U.S DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH 
VOLUME 6, NUMBER 10, MARCH 6, 1995 
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS 
 
ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE: 
1.  The Vital Tradition of American Leadership in the World--President 
Clinton 
2.  The United States and Canada: Reaffirming the Partnership--President 
Clinton 
3.  Fact Sheets:  Canada 
--U.S.-Canada Trade 
--U.S.-Canada Environmental Issues 
--NAFTA: Key Provisions and Supplemental Agreements 
--U.S.-Canada Air Services Agreement 
--Global Environmental Issues 
4.  Country Profile:  Canada 
5.  Maintaining the Instruments Of America's Global Leadership--
Secretary Christopher 
6.  U.S. Interests and Russian Reform--Deputy Secretary Talbott 
7.  American Eagle or Ostrich? The Case for The United States in the 
United Nations--Deputy Secretary Talbott 
8.  Department Statements 
--Suspending Arms Sales to Ecuador and Peru 
--President Clinton Applauds Ecuador-Peru Peace Declaration 
--Mexico To Take Action To Curb Violence Along U.S. Border 
9.  What's in Print--Foreign Relations Of the United States 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 1: 
 
The Vital Tradition of American Leadership in the World 
President Clinton 
Remarks to the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom Policy Conference, 
Washington, DC, March 1, 1995 [introductory remarks deleted] 
 
I am honored to be here tonight. Just a month before he passed away, 
President Nixon wrote me the last letter I received from him about his 
last trip to Russia. I told some people at the time that it was the best 
piece of foreign policy writing I had received, which angered my staff 
but happened to be the truth. And, as with all of our correspondence and 
conversations, I was struck by the rigor of his analysis, the energy of 
his convictions, and the wisdom of the practical suggestions that he 
made to me. 
 
But more than the specifics of the letter, which basically argued for 
the imperative of the United States continuing to support political and 
economic reform in Russia, I was moved by the letter's larger message--a 
message that ran throughout Richard Nixon's entire public life and all 
of his prolific writings. President Nixon believed deeply that the 
United States simply could not be strong at home unless we were strong 
and prepared to lead abroad. And that made a big impression on me.  
 
When I was running for President in 1992, even though there was this 
little sticker up on the wall of my campaign headquarters that said, 
"It's the economy, stupid," I always said in every speech that we had to 
have two objectives: We had to restore the American dream for all of our 
people, but we also had to make sure that we move into the next century 
still the strongest nation in the world and the world's greatest force 
for peace and freedom and democracy. 
 
Tonight, I want to talk about the vital tradition of American leadership 
and our responsibilities--those which Henry Kissinger mentioned and 
those which President Nixon recognized so well. Our mission especially I 
want to discuss--to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons. 
 
Today, if we are going to be strong at home and lead abroad, we have to 
overcome what we all recognize, I think, is a dangerous and growing 
temptation here in our own land to focus solely on the problems we face 
here in America. I have tried to do it for the last two years. I look 
forward to working with this new Republican-led Congress in the next 
two, but not solely. 
 
There is a struggle now going on between those of us who want to carry 
on the tradition of American leadership and those who would advocate a 
new form of American isolationism--a struggle which cuts curiously 
across both party and ideological lines. If we are going to continue to 
improve the security and prosperity of all our people, then the 
tradition of American leadership must prevail. 
 
We live in a moment of hope. We all know that. The implosion of 
communism and the explosion of the global economy have brought new 
freedoms to countries on every continent. Free markets are on the rise. 
Democracy is ascendant. The slogan says, "after victory."  Today, more 
than ever before, people across the globe do have the opportunity to 
reach their God-given potential. And because they do, Americans have new 
opportunities to reach theirs as well. 
 
At the same time, the post-Cold War world has revealed a whole web of 
problems that defy quick or painless solutions--aggression of rogue 
states, transnational threats like overpopulation and environmental 
degradation, terrible ethnic conflicts, and economic dislocation. But at 
the heart of all these complex challenges, I believe, lies an age-old 
battle for power over human lives--the battle between the forces of 
freedom and tyranny, tolerance and repression, hope and fear. The same 
idea that was under attack by fascism and then by communism remains 
under attack today in different ways all across the world--the idea of 
the open society of free people. 
 
American leadership is necessary for the tide of history to keep running 
our way and for our children to have the future they deserve. Yet, there 
are some who would choose escapism over engagement. The new 
isolationists oppose our efforts to expand free trade through GATT or 
NAFTA, through APEC and the Summit of the Americas. They reject our 
conviction that democracy must be nurtured with investment and support--
a conviction that we are acting on from the former Soviet Union to South 
Africa. And some of them, being hypocritical, say that we must trumpet 
the rhetoric of American strength. At the same time, they argue against 
the resources we need to bring stability to the Persian Gulf or to 
restore democracy to Haiti, or to control the spread of drugs and 
organized crime around the world, or even to meet our most elemental 
obligations to the United Nations and its peacekeeping work. 
 
The new isolationists--both on the left and the right--would radically 
revise the fundamentals of our foreign policy that have earned 
bipartisan support since the end of World War II. They would eliminate 
any meaningful role for the United Nations which has achieved, for all 
of its problems, real progress around the world, from the Middle East to 
Africa. They would deny resources to our peacekeepers and even to our 
troops, and, instead, squander them on Star Wars. They would refuse aid 
to the fledgling democracies and to all those fighting poverty and 
environmental problems that can literally destroy hopes for a more 
democratic, more prosperous, more safe world. 
 
The new isolationists are wrong. They would have us face the future 
alone. Their approach would weaken this country, and we must not let the 
ripple of isolationism that has been generated build into a tidal wave. 
 
If we withdraw from the world today, mark my words, we will have to 
contend with the consequences of our neglect tomorrow and tomorrow and 
tomorrow. This is a moment of decision for all of us without regard to 
our party, our background, or our accent. This is a moment of decision. 
 
The extraordinary trend toward democracy and free markets is not 
inevitable, and as we have seen recently, it will not proceed easily in 
an even, uninterrupted course. This is hard work, and at the very time 
when more and more countries than ever before are working to establish 
or shore up their own freedom in their fragile democracies, they look to 
us for support. At this time, the new isolationists must not be allowed 
to pull America out of the game after just a few hours of debate because 
there is a modest price attached to our leadership. 
 
We now know, as President Nixon recognized, that there must also be 
limits to America's involvement in the world's problems--limits imposed 
by clear-headed evaluation of our fundamental interests. We cannot be 
the world's policemen; we cannot become involved in every problem we 
really care about. But the choice we make must be rooted in the 
conviction that America cannot walk away from its interests or its 
responsibilities. 
 
That is why, from our first day in office, this Administration has 
chosen to reach out, not retreat. From our efforts to open markets for 
America to support democracy around the world, to reduce the threat 
posed by devastating weapons and terrorists, to maintaining the most 
effective fighting force in the world, we have worked to seize the 
opportunities and meet the obligations of this moment. 
 
None of this could have happened without a coalition of realists--people 
in both Houses of  Congress and, importantly, people from both parties; 
people from coast to coast in our towns and cities and communities who 
know that the wealth and well-being of the United States depends upon 
our leadership abroad. Even the early leaders of our republic who went 
to great pains to avoid involvement in great power conflicts recognized 
not only the potential benefits, but the absolute necessity of engaging 
with the world. 
 
Before Abraham Lincoln was elected President, our farmers were selling 
their crops overseas. We had dispatched the trade mission all the way to 
Japan trying to open new markets--some problems don't go away--and our 
Navy had already sailed every ocean. By the dawn of this century, our 
growing political and economic power already imposed a special duty on 
America to lead--a duty that was crystallized in our involvement in 
World War I. But after that war, we and the other great powers abandoned 
our responsibilities, and the forces of tyranny and hatred filled the 
vacuum, as is well-known. 
 
After the Second World War, our wise leaders did not repeat that 
mistake. With the dawn of the nuclear age and the Cold War, and with the 
economies of Europe and Japan in shambles, President Truman persuaded an 
uncertain and weary nation, yearning to shift its energies from the 
front lines to the home front, to lead the world again. 
 
A remarkable generation of Americans created and sustained alliances and 
institutions--the Marshall Plan, NATO, the United Nations, the World 
Bank, the IMF--the things that brought a half century of security and 
prosperity to America, to Europe, to Japan, and to other countries all 
around the world. Those efforts and the special resolve and military 
strength of our own nation held tyranny in check until the power of 
democracy, the failures of communism, and the heroic determination of 
people to be free consigned the Cold War to history. Those successes 
would not have been possible without a strong, bipartisan commitment to 
America's leadership. 
 
Senator Arthur Vandenburg's call to unite our official voice at the 
water's edge joined Republicans to Truman's doctrine. His impact was all 
the more powerful for his own past as an isolationist, but as Vandenburg 
himself said, Pearl Harbor ended isolationism for any realist. 
 
Today, it is Vandenburg's spirit that should drive our foreign policy 
and our politics. The practical determination of Senators Nunn and Lugar 
to help Russia reduce its nuclear arsenal safely and securely; the 
support from Speaker Gingrich and Leader Gephardt, from Chairman 
Livingston and Representative Obey for aid to Russia and the New 
Independent States; the work of Senators Hatfield, Leahy, and McConnell, 
and Chairman Gilman, and Representative Hamilton for peace in the Middle 
East; the efforts of Senator Warner to restructure our intelligence--all 
these provide strong evidence of the continuing benefits and vitality of 
leadership with bipartisanship.  If we continue to lead abroad and work 
together at home, we can take advantage of these turbulent times. But if 
we retreat, we risk squandering all these opportunities and abandoning 
our obligations which others have entrusted to us and paid a very dear 
price to bring to us in this moment in history. 
 
I know that the choice to go forward in a lot of these areas is not easy 
in democracies at this time. Many of the decisions that America's 
leaders have to make are not popular when they are made, but imagine the 
alternative. Imagine, for example, the tariffs and barriers that would 
still cripple the world trading system for years into the future if 
internationalists coming together across party lines had not passed GATT 
and NAFTA. Imagine what the Persian Gulf region would look like today if 
the United States had not stepped up with its allies to stop Iraqi 
aggression. Imagine the ongoing reign of terror and the flood of 
refugees at our borders had we not helped to give democracy a second 
chance in Haiti. Imagine the chaos that might have ensued if we had not 
moved to help stabilize Mexico's economy. In each case, there was 
substantial and sometimes overwhelming majority opinion against what 
needed to be done at the moment. But because we did it, the world has a 
better chance at peace and freedom. 
 
But above all, now I ask you to imagine the dangers that our children 
and grandchildren--even after the Cold War is over--can still face if we 
do not do everything we can to reduce the threat of nuclear arms, to 
curb the terrible chemical and biological weapons spreading around the 
world, to counter the terrorists and criminals who would put these 
weapons into the service of evil. As Arthur Vandenburg asked at   the 
dawn of the nuclear age, after a German V-1 attack had left London in 
flames and its people in fear, "How can there be isolation when men can 
devise weapons like that?" 
 
President Nixon understood the wisdom of those words. His life spanned 
an era of stunning increases in humankind's destructive capacity--from 
the biplane to ballistic missiles, from mustard gas to mushroom clouds. 
He knew that the atomic age could never be won, but could be lost. On 
any list of his foreign policy accomplishments, the giant steps he took 
toward reducing the nuclear threat must stand among his greatest 
achievement. As President, I have acted on that same imperative. 
 
Over the past two years, the United States has made real progress in 
lifting the threat of nuclear weapons. Now, in 1995, we face a year of 
particular decision in this era--a year in which the United States will 
pursue the most ambitious agenda to dismantle and fight the spread of 
weapons of mass destruction since the atom was split.  
 
We know that ours is an enormously complex and difficult challenge. 
There is no single policy, no silver bullet, that will prevent or 
reverse the spread of weapons of mass destruction, but we have no more 
important task. Arms control makes us not only safer, it makes us 
stronger. It is a source of strength. It is one of the most effective 
insurance policies we can write for the future of our children. 
 
Our Administration has focused on two distinct but closely connected 
areas--decreasing and dismantling existing weapons and preventing 
nations or groups from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and the 
means to deliver them. We have made progress on both fronts. 
 
As the result of an agreement President Yeltsin and I reached, for the 
first time in a generation Russian missiles are not pointed at our 
cities or our citizens. We have greatly reduced the lingering fear of an 
accidental nuclear launch. We put into force the START I Treaty with 
Russia that will eliminate from both our countries delivery systems that 
carry more than 9,000 nuclear warheads--each with the capacity to 
incinerate a city the size of Atlanta. 
 
START I--negotiated by two Republican Administrations and put into force 
by this Democratic Administration--is the first treaty that requires the 
nuclear powers actually to reduce their strategic arsenal. Both our 
countries are dismantling the weapons as fast as we can, and, thanks to 
a far-reaching verification system, including on-site inspections which 
began in Russia and the United States today, each of us knows exactly 
what the other is doing. And, again, through the far-sighted program 
devised by Senators Nunn and Lugar, we are helping Russia and the other 
New Independent States to eliminate nuclear forces in transport and 
safeguard and destroy nuclear weapons and material. 
 
Ironically, some of the changes that have allowed us to reduce the 
world's stockpile of nuclear weapons have made our non-proliferation 
efforts harder. The breakup of the Soviet Union left nuclear materials 
dispersed throughout the New Independent States. The potential for theft 
of nuclear materials, therefore, increased. We face the prospect of 
organized criminals entering the nuclear smuggling business. Add to this 
volatile mix the fact that a lump of plutonium the size of a soda can is 
enough to build a bomb, and the urgency of the effort to stop the spread 
of nuclear materials should be clear to all of us. 
 
That is why from our first day in office, we have launched an 
aggressive, coordinated campaign against international terrorism and 
nuclear smuggling. We are cooperating closely with our allies, working 
with Russia and the other New Independent States, improving security at 
nuclear facilities, and strengthening multilateral export controls. 
 
One striking example of our success is Operation Sapphire, the airlift 
of nearly 600 kilograms of highly enriched uranium--enough to make 
dozens of bombs from Kazakhstan to the United States for disposal. We 
have also secured agreements with Russia to reduce the uranium and 
plutonium available for nuclear weapons, and we're seeking a global 
treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. 
 
Our patient, determined diplomacy also succeeded in convincing Belarus, 
Kazakhstan, and Ukraine to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and give up 
the nuclear weapons left on their territory when the Soviet Union 
dissolved. One of our Administration's top priorities was to assure that 
these new countries would become non-nuclear nations, and now we are 
also achieving that goal. 
 
Because of these efforts, four potential suppliers of ballistic 
missiles--Russia, Ukraine, China, and South Africa--have all agreed to 
control the transfer of these missiles and related technology. Pulling 
back from the nuclear precipice has allowed us to cut U.S. defense 
expenditures for strategic weapons by almost two-thirds, a savings of 
about $20 billion a year--savings which can be shifted to vital needs 
such as boosting the readiness of our armed forces, reducing the 
deficit, and putting more police on our own streets. By spending 
millions to keep or take weapons out of the hands of our potential 
adversaries, we are saving billions in arms costs and putting it to 
better use. 
 
Now, in this year of decision, our ambition for the future must be even 
more ambitious. If our people are to know real lasting security, we have 
to redouble our arms control, non-proliferation, and anti-terrorism 
efforts. We have to do everything we can to avoid living with the 21st-
century version of fallout shelters and duck-and-cover exercises to 
prevent another World Trade Center tragedy. 
 
In just four days, we mark the 25th anniversary of the Non-Proliferation 
Treaty. Nothing is more important to prevent the spread of nuclear 
weapons than extending the treaty indefinitely and unconditionally. And 
that is why I have asked the Vice President to lead our delegation to 
the NPT conference this April and to work as hard as we can to make sure 
we succeed in getting that indefinite extension. 
 
