U.S. Department of State 
Dispatch Volume 7, Number 11, March 11, 1996 
Bureau of Public Affairs 
 
 
 
ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE: 
 
1. U.S. and the UN Respond to Cuban Shootdown of Civilian Aircraft--
President Clinton, UN Security Council Presidential Statement  
2. British and Irish Prime Ministers Announce Path To Negotiations for 
Peace in Northern Ireland--President Clinton 
3. Promoting Human Rights Reflects U.S. Ideals, Advances Interests--
Secretary Christopher, Under Secretary Wirth, Assistant Secretary 
Shattuck  
4. The UN: What's in it for the U.S.--Madeleine K. Albright  
5. International Environmental and Resource Concerns  
6. Fact Sheet: U.S. Oceans Policy And the Law of the Sea Convention  
7. Treaty Actions  

 
 
ARTICLE 1: 
 
U.S. and the UN Respond to Cuban Shootdown of Civilian Aircraft 
President Clinton, UN Security Council Presidential Statement  

President Clinton 
Statement by the President, Washington, DC, February 26, 1996. 
 
Good afternoon. Two days ago, in broad daylight and without 
justification, Cuban military aircraft shot down two civilian planes in 
international airspace. Search-and-rescue efforts by the Coast Guard, 
which began immediately after we received word of the incident, have 
failed to find any of the four individuals who were aboard the 
airplanes. 
 
These small airplanes were unarmed and clearly so. Cuban authorities 
knew that. The planes posed no credible threat to Cuba's security. 
Although the group that operated the planes had entered Cuban airspace 
in the past on other flights, this is no excuse for the attack and 
provides--let me emphasize--no legal basis under international law for 
the attack. We must be clear: This shooting of civilian aircraft out of 
the air was a flagrant violation of international law. It is wrong, and 
the United States will not tolerate it. 
 
Saturday's attack is further evidence that Havana has become more 
desperate in its efforts to deny freedom to the people of Cuba. Also on 
Saturday the Cuban Council, a broad group that wants to bring democracy 
to Cuba, had planned a day of peaceful discussion and debate. Instead, 
in the days leading up to this gathering, scores of activists were 
arrested and detained. Two have already been sentenced to long prison 
terms. They join about 1,000 others in Cuba who were in jail solely 
because of their desire for freedom. Now the downing of these planes 
demands a firm response from both the United States and the 
international community. I am pleased that the European Union today 
strongly condemned the action. 
 
Last night, on my instructions, Ambassador Albright convened an 
emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to condemn the 
Cuban action and to present the case for sanctions on Cuba until it 
agrees to abide by its obligation to respect civilian aircraft and until 
it compensates the families of the victims. 
 
Today, I am also ordering the following unilateral actions. 
 
First, I am asking that Congress pass legislation that will provide 
immediate compensation to the families--something to which they are 
entitled under international law--out of Cuba's blocked assets here in 
the United States. If Congress passes this legislation, we can provide 
the compensation immediately. 
 
Second, I will move promptly to reach agreement with the Congress on the 
pending Helms-Burton Cuba legislation so that it will enhance the 
effectiveness of the embargo in a way that advances the cause of 
democracy in Cuba. 
 
Third, I have ordered that Radio Marti expand its reach. All the people 
of Cuba must be able to learn the truth about the regime in Havana--the 
isolation it has earned for itself through its contempt for basic human 
rights and international law. 
 
Fourth, I am ordering that additional restrictions be put on travel in 
the United States by Cuban officials who reside here and that visits by 
Cuban officials to our country be further limited. 
 
Finally, all charter air travel from the United States to Cuba will be 
suspended indefinitely. 
 
These deliberate actions are the right ones at this time. They respond 
to Havana in a way that serves our goals of accelerating the arrival of 
democracy in Cuba. But I am not ruling out any further steps in the 
future, should they be required. 
 
Saturday's attack was an appalling reminder of the nature of the Cuban 
regime--repressive, violent, scornful of international law. In our time, 
democracy has swept the globe, from the Philippines exactly 10 years 
ago, to Central and Eastern Europe, to South Africa, to Haiti, to all 
but one nation in our hemisphere. I will do everything in my power to 
see that this historic tide reaches the shores of Cuba. 
 
And let me close by extending on behalf of our family and our country 
our deepest condolences to the families of those who lost their lives. 

 
UN Security Council Presidential Statement 
Statement by the UN Security Council President, released in New York 
City, February 27, 1996. 
 
At the 3,635 meeting of the Security Council, held on 27 February 1996 
in connection with the Council's consideration of the item entitled 
"Shooting Down of Two Civil Aircraft on 24 February 1996," the President 
of the Security Council made the following statement on behalf of the 
Council. 
 
The Security Council strongly deplores the shooting down by the Cuban 
air force of two civil aircraft on 24 February 1996, which apparently 
has resulted in the death of four persons.  
 
The Security Council recalls that according to international law, as 
reflected in Article 3 bis of the International Convention on Civil 
Aviation of 7 December 1944 added by the Montreal Protocol of 10 May 
1984, States must refrain from the use of weapons against civil aircraft 
in flight and must not endanger the lives of persons on board and the 
safety of aircraft. States are obliged to respect international law and 
human rights norms in all circumstances. 
 
The Security Council requests that the International Civil Aviation 
Organization investigate this incident in its entirety and calls on the 
Governments concerned to cooperate fully with this investigation. The 
Council requests that the International Civil Aviation Organization 
report its findings to the Council as soon as possible. The Council will 
consider that report and any further information presented to it without 
delay. 

