U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 6, NUMBER 29, JULY 17, 1995
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:
1. Promoting Democracy and Prosperity In the Americas: U.S. Leadership 
In the Post-Cold War World--Deputy Secretary Talbott
2. U.S. Policy Toward APEC--Joan Spero 
3. U.S.-Japanese Investment Arrangement--Acting Secretary Talbott, 
Japanese Ambassador Kuriyama, Joan Spero 
4. Elections in Haiti: An Important Milestone--James F. Dobbins 
5. Background Notes: United Nations
6. Focus on the UN: Why the UN Is Good for the U.S. 
7. Focus on 4WCW: U.S. Actions and Priorities
8. What's in Print: Foreign Relations of the U.S. 



ARTICLE 1

Promoting Democracy and Prosperity
In the Americas: U.S. Leadership in the Post-Cold War World
Deputy Secretary Talbott
Address to the Chilean Council for International Relations, Santiago, 
Chile, July 10, 1995

I want to begin by thanking the Chilean Government and the people of 
Santiago for the warm welcome they have given our delegation. I 
particularly want to thank the Chilean Council for International 
Relations and the University of Chile for providing this opportunity to 
meet with its members. While this is the first time that Mack McLarty 
and I have visited Chile, and while we have been here only a single day, 
we already feel we are among good friends.

In addition to being President Clinton's Counselor and a member of his 
Cabinet, Mr. McLarty is responsible for our government's follow-up on 
last December's Summit of the Americas. Also here today are two other 
U.S. officials who are familiar faces in Santiago: Ambassador Alec 
Watson, our Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs; and 
Richard Feinberg, President Clinton's Special Assistant for Inter-
American Affairs and a senior director of the National Security Council 
staff. 

We have come here as part of a round of consultations with South 
American leaders. Over the weekend, we were in Argentina for the re-
inauguration of President Menem. In Buenos Aires, we also met with the 
Presidents of Bolivia and Colombia, and with the Vice President of El 
Salvador. Here in Chile, we have met with President Frei, Foreign 
Minister Insulza, Finance Minister Aninat, and other leading Chilean 
officials. Tomorrow, we will be going on to Brazil, where we will see 
President Cardoso and members of his government. 

In our Administration's policy toward this region, we have two priority 
objectives: one is to support the growth of democratic institutions; the 
other is to advance prosperity through open markets and free trade. 
Messrs. McLarty, Watson, Feinberg, and I made a point of coming to 
Santiago because on both these issues, as on so many others, Chile has 
the admiration of your friends in the United States. Your country is a 
leader and an inspiration not only for the nations of this hemisphere--
north and south--but for emerging market democracies all around the 
globe.  

Chile has played an exemplary part in international trade. Your 
government's vigorous efforts helped secure international agreement in 
the Uruguay round of the GATT two years ago. We welcomed Chile's active 
participation at the forum on Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation--APEC--
in Jakarta last November. At the Miami summit in December, Presidents 
Clinton and Frei joined in committing our countries to working with the 
32 other democratic nations of the hemisphere to establish a Free Trade 
Area of the Americas within a decade--by the year 2005.

At the Miami summit, Prime Minister Chretien of Canada and Presidents 
Clinton, Zedillo, and Frei also announced their intention to make Chile 
"the fourth amigo"--the next in line to join NAFTA. After extensive 
preparatory work, the first round of accession negotiations is scheduled 
to begin in about two weeks, on July 25. The Clinton Administration is 
working closely with key members of the U.S. Congress to obtain fast-
track negotiating authority. Some hurdles remain, but they are no more 
daunting than the ones President Clinton overcame in securing the 
ratification of NAFTA or GATT. We are confident that we will be able to 
get the job done this time as well--we hope by the end of the year.

The vision of a hemispheric free trade zone extending from Tierra del 
Fuego to the Arctic Circle is not new. The leaders of the region 
discussed the possibility at the summit in Punta del Este in 1967--more 
than a quarter of a century and six American presidencies ago. The 
intellectual roots of the idea go all the way back to the early 19th 
century, when Secretary of State Henry Clay proposed an "American 
System" that would have eliminated all inter-American tariffs and when 
Simon Bolivar called for a "Pan-American League" to unite the nations of 
the New World under a common system of international law and commercial 
codes.

One reason the nations of the hemisphere have, at long last, begun to 
transform that idealistic dream into a practical reality is that 
democracy has established firm, far-reaching roots in the region. In the 
1980s, as political systems opened up throughout the Americas, so did 
the region's economies. A wave of democratization swept away 
authoritarianism, while another wave of free market reforms swept away 
the outmoded economic policies of the past. Import barriers fell; trade 
flourished; competition, long a dirty word, gained respectability--all 
to revolutionary and welcome effect.

Look at the sharply contrasting ways in which our governments responded 
to two financial crises in Mexico a dozen years apart--one 13 years ago 
and the other last year. The difference between these two episodes 
provides a concrete example of how much progress the region has made and 
of the linkage between open societies and open markets. When Mexico 
defaulted on its international debts in 1982, the flow of investment and 
credit to Latin America nearly came to a halt. The governments of the 
region--few of them genuine democracies--responded by further closing 
their economies, tightening their grip on the private sector by imposing 
pervasive economic controls, and, in some cases, nationalizing banking 
systems. Here in Chile, the government raised tariffs and took control 
of a large part of the financial system. The cumulative result was a 
"lost decade" for most of the region's economies.

By contrast, the recent peso crisis in Mexico, serious as it was, 
occurred in a very different, more favorable regional political 
environment and, therefore, had far fewer negative economic 
consequences. Democratically elected governments from Argentina to 
Trinidad and Tobago did not let the shock waves from Mexico derail their 
own programs of economic liberalization. Instead, they accelerated their 
privatization plans, they worked even harder to get their fiscal houses 
in order, and they stepped up their efforts to promote exports. 

The United States Government, for its part, led a $50-billion 
international initiative to counter the short-term effects of the fall 
of the peso. President Clinton was determined to support Mexico's 
democratic reformers and to sustain progress toward open trade and 
markets in this hemisphere--and beyond.

We recognize that economic reform of the kind sweeping the hemisphere 
and, indeed, the world, creates its own political challenges. Much of 
the recent economic growth in the Americas can be attributed to the 
"downsizing" of government--that is, to measures that cut public 
spending, reduce the scope of central economic planning, and allow 
markets to operate according to the laws of supply and demand. But while 
slimming down and even dismantling cumbersome bureaucracies is welcome, 
that process must not undermine democratic institutions or impede the 
building of basic legal and regulatory structures or prevent the state 
from providing essential social services.

A government can open a stock market to foreign investors or eliminate 
subsidies with the stroke of a pen. But establishing the equivalent of a 
Securities and Exchange Commission or organizing a well-targeted social 
program to compensate the poor for the loss of subsidies is a harder 
task and takes longer to bear fruit. Yet a regulatory framework and a 
social safety net are also necessary for sustained economic growth.

The economic and political costs of inadequate government institutions 
are well known throughout the hemisphere, notably including up north. In 
the United States, we have learned our own lessons the hard way--or at 
least I hope we have! In the early 1980s, the U.S. Government 
deregulated the American savings and loan industry with much self-
congratulatory free market fanfare. But our government failed to 
adequately monitor or curb the gross mismanagement and blatant 
corruption that accompanied deregulation. As a result, by the end of the 
decade, the United States suffered hundreds of bank failures that 
eventually cost American taxpayers over $500 billion--half a trillion 
dollars--in bailouts. Recently, several banking systems elsewhere in the 
region have faced similar problems.

Fortunately, we are now pooling our experience, our expertise, and our 
resolve to tackle these dangers together. At the Miami summit, the 
leaders of the hemisphere endorsed specific measures to modernize 
democratic institutions and established an energetic process to speed 
their implementation.

Chile has played an important role in this process, particularly through 
its chairmanship of the OAS Working Group on Probity and Public Ethics. 
Under Ambassador Vargas Carreno's skillful guidance, this working group 
promises to have global as well as regional impact. Thanks largely to 
his leadership, the OAS recently urged the nations of the OECD to 
participate in an initiative designed to eliminate bribery in 
international business transactions.

At the insistence of President Frei and other Latin American leaders, 
the Summit of the Americas put special emphasis on social equity and the 
eradication of poverty. In addition to fulfilling our humanitarian and 
ethical imperatives, those goals make sense for the basic reason that 
growing economies need healthy and educated workers and consumers. In 
this respect, too, Chile is paving the way. Your program of loans to 
small and medium-sized businesses has encouraged the emergence of a new 
entrepreneurial class and has helped lift more than 1 million Chileans 
out of poverty. Your country's national service program, in which young 
professionals dedicate a year to working in poor communities, is another 
splendid example of how countries in the hemisphere can work creatively 
to address poverty and social fragmentation. Chile's innovative system 
of pension reform has led Argentina, Colombia, and, most recently, Peru 
to adopt similar approaches.

The slogan on which President Clinton ran for the White House three 
years ago--Putting People First--is a good motto for the hemisphere as a 
whole. For all of us--blessed as this hemisphere is with natural 
resources--our greatest challenge is to invest in our human resources. 
It isn't easy. Reforming an education system to keep children in school 
is more difficult than selling off an inefficient, money-losing, state-
owned corporation. Ensuring the availability of basic health care for 
every child is more difficult than lowering tariffs. But there is no 
alternative to that kind of far-sighted, socially responsible government 
policy; growth must be inclusive--it must benefit all society--if it is 
to be enduring.

This brings me back to my more general and, at the same time, more basic 
point. For governments and the private sector to work together 
successfully, one ingredient above all others is indispensable--and that 
is democracy. 

During the Cold War, the United States waged--and led others in waging--
a global battle against communism, and communism was truly a mortal 
enemy of human freedom. We take pride in the outcome of that struggle. 
But we must also acknowledge that the dynamics of the Cold War led to 
distortions in our commitment to democracy, particularly in this 
hemisphere. Our determination to stem communism sometimes overrode our 
interest in sustaining democratic institutions. Those complicated times, 
while they ended in a victory for freedom, also left many innocent 
victims whom we must not forget.

As a long-time resident of Washington, DC, I remember, vividly, the day 
of September 21, 1976. At 9:35 in the morning, I heard an explosion 
several blocks from where I was working: A bomb had exploded on Sheridan 
Circle, killing one of your fellow citizens, Orlando Letelier, and one 
of mine, Ronni Moffitt. That blast brought the political violence that 
wracked much of the Americas home to my own nation's capital. We are 
gratified by the Supreme Court decision which will, when implemented, 
bring an ugly chapter to a close and the perpetrators of the crime to 
justice.

The rule of law along with free and fair elections and national 
reconciliation are the norm now that democracy has come--or returned--to 
nations throughout the Americas.

The extent to which democratic values have taken root in the hemisphere 
became fully apparent in June 1991, at the OAS General Assembly here in 
Santiago--the gathering that then-Foreign Minister Silva called "the 
assembly of democracy." In Santiago, the member nations of the OAS spoke 
with a single voice. Their message was that there is no goal more 
important or more vital to the national interests of all the states in 
the hemisphere than support for democracy. By unanimous vote, our 
governments formally adopted Resolution 1080, which calls for an 
immediate response to any interruption of constitutional democratic 
processes in the hemisphere. 

Since that time, our community of nations has backed up those words with 
action. In May 1993, the Organization of American States quickly and 
effectively responded when then-President Serrano threatened an auto-
golpe in Guatemala. The member nations of the OAS also have worked 
together to support democracy in El Salvador, Peru, Nicaragua, Suriname, 
the Dominican Republic, and, of course, in Haiti. With crucial support 
from the international and, particularly, the hemispheric communities, 
Haiti has liberated itself from its chaotic, violent, dictatorial past; 
it is building a free society on the basis of justice, reconciliation, 
and the rule of law.

Those same principles should, of course, also guide relations among 
states in the region. The spread of democracy and the growth of 
political freedom have helped reduce the danger of war in the 
hemisphere. The only recent military dispute is the border conflict 
between Peru and Ecuador. Our two countries--Chile and the United 
States--along with the other two my colleagues and I are visiting--
Argentina and Brazil--are combining their diplomatic energies to bring 
about a negotiated settlement. At the same time, military observers from 
our four nations are monitoring the disputed border regions and helping 
to maintain the cease-fire. While the Peru-Ecuador dispute remains a 
worrisome and challenging exception, the rule in the hemisphere is 
unprecedented tranquility and cooperation. 

Not too long ago, Brazil and Argentina designed bridges on their border 
so they would collapse in case attacking tanks ever tried to cross from 
one side to the other. Argentines and Chileans used to plant land mines 
at their frontier checkpoints. But today, bridges and roads carry trade, 
not tanks. Chilean and Argentine engineers are planning a natural gas 
pipeline through the Andes. The armed forces of Brazil, Argentina, and 
other Latin American states are devoting more and more of their 
resources to regional and international peacekeeping operations.

