U.S. Department of State
Dispatch Volume 6, Number 44, October 30, 1995
Bureau of Public Affairs



ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:

1.  Responding to the Security Challenges of the 21st Century--President 
Clinton
2.  President Clinton Holds Trilateral Meeting With Bosnian President 
Izetbegovic and Croatian President Tudjman
3.  The United States and Russia: A Vision for the Future--
Vice President Gore
4.  U.S. Policy Toward Russia: The Need For Bipartisan Consensus--Vice 
President Gore
5.  Haiti: Celebrating One Year of the Return to Freedom and Democracy--
Vice President Gore
6.  The Future of Women and Children in the Western Hemisphere--
First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton
7.  U.S. Global Economic Leadership--Joan Spero
8.  Political Reform in the Middle East: America's Stake--Robert H. 
Pelletreau
9.  The NAFTA Experience: Chile and the Future of Hemispheric Trade--
Alexander F. Watson
10. Terrorism in Algeria--David C. Welch
11. South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone Treaty



ARTICLE 1:

Responding to the Security Challenges of the 21st Century
President Clinton
Address at the 50th UN General Assembly, New York City, October 22, 1995

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, excellencies, distinguished 
guests: This week, the United Nations is 50 years old. The dreams of its 
founders have not been fully realized, but its promise endures. The 
value of the United Nations can be seen the world over--in the nourished 
bodies of once-starving children; in the full lives of those immunized 
against disease; in the eyes of students eager to learn; in the 
environment sustained, the refugees saved, the peace kept; and most 
recently, in standing up for the human rights and human possibilities of 
women and their children at the Beijing conference.

The United Nations is the product of faith and knowledge--faith that 
different peoples can work together for tolerance, decency and peace and 
knowledge that this faith will be forever tested by the forces of 
intolerance, depravity, and aggression. Now we must summon that faith 
and act on that knowledge to meet the challenges of a new era.

In the United States, some people ask, "Why should we bother with the 
UN? America is strong; we can go it alone." Well, we will act alone if 
we have to. But my fellow Americans should not forget that our values 
and our interests are also served by working with the UN.

The UN helps the peacemakers, the care providers, the defenders of 
freedom and human rights, the architects of economic prosperity, and the 
protectors of our planet to spread the risk, share the burden, and 
increase the impact of our common efforts.

Last year, I pledged that the United States would continue to contribute 
substantially to the UN's finances. Historically, the United States has 
been--and today it remains--the largest contributor to the United 
Nations. But I am determined that we must fully meet our obligations, 
and I am working with our Congress on a plan to do so.

All who contribute to the UN's work and care about its future must also 
be committed to reform--to ending bureaucratic inefficiencies and 
outdated priorities. The UN must be able to show that the money it 
receives supports saving and enriching people's lives, not unneeded 
overhead. Reform requires breaking up bureaucratic fiefdoms, eliminating 
obsolete agencies, and doing more with less. The UN must reform to 
remain relevant and to play a still stronger role in the march of 
freedom, peace, and prosperity.

We see it around the world--in the Middle East and Northern Ireland, 
people are turning from a violent past to a future of peace, and in 
South Africa and Haiti, long nights and fears have given way to new days 
of freedom. Throughout this hemisphere, every nation except one has 
chosen democracy, and the goal of an integrated, peaceful, and 
democratic Europe is now within our reach for the first time. In the 
Balkans, the international community's determination and NATO's resolve 
have made prospects for peace brighter than they have been for four long 
years.

Let me salute the UN's efforts on behalf of the people of Bosnia. The 
nations that took part in UNPROFOR kept the toll of this terrible war 
and the lives lost, wounds left unhealed, and children left unfed from 
being far graver still.

Next week, the parties to the war in Bosnia will meet in Dayton, Ohio, 
under the auspices of the United States and our Contact Group partners--
Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany--to intensify the search 
for peace. Many fundamental differences remain, but I urge the parties 
to seize this chance for a settlement. If they achieve peace, the United 
States will be there with our friends and allies to help secure it.

All over the world, people yearn to live in peace, and that dream is 
becoming a reality. But our time is not free of peril. As the Cold War 
gives way to the global village, too many people remain vulnerable to 
poverty, disease, and underdevelopment. And all of us are exposed to 
ethnic and religious hatred, the reckless aggression of rogue states, 
terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking, and the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction.

The emergence of the information and technology age has brought us all 
closer together and given us extraordinary opportunities to build a 
better future. But in our global village, progress can spread quickly; 
trouble can, too. Trouble on the far end of town soon becomes a plague 
on everyone's house. We can't free our own neighborhoods from drug-
related crime without the help of countries where the drugs are 
produced. We can't track down terrorists without assistance from other 
governments. We can't prosper or preserve our environment unless 
sustainable development is a reality for all nations. And our vigilance 
alone can't keep nuclear weapons stored half a world away from falling 
into the wrong hands.

Nowhere is cooperation more vital than in fighting the increasingly 
interconnected groups that traffic in terror, organized crime, drug 
smuggling, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. No one is 
immune--not the people of Japan, where terrorists unleashed nerve gas in 
the subway and poisoned thousands; not the people of Latin America or 
Southeast Asia, where drug traffickers wielding imported weapons have 
murdered judges, journalists, police officers, and innocent passersby; 
not the people of Israel and France, where hatemongers have blown up 
buses and trains full of children with suitcase bombs made from smuggled 
explosives; not the people of the former Soviet Union and Central 
Europe, where organized criminals seek to weaken new democracies and 
prey on decent, hard-working men and women; and not the people of the 
United States, where home-grown terrorists blew up a federal building in 
the heart of America, and foreign terrorists tried to topple the World 
Trade Center and plotted to destroy the very hall we gather in today. 
These forces jeopardize the global trend toward peace and freedom, 
undermine fragile new democracies, sap the strength of developing 
countries, and threaten our efforts to build a safer, more prosperous 
world.

So, today, I call upon all nations to join us in the fight against them. 
Our common efforts can produce results. To reduce the threat of weapons 
of mass destruction, we are working with Russia to reduce our nuclear 
arsenals by two-thirds. We supported Ukraine, Kazakstan, and Belarus in 
removing nuclear weapons from their soil. We worked with the states of 
the former Soviet Union to safeguard nuclear materials and convert them 
to peaceful use. North Korea has agreed to freeze its nuclear program 
under international monitoring. Many of the nations represented in this 
room succeeded in getting the indefinite extension of the Non-
Proliferation Treaty.

To stem the flow of narcotics and stop the spread of organized crime, we 
are cooperating with many nations, sharing information, providing 
military support, and initiating anti-corruption efforts. And results 
are coming. With Colombian authorities, we have cracked down on the 
cartels that control the world's cocaine market. Two years ago, they 
lived as billionaires, beyond the law. Now many are living as prisoners 
behind bars.

To take on terrorists, we maintain strong sanctions against states that 
sponsor terrorism and defy the rule of law, such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, 
and Sudan. We ask them today again to turn from that path. Meanwhile, we 
increase our own law enforcement efforts and our cooperation with other 
nations.

Nothing we do will make us invulnerable, but we all can become less 
vulnerable if we work together. That is why today I am announcing new 
initiatives to fight international organized crime, drug trafficking, 
terrorism, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Some 
initiatives we can take on our own, and others we hope we will take 
together in the form of an international declaration to promote the 
safety of the world's citizens.

First steps we will take: Yesterday, I directed our government to 
identify and put on notice nations that tolerate money laundering. 
Criminal enterprises are moving vast sums of ill-gotten gains through 
the international financial system with absolute impunity. We must not 
allow them to wash the blood off of profits from the sale of drugs, from 
terrorism, or from organized crime. Nations should bring their banks and 
financial systems into conformity with international anti-money-
laundering standards. We will work to help them to do so. If they 
refuse, we will consider appropriate sanctions. Next, I directed the 
U.S. Government to identify the front companies and to freeze the assets 
of the largest drug ring in the world--the Cali Cartel--to cut off its 
economic lifelines and stop our own people from dealing unknowingly with 
its companies.

Finally, I have instructed the Justice Department to prepare legislation 
to provide our other agencies with the tools they need to respond to 
organized criminal activity. But because we must win this battle 
together, I now invite every country to join in negotiating and 
endorsing a declaration on international crime and citizen safety--a 
declaration which would first include a "no sanctuary" pledge, so that 
we could say together to organized criminals, terrorists, drug 
traffickers and smugglers--"You have nowhere to run and nowhere to 
hide."

Second is a counter-terrorism pact, so that we can together urge more 
states to ratify existing anti-terrorism treaties and work with us to 
shut down the grey markets that outfit terrorists and criminals with 
firearms and false documents.

Third is an anti-narcotics offensive. The international drug trade 
poisons people, breeds violence, and tears at the moral fabric of our 
society. We must intensify action against the cartels and toward the 
destruction of drug crops. And we, in consumer nations such as the 
United States, must decrease demand for drugs.

Fourth is an effective police force partnership. International criminal 
organizations target nations whose law enforcement agencies lack the 
experience and capacity to stop them. To help police in the new 
democracies of Central Europe, Hungary and the United States established 
an international law enforcement academy in Budapest. Now we should 
consider a network of centers all around the world to share the latest 
crime-fighting techniques and technology.

Fifth, we need an illegal arms and deadly materials control effort that 
we all participate in. A package the size of a child's lunch bag held 
the poison gas used to terrorize Tokyo. A lump of plutonium no bigger 
than a soda can is enough to make an atomic bomb. Building on efforts 
already underway with the states of the former Soviet Union and with our 
G-7 partners, we will seek to better account for, store, and safeguard 
materials with massive destructive power. We should strengthen the 
Biological Weapons Convention, pass the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty 
next year, and, ultimately, eliminate the deadly scourge of land mines. 
We must press other countries and our own Congress to ratify the 
Chemical Weapons Convention and to intensify our efforts to combat the 
global illegal arms network that fuels terrorism, equips drug cartels, 
and prolongs deadly conflicts. This is a full and challenging agenda, 
but we must complete it, and we must do it together.

Fifty years ago, as the conference that gave birth to the United Nations 
got underway in San Francisco, a young American war hero recorded his 
impressions of that event for a newspaper. "The average G.I. in the 
street doesn't seem to have a very clear-cut conception of what this 
meeting's about," wrote the young John F. Kennedy. But one bemedaled 
Marine sergeant gave the general reaction when he said, "I don't know 
much about what's going on, but if they just fix it so we don't have to 
fight anymore, they can count me in."

Well, the United Nations has not ended war, but it has made it less 
likely and has helped many nations turn from war to peace. The United 
Nations has not stopped human suffering, but it has  healed the wounds 
and lengthened the lives of millions of human beings. The United Nations 
has not banished repression or poverty from the earth, but it has 
advanced the cause of freedom and prosperity on every continent. The 
United Nations has not been all that we wished it would be, but it has 
been a force for good and a bulwark against evil.

So at the dawn of a new century so full of promise yet plagued by peril, 
we still need the United Nations. And so, for another 50 years and 
beyond, you can count the United States in. 

(###)



ARTICLE 2:

President Clinton Holds Trilateral Meeting With Bosnian President 
Izetbegovic and Croatian President Tudjman
Statement by White House Spokesman Mike McCurry, New York City, 
October 24, 1995.

I wanted to stop briefly on my way to the Lincoln Center to give you a 
readout on the half-hour-long trilateral meeting that the President had 
with President Izetbegovic and President Tudjman. They met for half an 
hour in a trilateral format. The President then had a brief word 
privately with both presidents before their departure.

In the President's discussion with his two colleagues, he stated once 
again that the United States was committed to an honorable peace in 
Bosnia that will preserve the territorial integrity of Bosnia-
Herzegovina. He spoke in a very impassioned way about the opportunity 
that now exists in the Dayton proximity talks for real progress toward a 
settlement of this conflict.

He noted that he had seen amazing things happen in the last several 
years that he, frankly, thought would never be possible--real genuine 
discussions of peace between Arabs and Jews, genuine discussions in 
Northern Ireland that could bring an end to the troubles, and progress 
toward peace and reconciliation in South Africa. He made the point to 
them that at this moment the entire world longs for a settlement of this 
conflict that has been so tragic.

He pledged on behalf of the United States that we will do everything we 
can to see that there is a strong, coordinated force that will be in a 
position to enforce any peace that they can agree to in the talks in 
Dayton. He said, of course, that the United States will be willing to 
play a major leadership role in such a force.

The other subject that the President attached great importance to in his 
discussions with the Bosnian leader and the Croatian leader is the 
federation that exists between Bosnian-Croats and Bosnian-Muslims and 
also the confederation that exists between that federation and the 
Government of Croatia. He said it is very, very important for both 
leaders to do anything they can to deepen and nurture the peace that is 
represented by this federation--that they take practical steps on the 
ground so that citizens who are both Croat and Muslim can begin to see 
that this federation can pay a real dividend. He suggested to them that 
the strength of that federation would be a very important underpinning 
of any peace settlement that is reached with the Serbs that would bring 
an end to the conflict.

They explored that subject then as each individual--President 
Izetbegovic first and then President Tudjman--responded. Both of them 
said that they were encouraged by the prospects for progress in Dayton. 
Quoting President Izetbegovic, he said that "we have great 
expectations."

They reviewed some of the issues related to both the federation and to 
the proximity talks. There was no attempt in this meeting to negotiate, 
because President Clinton made it very clear that that was the very hard 
work that lay ahead in Dayton. But he did encourage them to be flexible, 
to seek formulas that will work, and to be very determined as they begin 
a process that, of course, the United States hopes will lead to peace.

In concluding the trilateral meeting, the President said, "I hope you 
will be able to achieve unity between the two of you because I hope that 
will be an important part of an agreement." He also said, "We don't want 
just any old agreement. We want one that is decent, honorable, good, and 
one that will work."

The President then turned the program over briefly to Secretary 
Christopher and to Assistant Secretary Holbrooke, who briefed on the 
process itself. They outlined a little bit to the two presidents about 
how they see the process in Dayton unfolding, and they reviewed some 
issues related to the logistics of the talks themselves. President 
Tudjman again indicated, as he has publicly, that because of commitments 
in Croatia he will, after some period of time, return to Croatia and 
then return back to Dayton if the talks are still going. Assistant 
Secretary Holbrooke made the point that we had no way of knowing at this 
point how long the talks would last.

