U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 5, NUMBER 52, DECEMBER 26, 1994
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS


ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:

1.  Advancing U.S.-Russian Cooperation--Vice President Gore
2.  Country Profile:  Russia
3.  Fact Sheet:  Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission
4.  Fact Sheet:  U.S.-Russian Economic Relations and
Military Issues
5.  Fact Sheet:  Safe and Secure Dismantlement of Nuclear
Weapons in the New Independent States
6.  Fact Sheet:  U.S. Arctic Policy
7.  Preventing the Proliferation of Dangerous Arms--Lynn E.
Davis
8.  Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biological
Diversity--Timothy E. Wirth
9.  Fact Sheet:  The International Coral Reef Initiative
10.  U.S. Policy Review Toward Burma--Thomas C. Hubbard
11.  Haitian Economic Assistance Program
12.  Fact Sheet:  Department of State Foreign Affairs
Network (DOSFAN)


ARTICLE 1

Advancing U.S.-Russian Cooperation
Vice President Gore
Remarks at signing ceremony following the fourth meeting of
the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, Moscow, Russia, December
16, 1994

The Prime Minister and I have just concluded three very full
and fruitful days of meetings at the fourth session of our
joint commission, advancing the work we began 18 months ago
to expand U.S.-Russian cooperation across a broad range of
issues.  I want to thank Prime Minister Chernomyrdin on
behalf of my entire delegation for the very warm welcome we
have felt on these cold December days.

I want also to express my gratitude to President Yeltsin for
so graciously agreeing to receive me, even as he recovers
from his recent minor surgery.  We had an excellent
discussion that touched on a number of the important issues
we have before us.  I conveyed President Clinton's best
wishes for a full and speedy recovery and reaffirmed the
President's steadfast commitment to a strong bilateral
partnership.

To my mind, nothing speaks more clearly about the overall
health of the U.S.-Russian relationship than the work of
this commission.  In each of our expert subcommittees, we
have moved forward in transforming the agreements we reached
during the year and a half of the commission's existence
into concrete projects.

--  We have committed ourselves to an unprecedented exchange
of technical information on the safety and security of
nuclear warheads in each country--a new initiative to build
confidence in and enhance the safety of our ongoing arms
reduction regime.

--  Our environment committee concluded two agreements,
which the Prime Minister and I have just signed: a program
of cooperation in monitoring and preventing pollution in the
Arctic and the GLOBE international environmental science and
education program, which Russia has today joined as a
charter member.

--  The U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation has
given fresh impetus to work in the defense conversion field
by agreeing to provide up to $500 million in loan guarantees
and risk insurance to promote large-scale private investment
to help the Russian defense sector manage this difficult
period of transition.

--  In our science and technology committee, we have agreed
on a program of expanded cooperation in telecommunications
technology and informatics.

--  Our intensive work on market access issues continues
with the establishment of a working group that will produce
joint recommendations on the creation of a more transparent
and equitable commercial tax regime in Russia.

--  We have made impressive strides in our joint work on the
International Space Station.  As part of that effort, we are
awaiting with great anticipation the launch of the first
American astronaut to the Russian "Mir" station early next
year.

--  And last, but far from least, I want to note the
establishment of our new, seventh subcommittee to promote
cooperation in the area of public health.  The Prime
Minister suggested creation of this committee during our
last meeting in June--a suggestion I embraced
wholeheartedly.  Thanks to the tireless work of our co-
chairmen--U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna
Shalala and Russian Minister of Health Edward Nechayev--this
committee is not only up and running but has already
announced its first initiatives in the area of
pharmaceutical production and women's reproductive health.
The exciting prospects for this new committee are a fresh
reminder of what our work is all about:  helping to better
the lives of ordinary people in both our countries.

These are just a few of the highlights of all that we have
accomplished.  We will be providing some fact sheets with
the full details of our many projects and agreements at the
end of this press conference.

The Prime Minister and I also spent a great deal of time
over these past few days discussing the toughest issues that
confront us:  questions relating to NATO and the future of
Europe.  We had very useful exchanges that helped clarify
our positions and underscored the commitment on both sides
to work through these issues together.  We have agreed that
Secretary Christopher and Foreign Minister Kozyrev will
continue and expand on this dialogue at talks they will hold
in January.  These discussions underscore the firm American
commitment to an undivided, secure, and stable Europe.

In sum, I leave Moscow with a strong sense of a U.S.-Russia
relationship that is strong, dynamic, and firmly on track.
The dedication of both sides to expanding the partnership we
are building has never been more evident to me.  I look
forward to the next meeting of this commission in six
months, which the Prime Minister and I have agreed will be
held again here in Moscow, to allow us to enjoy the long,
warm days of the Russian summer.  (###)

Additional material from the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission
meeting may be obtained from the Office of the Vice
President by calling 202-456-7035 or by writing to the
following address:

Office of the Vice President
Communications Department
Room 274
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, DC  20501



ARTICLE 2

Country Profile:  Russia

Official Name:  Russian Federation

PROFILE

Geography
Area:  17 million sq. km. (6.5 million sq. mi.); about 1.8
times the size of the U.S.
Cities:  Capital--Moscow (pop. 9 million).  Other cities:
St. Petersburg (5 million), Novosibirsk  (1.4 million).
Terrain:  Broad plain with low hills west of Urals; vast
coniferous forest and tundra in Siberia; uplands and
mountains (Caucasus range) along southern borders.
Climate:  Northern continental, from subarctic to
subtropical.

People
Nationality:  Noun and adjective--Russian(s).
Population (1994 est.): 148 million.
Annual growth rate:  0%.
Ethnic groups:  Russian 81%, Tatar 4%, Ukrainian 3%, Chuvash
1.2%, Other 19%.
Religion:  Russian Orthodox, Islamic, Jewish, Roman
Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, other.
Language:  Russian (official); more than 140 other languages
and dialects.
Education:  Literacy--(ages 5-49) 100%.
Health:  Infant mortality rate--27/1,000.  Life expectancy--
64 yrs. men, 74 yrs. women.
Workforce:  72 million.  Production and economic services--
84%.  Government--16%.

Government
Type:  Federation.
Independence:  August 24, 1991.
Constitution:  1993.
Branches:  Executive--President, premier (chairman of the
council of ministers).  Legislative--Federation Council,
State Duma.  Judicial--Constitutional court, Supreme Court,
Superior Court of Arbitration.
Political parties:  Russia's Choice,  Liberal Democrats
Party, Agrarian Party, Communist Party of the Russian
Federation, Unity and Accord, Yabloko Bloc, Women of Russia,
Democratic Party of Russia, Russia's Path.
Subdivisions:  21 autonomous republics and 68 autonomous
territories and regions.  Suffrage:  Universal at 18 years.

Economy (1994 est.)
GDP:  $249 billion
Growth rate:  -10%.
Per capita GDP:  $1,682
Natural resources:  Petroleum, natural gas, timber, furs.
Agriculture:  Grain, sugar beets, sunflower seeds, meat,
dairy products.
Industry:  Complete range of manufactures (automobiles,
trucks, trains, agricultural equipment, advanced aircraft,
aerospace, machine and equipment products), mining and
extractive industry, medical and scientific instruments,
construction equipment.
Trade:  Exports--$46 billion.  Products--petroleum and
petroleum products, natural gas, woods and wood products,
metals, chemicals, military manufactures.  Major markets--
EU, NIS, United States, Japan, China.  Imports--$17 billion:
machinery and equipment, chemicals, consumer goods, grain,
meat, sugar, semifinished metal products.  Major partners--
EU, United States, NIS, Japan, China.
Principal U.S. exports:  corn, cotton, aluminum, wheat.
Principal U.S. imports:  aluminum, crude oil, platinum, oil
products, iron and steel.
Exchange rate:  3,000 rubles=U.S. $1.  (###)




ARTICLE 3

Fact Sheet:  Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission

Under the leadership of Vice President Gore and Russian
Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, the U.S. and Russia advance
their bilateral cooperation through seven working committees
known collectively as the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission.
Created by President Clinton and Russian President Yeltsin
after their April 1993 summit meeting in Vancouver, the
Commission's original mandate was to support cooperation in
the areas of space, energy, and high-technology.  Since
then, the Commission has expanded its scope to include four
additional areas of U.S.-Russian cooperation:  business
development, defense conversion, the environment, and
health.  The Commission has met four times to date; sessions
usually alternate between Russia and the United States.


December 1994
Washington, DC

Fifteen agreements and six joint statements were signed at
the most recent Commission meeting, held December 14-16,
1994, in Moscow.  At this meeting, the Health Committee,
announced in June 1994 to promote cooperation in the area of
public health, met for the first time.  Vice President Gore
and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin agreed to hold the next
Commission meeting in June 1995, in Russia.

Health.  Technical cooperation in women's reproductive
health will include a public information campaign in Russia
on the health benefits of modern contraceptive methods and
assistance in developing model family planning centers.  In
addition, a new pharmaceutical program will support
development of partnerships between U.S. and Russian
pharmaceutical firms to alleviate shortages in urgently
needed pharmaceuticals in Russia.  Also, hospital equipment
and supplies from a decommissioned U.S. military hospital,
valued at $6 million, will be donated to Hospital No. 2 in
Vladivostok.  Priorities for future cooperation also were
agreed upon at the meeting:  diabetes, health education and
promotion, prevention and control of infectious diseases,
primary care practice, tuberculosis treatment and control,
maternal and child health, health reform and policy, and
environ-mental health.

Space Cooperation.  The Commission noted the significant
progress made by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) and the Russian Space Agency for the
upcoming flight of a U.S. astronaut on the Russian Mir Space
Station in March 1995 and the first Space Shuttle/Mir Space
Docking Mission in June 1995.  The two nations signed a
customs agreement to provide duty-free clearance of goods
shipped to Russia for cooperation in space.

Business and Investment Development.  The Commission
announced a dialogue on Russian commercial taxes which
hinder and deter trade and investment by the U.S. private
sector in the Russian Federation.  In addition, the two
nations agreed to further bilateral commercial ties,
especially between the West Coast of the U.S. and the
Russian Far East, by opening a third U.S. Department of
Commerce American Business Center in the Russian Far East at
Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk.  The Commission also will promote a
Russian Presidential Business Mission to the United States
in early 1995.

Energy.  Concerned with the full range of nuclear issues as
well as fossil energy and energy efficiency, the Energy
Policy Committee agreed to fund studies on viable energy
alternatives, such as fossil-fired power, to replace
plutonium production reactors.  For the first time, the two
countries will exchange unclassified technical information
to enhance safety and security in the dismantlement of
nuclear warheads in both countries.

Defense Conversion.   The Over-seas Private Investment
Corporation (OPIC) will commit $500 million to support
defense conversion projects in Russia and other countries of
the New Independent States undertaken by U.S. companies with
local partners.  In addition, the U.S. Department of
Commerce's Bureau of Special American Business Internship
Training Program (SABIT) and Commerce's Bureau of Export
Administration will develop and implement a specialized
training program for up to 50 defense enterprise experts
from Russia.  Vice President Gore announced the award of
four contracts totaling $16.6 million to U.S. firms that
have established cost-sharing joint ventures with Russian
companies.  The awards will assist four Russian defense
enterprises that are converting to manufacturing products
with commercial applications.

Science and Technology.  Vice President Gore and Prime
Minister Chernomyrdin signed a statement of intent to
establish a Space Biomedical Center for Training and
Research at Moscow State University.  The Center will
promote U.S.-Russian cooperative medical exchanges in
aerospace medicine, space biology and microgravity science,
internal medicine, telemedicine, biotechnology, and public
health issues.  Russia and the U.S. also signed an agreement
to jointly monitor global climate change through changes in
the oceans' temperatures and announced further cooperation
in telecommunications and information technology.

Environment.  Russia and the U.S. signed a landmark
agreement on cooperation in the prevention of pollution of
the environment in the Arctic.  The agreement calls for the
two countries to cooperate in assessing levels of hazardous
contaminants and authorizes consultation on technical
measures to eliminate them.  A joint statement to support
legislative action to allow both countries to ratify the
convention on biodiversity also was signed.


June 1994
Washington, DC

The Commission met in Washington, DC,  June 22-23, 1994, and
registered further progress in all areas of the Commission's
work.  In particular, the session emphasized the
implementation of U.S.-Russian cooperative ventures and
programs.  In addition, Vice President Gore and Prime
Minister Chernomyrdin agreed to establish a seventh
committee to deal with health issues.

