 
persistence, and pragmatism.  We achieved important national interests 
with a minimum of sacrifice and a maximum of success. 
 
None of our recent progress on these and other issues would have been 
possible without the men and women of our armed forces.  They put the 
power of persuasion into American diplomacy.  They loom as an unstated 
threat when we wield economic sanctions.  And they get the job done in 
those instances when all means short of force have been tried and have 
failed. 
 
President Clinton is determined to maintain our military as the best- 
trained, the best-equipped, and the best-prepared fighting force in the 
world.  And he is.  America's armed forces have never been in better 
shape.  Anyone who doubts that should talk to our military commanders.  
They should travel to Haiti and to the Gulf.  They should see firsthand 
what our troops are doing. 
 
At the outset of these remarks, I quoted President Wilson's ringing call 
for engagement.  Let me give you a little context for his words. 
 
The President was seeking to convince conservative internationalists to 
help forge a bipartisan consensus for the League of Nations.  The 
League, he told them, was the best hope to end the terrible war in 
Europe and to start the world on a more peaceful course.  Pundits of the 
day compared his speech to everything from the Gettysburg Address to the 
Declaration of Independence.  But just three years later, the Senate 
voted down the League of Nations, and America withdrew into 
isolationism. 
 
Again, today, there are those among us who want America to turn inward.  
They represent flip sides of the same coin--some on the right urging  
isolation because America is too good for the world, some on the left 
because America is not good enough.  Then there are those without even 
the excuse of ideology--the neo-know-nothings of no particular view--who 
add their voice to the chorus of isolation. 
 
I came here to tell you that all of them are wrong and that Woodrow 
Wilson was right--that America's destiny and that of other nations are 
inexorably linked.  More than that, I came here because great 
universities are a good place to spark the debate we need to clarify the 
choice between isolation and engagement.  That debate will not turn on 
one vote like GATT, no matter how important that vote might be.  Nor 
will it be won by seminars and articles, no matter how compelling the 
arguments.  Rather, the debate will play out over time:  through the 
daily struggle for the necessary resources behind our diplomacy; through 
showing the opportunities and obligations that leadership presents; 
through forming a coalition of the center to chart a sensible course for 
our country. 
 
This is a vital moment for America.  We stand, as the President has 
said, at the third great turning point of this century.  After World War 
I, we chose withdrawal, leaving a vacuum that was filled by the forces 
of hatred and tyranny.  After World War II, we chose engagement, 
creating the institutions that guaranteed a half-century of prosperity 
and security and triumphed over communism.  Now, having won the Cold 
War, we must not lose the peace.  We must choose to take on the enemies 
of open societies and take up the challenge of engagement.  This is the 
task for my generation--and for yours.  (###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 3 
 
U.S. and Kazakhstan Agree on Uranium Transfer 
Joint statement released by the White House, Office of the Press 
Secretary, November 23, 1994. 
 
The United States and Kazakhstan have agreed to the transfer of 
approximately 600 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) from the 
Ulbinsky Metallurgical Factory in Kazakhstan to the U.S.  At the request 
of Kazakhstan, which has concluded a full-scope safeguards agreement 
with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the HEU is being 
transferred to the U.S., an NPT depository state, to lessen any risks of 
proliferation.  Kazakhstan is taking careful measures to ensure the 
security of all of its nuclear materials, and thus to minimize any 
proliferation risk.  For its part, the U.S. believes that Kazakhstan's 
responsible actions with regard to the HEU deserve the highest praise.  
The U.S. and Kazakhstan are pleased to be working together on these 
matters on the basis of the Charter for Democratic Partnership, signed 
by Presidents Clinton and Nazarbayev in February 1994. (###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 4 
 
Peace-keeping and Multilateral Relations in U.S. Foreign Policy 
Douglas Bennet, Jr., Assistant Secretary for International Organization 
Affairs 
Address before the UN Association, Princeton University, Trenton, New 
Jersey, November 29, 1994 
 
I cannot tell you how pleased I am to be here.  It is not that I don't 
love Washington; it is just that I love almost anyplace else more. 
 
In this information-sated, wisdom-starved age, institutions that truly 
educate are rare; but among the precious few are the Woodrow Wilson 
School and the United Nations Association.  The Wilson School is among 
the world's great training grounds for future national and international 
leaders.  The UNA/U.S.A.--which like the UN is now in its 50th year--is 
more vital than ever and has become a leading center of foreign policy 
scholarship. 
 