But, in sum, the President was very encouraged by these discussions 
today. He believes that, on behalf of the Government of Croatia and the 
Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, there is a real willingness to seek 
peace in these talks--that the parties are going to arrive at the table 
in a good mood disposed toward finding agreements, and, certainly, he 
did everything he could today to encourage both of those parties to see 
that that mood prevails as the talks begin in Dayton.  (

###)



ARTICLE 3: 

The United States and Russia: A Vision for the Future
Vice President Gore
Remarks at the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York, October 17, 
1995

Thank you, General Graves. It is a real honor to be here. The reason I 
accepted your invitation to speak here at West Point is that, even more 
than most American citizens, I feel that I owe a great debt of gratitude 
to this institution. I rely heavily on the outstanding work of the West 
Pointers on my staff: Lt. Col. Rick Saunders, class of '73, is a key 
player on my national security team; Lt. Col. Bill Bradshaw, class of 
'80, is my military aide; and Capt. Marc Thomas, who taught here two 
years ago, has served for the past 14 months in my office as a White 
House Fellow.    

Ladies and gentlemen, Firsties, Cows, Yearlings, and Plebes: In just six 
days--not far from here, at the historic home of Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt in Hyde Park, New York--President Clinton will be meeting with 
President Boris Yeltsin to discuss a wide range of issues of concern to 
our two countries--from the implementation of the Conventional Forces in 
Europe Treaty to the latest events in the former Yugoslavia.    

Tomorrow, Congress will meet to make important decisions about the 
future of American assistance to promote democratic reforms in Russia. 
At issue is nothing less than the central question of whether America 
will have the resources and the courage to lead in the post-Cold War 
era. At this moment of great decision, I thought it appropriate and 
timely to offer the American people, and you--America's next generation 
of military leaders--our vision for the future of America's relationship 
with Russia and the Russian people. 

This is the second in a series of three speeches I am giving on this   
important topic. I began this series last Friday in San Francisco and 
will conclude this trilogy later this week at Washington, DC's Kennan 
Institute for Advanced Russian Studies.

The U.S. at a Crossroads

Make no mistake: Our nation truly is at the crossroads of great 
opportunity. After two world wars and a nuclear balance of terror 
lasting four decades, before us lies the opportunity to help Russia and 
the Russian people successfully complete their historic transformation 
to a society accustomed to freedom and no longer subject to 
authoritarian rule. Before us is a rare, and, perhaps, unique chance to 
help foster a Russia which we no longer regard as an ideological foe, 
but as a friend and partner. History is rife with "might-have-beens," 
and President Clinton and I believe it would be absolutely criminal to 
pass up this opportunity. 

Let there be no doubt: The course we pursue toward Russia will affect   
the security and economic well-being of American families in every 
community in our land. It will also provide the basic context for your 
careers as soldiers, whether you will be serving at Fort Bragg, in 
Germany, Korea, the Pentagon, or the White House. Quite simply, your 
jobs will be much less dangerous, and your responsibilities more 
manageable, if we can keep U.S.-Russian relations on track--and if we 
can help keep Russia moving in the direction of stability, democracy, 
market economics, and integration with the rest of the world. 

Reflect for a moment on the dramatic transformations that have been 
underway in Russia since you Firsties in this hall were seniors in high 
school:  the utter collapse of communist tyranny, the birth of free 
enterprise, and the first stirrings of the rule of law. Indeed, you will 
be pursuing your careers in a dramatically different context than the 
generations that went before you. The class of 1996 was among the first 
to enter West Point outside the shadow of the Cold War and the 
superpower confrontation it sustained. From today's  vantage point, the 
terms "Iron Curtain" and "Fulda Gap" will find resonance only in your 
history books, and not as central parts of your professional lives. 
Indeed, you are the first generation in memory that can view Russia as a 
partner rather than as a threat to the peace.

In the heady first months after the collapse of the Soviet Union, some 
were quick to conclude that history itself was now over and done with; 
that the great struggle of human civilization had ended decisively--once 
and for all time--that all that was left for us to do   was to hash out 
the details. But for most of us, even at that time, it was clear that we 
were not at the end of history, but rather at the start of one of its 
most important new chapters--an era of immense opportunity as well as 
significant peril. 

The hard work of governing the new nations of the former Soviet Union   
began only after the democratic revolution of 1991--and after the 
initial euphoria had faded. The collapse of the Soviet Union left behind 
an organizational and philosophical void along with immense unmet social 
needs. The leaders of Russia spoke of making a rapid transition to 
democracy, the market, and the rule of law. But these institutions could 
not be built overnight. In their absence, the possibility had emerged of 
collapse or retreat into some form of tyranny or utter chaos.  There was 
the clear possibility, in other words, that hope might be suddenly 
overwhelmed by despair. 

Consider, for example, the situation in Russia at the beginning of 1992. 
At that time, Soviet-era bureaucrats still controlled most of the key 
levers of the economy, hyper-inflation was destroying savings and 
stifling production, and none of the legal or institutional 
infrastructure necessary to support a market economy was in place. 
Meanwhile, the deadlock between President Yeltsin and the Russian 
Parliament threatened to bring economic liberalization to a grinding 
halt, thereby creating a crisis for Russian democracy as well.

U.S. Leadership

When President Clinton came to Washington in January 1993, he saw   both 
the magnitude of the challenges ahead and the vital U.S. interests at 
stake in the outcome. He quickly recognized the need to rethink the   
basic assumptions about our relations with the states of the former 
Soviet Union, to reinvent the Cold War-vintage machinery of the U.S. 
Government responsible for implementing it, and to keep America engaged 
by making practical and prudent investments in Russia's democratic 
future. 

The President set three clear priorities that challenged the power   and 
ingenuity of American leadership: 

-- To support political and economic reform throughout the region;  
-- To promote the integration of the New Independent States into the 
political and economic life of the world; and 
-- To reduce the danger posed by Soviet-era nuclear warheads and 
reactors. 

To their lasting credit, several influential Members of Congress helped 
assemble crucial building blocks--some of which were already in place, 
which provided a crucial foundation for the President's program and the 
bipartisan partnership that sustains it to this day. Leaders of both 
Houses--notably Senators Sam Nunn and Dick Lugar and Speaker of the 
House Newt Gingrich and Representative Lee Hamilton--rallied support 
behind the President's program. With their help, President Clinton 
successfully secured funding for the programs that deliver on his 
promise of practical, targeted assistance to encourage reform throughout 
the former Soviet Union, while safeguarding America's vital national 
interests. 

Many were quick to criticize the President's vision. They argued that 
Russia would remain forever shackled to its past, feeling secure only by 
making its neighbors fearful. 

We certainly recognized that the enormity of the task of reform 
outstripped the resources we could bring to bear. As the President 
himself said in Moscow last year, it is up to the Russian people to 
decide their place in the world. They must choose whether to define 
their role in yesterday's terms or tomorrow's. 

This remains more than a theoretical question. President Clinton didn't 
imply that he could provide the answer. Rather, he made it quite clear 
that it was up to the Russian people themselves to choose their own 
course. But he also made crystal clear that our national interests would 
not be served if we chose to retreat from this important opportunity to 
help the people of Russia shape a new destiny. Through ardent diplomacy 
and tenacious personal leadership, the President set out to marshal our 
friends to the cause of Russian reform.

Assistance Efforts. Our assistance programs are carefully targeted and 
focused investments in Russia's future; they are not hand-outs. Our 
assistance is strictly monitored, carefully reviewed, and conditioned on 
clear indications that our Russian partners are carrying their fair 
share of the load. 

Are there real results? Are the American taxpayers getting their money's 
worth for our leadership abroad? I think a quick canvass of our 
assistance efforts now underway in   Russia offers convincing proof of 
the wisdom of our course. 

Our first priority was to expand the humanitarian aid initiatives begun 
in 1992 to cushion the initial shock of the Soviet Union's collapse. But 
as the immediate humanitarian crisis subsided in most of the New 
Independent States, our focus shifted to helping build open societies 
and open markets to provide direct support for political and economic 
reform. 

Some of the best individuals America and our government had to offer 
seized the chance to do their share--from our leading agronomists, who 
worked to help improve grain harvests to brave American entrepreneurs, 
who staked out claims in cities they knew had not been visited by any   
foreigners, let alone Americans, for decades. 

These American initiatives have been the most effective ambassadors that 
we could possibly send to the New Independent States. Paired with, and 
supported by, vigorous American diplomacy, they helped dispel lingering 
suspicions and enabled us to build bridges to a region of the world that 
had long closed itself to us.

A Promise of Democracy. The starting point for reform, and our support 
for reform, has been the promise of the Russian people's embrace of 
democracy and free markets. Now their practical steps are bringing 
concrete results. 

Many of the basic building blocks of democracy--a national constitution, 
political parties, independent newspapers and television stations, and 
free and fair elections are slowly falling into place. The Russian 
people made a fundamental choice to embrace democracy, and it is they 
who deserve the lion's share of the credit, of course. But we Americans 
also are doing our share to bolster their efforts, through   citizen-to-
citizen exchanges and practical assistance and advice.

Liberalization of the Economy. Meanwhile, the liberalization of the 
Russian economy has proceeded at a dizzying pace. With our help, Russia 
has privatized nearly 100,000 businesses representing 70% of Russian 
industry. Today, the private sector produces over 60% of Russia's 
income. If Russian economic policy stays on its present course, next 
year might mark the beginning of real economic growth after years of 
painful decline. The door is also now open for Russia to build a 
vibrant, mutually advantageous trade and investment relationship with 
the United States and the other market democracies. President Clinton 
and the supporters of Russian reform in Congress have long maintained 
that it would be trade, not aid, that would be the ultimate guarantor of 
economic growth in the former Soviet Union. 

Early in 1993, the President asked me to become personally involved in 
this effort by working with Prime Minister Chernomyrdin to develop for 
the Russian leadership and for ourselves a better understanding of  what 
needed to be done to transform Russia into a magnet for foreign trade 
and investment, especially in the fertile energy and defense  technology 
sectors. The Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, established in April 1993, 
has become a crucial mechanism for collaborative bilateral efforts to 
lower   barriers to trade and investment while launching joint efforts 
to harness new technologies, explore space, protect the environment, and 
address Russia's pressing public health and agricultural needs. On a 
more immediate level, we have focused on other hindrances to investor 
confidence--the need for clear legal protection of equity, a non-
punitive tax system, and more open import-export markets. 

Among other things, we have learned that as Russia develops a market 
economy, it must be mindful of the dangers of crime and corruption. The 
Russian people, as well as American investors, know that economic change 
has created new opportunities for crooks as well. Today's criminals in   
Russia mock the aspirations of the average Russians and budding 
entrepreneurs who want to earn an honest living and live according to 
the rules of an open society. 

Russian organized crime and drug-trafficking have a real impact not only 
in Russia, but also in Europe and here in the United States. American 
and Russian law enforcement agencies are now working together to combat 
this common enemy. Indeed, we have opened an FBI field office in Moscow. 
President Clinton is committed to protecting American citizens and our 
borders against these threats while strengthening the international 
structures and institutions that will allow us to build a more 
integrated global community. 

Economic and political integration with the rest of the world is also a 
key goal of Russian foreign policy. With our full support, the Russian 
Government has, to its credit, set a firm course toward increased 
cooperation and membership in the world's most important economic and 
political bodies. Russia already participates in political discussions 
with the G-7, which links together the world's leading   industrial 
democracies. Russia is also building practical ties that give it a voice 
in international economic institutions and arrangements, including the 
World Trade Organization, the European Union, the Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development, and the ASEAN Regional Forum.

U.S.-Russian Cooperation for an Integrated Europe

Promoting Security. As Russia strives to embrace the opportunities of 
free trade and economic cooperation, it also is beginning to build 
bridges to promote security across what had once been a divided Europe. 
This course of integration is still regarded with suspicion by many in 
Russia. Some Russians, inflamed by the fear of an uncertain future and 
by the humiliating memory of the utter failure of communism, will 
continue to express their frustrations at the ballot box by supporting 
candidates who fan the flames of ultra-nationalism. Let us not deceive 
ourselves: Parties of the angry and the disaffected are likely to remain  
fixtures of the Russian political landscape for some time to come. 

But people of the Russian Federation and the people of the United States 
share an interest in working to ensure that the dissonant voices of fear 
and division do not triumph in the end. We must work together to make 
sure that history does not repeat itself. Instability in Central Europe, 
that seed-bed of European wars, has twice in this century brought 
tragedy to the entire continent. The best way to ensure a stable future 
is by working together to build an undivided Europe. 

Russia deserves credit for having done its own part to promote good 
relations with its European neighbors. On August 31 of last year, after 
years of patient but firm American diplomacy, the last active-duty 
Russian troops withdrew from Germany and the Baltics. Similarly, the 
Russian and Ukrainian Governments have worked together to manage a 
number of difficult issues, such as economic cooperation and the 
implementation of START I. 

For our part, the United States has worked with our NATO allies to   
realize our vision for an integrated Europe that includes an important   
role for Russia. This structure includes an enlarged NATO, a 
strengthened Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe--OSCE, 
an enhanced Partnership for Peace--PfP, and a closer relationship 
between Russia and NATO. While we understand full well that many 
Russians question the wisdom of NATO enlargement, we are working with 
Russian leaders at all levels of government to ensure Russia will remain 
open to broad cooperation with Europe and with NATO, and to resolve our 
differences in a manner that respects their stature and their needs. 

Part of our strategy for building this new Europe calls for taking the 
issue out of the realm of theory--and partisan politics--and putting it 
in an immediate, very practical context. With a peace settlement for the 
former Yugoslavia possibly within sight, we now have an opportunity to 
make cooperation between NATO and Russia concrete, productive, and 
meaningful. Agreement on a formula for Russian   participation in a 
Bosnia peace implementation force would serve both the cause of peace 
and our common goal of a more stable, integrated Europe. 

We are taking a similarly constructive, cooperative approach to other 
areas of possible disagreement and potential friction between Russia and 
the West. The most important fact is not the existence of these 
problems, but the level-headed way in which we are both approaching 
them.

Conventional Forces in Europe--CFE. For instance, one of the most 
important items on the two Presidents' agenda at Hyde Park will be the 
Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe--CFE, which calls for dramatic 
reductions in military equipment levels across the continent. 

The Russians are now pressing for modifications to the treaty's flank 
limits in light of the manner in which Russia's security needs have 
shifted since the breakup of the former Soviet Union. The United States 
and its NATO allies acknowledge that the world has, indeed, changed 
since the CFE Treaty was signed in 1990 and that Russia is meeting its 
overall destruction requirements. Now we have developed a proposal which 
takes Russia's legitimate needs into account while preserving the 
central elements of the treaty and protecting the interests of countries 
along Russia's northern and southern borders. We are looking to the 
Russians to work with us and other CFE parties to achieve an early 
resolution of this problem.

Arms Control and Disarmament. Another area where practical cooperation 
is vital is nuclear safety and non-proliferation. Arms control and 
disarmament issues still lie near the center of our relationship with 
Moscow, just as they did during the Cold War; but in this new era they 
have acquired a new meaning and a new context. Today, Russian missiles 
are no longer targeted at America's cities or homes. Thanks in large 
part to U.S. and Russian leadership and cooperation, the danger that the 
Soviet Union would give way to four nuclear-weapons states is well on 
its way to being resolved. 

