U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH 
VOLUME 6, NUMBER 15, APRIL 10, 1995 
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS 
 
ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE: 
 
1.    Haiti: A Time of Peaceful Transition--President Clinton, UN 
Secretary General Boutros-Ghali, Haitian President Aristide 
2.    The Foreign Affairs Budget: Our Foreign Policy Cannot Be Supported 
on the Cheap--Secretary Christopher 
3.    American Leadership in the Middle East: Supporting the Friends and 
Opposing the Enemies of Peace--Secretary Christopher 
4.    U.S. Strategy To Defend Human Rights and Democracy--Secretary 
Christopher  
5.    The United Nations: The Next 50 Years--Douglas J. Bennet, Jr. 
6.    Focus on the United Nations: The UN's Next 50 Years 
7.    Treaty Actions  
 
(###)
 
ARTICLE 1: 

Haiti: A Time of Peaceful Transition 
President Clinton, UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali, Haitian President 
Aristide 

President Clinton, UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali, President 
Aristide 
Remarks at UN Transition Ceremony, Port-au-Prince, Haiti, March 31, 
1995. 
 
President Clinton. Mr. Secretary General, President Aristide, members of 
the Multinational Force in Haiti, members of the United Nations Mission 
in Haiti: We gather to celebrate the triumph of freedom over fear, and 
we are here to look ahead to the next steps we will take together to 
help the people of Haiti strengthen their hard-won democracy. 
 
Six months ago, a 30-nation Multinational Force, led by the United 
States, entered Haiti with a clear mission--to ensure the departure of 
the military regime, to restore the freely elected government of Haiti, 
and to establish a secure and stable environment in which the people of 
Haiti could begin to rebuild their country. Today, that mission has been 
accomplished--on schedule and with remarkable success. On behalf of the 
United States, I thank all the members of the Multinational Force for 
their outstanding work and pledge our support for the United Nations 
Mission in Haiti 
. 
During the past six months, the Multinational Force has proven that a 
shared burden makes for a lighter load. Working together, 30 nations 
from around the world--from the Caribbean to Australia, from Bangladesh 
to Jordan--demonstrated the effectiveness and the benefits of 
international peace-keeping. They helped to give the people of Haiti a 
second chance at democracy. 
 
The Multinational Force ensured the peaceful transition from the 
military regime to President Aristide. It removed more than 30,000 
weapons and explosive devices from the streets. Through the 
international police monitors, led by Commissioner Ray Kelly, it trained 
and monitored an interim police force and worked side by side with them 
throughout Haiti. It helped to prepare a permanent civilian police force 
that will maintain security and respect for human rights in the months 
and years ahead. Let me say to the members of the new, permanent police 
force who are with us here today: You are the guardians of Haiti's new 
democracy; its future rests on your shoulders. Uphold the constitution; 
respect democracy and human rights; defend them--that is your sacred 
mission and your solemn obligation. 
 
Now it is the UN mission's task to secure and stabilize the environment  
in Haiti and to help the government prepare for free and fair elections. 
The mission, with participants from 33 countries, has the tools it needs 
to succeed--a 6,000-strong military force under the command of United 
States Army General Joseph Kinzer; a 900-member international police 
force, led by Chief Superintendent Neil Pouliot of Canada; and dozens of 
well-trained economic, political, and legal advisers. 
 
The United Nations mission will end its work here in February 1996,   
after the election and inauguration of a new president. To all of you 
taking part in the UN mission, I know many challenges lie between here 
and there. Your work will be demanding and difficult, but the 
Multinational Force has set a strong foundation of success upon which to 
build. 
 
Most important of all, the people of Haiti have shown a powerful 
commitment to peace and to reconciliation. Working with them, you can 
help make real Haiti's reborn promise of democracy. I know you will do 
that. Good luck and Godspeed.  
 

UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali. President Aristide, President 
Clinton, colleagues and friends: This is a great day for Haiti. It is a 
turning point in the international effort to bring peace, stability, and 
justice to the Haitian people. 
 
Today is also a great day for the United Nations. It marks the high 
points of successful cooperation between the United Nations and the 
coalition of member states, led by the United States of America. On 
behalf of the United Nations, I express my gratitude to the 
Multinational Force and to the United States of America, under 
leadership of President Clinton. Operation Uphold Democracy has lived up 
to its name. 
 
The fact that President Clinton has come to Haiti to mark this occasion 
is an expression of successful cooperation between the United States and 
the United Nations. The fact that Operation Uphold Democracy today hands 
over to the United Nations Mission in Haiti, led by my special 
representative, Lakhdar Brahimi, is another expression of the successful 
cooperation between the United States and the United Nations. 
 
According to Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, the 
world organization may authorize states or groups of states to act to 
maintain international peace and security. As the Multinational Force 
departs and the United Nations takes over, two factors remain vital: The 
people of Haiti must maintain their commitment to rebuild their society; 
and the member states of the United Nations must continue to support 
this revitalization of the multilateral idea. The way ahead will not be 
easy, but cooperation has brought success so far; continued cooperation 
will produce an enduring achievement. 
 

President Aristide. Once again, welcome, President Clinton. Welcome to 
all of you, friends of Haiti. The implementation of the Governors Island 
Agreement demonstrates that the world has taken heed to Dr. Martin 
Luther King's warning that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice 
everywhere. The engagement of the United Nations, supported by the 
courageous commitment of the people of Haiti, is a source of thought for 
all democracies. 
 
United, we will raise the banner of a state of law on the flag poles of 
reconciliation, justice, tolerance, respect, and economic progress. 
United under this banner, we will guarantee security and peace. United 
in this state of law, the new police force in training will take its 
rightful place. Recommendations made to reform our judicial system will 
be implemented. Plans to organize free, fair, and democratic elections 
will succeed, as together we move from secure and stable to safe and 
more secure. 
 
To join us in this historic day, we welcome the arrival of the United 
Nations Mission in Haiti, led by the special representative of the 
Secretary General, Mr. Brahimi, and the military commander of the UNMIH, 
General Kinzer. We welcome friends from America, Africa, Europe, Latin 
America, and from our sister nations of the Caribbean.  
 

President Clinton and President Aristide 
Remarks at arrival ceremony, Port-au-Prince, Haiti, March 31, 1995. 
 
President Aristide. Welcome President Clinton, Members of the U.S. 
Congress, members of the U.S. Administration, friends of Haiti: a warm 
hello to all of you. If democracy were a river, the principle of one 
man, one vote would be its bridge. If economic development were a seed, 
it would only germinate in soil rich in democratic principles and 
values. 
 
Greetings to all of you who have done so much for the restoration of 
democracy to Haitian soil. Special greetings to the delegation traveling 
with President Clinton. We are happy to see so many familiar faces. We 
hope that you, our friends in the U.S. Congress--all of Haiti's friends 
here today--carry back the joy and the spirit of democracy that is in 
the hearts of our citizens. 
 
I salute the close to 20,000 U.S. troops who helped restore democracy to 
our country. Thanks to the nonviolent resistance of the Haitian people 
and to you, on September 19, Haiti moved from death to life. The water 
of violence was transformed to the wine of peace. Since our first 
meeting with General Shalikashvili in Washington, through many visits 
with General Sheehan, to our close collaboration with General Fisher 
here in Haiti, we have found ready partners willing to work with us to 
uphold democracy. We thank all the men and women of the United States 
military serving in the Multinational Force, their families, and the 
American people for their support for this successful operation. 
 
In 1776, a famous American, Thomas Payne, published the template 
entitled Common Sense, which galvanized the 13 colonies in their 
struggle for liberation. Years later, when Payne wrote the constitution 
for the State of Pennsylvania, he reaffirmed his commitment to liberty 
by insisting on universal suffrage. During this same time--during this 
same period--across the Caribbean Sea, Toussaint Louverture, the pride 
of Haiti, drafted the constitution which paved the way for the 
liberation of the world's first independent black nation. Both nations 
honor their forefathers. In the life of this great historic figure, 
Haitians and Americans will, together, always remember the contributions 
made by Operation Uphold Democracy to Haiti under the leadership of 
President Clinton.  
 

President Clinton. President Aristide, Mr. Secretary General, 
distinguished guests, and citizens of a free and democratic Haiti: 
Bonjour.  
 
I am deeply honored by President Aristide's invitation to speak with you 
today. During the many months we have known each other, I have learned 
firsthand of President Aristide's tremendous courage. His strength in 
the face of great challenge reflects the unbreakable will of the Haitian 
people. We respect him as the President you elected freely and fairly--
and for his leadership of all Haitians since his return. 
 
Today, we come together as friends.  Today, once again, we give life to 
the ideals of democracy, justice, and freedom. Today, we celebrate the 
restoration of democracy to your country. Never--never again must it be 
stolen away. 
 
For centuries, the Haitian people have known little more than blood and 
terror. You have been robbed of opportunity and deprived of basic 
rights. Your children have grown up with too much violence. From Cite 
Soleil to the smallest village in the farthest corner of your land, you 
have sacrificed much in your quest for liberty. Now you stand on the 
brink of a new and more hopeful time. Now you have a chance to make real 
the dreams of those who liberated your nation nearly 200 years ago. 
 
The tasks ahead will not be easy. Democracy does not flow naturally like 
the rivers, and prosperity does not spring full grown from the earth. 
Justice does not bloom overnight. To achieve them, you must work hard; 
you must have patience; you must move forward together, with tolerance, 
openness, and cooperation. I believe you can do it; for, as President 
Aristide has said, your challenge is great, but your will to succeed is 
greater.  
 
Your democracy will be maintained and strengthened by free elections and  
by respect for the rights and obligations enshrined in your 
constitution. Your government, the United Nations, and the United States 
will do all we can to guarantee free, fair, and secure elections--first 
in June and then in December. We know from experience that when 
elections are free, fair, and secure, you will participate. That is what 
democracy requires of you, and we know you will do it. 
 
Your nation has been stripped bare of many of its natural resources. But 
the most important of these resources--you, the people--have survived 
with dignity and hope. As the Proverb says, "hope makes life." 
 
Now you have a chance to come together to make the rice fields come 
alive and to harvest the corn and millet; and to build the schools and 
clinics that promise a better future for your children. We--your 
neighbors, your allies, and your friends--will support your efforts to 
create jobs, to attract investment from beyond your borders, and to 
rebuild and repair your injured land.  
 
In a few months, the program will begin to pave the 1,000 kilometers of 
your roads. Later this year, I will send the American Peace Corps here 
to help organize the planting of millions of trees. As the roads are 
built and the trees are planted, thousands of you will have jobs. As you 
begin this work, I urge your countrymen and women who fled the terror to 
return and to help you to rebuild your land and theirs.  
 
Economic progress will demand much patience. But we will stand with you 
as you tackle the hard and sometimes painful work ahead. With many 
hands, the burden is not heavy. 
 
There will be times of great frustration as you build your democracy and 
move toward prosperity. But, today, Haiti has more friends than ever 
before. So once again, I urge each and every citizen of this nation to 
come together in this spirit of unity that President Aristide has so 
eloquently promoted. I can do no better than to repeat his words: Say no 
to vengeance, no to revenge, yes to reconciliation.  
 