So, I look upon this evening as a great opportunity--certainly for me, 
and I hope for you.  Real foreign policy dialogue between the executive 
branch and interested Americans has always mattered a lot; in this 
dynamic and contentious era, it matters a lot more. In the interest of 
frank discussion tonight, I will begin with one assertion and one 
assurance. 
 
The assertion is that the fundamentals of American foreign policy under 
President Clinton and Secretary of State Christopher are on target for 
our times--including a determination to strengthen United Nations peace-
keeping and other mechanisms for international cooperation. 
 
The assurance is that the recent elections will not change that.  The 
evidence that our policies are sound is demonstrated increasingly by 
results--North American and global trade agreements that create good, 
new jobs; steady progress toward peace in the Middle East; a firm 
response to Iraqi threats in the Persian Gulf; continued democratic 
reform in the former Soviet Union; an accord with North Korea on the 
nuclear issue; and momentum through NATO and the Partnership for Peace 
toward the most significant and elusive goal of this century--a secure, 
integrated, and fully democratic Europe.  We are also working hard and 
successfully to imbue the United Nations with fresh energy. 
 
Contrary to what some pundits would have you believe, most Americans 
think highly of the UN.  According to a recent New York Times poll, 77% 
of us believe the United Nations is contributing to world peace, 89% say 
the U.S. should cooperate with other countries through the UN, and 59% 
think we have "a responsibility to con-tribute troops to enforce peace 
plans in trouble spots around the world" when the UN asks. 
 
Another poll, taken last February, showed 80% of the public agreeing 
that the UN could be trusted "to do the right thing" some or most of the 
time, a degree of confidence nine points higher than that accorded the 
Government of the United States. 
 
Main Street, America, is overrun with multilateralists.  That does not 
mean that most Americans sit up nights thinking about the UN.  If you 
are at all like me, you are focused on family, crime, health, the 
weather, and how to avoid coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial.  But we in 
this country have developed a deep appreciation over the years of the 
concept of burden-sharing; we think others should bear some of the costs 
and take some of the risks of maintaining world order.  We understand 
well, by the evidence of our own lives, that the line between "at-home" 
concerns and "out there" events has become thoroughly blurred. 
 
Our workers, farmers, and businesspeople compete in a global market; 
they recognize that or they would not succeed.  The plagues of the 
modern age--drugs, terrorism, pollution, and epidemic disease--respect 
no borders; illegal immigration sets pulses racing from the east coast 
to the west; and modern technology brings images of heroes and horror 
from around the world into our living rooms every day. There is no more 
direct or local an interest to American families than the possibility 
that a son or daughter one day will be called into combat because we 
have allowed small wars to become big ones or because we have allowed 
deadly weapons to fall into the wrong hands. 
 
A sizeable chunk of the frustration that voters feel toward national 
governments--including our own--is that they often seem to be struggling 
separately and in vain to deal with problems that, by their very nature, 
require international cooperation. 
 
Today, we have an historic opportunity, in the words of Secretary of 
State Christopher, to "build and renew the lasting relationships, 
structures, and institutions that advance America's enduring interests."  
Among these are international organizations such as the UN that are no 
longer paralyzed by Cold War rivalry or held back by artificial 
divisions between north and south.  These institutions can be whatever 
their members choose to make them.  This is especially welcome news for 
us, because the international political climate is more favorable to our 
interests and values, more inclined toward democracy and open markets 
than it has ever been. 
 
But for the UN to fulfill its potential, four things have to occur: 
 
First, there must be continued progress toward increased accountability, 
transparency, and efficiency in UN agencies and programs.  Like any 
other institution these days, the UN has to deliver. 
 
Second, UN members, including the United States, must pay their bills. I 
am pleased to report that, at least for the moment--at least for peace-
keeping--we are paid up. 
 
Third, the major world powers must continue to get along.  If they do 
not, the consensus required for decisive action in the Security Council 
will break down. 
 
Finally, the capacity of the UN to successfully plan and carry out peace 
operations must continue to improve. 
 
The Administration's policy is to achieve all of the above.  We are 
working to change both the way the UN does business and the way UN 
members relate to it.  We are striving to develop strategies for peace 
operations that work, do not go on forever, do not cost too much, do not 
risk lives unnecessarily, and do give people wracked by conflict a 
chance to get back on their feet. 
 
In Congress, we are working to develop a bipartisan consensus in support 
of properly planned peacekeeping.  We cannot predict how the recent 
elections will affect that, but if we are able to connect the debate to 
reality, there should be much common ground.  Isolationism ceased to be 
a viable American strategy about the time American soldiers headed "over 
there" to Europe in 1917.  Today, it is not even an option.  What we 
must debate openly and carefully is when, where, and how to exert 
ourselves in the world--but exert ourselves we must. 
 
