U.S. Department of State Dispatch 
Volume 6, Number 42, October 16, 1995 
Bureau of Public Affairs 
 
 
 
ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE: 
 
1.  America Must Continue To Bear the Responsibility of World  
Leadership--President Clinton 
2.  Bosnians Agree To Implement Cease-fire 
3.  NATO and the International Community Work for Peace in Bosnia-- 
Secretary Christopher 
4.  The Case for the U.S. in the UN--Deputy Secretary Talbott 
5.  The U.S. and Vietnam: Working To Restore Economic Ties--Secretary  
Christopher, Vietnamese Foreign Minister Nguyen Manh Cam 
6.  Along the Path of Reform and Reconstruction in Cambodia--Winston  
Lord 
7.  Foreign Policy on the Cheap: You Get What You Pay For--Craig  
Johnstone 
8.  The International Affairs Budget--A Sound Investment In Global  
Leadership: Questions And Answers  
9.  U.S. Resources and Response To Developments in Liberia--George E.  
Moose  
10. 1995 Arms Control Accomplishments and Replacing COCOM--Thomas E.  
McNamara  
 
 
 
ARTICLE 1: 
 
America Must Continue To Bear the Responsibility of World Leadership 
President Clinton 
Remarks at Freedom House, Washington, DC, October 6, 1995 
 
Thank you very much. I'm honored to be introduced by someone who  writes  
so powerfully about the past and is working so effectively to shape the  
future. The Secretary of State and I have tried to encourage both those  
activities by keeping Win Lord busy at the State Department.  
 
I'm honored to be here with all of you and to be here at Freedom House.  
For more than 50 years, Freedom House has been a voice for tolerance for  
human dignity. People all over the world are better off because of your  
work. I'm very grateful that Freedom House has rallied this diverse and  
dynamic group. It's not every day that the Carnegie Endowment, the  
Progressive Policy Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the American  
Foreign Policy Council share the same masthead. I feel that I should try  
out a whole list of issues and try to get check-off here before the  
meeting goes any further.  
 
It does prove that there is a strong, dynamic center in our country that  
supports America's continued leadership in the world. We have all worked  
for that. And I want to publicly thank the Secretary of State and Tony  
Lake, the others in our foreign policy team--my counselor, Mr. McLarty,  
up here, who's been especially active on our behalf in Latin America. I  
want to thank all of you who have supported that continued endeavor.  
 
In 1991, I sought the Presidency because I believed it was essential to  
restore the American dream for all Americans and to reassert America's  
leadership in the post-Cold War world. As we move from the industrial to  
the information age, from the Cold War world to the global village, we  
have an extraordinary opportunity to advance our values at home and  
around the world. But we face some stiff challenges in doing so as well.  
 
We know that at home we have the responsibility to create opportunity  
for all of our citizens to make the most of their own lives--to  
strengthen their families and their communities. We know that abroad we  
have the responsibility to advance freedom and democracy--to advance  
prosperity and the preservation of our planet. We know that the forces  
of integration and economic progress also contain the seeds of  
disruption and of greater inequality. We know that families,  
communities, and nations are vulnerable to the organized forces of  
disintegration and the winner-take-all mentality in politics and  
economics. We know all this, and, therefore, we have an even heavier  
responsibility to advance our values and our interests.  
 
Freedom House, in my view, deserves extraordinary praise for its sense  
of timing of this meeting. I wonder if Adrian Karatnycky and his  
colleague knew that in the days prior to this discussion, the United  
States would have the opportunity to demonstrate so vividly, once again,  
the proposition this conference seeks to advance: that American  
leadership and bipartisan support for that leadership is absolutely  
essential as a source of our strength at home and our success abroad. We  
must stand for democracy and freedom.  
 
We must stand for opportunity and responsibility in a world where the  
dividing line between domestic and foreign policy is increasingly  
blurred. Our personal, family, and national security is affected by our  
policy on terrorism at home and abroad. Our personal, family, and  
national prosperity is affected by our policy on market economics at  
home and abroad. Our personal, family, and national future is affected  
by our policies on the environment at home and abroad. The common good  
at home is simply not separate from our efforts to advance the common  
good around the world. They must be one in the same if we are to be  
truly secure in the world of the 21st century.  
 
We see the benefits of American leadership and the progress now being  
made in Bosnia. In recent weeks, our military muscle through NATO, our  
determined diplomacy throughout the region, have brought the parties  
closer to a settlement than at any time since this terrible war began  
four years ago. Yesterday, we helped to produce an agreement on a  
Bosnia-wide cease-fire. Now the parties will come to the United States  
to pursue their peace talks mediated by our negotiating team and our  
European and Russian counterparts. We have a long way to go, and there's  
no guarantee of success. But we will use every ounce of our influence    
to help our parties make a peace that preserves Bosnia as a single  
democratic state and protects the rights of all citizens, regardless of  
their ethnic group.  
 
If and when peace comes, the international community's responsibility  
will not end. After all the bloodshed, the hatred, the loss of the last  
years, peace will surely be fragile. The international community must  
help to secure it. The only organization that can meet that  
responsibility strongly and effectively is NATO. And as NATO's leader,  
the United States must do its part and send in troops to join those of  
our allies under NATO command with clear rules of engagement. If we  
fail, the consequences for Bosnia and for the future of NATO will be  
severe. We must not fail.  
 
The United States will not be sending its forces into combat in Bosnia.  
We will not send them into a peace that cannot be maintained. But we  
must use our power to secure that peace. I have pledged to consult with  
Congress before authorizing our participation in such an action. These  
consultations have already begun.  
 
I believe Congress understands the importance of this moment and of  
American leadership. I'm glad to see Chairman Livingston here at the  
head table today. As I have said consistently for two years, we want and  
welcome congressional support. But in Bosnia as elsewhere, if the United  
States does not lead, the job will not be done.  
 
We also saw the benefits of America's leadership last week at the White  
House where leaders from all over the Middle East gathered to support  
the agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. For nearly a  
half-century now, Democratic and Republican administrations have worked  
to facilitate the cause of peace in the Middle East. The credit here  
belongs to the peacemakers. But we should all be proud that at critical  
moments along the way, our efforts helped to make the difference between  
failure and success.  
 
It was almost exactly a year ago that the United States led the  
international effort to remove Haiti's military regime and give the  
people of Haiti a real chance at democracy. We've succeeded because  
we've backed diplomacy with sanctions and, ultimately, with force. We've  
succeeded because we understood that standing up for democracy in our  
own hemisphere was right for the Haitian people and right for America.  
 
American efforts in Bosnia, the Middle East, Haiti, and elsewhere have  
required investments of time and energy and resources. They've required  
persistent diplomacy and the measured use of the world's strongest  
military. They have required both determination and flexibility in our  
efforts to work as leaders and to work with other nations. And,  
sometimes, they've called on us to make decisions that were, of  
necessity, unpopular in the short run, knowing that the payoff would not  
come in days or weeks, but in months or years.  
 
Sometimes they have been difficult for many Americans to understand  
because they have to be made--as many decisions were right after World  
War II--without the benefit of some over-arching framework--the kind of  
framework the bipolar Cold War world provided for so many years.  
 
To use the popular analogy of the present day: There seems to be no  
mainframe explanation for the PC world in which we're living. We have to  
drop the abstractions and dogma and pursue--based on trial and error and  
persistent experimentation--a policy that advances our values of freedom  
and democracy, peace, and security.  
 
We must continue to bear the responsibility of the world's leadership.  
That is what you came here to do, and that's what I want to discuss  
today. It is more than a happy coincidence that the birth of bipartisan  
support for America's leadership in the world coincides with the  
founding of this organization by Eleanor Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie  
in 1941 when, for the first time, Americans--both Democrats and  
Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates--understood our  
special obligation to lead in the world.  
 
The results of that responsible leadership were truly stunning--victory  
in the war and the construction of a post-Cold War world. Not with  
abstract dogma but, again, over a five-year period--basing experience on  
new realities, through trial and error, with a relentless pursuit of our  
own values--we created NATO, the Marshall Plan, Bretton Woods--the  
institutions that kept the peace in Europe, avoided nuclear conflict,  
helped to spread democracy, brought us unparalleled prosperity, and,  
ultimately, ensured the triumph of freedom in the Cold War.  
 
In that struggle, Freedom House and organizations like it reminded  
Americans that our leadership is essential and that to advance our  
interests, that leadership must remain rooted in our values, must  
continue to advance democracy and freedom to promote peace and security,  
to enhance prosperity, and preserve our planet.  
 
When it comes to the pursuit of these goals, it is important that we  
never forget that our values and our interests are one in the same.  
Promoting democracies that participate in this new global marketplace is  
the right thing to do. For all their imperfections, they advance what  
all people want and often fight and die for--human dignity, security,  
and prosperity. We know these democracies are less likely to go to war,  
less likely to traffic in terrorism, more likely to stand against the  
forces of hatred and intolerance and organized destruction.  
 
Throughout what we now call the American century, Republicans and  
Democrats disagree on specific policies--often heatedly from time to  
time--but we have always agreed on the need for American leadership in  
the cause of democracy, freedom, security, and prosperity. Now that  
consensus is truly in danger, and, interestingly enough, it is in danger  
in both parties. Voices from the left and the right are calling on us to  
step back from, instead of stepping up to, the challenges of the present  
day. They threaten to reverse the bipartisan support for our leadership  
that has been essential to our strength for 50 years. Some really  
believe that after the Cold War, the United States can play a secondary  
role in the world, just as some thought we could after World War II--and  
some made sure we did after World War I. But if you look at the results  
from Bosnia to Haiti, from the Middle East to Northern Ireland, it  
proves once again that American leadership is indispensable, and that  
without it, our values, our interests, and peace itself would be at  
risk.  
 
It has now become a truism to blame the current isolationism on the end  
of the Cold War, because there is no longer a mainframe threat in this  
PC world. But when I took office, I made it clear that we had a lot of  
work to do to get our own house in order.  
 
I agree that America has challenges at home that have to be addressed.  
We have to revive our economy and create opportunity for all of our  
citizens. We have to put responsibility back into our social programs  
and strengthen our families and our communities. We have to reform our  
own government to make it leaner and more effective. But we cannot do  
any of these things in isolation from the world which we have done so  
much to make and which we must continue to lead.  
 
Look at what is going on. Many of the new democracies in this world-- 
they're working so hard. I see their leaders all the time. They believe  
in the cause of freedom, and they are laboring out there in these  
countries against almost unbelievable obstacles. But their progress is  
fragile, and we must never forget that. We have to see them as growing-- 
growing things that have to be nurtured in a process that could still be  
reversed.  
 
We also have to recognize that we confront a host of threats that have  
assumed new and quite dangerous dimensions--the proliferation of weapons  
of mass destruction. In the technology age, that can mean simply  
breaking open a vial of sarin gas in a Tokyo subway. It can mean hooking  
into the Internet and learning how to build a bomb that will blow up a  
federal building in the heart of America. These forces, just as surely  
as fascism and communism, would spread darkness over light,  
disintegration over integration, chaos over community. And these forces  
still demand the leadership of the United States. 
 
Let me say again: The once bright line between domestic and foreign  
policy is blurring. If I could do anything to change the speech patterns  
of those of us in public life, I would almost like to stop hearing  
people talk about foreign policy and domestic policy, and, instead,  
start discussing economic policy, security policy, environmental policy- 
-you name it. 
 
When you think about the world in the way that you live in it, you  
readily see that the foreign-domestic distinction begins to evaporate in  
so many profound ways. And if we could learn to speak differently about  
it, the very act of speaking and thinking in the way we live, I believe,  
would make isolationism seem absolutely impossible as an alternative to  
public policy. 
 
When the President of Mexico comes here in a few days and we talk about  
drug problems, are we talking about domestic problems or foreign  
problems? If we talk about immigration, are we discussing a domestic  
issue or a foreign issue? If we talk about NAFTA and trade, is it their  
foreign politics or our domestic economics? We have to understand this  
in a totally different way. And we must learn to speak about it in  
different ways. 
 
The isolationists are simply wrong. The environment we face may be new  
and different, but to meet it with the challenges and opportunities it  
presents and to advance our enduring values, we have to be more engaged  
in the world, not less engaged in the world. That's why we have done  
everything we could in our Administration to lead the fight to reduce  
the nuclear threat, to spread democracy in human rights, to support  
peace, to open markets, to enlarge and defend the community of nations  
around the world, to share our aspirations and our values--not in  
abstract, but in ways that are quite practical and immediately of  
benefit to the American people. 
 
Consider just a few examples. Every American today is safer because  
we're stepping back from the nuclear precipice. Russian missiles are no  
longer pointed at our citizens, and there are no longer American  
missiles pointed at their citizens. Thanks to agreements reached by  
President Reagan, President Bush, and our Administration, both our  
countries are cutting back their nuclear arsenal.  
 
Over the past three years, we've been able to persuade Ukraine,  
Kazakstan, and Belarus to give up nuclear weapons left on their land  
when the Soviet Union collapsed. We've convinced North Korea to freeze  
its nuclear program. We've secured the indefinite extension of the  
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We're working hard to make sure  
nuclear materials don't wind up in the hands of terrorists or  
international criminals. And I hope and pray that next year we'll  
succeed in getting a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.  
 
Americans are safer because of the tough counter-terrorism campaign we  
have been waging, including closer cooperation with foreign governments;  
sanctions against states that sponsor terrorism; and increasing the  
funding, the manpower, the training for our own law enforcement. These  
have helped us to get results--big, visible results, like the conviction  
just this week of those who conspired to wage a campaign of terror in  
New York--and things that aren't so visible but that are very important:  
the planned terrorist attacks that have been thwarted in the United  
States and on American citizens; the arrests that have been secured in  
other countries through our cooperation. 
 
We have an obligation to work more and more and more on this. And if  
there is any area in the world where there is no difference between  
domestic and foreign policy, surely it is in our common obligation to  
work together to combat terrorism. 
 
