U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2, JANUARY 9, 1995
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:
1.  U.S. Support for Democracy in Africa -- Anthony Lake
2.  Honoring the Life and Legacy Of Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr. -- Secretary Christopher
3.  U.S. Response to Recent Canadian Trade-Related Decisions
4.  Special 301 Investigation Into China's IPR Enforcement
Practices
5.  Treaty Actions



ARTICLE 1

U.S. Support for Democracy in Africa
Anthony Lake, Assistant to the President For National
Security Affairs

Africa's Leaders and People:  Seizing Control of Their
Future
Address to the Organization of African Unity, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, December 15, 1994.

Thank you very, very much.  To be very honest, the privilege
is, indeed, all mine.  Let me begin by thanking Secretary
General Salim for his hospitality and for his invitation to
visit with you today.  Let me also thank President Meles and
Foreign Minister Seycum for welcoming me to Ethiopia.  Our
visit is all-too short but our time has been and will be
productive.  I look forward to the remainder of my visit
here.

I first came to Addis in 1967 as a young Foreign Service
officer.  I was a member of a small diplomatic team,
assigned to travel around the continent to explain the
American position in Vietnam.  It was a fast trip, but in
just a few days we had the extraordinary privilege of
meeting with some of the giants of African independence at
the time:  Nkrumah, Houphoet Biogny, Nyerere, Kenyatta,
Toure, Senghor, and a number of others.  Each had a style
all his own, but taken together, they made you feel that
anything was possible--that a spirit of freedom had been
unleashed and with it came the feeling of a boundless future
on this continent.

So many of the hopes of that era were embodied in the
Organization of African Unity.  Founded on the dream of all
African nations to escape their colonial past and embrace
liberty, the OAU gave life to the African struggle to gain
control of the continent's destiny.  Today, I want to speak
with you about that struggle, about the dynamics of regional
cooperation in a rapidly changing world, and about the role
that the United States can and should play in helping Africa
move forward.

There could be no better audience for this discussion than
the staff of the Organization of African Unity--because you
are charged with the day-to-day task of making real the
dreams of the fathers of African independence.  Better than
anyone, you know how difficult this work can be, and is.  I
think you also have a sense that, if the nations of Africa
are to thrive in the new post-Cold War world, African
leaders and their people must seize control of their own
future.

President Clinton has sent me here, with a delegation of
senior officials from a number of our Departments, for a
simple reason:  This Administration cares deeply about
Africa and its future.  We care about Africa because of the
enormous potential of its people, its traditions, and its
resources.  We care because we have deep interests in
Africa.  We care because of the historic ties that bind our
people together.  We care because the great global
challenges of tomorrow can be seen in the challenges facing
Africa today.

But we also know that caring is not enough; that if we
really care, we must act--and we have.  We have been engaged
from our first days in office, as Dr. Salim so generously
noted.

The United States has helped to resolve conflicts throughout
the continent, such as our efforts to bring an end to two
decades of terrible civil war in Mozambique and Angola.

We have launched a new initiative in the greater Horn of
Africa to anticipate and to try to prevent a potential
famine that threatens 25 million people in this region.
This is the beginning of our efforts to go beyond immediate
relief operations and promote recovery and sustainable
development.  At the same time, we have continued to respond
to humanitarian crises--all-too many of them--in Rwanda,
Liberia, Angola, Sudan, and elsewhere.

The United States has, we believe, led the way in supporting
the remarkable transition to democracy in South Africa, and
we have expanded our efforts in all of Southern Africa,
where peace, democratic government, and economic development
are taking hold.  We have provided relief from the crushing
burden of debt for several African countries so far, and we
are working to provide substantial new relief for eligible
African nations.  We have put a new focus on Africa.  In the
last six months alone, President Clinton has received seven
African heads of government.  He hosted the first-ever White
House Conference on Africa--when 200 officials, business
leaders, and academics came together. This group included
the Secretary General of the OAU, who offered great insight
into the challenges the continent faces.  And, as you know,
high- ranking U.S. delegations--led by the Vice President,
the Deputy Secretary of State, and our United Nations
Ambassador--have criss-crossed the continent in recent
months.

All of these actions are evidence that we reject the notion
of "Afro-pessimism," that we are encouraged by the signs of
great potential emerging all over Africa.  Democracy is
finding its root in country after country.  There is
concrete proof that economic discipline and modernization
will yield growth.  There are encouraging signs that
subregional organizations--ECOWAS in Liberia, IGADD in
Sudan, and SADC in Angola, Mozambique, and Lesotho--are
searching for new ways to address the calamitous conflicts
in their areas.  I might add that it is important that there
is a longing for stability among so many--people tired of
civil wars, exhausted by disasters man-made and natural,
desperate and determined to pass on a better life to their
children.  It is a desire that Africans share with people
all over the world--from the Middle East to Northern Ireland
to Central America.

But while we recognize these signs of hope, we know--as you
know--that many African nations are but one step away from
crisis.  At such an important and potentially difficult
moment, caring means not only acting, but also that it is
necessary for Africa's friends to speak the truth as we see
it--not to condemn and not to distance ourselves from
Africa's problems, but as part of our commitment to help
resolve them.

Despite the signs of progress, the truth is stark.  African
nations must reverse the economic slide of the so-called
"lost decade of the 1980s" that has left their people, for
the most part, poorer, less educated, less healthy, and with
fewer prospects for better lives than they had almost a
generation ago.  Even the countries that are making progress
are threatened by instability in their regions.  Sixteen
African nations are involved in some form of civil conflict;
six million refugees and 17 million displaced persons put an
intolerable strain on resources.

In countries like the United States, those of us who
recognize the importance of continued active engagement and
support for Africa are confronting the reality of shrinking
resources and an honest skepticism about the return on our
investments in peace-keeping and development.  The world
around Africa is fast coming together, and this continent
risks becoming the odd man out.

In the best of times, all that the outside world can offer
nations in crisis is a "window of opportunity" in which they
can sort out their problems during a  period of relative
security.  The international community can offer support; it
cannot be a savior.  Outsiders have neither the power nor
the right to dictate solutions for the nations of Africa or
any other region.