Space Cooperation.  NASA and the Russian Space Agency signed
an interim agreement covering initial Russian participation
in the international space station program, as well as a
$400-million contract to provide Russian space hardware,
services, and data in support of the "Shuttle-Mir" project--
a joint flight program leading to the development of the
international space station.  Key elements of the contract
include support of U.S. astronauts on board the Mir space
station for approximately two years, the possibility of 10
shuttle docking missions with Mir, provision of hardware,
joint technology development, and support for science and
technology research to be conducted on board Mir.

Business and Investment Development.  A consortium of U.S.
and other Western oil companies signed an agreement with the
Russians which launched the largest single U.S. investment
in Russia--a joint contract to develop the oil fields of
Sakhalin Island.  The project, worth about $10 billion, is
the first major development of a Russian energy field
involving foreign direct investment.  Two OPIC funds--
expected to leverage more than $4 billion of private-sector
investment in Russia and the other New Independent States
(NIS) and known as the Major Projects Fund and the Russia
Partners Fund--were signed at this session of the
Commission.  The initial OPIC fund was signed at the
Commission's inaugural meeting and was expected to leverage
$1 billion.  The fund has already exceeded its target
capitalization and is investing in the NIS economies.

Energy.  The Vice President and the Prime Minister signed an
agreement obligating the U.S. and the Russian Federation to
end the operation of plutonium production reactors by the
year 2000.  The agreement also prohibits the restarting of
any reactors already closed and bars both countries from
using in nuclear weapons any plutonium produced by the
production reactors after the agreement enters into force.
A committee also is developing a joint study on alternative
energy sources and is establishing an Oil and Gas Technology
Center in Russia.

Defense Conversion.  The U.S. announced the first awards
made under a March 1994 Nunn-Lugar defense conversion
agreement which provides up to $20 million in assistance to
U.S. firms to establish joint ventures with Russian defense
firms converting to civilian production.  It also announced
the incorporation of the Defense Conversion Enterprise Fund
with a grant of $7.7 million to assist in the conversion of
defense industries in Russia and the other NIS states.  The
sides agreed to expedite the construction of a long-term
storage facility at Mayak for the safe, secure storage of
fissile materials from dismantled nuclear weapons for which
$90 million has been set aside under the Nunn-Lugar program.

Science and Technology.  The two countries signed a
statement of principles on data exchange and  five new
memoranda of understanding, dealing with:

--  Transportation--to develop and modernize Russian air
traffic control systems and other aspects of civil aviation,
highways, public transit, railroads, and maritime
transportation;

--  Health--to enable joint efforts in cancer research,
molecular biology, genetics, immunology and AIDS,
neurobiology, clinical research, and scientific information
exchange;

--  Geosciences--to foster research in global climate
change, water resources, petroleum geology, seismic and
volcano hazards, and storage and disposal of toxic or
radioactive wastes;

--  Basic science and engineering--to promote cooperative
research between U.S. and Russian scientists and allow joint
activities in materials research, lasers, optics, and
ecology;

--  Offshore energy development--to clarify the technical
regulations for the exploration and development of offshore
oil, gas, and mineral resources.

Environment.  A new agreement on the environment provides
for broader cooperation on global issues, such as
biodiversity, environmental management, and public
participation in environmental decision-making.  It also
calls for joint formulation of policy on environmental
problems of bilateral, regional, and global significance, in-
creased data sharing, and more vigorous efforts to protect
intellectual property rights.  Other cooperative efforts
include a U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
grant of $1 million to support the operations of two world-
class Russian research facilities, the Komarov and Vavilov
Institutes in St. Petersburg, whose collections and
capabilities are critical to biological diversity, and a
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant of $50,000
to help Russia phase out the use of substances that deplete
the stratospheric ozone layer.


December 1993
Moscow

The Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission held its second meeting
December 15-16, 1993, in Moscow.  Major accomplishments were
achieved in five broad areas.

Space Cooperation.  One of the highlights of the meeting was
a joint statement issued on space station cooperation.  It
covers activities involving the U.S. space shuttle and the
Russian Mir space station, Russian participation in the
International Space Station, and contractual arrangements to
facilitate these programs.

The two sides signed a protocol calling for additional
manned flights to the Russian Mir space station and extended
time for U.S. astronauts there.  They also signed a joint
statement on aeronautics and space cooperation, noting
potential cooperation in the areas of earth sciences and
environmental monitoring and space science.  The joint
statement was accompanied by a memorandum of understanding
describing eight areas of cooperation in fundamental
aeronautical sciences.

Trade and Business Development.  In this area, the Vice
President and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin exchanged
instruments of ratification for a double taxation treaty,
effective January 1, 1994.  OPIC agreements totaling $135
million were signed,   providing the financial muscle to
stimulate significant U.S. private investment in the Russian
economy.  The two sides released a joint communique on
conformity of product standards to facilitate trade in both
directions.  They also signed an interim memorandum for
establishing American business centers in Russia and issued
a joint statement on the future tasks of the Business
Development Committee aimed at identifying opportunities,
resolving problems, and expanding contracts leading to new
trade and investment projects.  Finally, they announced a
joint energy project to create a model Russian retail
gasoline corporation to determine the commercial and legal
conditions needed to establish a privately owned and
financed corporation.

Energy, Nuclear Safety, and Environment.  The Vice President
and the Prime Minister signed a milestone statement of
principles for nuclear safety cooperation, with both
governments committed to support and expand bilateral and
multilateral efforts to promote nuclear safety.  The two
sides also signed a nuclear liability agreement providing a
legal framework for U.S. corporations involved in improving
the safety of Russian nuclear reactors.  An agreement for
the Commodity Import Program provides $90 million in grants
for importing U.S.  technology and equipment to improve
Russian energy production and efficiency, reduce
environmental pollution, and improve performance.  They also
announced the formation of an oil and gas technology center
in the city of Tyumen, a key Russian energy production site,
to improve the recovery of oil and gas and reduce production
costs.  Finally, they signed a joint statement on
environmental cooperation involving 15 technical assistance
projects to begin immediately and another on alternative
energy studies.

Defense Conversion.  The Vice President and the Prime
Minister signed a memorandum spelling out the principles
guiding U.S. and Russian cooperation in the conversion and
diversification of defense industries. The two sides
followed this with a protocol to the existing Nunn-Lugar
defense conversion implementation agreement that provides up
to $20 million for direct conversion assistance for the
transition to civilian production of modular housing.

Science and Technology.  Vice President Gore and Prime
Minister Chernomyrdin signed a historic agreement providing,
for the first time, a framework for cooperation in all
fields of science and technology for a 10-year period.  A
major achievement of the agreement is a new bilateral
framework to protect intellectual property resulting from
cooperative research and development programs. The two sides
also signed a related memorandum of understanding on
cooperation in the fields of mining research and minerals
information for a five-year period.


September 1993
Washington, DC

Vice President Gore and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin
initiated the new cooperative venture on September 1-2,
1993, in Washington, DC.  The Commission's broad agenda
included economic and foreign policy issues, as well as the
evolution of a commercial partnership for the future.  They
also accomplished a great deal in the fields of space and
energy.  Agreements signed during this round of successful
meetings represent the leading edge of U.S.-Russian
cooperation aimed at achieving broad market access for
Russian high-technology goods and efficient and low-cost
cooperation on long-term, complex projects.  They also
agreed to establish additional subcommittees to focus
specifically on environ- mental, scientific, and energy
policy, as well as defense diversification issues.

Space Cooperation.  The two sides signed three joint
statements on:

--  Space cooperation--outlining a phased approach for
cooperation on human space flight and development of a
unified space station;

--  Cooperative environmental space monitoring--involving a
joint study to determine the feasibility of such programs;
and

--  Aeronautical sciences.

These agreements set a broad strategy for cooperation on
global environmental change and in the design of future
aircraft.  They also signed a commercial launch agreement,
giving Russia access to the international launch services
market, and a memorandum of understanding on the Missile
Technology Control Regime (MTCR), committing Russia to the
MTCR guidelines on the sale of high-technology goods and
services.

Energy and Investment Cooperation.  The agreements signed in
this area represent the joint intention of the parties to
strengthen economic cooperation and to increase trade and
investment significantly, especially in energy-related
projects.  OPIC announced two major projects for Russia to
establish the first U.S.-Russian Investment Fund to support
privatization and to assist in oil well restoration in
western Siberia.

The two sides agreed that each government would name an
ombudsman to work together to overcome obstacles to specific
trade and investment projects.  They also signed a
memorandum to facilitate cooperation in fossil energy
development and a memorandum of understanding that will lead
to an expansion of exports to Russia currently financed by
Exim-bank.  Finally, they agreed to launch a joint study on
nuclear reactor safety issues to determine the most
potentially productive joint work in the area of nuclear
safety.  (###)

Commission Members
Co-Chairmen--Vice President Al Gore, Prime Minister Victor
Chernomyrdin

Business Development--U.S. Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown,
Foreign Minister of Economic Relations Oleg Davydov

Energy Policy--U.S. Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary,
Minister of Fuel and Energy Yuri Shafranik

Science and Technology--OSTP Director Jack Gibbons, Minister
of Science Boris G. Saltykov

Defense Conversion--U.S. Secretary of Defense William J.
Perry, First Deputy Minister of Defense Andrei Kokoshin,
First Deputy Minister of the Economy Valeriy Makhailov

Space--NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin, General Director
Russian Space Agency Yuri Koptev

Environment--EPA Administrator Carol Browner, Minister of
Environmental Protection and Natural Resources Victor
Danilov-Danilyan

Health--U.S. Secretary of Health Donna Shalala, Minister of
Health and Medical Industry Eduard Nechayev

U.S. State Department Members--U.S. Deputy Secretary of
State Strobe Talbott; Senior Coordinator, Office of the U.S.
Ambassador-at-Large for the New Independent States James
Collins, Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to the NIS Thomas W.
Simons, Jr.  (###)


Recent Agreements of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission

December 1994
Signed by the Vice President And Prime Minister:
--  Bilateral Agreement on Cooperation in the Prevention of
Pollution of the Environment in the Arctic
--  U.S.-Russian Agreement for Cooperation in the GLOBE
Program
--  Agreement Concerning Customs Registration of Goods
Transported under Framework of RSA/NASA Cooperation

Signed Documents by Committee Chairs and Others:
--  Statement of Intent on Space Biomedical Center for
Training Research
--  MOU on "Meteor-3M/SAGEIII" and "Meteor-3M/TOMS" Projects
--  Joint Statement on Commercial Tax Dialogue and Russian
Far East and American West Coast
--  Joint Statement on Russian Presidential Business Mission
--  Agreement on the Exchange of Technical Information on
Warhead Safety
--  MOU on Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC)
--  Declaration of OPIC Commitment of up to $500 million in
Financing/Insurance for Defense Conversion Projects in
Russia and Other NIS
--  MOU between the Government of the Russian Federation and
OPIC Regarding the Support of Defense Conversion in Russia
--  OPIC Project:  Hamilton Standard-Nauka Joint Venture
--  OPIC Project:  Lockheed-Khrunishev-Energiya Joint
Venture
--  TDA Grant Agreement on Study of Alternative Energy
Sources To Replace Plutonium Production Reactor at
Krasnoyarsk-26
-- TDA Grant Agreement on Study of Alternative Energy
Sources To Replace Plutonium Production Reactor at
Tomsk-7


June 1994
Signed by the Vice President and Prime Minister:
--  U.S.-Russian Environment Agreement
--  Statement of Principle on Data Exchange
--  Agreement on the Closure of Plutonium Production
Reactors and the Cessation of Production of Weapons-Grade
Plutonium
--  Joint Statement on Space Station Cooperation

Signed Documents by Committee Chairs and Others:
--  Space Station Interim Agreement
--  $400 Million Contract for Joint Shuttle-Mir Program
--  Joint Statement on Geostationary Satellite-Aided Search
and Rescue
--  Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Basic Science
Cooperation
--  MOU on Transportation
--  MOU on Cooperation between Mineral Mining and Management
Service and Roskomnedra (an offshore energy development
firm)
--  MOU on Cooperation in the Field of Geoscience
--  MOU on Basic Biomedical Research
--  MOU on the Establishment of the Oil and Gas Technology
Center
--  MOU on Wood, Pulp, and Paper Products
--  OPIC Letter of Commitment for the Lehman Brothers Major
Projects Fund (OPIC)
--  OPIC Framework Agreement on Health Care Support
--  OPIC Protocol for MIR-Pharmaceutical
--  OPIC Letter of Commitment for the NIS Frontier Fund
(###)




ARTICLE 4

Fact Sheet:  U.S.-Russian Economic Relations and Military
Issues

The United States actively supports Russian efforts to
develop democratic institutions and a free market economy.
At summit meetings in Vancouver, Moscow, and Washington,
Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin reaffirmed the fundamental
importance of U.S.-Russian cooperation and agreed on a
variety of bilateral initiatives to expand economic
relations between the two countries and promote democratic
and market reforms in Russia.