Thus, we Americans, all of us Americans--whether we live in North 
America, Latin America, or the Caribbean--have contributed to one of the 
great epics of human history and one of the most hopeful features of the 
late 20th century: the reaffirmation, reinforcement, and 
institutionalization of political and economic freedom. It may be true 
that this phenomenon here in our neighborhood has not produced any 
single image quite as telegenic as Germans tearing down the Berlin Wall 
or Cambodian peasants crossing minefields to vote against the Khmer 
Rouge. But the cumulative victories of democracy in the hemisphere--from 
Argentina, Brazil, and Chile to Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Haiti--are 
cause for special pride and special hope for those of us who live here. 
No other region of the world is as close as ours to securing uniformly 
open markets, open political systems, and comprehensive peace. In the 
years to come, no nation in the hemisphere will be more important to 
consolidating that victory than Chile. We, your visitors here today, are 
honored to be your friends, partners, and neighbors in that great task. 
(###)



ARTICLE 2

U.S. Policy Toward APEC
Joan Spero, Under Secretary for Economic, Business, and Agricultural 
Affairs
Statement before the Subcommittees on Asia and Pacific Affairs and 
International Economic Policy and Trade of the House International 
Relations Committee, Washington, DC, July 18, 1995

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I am pleased to have the 
opportunity to testify on U.S. policy toward APEC--the Asia-Pacific 
Economic Cooperation forum. In my remarks, I will provide an overview of 
the strategic role APEC plays in U.S. foreign economic policy, review 
APEC's evolution, and set out the Administration's goals for APEC in the 
near term.

The Importance of the Asia-Pacific

The Asia-Pacific is one of the most economically dynamic regions of the 
world. It accounts for 41% of world trade and half of world output. It 
is the fastest-growing region in the world: 30 years ago, Asia alone 
accounted for only 4% of the world's economy; today it accounts for 25%. 
Some economists predict that by the year 2000, it will account for 33%. 
By the end of this century, one-half of world trade will take place in 
the Asia-Pacific region.

Asia is not only dynamic: It also is increasingly a closer, more 
cohesive, more integrated region. Forty-two percent of Asia's trade now 
takes place within Asia, and intra-Asian trade is growing four times 
more rapidly than trade between the United States and Asia. Direct 
investment by Asians within Asia also is burgeoning. Japanese companies 
are in the lead. They accounted for 18.4% of the foreign direct 
investment in major Asian markets between 1986 and 1992. But the 
Japanese are not alone. Companies from the rest of Asia--Korea, Taiwan, 
Hong Kong--accounted for half of all foreign direct investment in the 
region.

The worldwide communications revolution now underway will link the 
region ever tighter in the future. Pacific Rim countries are investing 
more than $21 billion annually to modernize and restructure their 
telecommunications networks. Fiber- optic cables--the "silk roads" of 
the 21st century--are being laid throughout the Pacific.

U.S. business needs to be a part of this explosive economic development. 
As markets and competitors, the nations of Asia and the Pacific will 
only become more important to us in the future. Already one-third of 
U.S. exports, supporting nearly 2.7 million American jobs, are destined 
for East Asian markets. There are immense challenges and immense 
opportunities in the region's dynamism. We must meet both.

New Economic Architecture

U.S. business is doing its part by becoming more competitive. For the 
first time since 1985, the United States last year displaced Japan as 
the world's most competitive economy. We are once again the world's 
greatest export machine, exporting more goods and services than any 
other economy.

But business cannot do the job alone; government also has its part to 
play. The Clinton Administration has put economics at the center of its 
agenda and is committed to ensuring that U.S. economic interests are 
fully integrated in the development and implementation of our foreign 
policy. We are trying to carry out that mission in three principal ways.

Global Approaches

First, we are committed to global economic engagement and to building 
and modernizing the economic architecture for the post-Cold War world. 
We are aiming for an international system that is more open, more 
market-oriented, and that promotes world prosperity and world peace. To 
meet the challenges of the 21st century, we must ensure that we reach 
the year 2000 with an open, market-oriented world trading system, a 
stable and transparent world financial system, and global institutions 
that can effectively integrate developing countries and the former 
communist world into the global mainstream.

The centerpiece of the Administration's policy of international economic 
engagement is the World Trade Organization--WTO. The WTO Uruguay Round 
agreement is the most far-reaching trade agreement in history: It will 
modernize the international trading system; significantly reduce tariffs 
and non-tariff barriers; expand the trade regime to services, 
intellectual property, and investment; and cover agriculture in a 
meaningful way for the first time. The new WTO will provide a solid 
foundation for the open, multilateral trading system--a system that will 
allow regional arrangements like the EU, NAFTA, or APEC to flourish but 
keep the world economy from breaking into costly, exclusionary economic 
blocs.

We also have taken the first steps toward a thorough overhaul of the 
world's monetary and development institutions. At the June G-7 summit in 
Halifax, leaders agreed to a two-pronged approach to reducing global 
instability: crisis prevention, through IMF "early warning mechanisms" 
and a long-term drive for greater transparency and better regulation in 
both global and national financial markets; and crisis management, 
through a new IMF emergency financing mechanism coupled with 
substantially increased resources for the IMF. Leaders also endorsed 
reforms of the multilateral development banks and the UN development 
system to make development assistance work better.

Bilateral Approaches

We also are busy on the bilateral front. We continue to level the 
playing field and provide new opportunities for our companies through 
our efforts in the U.S.-Japan Framework talks; market access discussions 
with China; and formal economic dialogues with key Asian economies like 
Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and India.

The issues are tough, and the problems can't be solved overnight. We 
will have difficult moments--ups and downs--as we work to convince our 
trading partners that the Clinton Administration means business. We 
expect the same opportunities for our firms in foreign markets as our 
trading partners enjoy in ours. But as we have shown in the case of 
Japan, we are committed to finding solutions and making those solutions 
produce results in the market.

We will continue to work aggressively for the removal of barriers to 
U.S. trade and investment throughout Asia. In addition, we at the State 
Department, working with other agencies, are committed to promoting U.S. 
business interests by a variety of other means. These include advocacy 
efforts in support of key projects and day-to-day assistance to U.S. 
companies facing practical "doing business" problems abroad in such 
areas as intellectual property rights, tax, and regulatory regimes.

Regional Approaches

We also need regional approaches to expand business opportunities, 
promote economic growth, and secure benefits for the American people. We 
see positive regional policies as a way to ensure that U.S. business is 
firmly rooted in those dynamic parts of the world that are so important 
to our economic future. 

So, in addition to our efforts to sustain and strengthen an open, 
multilateral trading system, the Administration is revitalizing and 
expanding U.S. economic relations with the three most important economic 
regions in the world--Western Europe, Latin America, and the Asia-
Pacific.   In Asia, our efforts to build a new architecture have 
centered on the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.

Evolution of APEC

Let's start with some history. APEC first met in Australia in 1989 as an 
informal economic dialogue among 12 member economies. Beyond a general 
economic focus, the group had no stated mission or goal. We have come a 
long way since then.

APEC has expanded from 12 to 18 member economies. It now includes the 
vibrant Pacific economies of Mexico and Chile, and those of the Peoples' 
Republic of China, Hong Kong, and Chinese Taipei--one of the world's 
most powerful economic areas. Collectively, APEC's members represent 
one-half the world's people and one-half its annual economic output.

APEC now has a structure--a small secretariat in Singapore, a policy- 
making process capped by annual leaders' meetings, and, most 
importantly--in terms of day-to-day business needs--three committees and 
10 active working groups. APEC's working groups strongly encourage 
active private sector participation and focus on ways to make it easier 
to do business in sectors such as transportation, telecommunications, or 
energy. Yet the U.S. contribution to APEC's annual budget is only 
$580,000. It is one of the best deals the American taxpayer gets.

APEC also has a customer. APEC is not for governments; it is for 
business. Through APEC, we aim to get governments out of the way, 
opening the way for business to do business. It is our goal to make APEC 
the most user- friendly forum in the world. That is why business 
participates in APEC's working groups. That is why APEC established a 
business advisory group--the  Pacific Business Forum--to advise APEC 
leaders on business priorities and provide a vision for APEC's future. 
And that is why increasing the role for the private sector in APEC is a 
key objective for this year's meetings in Japan. The Pacific Business 
Forum will deliver its own "Business Blueprint for APEC" to Prime 
Minister Murayama in the fall.

How does APEC carry out this mission? Let me give you some specific 
examples. With the establishment in 1993 of a new Committee on Trade and 
Investment--CTI, APEC launched an extensive new trade and investment 
facilitation effort. Its goals are to simplify and harmonize customs 
procedures and standards, identify administrative barriers to trade, 
implement a set of non-binding investment principles, and work to 
harmonize Uruguay Round implementation among APEC member economies.

Much of APEC's most important work, in terms of solving practical, daily 
"doing business" needs, takes place in the day-to-day activities of its 
10 working groups. For example, APEC's working groups have published 
customs, investment, telecommunications, and transportation guides. The 
guides provide information which make regional regimes and regulatory 
environments more transparent. APEC will use these guides to analyze 
"best practices," identify bottlenecks, and work toward harmonization of 
standards and regimes.

APEC's Energy Working Group has held seminars and training courses in 
the use of clean coal, providing new market opportunities for American 
environmental and alternative energy companies. The APEC 
Telecommunications Working Group and the recent meeting of 
telecommunications ministers has agreed on guidelines for harmonizing 
equipment certification, establishing principles to harmonize 
certification of this multi-billion dollar regional market. 

In APEC's Customs Working Group, work is underway to speed movement of 
air express shipments by creating an electronic system to replace paper 
tracking and clearance systems. APEC transportation ministers met for 
the first time last month in Washington to identify ways to improve and 
expand the region's transportation system to better support a freer flow 
of goods, services, and people in the region. Australia will host the 
second meeting of ministers involved with small and medium businesses in 
order to find ways to expand export opportunities for this sector of the 
business community.

These practical efforts directly reflect business' input in the working 
groups and APEC's desire to tackle the nitty-gritty but important issues 
confronting companies doing business in the region.

What We Expect in November

APEC reached a turning point with President Clinton's hosting of the 
first-ever APEC economic leaders' meeting at Blake Island in 1993. With 
that meeting, APEC developed a guiding vision. APEC announced its 
commitment to more open trade and investment, application of free market 
principles, and the concept of "open regionalism." At their meeting last 
year in Bogor, Indonesia, leaders gave life to the Blake Island vision 
by calling for the achievement of free and open trade in the Asia-
Pacific by the year 2020. By this, we mean not a formal trade agreement, 
but rather an effort to achieve freer trade through promotion of more 
open systems that pave the way for business to do business. These two 
meetings transformed APEC from a dialogue forum to an action-oriented, 
results-producing forum.

This year's ministerial and leaders' meetings, under the chairmanship of 
Japan, hold special promise. We expect that further progress in 
advancing our vision of the Pacific's economic future will emerge this 
year. Japan has said it will use the Osaka meetings to establish 
concrete goals for open and GATT-consistent trade and investment 
liberalization in the region. The United States is supporting Japan in 
this effort.

Based on our 1994 free trade pledge, APEC members are working on an 
action agenda for the leaders to review at their meeting in Osaka this 
November. We expect the agenda to include initial liberalization steps; 
progress in lowering some business transaction costs--for example, 
announcements on streamlining customs procedures; and a blueprint for 
free and open trade and investment. This blueprint would go beyond 
tariff reductions to address broader non-tariff and structural barriers 
in the region, e.g., cooperation toward strengthened intellectual 
property rights, strengthened disciplines in government procurement, 
greater transparency of rules and rulemaking, etc. It would address the 
concerns and needs of APEC members at different levels of development. 
The blueprint would also have to define how the process of moving toward 
freer trade in the region would be consistent with GATT and with APEC's 
commitment to "open regionalism."

We also hope that APEC leaders in November will endorse establishment of 
a new, permanent business sector advisory body to APEC. We want business 
to provide the expertise and views necessary for APEC to define its 
objectives and focus its work. The litmus test for APEC's success will 
be whether its work has practical relevance to the business community--
whether APEC removes impediments, creates opportunities, and develops a 
genuine sense of community in which all can do business.

Conclusion

Through the WTO, APEC, and our bilateral economic dialogues, we are 
working to lay the groundwork for U.S. business to seize the 
opportunities in Asia's economic boom. Our economic future requires 
greater U.S. business involvement in Asia--competing and leading in the 
world's fastest-growing markets.

APEC is a work in progress--one which holds the promise to help us set 
the stage for the future. APEC provides a platform for achieving genuine 
economic integration in the region based on market-driven forces. APEC 
members increasingly see that market-oriented policies offer the best 
chance to attract foreign capital, generate domestic savings, and 
stimulate innovation--all the ingredients that are needed for sustained 
economic growth and that are the elemental building blocks for any 
Pacific community. We look forward to working with American business and 
the Congress in developing APEC as a key building block of that 
community. ((###)



ARTICLE 3

U.S.-Japanese Investment Arrangement
Acting Secretary Talbott, Japanese Ambassador Kuriyama, Under Secretary 
Spero

Acting Secretary Talbott, Japanese Ambassador Kuriyama  
Remarks at signing ceremony, Washington, DC, July 20, 1995.

