U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 6, NUMBER 1, JANUARY 2, 1995
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:

1.  Foreign Policy:  Year-End Review and Goals for 1995--
Secretary Christopher
2.  Re-establishing America's Leadership on Population and
Development--Secretary Christopher
3.  Focus on Population and Development:  Follow-up on Cairo
Conference
4.  Remembering Former Secretary of State Dean Rusk--
Secretary Christopher
5.  U.S. Foreign Assistance Program Reform--J. Brian Atwood
6.  Support for the War Crimes Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia



ARTICLE 1:

Foreign Policy:  Year-End Review and Goals for 1995
Secretary Christopher
Opening statement at a news conference, Washington, DC,
December 20, 1994 (introductory remarks deleted)

Good afternoon.  I was a little late because I've been
checking up on some recent developments, which perhaps
you'll be asking me about.  Let me first give you a brief
update on North Korea on the helicopter issue.

Over the last several days, we've been in fairly regular
contact with the North Koreans through three different
routes.  The principal route I've been using is to talk with
Congressman Richardson, who has been doing yeoman service
for the United States.  I talked with him very late last
night and very early this morning.  He is expecting to see
either their Foreign Minister or their Deputy Foreign
Minister, again, in the next few hours.

We've been making contacts through the UN Mission in New
York, and, as you know, we're making contacts through the
military officials at Panmunjom--all to try to secure the
very prompt return of the pilot and the body of the dead co-
pilot.  In each of these channels, we've indicated that a
further delay here in returning the pilot and the remains of
the co-pilot would be a great concern to us and would affect
the atmosphere in which we've been hoping to improve our
relations with North Korea.

Review of 1994

Let me go back and assess the work over the past year and
preview some of our priorities for next year.  In my
judgment, 1994 was a successful year for American foreign
policy.  With the President's leadership, I think we made
significant progress in pursuing the enduring goals of the
United States toward a more prosperous, safer world and a
more democratic world.

I believe we took important steps toward making America and
the world a safer and more secure place.

--  Our determined diplomacy played a role in securing
commitments from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus that they
would join the NPT as non-nuclear states, with the result
that START I has been brought into force.  Russian missiles
are no longer targeted on us, and, for the first time in
half a century, there are no Russian troops in any of the
Baltic states.
--  We've made tangible progress in adapting NATO to an
undivided Europe.  We activated the Partnership for Peace
and held joint exercises with the new partners.  We've also
begun a deliberate process of NATO expansion.
--  In Asia, we reached an accord with North Korea that
freezes and
then reverses their nuclear weapons program.  We've reached
an agreement with China to limit their missile exports.
--  In the Persian Gulf, the President's very prompt
deployment of force stopped possible Iraqi aggression--
stopped it dead in its tracks--and that episode is
fortunately behind us.

The United States has also played a major role in resolving
conflicts around the world and in supporting and promoting
democracy.

--  In the Middle East, our patient diplomacy was of
assistance in the implementation of the agreement between
Israel and the PLO.  It helped in the development of the
peace treaty between Jordan and Israel.  It produced some
promising, if small, movement in the Syrian-Israeli track.
--  In Haiti, our willingness to back our diplomacy with
force secured the ouster of the dictators and the
restoration of Haiti's legitimate government.
--  In other places--South Africa, north Ireland, and
Cambodia--American engagement and support was part of the
remarkable progress that we've seen made in those areas.

We took important steps to strengthen economic security and
to help gain additional American jobs.

--  We approved the GATT Uruguay Round, the most far-
reaching trade agreement ever.  We helped to forge the
commitment of APEC for open and free trade in the Asia-
Pacific area by the years 2010 and 2020.
--  We reached agreement, just a few days ago, at the Summit
of the Americas to establish open trade agreements in the
hemisphere by 2005.  At the Casablanca conference, we helped
to make the Middle East open for business.  Our Framework
Agreement with Japan, with the most recent developments, has
had the effect of increasing market access for Americans in
key sectors.

There are, clearly, areas in which we have to continue to
work.  Indeed, most of the accomplishments I've mentioned
are works in progress.  There are very few final victories
in diplomacy.  The worst thing we could do would be to rest
on our laurels in any of these matters.

Clearly, also, the conflict in Bosnia is the most serious,
unresolved problem that we face.  We'll continue to press
hard for a negotiated settlement, one that preserves the
sovereignty and integrity of the beleaguered country of
Bosnia-Herzegovina.

We also face the difficult problems of containing and
working with our allies and friends to ensure that such
rogue states as Iran and Iraq do not interfere with the
peace process or otherwise destabilize that region.

Goals for 1995

I would like to conclude by mentioning some of the goals
that we're working on next year--some of the issues we'll be
addressing next year.

First, we'll work to maintain constructive ties with the
world's key economic and military powers.  We'll continue to
cooperate with Russia where our interests converge, and
we'll try to manage those areas where we do not.  I want to
emphasize that we'll continue to support democratic and
market reform in Russia.

In the same vein of trying to make sure that we manage our
great power relations well, we recognize that a healthy
alliance with Japan is necessary.  We're going to work hard
again next year to try to place our economic relationship
with Japan on as sound a footing as our strategic
relationship.

We also recognize the need to remain engaged with China as
it approaches what apparently will be a leadership change in
the near future--an extremely important country going
through a difficult phase.

Our second goal will be to strengthen the institutions of
European security and extend their benefits to the East.
We're going to be working with our allies to advance the
goals of NATO expansion and continue to strengthen the
Partnership for Peace--NATO's core structure for cooperation
with non-members.  We'll also be working on the ties between
NATO and Russia, at the same time trying to bolster the
CSCE's conflict-resolution capability.

