U.S. Department of State
Dispatch, Volume 7, Number 43, October 21, 1996
Bureau of Public Affairs



ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE


1.  The Legacy of America's Leadership as We Enter the 21st Century--
President Clinton

2.  Ukraine at Five: A Progress  Report on U.S. Policy--Acting Secretary 
Talbott

3.  The Pursuit and Implementation of Durable Solutions--Phyllis E. 
Oakley

4.  Russia's Journey From Totalitarianism Toward Democracy--Ambassador 
Thomas Pickering

5.  Treaty Actions



ARTICLE 1:


The Legacy of America's Leadership As We Enter the 21st Century
President Clinton
Address to the people of Detroit, Detroit, Michigan, October 22, 1996 
(introductory remarks deleted)


I am delighted to be here in Detroit to discuss the challenges we face 
as we enter the 21st century; to make sure that we remain the world's 
strongest force for peace and freedom, and for security and prosperity. 
Detroit is a city meeting the challenges of the future, and is the 
perfect place for me to have this opportunity to visit with you. 
Yesterday, I couldn't help thinking that in the empowerment zone that 
the mayor and others have worked to make so much of, which has generated 
$2 billion in private capital to develop the resources of the people of 
Detroit here, and in the ground we broke yesterday for a $1.6-billion 
new airport to give you the capacity to reach out to the rest of the 
world, Detroit is doing what all of America must do. We must develop 
ourselves and reach out to the rest of the world. Congratulations, 
Mayor, and to all the other local officials here. 

From its very founding, our nation has stood for the idea that people 
have the right to control their own lives, to pursue their own dreams. 
In this century, we have done far more than just stand for these 
principles--Americans have acted upon them and sacrificed for them; 
fought two world wars so that freedom could triumph over tyranny; then 
made commitments that kept the peace that helped to spread democracy, 
that brought great prosperity to ourselves, and helped to win the Cold 
War. 

Now the idea as we struggle for democracy and freedom--freedom of 
religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, open markets, respect 
for diversity--these ideas are more and more the ideals of humanity. 
When we adopted democracy as our form of government in 1776, and then 
when we ratified our Constitution a few years later, it was an unusual 
choice that we made. Democracy had largely vanished from the Earth for 
nearly 2,000 years--since Ancient Greece. 

In this century, amid all the wars and bloodshed, we have struggled to 
advance the cause of democracy and to support those who are seeking it. 
And, now, for the first time in history, 61% of the world's nations, and 
for the very first time in the last couple of years, over half the 
people on the face of the globe live in democratically elected--under 
democratically elected leaders in free countries. That is a remarkable 
thing. This never happened before.

Four years ago, when I sought the presidency, I said that to build a 
strong community based on opportunity and responsibility here at home, 
to be both prosperous and secure, we would have to continue to lead 
abroad in this new era. The burden of American leadership and the 
importance of it, indeed, the essential character of American leadership 
is one of the great lessons of the 20th century. It will be an even more 
powerful reality in the 21st century--a century in which the blocks and 
barriers that defined the world for previous generations will continue 
to give way to greater freedom, faster change, greater communications 
and commerce across national borders, and more profound innovation than 
ever before; a century in which more people than ever will have the 
chance to share in humanity's genius of progress.   

As walls come down around the world, so must the walls in our minds 
between our domestic policy and our foreign policy. Think about it. Our 
prosperity as individuals, communities, and a nation depends upon our 
economic policies at home and abroad--on Detroit's empowerment zone and 
your commitment to an airport facility that will more efficiently 
connect you  to the rest of the world. Our well-being as individuals, 
communities, and a nation depends upon our environmental policies at 
home and abroad. Our security as individuals, communities, and a nation 
depends upon our policies to fight terrorism, crime, and drugs at home 
and abroad. We reduce the threats to people here in America by reducing 
the threats beyond our borders. We advance our interests at home by 
advancing the common good around the world.

Let me just give you one example, that I will return to in a moment. In 
the last four years, the American people--working together--have created 
10.5 million new jobs. Now, that is good news. But perhaps even more 
important, more than half those jobs are in high-wage categories. That 
is one reason that real wages for the typical working family have 
started to rise again for the first time in a decade.

Now, that has to be seen in terms of what is happening to the American 
economy becoming connected to the rest of the world. We have had an all-
time high in exports--an increase in exports of about 35%, and we know 
that export-related jobs, on average, pay considerably higher than jobs 
which are totally confined in their economic impact to the domestic 
community. 

We have made 200-plus agreements in trade, including more than 20 with 
Japan. We have seen an increase of 85% in the export of American 
products to Japan. I visited, as many of you know, an American auto 
dealership in Tokyo. Just yesterday, we learned that our exports of 
American cars to Japan increased 40% in just one year last year. I say 
that simply to make the point that our economic policies at home and 
abroad affect the well-being of America's families.

In a world that is increasingly interconnected, we have to just sort of 
take down that artificial wall in our mind that this is completely a 
foreign policy issue and this is completely a domestic issue, because 
increasingly they impact one on the other. That is why I think, among 
other things, we have to resist those who believe that now that the Cold 
War is over, the United States can completely return to focusing on 
problems within our borders and basically ignore those beyond our 
borders.

That escapism is not available to us because at the end of the Cold War, 
America truly is the world's indispensable nation. There are times when 
only America can make the difference between war and peace, between 
freedom and repression, between hope and fear. We cannot and should not 
try to be the world's policeman. But where our interests and values are 
clearly at stake, and where we can make a difference, we must act and 
lead. 

We must lead in two ways: First, by meeting the immediate challenges to 
our interests from rogue regimes; from sudden explosions of ethnic and 
religious and tribal hatreds; from short-term crises; and, second, by 
making long-term investments in security, prosperity, peace, and freedom 
that can prevent these problems from arising in the first place, and 
that will help all of us to fully seize the opportunities of the 21st 
century. 

We have approached the immediate challenges with strength and 
flexibility, working with others when we can, alone when we must, using 
diplomacy where possible and force where necessary. 

When I took office, the bloodiest war in Europe since World War II was 
raging in Bosnia. Thanks to U.S.-led NATO air strikes, American 
diplomacy, and IFOR's peacekeeping efforts, the war is over and 
elections have been held. The Bosnian people are now getting on with the 
very hard work of rebuilding their lives, their land, their economy, and 
their capacity to deal with each other in an atmosphere of respect. None 
of it will be easy, but America acted, our partners and allies acted. 
And think of what would have happened if we had walked away.

When I took office, dictators terrorized Haiti. They forced tens of 
thousands of refugees to flee. Because we backed American diplomacy with 
military force and the power of an international coalition, the 
dictators are gone, Haiti's democracy is back, the flight from fear has 
ended. Difficulties remain, but think what it would be like if America 
had not acted.

As Senator Levin said, when I took office, North Korea was moving 
forward with a dangerous nuclear program it had been working on for more 
than a decade. Thanks to our diplomacy, and with the help of Japan, 
South Korea, and China, North Korea has frozen that program under 
international monitoring. I wish that more progress were being made in 
North Korea toward openness, but think how much worse it would be if we 
had not acted.

Two years ago, the collapse of the Mexican peso jeopardized our own 
economy and the sanctity of our borders. Because we stepped in 
immediately and rallied others to join us, Mexico has rebounded. Three-
quarters of our loans have been repaid ahead of schedule. We are earning 
interest on the deal. I believe we have made about $.05 billion so far. 
I know that was one of the more unpopular decisions of my presidency, 
but think what would have happened if we had allowed our neighbor to the 
south to collapse economically without a supporting hand from the United 
States for their efforts to reform their political and economic systems 
and, therefore, to be able to work with us in a supportive way.

In each of these cases we were able to succeed because, first, we 
accepted the responsibility to lead. But it is not enough just to handle 
these immediate crises. We also must set our sights on a more distant 
horizon. Through our size, our strength, our relative wealth, and also 
through the power of our example, America has a unique ability to shape 
a world of greater security and prosperity, peace and freedom. These are 
long-term efforts and often they take place behind the headlines. But 
only by pursuing them can we give our children the best possible 
opportunity to realize their own God-given potential. That is why we 
have worked patiently and pragmatically to reduce the threat of weapons 
of mass destruction, to take on the challenge of terrorism, to build an 
open trading system for the 21st century, to help secure the gains that 
peace and freedom are making around the world. We are making the future 
more secure by lifting the danger of weapons of mass destruction.  

