U.S. Department of State
Dispatch Volume 7, Number 9, February 26, 1996
Bureau of Public Affairs

Articles in this Issue: 
1. Secretary Christopher Presents Awards for Valor to Special Agents -- 
Secretary Christopher  
2. The United States and Japan:  Mutual Interests and Cooperation in 
Latin America -- Alexander F. Watson 
3. Continuing Developments in Bosnia -- President Clinton 
4. Focus on the United Nations -- Humanitarian Assistance:  Making a 
World of Difference 
5. Civil-Military Relations in the Americas:  Promoting Human Rights,  
Democracy, and Accountability -- Gare A. Smith 
6. Fact Sheet:  Independent States and Dependencies as of March 8, 1996 


Secretary Christopher Presents Awards for Valor to Special Agents 
Secretary Christopher 
Remarks at an awards ceremony, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, 
February 15, 1996 
This morning we mark a rare occasion--rare because Diplomatic Security 
does such a competent and reliable job that life-threatening situations 
seldom arise.  This is the first time in my tenure as Secretary of State 
that I have been called upon to present awards for valor to Special 
Agents. That reflects in many ways the success of your operations over 
the last three years. We are glad that you keep your valor in reserve -- 
for when it is really needed. 
Every day I benefit not just from the protection of my own security 
detail but from all those in the bureau who work to keep our operations 
functioning safely. Every State Department employee, especially when 
abroad, and every one of our families and friends owe you thanks for a 
job well done. You are a proud example of what it means to be public 
servants at a time when the term does not always command the respect it 
deserves. I remain committed to working to make sure that you have the 
resources you need to maintain your standard of excellence. 
Every day, the men and women in Diplomatic Security risk their lives in 
Washington, elsewhere in the United States, and at our 258 posts around 
the world. American foreign policy could not function without you. Your 
work shares one of the greatest frustrations of diplomacy:  At its most 
successful, it prevents threats from ever materializing and for that 
reason, often goes unrecognized. I recognize all of you for the work you 
do daily, as I recognize these three agents today for their stellar 
performance in the line of duty. 
Our first honoree, Special Agent Chris Reilly, was the regional security 
officer at the American Embassy in Bujumbura, Burundi. The almost 
permanent civil strife in Burundi has made travel under heavy guard part 
of the day's work for official Americans. Indeed, a tour of duty in 
Embassy Bujumbura is a mark of valor in itself. Chris and Larry Salmon, 
on temporary assignment from Embassy Windhoek, set out by car with 
Ambassador Robert Krueger and the Foreign Minister of Burundi on June 
14, 1995. 
On a winding mountain road, the convoy was ambushed. Amid automatic 
weapons fire, the ambassador's car was stuck behind another vehicle. As 
he had been trained, Chris reached across the terrified driver, put the 
car in reverse, and backed it out from behind the stopped vehicle ahead. 
He then helped the driver maneuver between stopped cars and a precipice 
to safety.  
I am very pleased to present the Award for Valor to Chris Reilly, for 
valor during an attack on an official motorcade in Cibitoke Province, 
Burundi, on June 14, 1995. 
[Text of citation] While the Ambassador's vehicle came under heavy 
automatic weapons fire, your rapid and effective response contributed 
directly to saving the lives of the Ambassador and the Foreign Minister 
of Burundi. Your actions reflect the highest credit upon you and the 
Diplomatic Security Service. 
Larry Salmon was driving the vehicle behind the Ambassador's car that 
day in Burundi. Responding instantly to the attack, Larry pushed his 
passenger to the floor for safety and fired six rounds at the 
assailants. He was the only member of the party to return fire, and he 
did so while driving his vehicle to safety behind Chris. Larry was hit 
in the shoulder by one of the 10 or so bullets that hit his vehicle, 
but, as you can see, he has fully recovered. 
I am very pleased to present the Award for Valor to Larry Salmon, for 
valor during an attack on an official motorcade in Cibitoke Province, 
Burundi, on June 14, 1995. 
[Text of citation] While the Ambassador's vehicle came under heavy 
automatic weapons fire, your rapid and effective response contributed 
directly to saving the lives of the Ambassador and the Foreign Minister 
of Burundi. Your actions reflect the highest credit upon you and the 
Diplomatic Security Service. 
Only two months later, Peter Hargraves, then the Regional Security 
Officer for Sarajevo, was making the trip from Belgrade to Sarajevo for 
a meeting of President Clinton's peace team with the Bosnian Government.   
As a member of the team that staffed Embassy Sarajevo under wartime 
conditions, Pete knew the dangers of the road well. 
Tragically, the edge of the road gave way beneath the armored personnel 
carrier in which Peter, Ambassador Robert Frasure, Dr. Joseph Kruzel, 
and Col. Nelson Drew were traveling, along with Lt. Col. Daniel Gerstein   
and a French soldier. The vehicle came to rest 1,000 feet below the 
roadway, in flames. Despite his own severe injuries, Pete extricated 
himself from the vehicle. He returned not once, but repeatedly, to pull 
Joe Kruzel from the wreckage and attempted to locate the other 
passengers, stopping only when the vehicle exploded. Already recognized 
for rescuing a colleague from a firefight in Somalia, Pete's heroism 
that day was nothing short of inspirational. 
I am especially glad to have Katherine Frasure here with us today as we 
honor Pete. Two weeks ago, I planted a tree at our embassy in Sarajevo 
in honor of Bob Frasure and the other men who died on that August day. I 
wish they could have been with us to see the peace they helped bring to 
that tragic country. For many, many reasons, I wish they were with us 
I am very pleased to present the Department's Award for Valor to Peter 
S. Hargraves. 
[Text of citation] For exceptional bravery and heroic devotion to your 
colleagues, in support of efforts to bring peace to the people of 


The United States and Japan: Mutual Interests and Cooperation in Latin 
Alexander F. Watson, Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs 
Address to the Latin American Association of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 
February 21, 1996 
Thank you, Ambassador Maeda. I am delighted and honored to be here, and 
I look forward to exchanging views with you about the situation in Latin 
America and the Caribbean today and about our respective policies in 
that region. 
Since Assistant Secretary Aronson spoke to this very group in 1991, 
there have been enormous changes in Latin America -- changes which are 
of great benefit to Latin America, to the U.S., and, I would venture to 
say, to Japan as well. 
The State of the Region Today 
The principal dynamics of Latin America's societies today are 
strengthening democracy and market-based economic reform. 
Today, every government in Latin America and the Caribbean -- with the 
single exception of Cuba, of course -- came into office through free and 
fair elections. Despite some problems, respect for basic human rights, 
as well as the demands of the people for the rule of law, have never 
been stronger. 
The remarkable success of democracy is graphically demonstrated in 
Haiti, arguably the country in the hemisphere with the least democratic 
tradition. Enormous problems remain there, but I believe the Haitian 
people -- and our hemisphere as a whole -- can take great pride in the 
events of February 7 -- the date of the first transfer of power from one 
elected president to another president in the whole tragic history of 
that nation. International support has been crucial to this achievement 
and must continue to extend and consolidate the progress to date. The 
$72 million in bilateral aid that Japan contributed to Haiti from 1990 
to 1994 and its $12-million contribution to finance the United Nations 
Mission in Haiti have done a lot of good in that desperately poor 
We also have seen enormous progress in making the hemisphere an area of 
peace and placing the region's militaries firmly under civilian control. 
Security thinking is gradually shifting from traditional political-
military doctrines of national security toward cooperative efforts to 
combat the transnational threats of narcotics trafficking, organized 
crime, and terrorism. And a number of Latin American countries have 
contributed significantly to UN and other peacekeeping forces. 
We witnessed a setback to our vision of a peaceful hemisphere when the 
Ecuador-Peru border dispute erupted into open fighting early last year. 
