U.S. Department of State
Dispatch Volume 7, Number 36, September 2, 1996
Bureau of Public Affairs


ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE:

1. Containing Iraqi Aggression: The U.S. Response--President Clinton  
2. The Global Environment and the National Interest--Deputy Secretary 
Talbott 
3. Focus on Diplomacy: The State Department at Work


ARTICLE 1

Containing Iraqi Aggression: The U.S. Response
President Clinton
Statement from the Oval Office, Washington, DC, September 3, 1996

Three days ago, despite clear warnings from the United States and the 
international community, Iraqi forces attacked and seized the Kurdish-
controlled city of Irbil in northern Iraq. The limited withdrawals 
announced by Iraq do not change the reality: Saddam Hussein's army today 
controls Irbil, and Iraqi units remain deployed for further attacks.
	
These acts demand a strong response, and they have received one. Earlier 
today, I ordered American forces to strike Iraq. Our missiles sent the 
following message to Saddam Hussein: When you abuse your own people or 
threaten your neighbors, you must pay a price.

It appears that one Kurdish group which in the past opposed Saddam now 
has decided to cooperate with him. But that cannot justify unleashing 
the Iraqi army against the civilian population of Irbil. Repeatedly over 
the past weeks and months we have worked to secure a lasting cease-fire 
between the Kurdish factions. The Iraqi attack adds fuel to the 
factional fire and threatens to spark instability throughout the region.

Our objectives are limited but clear: to make Saddam pay a price for the 
latest act of brutality, reducing his ability to threaten his neighbors 
and America's interests. 

First, we are extending the no-fly zone in southern Iraq. This will deny 
Saddam control of Iraqi air space from the Kuwaiti border to the 
southern suburbs of Baghdad, and will significantly restrict Iraq's 
ability to conduct offensive operations in the region. 

Second, to protect the safety of our aircraft enforcing this no-fly 
zone, our cruise missiles struck Saddam's air defense capabilities in 
southern Iraq.

The United States was a co-sponsor of United Nations Security Resolution 
986, which allows Iraq to sell amounts of oil to purchase food and 
medicine for its people, including the Kurds. Irbil, the city seized by 
the Iraqis, is a key distribution center for this aid. Until we are sure 
these humanitarian supplies can actually get to those who need them, the 
plan cannot go forward and the Iraqi Government will be denied the new 
resources it has been expecting.

Saddam Hussein's objectives may change, but his methods are always the 
same--violence and aggression--against the Kurds, against other ethnic 
minorities, against Iraq's neighbors. Our answer to that recklessness 
must be strong and immediate, as President Bush demonstrated in 
Operation Desert Storm, as we showed two years ago when Iraq massed its 
forces on Kuwait's border, and as we showed again today.

We must make it clear that reckless acts have consequences, or those 
acts will increase. We must reduce Iraq's ability to strike out at its 
neighbors, and we must increase America's ability to contain Iraq over 
the long run.

The steps we are taking today will further all those objectives. Time 
and again, Saddam Hussein has made clear his disdain for civilized 
behavior. He brutalized his own people, attacked his neighbors, 
supported terrorism, and sought to acquire weapons of mass destruction. 
Our policy is equally clear: When our interest in the security of our 
friends and allies is threatened, we will act with force if necessary. 
That is what we did this morning in Iraq.

I know the thoughts and prayers of all Americans are with our military 
men and women who are conducting this mission. God bless them and the 
nation they are serving. (###)



ARTICLE 2

The Global Environment and The National Interest
Deputy Secretary Talbott
Address at the Foreign Service Institute, Arlington, Virginia,
September 10, 1996 (introductory remarks deleted)

I hope all of you will permit me to strike a personal note here at the 
outset of my remarks. All my life I've been fascinated by the subjects 
you will be discussing in today's seminar. That's largely because of my 
upbringing--and, more specifically, it's because of my father. He's here 
today--not, I'm sure, for reasons that have anything to do with the 
speaker; rather, it's because he's a lifelong environmentalist. He 
raised his four children in the woods of Ontario; in the lakes of 
Northern Minnesota; in the high country of Wyoming; in the tundra of 
Alaska; and in another beautiful wilderness area: the fields, forests, 
marshes, and streams around our hometown, Cleveland, Ohio. No wonder my 
brother Kirk, who is also here, became an environmental lawyer and has 
devoted himself to helping countries in Africa and Asia protect their 
natural resources.