(###)  
 
 
 
ARTICLE 2: 
 
British and Irish Prime Ministers Announce Path To Negotiations for 
Peace In Northern Ireland 
Statement by President Clinton released by the White House Office of the 
Press Secretary, Washington, DC, February 28, 1996. 
 
I welcome the announcement made today by British Prime Minister Major 
and Irish Prime Minister Bruton of a path to negotiations for a just and 
lasting settlement in Northern Ireland. I want to express my admiration 
for these two leaders who have shown so much courage and determination 
in the cause of peace. The clear path they have laid out leads to 
inclusive talks on the future of Northern Ireland once the cease-fire 
has been restored. I am convinced that this is the path supported by the 
overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland who have so 
resoundingly rejected violence and embraced peace. I call on those who 
have resorted to violence to heed the voice of the people and cease 
their campaign of terror. 
 
The process that Prime Ministers Bruton and Major have announced will 
begin with intensive consultations among the governments and the parties 
to reach agreement on a broadly acceptable elective process, which will 
lead directly and without preconditions to all-party negotiations by 
June 10, 1996. The consultations, to begin early next month, will also 
address the framework for those negotiations and whether to hold a 
referendum on support for the peace process. I hope all the parties will 
commit themselves to participate fully in the process announced today in 
order to create the lasting peace the people of Northern Ireland 
deserve. 
 
The United States remains fully committed to supporting the search for 
peace in which the two governments, the parties, and the people of 
Northern Ireland have invested so much. I will remain in close touch 
with Prime Ministers Major and Bruton, who know they have my full 
support in their pursuit of peace. We will continue to work with the 
parties in the same cause.  

(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 3: 
 
Promoting Human Rights Reflects U.S. Ideals, Advances Interests  
Secretary Christopher, Under Secretary Wirth, Assistant Secretary 
Shattuck 
 
Excerpts from special briefing announcing transmittal to Congress of the 
1995 Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Washington, DC, 
March 6, 1996 
 
Secretary Christopher. Good afternoon. Today I'm transmitting to the 
Congress the State Department's 20th Annual Country Reports on Human 
Rights Practices. A central principle of our American foreign policy is 
that promoting human rights reflects both our ideals and advances our 
interests. Our efforts are shaped by the cold, hard facts in these 
reports. They shine an impartial and balanced spotlight on the record--
on the abuses that might otherwise be covered by a veil of indifference, 
as well as on the progress that has been made in recent years. 
 
The early human rights reports were prepared in the late 1970s under my 
direction, when I was Deputy Secretary of State. In 1977, my first year, 
only 82 were prepared, and they were really quite rudimentary compared 
to the present report, which now covers 194 countries--more than twice 
as many as we did back in 1977. But even so, these early reports were 
valuable in that they set a precedent, which has been built upon over 
the years. 
 
Taken together, the reports of the last 20 years tell a vivid story of 
how much the world has changed. It's a story that I was very much 
reminded of when I was on my trip to Latin America and the Caribbean 
last week. 
 
The early reports in the late 1970s on Latin America painted a grim 
picture of military rule and oppression. Since then the hemisphere has 
undergone one of the most remarkable transformations in recent history. 
This did not happen overnight; of course, it took years of struggle, 
years of patient diplomacy. But look at the results: Now our neighbors 
to the south and north are among our closest partners in trade, in 
peacekeeping, and in the fight against proliferation. None of this could 
have happened, I believe, if the hemisphere was still caught in the web 
of dictatorship. 
 
Of course, one government in the hemisphere still resists the will of 
its people. We were horrified by the callous shootdown by Cuba of two 
unarmed civilian planes, and this was an emotion that I found throughout 
Latin America as I traveled there--a sense of condemnation and deploring 
of this conduct. 
 
I don't suppose we should have been surprised that the lawless behavior 
of the Cuban regime on the high seas mirrored its lawless behavior at 
home. As the human rights report makes clear, Cuban authorities continue 
"to harass, threaten, imprison, defame, and physically attack" those who 
seek to express an independent point of view. 
 
We support the rule of law in Cuba and around the world not only because 
it protects individual rights but because it advances our other 
interests. For example, the rogue states that pose the greatest threat 
to America's security--states like Iran, Iraq, and Libya--are among the 
world's greatest violators of human rights. And it is no coincidence 
that two nations singled out in our reports, Nigeria and Burma, were 
also featured in our drug decertifications last week. Their disdain for 
law protects the drug trade, even as it harms ordinary citizens. 
 
I obviously do not have time to refer to all the human rights violations 
contained in these reports; but when you look at the country reports I 
think you will find that they live up to the reputation for candor and 
for directness that has been established in the earlier reports. 
 
This year's reports also chronicle two great triumphs for human rights 
and freedom. In Haiti, an elected president gave way to another elected 
president, the first time that has happened in the tragic history of 
Haiti. In Bosnia, American leadership has brought atrocities to an end 
and has given that nation an opportunity for peace. 
 
In both Haiti and Bosnia, we have provided on-the-ground support to help 
lawful, democratic governments emerge. We've launched new institutions, 
such as the International War Crimes Tribunal, and we have tested new 
methods, such as the use of civilian police monitors. 
 
In the Bosnia negotiations at Dayton, I can tell you that human rights 
issues played a role, which I believe is almost without precedent in 
American diplomacy. The peace treaty is unique because it commits each 
party to help us account for past war crimes or abuses. 
 