The NPT is the principal reason why scores of nations do not now possess 
nuclear weapons; why the doomsayers were wrong. One hundred and seventy-
two nations have made NPT the most widely subscribed arms limitation 
treaty in history for one overriding reason; it is in their self-
interest to do so. Non-nuclear weapons states that sign on to the treaty 
pledge never to acquire them. Nuclear weapons states vow not to help 
others obtain nuclear weapons, to facilitate the peaceful uses of atomic 
energy, and to pursue nuclear arms control and disarmament--commitments 
I strongly reaffirm, along with our determination to attain universal 
membership in the treaty. 
 
Failure to extend NPT indefinitely could open the door to a world of 
nuclear trouble. Pariah nations with rigid ideologies and expansionist 
ambitions would have an easier time acquiring terrible weapons, and 
countries that have chosen to forego the nuclear option would then 
rethink their position; they would certainly be tempted to reconsider 
that decision. 
 
To further demonstrate our commitment to the goals of the treaty, today 
I have ordered that 200 tons of fissile material, enough for thousands 
of nuclear weapons, be permanently withdrawn from the United States 
nuclear stockpile--two hundred tons of fissile material that will never 
again be used to build a nuclear weapon. 
 
A second key goal of ours is ratifying START II. Once in effect, that 
treaty will eliminate delivery systems from Russian and American 
arsenals that carry more than 5,000 weapons. The major reductions under 
START I, together with START II, will enable us to reduce by two-thirds 
the number of strategic warheads deployed at the height of the Cold War. 
At my urging, the Senate has already begun hearings on START II, and I 
am encouraged by the interest of the senators from both parties in 
seeking quick action. I commend the Senate for the action taken so far, 
and I urge again the approval of the treaty as soon as possible. 
 
President Yeltsin and I have already instructed our experts to begin 
considering the possibility after START II is ratified for additional 
reductions and limitations on remaining nuclear forces. We have a chance 
to further lift the nuclear cloud, and we dare not miss it. 
 
To stop the development of new generations of nuclear weapons, we must 
also quickly complete negotiations on a comprehensive test ban treaty. 
Last month, I extended a nuclear testing moratorium that I put into 
effect when I took office, and we revised our negotiating position to 
speed the conclusion of the treaty while reaffirming our determination 
to maintain a safe and reliable nuclear stockpile. 
 
We will also continue to work with our allies to fully implement the 
agreement we reached with North Korea--first to freeze, then to 
dismantle its nuclear program, all under international monitoring. The 
critics of this agreement, I believe, are wrong. The deal does stop 
North Korea's nuclear program, and it does commit Pyongyang to roll it 
back in the years to come. I have not heard another alternative proposal 
that isn't either unworkable or foolhardy, nor one that our allies in 
the Republics of Korea and Japan--the nation's most directly affected--
would fail to support. 
 
If North Korea fulfills its commitment, the Korean Peninsula and the 
entire world will clearly be less threatened and more secure. The NPT, 
START II, the comprehensive test ban treaty, the North Korean Agreed 
Framework: They top our agenda for the year ahead. There are other 
critical tasks we also face if we want to make every American more 
secure, including winning Senate ratification of the Chemical Weapons 
Convention, negotiating legally binding measures to strengthen the 
Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, clarifying the ABM Treaty so as 
to secure its viability while permitting highly effective defenses 
against theater missile attacks, continuing to support regional arms 
control efforts in the Middle East and elsewhere, and pushing for the 
ratification of conventional weapons which, among other things, would 
help us to reduce the suffering caused by the tens of millions of anti-
personnel mines which are plaguing millions of people all across this 
world. 
 
My friends, this is a full and challenging agenda. There are many 
obstacles ahead. We cannot achieve it if we give in to a new 
isolationism, but I believe we can do no less than make every effort to 
complete it. 
 
Tonight, let us remember what President Nixon told the joint session of 
Congress when he returned from his historic trip to Moscow in 1972. He 
said: 
 
We have begun to check the wasteful and dangerous spiral of nuclear 
arms. Let us seize the moment so that our children and the world's 
children can live free of the fears and free of the hatreds that have 
been the lot of mankind through the centuries. 
 
Now it is within our power to realize the dream that Richard Nixon 
described over 20 years ago. We cannot let history record that our 
generation of Americans refused to rise to this challenge; that we 
withdrew from the world and abandoned our responsibilities when we knew 
better than to do it; that we lacked the energy, the vision, and the 
will to carry this struggle forward--the age-old struggle between hope 
and fear. 
 
So let us find inspiration in the great tradition of Harry Truman and 
Arthur Vandenburg--a tradition that builds bridges of cooperation, not 
walls of isolation; that opens the arms of Americans to change instead 
of throwing up our hands in despair; that casts aside partisanship and 
brings together Republicans and Democrats for the good of the American 
people and the world. That is the tradition that made the most of this 
land, won the great battles of this century against tyranny, and secured 
our freedom and our prosperity. 
 
Above all, let's not forget that these efforts begin and end with the 
American people. Every time we reduce the threat that has hung over our 
heads since the dawn of the nuclear age,      we help to ensure that--
from the far stretches of the Aleutians to the tip of the Florida Keys--
the American people are more secure. That is our most serious task and 
our most solemn obligation. 
 
The challenge of this moment is matched only by its possibility. So let 
us do our duty.   (###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 2: 
 
The United States and Canada:  Reaffirming the Partnership 
President Clinton 
Remarks to the Canadian Parliament, Ottawa, Canada, February 23, 1995 
 
Mr. Prime Minister and Mrs. Chretien, Mr. Speaker of the Senate, Mr. 
Speaker of the House of Commons, honorable senators and members of the 
House of Commons, distinguished members of the diplomatic corps, ladies 
and gentlemen: 
 
I have pondered for some time the differences between the Canadian 
political system and the American one, and when the Prime Minister 
pointed out the unanimous resolution you passed yesterday, I realized 
that, in one respect, clearly, you are superior. We do not control the 
weather in Washington, DC, and I am grateful that you do. I also thank 
the Prime Minister for his history lesson. I have never believed in the 
iron laws of history so much as I do now.  
 
I thank the Prime Minister and all of you for welcoming me to this 
magnificent capital city. The Prime Minister first came to this chamber 
to represent the people of Canada when President Kennedy was in the 
White House. I resent that because when President Kennedy was in the 
White House, I was in junior high school--and now the Prime Minister has 
less gray hair than I do. He does, in spite of the fact that since that 
time he has occupied nearly every seat in his nation's cabinet. The 
first time I met him, I wondered why this guy could not hold down a job. 
I can tell you this: We in the United States know that his service to 
this nation over so many years has earned him the gratitude and the 
respect of the Canadian people. It has also earned him the gratitude and 
the respect of the people of the United States.  
 
I know it is traditional for American presidents, when they address this 
body, to speak of their affection for their ties to the Canadian people. 
On behalf of the United States, let me stay with that tradition and say, 
l'amitie solide. But let me say to you that it is a big part of our 
life. I remember so well, more than a decade ago, when Hillary and I, 
with our then very young daughter, came to Canada to celebrate the new 
year. We started in Montreal and drove to Chateau Montebello. Along the 
way, we drove around Ottawa, and we watched all those wonderful people 
skating along the canal. I come from a southern State. I could not 
imagine that anybody could ever get on skates and stand on any body of 
water for very long. I could see that always--Hillary has had in the 
back of her mind all this long time how much she would like to be 
skating along this canal. I think, tomorrow, Mrs. Chretien is going to 
give her her wish, and we are looking forward to that.  
 
My wife has visited Toronto, and we had a wonderful, wonderful family 
vacation in Western Canada--in Victoria and Vancouver back in 1990--one 
of the best times that all of us have ever had together anywhere. We are 
deeply indebted to your culture. Our daughter's name was inspired by 
Canadian songwriter Joni Mitchell's wonderful song, Chelsea Morning. 
 
All of you know that in the spring of 1993, the first time I left the 
United States as President, I came to Vancouver for the summit with 
President Yeltsin. Both of us, at that time, were under a significant 
amount of stress as we tried to reaffirm our relationship and solidify 
democracy in Russia. I can say, without any equivocation, that the 
reception we received from the people of Canada, as well as from the 
government and the Prime Minister, made it very, very easy for us to 
have a successful meeting. For that we are very grateful. 
 
I come here today to reaffirm the ties that bind the United States and 
Canada, in a new age of great promise and challenge--a time of rapid 
change, when both opportunity and uncertainty live side by side in my 
country and in yours; a time when people are being lifted up by new 
possibilities and held down by old demons all across the world. I came 
here because I believe our nations together must seize the opportunities 
and meet the challenges of this new age. We must--I say again--do this 
together.  
 
From the oil from Alberta that fires factories in the United States to 
the silicon chips from California that power your computers, we are 
living proof of the value of partnerships and cooperation. Technologies 
produced in your nation save lives in our hospitals, while food from our 
farms line your supermarkets. 
 
Our horizons have broadened because we in the United States have 
listened  to the CBC. Our culture is much richer because of the 
contributions of writers like Robertson Davies--whom Hillary had the 
pleasure of meeting last week after reading him for years--and Margaret 
Atwood, and because of the wonderful photography of Josef Karsh, whose 
famous picture of Churchill I just saw. He took some pictures of Hillary 
and me that are not so distinguished, but I love them anyway. As a 
musician, I have  
to thank you especially for Oscar Peterson, a man I consider to be the 
greatest jazz pianist. 
 
Ours is the world's most remarkable relationship--the Prime Minister 
said--whether we like it or not. I can tell you that, on most days, I 
like it very, very, much.  
 
We have to strengthen that relationship. We have to strengthen it for 
our own benefit through trade and commerce and travel. We have to 
strengthen it because it is our job to help spread the benefits of 
democracy, freedom, prosperity, and peace beyond our shores. We are 
neighbors by the grace of nature. We are allies and friends by choice. 
 
There are those in both our nations who say we can no longer afford to--
and perhaps we no longer even need to--exercise our leadership in the 
world. When so many of our people are having their own problems, it is 
easy to listen to that assertion. But it is wrong. 
 
We are two nations blessed with great resources and great histories, and 
we have great responsibilities. We were built, after all, by men and 
women who fled the tyranny and intolerance of the old world for the new. 
We are the nations of pioneers--people who were armed with the 
confidence they needed to strike out on their own and to have the 
talents that God gave them shape their dreams in a new and different 
land. 
 
Culture and tradition, to be sure, distinguish us from one another in 
many ways that we are still learning about every day. But we share core 
values, and that is more important--a devotion to hard work, an ardent 
belief in democracy, a commitment to giving each and every citizen the 
right to live up to his or her God-given potential, and an understanding 
of what we owe to the world for the gifts we have been given. 
 
These common values have nourished a partnership that has become a model 
for new democracies all around this world. They can look at us and see 
just how much stronger the bonds between nations can be when their 
governments answer the citizens' desires for freedom and democracy and 
enterprise, and when they work together to build each other up instead 
of working overtime to tear each other down. 
 
Of course, we have our differences. Some of them are complex enough to 
tear your hair out over. But we have approached them directly and in 
good faith--as true friends must. We in the United States come more and 
more every day to respect and understand that we can learn from what is 
different about your nation and its many people. 
 
Canada has shown the world how to balance freedom with compassion and 
tradition with innovation in your efforts to provide health care to all 
your citizens; to treat your senior citizens with the dignity and 
respect they deserve; and to take on tough issues such as the move afoot 
to outlaw automatic weapons designed for killing, not hunting. I might 
say--since you applauded so--you are doing it in a nation of people who 
respect the right to hunt and understand the difference between law and 
order and sportsmanship. 
 
Those of us who have traveled here especially appreciate the reverence 
you have shown for the bounty of God's nature--from the Laurentians to 
the Rockies. In a world darkened by ethnic conflicts that literally tear 
nations apart, Canada has stood for all of us as a model of how people 
of different cultures can live and work together in peace, prosperity, 
and respect. 
 
The United States, as many of my predecessors have said, enjoys its 
excellent relationship with a strong and united Canada, but we 
recognize--just as the Prime Minister said to us a moment ago, with 
regard to your relationships--that your political future is, of course, 
entirely for you to decide. That is what a democracy is all about. 
 
Now I will tell you something about our political system. You want to 
know why my State of the Union address took so long? It was because I 
evenly divided the things that would make the Democrats clap and the 
Republicans clap. We doubled the length of the speech in common 
enthusiasm. 
 
I ask you--all of you--to remember that we do look to you, and to 
remember what our great President of the postwar era, Harry Truman, said 
when he came here in 1947. "Canada's eminent position today," he said, 
is a tribute to the patience, tolerance, and strength of character of 
her people. Canada's notable achievement of national unity and progress 
through accommodation, moderation, and forbearance can be studied with 
profit by sister nations.   
 
These words ring every bit as true today as they did then. 
 
For generations, our countries have joined together in efforts to make 
the world more secure and more prosperous. We have reached out together 
to defend our values and our interests--in World War I, on the beaches 
of Normandy, and in Korea. Together, we helped to summon the United 
Nations into existence. Together, we stood fast against communist 
tyranny and prevailed in the Cold War. Together, we stood shoulder to 
shoulder against aggression in the Gulf War. Now our nations have 
stepped forward to help Haiti emerge from repression and to restore its 
democracy. I thank the Prime Minister for what he said about that. When 
it was not popular anywhere in the world to worry about poor, 
beleaguered, abandoned Haiti, Canada was truly a friend of Haiti. 
 
In one international forum after another, we stand side by side to shape 
a safer and better world. Whether it is at the World Population 
Conference, pushing together for an indefinite extension of NPT, or in 
any number of ways--we are working together. 
 
We know that for Canada, this history of action is a matter of deep 
tradition and personal conviction. The tradition runs from Lester 
Pearson to Jean Chretien. It says we must be engaged in the affairs of 
the world. You have always shown the wisdom of reaching out instead of 
retreating, of rising to new responsibilities instead   of retrenching. 
Your tradition of engagement continues to this day, and, believe you me, 
it earns respect all around the world from people of all races,  ethnic 
groups, and political systems. 
 
In places such as Cyprus and the Sinai, Canadian troops have played an 
invaluable role in preventing more violence in those critical hot spots. 
Today, your 2,000 peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia are courageously 
fulfilling their mission in the midst of one of the most intractable, 
difficult situations in our lifetime. 
 
For a half century, the United States has shared your philosophy of 
action and consistent exercise of leadership abroad. I am determined, 
notwithstanding all the cross-currents in our country, that we shall 
preserve that commitment. These times may be turbulent, but we have a 
historic opportunity to increase security and prosperity for our own 
people and for people all around the world. I want you to know that I 
intend to do everything in my power to keep our country constructively 
involved in the problems that we must face if we are going to guarantee 
that our children will live in a peaceful, sane, and free world. 
 
Imagine what the Persian Gulf would look like today if we had not risen 
to the challenge of Iraqi aggression. Imagine what tariffs and barriers 
would plague the world trading system if we had not worked so hard 
together over such a long period of time, from the end of World War II 
to the events the Prime Minister described--to NAFTA, to GATT, to the 
Asia-Pacific cooperation, to the Summit of Americas that was held in 
Miami in December. Imagine how different it would have been. Imagine how 
much worse the horrible tragedy in Rwanda would have been if we had not 
been there to provide essential help in those refugee camps to keep 
people alive. 
 
We cannot let anyone or anything break this great tradition of our 
nations. In our partnership, we will find the key to protecting our 
people and increasing their prosperity and the power to reach beyond our 
shores in the name of democracy and freedom--not only because it is 
right, but because it is in our interest to do so. 
 