But the successful resolution of that issue demonstrated the new, 
collaborative approach to addressing hemispheric problems. Argentina, 
Brazil, Chile, and the U.S. -- the four countries named as "guarantors" 
in the treaty which originally delineated the border 50 years ago -- 
worked closely together to quickly separate the forces, establish a 
military observers mission, set in place a demilitarized zone, and set 
in motion wide-ranging efforts to develop a permanent settlement of the 
underlying issues. And in fact, tomorrow and the next day, there will be 
a very important meeting in Quito between the guarantors. 
In connection with efforts to maintain peace in the Western Hemisphere- 
sphere, I want to express my appreciation for Japan's role in helping 
the transition of El Salvador from a nation caught in a fratricidal war 
to a nation committed to political reconciliation and economic 
modernization. Japan contributed a total of more than $65 million to El 
Salvador's recovery between 1990 and 1995. Its contribution has paid 
enormous dividends. Progress on the economic front has been as great as 
on the political front.  
Through continuing market-based reform, the region's economies are being 
transformed from stagnant, inward-looking, and statist to growing, 
export-oriented, and market-driven. Last year proved to be a very 
difficult test of this process -- a test which the region clearly 
passed. Indeed, 1995 could be described as the year in which Latin 
America demonstrated that its commitment to market reforms is 
The Mexican peso crisis of December 1994 raised considerable concern in 
the financial and economic communities that the region would turn its 
back on market reforms and suffer though yet another "lost decade." The 
"lost decade" refers, of course, to the 1980s in Latin America. Instead, 
Mexico and Argentina, the two countries most deeply affected by the 
crisis, not only maintained their reform programs but deepened them, 
enacting stabilization programs -- which one prominent economist, the 
President of the Inter- American Development Bank, Enrique Iglesias of 
Uruguay, called the most rigorous he has ever seen -- and privatizing 
state enterprises even in sectors previously considered sacred. It is 
important to note that the international financial institutions and --  
particularly in the case of Mexico -- the United States, with the strong 
support of Japan, provided essential support for these countries' bold 
recovery efforts. 
The result has been a gradual return of confidence by the investment and 
financial communities. For instance, Mexico was able to return to the 
capital markets within only seven months rather than the seven years it 
needed after the 1982 crisis. 
The year 1995 also confirmed the strength of the region's economic 
fundamentals. The region experienced its lowest rate of inflation in a 
quarter-century. The regional average -- 25% --  however, obscures some 
remarkable individual successes:  Argentina, for example, achieved an 
annual rate of inflation of 2%; not too long ago, a monthly inflation 
rate of 2% was considered a positive achievement. Brazil's inflation 
last year was 22% -- its lowest in 30 years and the first time Brazil 
enjoyed an inflation rate under three digits in many years. 
The year 1995 also confirmed that the region remains on the path to 
self-sustaining growth. Despite the recessions in Mexico and Argentina 
which followed the peso crisis, the region's cumulative growth for the 
five years 1991-95 -- 15% -- exceeded its growth through the whole 
decade of the 1980s -- 13%. Once again, regional averages obscure the 
remarkable success of individual countries. Peru, Chile, and El Salvador 
are now being described as growing at "East Asian" rates, with annual 
average growth exceeding 6% for the 1991-95 period and with every 
expectation that this kind of growth will continue. 
Perhaps nothing better illustrates the economic turn-around of the 
region than Peru. When I served as the U.S. ambassador to Peru from 1986 
to 1989, I had the pleasure of working with my ambassadorial colleague 
from Japan, Masaki Seo, with whom I just had lunch, to try to convince 
the Peruvian Government to change its destructive populist economic 
policies. Unfortunately, we met with little success. The disaster of 
these policies is illustrated by one statistic -- the decline of per 
capita income by 29% from 1981 to 1990 -- with enormous attendant human 
misery, particularly for poorer groups. Peru's remarkable economic 
reforms and growth in recent years under President Fujimori's leadership 
are finally beginning to redress the horrible economic and social 
Let me use this opportunity to express my appreciation to Japan for its 
help in supporting this turn-around with its $100-million contribution 
to the 1993 international debt package and its bilateral assistance 
which totaled more than $1 billion from 1990 to 1994. 
U.S. Policy Objectives
After this description of changes which have taken place, I'd like now 
to describe U.S. policy objectives in Latin America and the Caribbean. I 
want to emphasize above all that our policy toward Latin America is 
based on the idea of partnership -- a partnership derived from common 
values and which is aiming for wide-ranging cooperation to achieve 
common goals --  goals which I believe also are shared by Japan. More 
than at any time in our hemisphere's history, our interaction is 
characterized by collaboration and dialogue. 
The Summit of the Americas held in Miami in December 1994 was a dramatic 
expression of this new era of cooperation. The 34 democratic leaders of 
the hemisphere agreed wholeheartedly on the overall goals of:   
  --  Strengthening democracy and respect for human rights; 
  --  Opening markets and moving toward free trade; 
  --  Preserving the environment; and 
  --  Ensuring that the benefits of growth are shared by all segments of 
the population.  
The consensus on the specific initiatives of the summit's action plan 
may be even more impressive than consensus on overall philosophical 
goals. The action plan's 23 initiatives and more than 100 specific 
action items mobilize national governments, international financial 
institutions, and non-governmental organizations. They involve work in 
areas which were in many countries considered too sensitive domestically 
-- such as human rights and problems of corruption -- to even discuss 
multilaterally, much less act on multilaterally. 
The commitment to negotiate a Free Trade Area of the Americas, which we 
call FTAA, by the year 2005 is the best-known and perhaps the most 
dramatic of the summit initiatives. But I want to emphasize that the 
FTAA forms part of a much broader, comprehensive, and mutually 
reinforcing plan. The FTAA commitment is complemented by other economic 
initiatives to strengthen capital markets, improve infrastructure, and 
cooperate more closely in energy, science, and tourism.  
These economic initiatives, in turn, are complemented by parallel 
actions to strengthen government institutions, fight corruption and 
narcotics trafficking, combat terrorism, improve education and health, 
ease poverty, and reverse environmental degradation. 
Progress toward the summit commitments has been really impressive across 
the board. Here are a few areas by way of example: 
Corruption. In the fight against corruption -- which is so important to 
ensure fair competition among business companies, whether foreign or 
domestic -- governments are putting teeth into their legislation and 
enforcement, the U.S. is working within the Organization of American 
States on an Inter-American covenant against corruption, and, in 
December, we reached a comprehensive agreement on so-called "laundering" 
of money acquired from the drug trade and other criminal activities. It 
is particularly impressive that the initiative on corruption is coming 
largely from Latin American countries:  The issue was first placed on 
the agenda of the summit by Ecuador, and it was Venezuela which proposed 
the drafting of a convention against corruption. 
Poverty. In the fight against poverty, a host of initiatives are 
underway to increase job opportunities for the poor and to improve 
health and education -- the most powerful weapons against poverty in the 
long run. The Inter-American Development Bank, for example, has 
earmarked $500 million for loans and grants to bolster micro-enterprises 
and small businesses. First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton recently 
launched a Partnership for Education Revitalization in the Americas, 
focused particularly on improving basic education throughout the 
hemisphere. The Pan-American Health Organization last April initiated a 
program to eliminate measles from the hemisphere.  
Finance. Another example is the Committee on Hemispheric Financial 
Issues we have established. Extensive data on capital flows and capital 
regulations in the hemisphere are being drawn together for the first 
time. A ministerial meeting is planned for mid-1996 to develop concrete 
plans to strengthen, liberalize, and integrate the region's capital 
Free Trade. With regard to the FTAA, the hemisphere's trade ministers 
met last June in Denver and launched the preparatory phase of the 
negotiations. Seven working groups were established in such specific 
areas as market access, investment, standards, and customs, with each 
working group charged with developing a comprehensive data base and 
analyzing the laws and practices of countries and regional integration 
groupings. I should mention here that the OAS has pulled together 
information on all the laws and practices in the different countries for 
the first time, and we owe a debt to the OAS for their work.  
