U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 6, NUMBER 13, MARCH 27, 1995
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS


ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:

1.  The U.S. and Morocco: Sharing a Vision of Peace -- President 
Clinton, Moroccan King Hassan II  
2.  The United States and Ireland Celebrate the Prospect of Peace -- 
President Clinton, Irish Prime Minister Bruton
3.  The UN World Summit for Social Development -- Vice President Gore, 
First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, Fact Sheets
4.  American Eagle or Ostrich? The Case for U.S. Leadership -- Deputy 
Secretary Talbott
5.  Intellectual Property Rights and U.S.-China Relations -- Winston 
Lord
6.  U.S. Policy Toward South Asia - Robin Raphel


A Message To Our Readers
Internet and CD-ROM Sources for Dispatch

The U.S. Department of State has launched two new electronic services 
that provide timely, affordable, and easily accessible information on 
U.S. foreign policy from 1990 to the present. Available on the Internet 
and on CD-ROM, the services mark a major development in the Department's 
communication outreach to the American public.

In December 1994, the Department unveiled the Department of State 
Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) on the Internet in collaboration with 
the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). Today, thousands of people 
around the world access DOSFAN every week. 

On DOSFAN, they find timely, critical foreign policy information of 
interest to business executives, journalists, researchers, and students. 
In addition to the rich resources provided weekly in Dispatch€speeches, 
testimony, profiles, treaty actions, and more€DOSFAN includes the full 
texts of Background Notes and other key publications; Country Reports on 
Human Rights Practices and other major congressional reports; 
transcripts of daily press and special briefings; plus consular and 
travel updates and other information that chart the workings of the U.S. 
Department of State and American diplomacy.

DOSFAN is updated daily on-line and then is archived onto the quarterly 
U.S. Foreign Affairs on CD-ROM (USFAC), a compact foreign policy library 
at your fingertips which offers more than 4,000 documents from 1990 
through the present. Compatible with MSDOS 3.0 and Macintosh System 6, 
USFAC is available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government 
Printing Office. To order: call (202) 512-1800. One-year subscriptions 
are $80 ($100 foreign) for four discs per year.

You already know that Dispatch is the best, most comprehensive, and 
timely print source for the official word on U.S. foreign policy. So 
keep a good thing coming -- Dispatch in print, on Internet, or on CD-ROM.  

DOSFAN'S Internet Address
DOSFAN is accessible three ways on the Internet:
     Gopher: dosfan.lib.uic.edu
     URL: gopher://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/
     WWW: http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/dosfan.html

DOSFAN is also accessible from most commercial on line services. For 
more information about DOSFAN, contact: Project Director John Shuler by 
e-mail at john.a.shuler@uic.edu. or call (312)996-2738.

USFAC is available from the Superintendent of Documents, Government 
Printing Office. To order, call (202)512-1800 or use the order from 
provided in this publication.


Colleen A. Elliott
Editor-in-Chief
March 1995

(###)



ARTICLE 1

The U.S. and Morocco: Sharing a Vision of Peace
President Clinton, Moroccan King Hassan II
Opening remarks at press conference, Washington DC, March 15, 1995

President Clinton. Good afternoon.  His Majesty King Hassan and I have 
just concluded a very productive and wide-ranging meeting. We apologize 
for talking a little longer than the scheduled time, but we had much to 
discuss. Let me begin by thanking him for his visit and for continuing 
the     tradition that he first began with President Kennedy of 
providing wise counsel to American presidents.

Of course, we talked about how we can best support and accelerate the 
momentum for peace in the Middle East. His Majesty's visit comes at a 
time of renewed hope. As a result of Secretary Christopher's intensive 
discussions in the region, we now have an agreement to resume direct 
talks between Israel and Syria. This is a very encouraging development. 
Combined with the new energy we see in the Israeli-Palestinian 
discussions and continued progress in implementing the Jordan-Israel 
peace treaty, I believe there is now a real opportunity to secure a 
durable resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The promise of peace owes much to King Hassan's vision and courage. He 
helped to arrange President Sadat's historic trip to Jerusalem. He 
undertook a direct dialogue with Israel at a time when doing so was 
difficult. His quiet diplomacy facilitated talks between other Arab 
leaders and Israel, and Morocco continues to lead the effort to build a 
new Middle East.

His Majesty and I agreed that one key to peace is bringing tangible 
economic benefits to the people of the Middle East--a change in the 
quality of their daily lives so that they can develop a real stake in 
peaceful cooperation. That is why the process, which began under King 
Hassan's leadership at the Casablanca summit last October, is so 
important in expanding economic integration and encouraging private 
sector growth and investment.

His Majesty and I reviewed the next step in this process, including the 
Amman business summit this fall. We also discussed removing barriers to 
trade and investment, such as the Arab League boycott of Israel that had 
denied the Middle East its full place as a dynamic participant in the 
global economy.

We discussed our shared interest in fighting the spread of weapons of 
mass destruction, which pose a threat to the entire Middle East and, 
indeed, to the world. I emphasized the importance the United States 
attaches to securing the indefinite extension of the nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty as a vital part of this effort.

We also are working to build closer economic ties. Today, we will sign a 
trade and investment framework agreement to expand bilateral commerce 
and investment and to provide a framework for further trade 
liberalization. Morocco announced plans to establish in the United 
States a counterpart to the U.S.-Morocco Joint Committee on Trade and 
Investment.

Later this afternoon, His Majesty will preside over a protocol signing 
with the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. OPIC will guarantee 
$200 million in U.S. Government support for a $1.5-billion power plant 
being built by an American company near Casablanca. Morocco's decision 
to welcome foreign participation in privatizing its state-owned power 
sector made this project possible. Together with similar ventures in the 
future, it promises to generate jobs and exports for the United States 
and to provide Morocco with the electricity it needs to power its own 
industrial growth.

Finally, I would like to express my own gratitude to the King for his 
enlightened leadership of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. I 
share his conviction that Islam can be a powerful force for tolerance 
and moderation in the world and that its traditional values--devotion to 
family and to society, to faith and good works--are in harmony with the 
best of Western ideals. As I said in my speeches to the parliaments of 
Jordan and Israel, the United States has great respect for Islam and 
wishes to work with its followers throughout the world to secure peace 
and a better future for all our children.

Throughout the course of our long friendship, which goes back to the 
very beginning of this country, Morocco and the United States have 
worked together to shape the world we live in for the better. King 
Hassan and I are committed to continuing that great partnership for 
progress well into the future, and I thank him for the contributions he 
has made to that today.

Your Majesty.

King Hassan. To begin with, I would like to reiterate my thanks to Mr. 
President for the warm welcome with which we have been surrounded ever 
since we have tread the soil of this country.

We have spoken about many issues--Mr. President and myself. Now, we did 
not have the opportunity of knowing each other personally before, but we 
have come to know each other through the messages we have exchanged in 
the past--and also by means of the various positions that were taken by 
Mr. President concerning peace in the Middle East. I think that Mr. 
Clinton should be proud of his balance sheet after two years in the 
White House.

We also have talked about bilateral issues, and, thanks to God, we have 
come to realize how much harmony exists between the positions of our two 
countries. However, in the modern world in which we live today, there 
can  be no schizophrenia in any healthy relationship. There is 
absolutely no justification for us to have such excellent political 
relations on the one hand and then, on the other hand, to have economic 
relations that are not up to the same level.

Up to now, we have been a one-legged man in our mutual action. I hope 
that in the future we will be able to walk on two feet--that is, hand-
in-hand, toward the prosperity and the success we are hoping for--for 
both countries. Obviously, the United States of America has its own 
vision of matters because it deals with international issues. Therefore, 
the analysis of matters has to be to that proportion.

Morocco, though modest the way it is, has its own vision of things. 
Thanks to God, during our talks, we had absolutely no differences 
concerning our principles, ideals, and the aims that are to be attained. 
But considering that  Mr. President and myself are perfectionists, we 
have to devise the most appropriate strategy in order for us to reach 
the aims that both countries have in mind.

Mr. President, once again I want to thank you for your warm welcome, but 
I would like also to thank you for the open heart with which I have been 
received here in the White House. (###)




ARTICLE 2

The United States and Ireland Celebrate the Prospect of Peace
President Clinton, Irish Prime Minister Bruton
Opening remarks at Shamrock Ceremony, Washington, DC, March 17, 1995

President Clinton. Good morning; please be seated. Happy St. Patrick's 
Day. It is a great pleasure for me to welcome the Prime Minister here. 
This is the Taoiseach's first visit to the United States since he 
assumed office. So, on this St. Patrick's Day, I think we
should begin with an appropriate greeting--ceade mile failte--a hundred 
thousand welcomes. Mr. Prime Minister, I think, in this symbolic 
ceremony, you should go first. So I want to turn the microphone over to 
you.

Prime Minister Bruton.  Thank you very much. Mr. President, Mr. Vice 
President, Secretary of State, ladies and gentlemen: It is a wonderful 
honor for me to be received here as the leader of an Irish Government of 
a country-- Ireland--that is now at peace; at peace
after 25 years of violence.

I want to say that you, Mr. President, probably as much as any 
individual, have helped to bring that about. When you look back on your 
Administration, I think the bringing of peace to Ireland will rank as 
one of your major personal achievements. The willingness that you have 
shown, Mr. President, to take risks, to do things that many of us might 
have thought were foolhardy at the time--like granting a visa to Gerry 
Adams--you have been proven to be right. You made the right decision.

The results are there for all of us to see, because you gave that 
organization the sense of confidence in itself and a glimpse of the 
political dividend that was there for them by pursuing a peaceful rather 
than a violent path. That vista that you opened up to them by that 
decision enabled them--gave them the confidence to end their campaign 
and take a new road.

Others need to show similar courage and generosity. I know that the 
United States will be willing to play the same crucial role in being a 
friend to all in Ireland and encouraging all in Ireland to be generous 
risk-takers as you have been, Mr. President, in your dealings with 
Ireland since the commencement of your Administration.

My purpose in coming here today--on Saint Patrick's Day--is to thank you 
very, very much, from the bottom of my heart for what you have done and 
to say I look forward to working with you and your Administration and, 
indeed, Congress on a bipartisan basis on building on this, your great 
achievement.

Now, Mr. President, it is my high honor to present to you some shamrocks 
to celebrate this great day.

President Clinton. Thank you very much, Mr. Prime Minister for the 
beautiful gift--the beautiful Irish crystal. I hope the shamrocks will 
bring us the luck of the Irish over the next few months.