U.S. assistance to Russia funds a variety of programs in the
following key areas:  private-sector development,
privatization and enterprise restructuring, trade and
investment, democracy initiatives, energy, health care,
housing, and environment.  Humanitarian assistance
represented a major portion of U.S. aid during the initial
transition phase in Russia when there was a pressing need
for food, medicine, and other essential commodities.  The
U.S. has now entered a second phase of aid concentrating on
technical assistance and direct support for trade and
investment.

Congress has appropriated substantial resources to support
U.S. assistance to Russia and the other New Independent
States (NIS).  In September 1993, Congress approved a
special one-time assistance package of $2.45 billion aimed
at helping all the NIS during the difficult period
immediately following the fall of communism and the breakup
of the Soviet Union.  Approximately $1.6 billion of that
amount was allocated for programs in Russia.  In August
1994, Congress passed a $850-million legislative package for
assistance to the NIS in FY 1995, of which $379 million is
targeted for Russia.  Assistance activities in FY 1995 will
continue ongoing programs to strengthen democratic practices
and promote the development of private enterprise and market
institutions.  There will be a new emphasis in the 1995
program on direct support for U.S.-Russian trade and
investment, which has been growing with the successful
implementation of market reforms.  The 1995 program also
will include new activities to expand cooperation on
strengthening the rule of law and fighting the rise in
crime.

U.S. obligations under all assistance programs total $3.3
billion, of which more than $2.2  billion has been expended.
The financing of investment and non-food exports under U.S.
commercial programs in Russia exceeds $2.3 billion.

Bilateral Economic Issues

Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission.  Under the leadership of Vice
President Gore and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, the U.S. and
Russia are working to advance bilateral cooperation through
seven working committees known collectively as the Gore-
Chernomyrdin Commission.  The committees address issues in
the fields of science and technology, business development,
space, energy policy, environmental protection, health, and
defense diversification.  The Commission last met in Moscow
in December 1994.

Trade and Investment.  At the September 1994 summit in
Washington, DC, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin agreed to
place new emphasis on expanding trade and investment.  They
signed a joint statement on a "Partnership for Economic
Cooperation" which will serve as a framework for reducing
barriers to expanded economic cooperation.  President
Clinton also announced that $100 million in FY 1995
assistance to the NIS would be used to provide direct
support for trade and investment through the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), the Trade and
Development Agency (TDA),  and the U.S. Commerce Department.
U.S.-Russia bilateral trade is about $5.5 billion annually.
The U.S.-Russia Business Development Committee (BDC) was
established June 1992 in Lisbon and is now co-chaired by
U.S. Commerce Secretary Brown and Russian Deputy Prime
Minister Shokhin.  The BDC helps remove impediments to trade
and investment.  The 1992 U.S.-Russia trade agreement
provides mutual most-favored-nation status and offers strong
intellectual property rights protection.  In 1992, the two
countries also signed the following treaties:

--  The Treaty for the Avoidance of Double Taxation entered
into force in January 1994 and provides for relief from
double taxation, assurance of non-discriminatory tax
treatment, cooperative efforts between officials to resolve
potential problems, and the exchange of information between
tax authorities to improve compliance with tax laws.

--  The Bilateral Investment Treaty, when ratified by the
Russian Parliament, will guarantee the right to the
repatriation of ruble profits in hard currency, non-
discriminatory treatment for U.S. investments, effective
compensation in case of expropriation, and international
arbitration in the event of a dispute between a U.S.
investor and the Russian Government.

In October 1993, Russia received generalized system of
preferences (GSP) status.  More than $440 million of Russian
goods will benefit.  The U.S. also supports Russia's
application to become a member of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

U.S. Export-Import Bank (Eximbank).  Eximbank approved about
$1.6 billion in loans, loan guarantees, and insurance for
transactions in Russia in FY 1994.  Of this total, more than
$1 billion was approved under its Oil and Gas Framework
Agreement.  The agreement can support as much as $2 billion
in capital equipment exports for the rehabilitation of
Russia's energy sector.

Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC).  OPIC also
is active in Russia in supporting U.S.-Russian joint
ventures.  To date, OPIC has approved $844 million in
investment financing and about $1.4 billion in insurance for
more than 40 projects.  The total investment value of these
projects is more than $2 billion.

Trade and Development Agency (TDA).  TDA has approved more
than $28 million in funding for feasibility studies on 70
investment projects.

Department of Commerce.  The Commerce Department has opened
American Business Centers in St. Petersburg,
Nizhnevartovsk, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, Khaborovsk,
Vladivostok, and Chelyabinsk to help U.S. and Russian
companies do business.  Two additional centers are planned.
The Commerce Department also established a Special American
Business Internship Program (SABIT) in Russia.

Agricultural Credit.  For 1995, the U.S. has authorized $20
million in export credit guarantees in connection with sales
of U.S. agricultural commodities to private-sector buyers in
Russia under the Commodity Credit Corporation's Export
Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102).

Assistance To Support Transition to a Market Economy

Privatization.  The U.S. Government has been in the
forefront of delivering privatization assistance to Russia
since October 1992.  The U.S. Agency for International
Development's (USAID) privatization assistance program has
focused on helping Russia privatize state-owned enterprises
and develop capital markets.   With USAID's help, Russia
successfully completed the privatization of 80,000 small
businesses and 14,000 medium and large enterprises
representing 70% of the nation's industry.  USAID is
supporting work on developing a complementary market
infrastructure, to include new commercial laws and
regulations, a viable stock exchange, regulatory agencies,
and business support organizations--all of which help
safeguard the commercial viability of  privatized
enterprises.   The goal is to create a business environment
which is transparent, fair, and predictable and which
encourages foreign and domestic investment.

Enterprise Funds.  On September 28, 1993, USAID signed a
grant agreement to initiate the Russian-American Enterprise
Fund.  The U.S. plans to capitalize the fund with $340
million in foreign assistance appropriations.  Managed by a
private board of directors, the fund has authority to make
loans and equity investments and offer technical assistance
to promote new private businesses in Russia, with special
emphasis on the promotion of  small and medium-sized
enterprises.  It uses U.S. Government capitalization to
attract other resources for private-sector development in
Russia.  USAID has also committed $100 million to establish
the Fund for Large Enterprises in Russia, which is aimed at
helping newly privatized state enterprises restructure along
market lines.

Peace Corps volunteers are working in Russia to promote
small enterprise development.

Technical Assistance and Training.  Technical assistance and
training programs have been provided in the following areas:
small business development and management; securities market
and exchange operations and regulations; banking; auditing;
finance; budget management; tax policy; revenue forecasting;
agricultural and agribusiness development; food systems
restructuring; energy management, pricing, regulation, and
efficiency; highway rehabilitation and maintenance;
telecommunications development; nuclear reactor safety; coal
mine safety; petroleum trade; defense conversion; land
titling; land use planning; review of draft housing policy
law; housing development, reform, management, and finance;
health care financing; pharmaceutical regulation; women's
health initiative; health surveillance and monitoring;
hospital partnerships; and pharmaceutical and vaccine
security.

Under the Emerging Democracies Program of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), technical assistance
activities include a commodity exchange and grain marketing
program, a market news and information system project, a
farm privatization pilot project, and short-term internships
under the Cochran Fellowship Program.  A U.S.-Russia Joint
Commission for Agribusiness and Rural Development was
established in March 1994.  The commission channels funds
generated by the sale of donated U.S. commodities to support
private and social initiatives in rural communities
throughout Russia.

Other Reform Efforts.  U.S. funding for the Eurasia
Foundation--a private, non-profit, grant-making organization-
-supports economic and democratic reform in Russia.  Since
its inception in the spring of 1993, the Eurasia Foundation
has disbursed more than $14 million in the form of small
grants (average size is $45,000) to U.S. and indigenous
organizations to promote unique and valuable reform-oriented
programs in Russia and the other NIS.

Trade and Investment.  The U.S. provides direct support for
the expansion of bilateral trade and investment by funding
programs in Russia of the Eximbank, OPIC, TDA, and Commerce
Department (see "Bilateral Economic Issues" above).

Health Care.  In health care, nine medical partnerships have
been established between U.S. institutions and Russian
institutions in Moscow, Dubna, Murmansk, St. Petersburg,
Vladivostok, and Stavropol.

Assistance To Support Transition to Democracy

Political Processes.  To support free and fair elections,
the U.S. provided technical assistance and training to
political parties in preparation for the December 1993
parliamentary elections, assistance on election law analysis
and encouragement of voter participation through media
activities and public dialogue, and training of Russian
monitoring teams.  The U.S. also has worked with the Russian
Central Election Commission and provided support for
electoral administrations.

Rule of Law.  USAID's rule of law program for Russia was
launched in 1992 and significantly expanded by Presidents
Clinton and Yeltsin at the 1993 Vancouver summit.  Technical
assistance and training programs on the rule of law have
included legislative drafting; judicial restructuring,
including jury trials; criminal law reform; U.S. legal and
judicial systems; federal, state, and local court systems;
an adversarial court system; judicial exchanges; labor
relations; conflict resolution; legislative drafting;
constitutional reform and the draft Russian constitution;
food and drug legislation; and law-making for democracy.

At the 1994 Washington, DC,  summit, the U.S. announced a
$30-million package of assistance for Russia in 1995 to
support a new legal infrastructure, including $12 million in
assistance for law enforcement activities.  This program
will be implemented by various U.S. agencies, including the
Departments of Justice and Treasury.  The two nations also
pledged to complete an Agreement on Cooperation in Criminal
Matters, which provides for cooperation in criminal
investigations and crime prevention.

Public Administration.  Programs in public administration
support local self-government, parliamentary exchanges,
promotion of civilian involvement in military affairs,
municipal management and finance, municipal education,
business involvement in city government, and fiscal
management.

Media.  Media training topics have included independent
press and broad-cast media, publishing, editing, marketing,
advertising, legal aspects of advertising, legal aspects of
publishing, station management, communications, and
copyright legislation.  The U.S. Information Agency has
signed Worldnet rebroadcast agreements with more than 50
national, local, and independent television stations
throughout Russia.

Education.  U.S. technical assistance to teachers and
national and regional administrators includes seminars and
consultations in education, civics, American studies, long-
distance learning methods, new methodologies in the
instruction process, strategies for adding social sciences
and humanities to the curriculum of Russian technical
colleges, the development of a management training
curriculum in manufacturing and industry, higher education
reform, and community colleges.  U.S. educators also teach
English at universities and higher schools of learning.
Books and articles on free-market economics and democracy
have been translated and distributed.  By 1995, more than
20,000 Russians will have participated in U.S.-sponsored
educational exchanges and training programs targeting
students, teachers, entrepreneurs, and other professionals.

Humanitarian and Food Assistance

Most of the U.S. Government's humanitarian assistance effort
in Russia has been completed.  The following were key
initiatives.

Operation Provide Hope.  This January 1992 initiative
delivered Department of Defense (DoD) excess food,
medicines, and medical supplies to Russia and other
destinations.

Food Assistance.  Separate from the food deliveries made
under Operation Provide Hope, USDA programs have supported a
total of $1.2 billion in food assistance to Russia since
1992.

Special Initiatives.  Under separate programs, the U.S.
Government purchased more than $75 million worth of
commodities which were distributed by nine U.S. private
voluntary organizations to further their charitable work
with vulnerable populations, especially women and children.
In 1993, DoD completed the upgrading of eight hospitals in
Moscow with equipment and supplies valued at $37 million and
transported 22,696 metric tons of humanitarian items valued
at $91 million.

Private U.S. Donations.  The U.S.  also has facilitated
donations by the private sector.  Under the February 1991
Medical Assistance Initiative, the non-profit organization
Project HOPE  was authorized to provide medicines and
medical supplies within the New Independent States.  Since
its initiation, Project HOPE has shipped more than $50
million worth of medical items to more than 50 locations in
Russia.