We have a long way to go in Bosnia and elsewhere, but I think we can 
take pride in what the United States has accomplished. Over the past 
several years, from the beginning of the human rights reports, our 
leadership has helped to put human rights on the international agenda. 
Today I believe our leadership is setting a new standard--a standard 
that justice is essential to peace and reconciliation and that war 
criminals will be held accountable for their actions. As President 
Clinton has said, on this 50th anniversary of the Nuremberg trials, we 
can now build support for a permanent international court of criminal 
justice to prosecute serious violations of the humanitarian laws.  
 
America's commitment to these human rights issues has long been a vital 
source of our authority in the world. It is rooted in the values of our 
people. I can assure you that the President will continue to make human 
rights a very high priority in our relations with other countries and 
with our own citizens.
 
Thank you very much. 

 
Under Secretary Wirth. As we unveil today the human rights reports, I 
wanted to make a particular point on the reports' emphasis on women. In 
1993, the Clinton Administration added a major new element to the human 
rights reports: increased focus on the human rights of women and the 
advancement of their status. 
 
As part of this overall priority, we took a major leadership role at the 
World Conference on Women in Beijing, again focusing on the human 
rights, equality, and empowerment of women. At the Beijing conference, 
governments around the world reaffirmed the universality of human 
rights. Hillary Clinton led the U.S. delegation and awakened the world 
with her fine lead statement: "Women's rights are human rights; human 
rights are women's rights." 
 
In 1995, country reports reflect the heightened attention that women's 
rights received last year. The document includes unprecedented expanded 
coverage of the human rights violations affecting women, especially with 
regard to violence against women--an issue that President Clinton has 
particularly identified as a problem that we must end. 
 
Great effort went into improving the reporting on this issue. A 
concerted and intense campaign resulted in more consistent and expanded 
coverage of violations against women, as well as the steps that 
governments have taken to prevent the abuses. 
 
As examples, you might want to look in particular at the report on 
Canada, which has a wonderful broad-based, new, government-wide policy 
on women; at Argentina, where there is a reference to and a description 
of major constitutional changes to protect the rights of women; at the 
Central Africa Republic, with major problems on female genital 
mutilation; and at Bosnia, where the impact on women of ethnic cleansing 
is unhappily described. 
 
Appropriately, this year as well, the release of the country reports 
occurs the same week as Women's Day, which is March 8--this coming 
Friday. We will be celebrating International Women's Day in the Dean 
Acheson Auditorium. Secretary Christopher will be opening the meeting 
with a policy statement on the role of women in our efforts around the 
world and as agents of change globally. 
 
Geraldine Ferraro will be following with a program honoring the 
contributions of several women in Congress. We hope that as many of you 
as possible may be able to join us at 9:00 this Friday morning. 
Thank you very much. 
 
Assistant Secretary Shattuck. Thank you very much. I have a brief 
statement. I know you've heard statements, and I want to move to your 
questions, but I do want to give you a few points first. 
 
Nineteen ninety-five--as these reports show indirectly and other 
activities show more directly--was a year of U.S. leadership on human 
rights--leadership that produced significant progress toward resolution 
of some of the world's most catastrophic human rights crises. 
 
The Dayton accords ended the fighting in Bosnia, which--for the first 
six months of this year, as the reports show--was the source of 
continuing massive genocide and crimes against humanity. Central to our 
peace strategy in Bosnia were the 10 human rights missions that we 
conducted this year to spotlight the atrocities and secure commitments 
to stop them. 
 
Other conflicts, which had spawned major human rights violations, also 
moved closer to resolution. Halting steps were taken toward peace in 
Angola, the Middle East, and Northern Ireland, despite continuing 
terrorist attacks on the very process of peace itself. 
 
Our diplomatic and military efforts last year to end the human rights 
crisis and restore democratic government in Haiti were an important 
forerunner to the Dayton accords and our work in Bosnia. In Haiti, as in 
Bosnia, our continuing support for the reconstruction of civil society, 
democratic institutions, and the rule of law is essential to ending 
human rights catastrophes. 
 
Our support for the International War Crimes Tribunal--as Secretary 
Christopher has pointed out--in The Hague, demonstrates concretely that 
the integration of peace with justice is essential. Yesterday, at a 
Bosnia Peace International Implementation Conference in Vienna, the 
United States forged an international consensus that economic 
reconstruction assistance should be denied to local authorities who 
harbor war criminals. 
 
In many countries around the world, familiar patterns of abuse occurred 
in many changing contexts. I'd like to mention three. 
 
In China, while the economy grew steadily and new emphasis was placed on 
legal reform, the Chinese Government continued to commit widespread and 
well-documented abuses in violation of international norms. Overall, in 
1995, the authorities stepped up repression of dissent, and by year's 
end almost all public dissent against the central administration had 
been silenced. 
 
This year, the U.S. will again join with other countries in cosponsoring 
a resolution on China at the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva. Our 
final position, of course, as was the case last year, will depend on the 
actual human rights situation when the commission votes. 
 
In Russia, while communism has been replaced by democracy, the future is 
uncertain. Nineteen ninety-five saw a continued and widespread use of 
military force against civilians in Chechnya, the undermining of 
official institutions established to monitor human rights in Russia, and 
the continued violation of rights and liberties by security forces. 
 
The U.S. has repeatedly criticized, both publicly and privately, the 
serious human rights abuses in Chechnya. 
 