Now, when the times are getting tougher, we face a new
reality.  In Africa and elsewhere, the windows of
opportunity can remain open for only so long.  Every time
the leaders of contending factions do not seize that
opportunity--do not act before the window slams shut--they
will not only hurt the citizens of their countries, they may
also diminish the will of the international community to
offer such support elsewhere in other conflicts and crises
on the continent.  So it will be harder--not impossible but
harder--to count on the international community to heal the
wounds of these wars.  The warlords--and, tragically, their
people--cannot always count on an international safety net.

Ultimately, Africa's leaders and its people are responsible
for their actions. They have it within their power to settle
their differences.  We need look no further than Southern
Africa, to Mozambique, for encouraging evidence that when
leaders decide to put the future of their nations ahead of
their immediate ambitions and use democracy to settle their
differences, they can rightfully claim the gratitude of
their people and the applause of the world.

In recent months, we have seen how in both Lesotho and
Mozambique neighboring states can help prevent such
conflicts.  Across Africa, there is a new generation of
leaders, like President Meles in Ethiopia, many of whom have
come to power since the end of the Cold War.  These leaders
have discarded the ideological baggage of the Cold War.
They have gone beyond the heady era of independence and the
subsequent period of blaming everything on their colonial
legacies.  They recognize the deadly potential of ethnic
rivalries, AIDS, and environmental degradation.  They are
ready to measure their progress on a different scale:
instituting economic policies that promote sustainable
development, building responsive governments that give
citizens a stake in the future, and creating civil societies
in which freedom flourishes.

That is why, despite the dangers and the difficulties that I
have just
outlined, President Clinton and his Administration reject
Afro-pessimism.  But neither should any of us seek refuge in
the illusions of Afro-optimism.  Friends of Africa who
suggest these challenges will be easily met are not doing
any of us a favor.

What is needed, instead, is a new Afro-realism--an Afro-
realism that commits us to the hard work that can strengthen
the partnership between Africa and America.  Without the
partnership, Africa will have lost the support we wish to
give and are determined to give.  America will have lost the
opportunity to participate in what could be--what must be--
one of the great adventures of our time:  fulfilling the
dreams of Africa's greatness that animated the leaders of
its independence so many years ago.


The Promise of Southern Africa
Address before the U.S.-Zambia Business Council, Lusaka,
Zambia, December 19, 1994.

I came to Zambia  because I think there are few places that
better symbolize the promise of Africa.  At this transition
point in the continent's history, the whole world is
watching Southern Africa.  For it is here in the
subcontinent that many believe that a brighter future for
Africa begins--that a force for peace and prosperity is
finding its very center.  So, today, I want to talk to you
about the encouraging progress we have seen in Southern
Africa, about the threats to that progress, and about the
role that the United States can and must play in shaping its
future.  Let me first address the context of our visit here.

Our delegation has come to Zambia midway through a visit to
nine nations on this continent.  We have already seen ample
evidence of the immense troubles that African nations do,
indeed, face:

--  Ethiopia's great challenge in the wake of decades of
bitter conflict--the challenge of decentralizing its economy
and allowing a political opposition to thrive;

--  Rwanda's struggle to cope with the horror of recent
slaughter, to turn away from the skulls and skeletons that
litter the courtyards of schools and churches such as the
one that we visited out in the countryside;

--  Burundi's attempts to keep a lid on simmering ethnic
tensions; and

--  Mozambique's efforts to build a democratic dialogue
between long-time combatants, while finding a new economic
direction.

Our visit must also be seen in the context of the Clinton
Administration's commitment to engage in Africa.  From  our
first days in office, we have put a new focus on Africa and
taken concrete measures to cement our historic ties; to do
our part to help Africans best capitalize on their
potential, their traditions, and their resources.

We have taken an active role in conflict resolution, from
Angola to Liberia.  We led the way in supporting South
Africa's remarkable transition to democracy, and--while
responding in full force to humanitarian crises--we have
launched a new initiative to integrate famine relief and
long-term recovery in the greater Horn of Africa.  A number
of high-level delegations, led by the Vice President and the
Deputy Secretary of State, have criss-crossed the continent.
In Washington, President Clinton hosted, as I remarked, the
first-ever White House Conference on Africa, where 200
officials and business leaders and academics came together
to address the challenges that the continent faces.

Finally, let me say that I have come here after six weeks of
traveling with President Clinton to Asia and to Europe and
to a summit in Miami with the democratic leaders of  the
Western Hemisphere.  Our President has been a driving force
as well as a participant in truly remarkable events:  the
establishment of free trade areas in the Western Hemisphere
and the Asia-Pacific rim in less than 25 years, closer ties
between all the nations of  the new Europe, and the passage-
-of huge historic significance--of the Uruguay Round of the
GATT.  In the midst of all these events, I believe one trend
has emerged very clearly:  Whatever their differences, each
of those regions--Pacific Rim, Western Hemisphere, Europe--
embodies a trend to which we must give very careful
attention, that is, coming together economically.

This means that each will be able to compete effectively in
the emerging global economy, in which capital moves in the
flick of an eye and in which trade will move all-the-more
freely across borders.  A new global train is headed out of
the station.  If Africa wishes to be included, then its
leaders and its people do not have a moment--not a moment--
to waste.  To get on board, African governments must pursue
the internal policies and the continent-wide cooperation
that will allow this continent to benefit from the GATT and
gain Africa's fair share of this new global wealth.  The
future of Africa and its talented people depend on this.

The battle, as you know, will not be easy, and in my nation
and around the world there are those who say that it is
already too late.  These "Afro-pessimists" believe that the
die has been cast--that there is little if anything the
United States can do to help remedy the damage of the so-
called "lost decade of the 1980s" and that all of Africa is
doomed to live on the edge as its population explodes, its
economies slide, its environment declines, and its attempts
to replace civil war with democratic reconciliation fail
time and again.  And, they say, at this time of shrinking
budgets, the United States has no responsibility to help and
would do better to look inward at its own problems.