We are now preparing for a second ministerial meeting to be held in 
Cartagena, Colombia next month. This meeting will establish four 
additional working groups, instruct all the working groups to develop 
recommendations for negotiating procedures, and look for trade-
facilitating measures that could be implemented in the near term, even 
before we start the full negotiating process. As in the case of the 
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, the ministers will have input 
from their business communities through a business forum, which will 
meet just before the ministerial meeting in Cartagena. 
I want to take this opportunity also to address the concerns expressed 
by many outside of the Western Hemisphere about this effort. As 
Ambassador Kantor, the U.S. Trade Representative, has noted repeatedly, 
the FTAA and other U.S. regional trade initiatives form part of an 
overall strategy aimed at liberalizing and building a more open trading 
system globally. The FTAA will not raise barriers to non-members and 
will be fully consistent with the spirit and rules of the WTO.  
The stimulus to growth provided by the FTAA will benefit not only its 
participants but all countries which have economic interaction with this 
region. Further, the FTAA is seen by many of the leaders of Latin 
America as an instrument to consolidate the dramatic trade 
liberalization which they undertook unilaterally over the past decade. 
The North American Free Trade Agreement -- NAFTA -- is another example 
of our view of free trade agreements as policy instruments not only to 
provide a stable market for American goods and services but also to 
consolidate economic reforms. In my view, NAFTA's greatest achievement 
to date has been the support that it gave to Mexico's reformers to 
maintain their commitment to market-based policies as they struggled 
with the peso crisis of December 1994. This commitment to market reforms 
has been critical in establishing the conditions for a rapid return to 
growth by Mexico, which will be, of course, of primary benefit to the 
Mexican people but which also will benefit all of Mexico's trading 
Cooperation Between the U.S. and Japan in Latin America and the 
I would like to turn for a moment to cooperation between the U.S. and 
Japan in Latin America and the Caribbean. The U.S. and Japan have a long 
history of cooperation in the region, and I strongly believe that there 
is every reason for this cooperation to continue and to strengthen. My 
feelings were confirmed by meetings yesterday and today with Director 
General Sato of your Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Each year, the U.S. 
and Japan participate in consultations -- these are the 19th 
consultations on Latin America and the Caribbean -- with the goal of 
cooperating more fully. Japan obviously has its own national interests 
to pursue. Those interests will not always coincide with those of the 
U.S. But overall, both Japan and the U.S. gain by supporting the current 
trends in Latin America. 
Well-functioning democratic governments have an inherent legitimacy 
which makes it more likely for them to achieve domestic consensus to 
sustain far-reaching economic reforms. Judicial systems which are 
efficient and fair are important not only to a country's citizens but 
also to foreign businesses which must work within that country's legal 
framework. Economic growth shared broadly throughout a society produces 
more customers for everyone.  
We believe that Japan, as a world leader, has an important role to play 
in Latin America, both as a partner in trade and investment and as a 
participant in efforts to tackle the broader regional issues I've 
discussed today. 
I have noted already how Japan's assistance has helped solidify peace, 
democracy, and economic reform in such diverse countries as Haiti, El 
Salvador, and Peru. We welcome and appreciate Japan's continued support 
for development of the region through both bilateral assistance and 
support for multilateral institutions. Japan's decision during the 
Eighth Capital Replenishment of the IDB in 1994 to increase its share of 
IDB capital to 5% was a most welcome development. Equally appreciated 
was Japan's pledge of a $500-million contribution to the IDB's 
Multilateral Investment Fund.  
One way in which our two countries have formalized their joint efforts 
in the hemisphere is through the U.S.-Japan "Common Agenda," which began 
as part of the Framework for the New Economic Partnership in July 1993. 
While our Common Agenda efforts have centered largely and naturally on 
Asia, we deeply appreciate Japanese cooperation in projects in Latin 
America. Their scope is wide, as it should be to meet the region's needs 
-- for instance, improving education for women in Guatemala, preserving 
rain forests and other wilderness areas through the "Parks in Peril" 
program,  developing projects to give Latin America's farmers viable 
alternatives to growing drug crops, and many others. We see the Common 
Agenda as an opportunity for the world's two largest economies to work 
together to promote the common goal of the region's development. 
To sum up, I believe that the evolution of Latin America into a region 
of peace, democracy, and widely shared prosperity offers great 
opportunities for all of us -- for the people of Latin America, for the 
U.S., and for Japan. Working together, the U.S. and Japan already have 
accomplished much by supporting these positive trends. I am convinced 
that we can accomplish more together by leveraging resources and finding 
synergies than we can accomplish by working separately. 
Sannin yoreba monjunochie. When Japan, the United States, and Latin 
America work together, we can make two plus two equal five. 


Continuing Developments in Bosnia 
Statement by President Clinton released by the White House, Office of 
the Press Secretary, Washington, DC, February 20, 1996. 
This afternoon, I met with my senior national security team to review 
the situation in Bosnia. I received a report on this weekend's meeting 
in Rome with the presidents of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia. 
I am pleased that, in Rome, the Balkan leaders recommitted themselves to 
keeping peace on track. The parties pledged to resume contacts with the 
NATO-led implementation force, to reunify Sarajevo on schedule, to 
release all remaining war prisoners, to remove any remaining foreign 
forces, to cooperate in the investigation and prosecution of war crimes, 
and to strengthen the Bosnia-Croat Federation and reunify Mostar. 
I have instructed my foreign policy team to continue efforts to convince 
all the parties that their Rome commitments must be implemented 
faithfully and without delay. The road to peace is a hard road, but it 
is the right road. We are proud to be part of the NATO force, and I am 
pleased to be meeting with NATO Secretary General Solana today. 
While serious problems remain, it is important to keep the situation in 
Bosnia in perspective. After nearly four years of war, peace will not 
take hold overnight. We should not lose sight of the remarkable progress 
that has been made since Dayton. The cease-fire is holding. The zones of 
separation are in place. And in Sarajevo, once a dying city haunted by 
snipers and shells, the markets are filled. People are back on the 
streets. Builders are repairing shops and small businesses in the center 
of town. Sarajevo has come back to life, with a future for all of its 
These are the kinds of tangible benefits that will help give all the 
people of Bosnia a greater stake in peace than in war. Tomorrow, I am 
sending to Capitol Hill a supplemental appropriations request for $820 
million to support IFOR and its mission. This includes $200 million to 
assist the essential process of civilian implementation -- specifically, 
economic reconstruction and reform, deployment of international police 
monitors, and demining. I will work with Congress to secure these funds 
as quickly as possible. The sooner the Bosnian people recover the 
blessings of a normal life, the surer the chances for a peace that 
I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the enormous 
dedication of Assistant Secretary Holbrooke, who has spearheaded the 
peace effort for us since last August. As Ambassador Holbrooke steps 
down, I want to thank him for his service to our nation. The people of 
Bosnia and the American people owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude. 


Focus on the United Nations -- Humanitarian Assistance:  Making a World 
of Difference 
UN humanitarian aid agencies play a critical role in alleviating 
suffering and helping to rebuild communities struck or threatened by 
natural and man-made disasters. In recent years, the UN system has 
served tens of millions of men, women, and children caught up in 
tragedies too large to be dealt with by any one nation. Recent UN 
operations in Southern Africa, Central Europe,  Southeast Asia, and the 
Americas are illustrative of the UN's humanitarian contributions to the 
global community. 
Giving Peace a Chance in Mozambique 
The Mozambican Government and RENAMO rebels, after ending a 15-year 
civil war in 1992, turned to UN agencies to facilitate the peace and 
rebuilding process. The UN's Office for Humanitarian Assistance 
Coordination in Mozambique has played a central role in the repatriation 
of millions of civilians displaced by war. Major UN humanitarian 
agencies, including the World Food Program (WFP), the UN High 
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations Children's Fund 
(UNICEF), and the UN Development Program (UNDP) have provided food and 
shelter, reopened schools and clinics, and restored water supply 
systems. The UN also works to clear landmines, enabling the resumption 
of normal settlement, production, transportation, and trading patterns 
throughout much of the country. Finally, the UN aids the civil 
reintegration of former soldiers through a combination of cash payments, 
vocational training, and small-business assistance. 