My own career has been more checkered. But in January 1993, I joined an 
Administration that has given special priority to environmental issues. 
In the earliest days of his campaign for the presidency, Bill Clinton 
called for "a new covenant for environmental progress," and in a 
defining moment both for his candidacy and his presidency, he chose as 
his running mate Al Gore, who has argued that saving a planet at risk 
must become the "central organizing principle for civilization." 

Then there's my boss, Warren Christopher. He has undertaken to move 
environmental issues into the mainstream of American foreign policy. 
During the transition four years ago, he created the position of Under 
Secretary of State for Global Affairs. It is from that office--"G," as 
we call it--that Tim, working with Eileen Claussen and other assistant 
secretaries, has so effectively advanced our national interests. 

This past February, on a tour of Latin America, Secretary Christopher 
visited Manaus and personally inspected the Brazilian rainforest. That 
event has already entered Foreign Service lore because the Secretary 
appeared in public in a tropical downpour, without his suit jacket or 
tie and--get this!--wearing sneakers. The outing may have been a radical 
departure from the Secretary's sartorial habits but it underscored a 
strong, consistent, personal as well as institutional commitment to 
making environmental activism part of the day-in, day-out work of the 
Department of State. 

The rationale for doing so is simple: The health and welfare of 
Americans are bound up with the quality of the land, air, and water 
everywhere in the world. The extinction of species in the tropics, the 
spread of pollutants through acid rain, the decline of stocks of fish in 
our oceans: These are threats to us, to our country, our health, our 
prosperity, our way of life--in short, to our national interest. Even if 
the ill-effects of those scourges do not reach our shores and our lungs 
and our drinking water, they can still harm our interests, because 
struggles over land, water, and other natural resources can lead to 
instability in regions of critical importance to the United States. 

Because perils to the environment are so often international in scope, 
no nation can, on its own, achieve lasting solutions. Over the past 25 
years, the United States has made important progress toward putting its 
own environmental house in order, but even our best efforts will be 
insufficient if other nations do not or cannot do the same. 

That brings me back to the State Department. As the agency of the U.S. 
Government responsible for relations with other countries, State 
obviously has a crucial role to play. And it has played that role. It 
has been involved in the negotiation of every major global environmental 
accord now on the books--from protecting the oceans to stopping trade in 
endangered species. That has been true under both Republican and 
Democratic administrations. 

But the end of the Cold War gives us a special opportunity and a special 
obligation to move further and faster, more systematically and more 
boldly. Under Secretary Christopher's leadership, the Department of 
State has, over the past 31/2 years, achieved important agreements, from 
further helping to protect the ozone layer to saving international 
fisheries.

Then, this past April, Secretary Christopher launched a major new 
environmental initiative in a speech at his alma mater, Stanford 
University. Among other provisions, it mandates an annual report on 
global environmental challenges and commits us to help American business 
gain the lion's share of the $400-billion worldwide market for 
environmental products. 

In addition to implementing the specific provisions of this initiative, 
the Secretary hopes to ensure that a new, sustained emphasis on the 
environment will permeate the way we do business at the State Department 
across the board and around the globe. 

No single issue demonstrates the transnational nature of the challenge 
we face quite as much as global climate change. All nations are 
vulnerable to the effects of this phenomenon--from heat waves and rising 
sea levels to altered precipitation patterns and increased storm 
intensity. 

Just as the causes and effects of climate change are global, so, too, 
must be the solutions. In July, we announced an ambitious framework for 
negotiations that began one year ago and will conclude late next year in 
Kyoto. This will be a complex and difficult process, requiring that we 
marshal all our diplomatic capabilities and engage all six of our 
regional bureaus. 

Let me now refer to some specific areas of the world and offer some 
concrete examples of how environmental concerns obtrude on our 
political, economic, and security interests. 

I'll start, predictably perhaps, with the former Soviet Union. Ten years 
ago, when Reactor Number Four at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant blew 
its top, it was more than an isolated accident; it marked the beginning 
of the meltdown of the U.S.S.R. That one disaster helped catalyze the 
policy of glasnost in Moscow and the independence movement in Ukraine. 
Similarly, the death--more accurately, the murder--of the Aral Sea and 
the befouling of Lake Baikal fanned grass-roots outrage against the 
brutality and obtuseness of Kremlin rule. In short, Soviet ecocide was, 
to an extent few of us realized at the time, the beginning of the end of 
the Soviet regime, the Soviet system, and the Soviet empire. 

Today, in addition to all the other challenges they face, the people in 
that vast part of the world have to clean up the mess they inherited 
from the communists. Half of Russia's water is undrinkable even after 
treatment. The profound health crisis in that country stems in large 
measure from atmospheric pollution. The economic and human toll of these 
conditions hinders Russia's attempts to move forward with reform.