Our third goal will be to maintain the momentum toward
regional and global trade liberalization, trying to promote
an open-trading system both regionally and globally.  We'll
implement the Uruguay Round.  We will start negotiations to
bring Chile into NAFTA and then begin to work on the
commitment that we made at Miami to have free and open trade
in the hemisphere as a whole.  The year 1995 will also see
the State Department working on the next APEC summit, trying
to ensure that we'll make concrete progress toward the goal
of open and free trade in the Asia-Pacific area.

Our fourth goal next year will be to help bring the Middle
East closer to a comprehensive settlement.  Our challenge
will be to consolidate the agreements that Israel has
already made with both the PLO and with Jordan and to push
for progress on the difficult Syria and Lebanon tracks.

We hope to aid Israel in establishing close ties with the
Gulf states, to press the Arab League to end the boycott,
and to build on the Casablanca conference to try to
establish a Middle East development bank with, as you know,
a meeting to take place on that subject here at President
Clinton's invitation early in January.

Our fifth major goal will be to end the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction.  We'll start with an attempt to
get a ratification of the START II Treaty here.

We'll also be pushing--and this will be a very important
item in 1995--for an indefinite extension of the NPT, for a
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty--CTB, and also a fissile
material cutoff convention.  I think it goes without saying
that we'll have very important hearings, very important
activities, to try to ensure compliance with the North
Korean nuclear agreement.

Our sixth goal--and the final one I'll mention here today--
is to fight new threats to our security, including
international crime, drug trafficking, and terrorism.

One of the questions that's probably coming into your mind
is, how, Mr. Secretary, do you think all this can be done
with a Republican-dominated House of Representatives and
Senate? I want to assure you of my confidence that if we
pursue the national interest with determination and vigor,
we'll have the support of the Republicans on Capitol Hill.

There will be, of course, areas of differences.  But as long
as we hew to the national interest, I feel confident that
we'll be able to command majority support in both Houses of
the Congress.  I believe the Clinton Administration can look
toward the coming period in foreign policy without fear and
with a good deal of confidence.  As long as we hew to the
national interests, we'll have the support of the
Republicans as well.  You can see we've got a big agenda
ahead.

(###)



ARTICLE 2:

Re-establishing America's Leadership on Population and
Development
Secretary Christopher
Remarks before the International Conference on Population
and Development, Washington, DC, December 19, 1994
(introductory remarks deleted)

It is a great pleasure for me to be here with Sally and
David Gardner and Tim Wirth.  This is a program that means a
lot to me.  The fact that you'd take time during this
Christmas week to be here, I think, is an endorsement of the
program that says more than could possibly be said by any
set of words or group of papers.

Last year, 58 of the world's scientific academies, including
our own National Academy of Sciences, issued a declaration
that I regard as a kind of summons to the meeting that
you're having today.  The declaration reads as follows.

     Humanity is reaching a crisis point with respect to
interlocking issues such as population, environment, and
development.  Science and technology can only provide tools
and blueprints for action and for social change.  It is the
governments and international decision-makers who hold the
key to our future.

That's essentially why the State Department is hosting this
event today.  We're convinced that we must take advantage of
this moment in history when no great power views another as
an immediate threat.  We now have the chance, because of
that context, to focus more attention on issues that were
always important but were ignored because we felt that there
was something more important going on.  It really wasn't
true, but that was the excuse given in the past.

Now the President, the Vice President, Tim Wirth, and I--I
know all of you are dedicated to re-establishing America's
leadership on global issues, especially population and
sustainable development.

I believe that we're starting to do that and, indeed, that
we've made a good start.  Population and sustainable
development are back where they belong in the mainstream of
American foreign policy and diplomacy.

As Secretary of State, I see proof every day that population
harms regional and global security and ultimately
jeopardizes America's security interests.  It strains
resources; it stunts economic growth; it generates disease;
it spawns huge refugee flows; and, ultimately, it threatens
our stability.

Just look at the tragic situations in Rwanda, Somalia, and
Haiti.  Of course, each of these situations is different,
and each, I hasten to say, is the product of a complex of
difficult factors.  Yet, I think it's worth noting that
Rwanda had one of the largest population densities in the
world.  I say "had" advisedly because, unfortunately, the
situation has somewhat reduced the population density there.

Somalia has one of the highest birth rates in the world and
Haiti, the highest birth rate and one of the highest
population densities in our entire hemisphere.  These
population factors contribute fundamentally to the problems
that all these countries share, and they undermine the
ability of these countries to provide a better life for
their citizens.

We're responding to population and other long-term global
issues with a comprehensive strategy of preventive diplomacy-
-one that tries to deal not only with today's problems, but
to ward off tomorrow's crises.  Our policy absolutely has to
be comprehensive because poverty, pollution, and population
are truly interlocking problems.

Unhappily, it is in the poorest nations that the population
is growing at the most alarming rate--by almost 100 million
people annually.  We still have a long way to go to reduce
rapid population growth.  Many things must be done.

We must take stock of what we've learned, and we, obviously,
must do a better job of focusing our efforts. That's why
here at the very beginning of our Administration, with
President Clinton's enthusiastic support, we created the new
office of Under Secretary for Global Affairs, which Tim
Wirth has done such an outstanding job of leading.  It's why
we formed the Global Affairs Bureau at the Agency for
International Development and also why we made comparable
changes at the National Security Council.

This revitalized approach on population policy helped the
United States work successfully with 179 other nations at
the Cairo Conference.  I know that Sally referred to that
and a number of initiatives that you have underway to
sustain the momentum that was achieved at Cairo.  We're
determined to build upon the Cairo recommendations,
[inaudible] and to make them even more effective in the
future.

We want to improve the quality of family planning and
related health-care services.  We want to continue working
with the other donors to meet the rather ambitious funding
goals that were set up in Cairo.  Ensuring access to health
care, reducing maternal and infant mortality, promoting
educational opportunity, and good government--each one of
these is necessary to the quality of life of individuals,
families, and the nations of the world as a whole.