Justice will not always be swift and will not always seem fair, but the 
rule of law must prevail. The police and the courts must quickly get 
stronger. Citizens must not take the law into their own hands. Each of 
you must choose, as most of you have already chosen, to build up, not 
tear down. I congratulate you for the patience you have already shown. 
 
History records that two centuries ago--on the eve of your independence 
and during my nation's Revolutionary War--more than 500 of your 
ancestors came from Haiti to my country and died in the fight to bring 
the United States to life. More than 200 years later, the United States 
is proud to have helped to give you a second chance to build your 
democracy and bring life to the dreams of your liberators 
 
I have been told that throughout your land, our soldiers, our diplomats, 
and our volunteers have been greeted by hand-painted signs with three 
simple words. These words go right to their hearts and to mine. They 
are: Thank you, America. Now, it is my turn to say, Merci a Haiti. Thank 
you for the warmth of your welcome and your support for all who have 
joined hands with you. Thank you for embracing peace, for denying 
despair, and for holding on to hope. Because of your courage and because 
of your determination, freedom can triumph over fear. 
 
Today, we stand in the warm, bright light of liberty, and together, we 
can say: Stand firm; don't give up. Merci, and thank you.  (###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 2: 
 
The Foreign Affairs Budget: Our Foreign Policy Cannot Be Supported on 
the Cheap 
Secretary Christopher 
Statement before the House International Relations Committee, 
Washington, DC, March 30, 1995 
 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to appear before the House 
International Relations Committee for the second time this year--and 
before the Congress for the 10th time in as many weeks. This kind of 
frequent dialogue is an essential part of my responsibilities as 
Secretary of State. 
 
Two months ago, I outlined for you the four principles that drive our 
foreign policy: first, that the United States must continue to engage 
and to lead; second, that we must maintain effective relations with the 
world's great powers; third, that we must adapt and build institutions 
that will promote economic and security cooperation; and fourth, that we 
must continue to support democracy and defend human rights. These are 
the principles that will guide this Administration as we focus on areas 
that offer very significant opportunities to advance American interests 
in 1995. 
 
To take advantage of those opportunities, we must be willing to pay the 
price of leadership. I am here today to make the case for full funding 
of the International Affairs Budget that the President submitted to 
Congress last month 
. 
Our International Affairs Budget represents only 1.3% of total federal 
spending. This budget has absorbed substantial real cuts in the last 
several years and is now 45% lower in real terms than it was one decade 
ago. Despite the extraordinary challenges we face in the post-Cold War 
era, our 1996 spending request is essentially what we are spending in 
the current fiscal year. Indeed, the resources we are requesting are, in 
my judgment, the rock-bottom minimum that we need to advance our 
nation's vital interests.
 
The American people rightly demand that we apply the most rigorous 
standards when we decide how to spend their tax dollars. At the same 
time, the American people rightly expect that their government will do 
what it takes to protect our nation's interests in the world. 
 
Our foreign policy cannot be supported on the cheap. We will not be able 
to protect our interests as the world's most powerful nation if we do 
not marshal the resources to stand by our commitments. We cannot have it 
both ways. We cannot lead if we do not have the tools of leadership at 
our disposal. 
 
Those who say they want a strong America have a major responsibility to 
help keep America strong. Rhetoric without resources would project 
weakness, not strength. It would worry our friends, embolden our 
enemies, and imperil the security and well-being of the American people. 
 
The United States spent trillions of dollars to defend the free world 
during the Cold War. It would be a historic and ironic mistake if we now 
refused to spend a tiny fraction of that sum to consolidate the gains 
that were made as we ended the Cold War in victory. 
 
Consider what we get for our International Affairs Budget of $21.2 
billion: Our budget protects American lives by combating the spread of 
nuclear weapons, the threat of terrorism, and the scourge of drugs. It 
supports American jobs by promoting U.S. exports and creating new 
markets in developing countries. And it gives force to the principles 
America stands for by bolstering human rights and democracy around the 
world. 
 
Over the past two years, this modest investment has, among other things, 
advanced peace in the Middle East. It has helped end violence in 
Northern Ireland and assisted the transition from apartheid in South 
Africa. It has led to the detargeting and dismantling of missiles in the 
former Soviet Union and facilitated the departure of Russian troops from 
the Baltics. It has promoted free trade and U.S. exports in Asia, the 
Middle East, and Latin America. 
 
Moreover, the preventive diplomacy that the International Affairs Budget 
funds is our first and least costly line of defense. Compare the cost of 
our support for reform in the former Soviet Union to the price we would 
pay if the region slid back to authoritarianism. Compare the cost of 
diplomatic action to stem proliferation to the price we would pay if 
rogue states were able to obtain nuclear weapons. Compare the cost of UN 
peace-keeping to the price of unilateral military action. And compare 
the cost of promoting development to the price of coping with famine and 
a flood of refugees. With these comparisons in mind, it is apparent that 
shortchanging our preventive diplomacy harms our national interest just 
as surely as skimping on our military readiness. 
 
I am deeply concerned by the suggestions put forward by the House Budget 
Committee to reduce sharply the International Affairs Budget--the so-
called 150 Account--over the next five years. The committee would have 
this account absorb a disproportionate 11% share of the proposed 
spending cuts. These proposed cuts would damage our ability to protect 
America's security, promote our prosperity, and advance our nation's 
interests around the world. Let me give you some examples 
 
The Budget Committee would reduce our assistance to the new democracies 
of Central Europe and the former Soviet Union at a very decisive stage 
in their development. Cutting assistance now would impair our efforts to 
build a new security architecture in the region where two world wars 
began 
 
Let me focus on our assistance to the states of the former Soviet Union. 
The transformation of the former Soviet empire into a region of 
sovereign, democratic states is a matter of fundamental importance to 
the United States. Yesterday, as part of my plan and commitment to try 
to bring American foreign policy closer to home for the American people, 
I traveled to Bloomington and spoke at Indiana University about our 
engagement with these countries 
 
Our approach toward Russia and the other New Independent States is to 
cooperate where our interests coincide and to manage our differences 
constructively and candidly when they do not. It is easy enough to 
enumerate our differences with Russia, but I do not have the luxury of 
making a list and simply walking away from the situation. My job is to 
build areas of agreement and to manage our differences, always having 
foremost the need to advance our nation's interests. 
 
As I have said, the evolution of Russia's participation in Western 
institutions will be affected by its respect for international norms and 
its internal and external policies; for example, Russia's conduct in 
Chechnya and its nuclear cooperation with Iran. Russia will rue the day 
it cooperated with that terrorist state if Iran builds nuclear weapons 
with Russian expertise and Russian equipment. 
 
Our differences with Russia, whatever they might be, have not altered 
our interest in making sure its huge nuclear stockpile is never again a 
strategic threat to our nation. These differences have not altered our 
interest in helping Russian reformers build a nation that is finally at 
peace with itself and its neighbors. 
 
Our assistance to Russia and the other New Independent States advances 
the vital interests of the United States. Most of our assistance is 
distributed through private organizations or local governments outside 
Moscow. It's very important to note that more than half of it goes to 
the non-Russian states of the region, such as Ukraine and Armenia. I 
believe that next year, some two-thirds will be going to non-Russian 
states. Slashing this assistance now would wipe out programs that 
strengthen the very forces in the region that share our interests and 
values. 
 
Mr. Chairman, the House Budget Committee also recommends sharply cutting 
our contributions for international peace-keeping. As I stressed in 
January, if we deprive ourselves of this instrument, we will be faced 
with an unacceptable choice when global emergencies occur--a choice 
between acting alone and doing nothing. We deserve more options than 
that. 
 
Two months ago, I emphasized to you the Administration's strong 
opposition to H.R. 872--the National Security Revitalization Act. The 
bill has since passed the House and is under consideration in the 
Senate. I remain convinced that this legislation is badly flawed. It 
would hamstring this and every future President's ability to safeguard 
our security and to command our armed forces. 
 
Tomorrow, President Clinton will go to Port-au-Prince to commend our 
troops for their superb performance in the Multinational Force and to 
mark the transfer to the UN phase of the operation. Mr. Chairman, we 
condemn the brutal killing of Mrs. Bertin two days ago, but we must not 
allow this act to overshadow the remarkable strides Haiti has made 
toward political and economic reform. 
 
Our successful restoration of democracy in Haiti shows what it is 
possible for us to achieve when we have all the tools of leadership at 
our disposal. It was President Clinton's determination to use force that 
finally persuaded Haiti's dictators to step down. It was our nation's 
willingness to lead that galvanized other nations to join the historic 
coalition. It was our willingness to provide substantial economic 
assistance that led the international community to pledge $1.2  billion 
to aid Haiti's economic recovery--less than a quarter of which will come 
from the United States. And it was our leadership in the UN that ensured 
that a UN mission would take over once a secure and stable environment 
had been established. 
 
Our leadership in Operation Uphold Democracy has shown that the United 
States stands by its word. It also has shown that when we mobilize 
international support for our interests, American soldiers do not have 
to take all the risks, and American taxpayers do not have to foot all 
the bills. This is a  sensible bargain that I know the American people 
support. 
 
Many of the Budget Committee's deepest cuts come from development 
assistance and humanitarian relief programs--programs that support our 
interests and are consistent with our ideals. This kind of assistance 
helps  prevent the outbreak of conflicts and unrest that would otherwise 
call for costly international intervention. It promotes development 
around the world that also creates exports for American companies and 
jobs for American workers. And, not incidentally, our assistance can 
save lives. Our programs to expand immunization and rehydration therapy 
in Africa, for example, save an estimated 800,000 children each year. 
 
I want to add a further word about Africa, where our principled 
leadership and modest investments have been vital in spurring reform. 
The contributions we make to multilateral develop- ment banks leverage 
15 times as much assistance from other nations. Denying these resources 
could stop Africa's fragile reform process dead in its tracks. It would 
make humanitarian crises--and the costly international response they 
require--more likely. 

Our nation's assistance to Africa--just one-half of one-tenth of 1% of 
the federal budget--is neither welfare nor charity. It is a sensible 
investment in American exports and jobs that is consistent with our most 
cherished humanitarian ideals. With a half-billion people and imports 
rising by about 7% annually for the last decade, Africa has tremendous 
market potential. Those who would scuttle this investment are 
shortchanging the next generation. 
 
Our investment in foreign assistance has paid long-term benefits to the 
American people, and this is something that is all too often overlooked. 
For example: 
 
--  Nearly 80% of USAID's contracts and grants go to American firms, and 
95% of USAID's purchases of agricultural commodities and related 
services are made in the United States; 
--  Last year alone, U.S. companies earned $2.7 billion directly from 
procurement contracts with the multilateral development banks, creating 
or     sustaining an estimated 54,000 American jobs; 
--  American firms now enjoy annual export sales to South Korea worth 
triple the amount of assistance we provided in the decade after the 
Korean war; 
--  Our exports to Latin America in 1993 alone were two-and-a-half times 
more than the total economic assistance we provided over the previous 44 
years; and 
--  Forty-three of the top 50 consumer nations of American agricultural 
products were once foreign aid recipients. 
 