Thanks to the foresight of Senators Nunn and Lugar, we have the 
resources to help the Russians dismantle the vast former Soviet arsenal 
of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Americans and Russians 
are now working side by side to prevent nuclear materials from falling 
into the hands of would-be terrorists and smugglers. Uranium from 
Russian warheads is being converted into fuel for our domestic power 
plants to help light our schools and factories and cities. After 
agreeing to reasonable restraints on arms and technology sales abroad, 
the stage has been set for Russia to become a  full member of the 
Missile Technology Control Regime--MTCR--and to be a founding member of 
the New Forum, the organization succeeding COCOM, that is now charged 
with keeping sensitive technologies out of the hands of rogue states.

Importance of Congressional Support

Where all of these challenges are concerned, I cannot overstate the   
importance of bipartisan congressional support as we build on our 
nations' initial achievements and initiatives. America's enduring legacy 
is the triumph of our engagement in the world. But now, as we enter a 
new season in our national political life, that legacy is being 
threatened by those who would legislate the surrender of America's 
global leadership. Today, on Capitol Hill, the critically important 
Nunn-Lugar programs are facing up to a 20% cut. Nuclear safety 
initiatives--such as the ones that are designed to prevent incidents 
like the Chernobyl disaster--are under threat of being zeroed-out. Far-
reaching arms control treaties, including START II and the Chemical 
Weapons Convention, are in limbo because of congressional foot-dragging 
and obsequious homage paid to a tiny minority of right-wing extremists 
who were disoriented by the end of the Cold War--and who seem, at times, 
to be trying to recreate it. The very programs that support the 
development of free media, the rule of law, and democratic institutions 
in the former Soviet Union risk being sacrificed on the altar of short-
sighted political expediency. Even programs that support American trade 
and investment--at the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the 
Export-Import Bank--face being gutted. 

We cannot allow our future prosperity and security to be held hostage by 
short-term partisan maneuvers. At stake are nothing less than America's 
fundamental interests. When Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin meet at Hyde 
Park on Monday, you will see a clear determination to reinforce the core 
of the relationship against further shocks or domestic political 
pressures. 

Wherever possible, the President has sought to work with--rather than 
browbeat--Russian reformers. We are well aware that we will have areas 
of disagreement, but we do not think it will be helpful, as some in the 
Senate have suggested, to treat each and every disagreement we have with 
the Russians as some sort of final, high-noon showdown that puts the 
entire relationship, including our support for reform, on the line. We 
are no longer engaged in a global ideological struggle with Soviet 
communism, and our relationship with Russia should reflect not old 
habits of mind but that new reality.

Difficulties Remain

Of course, there are those who doubt whether the Russian Government 
really wants to change. It's a little like the old joke: How many 
psychiatrists does it takes to change a light bulb? The answer is one--
if the light bulb really wants to change. I believe there is no longer 
any doubt that in their hearts, the overwhelming majority of Russians 
want change. Most Russians realize that there can be no return to the 
failed policies of the past, and would not trade away their hard-won 
freedoms. 

At the same time, we all know that there is nothing automatic or 
guaranteed about happy endings. No one is naive about the real 
difficulties Russia faces. We do not--indeed, we cannot--know for sure 
what kind of state Russia will be in the 21st century. 

As I speak to you today, many Russians are preparing for December's 
parliamentary elections and next June's presidential contest. As with   
any young democracy, holding free and fair elections will offer proof 
that a majority of Russians now accept that political combat should be 
waged on the hustings, the floor of parliament, or on the pages of 
Russia's free press, rather than in the streets or on the barricades. 
That does not mean that Russia's friends abroad will always welcome the   
results at the polls. I well remember the day I landed in Moscow to 
receive the news that the election the night before gave a victory to 
the ultra-nationalist and loosely wrapped demagogue, Vladimir 
Zhironovsky. But good sense prevailed over time, and it is clearly a net 
positive that real politics is emerging as the basis of the system that 
governs the geographically largest country on earth. 

American Leadership Must Continue

It is precisely because we cannot bet on a predetermined outcome in 
Russia that we must continue to assert American leadership--steadily, 
patiently, and firmly. It is precisely because the future is never 
foreordained that we must summon the courage and the wisdom to invest in 
Russia's democratic future in ways that are consistent with our 
interests and values. The key point here remains that support for 
economic and political   reform in Russia, and promoting Russia's 
integration with Europe and the world, are in our own national interest. 

Just as the Nunn-Lugar program and the implementation of START II are 
defense by other means, so, too, are these initiatives an investment in 
a safer future. They are the best and least expensive investments we can   
make in our own security and in the security of all the peoples of 
Europe and the former Soviet Union. We must not shirk the burdens of 
leadership. America's finest hours have come when we have rejected the 
easy temptations of isolationism. 

I am reminded of a young army captain who initially succumbed to these 
temptations some 75 years ago, after the conclusion of another great 
global conflict--World War I. That young man, not much older than all of 
you, was stuck in Europe while diplomats haggled over the terms of peace 
at Versailles. He wrote to his future wife about his yearning to come 
home. "As far as we're concerned," he wrote, "Most of us don't give a 
whoop whether Russia has a red government or no government, and if the 
King of Lollipops wants to slaughter his subjects or his Prime Minister-
-it's all the same to us."  

The young captain who wrote those words was one Harry S. Truman. 
Fortunately, for all of us, he and his generation changed their minds as 
they grew older and learned and became engaged with the world. Men like 
Truman, Senator Arthur Vandenberg, and President Dwight Eisenhower--for 
whom this hall is named--decided to confront the challenges of the Cold 
War era head-on, in the former Soviet bloc, in Western Europe, in Asia, 
and all over this earth. Thanks in large part to their leadership, the 
political and economic principles that we have nurtured here in the 
United States for over 200 years are now ascendant in nations around the 
globe.

Challenges and Choices

Now, to be sure, 50 years ago, the flush of victory in World War II and 
the unrivaled prosperity that followed made it easier to project a 
bipartisan vision of America's role and policies abroad. New, more 
complex challenges have emerged in the landscape of the post-Cold War 
world. Still, in many respects, the choices we face today are analogous 
to many of the choices we faced at the end of World War II: Will we 
uphold a bipartisan consensus on America's international affairs? With 
it, we prevail; without it, we will fail. Will we continue to engage in 
world events and foster the enlargement of democracy in all corners of 
the world? And will we do everything in our power to ensure that a 
changing and turbulent Russia evolves as a democratic and free nation?  
The answers, I believe, should be as clear to our generation as they 
were to the wise men and women who built an enduring bipartisan 
consensus on American foreign policy two generations ago.

-- Then, as now, America's destiny is to lead, not to retreat. 
-- To stand, as we have in Haiti--returning democracy and hope to a   
nation ravaged by tyranny and oppression. 
-- To stand as we have with those seeking a new day of freedom in South 
Africa. 
-- To stand as we have with those who would make peace in the Middle 
East, who ended the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, who would work to stop 
the cycle of violence and retribution in Northern Ireland, and who would 
safeguard a prayed-for peace in Bosnia. 

Though there may be new, misguided voices in Congress and elsewhere 
calling for America's withdrawal from the world stage, we have learned 
time and again not to heed these calls of defeatism. We have learned 
that isolationism is not the American way.

Conclusion

In a few short months and years, those of you here will join the ranks 
of trusted guardians of our nation's security and become the trustees of 
our liberty. The mantle of responsibility you will bear will be heavy. I 
know, as I look across the faces in this room, that you will ready to 
bear that burden. Your nation is proud of you. We thank you for your 
commitment to your country, and we thank you for your service yet to 
come. Rest assured that as you prepare to stand tall for America's 
interests and her security, your nation's leaders will stand with you. 
We will not be daunted. We will not be deterred. 

We will carry on until the great worldwide march to democracy--in Russia 
and throughout the world--brings us all to a new day of security, 
freedom, prosperity, and opportunity--now and for generations to come. 
God bless the men and women of the United States armed forces, God bless 
the long gray line, and God bless America. 

(###)



ARTICLE 4:

U.S. Policy Toward Russia: The Need For Bipartisan Consensus
Vice President Gore
Address to the Kennan Institute and the U.S.-Russia Business Council, 
Washington, DC, October 19, 1995

Let me start by thanking the two groups that have provided me with this 
podium here today. When most Americans hear the name George Kennan, they 
think about the architect of the policy of containment. But we, of 
course, know that the venerable Kennan Institute is, in fact, named for 
his cousin, the 19th-century explorer and renowned American interpreter 
of Russian life. His writings in the 1880s painted a vivid portrait of 
the Siberian frontier. He wrote eloquently of Russia's geographic 
grandeur and passionately about the Russian people's long and bitter 
struggle for political freedom.

However, initially, the elder Kennan's interest in Russia was not 
scholarly or political, but financial. As a 20-year-old telegraphic 
engineer, he participated in one of the first great American business 
ventures in Russia. Launched in 1865, the Russian-American Telegraph 
Expedition was a remarkable adventure story. If the venture had not run 
out of money, it would have established telegraph service between the 
continental United States and Russia by running submarine cable across 
the Bering Strait. And if he were alive today, I am certain that George 
Kennan, the elder, would be a founding member of the U.S.-Russia 
Business Council.

The elder Kennan was also, at heart, a great American idealist. He was 
the leading American critic of the Russian governments of the time--both 
Czarist and Bolshevik--and up until the time of his death in 1924, he 
remained convinced that the United States should support political 
reform in Russia in any way we could.

Today, the economic opportunities we face in Russia are far more 
promising than the ones Kennan pursued over a century ago. And the need 
to nurture political reform in Russia is equally pressing. 

This Monday, when President Clinton welcomes President Yeltsin to 
Franklin Roosevelt's home in Hyde Park, New York, they will resume their 
dialogue on issues of critical importance to the Russian-American 
relationship, including the course of Russian reform, the challenge of 
building a more integrated and secure Europe, and our common search for 
peace in the former Yugoslavia.  And in just a few days, Congress will 
meet to make important decisions about the future of American assistance 
to promote democratic reforms in Russia. At issue is nothing less than 
the central question of whether America will have the resources and the 
courage to lead in the post-Cold War era.

It is for these reasons that I thought it appropriate to offer the 
American people a clear-eyed assessment of what's at stake in Russia and 
to describe where America's interests should lead us. This is the third 
in a series of three speeches that I have delivered on this subject over 
the past week: On Friday in San Francisco, I discussed the great new 
frontiers of economic and technological opportunities for Americans in 
Russia's rapidly emerging market. At West Point on Tuesday, I reviewed 
the new security challenges facing both our countries as we seek to 
overcome the divisions of the Cold War period. And, today, I thought it 
would be appropriate to conclude this trilogy with a summons to the 
political courage that is essential if we Americans are to forge a truly 
bipartisan consensus on our nation's policies toward Russia at this 
critical point in time.

Make no mistake: The stirrings in Congress and elsewhere of a new 
isolationism are very real. These new isolationists--some outspoken, 
some soft-spoken--seek nothing less than to impede President Clinton's 
ability to defend American interests and values. If left unchallenged, 
their efforts, in the end, may well lead to our nation's surrender of 
world leadership. If they succeed, the abandonment of the cause of 
reform throughout the former Soviet Union will be only one among many 
destructive and costly consequences.

If these isolationists have their way, the Nunn-Lugar program that is 
helping Russia dismantle the former Soviet nuclear arsenal could be cut 
by up to 20%. How self-defeating. How blind. How absurd.

-- Our Nuclear Safety Initiative--the same program that would prevent 
Soviet-era reactors from becoming future Chernobyls--will be decimated. 
And our efforts to help Russia safeguard weapons grade materials from 
being stolen by terrorists or criminals would be devastated. How 
unsound. How unwise. How ridiculous.
-- The tools that are helping Russians assemble the foundations of 
democracy--programs such as citizens exchanges and support for a free 
press--will be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
-- Even the very programs that promote American trade and investment in 
Russia--programs that actually create American jobs and opportunities--
could be gutted by those who are putting partisan gain before the true 
interests of their constituents.

These votes  are still pending in Congress, so there is yet time for us 
to come to our senses and rise above petty partisanship and narrow 
isolationism. We Americans made tremendous investments and sacrifices to 
win the Cold War. Now we must support the programs necessary to build a 
lasting peace. The risks are simply too high and the potential 
opportunities too great to allow misguided politicians to block our 
nation's path to peace and prosperity and destroy America's ability to 
provide leadership in the world.     

If we make the right choice, we can succeed. After all, the challenges 
facing Russia today are vast, but we must not overlook the remarkable 
speed of its transformation from ideological foe to fledgling market 
democracy.

Only a handful of years ago, Russia's economic landscape lacked free 
enterprise, the spirit of entrepreneurship, and the rudiments of private 
ownership. The state's role was supreme. The great oil fields of Siberia 
and the smallest shop in Suzdal answered to faceless bureaucracies in 
Moscow with no sense of the bottom line. And while the state produced 
much in the way of useless goods, it produced nothing in the way of 
basic human freedoms. Political activism was limited to the sphere of 
whispers, often silenced in the cells of Lubyanka and the gulag of 
Siberia. Environmental degradation, human degradation, the utter moral 
bankruptcy of communist culture, and the physical decay it wrought are 
the sum total of the Soviet legacy.

When the Soviet experiment did collapse in ash and dust after the brave 
and heroic democratic revolution of 1991, Russians awoke to the promise 
of a new day. But their euphoria was short lived, because before them 
was an immense organizational and spiritual void of unmet social needs--
of uncertainty about tomorrow, of fear and privation.

Russia's new leaders spoke of a rapid transition to the rule of law, the 
market, and political pluralism. But these institutions could not be 
simply willed into existence, nor could Russia's new reformers build 
them overnight. The legal infrastructure to support a market economy did 
not yet exist. Communist officials from the old days still held sway in 
factories and local governments all across the country. And all the 
while, the threat of economic disaster eclipsed hope with frustration 
and often turned optimism to despair.

In their place, the real risk emerged of Russia's collapse, or its 
return to some form of tyranny or chaos. And with the specter of more 
than 10,000 nuclear weapons remaining on their soil, the risks of 
missteps were very great, indeed.

When President Clinton took the oath of office on the Capitol steps in 
January 1993, he saw the enormity of the challenges that lay ahead not 
only for Russia and the Russian people;  he recognized the need to 
galvanize a vigorous international response. Mindful of the immense 
stakes for American interests, our President acted, decisively, quickly, 
and firmly.

He realized that America's best traditions and vital interests would be 
best served by deepening our engagement with Russia. He set out briskly 
to recalibrate our policy toward the former Soviet Union and to adapt 
the old Cold War-era machinery of government to meet our new global 
requirements.