Let me assure you that this is not the view of the Clinton
Administration.  And there are many reasonable men and women
in our Congress who understand the value of our aid to
Africa, of the continent's great economic potential, and the
benefits of increasing democracy and stability.  To those
who see no hope and who are Afro-pessimists, I have only
fours words of advice:  Come to Southern Africa.

Come to Southern Africa and see the signs of real political
and economic progress--signs of increasingly stable
democracy; growing civil rights; and clear, hard evidence of
economic growth.  Come and see what The Economist  has
called a different continent--in their words, "another
Africa of plate-glass skyscrapers and new stock markets, of
political opposition and outspoken newspapers"--one of which
I read this morning right here in Zambia.  It took me right
back to Washington and my breakfast table with our
newspapers there.

Come, I would say to them--come and look beyond the dramatic
political changes in Pretoria and Capetown--look beyond that
to the transformation that is affecting almost all of
Southern Africa; to the multi-party elections and tolerance
for some degree of political opposition that has come to
every nation here, save Angola; to the peaceful passing of
power in nations like Zambia and Malawi; to the deep
interest in participation demonstrated in Mozambique, where
an astonishing 88% of the voters--some of whom had to cross
minefields--cast ballots in that nation's first free and
fair elections.

Come to Southern Africa and see how the increasing strength
of democracies is leading to regional stability.  Where once
the front-line states had to expend all their energy on the
fight against apartheid, more recently, they have joined
together to put down threats to fragile democracies--in
Lesotho, where pressure from South Africa, Zimbabwe, and
Botswana last August stopped the military's attempt to
overthrow a legitimate government; in Mozambique, where
Presidents Mandela and Mugabe played a critical role in
quickly ending RENAMO leader Dhlakama's brief threat to
boycott the elections; and in Angola, where the states of
southern Africa have told the parties, "enough is enough."
And let me take this occasion to thank President Chiluba for
his critical role in hosting and supporting the peace
process in Angola.

To those who see no hope for Africa, I say come to the
subcontinent and see the unmistakable signs of national and
regional economic progress.

Zambia provides a fine example of the trend away from state
ownership and centralization toward privatization and local
control.  President Chiluba's government deserves great
credit, we believe, for its efforts to liberalize trade,
remove subsidies, lift controls on foreign exchange, reduce
budget deficits, and bring down inflation from 187% in 1993
to an estimated 16% this year.  Its continuing attempts to
privatize state-owned industries and return land ownership
to individuals are extremely important to its future.  I
believe that economic reform and privatization are rather
like riding a bicycle--once you begin and are moving, if you
stop, you will fall over; if you try to turn too quickly,
you will fall over as well.  We believe Zambia is on course
and should stay on course, and we will support Zambia as it
does so.

Now, Afro-pessimists rightly point out that the path will
not be easy.  But Zambia and Zimbabwe and other nations are
showing signs that structural adjustment does yield economic
growth.  The results of reform are evident:  Just last week,
the major donors, led by the World Bank, agreed to provide
$2.1 billion for Zambia's development in return for further
structural reforms and movement toward good governance.  To
help those who are committed to free markets and private
enterprise, the United States has established a $100-million
Southern Africa Enterprise Development Fund aimed at helping
small and medium-sized businesses.

Even as we take the large steps to get these economies back
on track, nations must continue to advance the welfare of
all of their citizens.  That means extending basic
education, health care, and agricultural programs so that
all people can participate fully in their countries'
prosperity.  People must feel the tangible gains that
democracy can produce.  In South Africa during the
elections, although I wasn't in South Africa, people who
were there brought back posters that were being used to
encourage people to vote.  Those posters created
expectations, I am sure, in the people for what a vote could
bring.  The posters pictured new schools, new clinics, new
homes, and new jobs.  Those expectations will be disregarded
not only at the peril of governments in this region, but of
democracy itself.  We need to work to put the benefits of
democracy on the table for the people in their everyday
lives.

The nations of the region also are making progress not only
within the region, but in working together as a region.  The
Preferential Trade Area, recently rechristened the Common
Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, underscores the
importance of regional economic cooperation.  The Southern
African Development Council, designed as a reactive
organization to protect the front-line states from economic
isolation by South Africa, has evolved wonderfully now to
become a focus of regional collaboration, concentrating on
transportation, energy, industry, agriculture, and other
links throughout the Southern African region.  With the
addition of South Africa now as a member, SADC can make the
real transformation from a defensive economic mechanism to a
proactive organization which can exploit the combined
purchasing and producing power of all its members.

For the United States, which has a direct interest in the
success of Southern African economies, this growth holds the
promise of great new opportunities and more high-wage
American jobs.  Consider this:  During the last 18 months,
one new American company has invested in South Africa every
10 days.  Exports to Southern Africa already support more
than 50,000 jobs in the United States, and we believe there
is immense potential for growth.

Those doubters risk missing out on enormous opportunities in
this region.  Imagine, for example, a regional electrical
power grid linking the water-based power of the north with
the fossil fuels of the south.  With the end of civil war in
Mozambique, projects such as the massive Cabora Bassa dam
may be granted a new lease on life.  Eco-tourism,
telecommunications, manufacturing, and increased exports of
minerals and agricultural goods all offer the hope of new
prosperity here.

So again let me say:  The pessimists should come take a
closer look at Southern Africa.  Civil wars are giving way
to stability and democratic reforms.  In turn,
democratically elected leaders are restructuring their
economies to lay the groundwork for long-term growth.  The
possibility of growth is luring foreign investors, and the
potential for cooperation among states in the region is
growing.

But let me also be clear:  Just as I would invite the Afro-
pessimists to come to Southern Africa and see the signs of
progress, here in Southern Africa you know better than
anyone that to bathe in the illusions of a sunny "Afro-
optimism" could be terribly damaging.  For the facts are
stark:  Africans today are poorer, less healthy, and have
fewer prospects for better lives than they had almost a
decade ago.  Sixteen African countries are involved in some
form of civil conflict; an estimated 6 million refugees and
17 million displaced persons put an intolerable strain on
resources; and the obstacles to growth are, indeed,
enormous.