Acting Secretary Talbott. Good morning to all of you. I am very pleased 
to join Ambassador Kuriyama today in marking the successful conclusion 
of the U.S.-Japan Investment Arrangement. This arrangement is the result 
of  18 months of intensive negotiations and a great deal of hard work, 
including by quite a number of people here this morning. It sets forth a 
strong joint commitment by the U.S. and Japanese Governments to promote 
a hospitable environment for foreign direct investment.

Each government makes clear that foreign investors should have fair 
access to domestic markets--regardless of nationality. Through this 
arrangement, the Government of Japan has explicitly made several of its 
economic development programs available to non-Japanese firms. It also 
has announced policies and measures that will reduce the time and cost 
of investing in Japan, improve the climate for mergers and acquisitions, 
and encourage further deregulation.

To arrive at this arrangement, U.S. negotiators relied heavily on the 
expert counsel of members of the American business community located 
here and in Japan. Leaders of some of those key industries are with us 
today. On behalf of President Clinton, I would like to thank those 
forward- and outward-looking entrepreneurs for their advice and 
assistance. Those of us who sit behind what Secretary Christopher calls 
"the America Desk" here at the State Department will work to ensure that 
this investment arrangement--and others like it--make a tangible 
difference to American businesses. This arrangement is a splendid 
example of what the U.S. and Japanese Governments can accomplish when 
they work together in pursuit of mutual interests.

Both nations can look forward to shared benefits. Greater U.S. direct 
investment will support American exports to Japan. It will make a wider 
range of high-quality goods and services available to Japanese 
customers, and it will create more and better jobs in both economies. 
These are worthy goals in and of themselves, but they are also part of 
an emerging pattern of cooperation that offers a better future for 
people everywhere.

As the world's two largest economies, the United States and Japan share 
a unique responsibility to uphold the open world trading and investment 
order. Through APEC, with Japan in the chair this year, we can encourage 
high standards of investment liberalization and protection throughout 
the Asia Pacific--the world's fastest growing market. Through the OECD, 
we can achieve a state-of-the-art agreement to liberalize investment 
regimes globally. Through GATT and the World Trade Organization, we can 
expand international trade on a world-wide basis.

Achieving these goals in full will, of course, take time and require 
that we overcome many obstacles; but as we work together to put these 
multilateral structures in place, Japan and the United States must also 
lead by example. We must lead by harmonizing our policies and priorities 
to the greatest extent possible. Strengthening, deepening, and 
broadening our bilateral relationship through a common agenda is 
important, not only to our two nations, but to the world as a whole.

In that spirit, it is an honor for me to ask Secretary Christopher's 
good friend, my good friend, and the United States' good friend, 
Ambassador Kuriyama, to say a few words on behalf of the Government and 
people of Japan.


Ambassador Kuriyama. Thank you very much Mr. Secretary. For me this is a 
very happy occasion--almost as happy as the day when Nomo pitched for 
the National League in the All Star Game.

It gives me a real pleasure to join you, Mr. Secretary, in this happy 
occasion which is, I think, another significant step forward in our 
joint endeavor to strengthen our economic partnership across the Pacific 
under the Framework Agreement of two years ago.

First of all I would like to pay a special tribute to Ambassador Larson 
and his colleagues, who engaged with their Japanese counterparts in 
highly constructive and friendly discussions in the working group to 
produce the report on inward direct investment and business-supplier 
relationships. I think the working group deserves our most sincere 
appreciation for what it has achieved.

What makes this report so significant is that it affirms our common 
recognition of the importance of inward direct investment in both Japan 
and the United States in further promoting the growth of our respective 
economies and expanding consumers' benefits and in strengthening the 
economic ties between the two countries in a mutually beneficial manner.

One proof of it is that Japanese direct investment in the United States 
has contributed to the American economy by creating--according to 
Department of Commerce statistics--more than 700,000 jobs; and its share 
in U.S. global exports is now close to 10%.

In Japan also, inward direct investment has grown over the past decade--
particularly in the late 1980s--although, unfortunately, in more recent 
years the pace has flattened, reflecting the prolonged recession or 
stagnation of the Japanese economy. We hope to see this trend resume at 
a more vigorous pace in the coming years as it will surely help the 
revitalization of the Japanese economy and its integration with the 
global community.

The report contains various measures to be taken by both sides to 
encourage and promote the two-way flow of capital and technology by 
providing a better investment environment for business opportunities 
both in Japan and the United States. In Japan, for example, JETRO has 
been providing foreign companies with a variety of supportive measures. 
The Japan Development Bank also makes available low-cost financing to 
foreign investors. We would like to make the Japanese market more 
attractive to foreign investors by such measures and many others, 
including deregulation, which are included in this report.

Alexander Graham Bell said many years ago, "Sometimes we stare so long 
at a door that is closing that we see too late the one that is opening." 
In my view, there has been so much talk in this country about the 
closing door in Japan, I think it is about time that American 
businessmen recognize the door that is opening in Japan; and I sincerely 
hope that today's report will help them see the new opportunities that 
are opening up in my country. That is why I am so encouraged by the 
presence here this morning of a number of distinguished American 
representatives of the private sector. I am confident that the measures 
we both take will be matched by your entrepreneurship and your 
determined efforts which, together, can build a solid bridge of 
partnership between Japan and the United States. Thank you very much. 


Under Secretary for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs, Joan 
Spero
Remarks prior to State Department briefing, Washington, DC, July 20, 
1995. [introductory remarks deleted]

Today, Acting Secretary Talbott and Japanese Ambassador Kuriyama signed 
and exchanged letters formalizing a U.S.-Japan Investment Arrangement 
designed to facilitate foreign direct investment in Japan.

Foreign direct investment issues are an important component of the 
economic harmonization basket, which is part of our economic framework 
with Japan. That basket has been led by the State Department.

In this basket, we have concluded an understanding on intellectual 
property rights and are working toward a shared agenda for improving 
access to technology. The investment arrangement signed today, we think, 
is a win-win proposition for the U.S. and Japan. It will support the 
efforts of U.S. and other non-Japanese firms to establish a larger 
presence in Japan's market and a greater role as suppliers to Japanese 
firms. This is critical to U.S. exports which are increasingly channeled 
through U.S. affiliates abroad. The arrangement will bring new talent 
and resources to Japan's market and also a wider range of goods and 
services.

This comprehensive joint arrangement on investment is a product of  over 
18 months of intensive negotiations between both governments. Throughout 
this process, the U.S. interagency team, which I want to mention 
especially, was led very ably by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Al 
Larson.

His team benefited greatly from the input and counsel of the U.S. 
business community. They advised us on key problems they face in Japan 
and helped us devise solutions to those problems. Our team also reached 
out to exchange views with members of Japan's private sector who made 
very useful contributions.

The investment agreement creates significant new opportunities for U.S. 
firms to establish or expand their presence in Japan, the world's 
second- largest national market. Japan accounts for 16% of the world's 
GDP, but hosts only 1% of its investment. By comparison, the U.S. 
accounts for 27% of global GDP, and it has 30% of world foreign direct 
investment.

This arrangement lays out in detail financing programs and incentives 
available to foreign investors and provides a blueprint of the 
supporting role to be played by relevant agencies of the Government of 
Japan. In it, the Japanese Government has explicitly agreed that U.S. 
and other foreign firms will be eligible for many of Japan's economic 
development programs on a non-discriminatory basis.

The investment arrangement specifically provides the foundation for 
expanded financing for foreign direct investment by the Government of 
Japan--potentially in the billions of dollars annually--through programs 
of the Japan Development Bank and other Japanese institutions. It 
provides for more active government facilitation of foreign direct 
investment into Japan through the support of the Japan Investment 
Council, the Japan External Trade Organization, and the Foreign 
Investment in Japan Development Cooperation.

That facilitation will include:

--  Support and fair treatment of foreign participation in mergers and 
acquisitions in Japan; 

--  Improved access for foreign investors in Japan to skilled labor, 
land, and facilities; 

--  Ongoing efforts to deregulate Japan's investment regime and to 
ensure non-discriminatory treatment of foreign investors; and 

--  Steps by the two governments to support the building of closer ties 
between U.S. and Japanese firms at the design end and other key stages 
of the commercial process.

Reaching agreement on the policies and measures each government intends 
to take is just a first step to enhancing conditions for U.S. investors 
in Japan. The bulk of our work lies ahead in the implementation of these 
understandings. We put mechanisms in place, including semi-annual 
consultations at the outset for active and effective implementation to 
assure that these policies and measures provide effective support for 
our firms. We intend to step up active implementation of the policies 
and  measures in our investment arrangement by holding joint 
consultations in the early fall.

The Government of Japan will have a critical role in encouraging foreign 
presence in Japan's market and supporting full internationalization of 
the Japanese economy, and they have taken a very positive step in 
signing this agreement.

At the same time, we are committed to working with our firms to get the 
word out about the Government of Japan's programs and policies. We think 
in this way we can assure that the arrangement will yield positive 
results, greater U.S. direct investment that will support our exports to 
Japan, making available a wider range of high quality goods and services 
available to the Japanese customers, and providing more and better jobs 
for workers in both countries. (###)



ARTICLE 4
Elections in Haiti:  An Important Milestone
James F. Dobbins, Special Haiti Coordinator
Statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC, 
July 12, 1995

On Sunday, June 25, Haiti held electoral contests for nearly 2,200 
offices, the result of which will provide that country--for the first 
time in its history--with a system of independent and democratic local 
government. Every mayor and county counselor in the country was to be 
chosen, as well as all members of the lower house of Parliament and two-
thirds of the Senate. Balloting was almost uniformly peaceful. Most 
contests took place without serious incident. In many cases, however, 
the process was, in the words of one observer, "free, fair, and fouled 
up."   In a smaller number of races, serious irregularities occurred 
which, in some cases, will require reruns to correct. Problems included 
the following:

--  A couple of dozen candidates--out of about 10,000--found their names 
left off the ballot. About 150 candidates had earlier been disqualified 
for failure to meet various requirements of the Haitian electoral law. 
Communications between the Haitian electoral authorities and the 
political parties as to the reasons for these disqualifications were 
inadequate, creating, from the opening of the campaign, an atmosphere of 
distrust.

--  In scattered districts across Haiti, some polling stations did not 
open because they received insufficient balloting materials. An earlier 
Haitian decision to extend voter registration beyond the original April 
30 cutoff  date was, in part, responsible for this problem. On the other 
hand, that decision also allowed more than 1 million additional voters 
to register, thus greatly increasing participation in this and the 
upcoming presidential election.

--  Inadequate physical facilities and untrained personnel created 
substantial confusion in both the balloting and the vote count 
procedures.

Reports of these and other irregularities have been numerous. On the 
other hand, international observers saw few examples of electoral fraud 
and found no evidence of any large- scale or systematic effort to 
subvert the electoral process or skew the results.

We and other international observers will withhold final judgment until 
the results of this election--including any reruns and the second round 
for undecided races--are complete. It is fair to say, however, that 
observer teams from France, Canada, and the European Union have so far 
assessed the situation in much the same manner as have we. The OAS, 
which fielded the largest observer team--with personnel from 50 
different countries--will issue a detailed, interim report on the first 
round's voting in the near future.

It is not surprising that freely electing over 2,000 local and national 
officials in the poorest, least-educated, most politically and socially 
polarized nation in the Western Hemisphere--a country almost without 
roads, electricity, administrators, or democratic tradition--should 
prove so daunting a task.

Extensive measures were taken by the Haitian election authorities to 
promote broad participation of candidates, parties, and voters. Well 
over      3 million voters were registered--a better than 90% figure--
which many more established democracies would envy. Sixteen million 
ballots were printed, carrying the party and, in many cases, the 
personal symbols for each of over 10,000 candidates, and, in the case of 
parliamentary contests, the actual photographs of over 800 individuals. 
Few electoral systems, anywhere in the world, go to such lengths to 
facilitate voting for those who cannot read and to assure independent 
candidates and small parties an equal place on the ballot. The 
complexity of this ambitious attempt at inclusivity itself became the 
source of complaint.

In a country largely devoid of infrastructure, 10,000 polling places 
were set up. In a country where literacy is the exception, 40,000 poll 
workers were hired. All this was done over a brief period, with no 
existing electoral structure on which to build. The scope of these 
preparations challenged the Haitian electoral authorities and, in some 
cases, overwhelmed them.

On June 26, Brian Atwood, USAID Administrator and head of the 
Presidential Observer Delegation sent by President Clinton--himself a 
veteran election observer--made a public statement on behalf of that 
delegation, detailing the problems with the preceding day's balloting 
encountered by his monitoring teams. Brian called the previous day's 
voting "a step in the building of democracy in Haiti," but he then noted 
that "the process was affected by irregularities and administrative 
flaws that need to be addressed for the second round and in the future." 
He went on to cite a number of those flaws.

Since June 26, U.S. officials have been working intensely with the 
Haitian electoral authorities, Haitian major political parties, and 
other members of the international community to identify and help put in 
place appropriate remedies.