President Kennedy once observed that problems created by man
can be solved by man.  I think it's no surprise that there's
never been a major famine in a democratic country.  It's no
surprise that our most effective efforts to prevent
humanitarian disasters have been made in partnership with
democratic governments.  Hence, we recognize that one of the
keys to dealing with these global challenges is to promote
democratic nations--to promote democratic stability around
the world.

I want to close by saying that reducing rapid population
growth and attaining sustainable development are two of the
most enduring interests of the United States.  These are
interests that have enjoyed bipartisan support over the
years.  In looking back, it was President Nixon who launched
one of the United States' most ambitious population
programs.

We look forward to hearing from you on how we can build on
that bipartisan tradition.  I know in the meetings that you
are going to have the remainder of the day--I walked through
the rooms where you're going to have them today--I know
you'll find ways to build on that bipartisan tradition.

We obviously welcome your suggestions in implementing the
Cairo goals.  We depend upon your expertise, your advice.
But most of all, I think we depend upon your enthusiasm and
your commitment.

I want to thank you all for the work that you do for
America, for the world, and, indeed, for the shared future
that we have with all the nations of the world.

This is one of those problems that cannot be handled
unilaterally.  It does not yield to unilateral efforts.
It's a comprehensive effort that has to be done with all the
nations of the world. I know you will approach it in that
spirit.  And, as I say, your enthusiasm, your commitment, as
well as your skill, will carry us through.

(###)



ARTICLE 3:

Focus on Population and Development:  Follow-up on Cairo
Conference

Putting Cairo Into Action

The International Conference on Population and Development
(ICPD) was a major success, with 180 nations endorsing a
comprehensive new strategy for addressing population and
development issues.  In Cairo, September 5-13, 1994,
governmental and non-governmental participants worked
together to craft a Program of Action that encompasses
quality family planning and reproductive health services,
the empowerment of women, the involvement of men, expanded
access to education and health care services, and reduction
of wasteful resource consumption.

Following is a synopsis of some of the efforts underway by
the United States to implement the Program of Action.

USAID Programs

The United States is strongly committed to implementing the
objectives set in Cairo across all dimensions of sustainable
development programs.  For the population and reproductive
health programs that are at the core   of the Program of
Action, the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) has held a series of meetings to draw on the ideas
and experiences of experts and non-governmental organization
(NGO) leaders in the field, and is continuing efforts to
ensure wide participation.

In anticipation of the Program of Action, and reflecting
strong support at the ICPD for new efforts, USAID has been
undertaking or expanding special initiatives in several
areas.

Family Planning and Health

--  Expanding access to reproductive health information and
services;
--  Operations research to test new approaches linking
family planning and other reproductive health service
delivery;
--  Biomedical research on male methods of contraception as
well as on new barrier methods and microbicides to provide
dual protection from pregnancy and sexually transmitted
diseases (STDs);
--  Prevention of HIV/AIDS and other STDs; and
--  Collaborative programs with non-governmental
organizations involved in reproductive health research and
services, including promotion of gender equity and equality,
male involvement, STD prevention, and elimination of harmful
traditional practices such as female genital mutilation.

Education and Empowerment Of Women

The U.S. is reviewing its programs across the board for
their impact on empowerment of women.  Several new program
initiatives are under development that reflect the goals of
the Program of Action including:

--  A new girls' and women's education initiative building
on lessons learned from successful efforts in Guatemala,
Nepal, Malawi, and elsewhere;
--  A legal rights initiative which focuses on supporting
women's political, economic, and social empowerment through
the promotion of equality of women;
--  An NGO partnership initiative to strengthen information
dissemination regarding gender considerations in national
legislation and international instruments;
--  An economic growth policy development initiative
designed to increase participation of women in U.S.
assistance activities and incorporate analysis of the
effects on women of macroeconomic and sectoral policy reform
objectives; and
--  A new microenterprise program designed to promote equal
economic access for women as well as community development.

Ongoing Programs

USAID will continue to work in areas where it has a
significant comparative advantage among donors, including
maximizing access and quality of care in family planning,
prevention and management of AIDS and other STDs, child
survival, and other aspects of health.  USAID programs
address all of the functional areas discussed in the ICPD
Program of Action, including services, training, information
and communications, research, commodity procurement, policy
development, and evaluations.  Programs emphasize activities
that have the greatest public health impact by being
responsible to end-users, cost-effective, and preventive
rather than curative in orientation.

The U.S. is also seeking to foster cooperation among
developing countries--a South-South initiative to help them
learn from one another's experiences.  The recent
reorganization in USAID will encourage synergies within the
population and health sector as well as intersectoral
linkages with work in other areas concerned with women's
empowerment, the environment, economic growth, and
democracy.

U.S.-Japan Common Agenda

The population and HIV/AIDS initiative of the Common Agenda
for Cooperation in Global Perspectives has created an
opportunity for the U.S. and Japan to work collaboratively
in this area.  This initiative, which began in July 1993, is
being coordinated through USAID's Global Bureau, Center for
Population, Health and Nutrition, with the Japanese Global
Issues Initiative (GII).  The GII represents the Government
of Japan's bilateral assistance of $3 billion for population
and AIDS over the next seven years.

The goals of this cooperative effort are to maximize the
impact of each country's population and health assistance;
increase technical capacity to provide assistance; increase
opportunities to share lessons learned; and strengthen U.S.-
Japan relations through increased consultation and
cooperation at the global and mission levels.

Seven priority countries were selected for the Common Agenda
population and HIV/AIDS initiatives.  They are:  Ghana,
India, Indonesia, Kenya, the Philippines, Egypt (family
planning only), and Thailand (HIV/AIDS only).  In addition,
Japan is supporting grassroots grant assistance which
provides small grants to NGOs for small-scale construction
and durable goods.  Priority is being given to complementing
the work being done by USAID-supported NGOs.