Military Issues

Agreements/Cooperation.  U.S. and Russian security
cooperation emphasizes strategic stability, nuclear safety,
dismantlement of nuclear weapons, prevention of the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their
delivery systems, and enhanced military-to-military
contacts.  At the Lisbon summit in 1992, the United States
signed a protocol to the START I Treaty with Russia,
Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine--states where the strategic
nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union were located--
making the four countries party to the treaty and committing
all signatories to reductions in strategic nuclear weapons
within the seven-year period provided by the treaty.  The
treaty entered into force December 5, 1994.

On January 3, 1993, the U.S. and Russia signed the Treaty
between the United States of America and the Russian
Federation on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic
Offensive Arms (START II), which reduces overall deployments
of strategic nuclear weapons on each side by more than two-
thirds from current levels and will eliminate the most
destabilizing strategic weapons--heavy intercontinental
ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and all other deployed multiple-
warhead ICBMs.  At the September 1994 summit, the two
nations agreed to immediately begin removing nuclear
warheads due to be scrapped under START II--instead of
taking the nine years allowed--once START I takes effect and
the START II Treaty is ratified by both countries.
Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin expressed their desire to
exchange START II instruments of ratification at the next
U.S.-Russia summit meeting.

Following ratification by Russia and the other NIS, the
Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty entered into
force on November 9, 1992.  This treaty establishes
comprehensive limits on key categories of military equipment-
-tanks, artillery, armored combat vehicles, combat aircraft,
and combat helicopters--and provides for the destruction of
weaponry in excess of these limits.

On September 8, 1993, the U.S. and Russia signed a
memorandum of understanding on defense cooperation that
institutionalized and expanded relations between defense
ministries, including a broad range of military-to-military
contacts and joint training for peace-keeping.  The U.S. and
Russia carried out a joint peace-keeping training exercise
in Totskoye, Russia, in September 1994.  Based on the
January 14, 1994, agreement between Presidents Clinton and
Yeltsin, the two nations stopped targeting their strategic
nuclear missiles at each other as of May 30, 1994.

Nunn-Lugar Act.  On April 10, 1992, the Deputy Secretary of
State certified that the Russian Federation had met the
criteria required under the Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction
Act, commonly known as the "Nunn-Lugar Act," for financial
assistance to safely dismantle and destroy nuclear and
chemical weapons and to convert defense industries to
civilian pursuits.  This certification has been renewed
annually ever since.  Up to $40 million in assistance to
convert Russian defense industries has been provided under
the Nunn-Lugar program.  Also under Nunn-Lugar, $90 million
has been set aside for the construction of a long-term
storage facility to safely store fissile materials from
dismantled nuclear weapons, and $30 million has been
allocated to improve the security and accounting of nuclear
materials in Russia.  Overall, the U.S. has agreed to
provide nearly $500 million in Nunn-Lugar assistance to
Russia.

Science and Technology Center.  On March 3, 1994, the
International Science and Technology Center opened in Moscow
through the efforts of the founding parties--the U.S., the
European Union, Japan, and Russia.  With Nunn-Lugar funding,
the U.S. provided $25 million for the center, which is
designed to prevent the proliferation of technology and
expertise related to weapons of mass destruction by
providing peaceful employment opportunities to scientists
and engineers formerly involved with such weapons and their
delivery systems.

Officer Housing Resettlement.
In response to appeals from the Russian and Baltic
Governments, the U.S. announced in Vancouver the Russian
Officer Housing Resettlement Program to ease the burden of
withdrawing Russian military forces from the Baltic nations.
A pilot project for construction of 450 housing units for
demobilizing officers was begun in September 1993.  At the
1993 G-7 summit, the President announced an additional 5,000
housing units for demobilized and retired Russian officers
from the Baltics and elsewhere.  Distribution of vouchers
and assignment of housing began in August 1994 and will
continue in 1995.  The Housing Resettlement Program played a
key role in helping the Russian and Baltic Governments reach
agreement on the withdrawal of Russian military forces by
August 31, 1994.  (###)


Multilateral Economic Cooperation
Since 1990, the international community has mobilized
economic assistance for Russia and the other NIS on a scale
unmatched since the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of
Europe at the end of World War II.  In 1993, the U.S. and
other bilateral creditors rescheduled about $15 billion of
Russia's debt service payments.  Paris Club creditors agreed
to a one-year rescheduling of $7.1 billion of debt service
in 1994.

The Group of Seven industrialized nations also has provided
more than $12 billion in bilateral financing.  Since then,
Russia also has received $4 billion from the International
Monetary Fund under the Systemic Transformation Facility.

The World Bank has approved more than $3 billion in lending
to Russia, mainly to support sectoral reform and
reconstruction (e.g., $1 billion for oil well
rehabilitation).  The World Bank's International Finance
Corporation, which lends to private sector entities, has
committed $115 million to projects in Russia.

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which
began operating in 1991 to assist former communist
countries, has committed $980 million in loans to Russia.

On June 8, 1994, Russia signed an agreement with the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to
provide policy guidance and technical assistance on a wide
range of structural reform issues, such as competition law
and policy.  (###)




ARTICLE 5

Safe and Secure Dismantlement of Nuclear Weapons in the New
Independent States

The U.S. Congress established the Nunn-Lugar program
authorizing Department of Defense funds to be spent in the
New Independent States of the former Soviet Union for the
non-proliferation and safe and secure dismantlement (SSD) of
nuclear weapons.  The Defense Department committed a total
of about $961 million in the form of 38 implementing
agreements with Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus in
fiscal year 1994.  An additional $400 million has been
appropriated for Nunn-Lugar assistance in FY 1995.

SSD assistance facilitates the denuclearization of Belarus,
Kazakhstan, and Ukraine and the dismantlement of weapons in
Russia.  Preventing proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction is another important goal; the U.S. will
continue to use its assistance for this critical problem as
well.

Russia.  The U.S. has signed 12 agreements with Russia
totaling nearly $500 million in assistance.  The two top
priorities for this assistance have been strategic nuclear
delivery vehicle dismantlement and construction of a storage
facility for fissile material removed from dismantled
weapons.

Ukraine.  Following completion of the SSD umbrella agreement
in October 1993, the U.S. signed five implementing
agreements with Ukraine in November and December:  export
control, government-to-government communication links,
material controls and accounting, strategic nuclear delivery
vehicle dismantlement, and emergency response.  After
Ukraine signed the Trilateral Statement in January 1994
providing for the transfer of all nuclear weapons in Ukraine
to Russia for dismantlement, the U.S. agreed to an
additional $100 million in assistance to facilitate
implementation.  This assistance, including heavy equipment
such as cranes, facilitates the removal of warheads from
Ukraine to Russia for dismantlement.

Kazakhstan.  In December 1993, the U.S. and Kazakhstan
signed an umbrella agreement and implementing agreements on
export control, government-to-government communication
links, material controls and accounting, strategic nuclear
delivery vehicle (SNDV) dismantlement, and emergency
response for a total of $85 million.  In March 1994, an
additional agreement for $15 million in defense conversion
assistance was signed.  The two sides also signed a joint
letter of intent that calls for a U.S.-led survey of the
damage at the former nuclear test site near Semipalatinsk.
(This survey was conducted in July 1994.)

Belarus.  Following Belarus' ratification of the Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty and the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, the U.S. offered $65 million in SSD assistance in
addition to the $11 million provided by agreements already
concluded.  As a result, the U.S. has signed agreements with
Belarus totaling over $75 million.  (##)

SSD Projects by Country

                                                  Proposed
Obligations
                                                      ($
millions)

RUSSIA
Armored blankets
5.00
Railcar security
21.50
Emergency response
15.00
Material controls
30.00
Storage containers
50.00
Facility design
15.00
Facility equipment
75.00
Export controls
2.26
Science center
25.00
Chemical weapons
25.00
SNDV dismantlement
130.00
Military to military contacts
9.20
Arctic nuclear waste
20.00
Chemical demilitarization lab
30.00
Defense conversion
40.00
Subtotal
492.96

UKRAINE
Emergency response
5.00
Communications
2.40
Export controls
7.26
Material controls
12.50
Science center
10.00
SNDV dismantlement
185.00
Military to military contacts
3.90
Reactor safety
11.00
Defense conversion
40.00
Subtotal
277.06

KAZAKHSTAN
Emergency response
5.00
Communications
2.30
Export controls
2.26
Material controls
5.00
Military to military contacts
0.40
SNDV dismantlement
70.00
Defense conversion
15.00
Subtotal
99.96

BELARUS
Emergency response
5.00
Export controls
16.26
Communications
2.30
Environmental restoration
25.00
  (Project Peace)
Defense conversion
20.00
SNDV dismantlement
6.00
Military to military contacts
1.50
Subtotal
76.06

GENERAL
Support/assessment
15.00

TOTAL
961.04

(###)




ARTICLE 6

Fact Sheet:  U.S. Arctic Policy

On September 29, 1994, the United States announced a new
policy to deal with emerging issues in the Arctic region.
The policy highlights six principal objectives:

--  Protecting the Arctic environment and conserving its
biological resources.

--  Assuring that natural resource management and economic
development in the region are environmentally sustainable.

--  Strengthening institutions for cooperation among the
eight Arctic nations.

--  Involving the Arctic's indigenous people in decisions
that affect them.

--  Enhancing scientific monitoring and research on local,
regional, and global environmental issues.

--  Meeting post-Cold War national security and defense
needs.

Background

The United States has been an Arctic nation, with important
interests in the region, since the purchase of Alaska over a
century ago.  National security, economic development, and
scientific research remain cornerstones of these interests.
At the same time, the pace of change in the region--
particularly political and technological developments--
continues to accelerate, creating added interdependence and
new challenges and opportunities for policy-makers in Arctic
nations.

The new U.S. Arctic policy reflects these elements of
continuity and change.  It emphasizes environmental
protection, environmentally sustainable development, and the
role of indigenous people, while recognizing U.S. national
security requirements in a post-Cold War world.  It also is
concerned with the need for scientific research and the
importance of international cooperation to achieve Arctic
objectives.

Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy

The United States is expanding cooperation under the Arctic
Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS).

Beginning in 1989, the eight Arctic countries--United
States, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia,
and Sweden--began discussions on improving Arctic
cooperation.  In 1991, in Rovaniemi, Finland, they reached
agreement on the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy
(AEPS).  This contains objectives as well as an action plan,
which includes four implementing working groups.

Sustainable Development and Environmental Assessment

The United States aims to work with international
organizations to improve protection of the environment while
providing for environmentally sustainable development.  The
task force established at the September 1993 Ministerial
Meeting, in Nuuk, Greenland, broadens the AEPS by
investigating sustainable development issues.  These
activities are essential to determine priorities and set a
course for the future.

The Nuuk Ministerial Meeting produced a Declaration on
Environment and Development in the Arctic and established
the Task Force on Arctic Sustainable Development.  The
declaration stressed the importance of the UN Conference on
Environment and Development to the Arctic and reaffirmed the
Ministers' commitment to conserve, protect, and, as
appropriate, restore the ecosystems of the Arctic.  Federal
agencies are reviewing environmental assessment procedures
to ensure that development planning takes into account
cyclical economic impacts, social impacts on indigenous
people, and long-term environmental impacts.  The U.S. will
urge other Arctic nations to adopt and implement transparent
domestic procedures for environmental assessment which
ensure that development planning addresses the full range of
economic, social, and environmental impacts from national
government projects that affect the Arctic.

Scientific Research

The United States plans to further scientific research
through development of an integrated national Arctic
research program.  This would include support for
international cooperation in monitoring, assessment, and
environmental research.

The Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, with
advice from the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, coordinates
federal efforts to produce an integrated national program of
research, monitoring, assessment, and priority-setting that
most effectively uses available resources.  U.S. Arctic
policy recognizes that cooperation among Arctic nations,
including coordination of priorities, can make essential
contributions to research in the region.

Conservation

The United States works to improve efforts to conserve
Arctic wildlife and protect habitat, with particular
attention to polar bears, walruses, seals, caribou,
migratory birds, and boreal forests.  It cooperates with
other Arctic nations to conserve the region's rich and
unique biological resources and is engaged in a cooperative
review of existing Arctic wildlife reserves, including
relevant U.S. reserves in Alaska.  For example, the review
is  examining with Canada whether existing reserves and
reserve management policies in the two countries adequately
protect the habitat of the Porcupine River caribou herd.