Managing Relief Supplies in the Americas 
In the past, the tremendous volume of donations sent by the 
international community in response to natural disasters often 
overwhelmed the capability of the recipient country to manage intake and 
distribution. This problem frequently was compounded by well-meaning 
donors sending quantities of items and material not requested by the 
affected country.  Thanks to a simple, computerized relief-supply 
management system called SUMA, recipients of such aid now can overcome 
the logistical problems at ports of entry and regional distribution 
centers caused by the sheer volume and nature of donations. Developed by 
the Pan American Health Organization -- the regional office for the 
Americas of the World Health Organization -- this low-tech computer 
system is easy to learn and operate and enables users to quickly sort 
and distribute critical aid. Because the program is so flexible, SUMA is 
becoming a world standard for relief-supply management.  
After use and refinement in hurricane, earthquake, and flood relief 
across the Western Hemisphere in the early 1990s, SUMA was put to the 
test in Haiti after international sanctions were lifted in October 1994. 
Facing an impending flood of donated supplies and equipment from all 
over the world, the Haitian Government turned to PAHO for help. A team 
of volunteers from the Caribbean and Latin America got the SUMA system 
up and running quickly, averting chaos at port facilities in Port-au-
Heading Off Famine in South Africa 
Severe drought in mid-1992 threatened 20 million people in South Africa, 
Mozambique, Botswana, Namibia, Zimbabwe, and Zambia with starvation. 
Regional and national warning systems raised the alarm early on, and UN 
humanitarian agencies quickly responded. A joint mission of the Food and 
Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the WFP, with the support of UNICEF 
and other UN agencies, conducted a detailed needs assessment and raised 
a special alert for the international community. The WFP coordinated the 
flow of all relief foods into the region for nearly a year; the 11.6 
million tons of relief commodities represented a six-fold increase in 
the normal flow of basic food imports. The UN was also key to the 
delivery of fertilizers and seeds which enabled Southern African farmers 
to quickly rebound from the drought when normal rains resumed in mid-
Averting Mass Starvation in the Balkans 
The onset of an unusually harsh winter in 1992 threatened to put at risk 
of starvation a large portion of the 3 million homeless and displaced 
civilians in the former Yugoslavia. The WFP and the UN High Commissioner 
for Refugees, in conjunction with UNICEF and WHO, distributed food and 
other survival supplies that averted mass starvation. UN aid workers 
became targets for some of the combatants; relief convoys were regularly 
attacked and drivers killed. The aid agencies persevered for several 
months until peacekeeping troops arrived to protect the UN supply 
routes, winter shelters, and zones of safety that ultimately saved 
hundreds of thousands of lives. 
Allaying Chaos in Chechnya 
UN agencies are at the center of efforts to support more than 200,000 
Chechen civilians whose lives have been severely disrupted by fighting 
between the Russian army and Chechen rebels since late 1994. Camps for 
the displaced, communication links between separated families, and 
rehabilitation programs are in place thanks to the UN system. UNHCR and 
UNICEF stepped in immediately after war broke out to deliver hundreds of 
tons of relief supplies to Chechnya and neighboring republics affected 
by the war. WFP and UNHCR continue to support shelter, water, food, and 
sanitation programs. The UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs office in 
Moscow monitors relief operations in Chechnya and serves to coordinate 
the aid efforts of UN agencies and non-governmental organizations 
helping the victims of the Chechnya conflict. 
Rebuilding Cambodia 
UN programs have channeled $880 million in international aid to Cambodia 
since a 20-year civil war ended in 1991. The devastated country was 
littered with landmines, the infrastructure was destroyed, and crime and 
disease were rampant. More than 700,000 Cambodians were in refugee camps 
in neighbor-  countries. UNDP, UNHCR, and UNICEF collaborated to rebuild 
villages, dig wells, and construct public buildings, houses, bridges, 
and roads. Other UN projects include the removal of landmines and the 
establishment of literacy, entrepreneurship, and industrial training 
programs. The UN also oversaw the holding of free and fair democratic 
elections in mid-1993. Still, Cambodia is just starting on the road to 
full-fledged democracy; the legacy of two decades of violent conflict 
and chaos endures in some parts of the country. But thanks in part to 
the work of the UN, for the first time ever, a majority of Cambodians 
elected the government under which they live, and most Cambodians are 
able to strive in peace for a better life.

Civil Military Relations in the Americas:  Promoting Human Rights, 
Democracy, and Accountability 
Gare A. Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights 
and Labor 
Address at the United States Army Southern Command, Miami, Florida, 
February 6, 1996 
Thanks very much for that warm introduction. It's an honor and a great 
pleasure to join you all here this evening. I bring the regards of John 
Shattuck, the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights 
and Labor, who regrets that he could not be here, too. As you know, John 
is deeply involved in the Bosnian peace process and was for that reason 
unable to join us. 
I'd like to begin our discussion tonight with a few general remarks 
about the importance we in the State Department attach to respect for 
human rights and the kinds of human rights challenges we face in the 
world today. I'll then discuss how we go about addressing these 
There are many reasons why we promote respect for human rights in our 
foreign policy. I would mention three in particular. 
First, as Vice President Gore recently put it, the United States of 
America stands for something. People all around the world look to us as 
a model of freedom, of respect for human dignity and justice under law. 
I think that that is one of our proudest legacies as Americans and that 
the American people want us to try to put those ideals into practice. 
Second, our dedication to universal values is a vital source of 
America's authority and credibility. We cannot lead -- and we cannot be 
a world leader -- without it. 
Our interests are most secure in a world where accountable government 
strengthens stability and where the rule of law protects both political 
rights and free market economies. Open borders, transparent legal 
systems, and respect for freedom of speech are fundamental values to 
individuals, multinationals, and democratic governments alike. 
Third, even in 1996, after the end of the Cold War, there are millions 
of people who are still forced to live under repressive regimes and 
authoritarian governments. It is their suffering, courage, and hope that 
is the moral basis of our efforts. This is an area of our foreign policy 
where everyone in this audience has a special contribution to make. 
During the Cold War, threats to human rights were seen as coming 
primarily from centralized authorities -- from strong governments as in 
the Soviet Union that ruled with an iron hand. In response, the human 
rights community developed the forms of advocacy with which we are now 
familiar -- monitoring, reporting, and publicizing cases and advocacy on 
behalf of individual victims of human rights abuse and advocacy of 
sanctions against abusive governments. 
Today, in the post-Cold War world, much has changed. Human rights abuses 
are still committed by strong central governments, but we have become 
increasingly familiar with abuses in countries with weak or unresponsive 
governments and with abuses committed by ethnic, religious, and 
separatist extremists who fan group differences into hatred and 
sometimes genocide. These conflicts present us with a devastating array 
of new human rights problems. 
At the same time, the post-Cold War environment offers opportunities for 
structural change both within countries and throughout the world 
community that could give internationally recognized human rights 
greater force than ever before. This is due in large part to the fall of 
Soviet communism. But it is also due to a powerful global movement for 
human rights and democratic participation. 
This movement has been gathering force for two decades. The past few 
years have been especially dramatic, changing the political face of many 
parts of the world, from the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to 
South Africa, Zambia, Cambodia, El Salvador, Chile, and Mongolia. 
The movement for human rights and democracy is beginning to show 
strength in many new regions and among people who previously had no 
voice. As the 1993 UN World Conference on Human Rights dramatically 
demonstrated, this global movement is among the strongest grass-roots 
forces in the world today. Increasingly assertive and effective 
indigenous forces are pressing worldwide for government transparency and 
accountability, for basic democratic freedoms, and for internationally 
recognized human rights. 