That is why, even before Oklahoma City, I had sent legislation to the  
Hill asking for additional resources and help to deal with the threat of  
terrorism. And after Oklahoma City, I modified and strengthened that  
legislation. The Senate passed the bill quickly, but I am very  
disappointed that the bill is now stalled in the House. We need this  
legislation. 
 
I believe federal law enforcement authorities must be held accountable.  
I believe we must be open about whatever has happened in the past. But  
that has nothing to do with our obligation to make sure that the  
American people have the tools that they need to combat the threat of  
terrorism. So, once again, I say: I hope anti-terrorism legislation will  
pass. We need it. The threat is growing, not receding. 
 
When we gave democracy another chance in Haiti, a lot of people said  
that this has nothing to do with the United States. Well, it did. It  
did. It mattered that when somebody came to our country and gave their  
word that they would leave and bring back democracy, that we enforce  
that commitment. And in a more immediate sense, in the month before our  
intervention, 16,000 Haitians fled tyranny for sanctuary in Florida and  
elsewhere in our region. Three months after the intervention, the  
refugee flow was practically zero.  
 
When Mexico ran into a cash flow crisis, we put together an emergency  
support package to help put our neighbor back on the course of stability  
and economic progress. And to their credit, the Republican leaders of  
the Congress supported that effort. But it was impossible to pass a bill  
through the Congress endorsing it, because of all the surveys which  
showed that the American people were opposed to the Mexican bailout by  
about 80-15--as I remember the poll on the day that I took executive  
action to do it. This is another case, however, when what may be  
unpopular in the short run is plainly in the interest of the United  
States in the long run.  
 
When your neighbors are in trouble and they're trying to do the right  
thing, you normally try to help them, because it's good for the  
neighborhood. Look what's happened since the United States stepped in to  
try to be a good neighbor to Mexico: Economic growth has returned--even  
though in a fragile state--more quickly than it was    anticipated;  
exports have returned to levels that exceed what they were pre-NAFTA;  
and, just yesterday, President Zedillo called me to say that Mexico will  
repay $700 million of its debt to the United States well ahead of  
schedule. 
 
Consider what would have happened if we would have taken the  
isolationist position. What would have happened to their economy? What  
would have happened to the international financial market's reaction to  
that in Argentina, in Brazil, throughout Latin America, and other  
fragile, emerging democracies? What would have happened to our  
relationships and our cooperation on a host of issues between us? It was  
the right thing to do. Was it a domestic issue or a foreign issue? You  
tell me. All I know is that  we have a better neighborly relationship,  
and the future is brighter for the American people and for the people of  
Mexico because we are pursuing a strategy of engagement, not isolation. 
 
You can see that is what's happening in Europe, where we're trying to  
bring the nations of Europe closer together, working for democracy and  
economic reform in the Soviet Union and Central Europe, and modernizing  
NATO--strengthening the Partnership for Peace. And, again, I will say:  
These things also further our interests. 
 
I was told just last week that by all the trade initiatives that have  
been taken--from NAFTA and GATT to over 80 separate, individual trade  
agreements that Ambassador Kantor has conducted, 15 of them with Japan  
alone--the expanded volume of exports for the United States has created  
more than 2 million jobs in the last 2 1/2 years, paying well above the  
national average. With the Summit of the Americas, with the APEC process  
that we have agreed on, there are more to come. 
 
The Commerce Department and the State Department have worked together  
more and have worked harder than ever before to try to help Americans  
take advantage of these new opportunities. They are a part and parcel of  
our foreign policy and our domestic policy. 
 
And let me say one other thing: We have tried to make it a constant  
refrain that while we seek to engage all countries on terms of goodwill,  
we must continue to stand up for the values that we believe make life  
worth living. We must continue to stand up for the proposition that all  
people--without regard to their nationality, their race, their ethnic  
group, their religion or their gender--should have a chance to make the  
most of their own lives to taste both freedom and opportunity. 
 
The most powerful statement of that by anyone in our Administration  
recently was a statement made by the First Lady at the Women's  
Conference in Beijing, where she condemned abuses of women and their  
little children--and especially their little girl children--throughout  
the world, not sparing the problems of domestic violence and street  
crime here in the United States. 
 
These are the kinds of things that America must continue to do. From  
Belfast to Jerusalem, American leadership has helped Catholics and  
Protestants, Jews and Arabs to walk the streets of their cities with  
less fear of bombs and violence. From Prague to Port-au-Prince, we're  
working to consolidate the benefits of democracy and market economics.  
From Kuwait to Sarajevo, the brave men and women of our Armed Forces are  
working to stand down aggression and stand up for freedom. 
 
In our own hemisphere, only one country, Cuba, continues to resist the  
trend toward democracy. Today, we are announcing new steps to encourage  
its peaceful transition to a free and open society. We will tighten the  
enforcement of our embargo to keep the pressure for reform on, but we  
will promote democracy and the free flow of ideas more actively. I have  
authorized our news media to open bureaus in Cuba. We will allow more  
people to travel to and from Cuba for educational, religious, and human  
rights purposes. We will now permit American non-governmental  
organizations to engage in a fuller range of activities in Cuba. And,  
today, it gives me great pleasure to announce that our first grant to  
fund NGO work in Cuba will be awarded to Freedom House to promote  
peaceful change and protect human rights. Just mentioning this range of  
activities and the possibilities for positive American leadership  
demonstrates once again how vital it is to our security and to our  
prosperity; demonstrates once again that advancing our values and  
promoting our self-interests are one in the same. 
 
I suppose, given the purpose of this conference and the unique  
sponsorship of it, that everybody here shares that belief and that, in a  
way, I'm just preaching to the choir. But this isolationist backlash,  
which is present in both parties, is very real. And if you look at it  
from the point of view of people who feel threatened by the changes in  
the world, it is even completely understandable. So it is important that  
we not simply condemn it, it is even more important that we explain the  
way the world is working. And as the world works its way through this  
period of transition toward a new order of things in which we can garner  
all of the benefits of change and technology and opportunity and still  
reinforce the importance of giving everybody a chance, giving all  
families the chances to be strong, solidifying communities--as we work  
our way through this period, it is more and more important that we not  
simply condemn the isolationists but that we seek to explain how the  
world works and why we must be engaged and lead. 
 
Condemnation is not enough. Characterization is not enough. We must work  
through these issues. The American people are good people. They have  
common sense. They care when people are being murdered around the world.  
They understand that a war somewhere else could one day involve our sons  
and daughters. They know that we cannot simply pretend that the rest of  
the world is not there. But many of them have their own difficulties. We  
must work and work and work on the basic values and interests and  
arguments until we beat back the forces of isolation, with both intense  
passion and reason. You can do that; that is what you must help us to  
do--every one of you, each in your own way, with your own centers of  
influence--you can do that, with assertion and with argument. 
 
Let me just give you one specific example: I am determined to do  
everything I can to preserve our international affairs budget. It  
represents, after all, less than 2% of our overall budget. Foreign aid  
is unpopular in the abstract because Americans believe we spend a lot  
more of their money on foreign aid than we do. But when you ask the  
American people how much we should spend, they will tell you 3%, 4%, 5%- 
-more than we, in fact, spend. 
 
No agency in this era when we're trying to balance the budget can be  
exempt from conscious cost-cutting. Vice President Gore and I have  
worked very hard to give the American people the smallest government, in  
terms of federal employees we've had since President Kennedy was in  
office--to eliminate hundreds of programs. But we must have the tools of  
diplomacy. 
 
American leadership is more than words and the military budget. Although  
the military budget is important, we must have a diplomacy budget. Some  
in Congress literally want to gut foreign assistance--to hack the State  
Department's budget, to slash the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency,  
the USIA, USAID. They would shirk our responsibilities to the United  
Nations. I want to go give this speech to the United Nations. Wouldn't  
you like it if I did? Wouldn't you like it if I did? I appreciate the  
applause, but you tell me what I'm supposed to say. I will give this  
speech, and they will say, thank you very much, Mr. President, where's  
your $1 billion? Why is the United States the biggest piker in the UN? 
 
Now, let me say, does the United Nations need to be reformed? Has a lot  
of our money and everybody else's money been wasted? Does there need to  
be greater oversight? Of course, there does. Is that an argument for  
taking a dive on the United Nations? No. 
 
We need your support for this. We must do this. It is the right thing to  
do. It is the responsible thing to do. Those who really would have us  
walk away from the UN, not to mention the international financial  
institutions--they would really threaten our ability to lead. 
 
As you know--in instances from Bosnia to Haiti--working out how we can  
lead and still maintain our alliances and cooperate through the United  
Nations and through NATO is sometimes frustrating and almost always  
difficult. But it is very important. We don't want to run off into the  
future all by ourselves. And that means we have to work responsibly  
through these international organizations. And we have to pay our fair  
share. Every dollar we spend on foreign assistance comes back to us many  
times over. 
 
By reducing the threat of nuclear war in the New Independent States,  
we've been able to cut our own spending on strategic weapons. By  
supporting democratic reforms and the transition to free markets in the  
former Soviet Union and in Central Europe, we promote stability and  
prosperity in an area that will, in the future, become a vast market for  
the United States. By assisting developing nations that are fighting  
against overpopulation, AIDS, drug smuggling, environmental degradation- 
-the whole range of problems they face--we're making sure the problems  
they face today don't become our problems tomorrow. The money we devote  
to development or peacekeeping or disaster relief--it helps to avert  
future crises whose costs will be far greater. And it is the right thing  
to do. It is the right thing to do. 
 
I am very worried that all these budgets are at risk--some of them in an  
almost deliberate attempt to cut the United States off from partnership.  
I'll just give you one other example so I can go home and tell the Vice  
President I did it. 
 
We have a little bit of money devoted to a comprehensive, worldwide  
effort to deal with the threat of global warming. It is simply a matter  
of science and evidence. Just in the last several days, there has been a  
whole new rush of scientific evidence that 1995 is the warmest year on  
our entire planet in 20,000 years; that the hole in the ozone layer is  
bigger than we had imagined it to be, and that global warming is a real  
threat. We spend a pittance on it. That is one of the items targeted for  
elimination. This is not budget-cutting; this is ideology. This is  
another example of what the teenagers say about "denial" being more than  
a river in Egypt. This is wrong. It is not necessary to balance the  
budget, and it is necessary to reverse it to stand up for America's  
values and America's interests. 
 
Let me just cite one more example. Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty  
were key weapons in the war of ideas waged against communism. Many of  
you stood up for it and fought for them. To meet the challenges of the  
new era, they have been dramatically downsized and moved from Munich to  
Prague. But some want to squeeze their already vastly reduced budget on  
the eve of major Russian elections, at the very time the Russian  
reformers most need objective information and the free exchange of  
ideas. They would do the same for the Voice of America, which serves on  
the front lines of democracy all around the world--from Burma to the  
Balkans. 
 
Reckless budget cutters would shut down our embassies first and consider  
the consequences later. Last year alone, our embassies responded to  
nearly 2 million requests for assistance from Americans overseas. They  
helped American companies win billions of dollars in contracts. And  
every international business leader will tell you that the State  
Department and its embassies are working harder to advance our economic  
interests than at any time in the history of the global economy. 
 
If we didn't have diplomats in Asia and Latin America to help stem the  
flow of drugs to our shores, imagine how much harder that task would be.  
In Northern Ireland and the Middle East, if we didn't have people  
representing us, it would be a lot harder to move the peace process  
forward. In Burundi or Rwanda, if we didn't have brave people there like  
Ambassador Bob Krueger, it would be even harder to avoid human tragedy.  
We don't need half-strength and part-time diplomacy in a world of fast- 
moving opportunities and 24-hour-a-day crisis. 
 
The last point I want to make is this: There are people who say, "Oh,  
Mr. President, I am for a strong America. I just don't understand why  
you fool with the UN. What we need is for America to stand up alone.  
We'll decide what the right thing to do is and do it. Let the rest of  
the world like it or lump it. That's what it means to be the world's  
only superpower." That also is a disguised form of isolationism. 
 
Unilateralism in the world that we live in is not a viable option. When  
our vital interests are at stake, of course, we might have to act alone.  
But we need the wisdom to work with the United Nations and to pay our  
bills. We need the flexibility to build coalitions that spread the risk  
and responsibility and the cost of leadership, as President Bush did in  
Desert Storm and we did in Haiti. If the past 50 years have taught us  
anything, it is that the United States has a unique responsibility and a  
unique ability to be a force for peace and progress around the world,  
while building coalitions of people that can work together in genuine  
partnership. 
 
But we can only succeed if we continue to lead. Our purpose has to be  
the same in this new era as it has ever been. Whatever our political  
persuasions, I believe we all share the same goals. I think we want a  
future where people all over the world know the benefits of democracy;  
in which our own people can live their lives free from fear; in which  
our sons and daughters won't be called to fight in wars that could have  
been prevented; in which people no longer flee tyranny in their own  
countries to come to our shores; in which markets are open to our  
products and services; where they give our own people good, high-wage  
jobs; a country in which we know an unparalleled amount of peace and  
prosperity because we have fulfilled a traditional American mandate of  
the 20th century well into the 21st, because we--we--have led the world  
toward democracy and freedom, toward peace and prosperity. 
 
If we want the kind of future I described, we have to assume the burden  
of leadership. There is simply not another alternative. So I ask you,  
bring your passion to this task, bring your argument to this task, and  
bring the sense of urgency that has animated this country in its times  
of greatest challenge for the last 50 years to this task. 
 
The future, I believe, will be even brighter for the American people  
than the last 50 years if--if--we can preserve our leadership in pursuit  
of our values. Thank you, and God bless you all. 
 
(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 2: 
 
Bosnians Agree To Implement Cease-fire 
Statement by White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry, Washington, DC,  
October 11, 1995. 
 
The President welcomes the agreement reached today by the Bosnian  
parties to implement last week's agreement on a country-wide cease-fire,  
beginning at one minute past midnight Thursday morning Bosnian time. We  
appreciate the efforts of Russia and Hungary to resolve the problems  
that delayed the resumption of natural gas deliveries to Sarajevo, and  
the work of the UN in restoring electricity to the city. 
 