With other Arctic nations, the U.S. is strengthening
conservation of polar bears, seals, and walruses.
Consistent with the Agreement on the Conservation of Polar
Bears, the U.S. is discussing ways to improve conservation
of polar bear populations whose range extends from Russia to
the United States.  The U.S. also is exploring options to
better implement measures such as the 1916 Migratory Bird
Treaty to conserve populations of migratory species of birds
that breed in the Arctic.

Environmental Safeguards

The United States is working with other Arctic nations to
protect the marine environment from pollution from land-
based and offshore development activities and from
potentially increased use of the Arctic Ocean as a shipping
corridor.  The U.S also is reviewing the adequacy of current
U.S. emergency response measures and urges other Arctic
nations to adopt comparable marine environmental safeguards.

Indigenous People and the State of Alaska

The U.S. is increasing involvement with the state of Alaska
and Alaskan indigenous people in Arctic policy-making.
Representatives of the State, local governments, and
indigenous people will be included where appropriate on U.S.
delegations to international meetings.  Federal agencies
will give careful consideration to the unique health,
cultural, and environmental concerns of indigenous people
when developing Arctic policies.

Cooperation With Russia and Other Nations

The U.S. plans to improve overall international cooperation,
especially U.S.-Russian Arctic environmental cooperation.

The end of the Cold War has created opportunities for
enhanced cooperation on Arctic issues.  Russia has
substantial scientific expertise but limited economic
resources; it faces major challenges in dealing with
problems of pollution and species conservation that affect
the Arctic region. The U.S. Government will consider Arctic
issues in initiatives for Russian assistance.  Meeting the
expanded need for environmental cooperation in the Arctic
will require strengthened international institutions.  The
United States will seek to create a more formal policy forum
through which Arctic nations can oversee implementation of
Arctic strategy.  (###)



AEPS Implementing Working Groups

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP):  Assesses
the health and ecological risks associated with
contamination from radioactive waste, heavy metals,
persistent organics, and other contaminants, some of which
originate many miles away from the Arctic region.

Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF):  Studies the
adequacy of habitat protection and ways to strengthen
wildlife protection, possibly through an international
network of protected areas, more effective laws, and
conservation practices.

Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME):  Studies
national and international legislation to determine how
these laws can be strengthened to further protect the Arctic
marine environment.  PAME examines a range of sources and
contaminants including offshore oil and gas development,
ocean dumping of radioactive wastes and other matter, and
land-based sources of pollution.

Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, and Response (EPPR):
Addresses the problems of disasters not created by nature.
The group has focused recently on risk assessments, dealing
with nuclear disasters and rapid response to oil spills.
(###)




ARTICLE 7

Preventing the Proliferation of Dangerous Arms
Lynn E. Davis, Under Secretary for Arms Control and
International Security Affairs
Address before the Atlantic Council, Washington, DC,
December 8, 1994

It is a great pleasure for me to appear this afternoon
before this distinguished audience.  In looking at the many
activities of the Atlantic Council, I am struck by how, in
your programs on collective security, Central and Eastern
Europe, Atlantic cooperation, and East-West studies, you are
focusing on the non-proliferation challenges.

The Clinton Administration has made non-proliferation a high
priority in U.S. security and foreign policy.  Over the past
two years, we have had some notable successes.  I would like
first to describe these successes, then turn to the critical
elements that have produced them, and conclude with a brief
description of the tasks ahead.

Major Non-proliferation Successes

Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan have become parties to the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty--NPT.  They have agreed to
transfer the nuclear warheads on their territories to Russia
or to dismantle and destroy their strategic missile systems.
These steps set the stage this week for the START I treaty
to enter into force.  Russia and the U.S. are committed to
ratify the START II treaty in the first half of 1995, and to
pursue discussions on possible further reductions and
limitations.

In September, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin agreed on two
important new measures in carrying out START-mandated
reductions.  Defense ministers will now exchange information
every three months on strategic systems that have been
eliminated or deactivated.  Once the START II treaty is
ratified, the U.S. and Russia will deactivate all strategic
nuclear delivery systems to be reduced under the agreement
by removing their warheads or taking other steps to remove
them from combat status.

Russia has agreed to terminate its transfer of missile
production technology to India and is now complying with the
guidelines of the Missile Technology Control Regime--MTCR.
It has promised to close down its plutonium producing
reactors and has taken steps to improve security for its
vast nuclear material stockpiles.  In September 1994,
Yeltsin pledged to end future arms sales to Iran.

Ukraine is now committed to abide by the MTCR.  Kazakhstan
has cooperated in the removal of 600 kilograms of highly
enriched uranium--HEU--to the U.S. for storage under
International Atomic Energy Agency --IAEA--safeguards.  An
international science center in Moscow is employing
thousands of former Soviet weapons scientists in peaceful
endeavors.

North Korea has agreed to a framework for dismantling its
dangerous nuclear program.  Today, North Korea has frozen
its nuclear activities.  The IAEA is responsible for its
verification.  The D.P.R.K. has also accepted full-scope
IAEA safeguards and is committed to a dialogue with the
South to implement their accord for the denuclearization of
the Korean Peninsula.

China has agreed to a global ban on the export of all ground-
to-ground missiles with capabilities controlled by the MTCR.
It also reaffirmed its earlier commitment to abide by the
MTCR guidelines as they existed in 1991.  Because of this
agreement, we have been able to waive sanctions imposed on
China for transferring missile technology to Pakistan.

U.S. Leadership

In each of these cases, the U.S. played the central role
against the backdrop of international support for the global
non-proliferation norms enshrined in the NPT and MTCR.
Active diplomacy on the part of the United States was key.
In the cases of Russian and Chinese missile trade, the U.S.
applied direct pressure to end dangerous missile sales.  The
U.S. acted as an intermediary with Russia and facilitator in
helping arrange for the removal of nuclear weapons from
Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus.  The U.S. negotiated the
framework agreement with the D.P.R.K. on behalf of the UN
Security Council.

Elements of the Administration's Non-proliferation Policy

Let me now turn to the elements of these successful non-
proliferation policies and begin with an observation: Non-
proliferation is not about abstract principles.  Successful
non-proliferation policies require a focus on what motivates
states to acquire dangerous weapons and why states wish to
sell these weapons.

States seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction,
missiles, and sophisticated conventional arms out of concern
for their security.  This concern stems from perceived
regional threats, economic insecurity, or a desire for
military hegemony and power.  States wish to sell dangerous
weapons primarily for commercial reasons.  We must deal with
both supply and demand if we are to succeed.  This requires
a tailoring of our responses to individual cases within the
framework of global norms.

Provision of Security Assurances.  Crucial to the
willingness of  Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to become
parties to the NPT was the willingness on the part of the
U.S.,  U.K., and Russia to provide security assurances.
These security assurances confirm that the U.S., U.K., and
Russia will seek UN Security Council assistance in the event
of an act or threat of nuclear aggression; refrain from the
use of nuclear weapons against these states as long as they
do not conduct an attack in alliance with a nuclear weapons
state; respect these states' independence and sovereignty;
refrain from the threat of economic coercion and the use of
military force against them; and consult with them if a
question arises concerning fulfillment of these commitments.
That Russia was prepared to provide these assurances was
most important, but the U.S. and U.K. facilitated Russia's
support by providing their own assurances.  The U.S. has
promised as part of the Agreed Framework to provide North
Korea with security assurances, contingent on the D.P.R.K.'s
full compliance with the NPT.

Economic and Other Forms of Assistance.  Another critical
element in our successful non-proliferation policies has
been our ability to foster greater trade and technology
transfer with states that observe non-proliferation norms.
We have successfully used the provision of economic and
other forms of assistance to provide incentives for states
to forego trading in dangerous arms or acquiring them.

Ukraine is receiving nuclear fuel rods from Russia for power
generation as compensation for the nuclear weapons it is
sending back to Russia.  The Korean Energy Development
Organization--KEDO--will provide oil to the D.P.R.K. to
replace power lost by its termination of its current nuclear
reactor program and light-water reactors to replace existing
graphite reactors.

Our Nunn-Lugar programs will provide critical help in
dismantling strategic missiles and in converting  defense
industries in Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan.  The U.S.
began programs of cooperation with both the Russian and
Ukrainian space programs following their commitments to
adhere to the guidelines of the MTCR.  In return for its
agreement to ship HEU out of Kazakhstan, the Kazakh
Government will receive a package of compensation and
technical assistance.

Each of these packages of assistance has been designed to
respond to the individual needs of these states.  Some have
criticized these assistance packages for rewarding "bad non-
proliferation behavior" on the assumption that responsible
behavior should not require any incentives.  Yet without
this modest assistance, it is unlikely that we could have
achieved our larger non-proliferation goals.  On balance,
these kinds of assistance are much better than the costs
associated with the alternatives.

Disincentives--Sanctions.  A credible non-proliferation
policy also needs to be able to raise the costs for behavior
inconsistent with our goals.  Economic sanctions provide the
international community with choices less stark than just
diplomacy or military force.

The prospect of sanctions, required under U.S. non-
proliferation laws, played an important role in our
concluding successful missile export negotiations with
Russia and China.  They may now be playing a role again in
our efforts to end arms sales to Iran by Russia and other
countries.  It is important to recognize, however, that
sanctions are difficult to apply and are not always
successful in accomplishing the goals we seek.  For example,
our failure to gain consensus of the permanent members of
the UN Security Council for sanctions against the D.P.R.K.
last summer reduced our negotiating leverage.  And sanctions
can hurt our own businesses.

Balancing Competing Goals.  Successful non-proliferation
policies also need to be integrated into our overall foreign
and economic policies.  This often requires hard choices
among competing goals--preventing arms proliferation,
promoting commercial interests, and maintaining good
political relations with other countries.

There is a general acceptance of the international norm
against trade in weapons of mass destruction and ballistic
missiles.  But many of the technologies and individual items
necessary to build these weapons have peaceful as well as
military applications.  So it is necessary to define export
restraint policies for dual-use items, and these affect
commercial interests.  Conventional arms have legitimate
roles in providing security, but they also pose dangers if
sold to the wrong countries.  Placing limitations on
conventional arms trade can enhance regional stability but
at the same time will both hurt domestic defense industries
and remove an instrument to promote political cooperation
with individual countries.  Among competing non-
proliferation goals, commercial interests, and sustaining
political relations with foreign governments, the way the
U.S. strikes the balance often differs from that of our
other major partners.

In the case of trade with the pariah countries, Western
countries do not sell nuclear technology or trade in arms
and military technology.  But Russia and China are still
selling sophisticated conventional weapons and nuclear
reactors to Iran.  And, in contrast to the U.S., countries
of the European Union do not want to ban transfers of
sensitive dual-use items for civilian end-users to countries
such as Iran--this notwithstanding the fact that Iran
supports international terrorism and has undercut the Middle
East peace process.

Integrating Russia into Western security and political
institutions and bringing Russian arms sales behavior into
conformity with that of the West are important Clinton
Administration goals.  Russian agreement has been sought to
cease all arms sales to Iran in return for U.S. support for
its membership in the successor regime to COCOM.  In
contrast, the Europeans have been prepared to admit Russia
to the new regime, hoping that its arms sales to Iran will
end.  Maintaining their political relationship with Russia
and their reluctance to single out Iran have been given
priority over their non-proliferation goals.  Now that the
Russians have agreed to end future arms sales, while
insisting on servicing existing contracts, the Europeans are
pressing the U.S. to grant Russian membership, while the
U.S. is seeking clarification to ensure that the kinds of
sales that may go forward under the existing contracts are
reasonably limited.

Precedents

Let me briefly turn to the issue of precedents set by our
various non-proliferation policies.  We tailor our policies
to the security, economic, and political situation of each
country.  None of these is identical in design or outcome,
and none is precedential, unless we permit any one to be a
precedent.

The U.S.-D.P.R.K. Agreed Framework is a good example.
First, let me describe the significant gains produced by
this agreement:

--  The D.P.R.K. was not permitted to withdraw from the NPT
without justification or consequences;

--  The IAEA has retained the responsibility for determining
what is necessary for compliance with the safeguards regime-
-this was not left to an individual country; and

--  The D.P.R.K. accepted restrictions beyond what is
required of NPT parties--no reprocessing of spent fuel, no
refueling of the 5-megawatt reactor, an agreement to removal
of the spent fuel rods outside of the D.P.R.K., and
conversion to light-water reactors.  We achieved our goal of
putting in place a process to terminate the D.P.R.K. nuclear
program through patient but firm diplomacy.