It has taken hard negotiations and persistent diplomacy. But consider 
the results. Today, not a single Russian missile targets America. We are 
cutting our nuclear arsenals by two-thirds. We are working to keep the 
remaining weapons safe and secure. We helped to convince Ukraine, 
Kazakhstan, and Belarus to give up the warheads left on their lands 
after the Soviet Union dissolved. We won the indefinite extension of the 
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, our most powerful tool in keeping 
nuclear weapons from spreading. And just a few weeks ago, after 
literally decades of discussion that began under Presidents Eisenhower 
and Kennedy, I was proud to be the first head of state to sign the 
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Once enforced, it will end 
nuclear testing for all times. 

There is, to be sure, more hard work ahead of us. We must secure the 
ratification in the U.S. Senate of the Chemical Weapons Convention, to 
make it more difficult for rogue states and terrorists to acquire poison 
gas. We must strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention to help 
prevent the use of disease as a weapon of war. And we must succeed in 
negotiating a worldwide ban on anti-personnel landmines, which murder 
and maim more than 25,000 people a year.

As we keep our focus on these goals, we must also keep the heat on 
terrorists who would darken the dawn of the new century. Piece by piece, 
we have put in place a strategy to fight terrorism on three fronts: 
toughening our laws at home, tightening security in our airports and 
airplanes, and pressing our allies to adopt with us a strict policy of 
zero--zero--tolerance for terrorism.

In the congressional session just concluded, two important pieces of 
legislation were passed to help give us the tools to fight terrorists at 
home. And nearly all the Vice President's recommendations for increased 
security at our airports and on our airplanes were adopted in a $1-
billion bill designed to help us move immediately and aggressively to 
improve airport and airline security. I am encouraged by that. 

When I met last summer with the leaders of the G-7 nations in France, 
they agreed to work with us to try to get a zero tolerance for terrorism 
policy around the world. While we can defeat terrorists--and we have 
been successful in thwarting attempted terrorist attacks in the United 
States, attempted attacks on our planes flying out of the West Coast; 
recently there was a conviction in a U.S. court of a person we 
extradited back to the United States who was charged and then convicted 
of conspiring to blow up a number of airplanes flying from our West 
Coast over the Pacific--it will be a long time before we defeat 
terrorism. But we have to remain determined and strong. If we do, we 
know we can prevail. It took a while for the Cold War to be resolved in 
a way that was favorable to humanity and freedom, but we stayed the 
course, and we must stay the course against this. And our allies must 
help us. We simply cannot be doing business by day with people who are 
supporting terrorists who will kill us by night. That is wrong and we 
must work to develop a common policy on that.

We are building prosperity at home by opening markets abroad, as I said 
earlier. I believe that decades from now people will look back on this 
period and see the most far-reaching changes in the world trading system 
in generations. The more than 200 trade agreements we have negotiated 
have led to more than a million new jobs. They have helped to make 
America the number-one exporter again. You know that here in Detroit. 
You led the nation here with the fastest recent growth in export trade. 
And today, for the first time since the 1970s, the United States is 
again the number-one producer of automobiles in the world.

It is not easy to both expand trade and keep the rules fair. It has to 
be done issue by issue, agreement by agreement. It is hard work, day-in 
and day-out, month-in and month-out, year-in and year-out. But we must 
continue to do it. Next month I will travel again to Asia--to the 
Philippines, for the fourth annual summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic 
Cooperation forum, because a lot of America's future is tied to Asia's 
future. As a Pacific power, we have a responsibility to work for 
stability and security in Asia, and an opportunity to benefit from that 
region's extraordinary economic growth. 

We also are working to advance the cause of peace and freedom around the 
world. This also is a mission rooted in both our ideals and our 
interests. After all, when people live free and they are at peace, they 
are much less likely to make war or abuse the rights of their own 
citizens, and are much more likely to be good trading partners and 
partners in the struggle against terrorism, international crime, and 
drug trafficking, working with us to prevent global environmental decay. 
From the Middle East to Northern Ireland, from Cuba to Burma, from 
Burundi to South Africa, those taking risks for peace and freedom know 
that the United States will stand at their side.

Nowhere are our interests more engaged than in Europe. When Europe  is 
at peace, our security is strengthened. When Europe prospers, so does 
America. We have a special bond because our nation was formed from the 
hopes and dreams of those who came to our shores from across the 
Atlantic seeking religious freedom, fleeing persecution, looking for a 
better life. From the Pilgrims of 1620 to the Hungarian freedom fighters 
of 1956, whose struggle we commemorate tomorrow, they gave America the 
strength of diversity and the passion for freedom. Remarkable 
generations of Americans invested in Europe's peace and freedom with 
their own sacrifice. They fought two world wars. They had the vision to 
create NATO and the Marshall Plan. The vigor of those institutions, the 
force of democracy, the determination of people to be free--all these 
helped to produce victory in the Cold War. But now that freedom has been 
won, it is this generation's responsibility to ensure that it will not 
be lost again, not ever.

President Reagan gave strength to those working to bring down the Iron 
Curtain. President Bush helped to reunify Germany. And now, for the very 
first time since nation-states first appeared in Europe, we have an 
opportunity to build a peaceful, undivided, and democratic continent. It 
has never happened before; it can be done now. A continent where 
democracy and free markets know no boundaries, but where nations can be 
assured that their borders will always be secure and their sovereignty 
and independence will always be respected. 

In January 1994, during my first trip to Europe as President, I laid out 
a strategy for European integration--political integration around 
democracies, economic integration around free markets, security 
integration around military cooperation. I urged our enduring allies and 
new friends to build the bonds among our nations that are necessary for 
this time--through the European Union, NATO, and the other institutions 
of a new Europe. I challenged all our people to summon the will and the 
resources to make this vision real. The United States and Europe are 
answering that challenge. With our help, the forces of reform in 
Europe's newly free nations have laid the foundations of democracy. They 
have political parties and free elections, an independent media, and 
civilian control of the military. We have helped them to develop 
successful market economies, and now moving from aid to trade and 
investment. 

Look at what has been achieved by our common efforts. In the seven years 
since the fall of the Berlin Wall, two-thirds of Russia's economy has 
moved from the heavy grip of the state into private hands. Poland now 
has one of the West's highest rates of growth. You are as likely to read 
about Poland on the business page as the front page today. The private 
sector produces half the national income of an independent Ukraine. From 
the Czech Republic to Hungary to Estonia, the same forces of freedom and 
free markets are creating bustling prosperity and hope for the future.

The bedrock of our common security remains NATO. When President Truman 
signed the North Atlantic Treaty 47 years ago, he expressed the goal of 
its founders plainly, but powerfully: to preserve their present peaceful 
situation and to protect it in the future. All of us here today--every 
single one of us--are the beneficiaries of NATO's extraordinary success 
in doing just that. 

NATO defended the West by deterring aggression. Even more, through NATO, 
Western Europe became a source of stability instead of hostility. France 
and Germany moved from conflict to cooperation. Democracy took permanent 
root in countries where fascism once ruled.

I came to office convinced that NATO can do for Europe's East what it 
did for Europe's West--prevent a return to local rivalries, strengthen 
democracy against future threats, and create the conditions for 
prosperity to flourish. That is why the United States has taken the lead 
in a three-part effort to build a new NATO for a new era. 

First, by adapting NATO with new capabilities for new missions;
Second, by opening its doors to Europe's emerging democracies; and  
Third, by building a strong and cooperative relationship between NATO 
and Russia.

To adapt NATO, we have taken on missions beyond the territory of its 
members for the first time, and done so in cooperation with non-member 
states, shifting our emphasis to smaller and more flexible forces 
prepared to provide for our defense, but also trained and equipped for 
peacekeeping. We are setting up mobile headquarters to run these new 
missions more effectively and efficiently. We are giving our European 
allies a larger role within the Alliance, while preserving NATO's vital 
core which is an integrated command military structure.

The United States will continue to take the lead in NATO, especially in 
the southern region where the most immediate threats to peace exist. But 
we welcome our allies' willingness to shoulder a greater share of the 
burden and to assume greater leadership. 

Bosnia has been the first major test of the new NATO. At first, NATO 
could act jointly only with the United Nations. But once NATO took 
charge, once its lead, its air power, together with its diplomatic 
leadership, was available fully, it pushed the Bosnian Serbs from the 
battlefield to the bargaining table. The NATO-led Implementation Force 
has restored security to Bosnia. It has given the Bosnian people a 
chance--not a guarantee, but a chance to build a lasting peace.  

But for NATO to fulfill its real promise of peace and democracy in 
Europe it will not be enough simply to take on new missions as the need 
arises. NATO must also take in new members, including those from among 
its former adversaries. It must reach out to all the new democracies in 
Central Europe, the Baltics, and the New Independent States of the 
former Soviet Union. 