Finally, Nigeria presents a classic picture of human rights abuse as the 
regime of Gen. Sani Abacha has ruthlessly suppressed dissent in that 
country. The U.S. is stepping up pressure on Nigeria to change, working 
closely with other countries. 

(###) 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 4: 
 
The UN: What's in it for the U.S.? 
Madeleine K. Albright, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United 
Nations 
Address to the Women's Fund of the North Carolina Community Foundation, 
Raleigh, North Carolina, March 4, 1996 
 
I am delighted to be here with Governor Hunt, Chairman Helms, Ambassador 
Hyde, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Larkin, and all of you. 
Although this is a political year, this is clearly not a partisan event.  
 
Governor Hunt is respected around the nation for his commitment to 
quality education and to building in North Carolina a thriving economy 
that creates good jobs. Senator Helms is a living legend and one of the 
true gentlemen of the U.S. Senate. He and I do not always see eye to 
eye, but, as I have heard him say many times, one can always disagree 
without being disagreeable. 
 
One thing about which we all agree is the Women's Fund of North 
Carolina. Yours is a vigorous organization with a purpose as old as our 
Constitution--ensuring equal rights and equal opportunities for women 
and girls. I salute you, and I have to say that nothing could be finer 
than to be out of New York and in North Carolina with you today. 
 
In preparing my remarks, I considered limiting my discussion to what are 
commonly called "women's issues." I chose not to do so, because I 
believe every important issue of public policy is a woman's issue--and a 
man's. Certainly, there is no distinctly male or female role in 
determining the foreign policy of the United States. 
 
So today, with that in mind and with Senator Helms more or less held 
captive here until I finish, I thought I would talk about the UN and 
about America's role in it. I will outline why I believe our interests 
are served by our participation in and leadership at the UN. I will 
summarize our effort to reform that organization so that it works better 
and costs less. And I will describe the Administration's plan for 
meeting our obligations to it. 
 
The UN was designed primarily by Americans--of both genders. But despite 
that, we have always been of two minds about it. We recognize the need 
for an institution that helps countries work together, but--as I am sure 
Senator Helms would agree--we do not accept--and will never submit to--
the idea of world government. 
 
Fortunately, President Truman understood that, and, in signing the UN 
Charter, he was careful to protect American interests. As a result, the 
only part of the UN with the authority to compel anyone to do anything 
is the Security Council, of which we are a permanent member, with the 
right to veto any proposal we don't like.  
 
So do not worry. The UN is no threat to our Constitution. It has no 
power to tax us. It has no authority to entangle us in foreign 
conflicts. And despite the fantasies of some, it is not going to descend 
upon us in black helicopters in the middle of the night and steal our 
lawn furniture. 
 
As Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg said a half-century ago, under 
the UN Charter, America retains every basic attribute of its sovereignty 
In a word the flag stays on the [Capitol] dome. 
 
For the past 50 years, that is where the flag has stayed, while 
administrations from both parties have found value to the United States 
in a UN that works. Over time, the UN system has made our world safer by 
helping to prevent outbreaks of violence in strategic regions such as 
Cyprus and the Middle East and by working to prevent nuclear weapons 
from falling into the hands of outlaw states. It has made our world more 
just by invoking sanctions against countries that support terrorism, 
such as Libya and Iraq; by establishing war crimes tribunals for Rwanda 
and the Balkans; and by denouncing Cuba's criminal shootdown of civilian 
aircraft nine days ago. It has made our world more free by helping 
nations such as South Africa, El Salvador, Cambodia, and Haiti make the 
great leap from division or war toward democracy and peace. And it has 
made our world more humane by caring for refugees, providing food for 
children, and preventing the spread of epidemic disease. 
 
The UN's specialized agencies also perform indispensable services. You 
may think you have never benefited personally from the UN, but if you 
have ever traveled on an international airline or shipping line, placed 
a phone call overseas, or received mail from outside the country, you 
have been served directly or indirectly by the UN system. 
 
In addition to all this, the UN provides a means for building a global 
consensus about the difference between right and wrong. In the UN's 
early days, a great American First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt, helped draft 
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This past fall, at the Fourth 
World Conference on Women, another great First Lady reaffirmed America's 
commitment to that declaration in eloquent and memorable terms. 
 
All Americans can take pride in the message Mrs. Clinton brought to 
Beijing--a message that applies both in the United States and overseas--
a message that says that the physical abuse of women must stop; that the 
life of a girl should be valued equally with that of a boy; that there 
should be equal access to education, health care, and the levers of 
economic and political power; and that women's rights are neither 
separable nor different from those of men. 
 
Our goal now, in following up the women's conference, is to make this 
message a reality. And let no one doubt what is at stake. Today, around 
the world, appalling abuses are being committed against women, including 
coerced abortions and sterilizations, children sold into prostitution, 
ritual mutilations, dowry murders, and official indifference to 
violence. Some say this is all cultural and that there is nothing we can 
do about it. I say it's criminal and that it is the responsibility of 
each and every one of us to stop it.  
 
Despite recent gains, women remain an undervalued and underdeveloped 
human resource. This is not to say that women have trouble finding work. 
In many societies, in addition to bearing the children, women do most of 
the work. But often they are barred from owning land, excluded from 
schools, denied financial credit, provided less nourishment, and 
permitted little or no voice in government.  
 