The Budget Committee also would  cut resources for international 
organizations. This includes funds for institutions crucial to our 
security, such as NATO, and also the International Atomic Energy Agency, 
which monitors the North Korean nuclear program and advances our global 
non-proliferation efforts. This budget funds institutions that advance 
economic cooperation, such as the OECD. And it funds institutions such 
as UNICEF and the World Health Organization, which help save the lives 
of millions of people, especially children. 
 
Finally, let me mention one other aspect of the Budget Committee's 
suggested cuts--significant cuts in the State Department's operating 
budget. Mr. Chairman, I am committed to making our operations as 
effective and cost-efficient as possible. After four years of 
essentially flat budgets, this year's request of $2.6 billion for State 
Department operations represents a significant decrease in real terms. 
Indeed, our operating budget is 15% lower in real terms than it was just 
three years ago. 
 
As you know, Vice President Gore has been heading up a major effort to 
re-invent government. I have taken the strong position that the foreign 
affairs agencies are not exempt from that process. Each of the foreign 
affairs agencies is proceeding vigorously with streamlining efforts. I 
am convinced that ACDA, USAID, and USIA each has a distinct mission that 
can best be performed if they remain separate agencies under my general 
supervision. 
 
With respect to our own streamlining efforts, the State Department has 
closed 17 posts overseas since I took over as Secretary of State. We 
have abolished or downgraded more than 40% of our deputy assistant 
secretary or equivalent positions. We have reduced total senior officer 
positions to the point where we will meet congressional targets ahead of 
schedule. All told, there are now 1,100 fewer people at the State 
Department than there were when I arrived in 1993. We will continue to 
downsize in the year to come by closing 15 more posts, eliminating 
another bureau within the     Department, further reducing mid-level 
managers, and cutting administrative overhead. 
 
Two weeks ago, I announced a major initiative to remake the State 
Department from the bottom up. We are determined to do our part to meet 
the taxpayers' insistence that all federal agencies become more 
efficient and cost-effective. We will be taking concrete action over the 
next several weeks and months to cut the duplication of effort within 
our ranks, to increase accountability, to strengthen our policy 
formulation, to further cut back our administrative forces, and to focus 
our reporting and analysis on what is essential. 
 
All that being said, I am also committed to providing adequate resources 
to the dedicated men and women who serve our nation's international 
affairs agencies. At 266 diplomatic and consular posts overseas, these 
men and women help American companies open markets and create American 
jobs. They help keep our borders secure and keep drugs off our streets. 
They negotiate and monitor arms control agreements and peace treaties. 
They assist and protect their fellow citizens overseas. In FY 1994, for 
example, they issued 6 million passports and provided more than 1.7 
million services to Americans abroad, from simple notarials to complex 
child custody cases. And often they do all this under the most difficult 
and dangerous conditions. The deadly terrorist attack on American 
personnel in Karachi is only the most recent example of the kind of 
threats and hardships that our people face as they serve on a day-to-day 
basis. 
 
In my view, diplomatic readiness is no less important than military 
readiness. Yet almost 75% of the telephone systems serving our overseas 
posts are obsolete--so archaic that when we needed repairs in the 
Department's vital 24-hour operations center, the AT&T repair technician 
had to consult with Bell Labs on how to service the equipment. Almost 
80% of our automated data processing equipment belongs in museums or 
antique shops--so old that we cannot get maintenance contracts or locate 
spare parts. We must have the resources we need to do our job. There is 
a readiness issue at the State Department just as there is across the 
river. 
 
In short, the International Affairs Budget is an essential investment in 
our nation's security and prosperity. And the fact is, Mr. Chairman, the 
foreign policy strategy that this budget supports is producing tangible 
benefits for the American people right now. 
 
Allow me to give you a brief update on the significant progress that we 
have achieved in the five areas of opportunity I outlined for you in 
January: first, promoting an open global trading system; second, 
developing a new European security architecture; third, helping to 
achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East; fourth, combating the 
spread of weapons of mass destruction; and fifth, fighting international 
terrorism, crime, and narcotics. 
 
Economic Security
 
An increasingly open trading system is vital to American exports and 
American jobs. That is why we are now implementing the Uruguay Round 
agreement and ensuring that the new World Trade Organization upholds 
vital trade rules and disciplines. That is why we have been working with 
Japan and our other APEC partners to develop a blueprint for free and 
open trade in the Asia-Pacific region. That is why we are implementing 
the Summit of the Americas Action Plan for free trade in our hemisphere. 
 
At the same time, it is essential that American companies and workers be 
able to take advantage of the opportunities that these negotiations are 
helping to create. That is why this Administration is sparing no effort 
to make sure that our companies can compete on a level playing field. As 
the man who sits behind what I call the America Desk at the State 
Department, let me assure you that I am determined to keep economic and 
commercial diplomacy at the core of the Department's work. 
 
Exports have been the driving force in our economic recovery. This 
Administration has achieved an unprecedented degree of focus and 
coordination in our export-promotion efforts, and over the last two 
years, these efforts have created more than 1 million high-paying 
American jobs. For FY 1996, we have requested $900 million to sustain 
that performance. Our embassies around the world are working harder than 
ever to help win contracts, safeguard investments, and support American 
firms and jobs in every way they can. 
 
We really have changed the culture of the State Department in this 
respect. I am pleased to see CEOs quoted in national publications saying 
that they have never seen the State Department and our embassies more 
supportive of American business. 
 
Most recently, we have achieved several important successes in our trade 
relations with China--the world's fastest growing market. On February 
26, for example, we secured China's agreement to enforce intellectual 
property rights. This agreement includes specific steps to stem Chinese 
copyright violations and to improve market access for information and 
entertainment products. Subsequently, we also reached an agreement to 
pursue negotiations on market access, in particular, for 
telecommunications, insurance, and agricultural products. And  our 
commercial promotion efforts helped pave the way for more than $6 
billion in contracts finalized during Energy Secretary O'Leary's trip to 
China last month. 
 
Let me also mention the significant progress we have made in our effort 
to address the economic crisis of confidence in Mexico. With the full 
support of the congressional leadership of both parties, President 
Clinton put forth a package of support for Mexico on January 31. Under 
the U.S.-Mexico Framework Agreement that Treasury Secretary Rubin and 
Mexican Finance Minister Ortiz announced on February 21, the United 
States will make available up to $20 billion from the U.S. Treasury's 
Exchange Stabilization Fund. Our support will be complemented by 
increased commitments now totaling $17.8 billion from the International 
Monetary Fund and $10 billion from the Bank of International 
Settlements. The Mexican Government, in turn, announced on March 9 a 
tough economic stabilization plan that tightens monetary policy, cuts 
government spending, raises taxes, and spurs privatization. 
 
 It will take time for the full impact of this package to be felt by 
investors and for President Zedillo's strong economic medicine to take 
effect. But our interest in helping Mexico remains clear: the prosperity 
of our people; the security of our borders; and the stability of our 
closest Latin neighbor and of other emerging markets in which we have a 
growing stake in American jobs, exports, and investments. 
 
European Security Architecture
 
The President's comprehensive strategy to build a new European security 
architecture is gathering force. Its key elements include a steady, 
transparent process of NATO enlargement, enhancing the Partnership for 
Peace (PFP), strengthening the Organization for Security and Cooperation 
in Europe, and developing the NATO-Russia relationship in parallel with 
NATO enlargement. 
 
The President's budget request meets the commitment he made in Warsaw 
last July to help the states of Central and Eastern Europe participate 
in the PFP. This will help potential members prepare for the obligations 
they will assume if they join the alliance. For others, it will help 
promote their close cooperation with NATO. 

We are convinced that the strategy outlined by the Administration offers 
the best chance to promote a secure, stable, undivided Europe. By 
following an open, inclusive, step-by-step approach to NATO enlargement, 
we give every new democracy an incentive to consolidate reform. 
 
We and our NATO allies will complete our internal study on the "how and 
why" of enlargement and discuss it with partners this fall, so that we 
will be ready to consider next steps at the December NATO ministerial. 
In Geneva, I emphasized to Foreign Minister Kozyrev that it is in 
Russia's interest to participate constructively in the process of 
European integration. Russia has an enormous stake in a stable and 
peaceful Europe. No country has suffered more when Europe has not been 
at peace. Russia's path to deeper involvement in Europe is open. It 
should not choose to isolate itself from this effort. 
 
As I emphasized in January, the tragic war in Bosnia underscores the 
urgency of building a more effective means of conflict prevention and 
resolution. That crisis is entering a very precarious stage. In the 
coming months, we face a real risk of renewed and more destructive 
conflict not only in Bosnia but perhaps elsewhere in the Balkans. 
 
Since the cease-fire and cessation of hostilities in Bosnia was agreed 
to last fall, we have used every opportunity to intensify our diplomatic 
efforts to bring an end to the war. Earlier this month, American 
leadership was instrumental in persuading President Tudjman to allow UN 
forces to remain in Croatia. This will be a major step forward in our 
common effort to prevent a wider war. It will inject an important 
element of stability into the situation. And it will help preserve 
Croatia's territorial integrity--an objective we wholeheartedly support. 
For all these reasons, it is essential that we reach expeditious 
agreement on a new mandate. 
 
Two weeks ago, on the anniversary of the Washington Accords, we 
reaffirmed our commitment to support the Bosnian Federation with the 
inaugural meeting of a new support group--the "Friends of the 
Federation." 
 
First, the group pledged to help resolve the political and 
constitutional differences that have complicated implementation of the 
Federation. I have appointed Roberts Owen, the former Legal Adviser of 
the State Department, as arbitrator. Second, we will seek to broaden 
political, economic, and moral support to advance the partnership 
between the Muslim and Croat communities. This year, the United States 
will contribute $30 million for reconstruction and development in the 
Federation. Third, we will focus on resolving practical problems on the 
ground. We will work with all sides to help displaced persons return 
home and to help restore unified community life. Finally, we are 
undertaking new efforts to revitalize the diplomatic track that seeks to 
achieve a negotiated settlement in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the meantime, 
I have called on all sides to respect the current cessation of 
hostilities and to extend it before it expires on May 1. The Contact 
Group, which resumed its meetings in London on Monday, is focusing its 
efforts to this end 
 
I remain convinced that this conflict can be settled only at the 
negotiating table. The leadership of the Pale Serbs should accept the 
Contact Group plan as the starting point for a just and peaceful 
solution. The integrity of the Federation can best be assured if a 
settlement is achieved that preserves the Bosnian state in its 
internationally recognized borders. 
 
Mr. Chairman, we are all frustrated by the intractability of this 
conflict. But as I have said repeatedly, unilaterally lifting the arms 
embargo would only worsen the situation. What Secretary Perry has 
referred to as the "lift and pray" scenario would neither save lives nor 
secure peace. It would lead to the withdrawal of UNPROFOR and an 
escalation of violence. It would effectively Americanize the conflict 
and lead others to abandon the sanctions on Serbia. And it would 
undermine the authority of all UN Security Council resolutions, 
including resolutions that impose sanctions on Iraq and Libya. 
 
Middle East Peace
 
Nowhere is the importance and effectiveness of sustained American 
engagement more evident than in the Middle East. Over the last several 
years, we have witnessed a fundamental transformation in the region--a 
transformation that this Administration has helped to inspire. Our 
budget allocates $5.24 billion to maintain our efforts. 