The challenge for us is to help the Russians--and the other peoples in 
the post-communist world--to build systems and societies that treat 
natural resources and public health as core elements of their own 
national interests. That's why the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission includes 
an Environmental Committee that uses classified data from both sides to 
help scientists and government planners address ecological problems. 
Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency is helping Russia clean 
up its drinking water, and the Department of Energy is helping Ukraine 
safeguard its nuclear reactors. 

Environmental issues are equally important in the Middle East and the 
Persian Gulf, a region of the world that has been especially on our 
minds of late. We focus on surface-to-air missiles, tanks, and 
artillery, which are a dangerous mix in combination with ancient hatreds 
and aggressive ambitions. But we mustn't overlook the more mundane 
ingredient of water, which has immense potential both for good and, in 
its scarcity, for ill. In no other region of the world are 
waterways and international politics so intertwined. Iraq, Syria, and 
Turkey share the Euphrates River Basin; Israelis, Jordanians, 
Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians all rely on the resources of the 
Jordan River Basin. That's why the Middle East peace process includes a 
multilateral working group on water 
resources. 

In this connection, following up on one of the promises he made at 
Stanford, Secretary Christopher announced last month that our embassy in 
Amman, Jordan, will be among the first of 12 "environmental hubs" that 
will, by the year 2000, be located around the world. These hubs are an 
innovative departure because they are designed as an additional 
inducement to our diplomats, as they act locally, to think regionally 
about problems of water, air, land, and wildlife. 

In Central America, we have designated our embassy in San Jose, Costa 
Rica, as another environmental hub. In that neighborhood--which is, of 
course, our own--I've spent some time working with two countries that 
I'd like to single out. One is Panama. We will, as you know, return the 
Panama Canal to the Panamanian Government and people at the end of 1999. 
But meanwhile, the path between the seas faces a potentially lethal 
ecological and economic threat. Various forms of environmental 
degradation could close the locks that now keep the canal open. We are 
committed to working in partnership with the Government of Panama to 
ensure that the waterway's protective buffer zones are managed in a 
fashion that guards against deforestation, erosion, and the buildup of 
silt.

Another country, even closer to the U.S., where I've spent a lot of 
time, including in recent weeks, is Haiti. We all know about the legacy 
of the Duvaliers and the Ton-Ton Macoutes. Political violence is part of 
the gruesome background to the troubles besetting that country as it 
tries to consolidate a fledgling democracy. But there's another legacy 
that is just as hard to overcome: Deforestation, soil erosion, and water 
shortages have combined to leave thousands without a livelihood and 
without much hope for the future. 

When President Clinton went to Haiti in March of 1995, he looked out the 
window of Air Force One as it passed over the Dominican-Haitian border. 
What most struck him was that you could tell which country was which 
from high in the air. The Dominican side was canopied with forests  
while on the Haitian side there were mostly bare mountains. The 
President had been to Haiti in the 1970s with Mrs. Clinton, and he 
remembered it as a lush, green land. Here is an agricultural country 
which has lost 98% of its forests and as much as 50% of its topsoil--
most of that in the last 30 years. No wonder rural incomes are stuck at 
$50 per year. In the next 30 years, Haiti's population will nearly 
double, and 13 million Haitians will have to survive on an island with 
even less arable land than it has now. Democracy, like Haiti's crops of 
rice, corn, and sugarcane, needs arable land in order to grow and 
survive. 

That's why the President asked the Peace Corps to get a team of 
volunteers down there as quickly as possible and set them to work 
promoting reforestation and soil conservation. Tim Wirth has been down 
to Haiti to help in this cause. So has Secretary of the Interior Bruce 
Babbitt. So, I hope, will some of you here today.

If we are to improve Haiti's prospects for the future--and to prevent 
future crises like the one that has made Haiti such a preoccupation over 
the past several years--we will need to concert the energies of 
organizations and individuals such as those in attendance here today: 

-- Experts on developing agriculture and protecting forests; 
-- Social scientists who understand how property rights relate to 
sustainable land use; and 
-- Business leaders who can help restore productive enterprise to the 
streets of Port-au-Prince. 

It was in this spirit that Secretary Christopher, in his Stanford 
speech, called for a New Partnership for Environment and Foreign Policy. 