The Women's Conference could not solve these problems overnight, but it 
could--and did--outline a plan for addressing them. This matters not 
only to women but to all of us, for when women are empowered, families 
are strengthened, socially constructive values are taught, sexually 
transmitted disease is slowed, and the global economy--upon which so 
many American jobs depend--expands. 
 
In summary, the UN system and the services it provides allow us to 
accomplish many things that matter to our families and to our country 
but which we could not do or could not afford to do on our own. That is 
why former President Reagan urged the U.S. to "rely more on multilateral 
institutions." It is why President Bush called the UN a key instrument 
in enforcing international security and peace. And it is what President 
Truman meant when he said: 
 
We have tried to write into the Charter of the United Nations the 
essence of religion. The end of aggression, the maintenance of peace, 
the promotion of social justice and [the defense of] individual rights 
and freedoms--by these principles, the UN. laid the groundwork of the 
Charter on the sound rock of religious principles. 
 
So the UN has accomplished much. Its goals are the right ones. Its 
success matters to America. But, as I am sure Senator Helms would agree, 
the UN of today does not work as well as it should. 
 
Here in North Carolina and throughout our country, citizens are 
demanding a dollar's worth of value for every tax dollar we spend. Our 
contributions to the UN should be no exception. Unfortunately, the UN 
developed wasteful habits during the Cold War that have yet to be fully 
cured.  
 
Part of the problem is that the UN, because it has so many members, is 
inherently hard to manage. I have often  compared it to a business with 
185 members of the board--each from a different culture, each with a 
different philosophy of management, each with unshakable confidence in 
his or her own opinions, and each with a brother-in-law who is 
unemployed. As a result, the UN bureaucracy has grown to elephantine 
proportions. Now that the Cold War is over, we are asking that elephant 
to do gymnastics. That is why the Clinton Administration, with strong 
support from both parties in Congress, has been pushing so hard for UN 
reform. 
 
That effort has already produced results: To make peacekeeping missions 
more effective, the Security Council has improved planning and has 
established rigorous guidelines to be considered before new missions are 
approved. A UN Inspector General has been appointed to crack down on 
fraud and waste. The UN's Under-secretary General for Management is an 
American--a former CEO of Price-Waterhouse--who is applying fiscal 
discipline learned in the corporate world. Last December, the General 
Assembly approved a "no-growth" budget that will result in a 10% 
reduction in the number of UN Secretariat staff. A new efficiency board 
has been created, and a high-level group on reform has been charged with 
developing a blueprint for the UN for the 21st century. 
 
In recent weeks, the U.S. has proposed a host of additional steps to 
make the UN smaller, better organized, and more productive. It is 
becoming clear, however, that the U.S. will not be able to gain support 
from other countries to make the kind of far-reaching changes wanted 
unless we are able to pay the UN what we owe it for past bills. 
Currently, we are almost $900 million behind in our payments. 
 
Now, I get very indignant at the UN when other countries fail to meet 
their legal obligations. If anyone doubts that, they can ask the Cubans 
or Saddam Hussein. But in recent months, when I have tried to focus my 
colleagues on the reform agenda, I have found instead that the United 
States has become the agenda. Whenever I talk about how we can make the 
UN work better, I am told by friendly and not-so-friendly nations alike: 
If you care about making the UN work better than it does, why doesn't 
the U.S. pay its bills? The situation is so bad that the British Foreign 
Secretary, in a sound-bite his countrymen have been waiting 200 years to 
use, has accused us of seeking "representation without taxation." 
 
At the same time, we face skeptics in the Congress who doubt that the UN 
can be reformed enough to be worth continuing U.S. support. We have 
launched a bipartisan dialogue with both the House and Senate to try to 
come up with a plan that links UN reform to a reliable commitment by the 
U.S. to meet its obligations.  
 
While it is possible that there are some in Congress who will never 
support funding for the UN, I am convinced that the majority would like 
to see us pay what we owe. As one Senate committee chairman told me, 
"the sanctity of contracts is fundamental to Republican philosophy. It's 
only those liberals who think you can have something for nothing." 
 
Accordingly, we will be asking Congress to approve this year a five-year 
plan for paying our arrears to the UN. As we expect Congress will 
insist, the actual payment of those funds would occur as the UN reforms, 
keeps its budget down, and cuts unnecessary staff. We also will be 
asking UN members to reduce from 25% to 20% the U.S. share of the UN's 
regular budget. The way the UN works, this would have the effect of 
reducing our peacekeeping rate to no more than 25%. 
 
The result of all this for the UN would be a more equitable and reliable 
system of financing. And for the American people, it would assure our 
continued leadership within a more effective UN at a reduced cost 
consistent with our effort to balance the budget. In other words, this 
is a true "win-win" proposition.  
 
I believe that, with strong American leadership, the UN can become a 
powerful instrument for expanding freedom, human rights, and open 
markets around the globe. Although the outlook today is cloudy, I am 
confident that--in the end--we will have bipartisan support for 
providing that leadership. The nature of the world today demands it. 
Most Members of Congress understand it. The American people expect that 
kind of burden- sharing. And our participation in the UN has always had 
strong support from both parties. 
 
We should never forget that the UN emerged not from a dream but from a 
nightmare. In the 1920s and 1930s, the world squandered an opportunity 
to organize the peace. The result was the invasion of Manchuria, the 
conquest of Ethiopia, the betrayal of Munich, the depravity of the 
Holocaust, and the devastation of world war.  
 
