U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 6, NUMBER 4, JANUARY 23, 1995
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:
1.  Principles and Opportunities For American Foreign Policy
-- Secretary Christopher
2.  America's Interest in Stabilizing Mexico's Economy --
President Clinton
3.  The United States and Russia:  A Maturing Partnership --
Secretary Christopher, Russian Foreign Minister Kozyrev
4.  New Ambassadors
5.  Agreement on Cambodian Genocide Justice Program
6.  What's in Print -- Foreign Relations Of the United
States



ARTICLE 1

Principles and Opportunities For American Foreign Policy
Secretary Christopher
Address before the John F. Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, January 20,
1995

America stands today at the threshold of a new century and
faces a challenge that recalls the opportunities and dangers
that confronted us at the end of the First and Second World
Wars.  Then, as now, two distinct paths lay before us:
either to claim victory and withdraw, or to provide American
leadership to build a more peaceful, free, and prosperous
world.  After World War I, our leaders chose the first path
and we and the world paid a terrible price.  No one will
dispute that after the Second World War, Harry Truman,
George Marshall, Dean Acheson, Arthur Vandenberg--and, most
of all, the American people--wisely chose the other path.

That same farsighted commitment to American leadership and
engagement must guide our foreign policy today.  The Soviet
empire is gone.  No great power views any other as an
immediate military threat.  And the triumph of democracy and
free markets is transforming countries from Europe to Latin
America and from Asia to Africa.  We now have a remarkable
opportunity to shape a world conducive to American interests
and consistent with American values--a world of open
societies and open markets.

In the past year, we helped persuade Ukraine, Kazakhstan,
and Belarus to give up nuclear weapons on their territory.
Nuclear warheads and missiles from these states and Russia
are being dismantled.  Russian troops are out of the Baltic
States and Germany.  We have begun to build a new European
security architecture.  We helped to launch regional
security dialogues in Asia.  We negotiated an Agreed
Framework with North Korea that freezes and will ultimately
eliminate its nuclear weapons program.  We reached an
agreement with China that will sharply limit its missile
exports.  And we stopped Iraqi aggression against Kuwait
dead in its tracks.

We also contributed to historic progress in resolving
conflict, backing democracy, and promoting development in
countries around the world.  We fostered agreements between
Israel and the PLO, and the peace treaty between Israel and
Jordan.  We restored the democratically elected government
in Haiti--and we are going to do our part to make sure that
achievement endures.  In long-troubled regions like Northern
Ireland, South Africa, and Cambodia, the United States
contributed to extraordinary advances toward peace and
reconciliation.  And at the historic Cairo Conference, we
restored American leadership on the critical issues of
population and development.

Finally, we have taken giant steps to build the open trading
system of the next century, with America at its hub.  We won
bipartisan support for the GATT agreement and led the way
for its approval around the world.  We helped to forge
commitments to eliminate trade barriers in the Asia-Pacific
region by 2020 and to negotiate free trade in our own
hemisphere by 2005.  And we made important progress in
widening access to Japan's markets.

These are significant accomplishments.  But we must not rest
on our laurels.  Aggression, tyranny, and intolerance still
undermine political stability and economic development in
vital regions of the world.  Americans face growing threats
from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
terrorism, and international crime.  And a number of
problems that once seemed quite distant, such as
environmental degradation, unsustainable population growth,
and mass movements of refugees, now pose immediate threats
to emerging democracies and to global prosperity.

In meeting these opportunities and dealing with these
dangers, our foreign policy is driven by several principles.

First, America must continue to engage and to lead.

Second, we must maintain and strengthen our cooperative
relationships with the world's most powerful nations.

Third, it is essential that we adapt and build institutions
that will promote economic and security cooperation.

Fourth, we must continue to support democracy and human
rights because it serves our interests and our ideals.

The imperative of American leadership, the first principle
of our strategy, is a central lesson of this century.  It is
sobering to imagine what the world would have been like
without it in the last two years alone.  We might now have
four nuclear states in the former Soviet Union instead of
one.  We might have a full-throttle nuclear program in North
Korea.  We might have no GATT agreement or NAFTA.  We might
have brutal dictators still terrorizing Haiti.  And we might
very well have Iraqi troops back in Kuwait.

As a global power with global interests, the United States
must not retreat from its leadership role.  It is our
responsibility to ensure that the post-Cold War momentum
toward greater freedom and prosperity is not reversed by
neglect or by short-sighted indifference.  Only the United
States has the vision and the capacity to consolidate these
gains.

As our recent accomplishments suggest, American leadership
requires that we be ready to back our diplomacy with
credible threats of force.  And to this end, President
Clinton is determined that the U.S. military will remain the
most powerful and effective fighting force in the world--as
it certainly is right now.

When our vital interests are at stake, we must be prepared
to act alone.  Our willingness to do so is often the key to
effective joint action.  The recent debate between the
proponents of unilateral and multilateral action assumes a
false choice.  Multilateralism is a means, not an end.
Sometimes, by mobilizing the support of other nations, by
leveraging our power and leading through alliances and
institutions, we will achieve better results at lower cost
in human life and national treasure.  That is a sensible
bargain I know the American people support.

Leadership also means focusing international attention on
emerging global problems.  That is why we have given new and
enhanced attention to global issues such as the environment,
population, and sustainable development.  They deserve a
prominent place on our foreign policy agenda, and as long as
I am Secretary of State, they will have it.