The fulfillment of the conditions for the cease-fire is an important  
additional step toward ending the hardships that the people of Sarajevo  
have had to endure throughout this tragic conflict. The implementation  
of the cease-fire should give further impetus to the diplomatic efforts  
of U.S. negotiators, together with their Contact Group partners, to  
complete a political settlement. The President calls on all the parties  
to abide by the terms of the cease-fire and to seize the opportunity to  
work out their differences at the bargaining table. 
 
U.S. negotiators will be returning to the Balkans next week--following a  
Contact Group meeting in Moscow on October 17--to lay the groundwork for  
the proximity peace talks that will convene in the United States on  
October 31. 
 
(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 3: 
 
NATO and the International Community Work for Peace in Bosnia  
Secretary Christopher 
Remarks prior to luncheon with NATO Secretary General Willy Claes,  
Washington, DC, October 2, 1995 
 
Good afternoon. It is nice to be back here in the Ben Franklin Room  
after it had a summer off for rest and recuperation. It looks beautiful,  
and we are very glad to be back here. It is a very nice place to welcome  
Secretary General Willy Claes of NATO on his fourth visit to Washington  
since becoming Secretary General. 
 
I want to commend him on the outstanding job he has done as Secretary  
General in the last several months. It seems to me that his handling of  
the issues relating to Bosnia as well as the enlargement study have  
really been a compliment to him. 
 
We have a number of issues to discuss today, as usual, Willy. We will  
review the steady diplomatic progress that we have made in Bosnia. The  
agreement that was reached last Tuesday in New York was an important  
step, particularly because it ensured that Bosnia will remain a single  
state within internationally recognized borders. As you know, our  
negotiating team is back in the region. I talked to Dick Holbrooke this  
morning, and they are proceeding with efforts to achieve a cease-fire.  
Difficult issues remain there. 
 
I think there is little likelihood that we would not have been facing a  
very serious problem in Bosnia today if our diplomacy had not been  
successful. To be successful, we had to back it with force, and we  
certainly are deeply indebted to the Secretary General's leadership in  
that regard. This has been a good opportunity for NATO to show that it  
is prepared to take steps with the international community to achieve  
peace in that difficult area through the use of effective, targeted  
force. 
 
We now feel the parties should devote their energies toward seeking a  
peace agreement, and, of course, the first step there would be a  
cessation of hostilities. Many, many complex issues have yet to be  
resolved before a peace agreement is reached, and one of the things I  
want to emphasize again today is we certainly should not take for  
granted that we can reach a peaceful agreement. We must devote all of  
our energies in that direction at the present time. 
 
At the same time, we know that if a peace agreement is reached, the  
United States will look to the alliance to lead the implementation of  
it. President Clinton has pledged, since 1993, that the United States  
will provide substantial ground forces as part of the NATO  
implementation effort. Planning for this operation is underway in NATO,  
as we continue to consult very actively with the Congress at the same  
time. 
 
Changing the subject: As you know, last Thursday, NATO announced the  
results of its study on enlargement. The study emphasizes that the  
potential members of NATO must, as a foundation for possible membership,  
be prepared to commit themselves to democratic processes, to full  
civilian control of the military, and to a resolution of disputes with  
their neighbors in a peaceful way. 
 
NATO enlargement is just one aspect of our broader European strategy. We  
want to emphasize again the importance of Partnership for Peace as  
providing enduring, practical ties to NATO for all the nations of  
Central Europe and the former Soviet Union. 
 
It is also important to note--and we will be talking about that today-- 
that NATO is developing a cooperative security relationship with Russia.  
As the Secretary General said--and quite rightly--a few days ago, we  
cannot imagine a strong, credible security architecture in Europe  
without Russia. 
 
So, we have a number of important issues on today's agenda, and I always  
look forward to my discussions with the Secretary General. 
 
(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 4:  
 
The Case for the U.S. in the UN 
Deputy Secretary Talbott 
Remarks to "Forum on the Future of America's Role in the World and on  
the Role of the United Nations," Henry L. Stimson Center, Washington,  
DC,  October 3, 1995 
 
My thanks to the Stimson Center and to the Ford Foundation for  
sponsoring today's forum. The Stimson Center has been in existence for  
only six years, but many of us have come to think of it as   a venerable  
Washington institution. That's because of the center's good works in  
areas such as arms control and preventive diplomacy. Let me single out  
for special appreciation my old friend Michael Krepon, who has been so  
effective in educating the American public--and I might add the  
Washington community--about the importance of the Non-Proliferation  
Treaty and about the need for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that lives  
up to its name: that is genuinely comprehensive and genuinely a ban.  
President Clinton and Secretary Christopher are committed to delivering  
to the Congress a CTBT that so qualifies within the next 12 months. 
 
Michael and his colleagues have asked me to speak this afternoon about  
the Clinton Administration's policy toward the United Nations, and I  
will do so. But, first, I'd like to put that subject in a broader  
context.  
 
We as a nation face some fundamental choices--choices of such  
consequence that they merit a great national debate. At issue is whether  
we are prepared to do what it takes--and that means spending what it  
takes--to have a foreign policy worthy of our aspirations and our  
interests as a world leader--indeed, as the world leader.  
 
We're facing these choices now because we've entered a new era. Over the  
past decade, nearly 2 billion people in some 70 nations on five  
continents--from Argentina to South Africa to Lithuania to Bangladesh to  
the Philippines--have moved decisively toward democracy and free  
markets. Today, to an extent few of us ever expected to see in our  
lifetimes, the world is joined in a loose, imperfect, incomplete but  
still extraordinary consensus in favor of open societies and open  
markets. During this dramatic transformation, America has not been a  
bystander--far from it. From South America to Eastern Europe to Central  
Asia to the Pacific Rim, our foreign policy has helped nation after  
nation to emerge from totalitarianism--and to keep moving in the right  
direction. Thanks in large part to American leadership, the political  
and economic principles that we have nurtured here in the United States  
for over 200 years are now ascendant around the globe. 
 
One important moral of the end of the Cold War--a story that is still  
unfolding and will provide us with plenty of suspense for a long time-- 
is that the United States must maintain its position of international  
leadership. Let me cite two examples from the headlines--examples that  
will also feature prominently in the history books. 
 
One is in the Middle East. Last week, the Israelis and Palestinians took  
another bold step toward a comprehensive and lasting peace. That  
landmark agreement--like the accords in September 1993 and August 1994  
that preceded it--simply would not have happened without U.S.  
leadership. That means sustained, steady, patient, persistent,  
consistent leadership, exercised by one administration after another-- 
Republican and Democratic. When we speak, as we do with increasing  
optimism these days, about the Middle East peace process, we are talking  
about a work that has been in progress for four decades; it is the work  
of Ralph Bunche and William Rogers and Henry Kissinger and Cy Vance and  
Jim Baker as well as my boss, Warren Christopher. Last week Shimon Peres  
put the point bluntly: "The United States," he said, "is the only  
country in the world that has the will and the capacity to run the peace  
process." 
 
The other example is what might now be properly, and hopefully, called  
the Balkan peace process. After four years of horror for the people of  
the former Yugoslavia and frustration for the international community,  
the situation has become more hopeful. There are several reasons for the  
improved prospects for a political settlement. An important one is  
American diplomacy backed by the credible threat of force--in this case,  
the force of NATO airpower. Thanks in large part to President Clinton's  
leadership--at the London conference and thereafter--we are now within  
sight of an end to the worst conflict in Europe since the end of World  
War II and the first major threat to peace on the continent in the post- 
Cold War era. The lesson--which I assure you our friends and allies in  
both the Middle East and Europe recognize and endorse--is that American  
engagement is essential to their security. And because their regions  
matter so much to our political and economic interests, our engagement  
there is essential to our own security. 
 
The flip side of that proposition is just as important to recognize  
clearly: If the United States does not provide international leadership- 
-in the Middle East and Europe and around the globe--then there is no  
other country that can or will step in and lead in our place as a  
constructive, positive influence. 
 
Make no mistake about that. And make no mistake that there are plenty of  
other forces that will fill the vacuum we leave, and they will do so in  
ways not at all to our liking or to our advantage or in keeping with our  
interests. For instance, thanks to American leadership, the enemies of  
the Arab-Israeli peace accords--in Iran, Iraq, Sudan, and Libya--are now  
more isolated than ever before. But if we let down our guard, the  
leaders of those rogue states can still make trouble by menacing their  
neighbors, sponsoring terrorism, and stockpiling weapons of mass  
destruction. 
 
By the same token, a continuing, festering conflict in the Balkans would  
present an ever-more-attractive target of opportunity for hostile  
forces, including some of those same rogue states I just mentioned, to  
secure a foothold in the heart of Europe. 
 
Whether deterring threats or seizing opportunities, the United States  
needs to remain fully engaged in the world. That point should be self- 
evident, but, unfortunately, it is increasingly controversial--or, at  
least, it is increasingly obscured by other controversies.  
 
There is, in our country, a resurgence of the view that our vital  
interests in some sense end at the water's edge. I say "resurgence"  
because we've heard that argument before.  
 
In the aftermath of the Cold War, just as after other great struggles  
earlier in our nation's history, there is a temptation to draw back into  
ourselves, to devote more of our attention and our resources to fixing  
our own problems--to let foreign countries fend for themselves. That  
temptation, if not kept in check, would turn the American eagle into an  
ostrich.  
 
We must call the problem by its right name: There are some in the United  
States, including in the United States Congress, who are flirting with  
ideas and proposals that are isolationist in their potential  
consequences if not in their motivation.  
 
Just a few blocks from here, up Pennsylvania Avenue on Capitol Hill, the  
foreign affairs budget of our government is under a two-pronged attack.  
It's under attack from those who think we can afford to withdraw from a  
very complicated world--and also from those who think we can  
significantly reduce the federal deficit by reducing our spending  
overseas.  
 
But the fact is that those in Congress who would slash foreign spending  
in the name of fiscal responsibility are deluding themselves. The  
deficit, as we all know, began to mushroom out of control in the early  
1980s. But the eighties saw no corresponding boom in our international  
budget. Quite the contrary, over the past decade the amount of money  
that the U.S. Government spends each year on foreign policy has actually  
declined nearly 40% in real dollars--adjusted for inflation--and is now  
at its lowest level in over half a century.  
 
Even if we were to eliminate our foreign affairs spending altogether, it  
would make very little difference to the cause of deficit-reduction.  
 
The current international affairs budget is only about 1.3% of total  
federal spending. That tiny fraction pays for all our embassies and  
diplomats overseas, our foreign aid and economic assistance programs,  
our participation in international organizations. It pays for our  
support of multinational peacekeeping operations, many of our arms  
control initiatives, and our overseas public information services. We've  
long since cut the fat out of our foreign affairs budget. We're now in  
danger of cutting into muscle and bone and vital arteries. 
 
Let me put it as simply and bluntly as I can: Every single foreign  
policy initiative and program we have underway in the world today--from  
our support of new democracies and market economies in the former Soviet  
Union and Central Europe, to our support for the Middle East peace  
process, to our ability to foster reconciliation and reconstruction in  
the Balkans, to our fight against international crime and narcotics  
trafficking, to the battle against further genocide and famine in  
Africa, to our commitment to assure the safe dismantlement of nuclear  
weapons that have been aimed at our cities, to our role in ensuring a  
nuclear weapons-free Korean Peninsula--every single one of those efforts  
and countless more are in dire jeopardy.  
 
This is, I would submit, a clear and present danger to the national  
security of the United States. It is a threat we face right now, as  
misguided Members of Congress wield the meat cleaver with which they are  
hacking away billions of dollars from the American people's ability to  
defend and advance their interests.  
 
Let me now turn to the United Nations. It, too, is on the chopping  
block--not just our position in the UN but the UN itself. Throughout the  
Cold War, our nation's leaders--again Republicans and Democrats alike in  
both the executive and legislative branches--viewed the UN as a key  
instrument for advancing U.S. interests. Whether it was fighting  
communist aggression in Korea or smallpox in Africa, we turned to the UN  
to help us achieve our goals and further the cause of freedom.  
 
But, today, the bipartisan consensus in support of the UN has frayed  
badly. In the current political environment, the only target that is  
juicier for rhetorical and budgetary attack than big government is world  
government. The United Nations is, of course, no such thing, but it does  
represent an attempt--welcome, admirable, and promising--to concert the  
energies of sovereign states on a variety of common causes, and, as  
such, it is vulnerable to demagoguery, particularly these days. The UN  
is "the longtime nemesis of millions of Americans," says one leader on  
Capitol Hill. It is "a totally incompetent instrument anyplace that  
matters," says another.  
 
What makes these wrong-headed congressional assessments of the UN's  
capabilities particularly regrettable is that, if translated into  
draconian cuts in American funding for and participation in the United  
Nations, they may soon become self-fulfilling prophecies. The surest way  
to make the charge true that the UN is incompetent is to deprive it of  
resources--and of American leadership. 
 
American leadership is necessary for, among other things, ensuring the  
reform of the UN. Like virtually all the institutions that are now  
making the transition to the Cold War era, the UN is in need of  
comprehensive changes in the way it manages itself as well as in the way  
it defines and carries out its mission.  
 
Thoughtful critics such as Barry Blechman and William Durch here at the  
Stimson Center have made constructive, practical suggestions as to the  
direction that those reforms should take. President Clinton made the  
case for reforms when he spoke at the UN Charter ceremony in San  
Francisco in June, and Secretary Christopher reiterated that case and  
provided further specifics in his address to the UN General Assembly in  
New York last week.  
 
But no institution can reform itself--or maintain its effectiveness--if  
it cannot pay its bills. The United Nations is now on the verge of  
financial collapse. It is currently $900 million in arrears in payments  
to countries that have provided peacekeeping troops and equipment, and  
another $400 million behind in payments for purchases of various kinds.  
Not coincidently, the total amount of the UN's arrears--$1.3 billion--is  
just about the same as--actually, a bit less than--the amount that the  
United States owes the organization because Congress refuses to  
appropriate sufficient funds.  
 