Just before we came down here, the Prime Minister and I agreed again 
that if we are going to meet these new challenges in the 21st century, 
we must adapt the institutions that helped us to win the Cold War so 
they can serve us as well in the 21st century. We have to do that. Some 
have evolved with the changing world. Some have, clearly, already 
discarded their old missions and assumed new roles. But we have also 
seen that the end of the East-West  conflict, the advent of 24-hour 
financial markets, sudden environmental disasters, the rise of 
international terrorism, the resurgence of ancient ethnic hatreds--all 
these things have placed new demands on these institutions that the 
statesmen of 50 years ago simply did not imagine. The 21st century will 
leave behind those who sit back and think that these problems will be 
solved automatically. We simply have to face these challenges and ask 
ourselves what we have to change and how are we going to do it. 
 
For example, to meet the security needs of the future, we must work 
together to see that NATO--the most successful military alliance in all 
of history--adapts to this new era. That means that we must make certain 
that the inevitable process of NATO expansion proceeds smoothly, 
gradually, and openly. There should be no surprises to anyone about what 
we are about. We will work so that the conditions, the timing, and the 
military implications of NATO expansion will be widely known and clearly 
understood in advance. 
 
To parallel the enlargement of NATO, we have to develop close,  strong 
ties with Russia. I have worked hard for that, and so has the Prime 
Minister. We must continue working together at the United Nations, where 
our nations have, together, taken the lead in efforts to reform our 
peace-keeping operations--to control the costs, to improve information 
gathering, and to make sure we have the right kind of command and 
control system before the young people who put on our uniforms are put 
in harm's way. 
 
We also must continue to work at reforming the international economic 
institutions. We already have made great strides in reshaping the new 
global economy with the passage of GATT, which is the most comprehensive 
trade agreement in history. But the work is only beginning. At the 
upcoming G-7 summit in Halifax, which we are very much looking forward 
to, we will be working to ensure that our international trading 
institutions advance the cause of trade liberalization in ways that 
produce   tangible gains for the people of the countries involved. 
 
We also have to re-examine the institutions that were created at the 
time of Bretton Woods--the IMF and the World Bank--to make sure that 
they are going to be able to master the new and increasingly complex 
generation of transnational problems that face us-- problems such as 
explosive population growth and environmental degradation and problems 
such as those we have been facing together in Mexico and throughout 
Latin America during the recent financial crisis. Real progress in these 
areas will depend, not only on our willingness to be involved, but our 
willingness to lead as partners. Together, Canada and the United States 
are striving to seize all the advantages the new global economy has to 
offer. Trade produces high-wage jobs; we know that--the kinds of jobs 
that give our people the opportunity to care for their families, to 
educate their children, and to leave the next generation better off than 
they were; a dream that has been called into question in many advanced 
economies in the last few years. 
 
The success of NAFTA, which is generating new jobs and creating new 
markets from Monterrey to Medicine Hat is the proof. Now, as the Prime 
Minister has said so well, we in NAFTA are on our way to becoming the 
"Four Amigos." That phrase will go down in history; I wish I had thought 
of it. We will soon start our consultations with Chile for accession in 
NAFTA; it will be a very good partner. The addition of that thriving 
economy will only continue to increase the benefits for all of us. 
 
I want to take another moment here to thank Canada for its recent 
support during the financial crisis in Mexico. You understood what we 
had on the line--that more than Mexico was involved; that jobs, trade, 
futures, and our support for democracy and stability throughout Latin 
America were at issue. You understood it, and we are grateful. Because 
we stood shoulder to shoulder, we have a chance to preserve this 
remarkable explosion of democracy that we saw at the Summit of the 
Americas, and we should continue to do that. 
 
I want to say a word, if I might, about the environment. As we expand 
trade, we have to remember: We must defend that which we have inherited 
and enhance it if we can. The natural riches of this continent we share 
are staggering. We have cooperated to such great effect on our continent 
in the past: Our air quality agreement is solving the acid rain problem; 
the Great Lakes are on the road to recovery; and the eagles have 
returned to Lake Erie. Now we have to build on those accomplishments. 
 
With the NAFTA Environmental Commission located in Montreal, your 
country will play a key role in ensuring that we protect the 
extraordinary bounty that has been given us for our children and 
grandchildren. NAFTA is only one of several fronts on which we can work 
together to both increase our prosperity and protect our environment: We 
must do both. 
 
Our nations are building on the progress of last year's Summit of the 
Americas, as well. It will create a free trade area embracing the entire 
hemisphere. Across the Pacific, as the Prime Minister said, we paved the 
way for new markets and for free trade among the dynamic economies in 
the Asia-Pacific area. That was a very important thing for us to do 
because they are growing very fast, and we did not want this world to 
break up into geographical trading blocks in ways that would shrink the 
potential of the people of Canada and the United States for decades to 
come. 
 
These efforts will only enhance what is now the greatest trading 
relationship--yours and ours. Every day, people, ideas, and goods stream 
across our border. Bilateral trade now is more than $1 billion Canadian 
every day--I learned to say that--and about $270 billion U.S. last year-
-by far the worlds largest bilateral relationship. 
 
Our trade with each other has become an essential pillar in the 
architecture of our economies. Today, 4.5 million Americans have jobs 
that involve trade between our two countries. Those are the concrete 
benefits of our partnership. Between 1988 and 1994, trade between our 
nations rose about 60%. Last year alone, it increased by 15%. 
 
But the statistics do not give the human reality behind the flourishing 
exchange of goods and ideas. Our trade is creating real jobs for real 
people. In Boscawen, New Hampshire, for example, a small company called 
Secure Care Products produces monitoring systems for patients in nursing 
homes. 
 
Recently, Secure Care began exporting its products to Canada. Sales 
there are already growing fast, and the company expects them to triple 
this year. So Secure Care is hiring people like Susan Southwick, the 
granddaughter of Quebeckers, the mother of two, and now the company's 
26th employee. Giving Susan and her husband a shot at the dream which 
Canadians and American share--that is what this partnership is all 
about. 
 
Much further away from you, in Greensboro, North Carolina, another small 
company called Createc Forestry Systems is showing how our trade helps 
people turn their hopes into realities. It was founded by a man named 
Albert Jenks in his family's kitchen. Createc makes hand-held computers 
that track lumber mill inventories. Those computers help managers better 
assess their needs so fewer trees are cut unnecessarily. A few years 
ago, Createc began to export to Canada, and now those sales accounts 
have risen to nearly 20% of their total business. That means a more 
secure future for the company, for Mr. Jenks, and for his son, Patrick, 
who works with his father in the family business. That shows how our 
trade can increase our prosperity and protect the environment as well. 
 
Your companies are thriving in our markets, bringing tangible benefits 
to Canadians. Whether it is repairing the engines of some of the U.S. 
Air Force's largest planes, manufacturing software to manage our natural 
resources, or building some of the Olympic Village for Atlanta's 1996 
games, Canadian firms are a strong presence in the United States. Their 
successes there help your people turn their hopes into facts and their 
dreams into reality. 
 
The example of our biggest industry shows another side of this remark- 
able story. Working together, U.S. and Canadian companies have 
integrated North America's auto industry and staged one of the most 
remarkable comebacks in the history of the Industrial Revolution. We 
have drawn on each other's strengths, and, today, our companies work so 
closely that we no  longer speak of U.S. or Canadian in these vehicles, 
but of North American content--whether it is a Chrysler minivan made in 
Windsor or a Chrysler jeep made in Detroit. I think that was the 
ambassador from Michigan--I mean from the United States clapping down 
there. 
 
Productivity and employment have risen to such a point that when I 
visited Detroit last fall, the biggest complaint I heard in a state that 
was given up as lost economically a decade ago--the biggest complaint I 
heard from the auto workers was that they were working too much 
overtime. Now, where I come from, that is known as a high-class problem. 
The auto industry now provides more than 1 million jobs in our 
countries.  
 
To reinforce our commitment to NAFTA and to dramatically expand an 
important market, tomorrow, the United States and Canada will sign an 
agreement to open the skies between our nations. This agreement, which 
allows for a dramatic expansion of U.S. and Canadian service to each 
other's nations, will create thousands of new jobs and billions of 
dollars of economic activities in our cities--yours and mine. We have 
reached a fair solution that will make life easier for travelers on both 
sides of the border, that will profit both Canadian and U.S. airline 
carriers, and that will increase the mutual travel and interconnection 
of our people. That we have done so amicably provides yet another model 
of how neighboring nations can settle their differences. Friendship, 
engagement--Canada and the United States have shown the best there is in 
partnerships between nations; all the great potential that awaits all 
the free people of this earth if they can join in common cause. We are, 
as the monument at the St. Lawrence Seaway declares, two nations whose 
frontiers are the frontiers of friendship, whose ways are the ways of 
freedom, whose works are the works of peace. 
 
Every day, we see the enormous benefits this partnership gives to us in 
jobs, in prosperity, and in the great creative energy that our 
interchanges bring. But we have seen only the beginning. For the Susan 
Southwicks who want a chance to build better lives and the companies 
such as Createc that are trying to build solid businesses that will 
last, this partnership of ours holds a great promise with horizons as 
vast as our great continent. 
 
Together, we have turned our energies toward improving the world around 
us for nearly a century. Today, more than ever, let us reaffirm and 
renew that great tradition. Let us engage and confront the great 
challenges of the end of this century and the beginning of the next. We 
must sustain our efforts. We must enhance our efforts. We must maintain 
our partnership. We must make it stronger. This is our task and our 
mission. Together, we will be equal to it. The border separates our 
people, but there are no boundaries to our common dreams.  (###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 3: 
 
Fact Sheets:  Canada

U.S.-CANADA TRADE 
 
Canada and the United States share the world's largest bilateral trading 
relationship, with each serving as the largest market for the others' 
goods. Total U.S.-Canada goods and services trade was estimated at $270 
billion in 1994 and should reach $300 billion in 1995. Canada sent 84% 
of its 1994 exports to the U.S. It buys twice as much from the U.S. as 
does Japan, and its trade accounts for 17% of U.S. exports. The 
estimated merchandise trade deficit with Canada for 1994 was $14 
billion. 
 
The two countries trade many of the same kinds of products, which 
reflects the close integration of the two economies. This is 
particularly seen in two-way autos and auto parts trade, which accounts 
for about one-third of bilateral merchandise trade. Other major Canadian 
exports to the U.S. include resource-based products--lumber, paper, and 
energy--and high-tech goods. Manufactured goods, such as electronics, 
plastics, and steel, make up most of U.S. exports to Canada. 
 
Over the years, the two countries have worked to deepen and expand this 
successful trade relationship. Bilateral efforts began 30 years ago with 
the 1965 Auto Pact that allowed for duty-free trade for most autos and 
auto parts. Free trade was broadened considerably by the U.S.-Canada 
Free Trade Agreement (CFTA), which came into effect in 1989. The CFTA 
eliminated many trade barriers and provided for consultative management 
of trade disputes. CFTA gains were broadened by the signing of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which added new areas of economic 
activity--additional service sectors and investment--and a new country--
Mexico. With the establishment of the CFTA and NAFTA, trade has grown 
rapidly, with growth averaging more than 7% annually for each of the 
last 5 years.  
 
Foreign direct investment (FDI) has increased along with trade flows. 
U.S. FDI in Canada reached $68.4 billion in 1992, a 7% increase since 
the FTA became effective. Canadian FDI in the United States was $38.9 
billion, a 29% increase during the same period.  
 

U.S.-CANADA ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 
 
The United States and Canada have one of the world's oldest and most 
effective partnerships for environmental protection and preservation. 
Cooperation on measures related to air, water, and flood control in 
shared watersheds spans a border of more than 5,000 miles and involves 
17 U.S. states, eight Canadian provinces and the Yukon territory, many 
eco-regions, and three oceans. 
 
The environmental relationship dates from the 1909 Boundary Waters 
Treaty, which was set up to ensure cooperation on water uses, levels, 
and flows, and to protect water quality in the Great Lakes and other 
boundary waters. It put in place an enduring pattern of joint efforts to 
conserve and protect the environment. 
 
International Joint Commission 
 
Established by the 1909 treaty, the U.S.-Canada International Joint 
Commission (IJC) is a small, binational organization which has 
contributed to the governments' efforts to restore and clean up boundary 
waters. Under the 1909 treaty, it has issued numerous recommendations to 
protect water quality. It carries out multi-year monitoring duties on 
the Great Lakes and the St. Croix, Rainy, and Red Rivers. In addition, 
it responds to joint requests from the governments for studies and 
advisory activities.  
 
The Great Lakes 
 
The Great Lakes are on the road to recovery from past pollution. Both 
countries' adoption of a more coordinated ecosystem approach for the 
protection of the Great Lakes contributed to this progress. Such 
protection efforts included a U.S. investment of more than $8 billion in 
municipal wastewater treatment around the lakes in the 1970s and 1980s 
and major changes in industrial and agricultural practices. The results 
have been dramatic. For example, pollution discharges nearly killed Lake 
Erie in the 1960s, but now  eagles have returned to the Lake Erie basin, 
and its fisheries are a great boon to recreation and tourism. 
 
Air Quality Agreement 
 
In 1991, the IJC assumed a new responsibility--assisting the governments 
with public comment on the Air Quality Agreement, which was signed that 
year after a decade of debate. This agreement, also called the "Acid 
Rain" agreement, includes important measures to improve air quality. The 
two countries are working toward reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrous 
oxide emissions in Canada and the United States. Under the U.S. Clean 
Air Act, the United States will continue its aggressive programs to 
address the problem of ground-level ozone known as smog and its effects 
on health. The United States is reviewing its ozone standard with a view 
toward formal revision in 1997. 
 
Future Challenges 
 
The challenge today is to continue close cooperation within separate 
national frameworks. Canada's National Round Table on Economics and the 
Environment, Model Forests Program, and federal and provincial linkages 
represent innovative opportunities for cooperation. The U.S. Great Lakes 
Initiative will set new goals for water quality. The U.S. Clean Air Act 
and U.S. Toxics Release Inventory are comprehensive tools that enable 
the U.S. to engage in important common efforts with Canada. 
 
Following the President's visit to Ottawa in February 1995, the two 
countries will sign an agreement on national parks and undertake 
cooperation on regional ground-level ozone concentrations affecting 
citizens in both countries. On-going cooperation will continue to 
improve air and water quality, reduce and eliminate certain toxic 
discharges, maintain hazardous materials emergency preparedness and 
response capability, and address pollution prevention and waste 
management. Other cooperative efforts include sharing "planet earth" 
data obtained from joint ventures in space, devising approaches to 
climate change via "sister forests" and other environmentally 
sustainable North American programs, and joint efforts to protect 
wildlife and critical habitats.  
 
Broader International And Global Agenda 
 
Both nations support the North American Commission for Environmental 
Cooperation, consult regularly on G-7 environmental issues, work 
together to make cost-effective progress in response to UN sustainable 
development challenges, and develop new environmental protection 
approaches and technologies.  

 
NAFTA: KEY PROVISIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS 
 
Overview 
 
U.S. leadership in the next century will depend on its ability to 
compete in the global marketplace. The North American Free Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA) created the world's largest market: 380 million people 
producing nearly $8 trillion of goods and services. NAFTA expands export 
markets in Mexico and Canada for U.S. goods and services, boosts 
economic growth, creates jobs, strengthens cooperation with our 
neighbors on labor standards and the environment, and enables us to 
better compete against Europe and Asia. It builds on the 1989 U.S.-
Canada Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and enhances free trade in goods and 
services between the United States, Canada, and Mexico by eliminating 
import restrictions--such as tariffs, quotas, and licenses--and 
restrictions on foreign ownership and investment. 
 
Key Provisions 
 
Tariffs. NAFTA eliminates all tariffs on U.S., Mexican, and Canadian 
goods by 2008. Many were removed immediately, and others will be phased 
out over 5, 10, and 15 years. 
 