Just as our nation must always maintain its military
readiness, so we must be ready to advance our political and
economic interests around the world through diplomacy.  That
requires highly trained men and women.  It requires modern
communications technology.  And it requires adequate
resources.

The second tenet of our strategy is the central importance
of constructive relations with the world's most powerful
nations: our Western European allies, Japan, China, and
Russia.  These nations possess the political, economic, or
military capability to affect--for good or for ill--the well-
being of every American.  The relatively cooperative
relations that these countries now have with each other is
unprecedented in this century, but it is not irreversible.

Our strategy toward the great powers begins with Western
Europe and Japan.  We must revitalize our alliances with
this democratic core.  We must also seize the opportunities
to build constructive relations with China and Russia,
countries that were not too long ago our fiercest
adversaries.  Both are undergoing momentous, though very
different, transformations that will directly affect
American interests.

Our partnership with Japan is the linchpin of our policy
toward Asia, the world's most dynamic region.  This
Administration has placed Asia at the core of our long-term
foreign policy approach.  Realizing President Clinton's
vision of a stable and prosperous Pacific Community will
continue to be a top priority.  Asia figures prominently in
many of our central areas of emphasis for 1995.

It is also imperative that we reinforce our security and
political ties with Japan--as well as with South Korea and
our other treaty allies in the Pacific.  It is equally
essential that the strength of our economic ties with Japan
matches the overall strength of our relationship.  During
this year that marks the fiftieth anniversary of the end of
World War II, we will highlight and heighten our close
cooperation on regional and global issues--while continuing
to press for greater access to Japanese markets.

Our success in Asia also requires pursuing constructive
relations with China, consistent with our overall interests.
We welcome China's participation in regional security and
economic organizations.  We support its accession to the
World Trade Organization on proper terms.  And we will work
hard to gain its cooperation with global non-proliferation
regimes.  In China's own interest, and consistent with its
increasing role in the world community, it needs to
demonstrate greater respect for human rights and the rule of
law.  China's recent crackdown on dissent is disturbing and
incompatible with realizing the full potential of our
bilateral relations.

Our relationship with Russia is central to America's
security.  It has been a key foreign policy issue for this
Administration.  Its importance is reflected in my meetings
in Geneva this week with Andrei Kozyrev, where for more than
eight hours we discussed a broad array of common challenges
and concerns.  The United States has an enormous stake in
the outcome of Russia's continuing transformation.  A
stable, democratic Russia is vital to a secure Europe, to
resolve regional conflicts, and to fight proliferation.  An
unstable Russia that reverts to authoritarianism or slides
into chaos would be a disaster--an immediate threat to its
neighbors and, with its huge nuclear stockpile, once again a
strategic threat to the United States.

That is why the Clinton Administration has been unwavering
in its support for Russian reform.  Despite the setbacks
that we knew Russia might encounter during this historic and
difficult transition, our steady policy of engagement and
cooperation has paid off for every American--from reducing
the nuclear threat to advancing peace in the Middle East.
That is why President Clinton reaffirmed last week in
Cleveland his determination to maintain our substantial
assistance for democratic and economic reform in Russia.

We are deeply concerned about the conflict in Chechnya.  It
is a terrible human tragedy.  The way Russia has used
military force there has been excessive and it threatens to
have a corrosive effect on the future of Russian democracy.
That is why I emphasized so strongly to Foreign Minister
Kozyrev this week that the conflict must end and that a
process of reconciliation must begin, taking into account
the views of the people of Chechnya and the need to provide
them with humanitarian assistance.  What we do not want to
see is a Russia in a military quagmire that erodes reform
and tends to isolate it in the international community.

The third principle of our strategy is that if the historic
movement toward open societies and open markets is to
endure, we must adapt and revitalize the institutions of
global and regional cooperation.  After World War II, the
generation of Truman, Marshall, and Acheson built the great
institutions that gave structure and strength to the common
enterprise of Western democracies:  promoting peace and
economic growth.  Our challenge now is to modernize and to
revitalize those great institutions--NATO, the UN, the IMF
and the World Bank, and the OECD, among others.  And we must
extend their benefits and obligations to new democracies and
market economies, particularly in Central and Eastern
Europe.

At the President's initiative, our G-7 partners agreed that
in Halifax next July, we will chart a strategy to adapt the
post-war economic institutions to a more integrated post-
Cold War period.  We are also helping regional institutions
and structures such as the Organization of American States,
ASEAN, and the Organization of African Unity to promote
peace and democratic development.  As we go forward into the
next century, we will find ourselves relying more and more
on these regional institutions.

As a fourth principle, this Administration recognizes the
importance of democracy and human rights as a fundamental
part of our foreign policy.  Our commitment is consistent
with American ideals.  It also rests on a sober assessment
of our long-term interest in a world where stability is
reinforced by accountability and disputes are mediated by
dialogue; a world where information flows freely and the
rule of law protects not only political rights but the
essential elements of free market economies.

In the new year--in 1995--as we follow these basic
underlying principles, I intend to focus on five key areas
that offer particularly significant opportunities:
advancing the most open global trading system in history;
developing a new European security order; helping achieve a
comprehensive peace in the Middle East; combating the spread
of weapons of mass destruction; and fighting international
crime, narcotics, and terrorism.