Let me now speak about how the Secretary's initiative is intended to 
change the way our own department does business. I'll start by stressing 
what the initiative is not. It's not about creating a new, separate, 
self-contained and therefore by definition self-marginalized bureaucracy 
that will be off in a corner somewhere worrying about the fate of the 
earth while the rest of the foreign-policy machinery grinds on doing its 
traditional thing. Rather, it's an attempt to integrate a concern for 
environmental issues into the way we approach virtually every major 
task.

For the professionals working the issues, it's a question of mindset, of 
worldview, and of personal experience. Most of us who got into the 
business of understanding and trying to have an impact on the world 
during the Cold War, myself included, concentrated on the classic 
syllabus of international relations--primarily, that meant the power- 
politics of nation-states. With this education, we went out and got our 
jobs, either in the conduct of diplomacy or, in my case for 21 years, in 
the somewhat easier task of reporting on it. 

Now, I'm not for a moment suggesting that that experience or that 
knowledge is obsolete. Otherwise I, for one, might be unable to find 
honest work, either in journalism or diplomacy. The well-recognized 
problems and solutions that arise from the interaction of nation-states 
are still very much with us, and they will be so for a very long time. 
History, the last time any of us checked, has not ended. But we are 
beginning to understand, perhaps for the first time, the sometimes 
devastating, sometimes promising, always complicating interaction 
between human history and natural history. 

Today, all the national-security agencies of the U.S. Government are 
taking that dynamic into account. Three years ago, in that big five-
sided building 4-1/2 miles down river from here, Les Aspin created the 
post of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security. 
The first--and current--occupant of that office, Sherri Goodman, who 
will be moderating one of your panels this afternoon, is charged with 
incorporating environmental concerns into the way our armed forces 
protect the nation. This summer, the Defense Department signed a 
memorandum of understanding with the Energy Department and the EPA to 
cooperate in enhancing the government's ability to identify and manage 
environmental threats. 

Meanwhile, 10 miles up the Potomac, John Deutch, the Director of Central  
Intelligence, has drawn on his own considerable scientific knowledge to 
make better use of national reconnaissance systems in support of our 
environmental agenda. At very little additional cost and to very good 
effect, he's putting that high-tech, high-altitude capability to use 
monitoring the spread of deserts and fluctuations in crop yields.

By the same token, understanding and acting on the importance of global 
issues is an imperative for diplomats as well. The outfit hosting this 
conference today--the Foreign Service Institute--is to be congratulated, 
not just because (like some other baby-boomers I can think of ) it is 
celebrating its 50th birthday. FSI is also to be congratulated for 
integrating environmental issues into its core curriculum, from the 
junior officer orientation course to the Senior Seminar. A nine-month 
economics course now includes segments on climate change, trade and 
environment, biodiversity, and sustainable development. 

But we as an institution and as a profession need to do more--we need to 
do it across a broader front and to reach more deeply into the system, 
so that we continue to advance our national security while doing a 
better job on issues that know no boundaries, from environmental damage 
to international crime. 

Here's one way to meet that challenge: As a follow-up on his Stanford 
speech and his environmental initiative, the Secretary has asked me to 
use this occasion to affirm and amplify an important principle: the 
senior Foreign Service Officer of the 21st century must have significant 
experience in global issues. This can be accomplished in many ways, from 
working in Mexico City on border pollution; in Beijing on population or 
energy matters; or here in Washington in a bureau that deals with 
international crime, terrorism, environment, refugee affairs, or the 
promotion of democracy and human rights.

Yesterday I sat down with Tony Quainton, the Director-General of the 
Foreign Service, and Tex Harris and Al La Porta, the President and State 
Vice President, respectively, of the American Foreign Service 
Association. We discussed how we can institutionalize this objective in 
the personnel system. On the Secretary's behalf, I have asked Acting 
Under Secretary for Management Pat Kennedy to work with Tony and Tex and 
Al to develop practical, forward-looking ways to guarantee that the 
Foreign Service is prepared for the next century's challenges. They will 
report to me with recommendations by October 15. I look forward to their 
plan and to working with them to make this goal a reality. 

The proposal that the Secretary has asked me to pursue will increase the 
extent to which American diplomats understand and therefore can 
influence the world in which they're working. It will also mean that, in 
their postings overseas, they will be better hosts and managers in 
dealing with the other U.S. Government agencies that use our embassies 
as platforms from which to combat drug cartels and terrorists, slow 
climate change, and promote sustainable development. 

So to all of you here this morning who are part of the Foreign Service, 
I would ask you, just as I've asked Tony and Pat and Tex and Al: Let's 
make this innovation work, for the good of the country and the planet--
and for the good of the Service itself.