I do not want to underestimate the challenges we face--terrorism by 
those who want to kill the process and efforts by states such as Iraq 
and Iran to undercut regional stability. At the same time, we have seen 
a real willingness among those who desire peace, prosperity, and 
stability to stand up for what they believe in. From our friends in the 
Gulf resisting Iraqi aggression to our Arab and Israeli allies who are 
fighting for peace, there is a genuine commitment to create a new future 
for the region. 
 
The President is determined to support that goal. Last week, Vice 
President Gore visited the region to bolster the peace process and to 
discuss bilateral relations with Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and 
Egypt. While in Egypt, the Vice President inaugurated the U.S.-Egyptian 
Partnership for Economic Growth and Development. The Vice President also 
visited Jericho, where he signed three major projects to advance our top 
priorities of job creation, infrastructure and community rehabilitation, 
and private sector support. The Vice President also met with the 
Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to 
discuss relations between the Islamic and non-Islamic world. 
 
Building on the momentum of the February 2 Cairo summit and the 
unprecedented meeting at Blair House on February 12, I traveled to the 
region March 7-14 to offer encouragement and to energize the 
negotiations. I found all the parties dedicated, serious, and resolved 
to move ahead. Indeed, by the end of my trip, we had succeeded in 
helping the parties get the process back on track. 
 
First, Israel and the Palestinians are trying to meet one another's 
requirements and to push forward in their negotiations. Israel is 
serious about moving to phase two of the Declaration of Principles, 
including a transfer of authority, redeployment of troops, and 
elections. Security and action against terror are Israel's primary 
concerns. The Palestinian Authority has taken some steps to deal with 
these issues, but it must fulfill its commitment to preempt terror, 
punish those responsible, and deny safehaven to those who plan and carry 
it out. The creation of a senior security committee announced by 
Minister Peres and Chairman Arafat during my stay is an important step 
forward. 
 
We know that economic development is the essential underpinning of a 
secure and stable peace. I visited Gaza, where I encouraged the 
Palestinians to do their share to develop effective, accountable 
institutions. The     United States is working hard to provide economic 
assistance and to support Palestinian self-government through provision 
of vehicles for the Palestinian police, medical assistance, and USDA 
technical advice to expand agricultural development. We also are 
encouraging other nations, with World Bank assistance and coordination, 
to do     everything they can to fulfill their pledges for 1994 and to 
provide assistance in 1995. 
 
Second, my trip helped re-energize negotiations between Israel and 
Syria. We succeeded in creating a work plan that has begun with their 
two Ambassadors meeting under our auspices. We will continue to work 
with them to prepare the ground for the military experts on each side to 
meet. I do not believe in last chances, but we are entering a crucial 
phase on this track. If a breakthrough is to be achieved, critical 
decisions will have to be made. The President and I will continue to do 
all we can to help move the process forward. 
 
Third, I was able to underscore America's support for Jordan's 
courageous role in the peace process--support the Vice President 
reiterated during his trip to the region last week. Let me be clear: We 
are committed to full debt-forgiveness, and we will meet that 
commitment. This is an opportunity for us to show the King of Jordan and 
the Jordanian people that if they are prepared to take risks for peace, 
we are prepared to support them. 
 
And fourth, my trip helped reaffirm strong backing for the maintenance 
of sanctions against Iraq. We recognize the desire of many parties in 
the region to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people, and we will 
work within the framework of the UN Security Council resolutions to ease 
their burden. But make no mistake: The suffering of the Iraqi people is 
a direct consequence of Saddam Hussein's own intransigence, 
indifference, and neglect. There can be no relaxing of sanctions until 
Iraq complies fully with the relevant UN obligations. 
 
I want to add something about a matter I know is of great concern to us 
all--the fate of the two Americans detained in Iraq. They innocently 
strayed into Iraq, and their detention and sentences are totally 
unjustified. We have insisted that they be released immediately. We hold 
the Iraqi Government directly accountable for their well-being and 
welfare during their period of detention. 
 
We are vigorously pursuing a range of diplomatic channels to secure 
their freedom, reserving all of our options in this process. Iraq will 
receive no concessions and has nothing to gain from continuing to hold 
them in custody. The continued detention of these two men demonstrates 
that Iraq is not qualified to re-enter normal relations with the 
international community. 
 
I also would like to address the situation in northern Iraq and the 
Turkish military incursion. The United States understands Turkey's need 
to deal firmly with the PKK, which is a vicious terrorist organization. 
At the same time, we will continue to insist that Ankara do everything 
possible to avoid harm to the civilian population and that it limit the 
scope and duration of its operation. The President has made our views of 
this operation clear to Prime Minister Ciller, and I have done the same 
with the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. 
 
Non-proliferation
 
Our fourth area of emphasis is to intensify our efforts to stop the 
spread of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. Our 
1996 budget dedicates $166 million to meet proliferation threats. Of 
this sum, $76.3 million will go to the Arms Control and Disarmament 
Agency--ACDA--to support its important role in arms control policy, 
implementation, negotiation, and verification--including the crucial 
implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. 
 
Our budget also provides funds to the International Atomic Energy 
Agency--an organization vital to our non-proliferation efforts and 
especially to the implementation of the Agreed Framework with North 
Korea. And it replenishes the Non-Proliferation Fund we use to combat 
nuclear smuggling, strengthen export controls, and destroy weapons of 
mass destruction and their delivery systems. 
 
The centerpiece of our strategy remains the indefinite and unconditional 
extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is up for renewal this 
year. As President Clinton said in his recent speech at the Nixon 
Center, "The NPT is the principal reason why scores of nations do not 
now possess nuclear weapons."  To demonstrate the seriousness of the 
U.S. commitment to NPT extension, the President has ordered that 200 
tons of fissile material be permanently withdrawn from the U.S. nuclear 
stockpile. I believe that our concerted diplomacy will pay off with 
support from a majority of NPT parties for indefinite extension. 
 
With the agreements President Clinton signed last December in Budapest, 
we also are implementing the START I nuclear reduction treaty. Prompt 
Senate ratification of START II will, in turn, enable us to complete the 
work we began with START I. Its elimination of ICBMs with multiple 
independently targeted re-entry vehicles will further enhance stability 
and lower the chances of a massive nuclear conflict. At the same time, 
it will enable us to retain a strong and independent deterrent. 
 
North Korea is also central to our non-proliferation objectives. We are 
working hard to implement the Agreed Framework that we concluded with 
North Korea last fall. Two weeks ago, representatives of Japan, the 
Republic of Korea, and the United States met in New York to establish 
KEDO--the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization. 
Representatives from 20 other nations also attended. Several countries, 
including Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, have made financial 
contributions to support KEDO's projects and have asked to join the 
organization. 
 
As you know, the Administration is seeking to reprogram some funds from 
this year's budget to support KEDO's work, and we have requested $22 
million for fiscal year 1996. These expenditures are a prudent 
investment in support of vital regional security and non-proliferation 
goals. Without these funds, KEDO might not be able to operate or carry 
out its objectives, which would damage the credibility of U.S. 
leadership, jeopardize implementation of the Agreed Framework, and 
contribute to rising security tensions on the Korean Peninsula. As 
Secretary Perry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
in January, the costs of implementing the Agreed Framework pale in 
comparison to those associated with sanctions and a military buildup. 
 
We are holding talks with North Korea to ensure implementation of the 
Framework. We have made clear to the D.P.R.K. that South Korean light-
water reactors are the only financially viable option if the light-water 
reactor project is to proceed. We also have made clear to the North 
Koreans our concerns about disposition of the heavy fuel oil deliveries 
specified under the Framework and have insisted that they address these 
concerns before any additional oil is delivered. 

Throughout this process, we have continued to consult often and in depth 
with our allies, especially the South Koreans. Since I last met with you 
in January, Deputy Secretary Talbott met with President Kim in Seoul, I 
met with the R.O.K. Foreign Minister in early February, and Assistant 
Secretary Lord has met with counterparts both here and in Seoul in 
recent weeks to coordinate our approach. We all agree that we must 
remain vigilant to ensure that North Korea is living up to its 
obligations. We also agree that the careful, step-by-step implementation 
of the Agreed Framework is far preferable to the costly and dangerous 
alternatives. 
 
Fighting Terrorism, Crime, and Drugs
 
We also have made important progress in our fifth area of opportunity: 
fighting terrorism, crime, and drugs. From the President's executive 
order freezing the assets of certain terrorist groups to the spectacular 
arrest of Ramzi Yousef, the alleged mastermind of the World Trade Center 
bombing, we are matching our words with deeds. Our budget requests more 
than $240 million to sustain these critical efforts. We have made 
substantial progress with our colleagues at Justice and Treasury in 
developing a global strategy against international narcotics trafficking 
and crime. We will be consulting with you shortly to discuss many of our 
specific proposals. 
 
Recent terrorist outrages--from the ambush of American foreign service 
personnel in Karachi to the horrifying gas attack in Tokyo--illustrate 
the importance of our efforts. Favorable and timely congressional action 
on the President's Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995, transmitted in 
February, would give the executive branch important new tools to improve 
prevention, investigation, and prosecution of terrorism. 
 
arlier this week, the Administration announced a renewed effort to work 
with other members of the UN Security Council to toughen the sanctions 
regime on Libya. The Clinton Administration is committed to exploring 
every possible avenue to obtain Libyan compliance with the Security 
Council resolutions concerning the downing of Pan Am 103 and UTA 772. 
Our position has not changed: Libya must release for trial in the United 
States or the United Kingdom the two Libyans who have been indicted in 
U.S. and British courts. 
 
Thus far, the Libyans have refused to comply. That is why we are going 
to press the case vigorously for a total embargo on petroleum products 
from Libya. We are under no illusion that this will be an easy effort. 
But by making the case, we will serve notice that we will not relent 
until the suspects have been turned over as required by the United 
Nations. 
 
As I emphasized in January, beyond these five areas, we are addressing 
many other issues important to our nation's interests--among them, 
defending democracy and human rights around the world. Our budget 
requests $1.3 billion for the United States Information Agency--an 
agency that plays a unique role in strengthening pluralism; supporting 
the free exchange of news and ideas; and broadening the dialogue between 
Americans, their institutions, and their counterparts abroad. 
 
USIA has been at the forefront of the streamlining efforts initiated by 
the National Performance Review. Its consolidation of all U.S. 
Government non-military overseas broadcasting will generate savings of 
$400 million by 1997. Indeed, our FY 1996 request represents a reduction 
of $123 million from 1995 levels. 
 
As part of our USIA budget, we are seeking $26 million for Radio and TV 
Marti to continue providing the Cuban people uncensored news and 
commentary. The fundamental aim of our Cuba policy is a peaceful 
transition to democracy, respect for the human rights of the Cuban 
people, and an open economy with opportunity for all. We believe the 
best means of achieving our goal is to continue the economic embargo, 
which maintains pressure on the Government of Cuba, while reaching out 
to the Cuban people through humanitarian donations and enhanced 
communications as authorized by the Cuban Democracy Act. 
 
The Administration is currently reviewing carefully provisions of the 
proposed legislation sponsored by Senator Helms, Representative Burton, 
and others. Although we have reservations about some aspects of these 
bills, we are committed to working closely with Congress on advancing 
our mutual interest in a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba. 
 