This remedial action should, in our judgment, include rerunning of some 
races, improved training and support for local electoral officials, and 
strengthened procedures for holding and counting the vote. Based on the 
discussions we have held to date, we are hopeful that such steps will be 
undertaken, that the most serious irregularities of the June 25 vote 
will be corrected, and that the second round of balloting, to be held in 
the next few weeks, will mark a further advance in the consolidation of 
Haitian democratic processes. 

The United States has supported the conduct of these elections in a 
variety of ways. First, the United States joined with more than 30 other 
nations in providing troops and police for the international 
peacekeeping presence which maintained a secure environment throughout 
the electoral campaign. Second, the U.S. Government contributed to a UN-
managed international fund to help finance the costs of balloting and 
provided direct assistance, for instance, in transporting the ballots 
from the printer in California to Haiti. Third, the United States joined 
France, Canada, the European Union, and the OAS in sending observers to 
monitor the process. Fourth, U.S. officials have worked with all of 
Haiti's major democratic parties--including those who opposed the 
American-led intervention--to encourage their active participation in 
the electoral contest. In order to help promote such broad electoral 
participation, the Administration encouraged and funded both the 
International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute 
to establish a presence in Haiti throughout the electoral period.

In 1990, Haiti financed 60% of the cost of that year's elections from 
its own resources. This year, the Haitian Government contributed less 
than 5% of the direct cost of holding this election. Neither the Haitian 
Government nor the international community wanted to wait until the slow 
resumption of Haiti's own revenue collection would permit it to fund the 
two national ballots scheduled for this year. All of us realize, 
however--and the Haitian Government most of all--that this heavy 
dependence on the international community for the conduct of elections 
is an undesirable aberration--not to be repeated in future years.

The U.S. Government contribution to these elections is part of a broader 
program of support for restoration and consolidation of democracy in 
Haiti. The United States is working with France and Canada to train a 
new professional civilian police force which will replace the UN 
peacekeeping troops who are currently helping to maintain security in 
Haiti. A second, presidential ballot is to be held at the end of this 
year. Next February, a successor to President Aristide will take office. 
By then, nearly 6,000 new civilian police will have been deployed. The 
international peacekeeping force will be withdrawn--its task completed. 
We intend to take each of these hurdles on schedule.

In this connection, it is sometimes asked whether the costs of 
supporting democracy in Haiti are commensurate with the benefits. Let me 
briefly respond to this question.

Two billion dollars is sometimes cited as the cost of our efforts in 
Haiti for fiscal 1994 and 1995. In fact, the actual figure is smaller--
amounting to under $1.2 billion as of March 31, when the U.S.-led 
Multinational Force completed its task, and that figure itself 
aggregates the expenses of two distinct phases of policy. The first $400 
million of this total was, in fact, spent before the intervention of 
September 19, 1994. This $400 million was the cost, not of restoring 
democracy, but, rather, of coping with tyranny, for it was spent on 
interdicting migrants, sheltering refugees, providing humanitarian aid 
to a destitute population, and enforcing an international embargo.

From September 19, 1994, to the departure of the U.S.-led Multinational 
Force on March 31, 1995, the cost to the United States of all its 
activities in Haiti--civil as well as military--was about $700 million. 
Certainly this figure represented an increase over the earlier period's 
spending, but unlike the $400 million which we had expended over the 
previous months coping with the consequences of tyranny, this $700 
million over six months represented a one-time cost--not an endlessly 
recurrent drain on our treasury.

Since the March 31 departure of the Multinational Force, U.S. Government 
costs in Haiti have dropped dramatically, falling already to near the 
month-to-month level of pre-September 1994, i.e., before the 
intervention. The UN is now picking up most of the military costs, to 
which the U.S. contributes less than one-third, and from which we will 
be reimbursed for our military contribution. Other donors have begun 
picking up most of the civil costs. Next year, U.S. spending in Haiti 
will drop even further. Supporting democracy has thus already proven 
more cost-effective than dealing with the consequences of tyranny. It is 
certainly a better investment--one to which we can attract other 
investors.

A year ago, the United States was left to deal largely unaided with the 
humanitarian and refugee crisis in Haiti. Today, other countries and 
institutions are contributing two-thirds of the costs of a peacekeeping 
presence, and three-fourths of the costs of economic assistance. This is 
leveraged leadership--the best example of genuine burden-sharing in 
hemispheric history.

Our successful effort to multilateralize the restoration of Haitian 
democracy also has promoted the emergence of Haiti from nearly two 
centuries of isolation, prejudice, and neglect. More than 50 other 
nations--through their participation in Operation Uphold Democracy and 
its UN successor--have now sent their soldiers, their police, and their 
civilian administrators to serve in Haiti. For the first time in its 
history, Haiti is moving toward meaningful participation in the 
Caribbean, the hemispheric, and the global community. This tremendously 
encouraging development was symbolized by the more than 300 OAS 
observers present for Haiti's June 25 ballot and by the gathering of 34 
hemispheric Foreign Ministers who held the annual OAS General Assembly 
outside Port-au-Prince three weeks earlier.

The location of one of the poorest, least-educated, most underdeveloped 
countries in the world only an over-night's boat ride from our shores 
inevitably imposes a certain burden upon the United States. Either we 
help Haitians to deal with their problem at home, or we will find 
ourselves compelled to deal with them elsewhere, as they seek to make 
their way--on their makeshift vessels--to our shores and those of other 
neighboring states. But if Haiti represents a challenge for the United 
States, it also represents an opportunity.

As we seek to evaluate Haiti's progress toward sustainable democracy, we 
naturally look for standards of comparison. If Haiti's recent electoral 
performance cannot be fairly measured against that of California, say, 
or Switzerland, how does it compare with El Salvador, Nicaragua, or 
South Africa? Even such comparisons are not entirely balanced, however. 
Haiti's $340 annual per capita income does not put it in a class with 
Africa's richest country, but with some of its poorest. Haiti's 30% 
literacy rate is far below that of even its least-developed Caribbean or 
Central American neighbors. In fact, few nations at Haiti's level of 
economic development have ever advanced so far toward sustainable 
democracy.

As democracy takes root in Haiti, therefore, this fact will put paid 
forever to the notion that freedom is a luxury which only rich societies 
can afford. In forming an international coalition to restore and 
consolidate democracy in Haiti, the United States has not just found a 
way to enlist other nations in addressing a problem near and important 
to us; we have also seized an opportunity to send a message of 
successful support for democracy which will reverberate around the 
world.

No one is more committed to the goal of sustainable democracy than those 
Haitian men and women who stood patiently and peacefully in the heat and 
the sun two weeks ago waiting to cast their ballot. They knew what they 
were voting for. They were voting for an end to tyranny. They were 
voting that the "macoutes" and the "attaches" never come back. They were 
voting that the democracy they had gained in 1990 would never again be 
stolen from them.

The mechanisms needed to translate these aspirations into a duly 
constituted and freely elected government must be strengthened if such a 
system of government is to endure. This is why the French, Canadian, 
Argentine, Venezuelan, and American ambassadors joined with UN and OAS 
representatives in Port-au-Prince in recent days to urge cooperative 
measures upon the Haitian political parties and electoral authorities to 
address deficiencies in the balloting process. This is why the 
Administration, the Congress, the UN, the OAS, the IMF, the 
Interamerican Development Bank, and other donor countries have all 
repeatedly linked their assistance to Haiti to the restoration and 
continued consolidation of democracy. This is why all of us are working 
now to help assure that the soon-to-be-held second round of local and 
legislative elections will be more effectively administered than the 
first, and that the presidential elections scheduled for the end of the 
year will achieve an even higher standard.

Despite its flaws, the June 25 ballot in Haiti represents an important 
milestone in that country's progress toward sustainable democracy. Our 
task at this point is threefold: To

--  encourage the people of Haiti to remain committed to the electoral 
process; 
--  encourage Haiti's electoral authorities to improve that process; and 
--  encourage Haiti's political parties--whether they be losers or 
winners this time around--to stay in that process. 

Today's hearings and subsequent congressional debate can contribute 
importantly to all three of these objectives. (###)



ARTICLE 5
Background Notes: United Nations
Official Name: United Nations

PROFILE
Established: By charter signed in San Francisco, California, on June 26, 
1945; effective October 24, 1945.
Purposes: To maintain international peace and security; to achieve 
international cooperation in solving economic, social, cultural, and 
humanitarian problems and in promoting respect for human rights and 
fundamental freedoms; to be a center for harmonizing the actions of 
nations in attaining these common ends.
Members: 185.
Official languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish.
Principal organs: General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and 
Social Council, Trusteeship Council, International Court of Justice, 
Secretariat.
Budget (Calendar year 1995): $12.8 billion (U.S. share $2.8 billion). 
Components: UN regular assessed budget--$1.3 billion (U.S. share--$304 
million); UN peacekeeping--$3.2 billion (U.S. share--$1 billion); 11 UN-
affiliated agencies--$1.5 billion (U.S. share--$361 million). Voluntary 
contributions to other UN-affiliated organizations and activities--$6.8 
billion (U.S. share--$1.1 billion, much of which consists of food aid).

Secretariat
Chief Administrative Officer: Secretary General of the United Nations, 
appointed to a five-year term by the General Assembly on the 
recommendation of the Security Council. Secretary General: Boutros 
Boutros-Ghali.
Staff: The UN Secretariat has a staff of 14,900, including 1,850 
Americans. UN subsidiary bodies, specialized agencies, and the IAEA 
employ an additional 41,400 people, including 1,950 Americans.

General Assembly
Membership: All UN members except Yugoslavia, which was suspended in 
1992.
President: Elected at the beginning of each General Assembly session.
Main committees: First--Political and Security, primarily disarmament. 
Second--Economic and Financial. Third--Social, Humanitarian, and 
Cultural. Fifth--Administrative and Budgetary. Sixth--Legal. Many other 
committees address specific issues, including peacekeeping, outer space, 
crime prevention, status of women, and UN Charter reform.

Security Council
Membership: Five permanent members (China, France, Russia, U.K., U.S.), 
each with the right to veto, and 10 non-permanent members elected by the 
General Assembly for two-year terms. Five non-permanent members are 
elected from Africa and Asia combined; one from Eastern Europe; two from 
Latin America; and two from Western Europe and other areas. The 1995 
non-permanent members are Argentina, Botswana, Czech Republic, Germany, 
Honduras, Indonesia, Italy, Nigeria, Oman, and Rwanda.
President: Rotates monthly in English alphabetical order of members.

Economic and Social Council

Membership: 54; 18 elected each year by the General Assembly for three-
year terms. The U.S. has always been  a member.
President: Elected each year.

International Court of Justice

Membership: 15, elected for nine-year terms by the General Assembly and 
the Security Council from nominees of national groups under provisions 
of the International Court of Justice Statute. A U.S. citizen has always 
been a member of the Court. 


BACKGROUND

The idea for the United Nations was elaborated in declarations signed at 
the wartime Allied conferences in Moscow and Tehran in 1943. The name 
"United Nations" was suggested by President Franklin Roosevelt. From 
August to October 1944, representatives of the U.S, U.K., France, 
U.S.S.R., and China met to elaborate the plans at the Dumbarton Oaks 
Estate in Washington, DC. Those and later talks pro- duced proposals 
outlining the purposes of the organization, its membership and organs, 
as well as arrangements to maintain international peace and security and 
international economic and social cooperation. These proposals were 
discussed and debated by governments and private citizens worldwide.

On April 25, 1945, the United Nations Conference on International 
Organizations began in San Francisco. The 50 nations represented at the 
conference signed the Charter of the United Nations two months later on 
June 26. Poland, which was not represented at the conference, but for 
which a place among the original signatories had been reserved, added 
its name later, bringing the total of original signatories to 51. The UN 
came into existence on October 24, 1945, after the Charter had been 
ratified by the five permanent members of the Security Council--China, 
France, U.S.S.R., U.K., and U.S.--and by a majority of the other 46 
signatories.

The U.S. Senate, by a vote of 89 to 2, gave its consent to the 
ratification of the UN Charter on July 28, 1945. In December 1945, the 
Senate and the House of Representatives, by unanimous votes, requested 
that the UN make its headquarters in the U.S. The offer was accepted and 
the UN headquarters building was constructed in New York City in 1949 
and 1950 beside the East River on donated land, which is considered 
international territory. Under special agreement with the U.S., certain 
diplomatic privileges and immunities have been granted, but generally 
the laws of New York City, New York State, and the U.S. apply.

UN membership is open to all "peace-loving states" that accept the 
obligations of the UN Charter, and, in the judgment of the organization, 
are able and willing to fulfill these obligations. Admission is 
determined by the General Assembly upon recommendation of the Security 
Council. With the admission of Palau in December 1994, 185 countries are 
members of the UN.


U.S. PARTICIPATION IN THE UN

The U.S., as the world's leading political, economic, and military 
power, has an especially strong interest in cooperating with the 
multilateral system. The U.S. can pursue many of its interests more 
effectively and with less risk through the UN than it can by acting 
along. Examples include: containing the spread of weapons of mass 
destruction; enforcing sanctions on pariah states such as Iraq; 
protecting the environment (ozone depletion, acid rain, climate change, 
deforestation); and combating international crime, drug trafficking, and 
terrorism.