Customs. NAFTA expands and improves on procedures in the U.S.-Canada FTA 
and provides for uniform regulations to ensure consistent 
interpretation, application, and administration of the rules of origin. 
 
Quotas. NAFTA eliminates import and export quotas unless consistent with 
rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO--successor organization to 
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) or explicitly mentioned in 
the agreement.  
 
National Treatment. NAFTA reaffirms WTO principles preventing 
discrimination against imported goods. 
 
Standards. NAFTA prohibits use of product standards as a trade barrier 
but preserves each country's right to establish and enforce its own 
product standards, particularly those designed to promote health and 
safety and to protect human, animal, and plant life and the environment. 
 
Government Procurement. NAFTA opens new procurement markets in Mexico, 
particularly the petrochemical, heavy electrical, and pharmaceutical 
areas. 
 
Safeguards. NAFTA partners can impose a safeguard action during the 
transition period if increased imports constitute a "substantial cause 
or threat" of "serious injury" to a domestic industry. This follows WTO 
practice. 
 
Agriculture. NAFTA eliminates immediately or phases out tariffs on 
agricultural goods. It converts most quotas and other quantitative 
restrictions to tariff rate quotas, which allow a certain quantity of a 
product to enter duty-free. These tariff rate quotas will apply to U.S. 
exports of corn, dry beans, powdered milk, poultry, malted barley, 
animal fats, potatoes, and eggs. For some products--such as wheat, 
grapes, tobacco, other dairy products, and day-old chicks--quotas and 
other quantitative restrictions will be converted to tariffs, which then 
will be phased out. U.S. standards regarding food imports will be 
maintained. Special agricultural safeguards for certain import-sensitive 
products will be available to limit the impact of sudden import surges. 
 
Energy. NAFTA lifts investment restrictions on most of the basic 
petrochemicals industry and on most electricity-generating facilities. 
It eliminates or phases out tariffs on oil and gas field equipment and 
on coal. 
 
Autos. NAFTA provides for the immediate reduction of Mexican duties on 
vehicle imports and a timetable for their elimination. It eliminates 
Mexican quotas on new auto imports. It also removes tariffs on certain 
automotive parts and phases out others. It reduces the Mexican domestic-
content requirement to zero over 10 years and reduces Mexico's trade-
balancing requirement. Most U.S.-Canada auto trade was already duty-free 
under the 1965 U.S.-Canada Auto Pact, which was incorporated into the 
FTA. 
 
Textiles and Apparel. NAFTA eliminated some tariffs immediately and 
phases out others over a 10-year period. It removes quotas on imports 
from Mexico that qualify under the rules of origin. 
 
Financial Services. NAFTA allows investment by U.S. and Canadian firms 
in the Mexican banking market. It provides for the elimination of all 
restrictions on such investment by January 2000. U.S. and Canadian 
insurance firms with existing joint ventures in Mexico may increase 
their ownership to 100%. The agreement also permits U.S. insurance 
companies to issue reinsurance policies and establish subsidiaries in 
Mexico. It allows U.S and Canadian companies to invest in the brokerage 
industry in Mexico. 
 
Transportation. NAFTA eliminates, over a five-year period, restrictions 
on access by U.S. and Canadian trucking companies to Mexico. It gives 
charter and bus tour operators full access to the Mexican market. It 
allows U.S. and Canadian investment in Mexican bus and truck companies, 
in international cargo subsidiaries, and in Mexican port facilities. The 
agreement does not alter U.S. safety standards. 
 
Telecommunications. NAFTA eliminates duties and non-tariff barriers on 
most Mexican imports of telecommunications equipment, including private 
branch exchanges, cellular systems, satellite transmission, earth 
station equipment, and fiber optic transmission systems. It also 
eliminates restrictions on foreign investment in voice mail and other 
value-added and information services. North American firms will have 
access to and use of public telecommunications  networks and services. 
 
Investment. NAFTA provides for member state investors to receive the 
more favorable of national or MFN treatment in setting up operations or 
acquiring firms. It phases out most performance requirements over 10 
years and states that NAFTA partners may not impose new ones. The 
agreement guarantees the free transfer of capital and profits and that 
investors will be compensated at the fair market value of the investment 
in cases of expropriation. 
 
Intellectual Property. NAFTA protects North American producers in two 
new areas: computer programs and compilations of individually protected 
material. It establishes a minimum 50-year term for the protection of 
sound recordings and motion pictures. The agreement requires companies 
to register both service marks and trademarks. It prohibits compulsory 
licensing or mandatory linking of trademarks. It provides protection for 
independently created industrial designs and for trade secrets and 
proprietary information. 
 
Environment. NAFTA maintains existing federal and sub-federal standards. 
It allows a country to prohibit entry of goods that do not meet its 
standards. The agreement states that parties, including states, may 
enact tougher standards, and it permits each country to impose 
environmental requirements on foreign investment. 
 
Implementation. The Free Trade Commission ensures that NAFTA is 
implemented properly. Commission working groups monitor implementation 
of the various chapters of the agreement. 
 
Rules of Origin. Rules of origin define goods eligible for NAFTA 
treatment and prevent "free riding" by third countries. Only goods 
produced in North America qualify for NAFTA treatment. Goods containing 
imported components qualify if they are transformed enough to result in 
a tariff classification change. In some cases, goods also must have a 
specified percentage of North American content. There is a special rule 
of origin for textiles and apparel. 
 
Dispute Settlement. NAFTA extends the dispute settlement provisions of 
the U.S.-Canada FTA to Mexico while providing new safeguards to ensure 
fairness. It establishes the  North American Free Trade Commission and a 
Secretariat to administer the panel review system. The mechanism for 
resolution is as follows: 
 
-- Notification and consultation between parties; 
 
-- If no resolution, referral to the commission; 
 
-- If necessary, referral to a panel of private sector experts; and 
 
-- Resolution or retaliation. 
 
If the defending party does not comply with the panel ruling, the other 
party may suspend equivalent trade benefits until the dispute is 
resolved. 
 
Supplemental Agreements 
 
The three parties also have concluded supplemental agreements on the 
environment, on labor, and on import surges. 
 
Environment. The NAFTA supplemental agreement on environmental 
cooperation creates the Commission on Environmental Cooperation. The 
commission is located in Montreal, Canada, and its activities include: 
 
-- Providing expertise to dispute settlement panels in cases where one 
party has failed to enforce its laws affecting a sector involving traded 
goods and services; 
 
-- Considering the environmental implications of processing and 
production methods; and 
 
-- Promoting greater public access to information about hazardous 
substances. 
 
Labor. The NAFTA supplemental agreement on labor creates the Commission 
on Labor Cooperation, which promotes labor principles, laws, and 
standards and their effective application and enforcement. The supple- 
mental agreement provides that each country will promote public 
awareness of its laws as well as ensure compliance. 
 
These agreements provide for the use of fines and trade sanctions as a 
last resort if a party believes that another is demonstrating a 
persistent pattern of failure to enforce labor or environmental laws. 
 
Import Surges. The NAFTA supplemental agreement on import surges allows 
parties to impose trade restrictions if increased imports cause or 
threaten serious injury to a domestic industry. 
 
Additional Activities 
 
Border Cleanup. The United States and Mexico have established the Border 
Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American 
Development Bank (NADBank). These innovative institutions help 
coordinate and finance environmental infrastructure projects, including 
those focusing on water pollution along the U.S.-Mexico border. 
 
Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties Working Groups. The three 
countries established these working groups to build on the results of 
the Uruguay Round and seek solutions that reduce the possibility of 
disputes concerning the issues of subsidies, dumping, and the operation 
of trade remedy laws regarding such  
practices.  
 

U.S.-CANADA AIR SERVICES AGREEMENT 
 
Growing economic interdependence among nations--the "globalization" of 
the world economy--rapidly has expanded demand for international air 
services and challenged governments to rethink approaches to regulating 
this vital sector of the economy. Nowhere was the need for new thinking 
more important than in the U.S.-Canada bilateral aviation market--the 
world's largest air passenger market. The United States and Canada have 
just completed a new air transport agreement, thereby demonstrating a 
commitment to cooperation and economic progress in this key area. 
 
Breakthrough Agreement 
 
The new U.S.-Canada transborder aviation agreement, which was signed 
during the President's visit to Ottawa in February 1995, dramatically 
improves air services for consumers on both sides of the border. It 
replaces a highly restrictive regime with a liberal agreement which will 
allow significantly increased integration of the two countries' domestic 
air transportation networks. This result is consistent with the open 
border which traditionally has symbolized the excellent relationship 
that the two countries enjoy. 
 
Based on the same fundamental open-market principles as NAFTA, this new 
aviation agreement will contribute to economic expansion in both 
countries as it is implemented over a three-year, phase-in period.  
By modernizing the critical infrastructure pillar which air transport 
represents, the new agreement not only reinforces, but also expands the 
benefits of NAFTA by allowing for a fuller realization of its potential. 
 
U.S. International Air Transportation Policy 
 
The new air transport agreement also represents a milestone in the 
Administration's efforts to promote freer trade and clearly meets the 
objectives outlined in the Clinton Administration's international 
aviation policy statement of 1994. The new agreement will provide the 
aviation industry with the opportunities it needs to meet new demands 
and compete effectively in this market. It will provide consumers and 
shippers with more and better service options and contribute to: 
 
-- Expanding the international aviation market; 
 
-- Increasing service opportunities for airlines; 
 
-- Raising productivity and skilled job opportunities within the 
aviation industry; and 
 
-- Promoting aerospace exports. 
 
The World's Largest Bilateral Market 
 
The U.S.-Canada aviation market is the largest bilateral market in the 
world in terms of passenger movements, even though it has, until now, 
been severely constrained by one of the most restrictive aviation 
regimes. Despite the constraints of an outdated agreement--which has not 
allowed direct service between the two capitals and which had prevented 
one-third of the top 50 city-to-city markets from having any direct 
service--13 million people still traveled across the border on 
commercial flights in 1993. This cross-border movement generated more 
than $2.5 billion in direct revenues and many times this amount in 
indirect benefits to the travel and tourism industries in both 
countries. 
 
It is difficult to estimate precisely this agreement's potential 
economic impact due to the scale and scope of liberalization. Comparison 
with the growth achieved in other aviation relationships, though, offers 
some indication of its magnitude. Since 1978, for example, U.S.-Canada 
air travel has grown by less than 4% annually, while other U.S. aviation 
markets have grown several times faster. 
 
Air cargo carriers and the businesses which rely on specialized, time-
sensitive air deliveries also will see immediate benefits from the 
agreement. Severely hampered by the former agreement's limitations on 
aircraft size and package weight and dimensions and by constraints on 
routes and frequencies, all-cargo carriers now will be freed of many 
restrictions immediately and largely deregulated within 12 months. 
 
Key Elements of New Agreement 
 
-- This agreement substantially frees this huge aviation market from the 
governmental regulation which has hindered its growth in the past and 
permits introduction of the passenger and cargo services demanded by the 
U.S. and Canada's expanding economic ties. 
 
-- Canadian airlines will have immediate open access to all points in 
the U.S. 
 
-- U.S. carriers will achieve open access to Canada after a short, 
three-year transitional phase. 
 
-- The markets for all-cargo and charter services will be largely 
liberalized. 
 
-- Numerous U.S. cities will receive new and better service. 
 
-- This air agreement is an essential complement to the NAFTA and  
the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.  
 

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 
 
The environmental challenges confronting the world today are greater 
than at any time in recent history. Threats to the global environment--
such as climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, and the loss of 
biological diversity and forests--affect all nations, regardless of 
their level of development. As a result, the environment is increasingly 
important to U.S. foreign policy. The United States accords high 
priority to addressing global environmental problems and pursues wide-
ranging actions to protect the environment and promote sustainable 
development. 
 
Global Climate Change 
 
The possibility that human activities may cause climate change is one of 
the most serious international environmental concerns. The United States 
has been a leader in the effort to respond to this threat. Negotiations 
on a Framework Convention on Climate Change, which began near 
Washington, DC, in early 1991, culminated in an agreement that received 
more than 150 signatures at the UN Conference on Environment and 
Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992; the convention 
entered into force on March 21, 1994. 
 
The climate change convention began an effective process for confronting 
this global issue. Industrialized countries are developing specific 
action plans to limit their emissions of greenhouse gases and enhance 
forests and other greenhouse gas "sinks," or absorption areas. Other 
countries are to take similar actions in the future. 
 
President Clinton announced in April 1993 that the U.S. intends to 
return its greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 levels by the year 
2000. In October 1993, the President presented the national Climate 
Change Action Plan, containing nearly 50 domestic measures designed to 
meet the U.S. commitment. 
 
The United States made its national submission under the climate change 
convention in September 1994. The U.S. Climate Action Report details 
U.S. actions in all areas to address the threat of global climate 
change. It includes a U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation to promote 
cooperation between countries on projects that will reduce or sequester 
greenhouse gas emissions. In early February 1995, the first seven 
projects for inclusion in the initiative were announced. Partner 
countries include Belize, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Honduras, and 
Russia. It is hoped that these programs and others like them will serve 
as a model for an international joint implementation regime. 
 
During fiscal years 1993 and 1994, the United States provided $25 
million in financial support and technical assistance to developing 
countries and countries in transition to market economies for studies to 
help establish analytical foundations to address the threat of climate 
change. Eligible studies included inventories of greenhouse gas 
emissions, vulnerability studies, and analyses of options to address 
vulnerabilities and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The United States 
works with more than 50 countries on such studies. 
 
The U.S. urges that a discussion on "next steps" for the post-2000 era 
be part of the February 1995 preparatory session for the First 
Conference of Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change as 
well as part of the conference itself, which is to be held in Berlin, 
Germany, March 27-April 7, 1995. 
 
Protection of the Ozone Layer 
 
The depletion of the ozone layer continues to be another serious 
problem. The U.S. has led efforts to address this threat to the 
atmosphere, beginning with a decision in 1978 to ban the use of 
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in non-essential aerosols. Because protection 
of the ozone layer is possible only if all countries participate, the 
U.S. urged the conclusion of an agreement to restrict the use of CFCs 
and other ozone-depleting substances. 
 
This effort has led to a succession of landmark international agreements 
since 1985 designed to protect the ozone layer, including the 1985 
Vienna Convention and the 1987 Montreal Protocol. Based on an amendment 
under which countries will completely phase out the production of CFCs 
and most other ozone-depleting substances by the end of 1996, the U.S. 
has met its commitments to phase out halons by the end of 1994 and 
continues toward meeting phase-out targets for CFCs and allied 
substances by January 1, 1996. 
 
UN Conference on Environment And Development 
 
The June 1992 UNCED was a landmark event in addressing the global 
environment. Unlike other environmental conferences, UNCED focused on 
sustainable development--economic growth that takes into account 
environmental concerns. UNCED resulted in adoption of three key 
documents: 
 
-- Agenda 21--an action program to guide national and international 
environmental and development efforts into the 21st century; 
 
-- The Rio Declaration--a statement of principles regarding the 
environment and development;  and 
 
-- A statement of principles for the conservation and sustainable use of 
forests worldwide. 
 
Based on UNCED recommendation, the United Nations established a new 
Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) to monitor implementation of 
Agenda 21 recommendations. The U.S. strongly sup- ports the CSD as a 
primary international body for promoting sustainable development 
worldwide. The CSD will convene its next annual meeting in April 1995 to 
follow up on the Rio Conference. 
 
The United States works domestically to implement the recommendations 
made at the Rio Conference. On June 14, 1993, President Clinton 
announced the formation of the President's Council on Sustainable 
Development (PCSD) to develop specific policy recommendations for a 
national strategy on sustainable development that can be implemented by 
the public and private sectors. The PCSD represents a groundbreaking 
commitment to explore and develop policies that encourage economic 
growth, job creation, and effective use of natural resources. 
 