American engagement in the world also is reflected in our willingness to 
take on newer, global challenges that call for international partnership 
but require leadership that only the United States can provide. We can 
no longer escape the consequences of environmental degradation, 
unsustainable population growth, and destabilizing poverty beyond our 
borders. 
 
That is why the Clinton Administration is dedicated to putting our 
efforts to promote sustainable development into the mainstream of 
American diplomacy. The President's FY 1996 budget requests $5.2 billion 
for promoting sustainable development. That includes funding for the 
multilateral development banks, the International Monetary Fund, the 
Peace Corps, and our bilateral and multilateral assistance programs. I 
believe strongly that every dollar of this money will yield lasting 
dividends for the American people. 
 
Mr. Chairman, for 50 years the United States has drawn strength and 
resolve from the remarkable bipartisan consensus on the importance of 
continued American engagement. Of course, there is room to differ on 
specific issues--on the best ways to make peace-keeping more effective, 
for example, or the best possible targeting of our assistance. But 
shortchanging the resources of the 150 Account would be tantamount to 
undermining America's capacity to lead. We know that we must lead, but 
we can lead only if others are willing to join us--and our friends will 
do so only if we stand by our commitments. 
 
Mr. Chairman, this is not about ideology or partisan politics. It is 
about safeguarding the vital interests of our nation. It is about 
keeping our word in the international community. I am committed to 
working closely with this committee and this Congress. The security and 
prosperity of each and every American depend upon our working together 
in a bipartisan effort. (###) 
 
 
ARTICLE 3: 
 
American Leadership in the Middle East: Supporting the Friends and 
Opposing the Enemies of Peace  
Secretary Christopher 
Address before the National Leadership Conference of the Anti-Defamation 
League, Washington, DC, April 4, 1995 
 
Thank you for that very warm introduction. I am delighted to join you at 
your National Leadership Conference, and I am honored to speak before 
such a distinguished group. I want to add a special thanks to your 
National Director, Abe Foxman--someone whom I have long admired and a 
real hero of mine--and your Washington representative, Jess Hordes, for 
inviting me to be with you today. 
 
I am always somewhat in awe when appearing before institutions that are 
older than I am. At 82 and still going strong, the ADL is one of 
America's oldest, largest, and most highly respected civil rights 
organizations. Your commitment to combat prejudice of all kinds reflects 
not only this nation's ideals, but its aspirations; not only the best 
within us, but our hopes for the world around us. Your work affects 
people of every religion, for the struggle against anti-Semitism is a 
struggle in support of humanity. From the classroom to the courtroom, 
from Latin America to the Middle East, the ADL has been a tower of 
tolerance and a tireless defender of democratic values. 
 
As we all know, our world has witnessed remarkable change in just the 
past few years--change that we would have said even two or three years 
ago was inconceivable. We see that change in the Middle East--in the 
peace that Israel is forging with Jordan and with the Palestinians. We 
see the vital signs of dramatic progress in South Africa, in Northern 
Ireland, and in Central Europe and the former Soviet Union. 
 
Nevertheless, each of you is well aware of the challenges that remain. 
For every step toward peace, toward interracial harmony, toward freedom, 
there seems to be a reaction--a desperate assault on the part of those 
who would turn back the clock. 
 
You know only too well that bias and prejudice do not vanish; they must 
be vanquished. I believe that we must try to prevent conflicts by 
uniting nations and nationalities in a common culture of tolerance. I 
call on the people of every country and every culture to reject racism, 
anti-Semitism, and discrimination. That is what the ADL  is all about, 
and that is what I applaud so much through your efforts of these 82 
years. 
 
The ADL is making an active contribution to that goal through programs 
such as the World of Difference and its interfaith dialogues between 
Christians and Jews. President Clinton and I deeply admire your work. 
And we share your resolve and determination. 
 
In addition to our shared commitment to build tolerance and combat 
discrimination, I want you to know we share another goal: a safe and 
secure Israel at peace with all its neighbors. As Secretary of State, I 
have probably devoted more time to the Middle East peace process than to 
any other set of issues. It remains one of my very highest foreign 
policy priorities, at the direction of President Clinton. I want to 
underscore his personal commitment to help resolve the Arab-Israeli 
conflict. 
 
For almost five decades, presidents of both parties have understood 
America's deep stake in the Middle East--from Israel's well-being to the 
Gulf's oil resources to our important relations with the people of the 
Islamic world. Our Administration has consistently pursued a 
comprehensive strategy to strengthen peace and security in the region as 
a whole. 
 
First, we have led efforts to achieve real peace between Israel and its 
neighbors. 

Second, we have combated extremist forces in the region that practice 
aggression and terror. 

Third, we have supported efforts to build a better future for the people 
of the Middle East by encouraging policies that provide for economic 
opportunity, political participation, and human rights throughout the 
region. 
 
In the last two years, the United States has helped the people of the 
region make historic progress. Israel has reached and is implementing 
two agreements with its Arab neighbors: the Israeli-Palestinian 
Declaration of Principles and the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty. On a 
broader level, Israel continues to expand its relations in North Africa 
and the Persian Gulf. Its prime minister is now welcomed in 
international capitals from Moscow to Muscat, from Jakarta to Beijing. 
The annual ritual of challenging Israel's credentials at the United 
Nations is finally, thankfully, a relic of the past. 
 
At last year's Middle East economic conference in Casablanca, Israeli 
and Arab business representatives exchanged cards and talked over deals. 
At the conference this fall in Amman, I am sure they will not only 
exchange cards but sign contracts as well. 
 
Enforcement of the Arab League's economic boycott is unraveling. The 
Gulf states have terminated the boycott's secondary and tertiary 
aspects. Although that is a very important development, let me stress 
that the United States will not rest until the boycott is officially and 
formally declared dead in all of its aspects. 
 
All of this is good news--for Israel, for the Arab states, and for the 
world. Much difficult work remains ahead. But I am convinced that today 
we are closer to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict than ever before. I 
am also convinced there is simply no turning back.  
 
To reach a comprehensive peace, American leadership will remain 
essential. Of course, only the parties themselves can make the tough 
decisions that peace demands. But the United States has the unique 
ability to provide good offices, sustain a sense of urgency, and keep 
the negotiations on track--especially when they are threatened by 
external shocks. My trip to the region last month once again underscored 
how important U.S. leadership is to maintaining progress on all tracks. 
 
Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians were energized. Foreign 
Minister Peres and Chairman Arafat reached agreement on a road-map for 
implementing the second phase of the Declaration of Principles. The key 
is to create a dynamic process that meets the core concerns of both 
sides. 
 
For Israel, the bottom line is clear: Its people must be safe from 
violence and terror. The Palestinian Authority must make every effort to 
preempt and fight terror from areas under its control. It must capture 
those responsible for terror, try them, and incarcerate them. At the 
same time, it must seek to confiscate weapons of terror throughout the 
region. Israelis know that 100% success may not be possible, but 100% 
effort is essential. That was the main message I delivered to Chairman 
Arafat in Gaza. I am pleased to tell you that the Palestinian Authority 
is doing a better job on security now than in the past. This effort must 
be further reinforced. Gaza must not become a safehaven for terrorists. 
 
Israel, too, must continue to implement its obligations under the 
Declaration of Principles. With security, Israel is committed to meeting 
the Palestinians' political and economic needs by moving rapidly to the 
declaration's second phase--including the transfer of authority, 
redeployment, and early elections. 
 
At the same time, we must work to strengthen the Palestinian 
constituency for peace. Palestinians must see proof that there are some 
tangible benefits for the risks they have taken. The key lies in 
improving their desperate economic situation. Everyone with an interest 
in peace must do their part. 
 
Palestinians themselves must establish the conditions necessary to 
foster economic growth. They must target and distribute foreign 
assistance in ways that will make concrete differences in the lives of 
their people. 
 
Israel has a great stake in the Palestinians' success. That is why 
Israel--consistent with its security--must act creatively to boost the 
economic fortunes of the Palestinians. 
 
Finally, the international community has an important role. From the 
beginning, the United States has led the effort to mobilize support for 
the Palestinians. Just this week, we convened another informal meeting 
of donors. Our message to them was blunt: Everyone must do more. We must 
pay up our past pledges, and we must make new commitments. 
 
The United States, I am proud to say, has led by example. We are 
fulfilling our pledges and are constantly looking for ways to make our 
support more effective. We recently refocused much of our assistance on 
visible infrastructure projects that will create jobs immediately. 
 
The rest of the donor community must show equal commitment. The Arab and 
Islamic world has a special responsibility. For decades, the Arab states 
demanded a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Now that a settlement is 
in sight, they, along with the rest of the international community, have 
an obligation to provide the Palestinians with the resources they need 
to succeed. 
 
Like the Palestinians, the people of Jordan also need to see tangible 
benefits from peace. No leader has taken bolder risks for peace than 
King Hussein. He is building a warm peace with Israel that can be a 
model for the entire region. Jordan has fulfilled its commitments in 
both letter and spirit. I believe America must do the same. We must 
follow through on our pledge to forgive all of Jordan's official debt. 
Congress should act as soon as possible, and I hope they will--not only 
to bolster the cause of peace, but to reaffirm the credibility of 
American commitments and American leadership. 
 
Let me say a word about resources. I firmly believe that our foreign 
policy cannot be supported on the cheap. Our international affairs 
budget represents only 1.3% of total federal spending. It has already 
absorbed substantial real cuts over the last several years--40% over the 
last 10 years. Now, some in Congress want to slash it further. Last 
month, the House Budget Committee recommended that our budget absorb a 
disproportionate 11% of discretionary spending cuts over the next five 
years--11% of the cuts from just 1.3% of the budget. I am making the 
case before Congress repeatedly that the international affairs portion 
of the budget the President submitted in February is the rock-bottom 
minimum we need to advance our interests and sustain our commitments in 
the Middle East and around the world. I hope you will help me send that 
message. 
 
Peace between Israel and Syria is the key to a comprehensive peace in 
the region. It would remove a major strategic threat against Israel. It 
would unlock the process of normalization between Israel and the wider 
Arab world. That includes peace between Israel and Lebanon--a country 
whose independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity remain very 
important to the United States. 
 
During my recent trip, we succeeded in revitalizing negotiations between 
Israel and Syria. Prime Minister Rabin publicly reiterated his readiness 
to make peace. President Asad reaffirmed his commitment to the process 
by agreeing to resume direct talks in Washington. Under our auspices, 
and with my direct involvement, those talks began last week. Tomorrow, 
Dennis Ross, our special Middle East coordinator, will go to the region 
to help lay a stronger basis for both sides to engage on the crucial 
issue dividing the parties: the issue of security arrangements. I am 
convinced that if headway can be made on security questions, it will 
have a positive effect on the rest of the nego- tiations. I stand ready 
to return to the region whenever it can be useful to the parties. 
 
The issues involved, especially those bearing on security, are, of 
course, complicated. The gaps between the parties are real. But in my 
judgment, with courage and bold leadership, they can be bridged. They 
ought to be bridged in the near future, because, as I have told both 
parties, 1995 is a key year. I have generally avoided characterizations 
like optimism and pessimism, but I cannot avoid realism. The electoral 
clocks are ticking. The energy and attention required to achieve a 
breakthrough will not exist indefinitely. That is why I have urged the 
parties to accelerate their talks. The window of opportunity is open for 
the time being. It is time now to make the necessary bold decisions. 
 