United Nations peace-keeping provides the President with an option 
between unilateral intervention and inaction when foreign crises occur.  
It lends legitimacy to efforts to deter, punish, or end behavior that 
outrages the conscience and violates international law.  It can provide 
a measure of confidence to competing factions who are weary of war but 
undecided whether to hazard the uncertainties of peace.  It permits 
America to influence events that affect or concern us, at a cost and 
risk far less than if we intervened alone. 
 
That is why we are helping the UN develop a peace-keeping headquarters 
worthy of the name.  That is why we have provided a list of U.S. 
military capabilities that might be available, under appropriate 
circumstances, for use in peace operations; and that is why we have 
developed some disciplined guidelines for supporting or participating in 
such operations. 
 
Our policy recognizes that peacekeeping has become more complex, 
expensive, and dangerous.  Traditionally, peace-keepers simply separated 
adversaries, with their consent, until permanent solutions could be 
found.   In places like the Middle East, Cyprus, and South Asia, this 
kept casualties down while providing diplomats with lifetime employment.  
Recent peace missions have been more ambitious, combining a menu of 
functions from humanitarian relief to disarming troops to laying the 
groundwork for national reconstruction. 
 
Because of the complexity of modern peace-keeping, lessons learned one 
place may not be directly applicable to the next.  There is no single 
model or set of models we can point to with confidence and say:  This is 
what will work the next time around.  The lessons are cumulative, but 
each situation is unique.  Our prescriptions, therefore, must vary with 
the symptoms. 
 
Some of the happier pictures we have seen in recent years are of 
seemingly endless lines of people waiting patiently to vote in Namibia, 
El Salvador, Cambodia, South Africa, and Mozambique.  In each, democracy 
is a new concept.  In each, the United Nations played an important role.  
And in each, the principles that are being ratified were derived from 
those tested two centuries ago at a place not that far from here called 
Valley Forge. 
 
In the former Yugoslavia, the UN faces its most difficult test.  UN 
peace-keepers have kept open a humanitarian lifeline upon which more 
than 2 million people depend.  Sanctions have imposed real pressure on 
Serbia and its Bosnian allies.  UN resolutions have provided a basis for 
NATO action to enforce no-fly zones and protect safe areas.  Peace-
keeping forces in The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, including 
Americans, have helped prevent the conflict from spreading. 
 
But the UN can do no more than its most powerful members agree that it 
should do.  Russia, France, Great Britain, and the United States do not 
view Bosnia the same way.  As a result, UN forces have neither the 
mandate nor the resources needed to take decisive action.  The most 
recent, dramatic example of this has been in the town of Bihac, a UN-
declared "safe area" that UN peace-keepers lack the capacity to protect. 
 
The Administration's position has been that UN resolutions should be 
enforced more strictly, with NATO's help, to deter further aggression 
and persuade the Bosnian Serbs to accept a territorial settlement.  In 
the coming weeks, we will push hard for an end to hostilities and for a 
comprehensive negotiated solution to the conflict.  We will also 
continue to press the Security Council for a resolution to lift the arms 
embargo against Bosnia if the Bosnian Serbs do not settle. 
 
In Haiti, the UN role has been unambiguously positive.  It helped  
isolate the illegitimate military leaders by condemning the overthrow of 
President Aristide and imposing economic sanctions.  It helped expose 
the brutality of the de facto regime by authorizing the deployment of 
human rights monitors, who were later expelled.  It set in motion the 
restoration of President Aristide by calling upon a multinational force 
to restore the rightful leaders to power. 
 
All this required strong U.S. leadership.  But the UN's involvement has 
broadened diplomatic support for our policy; broadened participation in 
the multinational force; and reassured the Haitian people, who are 
understandably ambivalent about the presence of foreign troops.  It will 
also allow the early departure of most American combat forces and a 
transition to a UN peace-keeping force.  To aid that transition, we are 
consulting with the UN to make its force the best-planned, best-
organized UN mission ever.  U.S. participation will be substantial, 
although less than 50% of the anticipated 6,000 person force. 
 
The road ahead in Haiti remains uphill.  But the steps we have taken 
thus far have reinforced American credibility, honored democratic 
values, eased the humanitarian crisis, demonstrated again the 
professionalism of our armed forces, and shown the value to American 
interests of an effective, activist UN.  The world is continuing to 
watch us in Haiti.  Based on my own recent conversations with leaders of 
African democracies, I see a strong expectation that America will act on 
behalf of people committed to freedom. 
 