Appropriations--FY 1995

Family Planning and Reproductive Health.  Congress
recommended that the U.S. commit $527 million to family
planning and reproductive health in FY 1995, with an
additional contribution to the UN Population Fund (UNFPA).

UNFPA.  The U.S. contribution to UNFPA will be $50 million;
although this is $10 million less than the amount President
Clinton requested, it represents a $10 million increase from
the previous year.  These investments will support family
planning and reproductive, maternal, and child health
programs in about 60 countries--many of which do not receive
direct assistance from the U.S.

Newly Independent States (NIS) Family Planning and
Reproductive Health.  Congress supported $15 million for a
comprehensive program of family planning services to help
reduce the disturbingly high rate of unplanned pregnancies
in the NIS.  The program will stress the use of high
quality, modern contraceptive methods, training for health
care providers, and information, education, and
communication to citizens as well as medical and technical
information for health care workers.

Child Survival, Basic Education, and Micronutrient Programs.
Congress supported increases for child survival,
micronutrient (particularly vitamins), and basic education
programs.  As acknowledged in the ICPD Program of Action,
these programs are all important in their own right, and
they also affect decisions about family size.

Women in Development.  To encourage and promote the
participation and integration of women in the development
process in developing countries, $13 million will be
dedicated to the Office of Women in Development to run its
programs.

Microenterprise Loans.  A standing international commitment
to micro-enterprises has successfully generated self-
employment among the poor, and particularly developing world
women.  Congress recommended $1.5 billion for both small and
microenterprise programs, and permits the U.S. to guarantee
up to 70% of any microenterprise loan provided under this
program.

Summit of the Americas

As one accomplishment on the road from Cairo, the United
States reached agreement with North and South American
countries on the importance of promoting equitable access to
basic health services and strengthening the role of women
throughout the hemisphere.  Specifically, governments
reaffirmed the commitments they made toward maternal and
child health, basic health care, and other recommendations
consistent with the Program of Action agreed to at the ICPD.
Among other things, the nations of the Western Hemisphere
agreed to develop plans and programs for addressing child,
maternal, and reproductive health, including prenatal,
delivery, and postnatal care; HIV/AIDS prevention; and
immunizations and programs to combat other major causes of
infant mortality.

President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD)

The PCSD, a public/private group tasked with making
recommendations on integrating sustainable development in
U.S. policies and programs, has established a Task Force on
Population and Consumption.  Sustainability in the U.S.
requires coming to grips with the growth of our own
population and the rate of consumption of natural resources.

The task force is convening a series of roundtable
discussions for members of the council, experts in the
field, and the interested public to identify substantive
opportunities for action   that have a high degree of public
support.  The first roundtable was    held October 27, 1994,
in Washington, DC, and focused on fertility and migration.
The second, to be held January 12, 1995, in Chattanooga,
Tennessee, will concentrate on consumption and technology.
The third roundtable (date to be determined) will address
lessons learned and explore steps the country could most
realistically take toward greater environmental
sustainability.  The public is encouraged to participate.

International Research and Training Program

The Fogarty International Center and the National Institutes
of Child Health and Human Development of the National
Institutes of Health are initiating an international
research and training program in population and health.  The
program will enable U.S. universities and other research
institutions to extend the geographic base of their research
and training efforts to developing nations, in support of
international population priorities.

The broad objectives are to assist scientists from
developing nations to advance technological and social
adaptations needed to meet the challenge of unsustainable
population growth.  Cooperative programs will emphasize
research needs identified in the ICPD Program of Action.
These include:

--  Reproductive and neonatal health, including new methods
of prevention of STDs;
--  Contraceptive development and evaluation to create a
broader range of safe, reversible, and affordable methods of
fertility regulation, suitable for different age and
cultural groups; and
--  Social and behavioral factors that influence population
dynamics, including operational research related to family
planning, migration and spatial distribution of populations,
and family and gender roles.

With a FY 1995 budget of $1 million, between six and eight
international research and training grants in population and
health will be awarded competitively to U.S. institutions
with ongoing programs in population research.

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

NIH is involved in many aspects of population-related
programs and research in the U.S.  Recently, NIH funds have
been directed to training for researchers in all aspects of
human health, including reproductive health scientists and
demographers; studies on family and child well-being as well
as studies on a broad range of child health issues;
enhancing social security for the elderly; a major study of
adolescent health, which includes adolescent sexual
behavior; and some smaller-scale studies on adult sexual
behavior.

The NIH has been in the forefront of studies on HIV
treatment and in research on possible vaccines, as well as
in the development of the HIV tests now in world-wide use.
Also through NIH-funded research, a plastic condom has been
developed that is about to be introduced in the U.S. market.

NIH contributes to the Population Index, a quarterly journal
that contains annotated references to all demographic
research.  These findings are incorporated into POPLINE, the
online data system.

Family Planning and Reproductive Health for Refugees

The ICPD Program of Action called for increased attention to
meeting the family planning and reproductive health needs of
refugees.  The U.S. is working in the international arena
with several UN organizations--UNHCR, UNFPA, UNICEF, and
WHO, as well as NGOs such as IRC, CARE, the Red Cross, and
Medicins Sans Frontieres--to incorporate reproductive health
information and services into the normal regime of health
services provided in refugee and emergency situations.

Family Reunification and Migration

The U.S. is encouraging other countries to adopt actions
agreed to in Cairo in regard to family reunification and
immigration.  The language--which was highly debated at the
ICPD --states:

 . . . all governments, particularly those of receiving
countries, must recognize the vital importance of family
reunification and promote its integration into their
national legislation. . . .

Family reunification brings about 500,000 new immigrants to
the U.S. each year.  The U.S. will continue diplomatic
efforts to encourage other countries to make family
reunification a priority in their immigration and migration
policies.