Through robust diplomacy and focused personal leadership, President 
Clinton marshaled Congress and our friends around the world to embrace a 
new policy framework toward Russia based on three interrelated goals: 

One, to support political and economic reform throughout the Russian 
federation with targeted, prudent American assistance and investment; 

Two, to promote the integration of Russia into global economic and 
political structures from which the Soviet Union had been excluded, so 
as to give Russia and her people a voice and a stake in contributing 
positively in the international system; 

Three, to stanch the threat posed by Soviet-era nuclear warheads and 
expertise, Soviet-style reactors, and loosely secured weapons-grade 
materials.

From the outset, we knew that the task ahead was daunting. The scale of 
Russia's enormous challenges greatly outstripped the resources Americans 
could bring to bear.

That's why we aggressively sought out our friends and allies to ensure 
that they, too, did their fair share to bolster Russian reform. And 
that's why the Administration's assistance programs have been crafted 
with the greatest possible care and oversight to ensure that American 
taxpayers receive the greatest possible return for their investment. In 
essence, this approach was a bet on Russia's ability to turn things 
around, and this bet is beginning to pay off.

Though we should never minimize the great difficulties that many 
Russians had to endure during these first years of their transition, we 
can now say firmly: The picture for many is looking better. Many of the 
basic building blocks of democracy--a national constitution, political 
parties, independent newspapers and television stations, and free and 
fair elections--are now slowly falling into place. The Russian people 
made a fundamental choice to embrace democracy, and it is they who 
deserve the lion's share of the credit, of course. But we Americans are 
also doing our share to bolster their efforts, through practical 
assistance and advice.

Russia's economic situation is also improving. Inflation is at its 
lowest point since the creation of the federation--down to 5% last 
month. The ruble is relatively stable, having gained against most major 
currencies. After years of sharp economic decline, real economic growth 
could begin next year.

Liberalization of the Russian economy is also moving ahead at a gallop. 
A 15-minute drive from the center of Moscow used to be a listless affair 
of drab, crumbling apartment blocks and grim government buildings. 
Today, the more vivid colors of new homes and businesses are testimony 
to a massive construction boom that is remaking the once-gray face of 
Russia. In Moscow and throughout Russia, the streets are lined with new 
shops to meet pent-up consumer demand. Today, some 60% of Russia's 
income comes from the private sector. Nearly all prices are free from 
state controls. People are working harder and with more fulfillment, and 
they are more optimistic about their future as Russians.

Of course, much is left to be done. Many Russians, especially the 
elderly, feel the pain of transition. Private property and contracts 
need legal sanctity. The metastasizing cancer of organized crime and 
corruption needs to be excised. Legal institutions and regulations and 
liberal political institutions need to be more firmly established if 
Russia is to continue successfully on its historic march to democracy.

That is why American programs have been targeted very carefully at 
helping Russians to put in place these basic building blocks of liberty 
and the free market. Our efforts have helped Russians to create tens of 
thousands of new small businesses, new grass-roots organizations, free 
and objective media outlets--the very lifeblood of the democratic 
experience. The point is simply this: American assistance is not a hand-
out; it is a long-term investment in the security and prosperity of not 
only Russia, but the United States.

Many of you know that Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin asked that Prime 
Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin and I work closely together to ensure that 
our bilateral relationship develops in responsible and mutually 
beneficial ways. I am proud of the efforts that we have underway--and of 
the mechanisms that we have developed to resolve our differences in a 
calm and efficient manner. There is no doubt in my mind that the 
solidity of our relationship and the extent to which it has matured over 
the past few years is clearly borne out by the remarkable successes that 
we have achieved through our Joint Commission.

Our work is focused on three principal strategic areas: trade and 
investment, space and science, and health and environment. I would like 
to review each briefly.

In trade and investment, we're working to establish a predictable 
and fair business environment and to reform taxes and tariffs which 
discourage foreign investment. In the past year alone, we've been able 
to seal multi-billion-dollar American deals in a variety of fields--from 
energy to telecommunications to transportation.

We're working to help Russians convert parts of its vast defense sector 
to peaceful civilian market-oriented purposes. Already, we've purchased 
bomb-grade uranium from dismantled Russian warheads in order to power 
our own factories, schools, and cities. At the same time, we are rolling 
up our sleeves to study alternative energies sources and joint 
investments in Russia's vast energy sector.

In the area of space cooperation, American and Russian scientists are 
working together to build an international space station more quickly, 
more cheaply, and more effectively than had we attempted to do so on our 
own. This is not foreign aid. We have a contract with the Russians to 
jointly build a viable product that one day will yield invaluable 
insights into the new frontiers of space and, perhaps, even profits to 
boot.

But this is just one of many firsts in space. Russian cosmonauts 
training in the United States and flying on the Shuttle, U.S. astronauts 
serving as part of the crew on the Russian MIR space station, and the 
historic docking of the Atlantis shuttle with the Russian MIR space 
station are each historic mileposts in our new tradition of cooperation.

The Gore-Chernomyrdin Health Committee has identified a number of areas 
in which U.S.-Russian cooperation can have a direct impact on public 
health in Russia. These include public education campaigns, maternal and 
pediatric health care, prevention and control of infectious diseases, 
such as diphtheria and diabetes treatment. These programs are designed 
to channel knowledge and leverage limited resources to achieve the 
greatest possible positive impact on the ground.

The Environment Committee is working to develop a regional strategy for 
protecting the shared environment of the Arctic. It has also supervised 
implementation of numerous technical assistance projects in areas as 
diverse as supporting the sustainable management and development of 
timber resources in the Russian far east, while sustaining important 
biological diversity. And joint work is underway with the Russian navy 
to safely store used reactor fuel from submarines in Murmansk.

Any one of these achievements would have been front page news just a 
decade ago. Now our successes are becoming just business as usual, and 
that is precisely our intention. For example, we have just created a new 
Agriculture Committee whose work is now getting underway.

What is important is not only the initiatives we have launched, but the 
enduring and practical mechanisms we have established to resolve our 
differences. The goal on both sides is to capitalize on the increasingly 
normal relationship we now enjoy. Russia, despite all its current 
problems, is striving to become a normal country with a foreign policy 
rooted in clearly defined national interests. As a result, the United 
States can now hope to deal with Russia as we would with any other great 
power.

We now have a common commitment to strengthening democracy and free 
markets and to building bridges to promote security across what had once 
been a divided Europe. Russia deserves credit for its efforts to promote 
good relations with its European neighbors. On August 31 of last year, 
after years of patient but firm American diplomacy, the last active duty 
Russian troops withdrew from Germany and from the Baltics. And, 
similarly, the Russian and Ukrainian Governments have worked together to 
manage a number of difficult issues, such as economic cooperation and 
the implementation of START I.

For our part, the United States has worked with our NATO allies to 
realize our vision for an integrated Europe that includes an important 
role for Russia. This structure includes an enlarged NATO, a 
strengthened Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, an 
enhanced Partner- ship for Peace, and a closer, better-defined 
relationship between Russia and NATO. While we understand full well that 
many Russians question the wisdom of NATO enlargement, we are making the 
case to Russia's leaders that Russia's own interests and continued 
integration would be best served by remaining open to broad cooperation 
with all European institutions, including NATO and the Partnership for 
Peace.

Part of our strategy for building this new Europe involves taking 
immediate, very practical steps. With a peace settlement for the former 
Yugoslavia now possibly before us, we have an opportunity to make 
cooperation between NATO and Russia concrete, productive, and 
meaningful. Agreement on a formula for Russian participation in a Bosnia 
peace implementation force would serve both the cause of peace and our 
common goal of a more stable, integrated Europe. We are taking similar, 
level-headed approaches to other security issues. For instance, one of 
the most important items on the two Presidents' agenda at Hyde Park will 
be the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, which calls for dramatic 
reductions in military equipment levels all across the continent.

The Russians are now pressing for modifications to the treaty's flank 
limits, because they feel Russia's security needs have shifted since the 
breakup of the former Soviet Union. The United States and our NATO 
allies acknowledge that the world has, indeed, changed since the CFE 
Treaty was signed in 1990 and that Russia is meeting its overall 
destruction requirements. We and our NATO allies have developed a 
proposal which takes Russia's legitimate needs into account while 
preserving the central elements of the treaty and protecting the 
interests of countries along Russia's northern and southern borders. We 
are looking to the Russians to work with us and other CFE parties to 
achieve an early resolution of this problem.

Another area where practical cooperation is vital is nuclear safety and 
non-proliferation. Today, Russian missiles are no longer targeted at 
America's cities or homes. Due to sustained U.S. and Russian leadership, 
the danger that the Soviet Union would give way to four nuclear weapons 
states is well on its way to being resolved.

And with the foresight of Senators Nunn and Lugar, we have the resources 
to help the Russians dismantle the vast former Soviet arsenal of nuclear 
and other weapons of mass destruction. Americans and Russians are now 
working side by side to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the 
hands of would-be terrorists and smugglers. By accepting reasonable 
limits on sales of arms and technology abroad, Russia has set the stage 
for its membership in the Missile Technology Control Regime and for its 
role as a founding member of the New Forum--the organization succeeding 
COCOM that is now charged with keeping sensitive technologies out of the 
hands of rogue states. Generally, Russia is a firm partner in combating 
nuclear proliferation. We do, however, have a disagreement over their 
proposal to sell reactor technology to Iran. We are working hard to 
resolve this disagreement. But may I say that the best way to ensure 
that that sale goes forward would be to formally threaten the end of all 
U.S. bilateral programs in Russia unless they accede to our demands, as 
some in Congress are attempting.

No doubt there will be hand-wringers and nay-sayers who dispute the 
wisdom of our policy and those who would diminish the importance of our 
achievements. Some even would accuse us of romanticizing our 
relationship with the new Russia. In their eyes, they see a Russia that 
can never unshackle itself from its past, where history is always 
destiny, and past always prologue.

These fears are not new; they have echoed throughout the annals of 
history. Alexis De Tocqueville made this same point in 1835, when he 
described a Russia that seeks to conquer new frontiers only "by the 
sword"--a Russia predestined to "center all the authority of society in 
a single arm." Well, Russia's future is far from clear. Of course, it, 
ultimately, will be the Russian people themselves who will determine 
their place and role in the world. No one, least of all our President, 
is naive about the very real risk that the progress Russia is making 
could yet falter. The uses of history are, indeed, many and profound. 
But to deny Russia and the Russian people the possibility of progress is 
to reject the notion that societies can evolve, that free people can 
choose a new and brighter future for themselves and their children. We 
need only look at recent history to know that with the proper tools and 
resources--and most of all with the will--nations in transition can put 
down durable democratic roots.

Still others may assert that we have focused too heavily on certain 
personalities in Moscow, rather than on the new generation of Russian 
leaders emerging across the country. These critics obviously have 
neglected to look at our record and the core principles underpinning our 
approach to Russia. We have long recognized that a new Russia is 
emerging that is far less centralized. We have carefully calibrated our 
policies and practical efforts to Russia's new political realities, as 
well as to the new regional and economic factors that are now shaping 
Russia's future. Our outlook has never been determined by any one 
president, any one prime minister, or any one foreign minister. We are 
guided by our nation's best interests--by our responsibility to work 
closely with all of Russia's democratically elected leaders, whoever or 
wherever they may be.

To their lasting credit, the vast majority of men and women in Congress 
have stood with us. They have joined us in making the tough choices 
about our nation's destiny. Bold, bipartisan leadership from Members 
like Speaker Gingrich, Senators Nunn and Lugar, Congressman Gephardt, 
Congressman Lee Hamilton, and others have helped us to put in place the 
infrastructure for America's engagement in Russia.

We cannot and we must not allow the shrill voices of isolation to 
prevail in the halls of Congress, or on the campaign trails of our 
nation's upcoming political season. Nor can we allow our future to be 
guided by those who yearn for a return to the days of Cold War, and pay 
obsequious homage to that era's outdated rhetoric. The President and I 
will not stand idly by while the prosperity and security of our nation 
is put in jeopardy.

Americans--and Russians--have worked too hard to turn back now. So let 
us not be chained to our old perceptions of a Soviet foe that no longer 
exists, but help give clarity and hue to Russia's new reality. Let us 
seize this rare moment and summon the courage to engage and to lead.

For better or for worse, our nation's fate is linked to the destiny of 
the Russian people. Like most Americans, I believe in my heart that 
Russians want to know the peace of prosperity. Let us help to build that 
peace. Let us sow the harvest of that prosperity. Let all Americans rise 
to this great and noble challenge.

President Clinton has charted a steady course for our nation by the 
fixed stars of America's enduring interests. So I would like today to 
call on all Members of Congress also to choose to join with the 
President in supporting a bipartisan foreign policy toward Russia and 
more broadly toward the world--to choose to join with us as we promote 
America's interests by building a durable peace in the former 
Yugoslavia; as we work with those who seek a new day of understanding in 
the Middle East; as we stand shoulder to shoulder with brave South 
Africans who are building a new nation out of the rubble of racial 
hatred; as we strive to heal the wounds of tyranny and oppression nearby 
in Haiti--to end the long nightmare of fear and violence in Northern 
Ireland; to open new markets and create new opportunities for American 
products and workers and lift the lives of our communities, our 
families, and our children.

These are the choices by which our generation will be judged. This is 
the legacy that we will leave. For the sake of our future, for the sake 
of peace, and for the sake of America's prosperity, I know we shall 
choose nothing less. 

(###)



ARTICLE 5: 

Haiti: Celebrating One Year of the Return to Freedom and Democracy
Vice President Gore
Remarks at the National Palace, Port-au-Prince, Haiti, October 15, 1995

President Aristide, honorable members of Parliament, distinguished 
guests: It is a great pleasure to join you today as we celebrate this 
special anniversary.

One year ago, freedom and democracy returned to Haiti's proud shores. 
After a dark season of tyranny and indignity, you, the men and women of 
Haiti, stood together, united in voice and in spirit, to reclaim your 
destiny as free people.

Today, this Presidential palace is no longer a house of fear and 
oppression, but a living monument to hope and redemption. Freedoms once 
brutally denied have been regained, and Haitians, at long last, have 
taken their rightful place in the great march toward democracy that 
spans continents and cultures around the globe.

What you have accomplished here is an inspiration for those who love 
freedom throughout the world. Together, with the international 
community, we sent a bold warning to would-be tyrants around the world 
that democracy cannot and will not be overturned with impunity. 
Together, we have made crystal clear that there is no more righteous nor 
mighty force on the earth than the yearnings of a people for liberty.

Today, as I stand before you, the representatives of the Haitian family, 
democracy is flowering in soil once made barren by the greed and 
callousness of the thugs and bullies who ruled from these halls. In just 
a year's time, President Aristide and the Parliament, working together, 
drafted a new police law and amnesty legislation and formulated Haiti's 
first national budget in five years. Today, it is ballots, not bullets 
that will determine your nation's future.

