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