International Investments:  Update

--  Germany has announced its intention to provide $2
billion over seven years in assistance for family planning
and health, including HIV/AIDS prevention, education, and
women's empowerment.  This increase comes after already
doubling its assistance between 1990 and 1994.
--  In July, the United Kingdom announced a nearly 65%
increase in population funding over the next two years, for
a total of about $160 million.
--  The European Union has publicized its goal to provide
$400 million annually for population assistance by the year
2000.
--  Japan has committed $3 billion over a seven-year period
for population and HIV/AIDS programs.
--  Since 1992, U.S. population assistance has increased
more than 55% to nearly $600 million in FY 1995.  Additional
amounts earmarked for the areas of child survival, HIV/AIDS,
other aspects of health and nutrition, and basic education
will bring the total to more than $1 billion.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW)

CEDAW is the top human rights treaty priority for the
Clinton Administration.  The Administration sent its
proposal for ratification of CEDAW to the U.S. Senate for
consideration in September.  Ratification of the Convention
would serve to underscore U.S. commitment to women's rights
and to enhance our ability to protect and promote those
rights internationally.  The Senate Foreign Relations
Committee voted 13 to 6 to send the proposal for
ratification to the full Senate, but time ran out before the
Senate was able to consider it.  The Administration is
hopeful that the Senate will give its advice and consent
early next year when Congress reconvenes.

New Appointments

Several new key players have joined the team responsible for
ICPD implementation efforts in the U.S. Government.  They
are:

--  Gracia Hillman, Senior Advisor for International Women's
Issues, Department of State.  Most recently with the League
of Women Voters, Ms. Hillman will work with Under Secretary
of State for Global Affairs Timothy E. Wirth to promote
international women's human rights and better integrate
women's issues into foreign policy.  (U.S. Department of
State, Global Affairs, 2201 C Street NW, Room 7526,
Washington, DC  20520, phone 202-647-2547; fax 202-647-
0753.)

--  Margaret Lycette, Director, Office of Women in
Development, USAID.  Formerly with the International Center
for Research on Women, Ms. Lycette will be working with
Assistant Administrator of the Global Bureau, Ambassador
Sally Shelton, to promote the empowerment of women through
USAID's projects, programs, and policy-oriented activities.
(USAID, Office of Women in Development, SA-38, Suite 900,
Washington, DC  20523-3802, phone 703-816-0291; fax 703-816-
0266.)

--  Felicia Stewart, MD, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office
of Population Affairs, Department of Health and Human
Services.  Most recently Dr. Stewart was the Director of
Medical Research for the Sutter Medical Foundation,
Sacramento, California.   (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Office of Population Affairs, 4330 East-West
Highway, Suite N1115, Bethesda, MD  20857, phone 301-594-
4000; fax 301-594-5980.)

Additional inquiries may be directed to:

U.S. Department of State
Bureau of Global Affairs
2201 C Street  NW, Room 7250
Washington, DC  20520
phone 202-647-6240; fax 202-647-0753

USAID Office of Population
Center for Population, Health and Nutrition
Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support and Research
SA-18, Room 811
Washington, DC  20523-1819
phone 703-875-4505; fax 703-875-4413

World Conference Information

Direct questions or comments about U.S. involvement in the
World Summit for Social Development (March 1995) or the
Fourth World Conference of Women (September 1995) to the
U.S. Global Conference Secretariat, U.S. Department of
State, 2201 C Street NW,  Room 1318, Washington, DC  20520,
phone 202-647-3129; fax 202-647-4787.

NGO Conference Participation

World Summit for Social Development  (March 1995).   The
deadline for application for accreditation to the summit and
its preparatory process was November 30, 1994 (December 15
for those in consultative status with ECOSOC).  For general
information on NGO participation in the summit, contact the
NGO Liaison Officer, Secretariat of the World Summit for
Social Development, Room DC2-1372, United Nations, New York,
NY 10017, phone  212-963-1957; fax 212-963-3062.

For information about participation in the parallel NGO
forum, please contact NGO Forum Host Committee, Jan Birket-
Smith, Secretary-General, Njalsgade 13C, DK-2300 Copenhagen
S, Denmark, phone 45-32-96-19-95; fax 45-32-96-89-19; e-
mail: ngo95@inet.unic.dk

Fourth World Conference on Women  (September 1995).  The
deadline for application for accreditation for the official
conference is January 13, 1995.  For accreditation
guidelines and application forms, please contact the UN
Conference Secretariat, NGO Accreditation, Fourth World
Conference on Women, Two UN Plaza, Room 1204, New York, NY
10017, phone 212-963-8034, fax 212-963-3463.  For
information about participation in the parallel NGO forum,
please contact the NGO Forum Planning Committee, 211 E. 43rd
Street, Suite 1500, New York, NY 10017, phone 212-922-9267,
fax 212-922-9269.

To obtain a final copy of the ICPD Program of Action, you
may contact:

ICPD Secretariat
220 East 42nd Street, 22nd Floor
New York, NY  10017
phone 212-297-5244;
fax 212-297-5250.

(###)



ARTICLE 4:

Remembering Former Secretary of State Dean Rusk
Secretary Christopher
Statement in memory of former Secretary of State Dean Rusk,
Washington, DC, December 21, 1994

I note with sorrow the passing of one of my distinguished
predecessors, Dean Rusk.  As Secretary of State under
Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, Dean Rusk brought integrity,
dignity, and a keen sense of history to the Department of
State and to the nation.  Above all, he brought strength and
steadfastness to his stewardship of American diplomacy at a
time of extraordinary challenge for the United States.  And
in a life nearly spanning the century, he served our country
with remarkable dedication and distinction.