In the Persian Gulf, the UN has been involved in a continuum of 
activities.  Initially, it authorized the use of all necessary means to 
repel Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, culminating in Operation Desert Storm.  
Then, it imposed sanctions to enforce the terms of the agreement ending 
the war.  It established a formal peace-keeping mission to monitor the 
border between Kuwait and Iraq.  Most recently, it has acted to 
reinforce our own determination that Iraq will never again become a 
threat to regional peace and security. 
 
We all have a stake in peace operations that contribute to a world that 
is less violent, more stable, and more democratic than it otherwise 
would be.  But peace-keeping by its nature tends to come after conflicts 
have begun and blood has been spilled. We need to do more to prevent 
violent outbreaks. 
 
The end of the Cold War left too many places--especially in the 
developing world--over-armed, divided, indebted, and vulnerable to 
gangsterism.  In venues like Somalia, the Balkans, Sudan, Liberia, and 
the Caucasus, people are armed to the teeth, but cannot put food in the 
mouths of their children.  The future of impoverished Angola depends on 
its resources of oil and diamonds, but the competing factions have 
mortgaged both to buy arms.  Democracy in Mozambique is at risk because 
arms caches dating back to the Portuguese era remain available to anyone 
with a grievance.  When I was in Rwanda not long before the horrible 
fighting broke out, the price of a hand grenade was $1.25, less than 
half the cost of a Big Mac. 
 
Nations that produce and peddle weapons are complicit.  Governments must 
exercise their sovereign power to constrain the proliferation of all 
kinds of arms.  Peace-keeping will remain more costly, dangerous, and 
ineffective than it needs to be until we find a way to slow regional, 
subregional, and subnational arms races.  Today, at the UN, we are 
making progress in our effort to impose worldwide restraints on the 
transfer of anti-personnel land mines.  This is a first step down the 
right road. 
 
Preventive diplomacy requires preventive investments and forward-looking 
policies.  It is not a question of spending more money, but of spending 
money where the return on investment is highest.  This Administration 
has increased support for the International Atomic Energy Agency, which 
was created to ensure the safe use of nuclear materials.  We have 
restored American leadership on the environment and emphasized the role 
of women in economic progress and the importance of families as the 
building block of social stability.  We have moved successfully to 
create a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and authorized War Crimes 
Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.  We are unabashed in our 
support for democratic values, whether in Haiti, the former Soviet 
Union, or Africa-- where 26 countries have had multi-party elections 
since 1989, and 12 more will in the next two years. 
 
Given the stakes for our own security, this is the time to play offense.  
Flexible and workable international arrangements can contribute hugely 
to the well-being of American citizens at a cost that equals only a 
percentage point or two of what we budget for national security.  We 
spend almost $300 billion a year on the Pentagon, intelligence, 
diplomacy, and assistance, and yet continually find that there is not 
enough money within this amount for other investments that would yield 
substantial returns down the road. 
 
In the months ahead, we are going to face some important choices. By 
"we," I mean the executive, the Congress, other members of the UN, and 
you--the public.  We must choose how we will organize ourselves now that 
the Cold War structure is gone. Will we have a set of standards and 
expectations that will permit most people in most places, most of the 
time, to exist in a manner that we like to think of as normal--where 
children go to school, families worship together and people generally 
have control over their lives?  Or will we see a world without a peace-
keeping capability with broad legitimacy--a world evolving backward 
toward the 19th century, with big countries picking on little ones and 
contests for ethnic or cultural supremacy festering around the globe? 
 
Yes, peace-keeping and preventive action cost money and entail risks.  
But inaction in the face of outrage costs and risks far more. 
 
I would be remiss, here at Princeton, not to make reference to President 
Woodrow Wilson.  I note, in so doing, that we live in a somewhat 
different rhetorical age.  When the draft covenant of the League of 
Nations was approved, Wilson's Secretary of the Navy compared it to one 
of the parables of Jesus and almost as illuminating and uplifting.  It 
was a time for church bells to peal, for preachers to fall upon their 
knees, for statesmen to rejoice, and for the angels to sing, "Glory to 
God in the Highest." 
 
My ambitions for this speech, and your reaction to it, are more modest.  
But I do hope you share my anticipation about the coming debate, in 
Congress and in the country.  The opportunities are before us to forge a 
new consensus that will defend American interests and promote democratic 
values.  The UN has played--and will play--an appropriate role.  In the 
debate, scholars, educators, and citizens of all descriptions will cast, 
ultimately, the deciding vote.  The young, particularly, should have a 
strong voice in determining the shape of their inheritance.  Thank you 
very much. (###) 
 
[END OF DISPATCH VOL 5, NO. 49] 

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