Open Trade

First, we must sustain the momentum we have generated toward
the more open global and regional trade that is so vital to
American exports and good jobs for Americans.  A core
premise of our domestic and foreign policies is that our
economic strength at home and abroad are mutually
reinforcing.  I believe that history will judge this
emphasis to be a distinctive imprint and a lasting legacy of
the Clinton Administration.

We will implement the Uruguay Round and ensure that the new
World Trade Organization upholds vital trade rules and
disciplines.  We will work with Japan and our other APEC
partners to develop a blueprint for achieving open trade and
investment in the Asia-Pacific region.  We will begin to
implement the Summit of the Americas Action Plan.  And we
will also begin to negotiate Chile's accession to NAFTA.

Let me add a word about something on all our minds today:
Mexico, and our effort to address the economic crisis of
confidence in that country.  The President has demonstrated
vision and leadership in assembling the package of support
necessary to help Mexico get back on track.  The package of
loan guarantees has the backing not only of the
Administration, but the bipartisan Congressional leadership
and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, as well as
the international financial institutions.  This package
contains tough but fair conditions to protect U.S. interests
and to ensure the guarantees are used wisely and well.

As the President has said, we should resist the temptation
to load up this package with conditions unrelated to the
economic thrust of our effort.  Let me say this to the
Congress and the American people:  This package is in the
overriding interest of the United States.  It should be
acted upon quickly and favorably.

European Security Architecture

In our second area of opportunity, we will take concrete
steps to build a new European security architecture.  We
understand that deep political, military, economic, and
cultural ties make Europe's security and prosperity
essential to ours.  It has been so for at least half a
century.  Our efforts will focus on maintaining strong
relations with Western Europe, consolidating the new
democracies of Central Europe and the former Soviet Union,
and engaging Russia as a responsible partner.

NATO remains the anchor of American engagement in Europe and
the linchpin of transatlantic security.  NATO has always
been far more than a transitory response to a temporary
threat.  It has been a guarantor of European democracy and a
force for European stability.  That is why its mission has
endured, and that is why its benefits are so attractive to
Europe's new democracies.

In earlier years, NATO welcomed new members who shared its
purposes and who could add to its strength.  Under American
leadership, the alliance agreed last December to begin a
steady, deliberate process that will lead to further
expansion.  We have already begun to examine with our allies
the process and objectives of expansion.  We intend to share
our conclusions with the members of the Partnership for
Peace by the end of this year.

As we move toward NATO expansion, we will also bolster other
key elements of the new European security architecture:  a
vigorous program for the Partnership for Peace, which now
includes 24 nations; a strengthened Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe; and a process for
enhancing the NATO-Russia relationship.

The tragic war in Bosnia underscores the importance of
building an effective new architecture for conflict
prevention and resolution in Europe.  Together with our
partners in the Contact Group, we are seeking a negotiated
solution in Bosnia because only a negotiated solution has
any chance of lasting and of preventing a wider war.  What
we must not do is make the situation worse by unilaterally
lifting the arms embargo.  We have always believed that the
embargo is unfair.  But going it alone would lead to the
withdrawal of UNPROFOR and an escalation of violence.  It
would Americanize the conflict and lead others to abandon
the sanctions on Serbia.  It would undermine the authority
of all UN Security Council Resolutions, including
resolutions that impose sanctions on Iraq and Libya.

Middle East Peace and Security

Our third area of opportunity is advancing peace and
security in the Middle East.  We have witnessed a profound
transformation in the landscape of the Arab-Israeli conflict-
-one that would simply not have been imaginable just a few
years ago.

Of course, there are still many difficulties.  But despite
those difficulties, we must not let this remarkable
opportunity slip away.  On the Israeli-Palestinian track, we
must continue to make progress in the implementation of the
Declaration of Principles.  I was encouraged by yesterday's
meeting between Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat and
by the serious efforts both sides are making to work out the
complex issues in the next phase, where there will be self-
government for the West Bank.  Each side must see the
benefits of peace.  Israelis must gain security.
Palestinians must achieve genuine control over the political
and economic decisions that affect their lives.  Each must
build the trust and confidence of the other--especially at a
time when those opposed to peace seek to destroy mutual
confidence.

The negotiations between Israel and Syria are entering a
very crucial phase.  The parties are serious and some
progress has been made in narrowing the gaps.  If a
breakthrough is to be achieved in the next few months,
critical decisions must be made and the process must be
accelerated.  I assure you that President Clinton and I will
do all we can to support these efforts.

As we promote peace in the Middle East, we must also deal
with the enemies of peace.  Iraq's massing of troops at the
Kuwaiti border last October underscored the danger Iraq
poses to regional security and peace.  It is my conviction,
and that of all the leaders with whom I have talked in the
Middle East, that Saddam Hussein's regime cannot be trusted.
Full compliance with all relevant UN obligations is the only
possible basis on which to consider any relaxation of
sanctions.

Another rogue state, Iran, now leads rejectionist efforts to
kill the chances for peace.  It directs and materially
supports the operations of Hezbollah, Hamas, and others who
commit atrocities in places such as Tel Aviv and Buenos
Aires.  It sows terror and subversion across the Arab world.
Those industrialized nations that continue to provide
concessionary credits to Iran cannot escape the consequences
of their actions:  They make it easier for Iran to use its
resources to sponsor terrorism and undermine the prospects
for peace.