All this is taking place at a time when states are engaging each other 
in a growing range of challenges that transcend national borders. Trade, 
the environment, security, population, and migration issues create both 
powerful forces of integration and increasing conflict. 
New technologies of communication and transportation, such as satellite 
TV and the Internet, are bringing people of different countries and 
cultures much closer together and reinforcing fundamental freedoms. 
National economies are becoming increasingly intertwined, as witnessed 
by the NAFTA agreement with Canada and Mexico. At the same time, ethnic, 
religious, economic, and other forms of group conflict are arising -- 
sometimes in response to these very forces of integration. 
We in the State Department believe that universal human rights play a 
critical role in stabilizing this complex global playing field. As Nobel 
Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi recently wrote, it is precisely 
because countries are coming into increasing contact that it is 
important for us to adhere to basic standards of human rights in our 
dealings with other countries and in our own internal systems of 
In this new, multipolar world, the traditional human rights "sticks" of 
sanctions and other punitive measures directed against abusive regimes 
still have an important role to play. But sanctions need to be 
complemented by broader means of promoting human rights in countries 
that are in the midst of change and internal conflict. 
In short, with the passing of the Cold War, we find ourselves in a new 
international strategic environment. The human rights abuses of 
governments are accompanied by ethnic tension, a breakdown of authority, 
and environmental destruction. As a result, human rights promotion must 
synthesize familiar forms of pressure and advocacy with long-term 
structural reform and the support of grass-roots movements for change. 
Indeed, today we see a growing emphasis on multilateral action to 
support these movements, first, through negotiated settlements of 
conflict, which often include provisions for internationally supported 
democratic elections; second, through institutions of accountability for 
human rights abuses such as war crimes tribunals, truth commissions, and 
judicial assistance programs; and third, through peacekeeping operations 
and humanitarian assistance programs. 
The efforts currently underway in Bosnia aptly illustrate this new 
direction of human rights promotion. The conflict in Bosnia has 
generated some of the worst atrocities the European continent has seen 
since World War II. The U.S. Government has displayed great leadership 
in seeking to stop the bloodshed, hold accountable those responsible for 
war crimes, and ensure that the rule of law -- not the rule of genocide 
-- prevails. 
The Dayton accords have succeeded for now in ending the hostilities and 
separating the warring factions. We in the U.S. Government take a great 
deal of pride in the impressive efforts being made by U.S. armed forces 
to bring peace to Bosnia and its people. I know that a number of our 
soldiers in Bosnia -- including NATO commander Adm. Leighton Smith -- 
are from the Jacksonville area. 
Less heralded, but of equal significance, are the Dayton accords' 
civilian provisions. This aspect of the accords focuses on 
reconstructing Bosnian society on the foundations of civil society, 
justice, and respect for human rights and the rule of law. Jacksonville, 
of course, boasts its own civilian program -- the Bosnian refugee 
program, which is doing much to improve the lives of Bosnians who were 
forced to flee their homeland. 
One vital institution is the UN War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. We 
have vigorously supported this tribunal politically, financially, and 
logistically since its inception. Assistant Secretary Shattuck has 
traveled to Bosnia at least 10 times since July to promote the Tribunal 
and to ensure that it remains an integral part of the peace process. 
Under the leadership of its chief prosecutor, Judge Richard Goldstone -- 
a man who demonstrated great personal courage during South Africa's 
apartheid years -- the Tribunal has indicted 52 people suspected of war 
crimes and crimes against humanity. Just this past week, the parties 
agreed to new "rules of the road" that will help the Tribunal gather 
information and proceed only on the basis of solid evidence. 
Sometimes we are asked why we are supporting the Tribunal. There are 
many good answers to that question, but the simplest is that sustainable 
peace requires justice. 
The genocide in Bosnia, like the genocide in Rwanda, did not arise 
spontaneously. They were fomented by individuals who sought to gain 
political ends through violent and hideous means. Unless these 
individuals are called to account for their actions -- for genocide, war 
crimes, and crimes against humanity -- justice will not be served, and 
reconciliation and reconstruction will be impossible. 
The Tribunals are also necessary to lift the burden of collective guilt 
that settles on societies whose leaders have directed such terrible 
violence. The assignment of responsibility enables the international 
community to differentiate between victims and aggressors. It also helps 
expunge the illusion that conflicts with an ethnic dimension are 
hopelessly complex and therefore insoluble. 
Moreover, the Tribunals are essential if future crimes are to be 
deterred. If basic human rights can be massively violated with impunity 
in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the world is fair game for every 
conceivable form of terror. 
In addition to the War Crimes Tribunals, a spectrum of other 
institutions of accountability have contributed to reconciliation in 
other countries. The Truth Commissions of Nicaragua, El Salvador, and 
Haiti; the UN Verification Mission in Guatemala; and the National Human 
Rights Commissions established in India and Mexico represent new and 
diverse ways of providing accountability for human rights abuses. 
Accountability also is being furthered in a number of countries by 
assistance programs designed to help develop the administration of 
justice and the rule of law. 
It should go without saying that the kinds of actions we normally 
associate with human rights promotion --  such as protests and letter-
writing campaigns -- are all still very important and, unfortunately, 
still very necessary. As the world weaves stronger ties through trade 
and cultural exchanges, it is vitally important that we foster a global 
commitment to human rights as part of the fabric of the world community. 
One of the most hopeful and innovative developments I have seen is the 
growing interest on the part of members of the business community in 
promoting human rights through their work. The example U.S. businesses 
set abroad and the codes of conduct adopted by an increasing number of 
multinationals effectively promote America's values abroad. 
What I think these different trends point to is, in effect, "wholesale" 
human rights work -- undertakings that move beyond individual cases to 
bring about structural reform, changes in institutions that bring 
massive human rights improvements in their wake. 
One terrific example of this is in the Middle East, where Israel's 
courageous agreement with the PLO has transformed the human rights 
situation in the occupied territories and allowed the Palestinians the 
opportunity for democratic expression. Ironically, many Palestinians now 
credit their first-hand experience with Israeli democracy with their own 
appreciation for democratic values. 
The Middle East peace process aims to create greater openness throughout 
the region as a whole. This is one of the reasons why Secretary 
Christopher is making such a great effort to help Israel and Syria 
achieve a peace agreement of their own. 
To be sure, no single treaty or agreement will end all human rights 
problems, but in today's world we have genuine opportunities for 
meaningful structural changes that can improve respect for human rights 
around the world. 
In conclusion, I'd like to borrow from some comments Secretary 
Christopher recently made regarding U.S. leadership in the next century. 
As businesspeople who understand the importance of our global 
relationships, I think you'll find it insightful. 
The nations of the world look to America as a source of principled and 
reliable leadership. They see American soldiers bridging rivers and 
moving mountains to help peace take hold in Bosnia. They see us working 
for peace in the Middle East. They see us negotiating trade agreements 
so that every nation can find rewards in emerging markets. 
They see the most powerful nation on earth standing up for persecuted 
peoples everywhere because we believe it is right and because those who 
struggle for human rights represent the future. And, ultimately, the 
other nations of the world follow us because they understand that 
America's fight for peace and freedom is the world's fight. 