At the first NATO summit I attended in January 1994, I proposed that 
NATO should enlarge--steadily, deliberately, openly. Our allies agreed. 
First, together, we created the Partnership for Peace as a path to full 
NATO membership for some and a strong and lasting link to the alliance 
for all. I think it would be fair to say that the Partnership for Peace 
has exceeded what even its most optimistic supporters predicted for it 
in the beginning. There are more than two dozen members now.

The more than two dozen members and the astonishing amount of 
cooperation and joint training and partnership that has developed as 
results of this Partnership for Peace has made it something of 
significance--I believe enduring significance--beyond what we ever 
imagined when we started it. And the strategy is paying off. The 
prospect of membership in or partnership with NATO has given Europe's 
new democracies a strong incentive to continue to reform and to improve 
relations with their neighbors.

Through the Partnership for Peace, prospective new members are actually 
gaining the practical experience they need to join NATO. Thirteen 
partner nations are serving alongside NATO troops and helping to secure 
the peace  in Bosnia. There are Polish and Czech combat battalions, 
Hungarian and Romanian engineering troops, soldiers from Ukraine and the 
Baltic states, forces from Sweden and Finland, and a full Russian 
brigade.  

Just seven years ago, these soldiers served on opposite sides of the 
Iron Curtain. Today, their teamwork with our troops and other European 
NATO allies is erasing the lines that once divided Europe while bringing 
an end to the bloodiest conflict in Europe since World War II. 

We have kept NATO enlargement on track. Now it is time to take the next 
historic step forward. Last month, I called for a summit in the spring 
or early summer of next year to name the first group of future NATO 
members and to invite them to begin accession talks. Today, I want to 
state America's goal: By 1999--NATO's 50th anniversary and 10 years 
after the fall of the Berlin Wall--the first group of countries we 
invite to join should be full-fledged members of NATO. I also pledged 
for my part, and I believe for NATO's part as well, that NATO's doors 
will not close behind its first new members. NATO should remain open to 
all of Europe's emerging democracies who are ready to shoulder the 
responsibilities of membership. No nation will be automatically 
excluded. No country outside NATO will have a veto. We will work to 
deepen our cooperation, meanwhile, with all the nations in the 
Partnership for Peace. A gray zone of insecurity must not reemerge in 
Europe.

Now, I want to say that as we go forward, the American people should be 
aware that this plan is not free of costs. Peace and security are not 
available on the cheap. Enlargement will mean extending the most solemn 
security guarantee to our new allies. To be a NATO member means that all 
the other members make a commitment to treat an attack on one as an 
attack on all. But mark my words, if we fail to seize this historic 
opportunity to build a new NATO in a new Europe, if we allow the Iron 
Curtain to be replaced by a veil of indifference, we will pay a much 
higher price later on down the road. America will be stronger and safer 
if the democratic family continues to grow, if we bring to our ranks 
partners willing to share the risks and responsibilities of freedom.  

This past summer, by overwhelming majorities, both Houses of Congress 
passed a NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act. I greatly appreciate this 
bipartisan support for our efforts to forge a broader alliance of 
prosperity, of security and, as the First Lady said in Prague on the 
last 4th of July, an alliance of values with Europe. I look forward to 
working with Congress to ratify the accession of new members, to provide 
the resources we need to meet this commitment, to secure the support of 
the American people. NATO enlargement is not directed against anyone. It 
will advance the security of everyone--NATO's old members, new members, 
and non-members alike.   

I know that some in Russia still look at NATO through a Cold War prism 
and, therefore, look at our proposals to expand it in a negative light. 
But I ask them to look again. We are building a new NATO, just as we 
support the Russian people in building a new Russia. By reducing rivalry 
and fear, by strengthening peace and cooperation, NATO will promote 
greater stability in Europe, and Russia will be among the beneficiaries. 
Indeed, Russia has the best chance in history to help to build that 
peaceful and undivided Europe, and to be an equal and respected and 
successful partner in that sort of future.

The great opportunity the Russian people have is to define themselves in 
terms of the future, not the past; to forge a new relationship with NATO 
as enlargement moves forward. The United States has suggested that 
Russia and NATO work out a formal agreement on cooperation. 

We should set up a regular mechanism for NATO-Russia meetings at all 
levels. We should consult on European security issues so that whenever 
possible NATO and Russia can act jointly to meet the challenges of the 
new era, just as we have acted jointly in Bosnia. 

Just think about it. In Bosnia, Russia and NATO are already partners for 
peace. We should set our sights on becoming full partners and bringing 
all of Europe together. Together, we can help to turn the main 
battleground for the bloodiest century in history into a continent whose 
people remain secure and prosperous, free and at peace. 

During these past four years, it has been one of the greatest privileges 
of my life to represent America around the world--from the halls of 
Kremlin to the hillsides of Port-au-Prince; from the deserts of Jordan 
to the Tokyo Harbor; from the Charles Bridge in Prague and Riga's 
Freedom Square to the DMZ in Korea. I have heard the voices and shaken 
the hands of presidents and prime ministers, and just as important, 
citizens on the streets of distant lands. Wherever I go, whomever I talk 
with, the message to me is the same: We believe in America. We trust 
America. We want America to lead. And America must lead.

I wish every American could see our country as much of the world sees 
us. Our friends rely upon our engagement. Our adversaries respect our 
strength. When our family went to open the Olympics in Atlanta, I was so 
moved by the statements of young people from around the world about the 
efforts the United States had made to foster peace in Bosnia, peace in 
Northern Ireland, peace in the Middle East--things these young athletes 
felt personally because it was their lives, their future, and the 
children they still hope to have on the line. 

As we enter the 21st century, we must make a commitment to remain true 
to the legacy of America's leadership--to make sure America remains the 
indispensable nation, not only for ourselves, but for what we believe in 
and for all the people of the world. That is our burden. That is our 
opportunity. And it must be our future. Thank you and God bless you all. 

(###)



ARTICLE 2:


Ukraine at Five: A Progress: Report on U.S. Policy
Acting Secretary Talbott
Remarks before The Washington Group 1996 Leadership Conference, 
Washington, DC, October 11, 1996


Thank you Jaroslav [Voiko], and thanks to The Washington Group for 
including me in your celebration. 

To those of you who arrived today from other parts of the country for 
this weekend's conference, welcome to Washington. During the Cold War, 
this city used to be called the "capitol of the free world." Well, 
Washington still qualifies as exactly that. In fact, with the collapse 
of Soviet communism, with the disappearance of the U.S.S.R., and with 
the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the free world is a much bigger 
place than it was just a few years ago--and today the free world 
includes an independent, democratic Ukraine. 

Over the past 3 1/2 years, I've had six opportunities to visit that 
brave young democracy. It's good to be back on sovereign Ukrainian 
territory this evening. I'm grateful to the embassy for opening its 
doors to me and my colleagues from the Administration--John Deutch, the 
Director of Central Intelligence; Carlos Pasqual of the National 
Security Council; Melanne Verveer of the Office of the First Lady; Teras 
Bazyluk of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; and Bill Taylor and 
Bruce Connuck of the State Department.

The President and the Secretary of State have asked me to convey two 
messages to all of you: First, they have asked me to extend their 
greetings and their thanks for all that everyone here has done both for 
Ukraine and for U.S.-Ukrainian relations; and second, they have asked me 
to review briefly, from the vantage point of the Clinton Administration, 
the past five years.

Everyone here tonight knows very well how far Ukraine has come in that 
short time. This room is filled with witnesses of Ukraine's 
transformation. Some of you were a part of the "Chain of Unity" that 
stretched from Kiev to Lviv on January 22, 1990. Some of you were in the 
Verkhovna Rada on August 24, 1991, the day when an honor guard brought 
in a giant blue and yellow flag and Ukraine declared its independence. 
Others here were in Kiev or Lviv or Kharkiv during the landmark 
presidential election in 1994, when Ukraine became the first New 
Independent State of the former Soviet Union to transfer power from one 
democratically elected government to another. Or you've been back for 
subsequent regional elections that have produced victories around the 
country for a new generation of leaders who have made the cities and 
towns they lead into hubs of reform and sources of new ideas. Or maybe 
you were there this past June, when Ukraine adopted a new constitution 
that has codified the country's commitment to democracy and equal rights 
for all its citizens.

Many of you--I'd guess most of you--have seen with your own eyes the 
industry and entrepreneurship of the Ukrainian people, which have 
spawned thousands of small businesses throughout the country. They now 
account for more than half of Ukraine's national income. You've seen the 
hospitals where there are now MRIs and other modern diagnostic 
equipment, and you've seen the maternity wards where there are now 
incubators for premature babies. You've seen the churches and synagogues 
that are once again filled with worshippers. 