We're not the only nation that has fallen behind in paying our assessed  
contributions, but we're far and away the biggest delinquent. And we're  
likely to fall much further behind in fiscal 1996, since the Senate  
Appropriations Committee has proposed to cut more than $600 million--a  
whopping 45%--from current spending levels for international  
organizations. That approach to UN reform is analogous to Dr.  
Kevorkian's contribution to the healing arts of medicine.  
 
If the UN dies of bankruptcy, there will be consequences for the  
national security interests of the United States--none of them good. One  
of the most immediate will be that tens of thousands of Americans will  
lose their jobs. Almost half of all of the dollars that the UN awards in  
contracts every year go to American private sector companies. And as  
Mayor Rudy Guliani pointed out in his address to the United Nations  
General Assembly last month, UN agencies and accredited diplomatic  
missions spend some $3.3 billion a year in New York, making a major  
contribution to the economy of our nation's largest city.  
 
There are also likely to be significant consequences for our nuclear and  
conventional arms control efforts. The UN provided the forum that we  
used to lobby more than 100 nations in our effort to secure the  
unconditional extension of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in May.  
Now we're working under UN auspices to establish a worldwide moratorium  
on the export of anti-personnel landmines. But this and other American- 
led multilateral initiatives will be at risk if the UN closes its doors.  
 
And we may see equally immediate and unfortunate repercussions in the  
area of peacekeeping. Peacekeeping is the UN's biggest financial burden,  
but with that cost comes a huge benefit. And with our refusal to pay  
that price would come huge damage to the international common good. I  
can think of few quicker ways to undermine regional and even global  
stability than to yank UN peacekeepers out of Cyprus, Lebanon, Kashmir,  
and the border between Kuwait and Iraq. These operations have few if any  
American troops, but it's hard to see how they will be able to continue  
if we refuse to pony up our share of the funding. 
 
When he was Secretary of State, James Baker framed the peacekeeping  
issue vividly when he testified in Congress in 1992. He noted that  
 
"UN peacekeeping is a pretty good buy and we ought to recognize that. We  
spent trillions of dollars to win the Cold War and we should be willing  
to spend millions of dollars to secure the peace." 
 
Secretary Christopher has said much the same thing. He's done so more  
recently and just as succinctly. But I thought I'd quote his predecessor  
here to underscore that support for UN peacekeeping is a tenet of  
American foreign policy that ought to enjoy bipartisan backing.  
 
UN peacekeeping, like the United Nations as a whole, is a good bargain  
for the United States. The U.S. share of UN peacekeeping costs us an  
amount equal to less than half of one percent of our defense budget. The  
per capita price to Americans for the entire UN system is less than $7 a  
year--about the price of a single movie ticket at the Uptown cinema or  
of a couple of one-night rentals at the video store next to it. That $7  
pays not only for blue helmets for peacekeepers, but also for polio  
vaccinations for babies. Every year, UNICEF oral vaccines save the lives  
of three million children. Last year alone, the World Food Program fed  
57 million hungry people. The World Health Organization has eliminated  
smallpox from the face of the earth and is making great strides in its  
campaign to eliminate polio by the year 2000.  
 
That $7 also pays for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities,  
which provides contraceptives and family planning education for tens of  
millions of couples in 140 countries around the world. Thanks in large  
measure to UNFPA and USAID efforts, a Bangladeshi woman can now expect  
to have 27 great-grandchildren today, down from 217 15 years ago. 
 
I will conclude with that example, since it underscores that what we're  
talking about here is the building of the future. What we do--or fail to  
do--today will have a vast impact, for better or for worse, on the world  
that we pass on to our children, our grandchildren, and our great- 
grandchildren, however many each of us has. That will be a better world  
if it has the benefit of American leadership, including American  
leadership of a vigorous and effective United Nations--a United Nations  
that can, as Henry Stimson would have put it, offer "pragmatic steps  
toward ideal objectives." That, of course, is the motto of the center  
that has provided me with a podium this afternoon. And on that note I'd  
like give the microphone back to Michael so he can open up the floor to  
discussion.  Thank you.  
 
(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 5:  
 
The U.S. and Vietnam: Working to Restore Economic Ties 
Secretary Christopher, Vietnamese Foreign Minister Nguyen Manh Cam 
Opening remarks at a press conference, Washington, DC, October 3, 1995 
 
Secretary Christopher. Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to welcome  
Foreign Minister Cam to the United States. This is the first time he has  
visited this country, of course, since the normalization of relations  
between the United States and Vietnam. I visited Hanoi in August to open  
our embassy and to exchange documents with the Foreign Minister as we  
opened this new chapter in our relationship. 
 
President Clinton's priority remains as it always has been--the  
restoration of ties with Vietnam and achieving the fullest possible  
accounting of our POWs and MIAs. I am very pleased to note that our  
cooperation in that field has been very positive since normalization of  
relations following the opening of our embassy. 
 
My visit to Vietnam gave me a wonderful opportunity to observe Vietnam  
as a rapidly developing nation that is entering the vibrant Southeast  
Asian economic area--a member now of ASEAN. We expect that Vietnam's  
integration will reduce the dangers of conflict in that area and also  
bolster its economic reforms. 
 
When I was in Hanoi, I stressed the importance of political openness  
within the country. We are looking forward to a continuation of our  
dialogue on human rights issues. Despite our differences on these  
issues, we feel that this kind of dialogue can, over time, lead to  
progress. Today, we will, of course, be discussing our relationship, and  
the Economic Minister will be joining us during the meeting. The process  
of restoring our economic ties will take time and much hard work, but we  
expect we will move this forward  by sending an inter-agency team to  
Vietnam sometime later this fall. This team will lay the groundwork for  
development of a trade agreement between the United States and Vietnam,  
which is the initial step in establishing our economic relationships.  
 
I want to emphasize, of course, that during this process, we will  
consult with the Congress--and we will be very mindful of the  
restrictions of U.S. laws. Mr. Minister, it is very nice to see you  
again. I appreciate the hospitality that you so warmly extended in  
Hanoi, and I am glad to welcome you here to the State Department. 
 
Foreign Minister Cam. Thank you. It is my real pleasure to be here to  
talk with the Secretary of State to continue our discussions on the  
promotion of better relations between our two countries. In Hanoi, we  
both agreed that we should promote economic relations as a very first  
step for better relations between the two countries. So I am just glad  
to be here to continue our discussions so that we can move forward this  
process. 
 
I think in this world every country has economic development as its  
national priority. So it is good that we continue and promote our  
economic relations between the two countries. I think it is not only  
good for the two countries, but also contributes to stability and peace  
and economic relations--and also cooperation in the region and the world  
over. 
 
I think if both sides make efforts and try, we can make progress so that  
we contribute to our common objective. I believe so because I think we  
have now a better understanding between our two countries. Thank you.   
 
(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 6: 
 
Along the Path of Reform and Reconstruction in Cambodia 
Winston Lord, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs 
Statement before the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the House  
International Relations Committee, Washington, DC, September 21, 1995 
 
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee: I welcome the opportunity to  
appear before you today to discuss the current situation in Cambodia. 
 
Today, September 21, Cambodians celebrate the second anniversary of the  
promulgation of their constitution, which established a multi-party  
democracy pledged to respect internationally recognized human rights.  
Cambodia embarked on the path to democracy with the signing of the Paris  
Peace Accords in 1991, which brought peace to the country after two  
decades of war and the brutal regime of the Khmer Rouge. The Cambodian  
people marked a new stage in their history with the country's first free  
and fair elections in May 1993, leading to the formation of the current  
coalition government. 
 
Now, two years later, Cambodia's emerging democracy continues to show  
impressive endurance. The Royal Cambodian Government has begun the  
process of building political and economic institutions suitable to the  
country's current needs and is actively developing its economy and  
infrastructure. The country today is more open to the outside world than  
it has been for decades. Indigenous human rights groups and a vigorous  
press have become fundamental parts of society. Cambodia gained observer  
status at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations--ASEAN--in July,  
and it hopes to obtain full membership by 1997. Cambodia also has joined  
the ASEAN Regional Forum. Above all, the Cambodian people now know what  
it means to participate in free elections. Cambodians are eager to shape  
their own political future, as evidenced by the willingness of more than  
90% of the electorate to brave intimidation from the Khmer Rouge and  
cross heavily mined countryside to vote in 1993. Their courageous  
embrace of their hard-won democratic rights contradicts the myth that  
Asians do not care about freedom. Our assistance and our policies are  
designed to build a better life for the Cambodian people and to nourish  
the fruits of their efforts. 
 
Last month, Secretary Christopher traveled to Cambodia to underline  
America's support. He met with His Majesty King Norodom Sihanouk, senior  
government officials, and representatives of the coalition parties and  
human rights groups during his August 4 visit. He was encouraged by the  
progress he witnessed in Cambodia's political and economic development,  
and he underscored our continuing commitment to that process. The  
international community, including the United States, recognizes its  
responsibilities for the reconciliation and reconstruction of Cambodia.  
In Phnom Penh, the Secretary signed agreements providing $12 million in  
technical assistance, including environmental assistance, money for  
political and economic reform, and programs aimed at family health and  
primary education, as well as $5.4 million in emergency food aid. 
 
Cambodia, for its part, has proven itself ready to work with the United  
States. On matters of the highest national importance, Cambodia has  
shown itself to be a strong friend. No country has been more open or  
cooperative in helping us account for POW/MIAs. On the crucial issue of  
extending the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Cambodia provided firm support  
at the UN. Over the past year, Cambodia has begun to work more closely  
with us on counter-narcotics matters. On August 12, we signed a letter  
of agreement establishing the framework for additional cooperation,  
including funding the purchase of a drug analysis laboratory and other  
equipment. For our part, the United States continues to support efforts  
in Cambodia to build democratic institutions, promote human rights,  
foster economic development, eliminate corruption, improve security,  
achieve the fullest possible accounting for POW/MIAs, and bring members  
of the Khmer Rouge to justice for their crimes. 
 
The process of development and democratization is always difficult, with  
many obstacles to be overcome along the way. This is particularly true  
in a country such as Cambodia where per capita income, education, and  
health care levels are low. Emerging democratic institutions,  
particularly the judiciary, are weak. Cambodians are engaged in a  
struggle to define "democracy" in a Cambodian context. As Cambodia  
begins to prepare for local elections in 1996 and national elections in  
1998, we continue to support strongly Cambodia's democracy, emerging  
civic organizations, and nascent market economy. As a friend, the U.S.  
has been candidly telling Cambodia's leaders in recent months of our  
concerns over recent trends--  especially in cases involving freedom of  
expression and of the press--and how those trends might jeopardize  
international support for the process of change in Cambodia. 
 
We know from our own history that adjusting to the rough-and-tumble of  
political discourse in a democracy-- particularly when it involves harsh  
criticism from the press--can be difficult. We are concerned about  
instances where Cambodian journalists have been convicted of criminal  
charges, fined, intimidated, and, in some cases, attacked for  
criticizing the government. In August, one editor was convicted of  
"defamation" for publishing a number of articles critical of the  
government and was fined the equivalent of $4,000; several other papers  
may be facing charges in the near future. On September 7, a grenade  
exploded outside the offices of another paper, and a bystander was  
injured. No one has claimed responsibility or been apprehended for this  
crime. We welcomed the news that all six defendants charged with  
"incitement" for attempting to distribute leaflets during Secretary  
Christopher's recent visit have been released and that all charges  
against them have been dropped. 
 
The Royal Cambodian Government signed into effect a new press law on  
August 31, which upholds the right to express opinions and forbids pre- 
publication censorship. But it prohibits publishing "information which  
affects national security and political stability"--language that has  
raised concerns that the new law could be used to silence the press. The  
expulsion of Sam Rainsy, a noted government critic, first from the  
FUNCINPEC Party and then from the National Assembly in July, raised  
questions about the Cambodian Government's willingness to tolerate  
dissent. A split within the Buddhist Liberal Democratic Party--the third  
partner in the government coalition--may result in the expulsion of four  
more parliamentarians, including the outspoken and effective chairman of  
the Assembly's Human Rights Commission. 
 
During his visit, the Secretary urged all Cambodians to reaffirm their  
commitment to building and safeguarding democracy, including freedom of  
expression and of the press. We continue to urge the Royal Cambodian  
Government to respect the right of all Cambodians to express their  
opinions without fear of retaliation or prosecution and also to support  
a free press. The United States also has encouraged Cambodia's  
continuing efforts to institute military reforms, including greater  
professionalism and respect for human rights. We also have joined with  
others in the international community who have emphasized the importance  
of a commitment to building and safeguarding democracy--including  
freedom of expression--to attract investment and maintain support for  
assistance to Cambodia. 
 
The United States and other countries are committed to continuing our  
support for democratization and development in Cambodia. Cambodians have  
come a long way in a few short years with international and U.S.  
support. At a time when the shortcomings of the United Nations are  
highlighted, let us recall the remarkable success of its efforts in  
Cambodia. The international community must continue its support, and the  
U.S. must do its share. We must not falter now. Our FY 1996 requested  
budget level for Cambodian assistance is $39.5 million. We recognize the  
pressure on our resources, but failure to sustain our efforts could  
endanger the gains already achieved in Cambodia and would send the wrong  
message about our support for democracy and the market economy. U.S.  
assistance is targeted precisely at developing the infrastructure and  
legal and economic systems necessary for Cambodia to grow on its own by  
attracting private investment and enabling it to become less dependent  
on international assistance. USAID projects are helping to rebuild  
Cambodia's infrastructure, including primary education, health services,  
and roads, as well as supporting training programs for judges,  
legislators, and court defenders. 
 