Today Iran is engaged in a crash effort to develop nuclear
weapons.  We are deeply concerned that some nations are
prepared to cooperate with Iran in the nuclear field.  I
will not mince words:  These efforts risk the security of
the entire Middle East.  The United States places the
highest priority on denying Iran a nuclear weapons
capability.  We expect the members of the Security Council,
who have special responsibilities in this area, to join with
us.

Non-proliferation

Our fourth area of emphasis for 1995 is to take specific
steps to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction and
their means of delivery.  With the demise of the Soviet
Union, the proliferation of these weapons poses the
principal direct threat to the survival of the United States
and our key allies.  Our global and regional strategies for
1995 comprise the most ambitious non-proliferation agenda in
history.

The centerpiece of our global strategy is the indefinite and
unconditional extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), which is up for renewal this year.  The treaty's
greatest achievement is invisible--weapons not built and
material not diverted.  But the impact of the treaty is
clear:  The nightmare of a profusion of nuclear weapons
states has not come to pass.  I think that history will
record that the NPT is one of the most important treaties of
all time.

Our global strategy also includes a moratorium on nuclear
testing as we negotiate a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; a
global ban on the production of fissile materials for
building nuclear weapons; ratification of the Chemical
Weapons Convention; and strengthening the Biological Weapons
Convention.

With the agreements President Clinton signed last December
in Budapest, we can now begin to implement the START I
nuclear reduction treaty.  Later this month, I will be the
Administration's lead witness in urging the Senate to
promptly ratify START II.  Finally, we will continue to
support the Nunn-Lugar program, which has been so important
in providing the funds to help dismantle former Soviet
nuclear weapons and which counters would-be nuclear
smugglers by improving security at vulnerable facilities.

When this Administration took office, North Korea had an
active nuclear program.  Left unchallenged, it was poised to
produce hundreds of kilograms of plutonium that could be
used in nuclear weapons.  The stage was being set for a
crisis that would imperil security throughout Northeast Asia
and undermine our entire global non-proliferation effort.

Last fall, the United States concluded an Agreed Framework
with North Korea that freezes its nuclear program, provides
for its dismantlement, and puts the whole issue on the road
to resolution.  The framework has the strong support of
Japan and South Korea--key allies whose security it will
protect and who will finance most of its implementation.  Of
course, we are under no illusions about North Korea.
Implementation of the framework will be based upon
verification, not trust.  We are determined to ensure that
North Korea fulfills every obligation at every step of the
way.

Those who oppose the framework with North Korea have a heavy
responsibility to offer an effective alternative that
protects our interests and the interests of our allies in
Northeast Asia.  They have not done so.

We also have an aggressive strategy with respect to
conventional arms and missiles.  We will seek to broaden the
Missile Technology Control Regime.  We will push for a
global agreement to control the export of antipersonnel
landmines--one of the real scourges of the world--and work
bilaterally to remove the millions of mines still in place.
We are also seeking to establish a COCOM successor regime,
which will restrain trade in arms and sensitive technologies
to the pariah states.

Crime, Terrorism, and Drugs

Turning to our fifth area of emphasis, international
terrorists, criminals, and drug traffickers pose direct
threats to our people and to our nation's interests.  They
ruin countless lives, destroy property, and siphon away
productive resources.  They sap the strength of
industrialized societies and threaten the survival of
emerging democracies.

That is why in 1995 we plan to implement a comprehensive
strategy to combat these threats.  The State Department is
working on this plan in close and urgent cooperation with
the Departments of Justice and Treasury and other law
enforcement agencies.  The strategy on international crime
and terrorism will include several vital steps:

--  First, we will insist that other countries fulfill their
obligations either to extradite or prosecute international
fugitives and ensure that convicted criminals serve tough
sentences;

--  Second, we will work with other governments to develop
and implement tough asset-forfeiture and money laundering
laws to attack international criminals in a vulnerable place-
-their pocketbook.  Unfortunately, many countries have very
weak laws as far as asset forfeiture and money laundering
go.

--  Third, we will toughen standards for obtaining U.S.
visas to make it more difficult for international criminals
to gain entry to this country;

--  Fourth, we will propose legislation to combat alien
smuggling and immigration fraud by providing increased
penalties and more effective investigative tools; and,

--  Fifth, the Clinton Administration is planning new steps
to expand the use of U.S. law against terrorists and against
funding for their worldwide activities.

I have discussed five key areas of opportunity for American
foreign policy in 1995.  I also want to underscore that our
foreign policy will continue to address a whole range of
issues important to our interests, such as promoting
stability and democracy in Asia, Latin America, and Africa;
meeting humanitarian needs around the world; fighting
environmental degradation; and addressing rapid population
growth.

As I conclude, let me note that since my first week in
office, I have consulted closely with both parties in
Congress on every important issue on our agenda.  We have
gained bipartisan backing for key objectives of our foreign
policy, including our approach on the Middle East peace
process; our landmark trade agreements, such as NAFTA, GATT,
and APEC; and denuclearization in the former Soviet Union.

The recent elections changed the balance of power between
the parties.  But they did not change--indeed they enhanced-
-our responsibility to cooperate on a bipartisan basis in
foreign affairs.  The election was not a license to lose
sight of our nation's global interests or to walk away from
our commitments in the world.  Leaders of both parties
understand that well, and I am glad to tell you that my
extensive meetings with the new Republican leadership give
me great confidence that we will be able to sustain the
bipartisan foreign policy that is America's tradition.