At the top of the list of obstacles remains the terrible
human, economic, and political drain of civil war and ethnic
conflict.  Consider, for example, Sudan.  In the 1970s, most
development economists expected Sudan to be "the bread
basket of Africa."  Instead, ethnic strife and decades of
civil war have turned Africa's potential bread basket into
an African basket case--a problem not only for its
neighbors, but for the whole international community.

In Mozambique, the legacy of years of war is, at least, a
million land mines. Just yesterday, we watched as a platoon
of UN-trained Mozambicans cleared a field of mines.  We
heard that two days previously, one of these Mozambicans had
died to save the lives of his people.  For how many years
will Mozambicans be forced to clear their fields instead of
planting those fields?

These civil conflicts also require nations to continue to
spend huge sums on their militaries--funds better spent on
building schools and clinics and highways.  In Angola, the
nation's vast petroleum riches are being drained by civil
war.  Once the parties stop fighting, international support
to rebuild that nation's economic base first will  have to
be directed at demobilization efforts.  And consider this:
The slightest possibility that conflict or civil war will
erupt again causes foreign investors to pull out and stay
away.  Without capital, African nations will again find
themselves unable to move forward.

Even in the best of times, as I have said throughout my
visit, all that the outside world can offer nations in these
types of internal crises is a window of opportunity in which
they can sort out their own problems in a period of relative
security.  The United States and the international community
can offer support; we cannot be saviors.  And for nations
like Angola--where the hopes of the people for an end to
decades of violence have been cruelly frustrated in the past-
-this second chance of peace may be the last in which the
international community is willing to be deeply involved.

What might be described as the more traditional obstacles--
ills that have plagued African nations since the days of
independence--also stand in the way of progress.  Militaries
remain too large and too strong, and they threaten fragile
democracies.  Corruption--such as the "kleptocracy" in Zaire-
-can frustrate any attempt to develop a modern and efficient
economy.  The continued failure of economies to diversify
will make these countries vulnerable to sliding
international prices and slow development.

Finally, the path of structural adjustment has placed a
whole new series of challenges in front of African
governments which, like Zambia, have mustered the courage
and the political will to impose economic discipline on
themselves.  Leaders must be able to see beyond the
immediate displacement and anger that can be brought on by
sudden devaluations or the removal of price subsidies.  The
temptation to turn back will be great, and it must be
resisted.

The countries of Africa must also hold fast in their efforts
to reduce the terrible $180 billion of debt that they owe.
To help remedy this, two years ago the Clinton
Administration began a program to reduce the amount the
poorest African countries must pay to the U.S. Government to
service their debt.  At recent sessions of the G-7,
President Clinton brought this issue to the forefront.  Just
this week, the United States and its G-7 partners agreed to
cut by two-thirds the amount that the poorest African
nations must pay to service their official debt, and,
significantly, for the first time, the G-7 nations agreed to
find ways to reduce the actual amount of debt that is owed.

My observations today and the policies of the Clinton
Administration, should make it clear that we stand with you
on the front lines of the struggle for Africa's future.  But
that does not give us license to forget reality.  Americans
are debating at home about where and when to get involved,
the United Nations is stretched to its capacity in this and
other continents, and shrinking budgets in donor countries
around the globe could mean stagnant levels of aid.  So,
every time the leaders of contending factions in an Angola
do not seize the opportunity for peace, every time that a
"leader for life" robs his nation blind, every time a nation
slides back on its commitment to economic discipline, it not
only hurts its own citizens, it threatens the prospects for
growing integration and thus global success of Africa as a
whole.

Let me just illustrate that for a moment.  Here in Southern
Africa, we have an opportunity--you have an opportunity with
our support--to build a region of peace and prosperity.  If
you look at the riches in Angola, the success of those
efforts depends fundamentally on a resolution of that
terrible civil conflict.

Most of the nations of Southern Africa are proving that when
leaders decide to put the future of their people ahead of
their immediate ambitions and use democracy to settle their
differences, things can improve.  Every day, they are
demonstrating that strong, disciplined economic programs can
improve prosperity.  They are coming together with that one
exception to protect the democracies of their region.  The
nations in the region are also beginning to exercise their
combined economic power and show the world an important new
emerging market area here.

As we look into the future of this continent--which I
believe does hang in the balance--I hope that we never
forget how far Africa has come.  Imagine what you would have
thought a decade ago or even less if I had stood before you
and used phrases like "President Mandela," if I talked about
establishing investor codes to attract foreign capital, or
if I had discussed the turnout in elections in Mozambique or
Malawi.  But those are some of the topics of everyday
conversation today in Southern Africa.  They are the reasons
why reasonable men and women in far-away capitals should
continue to invest in the future of Africa.

That, I believe, is the basis for a new "Afro-realism"--an
Afro-realism that commits us to the hard work that can
strengthen the partnership between Africa and America.  For
if we let that partnership weaken, Africa will lose a
crucial source of support, and America will have lost the
chance to participate in what could be--and what must be--
one of the great adventures of our time:  fulfilling the
dreams of Africa's greatness that animated the leaders of
its independence all those years ago.


An African Culture Of Democracy
Address before the Benin Human Rights Institute, Cotonou,
Benin, December 21, 1994.

I first came to Africa as a young Foreign Service officer in
1966.  I was a member of a small delegation assigned to
explain the U.S. position in Vietnam to the leaders of
Africa's newly independent nations.   It was a very fast
trip--as this has been--but in the course of a few days, I
came across the extraordinary men who led their nations to
independence:  Senghor, Houphoet Boigny, Nkrumah, Toure,
Nyerere, Kenyatta.  It was an exciting time across the
continent--a time when, in the wake of the escape from
colonialism, anything seemed possible.