Increasing trade and investment are essential in fostering economic  
growth in Cambodia. MFN will do much to boost interest among American  
businesses in Cambodia. We welcomed the House passage of MFN for  
Cambodia in July, and we hope the Senate will take up the issue soon.  
Passage of MFN status, combined with implementation of the OPIC  
agreement signed by the Secretary in August, will boost Cambodia's  
private sector and encourage foreign investment. These steps will help  
make Cambodia more self-sufficient over the long run. Developing a  
thriving economy and a political system based on respect for human  
rights and the rule of law will be essential for Cambodia's continued  
peace and democratization. 
 
Cambodia faces tremendous challenges if it is to sustain the consid-  
erable progress made to date in overcoming the country's tragic  
historical record and its legacy. Cambodia's leaders recognize that  
enacting military and civil service reform, speeding up rural  
development, instituting the rule of law and greater transparency in  
government, and dealing with corruption will require even greater  
efforts. 
 
Cambodia's problems are exacerbated by the fact that the Khmer Rouge  
continue to carry out a violent insurgency. Although at this time the  
Khmer Rouge pose only a low-level threat, the Royal Cambodian Government  
must still devote substantial financial and personnel resources to  
fighting them that could otherwise be devoted to development. We have  
provided humanitarian assistance to support the peaceful reintegration  
of over 9,000 Khmer Rouge defectors into Cambodian society in the past  
two years. The official Thai policy of no support to the Khmer Rouge is  
on track. The Cambodian Genocide Investigation program at the Department  
of State has made significant progress in its efforts to document the  
past crimes of the Khmer Rouge and to explore the legal options for  
bringing them to justice. Finally, the U.S. has provided $6 million over  
two years to assist Cambodia's efforts to remove the scourge of the  
estimated 8-10 million landmines in that country. Making a better life  
for the Cambodian people is the key to easing the threat from the Khmer  
Rouge. 
 
The Cambodian people have courageously faced a succession of terrible  
conflicts. They have endured invasion by foreign armies, massive  
dislocation, and an extraordinarily bloody revolutionary regime. Few  
would have predicted five years ago that Vietnamese occupation would be  
brought to an end, that China would cease aid to the Khmer Rouge, that  
violence would be greatly lessened, that over 370,000 refugees would  
return to their homes, that the Khmer Rouge could no longer count on  
support across the border in Thailand, and, most important, that a  
democratically chosen government would be elected and function  
effectively in office. All of these problems have been eased or overcome  
with support from the UN, the U.S., and the international community for  
Cambodian peace and democratization. We must all do our share so that  
their hard-won achievements are made secure. 
 
While we recognize the many tests Cambodia faces--both economically and  
politically--we believe that Cambodia's people will overcome them with  
the continued encouragement and support of the international community.  
 
(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 7: 
 
Foreign Policy on the Cheap: You Get What You Pay For 
Craig Johnstone, Director, Resources, Plans, and Policy 
Address before the Seattle World Affairs Council, Seattle, Washington,  
June 6, 1995 (introductory remarks deleted) 
 
The council's program says that I am going to talk to you about the  
international affairs budget. Don't worry, I am not going to bore you  
with a talk about a budget. Any group brave enough to come out to hear  
anything described as a talk on a budget deserves better. No, what we  
need to talk about is our foreign policy, and when I say foreign policy  
I don't just mean the day-to-day crises we must manage--I mean the  
policy that defines our overriding objectives. What it is we are trying  
to get done in the world, why we are trying to do it, how we are trying  
to get it done, and what it all means to you. Because, if there is one  
message I want to leave with you tonight, it is that American leadership  
in the world serves your interests--even more, it is vital to your  
interests. And  if we do not exert that leadership we--and maybe more  
importantly our children--will pay an enormous price later on. Is this  
hyperbole? Let's check it against the facts, and you be the judge. 
 
First, erase from your minds any preconceptions you have about foreign  
aid. A couple of months ago, the University of Maryland conducted a poll  
that showed that the American people think that we give--on average--18%  
of our budget in foreign aid. The fact  is, foreign aid uses less than  
1% of the budget. Our entire international affairs establishment costs  
barely over 1%--1%! The American people, it turns out, think that the  
right amount of foreign aid to give would be about 8% of the budget--8%  
of the budget. I'll take it. 
 
Our country spends more on killing garden weeds than it does on foreign  
aid. And, if you thought that we were the most generous providers of  
foreign aid, think again. Of the 21 OECD countries--the wealthiest in  
the world--we rank dead last in the percentage of our wealth that we  
give in foreign aid. The overall foreign affairs budget has been reduced  
by 45% in the last 10 years. I hear the freshmen Members of Congress  
clamoring to balance the budget by cutting foreign aid. Sorry--that well  
is dry. 
 
So, I ask you to suspend preconceptions. Things are not what they seem  
to be. We are not propping up the UN with fistfuls of dollars. We are  
dragging it down with unpaid bills. Our country owes the UN $2 billion  
in overdue bills. While you weren't looking, we became the world's  
number-one deadbeat. 
 
So what, you might say. We have problems at home that we have to solve.  
These are hard times. We cannot afford to give money away overseas while  
crime runs amok on our streets, while ghettos fester, while our  
educational standards sink, and our infra- structure corrodes. If that  
is what you think, I agree with you. Let's end the giveaways and focus  
our charity here at home, where it is needed. The problem is that the  
overseas charity, or just about all of it, ended years ago. What is left  
is the bare minimum necessary to protect our interests. Let me show you  
what I mean. We divide our efforts into six objectives. 
 
American Prosperity and Jobs  
 
The first is to promote American prosperity and jobs. We spent $1  
billion  last year helping our companies ex- port products. Our increase  
in exports is driving our economic recovery. This $1 billion translates  
into $15-$20 billion in exports and up to 300,000 American jobs. 
 
The $1 billion does not tell you the whole story. Businesses pay for the  
services they receive. The reflows go to the Treasury, and the exports  
generate taxes. The total receipts generated by these programs are  
greater than the cost of the programs themselves. These efforts actually  
reduce the deficit. Does it make any sense whatsoever to cut these  
programs? 
 
Now, I know what you are thinking--these programs are not foreign aid.  
These programs are designed to help Americans. How about the rest of  
what we spend? 
 
Promoting Democracy 
 
We spend a little over $1 billion a year to promote democracy and to  
consolidate the gains we made in the Cold War. Fighting the Cold War  
cost us trillions of dollars. We won the war. We have not yet won the  
winning. 
 
How utterly foolish it would be to have fought so long and at such risk  
only to squander our unique opportunity to nail down our victory. Our  
programs are bringing democracy and market reforms to the former Soviet  
Union and to Central Europe. With each passing day, we make it less  
likely that these regions will ever again return to the path of  
totalitarianism. Each day makes it a little less likely that we will  
once again face the nuclear specter we faced for most of the period  
since World War II. For this we spend $1 billion--we probably spend $1  
billion each year on toothpicks. I used to handle Central America. I  
know we spend several times that amount each year on bananas. In the big  
scheme of things, these are small sums being spent to ensure major gains  
on behalf of the American people. These are not giveaway programs or  
charity. These are hard-headed programs designed to keep you and me safe  
and free. They are cost-effective, and they are working. 
 
Again, you might argue that this  really is a prudent geostrategic  
investment--not really foreign aid. You would be right. Let's turn to  
the basket of programs that are most frequently labeled foreign aid and  
see what we have there. 
 
Global Problems 
 
How many of you are familiar with the charts that show the increase in  
world population over the past millennium and for the next 100 years? I  
am sure you have all seen those lines that hugged the bottom of the  
chart until a few years ago and which go through the roof in the next  
few years. This is the direction of global population trends. Think  
about this! The world is increasing by one Mexico a year. It is growing  
by one China every decade. Is there anyone in this audience who believes  
that this trend will not seriously and negatively impact on the lives of  
our children and our grandchildren? We are all concerned that we not  
leave our children with a staggering national debt. Are we not also  
concerned that we may end up leaving our children to cope in a world  
with staggering over-population? The human race is approaching 5 billion  
today. By the year 2050, it will reach 12 billion if we do nothing. With  
our leadership--the kind we brought to the World Population Conference  
in Cairo this past year--we can stabilize population growth at around  
the 8 billion level. The choice is yours. The budget you hear described  
as foreign aid is the budget that responds to this issue. You be the  
judge. Is this foreign aid, or is this a prudent investment in our  
future? 
 
As people proliferate and economies grow, we face another threat--the  
state of the environment. You cannot be from Washington [State] and not  
understand this issue. The mountains, the lakes, the clean air--those of  
us raised here consider it a birthright. But it is really a  
responsibility. If you think the air will always be clean, ask your new  
neighbor who just moved here from California. 
 
Again, this so-called foreign aid budget is the budget that protects you  
from ozone-layer depletion. This foreign aid budget is the budget that  
ensures global cooperation on the threat of global warming. This foreign  
aid budget ensures international cooperation on water and air pollution.  
Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars we spend reducing  
greenhouse gas emissions here in the United States? Yet, pollution has  
the same effect on our atmosphere no matter where it comes from. We get  
four times as much pollution relief per dollar spent in Brazil than we  
do trying to wring the last bit of emissions out of our industry here at  
home. 
 
Have you thought recently about sperm counts? I thought so. The average  
sperm count of males around the world has declined by about 2% a year  
over the past many years. Why? Scientists disagree. Is it, as many  
suspect, a side-effect of environmental pollution? This is the budget  
that funds the international cooperation programs neces- sary to track  
this down. I know what you are thinking--if sperm counts are down so  
much maybe we don't need to worry too much about the population problem.  
Maybe you're right. Do you want to take the chance? 
 
I could go on. This foreign aid budget funded our successful  
international campaign against smallpox. It is paying for the  
international part of our current campaign against polio. It is the  
budget that deals with international cooperation on AIDS and new threats  
such as the Ebola virus. Diseases, like pollution, know no borders. When  
we fight them globally, we do so to protect Americans. 
 
What happens to you when you step on an airplane and go overseas? There  
are international aviation agreements and organizations that ensure air  
safety to protect Americans from death and injury. You will not be  
surprised to hear that they are funded by this budget. 
 
I spend a lot of my time talking to Members of Congress and their  
staffs. They find it frustrating--sometimes I do too. Many of them hate  
foreign aid. And when they say that they want to cut this or that  
program, I tell them what the consequences are going to be. The  
consequences are always bad for America--bad for Americans. They  
continue to look for the foreign aid in the foreign aid budget. Well,  
I'm here to tell you it isn't there. Actually, let me modify that  
statement slightly. There is something we pay for that really is foreign  
aid.  
 
Humanitarian Assistance 
 
Each year, we spend $1.5-$2 billion on genuine honest-to-God  
humanitarian assistance--money to help refugees, to feed starving  
people, to help the victims of disasters. Here, you might say, is the  
one budget which does not relate directly to the economic or  
geostrategic interests of the American people--though I might give you  
an argument on that even in this budget category. Interestingly, this is  
the one budget category that enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support in  
the Congress and, of course, within the Administration. Nobody votes  
against the one part of the budget that probably best fits the  
description of foreign aid. There is hope for America. 
 
You can see that there is a lot that your government is doing with your  
so-called foreign aid dollars that you probably didn't realize was going  
on. I have to admit to you that I worked in the business of American  
diplomacy for 25 years before I came to understand the full scope of  
what it is that we were doing. Those of us who worked the Cold War  
issues were so consumed by them that we did not see how small and  
interrelated the world had become and how important international  
affairs   had become to protecting the security, health, safety, and  
jobs of the American people. We are a big organization, and it took us a  
long time to jettison our Cold War blinders. It has taken us too long to  
get in touch with the American people to make sure everyone understands  
what we need to do to succeed in this new and smaller world. 
 
Now, just because we no longer have a Cold War does not mean that we  
don't have geopolitical interests and objectives. On the contrary, at  
least some of the burden for handling these issues has moved from the  
Department of Defense to the international affairs agencies in the post- 
Cold War era. 
 
Pursuit of Peace 
 
In pursuit of peace, we spend more than $5 billion a year on the Middle  
East--mainly Egypt and Israel. Those countries seem a long way away from  
Seattle--until you have a crisis; until you or your children are  
fighting in a Gulf war; or until we have an oil crisis, like we had in  
the 1970s that costs us not $5 billion but hundreds of billions of  
dollars. 
 
Against all odds, we have made remarkable progress in the Middle East  
over a span of two Republican and two Democratic administrations. We are  
at the edge of major breakthroughs which have profound significance for  
our future with this strategic region. This is not the moment to waver  
in our support--a fact that is well understood, I am pleased to say, in  
Congress. 
 
Our peace budget also includes the funds necessary for international  
peacekeeping, which costs us nearly $1 billion a year--half going to our  
efforts to bring peace to Bosnia. You have to shake your head at the  
debate on this issue. Look at the facts. We   use peacekeeping to  
advance our geostrategic interests. In most cases we do not have to risk  
the lives of American kids. I have a 16-year-old boy. I like this  
program, and I am willing to pay the $3.60 a year it costs me, as an  
American, to keep it going. I like the fact that we save American lives  
and get other countries to pick up 75% of the costs. The problem is that  
the Congress won't pay the 25%. We are $1 billion in debt to the UN on  
peacekeeping--and we are accusing them of fiscal irresponsibility--not a  
situation of which we can be proud. 
 
What else in peace? This budget pays to prevent nuclear weapons  
proliferation. The agreements which will keep North Korea from  
developing a nuclear weapons capability will cost  $22 million next  
year. Compare this with the $4 billion the Japanese and South Koreans  
are putting up! Compare this with costs we will pay if the effort fails  
and North Korea develops nuclear weapons with which to blackmail the  
world. The guy who negotiated this deal for us deserves a medal. When I  
last looked, the Congress was thinking of cutting the $22 million. 
 
Do you think we can not afford foreign aid because we have to fight  
crime and drugs? What budget do you suppose pays for our country's fight  
against international crime and drug cartels? You got it. 
 
What about terrorism. This budget funds our anti-terrorism effort at a  
level equal to 1% of the cost to us of the World Trade Center bombing in  
New York. 
 