Engagement in the UN pays significant dividends to Americans in the form 
of a safer, more prosperous world. The UN offers a unique forum for 
advancing U.S. foreign policy objectives. As a permanent member of the 
UN Security Council, the U.S. plays a leading role in the UN's efforts 
to maintain international peace, promote democracy, and defend human 
rights. UN peacekeeping gives the U.S. a way to protect American 
interests in circumstances where either acting alone or doing nothing is 
unacceptable. UN mediation and preventive diplomacy efforts can provide 
an internationally acceptable setting in which nations can move away 
from rigid negotiating positions and begin to seek solutions to their 
problems.

The multilateral system also provides a powerful platform for advancing 
U.S. values and ideals in such areas as human rights, free trade, labor 
standards, and public health. UN programs also try to meet humanitarian 
needs for those disadvantaged by circumstances beyond their control. 
Private charitable agencies rely on the multiple capacities of the UN 
system to develop the infrastructure and political climate required for 
the success of such programs. UN activities such as UNICEF, the UN High 
Commissioner for Refugees, and the World Food Program have made a 
remarkable impact on the lives of those most at risk around the globe: 
children, women, and refugees.

UN programs serve U.S. objectives by promoting free-market reform in the 
developing world. Those countries purchase more than one-third of the 
goods and services exported by our nation. Supporting economic 
development gives the U.S. more prosperous trading partners that are 
better able to import U.S. goods and less likely to "export" their own 
people to U.S. shores. To reduce global poverty, the UN attempts to help 
developing nations meet basic human needs--clean water, food, shelter, 
and health care--and other development goals.

In today's interdependent world, there is a clear need for multilateral 
bodies to set regulatory standards and arbitrate differences among 
countries in areas such as food product safety, air safety, 
telecommunications, and copyrights. For example, the World Health 
Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization have set food 
product safety and quality standards worldwide through a jointly 
sponsored trade standardization program called "Codex Alimentarius."

There are many direct benefits to our participation in the multilateral 
system. For example, a large part of U.S. financial contributions to the 
UN is returned to U.S. companies through sales of equipment, supplies, 
and consulting services.

The U.S. cannot rely solely on bilateral relations to advance U.S. 
foreign policy objectives but must take advantage of our participation 
in the UN in order to influence other governments' opinions and 
policies. Moreover, every dollar that we contribute to UN activities is 
matched by $3 to $10 given by others. This advances our interests while 
spreading the cost among other nations.

It is important that the UN operate efficiently and effectively. The 
U.S. seeks a UN that both gets back to basics and is ready to meet the 
challenges of the 21st century. U.S. efforts include:

-- Program Oversight--Following up on last year's creation of the Office 
of Internal Oversight Services at UN headquarters, the U.S. is working 
to expand the inspector general concept to the UN's major specialized 
agencies;

-- Reducing Bureaucracies--Important progress has been made in 
streamlining the UN system and the U.S. continues to work on reinventing 
a number of UN agencies;

-- Improving Management--The U.S. applauds the initiatives of the    
Under Secretary General for Administration and Management, whose agenda 
for changing the management culture of the UN includes shaping a 
personnel system that gives more authority to managers, rewards merit, 
and improves accountability;

-- Security Council Reform--The U.S. supports permanent seats on the 
Security Council for Japan and Germany and a modest enlargement of the 
Council to 20 seats;

-- Improving Responsiveness--The U.S. seeks a UN able to respond to 
humanitarian crises more rapidly, economically, and effectively.


SECURITY COUNCIL

Under the UN Charter, the Security Council has "primary responsibility 
for the maintenance of international peace and security," and all UN 
members "agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security 
Council in accordance with the present Charter."

Other organs of the UN make recommendations to member governments. The 
Security Council, however, has the power to make decisions which member 
governments must carry out under the Charter. A representative of each 
Security Council member must always be present at UN headquarters so 
that the Council can meet at any time.

Decisions in the Security Council on all substantive matters--for 
example, a decision calling for direct measures related to the 
settlement of a dispute-- require the affirmative votes of nine members, 
including the support of all five permanent members. A negative vote--a 
veto--by a permanent member prevents adoption of a proposal that has 
received the required number of affirmative votes. Abstention is not 
regarded as a veto.

A state that is a member of the UN, but not of the Security Council, may 
participate in Security Council discussions in which the Council agrees 
that the country's interests are particularly affected. In recent years, 
the Council has interpreted this loosely, enabling many countries to 
take part in its discussions. Non-members routinely are invited to take 
part when they are parties to disputes being considered by the Council.

Under Chapter Six of the Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes," the 
Security Council "may investigate any dispute, or any situation which 
might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute."  The 
Council may "recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment" 
if it determines that the situation might endanger international peace 
and security. These recommendations are not binding on UN members.

Under Chapter Seven, the Council has broader power to decide what 
measures are to be taken in situations involving "threats to the peace, 
breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression."  In such situations, the 
Council is not limited to recommendations but may take action, including 
the use of armed force "to maintain or restore international peace and 
security."  This was the basis for UN armed action in Korea in 1950 and 
the use of coalition forces in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. Decisions taken 
under Chapter Seven, such as economic sanctions, are binding on UN 
members.


MAINTAINING THE PEACE

The UN's role in international collective security is defined by the UN 
Charter, which gives the Security Council the power to:

-- Investigate any situation threatening international peace; 

-- Recommend procedures for peaceful resolution of a dispute; 

-- Call upon other member nations to completely or partially interrupt 
economic relations as well as sea, air, postal, and radio 
communications, or to sever diplomatic relations; and

-- Enforce its decisions militarily, if necessary.

The United Nations has helped prevent many outbreaks of international 
violence from growing into wider conflicts. It has opened the way to 
negotiated settlements through its service as a center of debate and 
negotiation, as well as through UN-sponsored fact-finding missions, 
mediators, and truce observers. UN peacekeeping forces, comprised of 
troops and equipment supplied by member nations, have usually been able 
to limit or prevent conflict. Some conflicts, however, have proven to be 
beyond the capacity of the UN to influence. Key to the success of UN 
peacekeeping efforts is the willingness of the parties to a conflict to 
come to terms peacefully through a viable political process.

UN peacekeeping initiatives have ranged from small, diplomatic or 
political delegations to large mobilizations, the most extensive of 
which was the 500,000-strong 1950-53 defense of South Korea against an 
attack by North Korea. At present, the largest peacekeeping operations 
are in the former Yugoslavia, where about 40,000 peacekeepers from 38 
nations are deployed. Until March 31, 1995, this was one operation 
(UNPROFOR). On that date the Security Council adopted three resolutions: 
establishing the UN Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia (UNCRO); 
extending UNPROFOR in Bosnia; and establishing the UN Preventive 
Deployment Force (UNPREDEP) in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 
(FYROM).

Since the end of the Cold War, the number of peacekeeping operations has 
risen dramatically. More operations have been mounted since 1991 than in 
the previous 46 years. During 1991-92, peacekeeping activities were 
established in the Mideast (UNIKOM), Africa (UNTAG and MINURSO), 
Cambodia (UNAMIC and UNTAC), and the former Yugoslavia (UNPROFOR). Since 
1992, 10 more peacekeeping, observer, and assistance operations have 
been authorized: Chad (UNASOG), Mozambique (ONUMOZ), Rwanda 
(UNAMIR/UNOMUR), Somalia (UNOSOM II), El Salvador (ONUSAL), Liberia 
(UNOMIL), Georgia (UNOMIG), Haiti (UNMIH), Tajikistan (UNMOT) and Angola 
(UNAVEM).

Several of these operations have been completed and their mandates 
terminated in the past few years. These include UNTAG, UNASOG, UNTAC, 
ONUMOZ, UNOSOM II, and ONUSAL.

The proliferation of these operations reflects the view that, in the 
post-Cold War era, the UN can play an important role in defusing 
regional conflicts. These new operations also expand the traditional 
peacekeeping mandate to include such responsibilities as supervising 
elections, monitoring human rights, training police, and overseeing 
civil administration. With its higher profile, and facing increasing 
demands on its resources, the UN has had to make difficult choices. 
While multilateral peace operations can be a useful tool in resolving 
and containing conflicts, limited funds and the UN's own limited 
capacity to plan and implement peacekeeping operations require that 
priorities be established.

The Clinton Administration responded to the challenges posed by the 
growing number and complexity of UN peacekeeping operations by 
formulating a policy framework suited for this new environment. This 
policy addresses six major areas of reform: Improving how the U.S. 
decides which peace operations to support and whether U.S. troops should 
take part; reducing both U.S. and overall costs for UN peace operations; 
reaffirming long-standing U.S. policy on command and control of American 
military forces in UN operations; reforming UN management of those 
operations; improving the manner by which the U.S. funds and manages 
peace operations; and improving the standard of consultations between 
the U.S. executive branch and Congress on peace operations.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY

The General Assembly is made up of all 185 UN members, minus Yugoslavia, 
which was suspended in 1992. The Assembly meets in regular session once 
a year under a president elected from among the representatives. The 
regular session usually begins on the third Tuesday in September and 
ends in mid-December. Special sessions can be convened at the request of 
the Security Council, of a majority of UN members, or, if the majority 
concurs, of a single member. A special session will be held in October 
1995 at the head of government level to commemorate the UN's 50th 
anniversary.

Voting in the General Assembly on important questions--recommendations 
on peace and security; election of members to organs; admission, 
suspension, and expulsion of members; budgetary matters--is by a two-
thirds majority of those present and voting. Other questions are decided 
by majority vote. Each member country has one vote. Apart from approval 
of budgetary matters, including adoption of a scale of assessment, 
Assembly resolutions are not binding on the members. The Assembly may 
make recommendations on any matters within the scope of the UN, except 
matters of peace and security under Security Council consideration.

As the only UN organ in which all members are represented, the Assembly 
serves as a forum for members to launch initiatives on international 
questions of peace, economic progress, and human rights. It can initiate 
studies; make recommendations; develop and codify international law; 
promote human rights; and further international economic, social, 
cultural, and educational programs.

The Assembly may take action on maintaining international peace if the 
Security Council is unable, usually due to disagreement among the 
permanent members, to exercise its primary responsibility. The "Uniting 
for Peace" resolutions, adopted in 1950, empower the Assembly to convene 
in emergency special session to recommend collective measures--including 
the use of armed force--in the case of a breach of the peace or act of 
aggression. Two-thirds of the members must approve any such 
recommendation. Emergency special sessions under this procedure have 
been held on nine occasions. The most recent, in 1982, considered the 
situation in the occupied Arab territories following Israel's unilateral 
extension of its laws, jurisdiction, and administration to the Golan 
Heights.

During the 1980s, the Assembly became a forum for the North-South 
dialogue--the discussion of issues between industrialized nations and 
developing countries. These issues came to the fore because of the 
phenomenal growth and changing makeup of the UN membership. In 1945, the 
UN had 51 members. It now has 185, of which more than two-thirds are 
developing countries. Because of their numbers, developing countries are 
often able to determine the agenda of the Assembly, the character of its 
debates, and the nature of its decisions. For many developing countries, 
the UN is the source of much of their diplomatic influence and the 
principal outlet for their foreign relations initiatives.

Economic and Social Council

The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) assists the General Assembly in 
promoting international economic and social cooperation and development. 
ECOSOC has 54 members, 18 of whom are elected each year by the General 
Assembly for a three-year term. The U.S. has been a member since the UN 
was founded. ECOSOC meets once a year. The president is elected for a 
one-year term. Voting is by simple majority.

Through much of its history, ECOSOC has served primarily as a discussion 
vehicle for economic and social issues. ECOSOC had little authority to 
force action and a number of member states were concerned that its 
utility was only marginal. However, beginning in 1992, the U.S. and 
other nations began an effort to make ECOSOC more relevant by 
strengthening its policy responsibilities in economic, social, and 
related fields, particularly in furthering development objectives.

The resulting reform made ECOSOC the oversight and policy-  setting body 
for UN operational development activities and established smaller 
executive boards for the UN Development Program (UNDP), UN Population 
Fund (UNFPA), and UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) which would provide those 
agencies with operating guidance and promote more effective management. 
The reform also gave ECOSOC a strong hand in ensuring that UN agencies 
coordinated their work on issues of common interest, such as narcotics 
control, human rights, the alleviation of poverty, and HIV/AIDS 
prevention.

One positive impact of this reform was the manner in which the UN 
development system began to respond more coherently and efficiently to 
humanitarian crises around the world. The creation of the UN Department 
of Humanitarian Affairs (DHA) in 1993, whose activities are reviewed 
biennially by ECOSOC, also has strengthened coordination among the UN's 
operational relief agencies in such places as Bosnia, Cambodia, and 
Rwanda.

Another example was the ECOSOC decision in 1994 to authorize the 
creation of a new joint and cosponsored UN program on HIV/AIDS. This 
program will bring together the existing AIDS-related resources and 
expertise of the World Health Organization, UNICEF, UNDP, UNFPA, UNESCO, 
and the World Bank into one consolidated global program, eliminating 
duplication of effort and enhancing the ability of member states to cope 
with the AIDS pandemic. It is expected to begin operation in January 
1996.