Bipartisan cooperation has always been grounded in the
conviction that our nation's enduring interests do not vary
with the times.  President Harry Truman had it right 40
years ago: "Circumstances change," he said, "but the great
issues remain the same--prosperity, welfare, human rights,
effective democracy, and above all, peace."

With the Cold War behind us, the United States has a chance
to build a more secure and integrated world of open
societies and open markets.  We are the world's largest
military and economic power.  Our nation's founding
principles still inspire people all over the world.  We are
blessed with great resources and resolve.  We will continue
to use them with wisdom, with strength, and with the backing
of the American people. (###)



ARTICLE 2

America's Interest in Stabilizing Mexico's Economy
President Clinton
Remarks at the Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC,
January 18, 1995

Thank you very much, Secretary Rubin and Ambassador Kantor.
Ladies and gentlemen:  We wanted to be here today to make
the clearest public case we can for the proposal, which has
been developed by the Administration and the bipartisan
leadership in Congress, for dealing with the present
situation.

We have worked hard with an extraordinary group of people
who have joined forces because all of us realize how
important this proposal is--not only to the people of Mexico
but also to the United States and to our workers.  We are
acting to support the Mexican economy and to protect and
promote the interests of the American people.

As Ambassador Kantor said--and as all of you know very well-
-we live in an increasingly global economy in which people,
products, ideas, and money travel across national borders
with lightning speed.  We've worked hard to help our workers
take advantage of that economy by getting our own economic
house in order, by expanding opportunities for education and
training, and by expanding the frontiers of trade and doing
what we could to make sure there was more free and fair
trade for Americans.  We know, and all of you know, that
those efforts are creating high-wage jobs for our people
that would otherwise not be there.

Our goal--our vision--must be to create a global economy of
democracies with free markets, not government-run economies;
democracies that practice free and fair trade and that give
themselves a chance to develop and become more prosperous
while giving our own people the opportunity they deserve to
reap the benefits of high-quality, high-productivity
American labor, in terms of more jobs and higher incomes.

We have pursued this goal with vision and with discipline,
through NAFTA, through the Summit of the Americas, and
through a number of other international endeavors, such as
GATT and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group.  But
we have pursued it especially here in our own hemisphere,
where we are blessed to see every nation but one governed in
a democratic fashion and a genuine commitment to free market
economics and to more open trade.

We have to know that the future on this path is plainly the
right one, but as with any path, it cannot be free of
difficulties.  We have to make decisions based on a
determined devotion to the idea of what we are pursuing over
the long run.  We know that, given the volatility of the
economic situation in the globe now, there can be
developments that for the moment are beyond the control of
any of our trading partners--themselves developing nations--
which could threaten this vision and threaten the interests
of the American people.

Mexico's present financial difficulty is a very good case in
point.  Of course, it's a danger to Mexico, but as has
already been said, it is plainly also a danger to the
economic future of the United States.

NAFTA helped us dramatically increase our exports of goods
and services.  It helped us create more than 100,000 jobs
here at home through increased exports to Mexico.  But over
the long run, it means even more.  It means even more
opportunities with Mexico, it means the integration of the
rest of Latin America and the Caribbean into an enormous
basket of opportunities for us in the future.  We cannot let
this momentary difficulty cause us to go backward now.

That is why--together with the congressional leadership--I
am working so hard to urge Congress to pass an important and
necessary package to back private-sector loans to Mexico
with a United States Government guarantee.  Let me say, I am
very gratified by the leadership shown in the Congress on
both sides of the aisle.

By helping to put Mexico back on track, this package will
support American exports, secure our jobs, help us to better
protect our borders, and safeguard democracy and economic
stability in our hemisphere--because America and American
workers are more secure when we support a strong and growing
market for our exports; because America and American workers
are more secure when we help the Mexican people see the
prospect of decent jobs and a secure future at home through
a commitment to free-market economics, political democracy,
and growth over the long term; because we are more secure
when more and more other countries also enjoy the benefits
of democracy and economic opportunity; and, perhaps most
important, over the long run, because we are more secure if
we help Mexico remain a strong and stable model for economic
development around our hemisphere and throughout the world.

If we fail to act, the crisis of confidence in Mexico's
economy could spread to other emerging countries in Latin
America and in Asia--the kinds of markets that buy our goods
and services today and that will buy far more of them in the
future.

Developing these markets is plainly in the interests of the
American people.  We must act to make sure that we maintain
the kind of opportunities now being seized by the Secretary
of Commerce and the delegation of American business leaders
who have had such a successful trip to India.

If you take Mexico, just consider the extraordinary progress
made in recent years.  Mexico erased a budget deficit that
once equaled 15% of its gross domestic product.  It slashed
inflation from 145% a year to single digits.  It sold off
inefficient state enterprises, dramatically reduced its
foreign debt, and opened virtually every market to global
competition.  This is proof that the Mexican Government and
the Mexican people are willing to make decisions that are
good for the long run, even if it entails some short-term
sacrifice for them.  They know where their future,
prosperity, and opportunity lie.

Now Mexico, of course, will have to demonstrate even greater
discipline to work itself out of the current crisis.  Let me
say, though, it is important that we understand what has
happened.  The Secretary of Treasury and I and a lot of
others spent a lot of time trying to make sure we understood
exactly what had happened before we recommended a course of
action.