Today, violence of all kinds is on the wane. Women and children can walk 
on their streets not in fear, but in safety and security. The Haitian 
Army has been disbanded, and its old headquarters have been repainted 
and converted into your new Women's Affairs Ministry. And in place of 
that army has come a new national police force, trained to "honor and 
respect" the law, not to trample on it.

Today, churches are once again places of worship, not desperate refuges 
from violence. Freedom of expression--the oxygen of democracy--has 
revived political discourse. Those who oppose government policies are 
free to peacefully organize and protest. And at long last, Haitians have 
joined together to say no to torture, no to arbitrary arrest, no to 
tyranny, no to oppression. 

With security and freedom have come renewed stirrings of private 
enterprise--that great engine of economic growth and development. Your 
markets and your products are linking your nation to the vibrant 
economic life of the Americas. 

Of course, for most Haitians, passable roads are a more immediate need. 
That is why international assistance has focused on improvements in 
basic infrastructure. Because of our joint efforts, electrical output is 
beginning to meet the minimal daily needs here in Port-au-Prince. Work 
has commenced on the roads throughout your capital city. And in the 
countryside, international assistance is funding wells in Cite la Roc, a 
bridge in Fond Alexis, and countless other projects in countless towns 
and villages across the country. In the short space of one year, Haiti 
once again pulses with life and optimism.

Democracy and the promise of prosperity and opportunity no longer are 
just a dream, but are becoming a way of life. The world marvels at your 
progress.

First, Haiti is consolidating its freedoms. Local governments and a new 
parliament have been elected. Soon a new president will also be chosen 
by the people in a democratic vote. You are strengthening the relations 
between the different branches of government by establishing clear 
procedures and divisions of authority. You are developing strong 
consensus on the rules and regulations for elections to ensure they 
continue to be free and fair.

Second, Haiti is strengthening its system of justice. Honest and 
honorable law enforcement is no less essential to lasting freedom than 
an elected parliament and a democratic constitution. The United States 
and other members of the international community can offer advice, 
assistance, and training to Haiti's new civilian police force, but it is 
you who must assure that security forces never again become the henchmen 
of tyrants. 

Third, as economic reform deepens in Haiti, the lives of its people will 
be lifted. President Clinton and I are very pleased by the great 
progress you have already made, and we hope you will continue to move 
briskly down this path by exercising stringent fiscal and monetary 
discipline and encouraging greater foreign and domestic investment by 
promoting privatization. We think this formula--especially the promotion 
of investment through privatization--is very important to the creation 
of a sound economic future for all Haitians. Experience tells us you 
will encounter obstacles on the path to economic development. But with 
discipline and tenacity, Haiti will soon share in the great rising 
fortunes of the Americas and one day know the peace of prosperity.

Finally, as democracy strengthens and your economy develops, remember 
that we cannot expect our people to be healthy if our land and air and 
water are not also healthy. Nor can we be responsible stewards of 
freedom if we are not also responsible stewards of our natural resources 
which give it nourishment. Haitians know all-too well that tyrants have 
never been friends of their environment.

We need only look at the countless barren slopes of your once rich and 
green mountains to see how brutal the ravages of dictatorship has been 
for Haiti. As you rebuild your lives and your liberty, we will join with 
you as you also reclaim your injured lands. We will be there with you as 
you replant and reforest and repair. 

But now, as your citizens see they have a personal stake in the future, 
let us do all we can to help them also see that they have a personal 
stake in protecting the God-given resources that someday will provide 
for themselves, their children, and their communities. But make no 
mistake: The road ahead will be long, and the struggle may take decades.

Some may wonder if the international community can do more. Others here 
may still know only the bitter taste of hopelessness and cynicism. If 
you will permit me, I will respond to these concerns with one of Haiti's 
own proverbs: "Don't forget the first drops of rain it took to make your 
corn grow." After all, decades of devastation cannot be reversed 
overnight. It is only through patience and courage and, yes, faith, that 
a new and bountiful day will arrive for the Haitian people.

Others of you may wonder whether the end of the United Nations' mandate 
in February will mean an end to the commitment of the international 
community to assist Haiti in its reconstruction. Let me assure you that 
even when the UN mandate concludes, our commitment to Haiti as a member 
of the community of democracies in this hemisphere will endure. And so, 
too, will the remarkable international effort to help Haiti overcome its 
tragic past. Already the international community has pledged over $1.2 
billion in the next two years in humanitarian, economic, and technical 
assistance to help consolidate the rule of law, freedom, and prosperity 
in Haiti. The United States alone has contributed $187 million this 
year.

But, although we can give you some of the tools and resources you will 
need, in the end, it will be up to you and the Haitian people to do the 
hard work of rebuilding. No matter how generous your donors, it is up to 
you to sow the seeds of your democratic future. It is up to you to 
ensure freedom and justice for all--to create jobs; to attract 
investment; to heal the scars that have been inflicted on your bodies, 
on your souls, and on your lands.

Most of all, the hope of a democratic and prosperous Haiti will depend 
on the ability of the Haitian people to come to terms with your painful 
past. This will not be easy. True reconciliation will require great 
stores of compassion and great reserves of moral strength. But this 
summons to political courage already has echoed throughout the annals of 
Haiti's history. Almost 200 years ago, the great Toussaint L'Ouverture 
called on his fellow Haitians to "receive their brethren with open 
arms."

For the sake of not just your country, but this hemisphere, we hope you 
will heed this call. Let the National Commission of Truth and Justice 
determine who is responsible for human rights abuse during the years of 
de facto rule. While justice may not always seem swift, the rule of law 
and the decisions of this commission must prevail. In a free society, 
citizens must not take the law into their own hands.

It is only through this process of reconciliation and the national 
dialogue begun by President Aristide that pain can give way to healing, 
that the past can loosen its grip on the future, and that all Haitians 
can unite before the formidable challenges you face in rebuilding your 
country.

My friends, the challenges that lie ahead as you build the new 
institutions and traditions of democracy are daunting. Your nation has 
been stripped bare of much of its infrastructure and its natural 
resources. But today, as you celebrate this anniversary of the return of 
hope to your nation, look to the future bravely, and in the words of the 
Holy Father Pope John Paul II, who just last week graced my country with 
his presence, "Be not afraid." Be not afraid, because though you may be 
poor in worldly goods, you are rich in spirit and dignity and courage. 
Be not afraid, because you have been tempered and made strong by the 
pain of poverty and the trials of tyranny. Be not afraid, for all free 
people everywhere will stand with you. We will work with you; we will 
pray for you as Haiti once again becomes a beacon of liberty and hope 
for all the Americas. Thank you.  

(###)



ARTICLE 6:

The Future of Women and Children in the Western Hemisphere
First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton
Remarks at the Fifth Conference of Wives of Heads of State and 
Governments of the Americas, Asuncion, Paraguay, October 16, 1995

I am privileged to have the opportunity to represent my country--the 
United States--for the first time at this Fifth Conference of First 
Ladies from the Western Hemisphere. It is also a great honor for me to 
be here in Paraguay with all of you.

We have gathered together to discuss the futures of women and children 
in all of our countries. Whether we live in North, Central, or South 
America, or the Caribbean region, we are united in our belief that women 
everywhere share common aspirations and concerns.

Yet, as we meet here in this beautiful hall this evening, we also know 
that a vast reservoir of human potential is now being wasted across the 
Americas. No nation in our hemisphere can say that all of its children 
are fed, clothed, housed, schooled, and raised by loving parents. No 
nation in our hemisphere can say that all of its women are treated with 
dignity, respect, and given the chance to fulfill their God-given 
potentials. No nation can say that each and every family within its 
borders is healthy, strong, and stable.

Our world, as we know, is far from perfect. But even though enormous 
challenges remain, we have come here hopeful about our future. Hopeful 
because, somewhere in our hemisphere right now, a baby in a local health 
clinic is being immunized against a serious disease; a little girl is 
going to school and is learning to read and write; a woman is taking out 
a small loan from a neighborhood bank that will enable her to start her 
own business in her home. We know that every problem we face  in our 
hemisphere is being solved somewhere in our region at this very moment.

We are also hopeful because of the progress made at last year's Summit 
of the Americas in Miami, at the United Nations Conference on Social 
Development in Copenhagen earlier this year, and most recently at the 
United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. I think it 
is very fitting that we meet after those three historic gatherings, 
which drew world attention to the plight of women and children and, in 
so doing, to the plight of families as well.

Since Miami, we have seen cooperation grow among our nations and our 
political leaders. The summit not only recognized every nation's duty to 
invest in its people, but also the special role that girls and women 
play in the economic and social development of the Western Hemisphere. 
That theme was reiterated again in Copenhagen, which focused on the 
alleviation of poverty as an essential factor in political, social, and 
economic progress. Many of us also attended last month's women's 
conference in Beijing, where it was again made clear that democracy and 
prosperity cannot be attained or sustained in countries that do not 
value women as full and equal partners in society.

The conferences in Miami, Copenhagen, and Beijing showed the world that 
issues involving children and women are not secondary issues. They are 
keys to building democratic institutions, strengthening market 
economies, and achieving social justice. They are also among the hardest 
issues we face.

That is why the agreement reached in Miami last year was a historic 
first for countries of this hemisphere. For the first time, there was 
universal recognition that no nation can compete in the global economy 
if half its population cannot read or write, cannot find a job, or 
cannot rise out of poverty. That is why it is also heartening that, 
despite assurances from skeptics that nothing would be accomplished in 
Beijing, more than 180 nations endorsed a platform for action that laid 
out specific ways to expand the rights and opportunities of women around 
the world. This is particularly critical today, given the growing gap 
between the rich and the poor, the educated and the uneducated, the 
skilled and the unskilled.

Those among us who enjoy the opportunities of education, health care, 
jobs, credit, and legal and political rights are flourishing in the new 
global economy. Those without such opportunities are lagging further and 
further behind. More often than not, those lagging behind are women and 
poor children. This trend, if it continues, threatens to undermine the 
very institutions we are seeking to uphold: strong families, strong 
economies, and strong democracies. All will be in jeopardy if women 
continue to be denied the opportunities they need to thrive and compete 
in the new century. So, what must change?

First, values and attitudes. In our everyday lives, we must begin to 
respect the dignity of each person, no matter where that person lives or 
what he or she looks like. To do that, we must be willing to overcome 
many assumptions, presumptions, prejudices, and prejudgments.

Because to truly respect a child means to respect every child in every 
family--boy or girl. To respect a child means to give that child the 
love, attention, and discipline he or she needs to grow up with 
confidence and competence. To respect a child means to nurture that 
child with the health care and schooling that he or she needs to get the 
right start in life. Every time we dismiss the potential of a child 
because of skin color, parental income, or family background, we betray 
our own futures.

We must also appreciate the contributions of every woman, instead of 
pigeon-holing and categorizing women in ways that limit their potential. 
To truly respect a woman means to respect and protect her human rights, 
it means to respect the choices she makes for herself and her family, 
and it means to value the experience she brings to all facets of life.

Second, institutions must change, and so must the ways we go about our 
everyday business. If programs and policies have outlived their 
usefulness, we should admit that they no longer solve the problems they 
were meant to solve. We must fix programs that don't work with reforms 
that are efficient and inexpensive. And we must insist that 
institutions--whether government, schools, or health care systems--
overcome bureaucratic intransigence and put people first.

We must also take advantage of the many innovative programs that do 
exist throughout our hemisphere. Prior to arriving in Paraguay today, I 
was in Brasilia, where President and Mrs. Cardoso told me about Brazil's 
efforts to improve the quality of primary education. I then traveled on 
to Salvador da Bahai, where an extraordinary effort is underway to 
channel the potential and energy of thousands of street children. One 
program I saw was a circus in which the performers were children--some 
as young as eight--who had been recruited off the streets where they 
lived. They were not being trained for circus jobs; their performances 
were merely a vehicle for learning the value of discipline, teamwork, 
and hard work. Along the way, these children develop confidence, self-
esteem, and pride in their accomplishments. Part of a program called 
Project Axe, they also receive schooling and vocational training, as 
well as counseling to reunite them with their families. I asked one 15-
year-old boy, who had been with the project since it began five years 
ago, whether it had made a difference in his life. "If not for the 
project," he said, "I would be dead or in prison now."

Programs like this one, which receive support from the public and 
private sectors and some international organizations, can be replicated 
widely. But that requires us to share information, exchange ideas, 
discuss honestly our successes and failures, and learn as much as we can 
from each other.

Government has a vital role in all of this. But government is only 
effective if it listens to the voices of the people it serves, instead 
of making decisions based on political convenience or whim. And 
government must be held accountable for meeting human needs. At the same 
time, government cannot address every problem alone. We must not look on 
government as a panacea, but as an able partner of business, non-
governmental organizations, and other private institutions committed to 
investing in the promise of every person, including those who are poor, 
disadvantaged, and politically powerless. One of the best things 
government can do is to make it easier for outside groups--non-
governmental groups--to do the work they are willing to do.

Finally, as societies, we must be willing to move beyond inertia to 
action. And all of us--individuals and institutions--must heed that call 
to action. We must start by taking responsibility within our own 
families and then spreading that responsibility to the communities in 
which we live. Every segment of society has a stake in this issue. Every 
segment of society can affect positive change.

Schools, for example, can be more flexible in responding to the needs of 
their students, young and old. A few days ago, in Santiago, Mrs. Frei 
took me to a school that embodies the Chilean commitment to building an 
educational system for the future. I saw boys and girls busy working on 
computers hooked up to the Internet. I learned from the Minister of 
Education that schools may begin to keep their doors open on Saturdays 
and Sundays to accommodate the children of working parents who have no 
alternatives for child care, and for children who wish to acquire new 
skills for themselves.

I saw that Chile has not been content to stick with old methods that do 
not work. The government and people of that country are devising new 
ways of training teachers and involving parents and communities. All of 
this is happening now in many countries throughout the Americas, and 
more can happen if we are willing to learn from each other's 
experiences.

Heeding the call to action also means that financial institutions must 
serve all people--even if they are poor, live in remote areas, or are 
women. How much more evidence do we need that women are a good credit 
risk? I have seen the proof myself at the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, 
where the poorest of the poor in the world have transformed entire 
villages by taking out small loans for cows, rickshaws, and other items 
they use to earn an income. I have even seen it in my own country, where 
poor women at a project called Mi Casa, in Denver, Colorado, have banded 
together to take out small loans to help themselves. They told me very, 
very directly how difficult it is for women, even in the United States, 
to have access to credit. One woman said: "Too many great ideas die in 
the parking lots of banks."