As you probably have guessed, I could go on all night with these  
examples of how international affairs are affecting virtually every  
minute of your lives and mine, and I apologize if I seem to be hammering  
them at you. I really believe there is a lot at stake here--that you  
would be horrified to know how much of your future we are on the verge  
of compromising because of the isolationist trends in our country. 
 
Advancing Diplomacy 
 
Let me stop at one more category. We call it advancing diplomacy. This  
is the name we give to the combined efforts of our Foreign Service  
personnel overseas and their home-based support. These are the people  
who give you your passports--6 million last year. When you get in  
trouble overseas and are desperate for help, these are the people who  
come to your assistance--1.6 million times last year. When there is  
tough negotiation to take on with the Japanese or the Canadians on  
fishing rights or trade, when we as a nation need to know and understand  
what is going on in this or that place--these are the people who get the  
job done. 
 
You won't find a more dedicated group; they serve in the most remote  
corners of the world. The pay is lousy. The living conditions can be  
great--if you get lucky and are sent to Paris--or abysmal if you are at  
many of the 250 other places they are stationed around the world. 
 
The risks are substantial. Before you sign up for the Foreign Service,  
walk into the State Department and look at the memorial plaques in the  
front hall. I did, and I still do. I joined the Foreign Service in 1965,  
when there were 72 names of Foreign Service officers killed in action on  
that wall--covering American history since 1780. Today, 30 years later,  
there are 185 names on the wall. Colleagues, friends--one who worked for  
me in Vietnam, my boss in Vietnam, my office-mate in Paris, a close  
friend killed as Ambassador to Pakistan, my Consul General in Oran. It  
is an occupation that is hard on people, on health, and on family. 
 
Why do these people do it? They do it because they believe in our  
country. They want to make a difference. They want to serve. Today, more  
than ever before, what they do impacts on you--your job, your physical  
security, your freedoms, your safety, the air you breathe, and, most  
importantly, they are on the front lines of defining the kind of world  
in which your children and grandchildren are going to live. They are  
there to support you. To support you, they need your support. Each day  
we add new demands to our foreign policy. You cannot meet these demands  
running a foreign policy on the cheap. You get what you pay for.   
 
(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 8: 
 
The International Affairs Budget--A Sound Investment in Global  
Leadership: Questions and Answers 
This information was prepared by the Bureau of Public Affairs in  
cooperation with the Office of Resources, Plans, and Policy. 
 
"With the end of the Cold War, our challenges abroad have become more  
complex. Our security depends upon fighting threats like terrorism and  
nuclear proliferation, threats that call for international cooperation.  
Our prosperity rests increasingly on foreign trade and investment that  
depends on open markets. Meeting these essential challenges demands  
American engagement, leadership, and resources, as President Clinton has  
repeatedly stressed." --Secretary Christopher, September 12, 1995  
 
In order to protect "the security and prosperity of all our people," the  
President has said, "the tradition of American leadership must prevail."  
Effective U.S. world leadership is not just a question of will, but of  
funding. The international affairs budget crisis is one of the most  
urgent but least recognized challenges facing us today. 
 
During the last half-century, America's active engagement abroad has  
been the leading force for peace, progress, and human dignity. American  
leadership has sparked and nurtured the twin global revolutions of free  
market economies and political liberty now under way. The Cold War is  
over, but current domestic trends could keep us from enjoying the "peace  
dividend" we have earned. Slash-and-burn cuts to the international  
affairs budget suggest isolation and withdrawal, to the peril of the  
security and well-being of the American people. We invested trillions of  
dollars fighting the Cold War. It would be a tragic, costly mistake not  
to spend what amounts to a tiny annual insurance premium to safeguard  
that investment. 
 
Blood From a Stone: Even the Most Drastic Cuts in International Affairs  
Won't Balance the Budget 
 
Q. Isn't foreign assistance spending already consuming too much of the  
federal budget? 
A. No. Foreign assistance is a real bargain for American taxpayers.  
Recent polls suggest that the American people think that up to 25% of  
federal spending goes to foreign assistance, and that 8% should be the  
maximum. In fact, we spend less than 1% (see chart page 747) of the  
total federal budget on foreign assistance--about 12 cents a day for 
each American citizen--in contrast to about 18% still spent on defense. 
 
(Chart Reference--page 747) 
 
FY 1995 International Affairs Budget (Small percentage of federal  
budget) 
 
Direct Benefit Payments--48% 
National Defense--18% 
Grants to States and Localities--15% 
Net Interest--14% 
Other Federal Operations--4% 
International Affairs--1% 
 
Q. Why does foreign affairs spending keep going up? 
A. It doesn't. President Clinton's international affairs budget request  
for FY 1996--including not only foreign assistance but funding for trade  
promotion, the State Department, and numerous other activities--amounts  
to only 1.3 cents out of every tax dollar. This figure actually  
represents a decline over a decade from about 2.3 cents. Since 1984,  
U.S. international affairs spending has decreased by 45% in real terms. 
 
Q. Now that the Cold War is over, why is it necessary to spend so much  
on foreign affairs? 
A. American engagement in the world is, if anything, more important than  
ever. The U.S.-Soviet standoff that underpinned world order for much of  
the past 50 years is gone. With the end of the Cold War, we are the  
world's sole remaining superpower, with a new set of sole--and far more  
complex--responsibilities. Our security depends increasingly on  
combating threats like nuclear smuggling, terrorism, international  
crime, and narcotics trafficking. Our prosperity depends more and more  
on international trade and investment. 
 
Q. Why does the U.S. Government have to shoulder this burden alone?  
Can't someone else take over? Can't our allies do more? 
A. For much of the three decades following the end of World War II, the  
United States led developed countries in international affairs spending.  
Today, we rank last--ironically, well behind our principal World War II  
adversaries Germany and Japan--in terms of foreign assistance spending  
as a percentage of GNP. U.S. foreign assistance comes to 3/20 of 1% of  
our GNP (see table page 748). Other countries now pay 75% of all  
peacekeeping costs, provide two-thirds or more of the money for  
multilateral banks, and outspend us on foreign assistance by as much as  
seven to one as a percentage of GDP. 
 
Amidst all the current debate about the responsibilities of the federal  
government versus those of the States, one thing stands out: In the case  
of our foreign affairs and our national security, there is no one to  
hand off to, no one to "block grant" to, no way to privatize. These are  
sole responsibilities of the federal government. We either meet them or  
we don't. 
 
(Table Reference--page 748) 
 
Foreign Development Assistance as a Percentage of GNP 
 
Country and Percentage of GNP 
 
Denmark--1.03% 
Norway--1.01% 
Sweden--0.98% 
Netherlands--0.82% 
France--0.63% 
Canada--0.45% 
Finland--0.45% 
Belgium--0.39% 
Germany--0.37% 
Australia--0.35% 
Luxembourg--0.35% 
Switzerland--0.33% 
Italy--0.31% 
United Kingdom--0.31% 
Austria--0.30% 
Portugal--0.29% 
Japan--0.26% 
New Zealand--0.25% 
Spain--0.25% 
Ireland--0.20% 
United States--0.15% 
 
Q. Why do we have such a large State Department? 
A. We don't. The Department of State is smaller than 10 of the 14 U.S.  
Cabinet departments (see table page 749). Its work force constitutes a  
little more than one-half of 1% of the federal total. State, in fact,  
employs fewer people than do local governments in Memphis, Tennessee,  
Baltimore, Maryland, or Alachua County, Florida. Only a little more than  
4,000 diplomatic and consular service officers staff nearly 250 U.S.  
embassies and consulates abroad. In the United States, other employees  
run headquarters operations, and a few hundred Civil Service employees  
staff 14 passport offices around the country, providing services to the  
traveling American public. 
 
(Table Reference--page 749) 
 
Executive Branch Federal Employment 
 
Agency and Total Employment 
 
Defense--2,323,600 
Veterans Affairs--230,100 
Treasury--162,200 
Justice--109,200 
Agriculture--108,100 
Interior--76,200 
Transportation--64,400 
Health and Human Services--61,800 
Commerce--35,700 
State--24,800 
Energy--20,600 
Labor--17,900 
HUD--12,600 
Education--5,100 
 
Q. Since most Americans favor reducing government spending to balance  
the federal budget, have the State Department and other foreign affairs  
agencies done anything to cut costs? 
A. Yes, the Administration has done a great deal to cut costs. We have  
already: 
 
-- Cut the foreign assistance budget request by 20%; 
-- Trimmed more than 1,100 jobs at the State Department and 600 jobs at  
the U.S. Information Agency (USIA); 
-- Identified, for elimination by 1997, about 2,000 jobs at the U.S.  
Agency for International Development (USAID); 
-- Decreased administrative and overhead costs by $100 million; and 
-- Closed, or scheduled for closing, 36 diplomatic or consular posts, 10  
USIA posts, and 28 USAID missions abroad. 
 
American Leadership Protects Your Interests; Isolationism Is Bad for You 
 
Q. Isn't the money we spend on foreign assistance just international  
welfare? What do we get for our money? 
A. International affairs spending is not a giveaway. In fact, foreign  
assistance programs have ultimately put more dollars into the pockets of  
American taxpayers than they have ever taken out. For one thing, most  
foreign assistance dollars stay right here at home. Nearly 80% of USAID  
contracts and grants go to U.S. firms. Ninety-five percent of all food  
assistance purchases are made in the United States, and virtually all  
military assistance is spent on U.S. goods and services. Beyond that, we  
get a lot for our money; in short, prosperity, peace, and security at  
home. 
 
American Exports--American Jobs. Our economy depends on exports like  
never before. The growth in the economy we have witnessed over the past  
three years is due heavily to increased exports. 
 
Developing countries currently account for well more than one-third-- 
nearly $200 billion worth--of U.S. exports and now represent the  
fastest-growing markets for American goods. The Commerce Department  
estimates that every $1 billion worth of  these exports generates about  
20,000 U.S. jobs. With market growth rates 10 times those of our  
traditional markets in Europe and Japan, developing countries are  
particularly good customers for high-value and agricultural exports.  
More than one-half of America's farm exports go to the developing world. 
 
U.S. assistance programs help get U.S. business in the door, much as our  
competitors' assistance programs leverage opportunities for their  
business communities. Since 1971, for example, the Overseas Private  
Investment Corporation (OPIC) has supported U.S. business investment in  
projects worth nearly $73 billion (primarily in developing countries),  
has generated $40 billion in U.S. exports, and has created hundreds of  
thousands of American jobs. Worldwide, 43 out of the 50 largest buyers  
of American farm goods today are former recipients of U.S. food  
assistance. 
 
U.S. exports to the developing world are still surging. In the decade of  
the 1980s alone, U.S. market share in Latin America grew to 57%, and in  
the six countries where we concentrated our assistance, to 71%. Our  
exports to Latin America in 1993 alone were 2.5 times the $30.7 billion  
in economic assistance we provided between 1949 and 1993. 
 
Global Diplomacy: Our Front Line of Defense. Americans share a deep  
commitment to our nation's defense readiness. We must be equally  
committed to our diplomatic readiness--in large part so as to avoid  
having to deploy our men and women in uniform in harm's way. Since World  
War II, many Foreign Service officers have died in our country's  
service. They are on the front lines of the post-Cold War world,  
protecting you and your interests. 
 
In some 180 countries around the world, U.S. diplomatic and consular  
officers meet the challenges of the post-Cold War world on a daily  
basis. They play pivotal roles in advancing diplomatic initiatives--from  
peace in the Middle East to global trade agreements--and they protect  
American citizens abroad, promote American culture and values, support  
U.S. law enforcement personnel, and perform dozens of ordinary and  
essential services from notarials to emergency medical assistance to  
helping American families adopt foreign children. We issued 5 million  
passports to U.S. citizens in 1994. A total of 1.7 million times last  
year, Americans sought help at our embassies and consulates. When you  
travel, your government is there to help you when you get in trouble. 
 
Our diplomatic "field offices" abroad also constitute an invaluable  
early-warning intelligence system. Their rapid-fire political, military,  
and economic reporting is essential to the crisis-prevention work of  
Washington national security decision-makers. 
 
A Global Fight Against Narcotics, Terrorism, Illegal Immigration, and  
Crime--at Bargain Prices. Ninety percent of the illegal drugs used in  
this country come from overseas. Our international affairs budget funds  
our efforts to stop that drug trafficking at its sources. Illegal drugs  
cost the American economy $76 billion per year. Domestically, we spend  
$12 billion a year to fight them. We are spending less than 2% of this  
to fight this problem internationally. Getting our Latin American  
partners to seize one ton of cocaine costs a fraction of what it costs  
for U.S. law enforcement agencies to do the same job. 
 
This budget also funds our overseas counter-terrorism efforts, at a cost  
to each American of less than 10 a year. Compare this to the hundreds  
of millions of dollars that the World Trade Center bombing cost our  
country. We also take the lead in funding an international aviation  
security program that protects Americans from death and injury and  
promotes the security of U.S. air carriers. When you travel abroad, you  
want to get there safely. Americans now make up 40% of all international  
air travelers. Finally, the international affairs budget finances U.S.  
border security efforts abroad--from visa screening to the fight against  
alien smuggling. 
 
National Security--International Defense Burden-Sharing. The  
international affairs budget underpins our effort to achieve peace in  
the Middle East. Everything we spend there, however, is a bargain  
compared to the cost of a generalized conflict, or to the loss of Middle  
East oil reserves. The oil crisis of 1973 alone cost the U.S. economy  
uncounted billions of dollars. 
 
This budget also funds our non-proliferation efforts. Your life is safer  
today because of our nuclear non-proliferation and safety assistance  
programs. After four decades of the Cold War, for the first time no  
nuclear weapons are pointed at you. We are actively working to prevent  
future Chernobyls and to put an end to North Korea's nuclear program.  
 
Q. If most UN peacekeeping efforts are failures, why are we contributing  
so much money to the United Nations? 
A. When our vital interests are at stake, we must be prepared to defend  
them alone. But sometimes, by leveraging our power and resources and by  
leading through alliances and institutions such as the UN, we can  
advance our interests in global stability without asking our soldiers to  
take all the risks or American taxpayers to foot all the bills. 
 