And to everyone here, whether you're part of the government or the NGO 
community or the private sector, I'd make a final appeal. It has to do 
with money: We don't have enough. We, the foreign affairs agencies of 
the U.S. Government--State, AID, USIA, ACDA --are not just in straitened 
circumstances. We're facing a crisis. And this isn't just a problem for 
us; it constitutes--no exaggeration--a threat to the vital interests of 
our nation. To put it simply, starkly, and, I believe, indisputably, the 
foreign policy of the United States is so woefully underfunded that the 
safety and prosperity of the American people will suffer if we don't 
take urgent corrective action. 

The international affairs account of the federal budget has declined 
more than 40% over the past decade. Today we are barely able to conduct 
arms control and peacemaking and peacekeeping; we're barely able to 
maintain our foreign assistance programs, which constitute an investment 
in our own future; we're barely able to provide adequate consular 
services to Americans abroad. Every time a crisis occurs, whether it's 
in the Middle East or Africa or Latin America, we find ourselves 
scrambling for the funds necessary to keep a local conflict from 
becoming a regional one. All too often we have to rob from Peter to pay 
Paul--underpay Paul, I might add. Our country is the loser; the American 
people are worse off. 

I hope in the course of your seminar you will address this issue, 
because the United States simply cannot provide leadership on any of the 
issues you will be talking about today without the necessary resources. 
While Congress is undernourishing our foreign policy in general, it is 
starving our environmental programs. Precisely because they represent a 
new agenda--a non-traditional enterprise--they are among the most 
vulnerable targets for financial squeezing and cutting, the principal 
victims of Congress's penny-wise, pound-foolish shortsightedness. Just a 
few examples:

-- We haven't been able to come up with the seed funding for a project 
that would help reduce CFCs worldwide;
-- The U.S. is the biggest debtor in the Global Environmental Facility, 
the principal international funding mechanism for the activities called 
for by the Climate Change Convention. We're currently in arrears to the 
tune of $100 million; and
-- Our environmental assistance to the New Independent States of the 
former Soviet Union has fallen from nearly $75 million in fiscal year 
1995 to less than $10 million in FY 1997. That's a dramatic retreat on a 
crucial front.

Obviously, this situation makes all the more important the work of the 
NGOs here today--and the partnership that the Secretary has called for 
between what you do outside the government and what we do from inside. 
But we also need to persuade Congress to reverse the trend of the last 
10 years. 

And that means we need to persuade the American people. Part of 
Secretary Christopher's environmental initiative is a determination to 
raise public awareness of the importance of environmental issues to our 
national interest. We will do a better job of educating the public on 
this subject if we better educate ourselves. That's exactly what you are 
doing in this seminar today. And that's yet another reason why I'm so 
glad to have a chance to join you in helping to get these proceedings 
started. For everything that you've all done, individually and 
collectively, I express my admiration and my appreciation--and for 
everything that you'll be doing in the future, starting in the next 
several hours, I wish you well. Thank you very much. (###)



ARTICLE 3

Focus on Diplomacy
The State Department at Work

The Department of State is the lead U.S. foreign affairs agency. 
It advances U.S. objectives and interests in shaping a freer, more 
secure, and more prosperous world through formulating, representing, and 
implementing the President's foreign policy. The Secretary of State, the 
ranking member of the Cabinet and fourth in line of presidential 
succession, is the President's principal adviser on foreign policy and 
the person chiefly responsible for U.S. representation abroad.

There are 190 countries in the world; the United States maintains 
diplomatic relations with about 180 of them and also maintains relations 
with many international organizations. We have more than 250 diplomatic 
and consular posts around the world, including embassies, consulates, 
and delegations and missions to international organizations.

Diplomacy at Work
U.S. leadership promotes and protects the interests of Americans by:

-- Managing diplomatic relations especially with the world's great 
powers and international institutions;
-- Promoting peace and stability in regions of vital interest;
-- Creating jobs at home by opening markets abroad;
-- Facing an array of global challenges that no nation can meet on its 
own; and
-- Providing services to Americans traveling or living overseas.

Managing Diplomatic Relations. The peace and security of the American 
people require constructive relations with other great powers and with 
international institutions.