In fact, many of you have been more than just witnesses of all this--
you've been benefactors and participants, and your contribution goes 
back a lot longer than five years. For more than seven decades of Soviet 
domination, the Ukrainian-American community kept alive the dream of an 
independent and democratic homeland. Your faith nurtured the spirit and 
the substance of independence until the dream finally came true in 1991. 
Since then, you have labored on behalf of Ukrainian democracy, Ukrainian 
rule of law, Ukrainian freedom of the press, Ukrainian medicine and 
science, the Ukrainian environment, and Ukrainian prosperity.

Many of you have worked hard to put the Ukrainian economy on the right 
track. It has been a monumental effort, and there were some scary 
moments along the way. Not too long ago, Ukraine was looking over the 
abyss of hyperinflation. Last month, inflation was running at only 2%--a 
huge and hopeful improvement. Also in September, Ukraine successfully 
launched its new currency, the hryvnia, which is already stronger than 
the kharbovanets, the provisional currency it replaced. 

If Ukraine is to continue this progress--if it is to fulfill its 
tremendous economic potential--there is much hard work still to be done. 
That means cutting taxes and bureaucracy, promoting land reform, and 
building the legal foundation for a market economy.

But Ukraine does not face the challenge alone. The American people as a 
whole have followed the example of the Ukrainian-American community. 
We've all joined together in the great task of supporting a free 
Ukraine. President Clinton has led the way by calling on the 
international community to secure $1.9 billion in cash commitments for 
Ukraine in 1996. He has gone beyond the mandates of Congress to provide 
Ukraine with $330 million in bilateral grants and $860 million in trade 
and investment credits. 

We're in Ukraine not just with our dollars, but with our know-how, our 
expertise, our own can-do bent for licking the toughest problems. We're 
on the ground making a difference for the better, working with real 
people. Americans are in Ukraine today training the next generation of 
entrepreneurs. And by the way, our exchange programs work both ways. 
Through the U.S. Information Agency and the Agency for International 
Development, nearly 8,000 Ukrainians have come to our country to share 
our ideas, to learn first-hand about our way of life and work. 

By early next year, we will have helped Ukraine privatize virtually its 
entire small business sector and a significant share of its larger 
enterprises. We have already helped Ukraine build democracy by 
sponsoring town hall meetings, sending legal advisors and constitutional 
experts, and assisting Ukraine's growing independent media. 

Let me also make special mention of America's effort--both public and 
private--to help Ukraine deal with one of the defining disasters of our 
time. Ten years ago, an obscure town on the Prypiat River became world-
famous overnight. 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 Soviet Union. But Chernobyl 
also left Ukraine with a health crisis that will last a generation--and 
it left the world with an obligation to ensure that such a tragedy never 
happens again. Through the work of numerous volunteer groups--many of 
whom are represented in this audience--there has been an outpouring of 
support for the victims, especially the children of Chernobyl. 

A number of you were present at the White House when Vice President Gore 
and the First Lady commemorated the anniversary of the disaster--not 
just by looking backward at the horror, but by looking forward with hope 
and resolve. In this spirit, the United States has delivered over 100 
tons of medical supplies to hospitals in Ukraine and Belarus. We have 
also used our leadership position in the Group of Seven major 
industrialized democracies to make available $3 billion to support 
Ukraine's decision to close Chernobyl by the year 2000.

Let me assert a key point: Everything we've done for Ukraine--and 
everything we will do in the future--we do not just because we Americans 
are a generous people, although that is certainly the case. We've done 
it and we'll keep on doing it also because it is in our own nation's 
interest to see an independent, secure, democratic Ukraine survive, 
succeed, and prosper.

Let me explain why that is by echoing our President. I was with him--as 
was Marta--on a lovely spring day in May 1995, when he spoke to an 
audience of enthusiastic, welcoming students in front of the main 
building at Shevchenko University in Kiev. President Clinton told that 
young audience that support for Ukraine's young democracy reflects our 
most deeply held American values and advances our most fundamental 
interests. He said a Ukraine that fulfills the hopes of its 52 million 
citizens will also, as he put it, "provide an essential anchor of 
stability and freedom in a part of the world still reeling from rapid 
change."

We've said over and over--and we mean it every time we say it--that 
Ukraine is a key European country. It is a bellwether for a vast region 
that matters deeply and enduringly to the United States. If Ukraine 
stays on course toward a better future for its own people, that will be 
good for all of Europe and for the larger transatlantic community of 
which we are a part. If, however, Ukraine goes off course, that will be 
bad for all of us. The rationale for a steadfast policy of American 
support for Ukraine is just that simple.

The fact is, while Ukraine still faces numerous challenges, it has 
already emerged as a force for stability and integration in Europe. It 
has done so through its courageous decision in 1994 to join the Non-
Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear-weapons state. In exchange for 
assurances worked out with the help of the United States, Ukraine 
enhanced its own security, and it set a valuable example for the rest of 
the world. As a result of that landmark of Ukrainian wisdom, the whole 
world is safer today, and it will be safer still in the next century.

Ukraine has shown similar statesmanship and strategic foresight by 
forging strong new ties with the west while maintaining constructive 
relations with its neighbors to the east and to the north. Ukraine was 
the first New Independent State to join the Partnership for Peace 
program in February 1994. This past summer, American, Ukrainian, 
Russian, and Polish troops trained together for peacekeeping operations 
on Ukrainian soil. 

That training is already paying off. Today, American and Ukrainian 
soldiers are together in Bosnia, working side by side to deal with the 
first major threat to the peace in Europe since the end of the Cold War. 
And a Ukrainian-Polish peacekeeping battalion is taking shape. 

Ukraine has also managed its complex relationship with Russia with 
prudence and balance, working hard to defuse problems before they become 
crises. From time to time, when both parties have asked us to do so, the 
United States has helped, and it stands ready to do so again in the 
future. 

We in the U.S. Government fully understand the difficulty that often 
attends the right decisions. Therefore, we will use every occasion, 
including this one, to reaffirm our determination to ensure that there 
is a proud and prominent place for Ukraine in the growing community of 
market democracies--and in the institutions that undergird our common 
values, our common interests, and our common aspirations. 

My boss, Secretary Christopher, recently delivered a major speech on 
European security in Stuttgart. He laid out the President's strategic 
vision for a Europe that is increasingly stable, secure, prosperous, and 
democratic--a Europe that will be undivided for the first time in 
history. Let me quote just one part of what Secretary Christopher had to 
say about Ukraine in that speech. "A critical goal of the New Atlantic 
Community," he said, "is to achieve Ukraine's integration with Europe."  

That statement will serve as a guiding principle for the United States 
in the months and years ahead. It means that we will support Ukraine's 
active participation in the Council of Europe and in the Organization on 
Security and Cooperation in Europe, the OSCE. It means that we will 
continue to assist Ukraine in its effort to join the World Trade 
Organization, and that we endorse Ukraine's interest in the Central 
European Free Trade Area, the European Union, and the Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development, which is the international forum 
for monitoring economic trends in free market democracies.

That same guiding principle--that same commitment to Ukraine's 
integration into the community of nations--will also dictate our 
leadership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO is, and will 
remain, essential to the evolution of a new, post-Cold War Europe. 

A solid, cooperative relationship between NATO and Ukraine is vital to 
European security. As you all know, NATO is preparing to take in new 
members. There will be concrete steps in that direction next year. We 
are determined that the process of NATO enlargement serve the larger 
cause of peace, security, prosperity, democratization, and integration 
on the continent of Europe. 

This is more than just a matter of asserting a negative: it is more than 
being determined that NATO enlargement not create new dividing lines or 
harm the legitimate security interests of any of the new democracies 
emerging from the old Soviet empire. It is also a matter of asserting a 
positive proposition--that NATO must respect and enhance the security of 
the region as a whole and the security of all European states that 
deserve and aspire to integration. That emphatically includes Ukraine. 

As a vigorous, pathbreaking participant in the Partnership for Peace, 
Ukraine is already cooperating closely with NATO. We've laid the basis 
for a steadily developing relationship of cooperation and consultation. 
There is nothing to limit how that enhanced relationship might develop 
over time. 

Let me underscore here two simple statements of fact--and of principle: 
First, Ukraine and only Ukraine will decide what associations or 
memberships it aspires to in the future; and second, NATO and only NATO 
will decide whom to admit to its ranks. 

The watchwords of NATO enlargement bear repeating here: the process will 
continue to be deliberate; it will be transparent; it will be open; it 
will be inclusive; it will be respectful. "Inclusive" means that none of 
the emerging democracies is to be excluded. None means none. It means 
there will be no special categories for inclusion into NATO, and none 
for exclusion from NATO. "Respectful" means that the rights and 
interests of all those states will be taken fully and properly into 
account in the way that enlargement occurs. Both those principles apply 
to Ukraine. 