In addition to the treaties on biodiversity and climate change, UNCED 
also endorsed a convention to combat desertification, particularly in 
Africa. Negotiation of this new treaty was completed in Paris, France, 
on June 18, 1994. 
 
Conservation of Biological Diversity 
 
The United States is party to a large number of bilateral and 
multilateral agreements designed to protect endangered species and 
ensure wildlife conservation. One of the most important is the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 
and Flora (CITES), by which the 122 CITES signatories monitor and 
control international trade in wild species. CITES was crucial in 
efforts by the U.S. and other countries to protect the African elephant 
by banning trade in elephant ivory, and it is now involved in efforts to 
protect the rhinoceros and tiger. The Ninth CITES Conference of Parties 
was held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on November 7-18, 1994. 
 
While CITES has been effective in protecting species that are threatened 
as a direct result of international trade, the main cause of species 
loss is habitat destruction. The U.S. seeks to address this issue 
through a variety of means, such as increased funding for forest 
conservation programs, the establishment of protected areas under the 
World Heritage Convention and other agreements, and the Ramsar Treaty on 
International Wetlands. The U.S. Agency for International Development 
provides more than $160 million annually in assistance for tropical 
forestry and biological diversity programs. 
 
On June 4, 1993, the U.S. signed the UN Convention on Biological 
Diversity, which establishes a framework for countries to work together 
to protect the earth's species. The treaty is now before the U.S. Senate 
for ratification. The United States believes that the convention 
presents a unique opportunity for nations not only to conserve the 
world's biological diversity, but also to realize economic benefits from 
the conservation and sustainable use of its genetic resources. 
 
Population and Environment 
 
During the 1990s, world population growth will be greater than ever, 
with annual increases between 90 and 100 million. Unaddressed, global 
population will almost certainly double and could triple before the end 
of the next century. The implications of such growth for global 
economic, political, social, and environmental security are profound. 
 
The third UN International Conference on Population and Development 
convened in Cairo, Egypt, September 5-13, 1994. The Cairo conference 
provided a once-in-a-decade opportunity to marshal resources behind a 
comprehensive global effort   to stem rapid population growth. The U.S. 
worked with its international partners to develop comprehensive 
programs, which include addressing the unmet need and demand for family 
planning and reproductive health services; developing strategies for 
improving women's health needs and improving child survival; improving 
the social, economic, and political status of women; and mobilizing 
institutional and financial resources to meet these goals. All these 
initiatives influence population growth and are most effective when 
pursued together ; efforts in this regard will continue.  
 
Financing Environmental Protection 
 
The U.S. supports effective use of resources and institutions to promote 
sustainable development and environmental protection. It long has been a 
leader among bilateral donors in supporting environmental programs 
abroad and ensuring that environmental considerations are taken into 
account in assistance programs. The U.S. foreign assistance budget 
emphasizes sustainable development, including programs for reducing 
natural resource degradation, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and 
supporting biological diversity. 
 
Multilateral institutions remain essential to efforts to promote 
economic reforms and development in a rapidly changing world; they also 
are important instruments to promote sustainable development and 
environmental protection. The United States helps ensure that the 
multilateral development banks take environmental considerations into 
account in all lending programs. The U.S. also strongly supported 
creation of the Global Environmental Facility, which helps fund projects 
that provide global environmental benefits, such as those related to 
climate change and the loss of biodiversity. 
 
Marine Conservation and Pollution 
 
The world's oceans are threatened by human activities such as 
unsustainable resource use and pollution. The United States long has 
played an active role in ocean conservation programs, from the efforts 
in the early 1980s to protect whales to a UN-sponsored moratorium in 
1992 on the destructive practice of driftnet fishing. Work also is 
underway to ensure that fishing practices by tuna and shrimp fleets 
minimize impacts on populations of dolphins and sea turtles. 
 
The United States is a leading proponent of two major international 
agreements to address  marine pollution: the Convention for the 
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, which regulates discharges of 
harmful substances during the normal operation of ships at sea and the 
London Convention, which bans the ocean disposal of a number of wastes 
and lists others that may be disposed of only with special care. 
 
Because pollution from land-based sources represents the most serious 
threat to the marine environment, the United States promotes efforts to 
address this concern. Delegates to UNCED adopted a U.S. proposal calling 
for an Inter-governmental Conference on the Protection of the Marine 
Environment from Land-based Activities. This important conference will 
be hosted by the United States in Washington, DC, from October 23 to 
November 5, 1995. (###) 
 
 
[BOX]
Climate Action Report
Copies of the U.S. Climate Action Report may be obtained from the 
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office at a cost 
of $14.  The GPO stock number is 004-000-02416-1.  Call (202) 512-1800 
for further ordering information.

The report also is available on-line through:

--  GPO‚s Federal Bulletin Board Service (in Environment under Global 
Issues) by dialing (202) 512-1387; or
-- The Internet (under Publications and Major Reports) at gopher 
dosfan.lib.uic.edu.

(###)


 
ARTICLE 4: 
 
Country Profile:  Canada 
Official Name:  Canada 

Geography 
 
Area: 9.9 million sq. km. (3.8 million 
sq. mi.); second-largest country in the world.  
Cities: Capital--Ottawa pop. 833,000. Other major cities--Toronto 3.5 
million, Montreal 2.9 million, Vancouver 1.4 million.  
Terrain: Mostly plains with mountains in the west and lowlands in the 
southeast.  
Climate: Temperate to arctic. 
 
People 
 
Nationality: Noun and adjective--Canadian(s).  
Population (1994 est.): 29 million.  
Annual growth rate: 1.5%.  
Ethnic groups: British 28%, French 23%, other European 15%, 
Asian/Arab/African 6%, indigenous Indian and Eskimo 1.5%, mixed 
background 26%.  
Religions: Roman Catholic 46%, Protestant 41%.  
Languages: English, French. 
Education: Literacy--99% of population aged 15 and over have at least a 
ninth grade education.  
Health: Infant mortality rate--7/1,000. Life expectancy--75 yrs. male, 
82 yrs. female.  
Work force (13.8 million, 1992): Trade--18%. Manufacturing--15%. 
Transportation and communications--8%. Finance--7%. Public 
administration--7%. Construction--6%. Agriculture--4%. Forestry and 
mining--2%. Other services--33%. 
 
Government 
 
Type: Confederation with parliamentary democracy.  
Independence: July 1, 1867.  
Constitution: The amended British North America Act of 1867 patriated to 
Canada on April 17, 1982, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and unwritten 
custom. 
Branches: Executive--Queen Elizabeth II (head of state, represented by a 
governor general), prime minister (head of government), cabinet. 
Legislative--bicameral parliament (104-member Senate, 295-member House 
of Commons). Judicial--Supreme Court. 
Political parties: Progressive Conservative Party, Liberal Party, New 
Democratic Party, Reform Party, Bloc Quebecois. 
Subdivisions: 10 provinces, 2 territories.  
Suffrage: Universal at 18. 
Flag: A red maple leaf on a white background flanked by vertical red 
bands. 
 
Economy 
 
GDP (1994): $550 billion.  
Annual growth rate: 6.8%  
Per capita GDP (1994 est.): $19,000. 
Natural resources: Petroleum and natural gas, hydroelectric power, 
metals and minerals, fish, forests, wildlife. 
Agriculture: Products--wheat, livestock and meat, feed grains, oilseeds, 
dairy products, tobacco, fruits, vegetables. 
Industry: Types--motor vehicles and parts, machinery and equipment, 
aircraft and components, other diversified manufacturing, fish and 
forest products, processed and unprocessed minerals. 
Trade (1994 est.): Exports--$146 billion: motor vehicles and parts, 
lumber, wood-pulp and newsprint, crude and fabricated metals, natural 
gas, crude petroleum, wheat. Partners--U.S. 84%, EU 5%, Japan 4%. 
Imports--$135 billion: motor vehicles and parts, industrial machinery, 
crude petroleum, chemicals, agricultural machinery. Partners--U.S. 74%, 
EU 5%, Japan 4%. 
Exchange rate: U.S.$1=C$0.73. 
 
Principal Government Officials 
 
Prime Minister--Jean Chretien 
Minister of Foreign Affairs--Andre Ouellet 
Ambassador to the U.S.--Raymond Chretien 
Ambassador to the UN--vacant  (###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 5: 
 
Maintaining the Instruments Of America's Global Leadership 
Secretary Christopher 
Statement before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee, Washington, DC, March 1, 1995 
 
Good morning. I am pleased to appear before this subcommittee. I am here 
to give you an overview of our proposed fiscal 1996 budget and to 
highlight the objectives that it supports--in particular, those which 
fall under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. 
 
The American people justifiably expect that their government will do 
what is necessary to protect our nation's interests in the world. At the 
same time, the American people rightly demand that we apply the most 
rigorous standards to federal spending. We have been tough-minded in 
putting together an austere budget. 
 
The international affairs budget represents only 1.3% of total federal 
spending. It has absorbed substantial real cuts in the last several 
years and is now 45% lower in real terms than it was in 1984. Despite 
the extraordinary challenges we face, our 1996 spending request is 
essentially what we are spending in the current fiscal year. Indeed, the 
resources we are requesting are the rock-bottom minimum that we need to 
advance our nation's vital interests. 
 
Last November's elections, Mr. Chairman, certainly changed a great many 
things. But they were not a license to lose sight of our global 
interests or to walk away from our commitments in the world. Approving 
this budget will be a test of our willingness to devote the necessary 
resources to protect the security and prosperity of the American people. 
It will be a stern test of our commitment to lead. 
 
Our foreign policy strategy is driven by four principles: 
  
First, the imperative of American leadership in the world;  
 
Second, the need to maintain effective relations with the world's most 
powerful nations;  
 
Third, the importance of adapting and building institutions that will 
promote economic and security cooperation; and  
 
Fourth, the need to continue to support democracy and human rights. 
 
In my oral testimony today, I would like to devote particular emphasis 
to the first--the imperative of American leadership. 
 
The end of the Soviet empire removed the central threat to American 
security, but it did not eliminate in any way our vital stake in 
international engagement. I think a clear-eyed assessment of our 
interests makes it plain that American leadership remains essential. 
 
The spread of open societies and open markets gives us an unprecedented 
opportunity to advance our interests. But we must not be complacent. 
Aggression, intolerance, and tyranny still challenge the march of 
democracy and threaten our interests in many regions of the world. And 
problems such as nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and environmental 
degradation pose growing dangers to our nation. 
 
As we address both these opportunities and threats, we must set strict 
priorities that are consistent with our interests. But we also know that 
we cannot assure our security and prosperity by building a wall around 
our nation or by abandoning the instruments of global leadership. 
 
Today, America faces a series of choices: between engagement and 
retreat; between the concrete benefits of integration and the illusion 
of isolation; between sharing burdens and responsibilities with others 
and shirking them altogether. We are the nation that spent trillions of 
dollars to defend the free world during the four decades of the Cold 
War. It would be a historic mistake if we now refused to spend a 
fraction of that sum to consolidate the remarkable gains we have made. 
 
Of course, there is room to differ on specific issues--on the best ways 
to make peace-keeping more effective, for example, or the best possible 
targeting of our assistance programs. But, nevertheless, I believe that 
the wholesale rejection of all the instruments of our engagement would 
undermine America's ability to lead. 
 
Those who say they are for a strong America have a responsibility to 
help keep America strong. We simply cannot have it both ways. We cannot 
be the world's most powerful nation if we do not marshal the resources 
to stand by our commitments. We cannot lead if we do not have all the 
tools of leadership at our disposal. Preventive diplomacy is often the 
first line of defense. Those who would undermine our diplomatic capacity 
threaten our national interest at a vital stage in the process when 
peaceful solutions are still possible. 
 
To maintain our leadership, we must always be ready to back our 
diplomacy with credible threats of force. Yet no American believes that 
our soldiers should have to take all the risks or that our taxpayers 
should have to pay all the bills. That is why leveraging our power 
through institutions such as the United Nations is a sensible bargain 
that the American people support. 
 
There is no question that the UN can be and should be more effective. We 
are committed to the reform and reinvention of the UN system. Some 
progress is being made, and we will press for more. But some people seem 
to argue that we should back away from the UN entirely. That, in my 
judgment, would be a terrible mistake. 
 
In the last two years, we have developed clear peace-keeping guidelines 
designed to ensure that tough questions are answered before new missions 
are approved and that tough measures are taken to ensure that money is 
not wasted. And we are improving our consultation with Congress at every 
step. As a result, there have been fewer new missions and better 
management of existing ones. And the UN has established an inspector 
general, who is aggressively working on oversight questions. 
 
But two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed legislation--the 
so-called National Security Revitalization Act--which would end, 
intentionally or not, over four decades of U.S. support for UN peace-
keeping. That would violate a solemn treaty commitment--something we as 
a great nation should not do. If our NATO allies and Japan were to adopt 
similar policies, UN peace-keeping would end overnight. We would lose a 
tool that every American President since Harry Truman has used to 
advance American interests. And the United States would be left with an 
unacceptable choice whenever an emergency arose--a choice between acting 
alone and doing nothing. 
 
In connection with our second principle--the importance of constructive 
relations with the world's most powerful nations--let me take a moment 
to discuss our relations with Russia. 
 
There is little doubt that the conflict in Chechnya has clearly been one 
of the most serious crises for reform in Russia since the Soviet Union 
collapsed. We have been deeply concerned about the use of excessive and 
indiscriminate force in Chechnya and the corrosive implications that has 
for Russia's future as a democratic, multi-ethnic state. We have 
emphasized strongly to the Russian Government that the fighting must end 
and that a process of reconciliation must begin. And we strongly support 
the call of the Chairman-in-Office of the OSCE for a continuous OSCE 
presence in Chechnya. 
 
But the tragedy of Chechnya has not altered our interest in helping 
Russian reformers build a nation finally at peace with itself and its 
neighbors. Our assistance to Russia is important precisely because it 
advances that interest. It supports the dismantlement and safe transport 
of nuclear weapons and the development of a private economy in Russia. 
It backs solemn commitments we made to encourage Russian troops to leave 
the Baltic states. 
 
It is important to recognize that most assistance is distributed not 
through the government but through private groups, in areas outside 
Moscow. Cutting aid now would hurt the friends of democracy in Russia--
the very people who have been most critical of the Chechnya operation. 
 
At the same time, let me stress that the pace and substance of Russia's 
dealings with the United States and with institutions such as NATO and 
the G-7 will depend in large measure on the pace and direction of 
Russia's transformation. To the extent the Russian Government upholds 
international norms in its internal and external policies, the cause of 
Russia's integration is bound to advance. But further violence in 
Chechnya will only set back that cause. 
 
With respect to our third guiding principle--adapting and revitalizing 
institutions of security and economic cooperation--we are requesting 
funds in this budget for our assessed contributions to more than 50 
international bodies. This includes the UN, NATO, and the Organization 
of American States--bodies that promote peace, democracy, and economic 
development around the world. 
 
Our budget request also supports our fourth principle--our commitment to 
democracy and human rights. That commitment is based on a sober 
assessment of our interest in a world where the rule of law protects not 
just political rights but international stability and the essential 
elements of free market economies. In this respect, our budget includes 
funds to enable the United States Information Agency to continue to 
foster American ideals and international understanding in an 
interdependent world. 
 
To give you a sense of my priorities for 1995, let me mention five areas 
that offer particularly significant opportunities this year. 
 
First, we must sustain the momentum we have generated through the GATT, 
APEC, and the Summit of the Americas--a momentum toward the open trading 
system that is vital to American exports and American jobs. At the same 
time, it is essential that American companies and workers be in a 
position to take advantage of the opportunities that an open trading 
system provides. That is why I sit behind what I call the America Desk 
at the State Department and why I am determined to keep economic and 
commercial diplomacy at the core of the Department's work. 
 