-- With Europe, our common actions in Bosnia, NATO's Partnership for 
Peace, the U.S.-EU New Transatlantic Agenda, and other initiatives have 
improved European stability and strengthened U.S.-European economic ties 
and security cooperation.
-- With Japan, our relationship is on a sound basis. We have signed a 
security declaration and reached 21 market-opening agreements. U.S. 
exports to Japan are rising five times as fast as imports.
-- With Russia, our constructive relations during its transition period 
of reform advances our strategic interest in dismantling nuclear 
weapons, bolsters the vital elements of democratic reforms, supports a 
privatization process that has put more than half of Russia's economy 
into private hands, and opens new opportunities for U.S. exporters and 
investors.
-- With China, we have restored positive momentum. We have a new 
understanding on nuclear exports, an agreement on intellectual property 
rights, and an improved bilateral dialogue. We continue to pursue our 
strong interest in the peaceful resolution of issues between the P.R.C. 
and Taiwan and in a smooth transition in Hong Kong.

International Institutions. To achieve common goals and leverage on 
resources by sharing financial and diplomatic burdens, the U.S. is 
working to reform and revitalize the United Nations and to advance 
cooperation with institutions, such as NATO, the OSCE, the World Bank, 
and the IMF.

Promoting Peace. U.S. diplomacy prevents local conflicts from becoming 
wider wars that could threaten our allies, embroil American troops, and 
create instability in key regions. And in the best tradition of America, 
our efforts help avert humanitarian crises and save lives. That is why 
we have worked so hard to develop common action with our allies and 
friends to:

--Create the conditions that ended the killing in Bosnia and led to the 
upcoming elections;
-- Pursue a comprehensive peace in the Middle East; and
-- Strengthen our role in the Asia-Pacific, where we fought three wars 
in the past half-century, by maintaining 100,000 troops there; freezing 
North Korea's nuclear program; and opening markets among the world's 
fastest-growing economies.

Creating Jobs Through Open Markets. Our diplomacy aims to create jobs 
for Americans at home by opening markets abroad. We have achieved 
extraordinary success by putting the bottom lines of American business 
on the front lines of American diplomacy. More than 200 trade agreements 
over the last three years have helped our exports grow by 34% since 1993 
and created 16 million new jobs. By passing the North American Free 
Trade Agreement, concluding the Uruguay Round, and forging the Miami 
summit commitment to achieve free and open trade in our hemisphere by 
2005--and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation commitment to do the 
same in the Asia-Pacific by 2020--we have positioned the United States 
to become an even more dynamic hub of the global economy in the 21st 
century.

Facing Global Challenges. Finally, we are intensifying our efforts to 
confront the transnational security challenges of terrorism, 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, international crime and 
narcotics, and environmental degradation. These threats to the security 
and prosperity of Americans respect no border and must be fought at home 
and abroad. American leadership: 

-- Forged an international consensus to adopt the UN Declaration on 
International Crime and Public Security, which combats threats to 
citizens' security from terrorism, international crime, narcotics 
trafficking, and the trafficking of illegal arms and of nuclear, 
biological, and chemical weapons;
-- Helped secure the unconditional and indefinite extension of the 
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We have concluded a Comprehensive Test 
Ban Treaty to ban nuclear explosions for all time and signed a Nuclear 
Safety Convention;
-- Increased international drug cooperation from Mexico to Australia 
through training programs, extradition treaties, and assistance. We work 
to step up our crop substitution and aerial eradication programs in 
Latin America and efforts against heroin traffickers in South and 
Southeast Asia; and
-- Increased efforts on international environmental issues by forging 
international agreements to address global problems such as climate 
change and to confront pollution and lack of resources in key areas 
where they dramatically increase tensions within and among nations, such 
as water in the Middle East or deforestation in Africa. 

Providing Services to American  Travelers. In addition to issuing 
passports to U.S. citizens and visas to foreigners wishing to enter the 
U.S., we provide a wide variety of services to U.S. citizens traveling 
or living abroad, such as

-- Finding medical assistance;
-- Getting emergency funds;
-- Locating travelers;
-- Making arrangements in the event of death;
-- Assisting in the event of arrest;
-- Coordinating with other agencies and notifying families during 
international crises or emergencies; and
-- Assisting in international child- custody disputes.

Among the many other services that we provide to U.S. citizens abroad 
are distributing federal benefits payments, assisting with absentee 
voting and Selective Service registration, and advising on property 
claims.

Work of the Foreign And Civil Services
The Foreign Service and the Civil Service in the Department of State and 
U.S. missions abroad represent the American people. They work together 
to achieve the goals and to implement the initiatives of American 
foreign policy.

The Foreign Service is a corps of working professionals dedicated to 
representing America and responding to the needs of American citizens in 
other countries. They are America's first line of defense in a complex 
and often dangerous world. 