How we apply those principles is one of the most important items on the 
ever-growing agenda of U.S.-Ukrainian cooperation and consultation. No 
subject has occupied more attention than European security in the 
dealings that Secretary Christopher and I have had with our friend 
Foreign Minister Hennadiy Udovenko, or in the talks that Tony Lake and I 
recently had with Volodymyr Horbulyn, the very able Secretary of the 
National Security and Defense Council. By the way, Foreign Minister 
Udovenko will be here again in just over a week for meetings with 
Secretary Christopher, Secretary Perry, and National Security Advisor 
Tony Lake. 

The subject of Ukraine's important role in the building of a new Europe 
will also figure, along with a wide array of other topics, in a new 
channel that is opening between Washington and Kiev: the U.S.-Ukraine 
Binational Commission, to be headed by President Kuchma and Vice 
President Gore. 

I do not want to impose on your kind attention much longer. Nor do I 
want to delay the next stage of the embassy's hospitality. I just want 
to make one final point. 

All of us in the Clinton Administration--starting with the President and 
Vice President themselves--are optimistic about Ukraine's future, and I 
sense you are too. One reason for our optimism is that Ukraine has come 
so far in such a short period of time. 

The United States' own historical experience should make us Americans 
patient, persistent, and admiring when we look at Ukraine. After all, 
our own democracy has been a work in progress for 220 years. We must 
remember how long it has taken us to get it right. In fact, we're still 
working at it. The United States became a "new independent state" in 
1776. When we celebrated the fifth anniversary of our own independence 
in 1781, we still had a very long way to go. It would take us another 
six years to draft a constitution. Independent, democratic Ukraine 
accomplished that task before it turned five. In our own evolution as a 
civil society and a multiethnic democracy, it took us 89 years to 
abolish slavery, 144 to give women the vote, and 188 to extend full 
constitutional protections to all citizens.

All of which is to say that, even by the accelerated, fast-forward 
standards of the modern world, Ukraine at the tender age of five has 
much of which to be proud, much to make it confident about the future, 
and much that we Americans can be proud to support, to applaud, and to 
join in celebrating--for Ukraine's sake, and for our own. So happy 
birthday, Ukraine. Mnohaya Lita, Ukraino.

(###)



ARTICLE 3:


The Pursuit and Implementation Of Durable Solutions
Phyllis E. Oakley, Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees, and 
Migration
Statement before the 47th Executive Committee of the UN High 
Commissioner for Refugees, Washington, DC, October 7, 1996


Mr. Chairman, Madame High Commissioner, distinguished colleagues: 
Congratulations to Ambassador Mchumo of the Republic of Tanzania on his 
election as chairman of the Executive Committee. I would like to express 
our special thanks to Ambassador Esper-Larsen for steering us 
successfully through the first year of the new EXCOM format and, 
particularly, for taking time from his new assignment to participate in 
the inter-sessional standing committee meetings. Although this week will 
be a test of the new EXCOM, I am confident that the new procedures will 
result in a more focused and thorough discussion of issues. I would also 
like to congratulate the Government of Ireland on its recent election to 
the Executive Committee.

Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Ogata, delegates may I turn now to our theme--"the 
pursuit and implementation of durable solutions."

Solutions are not born in isolation. Solutions are the result of 
intensive efforts to build peace--peace between nations, peace between 
neighbors, and peace among people. Mrs. Ogata has said that we have to 
be more imaginative and daring in pursuing solutions. Permanent 
solutions require comprehensive approaches--approaches which integrate 
political, human rights, security, and humanitarian concerns. UNHCR, 
under Mrs. Ogata's outstanding leadership, has developed innovative, 
comprehensive approaches to address the complex problems of population 
movements. Let me discuss some of those approaches.

The United States joined the call in 1993 for UNHCR to take the lead--
together with the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the 
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)--to address 
refugees and other migrant movements in the countries of the 
Commonwealth of Independent States through a regional conference held 
last May. The Program of Action adopted includes specific actions for 
the countries of the CIS, which are grounded in internationally accepted 
principles of human rights, refugee, and humanitarian law. The 
prevention of unnecessary future displacements of people is a key goal 
of the Program of Action. Implementation will also go a long way to 
protect and assist those displaced and--more germane to our topic--to 
identify permanent solutions. My government just contributed $1.5 
million to the first appeal for CIS Conference follow-up issued jointly 
by UNHCR and IOM. We encourage other governments to support efforts to 
implement this unique approach.

June 30th marked the end of the Comprehensive Plan of Action for 
Indochinese Refugees. The CPA was a truly multilateral seven-year 
effort. It broke new ground in cooperation among countries of origin, 
countries of first asylum, and donor and resettlement countries, where 
all participants helped bear the burden of a regional problem.

Mr. Chairman, we all know that voluntary repatriation is the preferred 
solution. There is nothing better than for people to be able to return 
to their homes. UNHCR just marked the end of one of the most successful 
repatriation operations in history--the return of over 1.5 million 
Mozambicans from neighboring countries in southern Africa. However, 
repatriation is not a permanent solution unless there are opportunities 
for refugees and displaced persons to reintegrate into their home areas. 
We should think of repatriation in expansive terms. It is not only 
movement, but a package of actions--sustainable development, a 
community-based approach, and a focus on returnee communities. 

We believe that humanitarian organizations like UNHCR can contribute to 
refugee reintegration. However, success depends on the political will of 
the countries involved and sustainable development actions. In this 
regard, I salute the revitalization efforts of the Horn of Africa's 
Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). The upcoming November 
IGAD Partner Meeting offers one opportunity for collective discussion 
and renewed commitment to solve refugee issues in the Horn of Africa.

The need for a comprehensive approach is amplified when we look at the 
complexity of population movements today. Individuals leave their homes, 
communities, and countries for many reasons--some flee armed conflict or 
human rights abuse, some seek economic opportunities, and others seek to 
escape drought. It is becoming difficult to differentiate between those 
who cross an international border to escape persecution and those who 
flee persecution within their nation's border. The High Commissioner is 
called upon more and more frequently to use her good offices and provide 
assistance and protection for those who need it, whether refugees or 
internally displaced. But let us remember she is the High Commissioner 
for Refugees, and refugees should continue to be her primary concern.

UNHCR's senior management is undertaking an ambitious task in reviewing 
"measures to ensure a constant focus on durable solutions and 
disengagement." We applaud this foresight. UNHCR is currently caring for 
26 million individuals of concern. In an environment of increasing needs 
and diminishing resources, UNHCR is obligated to think through ways to 
conclude operations through solutions--such as local integration or 
third country resettlement, in addition to repatriation. 

UNHCR's review of the Mozambique operation demonstrated that through 
advance planning and early discussions among key actors, the 
humanitarian community can succeed in assuring a smooth disengagement. 
Just as it is important for UNHCR to devise comprehensive strategies, it 
is also essential to close out UNHCR's role at a planned time. We 
encourage UNHCR to extend the cooperation with UNDP to design general 
frameworks for collaboration or memoranda of understanding in order to 
routinize the success of operations like Mozambique.

As UNHCR senior management leads the international community toward 
durable solutions for the millions of refugees in the world today, we 
are reminded that the framers of the international refugee conventions 
had the foresight--and the optimism--to provide for an official 
recognition that a refugee situation had been solved--the cessation 
clause. Thankfully, there are situations where refugees no longer have a 
well-founded fear of persecution. We believe that it is time to consider 
invoking the cessation clause in areas that are on their way to 
resolution. As UNHCR focuses on permanent solutions and disengagement, 
this is a tool that should be used more effectively, but without 
sacrificing the right of those who continue to fear return to have 
individual claims considered.

Mr. Chairman, the Great Lakes region of Africa is an example of a region 
that presents UNHCR and the international community with sharply drawn 
challenges. The existing Rwandan camps are unacceptably militarized; 
first, asylum is under threat, and turmoil and killing are on the rise 
throughout the region. The longer the refugees remain in the camps, the 
greater their risk of being pulled into the widening turmoil. 

We need to break an intolerable and unsustainable status quo. The 
international community has to take some risks, to design a coordinated 
strategy, and to urgently pursue durable solutions. While the 
international community will continue to help, the countries of refugee 
origin and asylum in the region must take greater responsibility as 
well. Resources are limited and diminishing. Prompt, voluntary, and 
orderly repatriation of Rwandan refugees is needed despite the risks 
that always come with large movements of people. We must continue and 
augment traditional efforts to encourage voluntary repatriation. 
Together with other concerned governments, we are also suggesting a 
series of measures in the Great Lakes region, including camp 
consolidation, targeted application of the cessation and exclusion 
clauses, and phasing out assistance to existing camps that are too close 
to borders, while providing viable alternatives for those who continue 
to fear return. These are issues to be discussed urgently with regional 
governments, donor governments, and organizations--all those who strive 
to bring peace and justice to this troubled area.