Fact Sheet:  Independent States and Dependencies as of March 8, 1996 
Independent States(1)  
Short-form name         Long-form name           Code(2) Capital 
001. Afghanistan *      Islamic State  
                          of Afghanistan           AF  Kabul 
002. Albania *+         Republic of Albania        AL  Tirana 
003. Algeria *+         Democratic and Popular  
                          Republic of Algeria      AG  Algiers 
004. Andorra *+         Principality of Andorra    AN  Andorra la Vella 
005. Angola *+          Republic of Angola         AO  Luanda 
006. Antigua and  
       Barbuda *+      (no long-form name)         AC  Saint John's  
007. Argentina *+       Argentine Republic         AR  Buenos Aires 
008. Armenia *+         Republic of Armenia        AM  Yerevan 
009. Australia *+       Commonwealth of Australia  AS  Canberra 
010. Austria *+         Republic of Austria        AU  Vienna 
011. Azerbaijan *+      Azerbaijani Republic       AJ  Baku 
012. Bahamas, The *+      Commonwealth of  
                            The Bahamas            BF  Nassau 
013. Bahrain *+           State of Bahrain         BA  Manama 
014. Bangladesh *+        People's Republic  
                            of Bangladesh          BG  Dhaka 
015. Barbados *+          (no long-form name)      BB  Bridgetown 
016. Belarus *+           Republic of Belarus      BO  Minsk 
017. Belgium *+           Kingdom of Belgium       BE  Brussels 
018. Belize *+            (no long-form name)      BH  Belmopan 
019. Benin *+             Republic of Benin        BN  Porto-Novo  
020. Bhutan +             Kingdom of Bhutan        BT  Thimphu 
021. Bolivia *+           Republic of Bolivia      BL  La Paz 
022. Bosnia and           Republic of Bosnia and 
       Herzegovina *+       Herzegovina            BK  Sarajevo 
023. Botswana *+          Republic of Botswana     BC  Gaborone 
024. Brazil *+            Federative Republic  
                            of Brazil              BR  Brasilia 
025. Brunei *+            Negara Brunei Darussalam BX  Bandar Seri 
026. Bulgaria *+          Republic of Bulgaria     BU  Sofia 
027. Burkina Faso*+       Burkina Faso             UV  Ouagadougou 
028. Burma *+             Union of Burma           BM  Rangoon 
029. Burundi *+           Republic of Burundi      BY  Bujumbura 
030. Cambodia *+          Kingdom of Cambodia      CB  Phnom Penh 
031. Cameroon *+          Republic of Cameroon     CM  Yaounde 
032. Canada *+            (no long-form name)      CA  Ottawa 
033. Cape Verde *+        Republic of Cape Verde   CV  Praia 
034. Central African  
       Republic *+        Central African Republic CT  Bangui 
035. Chad *+              Republic of Chad         CD  N'Djamena 
036. Chile *+             Republic of Chile        CI  Santiago 
037. China *+ ( 3)        People's Republic  
                            of China               CH  Beijing 
038. Colombia *+          Republic of Colombia     CO  Bogota 
039. Comoros *+           Federal Islamic Republic  
                            of the Comoros         CN  Moroni 
040. Congo *+             Republic of the Congo    CF  Brazzaville 
041. Costa Rica *+        Republic of Costa Rica   CS  San Jose 
042. Cote d'Ivoire  
      (Ivory Coast)*+     Republic of Cote d'IvoireIV  Yamoussoukro  
043. Croatia *+           Republic of Croatia      HR  Zagreb 
044. Cuba +               Republic of Cuba         CU  Havana 
045. Cyprus *+            Republic of Cyprus       CY  Nicosia 
046. Czech Republic*+     Czech Republic           EZ  Prague 
047. Denmark *+           Kingdom of Denmark       DA  Copenhagen 
048. Djibouti *+          Republic of Djibouti     DJ  Djibouti 
049. Dominica *+          Commonwealth of Dominica DO  Roseau 
050. Dominican  
       Republic *+        Dominican Republic       DR  Santo Domingo 
051. Ecuador*+            Republic of Ecuador      EC  Quito 
052. Egypt*+              Arab Republic of Egypt   EG  Cairo 
053. El Salvador*+        Republic of El Salvador  ES  San Salvador 
054. Equatorial Guinea*+  Republic of  
                            Equatorial Guinea      EK  Malab 
055. Eritrea *+           State of Eritrea         ER  Asmar 
056. Estonia *+           Republic of Estonia      EN  Tallinn 
057. Ethiopia *+          (no long-form name)      ET  Addis Ababa 
058. Fiji *+              Republic of Fiji         FJ  Suva 
059. Finland *+           Republic of Finland      FI  Helsinki 
060. France *+            French Republic          FR  Paris 
061. Gabon *+             Gabonese Republic        GB  Libreville 
062. Gambia, The *+       Republic of The Gambia   GA  Banjul 
063. Georgia *+           Republic of Georgia      GG  T'bilisi 
064. Germany *+           Federal Republic  
                            of Germany             GM  Berlin  
065. Ghana *+             Republic of Ghana        GH  Accra 
066. Greece *+            Hellenic Republic        GR  Athens 
067. Grenada *+           (no long-form name)      GJ  Saint George's 
068. Guatemala *+         Republic of Guatemala    GT  Guatemala 
069. Guinea *+            Republic of Guinea       GV  Conakry 
070. Guinea-Bissau *+     Republic of Guinea-BissauPU  Bissau 
071. Guyana *+            Co-operative Republic  
                            of Guyana              GY  Georgetown 
072. Haiti *+            Republic of Haiti         HA  Port-au- 
073. Holy See*           Holy See                  VT  Vatican City 
074. Honduras *+         Republic of Honduras      HO  Tegucigalpa 
075. Hungary *+          Republic of Hungary       HU  Budapest 
076. Iceland *+          Republic of Iceland       IC  Reykjavik 
077. India *+            Republic of India         IN  New Delhi 
078. Indonesia *+        Republic of Indonesia     ID  Jakarta 
079. Iran +              Islamic Republic of Iran  IR  Tehran 
080. Iraq +              Republic of Iraq          IZ  Baghdad 
081. Ireland *+          (no long-form name)       EI  Dublin 
082. Israel *+           State of Israel           IS  (see note 4) 
083. Italy *+            Italian Republic          IT  Rome 
084. Jamaica *+           (no long-form name)      JM  Kingston 
085. Japan *+             (no long-form name)      JA  Tokyo 
086. Jordan *+            Hashemite Kingdom  
                            of Jordan              JO  Amman 
087. Kazakstan *+         Republic of Kazakstan    KZ  Almaty 
088. Kenya *+             Republic of Kenya        KE  Nairobi 
089. Kiribati*            Republic of Kiribati     KR  Tarawa 
090. Korea, North +       Democratic People's  
                            Republic of Korea      KN  P'yongyang  
091. Korea, South *+      Republic of Korea        KS  Seoul 
092. Kuwait *+            State of Kuwait          KU  Kuwait 
093. Kyrgyzstan *+        Kyrgyz Republic          KG  Bishkek 
094. Laos *+              Lao People's Democratic 
                            Republic               LA  Vientiane 
095. Latvia *+            Republic of Latvia       LG  Riga 
096. Lebanon *+           Republic of Lebanon      LE  Beirut 
097. Lesotho *+           Kingdom of Lesotho       LT  Maseru 
098. Liberia *+           Republic of Liberia      LI  Monrovia 
099. Libya *+             Socialist People's Libyan  
                            Arab Jamahiriya        LY  Tripoli 
100. Liechtenstein *+     Principality of  
                            Liechtenstein          LS  Vaduz 
101. Lithuania *+         Republic of Lithuania    LH  Vilnius 
102. Luxembourg *+        Grand Duchy of LuxembourgLU  Luxembourg 
103. Macedonia, The       The Former Yugoslav 
       Former Yugoslav      of Macedonia 
         Republic of *+                            MK  Skopje 
104. Madagascar *+        Republic of Madagascar   MA  Antananarivo 
105. Malawi *+            Republic of Malawi       MI  Lilongwe 
106. Malaysia *+          (no long-form name)      MY  Kuala Lumpur 
107. Maldives *+          Republic of Maldives     MV  Male 
108. Mali *+              Republic of Mali         ML  Bamako  
109. Malta *+             (no long-form name)      MT  Valletta 
110. Marshall Islands*+   Republic of the  
                            Marshall Islands       RM  Majuro 
111. Mauritania *+        Islamic Republic  
                            of Mauritania          MR  Nouakchott 
112. Mauritius *+         Republic of Mauritius    MP  Port Louis 
113. Mexico *+            United Mexican States    MX  Mexico 
114. Micronesia,Federated Federated States of  
       States of             Micronesia            FM  Palikir   
115. Moldova *+           Republic of Moldova      MD  Chisinau 
116. Monaco *+            Principality of Monaco   MN  Monaco 
117. Mongolia *+          (no long-form name)      MG  Ulaanbaatar 
118. Morocco *+           Kingdom of Morocco       MO  Rabat 
119. Mozambique *+        Republic of Mozambique   MZ  Maputo 
120. Namibia *+           Republic of Namibia      WA  Windhoek 
121. Nauru*               Republic of Nauru        NR  Yaren District 
                                                       (no capital city)  
122. Nepal *+             Kingdom of Nepal         NP  Kathmandu 
123. Netherlands *+       Kingdom of  
                            the Netherlands        NL  Amsterdam  
                                                         The Hague(seat 
                                                           of govt.) 