Trusteeship Council

The UN trusteeship system was established to help ensure that non-self-
governing territories were administered in the best interests of the 
inhabitants and of international peace and security. Those numerous 
territories--most of them former mandates of the League of Nations or 
territories taken from enemy states at the end of World War II--have all 
now attained self-government or independence, either as separate nations 
or by joining neighboring independent countries. The last, Palau, became 
a member of the UN in December 1994. The Trusteeship Council has 
suspended its activities.

International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of 
the UN. Established in 1945, its main functions are to decide cases 
submitted to it by states and to give advisory opinions on legal 
questions submitted to it by the General Assembly or Security Council, 
or by such specialized agencies as may be authorized to do so by the 
General Assembly in accordance with the UN Charter.

The seat of the Court is in The Hague, Netherlands. It is composed of 15 
judges elected by the General Assembly and the Security Council from a 
list of persons nominated by the national groups in the Permanent Court 
of Arbitration. Judges serve for nine years and may be re-elected. No 
two may be nationals of the same country. One-third of the Court is 
elected every three years. An American has always been a member of the 
Court. Questions before the Court are decided by a majority of judges 
present.

Only states may be parties in cases before the International Court of 
Justice. This does not preclude private interests from being the subject 
of proceedings if one state brings the case against another. While 
jurisdiction of the Court is based on the consent of the parties, any 
judgments reached are binding. The Security Council can be called upon 
by a party to determine measures to be taken to enforce a judgment if 
the other party fails to perform its obligations. The U.S. accepted the 
Court's compulsory jurisdiction in 1946 but withdrew its acceptance 
following the Court's decision in a 1986 case involving activities in 
Nicaragua. Examples of cases include:

--A complaint by the U.S. in 1980 that Iran was detaining American 
diplomats in Tehran in violation of international law;

-- A dispute between Tunisia and Libya over the delimitation of the 
continental shelf between them;

-- A dispute over the course of the maritime boundary dividing the U.S. 
and Canada in the Gulf of Maine area.

Secretariat

The Secretariat is headed by the Secretary General, assisted by a staff 
of international civil servants worldwide. It provides studies, 
information, and facilities needed by UN bodies for their meetings. It 
also carries out tasks as directed by the Security Council, the General 
Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and other UN bodies. The 
Charter provides that the staff be chosen by application of the "highest 
standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity," with due regard for 
the importance of recruiting on a wide geographical basis.

The Charter provides that the staff shall not seek or receive 
instructions from any authority other than the UN. Each UN member is 
enjoined to respect the international character of the Secretariat and 
not seek to influence its staff. The Secretary General alone is 
responsible for staff selection.

The Secretary General's duties include helping resolve international 
disputes, administering peacekeeping operations, organizing 
international conferences, gathering information on the implementation 
of Security Council decisions, and consulting with member governments 
regarding various initiatives. Key Secretariat offices in this area 
include the Department of Humanitarian Affairs and the Department of 
Peacekeeping Operations. The Secretary General may bring to the 
attention of the Security Council any matter that, in his or her 
opinion, may threaten international peace and security.


THE UN FAMILY

In addition to the principal UN organs, the UN family includes nearly 30 
major programs or agencies. Some were in existence before the UN was 
created and are related to it by agreement. Others were established by 
the General Assembly. Each provides expertise in a specific area. Those 
agencies include:

UN Children's Fund (UNICEF). Headquartered in New York City, UNICEF 
provides long-term humanitarian and developmental assistance to children 
and mothers in developing countries. A voluntarily funded agency, UNICEF 
relies on contributions from governments and private donors. Its 
programs emphasize developing community-level services to promote the 
health and well-being of children. UNICEF was awarded the Nobel Peace 
Prize in 1965.

UN Development Program (UNDP). Headquartered in New York City, UNDP has 
a U.S. administrator and is the largest multilateral source of grant 
technical assistance in the world. Voluntarily funded, it provides 
expert advice, training, and limited equipment to developing countries, 
with increasing emphasis on assistance to the poorest countries.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Headquartered in Vienna, 
Austria, the IAEA seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy 
and to inhibit its use for military purposes. The IAEA's programs 
encourage the development of the peaceful application of nuclear 
technology, provide international safeguards against its misuse, and 
facilitate the application of safety measures in its use. IAEA expanded 
its nuclear safety efforts in response to the Chernobyl disaster in 
1986.

World Food Program (WFP).  Headquartered in Rome, Italy, the WFP 
distributes food commodities to support development projects, to long-
term refugees and displaced persons, and as emergency food assistance in 
situations of natural and man-made disasters. Development projects, 
traditionally two-thirds of WFP programs, now constitute about 40%, as 
emergency and protracted refugee situations result in increasing demands 
for WFP programs and resources. WFP operates exclusively on 
contributions of commodities and cash donated by governments.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Headquartered in Rome, Italy, 
FAO programs seek to raise levels of nutrition and standards of living; 
to improve the production, processing, marketing, and distribution of 
food and agricultural products; to promote rural development; and, by 
these means, to eliminate hunger. FAO's efforts to eliminate the 
Mediterranean fruit fly from the Caribbean Basin benefit the U.S. citrus 
industry. Likewise, U.S. cattle raisers have a direct stake in FAO 
efforts to eliminate a tick found in the Caribbean that carries a 
threatening cattle disease.

World Health Organization (WHO). Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, 
WHO acts as a coordinating authority on international public health. 
After years of fighting smallpox, WHO declared in 1979 that the disease 
had been eradicated. It is nearing success in developing vaccines 
against malaria and schistosomiasis and aims to eradicate polio by the 
year 2000. WHO is also working toward the goal of "health for all by the 
year 2000" by seeking a level of health for all the world's people that 
will enable them to lead productive lives.

Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Headquartered 
in Geneva, Switzerland, UNHCR protects and supports refugees at the 
request of a government or the UN and assists in their return or 
resettlement. UNHCR was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1954 and 1982.

Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. At the urging of 
the U.S. and other nations, the General Assembly established the Office 
of High Commissioner for Human Rights in 1993. The High Commissioner's 
mandate includes promotion and protection of human rights worldwide 
through direct contact with individual governments and the provision of 
technical assistance where appropriate. Holding the rank of Under 
Secretary General, the High Commissioner coordinates human rights 
activities throughout the UN system and supervises the UN Center for 
Human Rights in Geneva, Switzerland.

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Headquartered in 
Montreal, Canada, ICAO develops the principles and techniques of 
international air navigation and fosters the planning and development of 
international air transport to ensure safe and orderly growth. The ICAO 
Council adopts standards and recommended practices concerning air 
navigation, prevention of unlawful interference, and facilitation of 
border-crossing procedures for international civil aviation. Standards 
developed by ICAO directly affect U.S. commercial air travel and benefit 
U.S. industries, which supply the greatest share of aircraft and 
equipment worldwide.

International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Headquartered in Geneva, 
Switzerland, ITU promotes the improvement of telecommunication services 
worldwide. As the largest  producer and supplier of telecommunications 
equipment, the U.S. benefits from the technical assistance extended to 
developing countries from agencies such as the ITU.

International Maritime Organization (IMO). Headquartered in London, 
U.K., IMO promotes cooperation among governments and the shipping 
industry to improve maritime safety and to prevent marine pollution. 
Recent U.S. initiatives at IMO have included amendments to the Safety of 
Life at Sea Convention, which upgraded fire protection standards on 
passenger ships, and amendments to the Convention on the Prevention of 
Maritime Pollution, which required double hulls on all tankers. U.S. 
maritime interests benefit directly from IMO work on standardization, 
safety, and ocean anti-pollution programs.

World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Headquartered in Geneva, 
Switzerland, WMO provides weather information to a wide range of 
Americans, including farmers, mariners, aviators, and travelers. Its 
work has significant economic and social impact on the U.S.

International Labor Organization (ILO). Headquartered in Geneva, 
Switzerland, ILO seeks to strengthen worker rights, improve working and 
living conditions, create employment, and provide information and 
training opportunities. ILO programs include the occupational safety and 
health hazard alert system and the labor standards and human rights 
programs.

UN Environment Program (UNEP). Headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya, UNEP 
coordinates UN environmental activities, assisting developing countries 
in implementing environmentally sound policies. UNEP has developed 
guidelines and treaties on issues such as the international transport of 
potentially harmful chemicals, transboundary air pollution, and 
contamination of international waterways.


ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT

The UN Charter, adopted in 1945, envisaged a system of regulation that 
would ensure "the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and 
economic resources."  The advent of nuclear weapons came only weeks 
after the signing of the Charter and provided immediate impetus to 
concepts of arms limitation and disarmament. In fact, the first 
resolution of the first meeting of the General Assembly (January 24, 
1946) was entitled "The Establishment of a Commission to Deal with the 
Problems Raised by the Discovery of Atomic Energy" and called upon the 
commission to make specific proposals for "the elimination from national 
armaments of atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to 
mass destruction."

The UN has established several   forums to address multilateral 
disarmament issues. The principal ones are the First Committee of the UN 
General Assembly and the UN Disarmament Commission. Items on the agenda 
include consideration of the possible merits of a nuclear test ban, 
outer-space arms control, efforts to ban chemical weapons, nuclear and 
conventional disarmament, nuclear-weapon-
free zones, reduction of military budgets, and measures to strengthen 
international security.

The Conference on Disarmament is the sole forum established by the 
international community for the negotiation of multilateral arms control 
and disarmament agreements. It has 38 members representing all areas of 
the world, including the five major nuclear-weapon states (China, 
France, Russia, U.K., and U.S.). While the conference is not formally a 
UN organization, it is linked to the UN through a personal 
representative of the Secretary General; this representative serves as 
the secretary general of the conference. Resolutions adopted by the 
General Assembly often request the conference to consider specific 
disarmament matters. In turn, the conference annually reports on its 
activities to the General Assembly.


HUMAN RIGHTS

The pursuit of human rights was one of the central reasons for creating 
the United Nations. World War II atrocities and genocide led to a ready 
consensus that the new organization must work to prevent any similar 
tragedies in the future. An early objective was creating a legal 
framework for considering and acting on complaints about human rights 
violations.

The UN Charter obliges all member nations to promote "universal respect 
for, and observance of, human rights" and to take "joint and separate 
action" to that end. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though 
not legally binding, was adopted by the General Assembly in 1948 as a 
common standard of achievement for all. The UN Human Rights Commission 
(UNHRC), under ECOSOC, is the primary UN body charged with promoting 
human rights, primarily through investigations and offers of technical 
assistance. The General Assembly regularly takes up human rights issues. 
The position of High Commissioner for Human Rights was established by 
the General Assembly in 1993 at the urging of the U.S. and other 
nations. The High Commissioner, as the official principally responsible 
for all UN human rights activities, supervises the UN Center for Human 
Rights in Geneva and coordinates human rights promotion and protection 
worldwide through direct contact with individual governments.

The U.S. considers the United Nations to be a first line of defense of 
the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 
It is also a means by which those principles can be applied more broadly 
around the world. A case in point is support by the United Nations for 
countries in transition to democracy. Technical assistance in providing 
free and fair elections, improving judicial structures, drafting 
constitutions, training human rights officials, and transforming armed 
movements into political parties have contributed significantly to 
democratization worldwide.

The United Nations is also a forum in which to support the right of 
women to participate fully in the political, economic, and social life 
of their countries.


INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES

The member countries of the UN and its specialized agencies--the 
"shareholders" of the system--give guidance and make decisions on 
substantive and administrative issues in regular meetings held 
throughout each year. Governing bodies made up of member states include 
not only the General Assembly, ECOSOC, and the Security Council, but 
also counterpart bodies dealing with the governance of all other UN 
system agencies. For example, the World Health Assembly and the 
Executive Board oversee the work of WHO. Each year, the Department of 
State accredits U.S. delegations to more than 600 meetings of governing 
bodies.

When an issue is considered particularly important, the General Assembly 
may convene an international conference to focus global attention and 
build a consensus for consolidated action. High-level U.S. delegations 
use these opportunities to promote U.S. policy viewpoints and develop 
international agreements on future activities. Recent examples include:

-- The UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de 
Janeiro, Brazil, in June 1992, led to the creation of the UN Commission 
on Sustainable Development to advance the conclusions reached in Agenda 
21, the final text of agreements negotiated by governments at UNCED;

-- The World Conference on Population and Development, held in Cairo, 
Egypt, in September 1994, approved a program of action to address the 
critical challenges and interrelationships between population and 
sustainable development over the next 20 years;

-- The World Summit on Trade Efficiency, held in October 1994 in 
Columbus, Ohio, co-sponsored by UN Conference on Trade and Development 
(UNCTAD), the city of Columbus, and private-sector business, focused on 
the use of modern information technology to expand international trade;

-- The World Summit for Social Development, held in March 1995 in 
Copenhagen, Denmark, underscored national responsibility for sustainable 
development and secured high-level commitment to plans that invest in 
basic education, health care, and economic opportunity for all, 
including women and girls;

-- The Fourth World Conference on Women, planned for Beijing, China, in 
September 1995, will seek to accelerate implementation of the historic 
agreements reached at the Third World Conference held in Nairobi, Kenya, 
in 1985; and

-- The Second UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), to be 
convened in June 1996 in Istanbul, Turkey, will consider the challenges 
of human settlement development and management in the 21st century.