It was not enough to say, after World War II, that the enemy had been 
vanquished--that what we were against had failed. We had to build the 
foundation of a lasting peace. And together, the generation of Truman, 
Marshall, Eisenhower, and Vandenberg designed a framework of principle 
and power that would one day defeat communism and promote democratic 
values and respect for human rights around the world. 
 
Today, under President Clinton, we are called upon to develop a new 
framework for protecting our territory, our citizens, and our interests. 
In devising that framework, we will make necessary use of our own 
military and economic power. We will invite help from old friends and 
new. We will strengthen and reform the UN. And, because we are 
Americans, we will not shy from the responsibilities of global 
leadership. 
 
My own family came to these shores as refugees. Because of this nation's 
generosity and commitment, we were granted asylum after the communist 
takeover of Czechoslovakia. The story of my family has been repeated in 
millions of variations over two centuries in the lives not only of 
immigrants, but of those overseas who have been liberated or sheltered 
by American soldiers, empowered by American assistance, or inspired by 
American ideals. 
 
I will never forget something the then-Foreign Minister of Israel, 
Shimon Peres, said during the Middle East peace signing ceremony on the 
White House lawn two years ago--when the history books are written, he 
said, nobody really will understand the United States. You have so much 
force and you didn't conquer the land of anyone. You have so much power 
and you didn't dominate another people. You have problems of your own 
and you have never turned your back on the problems of others. 
 
This generation--our generation--of Americans has a proud legacy to 
fulfill. We have been given an opportunity at the threshold of a new 
century to build a world in which totalitarianism and fascism are 
absent, in which human liberty is expanded, in which human rights are 
respected, and in which our people are as secure as we can ever expect 
them to be. Let us, together, welcome that opportunity--not as 
Republicans or Democrats, not as men or women, but as Americans. And if 
we are together, you may be sure that we will succeed. 

(###) 
 
 
ARTICLE 5: 
 
International Environmental And Resource Concerns 
Statement by Department Spokesman Nicholas Burns, Washington, DC, 
February 14, 1996. 
 
At the senior staff meeting this morning, Secretary Christopher launched 
an initiative to improve the way environmental issues are integrated 
into the Department's core foreign policy objectives. The Secretary also 
introduced his new Assistant Secretary for Oceans, International 
Environment, and Scientific Affairs, Eileen Claussen, who will be the 
point person inside the Department for implementing this initiative. 
 
As he mentioned in his speech at Harvard last month, President Clinton, 
Vice President Gore, and Secretary Christopher have identified 
international environmental and resource concerns as vital U.S. 
interests. The Secretary noted that there is a direct link between the 
earth's environment and America's long-term economic and political 
interests. The Secretary reviewed the Department's work to date on these 
issues and discussed his intention to more forcefully integrate them 
into the Administration's overall foreign policy objectives through 
better bureau and mission planning, public diplomacy, and resource 
allocation. 
 
In the global economy, damage to the environment--from sources such as 
greenhouse gas emissions, depletion of the ozone layer, or air and water 
pollution--directly affects the health of the American people and hurts 
our overall national economic productivity. 
 
In addition, the scarcity of important natural resources can have a 
negative impact on the political stability of key strategic regions. For 
example, in the Middle East, managing water resources has become 
essential to the peace process. In addition, from Haiti to North Africa 
to South Asia, resource depletion and rapid population growth combined 
with stagnant economies can contribute to domestic political disorder, 
migration, and international conflict. When this occurs, United States 
interests are threatened. 
 
More generally, rapid population growth mixed with severe pollution   
directly affects cropland, livestock, fisheries, and other biological 
resources essential to U.S. and global prosperity. In less developed 
parts of the world, it makes for weaker trading partners and for greater 
reliance on foreign assistance. The Secretary stated that he wants to 
focus on long-range planning to identify trends in these areas early on 
and work diplomatically to avoid threats to U.S. interests. 
 
The Secretary outlined the substantial environmental contributions the 
Department has already made, including important negotiations on climate 
change, biodiversity, and ozone depletion and promoting the export of 
American-made environmental technologies worldwide. He also high- 
lighted the common environmental agendas we have launched with the 
European Union, Japan, India, Mexico, and Brazil in order to build 
strategic partnerships that help protect the environment while promoting 
U.S. exports, stable growth, and democratization. 
 
At the heart of this new, expanded initiative, the Secretary has 
directed a series of specific measures to improve the integration of 
environmental issues into the regular planning and daily activities of 
the Department's bureaus and overseas missions. He has asked the 
assistant secretaries to work with the staffs of Global Affairs; Policy 
Planning; and the Bureau of Oceans, International Environment, and 
Scientific Affairs to identify how environment, population, and resource 
issues affect key U.S. interests. He also asked the regional bureaus to 
take at least seven important steps. 
 
1. Integrate environmental and population goals into bureau and mission 
program plans. 
 
2. Incorporate environmental issues into trip preparations. 
 
3. Include these initiatives in talking points for bilateral meetings 
involving the President or other senior officials. 
 
4. Designate a deputy assistant secretary responsible for global affairs 
issues. 
 
5. Incorporate the bureaus in ongoing global environmental negotiations 
and initiatives. 
 
6. Designate a senior officer at each embassy to be responsible for 
leading that mission's environmental team. 
 
7. Focus public attention on the ways environmental issues contribute to 
the pursuit of the overall regional objectives. 
 
The Secretary has asked the bureaus to submit by March 15 the concrete 
steps they will take to implement this initiative. 
 