America's role as a catalyst for peace must be coupled with a second, 
equally important role; that is, as leader of the effort to oppose the 
enemies of peace, especially the rogue regimes in Iraq and Iran. I would 
like to use the remainder of my remarks to say a few words about these 
two rogue states. Only the United States can ensure that the forces of 
peace and moderation remain stronger than the forces of aggression and 
terror. 
 
Our policy toward Iraq is steadfast. We insist that it comply fully with 
all relevant UN Security Council resolutions. We are convinced that the 
Iraqi Government remains a menace to its own people and to its 
neighbors. Let me offer just one current example. We now have strong 
evidence that Iraq was conducting a large program to develop biological 
weapons for offensive purposes. Yet, today, when confronted with that 
evidence, Iraqi officials continue to dissemble and lie. 
 
Rather than fully complying with its obligations, Iraq has spent four 
years trying to avoid them. Grudging cooperation in response to 
international firmness has been coupled with regular efforts at 
confrontation. We and our coalition partners remain determined to rebuff 
any new challenge from the Iraqis--just as we did last October when we 
stopped Saddam's troops in their tracks as they once again mounted a 
threat on the Kuwaiti border. 
 
We will not allow Saddam Hussein to blackmail the United States into 
concessions. Let me reiterate that Iraq will gain nothing by its unjust 
detention of two U.S. citizens. We insist they be released immediately. 
We are working through diplomatic channels to secure their freedom--all 
the time retaining our various options for addressing this issue. We 
hold Saddam Hussein responsible for the safety of these two Americans, 
who should be returned promptly. They made an innocent mistake. Any 
civilized country would have returned them by now. 
 
We must remain equally vigilant against the threats posed by Iran. Iran 
today is in a category all its own. No other regime employs terror more 
systematically as an instrument of national policy--to destroy the peace 
process, to intimidate its neighbors, and to eliminate its political 
opponents. 
 
Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons also pose enormous dangers--
for the countries in the region and for all of us. Every responsible 
member of the world community has an interest in seeing those efforts 
fail. There is absolutely no room for complacency. Remember Iraq: Five 
years ago, too many were willing to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of 
the doubt. We must not make the same mistake with Iran. The right 
solution is to bring increased pressure to bear to change Iranian 
policies. The United States has led efforts to deny Iran the military 
and economic resources that fuel its extremism and project its terror. 
This week, I am recommending that we toughen our sanctions even further. 
 
To succeed fully, we need the support of our allies and friends. We have 
made some progress in gaining the cooperation of our European and 
Japanese partners, but much more must be done. A higher price must be 
exacted for Iran's terrorist behavior. No industrial democracy should be 
supplying Iran with concessionary credits that allow it to divert funds 
to sponsor terrorism and purchase weapons. 
 
Above all, no country should be working with Iran on nuclear matters. On 
this score, we have made our opposition to Russia's cooperation with 
Tehran abundantly clear. I am convinced that Russia will rue the day it 
provided Iran with nuclear expertise and technology. No amount of money 
will be worth the price that Russia and the world will pay if a 
terrorist regime like Iran develops nuclear weapons. Russia knows that 
no industrial democracy deals with Iran on nuclear issues. It is simply 
too dangerous to do so. Let me say, finally, that the way Russia 
conducts itself on this and other matters will affect the evolution of 
its participation in Western institutions. 
 
With respect to our dual containment policy toward Iran and Iraq, I want 
to underscore two points. First, the United States opposes the policies 
of the Iraqi and Iranian regimes, but we do not oppose the people of 
those two countries. On the contrary, we understand that the people of 
Iraq and Iran are the principal victims of these ruthless, reckless, and 
corrupt governments. 
 
Just last week, the Iraqi regime rejected out of hand a proposal to 
allow it to sell limited quantities of oil to buy food and medicine for 
its citizens. The truth is that Saddam Hussein has no qualms about 
exploiting his people's suffering to get sanctions lifted so he can get 
the necessary dollars to rebuild his war machine. 
 
The second point I want to make is that the United States is not an 
enemy of Islam. Our enemies are governments and groups that attack U.S. 
interests using violence and terror. President Clinton and, just a few 
days ago, Vice President Gore have eloquently stressed America's 
enormous respect for the religion and culture of Islam. It is a faith of 
deep values and a civilization of vast accomplishment. 
 
What we do oppose are those who corrupt Islam to justify extremism and 
aggression. These forces are not interested in spiritual salvation; 
their only quest is the acquisition of absolute power. Islam for them is 
a tool--manipulated to exploit the frustrations felt by many people in 
that region, especially the young. 
 
But their solution of violence and intolerance is no solution at all; it 
will breed only more pain and suffering. We will oppose radicalism and 
extremism, and we will assist our friends to do likewise. We must do so 
not through confrontation, but through policies that will offer the 
people of the Middle East a constructive alternative--policies that 
advance peace and security; that encourage economic growth and 
opportunity; and that respect human dignity and offer the people, the 
individuals of that region, a voice in the decisions that affect their 
lives. 
 
Those are the values that America has stood for for more than two 
centuries--that your organization has stood for for 82 years. They are 
the same values that must continue to guide us--in our nation, in 
pursuit of peace in the Middle East, and in all our efforts to build a 
more just and secure world.  (###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 4: 
 
U.S. Strategy To Defend Human Rights and Democracy 
Secretary Christopher 
Remarks at a State Department/NGO Conference on Human Rights, 
Washington, DC, April 3, 1995 
 
Good morning. It is good to be here with my colleagues Madeleine 
Albright and John Shattuck. And I am delighted that my good friend David 
Hamburg could join us as well. 
 
I am very pleased to welcome you this morning to the State Department. 
You are part of a growing grassroots movement around the world in 
support of human rights and accountable government. We have organized 
this conference to explore with you the steps we should be taking to 
predict, prevent, prepare for, and respond to complex human rights 
emergencies. We could not accomplish any of these tasks without the 
courageous work you do. Our Administration welcomes and supports your 
efforts. 
 
As many of you know, I have had a long personal involvement in 
developing our human rights policies. The first years of the State 
Department human rights reports were prepared under my direction when I 
was Deputy Secretary in the Carter Administration. At that time, I 
started and chaired the first interagency committee on human rights. 
Now, as Secretary of State, I have stressed the importance of human 
rights and democracy as one of the four fundamental principles guiding 
American foreign policy. 
 
That commitment is reflected in our diplomatic engagement around the 
world. We have stood firmly on behalf of human rights and democracy in 
countries where freedom has been denied, such as Cuba, Nigeria, and 
Haiti. We have spoken just as candidly with our friends; for example, as 
we have with Russia about its actions in Chechnya and with Turkey about 
the need to respect human rights in its campaign against terrorism. 
 
John Shattuck and his colleagues have given life to this endeavor over 
the last two years. The work is not easy. The struggle for human rights 
in any country often requires many years of patient effort. We know the 
United States can almost never by itself assure its victory. But our 
Administration believes that our strength in the world derives in part 
from our nation's capacity to stand for something larger than itself. 
 
In this effort, as in every aspect of our foreign policy, it is 
essential to have perspective and a sense of history. Not too long ago, 
courageous individuals like Nelson Mandela, Lech Walesa, and Vaclav 
Havel appeared in our human rights reports as lonely victims of 
persecution in nations that seemed resistant to change. In the last 
year, we have welcomed each one of them to the United States as a head 
of state. Today, men and women like Wei Jingsheng of China, Aung San Suu 
Kyi of Burma, and Wole Soyinka of Nigeria command our attention and 
respect--because of the people for whom they stand and the potential 
they represent. 
 
Our commitment to human rights and democracy reflects the values we 
share with these brave individuals. It also rests on a sober assessment 
of our long-term interest in a world where stability is reinforced by 
accountable government and disputes are mediated by dialogue--a world 
where information flows freely and the rule of law protects the 
essential elements of free market economies. 
 
The nexus between human rights and war is especially important. I do not 
wish to oversimplify the case by arguing that democracies are incapable 
of aggression and that war is always caused by dictatorship. But the 
fact is that democracies very rarely make war on their neighbors. And it 
is no coincidence that the most destructive and predatory states of this 
century--from the Axis powers to the Soviet Union to Iraq--have also 
been its greatest tyrannies. Governments that respect no limits in the 
way they treat their people are not known for respecting limits in the 
way they treat their neighbors. 
 
It is noteworthy that most of the ethnic disputes that drive internal 
conflict today have their roots in repressive state policies. That is 
true in countries like Rwanda and Sudan, Burma and Tajikistan. In these 
cases, we firmly believe that conflicts are more likely to be resolved 
when the rights of individuals and minorities are respected. 
 
In many parts of the world, egregious human rights violations are 
committed not by governments, but by extremist groups that do not 
respond to traditional diplomatic pressure. Violations often occur where 
law enforcement lacks discipline or where judicial institutions are too 
weak to uphold the rule of law. And we know that, in the long run, human 
rights cannot be guaranteed in the absence of accountable, democratic 
government. 
 
Nowhere is the challenge of safeguarding democracy more immediate than 
in Haiti. Our effort there has been a clear-cut victory for human 
rights. Yet we know that all we have done is give the Haitian people a 
chance to build a just and prosperous society, and we have not assured 
success. Last week's killing of Mireille Bertin reminds us that Haiti 
has only begun to overcome the legacy of its past. That is why we have 
helped to recruit and train candidates for a responsible civilian police 
force. We are working with the UN and the OAS to ensure that elections 
are open and fair. And we have mobilized the international donor 
community on Haiti's behalf. 
 
Our strategy to defend human rights and democracy embraces several 
interlocking elements. These include preventive diplomacy, conflict 
resolution and peace-keeping, and seeking to bring to justice those 
responsible for the most egregious violations of human rights. These are 
the central topics of your conference, and I will say a few words about 
each. 
 
In a world in which local conflicts can rapidly escalate into horrific 
violence, preventive diplomacy is often the first line of defense. Our 
embassies are regularly engaged in defusing potential conflicts. As you 
will hear later this morning, at this moment we are hard at work trying 
to help Burundi avert the tragedy that befell its neighbor, Rwanda. To 
maximize the prospects for preventive diplomacy, we also want to 
strengthen regional institutions like the Organization for Security and 
Cooperation in Europe, the Organization of American States, and the 
Organization of African Unity. 
 
One of the most encouraging recent developments in conflict prevention 
is the new treaty between Slovakia and Hungary. It provides that they 
will respect each other's borders and treat their minority populations 
fairly. Last week, I met with Slovak Foreign Minister Shenk to urge that 
the treaty be promptly implemented, and I hope that a similar treaty 
might evolve between Romania and Hungary. We need more positive 
developments like this to offset the Bosnia-stimulated assumption that 
ethnic groups cannot live together in peace and harmony. 
 
I would add that unless we have the resources to pay for diplomacy and 
for the development assistance that remains vital in many parts of the 
world, we will not be able to resolve disputes at those early stages 
when peaceful solutions are still possible. That is one reason why I 
have argued to Congress that the proposed deep cutbacks in our already 
austere foreign affairs budget would be short-sighted and pound-foolish. 
 