It is clear that this crisis came about because Mexico
relied too heavily upon short-term foreign loans to pay for
the huge upsurge in its imports from the United States and
from other countries.  A large amount of those debts came
due at a time when, because of the nature of the debts, it
caused a serious cash-flow problem for Mexico, much like a
family that expects to pay for a new home with the proceeds
from the sale of its old house only to have the sale fall
through.

Now, together with the leadership of both houses, our
Administration has forged a plan that makes available United
States Government guarantees to secure private-sector loans
to Mexico.  The leadership in Congress from both sides of
the aisle and the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board
developed this plan with us.  It is something we did
together because we knew it was important--important enough
to the strategic interest of the United States to do it in
lockstep and to urge everyone without regard to party or
region of the country or short-term interests to take the
long view of what is good for America and our working
people.

We all agree that something had to be done.  Now, these
guarantees--it is important to note--are not foreign aid.
They are not a gift.  They are not a bailout.  They are not
United States Government loans.  They will not affect our
current budget situation.  Rather, they are the equivalent
of cosigning a note--a note that Mexico can use to borrow
money on its own account.  Because the guarantees are
clearly not entirely risk-free to the United States, Mexico
will make an advanced payment to us, like an insurance
premium.  No guarantees will be issued until we are
satisfied that Mexico can provide the assured means of
repayment.  As soon as the situation in Mexico is fully
stabilized, we expect Mexico to start borrowing once again
from the private markets without United States Government
guarantees.

The U.S. has extended loans and loan guarantees many, many
times before to many different countries.  In fact, we have
had a loan mechanism in place with Mexico since 1941, and
Mexico has always made good on its obligations.

Now, there will be tough conditions here to make sure that
any private money loaned to Mexico on the basis of our
guarantees is well and wisely used.  Our aim in imposing the
conditions, I want to make clear, is not to micro-manage
Mexico's economy or to infringe in any way on Mexico's
sovereignty, but simply to act responsibly and effectively
so that we can help get Mexico's economic house back in
order.

I know some say we should not get involved.  They say
America has enough trouble at home without worrying about
what is going on somewhere else.  There are others who may
want to get involved in too much detail--to go beyond what
the present situation demands or what is appropriate, but we
must see this for what it is:  This is not simply a
financial problem for Mexico; this is an American challenge.

Mexico is our third-largest trading partner already.  The
livelihoods of thousands and thousands of our workers depend
upon continued strong export growth to Mexico.  That is why
we must reach out and not retreat.

With the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I am asking the
new Congress to cast a vote, therefore, for the loan
guarantee program as a vote for America's workers and
America's future.  It is vital to our interests; it is vital
to our ability to shape the kind of world that I think we
all know we have to have.

No path to the future--let me say again--in a time when many
decisions are beyond the immediate control of any national
government, much less that of a developing nation, no path
to the future can be free of difficulty.  Not every stone in
a long road can be seen from the first step.  But if we are
on the right path, then we must do this.  Our interests
demand it, our values support it, and it is good for our
future.

Let me say again that the coalition of forces supporting
this measure is significant--it may be historic.  The new
Republican leaders in Congress, the leadership of the
Democratic party in Congress, the chairman of the Federal
Reserve Board--why are they doing this?  And I might say, I
was immediately impressed by how quickly every person I
called about this said, clearly, we have to act.  They
instinctively knew the stakes.

Now, in the public debate, questions should be properly
asked and properly answered.  But let us not forget what the
issue is, let us not read too little into this moment or try
to load it up with too many conditions unrelated to the
moment.  The time to act is now.  It is in our interest.  It
is imperative to our future.  I hope all of you will do what
you can to take that message to the Congress and to the
American people.  Thank you very much.  (###)



ARTICLE 3

The United States and Russia:  A Maturing Partnership
Secretary Christopher, Russian Foreign Minister Kozyrev
Opening remarks at a press conference following meetings,
Geneva, Switzerland, January 18, 1995

Foreign Minister Kozyrev.  Let me first of all welcome you
here on the territory of the Russian Mission.  I must say
that yesterday and today we had meetings with the Secretary
of State both in a one-on-one format and also together with
our colleagues--members of our delegation.

I think these meetings confirmed that our partnership is
becoming mature and that it can survive the sincerity and
the businesslike exchange on almost any questions and any
issues.  I think that the warning that President Yeltsin
gave in Budapest regarding the threat of a "cold peace" was
quite timely, and I think it would remain as only a warning.
We will not permit--we will not allow--such a cold peace.  I
think that this is one of the results of our discussions
which we can report to our presidents.

Speaking specifically, I can say that we exchanged
information on various domestic issues--on both sides--which
are of interest to us.  In accordance with the Vancouver and
Moscow Declarations, we agreed that such domestic issues and
problems should not be the cause for division, but rather
for bringing our countries closer in the course of
discussions.

In this context, the Secretary of State raised numerous
concerns and asked questions regarding the situation in
Chechnya.  Although this is a purely domestic affair of the
Russian Federation, we think, still, that it is only natural
to exchange our views with our friends and our partners.
The presidents of our two countries as well as other
presidents stay in contact regarding this issue.  I must say
that our wishes and our concerns coincide on this subject.
We want to reduce the number of civilian victims, and we are
also concerned about the lengthy nature of the situation as
well as about human rights violations, humanitarian aspects,
and so on.  All those issues I also discussed yesterday with
the President of the International Committee of the Red
Cross, Mr.  Sommaruga, and with Mr. Ayala Lasso, the High
Commissioner for Human Rights at the United Nations.