Secretary Christopher plans to be personally engaged on this and make it 
an integral part of his foreign policy tenure. For instance, 
environmental issues will be a major focus of his visit to Latin 
American later this month. The Secretary also briefed Vice President 
Gore at the White House several weeks ago and plans to outline the 
initiative to the American people   in a major policy address early this 
spring.  

(###) 
 
 
ARTICLE 6: 
 
The Agreement Relating to the Implementation Of Part XI of the UN 
Convention on the Law of the Sea 
 
The new agreement--the Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part 
XI of the Convention on the Law of the Sea-incorporates legally binding 
changes in the deep seabed mining provisions of the Law of the Sea 
Convention that satisfactorily address the objections of the United 
States and other industrialized countries. Generally, the new agreement 
will ensure that the United States, and others with major economic 
interests at stake, have adequate influence over future decisions on 
possible deep seabed mining and that the administration of the deep 
seabed mining regime is based on free market principles. 
 
The reformed seabed mining provisions do not set forth a detailed 
system, seeking to anticipate all phases of potential activity 
associated with mining of the deep seabed. Instead, they set forth sound 
commercial and economic principles upon which to develop rules and 
regulations establishing a management regime for commercial mining when 
interest in commercial mining emerges. 
 
Specifically, the Agreement: 
 
 -- Deletes the objectionable mandatory transfer of technology 
provisions; 
 
 -- Includes provisions to ensure that market-oriented approaches are 
taken to the management of the resources of the deep seabed, replacing 
Part XI's interventionist and centralized economic planning approach; 
 
 -- Scales back the institutions and links their activation and 
operation to the actual development of concrete interest in deep seabed 
mining;   
 
 -- Guarantees the United States a seat on the Council of the Inter-
national Seabed Authority, where substantive decisions are made by a 
chambered voting arrangement, the effect of which is to allow the United 
States and two other industrialized countries acting in concert to block 
a decision; 
 
 -- Guarantees the United States and other major contributors seats on 
the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over all budgetary and 
financial matters;  
 
 -- Recognizes the seabed mine site claims established on the basis of 
the exploration already conducted by U.S. companies and provides assured 
access for any future qualified U.S. miners; 
 
 -- Deletes the provisions that would have allowed amendments to enter 
into force for the United States without its approval; and 
 
 -- Provides that the United States can block funding for liberation 
movements as distribution of revenues accumulated as a result of 
royalties can only take place on the basis of a consensus decision in 
the Council.

(###)   
 
 
 
ARTICLE  7:  
 
Treaty Actions 

Multilateral 
 
Arbitration 
Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral 
awards. Done at New York June 10, 1958. Entered into force June 7, 1959; 
for the U.S. Dec. 29, 1970. TIAS 6997; 21 UST 2517. 
Accession: Uzbekistan, Feb. 7, 1996. 
 
Chemical Weapons Convention on the prohibition of the development, 
production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and on their 
destruction, with annexes. Done at Paris Jan. 13, 19931. [Senate] Treaty 
Doc. 103-21. Ratifications: Cote d'Ivoire, Dec. 18, 1995; Morocco, Dec. 
28, 1995. 
 
Children 
Convention on the rights of the child. Done at New York Nov. 20, 1989. 
Entered into force Sept. 2, 19902. Accessions: Brunei Darussalam, Dec. 
27, 1995; Kiribati, Dec. 11, 1995; Niue, Dec. 20, 1995. Ratification: 
Liechtenstein, Dec. 22, 1995. 
 
Convention on the protection of children and cooperation in respect of 
inter-country adoption. Done at The Hague May 29, 1993. Entered into 
force May 1, 19952. Signature: Italy, Dec. 11, 1995. 
 
Environmental Modification 
Convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of 
environmental modification techniques, with annex. Done at Geneva May 
18, 1977. Entered into force Oct. 5, 1978; for the U.S. Jan. 17, 1980. 
TIAS 9614; 31 UST 333.Accession: Costa Rica, Feb. 7, 1996. 
 
Genocide 
Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. 
Adopted by the UN General Assembly at Paris Dec. 9, 1948. Entered into 
force Jan. 12, 1951; for the U.S. Feb. 23, 1989.Accession: Cote 
d'Ivoire, Dec. 18, 1995; Lithuania, Feb. 1, 1996. 
 
Judicial Procedure 
Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction. Done 
at The Hague Oct. 25, 1980. Entered into force Dec. 1, 1983; for the 
U.S. July 1, 1988. TIAS 11670. Accession: Colombia, Dec. 13, 1995. 
 
Law, Private International  
Statute of The Hague conference on private international law. Done at 
The Hague Oct. 9-31, 1951. Entered into force July 15, 1955; for the 
U.S. Oct. 15, 1964. TIAS 5710; 15 UST 2228. Acceptance: Croatia, Oct. 1, 
1995; effective June 12, 1995. 
 
Marriage 
Convention on consent to marriage, minimum age for marriage, and 
registration of marriages. Adopted at the United Nations Dec. 10, 1962. 
Entered into force Dec. 9, 19642. Accession: Cote d'Ivoire, Dec. 18, 
1995. 
 
Narcotics 
Convention on psychotropic substances. Done at Vienna Feb. 21, 1971. 
Entered into force Aug. 16, 1976; for the U.S. July 15, 1980. TIAS 9725; 
32 UST 543. Accession: Mali, Oct. 31, 1995. 
 