Today, we do not have to look much further than the green ties and 
dresses in this room to be reminded of the bonds between the United 
States and Ireland--the common heritage we share and have shared since 
the beginning of our country's existence. Much of America's love of 
freedom has Irish roots, whether our ancestors were Catholics or 
Protestants. Four signers of the Declaration of Independence were born 
in Ireland. At least nine more were of Irish descent. Many of our 
bravest soldiers in the Revolutionary War were Irish-Americans.

Today, the Irish are still fighting the good fight--the fight for peace 
in Lebanon, Somalia, and the Balkans. Irish troops under UN command have 
braved great dangers in the quest for peace. Ireland also has opened a 
school to train UN peacekeepers from other
nations so that we may all benefit from Ireland's experience.

Ireland has demonstrated its commitment to peace most powerfully, of 
course, in the efforts to end the violence in Northern Ireland. On this 
St. Patrick's Day, as the Taoiseach said, Northern Ireland is closer now 
than at any other time in a generation to a just and lasting settlement 
of the differences of the people who share that small country's land.

At this historic moment, I salute Prime Minister Bruton for his tireless 
efforts for peace and for continuing the work of his predecessor, Prime 
Minister Reynolds, in completing the Joint Framework Document for 
Northern Ireland with the British Prime Minister, John Major, who also 
deserves our salutes for the brave risks he has taken to make peace. 
This is a landmark step for all the parties to bring them together and 
forge a new partnership for reconciliation.

Today, I want to take this opportunity--this St. Patrick's Day--once 
again to urge all the parties to look carefully at the framework and to 
accept it as the basis for moving forward. I call on all those who still 
resort to violence to end the beatings, the intimidation, and the 
shootings. To those who have laid down their arms, I ask you now to take 
the next step and begin seriously to discuss getting rid of these 
weapons so they can never be used again and so violence will never again 
return to the land.

I welcome the statement by Sinn Fein, reiterating its readiness to 
include the issue of weapons in the talks with the British Government. 
It must be included, and progress must be made.

As we have in the past, the United States stands ready to help those who 
are taking risks for peace. Our economic initiatives in Ireland are 
proceeding under the supervision of former Senator George Mitchell. In 
May, we are hosting a White House conference on trade and investment in 
Ireland. There is tremendous interest in this conference from our 
private sector.

Mr. Prime Minister, the United States will continue to support your 
efforts and those of Prime Minister Major. You have done very much to 
bring the prospect of a new day to Northern Ireland.

I am also pleased to announce that, beginning April 1, Irish citizens 
visiting the United States on vacation or business will no longer 
require visas. This step is another demonstration of our confidence in 
the future of Ireland and the strong ties between our nations.

I finally want to say that I am very much looking forward to our 
reception tonight at the White House. I am glad that you, Mr. Prime 
Minister, and Mrs. Bruton will join us. We are going to have a high old 
Irish time.

In closing, let me thank the Secretary of State and our fine ambassador 
to Ireland--Jean Kennedy Smith--for the work they have done in 
supporting the White House and the President in our efforts to help you 
achieve peace. Thank you all very much. (###)




ARTICLE 3

The UN World Summit for Social Development
Vice President Gore, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, Fact Sheets

Vice President Gore
Remarks at UN World Summit for Social Development, Copenhagen, Denmark, 
March 12, 1995.

Mr. President, Your Excellencies, Mr. Secretary General, ladies and 
gentlemen: It is an honor to represent President Clinton and the 
American people at this important summit meeting. I wish to begin by 
thanking our Danish hosts for their skill and their great hospitality. 
At a time of great opportunity and yet considerable uncertainty within 
the international community, we welcome this occasion to address issues 
that are common to all nations and to all people.

A century notable for its turmoil and suffering is drawing to an end. 
Looking at its many tragedies, it would be understandable to view the 
future with some cynicism. My country, however--as always--retains its 
optimistic vision.

We believe in a world organized by law rather than by violence; we 
believe in a world based on justice; we believe in the defeat of 
intolerance by the steady ascendancy of our common humanity. We believe 
above all in freedom--political and spiritual freedom--as a birthright 
of humankind, and freedom from want as a goal by which we measure the 
quality of our civilization.

Are these hopes impractical? On the contrary, over time they have 
emerged with ever greater clarity as the common aspiration of humankind. 
It seems to me, in fact, that this series of great UN global conferences 
represents an effort by the entire world to think through the principles 
and the practical requirements for the creation of that kind of world.

These meetings--most recently in Rio, Vienna, Cairo, Copenhagen, and in 
the fall, Beijing--have focused on a set of interlocking questions. What 
is the proper relationship between human civilization and the earth's 
environment? What can be done to create just societies that nurture the 
human spirit and protect human rights? What can be done by democratic 
means to protect our world from the consequences of rapid and 
destabilizing population growth and create instead an equitable pattern 
of sustainable development? What can be done to lift the poorest of our 
citizens into productive lives? What can be done to remove the barriers 
now blocking the full empowerment of women throughout the world?

These gatherings are town meetings of the globe where individual 
citizens, non-governmental organizations, and governments are working 
together to hammer out a new consensus on the nature of the challenges 
we face and how we can rise to meet them successfully.

We have gathered here to deal with the issues of poverty, disability, 
unemployment, and social disintegration. These problems exist in varying 
degrees in all countries represented here, including, certainly, my own 
country. The numbers that characterize these problems are staggering: 1 
billion people live in absolute poverty without access to clean water, 
proper sanitation, or decent nutrition; 30% of the global labor force is 
now unemployed or underemployed; in what has been called the worst 
employment crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s, 1 billion 
people have daily incomes totaling less than one dollar.

But as the novelist Arthur Koestler once said, statistics do not bleed. 
Numbers do not capture the anguish of homeless children roaming the 
streets of otherwise prosperous and bustling cities. They do not capture 
the grief of a parent whose child has starved to death or died of 
disease during the horrific events in Rwanda. Nor do they capture the 
bleak despair of a homeless woman, curling up to sleep over a steam 
grate in Washington, DC, blocks from the White House.

These are personal tragedies, but each results in part from our failure 
as a human family to feel and understand our connections to one another 
and our failure to appreciate the opportunity every person should have 
to contribute to and enrich our common future.

Economic growth cannot be sustained over time unless a proper portion of 
its present fruits are continually invested in the nourishing and 
development of human potential. Even Adam Smith always referred to 
economics as "human economics."  Maybe we never should have abbreviated 
the concept. People who are sick or uneducated or undernourished or 
unemployed should not be merely the objects of society's guilty 
conscience. They should also be seen as the embodiment of unrealized 
economic and social potential.

How should we deal with these issues? In my country, that question is 
currently the subject of an intense political struggle. What is being 
tested is whether the United States will turn away from our own most 
disadvantaged citizens at home and whether we will step back from the 
front ranks of nations that recognize a bond of shared responsibility 
toward men and women elsewhere in the world who are struggling to climb 
by their own efforts out of degradation and despair.

I believe that at the end of the day, the United States will not step 
back. The Clinton Administration believes that in its commitment to 
remain engaged we have the support of the vast majority of the American 
people in both of our major political parties.

The American people know that our future well-being is tied inextricably 
to the global economy. They know that helping to develop the economics 
of the developing world, where four out of five people will live by the 
year 2000, will be beneficial to our own economy as well. But I also 
believe that if the United States is to move forward and remain engaged 
in the world's effort to meet the objectives of this summit, we must 
find new approaches for new circumstances.

For example, we in the United States have come to recognize that it is 
time to abandon our old model for combating poverty at home based on 
heavy government intervention through massive bureaucracies. There was a 
time when these structures seemed essential to make our idealism 
productive. But their size, inflexibility, and expense are now seen as 
obstacles to the purpose we still pursue.

We are working now to create a more vital relationship between the 
government and the people. We cannot succeed if we treat the poor solely 
as passive recipients of assistance--whether for welfare, food stamps, 
or medical care. We are, instead, designing an approach that empowers 
people to be active partners in the management of their own fates. We 
have to find new links to our own people--with a government that works 
better, costs less, and focuses on results.

We have to find ways to transcend old and limiting concepts and to 
recognize the value of new ways to promote sustainable development and 
social progress for those trapped in poverty--such as government/private 
sector partnerships, technical assistance for institutional development 
and policy reform, and support for South-South partnerships. 
International institutions also need to adjust themselves by moving 
toward greater flexibility and responsiveness to the needs of the poor. 
This conference has paid very useful attention to the UN system in 
particular, and I applaud its efforts to focus on the need for change.

We in the United States also have approached this summit as an 
opportunity for constructive change. Abroad, as at home, we know that we 
have to redefine the way we fight poverty and transform the relationship 
between donors and recipients to a relationship between partners.

It is in that spirit that I am pleased to announce today the United 
States' New Partnerships Initiative. Under the initiative, the United 
States Agency for International Development--USAID--will be channeling 
40% of its development assistance through non-governmental 
organizations--NGOs--both U.S.-based and indigenous.

The New Partnerships Initiative has three main objectives:

1. To empower small business and entrepreneurs to drive economic growth;

2. To strengthen the role of non-governmental organizations in 
development programs; and

3. To help nations bolster democracy at the local level.

All three are linked by a single idea--that families and individuals, 
when given the power and opportunity to change their lives will do 
exactly that.

In discussing ways to improve the struggle against poverty being waged 
by governments, I wish to make it clear that my country also believes in 
two other central propositions.

First, we believe that permanent gains can occur only if we encourage 
free markets and individual initiative. In our view, the market system 
unlocks a higher fraction of the human potential than any other form of 
economic organization and has the demonstrated potential to create 
broadly distributed new wealth.

Second, we believe that economic development can be and must be designed 
to be environmentally sustainable. Sustainable economic development 
assures that we do not meet today's needs by means that very quickly 
exhaust themselves and deliver us back to even more intractable 
problems.

Finally, let me emphasize the importance of one cultural trend that can 
speed the day that we see an end to poverty--an increase in the rights 
and powers of women, who, as the First Lady of the United States pointed 
out here a few days ago, "continue to be marginalized in many 
countries."  With women making up more than two-thirds of the illiterate 
people of the world, investing in the health and education of women and 
girls will diminish poverty--and let me add my voice to those applauding 
this summit for endorsing the principle of equal rights.

The documents you have developed here are part of an emerging grand 
design for the common good. Despite the difficulties and severe 
challenges ahead, I believe that we are moving together toward a shared 
sense of participation in a global civilization, whose bonds, though 
voluntary, will be strong enough to hold us together in the face of 
those forces which would divide us. Our work is a very significant 
contribution to that end, and on behalf of my government and the people 
of the United States, I wish to applaud the work of this summit and our 
commitment to achieve its goals.