But all over this hemisphere, women are overcoming these obstacles. In 
Nicaragua, where I visited at the beginning of my trip, I saw how hard 
President Chamorro has worked to strengthen democratic institutions   
and promote a market economy. I met 30 women from a very poor barrio in 
Managua who run a bank in their neighborhood, borrowing small sums  of 
money to start their own businesses--to start a bakery, to make mosquito 
netting, to be a seamstress. Not only had these women organized 
themselves to improve their own circumstances, they were also improving 
the circumstances of their families and communities. Furthermore, they 
have, like every bank I have ever visited, a high loan repayment rate. 
In that particular neighborhood bank, the repayment rate was 100%. From 
what I know about banking, that would be the envy of many commercial 
lenders.

Individual men and women need to change attitudes and then act, just as 
every branch of society. Businesses can initiate policies, such as 
flexible work schedules, child care, and the use of modern technology, 
that enable employees to perform well on the job and continue to fulfill 
their family obligations. Businesses also can value women by paying 
women equal salaries for equal work with their men employees. The media 
can assume greater responsibility for the values it transmits by 
avoiding negative advertising and television programming that 
sensationalizes violence and glorifies the exploitation and degradation 
of women and children.

At this conference, we will examine these issues, and we will focus 
specifically on what can be done to address the pressing health and 
education of women and children. We will discuss initiatives to ensure 
the elimination of diseases that primarily affect women and children, 
reduce maternal mortality, and provide comprehensive health care to 
women throughout their lifetimes, including family planning. We will 
talk about what every nation must do to ensure that girls are guaranteed 
the right to an education and that all citizens acquire the knowledge 
and skills they will all need in the new global economy. We will explore 
ways to end the problem of domestic violence, which has destroyed the 
lives of too many women and their families in every country represented 
here.

I would like to make one final point about our agenda. Because we are 
talking about the issues that matter most in the lives of women and 
children does not mean we are not talking about the lives of men and 
boys. When I was in Nicaragua, I noticed billboards along the side of 
the road. They showed the face of a crying child with the caption: "My 
father has left the home." The problem of the absent father is as tragic 
as the problem of the undervalued mother  and wife. It is a problem 
that, in the United States, we are urgently trying to address.

If, as a hemisphere, we truly care about strong families, strong 
communities, and strong societies, we have to recognize that men and 
women can and must complement each other inside and outside of the home. 
We should not be at opposite poles; we should be partners in a common 
enterprise for the good of all of us--particularly our children.

Because of the roles that the women here and many of you in this hall 
have, we know we can help initiate the changes that must take place if 
we ever want to realize the great potential of this hemisphere. As the 
women I have met all over this hemisphere--in Canada, in my country, in 
Mexico, in Nicaragua, in Chile, in Brazil and here in Paraguay--we come 
together to pool our experiences and ideas to improve conditions for our 
individual families as well as our national family and the family of 
nations.

I was not present at the earlier conferences, but I want to thank and 
applaud all of the women who took part in those conferences and who have 
moved this agenda forward. I was privileged to host our meeting in 
Miami, and I look forward to the work ahead of us. It is the most 
exciting and challenging work any of us can imagine or be engaged in. 
And it is work in which we can make a difference. Thank you very much.

(###)



ARTICLE 7:

U.S. Global Economic Leadership
Joan Spero, Under Secretary for Economic, Business, and Agricultural 
Affairs
Remarks before the Regional Foreign Policy Conference, Hartford, 
Connecticut, October 19, 1995

It is a pleasure to be here with you this evening. I want to thank the 
World Affairs Council for its excellent work in organizing regional 
foreign policy conferences such as this. Secretary Christopher and all 
of us at the State Department value these opportunities to discuss key 
foreign affairs issues with the American public, to describe our policy 
objectives, and to hear your views.

I am also delighted to be here in Connecticut. I have a home in 
Litchfield County to which I often retreat from the slings and arrows of 
Washington. It is fitting that Hartford is the venue for our discussion 
of U.S. global economic leadership this evening. With its historical 
roots as a mercantile center, Hartford knows well the importance of 
trade as a source of growth and prosperity.

Since the end of the Cold War, we have engaged in a reassessment of the 
guiding principles of U.S. foreign policy. Previously, the hierarchy was 
clear: security first; other issues second. But now the Cold War has 
ended, and direct threats to our security have receded. What should our 
goals and priorities be for this new world?

For the Clinton Administration one answer is clear: Economics is central 
to our foreign relations. America's security and economic well-being are 
inextricably linked to our engagement in the world. This does not mean, 
of course, that traditional security issues are no longer of concern. 
But the momentous developments in global security and economic 
relationships over the past few years call out for a new foreign policy-
-one which can successfully integrate our national security concerns 
with our evolving economic interests.

Tonight, I want to talk with you about how we are working to pursue our 
nation's increasingly interrelated security and economic interests. 
Specifically, I would like to highlight three principal ways we are 
trying to carry out this mission: 

First, using economics to support peace and democracy; 

Second, working to construct a new economic architecture for the post-
Cold War world; and 

Third, promoting U.S. competitiveness in the global economy.

Support for Peace and Democracy

In recent months, we have seen remarkable progress toward peace in 
regions long wracked by strife. In Bosnia and Northern Ireland, 
opponents are leaving the battleground for the negotiating table. Three 
weeks ago, leaders from all over the world gathered at the White House 
to witness the signing of a new round of peace accords between the 
Palestinians and the Israelis. In South Africa, the states of the former 
Soviet Union, and Haiti, governments elected by their citizens are 
laying the foundations of stable, democratic rule.

U.S. political leadership has been vital to these developments. But 
political leadership is only half the story. While politics is necessary 
to negotiate peace or to launch democratic rule, economics is critical 
to sustaining them. This is why the U.S. is promoting economic 
revitalization in trouble spots around the world.

Let me focus on one prominent example of using economics to support U.S. 
goals of peace and stability--our economic support of the Middle East 
peace process. I personally have been very much involved in this effort. 
I have traveled frequently to the region, and I have the jet lag to 
prove it. Our goal is to make the benefits of peace tangible to people 
across the region. The U.S. led the mobilization of funds to support the 
Palestinian economy in Gaza and the West Bank, we helped to broker trade 
and financial agreements between Jordan and Israel, and we have worked 
with regional governments to foster economic liberalization.

One important economic initiative is the Middle East/North Africa 
Economic Summit. At the end of this month, government, economic, and 
business leaders from around the world will gather in Amman, Jordan, to 
discuss regional economic development. The theme of the summit is a 
public-private partnership in support of peace.

The logic is simple: Economic revitalization is essential for peace to 
take root. And it is business--not government--which is the real engine 
of economic development. The focus in Amman will be on practical 
business activities. The summit will explore investment opportunities in 
the region and help businesses tap into potential projects. These 
include regional water programs, the interconnection of electricity 
grids, regional high-speed fiber optic cables, roads and railways, and 
joint hotel and tourism projects.

Government leaders, of course, will also be there. They must continue to 
do their part by liberalizing trade policies, reducing regulations, 
privatizing industry, and improving the investment climate. At Amman, 
the leaders will also announce new regional institutions designed to 
improve the environment for doing business. These include a Regional 
Business Council, a Tourism Association, and a Regional Bank for 
Development and Cooperation.

Let me briefly mention the regional bank. The U.S. has taken a leading 
role in mobilizing support for the establishment of an innovative 
Development Bank for the Middle East and North Africa. The bank will 
focus primarily on the private sector and on regional projects. It will 
have a relatively small capital base--about $5 billion--which will be 
used to leverage existing resources in the private sector, the World 
Bank, and the European Investment Bank.

For a variety of reasons, I am excited about where the Middle East is 
headed. Over the course of my travels to the region, I have witnessed a 
new economic vibrancy that has emerged in tandem with political 
stability and have seen clearly how the one supports the other. U.S. 
business, as well as regional entrepreneurs, stand to benefit from these 
developments. This is an excellent illustration of the Clinton 
Administration's strategy of putting economics at the center of foreign 
policy to support both U.S. security and economic interests, while also 
contributing to the prosperity and well-being of nations in this vital 
region.

New Economic Architecture

A second major goal of our foreign economic policy is to build and 
modernize what we call the economic architecture for the post-Cold War 
world. Our objective is to create an international system fit for the 
21st century, one that is more open, more market-oriented, and that is 
better for world prosperity and for world peace.

We are working at all levels--global, regional, and bilateral--and in 
many fora to strengthen international economic institutions. At the 
global level, we have worked to launch the World Trade Organization and 
to modernize the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the 
United Nations. Our regional efforts to build a new architecture focus 
on the Americas, Europe, and Asia.

Last December, the President hosted 34 democratically elected leaders at 
the Summit of the Americas in Miami. There, we committed to work 
together in new ways to strengthen democracy, promote prosperity, and 
protect the environment. We also agreed to negotiate a "Free Trade Area 
of the Americas" by 2005. The U.S. is also pursuing a broad-based 
"transatlantic dialogue" with our European partners in preparation for 
the U.S.-EU summit in December. Our objective is to reaffirm the central 
importance of the transatlantic relationship and to deepen our economic 
partnership with Europe.

Let me discuss in greater detail the specific case of Asia. The Asia-
Pacific is the most economically dynamic region of the world. It 
accounts for half of world output. By the end of this century, one-half 
of world trade will take place across the Asia-Pacific region, with the 
U.S. as a major partner.

U.S. efforts to build a new architecture in Asia have centered on the 
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum--or APEC. Established in 1989, 
APEC features the world's most dynamic economies and represents one-
third of the world's people. APEC's mission is to promote open trade and 
investment and free market principles. Business participates directly in 
the work of APEC, sitting at the table in APEC's working groups and 
advising APEC leaders on business priorities.

Last year in Indonesia, President Clinton and the other APEC leaders 
made a commitment to achieve free and open trade in the Asia-Pacific by 
the year 2020. Next month, when the leaders meet in Osaka, Japan, we 
expect them to agree on an action agenda for liberalization. The agenda 
will lay out what barriers--such as tariff and non-tariff barriers--must 
be removed. It will also call for the creation of an effective system of 
intellectual property rights protection, strong disciplines for 
government procurement, transparency of rules and rulemaking, and an 
open investment regime. The agenda will lay out ways to achieve these 
objectives--by national action, joint efforts, and negotiation.

The Osaka summit will be crucial for APEC--a test of its ability to move 
from political commitment to concrete action. It will also be a key step 
in modernizing the world's economic architecture to reflect the reality 
of increasingly interdependent markets.

The America Desk--Helping U.S. Business Compete

The third key principle of our foreign economic policy is to support 
U.S. competitiveness in the global economy. Promoting an increasingly 
open international trading system is vital to American exports and 
American jobs. But we have to ensure that our companies are able to take 
advantage of opportunities created by open market systems.

Secretary Christopher has opened the State Department to the business 
world, and has initiated what he calls the America Desk. The message is 
clear: Support for business is a core function of the modern Department 
of State. We are creating a corps of diplomats who understand the 
importance of business, how to work with business people, and how to 
play a leadership role in opening new markets for our exports.

As a result, our embassies around the world are working harder than ever 
to help U.S. companies identify opportunities, safeguard investments, 
and make deals. We keep the pressure on foreign governments to pass and 
enforce intellectual property legislation, we negotiate bilateral 
investment treaties that provide fair treatment for our businesses, and 
we help our companies resolve investment disputes.

The positive feedback we are getting shows that already we are making a 
difference. Business people tell me that previously they never thought 
of going to a U.S. embassy for assistance, but now it is their first 
port-of-call when they do business abroad. Our goal now is to bring the 
same perspective to Washington, to bring business closer to the State 
Department itself. If we are truly to put economics at the center of our 
foreign policy, we must consult more extensively with businesses as we 
develop policies that affect their interests.

The Clinton Administration's commitment to support U.S. business in the 
global marketplace reinforces and is, in turn, reinforced by our 
security concerns. In Asia, for example, a continued strong U.S. 
commitment to the region's security creates the environment for economic 
development, growing markets, and flourishing trade. In turn, the 
prosperity we generate is the best foundation for the advancement of our 
strategic interests: democratic values, non-proliferation, protection of 
the environment, and human rights.

Resources for U.S. Leadership

I hope you will agree that we are forging ahead in our foreign economic 
policy, providing leadership for the world, security and prosperity for 
the American people. But our ability to continue to serve America and 
the world will be shaped by another economic reality--the federal 
budget.

From the outset, President Clinton has insisted that leadership begins 
at home. If we are to compete in the 21st century, we must get our own 
economic house in order. For over a decade, U.S. budget deficits have 
constrained our ability to act and have weakened our credibility with 
our allies and trading partners. From his first day in office, President 
Clinton has tackled that issue head on.

Regrettably, however, reasonable efforts to balance the budget have 
converged with the desire of some for the U.S. to return to the era of 
isolationism. Thus, there have been calls for draconian cuts in our 
foreign affairs funding--cuts which would undermine our ability to lead.

Certain proposals now pending in Congress would force the State 
Department to close numerous embassies and consulates, sharply reducing 
our ability to serve American citizens and businesses overseas. The cuts 
would constrain our ability to conduct peacekeeping, force us to slash 
foreign assistance, and require us to reduce our participation in 
important international organizations, such as the World Bank, that 
contribute so much to economic development around the world.

In fact, the current international affairs budget represents less than 
1.3% of total federal spending. That is not a lot of money. In fact, it 
is miniscule when you realize that it covers all our diplomatic missions 
overseas, our foreign assistance programs, and our participation in 
international organizations. It supports our involvement in 
multinational peacekeeping operations  and many of our arms control 
initiatives.

The State Department cannot be exempt from belt-tightening. Significant 
reductions in our international affairs spending are already underway. 
My concern is that the cuts will go too far and undermine our ability to 
do our job in protecting the vital security and economic interests of 
the American people. This would be a tragic development not only for us, 
but for other countries around the world who look to America for 
leadership and direction. Ironically, at a time when our foreign policy 
has been so successful in fostering peace, democracy, and open markets, 
the resources we need to build on these successes are gravely 
threatened.

We cannot lead on the cheap. At stake is the future of American 
companies that depend on exports and the millions of workers they 
employ. At stake are the economic prospects of many regions in this 
country and America's ability to compete in the global economy and to 
lead in the world. We simply must have adequate resources if we are to 
do our job. As Secretary Christopher has said, "We cannot wish into 
being the world we seek."

We live in a world of dynamic change and unparalleled opportunity. It is 
a time in which the American vision of a world of open societies and 
open markets is ascendant on every continent. It is an era in which the 
U.S. is uniquely positioned to provide leadership and advance our own 
interests. The challenge we face is to continue to revitalize America's 
foreign policy for the 21st century. By bringing economics to the center 
of that process, we have taken a big step in the right direction. As we 
continue this effort, we will need the ideas, the advice, and the 
support of people such as yourselves. Thank you.  

(###)



ARTICLE 8:

Political Reform in the Middle East:  America's Stake
Robert H. Pelletreau, Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs
Remarks before the Foundation for Democratization and Political 
Liberalization in the Middle East, Washington, DC, October 20, 1995

Thank you for that introduction. I appreciate the invitation to speak 
before you today. I see many familiar faces, and I know from Dan that 
you are a serious audience with a deep knowledge of Middle East 
politics. I look forward to learning from you through your questions and 
comments.