Across the continent, the giants of independence led their
people into the modern era.  They put forth new
constitutions, with guarantees of political freedoms.  The
economic future looked bright.  But in the years that
followed, patterns of autocracy took hold--rulers for life,
repressive regimes, bloated militaries, and nations robbed
blind of their resources.

The golden promises of independence began to disappear.
Now, almost three decades later, Africa faces a second
watershed, a time when the patterns of the future are again
being established.  It is an extraordinarily exciting time--
what the British observer Colin Legum has called a second
independence.  It is a time when the future of participatory
government in Africa hangs in the balance and creative minds
are fully engaged.

Today, in many countries across the continent, Africans are
breathing new life into old institutions and getting down to
the daily tasks that together make up democracy.
Parliaments like the Beninese National Assembly, which once
were no more than rubber stamps, now debate and decide
legitimate policy disputes.  Multi-party elections offer the
citizens of many countries the opportunity to choose among
different candidates and platforms.

And the press--traditionally no more than a government
mouthpiece--reflects the real concerns of the people.  In
most, these are not the days of headlines, of the dramatic
pictures of people voting in countries where free balloting
had never existed before--Namibians waiting in line for two
days to vote and Mozambicans literally walking across
minefields to cast their ballots in free and fair elections.
Now, the hot lights of international television are focused
elsewhere.  But in the months and years ahead, democracy in
Africa will face what may be its most difficult and
important test:  the test of making day-to-day democracy
work.  As they now do the hard work of using new democratic
institutions to manage their daily political and economic
business, the leaders and peoples of Africa will have to
answer critical questions:  Can participation conquer the
persistent reality of ethnic and religious divisions?  Are
basic human and political rights the property of one group,
or do they belong to all?  What responsibility are people
prepared to take for their political and economic affairs?

There are few better places on the continent to ask these
questions than here in Cotonou.  For it was here, just four
years ago, that the rapid changes in Africa's political
landscape began.  The combined force of the worldwide fall
of communist regimes, internal economic decline, and a new
generation grown impatient with authoritarian leaders
combined to change history.  After a decade in which only
four nations--Botswana, The Gambia, Mauritius, and Senegal--
tolerated opposing political parties, President Kerekou and
other leaders called a national conference to settle Benin's
political differences and chart its future.  Africa watchers
saw it as an interesting experiment.  Little did they know
what would follow:  adoption of a democratic constitution,
free and fair elections, and the peaceful transfer of power.

During our visit to Africa, my delegation has visited many
countries facing the same kinds of challenges as they
wrestle with the demands of day-to-day democracy.  In
Ethiopia, where President Meles came to power five years ago
after decades of civil strife and hardship, he is now taking
the hard steps necessary to create a democracy, including
writing and adopting a new constitution.  But that will not
be enough; he also must find ways to reach accommodation
with other parties on questions of human rights, individual
freedom, and the proper role for ethnicity in his multi-
ethnic society.  They, in turn, must learn to engage in the
process while remaining a loyal opposition.

In Burundi, we found a nation which has lost two Presidents
to assassination in the past 14 months and yet has found the
courage to reach a political compromise involving power-
sharing.  But this challenge remains how to give real
meaning to such compromise in a nation where ethnic tensions
threaten to blow apart the fine democratic balance they have
fashioned.

In Mozambique, we found President Chissano, RENAMO leader
Dhlakama, and their supporters struggling to put behind them
two decades of civil war in the wake of the nation's first
democratic election.  We found a government and an
opposition party trying to define their proper roles in the
nation's first multi-party parliament.  In Zambia, we found
a government explaining to its people why a major structural
adjustment program was necessary despite the short-run
economic hardship it was causing.

Here in Benin, a leader on the path of democracy, you are
debating and deciding the proper legal structure for your
next elections.  The leaders of these nations are probably
getting more than they bargained for on these democratic
shake-down cruises.  They are learning--and learning early--
that democracy is so much more than writing a constitution,
swearing in a legislature, or opening a newspaper.  It
requires leaders who are farsighted enough to stick to their
goals and confident enough to take the criticism along the
way.  It requires citizens who are willing to participate--
not only in elections, but in the mundane decisions that
bring water to their fields or determine where bus routes
will go.  And it requires everyone to exercise a kind of
national responsibility--to put the commitment to democracy
ahead of his or her individual desires and ambition.  Let me
talk about some of the challenges that nations must face
every day in the process of building democracy.

In capitals across the continent and in villages and towns,
the new leaders of Africa know that to remain in power and
be effective, they must share power in effective ways.  On a
national level, this means empowering individuals and groups
by listening and reacting to their concerns.  It means
opening the door to labor unions, universities, human rights
groups, religious organizations, and other elements of civil
society, including an independent judiciary and a free
press.  In particular, women must be given a role at every
level of national life.  If not, any nation will be the
poorer for it and will be no real democracy.

On a local level, responsive government means moving away
from the centralization of power that was promoted under
autocratic and Marxist regimes.  New governments have the
opportunity to cast off those legacies and invest indigenous
groups with power.  For example, giving these regional and
local authorities more say in their own future cannot help
but improve local services--and, ultimately, attitudes
toward the national regime.  Responsive government also
means permitting citizens the right to change their
leadership in free and fair elections.

The President of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, has said to
President Clinton that, the second election, more than the
first, is the true test of a democracy.  Until the last few
years, here in Africa the electoral process has too often
best been described by the phrase "one person, one vote"--
one time.  Ensuring the smooth and peaceful passage of power
from one president or prime minister to the next is critical
to ensuring that citizens, other nations, and foreign
investors retain confidence in a nation's stability.

Many countries in Africa are trying to reform their
political systems at the same time they put into effect
economic reforms that may cause short-term hardship to their
people.  This makes it doubly difficult to make the
transition to democracy.  But Benin, Senegal, Mali, Niger,
and other nations are demonstrating that economic discipline
does yield rewards.  Their success will stand as proof that
vibrant democracy and thriving free markets go hand in hand.