I think we really have changed the culture of the State Department in 
this respect. I am pleased to see several CEOs quoted in national 
publications saying they have never seen our Department and our 
embassies more supportive of American business around the world. Seldom 
a week goes by that I don't get a letter to that effect. 
 
In a second area of opportunity, we are taking concrete steps to build a 
new security architecture in Europe. Our focus is on maintaining strong 
relations with Western Europe, consolidating democracy in Central Europe 
and the former Soviet Union, and engaging Russia in promoting European 
security.  With American leadership, we and our allies have begun a 
steady and open process that will lead to NATO expansion. 
 
The third area of opportunity is advancing comprehensive peace in the 
Middle East. We stand at a decisive moment in the peace process. The 
President and I are determined to do all we can to sustain the momentum. 
Next week, I will be traveling to the region once again to consult with 
key parties about how best to move the negotiations forward. I do not 
want to underestimate the challenges we face. But neither can we 
underestimate the opportunities to work for a lasting peace. 
 
The fourth area of emphasis is to intensify our efforts to stop the 
spread of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. Our 
global and regional strategies for 1995 comprise what I am quite 
confident is the most ambitious non-proliferation effort in history, 
beginning with the indefinite and unconditional extension of the Non-
Proliferation Treaty. Our 1996 budget supports the Arms Control and 
Disarmament Agency, including funds for implementing the Chemical 
Weapons Convention. 
 
As a fifth area of opportunity, we plan to implement a comprehensive 
strategy to combat international terrorists, criminals, and drug 
traffickers. And, as the President has announced, we will be proposing 
legislation to combat alien smuggling and illegal immigration. The 
President has also transmitted our proposed Omnibus Counterterrorism Act 
of 1995, which will give the executive branch new tools to improve 
prevention, investigation, and prosecution of terrorism. 
 
Beyond these five key areas, I want to stress that we will continue to 
address many other issues important to our nation's interests, such as 
promoting stability and democracy in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. 
And we will ensure that global challenges such as environmental 
degradation and rapid population growth have an important place on our 
foreign policy agenda. 
 
Our nation's ability to achieve all these objectives, Mr. Chairman, 
depends on the dedicated men and women who serve our nation's foreign 
affairs agencies. At 266 diplomatic posts overseas, these men and women 
help our companies open markets and create American jobs. They protect 
their fellow citizens abroad. They help keep our borders secure and keep 
drugs off our streets. They even, on occasion, provide assistance to 
congressional delegations. 
 
I know that every member of this Congress is committed to America's 
defense readiness. I believe that we must maintain the same level of 
diplomatic readiness as one of the most effective ways to avoid having 
to call upon our armed forces. Our foreign affairs personnel must be 
equipped to fight for America's interests. They must have access to 
modern information technology. They must work in facilities that help, 
not hinder, their productivity. 
 
As we seek to meet these challenges, we have a continuing obligation to 
make our operations as efficient as possible. As you know, Vice 
President Gore has been heading up a major effort to reinvent 
government. I have taken the strong position that the foreign affairs 
agencies are far from exempt from that process. Each of the foreign 
affairs agencies is proceeding vigorously with streamlining efforts. I 
also support the Vice President's decision that each of these agencies--
ACDA, AID, and USIA--has a distinct mission that can best be performed 
if they remain distinct agencies. 
 
At the State Department, we have been involved in the National 
Performance Review process since the outset. Let me tick off some of the 
things we have done in the last two years. We have closed 17 posts 
overseas. We have 1,100 fewer people at State than when I arrived. We 
have abolished 20% of our deputy assistant secretary positions. We have 
absorbed a 26% increase in passport workload with no increase in staff. 
We have reduced total senior officer positions to the point where we 
will meet congressional targets ahead of schedule. We have reduced 
overseas allowances and eliminated cash awards for senior officers. 
After four years of essentially flat budgets, this year's request of 
$2.6 billion for State Department operations represents a significant 
decrease in real terms. 
 
Pushing for greater efficiency and higher productivity in the management 
of our foreign affairs is a personal commitment of mine. I am working 
hard on a strategic plan to change the way we do business. 
 
We have a lot of work to do in the next few years. Here are some of the 
areas I've targeted.  
 
-- We will streamline our overseas missions.  
 
-- We will close 15 more posts.  
 
-- I want to push decision-making and responsibility downward by a 
further reduction in mid-level managers.  
 
-- We need to significantly cut back on administrative overhead. I want 
to expand the use of teams to better coordinate policy development at 
the Department and among different agencies in Washington.  
 
-- And I want to better focus our reporting and analysis to be sure we 
are not duplicating what other agencies do and what we can get on the 
open market. 
 
But, Mr. Chairman, I would be neglecting my responsibility as Secretary 
if I did not tell this subcommittee that some of the recent budget 
cutbacks have taken a toll on our readiness. Because we have not had 
adequate funding for language training, 50% of our language-designated 
positions are filled by people who have not reached the targeted 
proficiency levels. Almost 75% of the telephone systems serving our 
overseas posts are outdated--so outdated that when we needed repairs in 
our vital 24-hour operations center, the AT&T repairman had to consult 
with Bell Labs on how to service the antiquated equipment. Almost 80% of 
our automated data processing equipment is obsolete--our computer system 
is so old that we can't get maintenance contracts any longer, and we 
can't locate spare parts. 
 
That is why our FY 1996 request supports a modest $32.8 million Capital 
Investment Fund. This will be used to upgrade information systems, 
replace overseas telephone systems, and purchase a classified mainframe 
computer. It will improve our efficiency and productivity, reduce our 
maintenance costs on antiquated equipment, and help us continue to do 
more with less. 
 
Mr. Chairman, since my first week in office, I have consulted closely 
with both parties in Congress on every important issue on our agenda. I 
commit myself to continue to do so. I am committed to do all I can to 
sustain the bipartisan foreign policy that is America's tradition and 
strength. And I am committed to make our operations cost-effective and 
efficient, so that we can devote more of our resources to the domestic 
challenges the American people demand we meet. I look forward to 
continuing to work with you and with members on both sides of the aisle 
to provide American leadership to build a more peaceful, free, and 
prosperous world. (###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 6: 
 
U.S. Interests and Russian Reform 
Deputy Secretary Talbott 
Excerpts of remarks before the Arms Control Association, Washington, DC, 
February 23, 1995 
 
We are, indeed, looking ahead with resolve--but also with realism--to 
several big tests coming up soon.  Secretary Christopher has called the 
global and regional arms control challenges we face in 1995 "the most 
ambitious non-proliferation agenda in history." It includes no fewer 
than 13 key initiatives. 
 
--  We're working toward a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a convention 
cutting off the production of fissile material, and, of course, the 
indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I know that Tom 
Graham spoke to many of you on this last subject at the ACA annual 
luncheon two months ago. 
 
--  We're pushing for START II ratification in both the U.S. Senate and 
the Russian Parliament; we're intensifying our effort to use the Nunn-
Lugar program--one of the most important and positive pieces of 
legislation of the post-Cold War era--to dismantle and destroy nuclear 
weapons and provide peaceful alternative professional outlets for the 
skills and expertise of nuclear weapons scientists in the former Soviet 
Union; and we're working to complete the ABM treaty talks on the 
demarcation between theater and strategic missile defenses.  
 
--  We're seeking Senate ratification of the Chemical and Toxic Weapons 
Convention and also ratification of the Convention on Conventional 
Weapons, with its restrictions on the use of landmines; we're 
negotiating legally binding measures that will ensure compliance with 
the Biological Weapons Convention; and we're developing a new 
international exports control regime to succeed COCOM.  
 
--  We're committed to blocking Iraq and Iran's attempts to develop a 
nuclear weapons capability; to implementing the Agreed Framework with 
North Korea; and we're trying to head off a destabilizing competition in 
nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles between India and Pakistan.  
 
In short, we're going all-out to take full advantage of the historic 
opportunities presented by the end of the Cold War and the collapse of 
the Soviet Union. 
 
Our success will depend, in large measure, on the political context in 
which we pursue that ambitious arms control agenda.  There are many 
factors that will determine that context, but the single-most important 
is what happens in the former Soviet Union. Quite simply and starkly, if 
the 12 New Independent States that used to make up the U.S.S.R. evolve 
in the direction of stability, democracy, market economics, and 
integration with the rest of the world, then arms control and non-
proliferation will be more likely to succeed--globally as well as 
regionally. If, however, that vast area slips back into the past or 
veers off into any of a number of dangerous and ugly possibilities for 
the future, the worthy enterprises to which the ACA is so deeply 
devoted--and to which it so consistently and significantly contributes--
will suffer. 
 
There is plenty of reason for concern about what will happen in the 
former Soviet Union during the months and years ahead, and I will speak 
to that point in a moment. But we should maintain some sense of 
perspective; we should balance our apprehensions about the future with 
appreciation of what has been accomplished to date.   
 
Let me, in this connection, recall our discussion the last time we met. 
It was 26 months ago, in December of 1992, at the ACA annual luncheon. I 
was in my final days at Time magazine, worrying only about how Professor 
Keeny would grade my columns--an easier course than the one in which I'm 
now enrolled. In my remarks to you then, I stressed three concerns about 
future developments in the New Independent States. 
 
First, I warned of "the possibility that there could end up being three 
or four nuclear-weapons states where before there was one." I sketched a 
few nightmare scenarios--one involving instability and conflict both 
within and between adjacent nuclear weapons states in the NIS and 
another featuring a nuclear arms buildup involving not only the New 
Independent States themselves but, in the future, other European powers 
as well. 
 
Second, I argued that the fate of Ukraine was key to stability in 
Central Europe--that if Ukraine could develop as an independent, 
sovereign nation, secure in its current borders, with normal, peaceful 
relations with its neighbors, then the entire region would have a better 
chance for peace and prosperity. 
 
Third, I argued that it would be a blunder of historic proportions to 
abandon our support for Russian reform. I argued that President-elect 
Clinton needed to follow through on the Bush Administration's promises 
of economic assistance, and that, whenever possible, he needed to 
cooperate with--rather than browbeat--the Russian reformers. 
 
Looking back at these points two years later, I'm struck not by what a 
splendid crystal ball I had--the points I was making were pretty much 
self-evident; rather, I'm struck by how far we've come in the right 
direction on all three fronts. 
 
Thanks in large part to President Clinton's leadership, issue number 
one--the danger that the Soviet Union would give way to four nuclear 
weapons states in the NIS--is well on its way to being resolved. In 
Budapest two months ago, at the ceremony for START I's entry into force, 
we saw Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan accede to the Non-Proliferation 
Treaty as non-nuclear weapons states.  After persistent efforts on our 
part, these nations have also joined wholeheartedly in innovative Nunn-
Lugar initiatives, such as Operation Sapphire, which airlifted nearly 
600 kilograms of highly enriched uranium from Kazakhstan to secure 
storage in the United States.  
 
We've also seen encouraging progress on issue number two--the 
independence of Ukraine. In October, after a year-and-a-half of patient 
encouragement by President Clinton, Vice President Gore, Secretary 
Christopher, and other Administration officials, the Ukrainians took the 
courageous step of launching genuine, broad-gauge economic reform. The 
benefits of that policy will help cement the bonds of nationhood; 
Ukrainians from Donetsk to Simferopol to Lviv now share a common stake 
in reform and a common interest in strengthening the sovereignty and 
unity of the Ukrainian state. 
 
Russia has done its own part to encourage the chances that Ukraine will 
survive and, ultimately, prosper.  Moscow has reaffirmed its acceptance 
of current borders and kept a prudent distance from ethnic separatist 
movements in the Crimea and elsewhere.  The Russian and Ukrainian 
Governments have worked cooperatively to manage a number of difficult 
issues, such as START I implementation, and the status of the Black Sea 
Fleet. 
 
Good Russian-Ukrainian relations have helped to facilitate Russia's 
relations with the other nations of Central Europe. On August 31 of last 
year--after years of patient but firm diplomacy by Presidents Bush and 
Clinton--Russian troops withdrew from Germany and the Baltics. To the 
south, Russia is committed to withdraw its 14th army from Moldova by 
1997, in accordance with the agreement that those two governments 
reached last October. The door is now open for Russia to build 
effective, mutually beneficial economic ties to all of these nations.  
 
That brings me to the third and final issue I flagged in December 1992--
the doubts we all felt then about the fate of internal reforms in Russia 
and concern over what, if anything, the United States could do to 
influence events there. Only three days before I spoke to you, Boris 
Yeltsin had named as his Prime Minister Victor Chernomyrdin, a baron of 
the oil and gas sector, to replace Yegor Gaidar, the Russian 
Government's most visible champion of economic reform.  Chernomyrdin was 
widely presumed to be a throwback to the Soviet managerial mentality, 
wedded to the command economy, and to authoritarian methods. Meanwhile, 
Foreign Minister Kozyrev had just observed April Fool's Day in December 
by delivering a speech in Stockholm that proclaimed "the resumption of 
the Cold War" and Moscow's intention to launch "a campaign of bringing 
the 15 republics together again." Having thus gotten his audience's 
attention, Kozyrev said he was just kidding--but not entirely: He was 
warning that forces precisely so disposed were alive and well and 
growing stronger in Russia. 
 
In retrospect, of course, that cluster of scary moments two years and 
two months ago was merely the calm before the storm--repeated storms, in 
fact.  In the spring of 1993, President Yeltsin was locked in a 
confrontation with the Soviet-era parliament and fought to win a 
national referendum on his leadership; in September 1993, he suspended 
the parliament; in October, he ordered troops to attack the White House 
after supporters of mutinous deputies took to the streets with automatic 
weapons and rocket-propelled grenades.  Two months later, Vladimir 
Zhirinovsky, ultranationalists, unreconstructed communists, and other 
opponents of reform made sweeping gains through the ballot box. 
 
At each of those critical, worrisome junctures, many commentators--in 
both Russia and the West--believed that reform was mortally wounded, 
perhaps even dead. With the benefit of some hindsight, we can now see 
that the interim verdict should have been more qualified: Reform was 
down but not out--threatened, yes; defeated, no.  Incidentally--or, 
perhaps, I should say, not incidentally--one reason that reform survived 
was that Prime Minister Chernomyrdin did not live up to his ominous 
billing; he established himself as an effective proponent of economic 
reform and a key figure in U.S.-Russian cooperation, largely through the 
extraordinary working relationship he has developed with Vice President 
Gore. 
 
Now, in Chechnya, there is a new crisis for reform in Russia--the most 
serious to date. On Wednesday, Defense Minister Grachev said that "there 
should be no more cease-fire talks" with the Chechens, and the fighting 
on the outskirts of Groznyy continues. We are now hearing reports that 
there already have been as many as 25,000 civilian casualties in Groznyy 
alone and that some 300,000-400,000 people have been displaced from 
their homes by the fighting.  
 
But Chechnya is more than an on-going tragedy and outrage in a remote 
corner of the North Caucasus.  Chechnya is, literally and figuratively, 
broadcasting to the world an image that conjures up the worst memories 
of Russia's past and clouds the best visions of her future. People all 
over the globe, including a great many Russians, are now asking: How can 
Russia develop as a multi-ethnic democratic state while its central 
government is waging an all-out war against tens of thousands of its own 
people? And how will Russia continue on a course of economic reform 
while its human and financial resources are being squandered on an ill-
conceived military operation against one of its own cities?  
 
Disturbing as these questions are, they are not new. From the day that 
the hammer and sickle came down over the Kremlin and the Russian 
tricolor went up in its place, we--and most Russians, too--have been 
asking ourselves where Russia is going. What kind of state it will be in 
the next century? Chechnya has sharpened the debate over what might be 
called the existential question about Russia--about its very nature, 
past, present, and future. But Chechnya did not begin that debate, nor 
will its resolution answer the fundamental questions. 
 