Dean Rusk's achievements at the State Department long
preceded his tenure as Secretary.  He was the first
Assistant Secretary for United Nations Affairs under
President Truman, and was later promoted to Deputy Under
Secretary--the third highest position in the Department.
His sense of duty was perhaps best exemplified in 1950, when
he volunteered to take on the challenge, and even a nominal
demotion, to serve as Assistant Secretary for Far Eastern
Affairs at a critical time in our nation's history.  In the
tense atmosphere of the Korean war, this commitment to
service did not go unnoticed.  As Dean Acheson recalled,
"Years later, when President-elect Kennedy . . . asked me to
make recommendations for the Secretaryship of State . . ., I
told him this story and placed Dean Rusk's name very high on
the list."

In his eight years as Secretary--a tenure second only to
Cordell Hull in America's history--Dean Rusk was determined
that a strong America stand by its commitments in a
turbulent world.  He worked tirelessly to reduce the
dangerous tensions of the nuclear age.  He was a voice of
strength in confrontations with the Soviet Union around the
world.  He stood by President Kennedy in the crises in Cuba
and Berlin.  And he also helped conclude the Limited Test
Ban Treaty in 1963 that paved the way to important further
arms control agreements.

Dean Rusk left his mark not only on the nation and the
world, but also on the Department of State as an
institution.  At a time of tremendous domestic social
change, he encouraged minorities and women to enter the
Foreign Service.  He established the Dissent Channel and the
Open Forum to give members of the Department alternative
ways to make their foreign policy views known.  And in 1961,
as we entered the information age, he oversaw the creation
of the Operations Center.

Dean Rusk's character was rooted in his modest upbringing in
Cherokee County, Georgia.  His decency and discretion set
him apart from the rough and tumble of Washington.  Through
times of crisis, war, and peace, Dean Rusk's unstinting
loyalty, to the Presidents he served and to those who served
him, remains a source of inspiration.  And in gatherings of
former Secretaries, I always found his advice and counsel to
be a source of wisdom and insight.

Dean Rusk was also a soldier, a scholar, and a proud son not
only of Georgia but of North Carolina, where he attended
Davidson College.  He will be missed in California, where he
taught more than half a century ago at Mills College.  He
will also be missed in our nation's capital, and in the
Department that he served with such grace and fortitude.  We
honor his memory today, with gratitude for the service he
gave the United States.

(###)



ARTICLE 5:

U.S. Foreign Assistance Program Reform
J. Brian Atwood, Administrator, U.S. Agency for
International Development
Remarks at the Center for National Policy, Washington, DC,
December 14, 1994

Let me thank Mo Steinbrunner and the Center for National
Policy for making it possible today to launch what, I hope,
will be a truly national debate over the future of our
foreign assistance program.  Over the years, the Center has
used its good offices and this public forum to illuminate
the great issues of the day.  The tradition continues under
Mo Steinbrunner's leadership.

Last month, the American people reaffirmed the revolutionary
potential of the ballot box.  There was no mistaking the
call for change.  We know the people were unhappy with their
government; we know they were dissatisfied with special
interest politics; and we believe they want reform and
reinvention at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Some have said that the American people want to move the
country to the right.  I am not so sure.  We do know that
the people want responsible government, and they want both
our great political parties to share the responsibility for
governing.

But let me tell you what the American people did not vote
for, in my opinion.  They did not vote for a foreign policy
of isolationism.  On the heels of the most far-reaching free
trade agreement our world has seen--an agreement negotiated
by successive administrations of both parties--it is
reasonable to conclude they did not vote to tie America's
hands in the new global economy.

This week, Senator Mitch McConnell announced that he is
introducing legislation to reform the foreign aid program.
The Senator has been a consistent supporter of foreign aid,
and I want to work with him to ensure that the program makes
sense to our taxpayers and serves our national interests.  I
don't agree with all of Senator McConnell's conclusions--
particularly his budget estimate--but he is an
internationalist and a constructive critic.

Other critics would throw the baby out with the bath water.
These are the people who would exploit the legitimate demand
for reform to advance a neo-isolationist agenda.  These
people--probably representing no more than 25% of the new
Congress--would close their own minds and our borders to the
new global marketplace on which our domestic economy
increasingly depends.  I would remind these politicians of a
line that guided the presidential election of 1992:  "It's
the economy, stupid."  And I mean our economy.

As we analyze the international challenge we now face, some
would like to view our foreign aid program through an
exclusively economic growth prism.  I personally believe
that economic growth cannot be sustained if we fail to
consider population growth rates, the environment, human
capacity, and the strength of governmental institutions.
Nonetheless, I have no problem focusing on economic growth
as a principle objective of our foreign assistance program.

But we should ask the right questions.  In this post-GATT
environment, how do we advance America's economic interests?
How do we create and exploit new markets?  How do we help
poorer nations survive and compete in an even more active
world economy?  How do we work with the other industrialized
nations to expand the world economy?

The Heritage Foundation is addressing these questions in its
own way.  This week it released its annual index of Economic
Freedom, which rates countries by assessing the extent to
which they have achieved free, market economies.  Heritage
would provide aid only to those countries that have made a
commitment to and have already achieved the freedom of the
marketplace.  There is much in this report with which I can
agree.  I can certainly agree that our aid dollars can be
wasted by governments who refuse to deregulate their
economy, or who practice protectionism or state control over
the economy.  We have specifically recognized these
constraints to development in our new approach to foreign
assistance.

But I cannot agree with the Heritage Foundation's assertion
that "not one country receiving foreign aid has succeeded in
developing sustained economic growth."  If this index is
based on that kind of thinking, it is likely to be used as a
rationale for disconnecting the United States from the
growing markets of the developing world.  I was assured
yesterday by the authors of the Heritage report that their
intention is not to encourage isolationism, and I believe
them.  But I don't agree with their assessment of the impact
of foreign assistance.

Perhaps the best way to answer their skepticism about
foreign aid would be to ask an obvious question:  If not one
country has succeeded in achieving sustained economic
growth, why have successive presidents and Congresses from
both parties supported foreign aid for the past 48 years?
Why have dozens of other industrial nations contributed
increasing amounts to official development assistance?  Our
aid program has, obviously, served American national
interests.  And along with our military power, it has been
an expression of responsible American leadership.