In another part of the world, UNHCR is nearing completion of durable 
solutions for Guatemalan refugees. We welcome Guatemala's commitment to 
reintegration and Mexico's generous offer of permanent resettlement. We 
are confident that the challenges of sustainable integration will be met 
in both countries.

A solution which deserves special note is third country resettlement. 
Resettlement is an important tool of protection. Granted, the numbers 
resettled each year are dwarfed by those in countries of first asylum. 
Resettlement is sometimes the only option to ensure an individual's 
protection; furthermore, it provides the opportunity for a person or 
family to begin to build a future. We are particularly encouraged by 
UNHCR's efforts over the past year to increase attention to resettlement 
programs, including the practice of regular consultations with 
interested governments and NGOs. For our part, we will continue to work 
actively to resettle UNHCR-referred cases, and to maintain our generous 
levels of worldwide resettlement of refugees.

Coordination and cooperation among governments, international 
organizations, and non-governmental organizations are key elements in 
the search for solutions. The United States enthusiastically supports 
efforts undertaken in the last year to examine the coordination of 
emergency humanitarian assistance through ECOSOC resolution 1995/56. We 
view the Interagency Standing Committee (IASC) as the best existing 
mechanism to facilitate quick, effective response to complex 
emergencies. However, for the IASC to work, participating agencies must 
"own" the process. We hope that UNHCR will be flexible and creative in 
considering new approaches to revitalize the IASC and improve 
coordination. In this regard, we will continue to look for mechanisms by 
which governments can be better informed concerning the work of the 
IASC.

Protection is fundamental to any comprehensive approach. Providing 
protection for persons who have a well-founded fear of persecution is 
the responsibility of every government here today. It is the legal duty 
of all parties to the Convention and/or Protocol relating to the Status 
of Refugees. The High Commissioner is mandated to keep a close watch on 
the state of protection of refugees in the world. Disturbingly, Mrs. 
Ogata has reported severe threats to refugee protection, including cases 
where some countries are forcibly returning people to countries where 
they have been persecuted or tortured. There are confirmations of 
substantial loss of life owing to such flagrant abuse of the right of a 
refugee to seek and enjoy protection. We must seek to maintain and to 
strengthen the humanitarian principle that refugees must not be returned 
to persecution or torture, either from within the territory of a 
receiving state or from its border. Similarly, we should seek to 
encourage these protections for those in flight from armed conflict.

We must ensure that our policies--and more importantly, our practices--
meet both our legal and our moral responsibilities to protect people in 
danger. 

Over the coming year, we will engage in discussions on how to extend 
additional, more effective protection to others who need it--though they 
may not be refugees in the technical sense. The United States suggests 
that we examine protection of unaccompanied children who have crossed 
international borders in the context of these UNHCR discussions, as well 
as other fora where unaccompanied children are on the agenda. Although 
the term comprehensive approach has been used in geographic terms, 
appropriate responses to the needs of children requires its own 
comprehensive approach, to include protection of children as set forth 
in many international conventions.

Mr. Chairman, we have often talked about getting away from the rhetoric 
on refugee children and translating policy and talk into action. EXCOM 
has endorsed the policy and guidelines for refugee children as sound 
bases for programming. The United States contributed generously in 1994 
and 1995 to create a Regional Support Unit for refugee children. The 
unit was designed with maximum flexibility for UNHCR to choose a 
location in any region of the world where the needs of refugee children 
are greatest. The Great Lakes region was chosen as the first region for 
the RSU. The time is right to evaluate its use as a starting point in an 
assessment of progress in implementation of the guidelines on refugee 
children.

UNHCR has recognized that women are an integral part of any solution. We 
are particularly impressed with the active leadership the Deputy High 
Commissioner has provided this year to chair the internal Reference 
Group on Refugee Women. From all accounts, this mechanism is turning 
rhetoric into action. Now is the time to turn to UNHCR's operational 
partners, in particular NGOs. In order to ensure that UNHCR's NGO 
partners are implementing UNHCR policy and guidelines on the ground--and 
with the expressed interest of several NGOs--the United States 
Government has funded a position at the Women's Commission for Refugee 
Women and Children to assist NGOs to incorporate UNHCR's guidelines in 
their programs

Last year, we urged UNHCR to establish an Initiative Fund for Refugee 
Women in order to allow the organization to explore new, innovative ways 
to involve refugee women in the planning and implementation of UNHCR 
programs. I am pleased to report that my government has contributed 
$200,000 to this fund and we hope to see results of its use over the 
next few months. Only through the active involvement of women in every 
stage of UNHCR activities can solutions truly be permanent.

President Clinton announced at the Lyon summit that the United States 
would contribute $5 million to create the Bosnia Women's Initiative 
(BWI) under the auspices of UNHCR to provide opportunities for women in 
Bosnia-Herzegovina to become full participants in the economic recovery 
of their country. BWI aims to empower women through innovative 
programming, and will be implemented by NGOs from the region led by 
women to benefit women. UNHCR plans to appeal to governments to 
contribute to BWI; we strongly second UNHCR's call for contributions as 
tangible support for permanent solutions in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I plan 
to travel to Bosnia and Croatia at the end of this week to lend support 
to the Women's Initiative and to meet with major donors, the World Bank, 
and others to urge that they also give high priority to programs that 
benefit women.

While I am on the subject of contributions, I am happy to report that 
with the conclusion of our financial year, U.S. contributions to UNHCR 
in 1996 have surpassed 1995 by nearly $30 million. We provided almost 
$254 million to UNHCR this year for general and special programs. Our 
contributions to UNHCR's general program total over $98 million and our 
contributions to UNHCR's operations in the Great Lakes and the former 
Yugoslavia predictably top the list for special program contributions 
with $60 million for the Great Lakes, and $57 million for the former 
Yugoslavia. The U.S. Agency for International Development contributed 
more than $10 million to UNHCR programs.

Finally, I would like to take a moment to recognize the ambitious 
changes currently underway in UNHCR. My government is tremendously 
impressed with UNHCR's proactive efforts to "change management" and 
reform the organization to respond more efficiently and effectively. We 
welcome the involvement that UNHCR staff members at all levels have had 
in "Project Delphi." The Deputy High Commissioner and his colleagues on 
the Change Management Group who have worked feverishly over the past few 
months to construct Project Delphi's action plan deserve special 
acknowledgment. This plan is now resulting in concrete changes in the 
way that UNHCR does its business. We encourage UNHCR to continue its 
dialogue with governments as the action plan is implemented.

As part of that dialogue, the United States has recognized the High 
Commissioner's efforts to bring more women into the organization through 
preferential recruitment procedures. That said, we could not help but 
notice that, aside from the High Commissioner herself, there is only one 
other woman among the 18 proposed senior managers. We hope this is only 
a temporary distortion of the High Commissioner's recruitment strategy.

I would like to close my remarks by paying my own personal tribute--and 
that of my government--to the thousands of UNHCR staff members who work 
everyday to find solutions for the plight of the world's refugees. Our 
thanks to them and to you, Mrs. Ogata. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

(###)



ARTICLE 4:


Russia's Journey From Totalitarianism Toward Democracy
Ambassador Thomas Pickering
Remarks before the Association of American Publishers, Frankfurt, 
Germany, October 3, 1996


It is a pleasure to be with you to talk about Russia, a country that has 
absorbed my attention and energy for the past 3 1/2 years. To state the 
obvious, it has been an eventful time. When I arrived in Moscow in the 
spring of 1993, President Yeltsin and his rivals in the parliament were 
locked in a bitter power struggle. It ended only when Yeltsin, in 
response to his opponents' use of force, resorted to force to disband 
the parliament. Three months later--in December 1993--the Russian people 
approved the current constitution by a slim margin in a referendum, but 
gave nearly a quarter of the vote to Zhirinovksiy's ultranationalist 
protest party in parliamentary elections.

The past 12 months have witnessed Duma elections in which the Communist 
Party finished a strong first, President Yeltsin's remarkable comeback 
victory in the presidential elections, and now questions about his 
ability to lead in light of his serious health problems. This period has 
also seen Russia and the IMF sign a three-year, $10-billion 
stabilization loan and continued progress in Russia's financial 
stabilization effort that has brought monthly inflation down below 1%.