Strengthening UN peace-keeping is another important element in our 
strategy. In the last 20 years, few nations have witnessed more brutal 
violence against innocent civilians than Cambodia, Mozambique, and El 
Salvador. In all three countries, UN peacekeepers have helped to secure 
the peace and to facilitate the restoration of democratic government. 
Under the right circumstances, peace-keeping is an invaluable tool for 
helping war-torn societies preserve peace and for protecting 
humanitarian assistance. 
 
There is no question that UN peace-keeping can and must become more 
effective. Some progress is being made, and we will press for more. But 
some people seem to argue that we should back away from the UN entirely. 
That would be a terrible mistake for the United States and the world. 
 
Peace-keeping coalitions are often the only practical option we have for 
advancing our interests. We should not be limited to the sterile choices 
of acting alone or doing nothing when crises arise. As the President has 
made clear, we want to improve peace-keeping, and we will continue to 
oppose efforts to kill it. 
 
The human rights catastrophes of the past several years have 
demonstrated another urgent need; that is, for institutions that hold 
accountable those responsible for war crimes and genocide. The United 
States has been the world's strongest advocate of the war crimes 
tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. We are contributing over 
$4 million to the tribunals, and providing them over 20 full-time 
prosecutors and investigators. 
 
Our commitment to the tribunals is grounded in a fundamental principle: 
Conflicts with an ethnic dimension, such as those in Bosnia and Rwanda, 
do not arise from nationalism alone; blame for their violent excesses 
can and should be assigned to individuals, not entire nations. Indeed, 
assigning individual responsibility for genocide is often a prerequisite 
for national reconciliation. It allows nations to end the cycle of 
revenge and to build confidence that crimes against humanity will not be 
repeated. 
 
We face many new challenges in our effort to defend human rights, and we 
are applying many new tools. But the immense changes the world is 
undergoing have not altered our fundamental interest in this matter. We 
remain convinced, as our first Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson once 
said, "that with nations as with individuals, our interests soundly 
calculated will ever be found inseparable from our moral duties." We 
will continue to act on that conviction. (###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 5: 
 
The United Nations: The Next 50 Years 
Douglas J. Bennet, Jr., Assistant Secretary for International 
Organizations Affairs 
Address before the United Nations Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, 
Conference on the 50th Anniversary of the United Nations, Georgetown 
University, Washington, DC, March 28, 1995 
 
Thank you. I am delighted to be here. According to the letter I received 
from Professor Yost [Casimir A. Yost, Director, Institute for the Study 
of Diplomacy], our assignment is to draw together the threads of the 
UN's next half-century--development, human rights, collective security, 
and multilateral action--and assess their capacity to serve as the basis 
for future prosperity and peace. That is a daunting task.  
 
I begin with this truth. The need for vigorous, trusted, forward-looking 
mechanisms for multilateral action is so real, so undeniable, so 
essential to the quality of all our lives that we will meet that need. 
 
Although the United Nations is not the only such mechanism, it is the 
most important. It is universal; it has global legitimacy; it is 
relevant to the central concerns of citizens from Georgetown to Jakarta; 
and in the United States, it enjoys broad public support. According to a 
recent Times Mirror poll, 84% of Americans want to strengthen the UN. 
 
Why, then, the recent outbreak of reactionary, isolationist rhetoric in 
Congress?  And why did the House of Representatives pass a bill that 
would kill UN peace-keeping? 
 
We live in an era of porous borders, instant communications, and 
relentless change. There is a primal impulse to curl up and pull the 
covers over our heads and a temptation to blame our anxieties on others-
-of another party, race, ethnic group, or country. The current tantrum 
will wear itself out, hopefully, before too much gratuitous damage is 
done. Meanwhile, we need faith to sustain us. 
 
Walter Lippman wrote once that a person with faith can confront 
martyrdom without flinching; those lacking it are lost when not invited 
to dinner. I do not invite you to martyrdom, and this conference does 
not include dinner for any of us; but I do invite you to a reaffirmation 
of faith: 
 
-- Faith that, indeed, our combined efforts in support of development, 
human rights, and collective security will make this a safer, freer, and 
more prosperous world; 

-- Faith that the Charter of the United Nations--the contract among all 
peoples of the world--will stand long after other, lesser contracts have 
faded away; and 

-- Faith that we can cope with the realities of this transforming world, 
provided only that we are pragmatic enough to face those realities and 
creative enough to harness them to our purposes. 
 
Nor are these articles of faith in any way at odds with reality. We know 
that technology, capital flows, and communications have integrated the 
world economy, that open markets are replacing statism, and that a 
global free trading system is in prospect. We know there is a growing 
consensus--forged in large measure under UN auspices--on key 
developmental goals, family planning, the empowerment of women, debt 
reduction, and the need for cooperation between industrialized and less-
industrialized countries. 
 
We know that citizens everywhere are becoming conscious of the impact 
that events elsewhere have on their lives. They are demanding results 
from their leaders that national governments, acting alone, cannot 
produce. 
 
A final reality is that much of our multilateral machinery does not work 
very well. Too often, institutions are looked to by governments for 
patronage and politics--not results, and too many national and 
international bureaucrats confuse meetings and memos with 
accomplishment. 
 
Our challenge is to connect our faith with the new reality and to build 
multinational arrangements that work. But work to what end?  Here is 
where the threads mentioned by Professor Yost and discussed throughout 
this conference come together. Development, peace, and respect for human 
dignity are intertwined. Democracy reinforces peace; peace aids 
development; and development is a friend to democracy because its 
absence breeds instability and conflict. Let's take these objectives one 
at a time--first, development. 
 
The UN Role in Development
 
Here, the challenge is far different from 50 years ago--or 20--or 10. 
The world is multipolar--energized by democracy, free markets, and free 
trade and awash in enterprise, ideas, and information. 
 
In development, as elsewhere, those who are succeeding are first 
adapting. External assistance is being matched by internal energy and 
reform. Markets are opening, investments are welcomed, and corruption is 
curbed. Once-marginalized segments of the population are gaining greater 
access to economic and political life. And the lessons of Rio are being 
heeded: Strategies for growth are more sustainable and focused on the 
long term. 
 
The Clinton Administration has taken the lead in expanding trade and 
supporting economic systems that are decentralized and free. We have 
faced down the protectionist pressures that are inevitable, but deadly. 
We have restored American credibility on the environment, in the 
broadest sense of that term. And we have made the case strongly that 
development anywhere will encourage growth everywhere, for the global 
economy can be an ever-expanding pie. 
 
What is the UN's role?  How will we measure its success in development 
over the next 50 years?  Clearly, it will be more catalyst than agent, 
more coordinator than implementer--a wide-ranging forum where priorities 
are debated and consensus goals are hammered out. It can report on 
progress made, fill gaps, share information, and advocate the fullest 
possible development of human resources--without discrimination and 
without neglect. 
 
To fulfill these tasks well, the UN's social and economic structure will 
require revitalization and some consolidation. UN members must be clear 
about objectives and focused on results. 
 
UN Peace-keeping
 
The same is true with UN peace-keeping. Here, our task is not to develop 
a means for ensuring absolute collective security: That is a pipedream. 
Our task is to develop a system that works when you expect it to work--
and often enough to be useful--with peace operations that don't go on 
forever, don't cost too much, don't risk lives unnecessarily, and do 
give peoples wracked by conflict a chance to get back on their feet. 
This is realistic, necessary, and happening. 
 
Since 1990, UN peace-keeping has gone from a standing start to an 
around-the-clock organization that is more integrated, professional, and 
capable and that has been getting results. It has shown the ability, 
under the right conditions, to nurture new democracies, demobilize rival 
factions, maintain cease-fires, facilitate the delivery of humanitarian 
aid, and lower the global tide of refugees. Even where it has been 
unable to fulfill ambitious mandates--as in Somalia and Bosnia--it has 
saved hundreds of thousands of lives. 
 
As a leading member of the Security Council, the United States 
acknowledges that, in some circumstances, our strategies will be 
limited. If local factions are intent on killing one another, there may 
be times we will have no realistic choice but to step aside. When that 
is not acceptable, and the use of decisive force is required, we will 
doubtless have to turn, at times, to individual countries acting alone 
or in coalition. This is consistent with the UN Charter, which 
recognizes the inherent right of self-defense, cites the role of 
regional organizations in maintaining peace, and urges member states to 
assist in carrying out Security Council decisions. 
 
The era of UN peace-keeping was greeted with expectations that were too 
great; predictions of its imminent death also are premature. The 
Secretary General has identified correctly the three pillars needed for 
a workable system: consistent response, which we are developing; 
adequate human and financial resources, which the world has but won't 
always commit; and sustained political will. 
 
The elements are there. We are making progress and can make more. We can 
build arrangements that will cause aggressors to think twice and 
strengthen the hand of conciliators over cutthroats time after time. 
Such a system would provide the international community with an option 
between major power intervention and doing nothing when emergencies 
arise, and it would allocate broadly and fairly the burden of 
maintaining world order. 
 
Looking ahead, we can predict with confidence that unpredictable and 
dangerous conflicts will continue to arise, in response to which we will 
need a full range of diplomatic, political,and military tools. If we are 
wise, UN peace-keeping will be prominent among those tools--providing 
true value--for decades to come. 
 
Human Rights
 
The third thread referred to in Professor Yost's letter was human 
rights. I talked earlier about the importance of faith. The UN Charter 
reaffirms "faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth 
of the human person, [and] in the equal rights of men and women." 
 
For decades, UN efforts in this field were crippled by Cold War 
divisions. More recently, the climate has changed, and so have the 
outcomes. Within the past five years, a UN-appointed Truth Commission 
has helped El Salvador bind the wounds of a bitter civil war. War Crimes 
Tribunals have been established for Rwanda and former Yugoslavia. UN 
human rights monitors helped expose the brutality of Haiti's former 
military leaders. A UN High Commissioner for Human Rights was created. 
The right of women to participate fully and equally in society, and to 
be protected from officially sanctioned abuse, has been placed high on 
the global agenda. And the UN has played a major role in transitions to 
democracy in places as diverse as Namibia, Cambodia, South Africa, El 
Salvador, and Mozambique. 
 
These efforts contribute to development and reduce conflict; they 
reflect the kind of preventive diplomacy that is often discussed but 
insufficiently practiced; and they are a product both of geopolitical 
trends favorable to democracy and of technological forces that make 
political barbarism more visible and political barbarians more 
accountable. 
 
In this decade of democracy, the Clinton Administration is unabashed in 
its support for human rights and human freedom, whether in the 
Caribbean, the former Soviet Union, Central Europe, or Africa--where 26 
countries have had multi-party elections since 1989--and a dozen more 
will in the next two years. 
 
In 1993, in Vienna, the world community reaffirmed its commitment to the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are some who suggest that, 
for reasons of tradition or culture, some societies or regions are not 
well-suited to democracy and should not be expected to live up to global 
standards on human rights. We agree that every society is different and 
that democracy must find its roots internally. But we are inflexible on 
one point: There is no reason of history, ideology, religion, law, or 
culture that justifies the theft of human dignity; there is no rationale 
for torture, rape, abduction, or murder by the forces of any faction or 
state. 
 