A Foreign Service career is a way of life that requires uncommon 
commitment and offers unique rewards, opportunities, and sometimes 
hardships. Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) can be sent anywhere in the 
world, at any time, to service the diplomatic needs of the United 
States. They staff all U.S. embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic 
missions.

Historically, FSOs have been generalists who could expect to be assigned 
to various jobs in different parts of the world during their careers. An 
FSO assigned one year as a consular officer in Europe may later become 
an economic officer in Africa. Overseas, FSOs may work in 
administrative, economic, political, consular, or public information and 
cultural affairs.

In addition to Foreign Service Officers, a dedicated corps of about 
5,000 Civil Service employees are headquartered in Washington, DC. They 
work in a variety of professional, technical, and administrative 
capacities and provide continuity and expertise in accomplishing all 
aspects of the Department's mission. Civil Service officers are involved 
in virtually every area of the Department--from human rights to 
narcotics control to environmental issues. They also are the domestic 
counterpart to consular officers abroad, issuing passports and assisting 
U.S. citizens in trouble overseas.

Both the Foreign and Civil Services offer a variety of career 
opportunities. For information on the Internet about careers at the 
State Department, see:
http://www.state.gov/www/careers

For further information on the Foreign Service, which offers an exam 
once each year, contact:

U.S. Department of State
Recruitment Division
P.O. Box 9317
Arlington, VA 22219
Tel: (703) 875-7490

Civil Service job vacancy line:
Tel: (202) 647-7284

The Foreign Affairs Budget And Assistance
All foreign affairs activities and personnel costs are paid for by the 
foreign affairs budget. That budget is a real bargain for the American 
people. In fact, we spend just a little more than 1% of the total 
federal budget on foreign affairs--about 12 cents a day for each 
American citizen, in contrast to the approximately 18% still spent on 
defense. Moreover, the entire international affairs budget has fallen 
51% in real terms since 1984, while the State Department's 
responsibilities have expanded enormously to include combating threats 
such as terrorism, nuclear smuggling, and international crime and 
narcotics trafficking. The amount spent for foreign affairs activities 
and personnel actually represents a tiny fraction of the amount our 
nation earns from exports or of the amount it is forced to spend when 
foreign crises erupt into war. This small investment protects the 
interests of the American people and allows the United States to 
maintain its position of leadership.

The Department of State conducts all of its responsibilities with a 
relatively small work force. The Department is smaller than 10 of the 14 
U.S. Cabinet departments. In fact, the State Department employs fewer 
people than do local governments in Memphis, Baltimore, or Alchua 
County, Florida.

Foreign assistance programs have ultimately put more dollars into the 
pockets of American taxpayers than they have ever taken out. For one 
thing, most foreign assistance dollars stay right here at home. Nearly 
80% of USAID contracts and grants go to U.S. firms. Ninety-five percent 
of all food assistance purchases are made in the U.S., and virtually all 
military assistance is spent on U.S. goods and services.

Promoting Jobs And Business
By helping other countries to develop, we help ourselves. Developing 
countries currently account for well over one-third--nearly $200 billion 
worth--of U.S. exports and now represent the fastest-growing markets for 
American goods and services. The Commerce Department estimates that 
every $1 billion worth of these exports generates about 20,000 American 
jobs. More than one-half of America's farm exports go to the developing 
world. U.S. assistance programs also help get U.S. business in the door, 
much as our competitors' aid programs leverage opportunities for their 
business communities.

The success of American business in international markets is a vital 
national interest. Eleven million American jobs depend on exports--jobs 
that pay 13 to 17% more than non-trade related jobs. America's economic 
well-being, global leadership, and national security are all reinforced 
when American companies successfully compete in the global economy.
 
Services to Business
Secretary Christopher's "America Desk" initiative has made support for 
business a core function of the modern Department of State, both at home 
and abroad. The Office of the Coordinator for Business Affairs (CBA) is 
a good initial point of contact for firms seeking State Department 
support and assistance. CBA works directly with American companies to 
help them tap the worldwide resources of the Department when they need 
advocacy or help in solving problems.

Department officers overseas play an important role in negotiating a 
myriad of global, regional, and bilateral international economic 
agreements and making sure that agreements are honored. They also help 
U.S. businesses resolve trade and investment disputes with foreign 
governments and help them overcome business problems. They also work 
with the U.S. Foreign Commercial Service to identify opportunities for 
U.S. companies and advocate on their behalf. 