Fact Sheet: The New Partnerships Initiative--Strengthening Grass-roots 
Political and Economic Institutions

The diverse challenges of the post-Cold War period demand that we take 
innovative and dramatically different approaches to achieving U.S. 
foreign policy goals. The Clinton Administration's New Partnerships 
Initiative, through the U.S. Agency for International Development 
(USAID), will strengthen social, economic, and political decision-making 
in the developing world where it is most vital--at the community level.  
The New Partnerships Initiative is the very opposite of the old-
fashioned model of government-to-government "foreign aid." The goal is 
to ensure that U.S. aid produces results and measurable improvements in 
the lives of people. New Partnerships has three main objectives:

1. To strengthen the role of non-governmental organizations in 
development programs;

2. To empower small business and entrepreneurs to drive economic growth; 
and

3. To help nations bolster democracy at a local level.

All three are linked by a single idea--that families and individuals, 
when given the power and opportunity to change their lives, will do 
exactly that.  One over-arching principle guides these efforts--putting 
people first. The New Partnerships Initiative extends the 
Administration's commitment to sustainable development by deepening the 
intensive involvement of non-governmental actors in the development 
process. This initiative will put a special priority on activities that 
engage and empower women.

The first component of the initiative will focus on strengthening the 
role of non-governmental organizations, both U.S. and indigenous, that 
are tackling these tremendous challenges. USAID will increase the 
percentage of its development assistance channeled through these NGOs to 
an ultimate target of 40% over the next five years.  The U.S. will 
undertake with other donors a Developmental Partnership Working Group--
an international effort that will engage bilateral and multilateral 
donors and the NGO community. The working group will target ways to 
strengthen the capacity of the non-governmental sector in the developing 
world. USAID also will use new communication technologies to further 
link and empower NGOs around the globe.

The second component will strengthen the role of small business in 
partner countries. USAID will work directly with national governments to 
improve the laws and regulations to provide increased opportunities for 
entrepreneurial activities for the poor. USAID will increase its 
training and internship programs between American small businesses and 
small businesses in developing countries to encourage the adoption and 
transfer to the developing countries of productive processes, 
technologies, and techniques; draw on the capacities of U.S. small 
businesses to advise and enhance the capacity of small businesses in 
partner countries; and use loan guarantees and credit mechanisms to 
support small and medium-sized firms in modernizing and improving their 
contributions to the economy and society.

The third component of the initiative will encourage the 
decentralization of political power to local communities in the 
developing world. USAID will work with the partner country government, 
private sector, and NGOs to expand the authority of local government. 
This initiative will enhance the ability of U.S. state and local 
government officials to make valuable contributions to sharing their 
knowledge and expertise. Strengthening democracy at a community level 
will frequently entail fundamental reforms in municipal codes to enhance 
local government fiscal and administrative autonomy.

USAID continues to be one of the lead agencies in the National 
Performance Review, and the New Partner- ships Initiative is part of the 
Administration's continuing commitment to do more with less in the 
federal government.


First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton
Remarks at special event, Copenhagen, Denmark, March 7, 1995.

Good morning. Thank you to Ambassador Teymour, Mr. Desai, and Mr. 
Nielson. I am honored to participate in this historic gathering, where 
civic, religious, and social organizations as well as governmental 
leaders from around the world are uniting in the fight to eradicate 
absolute poverty, create jobs, and empower women and men to become full 
participants in their societies.

It is a special pleasure to be able to speak to a gathering that 
includes so many non-governmental organizations. Whether they operate in 
great cities or in remote villages, NGOs have always played a vital role 
in strengthening our global community. But particularly today, as all 
nations face new challenges and choices, the experience and wisdom of 
the NGOs will be critical in guiding us toward a safer, more just, and 
unified world.

The end of the Cold War created extraordinary new opportunities for 
growth and progress. But at the same time, ethnic strife and civil 
conflict have erupted across our planet, depleting our resources, 
draining our energies, promoting hatred and intolerance, and imperiling 
the idea of a free and open global society.

Today, too many nations waste resources on building and acquiring 
weapons of mass destruction, on staggering wars, and doing violence to 
basic human rights instead of investing their resources in people. Too 
often, natural resources are destroyed and humans exploited through 
socially irresponsible behavior. Today, too much time is spent in naked 
pursuit of power, instead of working for peace and prosperity.

It has become fashionable in recent years to assign blame for the 
world's problems to one group of nations or another. I hope this summit 
does not succumb to that temptation. In fact, every nation needs to 
rethink its approach to social development and most nations need to do 
more for their own people and for humanity.

To meet the goals of this summit, governments will have to go about 
their business in new ways. They will have to rethink how to protect 
their most vulnerable populations in a time of shrinking resources and 
accelerated global competition. They will have to respect basic human 
rights, and that includes the rights of women and workers to be 
protected from exploitation and abuse. They will have to create 
conditions that encourage individual initiative and a vibrant civic 
life.

Finally, as my husband said in a speech last week, governments will have 
to choose engagement over isolationism. With our economics and our 
societies becoming increasingly interdependent, we must work to create a 
global community in which economic growth and social progress result in 
shared prosperity and opportunity.

On a large scale, there is no better place to start than with an 
indefinite and unconditional extension of the nuclear Non-Proliferation 
Treaty. The threat posed by these devastating weapons threaten all the 
work we do to end poverty, create jobs, and empower people. Moreover, in 
balancing priorities and resources, all nations will have to realize 
that investing in people--not the acquisition of nuclear arms--is the 
way to make their societies stronger. Clean water, safe sanitation, 
basic education, health care, and human rights are better investments to 
strengthen societies in both the short and long term than the 
acquisition of or increase in nuclear arms.

Two days ago marked the 25th anniversary of the Non-Proliferation 
Treaty, now joined by 172 nations that realize that opposing the spread 
of nuclear weapons is in their self-interest. To further the goals of 
the treaty, the United States and Russia have agreed--through START I 
and START II--to reduce their own nuclear arsenals. We must all continue 
the effort to deal responsibly with this critical issue.

In addressing the world's social problems, however, we cannot expect 
governments to act alone, particularly in an era of scattered and, as 
some believe, scarce resources. Governments need NGOs to monitor their 
actions and mobilize them to find innovative solutions to problems. NGOs 
can also inspire us to work more effectively with each other--within the 
NGO community and within the community of nations. That is why the 
participation of NGOs at this and other UN conferences is so invaluable.

The great social movements of my own country during the 19th and 20th 
centuries--the abolition of slavery, the right of women to vote, as well 
as the civil rights movement--would not have been achieved without the 
leadership of civic, religious, and social organizations.

The same is true elsewhere. As Ambassador Somavia knows so well, civic 
organizations committed to human rights and the rule of the law were 
instrumental in assuring Chile's transition to democracy. Through the 
work of nuns and lay people in the Philippines, civic groups in 
Bulgaria, grass-roots organizations working across Africa and South 
America, and many others, NGOs have helped to improve the lives of tens 
of millions of men, women, children, and families struggling to escape 
tyranny, poverty, and social dislocation. Ultimately, this forum and the 
social summit are about supporting and building on that work, not for 
the sake of governments or ideologies but for people. It is about 
putting people first. Putting people first requires realistic, workable 
solutions to complex problems.

Too often, the assumption is that any solution inevitably will be costly 
and complicated. In fact, we have proof to the contrary. We see grass-
roots efforts around the world that are reducing poverty, improving 
health and education, and promoting individual freedom. UNICEF, to take 
one shining example, has had a decade-long focus on child survival and 
has pioneered many strategies that are low cost, including breast-
feeding, oral rehydration therapy, and immunizations.

Last year, polio was eradicated in the Western Hemisphere by a 
multinational effort, and the U.S. was the lead donor for that. Around 
the world, the percentage of children immunized has been increasing in a 
rather remarkable way--from 20% to 80% between the years 1980 and 1990. 
In the United States, I am frank to admit, we have had to follow the 
lead of other countries so that finally we are attempting to increase 
the immunization rate for our own children. Our rates have increased but 
are not yet where they need to be.

In South America, the involvement of NGOs teaching pregnant women self-
diagnosis of maternal health problems has resulted in a dramatic 
reduction of the infant mortality in rural areas. I saw, at the Fabella 
Hospital in Manila, new mothers staying in the hospital long enough to 
learn how to nurse their babies, which promoted a stronger bond between 
the mother and child and increased the chances of family stability.

In countries where governments and NGOs have made voluntary, safe, and 
effective family planning available and have provided related health 
services we have seen an improvement, not only in the lives of 
individuals but in the economic well-being of their countries.

Now, not one person, as we know so well, can be freed from the bondage 
of poverty or fully integrated into society without the means to earn a 
living. The task of nations and NGOs is to promote policies that lift up 
the poorest in society and to insist on core labor standards that help 
stop the exploitation of workers, many of whom are children. Governments 
must be responsible for promoting disciplined economic policies. In the 
United States, the President is working hard to renew the American 
economy through fiscal policies that do assist those who are poor in 
such ways as providing tax credits and attempting to raise the minimum 
wage.

Investing in education goes hand-in-hand with providing economic 
opportunity. As capital and technology become more mobile, differences 
in the quality of labor forces will become that much more apparent. 
Again, we can learn from each other how we can reduce illiteracy and 
increase prospects for employment and economic security.

Opportunity should be the reward for taking responsibility in life. That 
philosophy is a good guide when we consider strategies--governmental and 
non-governmental--to promote greater self-reliance and economic 
independence among all our citizens, including especially the poor and 
disenfranchised.

We have an example of that which will be discussed at this summit when 
we look at the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. Dr. Mohammed Yunus, who, as 
many of you in this room know as I do, believes that if you give people 
access to credit--and ask them to take responsibility in return--they 
will achieve greater economic and social independence. Through its small 
loans to the poorest women in rural areas of Bangladesh, the Grameen 
Bank not only has improved the immediate circumstances of thousands of 
families, it also has fostered a greater sense of purpose and a spirit 
of community among the people.

I only wish every nation shared Dr. Yunus' and the Grameen Bank's 
appreciation of the vital role that girls and women play in the 
economic, social, and political life of our societies. Although women 
comprise 52% of the world population, are the primary caretakers for 
children and the aged, and are a significant presence in the workforce, 
they continue to be marginalized in many countries. World-wide, more 
than two-thirds of the children who never attended school    or have 
dropped out are girls. Of the 1 billion people who remain illiterate, 
two-thirds are women. A disproportionate number of those we call "living 
in absolute poverty" are women.

Investing in the health and education of women and girls is essential to 
improving global prosperity, and I am glad that this summit has endorsed 
the principle of equal rights and opportunities for women. In parts of 
Asia and South America, we have seen education of girls help lift whole 
populations out of poverty. We have seen the education of women enhance 
their roles as mothers and increase their participation in civic life. 
So we must do more to ensure equal rights for women, along with equal 
pay and equal access to health care and education.