Given this record, it is hardly surprising that, for Russians and 
Western observers alike, the past 3 1/2 years have been an emotional 
roller coaster of great expectations and disappointments. It has been 
hard not to succumb to the emotion of the moment. But those that did, 
lost sight of the more fundamental change taking place that will 
ultimately shape Russia's future. The change has been, on balance, 
positive for both Russia and Western interests. I would be the last to 
play down the formidable challenges still facing Russia and the 
inevitable crises that lie ahead. I, nevertheless, remain an optimist 
about Russia's possibilities and our relations with it.

With that by way of background, I would like to share with you some 
reflections on Russia--on its politics, economy, and foreign policy--as 
my tour of duty comes to an end there.

Unfortunately, you cannot talk about Russia today without talking about 
President Yeltsin's health. That issue has loomed over all political 
discussion in Moscow for the past several weeks. Of course, we, like the 
Russian people, wish President Yeltsin a speedy and full recovery from 
his illness and a quick return to his Kremlin office.

Still, we cannot avoid the issue of succession, even if we hope it comes 
at the end of the four-year term to which President Yeltsin was elected. 
For the ability to transfer power smoothly and peaceably, with a minimum 
of disruption, is critical to the stability and viability of any 
democratic government, especially one such as Russia's that is in the 
early stages of formation. In this regard, the developments of the past 
year have been encouraging. The very fact that presidential elections 
occurred on schedule, despite widespread calls for postponing or 
canceling them or negotiating their results in advance, and that they 
were by and large free and fair, despite numerous predictions to the 
contrary, bolsters our confidence that any succession will occur 
according to constitutional norms.

Moreover, as Moscow comes to grips with the implications of Yeltsin's 
health problems, the prevailing assumption has been that if Yeltsin 
steps down before the end of his term, elections will decide his 
successor. Indeed, there is already much pre-election maneuvering in 
Moscow. However unseemly that might be given our human sympathy for 
Yeltsin, it is a further indication that any new president is likely to 
enjoy the democratic legitimacy President Yeltsin now does.

A succession according to constitutional norms, whenever it occurs, 
would further undergird stability in Russia. Indeed, the country is 
already more stable than many observers, both in Russia and in the West, 
imagine. The factors promoting stability are many. Let me focus on just 
three.

First, there has been a vast devolution of power--both political and 
economic--over the past decade to regional authorities and autonomous 
commercial and industrial structures. This devolution will receive a 
further boost during the regional elections this fall. Governors once 
appointed by the President will now be popularly elected. As a result, 
although the President may be the most powerful figure in the country 
today, his power pales in comparison to that wielded by the Communist 
Party bosses of the Soviet period or the tsars before them. Indeed, what 
happens in Moscow matters less for overall developments in Russia today 
than it perhaps has at any other time this century.

For most of Russia--Chechnya is the obvious exception--devolution means 
just that. It is not just motivated by separatism. Chechnya, 
fortunately, is an exception, and an example that few other regional 
elites are tempted to follow. My extensive travels over Russia--I have 
visited two-thirds of the Russian Federation's 89 federal units--have 
unearthed no strong separatist urges. Rather, the regional leaders I 
have met all stress one point: The need to develop a durable federal 
system based on an equitable division of responsibility between central 
and regional authorities. This will be an uneven process, and 
disagreements between Moscow and the regions will inevitably arise. But, 
overall, it provides the best avenue for fostering stability and 
guaranteeing the country's territorial integrity.

Second, Russian society has witnessed an unprecedented opening up over 
the past decade. This process has been particularly important for young 
people, who are best positioned to cope with--and, most important, to 
take advantage of--the vast changes now underway. As a result, much 
energy that would have been erupted into political rebellion in a more 
closed system has been channeled into entrepreneurship. It is not 
unusual, indeed it is the norm, for leading bankers and businessmen to 
be in their 20s and 30s.

Of course, some of this energy has found an outlet in crime, manifested 
in the rapid growth of organized crime. This is a disturbing 
development. But we must not exaggerate the problem. Crime very often 
accompanies reform in its early phases, because old social norms are 
broken down before they can be replaced by new ones. Crime also 
intervenes to take over roles the government should perform, but cannot 
in its temporarily weakened condition, for example, the protection of 
private property and the enforcement of contacts. Some crime was 
inherited from the Soviet Union. As a result, some of the crime problem 
will die away naturally as reform consolidates its position in Russian 
society. At the same time, we are already working closely with the 
Russian Government on ways to fight organized crime here and now.

Third, Soviet communism is dead. That was one key verdict of this year's 
Presidential elections. For the moment, there is no all-encompassing 
alternative to the path toward democracy and a market economy on which 
Russia has embarked, and there is none looming on the horizon. Of 
course, there will continue to be sharp debate over the pace and scope 
of reform, but no real debate over the fundamentals. Private property 
and political pluralism are here to stay in Russia. To undo them would 
require great resources and a willingness to shed vast amounts of blood. 
No current opposition force appears up to the task.

Stability in Russia has been both a cause and a consequence of the 
economic progress Russia has made over the past few years. The progress 
has been impressive, especially given the many predictions of imminent 
disaster that have been bandied about in both Russia and the West. Prime 
Minister Chernomyrdin's first government, for example, did a remarkable 
job in bringing financial stabilization to Russia. Only three years ago, 
the country was on the brink of hyper-inflation. For the past two 
months, inflation has been below 1%. At the end of August, the IMF 
announced that the country was back on track--after some excessive 
election-related spending--in its three-year, $10-billion stabilization 
program.

For his second government, Chernomyrdin has assembled a strong team to 
press ahead with needed economic change. The new First Deputy Prime 
Minister in charge of macroeconomic reform, Vladimir Potanin, is a 
leading commercial banker familiar with Western business practices. The 
new Finance Minister, Aleksandr Livshits, formerly an economic advisor 
to President Yeltsin, has ably articulated economic policy to the 
public. The Economics Minister, Yevgeniy Yasin, is a strong proponent of 
creating a fair and predictable environment for business activity, for 
Russian and foreign investors alike. And Anatoliy Chubays, one of the 
original members of the Gaydar reform team, has taken the key job of 
head of the Presidential Administration. He and Chernomyrdin have had 
good working relations in the past. All of this augurs well for the 
president and the government pulling in the same direction in support of 
economic policy.

The major task facing the second Chernomyrdin Government will be to 
build on its achievement of financial stabilization to accomplish a 
thorough restructuring of the Russian economy. Prime Minister 
Chernomyrdin recognized this as his main challenge in his address to 
parliament in August.

What is at issue here is much more than the "pump priming" we sometimes 
associate with boosting economic production in the West. It amounts to 
nothing less than the wholesale reconstruction of the economy on the 
industrial rubble of 75 years of communism. That will require 
significant domestic and foreign investment, and it will require time 
and hard work and further sacrifice by the Russian people. There is no 
magic wand.

The Chernomyrdin Government, however, has a good base to work from. The 
Russian economy, for example, has experienced a necessary downsizing in 
industry, particularly in areas like defense production. Although the 
shift of resources to new production and economic activity is only just 
beginning, we already see evidence of growth in the service sector. Much 
of this is not fully captured in the official statistics, but is evident 
in the construction and new retail trade outlets that are visible not 
just in Moscow and St. Petersburg, but out in the provinces.

The number of commercial banks has grown rapidly, perhaps too rapidly. 
Some banks, particularly the so-called "pocket banks" which have been 
established by enterprises, face solvency problems. There has been and 
will continue to be consolidation in the banking sector. I think the 
press speculation about a banking crisis in Russia this fall is 
exaggerated. The Russian Central Bank knows well the weak points in its 
banking system and is actively working to head off crises.

Foreign trade remains a bright spot in the economy. Russian trade has 
expanded sharply. Russia has registered a trade surplus for the third 
year in a row, reaching $28 billion in 1995. Energy, minerals, and raw 
materials lead in these exports, but the Russians continue to seek 
markets for their high technology industries. Russia sees its future in 
free trade and deeper integration in a global economy. The United States 
has fully supported Russia's efforts to accede to the World Trade 
Organization--WTO--on appropriate commercial terms and has welcomed the 
liberalization that has taken place in Russia's foreign trade regime.

Although the situation is slowly improving both politically and 
economically, Russia remains mired in a prolonged period of strategic 
weakness. How Russia comes to terms with its reduced capabilities at a 
time when Russian elites continue to yearn for great power status will 
also be a key issue to watch in the coming years. For Western leaders, 
the challenge will be to help consolidate freedom and independence in 
Central Europe without pushing Russia into an aggressive posture. 
Although Russia continues to oppose NATO enlargement, I believe its 
leaders increasingly realize that their ability to prevent it is 
minimal. Indeed, early on, in mid-1993, Boris Yeltsin made clear that 
Russia had no right to tell the Poles to which international 
organization they could belong. Our aim is, however, broader than 
enlarging NATO. We want to see a peaceful, secure, and stable Europe 
that includes both a revitalized and enlarged NATO and a peaceful and 
democratic Russia that plays a major constructive role in Euro-Atlantic 
affairs. One of the keys to this outcome will be a strong NATO-Russia 
relationship.