African governments are also confronting the challenges of
creating a culture of political tolerance.  African leaders
must make room for--indeed, invite--a flourishing local
opposition.  It is in their self-interest to allow this
opposition to grow, of course, because it provides a safety
valve for discontent, a way to express another opinion that
does not involve an AK-47, a mortar, or a mine.

Opposition parties, at the same time, are learning how to
organize themselves and work within the system to translate
their political views into policy.  For the first time, the
political discourse of Africa includes the concept of a
loyal opposition.  On both sides, this vision not only
requires an absolute devotion to the rights and principles
of democracy, but also unequally a devout belief in free
expression--a belief in the battle of ideas; rejection of
extremism as moderates come together; the instinct for
compromise.

Governments and opponents alike are learning that these are
essential elements of democracy.  They are learning to speak
the common, wonderful language of democracy.  Certainly,
this will lead to more than a few strange moments:  leaders
of political parties known to have ordered slaughter of
their opponents, arguing with one another over a clause in
the constitution, or challenging those same people in
reasoned parliamentary debate.  Leaders will have to learn,
as President Soglo of Benin has learned with such grace,
that democracy means putting up with the opinions of  every
stripe and even insults from some corners.

Nurturing democracy also demands that governments enforce
civilian control of the military, put an end to patterns of
corruption, and oppose cults of personality.  These are
large goals.  But without strong daily efforts to achieve
them, African nations will never escape the devastating
impact of the lost decade of the 1980s.

In the end, however, I am convinced that the most important
test of African democracy will be how well nations learn to
deal with one of the worst legacies of the continent's
colonial masters:  arbitrary national boundaries.  For by
drawing these borders without regard to ethnic groups and
other cultural realities, the colonial powers left Africa
with a challenge of enormous proportions.  And it is a
challenge, I believe, that only democracy and true
representation can resolve.

Africa, more than any continent, must contend with an
astonishing array of forces that drive or pull their
societies apart.  In Zambia, where our delegation stopped,
there are more than 70 ethnic groups.  Cameroonians speak
more than 250 languages.  Sudanese occupy a country the size
of Western Europe.  In Ethiopia, Christianity and Islam each
claim 40% of the populace, with indigenous believers making
up the rest.  By their very nature, authoritarian
governments are the enemies of diversity.  Democracies, on
the other hand, draw their strength from the differences
among their peoples.  Consider the alternative.  In the
African context, more so than elsewhere because of the
colonial legacy, depriving different ethnic or other groups
of the right to representation--whether it be at a local or
national level--is a recipe for catastrophe.  One need look
no further than Liberia or Angola for the evidence.

In the last week, my delegation has seen stark evidence of
the devastation that can accompany failed attempts at
democracy and national reconciliation.  In Angola, a country
that returned to civil war two years ago despite holding a
free and fair election, we witnessed a human tragedy
yesterday:  the once beautiful town of Kuito in ruins, not a
building standing that had gone unmarked by rifle or mortar
fire; a field where 2,000 people in search of food instead
met death in a crossfire; acres and acres of once-productive
farmland strewn with landmines that make it unusable; and
camps where thousands of the displaced anxiously await word
that they can again go home.

Those scenes provide the most dramatic reason why we are
helping Africa nurture and sustain its democratic
institutions.  In fiscal year 1994, we increased our funding
for democratic elections and institutions in  Africa to $119
million from $5 million the previous year.  We also intend
to continue our support of private groups like the National
Endowment for Democracy and the African-American Institute,
which have played critical roles in promoting democracy and
monitoring elections.

We should also consider how best to apply pressure on
remaining autocratic states:  by halting aid, suspending
debt renegotiation, imposing trade sanctions, and denying
visas or freezing assets of high-level officials with proven
records of corruption or human rights violations.

Enlarging the world's community of democracies has, in fact,
become a central pillar of our foreign policy on every
continent.  The United States promotes democracy not only
because of altruism, but because it is in our national
interest.  We support democracy because elections provide a
peaceful way to change; because it is the best way the world
has found to protect and advance basic human rights; because
the political freedoms of democracy inevitably are the
natural, inevitable partners of economic freedoms that give
all people the chance to get ahead; and because democracy is
contagious:  When it takes hold in one nation, its neighbors
are more likely to follow.

I am convinced that democracy will find deep roots on this
continent because the African people have tasted democracy,
and every day they are proving the Afro-pessimists wrong.  I
am convinced because the institutions of democracy have
found their roots in capitals and towns from Cotonou to
Capetown.  And I am convinced because democracy is so much
more than a constitution or adherence to the rule of law; it
is a way of life that knows no borders, that no boundary can
block, and that no ocean can divide.  It is rooted in the
human spirit--a spirit that all of us, African and American,
do share.  (###)



ARTICLE 2

Honoring the Life and Legacy Of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Secretary Christopher
Remarks at a State Department reception honoring Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr., Washington, DC, January 9, 1995

Mrs. King, members of the diplomatic community,
distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:  Tonight, it is
my pleasure to welcome you to the Department of State to
honor the life and legacy of one of this nation's greatest
heroes, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  We are also here to
salute Coretta Scott King for her remarkable work on behalf
of civil rights, human rights, and social justice.

A preacher, a scholar, an organizer, and above all a leader,
Martin Luther King challenged America to fulfill its
promise.  He lifted the lives of men and women of every
color and creed.  Through the force of his integrity and his
courage, he altered this nation's destiny.  The shots at a
Memphis motel ended his life, but they could not silence his
message or stifle his cause.

Dr. King was the youngest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize
and the second, after Ralph Bunche, to emerge from the
African-American community.  The experience of Americans
growing up with racial discrimination brought to the fore
some of the greatest leaders our nation has produced--people
who left their mark not only on the United States, but on
the world.  None of them has had an influence to match that
of Dr. King.

People around the world have been inspired by his example.
In South Africa, in Haiti, in Northern Ireland, and in the
Middle East, non-violence is proving its power.  We have not
eradicated war, tyranny, violence, or intolerance, but a
higher standard has been established by the struggles of
millions of people for peace, democracy, and understanding.