As we look out over the world today, the spread and development of 
democracy is, without doubt, the biggest political story. In Europe, 
Latin America, and Asia, democracy is on the march, spreading from 
country to country. Today in the Western Hemisphere, for example, every 
nation but one has a freely elected government and a market economy. 
South Africa has become a multi-racial democracy. The former Soviet 
Union has taken clear if troubled steps toward the rule of the people. 
In Europe, the fastest-growing economies are those Eastern nations that 
moved most decisively toward economic and political reform. The 
flourishing of  open societies and open markets is lifting the lives of 
hundreds of millions of people. As Ghassan Salame asks in the 
introduction to his recent collection, Democracy Without Democrats?, is 
not representative democracy becoming the new universalism?

Elections have become an indispensable part of peacemaking in the 1990s. 
In Cambodia, in Haiti, in the recently concluded Palestinian-Israeli 
Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza, elections have been seen 
and accepted as an essential element of the agreements that were 
reached, a way for the people to validate the results of agreements and 
confer legitimacy on their leaders. They are a vital tool of conflict 
resolution and will be a major ingredient of the peace talks on Bosnia 
when they convene here in this country at the end of the month.

The United States welcomes these momentous changes and feels a measure 
of pride for having contributed to them. The development of democracy 
and human rights--for the two go together--has been and remains central 
to U.S. foreign policy.

America's commitment to democratic enlargement is based on more than 
principle. It also rests on a hard-headed assessment of our long-term 
interests. Briefly put, we know that 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. 
We also know that removing the heavy hand of bureaucracy and opening up 
national economies within and across borders fosters the sort of 
economic growth that underpins regional peace and security.

We must all be aware of the severe costs that repression and 
authoritarianism impose on the world. In this century, the number of 
people killed by their own governments under authoritarian regimes is 
four times the number killed in all the wars on the planet. Repression 
and persecution have pushed refugees across borders, creating problems 
for neighboring countries and the international community. The point is 
that governments that disregard the rights of their own citizens are not 
likely to respect the rights of people in other countries. The record 
shows that they are more likely to clash with their neighbors, wreak 
environmental destruction, and violate international law. For all of 
these reasons, the Clinton Administration is committed to help countries 
make the arduous transition from authoritarianism to freedom, and to 
work to create institutions that will make leaders accountable and 
responsive to their peoples aspirations.

Limited Openings in the Middle East

The Middle East presents unique challenges to the growth and acceptance 
of democratic principles. In all too many cases, authoritarian regimes 
have blocked the path to free elections, impeded freedom of speech and 
association, and undermined respect for basic human rights. Yet, so 
great is the appeal and legitimizing effect of democracy as a form of 
government that even the most authoritarian leaders like to proclaim 
themselves to be democrats and their governments as democratically 
chosen.

Regional conflict and instability also have been contributing factors to 
the limited political openings. For much of the past five decades, the 
Middle East has been embroiled in conflict and turmoil. There have been 
six major regional wars during this period, as well as numerous internal 
armed conflicts. Many nations have remained on a war-footing, diverting 
resources from economic development projects to sustain an out-sized 
defense and security apparatus. Mental energies have been diverted from 
the political project of democracy. The threat of conflict has been 
wielded by autocratic governments as an excuse to suppress domestic 
opposition and stifle free expression.

Regional instability is not the only excuse or the only obstacle. Across 
the Middle East, those who embrace democratic ideals are often squeezed 
between radical forces with an extremist agenda and besieged state 
authorities bent on preserving their rule. In this highly polarized 
environment, it has been difficult for democratic reformists to find 
common ground and organize as an effective political force. 
Nevertheless, we hear their voices, and we salute them.

The situation is particularly grim in Iraq and Libya. These outlaw 
states illustrate the general point I made earlier: Regimes which 
threaten their citizens democratic rights also threaten other regimes 
and peoples. Acting without accountability, their leaders have poured 
their national treasure into militarization and efforts to produce 
weapons of mass destruction--biological, chemical, and nuclear. Although 
the drive to acquire such horrific weapons was largely designed to 
attack other states and peoples, Saddam Hussein's use of chemical 
weapons on his own people in northern Iraq showed that the line between  
domestic and international violence of despots is blurred.

Yet it would be wrong to suggest that all is dark in the Middle East. 
There are encouraging signs of change in several places. There have been 
significant political openings and elections in Jordan, Kuwait, and 
Yemen. Old taboos against speaking out on political issues are being 
worn down through satire, theater, and the media in Egypt, Morocco, and 
elsewhere. In Oman, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, rulers have appointed 
consultative councils to provide an avenue for broader participation. To 
be sure, progress has been uneven, but the worldwide spread of 
democratic ideas has important echoes in the Middle East.

This has been particularly true with respect to Palestinian elections, 
which we expect to take place early next year. Palestinian thinking has 
come a long way since I first raised the subject of elections during the 
early days of our dialogue with the PLO in Tunis. The PLO was adamant in 
those days in considering any sort of elections as a dark scheme to 
create an alternate leadership. In an effort to open their thinking, we 
asked hypothetically how they would react to elections for PNC members. 
Yasser Abd Rabbo recognized some possibilities here, and it led to a 
tentative yet encouraging discussion of the whole concept.

The agreement that was signed at the White House on September 28 
contains detailed provisions for the holding of elections. Article II 
begins with this language: "In order that the Palestinian people of the 
West Bank and Gaza Strip may govern themselves according to democratic 
principles, direct, free and general political elections will be held 
for the Council and the Ra'ees of the Executive Authority of the Council 
in accordance with the provisions set out in the Protocol concerning 
Elections attached as Annex II to this Agreement. These elections will 
constitute a significant interim preparatory step towards the 
realization of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and their 
just requirements and will provide a democratic basis for the 
establishment of Palestinian institutions." There is not time here to 
review the provisions of the annex, which runs for 19 pages, but 
scholars among you will find it a fascinating document.

Nascent Civil Society

There is a firm basis for expanding civil society in the Middle East 
today. For example, there are independent human rights organizations in 
many countries--a phenomenon that seemed only a distant dream when the 
Arab Organization for Human Rights was first established in 1984. The 
political environment at that time was so inhospitable that the AOHR was 
forced to hold its founding meeting in Limassol, Cyprus. The environment 
for human rights groups is still difficult; nevertheless, they have 
established a foothold and are growing, thanks to the courage and 
commitment of brave citizens in many Middle Eastern countries who 
believe they can make a difference.

The same could be said for the region's "think tanks" and research 
organizations. Ten years ago, few Middle Eastern governments felt 
confident enough to allow such organizations to come into existence. 
Today, however, many of these same governments find that these groups 
provide indispensable economic and social research, including public 
opinion polling. Research activity has moved out of  the bureaucracy and 
into civil society.

Still other private groups seeking economic reform, and the integration 
of their countries into the world economy, have emerged. The Egyptian-
American Chamber of Commerce, founded in the early 1980s, comes to mind. 
Across the region, we see evidence of an unfolding civil society in the 
activities of women's movements, professional and labor groups, and 
grass-roots self-help organizations--both religious and secular.

One may argue that these "reformist" groups have scant effect on the 
public policies in their countries. I would disagree. In almost every 
case, they represent a form of citizen involvement and participation in 
the broader issues of society. This is true of religious, professional, 
and cultural associations. It is true of youth and sporting clubs, 
welfare associations, and chambers of commerce.  Beneath the surface of 
today's headlines in the Middle East, civil society is slowly gaining 
strength and with it, the prospects for broader political participation 
and more open democracy.

What Role for the United States

What can or should the United States do to help improve the climate for 
political liberalization in the Middle East? Three principles drive our 
efforts in the Middle East and elsewhere.

First, making human rights an element of our dialogue with governments 
and others in the region.

Second, working with governments and others on practical measures to 
foster greater political openness, press freedom, political 
participation, civil society, and free enterprise economic development--
and to combat extremism and terror.

Third, striving to advance the Arab-Israeli peace process and regional 
security.

Every year, our Congress requires that the State Department prepare 
reports on human rights in each country in the world, including the 
Middle East. These reports shine a bright light on human rights 
violations that might otherwise be shielded from public view. They 
provide a frank assessment of human rights problems and prospects that 
meet stringent standards. These reports have acquired a worldwide 
reputation for accuracy and fairness. We put a lot of effort into them 
and into making sure they are factual and objective. International human 
rights organizations draw extensively on them in making their 
independent assessments. They frequently form the basis for productive 
discussion, not only with local human rights groups or critics of the 
governments concerned, but also with ministers of interior and justice, 
members of the law enforcement and judicial systems--even Kings and 
Presidents. 

America's commitment to democracy has a programmatic dimension as well. 
A wide range of programs sponsored by U.S. Government agencies foster 
broader political participation and strengthen the institutions of civil 
society in ways that promote democracy. For example, USIA frequently 
sponsors visits of U.S. specialists on political parties, national 
assemblies, electoral procedures, and political campaigning. We also 
sponsor visits to the U.S. of members of Middle Eastern parliaments and 
consultative assemblies to meet with Members of Congress and their 
staffs and familiarize themselves with our form of representative 
government, including the importance of constituency services and 
drafting and reviewing legislation.

We have undertaken a sizable program with the Palestinians to promote 
democratic institutions and a civilian political culture. We will be 
participating in the international observation delegation for next 
year's Palestinian elections. We are also managing a several million-
dollar set of programs to support dispute resolution, the rule of law, 
legal infrastructure, training for judges, criminal justice, and 
commercial law reform. We have, for example, funded an overall 
assessment of Palestinian criminal and civil procedures and a project on 
criminal justice.

One imaginative type of program to promote the rule of law involves 
putting on moot court trials for local bar associations, prosecutors, 
and judicial institutes in which women as well as men act as lawyers and 
judges. Evidence is tested through skillful cross-examination, and the 
unreliability of confessions as evidence is emphasized. Another program 
provides training to young journalists in investigative reporting.

Our steadfast commitment to peace and security in the Middle East--to 
securing a just, lasting, secure, and comprehensive settlement of the 
Arab-Israeli conflict--has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy 
for four decades and is relevant to a discussion of democracy. In 
addition, we seek to contain those states and organizations which 
promote or support extremism--religious or secular--and which threaten 
their neighbors. Peace and security are the essential conditions under 
which democracy and responsive government can flourish.

A Sustained Commitment

The challenge of democracy in the Middle East and how the U.S. as a 
government can best contribute to advancing democratic principles needs 
to be viewed in the context of other priorities which we have as a 
nation in this turbulent region. These include:

-- Securing comprehensive peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors;
-- Maintaining our commitment to Israel's security and well-being;
-- Assuring stability in the Persian Gulf and commercial access to the 
petroleum resources of the Gulf region on which our economy is vitally 
dependent;
-- Supporting U.S. business interests in the region; and
-- Combating terrorism and checking the spread of weapons of mass 
destruction.

In advancing this very ambitious agenda, our objectives sometimes 
compete with each other in terms of their relative priority and urgency. 
Although purists may disagree, it would be self-defeating to bear down 
on promoting democracy to such an extent that we defeat or undermine our 
other objectives. It often requires openness, flexibility, optimism, 
patience, endurance, and a careful balancing of interests to reconcile 
so many varied goals. These qualities are also the requirements for 
managing a modern democracy, and the skills we have developed to govern 
ourselves also help us to manage our relationships with other nations. 
Perhaps this is one of the hidden benefits of democracy.

I want to leave you with another thought as well. In advocating 
democratization, the U.S. is not advocating  a one-size-fits-all system 
of government ready-made in the USA. Our viewpoints and institutions are 
shaped by our unique traditions, history, and circumstances. European 
and other democratic states have found their way to rule by the people 
amid forces and habits unique to their situation. The results have 
sometimes differed widely. Today, there are many points of difference in 
the outlook and shape of  countries which are indisputably democratic. 
But there are even more points of similarity and consensus. These 
provide a critical basis for internal stability and international 
cooperation. 

The countries of the Middle East must draw on their own cultural and 
societal traditions in shaping governmental institutions which meet the 
aspirations of their people. It would be short-sighted and, ultimately, 
unsuccessful to seek to transplant alien forms of government into the 
bodies politic of the Middle East. By the same token, we cannot be 
complacent about the status quo. A middle course that is patient but 
engaged, flexible but persistent, is required. 

While visiting Kuwait last year, I had the honor to appear as the first 
foreign witness before the Kuwaiti Parliament's Committee on Foreign 
Affairs. Each member had a strict time limit in which to question me, 
and Committee Chairman Jassem Al Saqer ran the proceedings with a firm 
hand. I tried to respond as I would during a congressional hearing in 
Washington. We all had a good time and found it a worthwhile experience.

Only a few decades ago, one often heard that democracy was a political 
system unique to the nations of northwestern Europe and their 
descendants and inheritors scattered around the world. The massive 
spread of the democratic ideal since then proves that it is not a 
parochial urge but something which appeals far more broadly to societies 
and to the heart of humankind. It is a cause and a commitment which 
matches our ideals and also our interests. 

(###)



ARTICLE 9: 

The NAFTA Experience: Chile and the Future of Hemispheric Trade
Alexander F. Watson, Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs
Statement before the Subcommittees on the Western Hemisphere and on 
International Economic Policy and Trade of the House International 
Relations Committee, Washington, DC, October 25, 1995

This is a time of unparalleled progress and hope for our hemisphere. The 
emergence of Latin America and the Caribbean as solidly democratic and 
committed to market economics offers the United States unprecedented 
opportunities to: 

--  Protect our national security; 
--  Pursue our economic interests; and 
--  Strengthen cooperation on a whole range of vital transnational 
interests such as narcotics, immigration, and the environment. 

These are issues which can have a profound impact on the day-to-day 
well- being of U.S. citizens.

Last December's Summit of the Americas consolidated the new convergence 
of values between the U.S. and Latin America and set out an ambitious 
action plan. It is no accident that the commitment to negotiate a Free 
Trade Area of the Americas--FTAA--by the year 2005 was the centerpiece 
of the summit. The FTAA caught the imagination of the hemisphere, not 
only because it will bring its participants higher economic growth, but 
also because it symbolizes the new common philosophy of the hemisphere--
of free enterprise, competition, and efficiency; of decision-making by 
markets not governments; of growth and opportunity, rather than 
centralized government planning. It is also the philosophy which most 
powerfully supports the profound democratic and social transformations 
now underway in Latin America.

As President Clinton said when he hosted President Zedillo:

The stronger our trade, the greater the well-being of all of our people. 
The deeper our cooperation, the better we will be able to fight together 
our common problems.