FINANCING

The UN system is financed in two ways: assessed and voluntary 
contributions from member states.

The regular two-year budgets of the UN and its specialized agencies are 
funded by assessments. In the case of the UN, the General Assembly 
approves the regular budget and determines the assessment for each 
member. This is broadly based on the relative capacity of each country 
to pay, as measured by national income statistics, although there are 
some variations.

The Assembly has established the principle that no member should pay 
more than 25% of the regular budget. The U.S. is the only nation 
affected by this limitation. If the standard criterion of "capacity to 
pay" were applied in the same manner to the U.S. as to other major 
industrial powers, the U.S. would be assessed at about 28%.

Under the scale of assessments adopted for 1995, other major 
contributors to the regular UN budget are Japan (14%), Germany (9%), 
Russia (6%), France (6%), the U.K. (5%), Italy (5%), and Canada (3%). 
For 1995, assessment against members was $1.3 billion per year; the net 
U.S. share was $304 million. An additional $1.5 billion was assessed to 
finance the activities of 11 UN-affiliated agencies, including IAEA, 
ILO, and WHO; the U.S. share was $361 million.

Due to the dramatic increase in the number of UN peacekeeping operations 
since 1991, expenditures for these operations have increased 
significantly. The Clinton Administration is working to reduce overall 
peacekeeping costs and secure the adoption of a financing system that 
does not place undue burdens on any one nation. The assessed budget for 
UN peacekeeping activities in 1995 was $3.2 billion; the U.S. assessed 
share was $1 billion.

Special UN programs not included in the regular budget--such as UNICEF 
and WFP--are financed by voluntary contributions from member 
governments. In 1995, such contributions totaled $6.8 billion; the U.S. 
contribution was approximately $1.1 billion. Much of that is not cash, 
but rather agricultural commodities donated for afflicted populations.


U.S. REPRESENTATION

The U.S. Permanent Mission to the UN in New York is headed by the U.S. 
Representative to the UN, with the rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and 
Plenipotentiary. The current U.S. Permanent Representative is also a 
member of the President's Cabinet. The mission serves as the channel of 
communication for the U.S. Government with the UN organs, agencies, and 
commissions at the UN headquarters and with the other permanent missions 
accredited to the UN and the non-member observer missions. The U.S. 
mission has a professional staff made up largely of career Foreign 
Service officers, including specialists in political, economic, social, 
financial, legal, and military issues.

The U.S. also maintains missions to international organizations in 
Geneva, Rome, Vienna, Nairobi, Montreal, London, and Paris. These 
missions report to the Department of State and receive guidance on 
questions of policy from the President, through the Secretary of State. 
Relations with the UN and its family of agencies are coordinated by the 
Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs.

The U.S. Mission to the United Nations is located at 799 United Nations 
Plaza, New York, NY 10017  (tel. 212-415-4000).  (###)


[Box]

Preamble to 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.  

[End Box]

[Box]

UN Secretaries General

Trygve Lie (Norway)--Feb. 1, 1946-April 10, 1953
Dag Hammarskjold (Sweden)--April 10, 1953-Sept. 8, 1961
U Thant (Burma)--Nov. 3, 1961-Dec. 31, 1971
(Initially appointed acting Secretary General; formally appointed Nov. 
30, 1962)
Kurt Waldheim (Austria)--Jan. 1, 1972-Dec. 31, 1981
Javier Perez de Cuellar (Peru)--Jan. 1, 1982-Dec. 31, 1991
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt)--Jan. 1, 1992-present  

[End box]

[Box]

U.S. Representatives To the United Nations

Edward R. Stettinius, Jr.--March 1946-June 1946
Herschel V. Johnson (acting)--June 1946-Jan. 1947
Warren R. Austin--Jan. 1947-Jan. 1953
Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.--Jan. 1953-Sept. 1960
James J. Wadsworth--Sept. 1960-Jan. 1961
Adlai E. Stevenson--Jan. 1961-July 1965
Arthur J. Goldberg--July 1965-June 1968
George W. Ball--June 1968-Sept. 1968
James Russell Wiggins--Oct. 1968-Jan. 1969
Charles W. Yost--Jan. 1969-Feb. 1971
George Bush--Feb. 1971-Jan. 1973
John P. Scali--Feb. 1973-June 1975
Daniel P. Moynihan--June 1975-Feb. 1976
William W. Scranton--March 1976-Jan. 1977
Andrew Young--Jan. 1977-April 1979
Donald McHenry--April 1979-Jan. 1981
Jeane J. Kirkpatrick--Feb. 1981-April 1985
Vernon Walters--May 1985-Jan. 1989
Thomas R. Pickering--March 1989-May 1992
Edward J. Perkins--May 1992-Jan. 1993
Madeleine K. Albright--Feb. 1993-present  

[End box]



ARTICLE 6

Focus on the UN:  Why the UN Is Good for the U.S.

The UN is a valuable instrument for extending U.S. influence and for 
protecting U.S. interests more effectively in an increasingly complex 
and, at times, chaotic world. Because virtually all countries of the 
world are members, they can work cooperatively to find solutions to 
problems that have a global impact. Through active participation and 
leadership in the UN and its bodies, the U.S. can influence world 
developments more efficiently, more economically, and more effectively 
than it could if it had to deal with countries individually on every 
issue.

The cost of a UN membership for each American per year for everything 
from blue helmets for peacekeepers to polio vaccines for babies is about 
the price of a night at the movies. The "UN ticket" is one of the best 
U.S. investments. What are the returns on this investment?

--  It buys programs that could save succeeding generations from war and 
famine.

--  It pays for programs to protect the U.S. against harm to its 
environment and against the spread of diseases and dangerous drugs.

--  It makes it safer for Americans to travel abroad or to send mail 
overseas.

--  It helps Americans obtain worldwide industrial, food, and health 
standards, and protects the U.S. economy from unfair trading practices.

--  It boosts the U.S. economy by facilitating trade and investment 
abroad by U.S. business.

Security and Safety Benefits

The UN Security Council is a forum for dealing with conflicts that can 
spill over borders and endanger U.S. friends and allies. It helps 
resolve threats and is a useful tool for sharing the costs of protecting 
U.S. security.

The International Atomic Energy Agency plays a critical role in American 
efforts to stem nuclear weapons proliferation in Iraq and the rest of 
the world. It also promotes multilateral efforts to enhance radiation 
protection and nuclear safety, and helps nations develop peaceful uses 
for nuclear power. The U.S. economy profits because the United States is 
a world leader in the development and export of technology for peaceful 
uses of nuclear power.

The UN International Drug Control Program is a major tool confronting 
the drug problem in the United States. It promotes adherence to 
international drug control treaties, and provides a comprehensive 
approach to fighting drug crimes. The UN increasingly provides 
incentives for farmers who grow poppies and other drug crops to 
substitute legal cash crops. The UN is devising more effective means of 
seizing the assets of drug criminals and limiting their ability to use 
banks to launder money. The UN improves the ability of customs and 
narcotics officers to investigate and prosecute offenders.

American travelers abroad benefit directly from U.S. membership in the 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which sets the 
standards for the safe conduct of international civil aviation. ICAO's 
high standards for aviation safety and airport security help protect 
Americans when they travel overseas and benefit the U.S. aviation 
industry. Similarly, Americans benefit from the ship safety and 
pollution prevention standards developed by the International Maritime 
Organization.

Health Benefits

Environmental pollution abroad also affects the environment in the 
United States. Nuclear waste or other pollutants in China's air can 
damage Wisconsin milk and cause cancer in Vermont. Dumping oil and 
mercury in the oceans can destroy U.S. fishing industries and harm its 
citizens. By working with other countries in the UN Environment Program, 
the U.S. reduces these environmental threats to Americans. Through its 
work with UN agencies and in UN conferences to improve the global 
climate, the U.S. has helped establish international industrial 
standards that will reduce skin cancers, slow the spread of deserts, and 
increase the amount of arable land to feed a growing world population.

The World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, and the UN High 
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) protect the health of Americans by 
doing daily battle against infectious diseases, including AIDS.

--  WHO led the effort in the worldwide elimination of smallpox, 
engineered the first international approach to rabies, set up an early 
warning communications system for epidemics, and established approaches 
for combatting today's emerging viral and bacteriological threats.

--  UNICEF has been remarkably successful in immunizing children and 
women of childbearing age against diseases such as measles, polio, 
diphtheria, and tetanus. Under UNICEF's leadership, immunization of the 
world's children against preventable diseases has increased from 20% in 
1980 to 80% today.

--  The UNHCR works to prevent the spread of diseases among the refugees 
and displaced persons encamped near areas of conflict. Unchecked, these 
diseases could spread widely and threaten Americans at home and abroad.

Economic Benefits

U.S. membership in the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) provides 
access to weather data of immense benefit to American farmers and 
American shipping and aviation. By sharing its data with other countries 
through the WMO, the U.S. gains access to their data. This benefits the 
U.S. by avoiding the great cost of gathering the data independently, 
reducing crop losses, and increasing the safety of American shipping and 
aviation.

Membership in the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) provides a 
forum to allocate worldwide radio frequencies and to coordinate orbits 
for communication satellites. It also reduces interference problems for 
international radio and television broadcasting and prevents 
interference with the frequencies used by aircraft and ships for 
navigation. The ITU conducts important work in standardization, which 
has resulted in the adoption of U.S. standards as global standards, thus 
increasing the export of U.S. telecommunication products and services. 
Participation by the U.S. telecommunication industry in ITU meetings and 
study groups has reinforced U.S. leadership in the field. 

UN membership also benefits Americans every time they mail a letter to 
another country because the United States is a member of the Universal 
Postal Union (UPU). The UPU sets standards to ensure safe and secure 
handling of mail. It also aids U.S. businesses by helping to ensure fair 
and competitive international postal pricing.

American agriculture has saved billions of dollars because of programs 
to combat plant, pest, and animal disease control by the UN Food and 
Agriculture Organization (FAO). The FAO, jointly with the World Health 
Organization, sponsors a vital trade standardization program that sets 
international food product safety and quality standards. This creates a 
level playing field for American food exports, now exceeding $40 billion 
a year.

Membership in the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPU) gives 
Americans another major economic boost. American intellectual property 
is valued today in billions of dollars of exported movies, music videos, 
books, and computer software every year. The market for these exports 
would be lost or substantially weakened without international rules 
prohibiting piracy of these intellectual products.

Several other UN organizations do work that benefits American business. 
U.S. companies provide goods and services for long-term development 
projects of the UN Development Program (UNDP) in developing countries. 
UNDP provides technical assistance to clean up polluting industries and 
ensure that new plants use clean technologies, often of American origin. 
UNDP, for example, works to create open economies and stable democratic 
civil societies, resistant to conflict and attractive to U.S. trade and 
investment; it accomplishes this by running programs to create jobs for 
men and women worldwide; by promoting economic reform, privatization, 
and democratization; and by addressing health, education, and other 
basic needs.

The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has set up a global 
information network that links into the Internet to ensure that small- 
and medium-sized businesses in the U.S. and other countries can access 
the global marketplace. This promotes trade and enhances U.S. exports of 
goods and services in telecommunications and information technology for 
trade.

The UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs--in its project to develop 
better methods of early warning, prevention, and coping with natural and 
man-made disasters--also buys U.S. equipment and goods. UN programs 
support countries that are moving toward privatization and trade 
liberalization, and using the market to promote development, thereby 
helping to create future markets for U.S. goods and services.

Summary

UN organizations help build better nourished, healthier, and more 
prosperous populations in developing countries, which in turn contribute 
to a more secure international order and expanded markets for U.S. goods 
and services. For a minimal investment, Americans get all these benefits 
to their health, safety, convenience, and prosperity. (###)



ARTICLE 7

Focus on 4WCW: United States Actions and Priorities

The UN Fourth World Conference on Women will be held in Beijing from 
September 4-15, 1995. The final preparatory meeting for the conference 
was held at the United Nations in New York from March 15-April 7, 1995. 
At this meeting--held during the annual session of the UN Commission on 
the Status of Women, the preparatory body for the conference--
delegations negotiated a draft Platform for Action to be considered for 
adoption in Beijing. Following is an overview of the draft platform as 
it was negotiated at the New York meeting, describing U.S. actions and 
priorities.

Overall Message

The final draft of the Platform for Action to be adopted at the Fourth 
World Conference on Women in Beijing contains distinct elements that 
reflect a developing consensus around the world--a consensus that did 
not exist 10 years ago. The UN decade for women, 1975-85, and the 
document adopted at its culmination--the "Nairobi Forward Looking 
Strategies" (a plan for the years 1986-2000)--sought to advance the 
status of women working under the broad themes of equality, development, 
and peace.