UN convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic 
substances, with annex and final act. Done at Vienna Dec. 20, 1988. 
Entered into force Nov. 11, 1990. [Senate] Treaty Doc. 101-4. 
Accessions: Mali, Oct. 31, 1995; Swaziland, Oct. 3, 1995. Ratification: 
Jamaica, Dec. 29, 1995. 
 
Refugees 
Convention relating to the status of refugees, with schedule and annex. 
Signed at Geneva July 28, 1951. Entered into force Apr. 22, 19542. TIAS 
6577. 
 
Protocol relating to the status of refugees. Done at New York  Jan. 31, 
1967. Entered into force Oct. 4, 1967; for the U.S. Nov. 1, 1968. TIAS 
6577; 19 UST 6223. Accession: South Africa, Jan. 12, 1996. 
 
Terrorism 
Convention on the safety of UN and associated personnel. Done at New 
York Dec. 9, 19941. Signatures: Australia, Dec. 22, 1995; Belarus, Oct. 
23, 1995; Belgium, Dec. 21, 1995; Netherlands, Dec. 22, 1995; Togo, Dec. 
22, 1995. 

 
Bilateral 
 
Bolivia 
Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling of certain debts 
owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the U.S. Government and its 
agencies, with annexes. Signed  at La Paz Jan. 23, 1996. Enters into 
force upon receipt by Bolivia of written notice from the United States 
that all necessary domestic legal requirements for entry into force have 
been fulfilled. 
 
Bosnia-Herzegovina 
Agreement relating to the provision of defense articles, related 
training, or other defense services from the United States to Bosnia, 
with related exchange of notes. Effected by exchange of notes at 
Sarajevo Jan. 6 and 7, 1996. Entered into force Jan. 7, 1996. 
 
Brazil 
Agreement amending and extending the agreement of Feb. 6, 1984, as 
extended, relating to cooperation in science and technology. Signed at 
Brasilia Mar. 21, 1994. Entered into force Jan. 30, 1996. 
 
Egypt 
Project grant agreement for development training II, with annexes. 
Signed at Cairo Sept. 30, 1995. Entered into force Sept. 30, 1995. 
 
Fiji 
Agreement amending and extending the agreement of Aug. 27, 1993 and Feb. 
18, 1994, as amended and extended, concerning trade in textiles and 
textile products. Effected by exchange of notes at Suva Oct. 26 and Dec. 
29, 1995. Entered into force Dec. 29, 1995; effective Jan. 1, 1996. 
 
Greece 
Agreement for cooperation in the Global Learning and Observations to 
Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) Program, with appendices. Signed at 
Athens Dec. 12, 1995. Entered into force Dec. 12, 1995. 
 
Hungary 
Agreement concerning economic, technical, and related assistance, with 
related letter. Signed at Budapest Dec. 22, 1995. Entered into force 
Dec. 22, 1995. 
 
Japan 
Agreement concerning cooperative research of fighting vehicle propulsion 
technology using ceramic materials. Effected by exchange of notes at 
Tokyo Oct. 31, 1995. Entered into force Oct. 31, 1995. 
 
Agreement concerning cooperative research of advanced steel technology. 
Effected by exchange of notes at Tokyo Oct. 31, 1995. Entered into force 
Oct. 31, 1995. 
 
Laos 
Agreement amending and extending the agreement of Sept. 15, 1994, 
relating to trade in textiles and textile products. Effected by exchange 
of notes at Vientiane Nov. 9 and Dec. 26, 1995. Entered into force Dec. 
26, 1995; effective Jan. 1, 1996. 
 
Latvia 
Agreement concerning economic, technical, and related assistance. Signed 
at Riga Dec. 20, 1995. Entered into force Feb. 7, 1996. 
 
Lithuania 
Security agreement concerning security measures for the protection of 
classified military information. Signed at Vilnius Nov. 21, 1995. 
Entered into force Nov. 21, 1995. 
 
NATO 
Agreement regarding U.S. approval for retransfer of U.S. defense 
articles and services to NATO for purposes of supporting the NATO-led 
Implementation Force. Effected by exchange of letters at Brussels Dec. 
18, 1995. Entered into force Dec. 18, 1995. 
 
Philippines 
Agreement extending the agreement of Sept. 19, 1994, concerning the 
status of U.S. forces engaged in mutual defense treaty-related 
activities in the Philippines. Effected by exchange of letters at Manila 
Nov. 29, Dec. 1 and 8, 1995. Entered into force Dec. 8, 1995. 
 
Singapore 
Agreement concerning exchange of research and development information, 
with appendix. Signed at Washington Dec. 4, 1995. Entered into force 
Dec. 4, 1995. 
 
Sweden 
Agreement for the bilateral cooperative program in electromagnetic 
effects measurement and analysis (RF Effects Program). Signed at 
Washington June 2 and Dec. 20, 1995. Entered into force Dec. 20, 1995. 
 
United Kingdom 
Agreement regarding U.S. approval for retransfer of U.S. defense 
articles and services to NATO for purposes of supporting the NATO-led 
Implementation Force. Effected by exchange of notes at Brussels Dec. 18 
and 19, 1995. Entered into force Dec. 19, 1995. 
 
Agreement for the promotion of aviation safety. Signed at London Dec. 
20, 1995. Entered into force Dec. 20, 1995. 
 
1 Not in force. 
2 Not in force for the U.S. 

(###) 
 
[END DISPATCH VOL. 7, NO. 11]

To the top of this page