We also have a very good channel--the OSCE--which shows that
we follow the correct road, especially as regards issues of
building a single Europe and various European institutions.
This, by the way, was one of the central items on our agenda-
-that is, a joint search for ways to help build a new
Europe:  how to develop the OSCE, what should be the role of
NATO as one of the European institutions in this regard, and
how we should build our partnership.  I think that the
dialogue on those issues will continue.

Of course, we also discussed a number of international
issues such as Bosnia, the Middle East, and many other
issues, where we can state a significant coincidence in our
principal approaches and our goals.  Of course, sometimes
our opinions differed or our assessments of the situations
differed, but we discussed all those issues quite sincerely.
I think that this meeting will help us in our future
cooperation and interaction as regards both bilateral issues
and various international issues where we cooperate, and
that is on almost every big issue in the world.  I would
also like to use this opportunity to thank the Secretary of
State for the businesslike and friendly atmosphere of our
discussions, especially since the majority of the meetings
took place on the U.S. territory.  I would also like very
much to thank the Ambassador for such kind hospitality.


Secretary Christopher.  As the Foreign Minister said, we
have just completed a very valuable set of talks.  It is
especially important that he and I have a regular channel
such as this one so that we can exchange views, and,
fortunately, our relationship is such that we can have a
very straightforward discussion of matters.

As the Foreign Minister said, this is a maturing
relationship with a very broad range of strategic issues.
These days, our countries are cooperating on a wide range of
issues that are vital to international peace and security.
As in any significant relationship, we will have differences
that must be dealt with honestly and openly.

The tragic situation in Chechnya formed the inevitable
backdrop of our discussions today.  I told the Foreign
Minister that the United States fully supports the principle
of Russia's territorial integrity but that we are extremely
concerned about the price that the war is exacting in terms
of human life, in terms of support of reform, and in terms
of Russia's standing in the world.

Our interest is clear in this matter.  We want to see a
stable, democratic Russia being integrated into the
international community.  What we don't want to see is a
Russia mired in a military quagmire that erodes reform and
tends to isolate Russia internationally.

I reiterated to the Foreign Minister that the conflict must
be brought to an end, and, in that connection, we both hope
that Prime Minister Chernomyrdin's proposal for a cease-fire
will succeed.  It is essential, I believe, that a process of
reconciliation begin as soon as possible--one that takes
into account the interests of all the people of Chechnya in
the context of Russia's territorial integrity.  In the
meantime, everything must be done to expedite the delivery
of humanitarian relief to the war's innocent victims.

The Foreign Minister told me that Russia's aim is to hold
free elections that will allow the people of Chechnya to
determine their own future consistent with the Russian
constitution.  He indicated that in the context of
elections, Russia would cooperate with international
organizations, including consideration of international
observers.  He reaffirmed Russia's readiness to cooperate
with the OSCE mission, which he said could visit Chechnya in
the near future, and, finally, he said that Russia would
provide humanitarian relief and assistance to refugees in
cooperation with the international organization--which he
visited yesterday--in the most appropriate manner.

During the meetings last night and again today, the Foreign
Minister stressed to me that Russia's commitment to
democracy and free markets is unwavering, and, in that
context, I underscored to him President Clinton's
determination to promote the process of Russian reform by
providing U.S. economic assistance.

Turning to other bilateral and global issues, we have an
extremely broad arms control agenda this year, and we have a
deep concern in seeing it advance.  I informed the Foreign
Minister that the United States intends to move forward with
ratification of START II, and I told him that I will be
testifying before the Senate early next month as the
Administration's lead witness on START II.

We agreed that we would work together and with other nations
to seek an unlimited and indefinite extension of the Non-
Proliferation Treaty.  In that connection, I raised some
concerns about the need to ensure that all of our
commitments are met, including obligations under the
Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions, as well as the
bilateral arrangements between us.

As part of our desire to integrate Russia into the key
Western institutions, we outlined a comprehensive vision of
European security that includes an expanded NATO, a
strengthened OSCE, and the development of new and
cooperative relation- ships between Russia and NATO as well
as with other international institutions.

At the direction of our two presidents, Foreign Minister
Kozyrev and I initiated a dialogue on European security,
including how best to develop NATO-Russia relations.  It is
a little too early to talk about specific approaches, but we
made a good start.  We have defined a process of ongoing
consultations in 1995 that the Foreign Minister and I
personally will oversee, which will occur in parallel with
the NATO study and its discussion of expansion.