The experiences of the past 10 years--a combination of research, 
analysis, legal reform, development work, and the networking and 
organizing efforts of women themselves--have brought worldwide 
realization that the only way to bring about equality, development, and 
peace is to empower women by integrating them into the mainstream where 
they can work in partnership with men at all levels and structures of 
society.

This directly mirrors the over-arching goal for the conference set by 
the United States. From the first paragraph of the mission statement to 
the final chapters on institutional and financial arrangements for 
implementation and follow-up, the draft platform calls for the 
empowerment of women; integration of women into the mainstream of all 
institutions of society; a gender perspective into all systems; and an 
equal partnership between men and women for the good of society.

The overall U.S. priority is to build on the commitments made at the 
past world conferences on women and on the recent world conferences on 
the Environment and Development in Rio, Human Rights in Vienna, 
Population and Development in Cairo, and Social Development in 
Copenhagen.

Platform Areas Requiring Extensive Negotiation

Human Rights. There are three sections on human rights: violence against 
women, the impact of armed conflict on women, and the human rights of 
women. Support for strong language in these sections and leadership to 
retain such language came from all regions of the world. The U.S. 
underscored governments' responsibility to ensure the human rights of 
women, and to advance women's legal equality and civil and political 
rights. African delegations, in particular, led the effort to call on 
governments to address harmful practices that lead to violence against 
women, and to review civil and customary law so as to reduce legal 
discrimination against women, in such areas, for example, as inheritance 
and property rights.

The section on violence against women provides a comprehensive 
definition of what constitutes such violence and calls on governments to 
take responsibility for preventing and punishing acts of violence. The 
platform also addresses the importance of preventive action, including 
through counseling and rehabilitative programs for offenders.

The sections on human rights and promoting peace focus on the fact that 
the human rights of women are--as stated in the Vienna Declaration 
adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993--an inalienable, 
integral, and indivisible part of universal human rights, and that 
governments and international organizations must ensure the protection 
of these rights.

Although agreement has been reached on a number of important issues, 
there was a strong effort by some countries to prevent any language that 
might broaden UN efforts in the area of human rights, and efforts by 
some to inject political issues into the debate. Thus, large portions of 
these sections remain bracketed.

The draft platform calls on the UN to integrate concern for the human 
rights of women into all its human rights activities. The U.S. took the 
lead in committing governments to train officials, including security 
and military personnel, in human rights and humanitarian law, and to 
punish violations against women.

The platform recognizes that if women are to fully exercise their 
rights, they must be informed about those rights. The U.S. was part of a 
broad consensus recognizing that innovative programs must be developed 
to help women achieve legal literacy so that they understand and 
exercise their rights.

Inequality in Power-sharing And Decision-making.  Drawing from the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides that everyone has 
a right to take part in the government of his or her country, the 
platform includes a section on the importance of increasing the 
participation of women in politics. Although there was disagreement over 
the types of mechanisms for facilitating this participation--with some 
countries favoring more affirmative measures--there was little 
disagreement expressed about the importance of this section.

Health. The U.S. goal was to take a lifespan approach to health, 
broadening attention to women of all ages and from diverse situations 
and backgrounds. In addition, progress was made in negotiating language 
on preventive programs, research, increased resources, and follow-up on 
women's health.

Issues related to breast and cervical cancer, and other cancers of the 
reproductive system, menopause and other conditions associated with 
aging, nutrition, substance abuse, and environmental and occupational 
health hazards are all addressed. Much of the text remaining in brackets 
is language that was previously agreed to in September 1994 at the 
International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo. 
Bracketed text primarily addresses reproductive and sexual health 
including in the sections addressing HIV/AIDS and other sexually 
transmitted diseases, reproductive rights, unsafe abortions, unwanted 
pregnancies, contraceptives, and the number of times language addressing 
parental involvement in adolescent services is included in the document.

Girls. Through the leadership of African states, the G-77--a group of 
about 132 developing countries-- introduced a new section for the 
platform focusing on eliminating discrimination and ensuring the rights 
of girls. The U.S. worked at the PrepCom to strengthen the proposed 
section by making it applicable globally rather than regionally. 
Bracketed language remains concerning discouragement of early marriage; 
addressing son preference that leads to prenatal sex selection; 
disparities in  access to food, health services, and education on 
reproduction; and the  prevention of sexually transmitted   diseases.

Poverty. The platform calls attention to the increasing burden of 
poverty on women--the feminization of poverty--and places women's 
situations in the context of the global economy and the effects of 
global economic policies. For this reason, there is a considerable 
amount of bracketed language--much of it involving "cause  and effect" 
relationships--calling for foreign debt cancellation and the allocation 
of resources. The U.S. supported, and consensus was reached, on strong 
language calling for economic opportunities for women and inclusion of 
women in economic policymaking, access for women to credit and savings 
mechanisms, and support services. Although much of the text related to 
macroeconomic policies and structural adjustment programs is bracketed, 
consensus language calls for structural adjustment programs to be 
designed to minimize their negative effects on vulnerable groups and to 
review the impact of structural adjustment programs by means of gender-
sensitive social impact assessments.

Education and Training. The U.S. supported the platform's emphasis on 
full participation of women and girls in life-long learning and in 
educational policy- and decision-making. The platform calls for equal 
access to education for women and girls; education, training, and 
retraining policies for women, particularly those re-entering the labor 
market; curricula free of gender stereotypes; and the reduction of 
female illiteracy and the promotion of family engagement in learning. 
Bracketed areas involve barriers to schooling for pregnant girls and 
young mothers, teacher training programs and materials to promote mutual 
respect and shared responsibilities between girls and boys, and 
religious expression in educational institutions.

Environment. The U.S. actively supported recognition of and action to 
address the data gap concerning women's susceptibilities and exposures 
to environmental hazards and toxic substances--the particular situation 
of women with low incomes, indigenous women, and minority women--the 
participation of women and girls at all levels of decision-making in 
both formal and informal arenas that influence environmental quality; 
and equal access to education, information, and resources in furtherance 
of environmental protection and natural resource management objectives. 
U.S. language relating to risks to women's health in low-income areas 
with high concentrations of polluting industrial facilities remains 
bracketed.

Economics. In the section on economic structures, the U.S. supported and 
introduced new language that focused on the need for wider acceptance of 
basic worker rights as minimum labor standards for women; facilitating 
women's access to credit and capital markets and training; and 
developing new, financial intermediaries to serve their needs, including 
reaching hard-to-serve women, such as those in rural areas.

Mechanisms. There is much in this chapter that was supported by the 
U.S., including improved gender-sensitive analysis of statistics, 
information, and policy analysis; anti-discrimination; promotion of 
family-friendly policies for both women and men; and the acceptance and 
use of life-long learning for women and men in and out of school 
environments.

The platform urges governments to make efforts to measure and better 
understand unremunerated work, and to seek to develop methods to assess 
its value in quantitative terms for possible reflection in accounts that 
are separate from but consistent with core national accounts.

Document-Wide Features

Gender. A few countries moved to delete or bracket the word "gender" 
throughout the text. In order to resolve this issue, a special working 
group met in New York in May 1995. The U.S. joined consensus on the 
adoption of a chairman's statement that will appear in the conference 
report. The statement reaffirms that "gender," as used in the platform, 
is intended to be interpreted and understood as it is in ordinary, 
generally accepted usage.

Diversity. The U.S. made inclusiveness a priority, working to ensure 
that the diversity of women was recognized  and that some women face 
additional barriers to advancement because of factors other than gender. 
This concept is recognized throughout the document; for example, the 
U.S. and other supporters, working with women them- selves, were 
successful in including women with disabilities and those from ethnic 
and racial minorities. One paragraph, early in the platform, describes 
the diverse situations of women which should be incorporated into action 
plans. Because it is bracketed, it will be negotiated in Beijing.

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). The U.S. strongly supported 
recognition of the role NGOs play in policy planning, development, 
implementation, and monitoring of programs for the advancement of women, 
and urged in several places in the document that governments work in 
partnership with NGOs, grant NGOs legal status and protection, and 
permit the independence of NGOs, including financial independence. Some 
delegations within the G-77 strongly oppose a monitoring role for NGOs. 
The U.S. has consistently supported inclusion of monitoring.

Young Women. Working with the youth caucus, the U.S. introduced language 
in the Global Framework calling attention to the importance of young 
people in shaping the next century, and the commitment that the 
international community must make to prepare them for the role they must 
play in the future. Young women should be part of the process--working 
to ensure that their needs and futures are addressed. The U.S. also 
supported specific references to young women or youth throughout the 
document.

Implementation and Follow-up.  The U.S. supported language in the 
document introduced by Australia that invites governments to come to 
Beijing ready to state specific national commitments for priority action 
within the context of the platform. These commitments are seen as first 
steps toward implementation, not as a substitute for action on the 
entire document. Currently, the U.S. is giving serious thought to the 
nature of commitments and types of initiatives it may bring to Beijing 
that will result in practical outcomes for women and girls in the United 
States.

The U.S. also supported and contributed to language that calls upon 
governments to consult with relevant institutions and non-governmental 
organizations, preferably before the end of 1995, on how to best develop 
implementation strategies for the platform. Further, governments are 
called upon to have such plans developed and in place within a year. The 
U.S. is committed to an ongoing process between government and non-
governmental organizations to achieve full equality and partnership 
between women and men in the political, economic, and social structures 
of the U.S.

In this time of tight resources, the U.S.--as was true of donor nations 
in general--took a conservative approach toward finances and resources 
for implementation, urging refocusing and reallocation of existing 
resources where possible. Also, because the U.S. is interested in 
overall reform of the UN and better coordination and linkage between its 
agencies and the whole series of international conferences that have 
been held in the past 10 years,  the U.S. concentrated on ensuring   
that implementation of the Beijing  platform be in concert with this 
overall process. 

(###)


[Box]

Draft Platform for Action

Single copies of the full text of the draft Platform for Action are 
available from the Conference Secretariat at the United Nations.  
Requests may be made by fax (dial 212-963-3463) or by writing to:

Secretariat for the Fourth World Conference on Women
Division for the Advancement of Women, Room DC2-1234
United Nations
New York, NY  10017 

(###)



ARTICLE 8

What's in Print
Foreign Relations of The United States

The Department of State has recently released two volumes in the 
Department's long-standing historical documentary series--Foreign 
Relations.

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-63, Volume VII, Arms 
Control and Disarmament

This volume is one of 25 print volumes and six microfiche supplements 
that document U.S. foreign policy during the Administration of President 
John F. Kennedy. The tenacious effort of the Administration leading to 
the agreement to ban atmospheric nuclear testing is the principal 
subject covered in this volume.

Also documented are early U.S. arms control initiatives in the areas of 
curtailing the arms race in space, later resulting in the Outer Space 
Treaty of 1967; and prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons, 
culminating in the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

This volume presents the official record of U.S. policy drawn from 
documents originating in the Departments of State and Defense, the Arms 
Control and Disarmament Agency, the White House, and the Central 
Intelligence Agency, as well as papers of key participants.

For further information and/or a summary of the volume, contact David S. 
Patterson, Chief of the Arms Control and Economics Division, Office of 
the Historian at (202) 663-1127 or fax (202) 663-1289.


Foreign Relations, 1961-63, Volumes XIII, XIV, XV, Microfiche 
Supplement: Western Europe; Berlin

The three print volumes--XIII, West Europe and Canada; XIV, Berlin, 
1961-62; and XV, Berlin, 1962-63--all released in 1994--are supplemented 
by the release of a microfiche publication presenting approximately 
1,475 pages of records of U.S. participation in NATO and U.S. policy 
toward Berlin.

The documents on Berlin that cover the 1961-63 period date from the 
early months of the Kennedy Administration, when the U.S. and the Soviet 
Union came dangerously close to war over the future of divided Germany. 
Among other events, construction of the Berlin Wall in August 1961 and 
Soviet interference with Western air access to the city added to the 
tension. 

Reports by the U.S. delegations to the NATO Ministerial Meetings in 
Oslo, Paris, Athens, and Ottawa during the 1961-63 period follow the 
developments in NATO.

This publication contains a printed guide with a preface describing the 
methodology followed in selecting documents and evaluates the results of 
their declassification review. It also includes lists of files and other 
material consulted; lists of abbreviations and persons; summaries of 
Volumes XIII, XIV, and XV; and a list of documents including title, 
date, participants of from/to information, classification, source 
citation, number of pages, and a brief summary of the document. For 
further information, call (202) 663-1133 or fax (202) 663-1289.

Volume VII, Arms Control and Disarmament (GPO Stock No. 044-000- 02397-
1) may be purchased for $42 postpaid ($52 for foreign orders). The 
microfiche supplement (GPO Stock No. 044-000-02431-4) may be purchased 
for $21 postpaid ($26.25 for foreign orders). VISA, MasterCard, and 
personal checks are accepted. Order from:

U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents
P.O. Box 37154
Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954
To order by phone, call (202) 512-1800; to fax your order, call (202) 
512-2250. 

(###)

[END OF DISPATCH VOLUME 6, NO. 29]

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