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 c