International peacekeeping helps   us maintain global leadership,  
prevent wars or keep them contained, minimize the involvement of U.S.  
troops, and get the rest of the world to pay three-quarters of the  
bills. Multilateral peace-keeping costs us just over $1 billion a year-- 
about a penny a day for the average taxpayer--compared to the entire  
$265 billion defense budget. Americans make up only 4% of UN forces,  
almost entirely as observers and border monitors. 
 
Since the end of the Cold War, the UN has helped to resolve successfully  
conflicts in places like Cambodia, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. Everyone  
acknowledges that some UN missions have failed, but no one would deny  
that many missions have succeeded, even under the most difficult  
circumstances. 
 
The UN is about far more than peacekeeping. It provides a mechanism for  
enforcing international sanctions and isolating rogue states. Its many  
programs and agencies care for refugees, inoculate children, fight  
epidemics, and promote nuclear safety. The UN does a lot with its  
resources, and our share is small. American families pay an average of  
$4 per family annually for our share of the cost of the entire UN  
system--from blue helmets for peacekeeping to polio vaccines for babies.  
That is a sound bargain for things the American people support. 
 
Pay Now or Pay Later: Crisis Prevention Is Cost-Effective 
 
Q. After spending so much to contain the Soviet Union, our arch  
adversary during the Cold War, why are we now giving Russia and the  
other New Independent States so much assistance? 
A. Our assistance to Russia and other New Independent States increases  
our security and expands our prosperity. It advances our strategic  
interest in dismantling nuclear weapons, especially those that were  
targeted on American cities. It bolsters the vital elements of  
democratic reform. It supports privatization--which, so far, has put  
more than half of Russia's economy in private hands--and opens new  
opportunities for U.S. companies. 
 
Q. Why do we give so much development assistance to foreign countries  
when we can better use the money for our own needs? 
A. Our international development programs are designed to prevent or  
counter international disorder, the current strategic threat. They are  
as much about serving America's interests as they are about helping  
others. 
 
Foreign assistance is a hand up, not a hand out. By helping others, we  
help ourselves. U.S. security and prosperity depend a great deal on  
political stability and economic progress in the developing world.  
Foreign assistance helps prevent the outbreak of conflicts that  
otherwise would call for costly international intervention. It promotes  
export opportunities for American companies, both large and small. It  
lays the groundwork for sustainable development and accountable  
government. It helps other nations deal with environmental degradation  
and health issues that have a global reach and a significant impact on  
our national well-being. 
 
We spend billions on the environment to reduce greenhouse emissions here  
in the U.S. However, greenhouse gasses have the same effect on the  
American atmosphere and climate no matter where they are emitted-- 
whether in Brazil or Ohio. Each dollar in international environmental  
assistance will eliminate four times more gasses in the American  
atmosphere than each dollar spent domestically. 
 
Q. Has our foreign assistance made any real difference in developing  
countries? What would happen if we just stopped giving it? 
A. Yes. Over the past three decades, American foreign assistance has  
played a major role in raising the standard of living in developing  
countries. For example, child mortality has been reduced by one-third.  
Smallpox has been eliminated. The majority of children in developing  
countries now enter primary school. There also is widespread American  
support for the $1.7 billion we spend annually helping refugees and  
victims of famine and other disasters. Every $25 million in our food  
assistance budget feeds half a million people for a year. 
 
If we stopped providing assistance to our friends and allies, both we  
and they would suffer. Our foreign assistance programs are intended to  
promote the kind of economic growth and political stability that are  
critical to U.S. national security and economic well-being. Failing to  
provide aid to developing countries would therefore jeopardize our  
national security. It also would have a detrimental effect on developing  
nations' growth rates. That would lead to the loss of potential export  
markets and would cost many Americans their jobs. 
 
It costs a hundred times as much to deal with humanitarian crises as it  
does to prevent them. It cost us more than $2 billion, for example, to  
deal with Somalia, and is costing us $1 billion to address the problems  
in Rwanda. 
 
Q. How does our support for the World Bank help America? 
A. The World Bank and other multilateral development banks (MDBs) are a  
first-rate investment for America. They play a vital role in supporting  
growth-oriented free market economic reform in developing countries,  
bolstering their capacities to--among other things--import from the  
United States. From a budgetary perspective, the MDBs are a bargain.  
Annually, the U.S. contributes, on the average, less than $2 to every $7  
contributed by other countries. Last year, our capital leveraged more  
than $40 billion in lending. Put another way, for every dollar we  
contributed to the MDBs last year, the banks were able to provide $20 in  
assistance. There is no way we can duplicate that kind of impact on our  
own. 
 
(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 9: 
 
U.S. Resources and Response To Developments in Liberia  
George E. Moose, Assistant Secretary for African Affairs 
Statement before the Subcommittee on Africa of the Senate Foreign  
Relations Committee, Washington, DC, September 21, 1995 
 
Good afternoon. I am pleased to be here today to talk about recent,  
promising developments in Liberia and the response of the United States  
Government to them.But before I address developments in Liberia, I would  
like to take a moment to discuss an even more immediate issue--one that  
threatens to undermine our nation's leadership in world affairs. 
 
Both Houses of Congress are considering drastic cuts to the foreign  
affairs budget which would deny the U.S. the resources necessary to  
carry out essential foreign policy objectives. In a speech to the  
Council on Foreign Relations last night, Secretary Christopher noted  
that the calls emanating from Congress for the U.S. to exercise  
leadership in world affairs cannot be answered if the Administration is  
denied the minimum resources necessary to get the job done. For example,  
the Senate's Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill would  
slash the Department's basic operating budget by almost $300 million and  
force us to close some 50 embassies and consulates--the equivalent of  
every post in Africa! 
 
The Department has consistently sought to maintain a diplomatic mission  
in virtually every country around the world. This principle of  
universality in our diplomatic presence has been a key factor in  
achieving important foreign policy goals. In Africa, the patient and  
persistent diplomacy of our Foreign Service officers helped develop the  
widespread African support that was critical to the indefinite extension  
of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty earlier this year. The active  
participation of American diplomats on the ground has been instrumental  
to the negotiated end to civil wars in Mozambique, Angola, and Liberia.  
The quick reaction of American diplomats facilitated the deployment of  
American medical teams to contain the outbreak of the Ebola virus in  
Zaire. 
 
Our ability to meet the daily challenges to our national interest  
depends upon our people in the field. The fax machine can never replace  
the handshake in the conduct of foreign policy. 
 
The State Department has not been--and should not be--exempt from budget  
cuts. In fact, our international affairs spending has been reduced by  
45% in real terms over the last decade. No bureau has felt the pinch  
more than the Africa Bureau, which already operates at minimal staffing  
and resource levels. 
 
The appropriations measures currently pending in the Senate would slash  
U.S.-assessed contributions to international organizations by almost  
$400 million and would limit our contributions to peacekeeping to only  
$250 million. Such cuts would hurt international efforts to promote  
child survival and combat AIDS. They would cripple our ability to  
support vital peacekeeping operations in Angola and Rwanda and foreclose  
opportunities to restore peace in places like Liberia. 
 
The Secretary has noted that if the Senate accepts the budget levels  
approved by the Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations  
Subcommittee, he would have no choice but to ask the President to veto  
the bill. As you consider this and other legislation relating to the  
conduct of our foreign affairs, I ask you to consider the implications  
of our abdication from a leadership role that only the U.S. can play in  
Africa and throughout the world. 
 
After nearly six years of civil war in Liberia and numerous efforts to  
encourage a peace agreement among the warring factions, dedicated  
persistence by Ghana's President--Jerry Rawlings, the current Chairman  
of ECOWAS--has paid off. On August 19, the leaders of Liberia's armed  
factions signed a peace accord that resolves issues outstanding for many  
months. A cease-fire which went into effect August 26, as called for in  
the agreement--is generally holding. The Council of State was sworn in  
as scheduled September 1, and is already making critical decisions about  
Liberia's future. 
 
Sharing in this success are previous ECOWAS chairmen; the UN's Special  
Representative to Liberia; the OAU's Special Negotiator for Liberia; the  
Government of Nigeria, which hosted the last two peace conferences; all  
the countries that have promoted negotiations and contributed troops to  
the West African peacekeeping force-- ECOMOG; and the UN observer  
mission--UNOMIL. The diplomatic efforts of the President's Special Envoy  
to Liberia, Ambassador Dane Smith--who unfortunately was not able to be  
with me today--have also made a significant contribution. 
 
An Accord With a Difference? 
 
We recognize that this is one in a long series of Liberian peace accords  
which have attempted to resolve the civil conflict begun in 1989--number  
13 if I am not mistaken. And there have been more than 50 meetings among  
faction leaders and with delegations from neighboring countries to  
conclude these agreements. The failures of these past accords inevitably  
make us cautious about the chances for this one to bring long, sought- 
after peace to Liberia. 
 
Nevertheless, there are elements in the Abuja Accord which we believe  
make it an accord with a difference. The first is the accommodation that  
appears to have been reached between two of the key protagonists in  
Liberia--NPFL leader Charles Taylor and the Government of Nigeria, which  
in the past has been a backer of Taylor's principal rivals. Mr. Taylor  
met with Nigeria's Head of State, Gen. Sani Abacha, on at least two  
occasions between the first Abuja conference in May and the second in  
August. The apparent consequence of these meetings is that Taylor now  
seems personally committed to making this accord work, and the Nigerians  
have staked their prestige on its success. Taylor, once fearful for his  
security in both Nigeria and Monrovia, now has visited both. Indeed, he  
has established a temporary headquarters in Monrovia only two blocks  
from the American Embassy compound. He now appears committed to seeking  
leadership in Liberia through political rather than military means. For  
their part, the Nigerians and their troops in ECOMOG appear to have  
accepted Taylor in this new political role. 
 
With this critical piece of the puzzle in place, the leaders of  
Liberia's key armed factions quickly resolved lingering differences over  
composition of the Council of State. Charles Taylor agreed to give up  
his claim to council leadership in favor of a neutral, non-political,  
non-military president, in the person of language professor, Wilton  
Sankowolo. Also critical, the leaders of the three main warring  
factions--the NPFL, ULIMO, and the LPC--agreed to sit on the council  
themselves, thus assuming direct responsibility for the critical initial  
phases of the implementation process, which involve disengagement and  
disarmament. The faction leaders also agreed to withdraw from the  
council during the electoral phase of the transition if they become  
candidates. 
 
Finally, differences among ECOWAS states over how best to resolve the  
Liberian conflict appear to be diminishing. The two Abuja conferences  
demonstrated greatly improved collaboration between Ghana and Nigeria,  
both of which have played key roles with respect to Liberia. Countries  
hosting Liberia's 725,000 refugees, principally Cote d'Ivoire and  
Guinea, are anxious to see their return to Liberia. Guinea and Cote  
d'Ivoire, where factional fighting has spilled across the borders with  
devastating effect, appear committed to ending the Liberian civil war.  
This harmonization of the positions of ECOWAS countries augurs well for  
the successful implementation of the Abuja Accord. 
 
With both Mr. Taylor and the Nigerians now on board, the faction leaders  
beginning to work together on the Council of State to resolve the  
problems of implementation, and the ECOWAS countries committed to the  
peace process, this accord holds considerable promise. We believe it  
offers an unprecedented opportunity for bringing lasting peace to  
Liberia. 
 
Challenges Ahead 
 
Nevertheless, formidable challenges lie ahead. 
 
-- Maintaining the cease-fire is essential. To assure this, the size and  
the capabilities of the ECOMOG and UNOMIL forces must be adequate.  
Logistical deficiencies and organizational and operational limitations  
could impede the ability of ECOMOG and UNOMIL--responsible among other  
things for cease-fire monitoring and investigation--from responding  
promptly to reports of cease-fire violations. Thus far, they have  
confirmed cease-fire violations in the northwest of the country between  
the Krahn and Mandingo factions of ULIMO, an armed faction. Otherwise,  
the cease-fire is generally holding. 
 
-- Successful implementation of disengagement, disarmament, and  
reintegration is critical to the peace process. An ambitious timetable  
calls for combatants to begin moving into assembly areas in November, to  
begin disarming by December 1, and to reintegrate into the civilian  
society thereafter. Despite agreement of faction leaders on this  
process, implementation plans are far from complete. There is also  
concern about the capacity of ECOMOG and UNOMIL--responsible for  
overseeing these critical steps--to provide effective supervision  
throughout the country. 
 
-- Successful reintegration of faction fighters, many of them youths, as  
well as displaced persons and returning refugees, is also essential to  
restoring normality to Liberia. As of now, these steps, too, lack  
adequate planning. 
 
-- Governance will be an immediate challenge. The Council of State has  
begun to take decisions regarding such critical issues as the  
reorganization of the national army, but it must continue to operate  
collaboratively if forward movement is to be maintained. Preparation  
should begin soon if elections are to be held successfully next August. 
 
-- The tasks associated with reconstruction--from restoring health and  
education infrastructure to re-establishing agricultural support  
systems-- are also daunting. 
 
U.S. Next Steps 
 
The challenge that confronts the United States and other friends and  
supporters of Liberia will be to respond quickly enough to give the  
peace process a chance to succeed. As an essential first step, we voted  
with others in the UN Security Council last week to extend the mandate  
of UNOMIL until January 31. The Administration has begun an interagency  
process to identify resources the United States can bring to bear on the  
various aspects of the implementation process. We are looking for funds  
to help support ECOMOG. In particular, we are examining how we might  
help ECOMOG address its mobility requirements. My colleague, John Hicks,  
can talk about the two-pronged assistance strategy that USAID is  
developing aimed at recovery and democratization. 
 
We will also be discussing with the UN the appointment of a special  
humanitarian assistance coordinator who would be able to pull together a  
coordinated assistance strategy that donors can support. Despite  
Liberia's enormous existing debt, we will be looking for ways to involve  
the international financial institutions in the reconstruction and  
rehabilitation effort. We have already begun to consult with other  
donors to encourage them to assist in the implementation of the peace  
accord. 
 