Tomorrow, as part of International Women's Day, it will be my honor to 
announce a major, new, United States commitment to expand educational 
opportunities for poor girls on three continents.

I would like to end by saying that we must all take the responsibility 
and do our part. Too often we engage in a false debate that says, on the 
one hand, only governments, or on the other, only individuals are 
responsible for solving their own problems and those of the world. In 
fact, we all know that we need a partnership that is going to bring us 
all together. Governments can either support or undermine people as they 
face the moral, social, and economic challenges of our time. Individuals 
can either take the initiative and responsibility or fall into 
hopelessness and despair. Simply put, no government, no NGO, no person 
can remain idle given the magnitude of the challenges we face and the 
uncertainties of the world in which we live.

For those who are skeptical about our progress, I suggest that we all 
reflect on the life of one extraordinary man, James Grant, who recently 
passed away. Jim may have been more responsible for saving more lives 
over the past 15 years than any other person in the world. Millions of 
children are alive today because Jim Grant challenged us, set goals for 
us, and devised simple, efficient, and affordable methods of intervening 
on behalf of children and their families. UNICEF will be issuing the 
book, Profiles in Success: Peoples' Progress in Africa, Asia, and Latin 
America, which outlines some of the techniques and strategies that 
UNICEF has employed in order to create successful outcomes for people.

His legacy is not only found in the wonderful work that goes on every 
day at UNICEF or in the success of his infant formula campaign or in the 
packages of oral rehydration therapy that he would carry around in his 
pocket and pull out on any occasion. His legacy is in the jobs that each 
of us in this room--each of the people around the world in private, 
voluntary organizations and other NGOs and government organizations--do 
day in and day out, throughout the world. It is our duty to continue to 
live up to Jim Grant's challenge and to do our part to fulfill the goals 
of this summit. In closing, I would ask--as we go about our business in 
the months and years ahead, whether we are in government or in the 
private sector or just acting on our own--that we draw strength and 
courage from Jim Grant's example and do justice to his memory. If we do 
that, then this summit and all that follows will be a success.

Thank you very much.


First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton
Announcement of U.S. Initiative to Expand Girls' and Women's Education 
in the Developing World, Copenhagen, Denmark, March 8, 1995.

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak at this forum on 
International Women's Day. Today, I have the pleasure of announcing a 
United States initiative to expand girls' and women's education in the 
developing world.

The issues addressed at this summit are issues that women around the 
world face every day in their kitchens or at their children's bedsides, 
in the marketplace, and in the workforce. Women should be active 
participants in helping their societies meet the great challenges of 
this and the next century. But that can be achieved only if women are 
empowered through education, legal rights, and protection from violence 
and are assured access to adequate social services, employment 
opportunities, political institutions, and decision-making. Empowerment 
and access will enable women to take their rightful places as they work 
in partnership with men to strengthen their families and contribute to 
their communities.

No single factor contributes to the long-term health and prosperity of a 
developing nation--or any nation--more than investing in education for 
girls and women. In countries where governments have invested in primary 
and secondary schooling for girls and women, the investment has been 
repaid many times through higher economic productivity, greater 
participation of women in the modern labor sector, longer life 
expectancy, lower birth rates, and stronger families and communities.

While we have witnessed significant increases in primary school 
enrollments worldwide in the past two decades, much remains to be done. 
Today, more than two-thirds of the children who have never attended 
school or dropped out before finishing are girls. Almost 1 billion 
people remain illiterate, and two-thirds of them are women.

Recent research has demonstrated that investments in the education of 
girls and women are investments in the community and in the prosperity 
of a nation. Moreover, investments in girls and women may yield a higher 
return than any others in a country's development.

The deliberations, goals, and commitments of the International 
Conference on Population and Development in Cairo last year, this World 
Summit for Social Development taking place here this week, and the 
Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing later this year all clearly 
state that education of girls and women throughout their lives is 
essential to increased global prosperity and social integration.

Recognizing the critical role women must play in their own and their 
countries' development and the importance of education in enabling them 
to play those roles, I am pleased to announce today that the United 
States will allocate $100 million over a 10-year period to provide 
enhanced educational opportunities for hundreds of thousands of girls 
and women in Africa, Asia, and Latin America who currently live in 
poverty. The goals of this initiative are ambitious. They include a 20% 
increase in girls' primary school completion rates or a 20% increase in 
the number of women who are functionally literate in the project areas 
in each country within 10 years.

A key element in this initiative is that it will be women, organized by 
NGOs, who will take the leadership in this effort. This new program also 
will assist women in developing their own capacities for improving the 
education of their children, including their daughters.

I am proud that the United States is taking such an important step in 
helping poor women reach their full potential in their families, 
communities, and their societies. There is no more important task before 
all of us. I respectfully urge other governments to join us in creating 
or expanding the opportunities for all women worldwide.

Thank you very much.


Fact Sheet: The United States Boosts Girls' and Women's Education 
Worldwide

The United States Agency for International Development's (USAID) Girls' 
and Women's Education Initiative is a new and ambitious project built on 
30 years of lessons learned from successful educational development 
programs. The United States is committed to ensuring that girls and 
women, as well as boys and men, reap the benefits of education, and 
through their learning, contribute to the advancement of families.

USAID will allocate $11.7 million in Fiscal Year 1995 for this 
initiative, as part of its $125-million basic education program. Over 
the next decade, USAID's initiative will target about 12 countries in 
Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The principal goal of the initiative is 
to achieve higher school completion rates for girls.

"Basic education is one of the world's best investments. Contributing to 
the education of girls and women is vital to the long-term health and 
prosperity of any developing nation," said USAID Deputy Administrator 
Carol Lancaster.

In countries where governments have invested in primary and secondary 
education of girls and women, this investment has been repaid many times 
through higher economic productivity, greater participation of women in 
the modern labor sector, lower infant and maternal mortality rates, 
improved child nutrition and family health, longer life expectancy, and 
lower fertility rates. Recent research has demonstrated that investments 
in the education of girls and women may well yield a higher return than 
any other investment in a country's development.

The goals, commitments, and deliberations of the International 
Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1994, the World 
Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen, and the upcoming World 
Conference on Women in Beijing all clearly state that the education of 
girls and women is a critical factor in the reduction of poverty, the 
achievement of lower fertility rates, higher incomes and employment, 
social integration, and security of families, communities, and nations.


Fact Sheet: Accomplishments      Of the World Summit for Social 
Development

The World Summit for Social Development was held in Copenhagen, Denmark, 
March 6-12, 1995. The summit focused on three issues:

--  Reduction and elimination of widespread poverty;
--  Productive employment and the reduction of unemployment; and
--  Social integration, centering on ways to enable different groups in 
society to live together in productive and cooperative diversity.

The following specific action items are supported by the U.S. and were 
agreed upon at the summit.

First, the central commitment is for all countries to reduce "overall 
poverty in the shortest possible time" and to "eradicate absolute 
poverty by a target date to be specified by each country."   
Specifically,

--  All countries should ensure universal basic education and access to 
primary health care as the fundamentals to empower people and end 
absolute poverty;
--  The activities of multilateral development banks, including 
structural adjustment programs, should "focus on meeting basic needs for 
all and eradicating absolute poverty;"
--  Debt burdens, including multilateral debt, should be examined with 
the goal of assisting low-income countries to resume growth; and
--  The UNICEF/UNDP "20/20" principle is included in language that 
strongly encourages donors and developing countries to form partnerships 
to focus on basic social programs.

Second, the summit paves the way for the Fourth World Conference on 
Women by its strong commitment to achieve "equality and equity between 
women and men."

Third, the summit establishes a framework that could improve the quality 
of life of workers around the world. For the first time, heads of state 
and government joined in a specific commitment to "safeguard the basic 
rights and interests of workers," including "the prohibition on forced 
and child labor" and the right to "freedom of association, the right to 
organize and bargain collectively, and the principle of non-
discrimination."

Fourth, leaders attending the summit agreed to unprecedented language on 
the need to equalize "opportunities so that people with disabilities can 
contribute to and benefit from full participation in society."  The 
United States led the world in advocating this central point, and 
Americans representing the disability community served on the U.S. 
delegation both to the final preparatory meeting for the social summit 
and to the summit itself.

Fifth, the social summit reaffirmed the key commitments made at recent 
UN conferences on the environment (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), on human 
rights (Vienna, 1993), and on population (Cairo, 1994). In doing so, the 
Cophenhagen Declaration strongly endorsed the central role of 
sustainable development, stating:

We are deeply convinced that economic development, social development, 
and environmental protection are interdependent and mutually reinforcing 
components of sustainable development, which is the framework for our 
efforts to achieve a higher quality of life for all people. Equitable 
social development that recognizes empowering of the poor to utilize 
environmental resources sustainably is a necessary foundation for 
sustainable development. We also recognize that broad-based and 
sustained economic growth in the context of sustainable development is 
necessary to sustain social development and social justice.

Finally, the United States announced two major initiatives at the 
summit:

--  The First Lady announced a  $100-million Girls' and Women's 
Education Initiative, to be implemented by USAID; and
--  The Vice President announced a New Partnerships Initiative, under 
which 40% of USAID's development assistance will be channeled through 
non-governmental organizations.(###)




ARTICLE 4

American Eagle or Ostrich? The Case for U.S. Leadership
Deputy Secretary Talbott
Remarks at the McConnell Center for Political Leadership, Louisville, 
Kentucky, March 20, 1995

Ladies and gentlemen: I am here this morning for three reasons.The first 
is because I was invited by Senator McConnell, who, as all of you know, 
is a key figure in our Congress. I always respond promptly and 
positively to his invitations, whether they entail a 10-minute ride up 
Constitution Avenue from Foggy Bottom to Capitol Hill or a trip to 
Louisville. The second reason is that I have a number of close personal 
ties to this part of the country. I spent the first years of my life 
just over the border in southern Ohio, and my dear friends John and Mary 
Greenebaum, who are in the audience here today, have broadened my 
cultural horizons by taking my wife and me to that horse race you folks 
like to run every year.

But the third and most important reason I am here is that I want to talk 
with you--the future leaders of our nation--about the future of American 
leadership in world affairs.

Since the students among you started high school, the world has changed 
dramatically--and undoubtedly for the better. While there are many 
places around the world where misery and brutality still dominate, we 
live in an era that is marked by triumphs of the human spirit--the 
collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Empire, the end of apartheid 
in South Africa, the handshakes for peace between Israel and its Arab 
neighbors.

During this same period, there have been many quieter but equally hard-
won examples of progress: Nations from El Salvador to Ethiopia to 
Cambodia have moved from dictatorship to democracy; countries from 
Argentina to India to China have moved toward open markets. Open markets 
are conducive to open societies, and open societies are conducive to 
basic political freedoms and to more peaceful international relations.