The growth in the world economy is not the result of
serendipity.  Some of us believe in the Immaculate
Conception, but there's no miracle here.  The growth in the
global economy from $3.4 trillion in 1946, to $7.2 trillion
in 1960, to $23.9 trillion in 1993--in constant 1993 dollars-
-is not exclusively attributable to a group of Adam Smiths
who chose voluntarily to pass liberal economic laws or who
went around chanting "get government off our backs."  It
resulted initially from reconstruction efforts during the
Marshall Plan.  It happened because the United States led
the Western world in an effort to create and then support an
international economic system that was the engine of
progress and support for fragile new national economies.

Yes, you can find instances where foreign aid was wasted.
It wasn't always spent on good development:  Part of it was
spent on the Cold War;  part of it was spent to buy
influence.  But the major part created new markets and
educated the workforces that today drive the engines of such
productive economies as South Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, Chile,
India, Thailand, and Tunisia.  It provided crucial
breakthroughs in agricultural technology and health care.
These breakthroughs provided the space for economic
liberalization and growth.  The world economy did not expand
seven-fold on its own.  Nations that had been the
beneficiaries of foreign aid became themselves foreign aid
donors.

In 1946, the United States provided virtually all of the
foreign aid provided in the world.  That amount, by the way,
was more than double what we provide today in 1994 dollars.
It represented 1.75% of our gross national product, compared
to 0.117% today.

By 1960, we were providing only 60% of all aid given.  We
created the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD to
pressure the reconstructed economies of Europe and Japan to
do more.  And they gave more, because they wanted to expand
their own economies through trade,  and they wanted to
contribute to a stable and growing world economy.

Today, we provide only 19% of the world's foreign aid.  But
that's a good deal for the American taxpaying family--a
family that contributes only $44 per year to foreign aid, a
lower amount--I might add--than any other donor nation
family.

But today, we may be leading the world in the wrong
direction.  In 1993, the amount of donor assistance fell by
8%, and it will fall by much more in 1994.  This is a
dangerous trend, made even more dangerous because of the
exponential rise in the world's population.

Make no mistake about the danger here.  We are not just
talking about the loss of economic opportunity--lost
markets, lost exports, lost jobs.  We are talking about the
failure to treat conditions that create instability.  We are
talking about chronic food shortages, devastating diseases,
and illiteracy that destroy human productive capacity;
environmental damage that forces people to migrate; and
population growth rates that inhibit economic growth and
cause social tensions and even civil war.

Those who suggest that our nation can afford to reduce our
foreign aid budget still further are playing with fire.
They are yielding the ground of responsible stewardship of
our national interests to the isolationists and the
populists.

Thanks to the President's successful deficit reduction
program and the economic growth achieved largely by his
export promotion policies, we will be able to give a tax cut
to the middle class.  But to continue the progress we have
made, his budget request for FY 1996 will responsibly
preserve American international leadership.  If we sacrifice
that in a bidding war for short-term political gain, we will
have to answer to coming generations.  For a very dynamic
global economy may pass us by.

What I fear is that we may lose much of the international
leadership shaped by a bipartisan consensus over the past 48
years in the first 100 days of the next Congress.  My fear
is that the budget resolution process will cut so deeply--
through recisions and lowering the caps across the board--
that we will slide almost unconsciously into isolationism.
We will wake up one day next spring and ask ourselves what
happened to a bipartisan foreign policy that has served us
so well.  And then it will be too late.  Someone will then
write a book, perhaps entitled "While America Slept."

That won't happen if voices of reason speak up.  We cannot
exercise influence over the international community in some
rosier future if we abdicate responsibility now.  Leadership
is not a faucet we can turn off and on.  It is a commitment,
because it speaks to our notion of what a community of
nations should be and how that community should comport
itself.

The threat is international disorder, and it is a strategic
threat, because it endangers the political, economic, and
security interests of the United States.  How should we
reply?  The answer should be apparent:  by mounting a
response that fits the threat that is, not the threat that
was.  That response is a policy of crisis prevention, and
foreign assistance plays a central role in it.

The end of the Cold War unleashed ethnic, environmental, and
political tensions that are still emerging.  The fact that
we have seen only a few nations fail does not mean that the
threat is not real.  Events take time to gestate; this is
particularly true of protracted, complex crises in which
natural disasters and political breakdowns combine with
refugee movements, lack of infrastructure, and donor
fatigue.  At a certain point warlordism, aggression, and
criminality masquerading as governance become inevitable.

A diplomacy that focuses only on the representations of
sovereign governments and not on the conditions that put
those governments and our interests at risk will forever be
caught short.  We cannot simply wall out the chaos beyond
our borders.  Millions of refugees, the spread of drug
trafficking, pollution of our air and water, and the
disruption and loss of markets will inevitably undermine our
security and our standard of living.  Economically,
politically, and morally we will pay a price if we ignore
these conditions.

This is where American leadership--in the security field, in
international economics, in diplomacy, and in the field of
development--comes so vitally into play.  For just as
disorder feeds on itself, so does sustainable development;
so does respect for the rule of law; so does the expectation
of international order; and so does democratic governance.
If we want to create positive self-fulfilling prophecies in
these areas, the United States has to lead.

To those who want a hard-headed, cost-benefit analysis, I
would say the price of peace and stability is infinitely
less than the cost of reconstructing entire nations.  Ho Chi
Minh once threatened: "one, two, many Vietnams."  The
international community simply does not have the resources
or the will to deal with "one, two, many Rwandas"--not
consistently, not year after year.  It is far, far more
economical to prevent than to reconstruct.