Latin American Trade: Important to U.S. Interests

The U.S. has far more to gain than to lose from a mutual opening of 
markets in the hemisphere.

-- Latin America and the Caribbean is already a huge market for the 
U.S., to which we export almost as much as to the European Union--EU--
$89 billion versus $96 billion.
-- It is a fast-growing market. From 1990-94, U.S. exports to the region 
increased by $36 billion. During that same period, our exports to the EU 
increased by $3 billion, to Japan by $5 billion, and to China by $4 
billion.
-- It is a good partner. The commitment to market-based economic reforms 
remains strong throughout the hemisphere, as shown by the region's 
reactions to the Mexican peso crisis, which were to deepen reforms, not 
abandon them. The region's economic fundamentals are growing stronger, 
with a solid growth outlook, declining inflation, and far greater 
ability to service debt. More than any other region of the world, it is 
oriented toward the U.S., buying over 40% of its imports from us. 
Economic growth and trade liberalization clearly benefit the commercial 
interests of the U.S.
-- It has moved far toward open markets, with potential for more. 
Whereas tariffs of the major Latin American countries averaged close to 
50% in 1985, they are now in the teens. Despite this dramatic 
liberalization, Latin American tariffs are still about four times higher 
than our own. We clearly have a major interest in moving the 
liberalization process further.

Trade Liberalization: Good for the Hemisphere

For all of the points noted above, the Administration remains convinced 
that seeking closer economic ties not only with Mexico, but throughout 
the hemisphere is in our deepest national interest. The movement to 
freer trade is now at a point which requires our active engagement. 
Latin America has unilaterally lowered its trade barriers to roughly a 
quarter of what they were 10 years ago. Further liberalization, however, 
almost certainly will take place primarily through international 
negotiation, rather than by unilateral government decisions.

Latin American and Caribbean countries are moving quickly in forming 
sub-regional integration arrangements, which now cover virtually every 
country in the hemisphere. These arrangements generally provide for free 
trade among their participants, with a common external tariff--typically 
ranging between 5%-20%--to non-participants. Thus, moving toward the 
larger goal of hemisphere-wide free trade would help to reduce tariffs 
in Latin American and Caribbean markets.

Remember, too, that we are not the only actors in the drama. In addition 
to the momentum of sub-regional integration, Latin America is forming 
links outside the hemisphere, with the Asia-Pacific Economic 
Cooperation-- APEC--and with the EU. For example, the EU last month 
initialed a framework agreement on trade with MERCOSUR, scheduled to be 
signed before the end of the year. Without U.S. leadership in 
structuring a liberalization process, the balance of interest and 
commitment in Latin America may well start to shift away from us.

NAFTA is Working for Mexico and for the U.S.

The negotiation of NAFTA marked an important milestone in our 
relationship with Mexico. It locked in Mexico's commitment to liberal 
economic reform, increased levels of environmental protection, and 
ensured that open markets would promote economic growth and employment 
throughout North America.

Despite continued criticism by some, NAFTA has already proven its worth 
during Mexico's current economic difficulties. Our overall level of 
exports is still above pre-NAFTA levels, with every expectation of 
renewed growth as the Mexican economy rebounds further. U.S. exporters 
have actually increased their share of the Mexican import market this 
year from 70% to 73%.

Exports of U.S. goods and services have unparalleled access to Mexico 
despite Mexico's current recession. Indeed, U.S. exporters' privileged 
position in the Mexican market has strengthened as Mexico raised tariffs 
on some imports from Third World countries. That position will continue 
to strengthen as Mexico's barriers to its NAFTA partners are phased out 
in accordance with NAFTA's schedule.

Some have argued that Mexico's current economic problems are the result 
of NAFTA. That is patently untrue. Mexico's difficulties resulted from a 
series of political events and its government's macroeconomic policy 
decisions last year--not from NAFTA. In fact, the restructuring of the 
Mexican economy along market-oriented lines, which was reinforced and 
consolidated by NAFTA, has made it easier for Mexico to rebalance its 
international accounts and thus more quickly re-establish the conditions 
for a return to growth.

I know that there has been a lot of concern recently about our trade 
with Mexico. As Mexico returns to growth and continues to open its 
market in response to NAFTA, it is reasonable to assume that our exports 
to Mexico will rebound. Nor is it reasonable to blame NAFTA for huge job 
losses in the U.S. economy. Since NAFTA was implemented, overall U.S. 
employment has increased 4.6 million, and U.S. wages have also increased 
in real terms.

In sum, NAFTA has been positive for both the U.S. and Mexico. NAFTA not 
only protects U.S. exporters but ensures continued improvement in their 
access to the Mexican market. The market-based reforms locked in by 
NAFTA are restoring investor confidence in Mexico and have already 
allowed Mexico to return to the financial markets in seven months, 
rather than the seven years it took to recover from the 1982 crisis. 
NAFTA is helping to rebuild the conditions for Mexico's growth, which is 
strongly in the interest of both Mexico and the U.S.

Chilean Accession: Good for the U.S. and the Hemisphere

Chile is an example of the rewards of democratic and market-oriented 
policies. It has one of the most open trading and investment regimes in 
the world. International investors have shown their confidence in 
Chile's prospects by their willingness to invest their money there. Its 
record of high growth and social innovation is admired and studied 
throughout the world. Its commitment to human rights is clear and 
strong.

It was President Bush who first committed the United States to negotiate 
free trade with Chile during President Aylwin's May 1992 state visit. 
President Clinton enthusiastically endorsed this policy because of 
Chile's success, not only in economic policy but also in returning to 
democracy. At the Miami summit last December, President Clinton joined 
his NAFTA colleagues in formally inviting Chile to join NAFTA. To date, 
the discussions among the "Four Amigos" have been promising. We have 
exchanged information about each other's trade and investment regimes 
and have begun to identify focal points for negotiation.

Although passage of fast-track legislation has been delayed, we and our 
NAFTA partners hope to continue discussions with Chile. Given the strong 
common beliefs between the U.S. and Chile on both economic and political 
issues, we expect to continue close cooperation both bilaterally and 
multilaterally.

Some have questioned why the U.S. should choose Chile as the next NAFTA 
member, given its relatively small size. 

First, let me note that while Chile is certainly not a huge market for 
the U.S., neither is it insignificant. Last year, we sold more to 
Chile's 14 million people than we did to India's 920 million people.

Second, this is a country which is well prepared to enter into and 
fulfill the commitments of the NAFTA. Its 12-year record of economic 
stability and unbroken high growth--with low unemployment, low 
inflation, and decreasing poverty--gives us confidence in its economic 
policy leadership. The prospect of long-term sustained growth is high 
given its remarkably high savings and investment rates, and its 
pioneering commitment to privatization, including its very successful 
privatization of the social security system.

Finally, in light of Chile's remarkable achievements, Chile's entry into 
NAFTA would not only demonstrate U.S. support for political and economic 
reform in the hemisphere, but would also encourage a higher level of 
trade discipline throughout the hemisphere. Chile is the logical next 
step as we pursue the FTAA.

Conclusion

As I noted previously, economic reform and growth in Latin America and 
the Caribbean are of major importance to the U.S. economy. We have a 
very broad spectrum of interests, ranging from democracy, to prosperity, 
to the environment. Almost every problem which confronts U.S. 
communities today--crime, drugs, jobs, the environment, to name just a 
few--has some transnational aspect. The question before us is not 
whether to cooperate with our neighbors, but how to structure that 
cooperation most effectively.

Trade is a crucial part of our relationship with Latin America and the 
Caribbean. The goal of hemispheric free trade has been accepted by the 
entire hemisphere, with the unique exception of Cuba. The reforming 
leaders of the hemisphere have promised their people a better future 
based on democratic political systems, market- oriented economies, and 
cooperation with the U.S. Credible movement by the U.S. toward the FTAA 
is needed  to support the political and economic transformations 
underway in Latin America and the Caribbean. The FTAA will clearly 
benefit U.S. commercial interests. But it is far more than just a trade 
initiative, it symbolizes the new relationship between the U.S. and 
Latin America as equal partners with common values and practical means 
of cooperation to achieve common goals.

The vision sketched by our leaders in Miami last December was a 
hemisphere of peace, prosperity, and cooperation. Let us move vigorously 
toward it.  

(###)



ARTICLE 10:

Terrorism in Algeria
David C. Welch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern 
Affairs
Statement before the Subcommittee on Africa of the House International 
Relations Committee, Washington, DC, October 11, 1995

My name is David Welch, Deputy  Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern 
Affairs. I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the 
subcommittee on "Terrorism in Algeria: Its Effect on the Country's 
Political Scenario, on Regional Stability, and on Global Security." 

The U.S. has important national interests in the outcome of the present 
struggle within Algeria. We want to see a stable, friendly, and 
prosperous Algeria at peace with itself. U.S. policy responds to this 
crisis on several fronts--by condemning terrorism, supporting economic 
reforms, and calling for a broadening of the political process. Neither 
the emergence of a fanatical regime in Algeria nor the descent of this 
important state into chaos are in the interest of the United States. 

The Algerian crisis also has a regional dynamic which has repercussions 
for important U.S. allies. Beyond the far-reaching consequences for 
Algeria itself, gains by the most radical Islamists could embolden 
extremists in neighboring North African states such as Tunisia or 
Morocco--key U.S. allies in the region. The Algerian Armed Islamic 
Group--GIA--has claimed responsibility for terrorist bombing incidents 
in France. Ultimately, Algeria's crisis could provoke an influx of 
refugees into France and elsewhere in Western Europe. 

U.S. policy in Algeria seeks to end the cycle of violence which 
accelerated in the aftermath of the canceled elections of 1992. 
Algeria's current crisis is rooted in frustrations arising from 
political exclusion, economic misery, and social injustice--conditions 
which have facilitated the growth of an armed Islamist insurgency. 
Purely military means will not resolve this crisis. We believe a 
political solution involving dialogue between the regime and other 
elements of Algerian society prepared to eschew violence is the only 
viable alternative for the people of Algeria. We have conveyed this 
message both to elements of the opposition and to the highest levels of 
the Algerian Government. 

The U.S. endorses the Government of Algeria's efforts to transform its 
state-controlled economy into a market economy. The U.S. supports the 
economic reform program which the Algerian Government is implementing in 
coordination with the IMF. We joined with other creditors in 
rescheduling Algeria's public debt through the Paris Club. We are also 
working to protect the equities of U.S. private investment in Algeria, 
much of which is underwritten by our government. Several hundred 
Americans work in Algeria's oil and gas sector and in the construction 
of an important gas pipeline to Spain. However, we continue to advise 
the Algerian Government that economic recovery depends upon political 
reform. 

Algerian society as a whole is paying a high price for this brutal 
internal conflict. Violence has risen steadily since the Algerian regime 
suspended the electoral process in 1992 and outlawed the Islamic 
Salvation Front--FIS. In the early phase of the conflict, extremists on 
both sides believed violence could solve their problem; both have been 
proved wrong. Nearly four years into the conflict, the regime shows no 
sign it can end the violent opposition through security measures alone. 
The armed Islamists are far from winning but show every sign they can 
continue to fight. 

Since 1992, an estimated 40,000 Algerians have died in the conflict 
between security forces of the regime and the Islamist insurgents. Many 
have been civilians. Violations of human rights have taken place on both 
sides, helping fuel acts of extreme violence within the armed conflict. 
Already in 1995, extremists of the GIA have killed 23 journalists, 16 
foreigners, and numerous women and children in an effort to bring 
notoriety--through terrorism--to their cause. 

Despite international calls for a broadening of the political process, 
including by France and other important EU allies, the Government of 
Algeria has rejected consideration of a National Platform put forward by 
all major opposition parties which met in Rome under the auspices of the 
St. Egidio Society, a lay Catholic organization. These parties together 
garnered 80% of the votes cast in Algeria's December 1991 elections. 
While the U.S. has not advocated a specific solution to the Algerian 
crisis, we have stated that, given the degree of popular support 
represented by the political parties which participated in the Rome 
meeting, it could serve as a basis for discussion of a process by which 
Algeria's crisis could be brought to a peaceful conclusion and a process 
of national reconciliation launched.

The Algerian Government announced plans to hold Presidential elections 
on November 16, 1995. Five candidates have qualified to participate in 
this election; however, none of them hails from Algeria's major 
opposition parties. The two main non-Islamist political parties--the 
Socialist Forces Front--FFS--and the National Liberation Front--FLN--
decided not to field candidates in the election on the grounds that 
these elections lack credibility. The FIS remains illegal and barred 
from political activity.

The Algerian people will need to judge the credibility and fairness of 
the forthcoming elections. Will they accept that the election marks a 
real departure from old styles of government repudiated by Algerians 
across the political spectrum? Will they vote in significant numbers? 
Will they accept that the results are honest?  

Only if such conditions are met can the Presidential elections help move 
Algeria toward national reconciliation and peace. The security 
environment in which the planned election will take place is difficult. 
One Presidential candidate has already been assassinated. The GIA has 
adopted the banner "one vote, one bullet," and vowed to kill voters and 
election observers. The United States is firmly opposed to those who 
seek to impose their will on others by violent means. 

(###)



ARTICLE 11:

South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone Treaty
Statement by Department Spokesman Nicholas Burns, Washington, DC, 
October 20, 1995

On Friday, October 20, 1995, the Governments of France, the United 
Kingdom, and the United States announced that they would sign the 
relevant protocols of the South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone Treaty in the 
first half of 1996. This treaty, which is also known as the Treaty of 
Rarotonga, creates a nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific by 
prohibiting the testing, manufacture, acquisition, and stationing of 
nuclear explosive devices in the territory of parties to the treaty and 
the dumping of radioactive wastes at sea.

The treaty has three protocols that require the nuclear-weapons states 
to abide by the treaty's provisions in their territories located in the 
zone created by the treaty. U.S. territories in the region are American 
Samoa and Jarvis Island. The protocols also prohibit the nuclear-weapons 
states from contributing to violations of the treaty, from using or 
threatening to use nuclear weapons against the treaty's parties or the 
territory within the zone of protocol parties, and from testing nuclear 
explosive devices in the zone.

The announcement today reflects certain positive developments that have 
occurred recently. All countries eligible to become parties to the 
Treaty of Rarotonga have now acceded to the Treaty on the Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons--NPT. In addition, the recent decision 
by NPT parties to extend the NPT indefinitely--and without conditions--
and progress on a treaty that would prohibit the testing of nuclear 
explosive devices have also contributed to today's announcement.

The Treaty of Rarotonga was drafted through the efforts of the South 
Pacific Forum, an international organization that seeks to promote 
regional cooperation among the countries of the South Pacific. The 
Government of the United States of America would like to underscore the 
important role of the South Pacific Forum and its membership in 
advancing arms control and non-proliferation measures through the Treaty 
of Rarotonga. 

(###)


END OF DISPATCH VOL 6, NO 44

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