Conclusion
 
As we contemplate the future, the horrors of the recent past--in Rwanda, 
the Balkans, and elsewhere--restrain optimism about higher standards of 
respect for human dignity. We draw strength, however, from knowing that 
the United Nations, although not able to transform human character, 
provides a bully pulpit for its better side. 
 
With the Cold War behind us, we have an unprecedented opportunity to 
shape a world of open societies and open markets--a more peaceful, 
democratic, and prosperous world in which our own people will thrive. 
But we cannot do this on our own Isolationist tantrums aside, we have no 
alternative but to find the means of working together if we are to 
deliver to our children and to theirs a civilization worthy of the name. 
No nation alone, no matter how powerful, can preserve the peace; expand 
economic opportunity; ensure a healthy environment; contain epidemic 
disease; prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling into the wrong 
hands; or safeguard its citizens against drugs, terror, and crime. 
 
The UN has been around for 50 years. There is no conceivable scenario 
for the next 50 in which U.S. interests will not best be served by a 
healthy UN--a meaningful political forum, an instrument that can help 
keep the peace, and an entity that affirms human rights and other 
standards on a global basis. 
 
There is nothing ideological or partisan about the need to build a UN 
that will succeed in these times. Security, prosperity, and dignity are 
three threads of one cord; they reinforce each other; and they depend on 
the depth of our own faith not in institutions, but in ourselves. 
 
I cannot look ahead 50 years. But I can tell you that if we take 
responsibility, reaffirm basic principles, reject excuses, and harness 
the realities of this exciting new era, we can build a future that 
reflects not our fears but our cherished aspirations. In that effort, we 
all have a role.  (###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 6:  
 
Focus on the United Nations--The UN's Next 50 Years 
 
After World War II, the allies learned the lessons of the past. In the 
face of a new totalitarian threat and the nuclear menace, great nations 
did not walk away from the challenge of the moment. Instead they chose 
to reach out, to rebuild, and to lead. They chose to create the United 
Nations, and they left us stronger, safer, and freer. . . .We must 
ensure that those who fought . . . who  love freedom, did not labor in 
vain. 
 
--President Clinton 
UN General Assembly Address 
September 26, 1994 

 
The UN's 50th Anniversary
 
The United Nations celebrates its 50th anniversary this year. 
Established in San Francisco in the concluding months of World War II, 
the United Nations was created in a spirit of optimism about the 
economic and social progress of all nations, as well as sober concern 
for the prevention of future wars. In 1945, the United States and its 
allies crafted the UN Charter to meet the challenges of the last half of 
the 20th century. In 1995, the United States, as the major contributor 
of resources to the organization, is in the forefront of efforts to 
revitalize and realign key UN functions to make the body viable and 
effective in the 21st century. 
 
Fifty years of experience with the United Nations, together with the 
realities of the post-Cold War world, show that the United States can 
pursue many of its interests more effectively and with less risk through 
the world body than it can by acting alone. The list of key national 
goals that the U.S. simply cannot achieve by acting alone is a long one. 
It includes containing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, 
enforcing sanctions on pariah states such as Iraq; protecting the 
environment--ozone depletion, acid rain, deforestation--and combating 
international crime, drug trafficking, and terrorism. 
 
U.S. participation in the multilateral system also allows it to promote 
wider adherence to standards and norms that advance U.S. global interest 
in such areas as human rights, aviation safety, maritime law, labor 
standards, and public health practice. In today's interdependent world, 
the need also clearly exists for multilateral bodies to set regulatory 
standards and arbitrate differences among countries in other areas. For 
example, the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture 
Organization jointly sponsor a trade standardization program called 
"Codex Alimentarius," which sets food product safety and quality 
standards worldwide. 
 
The world's growing interdependence and the value of the United Nations 
in such a world are widely understood by the American people, three-
quarters of whom--according to recent polls--support U.S. participation 
in the United Nations. 
 
The UN Today
 
To many Americans, the United Nations is embodied in the General 
Assembly (where 185 of the world's nations are now represented) and the 
Security Council (consisting of five permanent members--the United 
States, the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia--and 10 rotating 
members). But the United Nations is much more than this. It is also a 
complex system of technical and operational agencies and programs such 
as the World Health Organization; the Food and Agriculture Organization; 
the UN Development Program; the World Food Program; and the 
International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as a number of standing 
committees, commissions, and regional organizations. 
 
Some technical agencies such as the Universal Postal Union and the 
International Telecommunications Union predate the United Nations by 
many years. These were established by international agreements to 
deliver services, compile data, or regulate international commerce. The 
UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) was established in the closing days of World 
War II to assist the many displaced and needy children in Europe and 
Asia. It now provides services to children and women of child-bearing 
age in more than 100 countries. 
 
Peace and Security
 
The United States and others have asked much of the United Nations 
during its 50-year history, but nothing has been more demanding and 
complex than fulfilling the responsibilities established by the UN 
Charter for maintaining international peace and security. From its 
inception to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the United Nations 
directed 17 interventions involving peace-keeping forces drawn from a 
number of member-nation armies, including the United States. One of the 
oldest of these still in operation is the UN Force in Cyprus, 
established by the UN Security Council in 1964 and now consisting of 
about 1,100 troops. 
 
From 1989 to 1994, as the end of the Cold War was accompanied by the 
rise of regional and local security threats, 20 new peace-keeping 
operations were approved. Peace-keeping costs have strained UN finances, 
increasing from about several hundred million dollars a year in the 
1980s to more than $3 billion per year in the 1990s. To reduce this 
strain, the U.S. fully supported new Security Council guidelines in 1994 
that placed more stringent requirements on UN participation in peace-
keeping operations. The number of peace-keeping operations already has 
been reduced from 18 in early 1994 to 16 in February 1995, with the 
conclusion of two more expected by April 1995.  
 
Into the 21st Century
 
The 50th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations, as President 
Clinton stated to last fall's General Assembly, offers a golden 
opportunity to reshape the organization to meet the political, economic, 
and security needs of the international community in the next century. 
This will not only involve making sure that UN programs are focused on 
meeting their basic objectives, but also upgrading program delivery and 
management systems to meet new challenges. 
 
The United States is in the forefront of numerous initiatives, including 
the establishment last year of an Inspector General function at UN 
Headquarters--the Office of Internal Oversight Services--to improve 
financial and management accountability as well as to assure the cost 
effectiveness or value for money of each of the departments, agencies, 
and programs. Other efforts are underway to streamline procurement 
systems and to improve the hiring and evaluation of the 55,000 UN 
personnel. 
 
Fundamental to this UN reform effort is the development of a clear road 
map for the future. For example, some agencies and programs that once 
concentrated their efforts on sending outside technical experts to the 
developing world now are redundant due to the full-time presence of 
trained specialists in many countries and by the ability to 
instantaneously transfer vast amounts of technical information to almost 
any point on the globe. 
 
Some UN commissions and programs, which have evolved over the past 50 
years, now have overlapping mandates and responsibilities. Therefore, 
the United States, together with other member nations and outside 
scholars, is embarked on a comprehensive review to determine the 
structure of the organization and where program consolidation or 
elimination is possible. Here, much attention is being given to the 
future United Nation's role in crisis prevention as well as peace-
keeping and peace-making. 
 
Conclusion
 
Born in the aftermath of World War II, the United Nations is even more 
relevant in the post-Cold War era. In fact, if the United Nations did 
not already exist, the world surely would have to invent it. The United 
States, as the world's leading political, economic, and military power, 
has an especially strong interest in cooperating with the multilateral 
system. It recognizes the importance of the United Nations in today's 
interdependent world and looks forward to cooperating with other nations 
in planning and implementing the UN system for the next 50 years. (###)
 
 
Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations 
 
We the Peoples of the United Nations Determined 
 
To Save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in 
our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and 

To Reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth 
of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women of nations 
large and small, and 
 
To Establish conditions under which justice and respect for the 
obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law 
can be maintained, and 
 
To Promote social progress and better standards of life in larger 
freedom, 
 
And for these ends 
 
To Practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as 
good neighbors, and 
 
To Unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and 
 
To Ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of 
methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common 
interest, and 
 
To Employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and 
social advancement of all peoples, 
 
Have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims. 
 
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives 
assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full 
powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present 
Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international 
organization to be known as the United Nations.  (###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 7: 
 
Treaty Actions 
 
Multilateral 
 
Copyright  
Berne convention for the protection of literary and artistic works of 
Sept. 9, 1886, revised at Paris July 24, 1971, and amended in 1979. 
Entered into force for the U.S. Mar. 1, 1989. [Senate] Treaty Doc. 99-
27. Accession: Georgia, Feb. 16, 1995. 
 
Property  
Convention of Paris for the protection of industrial property of Mar. 
20, 1883, as revised. Done at Stockholm July 14, 1967. Entered into 
force May 19, 1970; for the U.S. Aug. 25, 1973. TIAS 6923, 7727; 24 UST 
2140. Accession: St. Lucia, Mar. 9, 1995(1). 
 
 
Bilateral 
 
Albania 
Agreement on the settlement of certain outstanding claims, with agreed 
minute. Signed at Tirana Mar. 10, 1995. Enters into force on date on 
which the parties have notified each other that the necessary domestic 
requirements have been fulfilled. 
 
Azerbaijan 
Investment incentive agreement. Signed at Washington, Sept. 28, 1992. 
Entered into force Jan. 17, 1995. Agreement relating to the employment 
of dependents of official government employees. Effected by exchange of 
notes at Washington Feb. 10 and Mar. 8, 1995. Entered into force Mar. 8, 
1995. 
 
Bosnia-Herzegovina 
Agreement relating to the employment of dependents of official 
government employees. Effected by exchange of notes at Washington Mar. 7 
and 15, 1995. Entered into force Mar. 15, 1995. 
 
Canada 
Protocol amending the convention with respect to taxes on income and on 
capital of Sept. 26, 1980, as amended by protocols of June 14, 1983 and 
Mar. 28, 1984. Signed at Washington Mar. 17, 1995. Enters into force 
upon the exchange of instruments of ratification. 
 
Egypt 
Agreement on science and technology cooperation, with annexes. Signed at 
Cairo Mar. 20, 1995. Enters into force when each party has notified the 
other of the fulfillment of its internal procedural requirements. 
 
El Salvador  
Memorandum of understanding concerning the imposition of import 
restrictions on certain categories of archeological material from the 
pre-Hispanic cultures of the Republic of El Salvador, with appendix. 
Signed at Washington Mar. 8, 1995. Entered into force Mar. 8, 1995. 
 
Greece 
Agreement relating to the employment of dependents of official 
government employees. Effected by exchange of notes at Athens Jan. 30 
and Feb. 17, 1995. Enters into force when each party has notified the 
other of the fulfillment of its internal procedural requirements. 
 
Morocco 
Investment incentive agreement. Signed at Washington Mar. 15, 1995. 
Enters into force on date on which Morocco notifies the U.S. that all 
legal requirements have been fulfilled. 
 
Western Samoa  
Agreement relating to the employment of dependents of official 
government employees. Effected by exchange of notes at New York and 
Washington Feb. 27 and Mar. 15, 1995. Entered into force Mar. 15, 1995. 
 
_____ 
1 With declaration.    (###) 
 
 
 
[END OF DISPATCH VOL. 6, NO. 15] 

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