American statesmen--both Democrat and Republican, in both the executive 
and legislative branches of our government--have played an important, 
often essential part in this progress. Now more than ever, the world 
looks to us for leadership. And now more than ever, the rewards for our 
providing that leadership abroad will be realized here at home. We face 
historic opportunities, not just to combat threats and enemies but also 
to build a world that reflects our ideals and promotes our interests--a 
world that will be more prosperous and more secure not only for my 
generation and Senator McConnell's but for yours as well, and for his 
and my children, who are coming along behind you.

For the third time in this century, we face a great national debate over 
America's role in the world and over what it takes to play the role we 
should. The first two such debates were after the two World Wars; this 
one comes after the end of the Cold War. For that debate to lead, 
ultimately, to the right policies and to the right national consensus, 
it must take place not just inside the Washington beltway or in 
congressional committee rooms where Senator McConnell and I sometimes 
encounter each other or on the '96 campaign trail, on which, of course, 
a number of candidates are already embarked. Rather, this debate must 
also take place in the heartland of the nation, particularly at 
gatherings such as this and at institutions such as this one, dedicated 
as it is to the goal of promoting leadership.

Today, in the aftermath of the Cold War--just as in the aftermath of 
other great struggles earlier in our nation's history--there is a 
temptation to draw back into ourselves, to devote all our attention and 
our resources to fixing our own problems--a temptation to let other 
countries fend for themselves. This is particularly evident in Congress, 
where there are those in both parties who imply that we should duck--not 
deal with--the international challenges of our era.

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; and who opposed 
help to the victims of aggression and inadvertently endangered our 
security--chanting all the while the crowd-pleasing mantra "America 
first."

Arguments that would turn the American eagle into an ostrich have always 
had a certain appeal, in part because we are separated by vast oceans 
from both Europe and Asia, because we have 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 won the Second World War 
learned several, if not all, of the lessons from the aftermath of World 
War I. 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 United Nations Charter--a 
document inspired by American ideals and largely written by American 
statesmen.

It is 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 reached into our 
pockets for foreign aid to maintain our influence against the 
encroachments of the Red Menace; and we countered hard-eyed, stubborn, 
central-casting Soviet diplomats in every forum, notably including at 
the United Nations.

Now the Cold War is over, and with its end we face a resurgence here on 
the home front of those old temptations and delusions that got the 
better of us in the '20s. The old isolationist instinct is twitching 
again in the American body politic. It is twitching in calls for us to 
reject free trade agreements or to keep our distance from foreign 
conflicts or to gut the UN or in the fantasy that we can build multi-
billion-dollar space-based shields that will keep us safe from any 
military attack.

And it is certainly twitching in calls for us to slash the international 
affairs portion of the federal budget. More accurately, I should say 
"keep slashing," since international affairs spending already has been 
cut nearly in half over the past decade. The current international 
affairs budget of $21.2 billion represents only about 1.3% of total 
federal spending. That 1.3% pays for all of our embassies and diplomats 
overseas, for our foreign aid and economic assistance programs, for our 
participation in international organizations and our support for 
multinational peace-keeping operations, for many of our arms control 
initiatives, and for our overseas public information services. That is 
how much--or rather how little--President Clinton is asking Congress to 
approve and the taxpayer to fund in order to assure that Americans live, 
travel, and trade in a safer, more stable, more prosperous world.

Yet there is a move in Congress to slice more than 20% from this bare-
bones budget. If this move prevails, the result would be deep, across-
the-board cuts in all areas; it would eliminate most of our economic 
development and democracy-building programs in Latin America and Africa; 
it would force us virtually to withdraw from international organizations 
such as the United Nations and the World Bank; and it would require that 
we abandon our efforts to combat environmental degradation and 
unsustainable population growth.

There is, in short, a view out there--certainly up there on Capitol 
Hill--that we can have a foreign policy on the cheap--that our truly 
vital interests in some sense end at the water's edge. That view is just 
plain wrong and dangerously, damagingly so.

Why? Because our national well-being--our safety and our prosperity --
depends, to an unprecedented extent, on what happens in other parts of 
the world; it depends on a continuation of that steady progress I 
mentioned a moment ago--toward open societies and open markets. And why 
is that? Because our society and our economy are, as never before, 
interacting with those other ones around the planet.

Since I work for a president who won the White House on the slogan "It's 
the economy, stupid," let me start with the issue of open markets. The 
livelihood of our workers and farmers increasingly depends on their 
ability to compete in global markets. Here in Kentucky, one out of every 
eight manufacturing jobs is dependent on exports. Every other row of 
Kentucky soybeans and four out of every 10 rows of Kentucky tobacco are 
sold abroad.

No president in the last 40 years has done more than Bill Clinton to 
open up new markets for American trade and investment. NAFTA and the 
Uruguay Round of GATT are creating hundreds of thousands of good jobs 
for Americans all across the country, including here in Kentucky. For 
instance, in the first few months after the ratification of NAFTA, 
exports to Mexico from Kentucky's apparel industry rose by nearly 400%--
that means they quintupled.

The President recognizes that there is still more work to be done in 
breaking down barriers to doing business overseas, particularly in the 
world's biggest emerging markets--Argentina, Brazil, China, India, 
Indonesia, Mexico, Poland, South Africa, South Korea, and Turkey--as 
well as in Japan. That is why every American diplomat--from my boss, 
Warren Christopher, on down--in Washington and in our posts overseas has 
made economic issues and U.S. commercial interests a top foreign policy 
priority.

The Clinton Administration is also focusing foreign policy resources on 
those international threats that directly affect the safety of Americans 
here at home. Thanks to our efforts, outlaws such as Carlos the Jackal, 
one of the world's most wanted terrorists, and Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, one 
of the key suspects in the World Trade Center bombing, are now in 
custody.

But the battle against international terrorism is far from over, as we 
saw from the murder of two American embassy officials in Karachi earlier 
this month. I had the melancholy duty last Sunday to preside at the 
homecoming of their caskets. The experience was a reminder that some of 
our finest public servants, even though they do not wear uniforms or 
bear arms, are advancing and defending American interests around the 
world in conditions of considerable hardship and often great danger, 
just as our men and women in the armed forces are doing. We need to 
support them in every way we can. We can do that only if we are prepared 
to devote the necessary resources to the conduct of foreign policy.

Now a word about security issues. Security, writ large, is basically 
what foreign policy is all about; it's about making--and keeping--the 
United States safe. That includes keeping our economy strong, of course. 
But another important part of our security policy is arms control. There 
is a mistaken impression in some people's minds that arms control is the 
old business of the Cold War. Not true: It is the new business of the 
post-Cold War era, too.

An example very much in the headlines: the Korean Peninsula. That was 
the site of one long, terrible instance when the Cold War turned hot, 45 
years ago. But it's also a danger zone today. When our Administration 
came into office, the world had known for some years that the North 
Koreans had an active nuclear weapons program, and the time was fast 
approaching when we might have seen North Korean nuclear weapons for 
sale to other rogue states. Last fall, after months of intensive 
negotiations, our Administration brought the North Korean program to a 
halt. Backing out of our agreement with North Korea now--a move that 
some on Capitol Hill have suggested--would mean either allowing North 
Korea to resume its nuclear program or bringing us to the brink of a new 
Korean war.

Over the last two years, President Clinton has concluded landmark 
agreements with Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia. As a result, 
only one nuclear weapons state will be on the territory of the former 
U.S.S.R., rather than four. Moreover, Americans can go to bed at night 
knowing that the nuclear weapons of the old Soviet arsenal are no longer 
pointed at our cities. Together with the Russians, Ukrainians, and 
others, we have been destroying nuclear warheads at an unprecedented 
rate. We are helping those former Soviet states to improve security over 
their bomb-making materials, so that those materials don't someday end 
up in suitcase bombs available to rogue states and nuclear terrorists.

Of course, even with these arms control and non-proliferation efforts, 
the United States and Russia will remain the world's leading nuclear 
powers for the indefinite future. For that reason among others, the 
Clinton Administration is committed to helping Russia stay on a 
reformist course. Imagine our own future if Russia lapses back into 
tyranny or disintegrates into ethnic violence and political chaos.

As Senator McConnell has often noted, Russia's fate will very much 
influence--for better or for worse--the fate of the other New 
Independent States of the former Soviet Union, and vice versa. If, for 
instance, Ukraine successfully completes the transition from its 
communist past, continuing on its current path as an independent 
democratic state with an emerging market economy, then other reforming 
states in the region--including Russia--are more likely to succeed. 
Conversely, if Ukraine slips backward or lurches into instability, it 
could drag  much of the region with it.

There is now--and will continue to be for a long time, generations 
probably--a great struggle going on in Russia and throughout the former 
Soviet Union 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. We do not know what the outcome of that 
struggle will be. But we know what we want it to be. The stakes are too 
high for us to remain on the sidelines: We must try to affect the course 
of events inside these New Independent States in a way that is 
consistent with our interests and values. As President Clinton said two 
months ago in Cleveland, "if the forces of reform are embattled, we must 
renew, not retreat from, our support for them."  When we support 
programs that train judges and lawyers in Russia, journalists and 
television producers in Ukraine, or parliamentarians in Belarus, we are 
making a direct investment in our own long-term national security.

Another dangerous but critical area where American engagement and 
leadership are essential is, of course, the Middle East. Securing a 
lasting and comprehensive peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors 
has been a principal and bipartisan goal of American foreign policy for 
more than four decades. Resolving that conflict would remove a major 
source of instability in an area of the world where we have vital 
interests. Today, thanks in large part to American efforts, a 
comprehensive peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors is closer than 
ever. Secretary Christopher has devoted immense amounts of his personal 
energies to the quest--and to good effect. His patient, personal shuttle 
diplomacy has helped forge an agreement between Israel and the 
Palestinian Liberation Organization and a peace treaty between Israel 
and Jordan. And thanks to the Secretary's continued efforts, 
negotiations between Israel and Syria are entering a critical--and we 
believe hopeful--phase.

Credit is also due to our partners in the Congress who have supported 
key initiatives necessary for keeping the process moving forward. One 
such initiative is providing Jordan with debt relief in exchange for the 
risks it has taken for peace--and on this issue, Senator McConnell has 
been an indispensable leader.

As we reward the makers of peace, we must also deal firmly and 
consistently with the enemies of peace. That is why it is so important 
to continue our opposition to Iran and Iraq--the Middle East's most 
dangerous actors. These two nations are not only the most ardent 
opponents of the Middle East peace process, they are also the world's 
most significant state-sponsors of terrorism--and they both seek to be-
come nuclear powers.