We also intend to continue our vigorous diplomatic support for the peace  
process. Special Presidential Envoy for Liberia, Dane Smith, will  
continue his direct involvement with the Liberian parties. We will  
continue to work with the neighboring ECOWAS states on their support for  
the process, to include their role in establishing an effective  
mechanism for controlling the flow of arms into Liberia. We have sought  
authority to support the establishment of a permanent ECOWAS  
representative in Monrovia, whose job it will be to help keep the  
implementation process on track. The Department will also accelerate  
naming a chief of mission for our embassy in Monrovia. This hearing is  
an important step in sensitizing both the Congress and the public to the  
urgency of moving quickly to consolidate peace in Liberia. 
 
Resource Constraints 
 
In conclusion, Madam Chairman, I must stress once again that resource  
constraints could seriously undermine our ability to participate  
effectively in ensuring that this accord fulfills its promise of  
bringing lasting peace to Liberia. The outcome of congressional action  
on the various pieces of the foreign affairs budget will make a  
significant difference in our ability to be helpful. We are grateful to  
you and to other members of the subcommittee for the role you have  
played in seeking to ensure that we have the means to support the  
expansion of peace and democracy in Liberia and elsewhere in Africa.   
 
(###) 
 
 
ARTICLE 10: 
 
1995 Arms Control Accomplishments and Replacing COCOM 
Thomas E. McNamara, Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs 
Statement before the Subcommittee on International Finance and Monetary  
Policy of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee,  
Washington, DC, September 21, 1995 
 
Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee. I would  
like to use this opportunity to take stock of our accomplishments of the  
past year to control the spread of arms and, in particular, to discuss  
where we are in our efforts to establish a new regime to replace COCOM. 
 
Preventing the proliferation of dangerous arms is the key to preserving  
American security in the post-Cold War world. The Administration has  
given this a very high priority as we respond to the challenges of  
global and regional threats. 
 
We have had a number of successes. The indefinite and unconditional  
renewal of the Non-Proliferation Treaty has set a global framework to  
prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. The Agreed Framework with the  
North Koreans has frozen the North Korean nuclear program and, as the  
Framework is implemented over the next 5 to 10 years, will end North  
Korea's nuclear threat to stability. 
 
In discussions between Vice President Gore and Prime Minister  
Chernomyrdin held in late June, we took a number of very important  
additional steps to ensure the security of nuclear materials in Russia.  
These included agreements to establish cooperative programs to enhance  
security and accounting at civilian nuclear facilities in Russia, to put  
the Highly Enriched Uranium Agreement back on track, and to speed  
dismantling of nuclear weapons. 
 
In missile proliferation, we have gained the agreement of Russia,  
Brazil, South Africa, and Ukraine to the guidelines of the Missile  
Technology Control Regime. Since agreeing in 1993 to abide by the MTCR  
guidelines, Russia has undertaken to put in place effective export  
control systems and policies and has resolved the United States'  
concerns about past missile-related activities, such as the sale of  
rocket-stage technology to India. As a result, the United States is  
satisfied that Russia is meeting its commitments, and we support  
Russia's immediate participation and membership in the MTCR. 
 
As you are aware, our overall policy toward Iran includes our continued  
economic pressure on that country coupled with our ceaseless efforts to  
convince other governments not to contribute to Iran's pursuit of a  
military buildup. One example of our work in this area is that the U.S.  
and Russia have reached agreement on the issue of Russian arms sales to  
Iran. In June, Vice President Gore and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin came  
to an agreement whereby Russia will not enter into any new weapons  
contracts with Iran, and will only service existing contracts. Russia's  
commitment to no new contracts is comprehensive in scope, and its  
existing contracts are reasonably limited in both time and content. 
 
New Forum--Successor to COCOM 
 
Last month marked the five-year anniversary of Saddam Hussein's invasion  
of Kuwait. The Gulf war served as a stark reminder of the dangers to  
international peace and security that can result from the destabilizing  
buildups of conventional weapons and the indiscriminate export of arms  
and sensitive dual-use technologies. 
 
To respond to the new security challenges posed by the spread of  
dangerous weapons and technologies, two years ago, President Clinton  
proposed that the international community put in place, for the first  
time, a global multilateral regime to control arms and dual-use  
technologies. Last week, 28 countries--including Russia and the Czech  
Republic, Hungary, Poland, and the Slovak Republic--convened in The  
Hague on September 11-12, for a high-level meeting and agreed to a set  
of political principles to guide the establishment--by the end of this  
year--of such a regime. 
 
The two major goals of the regime will be to prevent destabilizing  
buildups of weapons in regions of tension, such as South Asia and the  
Middle East, by establishing a formal process of transparency,  
consultation, and, where appropriate, adopting common policies of  
restraint and to deal firmly with states whose behavior is today a cause  
of concern--such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Libya--through  
restraint in the export of weapons and weapons-related and other  
sensitive, dual-use technologies. 
 
The case of Iraq showed us that often the only constraint on a state's  
ability to obtain dangerous arms is its ability to pay for them.  
Suppliers from both East and West, including, unfortunately, the United  
States and its allies, contributed in different ways to Saddam Hussein's  
multi-billion-dollar military buildup. 
 
We have learned our lesson: The New Forum will provide the framework for  
helping prevent such dangers from arising again. Let me describe the  
ways in which we will approach our task--a task made considerably more  
difficult because of the nature of conventional weapons and the  
commercial stakes involved in their trade as well as in related dual-use  
industrial goods and technologies. Conventional arms transfers are a  
legitimate means for advancing our foreign policy and national security  
goals. However, conventional weapons have the potential to alter  
military balances, disrupt U.S. military operations, and cause  
significant casualties to our troops and those of our allies and  
friends. They also serve to drive up our military requirements by  
prompting us to field forces and develop and deploy weapons to meet the  
challenges posed by potential adversaries fielding large and reasonably  
sophisticated armies. Such exports can also give potential adversaries  
the ability to deliver weapons of mass destruction. 
 
Today, the participants in the New Forum have common policies with  
respect to their trade to the four pariah countries in arms and arms- 
related technologies, as well as sensitive dual-use items for military  
end uses. So we are already cooperating in responding to these dangers.  
The participants in the New Forum discussions went forward and agreed  
that the New Forum should prevent the acquisition of armaments and  
sensitive dual-use items for military end-uses if the behavior of a  
state is, or becomes, a cause for serious concern. 
 
For the future, we need to guard against destabilizing conventional arms  
buildups, and to do this we will with our partners: 
 
-- Share intelligence on global trends and threats to peace and  
stability; 
-- Consult closely when we see dangers arising; 
-- Provide information on our trade in arms and sensitive dual-use goods  
and technologies to countries in regions of conflict; and 
-- Define common approaches to these, including, as appropriate,  
policies of restraint. 
 
The New Forum will not, however, be directed against any state or group  
of states, impede bona fide civil transactions, nor interfere with the  
rights of states to acquire legitimate means with which to defend  
themselves. 
 
With the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the attendant end of the  
Cold War, we and our allies concluded that COCOM's strategic rationale  
was no longer tenable--nor were the procedures and controls that had  
been associated with it. As a result, the New Forum will be based on  
national controls; in the current strategic environment, vetoes are  
things of the past. 
 
But the end of COCOM has not meant the end of controls. Rather than  
sweeping away the COCOM arrangement, we decided there were good reasons  
for an orderly transition in which the arrangement would be closed down  
with care and a new regime established to respond to the new security  
threats. In the phasing out of COCOM, we have put in place interim  
guidance for American exporters concerning areas where there will be  
liberalized treatment, and those areas, which because of their military  
sensitivity, will continue to be subject to careful national control. We  
have also negotiated common understandings with our partners about those  
areas which should continue to be treated with extreme vigilance. 
 
Russia and the Visegrad-four countries joined our efforts, having   met  
the agreed membership criteria: adequate export controls, adherence to  
the major non-proliferation regimes, and responsible export policies  
toward the pariah countries. Of particular note is Russia's agreement to  
end its arms transfers to Iran. 
 
In addition to including Russia and the states of Central Europe, the  
New Forum will be open--on a global and nondiscriminatory basis, to  
other states that comply with the agreed criteria. There is already a  
line forming of countries which seek to join, including Argentina, South  
Korea, Romania, Bulgaria, and Ukraine. This is a strong sign that, even  
before the regime has been established, this new item on our non- 
proliferation agenda is on course. 
 
Export Controls and Proliferation 
 
Many other countries wish to join the new regime, and one benefit of our  
work is that these new members, to meet the membership criteria, are  
taking steps to bring their national controls into line with the agreed  
membership criteria of responsible national transfer policies, adherence  
to non-proliferation norms, and a commitment to effective export  
controls. This has advanced both U.S. security and our larger effort  
against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,    as it has  
increased international support for the measures we use to fight  
proliferation. These include: 
 
-- Erecting global norms, such as the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,  
the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Biological Weapons Convention,  
that put WMD--weapons of mass destruction--"off limits" and provide an  
international basis for our other efforts; 
-- Participating in multilateral regimes, to facilitate cooperation  
among like-minded countries; 
-- Maintaining our military capabilities to deter and defend against the  
use of WMD; 
-- Taking action to stop transactions of proliferation concern; 
-- Implementing U.S. sanctions legislation; and 
-- Setting the right example, by unilaterally destroying our BW-- 
biological weapons--stockpile six years before the BWC--Biological  
Weapons Convention--entered into force, and undertaking deep cuts in our  
nuclear forces. 
 
This broad panoply of measures has permitted us to stop some foreign  
programs of proliferation concern while slowing and complicating others.  
The result is a lesser threat to U.S. forces and more time for us to  
address the fundamental security concerns that underlie countries'  
pursuit of WMD. 
 
Export controls remain an essential element of our non-proliferation  
effort. They help ensure that U.S. citizens, industry, and territory are  
not used to support military, especially WMD, programs that threaten  
U.S. interests. They delay programs of concern and make those programs  
more costly and less effective. Export controls permit us to support  
activities of important military and economic benefit to the U.S. while  
managing the risk that our support might be diverted to proliferation  
uses. 
 
All of the benefits of export controls are magnified when they are  
multilateral, and the U.S. has had success in persuading other  
significant potential suppliers to adopt similar non-proliferation  
export controls. In addition to the 25 MTCR, 29 Australia Group, and 31  
NSG countries, we have convinced a number of major producers in Europe,  
Asia, and  Latin America to abide by regime controls. The New Forum   
accelerates this trend with its requirement that members unilaterally  
apply non-proliferation controls, and we and our partners have a very  
active outreach program, combined with important assistance programs to  
help countries, including Russia, in developing the effective export  
controls. 
 
Even the Enhanced Proliferation Control Initiative "catch-all" control-- 
started in 1991 as a unilateral U.S. control--is now shared by a  
majority of our regime partners, including all European Union countries.  
But we will continue to require the ability to impose a few unilateral  
controls when our national interests dictate. 
 
Export Administration and Enhancement Act (S. 2203) 
 
Controls on dual-use exports are a fundamental part of our non- 
proliferation effort. Mr. Chairman, you have also asked me to provide  
the Department's views on the Export Administration and Enhancement Act  
of 1994 (S. 2203) marked up by the Banking Committee in the 103rd  
Congress. 
 
In general, the Administration supported passage of S. 2203, as it  
provided many of the export control authorities requested by the  
Administration. It is essential that any new export administration act  
provide the executive with the authorities and flexibility to address a  
complex and evolving  mix of non-proliferation, security, foreign  
policy, and economic goals. I'd like to comment on some of our principal  
concerns with S. 2203. 
 
We would oppose those sections of S. 2203 which direct the Secretary of  
State to seek specific objectives in multilateral regime negotiations,  
such as the creation of secretariats or pre-consultation on export  
licenses. These are not appropriate for the multilateral arrangements  
which could fall within the act's definition of regime. Such efforts  
would be counterproductive and undermine our credibility. In addition,  
we oppose statutory presumptions of approval and disapproval, which  
could result in export control policies that differ from multilateral  
regime standards. 
 
S. 2203 established a procedure for commodity jurisdiction review with  
problematic deadlines and other restrictions which would limit the  
President's ability to resolve jurisdictional disputes. We share the  
general goals of S. 2203 for commodity jurisdiction, and we are  
currently addressing the issue within the Administration. We expect to  
present soon a new procedure which will provide adequate timelines for  
decision-making, greater transparency, and a clear escalation process  
for dispute resolution. 
 
S. 2203 did not provide authority to regulate proliferant activities  
unrelated to exports, such as financing proliferant activities in a  
foreign country. The U.S. would be forced to rely on the International  
Emergency Economic Powers Act--IEEPA--to control such conduct. S. 2203  
also established unacceptable limitations on the President's authority  
to use IEEPA to continue export regulations. 
 
The time constraints in S. 2203 on the conduct of pre-license checks  
would limit the effectiveness of the pre-license check program and could  
restrict the Administration's ability to make informed licensing  
decisions. The Administration opposes codification of executive branch  
administrative procedures beyond that provided for in the  
Administration's proposal of last year. License review provisions are  
being revised by the Administration and will be set forth in an  
executive order. 
 
Mr. Chairman, as I noted earlier, the Administration generally supported  
passage of S. 2203, as it provided many of the export control  
authorities requested by the Administration. We have previously provided  
comments to the Banking Committee on various aspects of S. 2203. I have  
touched upon a few, but I would be glad to answer any questions you may  
have on this bill, on our non-proliferation efforts, or on the work to  
establish a successor regime to COCOM.  
 
[END OF DISPATCH VOLUME 6, NUMBER 42]

(###)

To the top of this page


Index of Dispatch Magazine Archives 1995 Issues|| Index of Dispatch Magazine Archives|| Index of "Briefings and Statements"
Index of Electronic Research Collections ERC Reference Desk || Alphabetic Index || Sitemap || ERC Homepage
Last modified: Jun. 8, 1999