There are plenty of voices--some quavering and some strident--arguing, 
in effect, that the debate is over; they are saying, in effect, "We told 
you so."  They believe that Chechnya confirms, decisively and 
conclusively, the worst about Russia; that it proves Russia is a country 
doomed--for reasons of geography, political culture, and history--to an 
authoritarian, if not totalitarian, domestic order, and to aggressive, 
imperialistic international behavior. 
 
Our view is different. We don't believe in historical or geographical 
determinism. History and geography are hugely important factors, of 
course, in any state's identity and destiny.   
 
But we should beware of stereotypes about national character, 
particularly ones that would--if they become the basis of policy--
consign whole peoples to dictatorship on the perverse theory that that 
is the kind of government they deserve, or the political system encoded 
in their genes. That's the lesson that Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk, 
and the people of South Africa have taught the world: Nations can turn 
back from a disastrous course, alter their destinies, and transform 
their identities--and they are especially likely to do so in the age of 
global interdependence and the communications revolution. 
 
That is not, however, an argument for determinism of a utopian sort.  
There is nothing automatic or guaranteed about happy endings, either in 
history or in our increasingly interdependent but still highly uncertain 
future. We do not--we cannot--know for sure what kind of state Russia 
will be in the 21st century. What we do know is that there is a titanic 
struggle going on between forces of reform and those of regression, 
between the new and the old, and between various visions of the new, 
some hardly more savory than the old. The outcome of this struggle is 
anything but foreordained, and it is precisely because we cannot bet on 
a predetermined outcome that we have invested in measures intended to 
affect the course of events in a way that is consistent with our 
interests and values. President Clinton underscored this premise of our 
policy when he visited Moscow just over a year ago. In a town meeting at 
Ostankino television studio, broadcast throughout Russia and around the 
world, he asked the Russian people: "How will you define your role in 
the world as a great power? Will you define it in yesterday's terms, or 
tomorrow's?" 
 
These were not merely rhetorical questions.  The President did not imply 
that he knew the answer. He made quite clear that it is up to the 
Russian people themselves to find their own answer. But he also made 
clear that he--and all of us--have our own hopes about what answers will 
eventually emerge, and that our nation's relationship with Russia will, 
ultimately, depend on the choices that the Russian people make.  
 
In order to get a sense of the very different possibilities for Russia's 
future, it's important to keep in mind the many transformations that are 
now taking place in Russian villages and cities all across that vast 
land. Many of the most visible of these changes are thoroughly bad news. 
I'm thinking of the emergence of increasingly sophisticated organized 
criminal syndicates or ultranationalistic, often anti-democratic 
political groups. But there are also a lot of reformers among the 150 
million people who live across the 11 time zones of Russia.  
 
We have seen President Yeltsin and his advisers in the Kremlin take a 
giant step backward in Chechnya. But at the same time, an active, highly 
critical press is accurately reporting what is going on throughout the 
crisis and playing a vital role in shaping public opinion. Those opposed 
to Kremlin policy are speaking out freely, and often angrily, on Russian 
television, and they are traveling abroad to encourage international 
criticism of their government's behavior. The Russian Parliament is 
vigorously and openly debating what has happened and what is to be done. 
Regional leaders such as Presidents Boris Nemtsov of Nizhny-Novgorod and 
Mikhail Nikolayev of Sakha are voicing their disapproval of the 
Kremlin's handling of Chechnya as well.  
 
A majority of Russians and of Russian leaders now accept the idea that 
political combat should be waged on the floor of the parliament, in the 
press, and on the hustings, rather than on the streets or underground. 
That doesn't mean that we will always welcome the results of Russian 
domestic politics. But it is, I would contend, a net positive that real 
politics is emerging as the basis of the system that governs the largest 
country on earth. 
 
For President Yeltsin, Chechnya has been a personal and political 
debacle.  The brutality and ineptitude of the military campaign has 
shrunk his political base and reduced his approval in Russia to an all-
time low. And it has jeopardized his international support as well. 
 
The main question now is what lessons will he and the rest of the 
Russian leadership learn from Chechnya? Will they uphold the rule of law 
and human rights, or will they try to give priority to "order" and 
"security" in a fashion that ends up undermining both, as it did so 
spectacularly and fatally during the Soviet period of Russian history? 
Will they embrace the obligations that come with membership in the 
international community, or will they choose the path of self-enforced 
isolation, and economic and political backwardness? 
 
The most recent indications of President Yeltsin's own thinking--from 
his speech last Thursday to the Russian parliament--are mixed. While he 
took the opportunity to reiterate his commitment to democratic reform, 
he stopped short of calling for a peaceful political settlement in 
Chechnya--in our judgment, the only genuine resolution to this crisis 
that is consistent with democratic principles. 
 
As I've already said, one way to look at what is happening in Russia 
today is as a struggle between the forces of reform and reaction, 
between the old and the new. Another way is as a struggle between the 
forces of integration and disintegration.  Chechnya obviously represents 
disintegration. Moreover, it stands as a warning for the future: If the 
central Russian Government attempts to enforce unity with brute 
strength--if it insists on imposing integration on people who feel 
disenfranchised or oppressed--the result will likely be more 
disintegration, more violence, more instability, and more insecurity for 
Russia itself and also for her neighbors. 
 
Our own policy in this regard is clear: We support the sovereignty and 
territorial integrity of a democratic Russian Federation within its 
current borders. We want to see Russia develop as a strong, prosperous 
state in the 21st century, but we have also made clear that we think 
that will happen only if Russia continues to develop a pluralistic 
political system, a constitutional order, and federal structures that 
permit all the peoples of Russia to identify themselves as citizens of a 
multi-ethnic state rather than as subjects of Moscow.  
 
Integration is also a goal of Russian foreign policy. The Yeltsin-
Chernomyrdin-Kozyrev government has, to its credit, placed a high 
premium on participating in and benefiting from the various 
organizations that make up the international order. These include GATT, 
the European Union, the G-7, the ASEAN Regional Forum, and, perhaps most 
important, the newly emerging arrangements that will define a post-Cold 
War security order for an undivided Europe: the OSCE, the Partnership 
for Peace, and, in due course, some sort of relationship between Russia 
and NATO. 
 
Since integration serves the goal of Russian reform, it serves American 
national interest as well. Indeed, it is the hallmark of the Clinton 
Administration's foreign policy to strengthen existing international 
structures and build new ones that will serve the interrelated 
objectives of open markets and open societies--of global peace and 
prosperity. We want Russia to be as much a part of those structures as 
possible and as soon as possible. 
 
At the same time, the pace, tone, and content of Russia's dealings with 
the outside world will depend, in large measure, on the pace, tone, and 
direction of Russia's ongoing internal transformation. Continued 
integration with the West will enhance Russia's security and expand its 
access to capital. But it also carries with it an obligation to the 
political norms and market practices that undergird the strength of the 
industrialized democracies. The way in which Russia defines statehood 
internally will be a major factor in how quickly and fully Russia 
achieves its laudable goal of membership in the community of democratic 
nations.  
 
That, too, is part of the lesson of Chechnya: When the Russian 
Government violates international norms in its handling of an internal 
crisis, as it has unquestionably and egregiously done in Chechnya, the 
cause of external as well as internal integration suffers. 
 
That said, however, what we should not do is to treat each and every 
disagreement we have with the Russians as some sort of final, "High-
Noon" showdown that puts the entire relationship, including support for 
reform, on the line. Obviously, our aid will be calibrated to be sure 
that it does what it is intended to do: namely, support reform.  But 
threatening to pull the plug on our reform assistance programs is a card 
we can play exactly once. Having done it, we won't be able to do it--or 
even plausibly threaten to do it--again. 
 
The key point here, however, is that support for economic and political 
reform in Russia is in our own national interests--even, and I'd say 
especially, when there are tensions in the overall, government-to-
government relationship.  Just as the Nunn-Lugar program and START II 
are defense by other means, so, too, are our assistance programs an 
investment in a safer future. Encouraging the growth of democracy and 
economic freedom in Russia remains the best and least- expensive 
investment we can make in our own security and in the security of all 
the peoples of Europe. Reformers have, indeed, come under fire in recent 
months, but that seems to us to be all the more reason to step up our 
efforts to help them. As President Clinton said in Cleveland last month, 
"if the forces of reform are embattled, we must renew, not retreat from, 
our support for them." 
 
In conclusion, let me say that I appreciate your allowing me to wander 
so far afield from those subjects that are of most intense and immediate 
interest to your organization--from those subjects, in other words, that 
Stan Resor and I used to talk about on the park bench on the New Haven 
Green. But I hope you agree that there is the tightest possible 
connection between arms control on the one hand and the future of 
Russian politics and foreign policy on the other, and that connection is 
more than just because the latter provides a context for the former. 
It's also because one of the principles that served us so well during 
the arms control negotiations of the Cold War will also serve us well 
now that the Cold War is over and now that we have a much broader, 
deeper, more complicated agenda in our dealings with the former Soviet 
Union. That principle is steadiness; it's consistency, continuity, and 
determination; it's keeping our eye on the big picture and the long-term 
objective. 
 
Many of you here tonight preached, and practiced, that principle when 
the issue was how to work with the Soviet Union on virtually the only 
issue on which we had a common interest, which was diminishing the 
danger that we'd blow each other up. That same principle of steadiness 
is crucial now that we have a chance to work with Russia, Ukraine, and 
the other New Independent States of the former Soviet Union on the less 
apocalyptic--but no less difficult and no less important--task of 
building a more peaceful, prosperous, and integrated world. . . . (###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 7: 
 
American Eagle or Ostrich? The Case for The United States in the United 
Nations 
Deputy Secretary Talbott 
Remarks to the Denver World Affairs Council, Denver, Colorado, February 
28, 1995 
 
Thank you both for that kind introduction and for inviting me to Denver 
today. I've been a frequent visitor to Colorado over the years--not just 
for purposes of risking life and limb on the slopes of Vail, Snowmass, 
and Telluride, but also because for nearly 15 years the Aspen Institute 
provided me with an opportunity each August to spend a week in some of 
the loveliest country on earth thinking and talking with colleagues and 
mentors about the U.S. role in the world. 
 
That is my topic this afternoon. More specifically, I would like to talk 
about the need for vigorous American engagement and leadership in the 
world. More specifically still, I'd like to talk to you about the United 
States in the United Nations, why we're in it, and what's in it for us. 
I chose this topic precisely because it is controversial; I chose it 
because the UN, and America's leadership of it, are under attack from a 
number of quarters--and because it's important that the debate take 
place not just inside the Washington beltway, or on the floor of the 
U.S. Congress, but in the country as a whole. 
 
Let me start with the general issue of international engagement. I know 
that I don't need to lecture this audience on how U.S. foreign policy 
can affect every community in every state of the union. Denver companies 
are doing record amounts of business overseas and are actively pursuing 
opportunities to expand further--in industries ranging from mining to 
telecommunications to agricultural processing to environmental 
technology.  
 
Back in Washington, we were pleased to hear when the Colorado House of 
Representatives unanimously supported NAFTA. One of the follow-ups to 
NAFTA will take place here in Denver on June 30, when U.S. Trade 
Representative Mickey Kantor will host a hemispheric trade ministers' 
meeting, followed by a commercial forum co-hosted by Commerce Secretary 
Ron Brown.   
 
These international ventures--the quest to create good jobs at home by 
developing markets abroad--are an important aspect of one of the central 
themes of the era and of the world in which we live: namely, global 
interdependence. That's a somewhat fancy, slightly suspect term because 
it smacks of what Clare Booth Luce dubbed, a half century ago, 
"globaloney."  But the phenomenon is real; to a steadily increasing 
extent, what happens beyond our borders affects us here in the United 
States--sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. For instance, the 
lives of our children and grandchildren will be dramatically influenced 
by our efforts to ensure sustainable population growth, combat threats 
to the global environment, and win the struggle against drug 
traffickers. These last three challenges are the focus of my friend and 
colleague Tim Wirth's work since he came to the State Department as 
Under Secretary for Global Affairs. 
 
With interdependence among nations comes the need for global cooperation 
among them. The consolidation of a liberal international trading order 
and the opening of markets for American trade and investment are more 
important than ever. But there's much more at stake here beyond 
economics and commerce. We can't free our own neighborhoods from drug-
related crime unless we work closely with countries where drugs are 
produced. We can't track down terrorists, such as Carlos the Jackal or 
World Trade Center bombing suspect Ramzi Ahmed Yousef--both of whom are 
now in custody--without help from the police of other countries. And we 
can't keep nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of dictators and 
terrorists through our own vigilance alone.  All this should be obvious, 
but not everyone seems to get it.  
 
Today, as there was in the aftermath of other great struggles earlier in 
our nation's history, there is a temptation to draw back into ourselves, 
to turn our attention and our resources to fixing our own problems, and 
let other countries take care of themselves. This is particularly 
evident in Congress, where there are those, in each party, who counsel 
us to duck--not deal with--the international challenges that we face. 
 
This sentiment echoes that of the narrow-visioned naysayers of the 
1920s, who rejected the League of Nations, embraced protectionism, 
downplayed the rise of Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin; who opposed help 
to the victims of aggression and inadvertently endangered our security--
chanting all the while the crowd-pleasing mantra of "America first." 
 
Arguments that would turn the American eagle into an ostrich have always 
had a certain appeal, in part, because we're separated by vast oceans 
from both Europe and Asia, because we've long been at peace with our 
immediate neighbors on this continent, and because our Founding Fathers' 
advice to avoid foreign entanglements still rings in our ears. 
 
But the leaders of the great coalition that triumphed in the Second 
World War learned several, if not all, of the lessons from the aftermath 
of the First. Instead of humiliating and impoverishing their defeated 
enemies, the victors of World War II helped rebuild Japan and Germany. 
Through the Marshall Plan, GATT, and the international financial 
institutions born at Bretton Woods, the diplomats who were present at 
the creation of the post-World War world established the basis for a 
community of Western democracies and for an increasingly interdependent 
and prosperous global economy. And they created a mechanism to further 
the cause of enduring peace through the UN Charter--a document inspired 
by American ideals and largely written by American statesmen. 
 
It's natural that internationalism is more likely to be popular when 
there is a clear-cut enemy, such as Soviet communism. During the Cold 
War, much of what we were for was dictated by what we were against.  The 
imperative of containing communism permeated our policies. We formed 
alliances to defend against Soviet expansion; we doled out assistance to 
maintain our influence against encroachments; and we strove to counter 
the Soviets in every forum, including the United Nations. 
 
With the end of the Cold War, we face historic opportunities, not just 
to combat threats and enemies, but also to help build a world that is 
ordered according to our interests and values.   
 
Nonetheless, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, 
it's natural that the old isolationist instinct would twitch again in 
the American body politic. It's twitching now. It's twitching in calls 
for us to reject free trade agreements, or to have nothing to do with 
any foreign conflict, or in the fantasy that we can build multi-billion- 
dollar space-based shields that will keep us safe from any military 
attack.  
 
The argument against isolationism and in favor of internationalism is 
simple; its rooted in our history and in our national interest: As this 
century has amply demonstrated, our freedom, security, and prosperity 
cannot be ensured without the active help of other free peoples, all of 
whom are looking to us for leadership. 
 
Now, the ultimate guarantor of our security remains our capacity and 
willingness to act forcefully and unilaterally when our interests are 
threatened. Our military must remain modern, mobile, ready, and strong, 
and--as President Clinton pledged in his State of the Union address--it 
will. But we must also preserve the option of acting through NATO and 
other coalitions. That brings me to the United Nations. 
 