Some critics suggest that the period of time until full
D.P.R.K. compliance with the safeguards agreement and the
permitted IAEA special inspections will be used by Iran to
justify misbehavior under the NPT.  We do not share that
view.

The D.P.R.K. enjoyed unique advantages in the negotiations.
Its indigenous nuclear program could produce hundreds of
kilograms per year of nuclear materials without any foreign
help.  Its isolation meant that it was not very susceptible
to outside economic pressure and major D.P.R.K. military
forces threatened the Republic of Korea.

Until the end of the negotiations, the D.P.R.K. was not
prepared to permit special inspections.  Yet the Agreed
Framework calls for implementation of full-scope safeguards,
albeit some years from now.  The framework also provides the
ability to monitor the existing freeze and assure
compliance.  And there will be no nuclear components for the
LWR delivered until the IAEA requirements for full-scope
safeguards have been fulfilled.

Iran is a very different case.  It has tried extremely hard
to acquire indigenous capabilities, but they are not as
advanced as those of the D.P.R.K..  Any withdrawal from the
NPT or refusal of IAEA inspections will subject Iran to an
immediate cutoff of nuclear assistance, most importantly by
Russia and China.  These steps would leave Iran years away
from the capability of producing nuclear weapons.

The task on our part is to not let any country exploit the
NPT.  We will encourage the IAEA to expand the use of
special inspections so that they become more common and do
not trigger adverse reactions because of their unique
status.  We also will undertake to gain agreement in advance
by the permanent members of the UN Security Council on clear
steps to take if violations occur.

Tasks Ahead

We have some important non-proliferation accomplishments,
but many tasks lie ahead, and all have a high priority.  Let
me describe some of these, while recognizing that there are
many others I could also cite.

Securing the indefinite and unconditional extension of the
NPT is perhaps the most critical non-proliferation task
ahead of us.  Signed 25 years ago, the NPT is the
cornerstone of international nuclear non-proliferation
efforts.  Next spring, the treaty will be up for review.  We
have underway active diplomatic efforts to gain worldwide
support.

We were especially pleased that this week the Budapest
summit of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in
Europe produced support among the 52 participating states
for the indefinite extension of the NPT and backed a fissile
material production ban treaty.  We have worked together
with Russia to achieve the NPT goal of reductions in nuclear
weapons by the nuclear powers.  Significant reductions in
strategic nuclear arms are underway.  Russia and the United
States together are currently destroying more than 2,000
nuclear weapons per year.

Beyond the NPT, we seek an expanded mandate from the current
NPT member states for our non-proliferation efforts.  A
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty--CTBT--will raise an
additional barrier to the spread of nuclear weapons.  The
U.S. is leading efforts among the nuclear powers for a
moratorium on nuclear weapons testing and in pressing for a
global treaty legally banning all nuclear tests.  While we
do not want to hold the NPT hostage to completion of a CTBT,
we agree with other countries that progress on a CTBT will
substantially improve the climate for achieving indefinite
NPT extension.

As called for by the President in his recent UN General
Assembly speech, the United States is seeking a global ban
on the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons
or outside of international safeguards.  We hope that
negotiations on this treaty can begin in Geneva in early
1995.

We are also working hard to put in place arrangements to
provide for transparency and restraint on the transfer of
advanced conventional weaponry and sensitive dual-use items.
Unlike for missiles and weapons of mass destruction, no
international arrangements exist.  We have proposed a far-
reaching strategy to engage Russia and other former Warsaw
Pact members in a new global mandate.

Iraq's recent steps in recognizing Kuwait's right to exist
go only part of the way toward full compliance with UN
resolutions.  The UN Special Commission--nearly four years
after the Gulf war--still lacks the full story on Iraq's
biological and chemical programs.  In anticipation of a
lifting of the UN sanctions, some countries are making
preparations for resumed trade.  This is sending the wrong
signal to Baghdad.  Iraq must fully comply with all relevant
resolutions before the Security Council can consider whether
to allow resumed oil sales.

With North Korea, we envision a long and formidable process
of implementing the Agreed Framework.  In addition, we need
to expand our efforts to other issues, including ending the
D.P.R.K.'s trade in medium-range missiles.  We are
especially concerned by North Korea's continuing supply of
missiles and launchers to Iran and Syria.  We have made
clear that such trade must stop before the U.S. would be
prepared to extend diplomatic relations.  We also need to
address the conventional threat that North Korea poses to
the South.

Preventing nuclear smuggling is a high priority because the
amount of excess fissile material is increasing dramatically
with the reductions in strategic nuclear weapons.  Setting
up proper accounting for and security of these nuclear
materials represents a priority arms control task.

A joint U.S.-Russian working group will begin discussions in
early 1995 on steps to make the reductions in nuclear
warheads irreversible.  We will seek exchanges of data on
aggregate stockpiles of nuclear weapons, on stocks of
fissile material, and on their safety and security.  We will
proceed with reciprocal inspections of plutonium storage
facilities as part of our agreement on the cessation of
plutonium production for nuclear weapons.

In South Asia, we confront perhaps the most serious
challenge.  Both India and Pakistan could quickly assemble a
small number of nuclear weapons.  Each is acquiring or
developing missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass
destruction to the other's population centers.  They have
fought three wars; any future conflict risks quickly
escalating to nuclear war.

We are embarked on a step-by-step approach to cap, reduce,
and then eliminate from South Asia weapons of mass
destruction and ballistic missile delivery systems.  This
includes our urging the two countries to commit to a no-
first-deployment pledge for ballistic missiles; not to
produce fissile materials for nuclear weapons, as a step
toward the global Fissile Material Cutoff Convention; and
not to test a nuclear device in advance of a CTBT.

Regionally, we have proposed a multilateral process to
address conventional and non-conventional regional security
issues.  Globally, we are engaging with both at the
Conference on Disarmament in Geneva to gain their support
for a CTBT and a fissile-material cutoff.

Conclusion

The U.S. views non-proliferation as the key to ensuring
security in the post-Cold War world.  We cannot, however, be
successful alone.  We will continue to place an emphasis on
the multilateral approach--and especially on bringing Russia
and China into responsible non-proliferation policies.  This
work will complement the work of other alliance members but
will require the U.S. to take a leadership role--a role
which we have assumed and will continue to assert in the
future.  (###)




ARTICLE 8

Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological
Diversity
Timothy E. Wirth, Under Secretary for Global Affairs
Address before the first Conference of Parties of the
Convention on Biological Diversity, Nassau, The Bahamas,
December 7, 1994

On behalf of the United States of America, I am pleased to
congratulate this body on the work of the first Conference
of Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity.  This
historic occasion marks a significant milestone in the
development of an international framework for protecting the
environment, promoting sustainable development, and
improving the quality of life for current and future
generations.

This meeting is also an important leg in the journey toward
the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable
use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of
benefits from the utilization of genetic resources.  At a
time when the destruction of biological diversity--mostly as
a result of human activity--is taking place at an alarming
rate, the international community's commitment to the
objectives of the convention signals our collective resolve
to recognize the life-sustaining qualities of the earth's
biological resources.  This was clearly enunciated in
Executive Director Dowdswell's excellent opening statement.

Acknowledging the impact of unsustainable patterns of
consumption and rapid population growth--themes echoed at
the Cairo Conference on Population and Development--we meet
here to forge common cause on behalf of the fragile
ecosystems that are storehouses of our biological
inheritance and pledge to work together to ensure that these
resources are wisely managed for the benefit of our
citizens, and their children and grandchildren.

U.S. Commitment to Biodiversity

The U.S. commitment to biodiversity and its importance to
our people and our economy is rooted in a long tradition of
U.S. public concern for the conservation of living natural
resources.  We are proud to have invented the idea of
national parks and to have developed the first comprehensive
law for the protection and restoration of endangered
species.

And just as we are committed to taking necessary policy
measures, so, too, are we committed to maintaining our
significant efforts to strengthen scientific understanding
of our biological resources.  That is why we have developed
a major new effort to catalogue our biodiversity and make
more informed management decisions.  Through the National
Biological Survey and other efforts, solid science serves as
the foundation for our efforts on behalf of both the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.  These
principles characterize our efforts to restore the world-
famous Everglades of Florida and our plan to conserve the
remaining primary conifer forest of the Pacific Northwest,
while also promoting a stable forest-products economy in the
region.

International Initiatives

Internationally, the United States and its citizens look
forward to joining with all nations not only in ratifying
this convention--which President Clinton is pursuing
vigorously--but also in forging partnerships which help to
conserve and sustainably use biological resources around the
globe.

We believe that bilateral and multilateral collaboration--as
envisioned in Article 5--can be very useful in beginning to
share the technology, techniques, and scientific information
that are needed to provide the basis for effective
conservation and sustainable use, as well as the sharing of
the benefits of biodiversity.  We are aware that the one
unmistakable ingredient for realizing these objectives is
political will, and the United States stands ready to pursue
opportunities for on-the-ground practical cooperation on
these issues--developed and developing nations working
together regionally and internationally.

Through the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID), the United States supports a $74-million annual
portfolio of projects with more than 40 developing country
partners.  These projects embrace the three primary
objectives of the convention--conservation and sustainable
use of biological resources and the sharing of benefits from
their use.  For example, we are working together on:

--  The management of forests, protected areas, and coastal
zones;

--  The sustainable extraction of non-timber forest
products;

--  Innovative financing mechanisms, such as conservation
endowments and environmental funds; and

--  Programs that build capacity in areas of bio-safety, ex
situ conservation, and the equitable sharing of benefits
from bio-prospecting.

Each program recognizes that sustainable development must be
based on the aspirations and experiences of ordinary people
and their participation in determining solutions.  USAID
works with both government and non-governmental
organizations to build capacity, enhance participation,
encourage accountability, and em-power communities and
individuals.  We hope that future initiatives will even more
broadly take into account the knowledge and expertise of
indigenous peoples, especially women.

Global Partnerships for Coral Reef Protection

One of the most exciting emerging partnerships is in the
area of the conservation and sustainable use of coral reefs.
Coral reefs serve as natural indicators of the health of
coastal zones, have been cited as possible indicators of
climate change, and are valued contributors to economies the
world over through their contributions to recreation and
tourism.  Indeed, their biological and economic richness has
led many to observe that coral reefs are the "rainforests of
the ocean."  Nowhere is this clearer than here in The
Bahamas, as Prime Minister Ingraham so eloquently stated in
the opening address.

In response to pressures placed on coral reefs and prompted
by concerns for their future, the United States has helped
develop an international partnership aimed at protecting,
managing, and monitoring coral reef resources and related
ecosystems such as mangroves and sea grass beds.  We are
proud that the International Coral Reef Initiative--ICRI--
has attracted diverse participation from such nations as
Japan, Australia, Jamaica, the United Kingdom, France, and
the Philippines.  Together, we have issued information and
invitations to more than 50 nations, and we urge all
participants here to join us in this growing partnership.

As part of this initiative, I am pleased to relate that the
United States is providing first-year funds for a global
coral reef monitoring position under the combined auspices
of the UN Environment Program--UNEP, the International
Oceans Committees--IOC, the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature--IUCN, and the World Meteorological
Organization--WMO.  The purpose of this effort is to
coordinate coral reef monitoring projects.  We are
encouraging other partners and associated organizations to
assist in funding beyond the first year.

The first major milestone under the International Coral Reef
Initiative will be an international workshop to be held in
the Philippines in 1995, and we are hopeful that powerful
momentum can be gained as we move toward the 1996 Coral Reef
Symposium to be held in Panama and the "Year of the Reef"
when it is established.

The unique aspect of the International Coral Reef Initiative
is its ability to combine grass-roots-initiated ideas with
support and to make use of existing institutions to achieve
its goals.  For instance, the United States and Japan have
formed a group under the U.S.-Japan Common Agenda to develop
joint projects that will support the objectives of the
initiative.

Support for Biological Diversity Convention

U.S. multilateral concern for biological diversity extends
to the work of this body and this convention.  As
signatories of the convention, it is this Administration's
intent to continue to seek its ratification.  We have
already contributed to the Global Environmental Facility, or
GEF, with the desire that it serve as the financial
mechanism to provide new and additional funding for the
convention.