Finally, I will say that we discussed a number of other
individual topics.  I will not prolong this meeting by
mentioning them in detail, but they include Iraq, Iran,
Libya, Bosnia, the Middle East Peace Process, and so forth.
In sum, we had several good meetings, and we discussed in a
very forthright way a number of difficult problems,
including the situation in Chechnya.  As the Foreign
Minister said, I think it's a sign of the maturity of our
relationship that we were able to do this so forthrightly.
I look forward to future meetings, many during 1995, in
which the Foreign Minister and I will pick up the matters
that we discussed today and carry them forward.  (###)



ARTICLE 4

New Ambassadors

     October-December 1994
Belarus--Kenneth Spencer Yalowitz, October 24, 1994
Bolivia--Curt Warren Kamman, October 24, 1994
Chile--Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon, October 25, 1994
Costa Rica--Peter Jon de Vos, October 12, 1994
Germany--Charles E. Redman, October 7, 1994
Jamaica--Jerome Gary Cooper, October 21, 1994
Paraguay--Robert Edward Service, November 10, 1994
Romania--Alfred H. Moses, December 7, 1994
Turkey--Marc Grossman, November 21, 1994
Yemen--David George Newton, October 21, 1994  (###)



ARTICLE 5

Agreement on Cambodian Genocide Justice Program
Released by the Office of the Department Spokesman,
Washington, DC, January 17, 1995.

The Department of State is pleased to announce an award of
$499,283 in research funding from the Office of Cambodian
Genocide Investigations, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific
Affairs, to the Yale Center for International and Area
Studies (YCIAS) in New Haven, Connecticut.  The award, in
the form of a cooperative agreement, is for Yale
University's Cambodian Genocide Justice Program, directed by
Ben Kiernan, Associate Professor of History, a member of the
Yale Council on Southeast Asia Studies, and author of a
forthcoming book on the Pol Pot regime.  The Orville H.
Schell, Jr. Center for International Human Rights at Yale
Law School also will have a major role in the Cambodian
Genocide Justice Program.

The award was made pursuant to the Cambodian Genocide
Justice Act, Sections 571-574 of Public Law 103-236, passed
by the U.S. Congress in April 1994 at the initiative of
Senator Charles Robb of Virginia.  This act provided
Department of State funding authority for documentation of
and research on Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge regime, officially
known as Democratic Kampuchea, which ruled Cambodia from
April 1975 to January 1979. During that period, more than 1
million people were killed or died, out of the country's
1975 population of approximately 8 million.

The Cambodian Genocide Justice Program comprises three
projects:  the establishment of an international database of
documentation on the Pol Pot regime; new historiographical
research on various aspects of that period; and training
Cambodian scholars, legal officers, and human rights
workers.  The Schell Center for International Human Rights
will prepare educational manuals for summer training courses
staffed by Schell Fellows.  Dr. Craig Etcheson has been
appointed Program Manager and YCIAS Associate Research
Scholar in International Studies.  Mr. Youk Chhang, formerly
of the UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC), is
Program Officer.  Dr. Helen Jarvis, Senior Lecturer at the
University of New South Wales and Director of
Bibliographical and Information Services in Asia and the
Pacific, is program consultant on the documentation project.

The cooperative agreement for the Cambodian Genocide Justice
Program is administered by the Office of Cambodian Genocide
Investigations, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs,
Department of State. Please contact the office director, Mr.
Alphonse F. La Porta, at tel. (202) 647-0808 or (202) 647-
3069 for further information.  (###)



ARTICLE 6

What's in Print
Foreign Relations Of the United States

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-63, Volume XX,
Congo Crisis, the latest volume in the Department of State's
Foreign Relations series, documents U.S. policy with respect
to the recurrent crisis in the Congo (now Zaire) during the
administration of President John F. Kennedy.  It offers
insight into U.S. policy toward the newly independent
countries of Africa during the Cold War.

During the crisis of 1960-61, the Eisenhower and Kennedy
Administrations were deeply concerned with the threat of
Soviet domination of the Republic of the Congo.  The
government controlled only two of the Congo's six provinces,
and one province--Katanga--had already announced its
secession.  The disintegration of the Congo seemed imminent,
and Soviet influence on the charismatic Patrice Lumumba, who
controlled two of the Congo's six provinces, was of
particular concern.

The death of Lumumba just prior to John F. Kennedy's
inauguration eased American fears that the crisis would open
an avenue for Soviet influence, and the formation of a
coalition government in August 1961 gave hope that the
crisis was ending.  Hostilities broke out in Katanga a month
later, however, and the crisis entered a new phase.  U.S.
policymakers feared that the loss to the Congo of Katanga's
mineral wealth would undermine its economy,  which would
destroy the moderate coalition government and thus open the
door to the extension of Soviet influence in the heart of
Africa.  This fear led the Kennedy Administration to spend
the next 16 months seeking to end the Katanga secession.

This volume focuses on U.S. policy rather than UN
operations.  However, it does provide a case study of a
major UN intervention of the 1960s.  It also includes much
documentation on U.S. discussions with UN Secretary-General
Dag Hammarskjold; his successor, U Thant; and other world
leaders about UN goals and methods.

This volume, prepared by the Office of the Historian, U.S.
Department of State, is one of 25 print volumes and six
microfiche supplements documenting the foreign policy of the
Kennedy Administration.

Copies of this volume (GPO Stock No. 044-000-02383-1) may be
purchased (postpaid) for $40 ($50 for foreign orders) from:

Superintendent of Documents
Government Printing Office
P.O. Box 371954
Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954

To fax orders, dial (202) 512-2250.  Checks payable to the
Superintendent of Documents are accepted, as are VISA and
MasterCard.  For further information, contact Harriet
Dashiell Schwar by telephone at (202) 663-1130 or by fax at
(202) 663-1289. (###)

[END OF DISPATCH VOL 6, NO 4]

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