As our President who was in office when the Cold War ended, President 
Bush observed that the United Nations was "emerging as a central 
instrument for the prevention and resolution of conflicts and the 
preservation of peace."  Former President Reagan called for "a standing 
UN force, an army of conscience--equipped and prepared to carve out 
humanitarian sanctuaries through force if necessary." 
 
That was yesterday. Today, some of the loudest voices in our national 
debate propound something quite different. The UN is "the longtime 
nemesis of millions of Americans," says one leader on Capitol Hill. It 
is "a totally incompetent instrument anyplace that matters," says 
another.  
 
A bill, the so-called National Security Revitalization Act, has been 
passed by the House--and is now making its way through the Senate. It's 
part of the so-called Contract with America. It is designed not to 
reform UN peace-keeping but to kill it. If enacted into law, this 
proposal would be a blunder--a giant step backward--of truly historic 
proportions. 
 
Under the guise of being a Contract with America, it would abrogate the 
United States' half-century-old contract with the international 
community--the contract that Harry Truman signed, that the U.S. Senate 
ratified, and that every President since has reaffirmed.  
 
The National Security Revitalization Act would be an out-and-out 
repudiation of our treaty obligations under the UN Charter. It would 
cancel our entire UN peace-keeping payment. Other nations--Japan and our 
NATO allies--would surely follow by withholding their own funds, and UN 
peace-keeping would end virtually overnight.  
 
This would cause massive disruptions and quite possibly mean the 
resumption of a number of conflicts. I can think of few quicker ways to 
undermine global stability than to yank UN peacekeepers out of Cyprus, 
Lebanon, Kashmir, and the border between Kuwait and Iraq. Furthermore, 
if America reneges on its commitments under the UN Charter, it would 
undermine our ability to argue that other nations should meet their 
obligations under international law. This would particularly impair our 
ability to maintain sanctions against rogue states such as Libya, Iraq, 
and Serbia. 
 
Those are negative arguments--bad things that would happen if we pulled 
the plug at the UN. Here's the positive one for strengthening the UN 
through U.S. leadership: Peace-keeping, itself, is a vitally important 
enterprise in which we must remain engaged. It has the capacity, under 
the right circumstances, to separate our adversaries, maintain cease-
fires, speed the delivery of humanitarian relief, enable refugees to 
return home, demobilize combatants, and create conditions under which 
free elections may be held. In so doing, it can nurture new democracies, 
lower the global tide of refugees and the huge cost of rescuing and 
sustaining them, reduce the likelihood of unwelcome interventions by 
regional powers, and prevent small wars from growing into larger 
conflicts which would be far more costly in lives and treasure. 
 
Speaking of cost, let me emphasize this point: peace-keeping--and UN 
peace-keeping in particular--is a good investment for the United States. 
The per capita price to Americans, for the entire UN system--from blue 
helmets for peacekeepers to polio vaccines for babies--is less than $7 
per year. That is about the price of a ticket to our nation's most 
popular movie which, by the way, currently is a film called "Dumb and 
Dumber."   
 
Our own country's direct participation in UN peace operations is modest. 
As of January 1, 1995, the U.S. ranked 26th among nations in the number 
of troops participating in peace-keeping operations around the world--
behind not only Canada and Poland, but also Ghana and Zambia. All this 
said, obviously, we do not look to the UN to defend America's vital 
interests. That we're prepared to do on a moment's notice by ourselves 
if necessary.  
 
We know that UN peace-keeping cannot be effective where the swift and 
decisive application of military force is required. But in many 
circumstances, acting through the UN will enable us to influence events 
without assuming the full burden of costs and risks. Let me mention a 
few of those operations. 
 
--  On the tense border between India and Pakistan, UN troops monitor a 
cease-fire between two regional rivals presumed to have nuclear weapons. 
 
--  In El Salvador, where America spent more than $1 billion in economic 
and military aid during the 1980s, the UN brokered an end to the civil 
war, disarmed and reintegrated the rebel forces into society, monitored 
human rights and elections, and oversaw the creation of a new civilian 
police.  
 
--  In Cambodia, where I was a few weeks ago, the UN has succeeded in 
clearing mines, repatriating refugees, and organizing elections, thus 
making an astonishing transition to democracy possible. 
 
One of the myths that has gained currency in recent months is that the 
United States is running around the world doing the bidding of the UN, 
regardless of, if not contrary to, its own interests and priorities. 
Many would argue that the reverse is closer to the truth. Under the UN 
Charter, it is the Security Council that has responsibility for 
authorizing responses to lawless international behavior, including 
threats to peace. As a permanent member of the Council, with veto 
powers, we have enormous influence over what it decides.  
 
Frequently, a Council resolution will lend international backing to 
causes we support and make it easier to bring others aboard for military 
operations or sanctions enforcement--thereby allowing us to share in the 
costs and the risks assumed in defense of our interests. For instance, 
the UN Security Council played a key role in bringing together the 
multinational coalition for Operation Desert Storm in Kuwait, and the 
Council performed a similar service for Operation Uphold Democracy in 
Haiti. As Secretary Christopher puts it, were there no United Nations, 
"it would leave us with an unacceptable option each time an emergency 
arose: a choice between acting alone or doing nothing." 
 
Now there is a small minority of Americans who will always mistrust the 
UN because they fear it will evolve into a world government--that it 
represents globaloney run amuck--which is nonsense; or they are upset 
that it's so full of foreigners, which, I guess, probably can't be 
helped. 
Far more serious are concerns about the effectiveness of UN operations, 
decision-making, and management. 
 
Here, some of the critics have several valid points: The United Nations 
does not always offer the perfect response.  But, then again, neither 
does NATO, nor does unilateral action, nor does unilateral inaction. The 
right cure for the ills of UN peace-keeping is not to call for the 
services of Dr. Kevorkian, which is what the Contract with America 
prescribes, but rather to administer sound treatment--to work to make 
this tool as useful and efficient as possible--and that is exactly what 
the Clinton Administration is doing. 
 
At our insistence, the UN Security Council is now more disciplined about 
when and under what circumstances to begin a peace mission. Today, the 
tough questions are asked before such a mission is started or renewed. 
We are ensuring that UN operations have clear and realistic objectives, 
that peacekeepers are properly equipped, that money is not wasted, and 
that an endpoint to each UN mission can be identified. This policy has 
resulted in fewer and smaller new operations and better management of 
existing ones.  
 
Some opponents of UN peace-keeping feel that the United States is 
somehow being played for a sucker; that we are turned to constantly for 
help by those who are unwilling to pay their own way or to take their 
own fair share of risks. This perception is not new. In the years 
immediately following World War II, similar emotions prompted opposition 
to American participation in NATO and to the Marshall Plan. When 
President Roosevelt devised Lend Lease to save a Great Britain that was 
under daily bombardment by Nazi planes, the predictable complaints were 
heard: We can't afford it; the British already owe us money; this is 
Europe's battle, not our own. 
 
Such feelings are understandable, and sometimes play well at home. But 
in each instance, when we have come to the aid of others, we have also 
acted in our own interest. That was true of Lend Lease; it was true of 
the costly, but necessary, steps we took to contain communist expansion; 
it is true of our participation in, and support for, UN peace-keeping 
and enforcement of UN resolutions against Libya and Iraq. America is not 
just another country; we are a global power with global interests--and 
if we do not lead, we cannot expect that others will. Our position in 
the world may, to some, be grounds for complaint, but to most Americans, 
it is grounds for pride and a sense of security.  
 
The Administration is committed to taking full advantage of the 
opportunities and to confronting squarely the dangers that we face with 
the end of the Cold War. We have a responsibility in our own time, as 
our predecessors did in theirs, to build a world not without conflict, 
but in which conflict is contained; a world, not without repression, but 
in which the sway of freedom is enlarged; a world not without lawless 
behavior, but in which the law-abiding are progressively more secure. 
 
We have the responsibility to lead in building such a world for three 
reasons: first, because of the strength and global appeal of our 
democratic values and institutions; second, because of the strength of 
our economy, which depends on global peace and stability --on open 
societies and open markets; and third, because of the strength of our 
military power. In short, we have the heart, the brains, and the muscle 
to lead in a world that often looks to us for all three.  (###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 8: 
 
Department Statements 

Suspending Arms Sales To Ecuador and Peru 
Statement by Department Deputy Assistant Secretary/Spokesman Christine 
Shelly, Washington, DC, February 10, 1995. 
 
In response to the continuing conflict on the border between Ecuador and 
Peru, the U.S. Government has suspended deliveries of defense articles 
through the U.S. Foreign Military Sales program as well as new 
International Military Education and Training assignments to those two 
countries.  
 
In addition, the Department of State has suspended all previously issued 
licenses and approvals authorizing the export or other transfer of 
defense articles or defense services to Peru or Ecuador. It is also the 
policy of the U.S. Government to deny all applications for licenses and 
other approvals to export or otherwise transfer defense articles or 
services to Peru or Ecuador. How- ever, exceptions to this policy may be 
made with regard to certain U.S. Munitions List Category XIII(b)(1) 
items for banking and financial institutions. 
 
We understand that the other Rio guarantor countries--Argentina, Brazil, 
and Chile--are taking similar measures. 
 

President Clinton Applauds Ecuador-Peru Peace Declaration 
Statement by White House Press Secretary Michael McCurry, Washington, 
DC, February 17, 1995. 
 
The President welcomes the peace declaration signed early today in 
Brasilia by Ecuador and Peru. The agreement brings to an end the 
hostilities which caused tragic loss of life and marred the principle of 
peaceful resolution of disputes that is a hallmark of our hemisphere. 
 
The declaration was signed in the presence of the negotiators of the 
four guarantor nations--Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and the United States-
-who worked tirelessly to broker the accord. 
 
The President wrote to President Duran of Ecuador and President Fujimori 
of Peru on February 2 to urge an immediate cease-fire. Secretary 
Christopher and other senior Administration officials worked intensively 
with the two warring parties to bridge their differences. 
 
We are working with the other guarantors to organize and deploy as soon 
as possible an observer mission.  In addition, the guarantors have 
issued a statement in Brasilia calling on resolution of the border 
dispute which sparked these hostilities. The United States and the other 
guarantor countries are prepared to offer their good offices to assist 
Ecuador and Peru in finding a durable solution to their remaining 
problems. 

 
Mexico To Take Action To Curb Violence Along U.S. Border 
Statement by Department Deputy Assistant Secretary/Spokesman Christine 
Shelly, Washington, DC, February 16, 1995. 
 
Yesterday, delegations from the U.S. and Mexico issued a joint 
communique in which Mexico states that it will take several concrete 
actions to curb violence and crime along the border in California, 
Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. 
 
The commitments were made during discussions on a broad range of 
migration issues at the first working group meeting of the Binational 
Commission held since the inauguration of President Zedillo. The meeting 
took place February 13 and 14 in Mexico. 
 
In the communique, Mexico states that it will: 
 
-- Strengthen and expand Grupo Beta, a successful law enforcement effort 
that has effectively curtailed  criminal trafficking in migrants as a 
result of its efforts to prevent violence against them. The Mexican 
Govern- ment will bolster the current efforts of Grupo Beta in San Diego 
and Nogales and expand its operations to two other border cities. 
 
-- Deploy sufficient personnel and equipment to ensure the safe 
operation of border bridges and crossings, particularly in San Diego, 
Nogales,  
El Paso, and Laredo. This effort will address the serious problem of 
lane and port runners that has arisen in reaction to strengthened U.S. 
border enforce- ment. 
 
-- Take immediate action to close the remaining access to the Nogales 
flood tunnels. 
 
--  Work with the U.S. to delineate procedures for interior repatriation 
within Mexico of certain illegal aliens. 
 
INS Commissioner Doris Meissner said "These actions by Mexico represent 
significant progress in our efforts to ensure a border that is safe and 
functional." 
 
The U.S. informed Mexico of the Clinton Administration's commitment to 
control and prevent illegal migration and facilitate and support legal 
migration. The President's FY 1996 budget proposal to bolster border 
enforcement and return of criminal and other deportable aliens was also 
discussed. The U.S. also informed Mexico on the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service's efforts to facilitate naturalization and 
improve border crossing card issuance procedures. 
 
Both delegations committed to continued strengthening of border liaison 
mechanisms, including plans for Mexico to convene a regional conference 
addressing migration patterns in North and Central America, and joint 
research to better understand the Mexican-U.S. migration phenomenon.  
(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 9: 
 
What's in Print 
Foreign Relations Of the United States 
 
The Department of State has recently released additional volumes in the 
Foreign Relations of the United States  series. They are a microfiche 
supple- ment to Foreign Relations, 1958-1960, Volumes XVII (Indonesia) 
and XVIII (Japan; Korea); and Foreign Relations, 1961-1963, Volume 
XXIII, Southeast Asia. 
 
Microfiche Supplement To Foreign Relations 1958-1960 
 
The supplement includes approximately 1,310 pages of documentation on 
Indonesia, 540 pages on Japan, and 1,310 pages on Korea. It supplements 
the documentation of U.S. relations with these countries printed in 
Volumes XVII and XVIII.  
 
The efforts of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Administration to deal 
with the potential communist threat to Indonesia, the modernization and 
rationalization of the Republic of Korea's defense forces, and security 
and trade issues with Japan are recorded. The supplement is designed to 
be used in conjunction with the print volumes, providing more detail and 
information. 
 
This latest supplement is part of the official record in the Foreign 
Relations series about the East Asian region during the 1958-1960 
period. In addition, supplements have been published concerning Vietnam; 
South and Southeast Asia; and the East Asia-Pacific region, Cambodia, 
and Laos. Volume XIX on China is scheduled to be published later this 
year. 
 
A printed guide with a preface that describes the methodology used to 
select documents and to evaluate the results of their declassification 
review is contained. 
 
This microfiche supplement (GPO Stock No. 044-000-02420-9) may be 
purchased for $23 postpaid ($28.75 for foreign orders). 
 
Foreign Relations, 1961-1963, Volume XXIII, Southeast Asia 
 
This volume documents U.S. policy deliberations and decisions concerning 
Southeast Asia beyond Vietnam and Laos. It contains a regional 
compilation of documents that focus on the role of the Southeast Asia 
Treaty Organization (SEATO) and bilateral compilations on U.S. relations 
with Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and 
Thailand. 
 
The wars in South Vietnam and Laos encouraged the Government of Thailand 
to seek additional security commitments from the United States. The most 
public confirmation of these assurances was the March 1962 joint 
communique of then Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Foreign Minister 
Thanat Khoman. Private assurances were given as well, and in mid-1962, 
the U.S. dispatched troops to Thailand both as a signal to the North 
Vietnamese and their allies in Laos and as an overt assurance to 
Thailand. The conflict in South Vietnam caused friction between Prince 
Sihanouk of Cambodia and the United States. U.S. relations with Burma 
were not as directly tied to the conflicts in Laos and South Vietnam as 
was U.S. policy toward SEATO. 
 
U.S. objectives in Southeast Asia were complicated further by opposition 
by the Philippines and Indonesia to the creation of the Federation of 
Malaysia. U.S. relations with Australia also were influenced by these 
events. 
 
The documents in this volume were drawn from the Departments of State 
and Defense, the White House, the Central Intelligence Agency, and from 
papers of key participants. 
 
This volume (GPO Stock No. 044-000-02389-0) may be purchased for $46 
postpaid ($57.50 for foreign orders). 
 
Both items may be purchased using VISA, MasterCard, or personal check 
from: 
 
U.S. Government Printing Office 
Superintendent of Documents 
P.O. Box 371954 
Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 
 
To order by phone, call (202) 512-1800;  to fax your order, call (202) 
512-2250. 
 
For further information, contact the Office of the Historian, Chief of 
the Asia and Americas Division, Edward C. Keefer at (202) 663-1131 or 
fax (202) 663-1289.  


(###)
 
[END OF DISPATCH VOL 6, NO 10]

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