124. New Zealand *+       (no long-form name)      NZ  Wellington 
125. Nicaragua *+         Republic of Nicaragua    NU  Managua 
126. Niger *+             Republic of Niger        NG  Niamey 
127. Nigeria *+           Federal Republic  
                            of Nigeria             NI  Abuja 
128. Norway *+            Kingdom of Norway        NO  Oslo 
129. Oman *+              Sultanate of Oman        MU  Muscat 
130. Pakistan *+          Islamic Republic  
                            of Pakistan            PK  Islamabad 
131. Palau *+             Republic of Palau        PS  Koror 
132. Panama *+            Republic of Panama       PM  Panama 
133. Papua New Guinea *+  Independent State 
                            of Papua New Guinea    PP  Port Moresby 
134. Paraguay *+          Republic of Paraguay     PA  Asuncion 
135. Peru *+              Republic of Peru         PE  Lima 
136. Philippines *+       Republic of  
                            the Philippines        RP  Manila 
137. Poland *+            Republic of Poland       PL  Warsaw 
138. Portugal *+          Portuguese Republic      PO  Lisbon 
139. Qatar *+             State of Qatar           QA  Doha 
140. Romania *+           (no long-form name)      RO  Bucharest 
141. Russia *+            Russian Federation       RS  Moscow 
142. Rwanda *+            Republic of Rwanda       RW  Kigali 
143. Saint Kitts          Federation of Saint Kitts 
       and Nevis *+         and Nevis              SC      Basseterre 
144. Saint Lucia *+       (no long-form name)      ST      Castries 
145. Saint Vincent and the  
          Grenadines *+   (no long-form name)      VC      Kingstown  
146. San Marino *+        Republic of San Marino   SM      San Marino 
147. Sao Tome and         Democratic Republic 
       Principe *+         of Sao Tome and PrincipeTP      Sao Tome 
148. Saudi Arabia *+      Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  SA      Riyadh 
149. Senegal *+           Republic of Senegal      SG      Dakar 
150. Seychelles *+        Republic of Seychelles   SE      Victoria 
151. Sierra Leone *+      Republic of Sierra Leone SL      Freetown 
152. Singapore *+         Republic of Singapore    SN      Singapore 
153. Slovakia *+          Slovak Republic          LO      Bratislava 
154. Slovenia *+          Republic of Slovenia     SI      Ljubljana        
155. Solomon Islands *+   (no long-form name)      BP      Honiara 
156. Somalia *+           (no long-form name)      SO      Mogadishu 
157. South Africa *+      Republic of South Africa SF      Pretoria  
                                                           Cape Town 
158. Spain *+             Kingdom of Spain         SP      Madrid 
159. Sri Lanka *+         Democratic Socialist 
                            Republic of Sri Lanka  CE      Colombo 
160. Sudan *+             Republic of the Sudan    SU      Khartoum 
161. Suriname *+          Republic of Suriname     NS      Paramaribo 
162. Swaziland *+         Kingdom of Swaziland     WZ      Mbabane 
163. Sweden *+            Kingdom of Sweden        SW      Stockholm 
164. Switzerland *        Swiss Confederation      SZ      Bern 
165. Syria *+             Syrian Arab Republic     SY      Damascus 
166. Tajikistan *+       Republic of Tajikistan    TI      Dushanbe 
167. Tanzania *+         United Republic  
                           of Tanzania             TZ      Dar es Salaam 
168. Thailand *+         Kingdom of Thailand       TH      Bangkok 
169. Togo *+             Republic of Togo          TO      Lome 
170. Tonga*              Kingdom of Tonga          TN      Nuku'alofa  
171. Trinidad and        Republic of  
       Tobago*+            Trinidad and Tobago     TD      Port-of-Spain 
172. Tunisia *+          Republic of Tunisia       TS      Tunis 
173. Turkey *+           Republic of Turkey        TU      Ankara 
174. Turkmenistan *+     (no long-form name)       TX      Ashgabat 
175. Tuvalu*             (no long-form name)       TV      Funafuti 
176. Uganda *+           Republic of Uganda        UG      Kampala 
177. Ukraine *+          (no long-form name)       UP      Kiev 
178. United Arab         United Arab Emirates  
       Emirates *+       United Arab Emirates      TC      Abu Dhabi 
179. United Kingdom *+   United Kingdom of Great  
                         Britain and Northern  
                           Ireland                 UK      London 
180. United States +     United States of America  US   Washington, DC 
181. Uruguay *+          Oriental Republic  
                           of Uruguay              UY   Montevideo 
182. Uzbekistan *+       Republic of Uzbekistan    UZ   Tashkent 
183. Vanuatu *+          Republic of Vanuatu       NH   Port-Vila  
184. Venezuela *+        Republic of Venezuela     VE   Caracas 
185. Vietnam *+          Socialist Republic  
                           of Vietnam              VM   Hanoi 
186. Western Samoa *+    Independent State  
                           of Western Samoa        WS   Apia 
187. Yemen *+ (5)        Republic of Yemen         YM   Sanaa 
188. Zaire *+            Republic of Zaire         CG   Kinshasa 
189. Zambia *+           Republic of Zambia        ZA   Lusaka 
190. Zimbabwe            Republic of Zimbabwe      ZI   Harare 
001. Taiwan (6)          (no long-form name)       TW   Taipei 
1  In this listing, the term "independent state" refers to a people 
politically organized into a sovereign state with a definite territory 
recognized as independent by the U.S. 
2  Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 10-4 codes. 
3  With the establishment of diplomatic relations with China on January 
1, 1979, the U.S. Government recognized the People's Republic of China 
as the sole legal government of China and acknowledged the Chinese 
position that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China.  
4  In 1950, the Israeli parliament proclaimed Jerusalem as the capital. 
The U.S., like most other countries that have embassies in Israel, 
maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv. 
5  The U.S. view is that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 
has dissolved and no successor state represents its continuation. Serbia 
and Montenegro have asserted the formation of a joint independent state, 
but this entity has not been formally recognized as a state by the U.S. 
6  Claimed by both the Government of the People's Republic of China and 
the authorities on Taiwan. Administered by the authorities on Taiwan. 