A Brief History of the Department And the Conduct of Foreign Relations
Congress created the Department of State in 1789 to assist the President 
in carrying out foreign policy responsibilities under the Constitution 
to conclude treaties and appoint diplomatic and consular officials, 
receive foreign emissaries, and exercise other authority provided by 
legislation. As head of the new Department, the Secretary of State was 
made the President's principal adviser on foreign affairs and the person 
chiefly responsible for U.S. representation abroad. The first Secretary 
was Thomas Jefferson.

After World War II, U.S. global responsibilities expanded greatly. The 
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Treasury acquired new 
duties in world economic affairs. The Department of Defense, established 
in 1947, assumed duties for military aid and cooperation. These--and 
other U.S. Government departments--operate out of embassies overseas.

The 1947 National Security Act created the National Security Council, 
which assists the President on foreign policy and coordinates the work 
of the many agencies involved in foreign relations.

During the Cold War, new foreign affairs agencies were placed under the 
general policy direction of the Secretary of State: the United States 
Information Agency, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the 
U.S. Agency for International Development.

Congress, too, has constitutional responsibilities for U.S. foreign 
policy. In addition to providing advice and consent to treaties and 
diplomatic appointments, other major congressional powers include 
providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United 
States, regulating international commerce, and declaring war. 
Congressional influence on U.S. foreign policy also rests on its control 
over the federal budget.

Congressional committees most directly involved in the conduct of 
foreign relations include the House International Relations and Senate 
Foreign Relations Committees, the House National Security and Senate 
Armed Services Committees, and the Appropriations Committees of both 
Houses. 

Profile: U.S. Missions Abroad
Country missions and missions to international organizations are headed 
by Chiefs of Mission. Chiefs of Mission are considered the President's 
personal representatives and, with the Secretary of State, assist in 
implementing the President's constitutional responsibilities for the 
conduct of U.S. foreign relations.

The Chief of Mission--with the title Ambassador, Minister, or Charge 
d'Affaires--and the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) are responsible for 
and head the mission's "country team" of U.S. Government personnel. The 
Country Team includes diplomatic officers representing consular, 
administrative, political, economic, cultural, and legal affairs, as 
well as all the representatives from agencies other than the Department 
of State, such as the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and 
Justice. These are the people responsible for the day-to-day work of the 
mission. Department of State employees at missions comprise U.S.-based 
political appointees and career diplomats and Foreign Service nationals. 
The last are local residents, who provide continuity for the transient 
American staff and have language and cultural expertise.

In most countries with which it has diplomatic relations, the U.S. 
maintains an embassy, which usually is located in the host country 
capital. The U.S. may also have consulates in other large commercial 
centers or in dependencies of the country. Several countries have U.S. 
ambassadors accredited to them who are not resident in the country. In a 
few special cases--such as when it does not have full diplomatic 
relations with a country--the U.S. may be represented by only a U.S. 
Liaison Office or U.S. Interests Section, as in Cuba.

Travel Abroad
About 5 million U.S. passports are issued each year at 13 passport 
agencies and one processing center in the United States and at more than 
255 diplomatic and consular posts around the world.

To help American travelers avoid dangers, the Department of State issues 
Travel Warnings recommending that they avoid travel to a certain 
country. Consular Information Sheets exist for all countries and include 
information on immigration practices, currency regulations, health 
conditions, areas of instability, crime and security information, 
political disturbances, and the addresses of the U.S. embassy and any 
U.S. consulates in the country.

Free copies of these information sheets are available from the U.S. 
Department of State's Bureau of Consular Affairs--tel: (202) 647-5225; 
auto fax: (202) 647-3000. Travel Warnings, Consular Information Sheets, 
as well as other travel-related publications are available on the 
Consular Affairs Bulletin Board (CABB) via computer modem at (202) 647-
9225 or on the Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) on 
the Internet: 
http://travel.state.gov

State Department Online
The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) provides a one-
stop World Wide Web site for a wide variety of foreign policy and other 
information from the U.S. State Department at:
http://www.state.gov

The user-friendly web home page guides you to information on foreign 
policy, including today's international "hot topics," State Department 
organization and services, travel and consular information, support for 
U.S. businesses, procurement, careers, the counter-terrorism rewards 
program, and much more.

For Technical Help
DOSFAN is a cooperative arrangement between the State Department and the 
federal depository library at the University of Illinois at Chicago. 
Please e-mail your technical questions to:
doswork@uic.edu

For More Information
For information on the material released on DOSFAN and for other State 
Department services such as fax-on-demand, please contact the Bureau of 
Public Affairs at:

Public Information Service
PA/PC, Rm. 6808
Washington, DC  20520-6810
(202) 647-6575

[END OF DISPATCH VOL 7, NO. 36]

(###)

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