In this regard, NATO-Russian cooperation in Bosnia has proven an 
excellent example of how the U.S. can work closely and cooperatively 
with our former adversary. Likewise, I see greater room for cooperation 
along Russia's periphery, where American and Russian interests often 
coincide on regional conflict resolution, combating narcotics, and 
blunting terrorist and rogue state influence. By building closer working 
relationships with Russia, we will also be working together against 
those in Russia who seek to establish in that part of the world an 
exclusive Russian sphere of influence. Indeed, we welcome closer 
relations among the former states of the Soviet Union which are 
developed on a voluntary basis, where mutual advantage prevails, and 
where the region remains equally open to outside trade and investment.

As this quick review of politics, the economy, and foreign policy 
suggests, Russia has come a long way in just five years, but major 
challenges remain.

First, Russia must find a way of defining itself as a nation that is 
consistent with democratic development. As numerous scholars have 
pointed out, Russia became an empire long before Russians became a 
nation. As a result, Russian national consciousness, for many Russians, 
is infused with imperialist elements. Acting on those imperial impulses, 
especially in relation to the other former Soviet republics, will, 
however, sap the resources needed for the revival and flourishing of the 
Russian nation. The smaller Russia which emerged in 1991 will be a 
greater Russia than a bigger Russia. And that smaller Russia will still 
be the world's largest nation in terms of area by a long shot.

Second, Russia's democrats must come to terms with Russian nationalism, 
which they have tended to see as reactionary, xenophobic, and 
aggressive. History, however, has demonstrated that nationalism provides 
the key legitimizing principle of all societies exiting communism. To 
succeed, Russian democrats must endeavor to present their vision of 
Russia as an organic outgrowth of what is best in Russia and not as 
radical break with 1,000 years of Russian history, as they did 
immediately after the Soviet breakup. If they do not make this effort, 
they will concede the field to extremists and doom Russia's democratic 
experiment. Indeed, precisely because they realize this point, the so-
called honeymoon in our relationship has been short-lived and now is 
replaced by a partnership in which Russian interests play a key, and not 
unhealthy role. 

Third, Russians must close the historically wide gap between society and 
the state. The presidential and parliamentary elections of the past 12 
months  and the ongoing regional elections are critical steps in making 
the government accountable to the people. But more than elections are 
needed. In particular, Russian society needs to develop that dense 
network of horizontal and vertical ties--the professional associations 
and civic and religious organizations, for example--that allow society 
to act on government policy between elections. These ties are only 
beginning to emerge in Russia.

Fourth, Russian society must be infused with a democratic spirit. The 
democratic virtues of tolerance and compromise, as well as the 
democratic separation of the public and private spheres, have shallow 
roots in Russia. Advancing democracy will require a thorough overhaul of 
the educational system, including new history and civics texts to 
replace the old--and now discarded--communist tracts. So far, however, 
the government has devoted few resources to educational reform and 
allowed the entire system to stagnate and begin to decay.

Fifth, Russia must build a genuine federal structure. The country is 
simply too vast and too diverse to be run efficiently from a single 
center. The devolution of power away from Moscow over the past several 
years has created the conditions for the emergence of a new federal 
system. But the new power arrangements still have to be codified in a 
stable legal framework.

If nothing else, what the past decade of Russian history has 
demonstrated is that Russia has embarked irreversibly on a journey away 
from its totalitarian and communist past. There can be no going back--no 
going back because Soviet communism revealed itself as a historical 
dead-end, no going back because neither the people nor their leaders 
will sanction it. Where it is headed is an open question. It would be a 
grave mistake to believe there is anything inevitable about a transition 
to democratic polity based on a market economy at peace with itself and 
the rest of the world. History will assuredly continue to surprise.

For the moment, however, we can say that, despite the uncertainties, 
Russia is moving in a direction that is compatible with the West's long-
term interests in global peace and security and an integrated and 
prosperous global economy. The overwhelming share of the credit goes to 
the Russian people and their leaders. We in the West have naturally 
played a lesser, but not insignificant, role by remaining engaged in 
Russia through the ups and downs of the past decade. It is an approach 
we must continue, for history has offered us an opportunity we are 
unlikely to see again: The opportunity to turn an implacable foe into a 
partner. We have used this opportunity wisely so far. We must continue 
to do so. 

(###)



ARTICLE 5:


Treaty Actions


Multilateral


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: India, Sept. 3, 1996; Portugal, Sept. 10, 1996.

Children
Convention on the rights of the child. Done at New York Nov. 20, 1989. 
Entered into force Sept. 2, 19902. 
Ratification: Andorra, Jan. 2, 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: Azerbaijan, Aug. 16, 1996.

Human Rights
International covenant on civil and political rights. Adopted by the UN 
General Assembly Dec. 16, 1966. Entered into force Mar. 23, 1976; for 
the U.S. Sept. 8, 1992.

Optional protocol to the international covenant on civil and political 
rights. Adopted by the UN General Assembly Dec. 16, 1966. Entered into 
force Mar. 23, 19762.

International covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights. Adopted 
by the UN General Assembly Dec. 16, 1966. Entered into force Jan. 3, 
19762.
Accession: Sierra Leone, Aug. 23, 1996.

Judicial Procedure
Convention abolishing the requirement of legalization for foreign public 
documents, with annex. Done at The Hague Oct. 5, 1961. Entered into 
force Jan. 24, 1965; for the U.S. Oct. 15, 1981. TIAS 10072; 33 UST 883.
Accession: Andorra, Apr. 15, 1996.

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: Iceland, Aug. 14, 1996.

Convention on the taking of evidence abroad in civil or commercial 
matters. Done at The Hague Mar. 18, 1970. Entered into force Oct. 7, 
1972. TIAS 7444; 23 UST 2555.
Accession: Poland, Feb. 13, 1996.

North Atlantic Treaty
Agreement among the states parties to the North Atlantic Treaty and 
other states participating in the Partnership for Peace regarding the 
status of their forces. Done at Brussels June 19, 1995. Entered into 
force Jan. 13, 1996.

Additional protocol to the agreement among the states parties to the 
North Atlantic Treaty and the other states participating in the 
Partnership for Peace regarding the status of their forces. Done at 
Brussels June 19, 1995. Entered into force June 1, 19962.
Signature: Moldova, Sept. 6, 1996.
Approval: Slovak Republic, Sept. 18, 1996.
Ratification: Norway, Oct. 4, 1996.


Bilateral


Canada
Administrative arrangement for cooperation and the exchange of 
information in nuclear regulatory matters, with appendices. Signed at 
Ottawa Aug. 15, 1996. Entered into force Aug. 15, 1996.

Memorandum of understanding for technology research and development 
projects, with annex. Signed at Washington and Ottawa July 18 and Aug. 
29, 1996. Entered into force Aug. 29, 1996.

Fiji
Agreement amending the air transport agreement of Oct. 1, 1979, as 
amended. Effected by exchange of notes at Suva July 10 and Aug. 19, 
1996. Entered into force Aug. 19, 1996.

Germany
Agreement amending the memorandum of understanding of Apr. 27, 1983, as 
amended, for the dual production and sale of the stinger weapon system. 
Signed at Washington and Bonn July 10 and Aug. 22, 1996. Entered into 
force Aug. 22, 1996.

Honduras
Memorandum of agreement concerning assistance in developing and 
modernizing Honduras' civil aviation infrastructure. Signed at 
Washington and Tegucigalpa July 24 and Aug. 23, 1996. Entered into force 
Aug. 23, 1996.

Japan
Agreement confirming provision on matters relating to the civil air 
transport agreement of Aug. 11, 1952, as amended, contained in the 
memorandum of understanding of Apr. 16, 1996, and modifying the schedule 
to the agreement. Effected by exchange of notes at Washington Aug. 21, 
1996. Entered into force Aug. 21, 1996.

Russia
Agreement concerning the procedure for the customs documentation and 
duty-free entry of goods transported within the framework of U.S.-
Russian cooperation in the exploration and use of space for peaceful 
purposes. Signed at Moscow Dec. 16, 1994. Entered into force Aug. 26, 
1996.

Turkey
Agreement relating to the employment of dependents of official 
government employees. Effected by exchange of notes at Ankara Aug. 28 
and 29, 1996. Entered into force Aug. 29, 1996.


1 Not in force.
2 Not in force for the U.S.

(###)


[END OF DISPATCH, VOLUME 7, NUMBER 43]

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