We welcome the support the Conference of Parties--CoP--has
given to the fully restructured GEF.  The decision to
continue the services of the GEF as the convention's
institutional structure sends the necessary signal to move
forward expeditiously to conserve biological diversity and
make sustainable use of its components.  The CoP's decision
on a package of policy guidance to the GEF will ensure the
effective prioritization of action.

We also welcome the CoP's decision to study the ways and
means of involving other sources of funding-- outside the
financial mechanism--to achieve the objectives of the
convention.  We look forward to a full review of the ways
and means of channeling these resources outside the
financial mechanism to more effectively conserve and
sustainably use biological diversity--working with
international financial institutions to bring the resources
of their programs to bear on behalf of the aims and
objectives of this convention.

Again, Madame President, I want to thank you and the
Government of The Bahamas for the outstanding efforts that
have been made to ensure the success of this inaugural
meeting for the Convention on Biological Diversity.
President Clinton decided to bring the United States into
this agreement and the mainstream of international
environmental cooperation; we look forward to demonstrating
that this is an effective mechanism for addressing global
concerns in a world that becomes more interdependent--
economically and environmentally--every day.  No doubt, it
is difficult and trying to overcome our differences and work
side by side, not only on behalf of our own citizens but the
citizens of the world.  To those who question whether we can
afford to try, we say that we cannot afford not to.  (###)




ARTICLE 9

Fact Sheet:  The International Coral Reef Initiative

In December 1994, the United States and other nations
announced a major initiative to address the international
problem of coral reef degradation.  This International Coral
Reef Initiative (ICRI) aims to increase the capacity of
countries and regional groups to effectively use existing
resources and sustainably manage coral reefs and their
ecosystems over the long term.  And through protection of
coral reef ecosystems, broader global environmental problems-
-such as biodiversity, land-based sources of marine
pollution, and climate change--are addressed as well.

The key to the success of the initiative is global
cooperation.  The ICRI, therefore, is a partnership among
developed and developing nations, international and regional
organizations, multilateral development banks, non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), scientists, and business.
It is based on existing national, regional, and global
programs.  The ICRI seeks to:

--  Develop a global effort to effectively manage coral reef
ecosystems.  The eight founding countries will host an
international workshop in Dumaguete City, Philippines, May
29-June 2, 1995;

--  Encourage development of national, regional, and local
coral reef initiatives as part of a broad coastal zone
management perspective;

--  Prioritize future global and regional action on coral
reef eco-systems during the 1995 international workshop;

--  Seek regional views both before and after the 1995
workshop to ensure that all interested countries have the
opportunity to contribute their ideas.  The United States,
Jamaica, UNEP, and CARICOMP (a regional network of marine
laboratories) will co-sponsor the first regional workshop in
Jamaica this year;

--  Channel the results of the 1995 international workshop
into a 1996 Coral Reef Symposium in Panama and other global
forums such as the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species (CITES), the Biodiversity Convention, the
1996 Conference on Sustainable Development Inter-sessional
on Oceans, and the upcoming discussions of Land Based
Sources of Pollution;

--  Coordinate with relevant UN agencies and their regional
bodies;

--  Support the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature (IUCN) Marine Management network to facilitate
communication among managers of marine protected areas;

--  Establish a Global Coral Reef Monitoring network through
the International Oceanographic Commission (IOC) and support
regional coral reef monitoring and assessment programs, e.g.
in the Caribbean and the Pacific, building on existing
activities with new international partners;

--  Expand international coral reef research by building
partnerships among nations directly concerned with coral
reefs; and

--  Promote coral reef awareness through education and
outreach programs in the participating nations and other
coral reef nations.

Current ICRI Partners

Governments:  United States, Japan, Australia, United
Kingdom, France, Jamaica, Philippines, Sweden.

UN Organizations:  UN Development Program (UNDP), UN
Economic, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), UN
Environment Program (UNEP) .

Intergovernmental Organizations:  South Pacific Regional
Environment Program (SPREP), Coordinating Body for the Seas
of East Asia (COBSEA).

Multilateral Banks:  World Bank, Inter-American Development
Bank.

Others:  International Union for the Conservation of Nature,
Alliance of Small Island States.   (###)



Coral Reef Degradation
Coral reefs are the "forests of the sea" and the earth's
most diverse   marine ecosystem; as many as 3,000 different
species may live on a single reef.  Reef fisheries are an
invaluable source of protein--and income--for many
developing countries.  If sustainably managed, these
fisheries could yield as much as 9 million tons per year.

However, human activities increasingly are degrading the
coral reefs worldwide.  Environmental conditions resulting
from human population growth, water pollution, and resource
over-exploitation are some of the causes.  Direct physical
damage by humans also is a problem:  many coral reef
ecosystems easily are accessible, and more than 60% of the
earth's population live in coastal areas.  It is estimated
that 10% of all reefs have been degraded beyond recovery and
that 20-30% may be lost by 2010.  In 1992, the UN Conference
on Environment and Development's Agenda 21 specifically
called for an integrated, international approach for the
protection and use of these "essential life support
systems."  (###)




ARTICLE 10

U.S. Policy Review Toward Burma
Thomas C. Hubbard, Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian
And Pacific Affairs
Address before the Friends of Burma, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, November 28, 1994

Thank you for inviting me to come to Cambridge to share my
thoughts on Burma with the Friends of Burma at Harvard.  As
a relatively new Friend of Burma, it is both a pleasure and
an honor for me to be here with you on this occasion.  I
hope we will have time for a lively exchange of views.

As many of you already know, the United States Government
has conducted an overall review of its Burma policy during
the spring and summer of this year.  I chaired the
interagency working group which conducted that review.  In
particular, we have focused on how to make progress on our
three most urgent policy objectives:  democratization, human
rights, and counter-narcotics cooperation.

We considered a wide variety of options and reaffirmed our
deep concern about the situation.  The decision we reached
was not to change our message, but rather to change the way
in which we deliver our message.  We decided to be more
active--to see if we could enhance our influence by
presenting our strong concerns more directly to the SLORC.

The policy review reaffirmed our view that it was not the
international community which had somehow "isolated" Burma;
rather, Burma had isolated itself through policies that are
out of line with accepted international norms.  Our
conclusion:  In order for Burma's relationship with the
United States to change, Burma has to change its policies.

Democracy

In particular, the current military leadership in Burma--the
"SLORC" or State Law and Order Restoration Council--has to
find a way to allow the views of the vast majority of
Burmese to determine Burma's political future.  As you know
better than I, the overwhelming majority of Burma's citizens
voted in 1990 for the National League for Democracy--NLD.

Human Rights

The second area that must change is the degree of respect
for human rights in Burma.  After nearly six years, Aung San
Suu Kyi remains under house arrest; many of her advisors in
the National League for Democracy are in jails or have been
hounded out of Burma into exile.

We receive a steady flow of credible reports of continuing
human rights violations in Burma.  Many of these violations
of international norms of conduct occur in connection with
forced labor on civil engineering types of projects, such as
the Ye-Tavoy railway, the Mandalay moat, and smaller-scale
road repair and water-sewerage projects all over Burma,
especially in "contested" areas in the ethnic minority
townships.

Another major source of human rights violations is forced
porterage for the Burmese military.  We have reliable
reports of deaths and woundings in connection with forced
porterage in battle areas of the Shan State and elsewhere.
Press gangs are sent out by the military to pick up men in
villages, some a good distance away from the location where
the actual porterage work is carried out.  Those found and
ordered into porterage testify that they are mistreated,
uncompensated, and suffer additional economic losses by
being taken abruptly away from other crucially important
economic activities such as harvesting.

Corroborating evidence for human rights violations is the
condition in which many of the Burmese refugees appear in
Thailand.  We have been told by the welfare agencies which
minister to them that refugees frequently must enter a
facility for intensive care when they first appear in
Thailand.  Village people in Burma are very near the edge of
existence, even when they are simply left alone by the
military to endure average hardships of village life.  When
additional demands are placed on them by a military unit
seeking labor or forced porterage, frequently these poor
villagers are pushed over the edge into a decision to get
out of Burma, and they arrive in Thailand sick and
unhealthy.

Narcotics Control

The third area where change must occur in Burma is narcotics
production and trafficking.  During the period of SLORC
rule, opium/heroin production in Burma has doubled, and the
drug trade has become more deeply ingrained in the political
and economic life of the country.  At present, Burma
produces roughly two-thirds of the heroin on American
streets.  There is no solution to the world's heroin problem
which does not involve Burma.

The SLORC argues that its policy is to oppose narcotics
production, refining, and trafficking.  It points to the
battles it has mounted against Khun Sa and his warlord army;
it points to its casualties and argues that narcotics
production in Burma is in geographic regions currently
outside its control.  The SLORC leadership shows great
interest in narcotics cooperation, particularly crop
substitution assistance and enforcement cooperation.

The narcotics picture in Burma is a matter of direct
interest to the United States, and we are prepared to expand
narcotics cooperation with the SLORC, if we are convinced
that such assistance will be effective and not undermine our
objectives in the human rights and democratization fields.
The narcotics problem in Burma goes well beyond the threat
posed by any single narco-trafficker like Khun Sa.  It is
rooted in decades of civil war, unaccountable government,
and corruption.  That is why we believe that in the long
run, there is no trade-off between the need for political
reform in Burma and the imperative of drug control.  We want
to move forward on all our objectives simultaneously.  We
will not allow the SLORC to pick and chose the issues it
finds "less controversial" in Burma.  As we see movement in
other areas--including human rights--and signs of good-faith
willingness to work with us, we are prepared to respond
through enhanced cooperation on counter-
narcotics.

Let me now discuss how my recent trip to Rangoon fits into
the context of our overall objectives in Burma.

U.S. Objectives

I went to Burma--representing an interagency consensus in
Washington--to voice our concerns to the senior leadership
of the SLORC face-to-face, so there would be no possibility
of misunderstanding.  I had with me representatives of the
National Security Council and of the human rights and
counter-narcotics bureaus of the State Department.  I
stressed American friendship and respect for the Burmese
people and made clear that the United States would like to
establish more constructive relations with the people of
Burma.

Our mission was to present two views of the future:  one,
where the Burmese leadership undertakes steps to improve its
performance in democratization, human rights, and counter-
narcotics cooperation with the result that its relationship
with the United States improves; and a second vision linked
to continued regime intransigence and a deteriorating
relationship with the United States.  We made clear that we
vastly prefer the first version but that the choice is up to
the SLORC.

We were well-received in Rangoon, both by SLORC leaders and
by those representatives of the broader community whom we
were able to meet at informal gatherings.  Our three-hour
meeting with Khin Nyunt began with a lengthy discussion of
recent Burmese history by the SLORC spokesman.  Khin Nyunt
stressed the Burmese army's role in maintaining Burma's
unity.  He spoke a lot about national reconciliation.  Not
surprisingly, however, he placed more emphasis on national
unity and national security than on human rights or the
establishment of representative government.

He also made very clear the current military leadership's
interest in economic development for Burma.  He stressed
that Burma seeks foreign investment and access to modern
technology.  As I noted above, he made clear that Burma
wants narcotics cooperation with the U.S.  The desire for
economic development through international cooperation, of
course, represents a significant break with much of the Ne
Win past.  I responded that access to international lending
and foreign technology would flow naturally from respect for
human rights and a genuine democratic opening.  Without
significant progress in those areas, the United States would
continue to oppose international lending and assistance.

Clearly, the United States also has an interest in economic
reform and liberalization in Burma--a nation of vast,
untapped economic potential.  But we also believe, as
Secretary Christopher argued in Jakarta this month, that

. . . the foundation of open economies--rights that protect
contracts, property, and patents--can only be guaranteed
over time by the rule of law.  And open economies ultimately
depend on open societies.

In that sense, we agree with Aung San Suu Kyi, when she says
that

. . . success of any economic or political system depends on
confidence . . . between the business sector, the
government, and the public.


I cannot say that I am optimistic that dramatic change will
soon be forthcoming.  However, I was impressed by Khin
Nyunt's willingness to listen even when the message was
delivered without ornamentation.  After all, part of my
message was to make clear that in the absence of progress on
human rights, democratization, and counter-narcotics
cooperation, Burma will remain outside the mainstream of the
international community.  In short, a continued failure to
respect human rights and permit representative government
will have a negative impact on prospects for economic
development and also on international acceptance for the
Burmese Government.