In public office and as a private citizen, I have spent a
good part of my life working to try to help build a more
just and inclusive society, as have most of the
distinguished people in this audience.  I make no great
claims for what I have achieved, but I can claim to have
been inspired by Dr. King's words and by his "abiding faith
in America."  Like so many of you, I was moved by his deeds
and motivated by his selfless example.

Dr. King gave his life for the cause of brotherhood among
races and peoples and nations.  He believed passionately in
the strength of multi-racial and multi-ethnic democracy.

If Dr. King were alive today, he would urge us not to become
complacent.  As he wrote more than 30 years ago from the
Birmingham jail:  "Human progress never rolls in on wheels
of inevitability. . . .  We must use time creatively, in the
knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right."  To
honor his memory, we must move beyond reflection to action.
"Make a career of humanity.," Dr. King said, "and you will
make a greater person of yourself, a greater nation of your
country, and a finer world to live in."

Coretta Scott King, too, has made an invaluable
contribution.  Along with her husband, she used her
extraordinary voice and courageous deeds to uplift and
educate this nation.  And after his death, she dedicated
herself to completing his work.  Heading a march in Memphis
the day before Dr. King's funeral, she displayed the
strength, dignity, and courage to become a leader in her own
right.  She challenged the crowd to go forward, to carry on.
For, as she has written, "Freedom is never really won.  You
earn it and win it in every generation."  America is
committed to the unending struggle for freedom--in our
country and around the world. (###)



ARTICLE 3

U.S. Response to Recent Canadian   Trade-Related Decisions
Statement released by the Office of  the U.S. Trade
Representative, Washington, DC, December 22, 1994.

The Government of Canada has announced decisions regarding
broadcasting, magazine publishing, and the reform of
domestic copyright laws which directly affect and adversely
discriminate against U.S. interests.  USTR, in close
consultation with U.S. industry, is examining all of its
options, including retaliation options, to appropriately
respond to these unacceptable developments.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication
Commission (CRTC) decision to evict Country Music Television
(CMT) on January 1, 1995--after 10 years of developing the
country music television market in Canada--amounts to
nothing less than a confiscation of CMT's business and will
reflect negatively on Canada as a safe and secure place to
invest.  CMT is being replaced by a new, directly
competitive, Canadian-owned service.  Earlier this week, the
Federal Court of Canada denied CMT's appeal from the CRTC
decision on the narrow issue of whether or not CMT was
granted due process.

The CRTC decision also compromises the interests of Canadian
country music artists and performers who, through CMT's
worldwide showcase, have been broadcast throughout Canada,
the United States, Europe, and Asia and would soon have been
seen in Latin America.  Unless the government acts quickly,
Canadian artists' access to this global audience will be
threatened.  CMT has now appealed to Prime Minister Jean
Chretien to have the Government of Canada review the CRTC
decision, particularly in light of its potentially negative
implications for Canada's trade and investment climate.
Ambassador Kantor has also written Trade Minister MacLaren,
strongly and urgently requesting the government to reverse
this decision, eliminate this discriminatory CRTC policy,
and to allow all broadcast services to compete fairly in the
Canadian market.

In addition, the Government of Canada today announced that
it will seek legislation to implement an 80% tax on the
advertising revenue of so- called "split-run" editions of
foreign magazines published in Canada.  The clear intent of
this legislation is to prevent the further publication of
Sports Illustrated Canada, despite the strong support it
enjoys from Canadian readers.  The tax will not only affect
Sports Illustrated Canada, but also any such future split-
run editions of foreign publications.

The Canadian Government also has announced that it will seek
legislation to establish a public performance right for
record producers and performers and a levy on the sale of
blank audio tapes.  The revenues collected from these
programs are intended to compensate performers and producers
for the performance and home-taping of their works in
Canada.  The United States would be extremely concerned if
such legislation were to deny U.S. performers and producers
their fair share of these revenues.  Rather than being
distributed to U.S. performers and producers, these
revenues, we have been led to believe, may be given to
Canadian performers and producers to subsidize their
operations.  This treatment would be particularly
unacceptable in light of the fact that Canadian performers
and producers are granted their fair share of similar
revenues in the United States.

The U.S. Government sees these developments as concrete
evidence of an increasing and disturbing trend in Canada
toward the implementation of policies that are intended to
protect Canadian industry by discriminating against
legitimate U.S. broadcasting, publishing, and copyright
interests in Canada.  In an era of rapidly changing
communication technologies and the development of the
information superhighway, it is difficult to understand the
Government of Canada's implementing such policies, which are
directly contrary to the global trend toward liberalization
and cooperation in these sectors.

Representatives of the U.S. Government will be in direct
communication with their Canadian counterparts in the days
and weeks ahead in an effort to persuade Canada of the
necessity to alter this unacceptable course of action.
(###)



ARTICLE 4

Special 301 Investigation Into China's IPR Enforcement
Practices
Fact Sheet released by the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative, Washington, DC, December 31, 1994.

On June 30, 1994, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Mickey
Kantor identified China as a Priority Foreign Country under
the 1974 Trade Act and immediately initiated a Special 301
investigation into China's intellectual property rights
(IPR) enforcement practices.  Under the statute, the
investigation runs for as long as six months.  At the end of
the six-month investigation--in this instance, December 31,
1994--the USTR must make a determination whether China's IPR
enforcement policies and practices are unreasonable and
constitute a burden on or restrict U.S. commerce.

Ambassador Kantor has made an initial determination that
China's IPR enforcement policies and practices are
unreasonable and constitute a burden on or restrict U.S.
commerce and as part of his response has, at the direction
of the President, ordered the legally required publication
of a proposed list of Chinese products to which tariffs of
100% would be attached.  On February 4, 1995, he will make a
final determination.  If it is negative and China has not
agreed to address U.S. intellectual property rights
concerns, he will order publication of a final list and
mandate a date by which the list will become effective.