The development approaches we advocate for our programs and
those of other donor governments--approaches that focus on
decentralization, local, and individual empowerment--address
the alienation and powerlessness that drive the conditions
that create disorder.  If people can acquire the necessary
tools and the freedom to use them, they will create
opportunities to solve their own problems.  They will
actively work for their own well-being, and, in doing so,
they will help us achieve peace and stability, two long-time
objectives of our foreign policy.

Foreign aid creates jobs for American workers and advances
our economic well-being.  But trade does not simply
materialize; the ground must be prepared first.  The
enabling environment must be right before capital will begin
to flow.  That is partly a matter of policy reforms.  That
is why we are helping nations liberalize their markets.
That is why we have launched initiatives to remove
institutional and legal barriers to trade.  That is why we
are fostering trading cultures that are receptive to foreign
investment.  And that is why we are supporting programs that
create broad-based economic growth in developing countries.
All these endeavors help create markets that have the desire
and the wherewithal to buy what we have to sell.

Contrary to the Heritage Foundation assertion, every major
trading nation has used foreign aid as a primary means of
building markets.  And our emphasis on supporting broad
institutional change is producing enormous benefits:
Developing nations now represent the fastest-growing markets
for American goods.  They are growing 10 times as quickly as
our traditional markets in Europe and Japan.  Developing
countries are particularly good customers for our high-value
exports--pollution control equipment, computers,
communications equipment, and expert services.  Exports to
emerging economies in Latin America and Asia are one of the
main reasons our unemployment is low and why the export
sector is leading our economic growth.

What then should we say to those who claim that foreign aid
is nothing more than international welfare, that aid creates
dependency, that the market will do the job, that events in
places like Rwanda or Bosnia or Haiti don't really affect
us?  What should we say to those who argue for trade, not
aid, or for aid tied to exports, not development assistance?
What should we say to those who claim that we are throwing
our money down a rathole?  We say look at the facts; they
say otherwise.

The two great political parties of our nation now have an
opportunity to govern together.  The people expect us to be
responsible.  The people know that their incomes and their
jobs are tied to the global economy as never before.  They
know that in the post-Cold War world, the United States has
a unique opportunity to deal directly with the international
factors that can advance our political and economic
interests or injure them profoundly.  They know that we
stand now at a turning point and that irresponsible
stewardship can doom future generations.  They know that
developing foreign markets, stabilizing population growth,
promoting democracy, and preserving the environment is the
right thing to do.  They know this even if they don't like
the sound of the phrase "foreign aid."  They know these
things, but they expect their leaders to remind them from
time to time of these self-evident truths.

The American aid program has changed.  I invite the new
Congress to look at it closely.  We have presented a new
vision for a post-Cold War, post-GATT world.  We have
reorganized, reformed, reinvented, and re-engineered.  It
is, in fact, a new USAID whose mission is relevant and whose
commitment is to produce results.

We haven't made these changes just to save a bureaucracy.
We have fixed what is wrong, because we believe that if
America is to lead, it must lead with the best development
agency in the world.  And we do believe America must lead.
I look forward to working with the Republicans and the
Democrats of the new Congress as we forge a new bipartisan
consensus in support of our foreign assistance programs.

(###)



ARTICLE 6:

Support for the War Crimes Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia
Statement by Department Spokesman Michael McCurry,
Washington, DC, December 28, 1994

The UN has established an international war crimes tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia--the first international war
crimes tribunal since those convened in Nuremberg and Tokyo
at the conclusion of World War II.  In creating this
tribunal--and the one recently established for Rwanda--the
Security Council has reaffirmed a fundamental principle that
binds civilized societies:  Those who commit crimes of
genocide and crimes against humanity must be held
accountable for their actions.

Efforts by Bosnian Serbs to rid Bosnia of its non-Serb,
mainly Muslim, population are continuing.  As indicated in a
recently issued UNHCR report, the Muslim population of
northern Bosnia has been reduced by a factor of 10--from
over 500,000 inhabitants to about 50,000, in just two years.
Overall, UNHCR estimates that since the Bosnian tragedy
began, Bosnian Serbs have expelled, killed, or imprisoned
over 90% of the 1,730,000 non-Serbs who, before the war,
lived throughout the territory now held by the Bosnian
Serbs.

The latest round in this campaign of ethnic cleansing--begun
last summer--has accelerated in recent months, especially in
the Bijeljina area in northeast Bosnia, in Banja Luka in
northwest Bosnia, and in Rogatica, north of the Gorazde
enclave.  Within the last 10 days, we have received reports
that Bosnian Serbs expelled more than 100 Muslims from
Bijeljina.  The refugees claimed that before they left,
Bosnian Serbs locked them in unlit rooms and abused them.
Brutal and heinous methods have been employed to force the
Muslim population from their homes.  There have been
numerous incidents of Bosnian Serbs bursting into Muslim
homes at night to evict, rob, and rape the residents.
Women, children, and elderly people have been forced to flee
during such evictions, regardless of their health or
physical condition.  Men of military age have been taken
prisoner and made to perform forced labor in detention camps
and on the front lines.

These crimes did not arise spontaneously or by happenstance.
Unless those responsible are held accountable, there can be
no lasting peace and reconciliation in Bosnia.  That is why
the tribunal established by the UN is so important.

For its successful functioning, the tribunal will need the
support--both moral and material--of the international
community.  Since the tribunal's creation, this
Administration has voluntarily contributed nearly $13
million, including a cash contribution of $3 million; the
services, at a cost of up to $6 million, of over 20
experienced prosecutors, investigators, and other experts to
assist the investigation of atrocities; and our assessed
contribution to the tribunal budget.  Much more will be
needed.  The tribunal cannot undo the atrocities that have
taken place, but it can hold accountable those who committed
them and send an unmistakable signal that henceforth
violations of international humanitarian law--including any
acts of genocide--will be met with justice.

(###)


[END OF DISPATCH VOLUME 6, NUMBER 1]

To the top of this page


Index of Dispatch Magazine Archives 1995 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