Let me address the question of defending our interests more generally 
and the extent to which we can and should do so in cooperation with 
others. 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. 
It must be able to deal promptly and decisively with any threat anywhere 
on earth. We have that capacity, and we will keep it.

But as this century has amply demonstrated, our freedom, security, and 
prosperity cannot be fully ensured without the active help of other free 
peoples, all of whom are looking to us for leadership.

The most successful American-led coalition of our time is NATO--the 
anchor of American engagement in Europe and the linchpin of 
transatlantic security. NATO is and must remain a military alliance. One 
of the essential elements of its success has been its rock-solid 
commitment to collective defense, backed by a capacity to exert armed 
force commensurate with the requirement of defending all members 
equally.

At the same time, the past five decades--and especially the last five 
years--have demonstrated that the enduring benefits of NATO are 
political as well as military. As Secretary Christopher puts it, NATO 
has "helped to reconcile old adversaries, to embed free countries in 
strong and solid institutions, and to create an enduring peace of shared 
purpose in one another's security."

Now that the Cold War has ended, we must work with our NATO allies to 
bring the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe and the former 
Soviet Union into a new European security order. If we meet that 
challenge, then we will have dramatically reduced the chance of conflict 
in the area where two world wars and a global cold war began.

The alliance took a historic step toward an expanded European security 
order in January 1994, when it approved President Clinton's proposal for 
a Partnership for Peace. Already, the partnership has produced the 
remarkable spectacle of former adversaries from NATO and the old Warsaw 
Pact exercising together in Poland and the Netherlands.

Last December, in response to an American initiative, the alliance began 
the process that will lead to NATO expansion. We are convinced that this 
goal can be achieved in a way that is consistent with the over-arching 
objectives of keeping Europe undivided and integrating into the 
institutions of the West those countries emerging from Soviet communism 
that remain committed to democracy, civil society, open markets, and 
respect for their neighbors.

When we talk about American leadership of international institutions, we 
must also address the question of the United Nations--especially today, 
since that organization has come under increasing attack particularly in 
regard to its peace-keeping activities. One of Senator McConnell's 
colleagues in Congress says that the UN is "the longtime nemesis of 
millions of Americans."  Another says that it is "a totally incompetent 
instrument anyplace that matters."  A bill has been passed by the House-
-the so-called National Security Revitalization Act--that would 
effectively force the United States to stop paying our UN dues, thereby 
reneging on our treaty obligations under the UN Charter. That bill is 
designed not to reform the United Nations but to kill it. In the name of 
the Contract with America, it would abrogate the contract with the world 
that Harry Truman signed almost exactly 50 years ago and that every 
President since--Republican and Democrat--has reaffirmed.

The United Nations offers a unique and often indispensable mechanism to 
further American-led efforts on behalf of global stability and security. 
It enables us to maintain sanctions against rogue states such as Libya, 
Iraq, and Serbia. UN peacekeepers are now helping to prevent simmering 
conflicts from erupting into full-scale war in Cyprus, Lebanon, Kashmir, 
and on the border between Kuwait and Iraq. In Cambodia, El Salvador, and 
Mozambique, they have helped bring an end to civil wars, disarm and 
reintegrate combatants into society, and supervise elections. Now, a 
United Nations Mission is preparing to step in to provide security and 
oversee the process of elections in Haiti, thereby ensuring that the 
United States will not have to go it alone--or pay all the costs--to 
bring stability and democracy to that troubled nation just off our 
shores.

Speaking of cost, let me emphasize this point: The per capita price to 
Americans for all the work the UN does--from blue helmets for 
peacekeepers to polio vaccines for babies--is less than $7 per year, 
about the same cost as a ticket to a movie at the Showcase Cinemas on 
Bardstown Road. 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.

There is no question the UN certainly has its share of management 
problems that prevent it from functioning as efficiently and effectively 
as it should. Here, as in all of our foreign policy programs, we must 
make sure that American tax dollars are well spent. But the right cure 
for the ills of the United Nations--or for any of our foreign policy 
programs--is not to call for the services of Dr. Kevorkian, which is 
what the Contract with America prescribes. Rather, we should administer 
sound treatment. We should keep working to make this tool as useful and 
efficient as possible, and that is exactly what the Clinton 
Administration is doing.

As Secretary Christopher puts it, without international partnerships 
such as those made possible by our leadership in the United Nations, we 
would be left "with an unacceptable option each time an emergency arose: 
a choice between acting alone or doing nothing."  Such partnerships do 
not always offer the perfect response, but then again, neither does 
unilateral action, nor does inaction.

Yet inaction will increasingly become what might be called "the default 
option" if we strip ourselves of the resources necessary to do what is 
in our own national interest. Every single successful and promising 
foreign policy and national security initiative I have mentioned in 
these remarks would be in jeopardy if we cut our foreign affairs budget 
to the extent and in the way that some are proposing.

Those cuts would represent, both symbolically and substantively, a 
withdrawal from our position of international leadership. And if we 
withdraw, there is no other country that will step in and lead in our 
place. Make no mistake about that. At the same time, make no mistake 
that there are plenty of forces that will fill the vacuum we leave in 
other ways, not at all to our liking or to our advantage.

That is why, just as the wise men put in place American foreign policy 
after World War II, our generation must put in place a foreign policy 
for the post-Cold War era that is equally hard-headed and forward-
looking--and that means outward-looking; a foreign policy that is not 
penny-wise and pound-foolish; a foreign policy that puts our money where 
our interests and principles are.

So let's get on with the great debate. But let its starting point be a 
shared recognition of what must continue to be the three pillars of 
American foreign policy: first, the strength and global appeal of our 
democratic values and institutions; second, the strength of our economy, 
which depends on global peace and stability; and third, the strength of 
our military power. In short, we have the heart, the brains, the wallet, 
and the muscle to live up to the name of this center, to exercise 
political leadership on the world stage, and to do so on behalf of our 
own interests as well as those of humanity as a whole. (###)




ARTICLE 5

Intellectual Property Rights and U.S.-China Relations
Winston Lord, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Statement before the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC, March 8, 1995

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the invitation to speak before the 
Asia and Pacific Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 
Before I begin, may I extend congratulations to Ambassador Barshefsky, 
Ambassador Kantor, and the entire negotiating team for the firm and 
principled way they conducted extremely difficult negotiations which, 
ultimately, yielded an excellent Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) 
agreement. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to sketch out in 
broad terms how the IPR agreement Ambassador Barshefsky has just 
described for you fits into our overall strategy of "comprehensive 
engagement" with China. This Administration, and we at the State 
Department, are committed to working closely with you in order to shape 
a strong bipartisan policy that will advance our broad spectrum of 
interests in China.

A Diverse and Complex Relationship

Since we established formal diplomatic relations with the People's 
Republic of China in 1979, the scope of our ties with the world's most 
populous country has expanded significantly. Two countries with 
international interests and influence as extensive as ours must be 
engaged with each other on a very broad range of issues--in the interest 
of long-term regional and global peace, prosperity, and security. The 
IPR agreement is the most recent demonstration of the complexity of this 
relationship and its increasing importance.

Pursuing the interests of the United States is, of course, the 
fundamental premise of our China policy. We have just advanced our 
interests in the IPR negotiations. In trade and other areas, we must 
apply this yardstick in addressing the entire constellation of 
bilateral, regional, and global concerns in which our countries' 
interests intersect.

Comprehensive Engagement

It is in this context that this Administration developed and the 
President approved a strategy of "comprehensive engagement" with China. 
The purpose of this strategy, simply stated, is:

-- To pursue all of our interests at the levels and intensity required 
to achieve results;
-- To seek to build mutual confidence and agreement in areas where our 
interests converge; and
-- Through dialogue, to reduce the areas in which we have differences.

In short, we bear in mind that, as the President has stated, the U.S. 
national interest is served by maintenance of friendly relations with a 
China that is strong, stable, prosperous, and open.

We sometimes hear sincere criticism that this policy approach can lead 
to apparent inconsistencies, misperceptions, and skewing of what should 
be our top priorities. There are those who contend with passion and 
conviction--which we understand and fully respect--that if China fails 
to address our concerns on a particular issue, then we should put our 
other interests and objectives on hold until we have seen progress.

This Administration believes, however, that in dealing with a country as 
large and as important as China, it is essential to continue pushing our 
interests forward on as many fronts as possible. In areas where the two 
countries' interests conflict, the going may often be slow. But there 
are also many areas where U.S. and Chinese interests are complementary 
and where constructive cooperation between us produces significant 
benefits for both countries--and also contributes to regional and global 
peace and security.

Human Rights

Our attention is often focused, quite naturally, on areas of obvious 
disagreement. The human rights issue is a case in point. This 
Administration and the American people remain extremely concerned with 
China's continued failure to meet internationally accepted standards on 
human rights, including norms that have been recognized by Beijing 
itself--for example, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

When the President decided last year to delink human rights from MFN, he 
made it clear that delinkage represented a shift in the tools we will 
employ to achieve progress on human rights issues in China. It did not 
represent a shift from the Administration's continued stress on human 
rights. This stress has been clear in Geneva, for example, where we have 
joined the European Union, Japan, and others in a concerted effort at 
the UN Human Rights Commission to put the spotlight on China's human 
rights abuses.

We are likewise pressing a bilateral dialogue with China on human rights 
issues, addressing such areas as prisoner releases, Tibet, and visits by 
international humanitarian organizations to Chinese prisons. We have 
begun to discuss with the Chinese how we can help strengthen legal 
reform efforts in China and establish a stronger judicial system. 
Supreme Court Justice Kennedy's recent visit to China was very helpful 
in this regard.

Improvement in Chinese human rights practices is an essential element of 
our China policy and, indeed, of our efforts to achieve a stable long-
term U.S.-Chinese bilateral relationship. That is why Administration 
officials visiting China, without exception, raise our human rights 
concerns. And it is why concentrated attention to our human rights 
agenda remains a central aspect of our comprehensive engagement 
strategy.

Our Broad Goals in Economics and Trade

Our increasingly important economic and trade relations with China are 
another key aspect of this comprehensive engagement strategy. Ambassador 
Barshefsky has just described for you the recent round of very tough 
negotiations on the protection of intellectual property rights. Just two 
months ago, we and many of China's other trading partners--large and 
small--participated in separate but equally grueling talks related to 
China's accession to the World Trade Organization.