We received some positive signals during our stop in Burma.
Khin Nyunt stated that the talks with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
would continue.  On an issue of particular importance to us,
he indicated that the Burmese Government would soon reach
agreement with the ICRC on prison visits.  We were told that
the SLORC welcomes a dialogue with the UN, and a
representative of the Secretary General was in Rangoon for
talks beginning last week.  Finally, during our meeting with
Khin Nyunt, the SLORC authorized U.S. Government experts to
conduct an opium yield survey in Burma next February.

We were disappointed that the SLORC refused our request to
meet with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi or other political prisoners.
Allowing foreigners to meet with these courageous prisoners
of conscience would be reassuring to the international
community.  It would also be symbolic of SLORC willingness
to reduce its international isolation.

Finally, the United States will look to Aung San Suu Kyi for
a judgment on whether political reconciliation is making
progress in Burma, so access to her is important for us.
But the important point is that the SLORC works with her and
other democratic forces to promote genuine political
reconciliation within Burma.

In summary then, our objective in going to Burma was to
deliver a clear message.  As I have emphasized, our message
remained the same--if the U.S. and Burma are to have a more
cooperative relationship--and we want such a relationship
for the benefit of the people of Burma and the United States-
-it is the current military leadership in Burma which needs
to make changes.  Those changes must come in
democratization, human rights, and more vigorous counter-
narcotics efforts.

We could not expect the Burmese leadership to commit on the
spot to the changes we sought, and they didn't.  We could
expect a good hearing by the top leadership, and we got a
good hearing.  In this sense, it seems to me that our
mission was worthwhile.

Next Steps

That brings us to the question of where we go from here.
The United States is prepared to do what it can to encourage
positive change in Burma.  We will be carefully observing
the situation in Burma over the next few months.  We will
look for progress in the areas we have identified as
important to us.

We hope that a substantive dialogue will result between Aung
San Suu Kyi and the SLORC and that Aung San Suu Kyi will be
released--the sooner the better.  We also urge that all the
other political prisoners in Burma be released.  Based on
what we heard in Burma, we would expect an agreement between
the Burmese Government and the ICRC on prison visits, and if
one is achieved, we would welcome it publicly.  In short, we
are expectant observers of events in Burma; we hope that the
SLORC will decide that good relations with the U.S. are
worth some tough decisions and actions on key issues, and we
will be ready to respond.

One cannot visit Burma without feeling a sense of tragedy
that a resource-rich land and vibrant people have been
deprived by repressive government of the progress and
prosperity enjoyed by their neighbors.  We would like to see
Burma join the Asian economic miracle and will do what we
can to promote the conditions necessary for that to take
place.

We will, of course, wish to stay in touch with Friends of
Burma, and elsewhere, as we seek to exercise any influence
that we have to promote the kinds of changes that we all
seek in Burma.  (###)




ARTICLE 11

Haitian Economic Assistance Program

Statement by White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers,
Washington, DC, December 14, 1994.

The Administration announced today a program to assist the
revitalization of the Haitian economy through stimulation of
private-sector recovery and encouragement of increased trade
and investment between the United States and Haiti.  The
package of measures reflects President Clinton's conviction
that creating productive employment for Haitians is the key
to self-sustaining economic recovery and strengthening
Haiti's restored democracy.

As stability and security are established in Haiti and the
transition from the U.S.-led multinational force to the UN
Mission approaches, the United States is working with the
Haitian Government and other nations to address Haiti's
economic development needs.  A growing private sector will
be the main source of new jobs.  The U.S. Government will
provide financing and create a strengthened commercial
policy framework to support investment by U.S. and Haitian
companies in productive enterprises and encourage increased
trade.  The immediate effort will be focused on the assembly
and handicraft sectors, which can return tens of thousands
of Haitians to work.

Among the specific measures comprising this initiative:

--  The United States and Haitian governments will sign a
Memorandum of Understanding creating a joint Business
Development Council composed of private-sector and
government representatives.  The Council will pursue
aggressive outreach in the United States and in Haiti to
broaden and strengthen private-sector cooperation and
development.  The Council will also develop strategies for
overcoming obstacles to growth.

--  A Presidential Business Development Mission will visit
Haiti early in 1995 to identify trade and investment
opportunities and build links between the U.S. and Haitian
private sectors.

--  The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) will
establish a loan facility of at least $5-$8 million-- to be
distributed expeditiously--to channel short-term working
capital to U.S. and Haitian businesses.  OPIC will also
provide, over the next four years, $100 million in financing
and political risk insurance.

--  A Trade Mission Program during the first six months of
1995 will support restoration of the assembly and handicraft
sectors and private sector-led development of critical
infrastructure in the telecommunications, energy,
transportation, tourism, and agribusiness sectors.  These
missions will be led by U.S. agencies with primary
responsibility in each area.  Initial priority will be given
to technical trade missions focusing on upgrading and
modernizing Haiti's telecommunications and power generation
sectors, which are critical to the sustenance of commercial
activity and, therefore, to the overall recovery program.

--  A Technical Assistance Program will provide training to
the Haitian Government and private sector in areas such as
port management, customs administration, export marketing,
infrastructure development, and financing.

--  The Agency for International Development will authorize
a $12-million project to support the commercial endeavors of
very small Haitian businesses, many in the so-called
"informal sector."  USAID will also provide technical
assistance to Haiti's Mixed Commission for Growth and
Democracy and its Tripartite Commission on Labor, both
recently revitalized by President Aristide to promote
equitable economic growth through cooperation between
government, business, and labor.

--  The President will submit for ratification to the Senate
a Bilateral Investment Treaty with Haiti and legislation to
establish an Interim Trade Program for the Caribbean.

--  The United States has pledged almost $25 million to
support Haiti as it clears its past due payments to the
international financial institutions, thereby facilitating
lending from the World Bank, Inter-American Development
Bank, and International Monetary Fund.  The Haitian
Government, too--although its resources are limited--has
committed funds to the arrears clearance effort.  Other
participants include Argentina, Canada, the Dominican
Republic, France, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Sweden,
and Switzerland.  The coming months will see some $250
million in lending from the international financial
institutions begin to flow to support Haiti's economic
recovery and development, creating conditions for more rapid
and balanced private-sector growth.  (###)




ARTICLE 12

Fact Sheet:  Department of State Foreign Affairs Network
(DOSFAN)

The State Department's Bureau of Public Affairs and the
University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) have introduced the
Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) on the
Internet.  This collaborative effort is the first time that
the State Department presents a broad range of foreign
policy information on the Internet.

The State Department provides all information for DOSFAN,
determines the content, and provides updates to material.
The Bureau of Public Affairs approves material from the
Department for publishing on the Internet through DOSFAN and
coordinates use of the network with other bureaus and
offices within the Department which may upload information
directly to UIC.

The federal depository library at the University of Illinois
at Chicago provides access to and support for DOSFAN as an
"electronic reading room."  UIC also is one of a few
depository libraries which will have a telnet connection to
the U.S. Government Printing Office's on-line access data
bank, which will offer free access to the Congressional
Record, Federal Register, and other related data bases.

How DOSFAN Works

To access the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs
Network, point your gopher client to:

dosfan.lib.uic.edu port 70

The Universal Resource Locator (URL) for this service is:

gopher://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/

There also is a home page for DOSFAN on the World Wide Web,
which includes photographs of the State Department and of
principal officials.  Using Mosaic or another WWW browser,
connect to the URL:

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/dosfan.html

Most information now appears as ASCII text files.  Along
with the ASCII text files, Dispatch and other selected
publications soon will be available as formatted portable
document files (PDF). The free Adobe Acrobat PDF Reader in
Unix, Mac, DOS, and Windows is available via anonymous ftp
from:

ftp.adobe.com

The path is:

 /pub/adobe/applications/acrobat

and then select the subdirectory for the appropriate
operating system.

To locate information, use the search capability that is
available on a number of the menu items. AppleSearch indexes
also are available for some menu entries.

For Assistance and Comments

The UIC federal depository library will help obtain
information and will direct users to sources of information
at the State Department, as well as throughout the federal
government, and will answer technical questions relating to
DOSFAN.

The State Department and UIC also welcome comments from
Internet users on this new network.  Please contact John
Shuler, Project Director at UIC, on the Internet at:

john.a.shuler@uic.edu

or by phone at 312-996-2738.

Disclaimer and Copyright Information

Neither the State Department nor UIC guarantees the
authenticity of documents on the Internet.  State Department
information is not copyrighted, unless indicated, and can be
reproduced without permission.  Citation of source is
appreciated.  Permission to reproduce any copyrighted
materials (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.

Highlights of Department of State Information on DOSFAN

Public Affairs

Speeches/Testimony by the Secretary of State.

Daily Press Briefings.  The State Department conducts daily
press briefings; the Office of the Spokesman, Bureau of
Public Affairs, releases transcripts soon after the
briefings.


Publications and Major Reports

Dispatch Magazine.  The United States Department of State
Dispatch is the weekly foreign policy magazine of the State
Department.  The Bureau of Public Affairs consolidates its
foreign policy publications in this magazine, which is
indexed biannually.   Dispatch includes key speeches by the
President and Secretary of State, congressional testimony by
senior State Department officials, fact sheets on
international affairs, and regular listings of U.S. treaty
actions and ambassadorial appointments.

Issues of Dispatch since January 1993 appear under
"Publications and Major Reports" in the menu listing.
Dispatch is uploaded to DOSFAN at the time that the hard
copy publication is sent to press.  This is the best source
for overall foreign policy information.  Selected articles
in Dispatch also may appear under regional or subject menu
listings.

A comprehensive source for all issues of the magazine is the
Bureau of Public Affairs' U.S. Foreign Affairs on CD-ROM,
available as a quarterly subscription from the U.S.
Government Printing Office (see below for ordering
information).

Background Notes.  The Bureau of Public Affairs also
releases Background Notes on foreign countries and selected
international organizations.  They describe the people,
history, government, and political conditions, foreign
policy, and bilateral relations with the U.S.  Search by
name of country for latest information.

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.  This is the
annual report to Congress on human rights and worker rights
released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
Affairs.

International Narcotics Control Strategy Report.  The
Foreign Assistance Act requires that the President certify
nations in compliance with the 1988 UN Convention Against
Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances.  The  Bureau of International Narcotics Matters
reports annually on more than 130 countries.

Patterns of Global Terrorism.  The Office of the Coordinator
for Counterterrorism releases this annual report to
Congress.  It reports on foreign countries in which
significant terrorist acts occurred and countries that
repeatedly have provided state support for international
terrorism.


Travel Information

Publications on travel overseas--such as helpful tips,
foreign entry requirements, security concerns, etc.--are
available from the Bureaus of Consular Affairs and of
Diplomatic Security.  A gopher pointer to St. Olaf College
provides consular information sheets and travel advisories,
also released by the Bureau of Consular Affairs.


Contacts and Phone Numbers

Services for U.S. Firms Abroad.  This issue of "Focus on
Business" from the Bureau of Public Affairs provides phone
contacts and a description of how the Department is
organized to facilitate export promotion.

Key Officers Guide. This publication released by the Bureau
of Administration lists key officers at Foreign Service
posts with whom American business representatives would most
likely have contact.  All embassies, missions, consulates
general, and consulates are listed.  (###)


File Menu List
The first tier menu list of information in DOSFAN is:

--  Welcome to the Department of State Foreign Affairs
Network

--  What's New?  (Provides the latest available information
or special announcements from the Department.)

--  Public Affairs

--  Publications and Major Reports

--  Geographic Area/Bureau

--  Global Affairs

--  Global/Regional Economic and Trade Issues

--  Treaties and Other Legal Issues

--  Travel Information

--  General Foreign Policy

--  Contacts and Phone Numbers U.S. Foreign Policy On CD-ROM
(###)

CD-ROM Ordering Information
Dispatch magazine, Background Notes, major congressional
reports, press briefings, and other information appearing on
DOSFAN are archived on U.S. Foreign Policy on CD-ROM (USFAC)
released by the Bureau of Public Affairs.  This quarterly
subscription is sold by the U.S. Government Printing Office
($80 domestic, $100 foreign per year).  To subscribe,
contact GPO at tel: 202-512-1800; fax: 202-512-2250.  (###)


[END OF DISPATCH VOL 5, NO. 52]

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