(see note 3) 
Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty 
Short-form name    Long-form name      Sovereignty   Code(1)  Capital 
01. American Samoa  Territory of  
                      American Samoa    United States  AQ    Pago Pago 
02. Anguilla        (no long-form name) United Kingdom AV    The Valley 
03. Antarctica      (no long-form name) None(2)        AY    None 
04. Aruba           (no long-form name) Netherlands    AA    Oranjestad 
05. Ashmore and     Territory of Ashmore 
     Cartier Islands  Cartier Islands   Australia      AT    Admin. from 
06. Baker Island    (no long-form name) United States  FQ    Admin. from 
                                                               Wash. DC  
07. Bermuda         (no long-form name) United Kingdom  BD   Hamilton 
08. Bouvet Islan    (no long-form name) Norway          BV   Admin. from 
09. British         British Indian Ocean 
      Indian Ocean    Territory 
        Territory (3)                   United Kingdom  IO   None 
10. Cayman Islands  (no long-form name) United Kingdom  CJ   George Town 
11. Christmas Island Territory of  
                       Christmas Island Australia       KT   The 
                                                            (Flying Fish 
12. Clipperton Island(no long-form name) France          IP  Admin. from 
                                                         Fr. Polynesia 
13. Cocos (Keeling)  Territory of Cocos 
      Islands          (Keeling) Islands Australia       CK  West Island  
14. Cook Islands     (no long-form name) New Zealand     CW  Avarua 
15. Coral Sea        Coral Sea Islands  
      Islands          Territory         Australia       CR  Admin. from 
16. Corsica          Territorial         France          VP  Ajaccio 
                       Collectivity of  
17. Falkland Islands Colony of the       United Kingdom(4)FK  Stanley  
     (Islas Malvinas)  Falkland Islands 
18. Faroe Islands   (no long-form name)  Denmark          FO  Torshavn 
19. French Guiana   Department of Guiana France           FG  Cayenne 
20. French Polynesia Territory of  
                       French Polynesia  France           FP  Papeete  
21. French Southern  Territory of the    France           FS  Admin.from 
      and Antarctic    French Southern                        Paris 
        Lands(5)        and Antarctic Lands 
22. Gibraltar       (no long-form name)   United Kingdom  GI  Gibraltar 
23. Greenland       (no long-form name)   Denmark         GL  Nuuk 
24. Guadeloupe(6)    Department of        France          GP Basse-Terre 
25. Guam             Territory of Guam    United States   GQ Agana 
26. Guernsey         Bailiwick of GuernseyBritish Crown   GK Saint Peter 
                                            Dept.              Port 
27. Heard Island     Territory of Heard    Australia     HM  Admin.from  
     and McDonald     Island and McDonald                     Canberra 
       Islands          Islands           Australia 
28. Hong Kong       (no long-form name)  United Kingdom(7)HK  Victoria 
29. Howland Island  (no long-form name)  United States    HQ  Admin.from 
                                                               Wash. DC 
30. Jan Mayen       (no long-form name)  Norway           JN  Admin.from 
                                                               Oslo (8) 
31. Jarvis Island   (no long-form name)  United States    DQ  Admin.from 
                                                               Wash. DC 
32. Jersey          Bailiwick of Jersey  British Crown    JE   Saint 
                                             Dep.               Helier 
33. Johnston Atoll  (no long-form name)  United States    JQ  Admin.from 
34. Kingman Reef    (no long-form name)  United States    KQ  Admin.from 
35. Macau           (no long-form name)  Portugal (9)     MC  Macau 
36. Man, Isle of    (no long-form name)  British Crown    IM  Douglas 
37. Martinique     Department of         France           MB  Fort-de 
                     Martinique                                 France 
38. Mayotte        Territorial           France           MF  Mamoutzou 
                     Collectivity of Mayotte 
39. Midway Islands (no long-form name)   United States    MQ  Admin.from 
                                                               Wash. DC 
40. Montserrat     (no long-form name)   United Kingdom   MH  Plymouth 
41. Navassa Island (no long-form name)   United States    BQ  Admin.from 
                                                               Wash. DC 
42. Netherlands    (no long-form name)   Netherlands      NT  Willemstad 
43. New Caledonia  Territory of New      France           NC  Noumea 
                     Caledonia and 
44. Niue           (no long-form name)    New Zealand      NE  Alofi 
45. Norfolk Island Territory of Norfolk   Australia        NF  Kingston 
46. Northern         Commonwealth of the  United States   CQ  Saipan 
     Mariana Islands   Northern Mariana  
47. Palmyra Atoll  (no long-form name)    United States   LQ  Admin.from 
                                                                Wash. DC 
48. Paracel Islands (no long-form name)   undetermined(11)PF  None 
49. Pitcairn Islands  Pitcairn, Henderson, United Kingdom PC  Adamstown 
                       Ducie, and Oeno  
50. Puerto Rico      Commonwealth of       United States   RQ  San Juan 
51. Reunion(12)      Department of Reunion France          RE  Saint- 
52. Saint Helena(13) (no long-form name)   United Kingdom  SH  Jamestown 
53. Saint Pierre     Territorial           France          SB  Saint- 
      and Miquelon     Collectivity of                          Pierre 
                         Saint Pierre and Miquelon 
54. South Georgia     South Georgia and    United Kingdom(4)SX  None 
      and the South     and the South 
        Sandwich Islands  Sandwich Islands  
55. Spratly Islands   (no long-form name)  undetermined(14) PG  None 
56. Svalbard          (no long-form name)  Norway           SV   
57. Tokelau           (no long-form name)  New Zealand     TL  None 
58. Turks and  
      Caicos Islands (no long-form name)  United Kingdom   TK Grand Turk 
59. Virgin Islands    Virgin Islands      United States    VQ  Charlotte 
                      of the United States                      Amalie 
60. Virgin Islands,   (no long-form name)  United Kingdom  VI  Road Town 
61. Wake Island       (no long-form name)  United States   WQ Admin.from 
                                                               Wash. DC 
62. Wallis and Futuna Territory of the     France          WF  Mata'utu 
                        Wallis and Futuna   
63. Western Sahara    (no long-form name)  undetermined    WI  None 
1  Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 10-4 codes. 
2  Antarctica consists of the territory south of 60 degrees south 
latitude. This area includes claims by Argentina, Australia, Chile, 
France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom, the legal status of 
which remains in suspense under the terms of the Antarctic Treaty of 
1959. The United States recognizes no claims to Antarctica. 
3  Chagos Archipelago (including Diego Garcia). 
4  Also claimed by Argentina. 
5  "French Southern and Antarctic Lands" includes Ile Amsterdam,  Ile 
Saint-Paul, Iles Crozet, and Iles Kerguelen in the southern Indian 
Ocean, along with the French-claimed sector of Antarctica, "Terre 
Adelie."  The United States does not recognize the French claim to 
"Terre Adelie" (see note 2). 
6  The Department of Guadeloupe includes the nearby islands of Marie-
Galante and la Desirade and Iles des Saintes, as well as Saint 
Barthelemy and the northern three-fifths of Saint Martin (the rest of 
which belongs to Netherlands Antilles). 
7  Under a Sino-British declaration of September 1984, Hong Kong will 
revert to China on July 1, 1997, the expiration of the U.K.'s 99-year 
lease on the New Territories. 
8  Administered from Oslo, Norway, through a governor resident in 
Longyearbyen, Svalbard. 
9  Under a Sino-Portuguese declaration of April 1987, Macau will revert 
to China on December 20, 1999. 
10  Netherlands Antilles comprises two groupings of islands:  Curacao 
and Bonaire are located off the coast of Venezuela; Saba, Sint 
Eustatius, and Sint Maarten (the Dutch two-fifths of the island of Saint 
Martin) lie 800 km to the north. 
11  South China Sea islands occupied by China but claimed by Vietnam. 
12  Bassas da India (BS), Europa Island (EU), Glorioso Islands (GO), 
Juan de Nova Island (JU), and Tromelin Island (TE) are controlled by 
France and are administered from Reunion. (These islands are claimed by 
Madagascar; Tromelin Island also is claimed by Mauritius and 
13  The territory of Saint Helena includes the Island group of Tristan 
da Cunha; Saint Helena also administers Ascension Island. 
14  South China Sea islands claimed in entirety by China and Vietnam and 
in part by the Philippines and Malaysia; each of these states occupies 
some part of the islands. 


To the top of this page

Index of Dispatch Magazine Archives 1996 Issues|| Index of Dispatch Magazine Archives|| Index of "Briefings and Statements"
Index of Electronic Research Collections ERC Reference Desk || Alphabetic Index || Sitemap || ERC Homepage
Last modified: Jun. 8, 1999