The IPR and WTO negotiations must also be viewed in the context of our 
broader strategy of "comprehensive engagement." In economics and trade, 
this strategy has two key elements: First, we seek to fully integrate 
China into the global, market-based economic and trading system. China's 
participation in the global economy will nurture the process of economic 
reform and increase China's stake in the stability and prosperity of 
East Asia. Second, we seek to expand U.S. exporters' and investors' 
access to the Chinese market. As China grows and develops, its needs for 
both goods and services imports will grow even more rapidly. This market 
represents a very important opportunity for U.S. firms and workers.

Clearly, the IPR agreement contributes directly to our efforts to 
develop commercial opportunities for U.S. firms in China and elsewhere. 
In bringing China closer to international norms in this area, the IPR 
agreement also promotes China's eventual integration into the global, 
market-based economic and trade system.

The IPR agreement also could help generate momentum for further progress 
on China's accession to the WTO. The negotiations demonstrated that when 
all sides are determined to seek mutually acceptable solutions through 
serious and detailed talks agreement is always possible. We hope that 
this pattern will be applied with equal success in China's WTO accession 
process.

The IPR agreement is a large step forward, but many other important 
substantive issues remain to be resolved in order to complete the WTO 
accession process. Here, too, much ultimately will depend on China's 
willingness to accept the basic obligations of the WTO system.

At the same time, we continue to pursue our comprehensive engagement 
strategy in other aspects of our economic relations with China. 
Recently, for example, we have concluded agreements with China on 
textiles and satellite launches. This year, we will be engaged again in 
talks on market access, civil aviation, export financing, and a variety 
of other commercial issues.

We also continue to expand our export promotion efforts--one of the 
central responsibilities of what Secretary Christopher refers to as our 
"America Desk"--and cooperative programs in scientific and technical 
fields. For example, during Secretary O'Leary's visit to China two weeks 
ago, we not only witnessed the signing of commercial agreements that 
will facilitate billions of dollars in new U.S. exports but also 
established the frame-work for scientific, technical, and economic 
cooperation in developing China's sustainable energy development 
program. Secretary Brown's visit to China last August was equally 
successful in helping to build long-term economic and business ties 
between China and the United States.

Our Security Interests

An increasingly powerful China will be a central factor in the stability 
of the Asia-Pacific region. Indeed, it will play an important role in 
global security given its permanent seat in the United Nations Security 
Council, its possession of nuclear weapons, and its military exports.

Thus, we also seek to gradually develop our exchanges with Beijing in 
the security field. Under Secretary Perry's leadership, we have launched 
a careful program of military exchanges and defense conversion 
cooperation. This is designed to promote greater transparency about 
China's intentions and strategies, establish ties with an important 
sector in China, and contribute to progress on the non-proliferation 
front.

At the same time, we are seeking to integrate China in the Asia-Pacific 
security realm. We have welcomed its participation and are working with 
it in the Asian Regional Forum and Northeast Asia Security dialogue. 
Moreover, we have closely coordinated on some regional security issues. 
Beijing has played a generally constructive role on Korea. It has ceased 
assistance to the Khmer Rouge and is dealing with the elected Government 
of Cambodia. Its role in the South China Sea will be critical.

Finally, the control of weapons of mass destruction is a key agenda item 
with the Chinese. There is unfinished business with respect to China's 
adherence to the Missile Technology Control Regime. Chinese military 
exports in certain other areas remain worrisome. There are grounds for 
hope that China will support the indefinite extension of the Non-
Proliferation Treaty and a comprehensive test ban treaty--though we 
oppose China's continued nuclear tests in the meantime.

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, China is a large, populous, militarily powerful, and 
economically significant country whose influence in the world cannot but 
increase. China's policies, attitudes, and actions will have an impact 
upon a broad range of U.S. interests, including those in the political, 
security, non-proliferation, and human rights areas, as well as in 
economic and commercial affairs. Managing this complex relationship will 
require sophistication, patience, much hard work, and a steady vision of 
our long-term interests. Given our different perspectives, we must be 
prepared for inevitable rough patches in our relations.

Against this backdrop, we believe that the President's strategy of 
"comprehensive engagement" is the best way of furthering the broad range 
of U.S. interests in China, East Asia, and the world. We hope that our 
approach will enjoy broad bipartisan support in the Congress.  (###)



ARTICLE 6

U.S. Policy Toward South Asia
Robin Raphel, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs
Statement before the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian 
Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC, March 
7, 1995

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for inviting me 
to testify today on the Administration's policy toward South Asia. I 
want to start by echoing Secretary Christopher's statement before the 
full committee on February 14 that the imperative of American 
leadership--sustained by a bipartisan consensus--is a central lesson of 
this century. This is as true for South Asia as for any other part of 
the world. I look forward to working with you and members of the 
committee to advance our interests in this increasingly important 
region.

Overview

All major categories of the international affairs budget submission for 
the  next fiscal year have applicability in South Asia. While the 
region's proportion of the overall request may be small, funding for 
these programs is important.

South Asia has great potential as an emerging market, and the United 
States is aggressively promoting trade and investment there. EXIM, OPIC, 
and TDA play an important role in supporting our rapidly expanding 
business ties.

Over 200 million South Asians live in countries with revitalized or 
newly installed and still-fragile democratic institutions. We are 
working to reinforce those institutions, particularly in Bangladesh and 
Nepal.

Sustainable development is a critical need for South Asia, where the 
promise of prosperity through economic reform and expansion is 
threatened by widespread poverty, rapid population growth, and 
environmental degradation. Our budget submission would support this 
through USAID programs, which my colleague, Margaret Carpenter, will 
describe in more detail, and through funding for international financial 
institutions, which play a very important role in the region.

Our funding request for promoting peace would support U.S. goals in 
several important areas. Our official initiatives and support for the 
efforts of NGOs to deal with the threat of proliferation in South Asia 
are continuing. South Asia has become a major source of a broad range of 
illicit narcotics, and we are cooperating closely with regional 
governments to stop production and trafficking. Combating crime in 
general as well as terrorism remain important U.S. activities in South 
Asia.

Our humanitarian assistance programs in South Asia have a major impact--
for example, assisting large refugee populations from Afghanistan, 
Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and Burma while repatriation proceeds. We cannot 
predict whether our disaster assistance will be needed in the coming 
year, but recent history has shown that natural catastrophe is an all-
too-frequent visitor to the region.

Background

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to put our budget request in a policy 
context. As elsewhere in the world, South Asian countries are in a 
period of complex interaction between unresolved historical tensions and 
the rapid transformation facing us all on the threshold of the 21st 
century.

Adding to and accelerating this transformation, a dramatic move toward 
market-based economies continues throughout the region. In India, all 
major groups, including the principal opposition parties, now favor this 
fundamental shift in policy. In the face of continuing political crisis 
in Bangladesh, the government and the opposition tell foreign business 
leaders their capital and their presence are welcome. The new Government 
of Sri Lanka, elected last fall, affirms its commitment to market-
oriented economic policies and its interest in foreign investment. 
Political turmoil and three changes of government in 1993 have not 
reversed the reform process in Pakistan.

Yet long-standing disagreements and entrenched domestic political 
concerns sustain tensions between India and Pakistan, both of which are 
nuclear-capable states. The ongoing internal conflict in Afghanistan 
demands our immediate attention. We know rising illicit narcotics 
production and consumption, rapid population growth, and increasing 
environmental degradation are longer-term threats, not just to the 
region but to the rest of the world. Human rights principles are all-
too-often ignored throughout South Asia. The democratic institutions 
that are vital to ensuring stability and accountability remain fragile 
and struggling in some states in the region, including Bangladesh, 
Nepal, and Pakistan.

U.S. Goals

Our top foreign policy goals in South Asia reflect the Administration's 
global priorities.

Reducing Tensions and Helping To Resolve Conflicts Peacefully. No one 
takes lightly the dangers inherent in relations between India and 
Pakistan. They fought three wars between 1948 and 1972 and are still 
bitter rivals. Inflexible policies and attitudes on both sides aggravate 
serious tensions. These tensions are heightened by the possession of a 
nuclear weapons capability by both countries.

The Kashmir dispute polarizes the relationship between the two nations. 
We are continuing efforts to persuade them to begin a serious attempt to 
resolve this dispute. This must involve sustained, direct discussion 
between senior Indian and Pakistani officials. It requires the credible 
engagement of all the people of Jammu and Kashmir and the cessation of 
human rights abuses by security forces and militants. It also requires 
the end of outside assistance to the militancy against the Indian 
Government. The United States has offered to assist with this process, 
if India and Pakistan so request. We have no preferred outcome, but we 
recognize that a resolution is long overdue and essential for the long-
term stability of the region as a whole.

In Afghanistan, the United States actively supports the United Nations 
Special Mission to Afghanistan. The chief of the UN mission has 
conducted intensive and imaginative negotiations over the past months 
seeking to end the bloody conflict and establish an interim council. 
Reluctance of factional leaders to relinquish their personal power for 
the overall good of Afghanistan remains the major obstacle. While the 
intentions of the Taliban movement are unclear, its leadership has 
expressed support in principle for a peaceful political process, and the 
UN mission is pressing ahead to establish an interim council to take 
power from faction leaders.

Outside assistance to individual faction leaders has only strengthened 
their intransigence. We have worked hard with like-minded states to stop 
material support and funding for the belligerent factions and to support 
the UN efforts to foster a return of peace and stability to Afghanistan. 
In the meantime, the U.S. has assisted refugees and those internally 
displaced due to the devastation of Kabul in 1994.

In Sri Lanka, the government has shown courage and vision in its moves 
to reopen a dialogue with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam--LTTE--in 
the north. We strongly support the continuation of these talks. 
Obtaining a lasting peace will be a long and arduous struggle. However, 
we are convinced that the Sri Lankan Government is committed to this 
process and is acting in a spirit of openness and good faith. We urge 
the LTTE, likewise, to act in a manner that will further the prospects 
for a lasting and comprehensive peace and to engage now on the 
substantive political agenda.

While confronting these serious problems in the region, we also are 
working closely with South Asian states in dealing with conflicts around 
the globe. We would not have imagined even five years ago that shared 
approaches to conflict resolution would have put South Asian and U.S. 
peacekeepers side-by-side in Cambodia, in Somalia, and in Haiti. Our 
combined efforts range in scale from a few dozen military observers 
aiding the conduct of elections to brigade-sized units in the most 
dangerous circumstances.

Preventing Further Development Or Deployment of Weapons of Mass 
Destruction and Ballistic Missiles. Both India and Pakistan could 
assemble a limited number of nuclear weapons in a relatively short 
period of time. Both seek to acquire or develop ballistic missiles that 
are capable of delivering nuclear warheads. South Asia is the one area 
of the world where a regional conflict has the potential to escalate to 
a nuclear exchange, with devastating consequences in the region and 
beyond.

I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your recognition of the complexity of the 
issues of security and proliferation in South Asia and your decision to 
devote a separate hearing the day after tomorrow for a discussion of 
their details.