The List

The list was submitted to the Federal Register on December
30 and is comprised of $2.8 billion of Chinese imports to
the United States.  The list, from which a final list will
be selected, also comprises leading Chinese exports to the
United States, including electronics, footwear, toys, and
other products.  In accordance with the statutory
requirements, the public has 30 days within which to comment
on the list and on the USTR's proposed determination.  In
addition to receiving written comments, the USTR held public
hearings at the White House Conference Center on  January 24-
25, 1995.

The Negotiations

Overall, China has made the changes in its legislation
required by the 1992 U.S.-China Memorandum of Understanding
on Intellectual Property Rights but has not lived up to its
obligation under the agreement to enforce its laws and
regulations.  While China's legal IPR regime as a whole has
improved greatly since the MOU was signed, enforcement of
intellectual property rights has been essentially absent.

Today, IPR piracy in China is rampant.  U.S. industries
estimate that piracy of copyrighted works alone reaches at
least $1 billion annually, with piracy of trademarks and
patented products adding significantly to that total.  Among
the largest and most obvious offenders in China are
producers of U.S.-copyrighted CDs, laser discs, and CD-ROMs,
who operate 29 CD factories, largely, in south and central
China.  With an annual production capacity exceeding 75
million in a domestic market that has a capacity of 5
million, most of the pirated CDs, LDs, and CD-ROMs are
destined for export.  Such products are now found in Hong
Kong, Southeast Asia, and, increasingly, the Americas.

Piracy of other audiovisual works, particularly
audiocassettes and videos in China, is almost 100%, with
little evidence of effective controls on such piracy to
date.  Piracy of other cutting-edge U.S.-copyrighted
products, particularly computer software, is about 94%--and
100% in CD-ROMs, where no U.S. computer software has been
licensed legally for production in China.  The
administrative apparatus in China for policing copyright
piracy is extremely weak, with National Copyright
Administration offices in fewer than a majority of China's
provinces, and with few qualified personnel and no real
authority to take effective action against offenders.  The
courts have yet to yield substantial judgments in civil
cases against Chinese defendants.

Piracy of trademarks also is rampant, especially in south
China, and enforcement, while effective in some locales, is
sporadic.  China currently fails to protect well-known marks
or to offer adequate and effective protection of service
marks and other U.S. trademarks.

Negotiations have been underway with China on IPR
enforcement for 18 months, including 6 months under the
Special 301 investigation.  The President, members of the
Cabinet, and high-level U.S. Government officials have
expressed concern at the highest levels in China about the
prevalence of piracy and the damage that it does to U.S.
economic interests.  At the negotiating level, eight rounds
of negotiations were held in 1994, including four since the
Special 301 investigation was initiated.

The last round of talks were suspended in Beijing in early
December 1994.  China's IPR improvement actions to date can
be characterized by small steps with little adequate follow
through.  For example, on July 5, China amended its criminal
code to include criminal penalties for copyright
infringement but has not initiated prosecutions against any
obvious offenders.  China's Supreme Court has yet to issue
an interpretation of the statute, making prosecution
virtually impossible under China's legal system.  China also
has launched sporadic raids since last Spring against IPR
offenders, but raids generally have been aimed at retailers.
Despite the open and obvious nature of copyright piracy,
there have been no major raids on manufacturers--especially
the CD plants in south China.  To its credit, China formed a
ministerial-level task force and subsidiary task forces in
17 provinces and municipalities, but the task forces have
not yet been given powers to take action.  (###)



ARTICLE 5

Treaty Actions

Multilateral

Finance
Articles of agreement of the International Finance
Corporation.  Done at Washington May 25, 1955.  Entered into
force July 20, 1956.  TIAS 3620; 7 UST 2197.
Acceptance:  Tajikistan, Dec. 2, 1994.

Patents--Plants
International convention for the protection of new varieties
of plants of Dec. 2, 1961, as revised.  Done at Geneva Oct.
23, 1978.  Entered into force Nov. 8, 1981.  TIAS 10199; 22
UST 2703.
Accession:  Argentina, Nov. 25, 1994.


Bilateral

Cameroon
Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling or
refinancing of certain debts owed to, guaranteed by, or
insured by the United States Government and its agencies,
with annexes.  Signed at Yaounde Sept. 12, 1994.  Entered
into force Dec. 5, 1994.

Congo
Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling or
refinancing of certain debts owed to, guaranteed by, or
insured by the United States Government and its agency, with
annexes.  Signed at Brazzaville Nov. 21, 1994.  Enters into
force following signature and receipt by Congo of written
notice from the U.S. that all necessary domestic legal
requirements have been fulfilled.

Gabon
Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling or
refinancing of certain debts owed to, guaranteed by, or
insured by the United States Government and its agencies,
with annexes.  Signed at Libreville Sept. 2, 1994.  Entered
into force Nov. 28, 1994.

Jordan
Memorandum of understanding concerning scientific and
technical cooperation in the earth sciences, with annexes.
Signed at Reston and Amman Apr. 6 and Sept. 28, 1994.
Entered into force Sept. 28, 1994.

Lithuania
Agreement relating to the employment of dependents of
official government employees.  Effected by exchange of
notes at Washington Nov. 21 and Dec. 8, 1994.  Entered into
force Dec. 8, 1994.

Mexico
Memorandum of understanding concerning scientific and
technical cooperation in the earth and mapping sciences.
Signed at Mexico Nov. 30, 1994.  Entered into force Nov. 30,
1994.

Palau
Agreement concerning relations under the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations.  Signed at Washington Dec. 14,
1994.  Enters into force upon notification by both parties
that all domestic requirements have been satisfied.

Poland
Memorandum of understanding on science and engineering
cooperation, with annex.  Signed at Washington Oct. 26,
1994.  Entered into force Oct. 26, 1994.

Russia
Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling of
certain debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States
Government, with annexes.  Signed at Moscow Oct. 25, 1994.
Entered into force Dec. 19, 1994.

Ukraine
Program grant agreement for energy sector reform.  Signed at
Washington Nov. 21, 1994.  Entered into force Nov. 21, 1994.
(###)

[END OF DISPATCH VOL 6 NO 2]

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