Encouraging Free Market Economies and U.S. Trade and Investment.  South 
Asia is increasingly a region of intense economic growth and 
development. India's economic reform program has cleared the way for new 
levels of trade and investment between our two countries. This trend has 
been reinforced by recent high-level visits on both sides. India has 
been designated by the Commerce Department as one of the top 10 "big 
emerging markets," giving it a special priority in our trade promotion 
efforts. You already have heard about the tremendous success of visits 
by Secretary Brown and a business delegation to India and by Secretary 
O'Leary and other delegations to India and Pakistan. The United States 
is already India's biggest foreign investor and biggest trading partner. 
We intend to make that relationship increasingly strong and mutually 
beneficial.

We have upgraded the official structure of our growing economic ties 
with India to reflect their scope and scale. The U.S.-India Commercial 
Alliance established by Secretary Brown will promote interaction between 
the private sectors of our two countries. The alliance is expected to 
complement the work of the sub-cabinet level Indo-U.S. 
Economic/Commercial Subcommission, which the President agreed to revive 
during the visit of Prime Minister Rao to the United States last May. We 
plan to hold a subcommission meeting on April 10.

The growing economy of Pakistan also has increasingly attracted U.S. 
business interest. However, Pressler Amendment restrictions have been 
interpreted to prevent support from OPIC and Trade and Development 
Agency assistance for U.S. business involvement in Pakistan, which is 
constraining the growth of our sales and investment there.

Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh increasingly rely on market forces in 
their economic policies. Our embassies have actively developed trade 
promotion events. In Kathmandu, the embassy sponsored the first-ever 
"U.S.A. Pavilion" at the Himalayan Expo '94 last May, and the success 
has encouraged plans to repeat it this year. In Colombo, the embassy 
worked with the American Chamber of Commerce to mount an American trade 
fair last May 31-June 2. More than 50 companies participated. In 
Bangladesh, the embassy cosponsored the fourth annual "U.S. Business in 
Bangladesh" trade show January 12-14, which attracted 42 exhibitors 
representing 120 U.S. firms. These events and initiatives serve to 
increase interest in U.S. products throughout the region.

Promoting Democracy and Fostering Protection of Universally Recognized 
Human Rights. Supporting and strengthening democracy remains a 
fundamental aim of the Clinton Administration in South Asia, as around 
the world. With the exception of Afghanistan and Bhutan, parliamentary 
governments were in place throughout South Asia in 1994. Generally free 
and fair elections brought new governments to power in both Sri Lanka 
and Nepal. We note with concern that bitter political cleavages, such as 
in Bangladesh and Pakistan, retard the development of democratic 
institutions and weaken the ability of the political system to move 
ahead on needed economic and social reforms. Bangladesh's new democracy 
has ventured into uncharted waters with the late December mass 
resignation of the opposition from parliament and the continued 
agitation for new elections. A political impasse continues there.

The United States contributes both directly and indirectly to the 
process of strengthening democracy in the region. U.S. assistance still 
includes programs to build civil institutions, such as legislatures and 
judiciaries, but now emphasizes non-governmental sector activities. 
Exchange programs provide South Asians first-hand exposure to U.S. 
institutions. The State Department also has encouraged a number of major 
U.S. NGOs to carry out privately funded projects to enhance democratic 
structures.

Advancing universally recognized human rights in South Asia is a key 
U.S. interest. America's commitment to social justice and respect for 
human rights always will be among our fundamental imperatives. We will 
continue to work both publicly and privately with foreign government 
leaders, non-governmental organizations, and private citizens to advance 
these goals. Our recently released Country Reports on Human Rights 
Practices contains our detailed assessments of the human rights 
situation in South Asian countries.

In India, public awareness of human rights problems is growing. The 
issue is debated in parliament and is the subject of frequent comment in 
a free press. The courts are now more active in human rights cases. 
Local human rights groups have continued their important efforts to 
catalogue and draw attention to human rights abuses throughout India. 
Government efforts to improve human rights performance include creation 
of a National Human Rights Commission. At the one-year mark, the 
commission has surprised the skeptics and begun to establish itself as 
an effective advocate for human rights. During its first year of 
operation, the NHRC heard nearly 3,000 complaints of human rights abuse 
and investigated cases in almost every state in India. Reportedly, the 
chairman of the commission has recommended that the Terrorism and 
Disruptive Activities Act--TADA--which has been subject to widespread 
abuse, be allowed to lapse.

These are positive developments, but more needs to be done. Security 
forces and militants continue abuses in Kashmir. In the Punjab, 
incidents of terrorist violence virtually ended more than a year ago. 
However, police often do not respect normal criminal procedures. TADA 
detainees declined from approximately 13,000 to roughly 5,000 by the end 
of the year. We will continue to raise our concerns with the Government 
of India.

In Sri Lanka, we saw especially dramatic progress as the government 
continued to take significant steps to protect human rights. Emergency 
regulations were allowed to lapse in all but war-affected areas, where 
they were modified in accordance with UN Human Rights Commission 
recommendations.

Disappearances virtually ceased in government-controlled areas in 1994. 
The government created three regional commissions to investigate 
disappearances. We have urged the Sri Lankan Government to sustain--and 
to build upon--its commitment to human rights. They are eager to do so.

The human rights picture in Pakistan and Bangladesh is mixed. In 
Pakistan in two separate cases within the past few months, appeals 
courts overturned the death sentence of three Christians convicted of 
violating the blasphemy law. However, Christians and Ahmadis continue to 
be charged with blasphemy, often on flimsy evidence. Treatment of 
prisoners and women remains a serious problem. The government 
established several police stations staffed by women officers for women 
detainees and victims in an effort to end abuses. The government has 
also created a human rights unit to monitor abuses.

In Bangladesh, the government allowed the Anti-Terrorism Act, which 
established special tribunals for a wide range of crimes, to lapse. 
However, the government has not repealed the 1974 Special Powers Act, 
which continues to be used to detain political opponents and other 
citizens without formal charges.

In Nepal, the transition to a new government is helping to solidify 
democracy. The newly elected United Marxist-Leninist government has 
declared its continued support for democracy and human rights. 
Increasing respect for human rights remains a major priority in our 
relations with all of the countries in the region.

Curbing Narcotics Production And Flows. South Asia is a major producer 
of licit and illicit opium. It is increasingly important as a production 
and transit area for heroin, methamphetamines, and other illegal sub- 
stances. Narcotics production has been growing faster in South Asia than 
anywhere else in the world. In South Asia, as elsewhere, drug smuggling 
forms a major source of income for some criminal groups and also for 
some of those attempting to influence democratic political institutions 
through corruption and intimidation.

Repeating another pattern seen before, production and transit of illicit 
narcotics have caused local addict populations to grow swiftly. There 
are now over 4 million addicts in South Asia. There are 1.5 million 
Pakistani heroin addicts alone. An important goal for us in the region 
has been to work with governments and NGOs to heighten awareness of the 
magnitude and social cost of this trafficking.

For 1994, Pakistan received a certification for narcotics cooperation 
based on vital national interest. This reflected both our concern that 
Pakistan give even more priority to counter-narcotics efforts and our 
recognition that it is a key partner on all issues of concern to us in 
the region. In 1995, Pakistan has begun to make potentially significant 
progress in eradicating poppy fields, seizing drugs, and freezing 
traffickers' assets. Also, the government has consolidated Pakistan's 
Anti-Narcotics Force under solid, military leadership. While much 
remains to be done, these steps represent a real basis for future 
progress.

India is the major supplier to the U.S. of legal opium for vital 
pharmaceuticals. We have been working intensively with Indian 
authorities to eliminate diversion of opium to the illicit market. 
Reforms have been implemented in the cultivation and processing system, 
but key questions remain unanswered about the magnitude of the diversion 
problem. Illicit cultivation is an increasingly serious problem which 
needs to be addressed.

The Afghan civil war has allowed Pakistan-based heroin labs and 
narcotics traffickers to benefit from enormously increased poppy 
cultivation in Afghanistan. The lack of a functioning government in 
Afghanistan has limited our ability to address the problem, although we 
are looking for ways to assist responsible regional leaders. This year, 
Afghanistan was denied certification on narcotics.

We are working with Indian and Pakistani narcotics authorities to 
improve their cooperation in interdicting the narcotics trade across 
their borders. We have seen encouraging signs of progress in this area, 
including several rounds of Indo-Pakistani bilateral discussions. 
Significant progress on the overall situation will require far greater 
emphasis on enforcement and crop eradication and substitution throughout 
the region.

Broad Engagement

As we work to advance fundamental U.S. interests in South Asia, we want 
our engagement to reflect the totality of our interests. It must be 
broad and complete. One core interest cannot be pursued to the exclusion 
of other key objectives. Some commentators have incorrectly argued that 
expanding U.S. economic objectives in South Asia will undercut our 
efforts to advance other key interests, such as non-proliferation or 
human rights. Others mistakenly believe our relationship with one 
country must come at the expense of another. The record I have described 
above amply demonstrates this is not the case.

Our bilateral relationships need to be based on a realistic assessment 
of each other's interests, recognizing that it is normal and healthy for 
sovereign states to differ in some areas while agreeing in others. 
Expanding mutual interests will give us the incentives to overcome 
differences and build on areas of convergence.

Expanding relationships and deeper engagement with the countries of 
South Asia are now a reality. Economic opportunity and the end of the 
Cold War have raised the profile of relations with this important 
region. New structures to ensure closer engagement with the region are 
being put in place. For example, in January, Secretary Perry signed an 
agreed minute outlining plans for Indo-U.S. security cooperation. 
Likewise, the U.S.-Pakistan Consultative Group on security issues was 
revitalized during Secretary Perry's trip. The revived Indo-U.S. 
Economic/Commercial Subcommission and a new, private sector Indo-U.S. 
commercial alliance will contribute to better understanding of economic 
and commercial issues.

A reflection of this engagement is the wide range of senior visitors we 
have exchanged with South Asian states in the past year. Three cabinet 
secretaries visited the region. The new partnership launched by Prime 
Minister Rao and President Clinton just nine months ago already is 
paying major dividends for the United States and India. The Prime 
Minister of Pakistan will visit the United States in April. Her meeting 
with the President will help reinvigorate our relationship.

Our hope and expectation is that the effort we put into closer relations 
will improve our prospects for finding ways to ease deep-seated tensions 
and resolve complex disputes that threaten our broader interests.

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to discuss in brief the 
principal issues of concern to the United States in South Asia and our 
efforts to deal with them and how these are supported by our FY 1996 
budget request. (###)

[END OF DISPATCH VOL. 6, NO. 13]

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